[ID] => 8551
[post_author] => 34
[post_date] => 2017-09-22 09:53:01
[post_date_gmt] => 2017-09-22 08:53:01
[post_content] => The 102nd session of the UN Economic Commission for Europe’s (ECE) Working Party on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (WP15) in Geneva from 8 to 11 May 2017. The meeting was chaired by JA Franco (Portugal) with Arianne Roumier (France) sitting as vice-chair. It was attended by representatives of 24 contracting parties, the European Union (EU), the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) and three non-governmental organisations.
WP15 is the body responsible for maintaining and updating the technical annexes to the ADR Agreement, which governs the international transport of dangerous goods by road between those states that apply ADR – mostly but by no means all in Europe. The May meeting began work on agreeing the amendments that will enter into force in 2019; to do this it had to take into account the multimodal amendments adopted in December 2016 by the UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and the Globally Harmonised System of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS) as well as the two previous sessions of the Joint Meeting of RID/ADR/ADN experts held in autumn 2016 and spring 2017.
Before it could put its collective mind to that task, however, the Working Party heard from Eva Molnar, director of ECE’s Sustainable Transport Division, who presented the draft strategy of the Inland Transport Committee (ITC), WP15’s parent body. WP15 had already been invited to comment on the draft and Ms Molnar reiterated that invitation, with particular emphasis on three topics:
- Facilitating implementation of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals on issues of relevance to the Working Party
- Facilitating the implementation of and accession to ADR by new contracting parties, and
- What changes in the transport of dangerous goods can be expected by 2030, for instance in areas such as the geographical application of ADR, the use of telematics, and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Some delegations were at pains to point out that the Working Party has always had to deal with technological changes in the industry and they saw no problems in accommodating future changes.
The Secretariat advised the meeting that Ukraine had acceded to the Protocol amending certain articles of the ADR Agreement; it encouraged the 13 countries that have so far not done so to follow suit so that the Protocol can enter into force.
The Working Party also noted that the corrections to ADR adopted at its 101st session had been deemed to be accepted.
JOINT MEETING CHANGES
The next item on the agenda was for the Working Party to review the decisions made by the Joint Meeting. These were broadly accepted, although certain amendments and transitional provisions were awaiting confirmation by the Joint Meeting at its autumn 2017 session and WP15 will await the outcome of that session before adopting them.
WP15 also noted certain corrections proposed by the Joint Meeting at its spring 2017 session; these were largely editorial in nature and the Working Party felt that they should be adopted and a second corrigendum to the 2017 text issued as soon as possible.
In the event, the Treaty Section of the UN Office of Legal Affairs expressed the view that most of the proposed corrections did not meet the strictly applied criteria; as a result, only three changes will be contained in the corrigendum [as of the end of September this document is still awaited] and the remaining corrections will form part of an official proposal from Portugal. A similar fate befell proposed corrections to Chapter 9.2 in an informal paper from Romania, which will also be part of the Portuguese proposal.
CONSTRUCTION OF VEHICLES
In an informal document, Germany initiated discussion of problems being experienced in that country with interpretation of the requirements in 18.104.22.168, with particular reference to the use of ‘sandwich’ panels of different materials used in the construction of EX/II and EX/III vehicles.
The discussion revealed that there is a lack of agreement on the subject and the Working Party recognised that it would be a worthwhile exercise to update and clarify the technical requirements for the construction of EX/II and EX/III vehicles. Germany offered to prepare a more detailed proposal at the next session and invited comments and technical data from other delegations.
France had noticed that, while 22.214.171.124.1 on permanently energised circuits refers to some parts of the IEC 60079 standard, the text in ADR does not refer to two parts of the standard that might be of relevance to FL vehicles. The Working Party agreed to its proposals and extended the references in 126.96.36.199.1(a) and 188.8.131.52 to cover parts 26 and 28 of IEC 60079. It also confirmed that equipment installed on vehicles in accordance with those paragraphs prior to the entry into force of the amendment could still be used.
Norway returned as promised with its proposal to extend the fastening requirements in 9.7.3, which apply to tank vehicles, battery-vehicles and vehicles carrying demountable tanks, to also apply to vehicles carrying tank containers, portable tanks and multiple-element gas containers (MEGCs). The Norwegian paper offered some alternatives, of which the Working Party adopted four, with some minor amendments.
As a result, 9.7.3 has been amended to extend its applicability and a new 184.108.40.206 is added:
For tank-vehicles, battery-vehicles and vehicles carrying demountable tanks, the fastenings shall withstand the minimum stresses as defined in 220.127.116.11.11 to 18.104.22.168.13, 22.214.171.124.15 and 126.96.36.199.16.
In addition, 188.8.131.52 has been amended to read:
The provisions of 184.108.40.206 shall also apply to the loading, stowage and removal of containers, tank-containers, portable tanks and MEGCs on to and from vehicles. When tank-containers, portable tanks and MEGCs do not use corner castings in the patterns as defined in ISO 1496-1 Series 1 freight containers -- Specification and testing -- Part 1: General cargo containers for general purposes, it shall be verified that the systems used on the tank-containers, portable tanks or MEGCs are compatible with the system on the vehicle and in compliance with the requirements in 9.7.3.
A transitional provision has been added at 220.127.116.11 to allow vehicles first registered or entering into service before 1 January 2021 that do not comply with the new requirements to continue to be used.
The UK reported that, following delays in processing vehicle test applications, it has allowed the first inspection on EX, FL and AT vehicles and mobile explosives manufacturing units (MEMUs) to be waived until the first anniversary test. This has been successful and the UK now proposed amending 18.104.22.168 to bring a similar provision into ADR.
After preliminary discussion, it was decided to hold this proposal for further consideration at the next session.
Sweden had noticed that the Guidelines for completing the certificate of approval according to 9.1.3 had fallen out of step with the ADR provisions following amendments to the table in 9.2.1. The Joint Meeting agreed and, in the first example shown in paragraph 8 of the Guidelines, changed “Note (b)” to “Notes (f) and (g)”.
Switzerland felt that it should be clarified in 22.214.171.124(a), 126.96.36.199(a) and 188.8.131.52 that vehicles, when carried as a load, should be assigned to UN 3166 or 3171. This would help explain the additional provisions that are applicable. The feeling of the Working Party was that, as such consignments may go by rail or sea as easily as by road, this was a matter for the Joint Meeting.
A joint paper from Sweden and the International Road Transport Union (IRU) reiterated their idea that the calculated value/transport category should be shown on the transport document when goods are carried in accordance with 184.108.40.206. The concept had received support from a number of delegations at the May 2016 session although a revised proposal submitted to the November 2016 meeting failed to find consensus, with most delegations being of the opinion that less extensive amendments to 220.127.116.11 should be made.
This time round, after a vote, the proposals were adopted for entry into force in 2019. As a result, a new table note b is added to the heading of column (b) in the table in 18.104.22.168.3:
The maximum total quantity for each transport category corresponds to a calculated value of “1000” (see also 22.214.171.124.4).
At the end of 126.96.36.199.4, after the indents, “a calculated value of” is inserted after “shall not exceed”. Note 1 to 188.8.131.52.1(f) is amended to read:
In the case of intended application of 184.108.40.206, the total quantity and the calculated value of dangerous goods for each transport category shall be indicated in the transport document in accordance with 220.127.116.11.3 and 18.104.22.168.4.
A paper from Switzerland followed up on earlier discussion of the scope of 22.214.171.124(a) dealing with the carriage of goods by private individuals. One of the reasons for its interest in the topic was a request for clarification from a diving club, which carries out the filling and testing of its own cylinders: does this fall under the relief provided in that section? Switzerland also felt that this was a matter largely for road transport but other delegations disagreed: once the implications of the proposal were addressed it would probably affect rail transport as well.
The Working Party noted, however, that the exemptions available under 126.96.36.199(a) are being interpreted and implemented differently in different countries and that the issue is worth pursuing. The proposal was withdrawn but is likely to return in an amended form, taking note of the comments provided.
The Secretariat returned with a proposal to reference the new IMO/ILO/UNECE Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units, the ‘CTU Code’, in ADR. It was agreed that reference to chapters 9 and 10 of the CTU Code should be made in the footnote to 188.8.131.52. Germany felt that this ought to refer to all of the CTU Code and may return with a formal proposal at the next session.
At the previous session, Spain had sought the opinion of the Working Party on the desirability of increasing the total quantities of explosives that could be carried on EX/III vehicles. It now returned with a formal proposal, pointing out that the limit of 16 tonnes has been in place since ADR first entered into force in 1968 and that there have been significant improvements in vehicle and road quality since then. However, the paper was rebuffed, with little support for the proposal. Spain nevertheless promised to return with a revised paper at the next session, taking into account comments made.
Switzerland observed that, according to 184.108.40.206.2, transport units bearing markings that do not conform to 5.3.1 are considered acceptable if the provisions of 5.3.2 are met. In effect, this relates to transport units in a multimodal shipment that do not bear orange-coloured plates. However, Switzerland contended, the reference to 5.3.2 makes it mandatory to mark transport units that would otherwise have been exempted from the requirement by 220.127.116.11.
The Working Party confirmed that, the provisions of 18.104.22.168.2 notwithstanding, transport units not placarded in accordance with 5.3.1 but that are marked and placarded in accordance with Chapter 5.3 of the IMDG Code and that have been accepted for carriage in a transport chain that includes a maritime movement, are not required to bear orange-coloured plates. Most delegations considered that this interpretation is not in conflict with the current wording of 22.214.171.124.2 and, on a vote, it was decided that no action is necessary.
Another proposal from Switzerland sought the application of tunnel restrictions on consignments of machinery and engines of UN 3528, 3529 and 3530. The Working Party, alert to the issue, had been awaiting action by the UN TDG Sub-committee on the scope of special provision 363 before considering whether these UN entries should be assigned tunnel codes and made subject to the requirements for orange-coloured plates.
There was some discussion of the proposal but the Working Party was generally in favour of inserting the requisite text. After some amendments to the Swiss proposal, it was decided to amend special provision 363(l) to read:
When the engine or machinery contains more than 1 000 l of liquid fuels, for UN No. 3528 and UN No. 3530, or the fuel tank has a water capacity of more than 1 000 l, for UN No. 3529:
- A transport document in accordance with 5.4.1 is required. This transport document shall contain the following additional statement "Transport in accordance with special provision 363";
- When the carriage is known beforehand to pass through a tunnel with restrictions for carriage of dangerous goods, the transport unit shall display orange-coloured plates according to 5.3.2 and the tunnel restrictions according to 8.6.4 apply.
Tunnel codes have been assigned to the three entries, with the following codes added in column (15) of Table A in Chapter 3.2: UN 3528 (D); UN 3529 (B); UN 3530 (E). Consequential amendments were made to 126.96.36.199.2.
Staying with orange-coloured plates, Austria had identified some conditions under which it would be possible to comply with the requirements of 188.8.131.52.4 and 184.108.40.206.6 in a manner that is not intended and that those paragraphs might benefit from some amendment. On a vote, two changes were agreed.
In 220.127.116.11.4, “transport units” and “transport unit” are replaced by “vehicles” and “vehicle”, respectively, wherever they appear. A revision to the start of 18.104.22.168.6 was agreed but has been placed in square brackets pending confirmation at the next meeting:
For transport units carrying:
- Only one dangerous substance, which requires the marking with orange-coloured plates; and
- No non-dangerous substance in fixed tanks, portable tanks, demountable tanks, tank-containers, MEGCs or in bulk;
the orange coloured-plates described in 22.214.171.124.2, …
Sweden had spotted an error in 126.96.36.199(a), left over from a change 5.4.2 made in 2015. It argued that the words “large container or vehicle packing certificate” should be changed to “container/vehicle packing certificate”. The Working Party agreed and made the change.
INTERPRETATION OF ADR
The government of Poland sought the Working Party’s interpretation of the list of information required on the Multimodal Dangerous Goods Form specified in Chapter 5.4 of ADR; in particular, is this list exhaustive or may contracting parties require additional information?
The question relates to the introduction of amendments to Poland’s Energy Law Act and certain other Acts that now require that the transport document shows the name and address of the entity that owns the dangerous goods being carried. As has been reported previously, this is causing problems for those consigning or carrying dangerous goods to, from or through Poland and presenting obstacles to the seamless flow of international trade.
The Working Party confirmed nevertheless that article 4(1) of the ADR Agreement does not prohibit the inclusion of additional information in the transport document, even if it is required for reasons other than safety during carriage.
The IRU representative regretted that such measures were being imposed in some countries, under the shelter of article 4(1), and that these could be seen as trade barriers. He invited contracting parties to keep ECE informed of any such problems via its website.
The chair noted that, in the current economic context in Europe, some governments are putting in place what amount to protectionist measures involving the transport of goods in general; ADR competent authorities are not always aware of those measures, which tend not to be generated by the country’s transport ministry, and are often finding it difficult to alert dangerous goods carriers. It was suggested that those issues should be brought to the attention of ITC.
Romania had identified a difference in the English and French texts of comment c in the table in 188.8.131.52. The English text refers to “motor vehicles intended to draw trailers with a maximum mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes” while the French text has (in English) “motor vehicles with a maximum mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes intended to draw trailers”. Which is the correct version?
The Working Party confirmed that it is the English text that reflects the proposal adopted in 2015 and that the French text contains and error; it asked the Secretariat to include a correction to the French text in the forthcoming corrigendum.
The Working Party adopted a draft programme of work for 2018-2019 as prepared by the Secretariat, while reducing the length of the planned November 2018 session from five days to four.
The next session, which was due to take place from 6 to 10 November 2017 (a report on which will be included in a forthcoming issue of HCB), was to include a discussion of the construction of the bodies of EX vehicles as well as a half-day round-table session on the transport of dangerous goods. The session will also see the election of officers for 2018.
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) presented a revised version of the guidelines for application of Chapter 1.10 of ADR on the security of the transport of dangerous goods by road; these guidelines had been put together by a broad group of trade associations. The Working Party thanked the organisations concerned for undertaking the project, which many delegations have found to be of great use, and for the work to keep the guidelines updated.
[post_title] => ADR: Roadside attraction
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_name] => adr-roadside-attraction
[post_modified] => 2017-09-21 16:57:39
[post_modified_gmt] => 2017-09-21 15:57:39
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://www.hcblive.com/?p=8551
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw