23 minute read
UN Experts finalise Orange Book changes
LAST CHANCE SALOON
MULTIMODAL • WITH THE SUMMER MEETING HAVING BEEN A CASUALTY OF COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS, THE UN EXPERTS HAD A LOT TO CATCH UP ON AT THEIR LAST SESSION OF THE BIENNIUM
THE UN SUB-COMMITTEE of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) held its 57th session, the last of the 2019/2020 biennium, this past 30 November to 8 December under the chairmanship of Duane Pfund (US), with Claude Pfauvadel (France) as vice-chair. In view of the continuing travel restrictions resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, the session took place virtually, with only the chair and vice-chair, along with secretary Romain Hubert present in Geneva. The session also had to contend with a shortage of interpreters, which are necessary to allow the Sub-committee to agree decisions, as a result of which the mornings were devoted to discussion and the afternoons to formal approvals.
Given that the planned summer session had been postponed, there was a lot to get done, although there had been a lot of discussion via an online workspace and in the event many decisions were reached, which will appear in the 22nd revised edition of the UN Model Regulations, due for publication later this year. Some decisions also affect the Manual of Tests and Criteria.
The virtual meeting was attended by representatives of 23 countries and observers from Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania, and Turkey. Also in attendance were representatives of the EU, the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and 28 nongovernmental organisations.
The meeting began by reviewing the draft amendments adopted at the 55th and 56th sessions, which were all confirmed, including those that had been left in square brackets.
START WITH CLASS 1 As is traditional, the meeting began by reviewing the report of the ongoing labours of the Working Group on Explosives, which had held a virtual meeting in mid-November. It was noted that the Working Group had decided to defer its review of test series 6 to the next biennium and that the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) had agreed to prepare an official proposal on the potential improvement of test series 8 for consideration at a forthcoming session.
The Working Group had, though, made a lot of headway with its long-running review of the tests in parts I, II and III of the Manual of Tests and Criteria, which aims to remove unnecessarily detailed descriptions and over-specification of non-critical materials. That work had over the past two biennia moved onto a review of Test Series H and a lengthy proposal was now made for a complete revision of Section 28, which was agreed and adopted by the Sub-committee.
THE PALAIS DES NATIONS HAS BEEN SHORT
Test Series H covers the determination of self-accelerating decomposition temperature (SADT) and self-accelerating polymerisation temperature (SAPT) so it is critical in the proper classification of self-polymerising substances, the provisions for which have in recent years been expanded and tightened. The revision of Test Series H will therefore be useful for those shipping such materials, who may previously not have had to wrestle with the details in the Manual.
The UK had put forward two papers dealing with the packaging of shaped charges (UN 0059, 0439, 0440 and 0441) that included four proposals. There was a healthy discussion of the issues and it was noted that shaped charges are often packed in pairs, in opposite orientation, so the use of orientation arrows on the package is unnecessary. It is evident, though, that industry uses particular packagings designed to maintain the orientation of the shaped charges, and it was thought that some further review of the language used in the relevant special packing provision (PP70) in packing instruction P137.
In the meantime, it was agreed to amend the first sentence of PP70 by stating that, when packed singly, packages shall be marked as illustrated in figures 5.2.3 or 5.2.4, rather than in accordance with 5.2.1.7.1.
China had identified what it saw as some deficiencies in the diagram in Figure 33.2.4.1 in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, which illustrates the mould for the burning rate test. After discussion, along with a small amendment to the preceding text, the proposed improved figure was adopted.
LISTING, CLASSIFICATION AND PACKAGING South Korea and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), in a joint paper, raised a problem that arose from a new provision added in the 20th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations in packing instruction IBC520 and portable tank instruction T23, which deal with formulations of self-reactive substances and organic peroxides. The joint paper noted that some formulations are included in the lists for packagings in 2.4.2.3.2.3 and 2.5.3.2.4 and in IBC520 and T23, while some are only listed in either IBC520 and/or T23. This may lead to confusion regarding the selection of the control and emergency temperatures.
The Sub-committee agreed that clarification was needed and accepted the proposed changes. In the first sentence of both 2.4.2.3.2.3 and 2.5.3.2.4, the opening “The formulations listed in packing instruction IBC520 … and in portable tank instruction T23…” becomes “The formulations not listed in this provision but listed in packing instruction IBC520 … and in portable tank instruction T23…”.
Similarly, in the second sentence (third row) of IBC520 in 4.1.4.2, and in the last sentence of the paragraph under the heading in T23 in 4.2.5.2.6, “The formulations listed below…” is changed to “The formulations not listed in 2.4.2.3.2.3 and 2.5.3.2.4 but listed below…”.
South Korea also returned with a paper proposing to revise the hazard profiles of three entries, UN 2248, 2264 and 2357 (covering certain amines) on the basis of revised data established by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP). The paper included evidence of extensive research using a wide variety of sources. It concluded with recommendations to change the class for UN 2248 from 8 (3) to 6.1 (3,8); and for UN 2264 and 2357 from 8 (3) to 8 (3, 6.1). For UN 2248 there were also proposed changes to the LQ and EQ quantities and the portable tank instructions and special provisions.
There was a difference of opinion among the experts in the Sub-committee, with several feeling that yet more data and discussion are needed. The South Korean expert withdrew the proposal, promising to work with other delegations and to come back with a revised proposal during the next biennium.
In a similar vein, Belgium followed up on its informal document that had been discussed at the previous session, which noted that scientific data indicates that the current classification of UN 1891 Ethyl bromide does not fully reflect its hazards. It is currently assigned to Division 6.1, PG II, but different data sources point to its primary hazard being flammability, which is reflected in its classification according to the EU’s Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Chemicals (CLP) Regulation. Following a discussion, the Sub-committee agreed and amended the entry for UN 1891 in the Dangerous Goods List, assigning it to Class 3
with a Division 6.1 subsidiary hazard. In addition, in column (7a), “100 ml” is replaced by “1 L” and in column (7b) “E4” is replaced by “E2”.
The European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) sought clarification of the scope of UN 1002 Air, compressed. Some of the Association’s members have found that this is being interpreted to mean that it only applies to compressed atmospheric air. There was formerly a special provision (SP 292) in the Model Regulations that made it clear that UN 1002 could apply to mixtures containing not more than 23.5 per cent oxygen by volume, which EIGA referred to as ‘synthetic air’.
EIGA also noted that synthetic air, with up to 23.5 per cent oxygen and the rest nitrogen, is used in a variety of applications, not just in the medical field. Sometimes ambient air is not suitable for compression due to atmospheric contaminants. It would therefore be useful if a version of SP 292 could be reinstated so as to avoid confusion. The Sub-committee agreed and adopted a new SP 397: Mixtures of nitrogen and oxygen containing not less than 19.5% and not more than 23.5% oxygen by volume may be transported under this entry
when no other oxidizing gases are present. A Division 5.1 subsidiary hazard label is not required for any concentrations within this limit. In the Dangerous Goods List, “397” is added in column (6) against UN 1002.
Germany sought a change to special provision SP 225, dealing with the transport of fire extinguishers, to clarify that it applies equally to portable fire extinguishers that are being transported without the components (such as hoses, nozzles, etc) necessary for them to function properly. In practice, new portable fire extinguishers are often shipped without those components attached, in order to minimise the packaging required, and portable fire extinguishers being shipped for maintenance or inspection usually have the equipment disconnected and left at the original premises.
If portable fire extinguishers in such condition cannot be shipped under UN 1044, SP 225, then they would have to be classified as a gas cylinder or “chemical under pressure” and comply fully with the provisions of Chapter 6.2.
The Sub-committee agreed with the argument and adopted a new Note to be inserted after (a) in SP 225: This entry applies to portable fire extinguishers, even if some components that are necessary for their proper functioning (e.g. hoses and nozzles) are temporarily detached, as long as the safety of the pressurized extinguishing agent containers is not compromised and the fire extinguishers continue to be identified as a portable fire extinguisher.
Cefic proposed introducing a new entry in the table of self-reactive substances for (7-Methoxy-5-methyl-benzothiophen-2-yl) boronic acid, a newly developed active pharmaceutical ingredient. This is being sourced from several countries and, while the German competent authorities have issued a temporary approval for its transport under UN 3230 Self-reactive solid, Type F, a permanent solution is needed. Cefic backed up its paper with extensive test data.
The Sub-committee agreed with Cefic, adding the substance to the table in 2.4.2.3.2.3, with concentration of 88 to 100 per cent, packing method OP 7 and a new remark to specify that it may contain up to 12 per cent water and up to 1 per cent organic impurities.
In a similar vein, Japan proposed the inclusion of two new organic peroxide formulations in the list in 2.5.3.2.4. The two formulations, tert-butylperoxy isopropylcarbonate and tert-hexyl peroxypivalate, have already been granted competent authority approval for maritime transport and, indeed, have been transported from Japan to other countries in Asia for more than 15 years without incident. The Sub-committee agreed with the paper and adopted the two new entries.
Spain asked for some consequential amendments following the introduction in the 20th revised edition of the Model Regulations of the requirement for the words ‘TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED’ to be included as part of the proper shipping name, if it not already, when temperature control is used for stabilisation. This now appears in 3.1.2.6(b) but, Spain argued, reference should
IT WAS AGREED THAT ‘COMPRESSED AIR’
also be made in 5.4.1.5.4. It had brought up the issue in an informal paper at the last session of the Sub-committee, along with a parallel proposal for ‘MOLTEN’.
Spain was partly successful, though not all its proposals met the experts’ liking. For now, at least, the Sub-committee adopted the following.
In 5.4.1.5.4, “If the word “STABILIZED” is part of…” is replaced by “If the words “TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED” are part of…”; “when stabilization is by means of temperature control” is deleted.
In 5.4.1.4.3, after (c), a new (d) is inserted: Molten substances: When a substance, which is solid in accordance with the definition in 1.2.1, is offered for transport in the molten state, the qualifying word “MOLTEN” shall be added as part of the proper shipping name, unless it is already part of the proper shipping name (see 3.1.2.5); The existing (d) becomes (e) and a new (f) is added at the end: Stabilized and temperature controlled substances: Unless already part of the proper shipping name the word “STABILIZED” shall be added to the proper shipping name if stabilization is used and the words “TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED” shall be added to the proper shipping name if stabilization is by temperature control or a combination of chemical stabilization and temperature control (see 3.1.2.6). In addition, in 7.1.5.3.2(a), “the word “STABILIZED”” is replaced by “the words “TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED””.
Germany sought to complete the work it had started in 2010 on the use of salvage pressure receptacles. Provisions were originally adopted, limiting the water capacity of salvage pressure receptacles to 1,000 litres as a compromise to address some concerns; in 2014 this limit was raised to 3,000 litres. Since then, product innovation has led to the average volume of composite tubes increasing, as well as their design pressure. This has made the selection of salvage pressure receptacles problematic and Germany’s paper included three specific proposals to impose a limit on the test pressure and remove the limit on the volume of the salvage pressure receptacle.
On the basis of discussion, two of the three proposals were withdrawn pending further investigation. For the time being, the Sub-committee agreed changes to 4.1.1.19.2, deleting the second sentence (“The maximum size of the placed pressure receptable is limited to a water capacity of 1 000 litres”) and to change “1 000” to “3 000” in the fourth sentence.
The Responsible Packaging Management Association of Southern Africa (RPMASA) and the International Confederation of Plastics Packaging Manufacturers (ICPP) returned to their plea for a new UN number for cobalt dihydroxide powder. This product was formerly shipped under UN 3077
Environmentally hazardous solid, nos, Class 9, PG III, but testing in Europe had led to it being reassigned as a toxic by inhalation solid, Category 1, Class 6.1, PG I, for which there is currently no UN number. The product has been safely transported for the past 40 years in flexible intermediate bulk containers (FIBCs) meeting the PG III standard. The paper also expressed concern that similar changes might befall other fine powders.
The joint paper included proposals for a new entry in the Dangerous Goods List, a new special provision, a new special packing provision in IBC07, and new wording in the Guiding Principles. These proposals were considered by the Sub-committee, which adopted some of them.
There will be a new entry, UN 3550 Cobalt dihydroxide powder, containing not less than 10% respirable particles, 6.1, PG 1. This is assigned to packing instructions P002 and IBC07, the latter having special packing provisions B1 and B20, and portable tank instruction T6 with special provision TP33. The new B20 under IBC07 in 4.1.4.2 reads: UN 3550 may be transported in flexible IBCs (13H3 or 13H4) with siftproof liners to prevent any egress of dust during transport.
The Sub-committee invited RPMASA and ICPP to work further on the testing provisions for flexible IBCs in Chapter 6.5 and the amendments to the Guiding Principles.
Meanwhile, the Netherlands had also been looking into the topic, and specifically whether special provision 354 should be assigned to UN 3550; this merely states that the substance is toxic by inhalation but is currently only applied to liquids. Its discussion paper offered a revised and expanded SP 354 that would make it clearer. Following comments received from the experts, delegates were invited to send written comments so that the Netherlands can submit a revised proposal for the next session.
Belgium sought some changes to packing instruction P621, which applies to clinical and medical waste assigned to UN 3291. While most medical waste packagings have openings that exceed 7 cm in diameter and are therefore by definition ‘removable head’ type packagings, some smaller containers, such as those for used needles, may have smaller openings and fall under the category of ‘non-removable head’ packagings. At present, P621(2) only allows non-removable head packagings for packages where there is insufficient absorbent material to absorb the entire amount of liquid present; Belgium felt these packagings should also be allowed in P621(1).
The Sub-committee agreed with the argument and added drums of 1A1, 1B1, 1N1 and 1H1 and jerricans of 3A1, 3B1 and 3H1 to the list of permitted packagings in P621(1).
China had spotted that a change adopted in 2002 that separated the UN entry for toxins extracted from living sources in two, for liquids (UN 3172) and solids (UN 3462), had not been fully followed through. The note under the heading of Chapter 6.2 refers only to UN 3172 and the Sub-committee agreed to add “or UN 3462” at the end.
China had also spotted that UN 3208 Metallic substance, water-reactive, nos has ‘E0’ in column (7b) of the Dangerous Goods List, whereas all other water-reactive entries (all of Division 4.3, PG II) have ‘E2’. It felt this was an error, not least since the ICAO Technical Instructions have ‘E2’. Again, the Sub-committee agreed and made the requested change.
For its part, ICAO noted that the disparity arose from a typographical error and that the original paper referred erroneously to UN 3209 Metallic substances, water-reactive, self-heating, nos, which does have ‘E2’. This too is an error, ICAO said, and should be ‘E0’. Again, the argument was adopted by the Sub-committee.
The UK reported that it had been advised by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) that a revised version of standard ISO 16106, Packaging – Transport packages for dangerous goods – Dangerous goods packagings, intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) and large packagings – Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001, had been issued. There are four references to this standard in the Model Regulations and it was agreed that reference to the 2006 edition should be amended to the new, 2020 edition. This affects 6.1.1.4, 6.3.2.2, 6.5.4.1 and 6.6.1.2.
The UK had done some work on the new special provision 396, adopted at the previous session on the basis of a paper from Germany and relating to the transport of transformers with gas cylinders. The UK felt that the use of this “articles containing dangerous goods of Class 2” entry for transformers with gas cylinders did not match the intention of the entry; furthermore, it was accepted that the adoption had been rather hurried and that delegates had not had enough time to consult on the proposal. While the UK expressed the view that the new special provision will introduce unnecessary interference into an area that has operated without incident for many years, it also acknowledged the
MORE AMENDMENTS WERE ADOPTED ON THE
potential issue identified by Germany. Its paper offered two alternatives to clarify the intent of the entry and the applicability of the special provision. However, after discussion neither proposed amendment received the support of the Sub-committee; the UK volunteered to submit a revised proposal for the next session, taking into account the comments made.
Three papers were deferred to the next session, including an informal document from China on a possible amendment to special provision 142; a correction to packing instruction P200 as regards UN 2189, put forward by EIGA; and revisions to special provision 301 proposed by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which was endorsed in principle but was deemed to require further work.
BATTERIES AND SUCH Scarcely a regulatory meeting goes by without yet more changes being proposed to the regulations covering the transport of lithium batteries, and the Sub-committee’s last session was no exception, although other energy storage technologies are also being addressed.
A joint paper from the European Association for Advanced Rechargeable Batteries (Recharge), the International Organisation of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA), the Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA) and the Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA) followed up on discussions at the previous two sessions to clarify that the hazards in the case of the transport of multiple batteries as per the large packaging provision LP906 could be controlled and verified during the packaging verification test, as specified by the competent authority. The four bodies now attempted to address concerns that had been raised, with revised proposals for amendments to LP906 and to packing instruction P911.
After some further changes on the basis of discussion, these were adopted by the Sub-committee. To start with, a new indent (i) is added in note a to P911: In the case of multiple batteries and multiple items of equipment containing batteries, additional requirements such as 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. In LP906, the third sentence is amended to read: “For batteries and items of equipment containing batteries:”. The second paragraph under (2) is amended to read: A verification report shall be made available on request. As a minimum requirement, the name of the batteries, their type as defined in Section 38.3.2.3 of the Manual of Tests and Criteria, the maximum number of batteries, the total mass of batteries, the total energy content of the batteries, the large packaging identification
and the test data according to the verification method as specified by the competent authority shall be listed in the verification report. A set of specific instructions describing the way to use the package shall also be part of the verification report. A new indent (4) is added: The specific instructions for use of the package shall be made available by the packaging manufacturers and subsequent distributors to the consignor. They shall include at least the identification of the batteries and items of equipment that may be contained inside the packaging, the maximum number of batteries contained in the package and the maximum total of the batteries energy content, as well as the configuration inside the package, including the separations and protections used during the performance verification test. At the end of note a, a new indent (i) is added, identical to that mentioned above for P911.
Two further joint papers brought to the Sub-committee’s attention the problems that are being experienced by industry in the application of the recently adopted requirement that cell and battery manufacturers and downstream distributors must make available a Test Summary, as specified in sub-section 38.3 of the Manual of Tests and Criteria. The paper’s authors, the Medical Device Battery Transport Council (MDBTC), the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC), PRBA, COSTHA, Recharge, the Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) and the Dangerous Goods Trainers Association (DGTA), described what they termed “unanticipated challenges” in complying with the requirements. Including an extensive explanation, the paper offered some suggestions for easing the burden of compliance and overcoming some of the difficulties, while maintaining the intent of the requirement.
There was clearly some disagreement among the delegates, with only part of the proposal being adopted and that on the basis of a majority. For now at least, the amendment is limited to the first part of 2.9.4(g), which will begin “Except for button cells installed in equipment (including circuit boards), manufacturers…”. In addition, in the Manual of Tests and Criteria, 38.3.5(j) is amended to read: Name and title of responsible person as an indication of the validity of information provided.
The Sub-Committee confirmed that type testing requirements apply for button cell designs. Furthermore, it confirmed that the test summary should be publicly available (for instance, via the cell/battery manufacture’s website) but it is not mandatory that it should accompany the transport document.
IATA followed up on its informal document presented at the previous session, which opened a discussion as to whether consignors of lithium cells and batteries, that are not the manufacturer, need to have evidence of the manufacturer’s quality management system. It had seemed on the basis of that discussion that there is no requirement for the manufacturer to provide that evidence to any party other than the competent authority. IATA now suggested that 2.9.4 should be revised so as to separate reference to the quality management system from other classification aspects.
Although the Sub-Committee agreed that it is not compulsory to add a copy of the quality management programme to the transport documents, IATA’s approach to clarify the issue did not gain full support. Some delegations suggested that a simpler approach, for instance, by the addition of a Note, would be more appropriate.
THERE WILL NO LONGER NEED TO BE A TELEPHONE
PRBA and Recharge came back with a formal proposal following discussion at the previous session of packing instruction P903 and the use of packagings with a net mass exceeding 400 kg, an issue that has been causing some confusion among freight forwarders, vessel operators and even competent authorities. The authors’ argument had been largely accepted at the previous session so, on a majority, the Sub-committee agreed to make some changes. A new final sentence is added to 4.1.3.3: Where packagings which need not meet the requirements of 4.1.1.3 (e.g., crates, pallets, etc.) are authorized in a packing instruction or the special provisions named in the dangerous goods list, these packages are not subject to the mass or volume limits generally applicable to packagings conforming to the requirements of Chapter 6.1, unless otherwise indicated in the relevant packing instruction or special provision. In addition, a new Note is added to all the relevant packing instructions (P003, PP32; P004(2) and (3); P005; P006(2); P130, PP67; P144, PP77; P408(2); P801(1) and (2); P905; P906(2); P907; P909(3) and (4); and P910(3)), reading: NOTE: The packagings authorized may exceed a net mass of 400 kg (see 4.1.3.3). Similar text is added in P903, after (5), specifying that the relevant packagings are authorised in (2), (4) and (5).
PRBA and Recharge also arrived with a formal proposal to remove the phone number requirement from the lithium battery mark, as had already been agreed. The changes were adopted by the Sub-committee, meaning that the Figure at 5.2.5 will no longer show the double asterisk (**) on the lithium battery mark, nor refer to this underneath the image. In addition, a Note is added at the end of 5.2.1.9.2 to permit the use of the mark as shown in the 21st revised edition of the Model Regulations until the end of 2026, to allow for stocks of pre-printed labels to be used. The Sub-committee remarked that, if needed, this transitional provision could be subsequently revised.
France and the UK offered proposals to introduce new provisions for sodium ion batteries in both the Model Regulations and Manual of Tests and Criteria. While many delegations supported the principle of adding new provisions along the same lines as those already in place for lithium batteries, others felt it was premature to adopt the proposals at this point. It was agreed to defer discussion until the next biennium.
KiloFarad International contributed a paper arguing that low energy density sodium ion cells do not pose any safety risks that could justify their regulation under the dangerous goods rules. Again, though, this issue will be held over to the 2021/22 biennium.
The second part of this two-part report on the UN Sub-committee of Experts’ November/ December meeting in next month’s HCB will cover other amendments adopted relating to the transport of gases, packaging, portable tanks, global harmonisation and relations with other agencies, as well as some new proposals that will appear in greater depth during the new biennium.
