22 minute read
Joint Meeting starts work on 2023 texts
CATCHING UP
MULTIMODAL • THE JOINT MEETING’S AUTUMN 2020 SESSION HAD A LOT TO GET THROUGH. SOME DECISIONS WERE TAKEN BUT SEVERAL PROPOSALS WERE HELD OVER TO MARCH 2021
THE AUTUMN SESSION of the Joint Meeting of the RID Committee of Experts and the Working Party on the Transport of Dangerous Goods of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (WP15) took place between 10 and 18 September 2020, with a longer meeting to take account of the loss of the spring session due to Covid-19 restrictions. The decisions that were due to be made at the spring session and were held over to the autumn meeting were therefore too late for inclusion in the 2021 texts of RID, ADR and ADN, the regulations that govern the transport of dangerous goods by rail, road and inland waterway, respectively, and will have to wait until 2023.
The meeting was chaired by Claude Pfauvadel (France) with Silvia Garcia-Wolfrum (Spain) as vice-chair. It was attended by representatives of 25 countries as full members and representatives of the European Commission, EU Agency for Railways (ERA) and 18 non-governmental organisations.
The first part of this report on the autumn Joint Meeting (HCB December 2020, page 58) concentrated on the discussions of the Working Group on Tanks and the decisions that it made that were approved in plenary. This second part of the report covers progress made by the Working Group on Standards and a number of papers and proposals on the interpretation of the regulations and for their amendment.
STANDARDS HCB readers may be aware of concerns expressed by the Joint Meeting that lack of funding is threatening the good cooperation between it and the standards-setting organisations. The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC) now proposed to amend the procedure of cooperation, mainly to reflect the replacement of the CEN Consultant with a ‘Standards Adviser’, appointed by the Joint Meeting to provide assessments of draft CEN-CENELEC standards. John Williams has been appointed to act in this role, with funding provided by the European Cylinder Makers Association (ECMA), European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) and Liquid Gas Europe (LGE), highlighting the importance of referenced standards to the gas cylinder industry.
It was stressed that all participants of the Joint Meeting are permitted to participate in the Working Group on Standards, whether or not their country is a member of CEN-CENELEC.
CEN provided two papers summarising the recent activities of the Standards Working Group, including decisions reached at a virtual meeting on 2 September. Together with the report of that meeting, provided by the UK, a number of amendments were adopted in plenary.
In Note 2 to 6.2.3.5.1, “EN ISO 16148:2016 + A1:2020” replaces “EN ISO 16148:2016”.
In 6.2.4.1, under “for closures”, the end date
THE JOINT MEETING EXISTS TO ENSURE
for EN 13175:2019 (except clause 6.1.6) is changed from “Until further notice” to “Between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2024” and a new row is added immediately after for EN 13175:2019 + A1:2020. The same change is made under “for equipment” for ADR only.
Also in 6.2.4.1, under “for design and construction” a new row is added for EN 17339:2020 Transportable gas cylinders – Fully wrapped carbon composite cylinders and tubes for hydrogen.
In the same table, the expiry deadline for EN 13953:2015 is changed from “Until further notice” to “Between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2024” and a new row is added for EN 13953:2020.
At the end of 6.2.5.4.2, “EN 1975:1999 + A1:2003” is replaced by “EN ISO 7866:2012 + AC:2014”.
In the first row of the table in 4.1.6.15, “EN ISO 11114-1:2012 + A1:2017” is replaced by “EN ISO 11114-1:2020”.
EIGA arrived with a proposal to amend Note 3 to 6.2.3.5.1, regarding the rejection criteria for seamless gas cylinders and tubes, as per the newly adopted EN ISO 18119:2018, which appears in the 2021 versions of ADR and RID. Some delegates opposed the idea and others felt it was too early to make changes and that more information was necessary. EIGA promised to take the views of delegates into account in the framing of a follow-up proposal.
INTERPRETATION OF RID/ADR/ADN Finland sought to clarify the meaning of provision AP8 as it concerns UN 2794, Batteries, wet, filled with acid, waste or used. It requires that the design of the load compartment of vehicles/wagons or containers shall take account of any residual currents and impacts from the batteries. Both special provision 598, which applies to both new and used batteries, and packing instruction P801 require such batteries to be protected against short-circuits.
Is there any other way, Finland wondered, to protect against residual currents other than by preventing short-circuits? Can used (waste) batteries be carried safely in bulk without such protection? Is carriage in bulk forbidden by 7.3.1.12 if the possibility of short-circuits cannot be ruled out? The Joint Meeting welcomed Finland’s questions and agreed to refer the matter to the working group on the transport of hazardous waste for further consideration.
Poland sought some guidance on 3.4.7.1, which requires the centre area of a label to be “white or a suitable contrasting background”. What should this area contrast with? With the black surrounding line or the background colour? The provision, Poland suggested, is ambiguous.
Most comments felt that emphasis should be on the word ‘contrasting’ and, as originally drafted, the provision was intended to allow the use of single-colour printing. It was also noted that any amendment to the wording would need to be approved by the UN Sub-committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG).
Spain sought an exchange of views on the responsibilities of the various participants during an international carriage of empty uncleaned tanks. Its paper used an example: if a full tank is transported from A to B in international trade, and then the same tank is moved empty from B to C, either to take up a new load or to return to the carrier’s depot, who should issue the new (or modified) transport documents for the trip from B to C? In this movement, who are the consignor and consignee?
Spain offered four different solutions, that most favoured by the Joint Meeting being that the movement from B to C is a new transport process and the carrier is both the consignor and consignee and is responsible for creating the transport documents. The Joint Meeting did agree that some clarification would be useful and invited all delegations to submit their comments to Spain for a possible future proposal.
France sought clarification on the appropriate placarding of removable skips, particularly in relation to the transport by road of waste in bulk. Such skips are sometimes used to facilitate operations but do not meet the specifications of the BK or VC provisions. However, skips are mentioned in the list of examples given in the definition of ‘bulk container’ in 1.2.1. This raises the question of whether such skips should be placarded in accordance with 5.3.1.2 or with 5.3.1.4.1. »
Most delegates who took the floor were of the opinion that, according to the provisions of RID/ADR, the placarding of removable skips should be similar to that of containers in accordance with 5.3.1.2. Although there was no consensus on this, it was noted that this was the usual practice in some countries. The Joint Meeting felt that the provisions could be modified and invited France to prepare a proposal for the next session.
PENDING PROPOSALS Germany came back to the classification of lead sulphate with not more than 3 per cent free acid which, by virtue of special provision 591, is not subject to the requirements of RID/ ADR/ADN. However, this clashes with the EU’s Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Chemicals (CLP) Regulation, which points to its classification as an environmentally hazardous substance with Aquatic Acute 1 and Aquatic Chronic 1 hazards. Earlier discussions had considered whether the substance (UN 1794) should be deemed an environmentally hazardous substance for transport.
The Joint Meeting agreed with Germany’s proposal to amend the wording of special provision 591 to specify that the substance is not subject to the requirements for Class 8 materials, rather than the entirety of the regulations. However, its listing under the CLP Regulation should also be checked and the UN Sub-committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) should also be informed.
Portugal returned to its earlier proposal to purge the list of definitions in 1.2.1 of all abbreviations and acronyms and to place these in a new 1.2.3; the justification for this suggestion is that those abbreviations and acronyms are not really defined in 1.2.1, therefore complicating consultation of the document. Portugal offered a list of abbreviations and acronyms, which was welcomed by the Joint Meeting. The idea was accepted in principle but the change remains in square brackets while other delegations examine the draft and note any omissions. Portugal will then prepare a new document for the March 2021 session.
In September 2019 the Joint Meeting had accepted that packagings for Category A medical waste of UN 3549 should be subject to the same requirements as those for Category A infectious substances of UN 2814 and 2900. However, its solution – an amendment to 4.1.8.6 – was not picked up by WP15 and the RID Committee of Experts’ standing working group, pending further discussion at the Joint Meeting (scheduled for the March 2020) session and the TDG Sub-committee’s December 2019 session. At the latter meeting, two experts expressed reservations about the idea of allowing the use of plastics packagings for the transport of hospital waste of UN 3549 beyond the five-year period, although they understood the situation that hospitals could find themselves in if they had unused stocks of packaging that were past their expiry date.
Taking note of these and other comments, Switzerland took it upon itself to prepare a revised proposal, this time based on a revision to packing instruction P622. In particular, this proposed to exclude the applicability of 4.1.1.15 to drums and jerricans used exclusively for the carriage of UN 3549. There was an exchange of views by the Joint Meeting, after which Switzerland volunteered to submit a revised proposal to the TDG Sub-committee.
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) resumed its investigation of the use of the phrase “structural serviceability” of cargo transport units (CTUs). The UN Model Regulations uses it in 7.1.3.3.1 for CTUs used for the carriage of explosive substances and articles of Class 1 only, which is copied in 7.1.2 in the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code. RID/ADR, on the other hand, use it in 7.1.4 where it is generally applicable for all classes of dangerous goods. Cefic has been expressing its concern about this lack of harmonisation since 2017, when the Joint Meeting asked it to take the matter to the TDG Sub-committee. The UN experts agreed that harmonisation was desirable and adopted changes to the UN Model Regulations.
Cefic is also concerned that the definition of “structurally serviceable” in RID and ADR needs revision to reflect recent technical developments. It could see no justification for certain elements of the definition and said that the definition also conflicts with IMO’s recommended interpretation of the International Convention for Safe Containers. Cefic offered alternative texts for the relevant paragraphs.
The Joint Meeting welcomed Cefic’s continued work on this topic and, after discussion, the Cefic representative said that more work would be done on the proposal, which could then be submitted to the April 2021 meeting of the ad hoc Working Group on Harmonisation of RID/ADR/ADN with the UN Recommendations, or to the Joint Meeting’s autumn 2021 session.
Spain returned to the problems encountered with the use of the UN 1043 entry for fertiliser ammoniating solution with free ammonia, which is regulated only through special provision 642, unique to this UN number. This states that, except as authorised under 1.1.4.2, this entry shall not be used for the carriage of fertiliser ammoniating solutions with free ammonia, meaning it is only available if the carriage involves a transport chain that includes a maritime or air leg.
Under ADR, UN 1043 is identified as a dissolved gas with asphyxiating properties and, per 2.2.2.2.2, cannot be transported. As a result, three other UN entries are used (2672, 2073 and 3318), each of which have a specified ammonia concentration range. At the September 2019 session of the Joint Meeting, Spain presented an informal document setting out three options for resolving the problem and, after discussion, it had been invited to present a formal proposal, which it now did. The Joint Meeting adopted most of its suggestions, as follows. The fifth indent of 2.2.2.2.2 is amended to read: - Dissolved gases which cannot be classified under UN Nos. 1001, 1043, 2073 or 3318.
For UN No. 1043, see special provision 642; A new sentence is added at the end of special provision 642: Otherwise, for carriage of ammonia solution, see UN Nos. 2073, 2672 and 3318. For RID only, “4A” is added in column (3b) of the Dangerous Goods List against UN 1043. Pending the approval of the ADN Administrative Committee, “642” has been added in square brackets in column (6) of the Dangerous Goods List in ADN and the text of that special provision has similarly been inserted in square brackets.
Spain also returned with a formal proposal to amend the proper shipping name of UN 1345 Rubber scrap or Rubber shoddy, which in RID/ADR differs from that in the UN Model Regulations by leaving out the words “not exceeding 840 microns and rubber content exceeding 45%”. This wording restricts the applicability of the entry to the more hazardous substances.
The Joint Meeting agreed to insert that text in the proper shipping name of UN 1345, aligning RID and ADR with the UN Model »
THE USE OF SKIPS TO CARRY DANGEROUS
Regulations. It did not, however, feel the need to include a new special provision as proposed by Spain, to highlight that substances outside those specified limits are not subject to the regulations.
A similar paper from Spain addressed UN 2015, which in the UN Model Regulations has the proper shipping name “Hydrogen peroxide, stabilised or Hydrogen peroxide, aqueous solution, stabilised, with more than 60% hydrogen peroxide”. RID/ADR have two entries, both relating only to the aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide, and which have specific ranges for the hydrogen peroxide content. The Joint Meeting agreed that the first of these, relating to material with more than 70 per cent hydrogen peroxide, should include “Hydrogen peroxide, stabilised” as the first element of its proper shipping name.
Spain also took issue with the apparent conflict between special provision 593 and the provisions for gases used for cooling and conditioning purposes in 5.5.3. In particular, SP 593 includes requirements that are not contained in 5.5.3. Spain noted that SP 593 was introduced in the 2001 edition of RID/ADR and had probably not been modified when 5.5.3 was introduced in the 2013 texts.
Spain proposed aligning the two provisions by amending the text of SP 593 to remove the additional requirements. However, following discussion by the Joint Meeting, it was acknowledged that this is a complex issue and Spain was invited to prepare a revised proposal in light of comments made.
Yet another paper from Spain sought the harmonisation of the name and description of UN 2426 Ammonium nitrate, liquid (hot concentrated solution), which in RID/ADR has a specified concentration range of 80 to 93 per cent that is missing from the UN Model Regulations. There are further differences between the conditions of carriage and special provisions in ADR, RID and the IMDG Code.
Spain’s paper offered some fairly straightforward means of resolving at least some of the differences but it also revealed some concerns among the experts at the Joint Meeting. Spain will work further on the proposal for a new submission at the next meeting.
Germany returned to the topic of the classification of UN 1872 Lead dioxide, which in RID/ADR has a Division 6.1 subsidiary hazard that does not appear in the UN Model Regulations or IMDG Code. The reasons for this are unclear and, as there is no reliable evidence of acute toxicity, there seems to be no justification for this subsidiary hazard. At the previous session, the UK had queried the situation regarding carriage in bulk but Germany was of the opinion that there are no additional hazards.
The Joint Meeting agreed with Germany’s proposals, removing “+6.1” from column (5) of the Dangerous Goods List against UN 1872. In addition, in column (3b), “OT2” is changed to “O2”. In RID and ADR only, in column (12), “SGAN” is changed to “SGAV”; in column (17), “VC1 VC2 AP6 AP7” is inserted; in column (18), “CW28/CV28” is deleted; and in column (20), “56” is changed to “50”. ADN will require an amendment to special provision 802 and Germany volunteered to submit the relevant proposal to the ADN Safety Committee.
NEW PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENT Germany proposed to change the table in 4.1.6.15, which lists standards applicable to valve protection devices for UN pressure receptacles, adding a cut-off date in a new right-hand column, corresponding to that used in the tables in 6.2.2.1.
THERE WILL BE CHANGES TO THE PROPER SHIPPING
NAME OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE AND TEST PERIODS
However, CEN saw some drawbacks in Germany’s proposal and arrived with an alternative suggestion, which found more support, although EIGA spotted that CEN’s proposal did not include the standards on shrouds. EIGA will prepare a proposal for the next session but, in the interim, the Joint Meeting adopted CEN’s idea, which involved some changes within the table and an amendment of 4.1.6.15 itself to read:
For UN pressure receptacles, the ISO standards and EN ISO standards listed in Table 1, except EN ISO 14245 and EN ISO 15995, shall be applied. For information on which standard shall be used at the time of manufacturing the equipment, see 6.2.2.3.
For other pressure receptacles, the requirements of section 4.1.6 are considered to have been complied with if the standards in Table 1, as relevant, are applied. For information on which standards shall be used for the manufacture of valves with inherent protection, see 6.2.4.1. For information on the applicability of standards for manufacturing valve protection caps and valve guards, see Table 2:
The International Road Transport Union (IRU) followed up on earlier discussions with a proposal to include in Chapter 8.2 of ADR a provision to allow the use of e-learning for refresher training for dangerous goods drivers. While there was once more general support for the idea, some delegations felt it premature. It was thought best to establish an informal working group to elaborate on the proposal and asked IRU to prepare draft terms of reference; those delegates interested in taking part were invited to contact IRU.
EIGA reminded the Joint Meeting that the 2015 edition of RID/ADR included an amendment to extend the test periods for cylinders and bundles of cylinders used under the P200 packing instruction from 10 to 15 years. At the time it was decided not to extend this to the elements in battery vehicles until experience had been gained. Since then, EIGA has not received any reports of cylinders or bundles of cylinders being rejected after the longer test interval. It now proposed that the 15-year test period be introduced for battery vehicles carrying UN 1046 Helium, compressed or UN 1049 Hydrogen, compressed, as this covers the vast majority of products transported in battery vehicles.
The European Cylinder Makers Association (ECMA) saw some holes in the idea, not least the proposal to mention EN 13385, which is not referenced in RID/ADR and, furthermore, dates back to 2002 and is ripe for revision. Most delegations felt that more work is needed on the proposal and, once more, suggested forming an informal working group under the leadership of EIGA. Hopefully this will be able to report in time for a decision to be made at the spring 2021 Joint Meeting.
Switzerland proposed the insertion of a special provision to exempt machinery and apparatus powered by lithium cells or batteries, along the lines of special provision 363 that applies to machinery and apparatus powered by flammable liquid or gaseous fuel. Its paper included a proposed text. However, while there was support from some delegations that felt the existing provisions warrant clarification, most delegates did not think a new special provision was the way to go. Switzerland will reconsider its proposal with a view to putting together a revised paper at the next session.
Switzerland also raised the idea of including new requirements for the transport of vehicles assigned to UN 3171 that contain damaged or defective lithium batteries, corresponding to those in place for vehicles of UN 3166 for vehicles powered by flammable liquid or gas. It suggested an amendment to special provision 667(b)(ii) and a new section in Chapter 6.11. However, most delegates did not support the proposal and some believed that, if the damaged or defective battery cannot be removed, then special provision 666 applies. The matter is likely to return in the shape of a revised proposal.
On the topic of special provision 666, Switzerland also felt there is an inconsistency between that (and SP363) and special provision 669. The latter applies to equipment installed on a trailer that is carried as a load, when intended for use during carriage; SP666 applies to equipment installed on a towing vehicle that is carried as a load. The proposal was to add the words “and when intended for use during carriage” to SP666.
The Joint Meeting agreed there is a need to clarify the scope of special provisions363, 666 and 660 and Switzerland was invited »
to prepare a new document, taking into account comments received. Discussions will resume at the March 2021 session.
While on the topic, Switzerland also sought to add text to special provision 363 to clarify that, labelling and placarding is allowed on engines and machinery that have a capacity of more than 450 litres of liquid fuel but only contain 60 litres or less. There was some support in principle but several delegations felt the provision could be included as a note rather than an amendment to the special provision. A revised proposal will be forthcoming.
Switzerland also thought it worthwhile to introduce a general rule to authorise the transport of empty packagings (up to large packaging size) for disposal, recycling or recovery of their material, regardless of whether or not they are in compliance with the provisions of RID/ADR/ADN. It suggested amending the text of special provision 663. This proposal had already been seen by the TDG Sub-committee, which suggested it should be dealt with on a regional basis.
The Joint Meeting, however, felt that no action was needed. Packagings shipped under UN 3509 do not have to meet the requirements of 4.1.1.3 by dint of the special packing provisions assigned, although Switzerland’s paper suggested that the position is not entirely clear.
Poland sought to clarify special provision 643, which relates to asphalt. Its paper pointed out the significant differences between mastic asphalt, which is carried in a liquid state, and aggregate asphalt, which is carried at a much lower temperature and is not really liquid. It though that an amendment to the text was necessary to differentiate the two products. Some delegations recalled an earlier discussion about the types of asphalt that fall outside the scope of UN 3257 and others were concerned that the proposed change could restrict the scope of the exemption. Poland will revise the proposal for consideration at a future session.
Switzerland felt that more work was needed on 5.4.0.2 on the use of telematics equipment and the guidelines on its application, particularly the sections relating to the transitional phase. The Joint Meeting preferred to pass the matter on to the working group on telematics which could discuss it in light of experience gained by those member states that are already implementing the guidelines.
Yet another paper from Switzerland highlighted the differences in the exemptions provided in the note to 5.3.2.1.5 for the orange-coloured plate marking requirements for wagons, covered or sheeted vehicles, and open wagons and vehicles. Furthermore, it does not extend to small bulk containers. The Joint Meeting agreed and adopted new text: NOTE:This paragraph need not be applied to wagons/vehicles carrying bulk containers, tanks and MEGCs with a maximum capacity of 3 000 litres.
ERA thought it was about time that a footnote was inserted into RID/ADR/ADN to highlight the Inland TDG Risk Management Framework, in whose development the Joint Meeting had taken part. While some delegations felt this premature, on a vote ERA’s proposal was adopted. New footnotes will be added in 1.9.3 (RID) and 1.9.4 (ADR and ADN) with a link to the EU Directorate General for Mobility and Transport website.
CLARIFICATION OF THE RULES ON ASPHALT
Returning to lithium batteries, Switzerland sought the extension of the exemptions in 1.1.3.6 to UN 3536, which covers closed CTUs containing a very large lithium-ion storage battery. The applicable provisions do not distinguish between these large units and other types of CTU containing smaller batteries, installed on trailers or in vehicles to supply power external to the vehicle.
There were several comments on the proposal and one aspect of it was remitted to the ad hoc Working Group on the Harmonisation of RID/ADR/ADN with the UN Model Regulations. The Joint Meeting did, however, adopt some changes as a result.
In the table in 1.1.3.6.3, for Transport Category 2, second column, Class 9, “and 3481” is replaced by “, 3481 and 3536”. In the Dangerous Goods List, column (15), against UN 3536, “-“ is replaced by “2” on the first line. For ADR only, in special provision 389, “Except as provided in 1.1.3.6” is inserted at the beginning of the last sentence.
Clearly flagging by this point, the Joint Meeting did not have time to deal with three proposals that arrived in the shape of informal documents; these were held over until the March 2021 session, where they will be treated as official documents.
The third and final part of this report on the autumn 2021 Joint Meeting will wrap up the reports from working groups and other business.
