[ID] => 10873
[post_author] => 34
[post_date] => 2019-04-12 08:22:10
[post_date_gmt] => 2019-04-12 07:22:10
[post_content] => The UN Sub-committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) held its 54th session – the fourth and final session of the 2017/18 biennium – this past 26 November to 4 December in Geneva. It was chaired by Duane Pfund (US) with Claude Pfauvadel as vice-chair.
The meeting was attended by experts from 18 countries, observers from Ireland, Slovakia and Turkey, and representatives of the EU, the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and 32 non-governmental organisations.
The main task of the Sub-committee was to agree the final list of amendments that will appear in the 21st revised edition of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods – the ‘Model Regulations’ or ‘Orange Book’ – for formal adoption at the session of the UN Committee of Experts on TDG and the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling (GHS) that followed immediately afterwards.
The first part of this two-part report on the meeting (HCB April 2019, page 60) covered discussions on the transport of explosives; listing, classification and packaging; electric storage systems; and the transport of gases. This second part of the report covers the remaining discussions, which ranged far and wide.
FRP tanks A number of documents pertaining to fibre-reinforced plastics (FRP) tanks were remitted to an informal working group, chaired by Steven Webb (US). The group acknowledged the view of the Working Group on Explosives that FRP tanks could be used for the transport of materials of Class 1, although there were some concerns; similarly, while it was acknowledged that FRP tanks would be able to carry dangerous goods of Class 2, it was decided to prioritise work on tanks designed to carry other goods first.
The group discussed provisions for general design and construction requirements, with a lengthy debate about quality assurance and quality management systems. The current design is based on a three-layer system in which each layer meets the three main functionalities – chemical resistance, strength and protection. However, some were of the opinion that an individual element may meet only two of these functions. France volunteered to draft language using this functionality approach for further consideration by the working group. This functionality-based approach, if acceptable, could potentially facilitate new technologies and manufacturing techniques.
The group also discussed specific design criteria requirements, focusing on the various ways to calculate maximum allowed stress and appropriate safety factors. There was discussion of the various ways to measure and calculate stress and strains based on the composite versus an individual test sample. Further discussion is expected through correspondence.
The Sub-committee agreed that the informal working group should continue with its deliberations and noted that it had already arranged to meet between 1 and 3 July 2019 in parallel with the 55th session of the Sub-committee.
SP 653 The European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) provided support for its earlier proposal to introduce into the Model Regulations a special provision to mirror SP 653 in ADR. This provides an exception from the full provisions of ADR for certain cylinders used for the transport of UN 1013 carbon dioxide, UN 1046 helium, compressed and UN 1066 nitrogen, compressed. EIGA pointed out that SP 653 has been in ADR since 2007 and is based in part on an opinion provided by Germany’s Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und Prüfung (BAM).
It had been clear in earlier discussions that the air mode did not like the idea of such cylinders being exempted from the full weight of the regulations and now some experts felt that this was justification enough for not allowing the special provision in the Model Regulations; others felt that, while it is not appropriate for air transport, the fact that such cylinders are (or may be) transported in multimodal transport means that it is appropriate to do so. There were also technical queries about the proposal so, in view of the comments made, EIGA withdrew the proposal and said it would come back with a revised version to address those concerns.
IAEA harmonisation IAEA returned with a proposal that would, it anticipated, overcome objections raised by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) at the previous session to new wording of paragraph 220.127.116.11 relating to planning and preparing for response to incidents involving the transport of radioactive material. IATA reiterated its concerns, considering that the new text could be seen as imposing an additional obligation on carriers and consignors; some experts shared this view.
After discussion and further changes, new text was adopted. The final version of 18.104.22.168 will read:
In the event of a nuclear or radiological emergency during the transport of radioactive material provisions as established by relevant national and/or international organizations, shall be observed to protect people, property and the environment. This includes arrangements for preparedness and response established in accordance with the national and/or international requirements and in a consistent and coordinated manner with the national and/or international emergency arrangements.
The new text in 22.214.171.124 provides guidance on the specific documents that contain the emergency arrangements.
Multiple marking At its previous session, the Sub-committee had adopted new text on the multiple marking of packagings to indicate conformity with more than one design type. Germany felt that this should be backed up with a requirement to indicate the design type on the transport document and offered a revision to 126.96.36.199.1 to implement the requirement. The proposal divided opinion in the Sub-committee and, in light of comments made, it was withdrawn.
Data loggers One paper from the Netherlands and two from Switzerland all addressed the provisions for data loggers and other equipment used during transport that contain electric energy storage and/or production systems. The principle that such equipment should be exempted from the scope of the Model Regulations had been established but the Netherlands in particular sought to provide a textual solution that would offer clarity and avoid misinterpretation. Much discussion was also taken up by attempts to align the English and French texts.
After some discussion, the new 188.8.131.52(c), adopted within square brackets at the 51st session of the Sub-committee, was withdrawn. Instead, a new Note 5 to 184.108.40.206 was agreed:
For dangerous goods in equipment in use or intended for use during transport, see 5.5.4.
That new 5.5.4 reads:
Dangerous goods in equipment in use or intended for use during transport
220.127.116.11 Dangerous goods (e.g. lithium batteries, fuel cell cartridges) contained in equipment such as data loggers and cargo tracking devices, attached to or placed in packages, overpacks, containers or load compartments are not subject to any provisions of these Regulations other than the following:
(a) the equipment shall be in use or intended for use during transport;
(b) the contained dangerous goods (e.g. lithium batteries, fuel cell cartridges) shall meet the applicable construction and test requirements specified in these Regulations; and
(c) the equipment shall be capable of withstanding the shocks and loadings normally encountered during transport.
18.104.22.168 When such equipment containing dangerous goods is transported as a consignment, the relevant entry of the Dangerous Goods List in Chapter 3.2 shall be used and all applicable provisions of these Regulations shall apply.
A number of other changes apply only to the terminology used in the French text.
Design pressure A paper from the Russian Federation contended that the definition of design pressure in 22.214.171.124 is applicable for standalone vessel design pressure calculation but not for portable tanks, for which the strength requirements are found in 126.96.36.199.9. Its paper offered an amendment to 188.8.131.52(ii).
There was once more a difference of opinion; some experts opposed the change on the basis that it would allow tanks with thinner walls to be used, while others felt it would increase the accuracy of calculation. Bearing these comments in mind, the Russian representative said a revised proposal would be made at the next session.
Structurally serviceable Germany and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) returned with further arguments to support their contention that the phrase “structurally serviceable” is unclear and, in addition, that there is a need for more detailed requirements for the condition of containers. Consideration had also been given to including a reference to the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC) but, as this is already mandatory, it would not change the current legal situation.
Most of the experts who spoke agreed that the current text warranted improvement and supported the proposal in principle. Detailed comments were made during discussion and the expert from Germany invited experts to send those in writing so that a revised proposal could be made at the next session.
Chapter 6.7 Belgium had received support at previous sessions for its proposal to clarify some of the portable tank special provisions, particularly with reference to minimum shell thickness of tanks intended for the transport of non-refrigerated liquefied gases. This time the Sub-committee expressed itself happy with the proposals. As a result, the portable tank provision TP19 in 184.108.40.206 is amended to read:
At the time of construction, the minimum shell thickness determined according to 220.127.116.11 shall be increased by 3 mm as a corrosion allowance. Shell thickness shall be verified ultrasonically at intervals midway between periodic hydraulic tests and shall never be lower than the minimum shell thickness determined according to 18.104.22.168.
A new paragraph is added after 22.214.171.124.1(b):
In addition, any relevant portable tank special provision indicated in Column 11 of the Dangerous Goods List and described in 126.96.36.199 shall be taken into account.
There is also a textual clarification in 188.8.131.52.16 and other consequential amendments that do not apply to the English text.
Portable tanks Following discussion at the previous session, the UK returned with a formal proposal to specify the conditions under which portable tanks can continue to be used for the transport of dangerous goods when they have missed the date for their periodic inspection or are switching from general cargo to dangerous goods. The proposal was adopted, resulting in an additional sub-section, 184.108.40.206.6.1, being agreed:
Except as provided for in 220.127.116.11.6, portable tanks which have missed the timeframe for their scheduled 5 year or 2.5 year periodic inspection and test may only be filled and offered for transport if a new 5 year periodic inspection and test is performed according to 18.104.22.168.4.
Similar wording is added in two other new sub-sections, 22.214.171.124.6 and 126.96.36.199.6.
Metal IBCs The Stainless Steel Container Association (SSCA) returned with a formal proposal to delete the minimum wall thickness requirement for metal intermediate bulk containers (IBCs), quoting test results that showed that such IBCs with thinner steel than is currently required in 188.8.131.52.6 can pass the seven tests required in 6.5.6.
During previous discussions, opinion had been divided on the merits of the proposal and it was the same again, with the expert from Australia noting that there had been several incidents reported in which metal IBCs had leaked, despite their having passed all the required tests. She feared that any relaxation in the construction requirements would only serve to increase the frequency of such incidents.
In the end, the Sub-committee adopted by majority an amendment to 184.108.40.206.6; a new introductory sentence is added:
Metal IBCs with a capacity of more than 1500 l shall comply with the following minimum wall thickness requirement:
There are changes to the wall thickness requirements laid out in the table under 220.127.116.11.6(a).
ICAO The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel had bet in Montreal in early October. Among its discussions was a proposal to clarify the provisions for an exception from the minimum height requirements for the UN number and the letters ‘UN’ in the Technical Instructions. While it was clear that there is an allowance to use smaller letters and numbers on packages of 30 litres capacity or less, it was not clear whether this also extended to packagings of less than 30 kg net mass or to cylinders of less than 60 litres water capacity. An amendment had been discussed but it was realised that this is a multimodal issue and that the Sub-committee should be consulted.
The Sub-committee saw the sense in the proposals and adopted the proposed changes.
In 18.104.22.168, the end of the second sentence is amended to read:
…for cylinders of 60 litres water capacity or less when they shall be at least 6 mm in height and except for packages of 5 litres capacity or less or of 5 kg maximum net mass when they shall be of an appropriate size
The third sentences of both 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199 are amended to read:
Letters, numerals and symbols shall be at least 12 mm high, except for packagings of 30 litres capacity or less or of 30 kg maximum net mass, when they shall be at least 6 mm in height and except for packagings of 5 litres capacity or less or of 5 kg maximum net mass when they shall be of an appropriate size.
Bundles of cylinders Canada proposed to delete the last sentence of 188.8.131.52.6 which, it said, conflicts with the requirements of ISO 10961:2010. There was little support, with most experts considering that the current provisions are clear and provide an appropriate level of safety.
Dipropylamine Germany presented test data that indicate that UN 2383 dipropylamine, assigned to Class 3 with a subsidiary hazard of corrosivity, also presents a toxicity hazard; thus, a second subsidiary hazard should be indicated.
During discussions, some experts pointed out that current toxicological data might justify assigning a primary hazard of corrosivity, with subsidiary hazards of flammability and toxicity. The expert from China pointed out that it was unclear whether the toxicity data presented were derived from the inhalation of mists or of vapours, which would make a difference in the interpretation of the data. And the US expert noted that, for certain Class 8 substances, a Division 6.1 subsidiary hazard does not need to be identified; he offered to lead work to develop an appropriate guiding principle on the topic.
In light of the discussions, the representative of Germany said she would consider presenting a revised proposal at a forthcoming session.
Excepted quantities A further paper from Germany reintroduced the question of an exemption for articles containing dangerous goods in excepted quantities. This had been discussed before, during the work that resulted in the adoption of 12 new UN numbers for articles containing dangerous goods, with UN 3363 now reserved for articles containing dangerous goods within the limited quantity values. The proposal noted that, since the modal authorities have now applied those new UN numbers, exemptions have already been put in place for articles containing very small quantities of dangerous goods; without a formal provision in the Model Regulations, this could lead to articles being transported without classification.
Few experts supported the proposal. Some pointed out that, with the allowance in UN 3363, there is no need for an additional provision for dangerous goods in excepted quantities. There could also be a problem with dangerous goods in machinery and apparatus. In light of the lack of support, the proposal was withdrawn.
Editorial corrections Germany had also spotted what it saw as errors of terminology in some special provisions and packing instructions. The Sub-committee agreed with the proposal and made three changes.
In packing instruction P200(3)(c), “(filling factor)” is deleted from the first sentence.
In the last sentences of packing instructions P301(1) and (2), “unit” is replaced by “primary containment”.
After some revision to the original proposal, in special provision SP 172(d), “subsidiary class or division” is replaced by “class or division of the subsidiary hazard”.
Germany had also queried the apparent inconsistency in the use of the terms “solid plastics” and “rigid plastics” in the Model Regulations. It seemed that there is no difference in the meaning and, indeed, in the German language versions of ADR and RID, the same word is used for both. The Sub-committee agreed that the terminology should be harmonised; however, the UK and Australia warned that the two terms are not necessarily equivalent. The expert from Germany took note of the comments and said she would consider a follow-up paper.
LP906 A joint paper from the European Association for Advanced Rechargeable Batteries (Recharge), International Organisation of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA), the Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA) and the Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA) sought an amendment to large packing instruction LP906, which was created specifically to allow the transport of single batteries larger than 400 kg, to permit its application to more than one battery and to equipment containing batteries.
The Sub-committee was not convinced that to do so would be safe. However, the Recharge representative pointed out that, with greater use of electric and hybrid vehicles, the need for a solution will only grow. A revised proposal will be forthcoming during the 2019-20 biennium.
Polymerising waste A paper from Germany pointed out that, in the context of the transport of polymerising substances, recently added provisions require the manufacturer or consignor to evaluate the best way to stabilise the material and to meet the obligations of special provision 386. However, a large amount of polymerising substances is shipped as wastes and, in such cases, the information needed in order to comply with SP 386 is often not available. The German paper proposed an additional paragraph for SP 386 to address the issue.
The general tenor of discussion was that there has not been enough experience with the transport of polymerising substances to justify the proposal; some suggested there is a role for competent authorities in such cases. The proposal was withdrawn but, bearing in mind that the issue seems more relevant to regional than international transport, will be brought to the attention of the RID/ADR/ADN Joint Meeting.
Labels for gases Spain opened up a discussion on the differentiation of labels and placards for flammable gases and flammable liquids. At present, these may be differentiated only on the basis of the small number at the bottom of the diamond. The Spanish paper was accompanied by a radical proposal for a red/green label and placard.
Few experts thought there was much value in the idea, which would certainly be costly and would cause confusion, not least for the colour-blind. [How do they cope at the moment? – ed.] It was also pointed out that there are other means of hazard communication available to emergency responders.
There was, though, some sympathy for the overall idea. One option might be to keep the labels/placards the same colour but to use the pressure receptacle symbol instead of the flame and skull-and-crossbones symbol for flammable and toxic gases. On the other hand, the representative of the Responsible Packaging Manufacturers Association of Southern Africa (RPMASA) reported that the understanding of the pressure cylinder symbol is very low in some countries and might benefit from amendment.
The representative of Spain withdrew the proposal but said she would continue to explore options.
Manual of Tests & Criteria Recharge and PRBA proposed an amendment to 38.3.3(g) in the Manual of Tests and Criteria to mirror an exemption in 38.3.3(d) to allow overcharge protection for large batteries to be housed in the hosting equipment or another battery. There was broad support for the concept but not for the wording of the solution offered. Recharge withdrew the document but promised to submit a revised proposal at the next session.
Corrections and amendments Having previously submitted a list of editorial corrections to the 20th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations, Germany had found some more. A number of these were adopted and published as corrections. Some are merely corrections to spelling but there are some more important changes.
At the end of 184.108.40.206.3, the following sentence is added:
For this calculation method, generic concentration limits apply where 1% is used in the first step for the assessment of the packing group I substances, and where 5% is used for the other steps respectively.
In the second example of calculation for packing group III in 220.127.116.11.5, “10 (conc B)” should read “10 (conc C)”. In special provision 188, (g) and (h), “Except when batteries” should read “Except when cells or batteries”.
In Regulation No 134 in SP 392, “Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles (HFCV)” should read:
Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles and their components with regards to the safety-related performance of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles (HFCV).
Oxidising substances A paper from France brought the Sub-committee up to date with progress on the round robin testing of potential replacements for cellulose as a reference material in the O.1 and O.2 tests. It had also emerged that work needed to be done on Test O.3 and on improving the descriptions of all three tests.
The expert from Germany, noting that work on Test O.3 was still ongoing, proposing deferring adoption of the amendments proposed in the French paper, although others felt that work done already, particularly regarding a resolution of the difficulties being experienced in sourcing calcium peroxide in the correct concentration limits, meant that the proposals should be adopted promptly. After an exchange of views, it was agreed to adopt some of the amendments proposed by France.
As a result, the descriptions of Test O.2 in 18.104.22.168.1 and Test O.3 in 22.214.171.124.3 of the Manual of Tests and Criteria have been refined for clarity. In the description of Test O.3 in 126.96.36.199.1, a slight allowance is made for the concentration of the calcium peroxide powder, which will now be “75% ± 1.0%” rather than “75% ± 0.5%”; the text has also been clarified. In 188.8.131.52.2, the description of the metal wire is also revised to read “below or equal to 1 mm”. More substantial changes to the metal wire description for Test O.1 is included in 184.108.40.206.3.
The Sub-committee also accepted France’s recommendation for further work on this issue.
OECD Guidelines On the basis of an EU proposal, the Sub-committee agreed to amend the references to OECD Test Guidelines in 220.127.116.11. That proposal also included an additional sentence at the end of the paragraph:
If the in vitro test results indicate that the substance or mixture is corrosive and not assigned to packing group I, but the test method does not allow discrimination between packing groups II and III, it shall be considered to be packing group II.
Chemicals under pressure Cefic and EIGA recommended adoption of a harmonised approach to the classification of chemicals under pressure, with proposals for amendments in Chapter 2.3 of the GHS and SP 362 in the Model Regulations. There was support for the idea but many experts felt that further work was needed. Cefic invited delegates to provide comments in writing so that a revised proposal could be made during the 2019-20 biennium.
The secretariat prepared a document setting out the topics for inclusion in the Sub-committee’s work for the 2019-20 biennium. These fall into much the same list of headings as for the 2017-18 biennium, but with some specific topics such as e-documentation and the global recognition of UN and non-UN pressure receptacles.
On a proposal from Germany, seconded by Canada and China, the Sub-committee re-elected Duane Pfund and Claude Pfauvadel to act as chair and vice-chair, respectively, for the coming biennium.
The 55th session of the UN Sub-committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, the first of four planned for the 2019-20 biennium, is scheduled to take place in Geneva from 1 to 5 July.
[post_title] => UN: Yes and no
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_name] => un-yes-no
[post_modified] => 2019-04-12 08:22:11
[post_modified_gmt] => 2019-04-12 07:22:11
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://www.hcblive.com/?p=10873
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
The UN experts wrapped up the 2017-18 biennium in December, making some final changes for the latest revision of the Orange Book