3 ottobre

Il 3 ottobre 1835, a Norimberga, viene fondata la Staedtler Mars GmbH & Co. KG, la famosa azienda produttrice di materiali (matite, penne, ecc.) per la scrittura.



E, naturalmente, ripenso con un po’ di nostalgia a quando, molti anni fa, scrivevo quello che dovevo/volevo scrivere utilizzando una matita (che preferivo alla già famosa “biro”, con non troppa gioia da parte delle colleghe dattilografe che poi dovevano interpretare i miei scritti).

Perché nostalgia ? Non solo per l’ovvio rimpianto dei tempi passati (quando, ovviamente secondo il tipico pensiero degli anziani, “si stava meglio”), ma anche perché la scrittura “a mano” consentiva (consente ?) più tempo per riflettere sui contenuti di quanto non vi venga dedicato adesso con l’utilizzo dei PC, dal momento che, con i PC, talvolta si dedica più tempo alla forma (carattere, impaginazione, ecc.) che alla sostanza.

Ma non si può certo (né si deve) frenare il progresso. Ad una condizione però: che il progresso sia effettivamente tale.
Allora, prendendo in considerazione il famigerato SISTRI, la sostituzione dei documenti cartacei con una trasmissione telematica dei dati è un progresso, se tale sostituzione diminuisce i tempi, le spese e le incertezze; se però tale sostituzione comporta più tempo, più spese e più confusione, non è un progresso, è una …. “boiata pazzesca” !

Aspettando (non Godot) ma la manif !

Mentre aspetto l’arrivo del corteo
del sindacato, corre l’occhio a destra
e là, proprio di fronte al Colosseo,

vedo giovani che, con man maestra,
scavan rovine di magion romane.
E vedo come dunque ben si addestra

la nuova gioventù ch’ha nelle mane
il passato che pur è nostra storia.
E mi sovvien che forse non son strane

parole: “che inver non c’è vittoria
se dopo aver raggiunto il fondo ancora
scavar si deve”. Forse non è propria

immagine per questa trista ora:
eppur lo è. Che dunque ben si deve
prender atto che questa deteriora

situazion certamente non è lieve.
Allora: lasciam l’archeologia
e il guardo concentrato sia nel breve.

Alle giovine e ai giovin spazio sia
lasciato. Ma purché ben impiegato
a disegnare la corretta via.

Come dissi (e ripeto) nel passato:
cambiar si deve, anzi, voi dovete.
ll futuro gestir: vi è “decretato”.

THANKS

Thanks to all the visitors of this blog.

But is time for me to retire also from that.

If you still wish to be in contact, please use this address:
tramerper@gmail.com

All my best

sergio benassai

again on ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Let us consider the case of the intermodal transport of dangerous substances and mixtures (such as wastes).
According to the future new provisions of ADR/RID 2009 it will be necessary to check if they need to be classified as environmentally hazardous substance and, if that is the case, the package need to be marked accordingly, while, according to IMDG Code, it is necessary to check if it is a marine pollutant and to mark accordingly the package (still it is not clear to me why it should be a mark and not a label).
Do we really think that all the European shippers will check every dangerous substance or mixture (which is not clearly mentioned in the European Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC as environmentally hazardous one) to verify if indeed it is also an environmentally hazardous one ?

Another question: in the case of a mixture, it is really necessary to apply the quite complex summation method (developed by GHS) to establish if it is acute category I or chronic category I or chronic category II ?
What is the meaning of the 3 categories (and specifically the difference between chronic I and II) from the point of view of transport regulations, taking care that the same requirements apply irrespective of the category (which however is not true for sea transport where marine pollutants and severe marine pollutants are subject to different requirements, for instance concerning Limited Quantities) ?
And again it is not clear to me why chronic effects are relevant from the point of view of the environment, but not from the point of view of health (for instance, carcinogens are not considered dangerous in transport regulations).

A possible suggestion: complete revision of GHS, using for classifying environmentally hazardous substances a simpler approach, similar to what has been developed for acute toxicity, and revising transport regulations perhaps assigning different Packing Groups to different categories (if really necessary).

Another possibility is of course to wait the result of the implementation of the European REACH (and GHS) Regulation, which will allow thousands of substances and mixtures to be classified on the basis of GHS criteria.

SUMMARY

One year from the start of this blog, it could be useful to summarize what have been said.
And perhaps quoting the HCB report from the TDG Congress in Ottawa is a good way (but I would expect some contribution from you to continue... !)

... Sergio Benassai ... As a general rule, he said, the transport provisions should apply equally to transport by all modes and classification, labelling and packaging should be aligned. Currently, however, there are variations in definitions, terminology, labelling requirements, limited quantity limits, documentation and packing instructions. He regretted that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) had missed an opportunity to harmonise its packing instructions with those in the UN model regulations during its recent revision process; some of the differences are not really justified, he said. No proper risk assessment has been undertaken to justify the changes or lack thereof, although he acknowledged there is always an understandable reluctance to introduce changes for the sake of it.
Sergio proposed a way to deal with current disharmony: a World Convention on the transport of dangerous goods. A mandatory instrument with requirements for all modes and all countries would avoid the need for national legislation and could also reduce the need to hold international meetings. It could make more use of references to international standards and the Globally Harmonised System (GHS) of classification and labelling. Discussions about this possibility have shown many countries are not sold on the idea so it is necessary to consider alternatives, Sergio said:
(a) open discussion on a website prior to regulatory meetings, so that lengthy unprepared discussions can be avoided at plenary sessions;
(b) discourage modal bodies from making changes without their being discussed first at UN level;
(c) avoid unnecessary editorial variations from the UN text in the modal rulebooks;
(d) align the modal regulations with the UN paragraph numbering system; and
(e) strengthen coordination at national level so that each country's delegations take the same message to the UN, ICAO, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and other rulemaking bodies.
The language of the regulations needs to be clearer, Sergio said. Sharp intakes of breath followed his suggestion that regulators need to accept that English is the global language of trade and that it should be made the official language of all regulations.
Further suggestions from Sergio to foster harmonisation included:
(a) better definition of the responsibilities of the consignor/shipper, loader, carrier, consignee, etc;
(b) closer harmonisation with GHS and the inclusion in the Dangerous Goods List of substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR);
(c) a default system for classifying wastes (something that is being worked on for RID and ADR); and
(d) a single list of dangerous goods using only nos entries and with a UN numbering system similar to that used in the Kemler Code.
This would take a lot of work, though, Sergio said – perhaps it would be simpler to work towards a World Convention after all! ....


Waiting your comments !

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Further development (and adoption) of guiding principles (see INF 28 at 32^ session of UNSCETDG) should be one of the top priority in future work.
The reason for ?
A comprehensive gathering of guiding principles will encourage the movement towards simplified and clear UN Model Regulations, in the way that the list of dangerous goods could be restricted to general n.o.s. entries (the relevant requirements for such entries being defined on the basis of the guiding principles).
And indeed such an approach has just been followed for self-reactive substances and organic peroxides.
Specific (when really necessary) requirements for specific goods could then be mentioned in an annexed list of dangerous goods where specific, relevant, identified goods (substances, mixtures, articles) should be contained (their classification being in agreement with GHS): a list which, I recall, at European level, the REACH Regualtion will require to develop.

OBLIGATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

In Chapter 1.4 of ADR/RID/ADN the safety obligations of the main participants in the carriage of dangerous goods are indicated, following the definitions in Chapter 1.2 for the different participants.

The UNSCETDG should look to this question from two points of view:
1) considering the usefulness of having multimodal agreed definitions of the responsibilities of the participants in the transport of dangerous goods
2) harmonizing the definitions of participants.

On the second point look for instance to the following definitions:
- “Consignor” is defined in the UN Model Regulations, in the IMDG Code, in ADR/RID/ADN (with different wording), but not in the ICAO T.I
- “Shipper” is defined only in IMDG Code, specifying that it has the same meaning of “Consignor”
- in the Multimodal Dangerous Goods Form (as in the UN Model Regulations, IMDG Code and ADR/RID/ADN) reference is made several times to the “Shipper”, apart from the first box where reference is made to “Shipper/Consignor/Sender”

HAZARD DATA BASE (2)

In the previous post “HAZARD DATA BASE” in this blog a worldwide data bank was envisaged where all the substances will be gradually included together with their classification; and, looking specifically to people outside Europe, I mentioned the REACH European Regulation 1907/2006, aimed to register chemicals in a central database, and the European draft Regulation to implement GHS.

Taking care of the new development in terms of classification and marking for environmental hazardous substances (see Post “ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (2)in this blog), it should be noted that the harmonization in that area should require an agreement with IMO on the list of environmentally hazardous substances (to replace the marine pollutants’one).

The UNSCETDG should then start to consider how to deal with the list of hazardous substances which will be developed according to European legislation (REACH and GHS), the existing list of marine pollutants, and, above all, the fact that, following the implementation of GHS, all the existing lists of hazardous substances (including the List of Dangerous Goods in the UN Model Regulations) should need to be revised to avoid that the same substance is classified in different ways in different sectors, while using the same system of classification (GHS).

The UNSCETDG should not forget that who take the initiative is generally able to better control the outcome !

ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (2)

The Joint Meeting ADR/RID/ADN held in September 2007 has adopted the GHS/UN Model Regulations criteria for classification of environmentally hazardous substances and it is expected that the new provisions will be contained in the 2009 edition of ADR, RID and ADN.

With reference to marking, the new provisions require the marking of packages (and containers, tanks, etc.) containing environmentally hazardous substances, also if the substances have been classified as dangerous according to the criteria for other hazards.

At this point one should expect that the UNSCETDG will come back again to this question, adopting a similar position (i.e. to require marking also for substances which have been classified as dangerous according to the criteria for the other hazards). And perhaps could reconsider the idea of having a label instead of a marking for the packages.

Subsequently one should also expect that the IMO DSC will follow such a decision adopting the same provisions (one of the main problems for the DSC was the necessity of having a mandatory marking for marine pollutants also if they have been classified as dangerous according to the criteria for the other hazards). And perhaps at this point the IMO DSC could be able to align marine pollutants (and GESAMP criteria) to the GHS/UN Model Regulations criteria for classification of environmentally hazardous substances.

The revision of all the UN entries (and of the list of marine pollutants in the IMDG Code) according to the new provisions is something that need to be considered. But it could be coped with in the more general framework of the revision of the existing entries according to the GHS harmonized criteria, i.e. revised criteria for toxic substances, etc., also considering a possible development of a more general list of dangerous goods (see, in this blog, the post “HAZARD DATA BASE (2)”). For environmentally hazardous substances, the IMO list of marine pollutants and the EU list could be the starting points.

SMALL STEPS FOR HARMONIZATION

Waiting a World Convention something can (shall) be done to increase harmonization among UN Recommendations and Modal Regulations.
For instance (just to start):


1. Consignor/Shipper

In the Multimodal Dangerous Goods Form reference is made (in boxes 1, 4, 22 and in the Shipper Declaration) to Shipper.
In the Un Recommendations no definition is given in Chapter 1.2 for Shipper, but a definition is provided for Consignor.
The same situation can be found in ADR/RID/ADN, while in IMDG Code both definition of Consignor and Shipper are contained (with the same meaning) and in ICAO T.I. no definition is given for Consignor or Shipper


2. Transport/Carriage

Why ADR/RID/ADN still use the words “Carriage”, “Carry”, etc. instead of “Transport”, etc. as in the UN Recommendations, IMDG Code and ICAO T.I. ?


3. Class/Division

In the UN Recommendations and ICAO T.I. we have Classes (1, 2, …4,…9) and Divisions (… 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 …..).
In IMDG Code and ADR/RID/ADN we have (apart from class 1) only Classes.
In GHS you can find Classes, Categories and SubCategories.

UNFORTUNATELY

In this blog I often mentioned the necessity of intermodal harmonization and noted the ICAO resistance to that.

On this point, if you have a look to UN/SCETDG/31/INF.48 (the report of a working group at the 31^ session of the UNSCETDG, July 2007), you can read in the first paragraph, third sentence:

"It was agreed for the discussion to leave LQ by air out of the discussion because the difference are too great."

NO COMMENT

GOOD NEWS

ADR

In the last Session (7-11 May 2007) of Working Party 15 (ADR) it was confirmed the decision of simplifying written instructions for drivers of road vehicles, going on the direction of only one written instruction for all classes of dangerous goods.


PING-PONG

ICAO DGP has agreed that the allocation of UN 2000 CELLULOID to table tennis balls was incorrect and that sporting balls when inflated or when containing compressed gases are not subject to the Technical Instructions


HARMONIZATION

The International Council of Chemical Associations has transmitted a sound proposal (ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2007/3) to UNSCETDG in order to harmonize the provisions for susbstances which, when tested, do not meet the criteria for any class or division because of its chemical/physical properties.
It is then proposed to align UN Recommendations with other regulations (ADR/RID/ADN, US CFR 49) in terms of deleting Special Provision 223 (now assigned to some substances, but not to all the interested ones) and introducing a new paragraph 2.0.1.6 with the relevant statement.

HAZARD versus CLASSIFICATION, RISK versus EXEMPTION

It is widely agreed (see also GHS) that classification of dangerous goods is based on hazard, i.e on the intrinsic characteristics of the substance/mixture.

Risk analysis (i.e. definition of events, probability of events, magnitude of negative effects) is not playing (should not play) a role in classification.

But, moving to the development of criteria for specific requirements, such as the choice of specific limits for exemption from the (or some parts of the) regulations, (a sort of) risk analysis could be an useful tool.

Let us look to the existing values for the definition of:
- High Consequence Dangerous Goods in terms of security;
- Limited Quantities;
- Excepted Quantities:
- etc.

Where do the related figures come from ? What is the rationale ?
Should not be possible to develop a reference scenario
for deriving more sound values ?

I'm not thinking in terms of a complex risk analysis, but I'm looking for instance to the Q-system developed by IAEA (see Appendx I in Safety Guide TS-G-1.1, ST-2).

Could something similar be adopted also in the more general framework of the other dangerous goods ?

TOWARDS WORLD CONVENTION

Well aware of the difficulties for achieving the goal of a world convention, I’m thinking what could be possible in the meantime for improving harmonization among different modes of transport.

One step could be a request (from ECOSOC ?) to IMO, ICAO, ECE (for ADR/RID/ADN) in terms of instructing the relevant bodies to clearly justify any (also editorial) departure from UN Model Regulations.

And on this line the UN SubCommittee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods could agree, at the July 2007 meeting, to invite ICAO DGP, IMO DSC, Joint Meeting ADR/RID/AND, to revise their regulations in terms of adopting the Model Regulations as they are, apart from well justified safety reasons, and, at the same time, bring to the attention of the UNSCETDG, together with such deviations, what is thought to be incorrect or unclear.

ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

The existing provisions in UN Model Regulations, in IMDG Code, in ICAO T.I., in ADR/RID/ADN are not harmonized.
Main problems are related to criteria for classification, subdivision into categories in GHS and into severe and non severe marine pollutants in IMDG Code, requirements for labelling and marking.

Taking also care of the future implementation of GHS in other sectors, a possible solution (for all the modes of transport) could be:
1) to implement GHS criteria (as in UN Model Regulations)
2) to recognize the environmental hazard as a subsidiary risk also for substances which meet the criteria of other classes/divisions
3) to split the existing UN numbers into “severe aquatic pollutants” and “aquatic pollutants”, respectively for category “acute 1 and chronic 1” and category “chronic 2” (in view of future development in GHS concerning terrestrial environment, it seems appropriate to change the proper shipping name)
4) to require the GHS pictogram as the label (not as a mark) for aquatic pollutant (and not the class 9 label), also for substances which meet the criteria of other classes/divisions

In implementing GHS in transport regulations there was a large consensus on the decision that classification of substances will be revised if necessary, according to the GHS criteria, on the basis of case by case proposals. The same principle could be adopted here, but the starting point could also be the provisional adoption of the IMDG Code classification as aquatic (marine) pollutant.

CLASSIFICATION OF WASTES

In the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) no clear reference is made to wastes.
However the UN SubCommittee of Experts on GHS has agreed to cooperate with the Open Ended Working Group of the Basel Convention in order to come out with a proposal for wastes classification on the basis of GHS.

I don’t see any problem in simply stating that wastes have to be classified in accordance with GHS.

First of all I would like to remind that, for transport, wastes are classified according to the criteria for mixtures and then in accordance with GHS.
Moreover, looking to Basel Convention, the list of hazardous characteristics in Annex III (based on transport regulations for Codes H1 to H8) can be easily revised making reference to GHS.

The real problem is that sometime it is very difficult to classify wastes, due to the uncertainties on the real content of hazardous substances and on their concentration and also because (mainly for physical hazards) no clear criteria have been developed for mixtures.

In conclusion:
a) criteria for mixtures (physical hazards) need to be investigated
b) a conservative approach for classifying wastes with unknown content or concentration could be considered (see, for instance, the discussion going on at the Joint Meeting ADR/RID/ADN)

HAZARD DATA BASE

The Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling of Chemical (GHS) has been largely implemented in transport regulations; European Commission published a draft regulation in view of adopting GHS for other sectors; in other countries GHS has been or is going to be implemented.

But... harmonization is not a simple task.

One problem is related to the procedures that are or will be established for classification of hazardous substances.
Indeed the same substance can be classified in different categories (or also in different classes) according to the existing regulations.
Of course, making reference to the harmonized criteria of GHS, a unique, harmonized classification should be envisaged.
However, taking care that classification is often based on the results of tests provided by different industries/laboratories, it is possible that different sources of data entail different classification.

Should not then be a good idea to envisage a worldwide data bank where all the substances will be gradually included together with their classification (and their Safety Data Sheet) ?
Of course, when a different classification is resulting for the same substance, a mechanism of revision should also be envisaged.

Certainly not an easy target.
But (and I’m looking specifically to people outside Europe) take care of the REACH European Regulation 1907/2006, aimed to register chemicals in a central database.
If you don’t move, the worldwide database will be the REACH one.

(Editorial) MULTIMODAL HARMONIZATION of transport regulations

While IMDG Code, and ADR/RID/ADN, are generally in line with UN Model Regulations. both in terms of subdivision in parts, chapters, sections and paragraphs and (more relevant) in terms of text, that is not true for ICAO Technical Instructions (neither for IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, which are also different from ICAO T.I.).

Unfortunately the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) doesn’t seem going in the direction of increasing harmonization.

Let us consider the proposed revised Packing Instructions, as contained in the Consultative Document.
In recognizing the specific needs of air transport, is it really justifiable not to pursue an editorial harmonization with UN Model Regulations in terms of numbering system, format, etc. ?

A general query: if IAEA is considering a possible alignment of TS-R-1 with UN Model Regulations, why should that be so “impossible” for ICAO DGP ?

Have consignors (or shippers: another modal disharmony) something to say ?

WELCOME

Welcome to this blog.

Here I would like to exchange views in the fields of the transport of dangerous good and of the classification of hazardous substances and mixtures.

With the next post I will propose some topics and some ideas.