54
KEEP IN STEP MULTIMODAL • THE UN EXPERTS HAD PLENTY TO CHEW ON AT THEIR DECEMBER 2019 SESSION, INCLUDING SEVERAL ISSUES RELATING TO MULTIMODAL HARMONISATION THE UN SUB-COMMITTEE of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) held its 56th session this past 4 to 10 December with Duane Pfund (US) as chair and Claude Pfauvadel (France) sitting as vice-chair. The session was attended by experts from 18 countries and representatives from the EU, the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and 20 non-governmental organisations. The session was the second of four planned
for the current regulatory biennium, which will result in the adoption this coming December by the parent Committee of the changes that will appear in the 22nd revised edition of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (alternatively known as the UN Model Regulations or the ‘Orange Book’). The first part of this three-part report on the December meeting (HCB April 2020, page 50) covered discussions on the transport of explosives, classification and packaging, and electric storage systems. The second part (HCB May 2020, page 57) focused on some significant changes involving the
transport of gases. This final part looks at the other proposals for amendment and discussions surrounding harmonisation with other regulations. HAZARD COMMUNICATION The Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA) recalled how the Sub-committee had agreed in 2004 that there was a need to differentiate the hazard communication for oxidisers and organic peroxides and had adopted the new red/yellow label and placard for Division 5.2 organic peroxides. COSTHA felt that, given this obvious distinction from the all-yellow label and placard for Division 5.1 oxidising substances, indicating the division number in the lower portion is superfluous and that this should be changed to show just the class number. The Sub-committee failed to see any safety benefits in the idea, although it acknowledged the rationale behind the proposal. On balance, it was not supported. Spain and the International Association of Fire and Rescue Services (CTIF) followed up on their joint proposal at the previous session to improve hazard communication in the transport of gases. Their point was that, while the inclusion of the gas cylinder image within the Division 2.2 label clearly identifies the hazard, the same is not true of the labels for Divisions 2.1 and 2.3, which are, at least from a distance, hard to distinguish from those for Classes 3 and 6, respectively. The original proposal had sought to include the gas bottle symbol in the lower half of labels 2.1 and 2.3. That proposal was not dismissed but it did generate no little discussion. It had been decided to set up a correspondence group to continue the work, which in the interim had provided a forum for an exchange of views. It had recognised the safety benefits but had also identified some serious difficulties in implementation, not least that there are around 2 billion cylinders in use around the world, already labelled. Indeed, an informal document from the World LPG Association (WPLGA) and Liquid Gas Europe (LGE) pointed out that it was far from clear whether the change would correct erroneous responses on the part of the emergency services since,
HCB MONTHLY | JUNE 2020
