The recommendations affect shipments by road, rail and sea. But they must be adopted by national governments and international bodies such as the Intl. Maritime Organization, whose position will be critical for U.S. companies that ship across the ocean. The current IMO code is considered a bit archaic. The UN recommendations are considered a prod to the IMO to modernize.
"Some of the per-package quantity limitations were adopted by the IMO years and years ago," says Ron Klein, a packaging engineering specialist with Delvalco Consultants (Newark, DE). Klein spent many years at DuPont as a packaging engineer. "The IMO code was developed before containerization. Bulk shipments were thrown in the hold of the ship. Now, most products are shipped in containers that are palletized, unitized by shrink wrap, then put in 20' or 40' metal containers that are loaded on the ship."
The IMO has entered the "new" packaging world, says Klein, just not with both feet. "They have a few more changes to realize," he adds.
The UN recommendations do give U.S. companies more packaging flexibility than they currently have, according to Frits Wybenga, an official at the U.S. Department of Transportation. For example, there will be an increase from 400 kg to 3ꯠ kg in the weight limit for products shipped in a single, very large combination package. That usually means bottles packed in a jumbo fiberboard box, so long as that box meets the performance standards for intermediate bulk containers.
It will also be easier to ship flammable liquids in open-head steel and plastic drums. Previously, a company had to get competent authority (a national government) approval. The COS recommendations eliminate the need for that approval. Companies would just have to make sure the drum they use meets UN performance tests, which are similar to those used by the DOT.
Not only will the UN recommendations lead to greater flexibility for U.S. companies, they will also in some instances lead to less flexibility for foreign companies who currently have an unfair trade advantage. The U.S., for example, avidly sought tight standards for the packaging of the class of products that are "poisonous by inhalation." The DOT already has strict standards in this area. U.S. companies shipping within the U.S. and foreign companies shipping here have to comply. But U.S. companies competing in European markets with European and other foreign companies may be at a disadvantage. The DOT's Wybenga says the COS recommendations are "somewhat similar" to the U.S. laws, except that the DOT rules have specific toxicity break points that are lacking in the UN recommendations.
In some isolated instances, the UN recommendations would present new restrictions for U.S. companies. "In some cases, there are quantity limitations for some packaging that may be a little bit less than currently allowable," explains Klein. "From that standpoint, there may be some negatives. That will be true probably in the most hazardous category, packing group 1. But there really won't be much of that." Each category of hazardous material such as flammable liquids, poisons, and corrosives is broken down into three packing groups, with 1 being the most hazardous.
Things could have turned out a lot worse. The U.S. had to fight off a number of unsavory European proposals. For example, Germany sought a requirement that certain classes of products be shipped in packages, usually drums, with vents. The idea is to reduce chances for an explosion where there is a possibility that pressure would build up within the drum. But the U.S. position was that if a product posed a "bursting" threat during shipping, the decision to use a vented package should be up to the manufacturer. That position carried the day.
Germany also lost the battle to impose tighter requirements on solids that could liquefy during shipping. Those solids would have had to be shipped in packages certified to carry liquids.
The UN recommendations cover not only commodity chemicals but in many instances consumer products, as well. Household cleaners, for example, can fall into the hazardous substance category, although the DOT often exempts those products from certain packaging requirements.
The Intl. Maritime Organization began meeting in late February on the UN recommendations. The group must decide how much of the new UN packaging system to incorporate in the Intl. Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) code. The initial work will be done by what is called the DSC (Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargos and Containers) subcommittee, where about 50 countries participate.
Manny Pfersich, team leader for packaged cargo for the U.S. Coast Guard, was at the IMO meeting in London the last week of February. "It was quite a battle, frankly," he says. "Some of the European countries wanted to keep the current IMDG code and simply integrate in the UN recommendations. We and others wanted to throw the IMDG code out and start all over with the UN recommendations as the base." There is no formal voting at IMO meetings. But by the end of that first week, almost all the European countries, even those with concerns about the UN recommendations, agreed to chuck out the IMDG code and use the new UN packing instructions as the basis for a rewrite.
The "new" IMDG code won't be completed until February 2000, explains Pfersich. Between now and then, there will undoubtedly be some debates about whether to adopt specific UN recommendations wholesale. "There will probably be some changes in some of the weight limits, for example," explains Pfersich. So maybe, for example, the new limit for single, very large combination packages will be short of the 3ꯠ kg recommended by the UN. But these changes will almost all be at the margin, he added.
As far as the U.S.'s adoption of the UN recommendations, the DOT will be opening a rulemaking soon to do just that. c
