Joint Meeting looks at tanks

DEVIL IN THE DETAIL

MULTIMODAL • THE JOINT MEETING’S SPRING SESSION WADED THROUGH PLENTY OF DETAIL BUT MADE FEW DECISIONS ON CHANGES TO THE 2021 REGULATORY TEXTS

THE SPRING 2019 Joint Meeting of the RID Committee of Experts and the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Working Party on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (WP15) took place in Bern, Switzerland this past 18 to 22 March. The aim of the meeting was to continue work on the development of amendments that will appear in the 2021 editions of the regulations governing the transport of dangerous goods by rail (RID), road (ADR) and inland waterway (ADN) in Europe and in those other countries that have adopted or observe those regulations.

The meeting was chaired by Claude Pfauvadel (France) with Silvia Garcia Wolfrum (Spain) as vice-chair. It was attended by representatives of 21 full member countries, the European Commission (EC), the EU Agency for Railways (ERA), the Organisation for Cooperation between Railways (OSJD) and 11 non-governmental organisations.

TANKS MATTERS As per the usual practice, papers relating to tanks were remitted to the Working Group on Tanks, which met for the first three days of the session under the chairmanship of Arne Bale (UK) with Kees de Putter (Netherlands) acting as secretary.

Its first task was to review a proposal from Belarus, following up on discussions at the previous meeting of WP15, to change the word ‘test’ to ‘inspection’ in 6.8.2.5.1, to align the tank marking requirement with the provisions for inspections in 6.8.2.4.1 to 6.8.2.4.4. This was easy for the Working Group to agree.

A follow-up informal document from the UK led to similar changes in 6.8.2.5.1, 6.8.3.5.10, 6.8.3.5.11 (RID only), TT6 and TT8 in 6.8.4(d), and 6.10.4. Belgium raised a question in plenary as to whether the term ‘exceptional check’ used in 6.8.2.4.4 should be replaced by ‘exceptional inspection’. This too seemed sensible, although this would require a formal proposal at a later meeting.

Belgium sought the Working Group’s opinion on a request it had received for interim approval for the carriage of trifluorochloroethylene, classified as UN 3160 liquefied gas, toxic, flammable, nos, in T50 portable tanks by rail and road. This is

THE JOINT MEETING MUST ADDRESS THE NEED FOR

not permitted in RID/ADR but is permitted for maritime transport under 6.7.1.3 of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code by special permit 14193 issued by the US Department of Transportation. RID/ ADR permit the carriage of UN 3160 goods in PxBH tanks and Belgium queried why this is not the case for T50 tanks. The Working Group noted that the US’s interim approval is in place pending the introduction of applicable provisions in the regulations and felt that a proposal for assigning a portable tank instruction for this substance should be submitted to the UN Sub-committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG).

The International Tank Container Organisation (ITCO) returned to the problems being experienced by the definition in 1.2.1 of ‘Tank-container/portable tank operator’, which refers to the enterprise “in whose name the tank-container/portable tank is registered”. That enterprise is often a financial entity such as a leasing company or bank that takes no part in the tank-container/ portable tank operator’s safety obligations as per Chapter 1.4. ITCO pressed for the replacement of the word ‘registered’ in the definition by ‘operated’.

The prospect of a change in this definition is hampered by terminology used in RID relating to ‘tank-wagon operator’ and ‘tank-wagon keeper’. The Working Group put forward three options but the Joint Meeting was unable to decide. The issue will need to go back to the Working Group and, at the request of ERA, the Joint Coordinating Group of Experts.

Romania continued with its work to tidy up the often conflicting use of the words ‘risk’ and ‘hazard’ or ‘danger’ in the regulations and the Working Group looked at its proposals relating to Chapters 4.3, 6.8 and 6.10, making some comments that the Romanian delegate agreed to take into consideration. While the proposed amendments to the English text were seen to be justified, more thought needs to be given to the amendments to the French text.

The UK returned with another paper, following discussions at the two Joint Meetings in 2018, regarding the protection required for fittings and accessories mounted on the upper part of vacuum-operated waste tanks in the event that the vehicle overturns. The UK proposed to amend 6.10.3.1 to clarify that the requirements of 6.8.2.1.28 apply to items of equipment that may be positioned in the ‘protected area’ on the top of the tank.

Two views were expressed by the Working Group: firstly, that 6.8.2.1.28 is not overtaken by Chapter 6.10 and therefore is not excluded by 6.10.3.1; and secondly that 6.8.2.1.28 was never intended to apply when equipment is placed in a ‘protected area’. Some experts also noted that there have only been a few accidents and, in those where there was no protection, there has been no loss of contents due to damaged equipment. »

It was not possible to reach a conclusion, although it was agreed that the current text would benefit from clarification. The UK will present a revised proposal taking account of the comments made.

The UK also submitted a report on the ninth session of the informal working group on the inspection and certification of tanks. The main objective of the group is to establish a common approach of reciprocal recognition for the administrative controls and procedures for conformity assessments, type approval certification and inspections, with inspection bodies approved on the basis of EN ISO/IEC 17020. The working group had come up with completely revised texts for 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 and some amendments to Chapter 6.8.

The document had drawn a number of informal documents, including one from EC that proposed amendments to help ensure the proper functioning of the Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive (2010/35/EU). In particular, this had new wording for 1.8.6.2.1.

As this was the first time the complete set of proposed amendments was available it was felt that the impact of the new wording should be further considered at the next meeting of the informal working group, due to take place in London in June. The Joint Meeting concurred with the Working Group on Tanks on the need to ensure a common approach for the reciprocal recognition of administrative controls and procedures, and invited the Working Group to continue to review the proposed amendments.

Poland followed up on the informal document it had presented at the previous Joint Meeting with a proposal to introduce into RID/ADR provisions concerning carriage of goods in tank-wagons, demountable tanks, battery-wagons (RID)/fixed tanks (tank-vehicles), demountable tanks, batteryvehicles (ADR), tank-containers, tank swap bodies and multiple-element gas containers (MEGCs) after the date of expiry of the last intermediate inspection. Poland was seeking a common solution to the issue, after numerous discussions on the topic, not least those involving the International Union of Railways (UIC).

Its proposal included revisions to 4.3.2.3.7 to allow tanks filled prior to the specified date of the last inspection to be used for up to three months. The Working Group agreed the proposal in principle but felt that the wording could be improved; the amendment has been adopted pro tem in square brackets pending an editorial review.

In an informal document, the UK provided its preliminary findings from a test programme being undertaken on pressure relief valves on LPG road tankers. This programme aims to build a base of evidence that will allow inspection bodies at intermediate inspections to justify a check of the documentation or the marking of pressure relief valve set pressures (as permitted by EN 14334:2014) rather than physically testing such valves.

So far, 145 valves had been tested and only one showed a deviating opening pressure. This valve was thought to have been incorrectly set prior to installation. The Working Group thanked the UK for its work, noting that tanks constructed according to EN 12493 may be inspected based on EN 14334, which allows visual inspection of the pressure relief valve.

An informal document from the Netherlands addressed the dual approval of tanks as portable tanks and as tankcontainers. While acknowledging that dual approval may be confusing for inspection bodies, users and enforcement agencies, the Netherlands acknowledged that it could be beneficial for industry. One option might be to introduce additional portable tank instructions that would be applicable only for inland use, although this would involve a lot of work and agreement in principle should be reached before embarking on the task.

While there was some support for the approach suggested, most delegations expressed the view that dual approvals should no longer be issued. It was then decided that there was no need to continue with the project. However, the Netherlands delegate indicated that he would work with the representative of Belgium to find a solution.

The International Union of Private Wagons (UIP) returned to the difference between EN 14025 and EN 12561 in terms of the diameter of manholes in tanks. The latter references EN 14025:2008, which allows for standard flanges with an internal diameter of 492 mm; the Working Group was of the opinion that

THE VARIOUS EXPERTS DISAGREE ON THE VALUE OF

the earlier minimum internal diameter of 500 mm needs to be satisfied and, in that case, a transitional measure could be required for tank-wagons built according to EN 14025:2008.

Germany asked for an interpretation as to whether heating elements are permitted on fibre-reinforced plastics (FRP) tanks; in the English and French texts, the wording of 6.9.1.3 states that heating elements shall not be used for FRP tanks. This only refers to the design and construction of FRP tanks but the majority view was that they should not be equipped with heating elements. However, the representative of the Netherlands pointed out that this provision was interpreted differently in his country. Delegations were invited to consider whether a proposal for further clarification was needed.

STANDARD APPROACH Papers relating to standards were passed to the Working Group on Standards, which met during lunch breaks. Prior to the Joint Meeting, a series of teleconferences had taken place where contracting parties and states had discussed the changes being made by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO), leaving only a few matters to be discussed. There were no recommendations to reference any new or revised standards in the 2021 RID/ADR text at the session.

The Working Group did identify that there was a need to specify that the change from using a technical code to using a new standard should be subject to a transitional period and offered a proposed amendment to 6.2.5 and to 6.8.2.7 and 6.8.3.7. The latter proved acceptable to the Joint Meeting. It will involve the insertion of a new paragraph after the first paragraph in 6.8.2.7: As soon as a standard newly referenced in 6.8.2.6 can be applied, the competent authority shall withdraw its recognition of the relevant technical code. A transitional period ending no later than the date of entry into force of the next edition of RID/ADR may be applied.

At the end of the first sentence in what is now the third paragraph, the following text is add: “and shall update the list if it changes”. Similar text is added in 6.8.3.7.

The chair of CEN’s technical committee TC 296 announced that a new version of prEN 13094 Tanks for the transport of dangerous goods – Metallic gravity discharge tanks – Design and construction, is currently in the process of preparation.

Aside from the actual standards, there is growing concern that there is a loss of expertise in the standards-making procedure and among the regulators themselves. EC has now announced its intention to withdraw the M/086 mandate, meaning there will no longer be a consultant specialising in TDG issues. Some non-governmental »

organisations involved are keen to contract an independent advisor in the context of RID/ ADR/ADN. A proposal was put together by the Working Group, noting that everyone benefits from having good quality standards referenced in RID/ADR, with the primary concern of all being safety. “We have had a situation with the CEN Consultant that has worked well for many years and is now not able to function,” it says.

The Joint Meeting welcomed this initiative and invited non-governmental organisations to take the necessary steps to implement it, on the understanding that the independent standards advisor would continue to work in accordance with the terms of reference and the mandate given by the Joint Meeting to the former CEN consultant. The Joint Meeting will be informed on progress at its autumn 2019 session.

In response to an informal document from Finland, and noting that accreditation bodies always refer to the most recent version of a standard, the Joint Meeting agreed in principle that the reference to EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005 should be updated, as this will not expire until October 2020 despite the 2017 edition already being available. Some delegations indicated that the reference to EN ISO/IEC 17020 might also need to be updated.

It was suggested that the need for regular updates of references to specific editions of standards could be avoided by the use of dynamic references indicating the use of “the latest version applicable”. The Joint Meeting invited Finland to submit an official document for the next session with a proposal that would take account of the comments made.

INTERPRETATION OF RID/ADR/ADN Germany raised what it referred to as “undesirable developments” in the delegation of inspection tasks in accordance with 1.8.6.4.1. It is mistakenly assumed that an accredited inspection body’s accreditation would cover not just the entity itself, with its locations, but also external subcontractors (separate legal entities). This is obviously not correct.

Further, it is sometimes assumed in the market that 1.8.6.4.1 authorises the accredited inspection body itself to assess the competence of its subcontractor in accordance with EN ISO/IEC 17020 or EN ISO/IEC 17025 by carrying out an ‘audit’ and that accreditation of this subcontractor can then be dispensed with, because ‘equivalence’ has been demonstrated. This is also obviously incorrect.

Germany invited to discuss the matter and its strict interpretation that it offered in its paper.

An informal document from France helped illuminate the issue, noting that 1.8.6.4.1 mentions that an inspection body may use subcontractors to perform some of its tasks if (a) the external entity is accredited separately or (b) the external entity (subcontractor, subsidiary) is not accredited separately, in which case it shall be included in the accreditation of the inspection body.

The Joint Meeting took up point (b), noting that such an approach does not imply accreditation of the subcontractor by the inspection body. The assessment of the subcontractor may be done by the inspection body but the way in which it is performed is subject to procedures validated in the context of its accreditation by the accreditation body. An ongoing monitoring process takes place as part of the accreditation procedure which allows the subcontractors to be included in the inspection body accreditation.

The representative of Germany took note of the interpretation provided by the Joint Meeting and said that she would further check how this issue is being addressed at national level in her country and on the basis of the outcome, may consider the need to request additional clarifications.

PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENT Spain returned to an issue it had raised at the previous Joint Meeting on the differences in the name and description of UN 1010 between RID/ADR and the UN Model Regulations. In the latter, the entry is

‘Butadienes, stabilised or Butadienes and hydrocarbon mixture, stabilised, containing more than 40% butadienes’. Meanwhile, the latter part of the entry in RID/ADR reads: ‘having 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’. These two definitions are not equivalent.

Spain had looked closely at alternative UN entries for mixtures that do not meet the UN definition, referring in particular to UN 1965 Hydrocarbon mixture, liquefied, nos and UN 3161 Liquefied gas, flammable, nos, which have different special provisions assigned and do not have SP 386 relating to stabilisation.

Spain offered a proposal that sought to align the name and description for UN 1010 in RID/ADR with that in the UN Model Regulations and to add a new special provision for mixtures containing less than 40 per cent butadienes. The Joint Meeting thought this special provision could be confusing but agreed to adopt the first part of the proposal and change the name and description of UN 1010.

The International Road Transport Union (IRU) came with a proposal based on discussions at the previous Joint Meeting and during WP15, where several delegations agreed that ADR should be amended to allow new methods of training, such as online and videoconference courses, to be used in the future. It had also been confirmed that online driver training for dangerous goods in some contracting parties is already an option for the driver when applying to refresher training. IRU now proposed amending 8.2.2.5.2 in ADR to allow one day of e-learning for the theoretical part of refresher training courses.

There was support in principle for the proposal but the Joint Meeting considered that the text offered by IRU was too open and needed to be further refined before it could be considered for adoption. Some delegations felt that, should provisions for online training be introduced into ADR, they should provide clear guidance to competent authorities on what could or could not be allowed to ensure a common approach among contracting parties.

The Joint Meeting invited IRU to return with a revised proposal in light of the comments made. HCB

OPPOSITE: THE UK HAS BEEN EXAMINING THE NEED IN

PRACTICE TO INSPECT PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES DURING The second part of this two-part report on the spring 2019 Joint Meeting will look at further proposals for amendment and reports from informal working groups.