Transcript Document

TDG UPDATE COHMED 2010, San Antonio
By Nathalie Belliveau A/ Director Compliance and Response Branch
Transport Dangerous Goods Directorate
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
2
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.
3
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.
4
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 terroristrelated 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.
5
6
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, subsection 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).
7
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.
8
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.
9
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.
10
CANADA : QUARTERLY REPORT ORIGINAL FIRST PAGE
Quarterly Statistics for Reported Accidents
First Quarter January - March 2009
JANUARY - MARCH ONLY
2008
REGION
Atlantic
Quebec
Ontario
Prairie and Northern
Pacific
Total
2009
#
%
#
%
4
11
20
162
18
215
1.86%
5.12%
9.30%
75.35%
8.37%
100.00%
1
7
23
129
12
172
0.58%
4.07%
13.37%
75.00%
6.98%
100.00%
2008
REPORTABILITY
Reportable
Non-Reportable
Total
2009
#
%
#
%
111
104
215
51.63%
48.37%
100.00%
117
55
172
68.02%
31.98%
100.00%
2008
SEVERITY LEVEL
Minor (levels 0-3)
Moderate (levels 4-6)
Major (levels 7-10)
Total
2009
#
%
#
%
207
8
0
215
96.28%
3.72%
0.00%
100.00%
169
3
0
172
98.26%
1.74%
0.00%
100.00%
2008
MODE OF TRANSPORT
Road (in-transit)
Rail (in-transit)
Air (in-transit)
Marine (in-transit)
Facility (not in-transit)
Total
2009
#
%
#
%
89
5
0
0
121
215
41.40%
2.33%
0.00%
0.00%
56.28%
100.00%
66
5
0
0
101
172
38.37%
2.91%
0.00%
0.00%
58.72%
100.00%
2008
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR
Human
Mechanical
Equipment
Packaging
Infrastructure
External
Weather
Other
Total
2009
#
%
#
%
126
5
54
2
6
3
19
0
215
58.60%
2.33%
25.12%
0.93%
2.79%
1.40%
8.84%
0.00%
100.00%
79
5
57
2
4
1
24
0
172
45.93%
2.91%
33.14%
1.16%
2.33%
0.58%
13.95%
0.00%
100.00%
YEAR TO DATE
2005-2009 Average
#
%
3.8
10.4
22.8
145.8
15.4
198.2
1.92%
5.25%
11.50%
73.56%
7.77%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
108.6
89.6
198.2
54.79%
45.21%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
192.2
5.8
0.2
198.2
96.97%
2.93%
0.10%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
86.4
4.4
0.6
0
106.8
198.2
43.59%
2.22%
0.30%
0.00%
53.88%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
107
10.2
49.2
2.4
6.2
1.8
21.2
0.2
198.2
53.99%
5.15%
24.82%
1.21%
3.13%
0.91%
10.70%
0.10%
100.00%
2008
2009
#
%
#
%
4
11
20
162
18
215
1.86%
5.12%
9.30%
75.35%
8.37%
100.00%
1
7
23
129
12
172
0.58%
4.07%
13.37%
75.00%
6.98%
100.00%
2008
2009
#
%
#
%
111
104
215
51.63%
48.37%
100.00%
117
55
172
68.02%
31.98%
100.00%
2008
2009
#
%
#
%
207
8
0
215
96.28%
3.72%
0.00%
100.00%
169
3
0
172
98.26%
1.74%
0.00%
100.00%
2008
2009
#
%
#
%
89
5
0
0
121
215
41.40%
2.33%
0.00%
0.00%
56.28%
100.00%
66
5
0
0
101
172
38.37%
2.91%
0.00%
0.00%
58.72%
100.00%
2008
2009
#
%
#
%
126
5
54
2
6
3
19
0
215
58.60%
2.33%
25.12%
0.93%
2.79%
1.40%
8.84%
0.00%
100.00%
79
5
57
2
4
1
24
0
172
45.93%
2.91%
33.14%
1.16%
2.33%
0.58%
13.95%
0.00%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
3.8
10.4
22.8
145.8
15.4
198.2
1.92%
5.25%
11.50%
73.56%
7.77%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
108.6
89.6
198.2
54.79%
45.21%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
192.2
5.8
0.2
198.2
96.97%
2.93%
0.10%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
86.4
4.4
0.6
0
106.8
198.2
43.59%
2.22%
0.30%
0.00%
53.88%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
107
10.2
49.2
2.4
6.2
1.8
21.2
0.2
198.2
53.99%
5.15%
24.82%
1.21%
3.13%
0.91%
10.70%
0.10%
100.00%
APPENDIX E
11
CANADA : QUARTERLY REPORT ORIGINAL SECOND PAGE
Quarterly Statistics for Reported Accidents
First Quarter January - March 2009
JANUARY- MARCH ONLY
2008
PHASE
In-Transit
Handling
Temporary Storage
Railyard Operations
Non Transport Related
Unknown
Total
2009
#
%
#
%
90
104
7
12
2
0
215
41.86%
48.37%
3.26%
5.58%
0.93%
0.00%
100.00%
71
89
4
6
2
0
172
41.28%
51.74%
2.33%
3.49%
1.16%
0.00%
100.00%
2008
TYPE OF RELEASE
Spill
Leak
Explosion
Fire
Other
No Release
Total
2009
%
#
%
123
30
1
5
0
61
215
57.21%
13.95%
0.47%
2.33%
0.00%
28.37%
100.00%
101
26
1
2
0
47
172
58.72%
15.12%
0.58%
1.16%
0.00%
27.33%
100.00%
2009
44.80%
43.59%
3.03%
7.27%
1.31%
0.00%
100.00%
106.8
33.6
1
3.2
0
58.6
198.2
53.88%
16.95%
0.50%
1.61%
0.00%
29.57%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
#
%
#
%
5
48
148
6
4
0
7
56
7
0
281
1.78%
17.08%
52.67%
2.14%
1.42%
0.00%
2.49%
19.93%
2.49%
0.00%
100.00%
4
44
128
6
6
1
2
31
1
1
224
1.79%
19.64%
57.14%
2.68%
2.68%
0.45%
0.89%
13.84%
0.45%
0.45%
100.00%
2008
Means of Containment
Tank Truck
Tank Car
Tote Tank
IBC
Portable Tank
Cylinder
Other Small MOC
Other Large MOC
Total
88.8
86.4
6
14.4
2.6
0
198.2
2005-2009 Average
#
%
#
2008
CLASS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Non-Regulated
Total
YEAR TO DATE
2005-2009 Average
#
%
2009
7.6
48.2
136.2
4.8
4.8
3.4
3.2
37
3.6
0.4
249.2
3.05%
19.34%
54.65%
1.93%
1.93%
1.36%
1.28%
14.85%
1.44%
0.16%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
#
%
#
%
195
33
7
21
0
2
0
23
281
69.40%
11.74%
2.49%
7.47%
0.00%
0.71%
0.00%
8.19%
100.00%
175
22
5
12
1
1
0
8
224
78.13%
9.82%
2.23%
5.36%
0.45%
0.45%
0.00%
3.57%
100.00%
164.8
33.4
6.4
23.2
1.2
2.2
0
17.8
249
66.18%
13.41%
2.57%
9.32%
0.48%
0.88%
0.00%
7.15%
100.00%
2008
2009
#
%
#
%
90
104
7
12
2
0
215
41.86%
48.37%
3.26%
5.58%
0.93%
0.00%
100.00%
71
89
4
6
2
0
172
41.28%
51.74%
2.33%
3.49%
1.16%
0.00%
100.00%
2008
2009
#
%
#
%
123
30
1
5
0
61
215
57.21%
13.95%
0.47%
2.33%
0.00%
28.37%
100.00%
101
26
1
2
0
47
172
58.72%
15.12%
0.58%
1.16%
0.00%
27.33%
100.00%
2008
2009
#
%
#
%
5
48
148
6
4
0
7
56
7
0
281
1.78%
17.08%
52.67%
2.14%
1.42%
0.00%
2.49%
19.93%
2.49%
0.00%
100.00%
4
44
128
6
6
1
2
31
1
1
224
1.79%
19.64%
57.14%
2.68%
2.68%
0.45%
0.89%
13.84%
0.45%
0.45%
100.00%
2008
2009
#
%
#
%
195
33
7
21
0
2
69.40%
11.74%
2.49%
7.47%
0.00%
0.71%
0.00%
8.19%
100.00%
175
22
5
12
1
1
78.13%
9.82%
2.23%
5.36%
0.45%
0.45%
0.00%
3.57%
100.00%
23
281
8
224
2005-2009 Average
#
%
88.8
86.4
6
14.4
2.6
0
198.2
44.80%
43.59%
3.03%
7.27%
1.31%
0.00%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
106.8
33.6
1
3.2
0
58.6
198.2
53.88%
16.95%
0.50%
1.61%
0.00%
29.57%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
7.6
48.2
136.2
4.8
4.8
3.4
3.2
37
3.6
0.4
249.2
3.05%
19.34%
54.65%
1.93%
1.93%
1.36%
1.28%
14.85%
1.44%
0.16%
100.00%
2005-2009 Average
#
%
164.8
33.4
6.4
23.2
1.2
2.2
17.8
249
66.18%
13.41%
2.57%
9.32%
0.48%
0.88%
0.00%
7.15%
100.00%
APPENDIX F
12
REPORTABLE ACCIDENTS
REGIONAL BREAKDOWN - REPORTABLE DANGEROUS GOODS ACCIDENTS 1989-2008
600
561
520
500
479
NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
439
396
435
432
394
400
474
438
424
383
356
385
384
2005
2006
370
434
336
290
300
242
200
100
0
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Grand Total
1996
1997
PN
1998
QC
1999
YEAR
AT
2000
BC
2001
2002
2003
2004
2007
2008
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.
13
Most commonly cited violations
P AR T OF
TDG
R E GU LAT ION S
Part 3
Part 6
Part 4
Part 5
Part 2
Others
D E S CR IP T ION
Documentation
Training
Safety Marks
Means of Containment
Classification
P E R CE N T AGE
OF T OT AL
IN FR ACT ION S
40.4%
21.2%
17.4%
17.0%
1.7%
2.4%
T OT AL IN FR ACT ION S IN 2009
14
TOP 10 VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED
DURING DANGEROUS GOODS INSPECTIONS IN CANADA
2009
PART
VIOLATION DESCRIPTION
3.5(1)(c) Description of d.g. not displayed in proper order on shipping document.
6.1(1)
HOT d.g. when not holding a training certificate in accordance with Part 6.
3.5(1)(f) "24-hour number" or "numéro 24 heures" and/or phone number not displayed on shipping document.
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.
3.5(1)(d) Quantity and/or unit of measure of each dangerous good not displayed on shipping document.
6.1(2)
Employer directing or allowing employee to HOT d.g. when not holding a training certificate.
6.6
Employer or self-employed person failing to keep record of training and/or copy of training certificate.
3.1(1)
Consignor failing to prepare and give shipping document to carrier taking possession of d.g. for transport.
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.
4.1
OTI a means of containment of d.g. without displaying all required safety marks on same.
TOTAL TOP 10 VIOLATIONS
ALL OTHER VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED IN 2009
TOTAL NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED IN 2009
% OF TOTAL
VIOLATIONS
9.0%
8.8%
6.9%
5.0%
4.4%
4.1%
3.7%
3.5%
2.8%
2.7%
51.0%
49.0%
100%
Data extracted from the Inspection Information System as of January 5, 2010
15
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.
Non-Compliance Rate
100%
80%
mean
60%
40%
38%
43%
upper limit
45%
36%
lower limit
20%
0%
2005
2006
2007
2008
16
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 noncompliant 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.
NonParts of TDG Regulations
Part 1
Exemptions
Part 2
Classification
Part 3
Documentation
Part 4
Safety Marks
Part 5
MOCs
Part 6
Training
Part 9
Road
Overall
complicance
Rate
Margin of
Error
1%
1%
21%
7%
7%
18%
1%
36%
1%
1%
5%
3%
3%
4%
1%
5%
2008 Non-Compliance Rate – Overall and by Part of the Regulations
17
Random Inspection Program (cont)
_
100%
80%
64%
Non-Compliance
60%
40%
16%
1%
Maximum
ticket 700$
0%
Maximun
ticket 500$
Warning
0%
19%
To be
prosecuted
20%
Compliance
Estimated Proportion k
Is the non-compliance serious? Apparently yes!
Seriousness
+
18
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.
19
Proposed Safety and Security Enhancements
Loss and Stolen Dangerous Goods Reporting
Controlled 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
20
Questions?
21