REGULATIONS
97
had probably been wrongly classified. From the chemical structure, it could be expected that the substance would release hydrogen in contact with water or humidity. Due to slow decomposition, borane - which is pyrophoric - might be formed, which could also lead to pressure build-up. Several structurally borane compounds are known to present low thermal stability. It is likely that catecholborane presents
hazards of Divisions 4.1 and 4.3, in which case special transport conditions should apply, including probably temperature control and pressure-proof receptacles. ICAO offered to draw up a formal proposal if it were deemed necessary. • IMO provided a summary of the outcome of the September 2015 meeting of the Editorial & Technical Group, which finalised the text of Amendment 38-16 to the IMDG Code. The Group had spotted what it felt was an error and the Sub-committee agreed that special packing provision z should have been assigned to UN 1058 in Packing Instruction P200 when special packing provision ra was deleted. It asked the secretariat to include this correction in an erratum. • The UN ECE Working Party on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (WP15) had found another problem, this one relating to the terminology in P200(3)(e). The Sub-committee agreed with the comment and will change “liquid phase” and “liquid component” to “liquefied gas” in the first paragraph and in sub-paragraphs (i), (iv) and (v); in the last paragraph “liquid phase” replaces “liquid component”. [This change was announced as a correction to the 19th revised edition but was published as a revision to appear in the 20th revised edition. This may change.] The Sub-committee also noted that P206 may need correction too. • IAEA provided a resume of the work of the Transport Safety Standards Committee (TRANSSC) at its meeting in November 2015. The Sub-committee took particular note of the decision to publish a revised version of
THE TDG AND GHS SUB-COMMITTEES HAVE YET TO FIND A WAY TO FULLY ALIGN THE CORROSIVITY CRITERIA
the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material in 2018, which should lead to increased cooperation in the near future to ensure that the new IAEA provisions are reflected in the Model Regulations.
GHS MATTERS • France provided an update on the round robin testing programme for Tests O.2 and O.3. The Sub-committee noted the progress and thanked France for leading the work to determine new grades of cellulose suitable for use in tests on oxidizing liquids and solids. • An informal document from Belgium and Japan described the work of the informal working group on classification criteria for flammable gases. The Sub-committee agreed to recommend to the Sub-committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonised System of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS) that Flammable Gas Category 1 be sub-divided into 1A and 1B, using either the fundamental burning velocity or lower flammability limit as a cut-off measure. Following up on this, Germany proposed
to include sub-category 1B in Category 2 and to include both Categories 1 and 2 in Division 2.1 in the Model Regulations. There was strong opposition to any move that would affect current transport classification although it was agreed that a debate is necessary. • Two informal documents addressed work to develop proposals for the revision of Chapter 2.8 on corrosivity but had been submitted too late for any meaningful discussion. The main issue to be dealt with is the assignment of packing groups within Class 8, as this must be done in accordance with the test methods specified in Chapter 2.8 and is proving difficult in the case of mixtures. Discussion did, though, point a way to further work. It was agreed that the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) will prepare an official proposal for the next session taking into account bridging principles, additivity and extreme pH values as alternative methods for classification. CEFIC will also provide, in an informal document, relevant data relating to mixtures containing well-known corrosive substances for which information is available in order to illustrate the adequacy of the packing group assignment methods proposed. »
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108
