OUT OF THE BLOCKS

THE JOINT MEETING tof the RID Committee of Experts and the Working Party on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (WP15) of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) was held in Bern this past 20 to 24 March, with Claude Pfauvadel (France) as chair and Silvia Garcia Wolfrum (Spain) as vice-chair.

The session was attended by representatives of 23 countries as full members, the European Commission, the EU Agency for Railways (ERA), the Organisation for Cooperation between Railways (OSJD) and 14 non-governmental organisations.

The main purpose of the Joint Meeting is to discuss matters of multimodal applicability, specifically to road, rail and inland waterways, and not least those emanating from the changes made by the UN Sub-committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) that are included in the UN Model Regulations. The spring session of the Joint

Meeting was its first opportunity to take a close look at the final decisions taken by the UN Sub-committee at its December 2022 meeting and to start taking steps to transpose those amendments into the modal regulations for rail (RID), road (ADR) and inland waterways (ADN) due to enter into force in 2025.

Tanks Matters

As is traditional, those papers relating to the transport of dangerous goods in tanks were remitted to the Working Group on Tanks, which met in a hybrid format under the chairmanship of Arne Bale (UK) on 20 to 22 March.

The Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) proposed an amendment to the rationalised approach to the assignment of tank codes to groups of substances, as found in the tables in 4.3.4.1.2. OTIF said that the changes proposed were consequential amendments in connection

OTIF also queried the inclusion in RID of a provision that allows the use of wood in the construction of tank wagons. It was felt that this is most unlikely and it was also noted that there is no equivalent in ADR for road tankers. The consensus of the Working Group was that this special provision (TE 16) should be deleted. Reference to that special provision is deleted from column (13) of Table A of Chapter 3.2 against UN Nos 1745, 1746, 1873, 2015 (twice) and 2495. Again, the Joint Meeting agreed to this change; the OTIF secretariat was asked to bring the decision to the attention of the RID standing working group. The Working Group on Standards, which had met in a virtual format on 30 January, had proposed adopting the revised version of EN 14129 LPG Equipment and accessories –Pressure relief valves for LPG pressure vessels. One outcome of this would be to reference the 2023 edition (kept in square brackets pending the final text) in 6.8.2.6.1 in the table ‘For design and construction of tanks’. The Working Group on Tanks agreed this was appropriate but felt there was no need to include a reference in the third column to 6.8.2.2.1, as this is not done at present for the 2014 edition of the standard. During work to revise EN 14025 on the design and construction of pressure tanks, the provisions relating to the tests of test plates prescribed by EN ISO 15614-1 do not guarantee that the tests carried out give results in accordance with the provisions of 6.8.5, as two different welding procedures are possible. France proposed the addition of a Note after the first paragraph of 6.8.2.1.23. Both the Working Group on Tanks and the Joint Meeting agreed to the suggestion, which reads:

NOTE: When 6.8.5 is applicable, the impactstrength tests carried out for the qualifications of the welding process shall comply with the requirements of 6.8.5.3.

The UK had been looking into an issue discussed at the previous session, namely the use of transparent materials in level gauges. It had been agreed that 6.8.2.2.11 should be amended to clarify that sight glass type level gauges are not permitted for Chapter 6.8 tanks, but it had been difficult to settle on a form of words that would be unambiguous.

While there was general agreement of the UK’s offering, the paper had arrived late in proceedings and the Working Group on Tanks was not minded to adopt its proposal definitively. Therefore, the new wording of 6.8.2.2.11 will remain in square brackets pending confirmation at the next session of the Joint Meeting:

Level-gauges shall neither be part of, nor fitted to shells, if they incorporate transparent material which can, at any time, come into direct contact with the substance carried in the shell.

There will be a need for three transitional measures for tank-wagons, fixed tanks and tank-containers, respectively; these were also left in square brackets pending later approval.

During its translation of the 2023 text of ADR, Poland had found that the definition of fibre-reinforced plastics (FRP) tanks adopted in Chapter 6.9 deviates from the general rule of the definitions for ‘tank’ in 1.2.1 and ‘portable tank’ in 6.7.2.1. Poland proposed modification of the new definition for ‘FRP tank’ in 6.9.2.1 and possibly also for ‘FRP shell’, in particular to transfer mention of tank ends (heads) from ‘FRP tank’ to ‘FRP shell’.

The Working Group on Tanks felt that it was appropriate for the proposal to be discussed but any changes would need to be made by the UN TDG Sub-committee. The Working Group did, though, support Poland’s position.

Poland will submit an official document to the next session of the Sub-committee.

The Netherlands prompted a discussion on the calculation of the actual holding time of tanks for refrigerated liquefied gases, following several recent incidents in which the pressure relief valve of a cryogenic tank had activated, causing severe disruption. Authorities had investigated to examine why the existing provisions to prevent the premature opening of valves was not effective. It was found that, in most cases, an actual holding time was not calculated for tank containers and portable tanks; even when that calculation was made, incorrect data or incorrect calculation methods were used. The Netherlands wondered if other states had experienced similar issues.

The International Rail Union (UIC) mentioned that it was planning to forward an official document to the autumn Joint Meeting on empty uncleaned tanks, though this will only deal with some of the issues raised by the Netherlands. Generally, experts confirmed the problems that had been found and welcomed the initiative taken by the Netherlands. It was, though, acknowledged that this is a complicated matter in practice and it is not always clear who is responsible or in a position to calculate the actual holding time. It was agreed that discussions will continue at the next session on the basis of the UIC paper and a revised paper from the Netherlands.

France urged a reopening of earlier discussions on the dual approval of tank containers, which had been aired during recent sessions of the Working Group on Tanks in relation to the inspection and certification of tanks. In summary, when RID/ ADR were restructured along the lines of the UN Model Regulations, Chapter 6.7 was introduced to include the provisions relating to UN portable tanks, which are those used in maritime transport but can also be used for land transport. At the same time, it was decided to keep the RID/ADR requirements of Chapter 6.8 relating to land tank containers. As a result, portable tanks of Chapter 6.7 are often also approved as tank-containers of Chapter 6.8, which can cause problems. France’s belief was that portable tanks used worldwide for multimodal transport should only be approved in accordance with Chapter 6.7 and that dual approval should no longer be possible.

The Working Group agreed that there are problems with dual approval but also that there are advantages. Three ways forward were identified: (a) continue with the status quo; (b) forbid dual approval; or (c) delete tank-containers from Chapter 6.8.

The third option was dismissed: there are many tank-containers of limited size and tank swap bodies in service that depend on Chapter 6.8. On balance, most experts who took the floor expressed a preference to forbid dual approval. France took note of the comments made and will prepare a formal document for an upcoming session.

New Standards For Old

The Working Group on Standards had met prior to the Joint Meeting session to review information provided by the European

Committee for Standardisation (CEN) on the revision and updating progress of a number of standards referenced in RID and/or ADR. There were only a few that are at the point where the Joint Meeting needs to consider action and one of these, EN 14129, was passed on to the Working Group on Tanks for discussion (see above).

There were two formal proposals from the Working Group on Standards, relating to the 2022 update of EN ISO 9809-4 Gas cylinders – Design, construction and testing of refillable seamless steel gas cylinders and tubes – Part 4: Stainless steel cylinders with an Rm value of less than 1 100 MPa, which is referenced in the table ‘Design, construction and initial inspection and test’ in 6.2.4.1, and the 2022 update of EN 13110:2022 LPG equipment and accessories – Transportable refillable welded aluminium cylinders for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) – Design and construction, which appears in the table ‘for design and construction of pressure receptacles or pressure receptacle shells’ in 6.2.4.1. Both of these changes were confirmed by the Joint Meeting.

The Working Group on Standards also carried out an assessment of prEN ISO 21011 Cryogenic vessels – Valves for cryogenic service. The Working Group initially intended to propose this for reference at the spring 2023 session but it was decided to hold the proposal over to the autumn session since it was realised that this will replace EN 1626:2008 and further work is needed to ensure all RID/ADR issues are addressed correctly.

CEN noted that two general purpose standards, which are referenced in Part 9 of ADR, are also under revision, IEC 60079-2 and IEC 60079-11. These relate to equipment protection for operation in explosive atmospheres.

Finally, it has been identified that there are some standards still referenced in RID that have been withdrawn and replaced by new versions. CEN is to provide a list to the secretariats of the Joint Meeting so that appropriate action can be taken.

Who

Meeting on the difference between ‘nominal

This question was raised after the UN TDG Sub-committee adopted a new definition for ‘degree of filling’ that will appear in the 23rd revised edition of the UN Model Regulations. Belgium thought this might be a topic for the forthcoming ad hoc Working Group on the carriage in bulk. In accordance with 5.3.1.4 placards relating to the dangerous goods carried. However, RID/ADR/ADN contain no packaged dangerous (including IBCs and examples of such carriage have been encountered during roadside checks – and, according to 5.3.1.5 no placards are required. Most delegates were of the opinion that the matter relates only to ADR; further, the matter could be settled by clarifying that 5.3.1.4 applies to vehicles only when actually being used for bulk transport. France will come back with an official proposal at the next session.

Another informal document from France related a similar issue pertaining to the carriage in bulk of empty packagings, uncleaned, that have contained dangerous goods. This is permitted if bulk carriage is not explicitly prohibited by other provisions of ADR, as per the last sentence of 7.3.1.1, and 1.1.3.6.3 assigns such empty packagings to transport category 4, which means orange plates and placards are not mandatory. Again, the question is whether the vehicles used for the carriage of empty packagings in bulk need to be placarded in accordance with 5.3.1.4 or are exempted from the requirements on the basis of 1.1.3.6.

There were numerous comments and contributions to this debate and it was thought that the relevant sentence in 7.3.1.1 might have been carried over from the prerestructuring versions of RID/ADR and could now be deleted. France volunteered to undertake additional research, together with the International Confederation of Container Reconditioners (ICCR), and return with a formal proposal.

Proposals For Amendment

The International Association of Safety Advisers (IASA) returned to its earlier proposals to amend special provision 668, with this latest proposal taking into account comments from previous attempts. SP 668 permits the transport of elevated temperature substances for the purpose of applying road markings, without being subject to the requirements of RID/ADR, provided that certain conditions are met. IASA’s point is that there are other elevated temperature substances that are transported for sealing and repairing cracks and crevices on road surfaces and it seems perverse not to apply the same approach to these, not least since they are sometimes carried on the same vehicle.

This time the Joint Meeting concurred with the proposal, although after examining the text put forward by IASA it made some alterations. It was agreed that the opening paragraph of SP 668 be amended to read:

Substances for the purpose of applying road markings and bitumen or similar products for the purpose of repairing cracks and crevices in existing road surfaces, carried at elevated temperature, are not subject to the other requirements of RID/ADR/ADN, provided that the following conditions are met:

IASA also proposed that the instructions in writing, as required by 5.4.3, be marked with the year of publication, to make it easier for carriers to ensure that members of the vehicle crew are always equipped with the correct version. Strictly speaking, this is not currently allowed, since there is no permission for additional information to appear and the model instructions in writing do not indicate the year, although RID does offer some flexibility.

Some delegations expressed the opinion that no amendment is necessary since there is no pressing safety reason and that, furthermore, an amendment may lead to future interpretation issues. IASA withdrew the proposal but may return with a revised proposal after further consideration.

Another paper from IASA related to the language to be used on the transport document. At present, ADR and ADN require the transport document to be drafted in an official language of the forwarding country and, if this is not English, French or German, in English, French or German. IASA felt that RID’s approach provides easier compliance, as it states that the transport document shall be filled out in one or more languages, one of which shall be English, French or German, unless agreements have been concluded between the countries concerned. IASA proposed the amendment in ADR and ADN of 5.4.1.4 to more closely mirror the RID text, and also to specifically state that, for national transport, the document shall be in any of that country’s official languages.

You need Labeline.com

Labeline is the leading worldwide “One Stop Dangerous Goods Service” for Air, Sea, Road, and Rail

We serve Freight Forwarders, Shippers, Airlines, DCA’s, Port Authorities, Petrochemical industry and the Pharmaceutical industry.

Labeline is one of the world’s leading regulatory services and product provider; we hold comprehensive stocks with a fast worldwide delivery service.

We are one of the very few authorised Multi-mode providers worldwide and described by industry as a pro-active organisation, our name is recommended by many leading authorities and a world class service providers.

When it’s time to order your DG products and services, Labeline will be your “One Stop Service”

Compliant with IATA, ICAO, ADR, IMDG, RID, DoT

IASA pointed out that the average international transport operation often results in different languages being used, so that the language of the country where the transport begins may only be relevant for the first part of the journey. On the other hand, inspection and enforcement agencies and the emergency services are used to handling texts in English, French or German so no detrimental safety issues would be anticipated by making the vehicle’ and ‘closed container’, noting in particular that the current definition of ‘closed vehicle’ defines nothing. IASA noted that the three terms are often mentioned together with RID/ADR/ADN and it would make sense for

Tel: +44 (0)870 850 50 51

Email: sales@labeline.com

There was some support for the first part of IASA’s proposal but most delegations felt it was important to make sure the transport document is in an official language of the forwarding country. As to the latter part of IASA’s proposal, it was stressed that national transport does not fall under the scope of RID, ADR or ADN, despite the fact that these agreements are often applied to such operations. IASA may come back with a www.labeline.com

Another IASA paper proposed harmonising the definitions of ‘closed wagon’, ‘closed

This proposal did not meet with the Joint Meeting’s approval. Those delegations who spoke urged caution, since there could be considerable consequences in practice: it could mean that several types of wagon and vehicle currently used in the transport of dangerous goods would no longer be permitted. IASA withdrew its proposal.

Tel: +44 (0)870 850 50 51

Email: sales@labeline.com www.labeline.com

IASA fared little better with its final proposal, which was to amend the wording of the fifth indent in 1.8.3.13 in RID/ADR, which relates to the possibility that dangerous goods safety advisers (DGSAs) may be questioned only on those types of dangerous goods that the undertakings they work for are involved with. In particular, the last indent refers to ‘UN Nos 1202, 1203, 1223, 3475 and aviation fuel classified under UN Nos 1268 or 1863’. IASA

Tel: +44 (0)870 850 50 51

Email: sales@labeline.com www.labeline.com noted that, as written, this means that other products classified under UN 1268 or 1863 are not covered.

The OTIF Secretariat had also spotted that the German and French versions of 1.8.3.13 differ from the English version and that the English version is correct.

Most of the delegations who took the floor did not support the proposed amendment to 1.8.3.13 of RID/ADR. It was clarified that the current provisions are mainly linked to the specificity of the training requirements for safety advisors and for drivers of tank vehicles carrying fuels of Class 3 and that the proposed amendment would broaden the scope to many other substances under n.o.s. entry UN 1268.

Pending Issues

The Secretariat had been busy trying to sort out an issue that had been brought to its attention last year, regarding the assignment of special provisions to the various entries for ammonia. It had been queried whether the current assignment of SP 532 to UN 2073 and SP 543 to UN 2672 had not been inadvertently swapped. After close reading, the secretariat was of the opinion that there was no error and that the special provisions were correctly assigned. However, these special provisions are simply notes to remind users about other potential entries for ammonia solutions.

At the spring 2022 session of the Joint Meeting, opinion was divided on how to address the issue. The Secretariat now proposed several options and the Joint Meeting agreed that the best solution would be simply to delete the two special provisions (and their assignment in Table A of Chapter 3.2), which would also have the benefit of aligning with the UN Model Regulations.

The Secretariat noted that SP 532 and 543 were introduced into RID/ADR in 1993 as notes to marginals; these appeared in the relevant chapters for substances of Class 2 and Class 8, respectively, to point users in the direction of more information. Their usefulness passed once the marginals were rewritten as special provisions. The Joint Meeting had noted that there are other special provisions that were developed for the same reason and that, once the issue relating to SP 532 and 543 was cleared up, it would be useful to examine whether similar action should be taken for other special provisions. The Secretariat was requested to analyse other similar special provisions resulting from the restructuring of RID/ADR marginals and to come back with a proposal if deemed pertinent.

Germany noted that, following the introduction of ‘waste gas cartridges’ into SP 327 in the 2021 texts of RID and ADR, some consequential amendments had been overlooked. Its paper proposed the addition of “and gas cartridges” after “Aerosols” in special provisions W 14 (RID) and V 14 (ADR) in 7.2.4, and the insertion of “W14/V14” in column (16) of Table A of Chapter 3.2 against the entries for UN 2037. Those proposals were accepted by the Joint Meeting.

The European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) asked for a clarification to the Notes in 6.2.3.5.1 and 6.2.4.2 relating to the tolerance value given in EN ISO 18119:2018. The Joint Meeting agreed the need for clarification but did not feel in a position to accept EIGA’s proposal in detail; instead if invited all interested delegates to contact EIGA directly. EIGA offered to organise a virtual meeting and prepare an official document for the next session.

Liquid Gas Europe followed up on discussions from the previous session of the Joint Meeting on the definition of LPG. It had proposed to remove the reference to ‘petroleum’ when describing LPG, since the use of alternative sources, including bio- and renewable sources, is increasing. In particular, it had indicated that it would include an as-yet unidentified percentage of dimethyl ether (DME) in the definition. Liquid Gas Europe had intended to submit an official document for the spring 2022 meeting but, in the event, it reported that it is proceeding “diligently and with caution” as it seeks to determine the safe percentage of DME that can be added to LPG to allow the blend to be used as a drop-in product to replace conventional LPG. The organisation now said it expects to submit a formal paper for the autumn 2023 Joint Meeting.

The Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA) continued with its twin proposals on the topic of direct-toconsumer deliveries. The first relates to the definition of ‘overpack’ and whether the various bags and other handling devices used by delivery companies to sort packages prior to and during delivery rounds can be so described or whether an alternative definition, such as ‘consolidation bin’, already in use in the US and Canada, could be applied. Another factor that adds to complexity is that various different dangerous goods (including those shipped in limited quantities) may be contained in any one ‘consolidation bin’, alongside non-dangerous goods, and will be delivered at various points along the delivery route; as the regulations stand, that consolidation bin would need to bear all relevant labels (including LQ, lithium battery mark, etc) until such point as no dangerous goods remain. This would be virtually impossible in practice.

Following the concerns raised by several delegations, the Joint Meeting agreed on the need to further analyse and justify the need for introducing the new term ‘consolidation bin’ as well as the responsibilities on marking, labelling and documentation during the transport of such consolidation bins. The Joint Meeting agreed to resume its discussion of this subject at its next session, based on a detailed official document to be prepared by COSTHA.

COSTHA’s other topic concerns online grocery deliveries. If consumers drive to the grocery store and buy dangerous goods (household cleaners, flammable liquids, lithium batteries, etc) and carry them home by car, they are exempt from the provisions of ADR. If those same goods are ordered online and then delivered by the retailer’s own vehicle, do they then fall under the scope of ADR? There are no specific exemptions and, as with the ‘overpack’ issue, the presence of dangerous goods on any particular vehicle will vary along the delivery route. Following extensive discussion both at the Joint Meeting and the UN TDG Sub-committee, COSTHA now came with a formal proposal for a new sub-paragraph (g) in 1.1.3.1 to provide an exemption under certain circumstances for such delivery operations.

COSTHA’s proposal drew supportive amendments from France and the European Aerosol Federation (FEA) and there is clearly an acknowledgment on the part of the Joint Meeting that some amendment is warranted to recognise this form of transport operation, which has become increasingly prevalent since the outbreak of the Covid pandemic. It is expected that discussion will continue at the autumn 2023 session of the Joint Meeting.

The second part of this two-part report on the spring session of the Joint Meeting of RID/ADR/ ADN Experts in next month’s HCB will cover new proposals for amendments, reports from working groups, and other business.