UN experts get back to work

A SLOW BURN

MULTIMODAL • THE 2021/22 REGULATORY BIENNIUM HAS STARTED SLOWLY, WITH DISCUSSIONS IN GENEVA HAMPERED BY COVID RESTRICTIONS AND COST PRESSURES

ORGANISATIONS AROUND the world continue to struggle to do their jobs while observing hygiene controls. That goes for the regulatory authorities just as much as for commercial corporations. For those working at the UN’s Palais des Nations in Geneva, things are even worse: the UN’s own liquidity crisis, together with renovation work going on under the strategic heritage plan have cut down the time available. Furthermore, the desire to meet in a hybrid format, to allow the participation of those delegates unable or unwilling to make the trip to Switzerland, is also making it hard to find suitable facilities at the venue.

THE PALAIS DES NATIONS HAS BEEN A QUIET PLACE

To make decisions on international provisions, including the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (or ‘Model Regulations’), it is also necessary to have full, live interpretation available. But Covid restrictions have impacted interpreters too and, at its first session of the new biennium, the UN Sub-committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) was only able to hold one day with interpretation.

Duane Pfund, international program coordinator at the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and chair of the Sub-committee, explained during the Labelmaster DG Symposium this past September that the hybrid format places other restrictions on the work of the Subcommittee. A lot of progress is made not during plenary sessions but on the side, over coffee or in break-out working groups. Those interactions are simply not possible at a hybrid meeting and Pfund said he would like to get back to in-person meetings as soon as possible, acknowledging that it is unlikely to happen this year.

Bearing all this in mind, the 58th session of the TDG Sub-committee was restricted to five days, though a number of decisions were taken, mostly topics that had been held over from the previous sessions. Meanwhile, as Pfund highlighted in his presentation during the DG Symposium, the experts are making progress on a broad-based project to improve the usefulness and recognition of the Model Regulations.

BACK TO BASICS One element of this is making it clear what the regulators want from the regulated community. While a lot of effort goes into making the rules as clear as possible, the intent is not always obvious. Pfund envisages some sort of ‘unified interpretation’, akin to those provided by PHMSA in the US, to explain what changes to the regulations are designed to achieve.

Alongside that effort, the Sub-committee wants to know how countries around the world are applying the Model Regulations;

Pfund sees a need for a central point of information where all implementation information can be brought together. That will sit alongside an effort to improve the provision of safety training and capacity building: Pfund sees opportunities to help shippers and competent authorities, especially in countries where resources are lacking or in short supply, and says he is happy to take input and suggestions.

The 58th session of the UN TDG Subcommittee opened on 28 June with Pfund in the chair and Claude Pfauvadel (France) as vice-chair. It was attended by delegations from 23 states, observers from Latvia, Luxembourg, Moldava and Turkey, and representatives from the EU, the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and 29 non-governmental organisations.

Before getting on with its work, the Sub-committee heard from the secretariat that the UN Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc) had adopted the resolution prepared by the parent Committee of Experts on TDG and the Globally Harmonised System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals at its December 2020 session; that resolution included the amendments agreed that appear in the 22nd revised edition of the Model Regulations, the English-language version of which had already been published. It was expected that the seventh revised edition of the Manual of Tests and Criteria would be published before the end of 2021.

The 22nd revised edition of the Model Regulations will inform the modal, international, regional and national regulations on the transport of dangerous goods that will start to take effect in 2023. The TDG Subcommittee is now beginning work on the 23rd revised edition, due for publication in 2023 with its provisions being adopted through the modal and other regulations from 2025. The Sub-committee is due to meet twice in 2021 and twice in 2022, with the Committee scheduled to adopt the agreed changes in December 2022.

In normal times, the first of the four sessions of the biennium generally makes few decisions, other than to clean up some issues left over from the previous biennium. That was certainly the case this year, though close reading points the way to some bigger decisions to come.

START WITH A BANG As is the normal pattern, all those papers and proposals relating to explosives were remitted to the Working Group on Explosives, once more chaired by Ed de Jong (Netherlands), for consideration. In light of Covid-related travel restrictions, the Working Group met by web conference prior to the Sub-committee’s session, with the participation of experts from 14 countries and several non-governmental organisations.

The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) reported on previous discussions concerning the 6(d) test, which is designed to identify hazardous effects outside of the package resulting from an accidental initiation. It is widely felt that the current criteria may identify all effects, rather than just hazardous effects and clear guidance is needed. There was an exchange of views within the Working Group, which raised a number of points and were often at odds. The Sub-committee noted those comments and SAAMI invited feedback, prior to the development of a formal proposal for the improvement of the 6(d) test for the next session.

SAAMI is also involved, alongside the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and the Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA), in an attempt to find a way to exempt very low-hazard energetic articles – including, for example, safety devices – from assignment to Class 1. The Working Group has shown itself sympathetic to this argument, although it is hard to find a way for such articles to remain within the scope of the Model Regulations if they are not assigned to Class 1.

The Working Group supported continuation of the exercise, though opinions were divided on possible solutions. SAAMI volunteered to develop further data prior to the next Working Group meeting, which drew support from the Sub-committee.

China had identified what it saw as errors in the thermal flux calculation in the 6(c) test. These were rectified.

Moving on to test series 8, IME proposed waiving the 8(d) vented pipe tests when ammonium nitrate emulsions of UN 3375 have been classified using the 8(e) Clanmet CERL minimum bursting pressure test, following modelling work and full-scale testing. There was support for work on the 8(d) test but not all favoured IME’s proposal, not least as other modelling had generated different results. The Working Group will continue to look into the topic.

The UK sought clarification of special packing provision PP70 under packing instruction P137, feeling that more clarity was needed on the use of package orientation marks. Not all were convinced, noting that competent authorities will often include notes on this in explosives approval documents. In the UK, however, the packaging competent

AIR BAG INFLATORS AND OTHER SAFETY DEVICES

DO NOT REALLY BELONG IN CLASS 1 authority is not the same as the competent authority for classifying explosives and it would be useful to have more specific requirements.

The UK presented a lengthy proposed amendment and, while there was eventually agreement that some change was needed, a simpler solution was sought. The US offered text to add to the end of PP70, but it was decided that more work was needed and discussion will resume at the next meeting of the Working Group.

Sweden reported that the review of the definition of explosives and of Class 1 and the development of proposals to address any issues identified had recommenced now that the new Chapter 2.1 in GHS has been completed. Much of the Working Group was of the opinion that 2.1.1.1 would benefit from clarification, correction or amendment, although others cautioned that, since the current definition is used in various regulations, any amendment will impact those as well. That includes GHS Chapter 2.1. The Sub-committee endorsed this position and asked the Sweden-led correspondence group to continue its work.

The UK reported that it is experiencing an increase in approval applications for new and novel firework compositions, which do not necessary mirror the energetic performance in more traditional compositions and are perhaps not suitable for classification according to the default table in 2.1.3.5.5. In an informal document it sought input from other countries that may be experiencing similar issues. A number of delegations did so, raising some specific concerns. It was felt that work should continue and interested parties were invited to contact the UK expert.

The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) asked for guidance on toxicity testing in desensitised explosives, as test institutes often lack the appropriate equipment or permits to handle explosives. Cefic’s request came late in the day and the Working Group had not had time to examine it closely, but comments were invited inter-sessionally, to be sent directly to Cefic.

IME reported that, despite not being fully implemented worldwide, the new entries for electronic detonators (UN 0511, 0512 and

0513) are being required now by some competent authorities. Inconsistent implementation of the new entries causes issues related to existing stocks and transport into countries that have not yet implemented the new entries.

The Sub-Committee decided to extend the transitional period of electronic detonators to 30 June 2025, detailed in the new special provision 399, which permits the continued use of the entries for electric detonators (UN 0030, 0255 and 0456). It was recommended that the new entries for electronic detonators should be implemented as soon as practical into the relevant regulations.

LISTING AND CLASSIFICATION Canada had spotted an issue in the precedence of classes, as set out in 2.0.3, as well as a difference between the English and French versions. In particular, when a substance that meets criteria for both Class 8 and Division 6.1, there are inconsistencies in determining which takes precedence, partly due to the different packing group category of the toxic element depending on whether it relates to oral toxicity or dermal toxicity and whether the Note to 2.6.2.2.4.1 or 2.8.2.4 is used. For the English version, Canada proposed changes to footnote 3 of 2.0.3.1 and to 2.8.2.4.

Several delegations suggested that it might be convenient to harmonise the text across all three paragraphs and also for the other language versions of the Model Regulations to be checked to avoid differing interpretations. Canada offered to prepare a revised proposal for the next session.

Germany proposed the addition of four new entries for chlorophenols, which are currently assigned to Class 8 and to UN 2020 (solid) and 2021 (liquid). The EU’s Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation has identified a dermal corrosivity hazard, on the basis of GHS criteria, indicating a Division 6.1 subsidiary hazard that is not reflected in the current entries.

While there was some support for the proposal, questions were raised regarding the proper shipping name for the proposed new entries, which of the isomers of chlorophenol should be assigned to them, and the need for

further evidence. Germany offered to return with supplementary data and a revised proposal at the next session.

The UK returned to a topic aired at the previous session, namely the amendment of special provision 396 in relation to transformers shipped as UN 3538. The UK now dropped its plan for amendment of SP 396, having noticed that 2.2.2.3 already specifies that gases of Division 2.2 are not subject to the regulations if they are transported at a pressure of less than 200 kPa at 20˚C and are not liquefied or refrigerated liquefied gases. Its new solution was to add another special provision to clarify that articles shipped under UN 3538 are not subject to the regulations if they meet the conditions of 2.2.2.3; this aims to ensure that articles containing gases may follow the same exemption if they meet the same conditions.

Those experts who expressed an opinion generally felt that there was no need to spell this out, since it is already clear that articles containing gases that meet the conditions described in 2.2.2.3, including gas cylinders, are not subject to the regulations. Switzerland suggested this might be a candidate for listing on the UN ECE website under interpretations.

China had noticed that the UN Model Regulations require that animal testing for acute dermal toxicity must be carried out on albino rabbits, according to 2.6.2.1.2. However, GHS allows both rats or rabbits and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) test guideline 402 specifies rats. In order to promote uniformity of classification, China proposed adding “or rats” in 2.6.2.1.2 of the Model Regulations. Some experts feared this might lead to increased animal testing or potentially far-reaching reclassifications. China invited further comments and may come back with a revised proposal at the next session.

Another proposal from China sought the expansion of special provision 366 to make it applicable to gallium contained in manufactured articles and, potentially, a new entry. It noted that increasing restrictions on mercury have led to the use of gallium as an alternative in various applications and that such articles are increasingly being transported.

Most experts were in favour of a new UN entry, along with a special provision and a special packing provision in P003, though others were not convinced. China will take account of those comments in a revised proposal for the next session.

China also queried the value of having a packing group assigned to UN 2807 Magnetised material, noting that many magnetised materials do not use UN packaging during transport or, indeed, any packaging at all. Furthermore, ICAO’s Technical Instructions do not include a packing group assignment. The Subcommittee agreed and deleted “III” from column (5) against UN 2807.

Following its success in aligning RID/ADR with the UN Model Regulations in relation to UN 2426 Ammonium nitrate (hot concentrated solution), Spain had reviewed the transport conditions specified in the UN Model Regulations, RID/ADR and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code (it being forbidden for air transport). It noted that SP 252 in the Model Regulations indicates when the material does not meet the criteria to be covered by the regulations but, even in such cases, it does not specify required transport conditions or restrictions. Spain sought an exchange of views on whether some of the transport conditions found in RID/ADR or the IMDG Code should be carried over into the Model Regulations.

The Working Group on Explosives had no opposition to the proposed amendments, but there were suggestions for editorial amendments form some experts. Spain said it would return with an updated proposal for the next session, giving time for delegations to check the possible impacts of its suggested changes.

Partly in relation to earlier discussions by the Working Group on Explosives on the criteria for the exemption of very low-hazard pyrotechnic devices, COSTHA presented a very detailed document on fire suppression devices; several innovative devices are now on

SOME COMPETENT AUTHORITIES SEEM TO HAVE

the market, using an electric match initiator to heat a pyrotechnic material and creating a fire suppression aerosol cloud that is extremely effective in disrupting fires involving lithium batteries. Some competent authorities recognise these as UN 3268 Safety devices, Class 9, but there is no clear indication in the Model Regulations as to their classification.

The Sub-committee welcomed COSTHA’s document. Many experts pointed out that UN 3268 was designed to apply to safety devices for vehicles (such as air bag inflators) and that this was not the right classification for fire suppression systems. The Working Group on Explosives will continue its discussions at its next meeting and, in the absence of a detailed proposal for amendment, the Sub-committee said it would return to the subject at its next session.

Spain reported that it was encountering an increasing number of occasions on which packing instruction P650 is being improperly applied, largely during the transport of UN 3373 Biological substance, Category B in the area of Covid-19 testing samples. It has found many examples in which the package contains components that have not been correctly tested and wanted to hear if other countries were having similar issues. It also offered an amendment to the pressure requirement for secondary packagings in P650.

A few other delegations reported issues but it was also noted that there are problems in assessing the capability of the primary and secondary packagings. Without mandatory testing, perhaps the Model Regulations could provide some guidelines similar to those contained in a Note to P650 in the ICAO Technical Instructions. Spain offered to follow up on the matter at the next session.

China sought clarification of the generic concentration limits used in the calculation method for Class 8 corrosive mixtures in Figure 2.8.4.3. Specifically, it found Example 2 in 2.8.4.3.5 to be confusing. Germany and Belgium confirmed that the calculation method and the formula used are correct, though it was acknowledged that the provisions are hard to understand. China will follow up with those experts who commented and may return with a revised document at a future session.

Cefic reported that RID/ADR/ADN have now harmonised with the description of butadienes and hydrocarbon mixtures (UN 1010) in the Model Regulations; however, this change will have substantial implications for the chemical industry in Europe as the description no

longer matches the characteristics of butadienes and hydrocarbon mixtures placed on the market. Cefic offered an amendment, to change the cut-off limit of butadiene content from 40 per cent to 20 per cent.

There was strong support for Cefic’s position but, on the basis of explanatory information provide on vapour pressures, Spain preferred the solution of inserting a new special provision, which was agreed. The text reads:

Substances transported under this entry shall have a vapour pressure at 70 °C not exceeding 1.1 MPa (11 bar) and a density at 50 °C not lower than 0.525 kg/l.

This has been left in square brackets pending final approval. Meanwhile, the Netherlands has initiated a multilateral agreement under RID/ADR/ADN to allow the transport of butadienes according to the adopted text; Cefic invited all contracting parties/states to sign the agreement.

ELECTRIC STORAGE SYSTEMS The adoption of the UN 3536 entry for lithium batteries installed in cargo transport units has continued to cause confusion. Germany felt that using the term ‘cargo transport units’ is to blame, since – according to 1.2.1 in both the Model Regulations and IMDG Code – that can be “a road transport tank or freight vehicle, a railway transport tank or freight wagon, a multimodal freight container or portable tank, or an MEGC”, whereas the intent was to cover freight containers used as portable power storage units. The term also implies compliance with the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC).

There was a difference of opinion, though all experts seemed to recognise that this is an issue. Some said there is a need to clarify the definitions of ‘cargo transport unit’ and ‘freight container’, while others thought the problem could be resolved through a new special provision. Similarly, the question as to whether a container serving in effect as a battery casing should be CSC-approved could also be addressed via a special provision, with most experts of the opinion that such approval is not necessary. Germany volunteered to take account of the comments made and come up with a revised proposal at the next session.

Switzerland wondered if it would be worthwhile to add UN 3536 to the first sentence of 2.9.4. At present, special provision 389, which is assigned to UN 3536, requires that the batteries installed in the cargo transport unit “shall meet the requirements of 2.9.4(a) to (g)…”. Switzerland suspected that the absence of a reference to the introductory paragraph of 2.9.4 was a result of it not being obvious to the authors of the original proposal that the concept of cargo transport unit could be assimilated to that of batteries and cells, and it was therefore inconceivable that objects that are generally containers and objects that are batteries and cells should be included in the same level in the first sentence of 2.9.4.

Switzerland felt that, now the experts have got used to the concept, cells and batteries installed in cargo transport units should be treated in the same way as cells and batteries contained in/packed with equipment. Some experts were of the opinion that the provisions of 2.9.4 apply to the cells and batteries only and that the proposed extension of the scope should be deferred to a later time, once the discussion on the definition of cargo transport units is concluded, though the Sub-committee did note that the proposal had merit. Discussion will resume at a future session.

The Advanced Rechargeable & Lithium Batteries Association (Recharge) and the Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA) proposed amending the energy storage limits specified in special provision 188, stating that

advances in technology since the provision was first drawn up means that larger cells and batteries should be allowed to take advantage of the relief offered to “small batteries” by virtue of SP 188. In addition, cells and batteries used in some mobile phones and power tools exceed the limits in SP 188, causing problems in shipment.

The Sub-committee could not accede to this request, noting that technical progress of lithium-ion cells and the increase in energy density does not serve as evidence for safer transport. Recharge offered to prepare a revised proposal, with detailed justification, for the next session.

Recharge and PRBA fared no better with their proposal to revise 38.3.3 g) in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, again on the basis of technical progress and also on the grounds that this sub-paragraph has already been amended to account for those large battery parts that can be transported without overcharge protection. The proposal aimed to apply the same approach to short-circuit protection. The Sub-committee felt the two aspects could not be compared directly. Again, Recharge will update the proposal for the next session.

PRBA also came with a proposal to amend LP 903 to allow multiple lithium cells and batteries and multiple items of equipment containing lithium batteries to be transported in a single large packaging. This had been raised at the previous session, where it was not adopted after concerns were expressed by some experts. PRBA noted that the Sub-committee, at its last session, had amended LP 906 and P911 to authorise their application to more than one battery, with the provison that “the maximum number of batteries and items of equipment, the total maximum energy content of the batteries, and the configuration inside the package, including separations and protections of the parts, shall be considered”. PRBA felt that LP 903 should be treated in the same way.

Many experts expressed general support for the intent of the proposal but agreed that further work is necessary to clarify the responsibilities and the testing provisions for such large packagings. Others expressed concerns over the use of LP provisions to transport many batteries in a manner inconsistent with the general use of large packagings. PRBA suggested further developing the proposal and coming up with a new document for the next session. The second part of this two-part report on the UN TDG Sub-committee’s summer 2021 session in next month’s HCB will cover proposals on the transport of gases, portable tanks, packagings, global harmonisation and other miscellaneous proposals.

ADVERT