UN experts clean up proposals

LEFTOVER DISHES

MULTIMODAL • THE FIRST SESSION OF THE UN TDG SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE NEW BIENNIUM FEATURED A LOT OF WORK TO WRAP UP OUTSTANDING ITEMS FROM 2020

THE 58TH SESSION of the UN Sub-committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) opened on 28 June for one week with Duane Pfund (US) in the chair and Claude Pfauvadel (France) as vice-chair. It was attended by delegations from 23 states, observers from Latvia, Luxembourg, Moldova 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

THE NEW BREED OF FRP PORTABLE TANKS IS Organisation (WHO) and 29 non-governmental organisations.

As explained in the first part of this report on the meeting (HCB November 2021, page 56), the Sub-committee’s work was hampered by Covid restrictions, budgetary constraints, ongoing reconstruction of the UN’s offices in the Palais des Nations in Geneva, and difficulties in accessing live interpretation. Nevertheless, in this first of four sessions planned for the 2021/22 biennium, the experts did manage to get some work done on the amendments that will appear in the 23rd revised edition of the UN Model Regulations, which is due to be published in 2023 and will inform the amendments that are made to the modal, regional and national regulations that will appear from 2025.

That first part of the report covered discussions by the Working Group on Explosives and matters relating to listing, packaging, classification and electric storage systems. This second and final part covers the remaining discussions, which ranged widely across several topics.

TRANSPORT OF GASES The Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA) returned to a topic that had been discussed during the previous biennium, namely a proposal to increase the limited quantity (LQ) limit for certain Division 2.2 gases. COSTHA and the European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) had proposed that the UN Model Regulations adopt provisions consistent with special provision 653 of ADR, a proposal that received a mixed reception.

COSTHA now returned with a revised proposal to increase the LQ limit for all Division 2.2 gases that do not have subsidiary hazards from 120 ml to 1 litre. COSTHA was agnostic about changing the limit for refrigerated liquids and it did not include Division 2.2 articles, since these are subject to specific special provisions.

There was general support for the idea, though there were still concerns. The

proposal, for instance, did not address pressure limits and it might also be necessary to retain requirements for the construction and testing of cylinders up to this new limit, which would require consequential amendments in Chapter 3.4. The Subcommittee agreed that the proposal needed further review and additional supporting data. COSTHA will submit a revised document for consideration at a forthcoming session.

EIGA was successful in its proposal to amend 4.1.6.1.8 to align its provisions with those of the ISO 11117 standard for valve protection caps and valve guards for transportable gas cylinders. This standard explicitly excludes those protection devices that are an integral part of the shell, which is not reflected in the UN Model Regulations. The Sub-committee agreed that this made sense, clarifying the terminology used in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of 4.1.6.1.8 and revising the paragraph after the indents to read:

For pressure receptacles with valves as described in (b) the requirements of ISO 11117:1998, ISO 11117:2008 + Cor 1:2009 or ISO 11117:2019 shall be met. Requirements for shrouds and permanent protection attachments used as valve protection under (c), are given in the relevant pressure receptacle shell design standards, see 6.2.2.1. Valves with inherent protection used for refillable pressure receptacles shall meet the requirements of clause 4.6.2 of ISO 10297:2006 or clause 5.5.2 of ISO 10297:2014 or clause 5.5.2 of ISO 10297:2014 + A1:2017, or in case of self-closing valves, of clause 5.4.2 of ISO 17879:2017. For valves with inherent protection used for non-refillable cylinders, the requirements of clause 9.2.5 of ISO 11118:2015 or of clause 9.2.5 of ISO 11118:2015 + A1:2019 shall be met.

On the topic of standards, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) arrived with a list of revised standards that are referenced in the Model Regulations. The Sub-committee agreed to update those references, involving: ISO 11114-1, now in a 2020 edition; ISO 16148, which has an additional Amd.1:2020; ISO 13088, which again has a new Amd.1:2020; and ISO 11118, which is referenced in special packing provision PP89 under P206, and now reads: “clause 1 of ISO 11118:2015 + Amd 1:2019”.

Germany reported on the work of the intersessional working group on the pVproduct limit for pressure receptacles. The group has been attempting to establish a permissible limit for injuries to people and damage to buildings as a result of a catastrophic failure of a pressure vessel and to determine how to define limits of pressure and/or volume in pressure receptacles. A very lengthy and highly detailed informal document explained how the working group was addressing the issue and the Sub-committee encouraged the group to continue.

PACKAGING PROPOSALS Germany followed up on its proposal at the previous session to amend the criteria for passing the top lift test for wooden large packagings and fibreboard large packagings, in view of the comments that were made. Currently the criteria given in 6.6.5.3.2.4 apply only to metal, rigid plastics and flexible large packagings and it was generally agreed that this should be extended. Germany’s solution was simple and was agreed: at the start of 6.6.5.3.2.4(a), “Metal and rigid plastics” is replaced by “All types of large packagings other than flexible”.

Belgium similarly followed up on the previous session and its proposal to clarify the text relating to the non-combustibility testing of packages intended to transport defective lithium cells and batteries (P908, LP904) or prototype/limited production cells and batteries (P910, LP905). Some experts considered that the provision means that the packaging as a whole needs to be assessed, whereas the correct interpretation limits the non-combustibility test to the thermal insulation and cushioning material. Belgium had worked up a revised proposal taking those comments into account, while also noting that it should be specified that the country that certifies the packaging is a country that can recognise standards for testing noncombustibility.

There was some reluctance to adopt this latter point, though it was felt it would be worth pursuing. The Sub-committee also declined to include reference to ISO 1182 as a standard for assessing non-combustibility. However, it was agreed to clarify the text in the

packing instructions mentioned and, as a result, “Non-combustibility” is replaced by “The non-combustibility of the thermal insulation material and the cushioning material” in P908(5), P910(1)(e), LP904(5) and LP905(1)(e); in P910(2)(d) and LP905(2)(d), the new text reads “The non-combustibility of the cushioning material”.

Spain noted that ISO 535:1991, which deals with the use of the Cobb method for determining the water absorptiveness of paper and board, has been updated. It felt that should be reflected in the Model Regulations and the Sub-committee agreed, changing the reference to ISO 535:2014 in 6.1.4.12.1, 6.5.5.4.16, 6.5.5.5.3 and 6.6.4.4.1.

Belgium invited the Sub-committee to consider the role of recycled plastics material in transport packagings and the way that such material is addressed in the Model Regulations. In an informal document it posed some questions, such as:

ISSUES AROUND DIVISION 2.2 GASES AND PRESSURE

RECEPTACLES FEATURED ONCE AGAIN ON THE AGENDA

Can the concept of ‘suitable plastics material’, which is taken to exclude recycled plastics, be more tightly defined?

Depending on that definition, is it necessary then to revise what is understood as ‘recycled plastics material’?

Is a performance-based approach, using prototype testing, sufficient, or should criteria be included for the source material?

Should all types of plastics packaging be considered equal when it comes to the use of recycled plastics material or should only certain types or uses of packaging be allowed to use it?

Should packagings manufactured from recycled plastics material be marked to distinguish them from packagings made from virgin material?

Is this even a matter for the UN Model Regulations or should it be left to competent authorities to decide?

The Belgian paper drew a range of responses and its expert also noted that there is not yet enough data on the experience with recycled plastics material and that the trust in quality assurance management of manufacturers is not sufficient to ensure safe transport of dangerous goods. He volunteered to organise, if deemed appropriate, an intersessional meeting to further discuss this subject. The Sub-committee agreed this was a useful way forward and encouraged all delegates to share their comments with Belgium.

PORTABLE TANKS Another topic to make a reappearance was the interpretation of the need for an internal examination of portable tanks as part of the intermediate periodic inspection. Germany had gathered the comments made at the previous session and arrived with a formal proposal to clarify the conditions under which the requirement may be waived. This was also met with a division of opinion, as it was felt the proposed text did not clear up the potential for different interpretations. Germany agreed to revise its proposal for further discussion at the next session.

The International Dangerous Goods and Containers Association (IDGCA) sought some changes in Chapter 6.7, specifically regarding

the testing of portable tanks. This currently points to ISO 1496-3:1995 but, IDGCA argued, this applies only to tank containers, which are just one type of portable tank, and this could be misleading. It offered two proposals but again the Sub-committee wanted more clarity on the implications. IDGCA will prepare a more detailed proposal for the next session.

There were three separate papers addressing the emerging issue of portable tanks with shells manufactured from fibre-reinforced plastics (FRP). Russia felt that the current position, following the adoption of the new Chapter 9 on FRP tanks, does not fully address the issue of the valves, relief devices and manholes on such tanks; these are currently manufactured of metallic materials but, in its experience, Russia has found that these devices have a shorter life than the tanks themselves, especially when handling corrosive substances. It argued that using FRP materials in the construction of such service equipment would lead to a longer service life and a reduction in the costs of repair and replacement.

Russia has had some experience in the matter and has found that FRP equipment functions well; it invited discussion on the development of a new 6.9.3 that would lay out requirements for the design, construction and testing of such equipment, perhaps through a new informal working group, bearing in mind that the existing working group on FRP tanks has concluded its work under its current mandate. The Sub-committee accepted Russia’s offer to lead the new informal working group on FRP service equipment for portable tanks and the terms of reference that Russia had drawn up.

The UK expressed concern that the newly adopted provisions for FRP tanks in Chapter 6.9 do not require the resilience of such tanks to accidental and in-service damage to be equivalent to (or better than) that of conventional metallic tanks. It invited comments, with the intention of developing proposals for amendment, if necessary.

The International Tank Container Organisation (ITCO) also noted that Chapter 6.9 lacks any requirement to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety for the shell material

when compared to the resilience required for metallic shells in Chapter 6.7. In a very detailed paper, it described how impact resilience in FRP materials can be measured and proposed new text for 6.9.2.4.2 on the minimum thickness of the FRP shell.

Some experts were of the opinion that the “minimum equivalent thickness” needs to be further discussed and that the referenced test method according to standard EN 13095 is inappropriate. The Sub-committee welcomed the offer by ITCO to prepare, together with interested parties, an updated proposal for the next session.

Meanwhile, Steve Webb (US), chair of the informal working group on FRP tanks, provided some feedback on the June meeting of that group, where it had discussed the issues raise in the UK’s paper. It noted that both the RID/ADR/ADN Joint Meeting and the IMO’s Sub-committee on Carriage of Cargoes and Containers (CCC) were in the process of considering the inclusion of the amendments on FRP tanks in the 22nd revised edition of the UN Model Regulations and that, therefore, it is vital that they have the most correct text available. Some of the UK’s comments, the working group believed, should be adopted in a corrigendum to the 22nd revised edition of the UN Model Regulations; the Subcommittee concurred and adopted the amendments, which are mostly editorial in nature and clarify the intent of the provisions.

MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS The UK proposed adding a Note to 1.1.1.7 to clarify the position regarding the use and interpretation of standards referenced in the Model Regulations. It had already done the same at the RID/ADR/ADN Joint Meeting (where the requirement is found in 1.1.5), after its proposal to replace the word ‘conflict’ with ‘contradict’ was turned down. The Sub-committee agreed that some clarification was useful and added a new Note to the end of 1.1.1.7:

A standard provides details on how to meet the provisions of these Regulations and may include requirements in addition to those set out in these Regulations.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) was concerned that the recently adopted provisions for articles containing dangerous goods, nos, allow for the inclusion of lithium batteries that are integral to the article’s shell but also provide for lithium cells or batteries that are pre-production prototypes or small production run units to be excluded. IATA felt this was erroneous, since the intent of special provision 310, which refers to such cells and batteries, is to cover their transport for the purposes of testing. It proposed a revision to 2.0.5.2 to remove them from scope.

Most experts supported the intent of IATA’s proposal but not the solution offered, noting that further clarification on the precedence of classification and test requirements was needed. IATA will present a revised proposal at the next session.

COSTHA arrived with a problem relating to the mixed loading of vehicles in 7.5.2.3 of ADR. It felt that the provisions are contradictory and, on investigation, found that this paragraph conflates two separate provisions from ADR prior to its restructuring in 2001, one relating only to Class 1 articles and the other to all other classes. The Working Group on Explosives had put itself on the case and was planning to further clarify the position. COSTHA said it would prepare a revised proposal once the Working Group has provided guidance.

The Secretariat presented a paper that collated some suggestions for editorial amendments made by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Harmonisation of RID/ADR/ADN with the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. These were mostly adopted by the Sub-committee and will appear as part of a corrigendum to the 22nd revised edition of the Model Regulations.

IDGCA had been alerted, following the adoption of Chapter 6.9, to the need to address what the Model Regulations mean when they talk about “quality”, arguing that terms such as “quality system”, “quality assurance system”, “quality assurance programme” and “quality management system” have different

IT WILL BE CLARIFIED THAT ROLLING HOOPS ON

interpretations and understanding in different chapters. It proposed the establishment of an informal working group to analyse the requirements for quality systems in the Model Regulations and develop a unified understanding of the requirements.

Most of the experts who spoke felt that there is currently no need to set up an informal working group on quality. The Sub-committee confirmed that the requirements on quality assurance shall be considered as mandatory. It was emphasised that this is crucial for the adoption of the provisions of the new Chapter 6.9 and also those of Chapter 6.2.

Canada sought some clarification of the requirements for rolling hoops on steel drums and, in particular, 6.1.4.1.4, which says that drums with a capacity greater than 60 litres “shall, in general, have a least two expanded rolling hoops”. The use of “shall” implies that this is a mandatory requirement, which seems to be inconsistent with the objective of the performance-based packaging regime; in addition, what is meant by “in general”? Canada noted that similar clarification is needed in 6.1.4.2.3 and 6.1.4.3.3 for other metal drums.

The International Confederation of Drum Manufacturers (ICDM) welcomed Canada’s informal document and took the opportunity to review national requirements in Canada and the US, as compared to the UN text. It offered a solution that aligned more closely with the provisions in the US Hazardous Materials Regulations, by replacing “shall, in general, have” by “may have”.

The Sub-committee’s general opinion was that the purpose of rolling hoops is to facilitate handling rather than to improve safety and recalled that there was no intention of making their use mandatory. Canada and ICDM will present a joint paper for the next session.

EXTERNAL RELATIONS AND INTERPRETATION IMO provided the report on the 34th session of the Editorial & Technical Group working on the next round of amendments to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, which will include those necessary to align with the 22nd revised edition of the UN Model Regulations. The only point of action for the Sub-committee was to consider replacing “and” by “or” in 6.4.24.4 of the IMDG Code, which had been discussed previously in relation to radioactive designs. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

was invited to confirm the proposed change.

The Responsible Packaging Management Association of Southern Africa (RPMASA) and the International Confederation of Plastic Packaging Manufacturers (ICPP) proposed adding explanatory wording to the Guiding Principles to take account of the new entry for UN 3550 Cobalt dihydroxide powder. Some experts did support the intent of the idea but felt that more work was needed. Interested parties were invited to send comments to RPMASA.

RPMASA also sought the inclusion of a definition for ‘toxic’, noting that it is often misconstrued as meaning ‘fatal’. Its paper noted a number of different definitions from other sources. The Sub-committee felt that toxic endpoints are clearly defined in the classification criteria and no further explanation is necessary; if the word is not well understood, particularly in developing nations, then more training and capacity building could help.

Another informal document from RPMASA provided details on the implementation of dangerous goods regulations in South Africa, following discussions at the previous session when it was felt that it would be useful to have a consolidated database of regulations in effect. The Sub-committee welcomed the information provided.

The US presented a discussion paper on the possible merits of providing a system for giving unified interpretations of provisions contained in the UN Model Regulations, along the lines of those offered by ADR, the IMDG Code and the US Hazardous Materials Regulations. After an informal lunchtime discussion, the Sub-committee felt there was general support for the idea and that discussion should continue at the next session.

There was also discussion of the work done to investigate and follow up on lessons learned from the catastrophic ammonium nitrate explosion in the port of Beirut in August 2020. RPMASA reported that the South African Department of Transport had established a task force along with a wide range of authorities and industry groups, which had delivered a set of key outcomes and will continue to work with a wider remit to encompass all classes of dangerous goods. It aims to strengthen relationships to fill gaps and reduce the replication of efforts, strengthen operational practices, improve access to quality training, and extend its experience to other countries in the region. RPMASA was keen to hear what others were doing to help guide the programme. France noted that the Conseil général de l’environnement et du développement durable (CGEDD) had recently published a report on risk management related to the presence of ammonium nitrate in harbours and maritime ports. The Secretariat also reported that the UN ECE Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents was planning a seminar on 14 December to look at the lessons learned, experiences and good practices of ammonium nitrate storage and handling, and related accident prevention, preparedness and response (further information on which can be found at https:// unece.org/environmental-policy/events/ unoecd-seminar-follow-2020-beirut-portexplosion-lessons-learned).

The Sub-committee closed its 58th session with a tribute to Erwin Sigrist, who was due to retire in November 2021 and will no longer attend the meetings. The Sub-Committee thanked him for his contributions and wished him a long and happy retirement.

The 59th session of the UN Sub-committee was scheduled to take place from 29 November to 8 December 2021; a report on that meeting will feature in the pages of HCB early in the new year.