Print | Need Larger Text?

Incident Report

Subform I: General Information

1. Report Type.

New incident report

Incident Report Number: 2011-2282

2. Registrant Information.

Registrant Reference Number: PROSAR Case #: 1-25862625

Registrant Name (Full Legal Name no abbreviations): Petro-Canada Lubricants, Inc.

Address: 2310 Lakeshore Road West

City: Mississauga

Prov / State: Ontario

Country: Canada

Postal Code: L5J 1K2

3. Select the appropriate subform(s) for the incident.

Packaging Failure

4. Date registrant was first informed of the incident.

5. Location of incident.

Country: CANADA

Prov / State: ONTARIO

6. Date incident was first observed.

Product Description

7. a) Provide the active ingredient and, if available, the registration number and product name (include all tank mixes). If the product is not registered provide a submission number.

PMRA Registration No. 29825      PMRA Submission No.       EPA Registration No. 69526-13

Product Name: Civitas

• Active Ingredient(s)
  • MINERAL OIL (INSECTICIDAL)

7. b) Type of formulation.

Application Information

8. Product was applied?

Unknown

9. Application Rate.

10. Site pesticide was applied to (select all that apply).

11. Provide any additional information regarding application (how it was applied, amount applied, the size of the area treated etc).

To be determined by Registrant

12. In your opinion, was the product used according to the label instructions?

Unknown

Subform VI: Packaging Failure

1. What is the type of packaging that failed?

Jug-plastic / Cruche-plastique

2. Did packaging failure occur during?

Transportation

3. Did packaging failure result in?

potential exposure

4. Describe how the packaging failed and the surrounding circumstances, including a description of the potential injury or exposure.

1-25862625- The reporter, an employee of the distributor, indicated a package failure involving a fungicide containing the active ingredient synthetic isoparaffin. The reporter indicated the day prior to his report a five gallon container carrying the product was transported to a warehouse prior to distribution. The container had been found to have developed a crack and had leaked in that warehouse one hour prior to the report. The volume leaked was reported to be a small amount by the reporter, but not quantified. At the point of the report the spilled had been cleaned, the package contained, and the registrant had initiated retrieval. No exposure or environmental injury had taken place. No further information is available.

For Registrant use only

5. Provide supplemental information here.

The pail in question was from a specific production run at our supplier (June 2010 production). This pail was found to have the gate below the gate ring not well formed. The gate is the nub on the bottom of the pail and the gate ring is the surrounding ring. This is the point of injection when the pail is made. In plain English, this part of the pail is not as perfect as our supplier would like to see it. The gate provides integrity to the pail by reducing the sag on the bottom of the pail. This inferior gate was then likely exposed to some kind of wear and tear, either placing the pail down / dropped or exposed to a large top load (stacking) causing the bottom to sag and crack. In September 2010, our supplier implemented a new gate inspection criteria in response to a process improvement, unrelated to this situation. Based on this new gate criteria, this pail would have been put on hold and not passed QC. Civitas production for 2011 is using a new pail production from our supplier. This failure is not expected to happen again.