Joint Meeting sets to work

TO THE POINT

MULTIMODAL • THE JOINT MEETING OF RID/ADR/ADN EXPERTS WRAPPED UP SEVERAL AMENDMENTS AT ITS SPRING SESSION, MANY OF THEM ADDRESSING URGENT SAFETY ISSUES

THE JOINT MEETING of the RID Committee of Experts and the Working Party on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (WP15) of the UN Economic Commission for Europe held its spring session in Bern, Switzerland from 15 to 19 March 2021, in a hybrid format with both in-person and online attendance. The joint meeting’s main task is to ensure the maximum possible degree of harmonisation between the regulations that govern the transport of dangerous goods by rail (RID), road (ADR) and inland waterway (ADN) in Europe and, increasingly, elsewhere around the globe. While it is charged also with aligning the modal regulations with the UN Model Regulations insofar as possible, it concentrates in particular on the rules for the design, construction, maintenance and inspection of the various means of containment.

The spring session was chaired by Claude Pfauvadel (France) with Silvia Garcia Wolfrum (Spain) as vice-chair. It was attended by representatives of 25 countries (including the US), the European Commission, the EU Agency for Railways (ERA), the Organisation for Cooperation between Railways (OSJD) and 16 non-governmental organisations.

TANKS MATTERS As is usual, those papers relating to tanks were passed to the Working Group on Tanks, which met in virtual form for the first three days of the session under the chairmanship of Arne Bale (UK), with Kees de Putter (Netherlands) acting as secretary. The Working Group did not consider proposals relating to the inspection and certification of tanks, which were dealt with by a separate informal working group and by the Joint Meeting in plenary.

The Working Group on Tanks continued with its discussions on safety in the design and use of extra-large tank containers; while these have so far been used in in-plant applications and very specific overland transport, where strict construction and operational standards have been observed, there is concern that, should they been adopted more widely, specific safety considerations will have to be taken into account.

The Working Group supported the development of a definition for ‘extra-large tank-container’, as any specific requirements included in the regulations will need to be closely defined. However, it proved impossible to settle on such a definition as there needs to

THE WORKING GROUP ON TANKS CONTINUED

DELIBERATION OF EXTRA-LARGE TANK CONTAINERS

(ABOVE) AND ALSO LOOKED AGAIN AT THE TRANSPORT

be more clarity on the criteria for distinguishing such containers, including not only their capacity but also their maximum gross weight and/or external dimensions.

Pending the adoption of specific requirements, and the possibility of other large tanks already being in existence, it was felt sensible to include a new transitional measure, which was approved by the Joint Meeting at a new 1.6.4.56:

Tank-containers constructed before 1 July 2023 in accordance with the requirements in force up to 31 December 2022, but which do not conform to the requirements of 6.8.2.2.4 second paragraph applicable from 1 January 2023 may still be used.

That transitional provision reflects a new paragraph proposed to specify the use of manhole covers with a test pressure of not less than 4 bar on extra-large tank containers, certainly for liquids and possibly also for solids in the molten state. It was decided to keep the text in square brackets pending the development of specific criteria for these tank containers. The draft text, which appears in the right-hand column of 6.8.2.2.4, reads: [These openings for tank-containers with [a capacity of more than 40 000 litres / a gross weight of more than 36 000 kg] intended for the carriage of [liquids] / [substances in the liquid state] which are not divided by partitions or surge plates into sections of not more than 7 500 litres capacity shall be provided with closures designed for a test pressure of at least 0.4 MPa (4 bar). Hinged dome covers for these tankcontainers with a test pressure of more than 0.6 MPa (6 bar) shall not be permitted.]

The UK proposed amendments to clarify inspection periods in Chapters 6.8, 6.10 and 6.12, which would also harmonise with the terms used in Chapter 6.7. These amendments, which were agreed by the Working Group and adopted in plenary, are editorial in nature, involving the replacement of text such as “at least every” by “no later than”.

The UK also proposed textual amendments in 6.8.2.1.23, which concerns welding and the inspection of welds. Again, these proposals were adopted, resulting in the relocation of the final sentence in the first sub-paragraph to the end of the second sub-paragraph, and the addition of a new sub-paragraph before the final paragraph:

Welds made during repairs or alterations shall be assessed as above and in accordance with the non-destructive tests specified in the relevant standard(s) referenced in 6.8.2.6.2.

A proposal to add a to reference to 6.8.2.1.23 in the third column of the table in 6.8.2.6.2 against standard EN 12972:2018 has been provisionally accepted, with the reference currently in square brackets.

The Netherlands and the International Union of Wagon Keepers (UIP) returned to the topic of dry-break couplings, proposing a new footnote to 6.8.2.2.2. However, no consensus could be reached and this matter will be dealt with again at the autumn session of the Joint Meeting.

UIP and Poland returned to the issue of the three-month leeway provided for an intermediate inspection, with a question on what is allowed during this period following

the due date? Some experts were of the opinion that the tank could be used as usual, while others stated that the tank could be carried and emptied, but only if it had been filled before the due date. No consensus was reached other than the topic would benefit from discussion in the plenary. This will take place at the autumn session.

Germany had been investigating the safety of ‘liquid ring’ pumps as used on vacuumoperated waste tanks used to carry flammable substances; testing had found risks if the supply of water to the pump is insufficient and Germany proposed the design should be checked against ISO 80079.

Several experts observed that there have been no reported incidents involving these pumps. There were other questions about the possibility of future standards that would have to be taken into account, the cost and availability of the pumps, and the possible need for sensors to check the water flow to the pump. Germany will work on provisions to be inserted in 6.10.3.8 and will come back to the topic at a future session.

The Netherlands followed up on discussion at the autumn 2020 session of the Working Group on Tanks, where it had offered a proposal to include a clear requirement for the vapour phase of LNG tanks to be equipped with an automatic closing valve. On tanks for refrigerated liquefied gases such as LNG, these lines are actively used during loading and discharge to regulate the pressure in the tank and the valves are open during handling; from a safety point of view it is critical that the valves should close automatically in the case of an emergency, the Netherlands stressed. It offered revised text for 6.8.3.2 and 6.8.3.2.7 as well as a transitional measure.

Most experts on the Working Group expressed support in principle for the proposals but it was pointed out that refrigerated liquefied hydrogen may need a different approach and that Chapter 6.7 should also be addressed. An ad hoc working group was proposed, although it is evident that the issue is urgent and some provisions need to be worked up and adopted in time to be included in the 2023 editions of RID and ADR. The Netherlands and the European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) were invited to organise an intersessional working group and report back at the autumn session.

A new Chapter 6.9 had been adopted into the UN Model Regulations this past December, addressing portable tanks with shells manufactured from fibre-reinforced plastics (FRP). Such tanks have been covered for some time in RID/ADR but it was felt that the UN text represents a considerable improvement and should be taken into RID/ADR. However, the International Tank Container Organisation (ITCO) urged that this should be deferred as, in its opinion, the UN text does not adequately address the resilience of FRP tanks. Some within the Working Group supported ITCO’s position, others felt that the UN text already offers high safety factors.

It was agreed that the Ad hoc Working Group on the Harmonisation of RID/ADR/ADN with the UN Model Regulations should decide on the matter; meanwhile, ITCO was invited to raise its concerns at the July session of the UN Sub-committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG).

The Working Group on Tanks was also presented with a number of other papers for discussion and possible future action. These included the filling degree for substances carried at and above 50˚C; clarification of the requirements for the application of standards in Chapter 6.2; the thickness of partitions and surge plates in 6.8.2.1.20; the inspection of tanks that have missed the timeframe for their scheduled inspection; and the use of pump/exhauster units for vacuum-operated waste tanks.

INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION The UK provided an update on the ongoing work of the intersessional informal working group on the inspection and certification of tanks (the ‘London group’), which had met in mid-December on a virtual platform under the

OTHER TANK ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED INCLUDED

THE USE OF FRP TANKS (TOP) AND THE PERIODIC

chairmanship of Steve Gillingham (UK). It was attended by representatives of 17 countries, EIGA and UIP.

Since the previous meeting, a survey had been circulated to all RID and ADR states, which delivered a clear result: in addition to inspection bodies being approved according to the ISO/IEC system of accreditation, inspection bodies should, as an alternative (and at the discretion of the competent authority under ADR) also be allowed to be approved on a temporary basis according to national provisions until the end of a transition period sufficient for those inspection bodies to be approved according to the ISO/IEC system.

The survey results also supported opposition to the use of Type C inspection bodies, or to limit their activities to certain well defined functions. Most who spoke on the topic did not consider Type C inspection bodies to be sufficiently independent of the parties involved.

Belgium, the Netherlands and UIP tabled a series of comments on the entry-into-service verification for tank-wagons in 6.8.1.5.5, which included the conclusions of discussions at the RID Committee of Experts’ standing working group. These were supportive of the idea, provided the verification would only be required on an occasional rather than on a systematic basis. This was agreed and 6.8.1.5.5 amended accordingly. Further amendments were made to ensure the use of an appropriate inspection body, and a footnote was added to make it clear that in the case of tank wagons the applicable requirements are satisfied if a vehicle authorisation is received from ERA.

Switzerland suggested the development of an explanatory document with a list of fundamental principles on the work on the inspection and certification of tanks, including a summary of the main changes and an overview of authorised activities. The Joint Meeting welcomed that initiative and invited submission of a first draft to the informal working group for consideration. It was agreed to resume discussion on the explanatory document during the autumn session.

Taking into account that some countries have still to take actions to develop and align their national systems with the future system of inspection bodies, the Joint Meeting endorsed in principle the transitional measures proposed by the UK, pending a final decision at the autumn session. Germany stressed the need to clarify the mutual recognition of inspection bodies during the transitional period.

The London Group was scheduled to meet again in early June to pursue outstanding items and to establish some formal proposals for discussion by the Joint Meeting at its autumn session.

STANDARDS As ever, there were plenty of amendments proposed to take account of new and revised standards published by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) and/or the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). The Working Group on Standards had met on 4 February to consider submissions from CEN and EIGA and its recommendations were passed on to the Joint Meeting, which adopted several amendments.

In the table in 6.2.4.1, under “for design and construction”: - For EN ISO 7866:2012 + AC:2014, “Until further notice” becomes “between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2024” - A new row is added immediately after, for

EN ISO 7866:2012 + A1:2020 - For EN 12245:2002, and EN 12245:2009 +

A1:2011, a new Note is added in column (2): [This standard shall not be used for gases classified as LPG]; and in column (5) the following text is inserted: [31 December 2023, for cylinders for LPG] - For EN ISO 11118:2015, “Until further notice” becomes “between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2024” - A new row is added immediately after, for

EN ISO 11118:2015 + A1:2020 - For EN 14427:2004 + A1:2005, column (2), a new Note is added: This standard shall not be used for cylinders without a liner, manufactured from two parts joined together and in column (5) “31 December 2023, for cylinders without a liner, manufactured from two parts joined together” is inserted.

In 6.2.5.4.2, at the end of the sentence “(see also EN 1975:1999 + A1:2003)” is replaced by “(see also EN ISO 7866:2012 + A1:2020)”.

There are also several updates in the list of standards in 6.8.4:

EN ISO 17640:2010 is updated to EN ISO 17640:2018

EN ISO 17638:2009 is updated to EN ISO 17638:2016

EN 1711:2000 is replaced by EN ISO 17643:2015

EN 14127:2011 is replaced by EN ISO 16809:2019

“EN ISO 23278:2009 – Magnetic particle testing of welds. Acceptance levels” is replaced by “EN ISO 23278:2015 – Non-destructive testing of welds – Magnetic particle testing. Acceptance levels”. This is reflected also in the paragraph following the table.

On a UK initiative, a new Note was added to 1.1.5:

A standard provides details on how to meet the provisions of RID/ADR/ADN and may include requirements in addition to those set out in RID/ADR/ADN.

The UK will submit a proposal for a similar text to be added in the UN Model Regulations.

EIGA also proposed some amendments so as to clarify the requirements for the protection of valves on gas cylinders, following up on changes already agreed at the previous session. In 4.1.6.8, paragraph (b), “or guards” is added after “protected by caps” and in paragraph (c) “or guards” is replaced by “or permanent protection attachments”.

In addition, there are a number of changes to the standards referenced in the Table 1 of 4.1.6.15, applicable to 4.1.6.8.

PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENT There were a number of pending issues that needed to be cleared up before discussion carried on to new proposals. Germany arrived with a revised proposal on the carriage of polymerising wastes; while for non-wastes it is relatively straightforward for the producer or shipper to determine the substance’s properties and the stabilisation or temperature control needed to safely move it, this is not the case for wastes, where the properties are highly variable and quite often

AS EVER, THERE WERE SEVERAL CHANGES TO THE

STANDARDS RELATING TO GAS CYLINDERS, AS WELL

AS SOME TEXTUAL CHANGES ON VALVE PROTECTION unknown. Germany had proposed to establish an appropriate legal basis for the transport of polymerising wastes by means of a new special provision.

This time the proposal was adopted, with some further modification and with the proviso that it does not obviate the consignor’s responsibilities to provide the data required for the transport document. The requirement is contained in a new special provision 676:

For the carriage of packages containing polymerizing substances the provisions of special provision 386 <(ADR:), in conjunction with 7.1.7.3, 7.1.7.4, 5.4.1.1.15 and 5.4.1.2.3.1,> need not be applied, when carried for disposal or recycling provided the following conditions are met: (a) before loading an examination has shown that there is no significant deviation between the outside temperature of the package and the ambient temperature; (b) the carriage is effected within a period of not more than 24 hours from that examination; (c) the packages are protected from direct sunlight and from the impact of other sources of heat (e.g. additional loads that are being carried above ambient temperature) during carriage;

(d) the ambient temperatures during the carriage are below 45 °C; (e) wagons/vehicles and containers are adequately ventilated; (f) the substances are packed in packages with a maximum capacity of 1000 litres.

In assessing the substances for carriage under the conditions of this special provision, additional measures to prevent dangerous polymerization may be considered, for example the addition of inhibitors.

Special provision 676 is assigned to all UN numbers to which special provision 386 is already assigned.

Spain proposed modifying the name and description of UN 2426 Ammonium nitrate, liquid (hot concentrated solution) to align with that used in the UN Model Regulations and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code. A note from Sweden indicated that it felt the harmonisation of the provisions was a job for the TDG Subcommittee and was concerned that, if RID/ ADR merely copied over the UN text it could alter the scope of the entry.

After some discussion, it was decided to accede to Spain’s proposals. This involves the deletion of the words “in a concentration of more than 80% but not more than 93%” from the proper shipping name of UN 2426, and the insertion of a new second indent in special provision 644, stating “The solution does not contain more than 93% ammonium nitrate”.

Spain was invited to take the matter to the TDG Sub-committee to look at the maximum temperature and water content of UN 2426 to clarify the need to include common requirements into the UN Model Regulations.

Another paper from Spain proposed revision of special provision 593, which is not fully aligned with the provisions of 5.5.3, making it difficult to apply. SP 593 is assigned to a number of refrigerated liquefied gases, including UN 1913 Neon, 1951 Argon, 1963 Helium, 1970 Krypton, 1977 Nitrogen, 2591 Xenon, 3136 Trifluoromethane and 3158 Gas, nos, when used for the purposes of cooling goods. The provision was introduced in 2001 as a way of carrying out the transport over short distances of small amounts of biological products such as specimens, samples and vaccines. In particular, it addressed the need to carry non-dangerous goods in veterinary applications.

However, there is nothing to state that SP 593 cannot be used in relation to dangerous goods, although in such cases there is a conflict with the packaging requirements in packing instruction P203(6). Spain felt that it should be made clear that SP 593 is only applicable to gases used for cooling non-dangerous goods; alternatively, it could be deleted altogether.

The Joint Meeting, as a compromise, agreed a revision of SP 593 to read:

This gas, when used for cooling goods not fulfilling the criteria of any class, e.g. medical or biological specimens, if contained in double wall receptacles which comply with the provisions of packing instruction P203, paragraph (6) for open cryogenic receptacles of 4.1.4.1 <(ADN:) of ADR>, is not subject to the requirements of RID/ADR/ADN except as specified in 5.5.3.

Meanwhile, Spain said it would take the matter to the TDG Sub-committee for further consideration.

Following up on comments made at the previous session, Switzerland came back with the desired solution to its problem of the placarding and labelling of engines and machinery (UN 3528 and 3530). Special provision 363, paragraph (j) provides instructions for the labelling and placarding of such articles with more than 60 litres of fuel but, as Switzerland pointed out, this suggests that once enough of that fuel has been used to take the contents below 60 litres, the labels and placards should be removed. This is an onerous task to be given to individuals who will not necessarily have had appropriate training.

A simple enough solution was proposed and adopted, in the form of a Note to SP 363(j):

THE VERY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN ADN HAVE

RAISED SOME CONFUSION OVER TERMINOLOGY AND

DEFINITIONS, WHICH NEEDED TO BE DEALT WITH

On engines and machinery with a capacity of more than 450 l but containing 60 l of liquid fuel or less, labelling and placarding compliant with the above requirements is permitted.

Returning to a topic it had introduced at the autumn 2019 session, Spain proposed to align the name and description for UN 1012 Butylene in RID/ADR with that in the UN Model Regulations. Spain had already had success with the TDG Sub-committee, which last year had adopted its proposal to insert a new special provision 398 to state that the entry applies to butylenes, its isomers and mixtures thereof (but not to UN 1055 isobutylene). Spain proposed changes to RID/ADR to copy that text. The Joint Meeting welcomed the proposals and agreed to consider the subject at the forthcoming session of the Ad hoc Working Group on the Harmonisation of RID/ADR/ADN with the UN Model Regulations, which was due to meet later in April (a report on which will be included in next month’s HCB).

Portugal followed up on its work to reorganise the definitions in 1.2.1 by removing all listed abbreviations and acronyms and placing them in a new 1.2.3. This was adopted by the Joint Meeting.

The secretariat advised the Joint Meeting of discussions by the ADN Safety Committee at its session in January 2021 on the subject of definitions. ADN has a particular problem with ‘CMR’, which is defined with reference to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road. However, in ADN terms, ‘CMR’ is used to indicate those substances that have long-term health effects in terms of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and reproductive toxicity. ADN suggest using that definition in 1.2.1 and placing references to the Convention as footnotes where relevant throughout the text.

The ADN Safety Committee also proposed the inclusion of definitions for ‘N1, N2, N3’ (those substances that, for carriage on tank vessels, are classified as hazardous to the aquatic environment), ‘Floater’ and ‘Sinker’.

The secretariat was asked to prepare a formal proposal on these definitions for discussion at the next session.

The second part of this two-part report on the spring Joint Meeting in next month’s HCB will cover new proposals for amendment, electronic freight documentation and other matters.