TDG UPDATE COHMED 2010, San AntonioBy Nathalie Belliveau A/ Director Compliance and Response Branch

Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate

2

Purpose of the presentation

• Update of the amendments to the TDG Act

• Reports on accidental releases

• Most commonly cited non-compliances in 2009

• Random sampling report

• 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver BC

3

A newly amended TDG Act, Royal Assent June 16th 2009

Safety 

• Strengthen Emergency Response Assistance Plan Program; • Enable inspectors to inspect any place for which a means of containment is being manufactured, repaired

or tested;

• Reconfirm that the Act is applicable uniformly throughout Canada, including local works and undertakings (movements of dangerous goods within a province not using a federal carrier/shipper);

• Change the concept of importer to clarify who is the person in Canada that needs to meet the obligations of the act;

• Enable a shipping record to be used in court as evidence of the presence of a dangerous good in a means of containment; and

• Some wording changes – permits to certificates and inclusion of new temporary certificate.

4

New Security Requirements in the Act

Security Response

•Enabling the use of Emergency Response Assistance Plans to respond to a terrorist release of dangerous goods.

Security Prevention

•Require security plans and security training;

•Enable the use Security Measures and Interim Orders (as Public Safety Act and 10 other existing Parliament Acts); and

•Enable regulations to be made to require that dangerous goods are tracked during transport, or reported if lost or stolen. 

5

CBRNE

In 2002, the TDG directorate put in place a Chemical Biological Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) Response Program that would be part of the federal government initiative on counter-terrorism.

The mandate of the TDG CBRNE Response Program is to ensure product response services following a CBRNE incident. Such response would occur once all terrorist-related hazards have been eliminated.

The CBRNE Response Program is based on the existing industrial Emergency Response (ER) network and infrastructure established under the Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP) requirements pursuant to the TDG Act and Regulations. An amended TDG Act to include security is required to fully implement the program.

6

7

Amended Act - continued

Personal Liability (Amended Section)

20.  The following persons are not personally liable, either civilly or criminally, in respect of any act or omission done in good faith and without negligence:

(a) any person who responds to an actual or anticipated release using an emergency response assistance plan that applies to the release, acts in accordance with the plan and informs the Canadian Transport Emergency Centre of the Department of Transport of their response to the release;

(b) any person who is directed or required under paragraph 7.1(a), section 17, sub section 18(2) or paragraph 19(1)(a) or (b) to do or refrain from doing anything and acts in accordance with the direction or requirement; and

(c) any person who acts in accordance with an authorization given under paragraph 7.1(b).

8

How would it work?

There are two potential security scenarios which could trigger activation of the Emergency Response Assistance Plan following a security (terrorist) incident

1) a security (terrorist) incident involving a known shipper/producer/manufacturer/offerer of dangerous goods,

• Industry would use their existing Emergency Response Assistance Plan to assist first responders following a security (terrorist) incident during the transportation of dangerous goods for their own product.

2) a security (terrorist) incident involving an unknown shipper/producer/manufacturer/offerer of dangerous goods (unknown meaning an orphaned shipment transported by a terrorist or suicide bomber to a specific location, or found at a site by first responders where the dangerous goods is in an unmarked or improper means of containment, or in a vehicle or truck not owned, leased or rented by a known shipper/manufacturer/producer/offerer.

• unknown or orphaned - the Minister (or delegate) would ask a company with an approved ERAP if they would be willing to respond on the government’s behalf. Should an approved company accept to respond, the government would agree to pay the costs associated with that response and provide the responders with indemnity protection.

• The company would only be asked to respond after the site has been cleared by the appropriate agencies (i.e., police, RCMP or DND). The choice of plan holder would be based on the appropriateness of the plan and the timeliness of the response.

 

9

What Costs could Industry recover

Industry would be eligible to recover capital and operational cost associated with a response (what it includes to be spelled out in regulations).

But would for example include: salaries, meals, hotels, suit replacement, fuel and travel expenses as well as costs associated with damage to equipment such as non sparking tools, vehicles, pumps or hoses due to a requested response.

The government would also be responsible for any damage to third parties caused by necessary response actions by responders to enable access to a site during the requested response. This would include for example replacement cost for fencing cut or removed to have access to a site; or damage to the grass caused by the responder’s vehicles.

 

Ineligible expenses - the purchase of new equipment to be able to conduct a response or the loss of production due to the acceptance of the government’s response request.

10

QUARTERLY REPORT

PURPOSE

• Supplement on-demand information requests for accident data from TDG Staff. • Revive information reporting function (Regional Monthly Reports distribution 10 years ago)

• Make full use of DGAIS to inform Directorate management and staff.

• Present accident data to larger audience.

• Evaluate Accident Levels Regionally on Quarterly basis

• Foresee possible future trends and be aware of what is going on.

11

CANADA : QUARTERLY REPORT ORIGINAL FIRST PAGE

REGION # % # % # % # % # % # %Atlantic 4 1.86% 1 0.58% 3.8 1.92% 4 1.86% 1 0.58% 3.8 1.92%

Quebec 11 5.12% 7 4.07% 10.4 5.25% 11 5.12% 7 4.07% 10.4 5.25%

Ontario 20 9.30% 23 13.37% 22.8 11.50% 20 9.30% 23 13.37% 22.8 11.50%

Prairie and Northern 162 75.35% 129 75.00% 145.8 73.56% 162 75.35% 129 75.00% 145.8 73.56%

Pacific 18 8.37% 12 6.98% 15.4 7.77% 18 8.37% 12 6.98% 15.4 7.77%

Total 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00% 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00%

REPORTABILITY # % # % # % # % # % # %Reportable 111 51.63% 117 68.02% 108.6 54.79% 111 51.63% 117 68.02% 108.6 54.79%

Non-Reportable 104 48.37% 55 31.98% 89.6 45.21% 104 48.37% 55 31.98% 89.6 45.21%

Total 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00% 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00%

SEVERITY LEVEL # % # % # % # % # % # %Minor (levels 0-3) 207 96.28% 169 98.26% 192.2 96.97% 207 96.28% 169 98.26% 192.2 96.97%

Moderate (levels 4-6) 8 3.72% 3 1.74% 5.8 2.93% 8 3.72% 3 1.74% 5.8 2.93%

Major (levels 7-10) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.2 0.10% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.2 0.10%

Total 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00% 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00%

MODE OF TRANSPORT # % # % # % # % # % # %Road (in-transit) 89 41.40% 66 38.37% 86.4 43.59% 89 41.40% 66 38.37% 86.4 43.59%

Rail (in-transit) 5 2.33% 5 2.91% 4.4 2.22% 5 2.33% 5 2.91% 4.4 2.22%

Air (in-transit) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.6 0.30% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.6 0.30%

Marine (in-transit) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Facility (not in-transit) 121 56.28% 101 58.72% 106.8 53.88% 121 56.28% 101 58.72% 106.8 53.88%

Total 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00% 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00%

CONTRIBUTING FACTOR # % # % # % # % # % # %Human 126 58.60% 79 45.93% 107 53.99% 126 58.60% 79 45.93% 107 53.99%

Mechanical 5 2.33% 5 2.91% 10.2 5.15% 5 2.33% 5 2.91% 10.2 5.15%

Equipment 54 25.12% 57 33.14% 49.2 24.82% 54 25.12% 57 33.14% 49.2 24.82%

Packaging 2 0.93% 2 1.16% 2.4 1.21% 2 0.93% 2 1.16% 2.4 1.21%

Infrastructure 6 2.79% 4 2.33% 6.2 3.13% 6 2.79% 4 2.33% 6.2 3.13%

External 3 1.40% 1 0.58% 1.8 0.91% 3 1.40% 1 0.58% 1.8 0.91%

Weather 19 8.84% 24 13.95% 21.2 10.70% 19 8.84% 24 13.95% 21.2 10.70%

Other 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.2 0.10% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.2 0.10%

Total 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00% 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00%

Quarterly Statistics for Reported AccidentsFirst Quarter January - March 2009

2008 2009 2005-2009 Average

2008 2009 2005-2009 Average

2009 2005-2009 Average2008

2008 2005-2009 Average

2008 2009 2005-2009 Average

2008 2009 2005-2009 Average

2008 2009

2009

2009 2005-2009 Average2005-2009 Average 2008

JANUARY - MARCH ONLY YEAR TO DATE2005-2009 Average 2008 2009 2005-2009 Average2008 2009

APPENDIX E

12

CANADA : QUARTERLY REPORT ORIGINAL SECOND PAGE

PHASE # % # % # % # % # % # %In-Transit 90 41.86% 71 41.28% 88.8 44.80% 90 41.86% 71 41.28% 88.8 44.80%

Handling 104 48.37% 89 51.74% 86.4 43.59% 104 48.37% 89 51.74% 86.4 43.59%

Temporary Storage 7 3.26% 4 2.33% 6 3.03% 7 3.26% 4 2.33% 6 3.03%

Railyard Operations 12 5.58% 6 3.49% 14.4 7.27% 12 5.58% 6 3.49% 14.4 7.27%

Non Transport Related 2 0.93% 2 1.16% 2.6 1.31% 2 0.93% 2 1.16% 2.6 1.31%

Unknown 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Total 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00% 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00%

TYPE OF RELEASE # % # % # % # % # % # %Spill 123 57.21% 101 58.72% 106.8 53.88% 123 57.21% 101 58.72% 106.8 53.88%

Leak 30 13.95% 26 15.12% 33.6 16.95% 30 13.95% 26 15.12% 33.6 16.95%

Explosion 1 0.47% 1 0.58% 1 0.50% 1 0.47% 1 0.58% 1 0.50%

Fire 5 2.33% 2 1.16% 3.2 1.61% 5 2.33% 2 1.16% 3.2 1.61%

Other 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

No Release 61 28.37% 47 27.33% 58.6 29.57% 61 28.37% 47 27.33% 58.6 29.57%

Total 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00% 215 100.00% 172 100.00% 198.2 100.00%

CLASS # % # % # % # % # % # %1 5 1.78% 4 1.79% 7.6 3.05% 5 1.78% 4 1.79% 7.6 3.05%

2 48 17.08% 44 19.64% 48.2 19.34% 48 17.08% 44 19.64% 48.2 19.34%

3 148 52.67% 128 57.14% 136.2 54.65% 148 52.67% 128 57.14% 136.2 54.65%

4 6 2.14% 6 2.68% 4.8 1.93% 6 2.14% 6 2.68% 4.8 1.93%

5 4 1.42% 6 2.68% 4.8 1.93% 4 1.42% 6 2.68% 4.8 1.93%

6 0 0.00% 1 0.45% 3.4 1.36% 0 0.00% 1 0.45% 3.4 1.36%

7 7 2.49% 2 0.89% 3.2 1.28% 7 2.49% 2 0.89% 3.2 1.28%

8 56 19.93% 31 13.84% 37 14.85% 56 19.93% 31 13.84% 37 14.85%

9 7 2.49% 1 0.45% 3.6 1.44% 7 2.49% 1 0.45% 3.6 1.44%

Non-Regulated 0 0.00% 1 0.45% 0.4 0.16% 0 0.00% 1 0.45% 0.4 0.16%

Total 281 100.00% 224 100.00% 249.2 100.00% 281 100.00% 224 100.00% 249.2 100.00%

Means of Containment # % # % # % # % # % # %Tank Truck 195 69.40% 175 78.13% 164.8 66.18% 195 69.40% 175 78.13% 164.8 66.18%

Tank Car 33 11.74% 22 9.82% 33.4 13.41% 33 11.74% 22 9.82% 33.4 13.41%

Tote Tank 7 2.49% 5 2.23% 6.4 2.57% 7 2.49% 5 2.23% 6.4 2.57%

IBC 21 7.47% 12 5.36% 23.2 9.32% 21 7.47% 12 5.36% 23.2 9.32%

Portable Tank 0 0.00% 1 0.45% 1.2 0.48% 0 0.00% 1 0.45% 1.2 0.48%

Cylinder 2 0.71% 1 0.45% 2.2 0.88% 2 0.71% 1 0.45% 2.2 0.88%

Other Small MOC 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other Large MOC 23 8.19% 8 3.57% 17.8 7.15% 23 8.19% 8 3.57% 17.8 7.15%

Total 281 100.00% 224 100.00% 249 100.00% 281 100.00% 224 100.00% 249 100.00%

Quarterly Statistics for Reported AccidentsFirst Quarter January - March 2009

2009 2005-2009 Average

2008 2009 2005-2009 Average 2008 2009 2005-2009 Average

2008 2009 2005-2009 Average 2008

2005-2009 Average 2008 2009 2005-2009 Average

YEAR TO DATE2008 2009 2005-2009 Average 2008 2009 2005-2009 Average

JANUARY- MARCH ONLY

2008 2009

APPENDIX F

13

REPORTABLE ACCIDENTS

REGIONAL BREAKDOWN - REPORTABLE DANGEROUS GOODS ACCIDENTS 1989-2008

561

396

439

394

242

290

336

520

383

432

479 474

435 438

356370

385 384

424434

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

YEAR

NU

MB

ER

OF

AC

CID

EN

TS

Grand Total PN QC AT BC ON

In 1989 ( 20 Years Ago )a) Pacific, Atlantic and Quebec Regions registered comparable accident levels. b) Prairie & Northern and Ontario Regions registered comparable accident levels.

In 2008 ( 20 Years Later)a) Ontario Region recorded registered accident levels to the Pacific, Atlantic and Quebec Regions. b) Prairie & Northern registered significantly higher accident levels.

14

Most commonly cited violations

PART OF PERCENTAGETDG OF TOTAL

REGULATIONS DESCRIPTION INFRACTIONSPart 3 Documentation 40.4%Part 6 Training 21.2%Part 4 Safety Marks 17.4%Part 5 Means of Containment 17.0%Part 2 Classification 1.7%Others 2.4%

TOTAL INFRACTIONS IN 2009

15

TOP 10 VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIEDDURING DANGEROUS GOODS INSPECTIONS IN CANADA

2009

% OF TOTALPART VIOLATION DESCRIPTION VIOLATIONS

3.5(1)(c) Description of d.g. not displayed in proper order on shipping document. 9.0%6.1(1) HOT d.g. when not holding a training certificate in accordance with Part 6. 8.8%3.5(1)(f) "24-hour number" or "numéro 24 heures" and/or phone number not displayed on shipping document. 6.9%5.14(1)(a) HOT d.g. in Class 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 8 or 9 by road in large MOC not in accordance with safety standard or IMDG code. 5.0%3.5(1)(d) Quantity and/or unit of measure of each dangerous good not displayed on shipping document. 4.4%6.1(2) Employer directing or allowing employee to HOT d.g. when not holding a training certificate. 4.1%6.6 Employer or self-employed person failing to keep record of training and/or copy of training certificate. 3.7%3.1(1) Consignor failing to prepare and give shipping document to carrier taking possession of d.g. for transport. 3.5%5.10(1)(a) HOT Class 2 d.g. by road vehicle in means of containment not in accordance with safety standards or IMDG Code. 2.8%4.1 OTI a means of containment of d.g. without displaying all required safety marks on same. 2.7%TOTAL TOP 10 VIOLATIONS 51.0%ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED IN 2009 49.0%TOTAL NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED IN 2009 100%

Data extracted from the Inspection Information System as of January 5, 2010

16

Random inspection program

    What, Why, Where the non-compliance is by part: Documentation, Training... 

RANDOM INSPECTION PROGRAM - 2008 SUMMARY Monitoring compliance or lack thereof with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) Regulations is an important aspect of the TDG program. Starting in 2005, TDG inspectors visited a number of randomly generated sites, an exercise that has been repeated every year since. From February 1 2008 to January 31 2009, TDG inspectors addressed 492 randomly generated sites, 405 of which were inspected. The results show an overall non-compliance rate of 36%, the lowest value reached since 2005. It is however not statistically significant.

    

  

  

 

38%43% 45%

36%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Non

-Com

plia

nce

Rat

e

meanupper limit

lower limit

17

Random inspection program (cont)

Overall Non-Compliance Rate Estimates over the years

 

The objective of this exercise is to provide each year a reliable non-compliance rate. One that provides a picture in time of how the regulated population is doing. One that TDG will use as a benchmark of the program's performance: the lower the non-compliance, the safer the Canadian public should be. Monitoring this rate over time should allow us to evaluate improvements or deterioration of the situation whether due to changes in the regulations, an increase/decrease in enforcement or awareness of the TDG program, or changes in the industry.

 

A 36% non-compliance population estimate means that in general we can expect 36% of sites to be non-compliant with one or many parts of the TDG Regulations. One also observes that the parts that are most often contravened are in decreasing order of importance (frequency): Part 3 – Documentation, Part 6 – Training, and Parts 4 and 5 on Safety Marks and Means of Containments. This is essentially what we observe from one year to another.

Parts of TDG Regulations

Non-complicance

RateMargin of

Error

Part 1 Exemptions 1% 1%Part 2 Classification 1% 1%Part 3 Documentation 21% 5%Part 4 Safety Marks 7% 3%Part 5 MOCs 7% 3%Part 6 Training 18% 4%Part 9 Road 1% 1%Overall 36% 5%

2008 Non-Compliance Rate – Overall and by Part of the Regulations

18

Random Inspection Program (cont)

Is the non-compliance serious? Apparently yes!

64%

1%

16% 19%

0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Com

plia

nce

War

ning

Max

imun

ticke

t 500

$

Max

imum

ticke

t 700

$

To b

epr

osec

uted

Estim

ated

Pro

porti

on

k

Non-Compliance

_ +Seriousness

19

TDG Work for the Olympics

Safety and Security Threat Risk Assessments completed

Stakeholders engaged – Chemical, Nuclear/radioactive, explosives, ports, CN, CP, BNSF, truckers, associations, provinces, first responders both through the Ministers Advisory Council and locally within British Columbia.

Dangerous Goods Sites mapped and visits conducted by Transportation of Dangerous Goods

inspectors and Remedial Measures Specialists. Dangerous goods products entering the ports reviewed.

Dangerous goods products being transported by rail reviewed.

Road survey conducted (routes and bridges).

Plume modeling conducted on dangerous goods transported.

20

Proposed Safety and Security Enhancements

Loss and Stolen Dangerous Goods ReportingControlled access for the movement and storage of Dangerous Goods in and around venues

• Establishment of “controlled access areas” in downtown Vancouver, around other venues and along the Sea-to-Sky corridor

• Time of day restrictions on “placarded movements” (i.e. volumes that require a placard)– Movements limited to between midnight and 06:00 am

• No ERAP-able movements in downtown core – For example, high volume movements of explosive or flammable gasses that require an

Emergency Response Action Plan• Close / move dangerous goods moved by barge • Minimal impact on industry as a new barge facility is being built outside of restricted area• No dangerous goods stored in yards within proximity of venues • Will allow for business critical movement of dangerous goods

– Either through exceptions or reducing the volume of goods moved below Placard and / or ERAP thresholds

Targeted inspections at facilities / locations ranking high in the threat risk assessment and as requested by the RCMP both before and during the Olympics.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tdg/olympics-controlledaccesszones-322.htm

21

Questions?