ITCO reports on rule changes

HELP ON HAND

TECHNICAL • THE REGULATORS ARE BACK AT WORK AND, ITCO SAYS, TANK CONTAINER OPERATORS NEED TO BE ALERT TO A NUMBER OF PROPOSALS THAT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT

BUSINESS GOES ON despite the Covid-19 crisis and, as ever, it continuously raises new questions, problems and issues. Trade associations, who aim to keep their members up to speed with developments and offer them solutions and advice, are, though, hampered by travel restrictions and other measures aimed at keeping the pandemic at bay. As a result, they have had to turn to innovative methods to keep their members informed.

The International Tank Container Organisation (ITCO) is one such association that has had to cancel its planned meetings and seminars this year; in response, it has organised a series of brief webinars on topics of concern. The first of these, held this past September, looked at sustainability issues and, in particular, what the tank container industry can do to head off the threat to its business posed by single-use plastics bags – flexitanks (HCB October 2020, page 62).

The second ITCO webinar was in effect a report from its Technical Working Group, presented by its technical secretary Colin Rubery. He explained that ITCO has been doing a lot of work in this field, building up a library of technical guidance; this aims to be a reference point and checklist for use by members, especially when dealing with their clients, who may not fully appreciate all the details of tank containers. That library now contains guidance on the transport of polymerising substances, sampling from tank containers, pressure-relief devices, working on top of tanks, safe entry into tank containers, and the ADR-RID Tank Codes.

Rubery also mentioned that a seventh guidance document is under consideration, to deal with end-of-life disposal and recycling of tank containers; once more, this is designed to highlight the recyclable nature of tank containers versus the disposable (and unsustainable) flexitank. ITCO is keen to hear from members on whether such a guidance document would be worthwhile and, if so, what it should contain.

In addition, the 2017 edition of ITCO’s Acceptable Container Condition (ACC) document is currently undergoing an editorial update; there will be no changes to the ACC criteria but some updates will be made to the formatting and text. Members are invited to provide input.

REGULATORS AT WORK After the Covid-19 crisis caused the postponement or cancellation of regulatory meetings through the middle of 2020, the authorities have found means to continue to hold sessions in a virtual format, Rubery reported. So far it seems to be going pretty well, even to the point of raising questions as to whether the regulators will go back to holding their physical meetings in Geneva, Bern and elsewhere.

So new regulations are being discussed and drafted and industry needs to be aware of what those changes might mean. Rubery urged ITCO members to get involved at the national level and engage with their national authorities; after all, while ITCO attends the meetings and has a voice, it is the national authorities that have the votes that make the decisions.

As it is, ITCO has had to step in to oppose a number of proposals that could have caused difficulties for its members. Rubery gave an example from the September session of the Joint Meeting of RID/ADR/ADN Experts, where a proposal was put forward to require

reinforcement plates to be attached to the tank shell at points where equipment such as walkways, cladding and collars are attached, in order to prevent tearing of the shell. Rubery said the proposal was not clearly written and could have had unintended consequences. ITCO was successful in getting the text revised, removing the requirement for reinforcement plates, so giving designers leeway to determine how best to maintain the integrity of the tank shell.

INSPECTION AND ACCREDITATION Rubery moved on to discussions surrounding tank inspection which, he said, are “the biggest thing in regulations currently”. The processes for Accredited Inspection Bodies (AIBs) under ADR and RID have been tightened and are now more procedural (and possibly more bureaucratic).

Currently, AIBs are accredited by at least one country but, by means of reciprocal agreements, are permitted to carry out inspections in other countries. It now seems possible that AIBs will need to be accredited in each country in which they are operating, although this remains to be decided. Rubery said that this is an issue that is most relevant for road tankers, where it makes sense, but that it could cause problems if applied similarly to the tank container sector, which is more international in its operations. ITCO is pressing for recognition of that fact, noting that ADR and RID already differentiate between road tankers and tank wagons on the one hand and tank containers and portable tanks on the other.

Similarly, the AIB is recognised in the country where the inspected tanks are manufactured; there is a proposal now to shift this to the country of the operator. This would clearly be a problem for lessor-owned tank containers and, in any case, makes little sense for tanks that operate around the world. ITCO is once more opposing the proposal.

There is also a proposal for a new entry into service verification (EISV), which would be extremely burdensome for tank containers and, again, makes little sense. For example, Rubery said, a tank container manufactured in South Africa for an operator based in, say, Rotterdam, would have to have its EISV carried out in the Netherlands, meaning it would have to move from South Africa empty. Further, leased tanks would need a new EISV if they moved from one operator to another in a different country.

Overall, Rubery said, as far as tank containers are concerned, these proposals all represent an unnecessary tidying up of the regulations.

TESTING AND TANKS Another issue of interest is the 2.5-year intermediate test. Currently the regulations provide 90 days leeway either side of the deadline. It has been proposed that, if that 90-day period is exceeded, the tank would have to undergo a full five-year periodic test. This would align with recent changes in the UN Model Regulations.

To some extent, that change seems to merely reinforce the existing provisions, which certainly require the intermediate test to take place within 90 days of the expiry of the previous test. But that provision may be being interpreted rather loosely.

Rubery also reported on the outcome of discussions of the working group on fibrereinforced composite (FRP) tanks at the UN Sub-committee of Experts. This envisages the creation of a new Chapter 6.9 and new T Codes, along the lines of the current provisions in ADR. There has been a lot of discussion about liners, Rubery said, but a final proposal is expected for the June 2021 session of the UN Sub-committee. This points to its incorporation in the IMDG Code in Amendment 41-22, which will be mandatory from 2024. Work will progress to the issue of liquefied gases in FRP tanks, which will be a long process, Rubery predicted.

Looking specifically at the IMDG Code, Rubery said there is not a lot going on regarding portable tanks at the moment but that work to determine a certified safe type for data loggers and telematics units could have an impact. This issue remains to be discussed further but he advised operator that it would be good practice to check their existing units.

Rubery concluded with an update on ISO standards, not least ISO 1496:2019, which has recently been updated from the 1995 version. An amendment to ISO 6346:1995 is also currently being finalised, which may include new requirements for the marking of swap tanks. More information on ITCO’s work on technical issues, along with all the guidance documents, can be found on the organisation’s website, www.itco.org.

PROPOSALS TO CHANGE THE PROVISIONS FOR BODIES

UNDERTAKING TANK INSPECTIONS AND TESTING COULD

HAVE MAJOR UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IN THE

TANK CONTAINER SECTOR