Cefic asks for regulatory clarity

HELP WITH READING

COMPLIANCE • REGULATIONS ARE COMPLEX BY NECESSITY BUT, SAYS CEFIC’S SABINE SCHULTES, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEM SIMPLER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND

IT IS OFTEN SAID that, if four dangerous goods experts are seated around a table and given a question on the transport regulations, they will come up with four different answers, each of which is justifiable, if not totally correct. But put four inexperienced people around a table and ask them the same question, and they will struggle to come up with an answer at all.

The regulations that govern the transport of dangerous goods are of necessity very complex. They also vary from place to place and from mode to mode. They have to cover an enormous range of products and possible means of containment and transport, while also reflecting local conditions and the expectations of societies and governments.

That the complexity of the regulations can be a barrier to understanding has long been recognised, although it has proven difficult to overcome, since they are perforce written in a language and organised in a way that can provide a basis for legislation and for enforcement. Moreover, even if the regulations themselves can be understood, there may not be total clarity over the intent of the various provisions and, if not carefully worded, they may be open to different interpretation in different territories.

Speaking at the TT Club’s webinar on risk mitigation in the tank container sector, held online this past 25 November, Sabine Schultes, senior manager for transport and logistics safety at the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), urged the regulators – with the help of industry – to embark on a drive for simplification. Her call may come at an appropriate time, since the UN Sub-committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, which draws up the UN Model Regulations that provide a framework for all other regulatory regimes, has hinted that it will be looking at this very problem.

ACCIDENT AND RESPONSE Schultes’ presentation looked in particular at the July 2012 explosion and fire aboard the container vessel MSC Flaminia in the Atlantic Ocean and the regulatory changes that it prompted. After extensive investigation, it had been determined that the explosion occurred in two tank containers carrying divinyl benzene, stowed in the hold of the ship. Those tanks had been left on the quayside in New Orleans for ten days, in hot weather, before loading onto the ship and had then been stowed near the ship’s heated bunker tanks. It is thought that those conditions led to the early expiry of the inhibitor in the cargo, allowing it to polymerise in an exothermic reaction that led to a leak of product and then to the explosion and fire.

In the wake of that event, the regulators introduced new provisions for the carriage of polymerising substances, found in the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code in special provision 386 and section 7.3.7. These were designed to help ocean carriers prepare better for the risks associated with carrying those substances that require stabilisation by means of chemical inhibitors and/or temperature control.

This was an obvious solution, Schultes said, but it has raised problems and questions.

THE MSC FLAMINIA FIRE AND EXPLOSION LED TO NEW

REGULATIONS FOR THE CARRIAGE OF POLYMERISING

CARGOES BUT THESE RELY ON ALL PARTIES IN THE

SUPPLY CHAIN BEING AWARE OF THE RISKS AT ALL TIMES

For example, it requires shippers to prepare their cargo with stabilisation sufficient to protect the cargo for the expected duration of the voyage and for the temperatures likely to be encountered. She noted that the current conditions of port congestion and delays both at sea and in land transport make it almost impossible for shippers to know for certain how long it will be before the cargo gets to the consignee.

WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS It is the case that public perception of risk has changed; when a high profile incident – such as the MSC Flaminia explosion – occurs, regulators and authorities are under pressure to do something, and to do something quickly. That can lead to hasty decisions and ineffective controls being put in place; new regulation may be incomplete or difficult to implement, leading to further changes in coming years that generate operational challenges for shippers and carriers. Almost inevitably, new requirements will bring new management requirements and, quite possibly, delays in the supply chain, increasing costs. Any further accidents of a similar nature will also erode the trust between the parties in the supply chain, raising the possibility of cargo rejection or further delays. And governments, similarly under pressure to be seen to be doing something, may well react with stricter enforcement measures.

Schultes’ view of regulatory simplification does not necessarily mean fewer regulations, but their texts much be understandable for all personnel involved in moving dangerous goods. Those regulations need to be in language that is clear and simple.

In the maritime chain, changes to the IMDG Code are agreed by the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) Sub-committee on Carriage of Cargo and Containers (CCC), which entrusts the development of the details to its Editorial and Technical (E&T) Group. CCC’s decisions also need to be ratified by IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC). The bodies making the decisions at CCC, E&T and MSC are national authorities, Schultes pointed out. Trade associations and other non-governmental organisations can only have observer status.

A ROLE TO PLAY Schultes urged rulemakers to allow industry to be more closely involved in the rulemaking process to help ensure that new regulations are feasible and will lead to the desired outcomes. That involvement should take place prior to decisions being made, although she acknowledged that the urgency with which some changes are needed will place constraints on this involvement.

Trade bodies can also play a useful role through the provision and dissemination of guidance material, so as to help dutyholders understand and interpret the applicable requirements. This is something that Cefic, TT Club and other parties do for their members and for the wider industry.

Schultes also addressed the issue of trust through the supply chain, saying that transparency and open communication between all players can help foster trust in the process and also help to identify those “black sheep” that are not playing by the same rules. That transparency, she said, is the very foundation of compliance.

The regulations are now largely harmonised, Schultes concluded, which means there is the opportunity to look at how they can be simplified and clarified. However, while that will be good for those who take their compliance responsibilities seriously, it cannot address the issue of wilful non- or mis-declaration of dangerous goods, which is something that only more attention on enforcement can deliver. cefic.org

CARGO OWNERS AND VESSEL OPERATORS HAVE A LOT OF

EXPERIENCE IN APPLYING THE IMDG CODE AND OFFER A

RESOURCE THAT CAN HELP THE REGULATORS DEVELOP

NEW RULES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE AND WILL DELIVER