Regulatory Impact Statement

Queensland
Explosives Amendment Regulation
(No. 1) 2010
Regulatory Impact Statement for* SL 2010 No. 47
made under the
Explosives Act 1999
Regulatory Impact Statement
* Under the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, section 46(1)(h), a regulatory
impact statement (RIS) need not be prepared for proposed subordinate
legislation if it only provides for, or to the extent it only provides for, a
matter involving the adoption of an Australian or international protocol,
standard, code, or intergovernmental agreement or instrument, if an
assessment of the benefits and costs has already been made and the
assessment was made for, or is relevant to, Queensland.
A RIS was not prepared for the above item of subordinate legislation on the
basis that it provides for the adoption of an Australian code of practice and
an international protocol and RISs were prepared for the Office of
Australian Safety and Compensation Council and the National Transport
Commission in relation to the subject matter.
RISs in relation to the subject matter prepared for the Office of Australian
Safety and Compensation Council and the National Transport Commission
may be viewed at the following sites—
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/4D51506C-317C-442B
-B020-662E6BEE07E4/0/AFER_Code_RIS.pdf
http://www.dme.qld.gov.au/mines/explosives_fireworks_safety.cfm
Copies of the RISs provided to the Queensland Government are attached.
September 2008
Regulatory Impact Statement:
Australian Code for the Transport of
Explosives by Road and Rail - 3rd
Edition
Report by Access Economics Pty Limited for
Office of the Australian Safety and
Compensation Council
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
CONTENTS
Glossary of common abbreviations .................................................................................... iii
Executive summary............................................................................................................... iv
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.
Statement of the problem............................................................................................. 4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.
Option 1: Retain the status quo .........................................................................................12
Option 2: Minimal change ..................................................................................................13
Option 3: Minimal change with self regulation by industry.................................................14
Option 4: Revise the AEC to align with ADG 7 and UN 15 to the extent possible ............14
Option 5: Fully and directly adopt the UN Model Regulations ...........................................15
Summary of options ...........................................................................................................16
Consultation ................................................................................................................ 17
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.
Guiding principles ..............................................................................................................11
Criteria for assessing options.............................................................................................11
Options ........................................................................................................................12
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
5.
Definition of ‘explosives’.......................................................................................................5
Scope of the ‘explosives industry’........................................................................................5
Injuries in the transport of explosives ..................................................................................7
Reasons for updating the AEC ............................................................................................8
Other issues .........................................................................................................................9
2.5.1
Differences in legislation between jurisdictions .........................................................9
2.5.2
Explosives and security provisions......................................................................... 10
Objective OF the AEC ................................................................................................. 11
3.1
3.2
4.
The United Nations Model Regulations ...............................................................................1
Role of the Australian Forum of Explosives Regulators ......................................................2
Developments ......................................................................................................................2
Update of the AEC ...............................................................................................................3
Key changes from AEC 2 to Public Comment Draft AEC 3 under Option 2......................17
Submissions.......................................................................................................................19
Differences in Legislation between Jurisdictions ...............................................................20
Changes to the Draft AEC 3 in response to Submissions .................................................20
Additional Access EconomIcs inquiries .............................................................................21
Impact assessment ..................................................................................................... 23
6.1
Broad approach to impact assessment .............................................................................23
6.1.1
Methodology ........................................................................................................... 23
6.1.2
Cost benefit analysis............................................................................................... 23
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this document, the uncertain nature of economic data, forecasting
and analysis means that Access Economics Pty Limited is unable to make any warranties in relation to the information
contained herein. Access Economics Pty Limited, its employees and agents disclaim liability for any loss or damage which
may arise as a consequence of any person relying on the information contained in this document.
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
6.1.3
Options considered................................................................................................. 24
6.1.4
Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 24
6.2 Safety and security ............................................................................................................25
6.3 Option 2 compared with Option 1 ......................................................................................27
6.3.1
Data for Option 2 compared with Option 1 ............................................................. 29
6.3.2
Net benefit of Option 2 relative to Option 1 ............................................................ 32
6.3.3
Sensitivity analysis for Option 2 compared with Option 1 ...................................... 34
6.4 Option 4 compared with Option 2 ......................................................................................35
6.5 Summary impact assessment............................................................................................37
7.
Conclusion and evaluation ........................................................................................ 38
8.
Implementation and Review....................................................................................... 40
8.1
8.2
8.3
Implementation...................................................................................................................40
Review ...............................................................................................................................40
Looking Forward ................................................................................................................40
8.3.1
Incorporation of AEC into the ADG......................................................................... 40
8.3.2
Uniform legislation for explosives across jurisdictions ........................................... 41
Attachment A – Legislation and AFER members with responsibility for explosives by
Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................... 43
Attachment B – Explosives industry data.......................................................................... 46
TABLES
Table 2–1: Imports, exports and estimated explosives production 2007, ($m)
Table 5–1: Consultations by Access Economics
Table 6–1: Changes in costs and benefits for Option 2 compared with Option 1
Table 6–2: Changes in costs and benefits of option 2 relative to option 1, 2009 to 2018
(2008$ million)
Table 6–3: Ranges of parameter values and corresponding NPVs
Table 6–4: Changes in costs and benefits of option 4 relative to option 1, 2009 to 2018
(2008$ million)
6
22
28
34
35
36
FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Compensation claims relating to manufactured explosives substances
8
ii
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
GLOSSARY OF COMMON ABBREVIATIONS
ABS
ACTDG
ADG Code
ADG 6
ADG 7
AEC
AEISG
AEC 2
AEC 3
AETSSG
AFER
AN
ANFO
ASCC
CBA
cif
COAG
DEEWR
ECASC
fob
GDP
IBC
ICAO TI
IMDG Code
NEQ
NPV
NTC
OBPR
PC
PIAA
RIS
SSAN
UN 15
WRMC
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and
Rail
Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and
Rail – 6th Edition
Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and
Rail – 7th Edition
Australian Code for the Transport of Explosives by Road and Rail
Australian Explosives Industry and Safety Group
Australian Code for the Transport of Explosives by Road and Rail –
2nd Edition
Australian Code for the Transport of Explosives by Road and Rail –
3rd Edition
Australian Explosives Transport Safety and Security Group
Australian Forum of Explosives Regulators
ammonium nitrate
ammonium nitrate and fuel oil
Australian Safety and Compensation Council
cost benefit analysis
cost, insurance and freight (value of imports)
Council of Australian Governments
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Explosives Competent Authorities Sub-Committee
free on board (value of exports)
gross domestic product
Intermediate Bulk Container
International Civil Aviation Organisation Technical Instructions
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code
Net Explosive Quantity
net present value
National Transport Commission
Office of Best Practice Regulation
Productivity Commission
Pyrotechnics Industry Association of Australia
Regulatory Impact Statement
security-sensitive ammonium nitrate
United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods, Model Regulations – 15th revised edition
Workplace Relations Ministerial Council
iii
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has been prepared in accordance with the Council
of Australian Governments (COAG) requirements to assess the impact on Australian
Governments, industry and the community of implementing the proposed revised Australian
Code for the Transport of Explosives by Road and Rail (Australian Explosives Code or AEC).
BACKGROUND
Australia uses explosives for blasting purposes extensively in its mining industry, and also for
quarrying. Other significant uses are for fireworks, ammunition and military purposes.
Given the magnitude of the risks, the use of explosives is subject to codes of practice and
legislation where the emphasis is on safety and security.
Explosives are included as dangerous goods for regulatory purposes internationally. Within
Australia there is a separate national code for the land transport of explosives, and separate
legislation in most States and Territories for the use of explosives. However, regulations for
the transport of explosives are covered mostly by regulations for the transport of dangerous
goods. In order to maximise safety and security for the transport of explosives, it is important
to maintain consistency with other relevant regulations and guidance material, and especially
with international regulations and guidance material because large proportions of the
explosives used in Australia are imported.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The current edition of the Australian Code for the Transport of Explosives by Road and Rail
(AEC 2) was published in March 2000. It has now fallen behind the UN Model Regulations
for the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN 15) in relation to the classification, labelling,
packaging and land transport of explosives. AEC 2 has also fallen behind the Australian
Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (ADG 7), and the International
Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code 34/08). There is also a need to review the
current security provisions for explosives contained in the AEC.
It is very important that consistency between international and domestic guidance material and those of intermodal transport guidance material - be maintained, as out of date
classifications could compromise safety by not taking account of new knowledge regarding
the dangers of explosives. In addition to this, inconsistencies between various guidance
materials could create confusion in the handling of explosives. In recent years, there has also
been an added emphasis on domestic security arrangements for the land transport of
explosives.
OPTIONS
AFER has considered five options for revising the 2nd edition of the AEC (AEC 2):

Option 1: Retain the Status Quo.

Option 2: Minimal change to reflect the content of UN 15 but retaining the existing AEC
2 structure, format and concepts, together with updating the current security provisions.
iv
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives

Option 3: Minimal change with self regulation by industry.

Option 4: Revise the AEC to align with the content and structure of the 7th edition of the
ADG Code (ADG 7) and the 15th edition of the UN Model Regulations (UN 15) to the
extent possible.

2
A review of the security requirements contained in the AEC was conducted with
the participation of jurisdictions, relevant security agencies and industry, was
completed in 2002. The review's recommendations were incorporated into an
addendum to AEC 2 (Security Addendum).
United Nations, Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods - 15th revised edition, 2007
2
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives

The UN Model Regulations have undergone significant revisions and
improvements. They are now up to the 15th revised edition (AEC 2 was based on
the 11th revised edition – UN 11).

Both the ADG Code 3 and the IMDG Code 4 have been revised and they are now
up to their 7th edition and edition 34/08 respectively.

National security advice gained from international events indicated that there was
a high potential for ammonium nitrate (AN) to be used by terrorists and as such,
Australia needed to introduce laws restricting access to AN. (AN is regularly used
as a raw material for explosives in the mining and quarrying industries as well as
fertiliser in the agricultural and horticultural industries). On the basis of the
introduction of new Security Sensitive Ammonium Nitrate (SSAN) laws or
principles in Australia, which have now been applied as security provisions in
relevant state and territory legislation for activities related to SSAN 5 , explosives
regulators have been advised that explosives legislation would need to reflect an
equivalent level of security in regard to access to explosives.

Due to international incidents where fireworks have produced mass explosion
events, the UN has initiated a default classification system for fireworks, which is
intended to be adopted nationally.

Over the past two years, jurisdictions have been changing regulations and/or
procedures to make use of these recent UN amendments.
1.4
UPDATE OF THE AEC
The major impetus for the update of the AEC came from increasing difficulties for
regulators and industry in applying AEC 2 because of increasing misalignment with
current national and international guidance material. There was also a recognised need
to update the security provisions in AEC 2 to align them with the security requirements
for SSAN. Industry is fully supportive of updating the AEC and has been involved in the
process via the AEISG.
In May 2007, AFER agreed to proceed with an update of the AEC. The update was
developed by a working group consisting of representatives of Commonwealth
(Department of Defence, the Australian Maritime Safety Agency), state and territory
explosives regulators, and representatives from AEISG and the road and rail transport
industries.
3
National Transport Commission, Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and
Rail - 7th edition, 2007
4
International Maritime Organisation, International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, 2008 Edition, as
adopted by IMO resolution MSC 262(84)
5
Council of Australian Government’s Meeting, Communique, Attachment D: Principles for the Regulation
of Ammonium Nitrate, Canberra, 25 June 2004
3
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The current edition of the Australian Explosives Code (AEC 2) was published in March
2000, and was designed to complement and be consistent with the 6th edition of the
ADG Code and Amendment 29/98 of the IMDG Code. AEC 2 adopts the classification
and labelling system for explosives as detailed in the UN ‘Recommendations on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods – 11th edition’ (UN 11).
Currently the AEC’s classification and labelling provisions are four editions behind the
UN’s ‘Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods’, which are now up to
the 15th edition (UN 15). The AEC has also fallen behind the ADG Code (which has
been revised, with the 7th edition released in September 2007), the IMDG Code, which
is now up to Amendment 34/08, and the ICAO TI.
The continued misalignment of the AEC with domestic dangerous goods regulation and
international maritime and air transport regulations could pose additional costs and
risks for industry. Furthermore, the outdated nature of the AEC has led to a lack of
consistency in its application in various State and Territory jurisdictions.
In addition, consistency between international and domestic guidance material - and
that of intermodal transport guidance material - should be maintained, as out of date
classifications could compromise safety by not taking account of new knowledge. In
addition to this, inconsistencies between guidance material could create confusion in
the handling of explosives, which could also compromise safety.
Further, security provisions are currently contained in an addendum to AEC 2, and it is
desirable to incorporate these provisions into the main body of the AEC. Together with
their inclusion in the main text, these provisions need to be updated in line with the
general security requirements of UN 15.
Although UN 15 does address transport generally with limited references to road and
rail transport, it is concerned primarily with how explosives are classified, labelled and
packaged prior to transport.
Production by the Australian explosives industry is relatively small, and consistency
between Australian and international codes and guidance material is important
because there are appreciable quantities of imports. Inconsistencies between codes
and guidance material for explosives lead to additional costs and inefficiencies for the
industry and regulators. They could create confusion which could also lead to mistakes
in the handling of explosives.
A related problem, which is outside the scope of this RIS, is that jurisdictions do not
follow the AEC exactly, but impose their own additional requirements that vary across
jurisdictions. This creates additional problems for the industry and transport because
the majority of explosives are moved across states.
The magnitude of the problem depends on the quantities and types of explosives
produced in Australia and imported, and the number of people involved. It also
depends on the mode of transport.
4
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
2.1
DEFINITION OF ‘EXPLOSIVES’
The definition of explosives used in the AEC is consistent with that used in UN 15 and
ADG 7. This definition is centred on Class 1 dangerous goods, which includes
explosive substances, explosive articles and other substances which are manufactured
with a view to producing a practical, explosive or pyrotechnic effect.
In a broad sense, common types of explosives include:

Blasting explosives - used in the mining, quarrying, civil construction and
agricultural industries

Munitions (ammunition and other military explosives (bombs, missiles, warheads
and mines)), and

Pyrotechnics (including fireworks).
It should be noted that Class 1 dangerous goods (explosives) form only a small part of
the larger group known as dangerous goods, which encompass goods of Class 1
through to and including goods of Class 9. Although most Class 1 goods are carried in
dedicated specially-equipped vehicles, the same transport operator or driver may
transport dangerous goods of different Classes at different times, while Class 1 goods
can in special circumstances be carried with goods of other Classes. For these reasons
it is desirable for the AEC to use placards consistent with the ADG Code.
Inconsistencies could lead to inefficiency and confusion, which in turn could also lead
to mistakes and accidents.
The focus of the AEC is to provide a uniform basis for governing the road and rail
transport of explosives. The AEC is applicable to both civilian and military explosives
transport.
2.2
SCOPE OF THE ‘EXPLOSIVES INDUSTRY’
The use of explosives in Australia is dominated by blasting for the mining and quarrying
industries. Other significant uses are for fireworks, ammunition and military purposes.
Different types of explosives are used for each.
Blasting mostly involves detonation of AN based explosives. For major mines, which
account for at least 90% of the tonnage of explosives used in Australia, the AN based
explosives are mixed on site. About 3 million tonnes of AN are transported to mines
each year. AN by itself is generally a Class 5 dangerous good, especially where
transported for mining purposes, but it can be a Class 1 explosive depending on its
concentration and levels of combustible materials. It is treated as an explosive within
the meaning of AEC 3 when it is carried in a mixed load with explosives. Legislation in
Queensland and South Australia considers AN to be an explosive, but this now
imposes no additional costs on industry or transporters relative to SSAN legislation in
all jurisdictions, or as reflected in AEC 3. AN retains its Class 5 dangerous goods
classification and is transported under the ADG Code.
The explosives used in mining, in addition to those mixed on site, are detonators,
primers, boosters, packaged blasting explosives, blasting accessories and specialty
products, including seismic.
In Australia, the manufacture of explosives (meaning Class 1 dangerous goods) is
restricted to relatively small quantities of detonators, packaged explosives,
pyrotechnics (including fireworks), ammunition and other munitions. Discussions with
5
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
industry indicate that large proportions of explosives are imported. However, official
data for imports and exports (see Table 2–1) suggest that imports of explosives are
much less than the domestic production of explosives, which was estimated to be
about $1,300 million in 2005-06 6 . This apparent contradiction arises because the ABS
production data for explosives do not correspond to Class 1 explosives alone but are
dominated by a large quantity of AN that is converted to an explosive mixture at mines.
Employment in the manufacture of explosives (including AN) in 2005-06 was estimated
to be about 2,000 7 .
In 2007, exports totalled $32.0 million (free on board or fob) and imports were $85
million (customs value) (ABS 5368.0, Tables 12b and 13b). Comparison with the
detailed entries in Table 2–1 reveals that these aggregate values must exclude most
munitions, although they probably include some ammunition. The market value of
imports would be higher than the customs value by at least the value of insurance and
freight, plus any import duty (i.e., cif or cost, insurance and freight). Most ports have
restrictions on quantities of explosives passing through the port at any time, in order to
minimise the risk of damage, death and injuries in surrounding areas from accidental
explosions. The majority of explosives imports for blasting are landed at isolated Port
Alma in Queensland, near Rockhampton, and most munitions are imported through
Point Wilson in Victoria 8 .
The estimates of production (and derived measures of total supply and domestic sales)
in Table 2–1 for individual explosives are extremely imprecise and intended only as
very rough illustrative approximations.
TABLE 2–1: IMPORTS, EXPORTS AND ESTIMATED EXPLOSIVES PRODUCTION 2007, ($M)
Australian
production
Ammonium nitrate (AN)
Class 1 explosives
Blasting explosives
Pyrotechnics
Munitions
Total Class 1 explosives
Total (including AN)
imports
cif
total
supply
domestic
sales
exports
fob
1,200
44
1,244
1,191
53
150
30
20
200
43
28
248
319
193
58
268
519
164
54
216
434
29
4
52
85
1,400
363
1,763
1,625
138
Sources: Imports and exports from ABS (special data request). Production values are Access Economics
rough estimates inferred from ABS data and discussions with the explosives industry.
6
Within ‘other chemical products’, values for explosives and ink are not available for publication, but their
sum can be deduced by subtracting all other items from the total for other chemical products. The value for
explosives is inferred from total sales and service income of $1,659 million for explosives (ANZSIC 2541)
plus ink (ANZSIC 2547) in ABS 8221.0, December 2007 (Table 2.2), less an estimate for inks based on
data for earlier years.
7
This is a very approximate value using the same data source as the preceding footnote and total
employment for explosives and ink of 2,984.
8
Ports restrict quantities of explosives in order to minimise risks to surrounding infrastructure, businesses
and homes. Port Alma, near Rockhampton, is the major explosives port. It is isolated and there are no
buildings nearby. Explosives are trucked inland to a store and then distributed to other parts of Australia.
There is no similar commercial port elsewhere in Australia. It would be expensive to build another
explosives port.
6
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
There is some uncertainty about the future proportion of the supply of explosives that is
accounted for by imports. It appears to be increasing. The value of imports increased at
an average compound rate of 18% a year from 1997 to 2005 (although it then declined
by 18% in 2006 and 11% in 2007). An alternative view is that port restrictions will make
it increasingly difficult to import the required quantities of explosives, so that increased
domestic production of the more commonly used items may increase.
Military use corresponds essentially to munitions, but with the exclusion of some
ammunition and the inclusion of some pyrotechnics. The large value for imports of
munitions is due partly to high unit prices for some items. Imports include munitions for
visiting forces, while exports include munitions for military action overseas.
Attachment B provides some data on the level of involvement by type of industry.
Rail transport accounts for an appreciable proportion of the movement of AN, but most
Class 1 explosives are carried by road. Solid AN, in pelletised or prilled form, is carried
by rail in sealed bulk containers, while emulsion AN is carried in sealed ‘tanktainers’.
There are transfers by road vehicle as necessary. Rail is suited to long distance
movements, including between eastern states and Western Australia. There is strict
attention to security and safety of explosives loads, particularly as trains inevitably pass
through urban areas. The amounts of Class 1 explosives carried by rail vary over time
according to contracts. The loads are typically (single) pallets packed in containers with
other goods that are unlikely to cause ignition or fuel a fire in the case of an accident.
Road transport of explosives is restricted by licensing legislation in each state. Except
for small quantities of explosives carried by general carriers, transport of explosives is
undertaken by a small number of transport operators, explosives firms, and the military.
Jurisdictions place tight restrictions on road vehicle routes, especially through urban
areas, so as to maximise safety.
2.3
INJURIES IN THE TRANSPORT OF EXPLOSIVES
It is difficult to determine the number of people working in the explosives industry as
explosives may be used in a range of industries including manufacturing, transport,
mining, agriculture and the pyrotechnics industry. It is even more difficult to determine
from those working in this industry how many are actually involved in the transportation
of explosives by road and rail.
In addition to this, there are limited data available regarding the amount of injuries that
have occurred in this industry. Data taken from the National Dataset for Workers’
Compensation Statistics indicate that there have been fewer incidents in the explosives
industry when compared with other industries, but that when incidents occur they tend
to be of high consequence.
The following chart (Figure 2-1) shows national data for claims specifically attributed to
manufactured explosives substances including incidents relating to gun powder,
fireworks, ammunition and percussion caps. These data do not include flammable or
explosive substances not intended for that use.
Incidents relating to the transportation of explosives are included in these figures, but it
cannot be determined how many actually relate to the transport of explosives.
7
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
FIGURE 2-1: COMPENSATION CLAIMS RELATING TO MANUFACTURED EXPLOSIVES
SUBSTANCES
Compensation Claims with Agency='Manufactured Explosive Substances'
30
27
24
24
25
23
Number of Claims
22
20
20
19
18
15
10
8
5
0
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
Year
Source: National Dataset for Workers’ Compensation Statistics
Between 1997-98 and 2005-06, 115 (62%) of these claims resulted in temporary
incapacity to work; 65 (35%) in permanent incapacity and 4 (2%) were fatal. Of these
fatalities, none were directly related to the transportation of explosives by road or rail.
The average time lost from work for those temporarily incapacitated was four weeks.
While the compensation claims mostly resulted in temporary incapacitation, permanent
incapacity resulted in $6,676,700 or 63.4% of the total cost of compensation claims
from 1997-97 to 2005-06, with the average per annum being $741,856.
These data are likely to understate the actual number of injuries in the explosives
industry as a whole, as they include only those injuries for which a claim has been
made, involving one week or more off work and accepted by the workers compensation
authority. Self employed workers are also not included in the data.
2.4
REASONS FOR UPDATING THE AEC
A number of factors have been instrumental in AFER’s decision to update the AEC.

Currently, the classification, packaging and labelling provisions in AEC 2 are four
editions behind the UN Model Regulations, currently at the 15th edition, which are
revised every two years. Updating in line with the UN Model Regulations is
necessary to ensure that these provisions are compatible with international
guidance material. This will help promote safer practices, facilitate international
trade and expedite responses to incidents, and may help reduce inconsistency
across Commonwealth, State and Territory jurisdictions.

AEC 2 is behind the ADG Code by one edition and the IMDG Code by three
editions. The continued misalignment with the domestic dangerous goods code
and international maritime and air transport guidance material could pose costs
and risks for industry.

Legislation in most jurisdictions references the AEC. As a consequence, the
benefits of improved technology and/or safer packaging for explosives cannot be
realised by the Australian explosives industry while referring to AEC 2. Most
packaged explosives are now imported into Australia, with very little local
manufacture. Therefore, the standards of packaging and labelling, employed by
overseas manufacturers, legitimately working to international (UN) guidance
8
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
material, are not reflected within Australia because of the requirements of AEC 2.
Hence to meet Australian requirements, the local explosives industry must either
have their overseas suppliers change their normal processes/standards or relabel and re-package imports before distribution and use within Australia, or seek
approval to import goods which are at variance with AEC 2. As a result additional
costs are incurred to meet local legal requirements for no added safety or
security benefit.

Further, in terms of intermodal consistency, the maritime safety requirements for
importing explosives by sea (IMDG Code) and air (ICAO TI) which have both
been amended for international consistency with UN15, are now at variance with
the road and rail explosives transport requirements (AEC 2) resulting in
inconsistencies in freight container design and labelling standards. Therefore
containers of explosives arriving by sea, the common mode of import, cannot
simply be transferred to road and/or rail transport at the port of arrival. Again this
can result in additional costs to the industry, for no added safety or security
benefit.

Because AEC 2 is outdated, jurisdictions have been granting permissions to
industry to import explosives labelled and packaged in accordance with recent
editions of the UN Model Regulations, IMDG Code and ICAO TI, although the
extent of the approval differs across jurisdictions. This has resulted in a lack of
consistency in the application of the AEC across jurisdictions, which is of
importance because many explosives are moved through multiple jurisdictions,
and permission must be obtained in each.

The security provisions which formed the AEC 2 Security Addendum need to be
incorporated into AEC 3. They also need to be updated in line with UN 15
general security requirements and the SSAN security requirements 9 . The aim of
such a change is to limit opportunities for the illegal/unauthorised use of
explosives.

Increasing the consistency of the AEC with related codes and guidance material
is expected to not only improve safety and security but to have economic benefits
to industry through net reductions in costs.
2.5
OTHER ISSUES
2.5.1
DIFFERENCES IN LEGISLATION BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS
AEC is a national code, formulated by Commonwealth and State regulators. However,
there is no corresponding national legislation. Legislation is determined separately by
each jurisdiction (see Attachment A). While legislation in each jurisdiction generally
embraces the AEC with regard to labelling and packaging, there are deviations from
the AEC in some jurisdictions in relation to transport procedures.
Differences in explosives legislation between jurisdictions are of importance because
they increase costs, and a very large proportion of explosives are moved between
jurisdictions.
It is noted that differences in legislation between jurisdictions are outside the scope of
this RIS, which is restricted to the AEC. They are included as an issue because many
9
Council of Australian Governments, Communique 25 June 2004, Attachment D
9
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
submissions drew attention to these differences and they are clearly of importance to
stakeholders. Differences in legislation are referred to again in sections 5.3 and 8.3.2.
It should also be noted that the second edition of the code (AEC 2) is adopted or
referred to under explosives legislation in most states and territories. It is anticipated
that all jurisdictions will reference AEC 3 when it is published.
2.5.2
EXPLOSIVES AND SECURITY PROVISIONS
Another issue is the overlap between the security provisions for explosives and AN. AN
is generally a Class 5 dangerous good and hence not classified as an explosive but
can be readily converted to an explosive mixture when mixed with fuel oil.
At the national level, security provisions for explosives are currently addressed by an
addendum to AEC 2. These will be incorporated into AEC 3. COAG has agreed to a set
of principles, outside the AEC, for the regulation of SSAN. The security provisions for
SSAN are currently stronger than those for explosives, and the explosives provisions
are being upgraded to match those for SSAN.
10
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
3. OBJECTIVE OF THE AEC
The underlying objective of the AEC is to maximise safety and security when
transporting explosives by road and rail. Given the magnitude of the risks involved, it is
expected that codes of this nature are supported by regulation to ensure that these
risks are managed effectively. To date this has been the case with AEC 2.
In the Australian context, the primary aim for developing AEC 3 is to improve on the
current safety and security levels for the transport of explosives in Australia. This can
be achieved by maximising consistency with UN 15 and ADG 7, enhancing the level of
consistency in explosives regulation nationally including its interface with air and sea
transport, and having a code and regulations that are easily understood and followed.
Supplementary considerations in developing AEC 3 are minimisation of regulatory
costs and regulations that are easily administered.
The previous update of the AEC was in 2000. Given that both the explosives industry
and regulators had requested a revised code due to the increasing deficiencies in AEC
2, AFER decided that the development of AEC 3 should be undertaken as quickly as
possible and that it retain the current AEC 2 structure. Another reason for this decision
was the need to align the AEC with ADG 7 in content, even if not in structure.
3.1
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
A number of the principles used in the development of the draft AEC 3 were:

UN 15 to be used as the primary reference document

alignment with the UN 15 for international consistency

alignment with ADG 7 for national consistency

Australian specific content to be retained where necessary

retain the existing AEC 2 structure, format and concepts

updates to the operational content of the AEC are to reflect jurisdictions recent
operational changes and industry best practice, and

security provisions are to be updated to meet current national requirements.
3.2
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING OPTIONS
A number of options are considered in section 4. In principle, the assessment of
options and selection of the preferred option would be on the basis of cost benefit
analysis which took account of all relevant components of costs and benefits to
determine which option had the highest net present value. It is sufficient to determine
the differences in costs and benefits between the options without having to determine
the actual costs and benefits.
Where some components of costs and benefits cannot be quantified, it is possible to
reach conclusions using qualitative analysis. This is the case for safety and security
benefits. In principle, costs and probabilities of various disasters and terrorist activities
can be estimated, but these values are imprecise. This problem disappears if all the
options achieve the same levels of safety and security or, alternatively, if all options
improve on the current situation equally. Comparison of total net benefits then reverts
to comparison of the quantifiable costs and benefits.
11
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
4. OPTIONS
This section outlines the options available for updating the AEC.
Option 1
Retain the Status Quo: the AEC would be maintained in its current
form with no changes.
Option 2
Minimal change: this option covers minimum changes and includes
updating the technical and operational content in the AEC while
retaining the existing AEC 2 structure, format and concepts. This
involves incorporating technical updates from UN 15 into the technical
appendices, ensuring the chapters in the AEC reflect these updates, as
well as the recent operational changes. This would also involve updating
the current security provisions.
Option 3:
Minimal change with self regulation by industry: this option involves
updating the AEC as for Option 2 and repealing the current explosives
legislation in all jurisdictions.
Option 4:
Revise the AEC to align with ADG 7 and UN 15 to the extent
possible: this would involve the full adoption, to the maximum extent
possible, of UN 15, and would include retaining specific requirements
from the AEC where necessary.
Option 5:
Fully and directly adopt the UN Model Regulations: this involves
direct reference to UN 15 and then developing a set of domestic
requirements to be used in conjunction with them.
4.1
OPTION 1: RETAIN THE STATUS QUO
Option 1 means the AEC would be maintained in its current form with no changes.
As the status quo refers to continuing with current practice there are no additional costs
or benefits to business, government or the community. It needs to be noted, however,
that if current practices can be improved, there would be continuing costs and risks
involved in maintaining the status quo. These are discussed below.
AEC 2 is out of date, and as a consequence, the benefits of improved technology
and/or safer packaging for explosives cannot be realised by the Australian explosives
industry. Most packaged explosives are now imported into Australia, with very little
local manufacture. As a consequence, the standards of packaging and labelling,
employed by overseas manufacturers, legitimately working to international (UN)
guidance material, are not reflected within Australia because of the requirements of
AEC 2. To meet Australian requirements, the local explosives industry must either have
their overseas suppliers change their normal processes/standards, or re-label and repackage imports on arrival into Australia, or obtain permission to import goods that are
at variance with the AEC. As a result, additional costs are incurred to meet local legal
requirements for no added safety benefit.
Further, in terms of intermodal consistency, the maritime safety requirements for
importing explosives by sea (the IMDG Code) which have been amended for
international consistency (UN 15), are now at variance with the road and rail explosives
transport requirements (AEC 2) resulting in inconsistencies in freight container design
12
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
and labelling standards. Containers of explosives arriving by sea, the common mode of
import, cannot simply be transferred to road and/or rail transport at the port of arrival
under AEC 2 unless specifically approved by the regulator. Again this can result in
additional costs for the industry and regulator, for no added safety and/or security
benefit.
A lack of consistency in the application of the AEC across the states and territories also
arises from the AEC being out of date, because jurisdictions differ in their adjustments
and concessions to allow for AEC 2 being out of step with the most recent international
guidance material, including the UN Model Regulations, IMDG Code and ICAO TI, that
apply to imports and exports.
Furthermore, AEC 2 treatment of security issues relating to explosives is not up-to-date
and falls short of the security requirements in the SSAN regulations which have been
developed in accordance with the COAG SSAN principles.
4.2
OPTION 2: MINIMAL CHANGE
Option 2 means minimum changes to the AEC and includes updating the technical and
operational content while retaining the existing AEC 2 structure, format and concepts.
This involves incorporating technical updates from UN 15 into the technical
appendices, ensuring the chapters in the AEC reflect these updates, as well as the
recent operational changes. This would also involve updating the current security
provisions. The AEC would align better with other existing international guidance
material (IMDG Code and ICAO TI) and the ADG Code while Australian specific
content would be retained.
The content of Option 2 is aligned with the content of the UN 15 edition of the UN
Model Regulations, even though Option 2 uses the structure, format and concepts of
AEC 2 rather than those of the UN Model Regulations. The content of ADG 7 is aligned
with the content of UN 14 and in parts with UN 15 (and ADG 7 uses the structure,
format and concepts of the UN Model Regulations). It follows that the content of Option
2 is aligned indirectly with the content of ADG 7.
The advantage of this option is that the revised AEC can be produced within a
relatively short time frame involving minimum costs. The revised AEC would retain the
same format and be more familiar to those using the current AEC. Training costs,
therefore, would be minimal for industry while security issues would be better
addressed.
The revision of the AEC would address the national, international and intermodal
inconsistencies as discussed under Option 1 and the related costs and risks.
However, there are disadvantages involved.

The incorporation of future UN technical updates may be problematic due to the
UN Model Regulations using a different approach to AEC 2.

It is not a full and complete alignment with the UN Model Regulations and this
may perpetuate a lengthy revision cycle and associated costs and resources
necessary to keep up to date with international practice.
As a result of Option 2, the evolution of the AEC would bring about some key changes
in the transport of explosives. These are discussed in section 5.1.
13
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
4.3
OPTION 3: MINIMAL CHANGE WITH SELF
REGULATION BY INDUSTRY
The COAG guide to Best Practice Regulation advises that the ‘RIS should identify a
range of viable options including, as appropriate, non-regulatory, self-regulatory and
co-regulatory options’ 10 . Option 3 has been included for this purpose.
Option 3 means that the AEC is updated according to Option 2 and the current
explosives legislation is repealed in all jurisdictions. It relies on industry to ensure that
the safe and secure transport of explosives is carried out, using the AEC for guidance.
This option is not consistent with COAG’s agreement on a national approach relating to
SSAN. This approach is based on an agreed set of principles 11 . These principles
include Principle 15:
“Explosives Regulation
In view of these measures to be introduced for SSAN, which in some cases are more
stringent than those for the control of explosives, states and territories should review
their explosives regulations. In particular, states and territories should quickly move to:
a) implement security checking for persons having access to explosives, and
b) ensure penalties for breaches of explosives regulations are appropriately
severe.”
Option 3 is not a viable option for explosives because it does not satisfy security
requirements. It is rejected not only on the basis of the current security provisions for
SSAN, but also the risk that explosives could be stolen for terrorist purposes. While the
risk of terrorist activities cannot be eliminated entirely, it is assumed that it would be
much lower in a regulated environment than under self regulation.
The preceding remarks also apply to any other options that depend on self regulation.
4.4
OPTION 4: REVISE THE AEC TO ALIGN WITH ADG 7
AND UN 15 TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE
This would involve the full adoption, to the maximum extent possible, of UN 15, and
would include:

reproducing requirements (referring to ADG 7) where they match Australian
requirements in the AEC, for example, adopting, in some cases, whole chapters
from UN 15;

adopting the structure, format, definitions and concepts of UN 15; and

retaining Australian specific requirements from the AEC where necessary.
This would mean that the AEC would be more closely aligned with the ADG Code and
UN Model Regulations than under Option 2 and that once an initial major change of
this nature had been made to the AEC, future updates would be easier as they would
be aligned directly with UN 15 onwards, and hence indirectly with the IMDG Code.
10
Council of Australian Governments (COAG), Best Practice Regulation: A Guide for Ministerial Councils
and National Standard Setting Bodies, October 2007, page 10.
11
COAG, Attachment D, 25 June 2004
14
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
It is noted that the update from ADG 6 to ADG 7 (for all dangerous goods except
explosives) adopted the structure, format, definitions and concepts of UN 14. An
update from AEC 2 to AEC 3 according to Option 4 would thus be well placed for
amalgamating the explosives and (other) dangerous goods codes in the future, as has
been suggested by the National Transport Commission 12 .
The revision of the AEC would address the national, international and intermodal
inconsistencies as discussed under Option 1 and the related costs and risks. The key
changes as analysed under Option 2 would also apply. The main difference from
Option 2 would be the structure of the AEC. It might take users some time to become
accustomed to the new structure, but it would be easier to make further changes to the
AEC in the future.
However, significant resources and funding would be required to implement these
changes and it would be some time before the AEC could be updated. In particular,
significant training costs would be involved for industry and, given that it is envisaged
that future development of the ADG Code would include information on explosives to
more fully align with UN 15, changes of this nature may be a waste of resources at this
time.
4.5
OPTION 5: FULLY AND DIRECTLY ADOPT THE UN
MODEL REGULATIONS
This involves direct reference to UN 15 and then developing a set of domestic
requirements to be used in conjunction with them.
In this option, technical requirements in relation to explosives would be brought
immediately into line with the current edition of the UN Model Regulations, and in
continuous alignment with them thereafter, thus harmonising with the ICAO TI, the
IMDG Code and the International Air Transport Association regulations. In principle,
this option would be less resource intensive and less costly with the end product being
a small code referencing the UN Model Regulations. Only a small Australian
Explosives Code would be required to cover Australian specific requirements not
included in the UN Model Regulations, e.g. transport procedures such as safety
equipment and segregation of explosives.
However, the UN Model Regulations are developed and used as the basis of regulatory
requirements for air, sea, road and rail transport. Detailed duties and responsibilities
are not set out in the UN Model Regulations, and the form of these ‘model regulations’
renders them unsuitable as Australian model or operational regulations without
considerable redrafting. Requirements that are not relevant or appropriate to Australian
conditions would therefore create problems with implementation, resulting in legislative
intervention. There would be the danger of overlooking provisions in the revision cycle
and issues associated with referencing international standards that would not apply in
Australia. The complex nature of this solution where two documents need to be crossreferenced, kept up to date and used in tandem, one aligned with UN regulations and
one dealing with local exceptions, has considerable potential for confusion and errors.
For the reasons outlined above this option is not a practical solution to updating an
already complex technical code. Furthermore, the Australian Government has
previously expressed concern about adopting international documents for use in
12
National Transport Commission, Development of the 7th Edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods
Code, Draft RIS, November 2006, p. 47.
15
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
Australia, which may then take some time to modify or change should a problem be
identified. On this basis alone, this is not a suitable option for Australia to adopt.
4.6
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
The self regulatory approach of Option 3 is not consistent with the COAG principles for
security provisions for SSAN, or the security addendum for explosives. Option 5 is not
a practical solution and is also unlikely to be supported by the Australian Government.
Options 2 and 4 would align the AEC with UN 15 and achieve much the same results in
terms of consistency with international labelling and packaging. Option 4 would deliver
a better product in the long term but it may be premature to change the structure of the
AEC to be the same as the UN 15 structure at present, before sufficient time has
elapsed to fully assess the impact on business of the recently introduced ADG 7.
Options 2 and 4 are single updates of the AEC that would make AEC 3 consistent with
UN 15 and ADG 7 initially. The UN Model Regulations are updated every two years,
but the options contain no subsequent updates of the AEC or the ADG Code. (AFER
members will need to consider how future updates of the AEC are undertaken.)
AFER has focussed its attention on Option 2 as an alternative to Option 1. AEC 2 has
been updated according to Option 2 to produce a code which is consistent with UN 15
and ADG 7. Updating according to Option 2 enabled a draft version of the AEC to be
developed within a relatively short time frame and released for consultation and
revision. This option should also present the least retraining costs to industry and
regulators while achieving consistency with other codes and guidance material.
16
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
5. CONSULTATION
AFER released the Consultation RIS in March 2008 together with a draft Australian
Explosives Code written according to Option 2. The Consultation RIS sought
comments on the draft AEC 3 and responses to questions about the effects of revising
AEC 2.
Section 5.1 summarises the major changes in the draft AEC 3 (for Option 2) compared
with AEC 2. It also provides comments on costs and benefits of Option 2 relative to
Option 1.
Section 5.2 summarises the submissions received in response to the Consultation RIS.
The submissions proposed changes to the draft code and drew attention to drafting
and technical errors. The proposed changes consisted of perceived and real
inconsistencies with other codes and guidance material, and requests from industry to
modify the draft AEC 3. Many submissions commented on differences in legislation
between jurisdictions even though this is outside the scope of the RIS. These are
outlined in section 5.2 as background to understanding the submissions. AFER
examined all comments received and as a result, revisions were made to the draft
document (see section 5.4).
The Consultation RIS outlined the options available but did not include discussion of
their relative merits, except for qualitative comparisons between Option 2 and Option 1.
Some data for this purpose were contained in the responses to AFER questions.
Section 5.5 describes how additional quantitative and qualitative data were obtained by
Access Economics through consultation with industry and regulators.
5.1
KEY CHANGES FROM AEC 2 TO PUBLIC COMMENT
DRAFT AEC 3 UNDER OPTION 2
Security
In updating the security provisions of the AEC, the security addendum to AEC 2 has
now been fully incorporated into the main body of AEC 3. The security provisions in
AEC 3 have also been brought into alignment with the SSAN provisions and Chapter
1.4 of UN 15.
Portable tanks
A new part (Part 2) has been added to Chapter 5, allowing the transport of explosives
in portable tanks as permitted under international arrangements. This was previously
only permitted under specific approval of a Competent Authority.
Documentation
The term ‘Transport Documentation’ has now replaced ‘Shipping Documentation’ to
cover all modes of transport and to be consistent with both ADG 7 and UN 15.
Labelling
To be consistent with UN 15, the AEC now requires packages of explosives to be
labelled with the net explosive quantity (NEQ). The section on Requirements for Class
Labels, Sub-Risk Labels and Placards has also been restructured to include new
pictograms and to reflect both UN 15 and ADG 7 requirements.
17
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
Manual handling equipment
The public comment draft of AEC 3 allowed the stowage of manual handling equipment
such as pallet jacks and conveyor rollers while transporting explosives, provided that
those devices are securely stowed either in a separate compartment or externally at
the rear of the vehicle. This was intended to provide those transporting explosives
more flexibility in meeting their OHS requirements. (AFER later amended this change
in response to submissions, see section 5.4.)
Insurance
The amount of insurance cover required for transporting explosives has been
increased from $1m to $2.5m per event for Category 2 loads, and from $2.5m to $5m
per event for Category 3 loads. This increase is in line with the increase stipulated in
ADG 7, which was determined after consultation with industry and insurers and more
adequately reflects the increased costs of Insurance.
Costs
The Consultation RIS contained the following comments on expected costs and
benefits arising from Option 2, pending quantitative input from industry and others.
Training
As the AEC is being updated to align with UN 15 and ADG 7, it is expected that some
training and familiarisation costs would be involved. However, these are expected to be
minimal, considering the revised AEC will retain the same format and users would
already be familiar with navigation throughout the code.
Labelling Changes
The draft AEC 3 includes changes in labelling requirements for packages, unit loads,
carry boxes and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs). They will be required to be
labelled with the NEQ of the explosive(s) and the number of articles contained within
the package or load. This may involve some additional costs, however these are
expected to be short-term costs as imported products may have already complied with
UN 15 and once locally manufactured products have their labels amended, this will be
incorporated into the standard package labelling process.
Insurance
In AEC 2 the minimum insurance requirements were set at $1 million to $2.5 million.
These are now set from $2.5 million to $5 million. Although this is a substantial
increase in the level of insurance coverage, the increase in the actual insurance
premiums paid by industry is not expected to increase significantly.
Benefits
Improvement in the safety and security level for the community
A major benefit to the community will be an increase in the existing safety and security
level for the transport of explosives, due to updating and aligning the AEC with current
international and other domestic standards, including the national security
requirements relating to SSAN. (The analysis in section 6.2 finds that there are such
benefits but there is insufficient information to identify a major benefit.)
18
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
National consistency in land transport of explosives
The draft AEC 3 allows for industry to operate in a nationally consistent way, resulting
in time and cost savings. The updated AEC will also provide for inter-modal
consistency.
International alignment
The revised AEC will further facilitate trade and some savings may be realised for
importers and exporters.
Timeframe and Resources
Option 2 will utilise minimal resources while allowing the AEC to be revised and
published within a relatively short time frame. This will obviously expedite the benefits
as listed above.
5.2
SUBMISSIONS
AFER received 18 submissions in response to the Consultation RIS and draft AEC 3
released on 26 March 2008. AFER examined 248 separate comments and proposals
and, following discussion, made revisions to the draft AEC 3. The submissions can be
viewed at http://www.ascc.gov.au/ascc/AboutUs/WhatWeDo/AFER/.
Submissions from regulators were concerned mainly with technical details.
Submissions from industry tended to address issues of relevance to their particular part
of the explosives industry. A summary of the main comments is provided. The major
changes to the draft AEC 3 in response to submissions are described in section 5.4.
Suppliers of blasting explosives indicated a lack of consistency in the application of
the AEC across jurisdictions. They were concerned about rejection of the blast barrier
code in some jurisdictions, and continuation of the discretion of jurisdictions to accept
or reject parts of the AEC. AEISG fully supports the security objectives of the COAG
SSAN Principles and the alignment of Class 1 security requirements with SSAN
requirements.
Submissions received from suppliers of fireworks, including the Pyrotechnics
Industry Association of Australia (PIAA), commented that safety in the fireworks
industry is plagued by a widely diverse set of regulations by competent authorities. A
strong risk management system is jeopardised by having to account for different
systems when travelling on road or rail. Section 2.5 of the draft AEC 3 dilutes the
national approach by referring to each ‘state competent authority’ for load regulation. It
is the industry’s belief that a failure to establish a uniform set of regulations relating to
all aspects of fireworks operations is the primary risk to operations, transport and
training. Fireworks industry practice often involves the transport of a wide variety of
products to a display location, where the load is most probably a broad range of items
in less than full carton amounts. The fireworks industry considered that the draft AEC 3
did not allow mixed classes of explosives in a carton and it also required labelling of the
carton with NEQ or number of items. The industry indicated that the restriction on
mixed classes was not practical for composite contents for fireworks displays. It
suggested that the most sensible regulatory treatment of this requirement would be to
allow the fireworks operator to pack mixed class fireworks into boxes and assume the
most hazardous class.
Submissions were received from transport operators. Road freight operators sought
uniform explosives regulations across jurisdictions. They argued for retention of
EXPLOSIVES placards (signage) on vehicles, and argued against external storage of
19
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
pallet jacks and the introduction of portable communications units. The Australasian
Railway Association sought uniform controls across states, including documentation
and placards, and across all dangerous goods, as in ADG 7. It preferred the ADG 7
format (i.e. Option 4) and ADG 7 concepts.
A recurring theme in many submissions was the need for uniform regulations for
explosives throughout Australia (see submissions from railways, road freight, AEISG,
and fireworks). This RIS relates to the AEC, which is a national code, and is written
from the perspective that all jurisdictions adopt the AEC. To the extent that jurisdictions
may deviate from the AEC or may impose additional restrictions, these matters are
outside the scope of this RIS. In practice, if transport operators are to avoid the costs of
reloading at state borders, they conform to ‘least common denominator’ legislation.
Similarly, differences between jurisdictions in the licensing of explosives firms,
explosives transport operators and drivers are also outside the scope of this RIS.
5.3
DIFFERENCES IN LEGISLATION BETWEEN
JURISDICTIONS
While the inconsistency in current jurisdictional legislative requirements is outside the
scope of this report, many submissions addressed the problems created by these
inconsistencies. It is important that these differences be noted so that the submissions
described above can be more clearly understood.
In addition, the current differences in legislation are also important for the impact
analysis described in section 6 because it is assumed that legislation in each
jurisdiction is consistent with the AEC. In other words, any existing regulations in
(some) jurisdictions that are additional to the AEC would disappear so that the costs of
transporting explosives through multiple jurisdictions would fall. These current
differences include that:

Some jurisdictions require import documentation for all explosives entering the
state

South Australia does not allow steel material handling equipment to be carried in
the same compartment as packaged explosives. Although an internal separate
annex could be utilised, this usually means in practice that pallet jacks are carried
externally or not at all.

Licensing of transport operators, road vehicles and drivers varies across states

South Australia does not currently grant approval for the use of ‘blast barriers’ on
trucks to separate mixed loads of explosives from different Compatibilty Groups
within Class 1. South Australia sees its withdrawal of such permission as strictly a
compliance issue.

Some jurisdictions still do not legislate for security plans for explosives loads.
This is despite these plans being required in the security addendum to the AEC
developed in 2003 in response to the heightened security awareness in Australia
following the terrorist incidents of 2001 and 2002.
5.4
CHANGES TO THE DRAFT AEC 3 IN RESPONSE TO
SUBMISSIONS
In considering all of the 248 comments received, AFER members agreed that certain
sections of the draft AEC 3 required amendment. Although it is not possible in this
document to advise all of those amendments, some of the significant changes include:
20
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives

The requirements for storage of pallet jacks (AEC 3 draft, 7.2.1(7) were changed.
The draft AEC 3 required that any manual handling equipment stored on a road
vehicle must be stored externally or in a separate compartment to that containing
the explosives. This was to minimise the possibility of sparks amongst explosives
in the case of an accident. It related to pallet jacks which are used to move loads
within the vehicle. In a presentation to AFER, the Australian Explosives Transport
Safety and Security Group (AETSSG), a group of major transport operators for
explosives, described how pallet jacks have been carried internally for about 20
years without causing any accidents and are in fact used to secure the load. They
indicated that external storage would lead to significant cost increases, partly
through damage to pallet jacks on rough roads but mainly through injuries
caused by manually lifting the pallet jack on and off the vehicle. AFER agreed to
change 7.2.1(7) to allow manual handling equipment to be stored within the same
compartment as explosives provided that the equipment was suitably secured
against the effects of vehicle movements and there was a segregating partition
secured between the explosives and the equipment.

Emergency Information Panels (EIPs) displayed on freight containers and
vehicles are now permitted to display either the 'Proper Shipping Name' of the
explosives being transported, or the word EXPLOSIVES as an accepted
alternative. This reflects the view that the use of the word EXPLOSIVES on EIPs
is recognised throughout the community. However, it is not mandatory. The
change allows overseas containers displaying an EIP with the word
EXPLOSIVES to be transported without modification.

The meaning of 5.2.1 has been clarified to confirm that small mixed loads of
explosives of different Divisions are allowed in one carton, with the Division for
the carton determined according to Table 7.1 of the AEC 3. The fireworks
industry suggested such an arrangement, based on a misunderstanding of AEC
2 and the public comment draft of AEC 3 (because it was already allowed for in
both of these documents).

A new clause (8.2.18) addresses precautions to be taken for overnight stops for
road vehicles carrying low risk (Category 1) loads. (Similar arrangements for
vehicles carrying Category 2 and 3 loads are already specified in 8.3.11(3).)

The meaning of 8.4.4(3) has been clarified, to include that the attendant on a
road vehicle can be replaced by providing the driver with a means of radio
communication (e.g., portable UHF radio) that can be operated independently,
away from the vehicle in the case of an emergency.
5.5
ADDITIONAL ACCESS ECONOMICS INQUIRIES
Submissions and responses to the Consultation RIS did not provide sufficient
quantitative information for an impact analysis. Access Economics sought quantitative
and qualitative information for this purpose from the explosives industry, transport
operators and regulators. They explained their methodology to meetings of AFER and
AEISG where it made contact with regulators, major players in the blasting part of the
explosives industry and also explosives transport operators. It also met with
representatives of the PIAA. The consultations are summarised in Table 5–1, but
without detailing the key members contacted within the various groups. In most cases
there were follow-up telephone calls to seek clarification and additional information as
the process progressed.
21
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
TABLE 5–1: CONSULTATIONS BY ACCESS ECONOMICS
Contact
State regulators
AETSG members
Queensland Rail
AEISG
PIAA reps
Defence
AFER
AEISG members
PIAA
State regulators
AMSA
Thales
Category
regulator
road transport
rail transport
blasting
fireworks
munitions
peak body
blasting
fireworks
regulator
sea transport
munitions
Type of consultation
telephone discussions
telephone discussions
telephone discussions
presentation
meeting
telephone discussions
presentation
questionnnaire, telephone
questionnnaire, telephone
questionnnaire
questionnnaire
telephone discussion
Date / first
contact
2-May-08
2-May-08
2-May-08
7-May-08
7-May-08
12-May-08
20-May-08
23-May-08
26-May-08
29-May-08
2-Jun-08
16-Jun-08
Contribution
background information
quantitative and qualitative estimates
background information
background information
background information
quantitative and qualitative data
established contacts
quantitative and qualitative data
no data provided
quantitative and qualitative data
comment
background information
Note: AMSA is the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.
Following on from the initial contacts and discussions, Access Economics requested
information about the roles, magnitudes and growth rates of the different parts of the
explosives sector. It also pursued questions in addition to those in the Consultation
RIS. In particular, knowing that industry had requested an update of the AEC, and that
the regulators supported an update, what were the expected benefits to the industry
and regulators? There was general consensus that an update of the AEC was highly
desirable, but respondents had difficulty quantifying the costs and benefits. The general
picture that emerged was that the total additional costs were small. Access Economics
focussed on the ongoing benefits of removing the existing costs associated with noncompliance of AEC 2 with international guidance material, such as the UN Model
Regulations, IMDG Code and ICAO TI. These costs related to imports, and a little to
exports, and consisted of a combination of:

the additional cost of requiring overseas suppliers to label and package
explosives according to AEC 2

re-labelling and repacking imports before distribution within Australia, and

seeking permission from each relevant jurisdiction to transport explosives by
means of an exemption or allowance of a variation of the AEC. This resulted in
additional costs for both suppliers and regulators.
The responses to these inquiries are embodied in the analysis described in section 6.
22
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1
BROAD APPROACH TO IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1.1
METHODOLOGY
A methodology for the assessment of options and selection of the preferred option was
agreed between Access Economics and the OBPR.
In principle, the assessment of options and selection of the preferred option is on the
basis of cost benefit analysis (CBA) which takes account of all relevant components of
costs and benefits to determine which option has the highest net present value. It is
sufficient to determine the differences in costs and benefits between the options
without having to determine the actual costs and benefits.
The analysis covered calendar years 2009 to 2018 inclusive, and costs and benefits
were examined for regulators, transport operators, and suppliers of explosives
separated into blasting, pyrotechnics and munitions. However, insufficient information
was received to use CBA for all aspects of the assessment.
Only qualitative information was obtained about many of the costs and benefits of
changes to the AEC. In such cases, it may be possible to reach some conclusions
using qualitative analysis. Risk analysis is applied in section 6.2 to assess the net
benefits of improved safety and security in the absence of reliable estimates of
changes in costs and probabilities of various disasters and terrorist activities. The need
to make comparisons between options disappears if all the options achieve the same
levels of safety and security or, alternatively, if all options improve on the current
situation equally. Comparison of total net benefits then reverts to comparison of the
quantifiable costs and benefits.
6.1.2
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The preferred methodology for assessment of options is cost benefit analysis, which
depends on obtaining quantitative information about all the relevant costs and benefits.
Information was received in the consultation process, firstly through submissions and
responses to questions in the Consultation RIS. This was supplemented by additional
discussions and questions put by Access Economics to the explosives industry,
transport operators and regulators. However, insufficient information was received to
use CBA for all aspects of the assessment. Only qualitative estimates were available
for many items, although often these were sufficient to establish that magnitudes were
negligible or small. To the extent that no estimates of benefits were provided in some
cases, total benefits were underestimated.
CBA is used to assess the financial costs and benefits of aligning the classification,
labelling and packaging of explosives with UN 15 and international and domestic codes
and guidance material derived from it, and revisions to the AEC for the transport of
explosives. Many of the costed changes have the objectives of improving safety and
security. If the CBA analysis shows net quantitative benefits and the risk analysis for
safety and security shows net benefits, even if only qualitative, then the total benefit
must be positive.
The CBA consists of estimation of the costs and benefits for stakeholders over time,
and calculation of the net present value. Stakeholders include explosives
23
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
manufacturers and suppliers, transporters, and regulators. The transport of explosives
by small end users such as sporting shooters, minor fireworks operators, and small
shotfirers is also affected by the code, in principle, but the total costs are assumed to
be small and they have not been allowed for in the calculations. The wider community
is clearly affected by safety and security during transport, but this has not been
included in the CBA. Values in future years are discounted at a real rate of 3% 13 and
the time horizon for the analysis is ten years.
6.1.3
OPTIONS CONSIDERED
The impact assessment focuses on Options 2 and 4 compared with Option 1 (the
status quo). As discussed in section 5, Options 3 and 5 are not viable. Options 2 and 4
are similar in many ways. The analysis concentrates first on Option 2, and is then
extended to Option 4.
As previously mentioned, Options 2 and 4 are single updates of the AEC that make
AEC 3 consistent with UN 15 and ADG 7 initially. The UN Model Regulations are
updated every two years, but no subsequent updates of the AEC or the ADG Code are
specified in the options or allowed for in the analysis. (AFER members will need to
consider how future updates of the AEC are undertaken.)
Option 1 does not correspond to just AEC 2. It is business as usual (BAU) which
corresponds to AEC 2 and all the complications that go with it. It embraces
developments since 2000, including the security addendum in 2003 and the security
provisions for SSAN in 2004. (It is assumed that these have been adopted in all
jurisdictions.) It includes the various and differing legislative arrangements and current
practices in the jurisdictions. It also includes changes in regulations and/or procedures
in jurisdictions over the past two years to allow for recent UN amendments to the
classification of fireworks that recognise that the risk of fireworks exploding is greater
than believed previously.
6.1.4
ASSUMPTIONS
There are some broad assumptions underlying the analysis.

It is noted that the analysis is for the AEC, which is intended as a national code.
Legislation is determined by jurisdictions, and individual jurisdictions currently
impose regulations that are in addition to the national code, so that legislation
differs between jurisdictions. It is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that
all legislation in all jurisdictions will reference the revised AEC for guidance on
road and rail transport of explosives in Australia and that legislation and practice
will be consistent across jurisdictions. In recognition that the assumption may be
unrealistic, the analysis includes the case where differences persist.

It is assumed that the import share of each type of explosive remains the same
each year, in which case the quantity of supply of that type of explosive can be
used as an indicator of the quantity of imports of that type of explosive.

It is assumed that around 1,000 vehicles are licensed to carry explosives. This
number is based on data provided in Attachment B, recognising that many
vehicles are licensed in multiple jurisdictions.
13
The real discount rate of 3% is derived in Access Economics (2008) The Health of Nations: The Value of
a Statistical Life, Report for the Office of the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, Canberra,
January.
24
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives

It is assumed that Option 2 would be implemented early in calendar year 2009
with one-off costs incurred during that year, and ongoing costs and benefits
commencing mid-way through 2009.

Option 4 would be implemented mid-way through calendar year 2010 with one-off
costs incurred in 2010 and 2011, and ongoing costs and benefits commencing in
2011.
Additional detailed assumptions are made in estimating costs and benefits, and these
are noted in the text (see sections 6.3.1 and 6.4).
6.2
SAFETY AND SECURITY
Although safety is a major driving force for revision of explosives codes, there is no
information about reduced costs of explosives incidents as a result of these revisions.
International guidance material for explosives, including the UN Model Regulations,
IMDG Code and ICAO TI, are updated according to assessment of past explosives
incidents and controlled tests using explosives. These assessments may lead, for
example, to a reduction in the maximum quantity of a particular type of explosive
allowed in one package, or the maximum quantity of an explosive to be carried on a
vehicle. However, the assessments contain no report of the change in risk.
An additional safety consideration is that inconsistency between AEC 2 and other
explosives guidance material, especially UN 15, leads to confusion within the industry
and for emergency workers, and hence potential risks to safety. AEC 3 would introduce
consistency and eliminate this confusion, provided that there was appropriate training.
The important safety issue for the transport of explosives is to avoid or minimise the
possibility of an explosion if a vehicle is involved in an accident. Vehicle accidents
cannot be eliminated entirely, although data reported by the Productivity Commission
(PC) 14 show that the number of fatalities per vehicle for road vehicles carrying
dangerous goods (including explosives) is less than 10% of that for road vehicles in
general. The excellent safety record can be attributed to licensing, and the associated
training and assessment procedures, which have resulted in a small number of
specialised transport operators that are competent and responsible.
Information received to date indicates that incidents associated with the transport of
explosives are rare. Thus there is insufficient information to estimate that there would
be any reduction in the number of incidents or the severity of incidents.
There is even less information for security risks associated with the transport of
explosives.
As such it is very difficult to estimate the benefits of improved security arrangements. In
response to security incidents overseas, the security addendum to AEC 2 was
introduced in 2003 and COAG principles for security provisions for SSAN were
introduced in 2004. The changes in the security provisions for Options 2, 4 and 5 are
relatively small. The major changes in costs and benefits associated with introduction
of the security addendum and the security provisions for SSAN occurred in 2003 and
2004. AEC 3 is strengthened by the incorporation of security provisions but this does
not reduce the risks appreciably. However, additional precautions for overnight stops of
14
Productivity Commission 2008, Chemicals and Plastics Regulation, Research Report, Melbourne, p.
180.
25
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
vehicles with Category 1 loads (8.2.18) and changes to communications systems
(8.4.4(3)) improve security and safety and must reduce the probability of accidents and
incidents.
When estimates of the cost and probability of a disaster are imprecise, risk analysis
can be used to provide an estimate of the benefit (B) of a regulation according to the
formula
B = (P1 – P2) C
where C is the approximate cost in economic terms of the disaster, P1 is the probability
of the disaster occurring before regulation, and P2 the probability of the disaster
occurring after regulation. Thus for a $1,000 million disaster, if regulation reduced the
annual probability of occurrence from 0.010 to 0.006, then the annual benefit would be
$4 million. This indicates that annual expenditure on regulation of up to about $4 million
would be justified.
Alternatively, this approach can be turned around and expressed as break even
analysis which uses B and C to calculate the change in probability required to break
even. For example, for a $1,000 million disaster, additional expenditure of $10 million
on regulation would be justified if it reduced the probability of the disaster by 1% or
more.
In the case of explosives, the risk of a major explosion is minimised by keeping
explosives, and vehicles carrying them, out of populated areas and industrial areas.
Regulation of ports and road vehicle routes are intended to achieve this. Using the cost
of a disaster as $1,000 million, the result presented in the previous paragraph can be
applied to explosives.
Although the costs of explosives accidents and security incidents cannot be estimated
with any precision, the changes in the AEC from Option 1 to Options 2, 4 and 5 would
reduce the costs and probabilities of such events, even if only marginally.
This assessment will assume that Options 2, 4 and 5 have benefits for safety and
security in terms of the costs of accidents and incidents. The associated changes in
direct financial costs to industry and transport operators are included in the CBA
analysis.
Another aspect of security is the number of persons with access to explosives. The
Chief Inspector of Explosives in Queensland estimates that there would be
approximately 25,000 persons in Queensland who would have legal access to
restricted explosives. This is an estimated total across licensed activities including
manufacture, imports, transport, storage, mining, quarrying, construction, agriculture,
fireworks, ammunition, gunshops, special effects, blasting contractors and explosives
trainers. Access Economics considers that the corresponding total for Australia could
well be of the order of 100,000 persons.
For the purposes of the AEC, clause 8.2.16 requires that for explosives in Risk
Categories 1, 2 and 3, ‘The prime contractor or rail operator shall ensure that any
person having unsupervised access to explosives, other than unrestricted explosives,
has been security cleared prior to such access’. In addition, security clearances are
required for drivers and all others riding on or escorting vehicles carrying high security
risk loads of explosives (clause 8.8.6).
26
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
6.3
OPTION 2 COMPARED WITH OPTION 1
In the CBA analysis, benefits and costs are considered together because benefits arise
mainly from reductions in costs rather than being direct benefits. However, the benefits
of improved safety and security in terms of accidents and incidents are not well
determined, as described in section 6.2, and are omitted from the calculation. The
emphasis is on the changes in costs from Option 1 to Option 2, although the level of
costs is of some interest for presenting the costs in context. The CBA relates to the
Australian Explosives Code alone and it is assumed that legislation will be consistent
with the AEC and consistent across jurisdictions.
The calculations relate to labelling and packaging, plus road and rail transport from
door-to-door, including loading and unloading, and any storage, intermodal transfers
and transfers between vehicles along the way.
There are different components of changes in costs for suppliers, transporters and
regulators of explosives, and these three groups are treated separately. Some costs
(such as training) apply only for a short transition period (e.g., a year), while others
such as removal of the costs associated with differences in labelling and packaging
between AEC 2 and UN 15 have ongoing effects.
Some of these costs depend on the type of explosive, mode of transport, and the
transport path within Australia. Where major cost differences can be identified within
such cost categories and data are available, calculations are undertaken separately for
the different elements.
Ongoing costs are related to the quantities of explosives used, and in some cases with
unit costs changing over time. Growth in explosives has to be allowed for in the
calculations, but there are likely to be different growth paths over time for different
sectors. We use the broad categories of blasting, pyrotechnics and
ammunition/munitions, with default annual growth rates of 8% (advised by AEISG), 0%
and 2% 15 respectively. Blasting is dominated by mining, but it also includes quarrying
and construction. The zero growth rate for pyrotechnics is a judgement based on
increasing restrictions on private use of fireworks, but an apparent increase in the
number of public displays.
Table 6–1 summarises the anticipated types of costs and benefits of Option 2 relative
to Option 1 for regulators, suppliers and transport operators. It also indicates whether
the changes occur only once when the revised AEC is introduced, or whether there are
continuing changes every year. Nearly all the increases in costs are for one year only,
and nearly all the net benefits continue year after year.
15
Real output of public administration (and defence) in Access Economics, Business Outlook, March
2008.
27
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
TABLE 6–1: CHANGES IN COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR OPTION 2 COMPARED WITH OPTION 1
Regulators
Suppliers
Transport
COSTS
Develop national code (1)
Print AEC 3 (1)
Amend legislation (1)
Training (1)
Training (1)
Relabel local goods (1)
Prepare single documentation (1)
Portable tanks (1)
EXPLOSIVES labels on imports (2)
Training (1)
Extra placards (1)
Extra communications (1)
Precautions for overnight stops (1)
Increased insurance (2)
Less applying for exemptions (2)
Less relabelling overseas (2)
Less relabel imports (2)
Less confusion, more safety (2)
Internal storage of pallet jacks (2)
Single documentation (2)
Mixed loads with blast barrier (2)
Increased safety (2)
Increased security (2)
BENEFITS
Less processing exemptions (2)
Less work on classification (2)
Less confusion, more safety (2)
Note: (1) denotes a one-off change over about one year; (2) denotes continuing change every year.
Most of the changes arise from changes in the AEC. However, carriage of certain
mixed loads (provided there is a blast barrier) is already allowed for in AEC 2, and the
benefits arise from the assumption that the situation in South Australia will return to this
practice. It is assumed that all jurisdictions will adopt the revised AEC, including
internal storage of pallet jacks, and have no restrictions in addition to the code.
The entries ‘less confusion, more safety’, ‘increased safety’ and ‘increased security’ are
included in the table for completeness, but are not allowed for in the CBA calculations.
The associated costs of extra communications equipment and precautions for
overnight stops are included in the CBA.
Training refers to training fees and production lost during training, while familiarisation
refers to slower operations and losses in productivity while personnel become
accustomed to the revised AEC.
Table 6–1 lists several benefits that arise from aligning the classifications in AEC 3 with
UN 15. These relate primarily to imports but there are corresponding smaller benefits
for exports. At present, explosives imports arriving under the most recent international
guidance material, such as the UN Model Regulations, IMDG Code and ICAO TI, are
not compatible with AEC 2, although the differences can be waived for up to 5 days
while the load is transferred directly to a warehouse for unpacking. There are at
present three ways around the problem, all of which create extra costs for importers
and/or regulators.

Re-label and repackage imports to conform to AEC 2. This is additional work and
cost for the importer, as well as the increased risks arising from additional
handling.

Arrange for overseas suppliers to label and package according to AEC 2. This
increases prices of imports.

Seek authorisation to import explosives that do not conform to AEC 2. This
requires preparation of a submission to the regulator in each relevant jurisdiction,
and processing of these applications by regulators. The authorisation may be by
means of an ‘exemption’ or by ‘allowing a variation’. It may be for one shipment
only, but is typically for several years or even indefinitely.
These additional costs are increasing over time as AEC 2 deviates increasingly from
the latest editions of the UN Model Regulations, IMDG Code and ICAO TI. If AEC 3
28
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
were aligned with this international guidance material, the current deviations would be
eliminated. Further deviations would appear in a few years but, for a particular year, the
annual increases in costs under AEC 3 would most likely be smaller than those if AEC
2 continued to apply, because of the greatly improved alignment of AEC 3 with the
international guidance material.
6.3.1
DATA FOR OPTION 2 COMPARED WITH OPTION 1
Information about the changes in costs of moving from Option 1 to Option 2 cannot be
derived from ABS data. It can be obtained only from the explosives industry,
transporters and regulators. The objective is to obtain totals for Australia. Industry
associations do not have this information and it is necessary to estimate Australian
totals by extrapolating results obtained from individual firms and jurisdictions. There
tend to be just a few major players in most sectors, so that the emphasis is on
obtaining responses from these.
In order to add results across different explosives sectors and the categories used in
Table 6–1, and to guard against the possibility of incomplete data in some sectors, it is
desirable to have independent estimates of the relative sizes of the sectors and
categories.
The initial source of data was responses to questions in AFER’s Consultation RIS. In
addition to general questions about the overall impacts and costs of adopting AEC 3,
this sought cost information about training and familiarisation, security provisions,
intermodal documentation, introduction of portable tanks, changes to placards on
vehicles, labelling to include net explosive quantity, and storage of manual handling
equipment (pallet jacks). Although quantitative responses were minimal, qualitative
responses indicated the insignificance of some of the proposed changes and
associated costs to industry.
Firms indicated that changes in costs were likely to be small, but were reluctant to
estimate costs for individual components of cost changes, as listed above, and to
distinguish between the major items of relabelling and retraining.
Access Economics obtained additional information through telephone discussions with
key firms and supplementary email questions addressed to regulators and major
players in the various parts of the industry. These discussions and questions
addressed costs associated with introduction of the draft AEC, costs associated with
AEC 2 that would be removed by alignment with the most recent editions of
international guidance material such as the UN Model Regulations, IMDG Code and
ICAO TI, costs that would be removed if legislation in all jurisdictions corresponded to
the revised AEC, and background information about the size of the firm’s activities. The
focus of the discussions and questions varied across sectors and changed over time as
more was discovered about the industry.
It is inevitable that most estimates of changes in costs will not be precise. This applies
to estimates by firms and regulators provided in both submissions and subsequently,
and extrapolations to national totals. However, the various estimates and qualitative
comments are useful for establishing which changes in costs are dominant and which
are very small.
Questions and responses were based on the March 2008 draft AEC 3. Access
Economics made additional inquiries to take account of the subsequent changes to
AEC 3 that were described in section 5.4.
29
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
COSTS TO REGULATORS
The cost of development of the AEC is ignored in the calculations. The estimated cost
for printing 500 copies of AEC 3 is expected to be about $20,000.
Regulators considered that the cost of changes to legislation would be minimal,
especially for those jurisdictions that refer to the AEC without specifying which edition.
Discussion with Safework, South Australia revealed that the current South Australian
legislation does not refer to the AEC, although much of its content is similar to the draft
AEC 3. It refers to the IMDG Code (and hence indirectly to UN 15) in relation to the
technical aspects of classification, packing, labelling, including package types, for
explosives. It anticipates that it will reference AEC 3 when it is published. South
Australian legislation for the transport of explosives is currently under review.
Responses to supplementary questions indicated that additional training for explosives
inspectors and policy staff would cost about $100,000, although the estimate per
person varied considerably between jurisdictions. The response by Safework, South
Australia referred to specific training for AEC 3. Some other jurisdictions felt that
training for AEC 3 could be incorporated into general training. No information was
received about additional training costs for emergency services and this was assumed
to be another $100,000.
COSTS TO SUPPLIERS
Few responses have been received from suppliers of explosives. These responses
together with discussions with industry suggest that total one-off costs for suppliers are
about $400,000. Costs associated with new multi-modal documentation and storage
tanks are negligible. One-off costs are shared across training and familiarisation, oneoff changes to labelling, and signage for vehicles.
Packages of explosives are now to be marked with the NEQ or number of items. No
estimates of additional costs were received, although this was mentioned as an issue
in some fireworks submissions. Additionally, where the Class label displayed on
packaged explosives does not include the word EXPLOSIVES then a separate label
depicting the word EXPLOSIVES will also need to be displayed on the outer
packaging. An additional cost of $25,000 a year has been assumed.
Suppliers to the Commonwealth Department of Defence adhere to the AEC and
regulations in jurisdictions (unless otherwise necessary), even though Defence is
exempted in some jurisdictions. The security provisions introduced additional costs
when they were introduced, but there is no difference in cost to the military between
Option 2 and Option 1.
COSTS TO TRANSPORT OPERATORS
Most extra costs for transport operators are proportional to the numbers of drivers and
vehicles. It is assumed that there are around 1,000 vehicles registered for transport of
explosives.
It is assumed that one-off training costs would be around $100,000, which corresponds
to $100 per vehicle. This result is based on just one quantitative response from a
transport firm and qualitative results from others. The figure could be lower because
manufacturers provide some training for transport operators.
30
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
Where the placard displayed on a freight container does not include the word
EXPLOSIVES then a separate placard depicting the word EXPLOSIVES will also need
to be displayed. Given this requirement, the additional cost of placards on freight
containers is uncertain. Some of the costs of placards and training are borne by
suppliers. The RIS for ADG 7 found that the cost of placards was $430 per road
vehicle 16 . Additional one-off costs to transport operators for placards are assumed to
be $100,000. It is noted that under the AEC there would be no need to change
placards at borders.
For high risk loads (explosives in Category 3, as defined in Table 2.1 of AEC 3), where
there is no attendant, the driver is to be provided with a means of radio communication
(e.g., portable UHF radio) that can be operated independently, away from the vehicle in
the case of an emergency (8.4.4(3)). The cost is about $80 per vehicle. If one third of
explosives vehicles are used for Category 3 loads, the total cost would be around
$27,000, although some vehicles may have such equipment already.
Precautions have been introduced for overnight stops of vehicles with low risk loads
(Category 1, as defined in Table 2.1 of AEC 3) (8.2.18). This might apply to vehicles
carrying small loads of blasting explosives or fireworks. One of the options is to fit an
alarm to the vehicle. No cost information was received, but for 200 vehicles at $150 per
vehicle the cost might be around $30,000.
No changes in transport costs are expected for deliveries to the Department of
Defence. All military explosives transported by road have an accompanying vehicle,
whether the load is carried by the military or a private contractor. The military carries
some loads on its own vehicles, but most are carried by private contractors by road. A
very small amount is carried by rail.
The increased minimum levels of insurance of $2.5 million per event for Category 2
loads and $5 million per event for Category 3 loads were not mentioned in
submissions. This suggests that increases in insurance premiums are not a major
issue. It is understood that suppliers with major loads already have large insurance
cover. Safework, South Australia indicated, in response to supplementary questions,
that increases would be restricted to about 55 vehicles at a total cost of $8,000 to
$14,000. Recognising that insurance is national, extrapolation to other jurisdictions
suggests that the total increase in insurance premiums, summed across all explosives,
might be about $50,000 a year.
BENEFITS TO REGULATORS AND SUPPLIERS
Benefits to regulators and suppliers arise because additional costs associated with the
import and export of explosives are eliminated by the alignment of AEC 3 with UN 15.
As described above, three different methods are used to overcome the current
inconsistencies between legal requirements for international and national loads.

The explosives industry currently pays overseas suppliers around $400,000 each
year to vary their labelling and packaging to satisfy AEC 2.

Around $200,000 is spent relabelling and repackaging imports to satisfy AEC 2.
16
National Transport Commission, Development of the 7th Edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods
Code, Draft RIS, November 2006.
31
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives

Additional expenditure on applications by industry to regulators for admission of
non-compliant imports, together with processing by regulators, is around another
$100,000 each year.
The Commonwealth Department of Defence indicated that Option 2 would have no
effect on costs for military purposes. The types of explosives used do not require reclassification, relabelling or repackaging. However, domestic suppliers of munitions to
Defence currently incur some of the above costs on imports of munitions and on
imports used in the manufacture of munitions. These costs are currently passed on to
Defence, so that Defence would benefit in a small way from alignment of AEC 3 with
UN 15.
BENEFITS TO TRANSPORT OPERATIONS
Participants indicated that there would be a benefit from a single document for all
modes of transport, but the benefit would be small.
Deliveries of explosives for blasting purposes are often a mix of different types of
explosives. Mixed loads are permitted under restrictions specified in 7.3.2, including the
use of an appropriate wall (commonly known as a ‘blast barrier’) to separate
incompatible explosives. Current South Australian practice does not allow the use of
blast barriers so that separate vehicles must be used for the transport of detonators.
This applies to deliveries within the state and also to loads in transit through the state.
The cost of an additional vehicle is about $5,000 per load for deliveries within the state,
and the additional cost of diverting a vehicle to avoid passing through South Australia is
about the same. A road transport operator estimate of the total additional cost, which is
passed on to the supplier, is in excess of $1 million a year. The supplier estimate is
around $600,000. We will use the supplier estimate.
Amendments to the AEC to allow internal storage of pallet jacks are interpreted as the
removal of a possible cost rather than an actual cost. No cost information was received
from transport operators on this matter and it was not included in the calculations.
In addition, to put the changes in transport costs in perspective, total transport costs for
explosives, excluding AN, are estimated to be around $50 million per year, based on
estimates received from suppliers, transporters and Defence. Thus a cost saving of
$600,000 per year corresponds to 1.2% of transport costs.
6.3.2
NET BENEFIT OF OPTION 2 RELATIVE TO OPTION 1
The following calculations relate to the measurable net financial benefits of Option 2
relative to Option 1. They exclude the benefits of improved safety and security.
It is assumed that AEC 3 will be implemented early in 2009 with one-off transitional
costs incurred during that year. Changes in total costs and total benefits are estimated
annually from calendar year 2009 out to calendar year 2018 for Option 2 relative to
Option 1 (BAU). Option 2 is proposed changes to AEC 2 to reflect UN 15, ADG 7, the
IMDG Code, the security addendum and security provisions for SSAN. BAU means
AEC 2 plus the existing security addendum, existing security provisions and existing
legislation in jurisdictions. All values are expressed in real terms (i.e., in calendar year
2008 dollars) so as to avoid the need to estimate changes in prices. The NPV is then
the sum of values each year over the forecast horizon, using a real annual discount
rate of 3%.
32
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
Referring to section 6.3.1, the one-off costs of Option 2 are around $220,000 for
regulators, around $400,000 for suppliers (training and new labels), and around
$257,000 for transport operators, giving total one-off costs of about $877,000 in 2009.
Ongoing costs of Option 2 relative to Option 1 are about $75,000 a year for insurance
and marking of packages, although only $37,500 for the second half of 2009.
The benefits of Option 2 relative to Option 1 for classification, labelling and packaging
are spread across regulators and the industry. The ongoing costs of Option 1 increase
as AEC 2 deviates more from UN 15 over time. Option 2 has a benefit in the second
half of 2009 of about $350,000 by eliminating the difference between AEC 2 and UN
15. However, AEC 3 will deviate from UN 15 over time as the UN Model Regulations
are updated. The benefit in each future year (excluding any growth in the explosives
sector) is about $700,000. The future benefits might be even more if the slope of the
cost of deviation curve increases over time, as expected, but we have received no
evidence of this.
The benefit of Option 2 relative to Option 1 for transport is around $600,000 a year,
arising from the use of mixed loads when carrying explosives for blasting, but $300,000
for the second half of 2009.
For the purposes of the calculation it is assumed that all one-off costs are incurred in
2009 and that changes to ongoing costs and benefits apply for half of 2009 and
commence in full in 2010. For the ongoing costs and benefits it is necessary to allow
for changes in the quantity of explosives over time. The ongoing costs (of insurance
and marking NEQ on packages) relate primarily to fireworks, where it is assumed that
there is zero growth.
The ongoing benefits relate primarily to explosives for blasting which, according to
AEISG, have an assumed annual growth rate of 8%. We have received no benefits
information for fireworks. Benefits for munitions are small. We have received no
information about ammunition, but its contribution is expected to be small. Some
ammunition is included in munitions, while the ‘shooters’ component is expected to be
small.
Table 6–2 summarises the calculations of one-off costs, ongoing costs and ongoing
benefits from 2009 to 2018. All one-off cost changes (such as training) are combined
into one value. The term classification, used in relation to benefits, is used to denote all
the cost reductions associated with classification, labelling and packaging. It is
considered separately for blasting explosives and fireworks. While there are no
quantitative data for other types of explosives, it is believed that the cost reductions are
relatively smaller. Reductions in transport costs for blasting explosives are dominated
by the assumed relaxation of restrictions on mixed loads.
Table 6–2 also contains the total quantity of explosives supplied each year (measured
conceptually in tonnes), relative to the base year. Assuming that the import share of
each type of explosive remains the same each year, it is a measure of the quantity of
imports. It is also a measure of the explosives transport task. Because of lack of
information about costs and benefits for other types of explosives, quantity changes are
presented only for blasting and fireworks.
33
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
TABLE 6–2: CHANGES IN COSTS AND BENEFITS OF OPTION 2 RELATIVE TO OPTION 1, 2009
TO 2018 (2008$ MILLION)
Year
2009
1
2010
2
2011
3
2012
4
2013
5
2014
6
2015
7
2016
8
2017
9
2018
10
Quantity relative to 100 in 2009
Blasting
Fireworks
100
100
108
100
117
100
126
100
136
100
147
100
159
100
171
100
185
100
200
100
Ongoing benefits ($m)
classification (blasting)
mixed loads (blasting)
0.35
0.30
0.76
0.65
0.82
0.70
0.88
0.76
0.95
0.82
1.03
0.88
1.11
0.95
1.20
1.03
1.30
1.11
1.40
1.20
Costs ($m)
One-off - training etc
Ongoing - insurance and NEQ
0.88
0.04
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
Net benefit ($m)
-0.3
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.5
Discounted net benefit ($m)
-0.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
NPV
13.7
Source: Access Economics, based on AFER questions, and additional questions and discussions with
industry and regulators.
Notes: Except for the final row, annual values along each row have not been discounted.
Classification denotes classification, labelling and packaging.
Estimated benefits in 2009 nearly offset the estimated one-off costs. Thereafter, the
discounted net benefit climbs steadily from $1.3 million in 2010 to $1.9 million in 2018.
The NPV from 2009 to 2018 is $13.7 million, measured in 2008 dollars.
These results have been obtained using a combination of reliable data and estimates
based on assumptions. The reliable data place lower limits on ongoing benefits, which
clearly exceed the ongoing costs. The largest uncertainties are in the one-off costs, but
even the maximum values for costs would be offset by ongoing benefits within a few
years.
The analysis is based primarily on results for blasting explosives. The Department of
Defence indicates that the revised AEC will impose no additional costs on munitions.
There is little quantitative or qualitative data for fireworks, other pyrotechnics (including
safety flares) or ammunition, although some ammunition and pyrotechnics are included
in munitions. These sectors with little data are relatively small compared with blasting
explosives and munitions, and cannot change the overall picture.
A major assumption has been that legislation and practice in all jurisdictions is
consistent with the AEC. This accounts for transport benefits with a NPV of $7.0 million
for mixed loads of blasting explosives. Even without this assumption the NPV of Option
2 compared with Option 1 is $6.7 million.
6.3.3
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR OPTION 2 COMPARED WITH OPTION 1
Uncertainties in the data underlying the results in Table 6–2 result in a range of NPV
under alternative assumptions. Rather than examine every component of costs and
benefits separately, the analysis is restricted to total one-off costs, total ongoing costs,
ongoing benefits from mixed loads, total other ongoing benefits, and the real discount
rate. An important underlying assumption is the growth in the use of blasting
explosives.
The upper and lower values of costs and benefits are summarised in Table 6–3,
together with the corresponding NPVs for 2009 to 2018 obtained by varying just one
parameter at a time. The lower values of costs and benefits are based on fairly reliable
data supplied by industry and are in most cases not much less than the conservative
best estimates. The upper values are considerably higher, corresponding to the
possibility of additional values from sectors where we had no data or little data.
34
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
The OBPR recommends use of a real discount rate of 7% with sensitivity testing for 3%
and 11% 17 . Access Economics uses 3% for its OASCC studies, and in this report
examines also 2% and 7%.
TABLE 6–3: RANGES OF PARAMETER VALUES AND CORRESPONDING NPVS
NPV for
best
estimate
$m
NPV for
upper
value
$m
annual growth in blasting explosives
AE
8%
10%
11.0
13.7
one-off costs ($m)
0.40
0.88
1.50
14.1
13.7
ongoing costs/year ($m)
0.04
0.08
0.30
14.0
13.7
ongoing benefits/y (mixed loads) ($m)
0.00
0.60
1.50
6.7
13.7
ongoing benefits/y (other) ($m)
0.60
0.70
1.50
12.5
13.7
real discount rate (%)
2%
3%
7%
14.6
13.7
Source: Access Economics, using data summarised in sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2.
15.2
13.1
11.9
24.2
23.0
10.8
parameter
lower
value
best
estimate
upper
value
NPV for
lower
value
$m
AE denotes Access Economics growth projections for the mining sector of 7.0% in 2010, 4.0% in 2011 and
18
2.7% in most other years .
The benchmark for comparisons is the NPV of $13.7 million obtained using best
estimates for all parameters. The largest decrease in NPV ($7.0 million) occurs where
there is no ongoing benefit for mixed loads, i.e., where mixed loads are not carried in
South Australia. The next largest decreases in NPV are $2.9 million for a real discount
rate of 7%, and $2.7 million for using Access Economics growth data for the mining
sector rather than the AEISG estimate of 8% a year indefinitely.
In the worst possible case, which combines the low AE growth rate with maximum
costs, minimum benefits and a high discount rate, the NPV is $1.3 million, consisting of
a net cost of $1.3 million in 2009 and net benefits of $0.3 million in succeeding years.
In the unlikely case that the high growth rate combines with minimum costs and
maximum benefits, the NPV is $37.7 million, rather than $35.7 million obtained by
adding together the results for the individual changes. If mixed loads are not allowed,
this best case NPV falls to $18.5 million.
6.4
OPTION 4 COMPARED WITH OPTION 2
Options 4 and 2 are very similar. Rather than compare Option 4 with Option 1, it is
simpler and more meaningful to compare Option 4 with Option 2.
Option 4 differs from Option 2 only in that AEC 3 would have the structure, format,
definitions and concepts of UN 15 rather than AEC 2. This would improve the
alignment of AEC with UN and the ADG Code, which would further reduce confusions
that might arise from mappings of classifications from UN to AEC. It would also simplify
the procedure for making future adjustments to the AEC. Differences between Option 4
and Option 2 would be restricted to the technical aspects of the classification, labelling
and packaging of explosives. Options 4 and 2 would be identical in matters of transport
and security that were specific to Australia.
17
OBPR, Best Practice Regulation Handbook, August 2007, p. 120.
18
Access Economics, Business Outlook, March 2008.
35
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
It is estimated that there would be a further delay of one to two years in adopting
Option 4 compared with adopting Option 2. There would be a one-off additional cost of
around $0.8 million for re-writing the AEC, assumed to commence in 2009 and be
completed part way through 2010. The major restructuring of the AEC would require far
more training and familiarisation than the amount of around $500,000 for Option 2.
There was corresponding restructuring of the code for ADG 7 and the ADG 7 RIS
found that the cost of training would be $13.8 million spread over two years 19 . It is
difficult to translate this into an estimate for explosives. It is assumed that training and
familiarisation costs for Option 4 are around $3 million, and spread equally over 2010
and 2011. The remaining one-off costs for placards etc. are incurred in 2010. It is
assumed that the ongoing costs and benefits are the same as for Option 2, but do not
commence until 2011.
Table 6–4 for the costs and benefits of Option 4 relative to Option 1 is similar to Table
6–2 for Option 2 relative to Option1, but allows for the additional one-off costs in 2010
and 2011, and the delays in realising ongoing benefits. The results for calendar year
2012 onwards are identical to those for Option 2 relative to Option 1, but the
differences in the early years mean that the NPV for Option 4 of $8.9 million is $4.9
million less than for Option 2.
TABLE 6–4: CHANGES IN COSTS AND BENEFITS OF OPTION 4 RELATIVE TO OPTION 1, 2009
TO 2018 (2008$ MILLION)
Year
Quantity relative to 100 in 2009
Blasting
Fireworks
2009
1
2010
2
2011
3
2012
4
2013
5
2014
6
2015
7
2016
8
2017
9
2018
10
100
100
108
100
117
100
126
100
136
100
147
100
159
100
171
100
185
100
200
100
0.82
0.70
0.88
0.76
0.95
0.82
1.03
0.88
1.11
0.95
1.20
1.03
1.30
1.11
1.40
1.20
0.08
Ongoing benefits ($m)
classification (blasting)
mixed loads (blasting)
Costs ($m)
One-off - revise AEC
One-off - training
One-off - other costs
Ongoing - insurance and NEQ
0.53
0.27
1.50
0.27
NPV
1.50
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Net benefit ($m)
-0.5
-2.0
-0.1
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.5
Discounted net benefit ($m)
-0.5
-1.9
-0.1
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
8.9
Source: Access Economics, using Table 6–2 and assumptions summarised above.
The major differences between Option 4 and Option 2 arise in the possibility of lower
costs of labelling and packaging in Option 4 because the classification of explosives
would be better aligned with the UN Model Regulations. This is not shown in Table 6-4
because we have no data. Nevertheless, it is expected that the NPVs of Options 2 and
4 out to 2018 would be much the same.
Option 4 would have long term benefits relative to Option 2 in that the AEC would be
easier to update in the future. It might even be practical to update the AEC every time
the UN Model Regulations were updated, and the benefits of this would be greater if
the ADG Code was updated at the same time. Another long term benefit would be a
reduction in confusion between AEC, UN and ADG, and hence increased efficiency
and safety. Option 4 would be an investment with future net benefits.
19
National Transport Commission, Development of the 7th Edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods
Code, Draft RIS, November 2006.
36
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
In summary, Option 4 would have a larger start-up cost than Option 2 and take longer
to implement. It is likely to have the same net benefits as Option 2 in the medium term,
and larger net benefits in the longer term.
6.5
SUMMARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The quantifiable costs and benefits have been estimated using CBA analysis. This
shows that Options 2 and 4 have net benefits relative to Option 1. The NPV of Option 2
relative to Option 1 is $13.7 million, but only $6.7 million if mixed loads are not carried
in South Australia. Sensitivity analysis shows that the NPV is always positive, even for
the most unfavourable case of a low growth rate and minimum benefits combined with
maximum costs.
The NPV of Option 4 relative to Option 1 is $8.9 million. The lower value than for
Option 2 relative to Option 1 arises from delays in implementation and greater start-up
costs. Benefits from better alignment with UN classifications have not been allowed for,
but are likely to increase the NPV.
These results show that Option 2 has a higher NPV than Option 4, but the difference is
likely to be small when allowance is made for the better alignment of Option 4 with UN
classifications.
The safety and security benefits of Options 2 and 4 relative to Option 1 can be
assessed only qualitatively, using risk analysis. They have net benefits which are
essentially the same, although the better alignment of Option 4 with UN classifications
means that it has the potential for less confusion and hence greater safety.
For both Option 2 and Option 4 relative to Option 1, the CBA shows net quantitative
benefits and the risk analysis for safety and security benefits shows qualitative benefits,
so that the total benefits must be positive. This means that an update of the AEC is
warranted. However, within the uncertainties in the estimates underlying the analysis,
Options 2 and 4 must be ranked equally in terms of net benefits out to 2018. Option 2
has the advantage of being implemented sooner, but the benefit of Option 4 relative to
Option 2 would increase gradually over time.
The quantifiable net benefits relate primarily to the explosives industry and transport,
with smaller benefits for the regulators. The unmeasured benefits of improved safety
and security relate to the whole community, including some contributions to the
explosives industry, transport and regulators.
37
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
7. CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION
AEC 2, the current edition of the Australian Code for the Transport of Explosives by
Road and Rail, was published in March 2000, and is now four editions behind the UN
Model Regulations for the classification, labelling, packaging and land transport of
dangerous goods (UN 15). AEC 2 has also fallen behind the Australian Code for the
Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (ADG 7), and is five editions behind
the current International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code. There is also a need to
review the current security provisions for explosives contained in the AEC.
It is very important that consistency between international and domestic guidance
material - and those of intermodal transport guidance material - be maintained, as out
of date classifications could compromise safety by not taking account of new
knowledge regarding the dangers of explosives. In addition to this, inconsistencies
between guidance material could create confusion in the handling of explosives. In
recent years, there has also been an added emphasis on domestic security
arrangements for the land transport of explosives.
AFER has considered five options for revising the AEC:

Option 1: Retain the Status Quo.

Option 2: Minimal change to reflect the content of UN 15 but retaining the existing
AEC 2 structure, format and concepts, together with updating the current security
provisions.

Option 3: Minimal change, as for Option 2, with self regulation by industry.

Option 4: Revise the AEC to align with the content and structure of ADG 7 and
UN 15 to the extent possible.

Option 5: Fully and directly adopt the UN Model Regulations, together with a set
of domestic requirements.
The self regulatory approach of Option 3 is not consistent with the COAG principles for
security provisions for SSAN, or the security addendum for explosives (see section
4.3). Option 5 is not a practical solution and is also unlikely to be supported by the
Australian Government. The complex nature of this solution may result in potential
confusion and reference to international standards that do not apply in Australia (see
section 4.5).
Impact assessments of Options 2 and 4 relative to Option 1 were made in section 6. An
important assumption was that jurisdictions would align their explosives legislation with
the AEC, without any additional restrictions, so that legislation would be consistent
throughout Australia.
CBA was used for those items where there were quantitative estimates of costs and
benefits. This applied to the compliance costs and to one-off costs of training, and to
the ongoing benefits (or cost savings) to the industry and regulators. Only qualitative
assessments were available for the benefits of safety and security, but it was clear that
Options 2 and 4 would be improvements on Option 1.
The CBA for Option 2 compared with Option 1 produced a NPV from 2009 to 2018 of
$13.7 million. Even without the assumption about uniformity of legislation across
Australia, which affects carriage of mixed loads of explosives, the NPV was $6.7
38
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
million. Sensitivity analysis showed that the NPV was always positive, even for the
most unfavourable case of a low growth rate for explosives and minimum benefits
combined with maximum costs.
Option 4 is similar to Option 2 except for a delay of one to two years in implementation
and additional costs for developing the AEC and then training. These factors produced
a lower CBA for Option 4 compared with Option 1 of $8.9 million.
For both Option 2 and Option 4 relative to Option 1, the CBA shows net quantitative
benefits, and the risk analysis for safety and security benefits shows qualitative
benefits, so that the total benefits are positive. This means that an update of the AEC is
warranted.
Although the impact analysis shows a higher NPV for Option 2 than Option 4, other
factors have to be considered. The closer alignment of the AEC under Option 4 with
UN 15 means that future revisions to the UN Model Regulations would be easier and
less costly to accommodate and that there would be less confusion, less likelihood of
errors and hence greater safety. Given these considerations, and the uncertainties in
the estimates underlying the analysis, Options 2 and 4 must be ranked equally in terms
of net benefits out to 2018. Option 2 has the advantage of being implemented sooner,
but the benefit of Option 4 relative to Option 2 would increase gradually over time.
AFER made a decision to pursue Option 2 because revisions to the AEC could be
produced and implemented within a relatively short time frame with minimum retraining
costs. The short time frame was considered to be very important, given the additional
efforts and costs caused by the increasing divergence between AEC 2 and other
guidance material. Bringing the AEC up to date gives all jurisdictions the opportunity to
align with it, even if there are minor differences. Another consideration was that AEC 2
was so far out of date that there was a danger that it might be ignored, and then it
would be more difficult to reinstate.
Option 4 is an extensive rewrite of the AEC using the structure of UN 15, as was used
to update ADG 6 to ADG 7 in 2007. It is understood that there are difficulties with the
acceptance of ADG 7, partly because it is so different. Option 4 would deliver a better
product than Option 2 in the long run, but it may be premature to change the structure
of the AEC to be the same as the UN 15 structure at present, before sufficient time has
elapsed to fully assess the impact on business of the recently introduced ADG 7
The impact assessment supports the AFER decision to use Option 2.
39
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
8. IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW
8.1
IMPLEMENTATION
It is proposed that the third edition of the AEC be adopted by the Australian, state and
territory governments. An implementation period can be agreed on at the time of
declaration by the WRMC.
Adoption of AEC 3 will be achieved through existing legislative frameworks in all states
and territories. Individual jurisdictions can choose to incorporate the AEC into their own
regulatory framework or to use the AEC as a model for jurisdictional guidance material.
Adoption of AEC 3 will require coordinated action on the part of all parties involved. It is
expected that the AFER, the WRMC and jurisdictions will continue to work together,
along with industry bodies, to ensure the AEC 3 is understood and appropriately used.
8.2
REVIEW
According to Principle 6 in COAG Best Practice Regulation 20 , the AEC should be
reviewed periodically. AEC 2 was released in 2000 and the UN Model Regulations and
IMDG Code have diverged from it over the past 8 years. Given the extensive changes
to be made to AEC 2, the current review, which was put on the agenda in 2006, was
probably overdue. Similar divergences are likely in future years, and it is envisaged that
AFER members will discuss the timing of future reviews.
As part of a future review, consideration could be given to using Option 4 in which the
AEC is restructured along the lines of the UN Model Regulations. This would have two
advantages. It would enable changes to be made to the AEC every time the UN Model
Regulations were updated, every two years, by a relatively simple process. It would
also make it easier to incorporate the AEC into the ADG Code, if it were decided to
take this approach.
There are two matters relating to explosives that are outside the scope of this RIS that
may be considered by AFER for future reviews, well before the next reviews of the
AEC and the ADG Code. Consideration might be given to the incorporation of
explosives into the ADG Code. Consideration might also be given to the means of
harmonising explosives legislation between jurisdictions, especially in relation to
transport.
8.3
LOOKING FORWARD
The RIS has encountered two matters relating to explosives that are outside the scope
of the RIS but might be considered in the near future.
8.3.1
INCORPORATION OF AEC INTO THE ADG
The UN Model Regulations, to which the AEC is aligned, embrace all dangerous goods
including explosives. From the perspective of updating the AEC and maintaining
20
COAG, Best Practice Regulation, A guide for national councils and national standard setting bodies,
October 2007
40
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
consistency between all codes and guidance material, there would thus be benefits in
developing a single Australian code that covered both explosives and all other
dangerous goods. This possibility was raised in the RIS for ADG 7 21 . AFER is certainly
aware of this matter, but its first priority has been to update the AEC. Consideration of
Option 4 would be an important ingredient in such an amalgamation. A combined code
would then lead to the possibility of updating the Australian code every time the UN
Model Regulations were updated, which is currently every two years. The PC advised
against combining AEC with the ADG Code before differences in explosives legislation
between jurisdictions were resolved (see PC draft recommendation below).
8.3.2
UNIFORM LEGISLATION FOR EXPLOSIVES ACROSS JURISDICTIONS
AEC is a national code, formulated by Commonwealth and state regulators, but without
corresponding national legislation. Legislation is determined separately by each
jurisdiction (see Attachment A). While legislation in each jurisdiction generally
embraces the AEC with regard to classification, labelling and packaging, jurisdictions
deviate from the AEC in differing ways for some details, especially for transport.
Differences in explosives legislation between jurisdictions are of importance because
they increase costs for interstate movements. There are large interstate movements
because most explosives are manufactured or landed at just a few places in eastern
states, and many of them are used in Western Australia and other states. In order to
transport explosives between states, it is necessary to conform to legislation in all
relevant jurisdictions. Rather than re-arrange loads at state borders (although placards
are changed if necessary), transport operators use procedures that satisfy all
legislations that apply to the trip.
Many of the submissions received in response to the Consultation RIS raised the
matter of differences in legislation between jurisdictions, even though it was outside the
scope of this RIS. It is clearly a major issue for the explosives industry. This was also
reflected in the findings and recommendations of the PC draft research report on
Chemicals and Plastics Regulation 22 .
The PC noted that important differences in jurisdictional regulation of explosives
transport are imposing unnecessary costs on industry (p. 192) and recommended that
the AEC update be expanded to address these differences. In this context, the PC
report also discusses the role of model (national) regulations accompanying ADG 7
(pp. 184-187).
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION 7.3
The current review of the Australian Explosives Code by the Australian Forum of
Explosives Regulators (AFER) should be completed as expeditiously as possible to
produce uniform regulations that are adopted and consistently applied by all jurisdictions.
The AFER should then immediately undertake a review of jurisdictional legislation and
regulations for explosives transport, with the aim of achieving nationally consistent
legislation and regulations to complement the uniformly adopted technical code. Any
technical code issues not adequately resolved in the current review of the Australian
Explosives Code (AEC3), should also be considered. (p.194)
21
National Transport Commission, Development of the 7th Edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods
Code, Draft Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006, Recommendations 8.2 and 8.3.
22
Productivity Commission 2008, Chemicals and Plastics Regulation, Research Report, Melbourne.
41
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
The PC also examined the regulation of AN and found that differences between
jurisdictions in the implementation of security provisions for AN were imposing
unnecessary administration and compliance burdens (p. 267).
AFER is currently considering the issue of national model explosives legislation in
Australia. This includes the transport of explosives.
An additional complication is that licensing for the transport of explosives is required
separately in each jurisdiction, with separate fees, and the requirements for transport
operators, road vehicles and drivers differ between jurisdictions. Transport operators
indicated in discussions that they would prefer either mutual recognition of licensing
between jurisdictions or else national licensing for the carriage of explosives.
42
…continued
Queensland
• Explosives Act 1999
• Explosives Regulations 2003
Victoria
• Dangerous Goods Act 1985
• Dangerous Goods (Explosives) Regulations 2000
New South Wales
• Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Act 1997
• Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) (Rail) Regulation
1999
• Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) (Road)
Regulation 1998
• Explosives Act 2003
• Explosives Regulation 2005
• Mines Inspection Act 1901
Explosives and Related Legislation
Department of Mines and Energy, Queensland
WorkSafe Victoria
WorkCover, NSW
AFER members with responsibility for explosives
ATTACHMENT A – LEGISLATION AND AFER MEMBERS WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR
EXPLOSIVES BY JURISDICTION
43
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
…continued
Tasmania
• Dangerous Goods Act 1998 — manufacture, transport, storage
and sale of dangerous goods, and relevant activities
• Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations 1998
• Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Regulations 1998
• Dangerous Goods (Fees) Regulations 1998
• Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995
South Australia
• Explosives Act 1936
• Explosives Regulations 1996
• Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations 2001
• Explosives (Security Sensitive Substances) Regulations 2006
• Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986
• Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1995
Western Australia
• Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004
• Dangerous Goods Safety (Explosives) Regulations 2007
• Dangerous Goods Safety (Security Risk Substances)
Regulations 2007
Explosives and Related Legislation
Attachment A continued
Department of Justice, Tasmania
Safework, SA
44
Department of Consumer and Employment Protection, Western
Australia
AFER members with responsibility for explosives
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
•
•
Explosives Act 1961
Explosives Transport Regulations 2002
Defence
Comcare
NT Worksafe
Northern Territory
• Dangerous Goods Act
• Dangerous Goods Regulations
• Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act
• Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Regulations
Commonwealth
• OHS Act 1991
• OHS (Safety Standards) Regulations 1994 [Part 8 Explosives]
WorkCover, ACT
AFER members with responsibility for explosives
Australian Capital Territory
• Dangerous Substances Act 2004
• Dangerous Substances (Explosives) Regulation 2004
• Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004
• Occupational Health and Safety Act 1989
Explosives and Related Legislation
Attachment A continued
45
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
ATTACHMENT B – EXPLOSIVES INDUSTRY DATA
Type of
industry
Number of businesses
Annual
Turnover
Quantity of
explosives used
na
na
na
na
na
na
New South Wales
Blasting
Fireworks
320 pyrotechnicians
Explosives
licences
Manufacture 28, import 33, store 133,
supply 20, use of SSAN 20 (plus 13
individuals), explosives users 1,791,
UHL security clearances 5,480
Transport
35 licensed transport operators
Victoria
Blasting
845
persons
licensed
to
use
explosives, 16 mobile processing unit
(MPU) licences (one per vehicle)
na
na
Fireworks
230
licensed
pyrotechnicians
conducting average 550 displays per
year (over last three years) in Vic.
na
na
Transport
23 licensed road transporters of
explosives, most with multiple vehicles,
one licensed rail transporter.
na
na
Queensland
Blasting
1000
persons
(individuals
and In excess of 1 million tonnes
companies) licensed to use explosives
$1 billion
per year in Qld
Fireworks
27 licensed contractors employing 151 $5 million
licensed operators and conducting
2,000 public displays per year in Qld.
Explosives
licences
Import 47, export 16, manufacture 21,
manufacture on site 17, MPUs 147,
store 233, sell 286, shotfirer 939, use
155
150 tonnes per
annum
About 25,000 persons in Qld have legal
access to explosives.
Transport
61 licensed transporters of explosives
in Qld, 605 vehicles licensed
na
na
46
Regulatory Impact Statement: Transport of Explosives
Type of
industry
Number of businesses
Annual
Turnover
Quantity of
explosives used
Western Australia
Blasting
2500 persons
explosives
licensed
to
use $1 billion
1 million tonnes
per year
Fireworks
15 licensed contractors employing 75 $10 million
licensed operators - conducting 180
public displays per year in WA. Four
contractors import fireworks from
overseas.
20 tonnes gross
Transport
20 licensed transporters of explosives $500 million
in WA each with numerous vehicles 300 explosive vehicle licences and
200 Mobile Processing Units MPU
licences in total (one licence per
vehicle).
1 million tonnes
(including
precursors)
Explosives
licences
Factory 2, import 5, magazine 100,
mix and use AN 157, premises 181,
permits to purchase 225, blasters
permit 719, SSAN certificates 237
Imports: 21,000 t
AN/ANE (bulk),
1,500 t (packaged)
Fireworks
Pyrotechnician’s licence 45
na
Imports 4.5 t
Blasting
80-90 Businesses, 10 MPUs
na
8,000 tonnes,
imports: 6,000 t
AN/ANE, 200 t
packaged
Pyrotechnics/
1 dominant fireworks operator
Fireworks
2 regular importers, exporters and
retailers who sell fireworks. Several
interstate contractors
Explosives
licences
450 shotfirers (mines 250, fireworks
25, other 175), other individuals with
access to explosives 50
Transport
5 transport operators, 30 vehicles, 20
drivers licensed for Category 3
South Australia
Tasmania
$5-10
million
na
na
na
Northern Territory
Information not received
Austalian Capital Territory
Explosives
licences
Import 14, shotfirer 6, display operator
13, driver 1 (but licences in other
jurisdictions are recognised)
47
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 7TH
EDITION OF THE
AUSTRALIAN DANGEROUS
GOODS CODE
Draft Regulatory Impact Statement
November 2006
Prepared by
National Transport Commission
National Transport Commission
Development of the 7th Edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code
Report Prepared by: National Transport Commission
ISBN: 1 921168 48 X
REPORT OUTLINE
Date:
November 2006
ISBN:
1 921168 48 X
Title:
Development of the 7th Edition of the Australian
Dangerous Goods Code, Regulatory Impact Statement
Address:
National Transport Commission
Level 15/628 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.ntc.gov.au
Type of report:
Draft Regulatory Impact Statement
Objectives:
To improve safety practices relating to the transport of
dangerous goods by updating the 6th Edition of the
Australian Dangerous Goods Code and supporting
model legislation..
NTC Programs:
Safety and Environment. Maintenance
dangerous goods reform package.
Key Milestones:
All draft documents submitted for review by the
Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods, Dangerous Goods Agency Chief Executive
Officers and to Transport Agencies Chief Executives
for endorsement November 2006.
of
the
All documentation submitted to ATC for approval
December 2006.
Abstract:
The 6th Edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods
Code dates from 1997 and was implemented in 1998.
This version is out of step with international standards
and practice including the UN Model Regulations for
the Transport of Dangerous Goods now up to its 14th
edition.
In the 7th Edition, both UN and Australian specific
requirements have been integrated into a single
document adopting the format, structure, definitions
and concepts of UN Model Regulations 14. This will
ensure classification, packaging, labelling and
placarding requirements are compatible with the
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, the
International Air Transport Association regulations
and the International Civil Aviation Organisation
technical instructions.
Consequential changes to the supporting legislation
(the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods)
Regulations 1997 and the Road Transport Reform
(Dangerous Goods) Act 1995); are discussed.
Purpose:
Final report for endorsement.
Key words:
dangerous goods, ADG7, dangerous goods transport,
dangerous goods regulations, Australian Dangerous
Goods Code, ADG7 Code, dangerous goods bulk,
dangerous goods packaging, impact analysis, costs,
competent authority, ACTDG, advisory committee for
the transport of dangerous goods, model legislation
for the transport of dangerous goods by road or rail,
model law, model subordinate law, UN Model
Regulations 13 and 14.
FOREWORD
The National Transport Commission is a body established under an inter-governmental
agreement with a charter to develop, monitor, and maintain uniform or nationally
consistent regulatory and operational reforms relating to road, rail and inter-modal
transport. The National Transport Commission is funded jointly by the Australian
Government, States and Territories.
The NTC is responsible for maintaining regulations on the transport of dangerous goods by
road and rail within Australia.
The Australian Dangerous Goods Code was first produced in 1980 to cover the transport of
these goods within Australia only. The 6th Edition of the Code is based on UN Model
Regulations 9. To date industry acceptance of this reform has been high. Compliance with
the Code is monitored by State-based regulators.
The 7th Edition of the Code adopts the structure, format, definitions and concepts of UN
Model Regulations 14 while retaining Australian specific provisions.
This is part of the long term strategy of aligning domestic land transport requirements as
closely as possible with international requirements for the safe transport of dangerous
goods.
This regulatory impact statement assesses the costs and benefits of changes to the
Australian Dangerous Goods Code and to the supporting legislation to produce the 7th
Edition.
The NTC consulted extensively with the Dangerous Goods Steering Group, a sub-group of
the Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, on changes to the Code
and to the supporting model legislation. Draft versions of the technical Code and the
supporting model legislation were made available for public consultation for a period of
eleven weeks in 2005 and revised versions were made available to the Advisory
Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods for four weeks in September 2006.
Public information sessions were also held in 2005 to advise of the proposed changes.
The National Transport Commission has considered all stakeholder responses in
developing the final submission for the Australian Transport Council. On behalf of
Commissioners I would like to thank all those who took the time and effort to provide
input to the development of this important safety reform.
Michael Deegan
Chairman
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page i
SUMMARY
This regulatory impact statement highlights changes to the original Road Transport Reform
(Dangerous Goods) Act 1995, the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations
1997 and the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 6th Edition as a result of the incorporation
of UN Model Regulations 14 into the 7th Edition of the Code.
The 7th Edition:
x
adopts the format, definitions, concepts and structure, of UN Model Regulations 14;
x
integrates both UN and Australian specific requirements into a single document;
x
includes amendments accumulated since 1998 and approved by the Advisory
Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and by the Competent Authorities
Panel; and
x
fully incorporates additional provisions for the transport of infectious substances.
While retaining Australian specific provisions for domestic land transport, the 7th Edition
of the Code more closely aligns with UN Model Regulations 14, harmonising domestic
practice as far as possible with these regulations and with the equivalent international
maritime and air codes and regulations.
The new Model Subordinate Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail
replaces the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997 and the Rail
(Dangerous Goods) Rules. The Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road
or Rail replaces the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995.
The supporting Model Law and the Model Subordinate Law which replace the existing
template legislation:
x
reflect changes to the technical Code;
x
synchronise road and rail requirements as far as possible into one set of regulations
making allowance for variation between the modes in roles and responsibilities;
x
realign, clarify and set out some additional duties and responsibilities associated with
roles in the transport of dangerous goods;
x
align with current best practice in Australia by incorporating provisions from the
Compliance and Enforcement regulations; and
x
clarify the role and responsibilities of the Competent Authority Panel and expand the
powers of authorised officers.
Although initially the 7th version of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code appears to be a
radical departure from earlier versions of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code and from
the 6th edition, there are few substantial changes to underlying policy. Some new measures,
for example, the adoption of detailed packaging requirements are not expected to have a
major impact since there appears to be no major change to current practice under the 6th
Edition. The adoption of some new concepts from the UN Model Regulations, on the
other hand, will trigger a revision of training, of documentation and of electronic storage of
dangerous goods information. Industry, government regulators, and emergency services are
Page ii
Draft ADG7 Regulatory Impact Statement, July 2005
expected to incur costs as a result of re-training and re-education. These are discussed in
some detail in Section 4 (Costs and Benefits).
The 7th Edition also contains some changes to marking and labelling, however:
x
the model legislation incorporates a transition period of a minimum of 12 months;
x
in a number of cases the 7th Edition provides a transition period of the lifespan of this
edition of the Code before the new requirements become statutory e.g. orientation
markings on packagings; and
x
in some cases the UN permits a gradual phasing in of significant changes to signage,
such as the change in the class label for organic peroxide (January 2011).
Anticipated Costs and Benefits to Industry
A major cost to both industry and government will be re-training associated with the
adoption of UN definitions, concepts and terminology into the 7th Edition of the Code. The
total cost to industry is estimated to come to $11.8 million over 2 years.
Some direct intangible benefits are also identified.
Costs
Benefits
Direct
x Major costs associated with updated
training and education.
Direct
x Closer harmonisation with maritime and air
transport codes with a reduction in intermodal difficulties and inefficiencies will
reduce costs for importers/exporters.
x Increased frequency in the revision cycle to
ensure the Code is kept up to date with
international practices.
x A more frequent revision cycle will reduce
the impact on industry since fewer changes
will be required.
x The inclusion of infectious substances.
x The inclusion of compliance and
enforcement provisions addressing anticompetitive behaviour.
x
Changes to documentation and
administrative systems.
x
Some additional costs associated with
changes to placarding and labelling
requirements.
Indirect
x
Higher and expanded range of
infringement penalties.
Indirect
x Merging of road and rail regulations will
reduce complexity for freight inter-modal
companies operating on a national basis.
x Benefits for global companies based in
Australia with closer alignment with UN
and international practice.
x Increased Australian input to UN model
regulation development.
x Some anticipated cost savings from the
treatment of small quantities.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page iii
Anticipated Costs and Benefits to Government and to the Community
The total costs to government are currently estimated at approximately $4.5 million
dollars. These costs are associated with training, updating legislation, updating
documentation and electronic databases.
Potential benefits from an updated Code are estimated to come to $5 million per annum in
savings from avoidance of dangerous goods crash costs. This figure does not include
qualitative benefits.
Some direct intangible benefits are also identified.
Costs
Benefits
Direct
Direct
x
Implementation costs of changes to
legislation and regulation.
x
x
Additional training and administration
costs for State regulators and
emergency services.
Updated regulatory package harmonised
as far as possible with equivalent
international standards.
x
Increased frequency of the revision cycle
allowing speedier incorporation of
updates to the Code.
x
Less resource intensive maintenance of
detailed and complex Code and model
legislation.
x
Some additional compliance and
enforcement costs.
Indirect
x
Additional compliance checks may be
required by Competent Authorities.
Indirect
x Reduction in cost to government of
maintaining the technical Australian
Dangerous Goods Code.
x
Incorporation of road and rail
requirements into one set of standardised
regulations removing inter-modal
inconsistencies.
x
Expansion of powers to improve
compliance.
x
Updated advice for emergency
responders.
In summary, the main cost to both industry and government will be re-training and
education with some additional costs to industry associated with changes to marking and
labelling. An additional cost for government will be the updating of the relevant State
based legislation. Costs of changes to labelling have also been included in this statement.
No other significant costs have been identified.
A major benefit across a range of industry sectors will be the harmonisation of regulations
for land transport with international standards and air and sea regulations. Other benefits
will be realised from improved domestic efficiency, concessions for retail distributors and
small business, greater alignment with other modal requirements, a reduction in reform
maintenance costs, a speedier revision cycle, and improved compliance and enforcement.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
1.1 About Dangerous Goods ............................................................................................1
1.2 About the United Nations Model Regulations .............................................................1
1.3 The Dangerous Goods Legislative Package ..............................................................2
1.3.1 6th Edition .....................................................................................................................2
1.3.2 7th Edition .....................................................................................................................2
1.4 Developments.............................................................................................................4
2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.........................................................................5
2.1 Aim and Objectives.....................................................................................................5
2.2 Guiding Principles.......................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Results .........................................................................................................................6
2.3 Scope..........................................................................................................................7
3. OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND SELECTED .........................................................8
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Option 1: Base Case...................................................................................................8
Option 2: Retain Domestic Focus ...............................................................................9
Option 3: Full and Direct Adoption of UN Model Regulations ...................................10
Option 4: Adoption of Current UN Model Regulations to the Extent
Possible ....................................................................................................................11
3.5 Option 5: Adoption of the European Agreement concerning the
International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (‘Accord Européen
Relatif au Transport International des Marchandises Dangereuses par
Route’ or ADR) .........................................................................................................12
3.6 Preferred Option .......................................................................................................12
4. COSTS..................................................................................................................13
4.1 Costs to Industry .......................................................................................................13
4.1.1 Costs to Health Sector, Pathology and General Courier Services ..............................20
4.1.2 Costs to Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Industries and to Waste
Disposal Industry ........................................................................................................21
4.1.3 Costs to Road and Rail Transport and Logistics .........................................................23
4.1.4 Cost to Gas Distributors..............................................................................................25
4.1.5 Costs to Packaging, Paint, Manufacturing, and Chemical Sectors .............................25
4.1.6 Costs to All Industries .................................................................................................26
4.2 Costs to Government ................................................................................................27
4.2.1 Estimated Costs to Other Government Regulators .....................................................30
4.2.2 Costs to Emergency Services.....................................................................................30
5. BENEFITS ............................................................................................................33
5.1 Benefits to the Community........................................................................................33
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
Road and Rail Accident Costs ....................................................................................33
Estimated Total Costs of Dangerous Goods Accidents and Incidents ........................34
Reduction in Costs to the Community.........................................................................35
Realising Benefits.......................................................................................................35
5.2 Other Benefits...........................................................................................................36
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6
5.2.7
Improved Domestic Efficiency ....................................................................................36
Benefits to Retail Distributors .....................................................................................37
International Harmonisation........................................................................................37
Reduction in Regulatory Maintenance Costs ..............................................................38
Speedier Regulatory Revision Cycle ..........................................................................38
Improved Compliance and Enforcement.....................................................................38
Summary of Benefits ..................................................................................................39
6. EVALUATION.......................................................................................................39
6.1 Qualitative Analysis of Alternatives...........................................................................39
6.2 Breakeven Analysis ..................................................................................................41
6.3 Restrictions on Competition ......................................................................................42
6.4 Consistency with International Approaches.............................................................. 43
7. CONSULTATION................................................................................................. 43
7.1 Consultation with Experts ......................................................................................... 43
7.2 Consultation Process ............................................................................................... 44
7.3 Summary of Comments and Responses.................................................................. 45
8. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................. 46
8.1 The Inter-Governmental Agreement......................................................................... 46
8.2 Implementation Details ............................................................................................. 46
9. REVIEW MECHANISMS ..................................................................................... 47
10. REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX A:
MEETING SCHEDULE................................................................... 53
APPENDIX B:
FEEDBACK FROM PUBLIC CONSULTATION ............................ 55
APPENDIX C:
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AUSTRALIAN
DANGEROUS GOODS CODE, THE REGULATIONS
AND THE ACT................................................................................ 57
APPENDIX D:
DATA USED IN ANALYSES.......................................................... 57
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Summary Assessment of the Impacts of Adopting Option 4 ................... 15
Table 2.
Estimated Costs to States and Territories ($‘000) ..................................... 29
Table 3.
Summary of Costs to Industry and Government ....................................... 32
Table 4.
Estimated Costs of All Road Crashes......................................................... 33
Table 5.
Estimated Costs of All Rail Crashes ........................................................... 34
Table 6.
All Freight Transport Fatalities by Road and Rail ...................................... 34
Table 7.
Estimated Current Crash Costs to the Community ................................... 35
Table 8.
Qualitative analysis of alternatives ............................................................. 40
Table 9.
Annualised Costs to Industry and Government......................................... 41
Table 10.
Required Drop in Incidents to Realise Benefits ......................................... 42
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 About Dangerous Goods
Dangerous goods, due to their physical, chemical and toxicological properties, present an
acute risk to life, health, property and the environment especially when being transported.
Based on the estimate that approximately 8% of the freight task is dangerous goods1, there
have been few major incidents in recent years where life and health have been affected by
the transport of dangerous goods in Australia. This is to a large extent explained by the
transport industry having embraced the various editions of the Australian Dangerous
Goods Code published since 1980.
The Australian Dangerous Goods Code 6th Edition was the first attempt to achieve national
uniformity in regulations for the transport of dangerous goods through the technical
provisions of the Code supported by a regulatory framework. Published in 1998, the 6th
Edition of the Code was given effect through the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous
Goods) Regulations 1997 and the Rail (Dangerous Goods) Rules.
A supplement to the 6th Edition of the Code ‘Guidance Notes for the Transport of Class 6.2
(Infectious Substances) Dangerous Goods’ (Nov 1997) provided information on the
transport of infectious substances.
Upon the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods, the 7th Edition of the Code now incorporates requirements from UN Model
Regulations 14 (originally 13) and from the original supplement for the transport of
infectious substances.
Drivers for developing the 7th Edition of the Code include:
x
updating technical requirements for domestic land transport to ensure uniformity with
air and sea requirements for the transport of dangerous goods and the removal of intermodal inconsistencies;
x
providing a more timely and efficient revision cycle by more closely aligning the
Australian maintenance cycle with the UN revision cycle; and
x
providing for more efficient and effective inter-modal movements within the domestic
supply chain by synchronising road and rail requirements.
1.2
About the United Nations Model Regulations
The UN Model Regulations for the Transport of Dangerous Goods is published by the
United Nations Economic and Social Council’s Committee of Experts on Dangerous
Goods and revised usually every two years. A committee of delegates from 22 nations
develops the UN Model Regulations. Australia is an active voting member of this
committee and attends these sessions on a regular basis.
The UN Model Regulations remain the principal source of policy for the safe transport of
dangerous goods, internationally. The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG)
1
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2001c).
Page 2
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Code, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulations,
the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Instructions,
European Agreements concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road
(‘Accord Européen Relatif au Transport International des Marchandises Dangereuses par
Route’ or ADR), the European regulation covering the International Carriage of Dangerous
Goods by Rail (Reglements Internationales Relatif au Transport des Marchandises
Dangereuses par Chemin de Fer’ or RID), and the US dangerous goods regulatory regime
are all based on the UN Model Regulations.
The current version of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code is out of step with the UN
Model Regulations by five cycles, and with other modal codes and standards. It needs to be
realigned with the practices of trading partners and with current practice in the global
supply chain.
The 13th and 14th editions of the UN Model Regulations can be found online at:
http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/unrec/rev13/13files_e.html
and at
http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/unrec/rev14/14files_e.html
1.3 The Dangerous Goods Legislative Package
1.3.1 6th Edition
The 6th Edition national legislative package regulating the transport of dangerous goods by
road comprised:
x
the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995 (the Act);
x
the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997 (the Regulations);
and
x
the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail – 6th
Edition.
The package was completed in late 1997 and was either adopted by reference or
incorporated into State-based operational regulations over the following six years.
The regulations set out the duties and obligations of anyone involved in the transport of
dangerous goods by road and rail in Australia (including administration and enforcement).
The Rail (Dangerous Goods) Rules (Schedule 1 of the 6th Edition) set out specific legal
requirements for people involved in transporting dangerous goods by rail. These rules
were implemented by jurisdictions a year or so later through separate rail specific
regulations.
1.3.2 7th Edition
The 7th edition of this legislative package is comprised of:
x
the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition;
x
the Model Subordinate Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail (the
Regulations);
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
x
the Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail (the Act);
x
a Regulatory Impact Statement; and
x
the Information Guide to the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition.
Page 3
The regulatory framework supporting the technical Code will not change, however model
legislation will update and replace the existing template legislation.
The new Model Subordinate Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail
replaces the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997 and the Rail
(Dangerous Goods) Rules and reflects changes to the technical Code.
The Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail replaces the Road
Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995.
As with the template legislation, the Model Law (the Act), the Model Subordinate Law (the
Regulations) and the technical Code will all function as a single unit.
Changes to the Australian Dangerous Goods Code have resulted in changes to the
accompanying model legislation. The details of these changes are discussed in this impact
statement.
Note: for the purposes of this regulatory impact statement:
x
the Australian Dangerous Goods Code Version 7 has been abbreviated to the 7th
Edition;
x
the Model Subordinate Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail
(the regulations) has been abbreviated to the Model Subordinate Law; and
x
the Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail (the Act) has
been abbreviated to the Model Law.
Role of the National Transport Commission
The Australian Transport Council charged the National Road Transport Commission
(formerly the NRTC) with the task of managing the Australian Dangerous Goods Code on
an ongoing basis. With the transition from the NRTC to the National Transport
Commission (NTC) in 2004, the NTC2 now oversees regulatory reform for road, rail and
inter-modal transport.
Role of the Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
This committee is the principal consultative body for the land transport of dangerous goods
in Australia and provides a forum for advice on policy aspects and priorities related to the
maintenance of the Code. The committee is comprised of approximately 42 experts drawn
from industry and government, including members of the State-based Competent
2
With the establishment of the NTC in 2004, the approach of preparing template legislation (approved by the
ATC, passed by the Commonwealth parliament and then adopted in each jurisdiction) has been replaced with
a model legislation approach. Under this arrangement the NTC prepares model legislation for ATC approval.
Each jurisdiction, including the Commonwealth where relevant, then prepares local legislation reflecting the
model law.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 4
Authorities Panel. All members have knowledge and expertise in areas of dangerous goods
transport.
Since the publication of the 6th Edition, members of the committee including members of
the Competent Authorities Panel identified and stockpiled necessary amendments to the
regulations and to the technical Code for inclusion in the next edition of the Code.
A smaller sub-group comprised of about nine to ten members drawn from the main
committee was used to provide extensive advice on changes to the technical Code and to
the model legislation. This smaller group is referred to as the Dangerous Goods Steering
Group.
1.4
Developments
Since the publication of the 6th Edition in 1998 a number of important developments have
taken place which have driven changes to the 7th Edition package.
x
The UN Model Regulations have undergone significant revisions and improvements
since the 6th Edition was prepared. (The 6th Edition was based on UN Model
Regulations 9, the 7th Edition is based on UN Model Regulations 14). The UN Model
Regulations encourage direct adoption by member countries and permit customisation
to meet local requirements.
x
From January 2005, all international marine and air transport complies with UN Model
Regulations 13. These UN Model Regulations have been the basis for the International
Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, the International Air Transport Association
Dangerous Goods Regulations, the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s
Dangerous Goods technical instructions and the European Agreements concerning the
International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (‘Accord Européen Relatif au
Transport International des Marchandises Dangereuses par Route’ or ADR) and the
International Regulations Concerning the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail
(Reglements Internationales Relatif au Transport des Marchandises Dangereuses par
Chemin de Fer’ or RID). The current Australian Dangerous Goods Code is out of step
with these regulations and codes.
x
In January 2004 the National Road Transport Commission became the NTC with
responsibility for developing nationally consistent regulation for both road and rail
transport within Australia. Prior to this, rail regulatory matters could only be addressed
at the national level through Commonwealth legislation or by negotiation and
agreement between each of the States and Territories. While, to date, there has been no
formally agreed structure to adopt uniform rail transport requirements for the transport
of dangerous goods, significant consistency has been reached. The 7th Edition of the
Code will formalise and ensure this consistency.
x
The Australian transport industry is undergoing fundamental changes to its structure,
with new inter-modal operators extending their services beyond historical boundaries
and integrating road, rail and shipping operations. This sector will increasingly require
a regime of seamless regulation that will allow players to operate inter-modally on a
national basis without regulatory impediments.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 5
2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
A range of factors have highlighted the need to update the Australian Dangerous Goods
Code namely:
x
The 6th Edition of the Code is based on UN Model Regulations 9 and is now four
cycles behind the UN on classification issues (UN Model Regulations 13) and five
cycles behind on packaging, labeling and other key technical matters (UN Model
Regulations 14). Updating in line with UN Model Regulations is necessary to ensure
that classification, packaging, labelling and placarding requirements are compatible
with international regulations and codes.
The adoption of the format, structure and concepts of UN Model Regulations 14 will
reduce inter-modal inconsistencies, promote safer practices, facilitate international
trade, and expedite responses to incidents.
x
The UN Model Regulations are revised every two years, incorporating technical
changes to improve safety based on world-wide experience. Lack of alignment with
the UN revision cycle means the adoption of technical changes into the Code is often
only possible by continually modifying the associated regulatory structure, an
important maintenance factor. The adoption of the structure and format of the UN
Model Regulations, while retaining Australian specific content, will make this process
easier.
x
Current Australian dangerous goods standards (Part IX, item 9.1.3 (b)) do not provide
necessary alignment to permit acceptance of dangerous goods from New Zealand under
mutual recognition provisions, which is necessary following the implementation of the
Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement3.
x
Australia's domestic freight task is projected to grow by almost one per cent a year
faster than economic growth at around 3.6% per annum, with a 4% increase in freight
for inter-capital corridors. Of course, this will also affect the volume of dangerous
goods in transport. The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics estimates that in
the next twelve years to 2015, tonnage moved on the national road network will
increase by 80 per cent4. This projection emphasises the need for streamlined
regulation both in the domestic supply chain and where it links into the global supply
chain.
x
With the increasing integration of domestic road and rail transport operators the
absence of a single set of regulations addressing both road and rail transport for
dangerous goods creates inter-modal inefficiencies.
2.1 Aim and Objectives
The primary aim for developing the 7th Edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code is
to improve the current safety levels for the domestic transport of dangerous goods.
In 2002, the Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods recommended that
the NTC prepare a revised regulatory package with the following objectives:
3
Council of Australian Governments (2003)
4
Department of Transport & Regional Services (2000)
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 6
x
to the extent possible, adopt the UN Model Regulations developed subsequent to the
release of the 6th Edition;
x
incorporate both UN and Australian specific requirements in a single document;
x
include accumulated amendments approved by the committee, and not made
redundant by the direct adoption of the UN Model Regulations;
x
incorporate requirements for the transport of infectious substances; and
x
include a single set of regulations for the transport of dangerous goods by both road
and rail.
2.2
Guiding Principles
A number of principles were used in the development of the 7th Edition:
x
UN Model Regulations 13 and 14 to be used as the primary reference document for the
7th Edition with the adoption of these regulations by direct reference unless there was a
compelling reason not to do so;
x
retain existing Australian safety provisions not covered by UN content;
x
retain existing Australian dangerous goods transport requirements where there was
conflict with a UN requirement and no significant inter-modal implications;
x
adopt the UN Model Regulations in a way which will facilitate the introduction of
subsequent UN revisions;
x
redraft regulations to be as non-modal specific as possible resulting in a single set of
regulations for both road and rail transport;
x
include criminal code harmonisation requirements into the legislation;
x
retain the existing legislative structure outlining the roles and responsibilities of
consignor, prime contractor, loader, driver, etc.
x
where necessary include additional obligations to correspond with Australian
Dangerous Goods Code 7th edition requirements; and
x
adopt the UN Model Regulations in a consistent, practical, user-friendly manner,
retaining `Australianisms’ where necessary to provide clarification.
2.2.1 Results
The incorporation of these changes has resulted in extensive editing and restructuring of
the Code to produce a 7th edition that closely reflects the format and structure of the UN
Model Regulations. Australian specific content not covered by the UN content has been
retained. This work has resulted in consequential changes to the Road Transport Reform
(Dangerous Goods) Act 1995 and to the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods)
Regulations 1997. In addition, with the formation of the NTC in 2004, model legislation
now replaces the existing template legislation although the existing regulatory framework
does not change.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 7
The 7th Edition of the Code:
x
adopts the format, definitions, concepts and structure, of UN Model Regulations 13 and
14;
x
integrates both UN and Australian specific requirements into a single document;
x
fully incorporates additional provisions for the transport of infectious substances; and
x
includes amendments accumulated since 1998 and approved by the Advisory
Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and by the Competent Authorities
Panel.
The Model Subordinate Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail
replaces the existing Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997 and
the Rail (Dangerous Goods) Rules and closely reflects changes to the technical Code.
The Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail replaces the Road
Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995.
Both the Model Law and the Model Subordinate Law:
x
reflect changes to the technical Code;
x
synchronise road and rail requirements as far as possible into one set of regulations
making allowance for the variation in roles and responsibilities between the modes;
x
realign, clarify and set out some additional duties and responsibilities associated with
roles in the transport of dangerous goods;
x
align with current best practice in Australia by incorporating provisions from the
Compliance and Enforcement regulations (2003) including expanding the powers of
authorised officers; and
x
clarify the role and responsibilities of the Competent Authority Panel.
2.3
Scope
The 7th Edition of the Code incorporates the classification system and listings for all
classes of dangerous goods including radio-active substances (Class 7) and explosives
(Class 1) for the sake of completeness and international uniformity. However, neither the
model legislation nor the technical Code regulate the transport of these classes of
substances, except where they are transported together with other dangerous goods, or
where the goods have a subsidiary risk of another class. The transport and storage of
radioactive and explosive substances are currently regulated by the Australian Explosives
Code and the Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances.
The focus of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code, the Model Subordinate Law and the
Model Law is on the safe land transport of dangerous goods. Security–specific legislation
for the transport of dangerous goods is being developed at a national level (Department of
Prime Minister and Cabinet). As a result security requirements and a listing of High
Consequence Dangerous Goods are not included in the 7th Edition of the Code or in the
model legislation.
Requirements to manage the transport of Class 9 substances (with the inclusion in this
Class of substances presenting acute aquatic toxicity) apply to waste products and to other
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 8
environmentally hazardous substances only where those products or substances are also
dangerous goods within the meaning of the Code.
Genetically modified organisms are regulated under the Gene Technology Act 2000. Only
those genetically modified organisms regarded as dangerous goods for reasons unrelated to
their properties as genetically modified organisms are regulated by the 7th Edition of the
Code.
The following issues were raised during consultation but are outside the scope of this task:
x
governance issues and governance processes relating to the Competent Authorities
Panel and the Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods;
x
mutual recognition among jurisdictions;
x
a review of the current licensing systems, uniform criteria for dangerous goods
licensing and the extension of licensing to the prime contractor;
x
the lack of detailed data from government and industry;
x
a review of the dangerous goods training regime and competencies;
x
a review of the Australian Explosives Code; and
x
the development of a national accreditation regime for packaging approvals and how
this would work.
3.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND SELECTED
This section outlines the options available for updating the regulations and the Code. Since
the Code has been in existence since 1980, this is primarily a maintenance exercise. The
options outlined below are therefore alternative approaches to the process of updating the
instrument itself, not alternative approaches to regulating the transport of dangerous goods.
3.1
Option 1: Base Case
Do nothing.
Advantages
The Australian Dangerous Goods Code has not been updated since 1997. It is feasible that
it could remain in its current format for another few years saving the cost of changes and
updates.
Disadvantages
However, any potential savings would be outweighed by:
x
risks due to the rapid growth in the land transport freight task and the dangerous goods
freight task;
x
industry costs and risks for importers and exporters associated with the continued
misalignment with international maritime and air transport regulations and codes based
on UN Model Regulations 13 and 14. The 6th Edition based on UN Model Regulations
9 is now four cycles behind the UN on classification issues and five cycles behind on
packaging, labeling and other key technical matters. Air and maritime codes were
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 9
aligned with UN 13 requirements from January 2005. The UNECE has already issued
the 14th Edition of the UN Model Regulations;
x
the continued lack of consistency within Australia for inter-modal operators due to
misalignment between domestic road and rail transport;
x
no formal regulation covering the transport of infectious substances;
x
an increasing number of inconsistencies in the regulation of imported substances now
included or removed from later versions of the UN Model Regulations but not reflected
in the Australian Dangerous Goods Code;
x
the effort and cost to both industry and government in addressing a growing backlog of
changes to the technical Code and to the legislation;
x
the omission of updated compliance and enforcement provisions.
This option is not viable since it does not meet any of the original objectives set out by the
Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
3.2
Option 2: Retain Domestic Focus
This option covers minimum effort and includes updating the technical content in the
existing Code retaining Australian specific provisions, retaining the original 6th Edition
structure, format, and concepts e.g. bulk and packaged dangerous goods, incorporating
technical updates from the UN model regulations, including infectious substances
provisions, and developing one set of regulations for road and rail.
Advantages
x
The incorporation of accumulated exemptions and infectious substances provisions
would be fairly straightforward.
x
Training costs may be reduced since the revised Code would appear more familiar to
those using the current Code.
x
Updated compliance and enforcement provisions could also be included.
Disadvantages
x
The incorporation of UN technical updates including definitions and concepts would
not be quite so straightforward since the UN Model Regulations uses a different
approach to the 6th Edition. The UN Model Regulations take a container based
approach whereas the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 6th Edition is based on
quantity with a distinction made between ‘bulk’ and ‘packaged dangerous goods’.
Definitions and concepts between the international and the domestic model regulations
vary and the concept of ‘bulk’ does not exist in the UN Model Regulations with
subsequent implications for packaging, placarding, marking and labelling.
x
With the forecasted growth rates for the domestic inter-modal freight task, the
continued non-alignment with UN Model Regulations and with air and maritime
regulations would perpetuate inter-modal inconsistencies, risks and costs for a range of
industry sectors.
x
The perpetuation of a lengthy revision cycle and associated costs and resources
necessary to keep up to date with international practice.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 10
Again this approach does not meet the original objectives set out by the Advisory
Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
3.3
Option 3: Full and Direct Adoption of UN Model Regulations
This option looks at moving away from drafting a unique revision of the Australian
Dangerous Goods Code and instead directly references or points to UN Model Regulations
in Australian model legislation. This would necessitate producing a set of technical
amendments to the 6th Edition of the Code and a set of rail requirements for Australian
domestic use, to be used in conjunction with the UN Model Regulations.
Advantages
x
Technical requirements for the domestic transport of dangerous goods would be
brought immediately into line with international requirements harmonising with the
International Civil Aviation Organisation technical instructions, the International
Maritime Dangerous Goods Code and the International Air Transport Association
regulations.
x
Only a small Australian Dangerous Goods Code would still be required to cover
Australian specific requirements not included by the UN Model Regulations e.g.
transport procedures such as segregation, safety equipment, etc.
x
This option would be less resource intensive and less costly with the end product being
a small Australian Dangerous Goods Code referencing the base UN Model
Regulations.
x
Continuous alignment with other modal requirements and the UN.
Disadvantages
Drawbacks include:
x
The UN Model Regulations are written in the form of technical advisory statements
developed mainly for road transport in European countries. Detailed duties and
responsibilities are not set out in the UN Model Regulations and the form of these
‘model regulations’ renders them unsuitable as Australian model or operational
regulations without considerable redrafting. Instead the UN Model Regulations are
primarily used to draft the technical Australian Dangerous Goods Code. Requirements
not relevant or appropriate to Australian conditions would create problems with
implementation resulting in legislative intervention.
x
UN Model Regulations do not cover rail specific issues. Substantial modal specific
requirements would need to be included in a small revised technical Code.
x
The UN Model Regulations use a container based approach and an entirely different set
of concepts. The 6th Edition of the Code is based on quantity and on the distinction
between dangerous goods in bulk and packaged dangerous goods.
x
The danger of omitting provisions in the revision cycle and issues associated with
referencing international standards which do not apply in Australia.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
x
Page 11
The complex nature of this solution where two documents need to be cross-referenced,
kept up to date and used in tandem, one aligned with UN regulations and one dealing
with local exceptions. This may result in potential confusion and a drop in compliance.
This is not a practical solution to updating an already complex technical Code and
supporting legislation.
3.4
Option 4: Adoption of Current UN Model Regulations to the Extent
Possible
The next option involves the full adoption, to the extent possible, of UN Model
Regulations 13 and 14.
This approach includes:
x reproducing UN requirements where they match Australian requirements in the Code
resulting in the adoption of whole chapters from UN 13 and UN 14;
x
adopting the structure, format, definitions and concepts of UN 13 and UN 14;
x
retaining Australian specific requirements from the Australian Dangerous Goods Code
where necessary and appropriate;
x
incorporating technical updates and amendments approved since the publication of the
6th Edition such as provisions for infectious substances;
x
developing a single set of regulations for road and rail transport; and
x
updating the regulations to incorporate best practice compliance and enforcement
provisions.
Advantages
This approach would result in:
x
a single point of reference for transporters combining both local and international
requirements;
x
greater efficiency for integrated domestic transport operators using both road and rail
modes resulting from the harmonisation of dangerous goods transport requirements;
x
retention of Australian specific content;
x
simplification of the maintenance task since UN changes would flow through to the
domestic Code and lapses between revisions would become much shorter; and
x
local practice being kept up to date with international best practice.
This option meets all of the objectives set out by the Advisory Committee on the Transport
of Dangerous Goods.
Disadvantages
x
This option would result in an incomplete harmonisation with other codes, since the 7th
Edition will still reference Australian Standards and retain Australianisms where
appropriate.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 12
x
3.5
The UN Model Regulations do not cover issues specific to the transport of dangerous
goods by road or rail. Additional work would still be required to incorporate
regulations specific to rail transport of dangerous goods.
Option 5: Adoption of the European Agreement concerning the
International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (‘Accord
Européen Relatif au Transport International des Marchandises
Dangereuses par Route’ or ADR)
In Europe, the term ADR is the common abbreviation for the UNECE European
Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (L’Accord
Européen Relatif au Transport International des Marchandises Dangereuses par Route)
developed by the European Union. The ADR is an agreement signifying the adoption by
European countries of the UN Model Regulations customised to meet European road
transport conditions.
A separate European Agreement the ‘Reglements Internationales Relatif au Transport des
Marchandises Dangereuses par Chemin de Fer’ or RID covers the rail transport of
dangerous goods.
These agreements outline how producers, consignors and carriers should classify, package,
label and transport dangerous goods.
Advantages
Adoption of the existing European Agreement on the International Carriage of Dangerous
Goods by Road would save time, effort and cost if the agreement were suitable for
Australian conditions.
Disadvantages
x
The current European Agreement is specific to the transport of dangerous goods by
road. An additional small technical code would be required to address rail specific
technical requirements losing the benefits of a single system for both road and rail.
x
The European Agreement introduces many European specific packaging, tank and
transport operational requirements. A set of regulations customised to suit European
conditions would inevitably create problems for adoption to Australian conditions. For
example, placarding in the current European Agreement is approached entirely
differently and would create large costs to industry if introduced here. Australian
standards are not referenced in such a document.
x
Australia has access to the UN process for developing UN Model Regulations,
however, it does not have direct access to the European Union to provide input into the
development of European Agreements on the transport of dangerous goods by road and
rail which are mainly enforced in and by European countries.
This option does not adequately address the criteria set out by the Advisory Committee on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
3.6 Preferred Option
The proposed approach is Option 4: Adoption of Current UN Model Regulations to the
Extent Possible.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 13
This option will provide a single source of dangerous goods transport requirements for
Australian domestic transport incorporating specifications from UN 14 (released during the
course of developing the 7th Edition), but retaining requirements specific to Australian
conditions from the 6th Edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code.
The supporting legislation will reflect changes to the technical Code.
4. COSTS
This impact statement highlights changes to the Code, outlines consequent changes to the
existing legislation and assesses the likely impact on industry and government as a result of
Option 4. The relative costs and benefits of the new Code have been assessed as far as
practicable, noting that estimates can only be based on the available data.
The Code has been in existence since 1980 and has been widely adopted by industry.
Together with supporting regulation, it provides a framework for regulating the safe
transport of dangerous goods. To date crashes caused during the transport of dangerous
goods are a very small percentage of overall road and rail fatalities. A major increase in
safety levels is not expected at this mature stage of this reform. The impact of any revision
of requirements at this stage will, at the very least, maintain existing safety levels if not
continue the overall drop in incidents. Available information on dangerous goods transport
accidents and incidents is provided in more detail in Appendix D.
This impact analysis identifies:
1. significant costs for re-training and education for both government and industry as a
result of the development of the 7th Edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code;
2. the cost to industry of replacing a single UN Class Label by the year 2011;
3. the cost to industry of replacing the Emergency Action Code (Hazchem Code) for
Liquefied Petroleum Gas on Emergency Information Panels on placard loads; and
4. the cost of updating State based legislation and dangerous goods information sources
used by regulators and emergency services.
4.1 Costs to Industry
The transport of dangerous goods involves a wide range of substances involving varying
degrees of risk, in widely varying quantities and packagings, transported using a range of
vehicle types and with varying degrees of regularity to a wide customer base. To address
the higher risk associated with the transport of these substances, placarding, licensing and
insurance are required by the supporting model legislation. Detailed classification, packing
and packaging procedures, labelling, marking, placarding, stowage, segregation
requirements and safe transport procedures are set out in the Code.
The model legislation sets out duties and responsibilities for all identified actors in the
dangerous goods transport chain e.g. consignors, owners, prime contractors, rail operators,
drivers, packers, and loaders.
Changes to the model legislation and to the technical Code affect a range of industries
including petroleum and gas distributors, the chemical industry, agricultural chemical
distributors, farmers, paint manufacturers and distributors, the packaging, logistics and
Page 14
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
haulage industries (both road and rail), retail distribution and the health sector—pathology
services. With the inclusion of infectious substances and the extension of Class 9
substances other industries affected to a lesser extent are the veterinary and waste disposal
industries.
Insurance
Licensing
Self-insurance permitted.
New limit for insurance set at $5 million
Model
Subordinate Law minimum for each load carrying unit of a
vehicle carrying a placard load.
Exemption from 6 Edition retained
permitting transport to a maximum
3,000 kg(L) in Intermediate Bulk
Containers.
th
Licences issued for 5 years.
x
x
for any individual receptacle with a
capacity of 500 kg(L) or more.
x
No change to licensing trigger:
Model
Subordinate Law
x an aggregate quantity of 1,000 kg(L)
or more and
Realistic cost given the risk and crash
costs involved.
All
May affect smaller transport operators
and general transporters who do not have
adequate insurance and occasionally
transport dangerous goods.
No major impact anticipated.
All
Health sector,
pathology and
courier services.
Requirements for placarding now based on Change: Placarding required for loads
Model
containing infectious substances of
Subordinate Law receptacle or transport unit type rather
than on 6th Edition bulk threshold.
Category A and any loads with over 10
and Code
kg(L) of infectious substances of other
than Category A.
Placard Load
No other change.
Rail transport
Industry
Affected
Some onerous provisions for rail removed. Where required difference in rail
Model
transport task acknowledged and treated
Subordinate Law
accordingly.
Impact
Single set of
regulations for road
and rail
Change
Reference
Issue
Scale: 5 = Major impact; 1 = Minor impact;
Table 1. Summary Assessment of the Impacts of Adopting Option 4
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
1
0
1
0
Scale
1-5
Benefits emergency
services and
government agencies.
Status quo.
Relaxation for
pathology services.
Better guidance for
pathology services
and for emergency
services.
Simplification for
compliance and
enforcement.
Removal of any bias
towards either mode.
Costs /Benefits
kg(L) = kilograms or litres
Page 15
Page 16
Waste Industry;
EPA (changes to
legislation);
aquaculture
industries.
Includes Genetically Modified Organisms Uniformity with inter-modal
and substances environmentally hazardous requirements.
to the aquatic environment.
Substances assigned to UN3077 and
UN3082 (herbicides and pesticides)
exempt from requirements under the 7th
Edition.
Code Chap 1.2.1/ Removal of concept ‘dangerous goods in Alignment with inter-modal and
bulk’ and of ‘packaged dangerous goods’. international practice.
4.3 / 6.8
Definitions
Concept of large packaging and
‘overpacks’.
Redefinition of ‘Intermediate Bulk
Container’ and bulk container.
Container based approach rather than
quantity based approach.
Significant re-training costs offset by
inter-modal uniformity.
Only Genetically Modified Organisms
affected are those which are dangerous
goods in their own right. All Genetically
Modified Organisms regulated by the
Office of the Gene Technology
Regulator.
Code Chap 2.9
Class 9
Miscellaneous
Dangerous
Substances and
Articles
Diagnostic and clinical wastes exempted.
Inclusion of detailed classification,
packing, packaging and transport
requirements including placarding.
All industry
sectors and
government
agencies.
Health
Authorities;
environmental
authorities; postal
services;
veterinary;
diagnostic and
pathology
services; courier
services;
Code Chap 2.6
Class 6.2 Infectious
Substances
Clarification and expansion of
requirements previously supplied in the
th
Guidance Notes accompanying the 6
Edition
Transport of diagnostic specimens and
clinical wastes not impacted.
Industry
Affected
All
Impact
None
Retained for classification purposes in
Model
Subordinate Law Code and to regulate when transported in
mixed loads.
and Code
Class 1 and Class 7
Change
Reference
Issue
4
1
1
0
Scale
1-5
th
Inter-modal
consistency and
International
uniformity.
Inter-modal
consistency.
Minor since 6
Edition included
‘Guidance Notes for
the Transport of
Division 6.2
Infectious
Substances’.
Status quo.
Costs /Benefits
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Code Chap 3.2
Code Chap 3.4
Dangerous Goods
List - Format
Limited Quantities
Code
Chap 4.2 and
Chap 6.7
Packing & Packaging Code Chap 4.1
Reference
Issue
Less convenient for chemical industry
and authorities. More convenient for
transport industry and emergency
services. Mainly educational impact.
Primary listing in numerical rather than
alphabetical order.
Chemical, Paint,
Adhesives, Gas,
Retail
Where small quantities are aggregated
Distribution,
into loads of 1,000 kg(L) or more, full
Packaging;
compliance with 7th Edition requirements
Logistics
will be necessary.
(Australia Post);
More an inconvenience than a real
impost. Restrictions embody normal
practice.
Assurance of inter-modal uniformity.
Packaging, Paint,
Manufacturing,
Chemical,
Transport;
Competent
Wider range of packaging and packaging Authorities;
standards allowed.
Alignment with international inter-modal Chemicals
practice.
Wider range of standards permitted. Will
assist importers/exporters.
Addition of prescriptive detailed
instructions and special provisions for
packing and use of packagings for all
substances listed in the Dangerous Goods
Code.
Clarification of the use of portable tanks
and multiple element gas containers.
New chapter on design, inspection and
testing of portable tanks and MEGCs.
Negligible cost impact.
Simplification for users who previously
had to reference overseas and
international requirements.
Should result in cost saving for industry
sectors with negligible impact on safety.
All
Industry
Affected
The 7th Edition exempts a much larger
group of dangerous goods in small
quantities. No exemption from
documentation.
Outdated UN numbers removed.
New substances listed.
Impact
Change
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
1
2
3
2
Scale
1-5
International
uniformity.
Inter-modal
consistency.
Inter-modal
consistency and
international
uniformity.
International
uniformity.
Costs /Benefits
Page 17
Page 18
Reference
Code
Chap 7.3
Retail Commodity
Loads
0
Based on concept of consumer commodity Benefits retailers where dangerous goods
load (1.2.1) from 6th Edition.
in mixed loads of packaged goods make
up a maximum of 20% of load and
aggregate quantity in load does not
exceed 2,000 kg(L).
No significant impact identified.
Incorporation of performance test
requirements previously in Segregation
Device supplement. Some overlap with
‘overpack’ concept.
Large Packagings concept.
Code
Chap 6.6
Construction and
Testing of
Packagings
2
Retailers and
distributors of
packaged
quantities of
perfume,
toiletries,
deodorants, etc.
Chemicals
0
0
Transport /
Some changes with impacts on
distributors of Liquefied Petroleum Gas. Logistics; Gas
distribution;
Costs identified.
New emergency action code for Liquefied
Emergency
Other minor changes to Emergency
Petroleum Gas.
Services
Action Codes not expected to have a
significant impact.
Emergency Action Codes replacing
Hazchem Codes.
All
Code
Appendix C
0
Status quo maintained.
New orientation markings for certain
combination and single packagings but use
th
has been delayed for life of 7 Edition
Chemical,
Transport,
Emergency
Services, Gas
distributors;
Emergency
Services;
Packaging sector.
1
A single
manufacturer of
organic peroxide.
Code
Chap 5.2
Status quo maintained.
No significant impact identified.
Scale
1-5
Industry
Affected
Emergency Information Panels retained
for Intermediate Bulk Containers. and for
Mixed loads (refined petroleum product).
Change to class label for Organic
Peroxide.
Alternative thresholds given.
Avoids some unnecessary relabelling.
Inner packaging marking and labelling
allows some flexibility for imports.
Impact of change to single class label
identified and costed.
Impact
Change
Code
Chap 5.2
Chap 5.3
Marking & Labelling Code
Chap 5.2
Issue
Benefit for retailers.
No financial impact.
Simplification of
requirements
Effective and safe
emergency response.
Hazchem Codes
updated.
Status quo.
Not internationally
consistent. Some
delays at ports.
Inter-modal
consistency benefits
importers/ exporters.
Costs /Benefits
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Source: Noel Arnold & Associates, 2003 – 2005
Special provision for tools of trade
Model
Subordinate Law
Tools of Trade
Change
Reference
Issue
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Industry
Affected
Allows transport
Concession provided for tradespeople
who use and transport small quantities of of small quantities
of dangerous
dangerous goods in course of business.
goods where
Max quantity permitted 500 kg(L)
required by small
including max aggregate amount of 100
business.
kg(L) for UN Div 2.3 and PG1.
Impact
0
Scale
1-5
Benefit for
tradespeople and
small business.
No financial impact.
Costs /Benefits
Page 19
Page 20
4.1.1
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Costs to Health Sector, Pathology and General Courier Services
The Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997 explicitly excluded
requirements for dangerous goods of Division 6.2 (Infectious Substances), although the 6th
Edition provided a supplement to manage these substances ‘Guidance Notes for the
Transport of Division 6.2 Infectious Substances Dangerous Goods’. These notes were used
by the health sectors in Queensland and NSW but were not implemented elsewhere.
In the 6th Edition, the placard load definition included any load with infectious substances.
In the 7th Edition, Part 2 now incorporates requirements from UN Model Regulations 13
and 14 and from the original 6th Edition guidance notes. The trigger for placarding,
licensing and insurance for transport of these substances is now set at:
any quantity of Division 6.2 Category A which has the potential to directly
affect humans or animals (UN2814 or UN 2900) or
any load greater than 10 kg(L) of any other type of infectious substance.
The incorporation of revisions from UN 13 presented problems for pathology services and
health authorities since they included regulation of clinical wastes and of routine diagnostic
specimens. This was a major concern for this sector with significant potential financial
implications. However, UN 14 treats these substances differently and with the adoption of
UN 14 requirements, the 7th Edition provides an explicit exemption for routine pathology
specimens from any regulatory requirements provided packaging conditions are met.
The following substances are exempt from Code requirements: decontaminated medical or
clinical wastes, diagnostic specimens resulting from medical practice (specimens being
transported from a doctor's office or surgery to a laboratory, from a hospital to a diagnostic
laboratory or from one laboratory to another, except where it is being transported to
determine if an infectious substance is present) medical research, veterinary practice or
plant material being transported to a diagnostic laboratory for analysis.
The majority of infectious substances transported in Australia are clinical wastes. These
materials are generally controlled by health or environment protection authorities. The
impact of including infectious substances in the 7th Edition is expected to be minimal since
with the incorporation of UN 14 requirements non-infectious clinical wastes and diagnostic
specimens are now exempt from the Code.
Consignors using general courier and express delivery services to transport diagnostic
specimens will have to adhere to the packaging conditions set out in the 7th Edition e.g. a
leak-proof primary receptacle, a leak-proof secondary packaging, and an outer packaging
of adequate strength for the intended use. Any specimens containing sharp objects also
need to comply with packaging requirements in the Code. Costs associated with these
requirements are minimal since use of this type of packaging should be standard practice
when transporting these substances.
In addition, the 7th Edition provides some relaxation from requirements under the 6th
Edition by setting a threshold of 10 kg(L) or greater of substances other than category A
before placarding, licensing and insurance are required.
Although there will be some changes for pathology services in those States who did not
adopt the guidelines from the 6th Edition, no significant financial impact has been
identified for this sector.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 21
4.1.2 Costs to Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Industries and
to Waste Disposal Industry
(i)
Class 9 Substances
The classification criteria for Class 9 has led to the inclusion of environmentally
hazardous substances dangerous to the aquatic environment’ (Chapter 2.9 of UN 13 and
14). As a result, many substances exempt from classification under previous editions of the
Code are now classified by the 7th Edition as dangerous goods of Class 9, specifically
substances assigned to UN3077 and UN3082, Environmentally Hazardous Substances,
Solid or Liquid.
The public consultation draft of the 7th Edition included these substances following the
adoption of UN Model Regulations 13. This inclusion was originally intended to regulate
the transport of dangerous goods by inland waterway in Europe. However, there is strong
justification for incorporating these substances into the 7th Edition of the Australian
Dangerous Goods Code since spills of Class 9 can have a cumulative long term effect on
scarce and valuable water resources in a dry country such as Australia.
This change in effect would mean the transport of such substances as herbicides,
pesticides, and detergents would fall under the aegis of the Code. The agricultural,
veterinary and chemical industries, and to a lesser extent the waste disposal industry would
be directly impacted by such changes.
Submissions from the agricultural and veterinary sectors (CropLife Australia Limited
(formerly Avcare), the National Farmers Federation, the Grains Council of Australia,
Workplace Services South Australia, and others) were concerned about the inclusion of
herbicides and pesticides in Class 9 and assessed the potential impact of additional
requirements resulting from the inclusion of these substances.
The sector estimated that 24.8 million litres (total 138 million litres) of agricultural
chemicals are sold and transported around Australia every year with a very small number
of related reportable transport incidents. A large range and volume of agricultural and
veterinary chemicals currently not classified as dangerous goods would be affected by this
change. Industry estimated the range of goods regulated would increase from 23% to 70%.
This would result in substantial costs to the agricultural chemical industry and to the
agriculture sector associated with additional safety, training, documentation, labelling,
placarding, licensing, insurance and emergency response requirements. A flow on effect
would be the impact on the storage and handling of these goods and on the cost structure of
farm products for both domestic and export markets. Preliminary estimated costs of over
$58M would quickly outweigh any safety benefits realised by the regulation of these
substances under the Australian Dangerous Goods Code.
Replacement costs for intermediate bulk containers to transport the additional volume of
dangerous goods was estimated at, at least $6.6M.
The 7th Edition now exempts these substances from any requirements under the Code
except where these materials are transported in tanks or bulk containers. A special
provision in Chapter 3.3 states that substances assigned to UN3077 and UN3082 including
herbicides and pesticides, will not now be subject to any requirements under the 7th Edition
of the Code when being transported in IBCs or other receptacles < 500 kg(L).
SP AU01
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 22
Environmentally Hazardous Substances meeting the descriptions of UN 3077
or UN 3082 are not subject to this Code when transported by road or rail in;
(a) packagings;
(b) IBCs; or
(c) any other receptacle not exceeding 500 kg(L).
Since the inclusion of this exemption will maintain the status quo, the development of the
7th Edition of the Code is not expected to result in any significant financial impact on the
agricultural chemicals sector.
(ii)
Licensing Exemption
The public consultation draft of the 7th Edition omitted the 3 x 1,000 kg(L) exemption from
licensing provided in the 6th Edition for the agriculture sector for the transport of
dangerous goods in Intermediate Bulk Containers.
Again, the agricultural and veterinary sectors were concerned about this loss and the
consequent requirement for anyone transporting a receptacle with a capacity of greater than
500 kg(L) to have a dangerous goods licence. Submissions contended that the loss of this
exemption would result in a major financial impact on the agriculture sector.
Since there have been no demonstrated safety issues with the existing exemption under the
6th Edition, the exemption is retained in the 7th Edition of the Code. This decision is
reflected in the Model Subordinate Law:
18.1.2 Application of Part
(1) Except as provided by {clause}, this Part applies to the transport by road of a load of
dangerous goods that contains dangerous goods in a receptacle with a capacity of more than
500 litres or kilograms.
(2) This Part does not apply to the transport by road of dangerous goods on a vehicle if:
(a) the goods are transported in an IBC; and
(b) the IBC is not filled or emptied on the vehicle; and
(c) the total capacity of IBCs on the vehicle is not more than 3,000 litres.
As under the 6th Edition, licensing will be required only for such loads where the
aggregate quantity in intermediate bulk containers is greater than 3,000 kg(L). Insurance
will be at the same level as the same size aggregate load of dangerous goods in packages.
This decision will result in no financial impact to the agriculture and agricultural chemical
sectors.
Class 9 also includes UN3359 – Fumigated Units and UN3363 – Dangerous Goods in
Machinery or Apparatus. Waste substances now regulated under the 7th Edition are limited
to those waste products which are classified as dangerous goods. The impact of the
inclusion of these substances is estimated to be minimal.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 23
4.1.3 Costs to Road and Rail Transport and Logistics
(i)
Combining Road and Rail Regulations
No additional costs are expected from combining road regulations and rail rules from the
6th Edition.
In fact the rail industry will realise some benefits from this syncronisation. The result is a
simplified set of regulations for rail with some of the more prescriptive requirements under
the 6th Edition removed. For example, the requirement for separating dangerous goods
loads on trains has been removed. Requirements for wagon tickets and the placarding of
rail wagons carrying less than a placard load have also been removed.
The synchronisation of duties and responsibilities associated with the transport of
dangerous goods by rail with those relating to road transport is also not expected to result
in any significant financial impact on the rail industry. Provisions have been closely
scrutinised to ensure the differences in the rail task have been taken into account when
assigning liability. Where appropriate the model legislation points directly to separate
legislation dealing with safety in the rail industry, for example the ‘National Model Rail
Safety Bill’.
(ii)
Insurance
th
In the 7 Edition, insurance requirements are set out in the Model Subordinate Law. As
under the 6th Edition, insurance is specifically tied to the placard load limit (an individual
container of > 500 kg(L)). However, the minimum amount of insurance required has been
increased.
The requirement for insurance coverage for transport of any dangerous goods in ‘bulk’ in
the 6th Edition has now been replaced by a requirement for the owner or the prime
contractor to ensure the minimum insurance coverage has been purchased for each load
bearing unit of the vehicle transporting dangerous goods.
In the 6th Edition, the minimum insurance requirement was set at $1 million to $2.5million.
The public consultation draft of the 7th Edition set the minimum insurance requirement at
$10 million per event.
A large number of submissions were concerned about the jump in the minimum insurance
requirement. The Insurance Council of Australia and the Australian Trucking Association
flagged that this requirement would put cost pressures on some sectors of the road
transport industry such as small regional operators, ad hoc transporters of dangerous goods,
and owner-operators who may have difficulties obtaining this level of insurance.
After further discussion and consultation with insurers, the minimum insurance
requirement has been halved from the proposed sum and is set at $5 million per event.
‘This can be purchased without difficulty at reasonable outlay’. (National Transport
Insurance).
This minimum amount is required for each load carrying unit of a vehicle carrying a
placard load. For road combination vehicles this will be required for each trailer in a
combination carrying a placard load, and for rigid vehicles this will be required for each
load carrying area of a rigid vehicle on which a placard load is carried, whether or not it is
towing a trailer.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 24
The intention here is to ensure different parts of the ‘combination’ road vehicle
transporting dangerous goods and owned and insured by different companies are
adequately insured for the higher risk.
The rise in the insurance requirement is not unreasonable and should not be unexpected.
The 6th Edition requirements were set in 1997 almost nine years ago and general insurance
rates have risen substantially since then. Anyone transporting significant quantities of
dangerous goods (placard load) on a regular basis must have adequate insurance against
the higher risk. Since the Code has been in existence since 1980, this should be standard
business practice for operators transporting these types of high risk goods. The minimum
required insurance under the 7th Edition is not expected to have a significant impact on that
sector of the road freight industry which regularly transports these goods.
In line with the rise in the minimum insurance requirement, corresponding penalties for
operating without the required insurance have been increased substantially for both
individuals and organisations. The maximum court-ordered penalty for a corporation is
now set at $50,000 as opposed to $15,000 under the 6th Edition regulations. The maximum
court ordered penalty for an individual is now set at $10,000. Penalty Infringement Notices
are set at $2,000. These figures were arrived at following a review of equivalent penalties
under Occupational Health and Safety legislation.
Like the 6th Edition, the 7th Edition continues to permit self-insurance. This accommodates
the rail industry where self-insurance for an operator who could transport dangerous goods
on any one of 10,000 rail wagons is standard practice. Rail operators are also subject to
additional stringent accreditation requirements including a requirement for an
environmental management plan in the event of an accident.
Again, no major impact has been identified on either the road or rail sector of new
insurance requirements under the 7th Edition.
(iii)
Licensing
The trigger for licensing in the 7th Edition is little changed from the 6th Edition. In the 6th
Edition licensing is tied to the concept of bulk dangerous goods and bulk dangerous goods
are defined in the 6th Edition regulations as:
‘2.12 Dangerous goods in bulk are dangerous goods that are not packaged
dangerous goods’. and
‘2.11 Dangerous goods are packaged dangerous goods if:
(a) they are dangerous goods of Class 2 in a container with a capacity of not more
than 500 litres; or
(b) they are dangerous goods of another Class in: (i) a container with a capacity of
not more than 450 litres; and (ii) a container with a net mass of not more than 400
kilograms.
In effect, the trigger for licensing in the 7th Edition maintains the status quo since the
trigger is a single container of greater than 500 kg(L) capacity or an aggregate quantity of
1,000 kg(L) or greater as set out in both the Model Subordinate Law and in the Code
(Table 5.3 in the Code and regulation 5.3.1 in the Model Subordinate Law).
One minor change in the 7th Edition, the Dangerous Goods Licence is now issued for a
period of 5 years (3 years under the 6th Edition).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 25
In effect, the status quo for licensing of dangerous goods has been maintained.
4.1.4
Cost to Gas Distributors
The most significant change affecting this industry is the change in the Emergency Action
Code for Liquefied Petroleum Gas from 2WE to 2YE which signifies the addition of cold
burn protection for emergency responders in the event of an incident. This change only
affects the placarding of placard loads requiring Emergency Information Panels (one or
more receptacles > 500L e.g. pressure drums, tubes and tanks). This change does not affect
the transport of quantities of Liquefied Petroleum Gas cylinders.
The cost of replacing this code on vehicles transporting liquefied petroleum gas is
estimated to come to $109 per truck (5 Emergency Information Panels per truck at $22 per
polypropelene label5,—self-adhesive diamonds cost approximately $10 per label).
Approximately 1,000 heavy vehicles will be affected (700 articulated or tri-axle and 300
rigid bobtail vehicles). The total cost is estimated to be in the region of $215,712 over a
two year period. This figure does not include the cost to industry of abandoning existing
stocks of labels. Material Safety Data Sheets will have to be updated.
Annualised over a ten year period this cost comes to $25,288 per annum.
4.1.5
Costs to Packaging, Paint, Manufacturing, and Chemical Sectors
(i)
Packaging Instructions and Standards
While packing instructions in the 7th Edition appear detailed and onerous and are organised
differently from instructions in the 6th Edition, in practice, few, if any, packing methods
have changed. Changes incorporated into the 7th Edition arise out of the revisions made to
the UN Model Regulations in the eight year period between UN 9 and UN 14.
Industries affected by these changes include Packaging, Pharmaceuticals, Logistics,
Organic and Inorganic Manufacturers (paint, fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, dyes,
inks, resins, etc), and producers of Industrial Gases.
The 7th Edition includes UN standards allowing a consignor to use an Australian, US, UK
specified cylinder or a UN standard pressure receptacle, as appropriate, depending upon
the substance and the circumstances. However, while reference is made to UN standards in
the 7th Edition, in the case of pressure vessels, in the event of any discrepancies preference
is still given to Australian Standard 2030. No significant impact is expected from these
changes.
Packaged goods serve a potentially large number of consignees and consignors. The
prescriptive instructions in the 7th Edition will result in inconvenience rather than in any
financial impact to industry. However, a related cost which will affect not only these
industries but all other sectors involved in the transport of dangerous goods will be the
training necessary to understand the changes to the Code. This impact is discussed
elsewhere in this impact statement.
Since the 7th Edition has adopted UN Model Regulations 14 requirements, orientation
marking of certain combination and single packagings are now required under other codes
5
Source: Heatpac Safety Signs & Equipment Pty Ltd. (2006).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 26
and standards. However, Part 5 of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code includes a
transitional provision to permit time for compliance with this new requirement. The
transition period for land transport within Australia is for the life span of the 7th Edition.
This marking will be required on packagings for domestic sea or air transport when the
appropriate modal code adopting UN Model Regulations 14 becomes mandatory.
However, there is no cost associated with this change in the Australian Code.
Labelling Changes
(ii)
th
The 7 Edition includes a change to the class label for Organic Peroxide. The new label
should be phased in where possible during the lifespan of the 7th Edition. The use of the 6th
Edition label for this substance will no longer be permitted in Australia or internationally
from 1 January 2011.
There is only one known manufacturer6 of organic peroxide in Australia who transports
significant quantities of this substance. Most of this substance is used as a catalyst in resin
manufacture. Most repackaged material is transported in quantities below which labelling
including class labels are required. The manufacturer estimates the total cost of this change
to be in the region of $10,000. At $71.50 per class label (metal) the cost to replace class
labels on a single articulated truck (6 labels per articulated vehicle) would cost in the
region of $430 per truck. The old class labels would be used up during the 12 month
transition period so costs for disposal of old labels are not included here.
4.1.6 Costs to All Industries
(i)
Training
With the reformatting and restructuring of the 7th Edition along the lines of the UN Model
Regulations and the inclusion of new definitions and concepts, retraining will be necessary
for all industries involved in the packaging, distribution and transport of dangerous goods.
Appendix A sets out in detail all of the changes to the Code.
Information about training costs was obtained from a recognised training provider7. A total
of 48,858 registered drivers are currently licensed to transport dangerous goods, what
percentage of these licences are active is unknown so to estimate costs of training the total
number is used. The cost of a single day refresher course for licensed drivers is estimated
to be in the region of $4,275,075 per annum over 2 years or $8,425,600 in total.
Additional training will be required for operations managers and packers/loaders at each of
the 100-150 transport operators8 who move these goods. This is estimated to come to a
total of $103,400 over two years or $51,000 per annum. The total cost of retraining will
therefore be in the order of $8,529,104.
The cost of replacing the Australian Dangerous Goods Code used primarily as a reference
document is estimated to come to a total of $3,120,000 or $1,560,000 per annum over two
years.
6
Degussa (formerly Solvay Interox). (2006)
7
Brady Australia. (2006)
8
Australian Trucking Association (2005).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 27
For users of HB76—the dangerous goods initial Emergency Response Guidebook which
retails at $55-$61 dollars—open access to this guide will be made available via the internet
(December 2006). Savings may be realised by the availability of this guide online.
The total cost to industry of training and education is estimated to come to $11,650,000.
(ii)
Compliance and Enforcement Provisions
A number of provisions from the Compliance and Enforcement Bill have been added to the
Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail. Authorised officers
now have the powers to stop and conduct searches of vehicles, give directions to rail
operators, inspect and search premises, seize and remove documentation, equipment and
records, obtain warrants, etc.
As a result of these inclusions unquantified costs to business include:
x
potential on-road delays as inspections are conducted on suspected breaches;
x
potential disruption to business arising from on-site investigation of more serious
current and suspected past breaches;
x
penalties directly affecting turnover; and
x
supervisory intervention orders with attendant disruption of day-to-day operations.
A slight increase is expected in the number of prosecutions and infringements as a result of
these changes. NSW data appears to indicate a drop in the number of penalty infringement
notices issued from 59 in 1999-2000 to 31 in 2004-05. However, since no figures are
available nationally on dangerous goods transport prosecutions and infringements, it is
difficult to calculate the potential effect of these extra provisions in the Model Law.
The impact of these provisions is also subject to adoption by States and Territories of the
updated compliance and enforcement provisions into State-based legislation and on the
ground enforcement activity.
(iii)
Emergency Action Codes
The Hazchem Codes are now known as the Emergency Action Codes. Some changes have
been made to these Codes since 1997. For all codes, the reverse print codes have been
dropped – breathing apparatus is now used for all incidents; and a bullet has been adopted
to indicate the need for the use of alcohol resistant foam. The intention behind these
changes is to correct unsatisfactory advice and ensure the correct response in the event of
an incident while ensuring the safety and survival of emergency responders.
These changes can be easily incorporated using either a small self-adhesive sticker or a felt
tip pen.
4.2
Costs to Government9
As indicated in the table below, one of the main costs for Government will be the adoption
of revised requirements into State and Territory legislation.
9
Based on information provided by the competent authorities in most States and from the Regulatory Impact
Statement: Dangerous Goods Regulations 1997.
Page 28
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
A second cost will be the re-training of dangerous goods inspectors, competent authorities
and Occupational Health and Safety personnel, updating databases and revising training
manuals and documentation. Some training costs may be spread over 2 years, however,
the table below is based on costs calculated over a single year.
$163,250
$70,000
$317,750
Legislation (drafting etc.)
$30,500
$186,250
$70,000
$30,500
$15,000
$1,250
$69,500
139
QLD
$135,750
$70,000
$30,500
$15,000
$1,250
$19,000
38
WA
$122,750
$70,000
$30,500
$15,000
$1,250
$7,500
15
SA
$122,850
$70,000
$30,500
$15,000
$1,250
$6,100
12
TAS
$117,750
$70,000
$30,500
$15,000
$1,250
$1,000
2
NT
$117,750
$70,000
$30,500
$15,000
$1,250
$1,000
2
ACT
700
Page 29
$1,285,600
$560,000
$244,000
$120,000
$10,000
$351,600
Totals
A second cost will be the re-training of dangerous goods inspectors, competent authorities and Occupational Health and Safety personnel;
updating databases and revising training manuals and documentation. Some training costs may be spread over 2 years, however, Table 2 is based
on costs calculated over a single year.
Total costs of implementation to the States and Territories are estimated to come to $1.3 million dollars over a 12 month period (transition).
Computer systems costs relate to updating electronic information on requirements for the transport of dangerous goods.
Legislative costs are associated with the preparation of drafting instructions for Parliamentary Counsel, drafting and printing costs.
Total Estimated Costs:
$70,000
$30,500
Computer Systems
$15,000
$15,000
Documentation
$1,250
$46,500
$1,250
$201,000
Training (inc. Admin)
93
VIC
Cost of Trainer
402
NSW
Number of officers
(admin & enforcement)
Item
Table 2. Estimated Costs to States and Territories ($‘000)
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 30
4.2.1 Estimated Costs to Other Government Regulators
(i)
Dangerous goods of Division 6.2 (Infectious Substances) are only administered by
the dangerous goods Competent Authorities in Queensland and NSW. In all other
jurisdictions controls on infectious substances are managed by non-dangerous
goods authorities. Each State will be required to amend the appropriate State
legislation to incorporate the new requirements for infectious substances.
One jurisdiction did have some reservations on this inclusion since it is reliant on
other States for diagnostic services and expertise. However, diagnostic specimens
and clinical wastes are exempt from requirements under the 7th Edition provided
packaging conditions are met. Other modal codes regulate transport by air and sea.
(ii)
Genetically modified organisms are regulated under the Gene Technology Act
2000. Only those genetically modified organisms regarded as dangerous goods for
reasons unrelated to their properties as genetically modified organisms are
regulated by the 7th Edition of the Code. This is not expected to have any impact
on the current enforcement regime for these goods currently monitored by the
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.
(iii)
Changes in the 7th Edition will impact the National Occupational Health and
Safety10 National Standard for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous
Goods.
While the addition of provisions from the Road Transport Reform (Compliance and
Enforcement Bill) 2003 to the Model Law may result in a slight increase in the number of
prosecutions for serious breaches of the regulations. This impact is difficult to quantify
since again it is entirely dependent upon adoption of these new sanctions and penalties by
States and Territories during the implementation phase and by enforcement activity at
ground level. An increase in government agency workload is not envisaged.
4.2.2 Costs to Emergency Services
(i)
Training
The Australasian Fire Authorities Council has estimated that one days’ re-training would
be required for its 75,000 members nationwide. However, this figure includes
administrative staff and not all members are involved directly in dangerous goods transport
incidents. In addition, changes to the Code and associated training costs should be
absorbed into regular ongoing refresher training for emergency services staff. With such
numbers, costs associated with the Code could reasonably be expected to be spread over
two years and take the form of a three to four hour refresher course highlighting changes to
the 7th Edition. The estimated cost of this retraining comes to approx. $1,640 thousand per
annum over two years or $3,233 thousand in total.
10
Now known as the Office of the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, Department of Employment
and Workplace Relations
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, Novem ber 2006
(ii)
Page 31
Documentation
Costs associated with re-issuing HB76—the dangerous goods initial Emergency Response
Guidebook—are not factored into this analysis since open access to this guide will be made
available via the internet to all emergency services (December 2006).
(iii)
Intermediate Bulk Containers and Emergency Information Panels
Since the status quo is maintained by retaining Emergency Information Panels on
Intermediate Bulk Containers and on the vehicles transporting these receptacles there will
be no impact on emergency responders.
Year 1
Industry
$244,000
$560,000
Computer Systems
Legislation (drafting etc.)
$2,926,252
$8,933,277
Costs to Government
Total Costs
$1,640,652
$120,000
Documentation
Training for Emergency Services
$10,000
$351,600
Cost of Trainer
Training (including administrative staff)
Government
$109,450
Emergency Action Code for Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(x 5 Emergency Information Panels per Heavy Vehicle)
$6,007,025
$10,000
Organic Peroxide Class Label (x 6 per Heavy Vehicle)
Costs to Industry
$1,560,000
$52,500
Training (300 other staff)
Cost of Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7 Edition
$4,275,075
Training (48,858 drivers)
th
3%
Costs
$7,460,657
$1,592,866
$1,592,866
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,867,791
$106,262
$0
$1,560,000
$50,971
$4,150,558
Year 2
3%
3%
$16,393,934
$4,519,118
$3,233,518
$560,000
$244,000
$120,000
$10,000
$351,600
$11,874,816
$215,712
$10,000
$3,120,000
$103,471
$8,425,633
Total Costs
Table 3. Summary of Costs to Industry and Government
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
$1,921,869
$529,778
$379,067
$65,649
$28,604
$14,068
$1,172
$41,218
$1,392,091
$25,288
$1,172
$365,759
$12,130
$987,741
Annualised over a
10 YearPeriod
($ per annum)
Page 32
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 33
5. BENEFITS
The expected costs to both industry and government of updating the Australian Dangerous
Goods Code and legislation are expected to be offset by the anticipated benefit from an
improvement in safety levels for the transport of dangerous goods and a subsequent drop in
the incident rate. However, other factors may influence the outcome for example, the
length of time taken to implement the new legislative package, how the new package is
adopted by individual States and Territories, take up rate by industry, and enforcement
activity.
The following section attempts to estimate in dollar terms the benefits of a drop in the
current incident rate of road crashes involving dangerous goods followed by a description
in qualitative terms of other anticipated benefits from the adoption of the 7th Edition of the
Code.
5.1
Benefits to the Community
A major benefit to the community will be the maintenance of existing safety levels or a
continuing downward trend in incidents as evidenced by the available data.
5.1.1 Road and Rail Accident Costs
Dangerous goods transport accidents are more costly to the community than general road
and rail transport accidents. In addition to the general accident costs, accidents involving
the transport of dangerous goods also involve the cleanup and disposal of dangerous
substances, environmental damage, and substantial traffic delays while clean up is taking
place. A rare but significant additional risk with this transport task are that of a major fire
or explosion involving the dangerous goods being transported and that of health or
physical injury risks to those in close proximity to dangerous goods spills.
Costs in this analysis are based on Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics estimated
costs for general road and rail accidents not involving dangerous goods. For the purposes
of this exercise, these costs have been updated to 2006 dollar terms.
Table 4. Estimated Costs of All Road Crashes11
Dollar values
Cost per Fatal
Crash
Cost per
Serious Injury
Cost per Minor
Injury
Property
Damage
Only
1996
$1,652,994
$407,990
$13,776
6,000
2006
$2,129,056
$525,491
$17,743
7,728
The figures in this table cover human, vehicle and general costs.
11
Bureau of Transport & Regional Economics (2003a). Bureau of Transport & Regional Economics (2003c)
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 34
Table 5. Estimated Costs of All Rail Crashes
Dollar Values
$Cost per Fatal
Crash
$Cost per
Serious Injury
Property
Damage Only
1999
$1,200,000
$130,000
$125,581
2006
$1,514,400
$164,060
$158,483
5.1.2 Estimated Total Costs of Dangerous Goods Accidents and Incidents
Approximately 8% of the total domestic freight is dangerous goods with approximately
20,356 vehicles transporting these goods across Australia. Accidents relating to the
transport of dangerous goods are a very small percentage of the total annual road and rail
transport accident statistics.
Table 6. All Freight Transport Fatalities by Road and Rail12
Year
Road
Rail
Total
Dangerous
Goods Fatal
13
Accidents
1997
1767
43
1810
0
0
1998
1755
43
1798
1
0.06%
1999
1764
41
1805
3
0.17%
2000
1817
38
1855
2
0.11%
2001
1737
34
1771
1
0.06%
2002
1723
30
1753
2
0.11%
2003
1634
29
1663
1
0.06%
2004
1596
0
1596
1
0.06%
% of Total
Fatalities
An average of 1.4 fatalities occur every year involving the transport of dangerous goods
(mainly road). No statistics are available for injuries or fatalities related to exposure to
dangerous goods in transport.
Estimated Injury Rate
Based on the size of the dangerous goods transport task relative to the total freight task,
serious injuries resulting from the transport of dangerous goods are estimated to be in the
region of 28 road crashes per annum involving heavy vehicles.
Estimated Incident Rate
The number of reportable incidents is estimated to be around 680 per annum.
12
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2003a), and Plastics & Chemical Industry Association (2002)
13
Plastics & Chemical Industry Association statistics (2002, 2004)
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 35
5.1.3 Reduction in Costs to the Community
The annual cost of dangerous goods transport incidents is estimated as follows:
$2,204,056
per fatal crash
$600,491
per incident involving serious injury and
$30,912
per incident involving a minor injury or small spill.
Using the estimated incident rates the total cost to the community is estimated to be in the
order of $40,967,000 per annum. Details of how these figures were reached are presented
in Appendix B.
Using the estimated incident and injury rate and the estimated cost per incident the total
cost for all dangerous goods road transport accidents is calculated as follows:
Table 7. Estimated Current Crash Costs to the Community14
Crash Severity
Cost per
Accident/Incident
Estimated no
per annum
Total Cost
per Annum
$2,204,000
1.4
$3,086,000
Crash involving
serious injury
$600,000
28
$16,862,000
average incident
$31,000
680
$21,020,000
Fatal crash
Total Cost:
$40,968,000
(Figures have been rounded).
Clean-up of average spills is estimated at between $28,000 and $75,000 and the cost of
minor property damage is estimated at $7,200 per incident, however, minor incident rates
are not available. These figures do not include the additional costs of accident
investigation, the costs of traffic delays, and the cost of lost cargo to the transport operator
or owner.
5.1.4 Realising Benefits
The purpose of revising the Australian Dangerous Goods Code is to maintain or reduce the
incident rate for crashes involving the transport of dangerous goods.
Data from enforcement agencies appears to indicate the incident rate has dropped in
comparison with earlier years, however, data from emergency services appears to show a
rise in the total incident rate. The first may be affected by state-based enforcement activity,
and the second may be related to the growth in the road freight task—in effect a plateau in
the rate of reported incidents.
The estimated savings from non-occurrence of incidents if a single road fatality were
avoided amounts to $2.2 million. Avoidance of a single incident involving serious injury
amounts to $0.6 million with average savings from a dangerous goods incident involving a
spill or minor injury estimated at between $28,000 and $75,000.
14
National Transport Commission (1997) & Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (2003c).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 36
These crash costs do not include loss of load and costs to business of major traffic delays.
It is impossible to predict how many lives will be saved from the adoption of the 7th
Edition. Consequently a breakeven analysis has been undertaken and is presented in
Section 6.2.
5.2 Other Benefits
Other benefits associated with the development of the 7th Edition of the Australian
Dangerous Goods Code are not quantifiable in dollar terms.
The Australian Dangerous Goods Code is currently the prime reference in Australia
covering the transport of dangerous goods. The Dangerous Goods List in the 7th Edition
lists all UN identified dangerous goods and is used as a reference point for other codes and
regulations. Workplace health and safety legislation covering (storage and handling), and
environmental legislation (covering the storage of dangerous goods), refer to the Code in
defining dangerous goods.
5.2.1 Improved Domestic Efficiency
A range of intangible benefits are anticipated from the updated Code and legislation:
(i)
The incorporation of a single set of regulations addressing both road and rail
transport will result in a reduction in inter-modal inefficiencies for the domestic land
transport industry especially for integrated transport operators.
(ii)
Some of the administrative provisions related to the processing of exemptions for the
transport of dangerous goods have been made more efficient.
(iii)
The reformatting of the Dangerous Goods List is expected to benefit Emergency
Services and the transport industry making it easier to identify substances and related
requirements.
(iv)
With the rise in the general freight task and in the dangerous goods freight task the
risk of compromising existing levels of safety by not updating requirements
increases.
(v)
The 7th Edition provides for the use of a multi-modal form which can be used by
industry as a combined declaration form and as a certificate for multi-modal carriage.
(vi)
Under the 7th Edition dangerous goods licences will now be issued for five instead of
three years realising some small savings for drivers and transport operators.
th
(vii) The 7 Edition permits the use of Globally Harmonised System (GHS) requirements
for the marking and labelling of inner packagings in lieu of markings specified by the
6th Edition. This system has not yet been picked up by any Australian legislation or
standard so inner packaging marking has been retained in the 7th Edition until it is
incorporated into an appropriate Australian regulation or standard. This will
hopefully prompt awareness of the impending change and the need to start
addressing these new requirements in order to meet the UN proposed deadline
(2008).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 37
5.2.2 Benefits to Retail Distributors
In the 6th Edition provision was made for the transport of ‘consumer commodity loads’ of a
range of dangerous goods up to a maximum of 2,000 kg(L) (Section 1.2.1). Typical
dangerous goods in this category included disposable cigarette lighters, deodorants,
perfume, domestic bleach, domestic smoke detectors, and caustic soda. The 6th Edition also
permitted the use of a ‘Dangerous Goods Shipping Document for Domestic Consumables’
for these types of loads.
This concept of the consumer commodity load was omitted from the public consultation
draft of the 7th Edition.
Submissions from Coles Myer Ltd, the Cosmetic Toiletries and Fragrances Association of
Australia and Amway expressed concerns about this omission and about the lack of a
generic shipping document from the 7th Edition. Comment maintained that this omission
would result in significant costs to the retail industry and to small business operators. An
additional factor would be costly changes to automated pick and pack systems and to
administrative systems and procedures.
Coles Myer Ltd also quoted a cost of $5.5 million to re-train staff. The Cosmetic Toiletries
and Fragrances Association of Australia cited initial costs of $15 million with ongoing
annual costs of $50 million to the industry to manage this change. Submissions also made
the point that existing exemptions in the 6th Edition recognised the low risk of consumer
commodity loads. In addition perfumery and personal care products in general are
packaged in such a way as to protect high-unit value products from damage and forego the
need for package performance testing. They also contended that there was no justification
for the removal of the generic transport document available in the 6th Edition.
After further discussion and consultation, the concept of the ‘retail distribution load’ has
been included in the 7th Edition. Chapter 7.3 provides a range of concessions for these
loads based on the concessions from 1.2.1 of the 6th Edition and some further exemptions
granted by the Competent Authorities Panel to the retail industry since the publication of
the 6th Edition. The concept allows the transport of packaged dangerous goods in a load
provided the aggregate quantity of dangerous goods in the load does not exceed 20% of the
total quantity of goods in the load, and the aggregate quantity of dangerous goods in the
transport unit does not exceed 2,000 kg(L). Appendix B of the Code provides a new
generic form based on Figure 1.1 from the 6th Edition to be used when transporting these
loads.
The net effect is the original concessions for the distribution of dangerous goods in mixed
loads for retail distribution is retained with an additional concession for documentation for
these loads and no demonstrated financial impact on the industry.
5.2.3 International Harmonisation
The 7th Edition will further align requirements for the land transport of dangerous goods
with those for sea and air benefiting the domestic inter-modal and import / export supply
chain.
With the incorporation of UN standards the 7th Edition now permits the use of pressure
receptacles for packing liquids and solids as well as gases. The use of a wider range of
standards provides greater flexibility for industry by allowing the use of a broader selection
of pressure receptacles, the use of advanced technology for the manufacture of pressure
Page 38
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
receptacles, and by reducing the need for special permits. This inclusion should assist the
international trade of compressed gases without compromising safety levels or imposing an
undue burden on dangerous goods transport operators and others.
In fact, some savings may be realized for importers and exporters of a wide range of
chemical products since requirements under the 7th Edition, the International Air Transport
Association regulations and under the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code are
now more closely aligned. These changes are also expected to benefit the local arms of
global enterprises who needing to standardise across modal requirements.
The removal of the distinction between ‘bulk’ and ‘packaged dangerous goods’, and the
introduction of a container based approach in line with other modal codes will avoid the
need to relabel imports and subsequent delays at ports. This will apply to both road and rail
transport.
5.2.4 Reduction in Regulatory Maintenance Costs
A one-off change resulting from the adoption of the format and structure of the UN Model
Regulations is a significant reduction in future maintenance requirements. The Model
Regulations are maintained by the UN Committee of Experts on Dangerous Goods and are
usually updated every two years.
The labour intensive exercise of rewriting previous versions of the UN Model Regulations
into the Australian Dangerous Goods Code will be replaced by direct adoption of UN
updates. The costs, resources and time associated with the development of 7th Edition will
be a one off since future revisions are expected to be more straightforward and quicker.
The cost of developing the 7th Edition over three years is approximately $578,000 although
these are sunk costs for the purposes of this evaluation.
The benefit estimated from expediting the review process would be in the order of
approximately $150,000 per annum.
5.2.5 Speedier Regulatory Revision Cycle
Recurring industry sector requests for exemptions and approvals points to the need for a
faster revision cycle for the Code to remove the need to apply for exemptions. This is a
consequence of ongoing development and innovation in the way dangerous goods are
packaged and transported. The Code needs to keep pace with these and other international
safety practices and developments and the speedier revision cycle should assist with
keeping the Code and the Model Subordinate Law up-to-date.
UN changes will need to be monitored to ensure that the Model Subordinate Law and the
Code remain consistent with UN changes where they are relevant to Australian conditions.
5.2.6 Improved Compliance and Enforcement
A direct benefit from the additional enforcement powers incorporated into the Model Law
will be increased accountability for breaches of the dangerous goods regulations.
The ability to target habitual offenders and to match severe penalties with the seriousness
of offences is expected to result in a gradual long term reduction in the number of
dangerous goods related transport accidents.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 39
Intangible benefits from these provisions will be the encouragement of compliance and the
reform of habitual offenders behaviour.
An additional benefit for road authorities will be the ability to retrieve a substantial
proportion of the costs associated with dangerous goods transport incidents and accidents.
These benefits will be proportionate to the estimated size of the dangerous goods transport
sector (8%) and are not quantified in dollar terms due to the lack of sound incident and
accident statistics, and the lack of certainty as to the effect of these new provisions.
The model legislation also gives jurisdictions the option of delegating responsibility for
dangerous goods licensing over to the appropriate road licensing authority. Road
authorities in each State and Territory already handle general road licensing and would be
well equipped to handle dangerous goods licensing. This move would reduce the
overheads for less well resourced dangerous goods enforcement agencies but will require
further investigation on a case by case basis.
5.2.7 Summary of Benefits
x
Savings from avoidance of a number of serious dangerous goods incidents may be
realised.
x
Improved domestic efficiency.
x
Benefits to retail distributors and to small business.
x
International harmonisation.
x
Reduction in regulatory maintenance costs to the tune of $150,000 per annum.
x
Speedier revision cycle.
x
Improved compliance and enforcement.
6. EVALUATION
6.1 Qualitative Analysis of Alternatives
Option 1 Do nothing, Option 2 Retain domestic focus and Option 5 Adoption of the ADR
or ‘Accord Européen Relatif au Transport International des Marchandises Dangereuses par
Route’ are all not viable since they do not meet the original objectives set out originally by
the Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. The table below evaluates
the two remaining options.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 40
Table 8. Qualitative analysis of alternatives
Improve existing level
of safety
Option 3 Directly reference UN
Model Regulations
Option 4 Adoption of UN Model
Regulations as far as possible
Worse.
Improved.
Impractical since the UN Model
Regulations are written in advisory
form and are unsuitable as
operational regulations without
considerable redrafting.
Best of both worlds with adoption
of UN13 and UN14 and retention of
Australian provisions where
necessary
Risk of adopting requirements not
appropriate to Australian context.
Updated compliance and
enforcement provisions not
adopted.
Emergency services concerned
about lack of emergency
information panels.
Domestic efficiency
Extension of powers, sanctions and
penalties and inclusion of updated
insurance requirements.
Detailed packing and packaging
instructions provided.
Neutral.
Improved.
A separate set of regulations would
be required to manage rail
transport. Two modes treated
separately.
The single set of regulations treat
road and rail equally.
Reformatting of the Dangerous
Goods List benefits transport
operators and emergency services
Harmonisation with
other standards
Updated infectious substances
requirements.
Dangerous goods agencies have the
option of delegating licensing to
road transport agencies.
Reformatting of the Dangerous
Goods List benefits transport
operators and emergency services.
Improved.
Improved.
Alignment with other codes and
UN 13 and 14 but no Australian
specific standards retained.
Alignment with other codes and UN
13 and 14 but retention of some
Australianisms such as emergency
information panels on intermediate
bulk containers.
Inclusion of Australian standards.
Simplification of
maintenance task
Local practice kept up
to date with best
practice
Uncertain.
Improved.
Improved with adoption of UN
structure, format, definitions and
concepts but offset by risk of
omitting provisions and need to
continually cross-reference a set of
documents. Too complex.
The adoption of UN structure,
format, definitions and concepts
will make the future task of
updating the Code with UN changes
easier.
Improved.
Improved.
With the adoption of international
practice and standards but domestic
compliance and enforcement
provisions not included.
With the adoption of international
practice and standards and inclusion
of domestic compliance and
enforcement provisions.
Combines both UN and Australian
specific content.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Minimise costs to
small business and
retailers.
Page 41
Option 3 Directly reference UN
Model Regulations
Option 4 Adoption of UN Model
Regulations as far as possible
Neutral.
Improved.
Only limited quantities concept
adopted. An inter-modal form
addresses documentation issues for
smaller quantities.
Three concepts address the transport
of small quantities of dangerous
goods. Introduction of tools of trade
concept, limited quantities and retail
commodity load. An inter-modal
form addresses documentation
issues for smaller quantities.
6.2 Breakeven Analysis
The alignment of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code with UN Model Regulations 13
and 14 will benefit long term maintenance and development of the Code in a rapidly
changing transport sector with an increasing demand for regulatory harmonisation.
Annualised over a ten year period and discounted at a rate of 3% (considered appropriate
for regulatory reforms) the estimated costs to government and industry are as follows:
Table 9. Annualised Costs to Industry and Government
Annual cost
Present Value
Annualised cost over
a 10 year period
Costs to Industry
$13.4 M
$1.6 M
Costs to Government
$4.5 M
$0.5 M
Total Costs
$17.9 M
$2.1 M
The total upfront cost to industry in present terms of changes to the Australian Dangerous
Goods Code package is estimated to be $5,937,400 per annum over two years or
$11,875,000 over a two year period.
The total upfront cost in present terms to the government is estimated to come to
$4,519,000 over a 2 year period. The NTC has also incurred costs in developing the 7th
Edition package however these are regarded as sunk costs.
One important factor to bear in mind is that this is a maintenance exercise and costs may
not always be offset by tangible benefits. Costs associated with future revisions of the
Code will be much smaller since the same time and resources will not be required to
rewrite the Code and the supporting legislation.
Based on the estimated costs in Section 4, in order for the benefits of adopting the revised
Australian Dangerous Goods Code to match these costs, the number of fatal incidents for
dangerous goods transport would need to drop by 1 fatality per annum (61% drop).
Alternatively, the number of crashes involving serious injury would need to drop by three
per annum (11% drop) or the incident rate (spills and cleanup) would need to drop by 32
incidents per annum (5% drop).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 42
These savings would appear to be possible, with the savings needed to meet the costs being
less than the number of incidents currently occurring. However, they do require a
significant reduction in incidents. One fatality per annum would need to be saved to justify
the costs—there are currently 1.4 fatalities per annum on average. Alternatively 3 of the
existing 28 serious injuries would need to be saved per annum, or 32 of the current 680
dangerous goods spills annually would need to be saved in order for the costs to be
justified by the benefits.
Table 10.
Required Drop in Incidents to Realise Benefits
Crash Severity
Cost per Accident
/ Incident
Breakeven
Total Cost
Fatal crash
$2,204,056
1
$2,204,056
3
$1,801,473
32
$989,184
or
Crash involving
serious injury
$600,491
or
average incident
$30,912
Other benefits which may be realised include the greater harmonisation of land transport
regulations with international standards and air and sea regulations, improved domestic
efficiency, concessions for retail distributors and small business, greater alignment with
other modal requirements, a reduction in reform maintenance costs, a speedier revision
cycle, and improved compliance and enforcement.
6.3 Restrictions on Competition
The inclusion of additional compliance and enforcement provisions in the Model Law will
also reduce the potential commercial benefit to habitual offenders from non-compliance.
Although the main focus of the 7th Edition is to improve and maintain safe practices and
procedures for the transport of dangerous goods, a side benefit from inclusion of these
provisions will be the targeting of anti-competitive behaviour.
The alignment of road regulations and rail rules into a single set of regulations treats both
modes equally but takes into account the variation in roles between the modes. Any
unintended restriction on competition is removed.
The main impact of the adoption of the 7th Edition is training, which equally affects all
industries involved in the consignment, packaging, and transport of dangerous goods.
Changes in the 7th Edition are proportionate across small, medium and large businesses.
From time to time a particular industry sector may be affected by UN changes to the
Dangerous Goods List or individual labels or markings with no bias towards any particular
sector. Companies affected may seek an exemption from the Competent Authorities Panel,
if necessary, in order to comply with these changes over a longer period of time. The
primary driver behind these changes is improvement in safety practices for the transport of
these high risk goods.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 43
Small business also benefits from changes in the 7th Edition:
(i)
An additional concession is provided for the transport of small quantities of
dangerous goods where those goods are being used in the course of business when
that business is not the transport of dangerous goods. Provision 1.1.11 in the Model
Subordinate Law provides concessions for small quantities of dangerous goods used
by tradespeople and others as tools-of-trade, subject to reasonable quantity limits and
conditions. This would include goods such as aerosols, adhesives and paint strippers
and other small quantities of dangerous goods for personal or household use.
(ii)
Another benefit provided by the 7th Edition is the limited quantity provisions which
permit the transport of very small quantities of a wide range of dangerous substances.
These quantities are exempted from the more onerous provisions of the Code
applying to larger quantities. Limited Quantities range from ‘NONE’ for all Packing
Group I, Division 2.1, Division 2.3 and some other high consequence dangerous
goods, to 5 kg(L) for most Packing Group III substances.
The 7th Edition permits the use of generic documentation for land transport of limited
quantities, provided the information required by Part 11 is made available.
6.4 Consistency with International Approaches
The 7th Edition will align Australian domestic practice with global standards while
retaining Australian specific content where appropriate. These changes will assist
importers, exporters, the local arms of global enterprises, and integrated domestic transport
operators in complying with requirements along both the national and international supply
chain.
7. CONSULTATION
7.1 Consultation with Experts
The Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods is comprised of
approximately 42 experts drawn from industry and government policymakers, and
members of the Competent Authorities Panel (CAP) responsible for regulating the
transport of dangerous goods.
The group is comprised of representatives from road and rail transport, freight forwarders,
gas and petroleum producers and distributors, consumer and agricultural chemical
manufacturers and distributors, paint and adhesive manufacturers, packaging suppliers,
Standards Australia, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, emergency
services, the Department of Defence, and the Commonwealth Department of Transport and
Regional Services.
A Steering Group of nine members was formed from the larger advisory body to expedite
the consultation and approval process and ensure buy-in from the wider group.
The Steering Group analysed comments received from the wider group and provided
strategic direction and advice on behalf of the wider Advisory Committee on the Transport
of Dangerous Goods.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 44
A consultant with specific expertise in dangerous goods transportation, storage and
handling was appointed to redraft the Code. The development process for the 7th Edition is
outlined below.
7.2
Consultation Process
Step 1
A review was conducted of material developed and gathered since the
publication of the 6th Edition. Key issues identified relating to the development
of the 7th Edition included identification of current and proposed Australian
specific requirements not covered by the UN Model Regulations and the
provision of advice with supporting rationale on the need for their inclusion /
non-inclusion given the decision to reference the UN Model Regulations.
Principles were established for developing the 7th Edition including adoption of
the structure and format of UN Model Regulations 13.
Stakeholders were keen to harmonise with international standards.
Step 2
A preliminary draft was developed incorporating a proposed structure for the
7th Edition effectively combining UN Model Regulations 13 and Australian
specific rules in a clear, concise format. This was circulated to the Advisory
Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and Dangerous Goods
Steering Group for comment.
The initial draft was revised following extensive consultation with the Steering
Group and feedback from the wider Advisory Committee on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods in November 2003.
Step 3
A second draft document was developed through an iterative feedback process
incorporating proposed changes accumulated by the Advisory Committee on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods over the period 1998-2003, UN Model
Regulations 13 revisions, and any other required inclusions identified during
the course of the project.
This draft includes an accompanying Information Guide explaining the
structure of the new Code, and signalling significant changes which may affect
industry and regulators. Following further review by the Advisory Committee
on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and by the NTC this draft was released
for public consultation.
In parallel with the development of the Code, the Office of Legislative Drafting
was engaged to revise the Act and the Regulations to bring them into alignment
with 7th Edition.
Step 4
Release of draft legislative package for public consultation (July-September
2005).
Review and incorporation of feedback from public consultation into a final
draft for submission to the Australian Transport Council (December 2005).
Step 5
Release of NTC Summary Response to all public comment (August 2006).
Step 6
Final review by the Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods, and jurisdictions (August-September 2006).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 45
Step 7
Following final amendments distribution of the legislative package to
Transport Agencies Chief Executives and the Chief Executives of dangerous
goods transport agencies.
Step 8
Submission to the ATC for approval.
Step 9
Publication of 7th Edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code and
Information Guide.
Step 10
Implementation (minimum 12 months).
7.3 Summary of Comments and Responses
Infectious Substances
In early 2004, the relevant authorities in each jurisdiction were consulted regarding the
inclusion of provisions for the transport of infectious substances. There was widespread
agreement that these provisions should be included.
A working group comprised of major health authorities provided recommendations on the
transport of infectious substances which are included in this draft of the 7th Edition. A key
comment provided was that there was a need to retain exemptions for small quantities of
infectious substances, provided packaging requirements are met, including diagnostic
samples etc. It was argued that the costs of requiring licensing, labelling and so forth
would be excessive compared to the risks that can be readily controlled through
appropriate packaging. The requirements have been modified to provide for this
exemption.
Insurance
In 2004, major insurers and peak bodies were contacted regarding the necessity to update
insurance figures in the 7th Edition.
Retail Sector
Following closure of the public consultation phase a meeting took place with the retail
industry to address the issue of transport of retail quantities of dangerous goods.
Impact on Government
The Dangerous Goods Competent Authorities in each jurisdiction were asked to provide
financial estimates on the impact of the 7th Edition on those agencies responsible for the
implementation of the 7th Edition.
The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the Department of Transport
and Regional Services and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator provided
feedback on the impact of the 7th Edition.
Emergency Services
The Australasian Fire Authorities Council is represented on the Advisory Committee on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods and has provided feedback on potential impacts to
emergency response procedures resulting from the development of the 7th Edition of the
Code. The Council has also provided estimates on callouts associated with transport
incidents.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 46
8. IMPLEMENTATION
8.1 The Inter-Governmental Agreement
As a result of the Inter-Governmental Agreement signed in October 2003, which
established the NTC, it was agreed that in order to maintain a nationally consistent
regulatory and operating environment, a 'single reference point' for agreed reforms would
be maintained. This single point is the National Transport Commission Act 2003
(Commonwealth). The Inter-governmental Agreement is available from the NTC web site
at: http://www.ntc.gov.au/docview.aspx?page=a02309402400400020&M=0&T=0.
As a result of this agreement, model legislation drafted for the 7th Edition replaces the
template legislation used for the 6th Edition. Model legislation is made under the NTC’s
Act and included as schedules to this Act.
In addition, under this agreement, the reach of the NTC is extended to cover all land
transport reform within Australia—hence the amalgamation of regulations covering both
road and rail.
These schedules will not take effect until adopted by the Commonwealth, States and
Territories into their own operational legislation.
There is no intention at this stage to alter the structure of the legislative package although
both the Act and the Regulations are renamed. Full details on changes to the Code, the
Model Subordinate Law (Regulations) and the Model Law (Act) are provided in Appendix
C.
8.2
Implementation Details
The new Model Law—the Act, the Model Subordinate Law—the Regulations—and the 7th
Edition of the Code will be drafted as schedules to the NTC Act.
Using these schedules States and Territories will revise their regulations accordingly. A
transition period has been set at a minimum 12 months including extensions to existing
exemptions under the 6th Edition until their date of expiry. In some States implementation
may take longer since changes are required to primary legislation, e.g. the Act. The
timeframe for implementation may vary from State to State depending upon other
legislative priorities, budgetary constraints and the availability of drafting resources.
National Competition Policy payments associated with the implementation of the 6th
Edition are not available for the 7th Edition which may be an influencing factor for some
States.
A maintenance process including a maintenance schedule will be established for the Code
upon agreement between the NTC and the Department of Transport and Regional Services.
No details are available at this stage.
In future changes to the Code are expected to line up with revisions to the United Nations
Model Regulations so the revision cycle will be a lot faster to avoid lapses such as that
between the 6th Edition and the 7th Edition. It is also expected that changes to the technical
Code will take place more frequently than requirements to update the model legislation.
Operational queries and requests for approvals and exemptions will continue to be referred
to the Competent Authority in each State and Territory.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 47
9. REVIEW MECHANISMS
The NTC is currently responsible for the long term maintenance of the Australian
Dangerous Goods Code. A long term strategy needs to be developed to ensure the Code is
kept up to date and aligned with international practice.
Issues which have arisen as a result of the drafting of the 7th Edition and which may be
examined after production of the Code include:
x
the development of a more active role within the UN to influence the development of
the UN Model Regulations and to provide feedback on issues of importance to the
Australian industry;
x
the development of a schedule for review of local requirements and UN modifications
and incorporation into the Australian Dangerous Goods Code on a regular basis. This
will ensure the local Code is aligned as far as possible with UN requirements;
x
a review of the role and terms of reference for the Advisory Committee on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods;
x
a review of licensing systems for the transport of dangerous goods and the
development of uniform criteria for dangerous goods licensing;
x
the development of a strategy for better and consistent data and reporting on safety
outcomes to provide a clearer picture of the current performance of this sector of the
transport industry. This will assist with the identification of priorities and an
assessment of the impact of regulations and may assist with risk assessments for this
sector. There is a need for more consistent and accurate reporting on crashes and
incidents; exposure data for dangerous goods shipments, mileage and quantities; and a
common repository for dangerous goods data and for dangerous goods licensing
information;
x
a review of dangerous goods training requirements and competencies;
x
the question of whether explosives should be incorporated into the next version of the
Code. If so, a national review of explosives regulations and of the Australian
Explosives Code needs to take place before the next review of the Australian
Dangerous Goods Code. This may also involve an investigation of the inconsistent
domestic classification system for explosives; and
x
the monitoring of the adoption (voluntary) of vehicle telematics by dangerous goods
transporters under the Intelligent Access Program (IAP). The purpose of this initiative
would be to monitor freight vehicles transporting dangerous goods remotely using
satellite based telematic services to ensure they are complying with their agreed
conditions of operation, and that they are operating how, where and when they should.
Access conditions would be set by jurisdictions.
Any request to undertake work on any of these issues, would need to be approved by the
Australian Transport Council for inclusion on future NTC work programs.
Page 48
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
10. REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (1995). Survey of Motor Vehicle Use. Canberra: ABS,
Catalogue No. 9208.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (1999). Consumer Price Index Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 6401.0. December Quarter.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2000a). Consumer Price Index Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 6401.0. December Quarter.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2000b). 1999 Year Book Australia. Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 1301.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2000c). 2000 Year Book Australia. Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 1301.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2000d). Survey of Motor Vehicle Use. Canberra: ABS,
Catalogue No. 9208.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2001a). 2001 Year Book Australia. Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 1301.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2001b). Survey of Motor Vehicle Use. Canberra: ABS,
Catalogue No. 9208.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2001c). Freight Movements. Canberra: ABS, Catalogue
No. 9220.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2002a). Motor Vehicle Census. Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 9309.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2002b). Motor Vehicle Census. Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 9309.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2002c). 2002 Year Book Australia. Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 1301.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2002d). Freight Movements, Australia, Summary.
Canberra: ABS, ABS Catalogue No. 9220.0. 6 September.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2002d). Survey of Motor Vehicle Use. Canberra: ABS,
Catalogue No. 9208.0
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2003a). 2003 Year Book Australia. Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 1301.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2003b). Consumer Price Index Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 6401.0. December Quarter.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2004c). Survey of Motor Vehicle Use. Canberra: ABS,
Catalogue No. 9208.0
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2004a). 2004 Year Book Australia. Canberra: ABS, ABS
Catalogue No. 1301.0.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 49
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2004b). Survey of Motor Vehicle Use. Canberra: ABS,
Catalogue No. 9208.0
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2005). Motor Vehicle Census, ABS, 31 March 2005
Catalogue No 9309.0.
Australasian Fire Authorities Council (2004). Letter to NTC, 30 January 2004.
Australasian Fire Authorities Council (2006). Summary report provided to the NTC, 30
June 2006.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (2000). Australian Truck Crash Database - a
Summary. Road Safety Office Report OR 24. Canberra: ATSB, ISBN 1 877071 13 7.
January to June. Available online : http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/res-exec/or24ex.cfm
Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (2001). International Road Safety Comparisons: The
2001 Report. Canberra: ATSB, ISSN 1447 8218. Available online:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/stats/benchmk.cfm
Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (2003a). Rail Transport Activity in Australia.
Canberra: ATSB. Available online: http://www.atsb.gov.au/rail/rail_activity.cfm
Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (2003b). Railway Accident Fatalities. Canberra:
ATSB. Available online: http://www.atsb.gov.au/rail/stats/fatalities_latest.cfm
Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (2004a). Road Safety in Australia. Canberra: ATSB.
ISBN 1 877071 55 2 Available online: http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/rsia/index.cfm
Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (2004b). Fatal road crashes involving articulated
trucks. Road Safety Working Paper No 2. Canberra: ATSB, ISBN 1877071 78 1. Available
online: http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/stats/articulated_crashes.cfm
Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (2004c). Serious Injury due to Road Crashes.
Canberra.
Road
Safety
Statistics
Report.
Available
online:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/serious_injury_due_to_road_crashes.aspx
Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (2005). Road Deaths Australia 2005 Statistical
Summary: Available online:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2006/rda_ss_2005.aspx
Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (2006). International Road Safety Comparisons: The
2004
Report.
ATSB
Road
Safety
Report.
Available
online:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2006/pdf/Int_Comp_03.pdf
Australian Trucking Association, (2005). Submission to NTC, August 2005.
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, (2003a). Rail Accident Costs in Australia,
Report 108. Canberra: Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, ISBN 1 877081 13 2.
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, (2003b). Working Paper 60: An Overview
of the Australian Road Freight Transport Industry. Canberra: Department of Transport and
Regional Economics, ISBN 1-877081-44-2.
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, (2003c). Road Crash Costs in Australia,
Report 102. Canberra: Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, ISBN 0 642 44426 9.
Page 50
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, (2003d). Australian Transport Statistics
2003. Canberra: Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, ISBN 1 877081 37 X.
June.
Council of Australian Governments (2003). Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition
Agreement. Available online: http://www.coag.gov.au/mra/ttmra.htm
Department of Industry & Resources, WA (2000). Safety, Health & Environment,
Summary
of
Accidents
Reports,
1997
–
2000.
Available
online:
http://www.doir.wa.gov.au/safetyhealthandenvironment/
Department of Industry & Resources, WA (2003). Safety, Health & Environment,
Dangerous Goods Transport Incident Logs 2001, 2002. Unpublished.
Department of Consumer and Employment Protection, WA (2003, 2004, 2005).
Dangerous Goods Incidents Logs 2003, 2004, 2005. Available online:
http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/ResourcesSafety/Sections/Dangerous_Goods/Pages/Summar
y_of_Accident_.html
Department of Transport and Regional Services (2000). The Commonwealth's Transport
Directions. ISBN 0642 39704X. Available online:
http://www.dotars.gov.au/dept/taskoutlook/taskoutlook.htm
Environment Protection Authority, NSW (2003). Annual Reports 2001-02, 2002-03.
Sydney.. Available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/corporate/annrep.htm
or http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/corporate/anrep2002.htm
Department of Environment and Conservation, NSW (2004, 2005). Annual Reports 200304, 2004-05.. Available online: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/about/reports.htm
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, (2001). Comparative Risks of hazardous
Materials and non-Hazardous Materials Truck Shipment Accidents/Incidents. FMCSA,
USA. March. Available online: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/Pdfs/HMRiskFinalReport.pdf
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, (2003).Hazardous Materials Serious Crash
Analysis: First Phase Final Report. FMCSA, USA. February 2003. Available online:
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/hazmat/
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, (2004). Crashes Involving Trucks Carrying
Hazardous Materials. Analysis Brief. R Craft, FMCSA, USA. May. Available online:
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/analysis/fmcsa-ri-04024.htm
Health & Safety Executive, UK (2004) Supplementary Table to Health & Safety Statistics
Highlights 2002/03. HSE, UK. Available online:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/tabledo1.pdf
National Road Transport Commission, (1995). Regulatory Impact Statement: Proposal for
Accreditation of Carriers of Dangerous Goods. Brisbane, Kinhill Economics, BC4710501-Rev-0. November.
National Road Transport Commission, (1997). Regulatory Impact Statement: Dangerous
Goods Regulations. Melbourne: National Transport Commission, ISBN 0 642 54403 4.
March.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 51
National Road Transport Commission, (2003). Road Transport Reform (Compliance and
Enforcement) Bill, Regulatory Impact Statement. Melbourne. Jaguar Consulting Pty Ltd.
ISBN 1 877 09310 6. November.
Plastics and Chemical Industry Association (PACIA), (2002). Chemical Companies
Health & Safety Performance Survey & Benchmark Report for 2002.
Available online: http://www.pacia.org.au/Environment/ChemicalSurvey02.html
Plastics and Chemical Industry Association (PACIA), (2004). Health and Safety
Performance report of the Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association. Available online:
http://www.pacia.org.au/index.cfm?menuaction=mem&mmid=007&mid=007.045
QUINLAN, M. (2001). Report of Inquiry into Safety in the Long Haul Trucking Industry,
Appendix C. Motor Accidents Authority, NSW. ISBN 1 876958 06 5. November .
Available online: http://www.maa.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety36reports.htm
Transport Canada (2005). Transportation in Canada Annual Report. Available online:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/Report/anre2005/4A_e.htm
US Department of Transportation, (2004). Hazardous Materials Information System:
Incidents by Mode and Incident Year. Available online:
http://hazmat.dot.gov/files/hazmat/10year/10yearfrm.htm
US Department of Transport, (2005). Statistical Estimates of Total Reported Hazardous
Material Incidents Costs. Final Report. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration and Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. Ohio. September 2005.
Available online: http://hazmat.dot.gov/pubs/HM_Incident_Costs_9_22_2005.pdf
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
APPENDIX A:
Page 53
MEETING SCHEDULE
Meeting Schedule
Date: November 2002, Perth
Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods takes decision to update
Australian Dangerous Goods Code adopting the UN Model Regulations (most recent
version – UN 13). This is a departure from previous approaches to updating the Code.
Date: 20 June 2003, Sydney
Meeting of Dangerous Goods Steering Group to finalise instructions for consultant review
of 6th Edition and approach to developing 7th Edition.
Date 9 October 2003, Hobart
Presentation to the Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods on first
draft of the 7th Edition and discussion of new structure, format and issues.
Date: 31 October 2003
The Office of Legislative Drafting was initially contacted regarding revision of both the
Act and the Regulations.
Date: 20 November 2003, Adelaide
Review by Dangerous Goods Steering Group of submissions from the Advisory
Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods on the 7th Edition and discussion of
issues.
Date: 17-18 December, 2003, Melbourne
Review by Dangerous Goods Steering Group of submissions from the Advisory
Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and completion of discussion.
Date: 24-25 March 2004, Sydney
Review by Dangerous Goods Steering Group of second draft of the 7th Edition,
Information Guide, and preliminary changes to Regulations, Act and draft regulatory
impact statement.
Date: 28-29 April, 2004, Melbourne
Continuation of review of the second draft and resolution of outstanding issues.
Combined meeting of Dangerous Goods Steering Group and the Competent Authorities
Panel to review changes to the draft regulations.
Information about the effects of the 7th Edition was obtained through consultation with
industry representatives of the Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
This impact statement also makes use of costs from previous dangerous goods impact
statements.
Page 54
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Date: 4-5, 24-25 November 2004, Melbourne
Meeting of the Dangerous Goods Steering Group to review an incomplete set of draft
model legislation.
Date: 26 November, 16 December 2004, Melbourne
Meeting with jurisdictions to advise on the main changes to the Australian Dangerous
Goods Code and the accompanying regulations.
Date: 10 March 2005, Canberra
Overview of main changes to both the Code and the regulations to members of the
Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
Date: 20-21 April, 2005, Adelaide
Meeting with the Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods to finalise all
documentation prior to public consultation period.
Date: 22 April, 2005, Adelaide
Meeting with the jurisdictions group to consider issues associated with the draft
regulations.
Dates: July to September 2005
Public consultation period July-August extended to 16 September 2005.
Dates: 29-30 November, 1 December 2005
Review of all public comment by the Dangerous Goods Steering Group.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
APPENDIX B:
Page 55
FEEDBACK FROM PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Information Seminars
Public information seminars took place in each capital city over the month of July 2005
(advised on the National Transport Commission web site and via email).
Written Submissions on Draft Released for Public Consultation
Written submissions were received from the following peak bodies, individual companies,
government agencies, consultants and individuals:
Industry
3M Australia
ACCORD Australasia Inc
Advanced Clinical Sciences
Agsafe Limited
Aerosol Association of Australia Inc.
Ambulance Service NSW
Amway of Australia
Asia Pacific Veterinary Information Services Pty Ltd
Australasian Institute of Dangerous Goods Consultants
Australia Post
Australian Institute of Petroleum
Australian Liquified Petroleum Gas Assoc Ltd
Australian Environment Business Network
Australia New Zealand Industrial Gas Association
Australian Paint Manufacturers’ Federation Inc.
Australian Railroad Group
Australasian Railway Association
Australian Trucking Association
CPB Group Pty Ltd
Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd
Calgraphics (Australasia) Pty Ltd
Chemetall (Australasia) Pty Ltd
Chemical System Consulting
Coles Myer Ltd
CorpLife Australia (formerly Avcare)
Cosmetic, Toiletries and Fragrances Association of Australia
Cotton Australia Limited
Cottonseed Distributors Ltd
DSL Packaging
Dangerous Goods Logistics Pty Ltd
Dangerous Goods Services Pty Ltd
Davies Campbell de Lambert Pathology
David Thoumine & Associates
E.J. O’Connor & Son (Yass) Pty Ltd
Grains Council of Australia
Hawthorn Consulting
Henkel Australia Pty Ltd
Page 56
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
IF Thomas & Associates Pty Ltd
LPG Australia
Law Transport Consultant Services
Magill Consulting Pty Ltd
NSW Farmers Association
National Transport Insurance
National Farmers’ Federation
National Bulk Tanker Association Inc
Natroad
Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd
OMI Ltd
Origin Energy
Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association
Patrick Logistics
Queensland Transport
RKEJ Pty Ltd
Rail Safety Unit, Queensland Transport
Riskom International Pty Ltd
Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia
Shipping Australia Ltd
Solvay Interox Pty Ltd
Standards Australia
Toll Transport Group
Transport Workers Union
Tyre Crumb Australia
UEE Australia
Government
A Smith (ACT Workcover)
Australasian Fire Authorities Council
Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia
Department of Transport and Regional Services
Department of Consumer and Employment Protection, WA
Department of Emergency Services, Qld
Fire and Emergency Services Authority, WA
I Christie
International Air Transport Association
NSW Government Agencies
NSW Health
NSW Fire Brigade
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
Queensland Transport Dangerous Goods Unit
Queensland Health Pathology Service
S Klaric
State Emergency Services NSW
South Australia Police
Victoria Police
Victoria University
Victorian Workcover Authority
Workplace Services, Dept of Administrative and Information Services, SA
Workplace Health and Safety, Qld
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006
Page 57
APPENDIX C:
PROPOSED
CHANGES
TO
THE
AUSTRALIAN
DANGEROUS GOODS CODE, THE REGULATIONS AND
THE ACT
APPENDIX D:
DATA USED IN ANALYSES
(Both these Appendices are attached as separate documents).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 1
APPENDIX C: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AUSTRALIAN
DANGEROUS GOODS CODE, THE REGULATIONS
AND THE ACT
1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACT, REGULATIONS, AND CODE
The 6th edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code and the national legislative
package governing the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail comprises:
x
The Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995 (Commonwealth);
x
The Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997;
x
The Rail (Dangerous Goods) Rules; and
x
The Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail.
The purpose of the Act and Regulations is to support the technical Code, improve and
maintain the safe transport of dangerous goods and reduce administrative costs by
providing uniform and consistent national regulation as required by Inter-Governmental
Agreements. The Rail Rules provide a set of model regulations for adoption by
jurisdictions as uniform rail regulations for the transport of dangerous goods.
By and large jurisdictions have remained faithful to this national reform keeping Statebased legislation consistent with the national package.
The Australian Dangerous Goods Code legislative package 7th edition is comprised of
model legislation which replaces the template legislation of the 6th edition. This legislation
works in a similar fashion by providing model legislation for adoption by the jurisdictions
either by reference or by incorporation into their own State-based operational legislation.
The 7th edition of this legislative package is comprised of:
x
the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition;
x
the Model Subordinate Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail (the
Regulations);
x
the Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail (the Act);
x
a Regulatory Impact Statement; and
x
the Information Guide to the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition.
The Model Law (the Act), the Model Subordinate Law (the Regulations) and the technical
Code all function as a single unit. Changes to the technical Code can result in
corresponding changes to the supporting legislation although not always.
Page 2
1.1
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
The Australian Dangerous Goods1 Code
The Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail is a
reference document setting out detailed technical and procedural requirements for a range
of activities performed in the day-to-day preparation for and transportation of dangerous
goods by either road or rail. The Code also contains a number of non-mandatory provisions
or guidelines and a small number of exemptions.
The purpose of the Code is to ensure uniformity and consistency in technical requirements
across jurisdictions applying to the land transport task. The Code should be read in
conjunction with the model legislation and is complementary and subordinate to the
regulations.
1.2
The Dangerous Goods Regulations
The Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997 (Commonwealth) and
the Rail (Dangerous Goods) Rules set out, in greater detail, the obligations and duties of
persons involved in the land transport of dangerous goods, allocating legal responsibilities
appropriately such as:
x
the prime contractor or vehicle owner who is broadly responsible under the legislation
for the condition of the dangerous goods consigned and the provision of appropriate
information;
x
the driver who is legally responsible for the control of the vehicle transporting the
dangerous goods;
x
where appropriate, other parties are made accountable under the law such as
consignors, packers, loaders, and so on, the ‘players’ at various points in the dangerous
goods supply chain;
x
the role and duties of the Competent Authorities (determinations, exemptions and
approvals); and
x
the requirements for licensing.
The new Model Subordinate Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail
replaces the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997 and the Rail
(Dangerous Goods) Rules and reflects changes to the technical Code.
Changes in the 7th Edition of the Code are reflected in the new Model Subordinate Law.
1
Note: Dangerous goods include chemicals and substances such as petroleum, kerosene, liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG), and other dangerous materials such as ammonium nitrate fertiliser, batteries, infectious
substances, and corrosive materials.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
1.3
Page 3
The Dangerous Goods Act
The Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995 (Commonwealth) established
the broad regulatory framework for the transport of dangerous goods. The Act
x
sets out what constitutes the ‘dangerous goods’ which fall under this regulatory
regime;
x
sets out the powers of authorised officers;
x
provides the ability to appoint Competent Authorities to administer and enforce
dangerous goods legislation;
x
provides the ability to allow exemptions from the regulations;
x
provides the ability to grant power to a court to exclude a person from transporting
dangerous goods (by road and rail); and
x
provides a mechanism to manage serious offences and breaches of the dangerous goods
regulations.
The Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail replaces the Road
Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995.
The Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail complements
changes in the Model Subordinate Law (the Regulations).
In this document the Act is referred to as the Model Law.
2 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AUSTRALIAN DANGEROUS GOODS
CODE
Although the structure of the regulatory framework has not changed, changes made to the
Australian Dangerous Goods Code through the adoption of the UN Model Regulations 14
have resulted in consequential changes to both the Model Subordinate Law (the
Regulations) and to the Model Law (the Act).
The 7th Edition of the Code:
x
adopts the format, definitions, concepts and structure, of UN Model Regulations 13 and
14;
x
integrates both UN and Australian specific requirements into a single document;
x
includes amendments accumulated since 1998 and approved by the Advisory
Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and by the Competent Authorities
Panel; and
x
fully incorporates additional provisions for the transport of infectious substances.
While retaining Australian specific provisions for domestic land transport, the 7th Edition
of the Code more closely aligns with UN Model Regulations 13 and 14, harmonising
Page 4
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
domestic practice as far as possible with these regulations and with the equivalent
international maritime and air codes and regulations.
2.1
Summary of Changes to the Code
The basis of the duties and responsibilities outlined in the regulations are the technical
requirements set out in the Australian Dangerous Goods Code.
The 7th Edition of the Code is substantially expanded. The first seven parts of the Code
contain the UN Model Regulations amended where appropriate for Australian conditions.
The final six parts contain Australian specific requirements updated from the 6th Edition.
Changes to the Code include:
x
changes to structure and format including numbering;
x
the incorporation of new definitions, terminology and concepts;
x
a re-arranged and very comprehensive Dangerous Goods List;
x
a very comprehensive set of packing and packaging instructions and requirements;
x
a set of new requirements for the transport of infectious substances;
x
the incorporation of three concepts to manage the transport of small quantities of
dangerous goods e.g. limited quantities, retail distribution load, and tools of trade;
x
updated marking and labeling requirements;
x
the inclusion of Class 9 substances (Environmentally Hazardous Substances dangerous
to the aquatic environment).
2.2
Changes to Format and Structure
Due to the considerable differences in layout and drafting style between UN Model
Regulations 13 and 14 and the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 6th Edition, a significant
proportion of the Australian sourced content has been rewritten for consistency.
The 7th Edition has been developed as a three volume document integrating UN and
Australian specific requirements for land transport.
Volume 1 comprises Parts 1-4 which cover general provisions, definitions,
interpretation, classification of substances, the Dangerous Goods List, packing and
tank provisions.
Volume 2 comprises Parts 5-13 which cover consignment procedures; requirements
for the construction and testing of packaging, transport operations provisions,
stowage and restraint of loads, segregation, transfer of fluid and bulk solid dangerous
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 5
goods; documentation requirements; safety equipment, transport procedures and
appendices.
Volume 3 comprises the new Model Subordinate Law on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail (the Regulations).
An accompanying information guide provides assistance in understanding the structure of
the new Code, and readily identifies any significant changes to both the technical
requirements of the Code and to changes in duties and responsibilities under the new
Model Subordinate Law.
Australian specific requirements retained from the 6th Edition and not covered by the UN
Model Regulations include:
x
the design, approval and use of road and rail tank vehicles;
x
standards and use of freight containers;
x
testing of inner packagings;
x
segregation within loads;
x
separation of dangerous goods loads on trains;
x
placarding with emergency information panels (including Intermediate Bulk
Containers);
x
provision of emergency information;
x
bulk transfer of liquids and solids;
x
safety equipment; and
x
procedures required during transport.
The 7th Edition makes use of the UN clause numbering system which goes up to 5 decimal
points.
Where UN clauses are not used in the 7th Edition the numbers have been retained but
marked as “Reserved”. This will prevent possible mis-interpretation by inadvertent reading
of irrelevant UN clauses. Existing or additional Australian requirements are incorporated
at the appropriate numbering level.
Part 7 of the Code now contains operational provisions applicable to all modes of
transport, Australian specific general provisions for transporting and offering for transport;
special provisions applicable to some types of dangerous goods; special provisions for the
transport of nominally empty packagings and containers; and Australian specific
requirements for Retail Distribution Loads which replace the concessions for Consumer
Commodity Loads in 1.2.1 of the 6th Edition.
Part 8 addresses stowage and restraint on or in a transport unit, makes numerous references
to the ‘Load Restraint Guide’, and contains requirements for the restraint of portable
transport units on vehicles.
A section on Segregation Devices (Chapter 9.3) has been incorporated into section 4.4.5
with specifications located in Chapter 6.11.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 6
Part 10 of the Code entitled ‘Bulk Transfer of Dangerous Goods’ has been extended to
cover the transfer of solids as well as liquids and gases.
The supplements to the 6th Edition have been included as annexes, schedules or clauses in
the 7th Edition or in some cases incorporated into the body of the Code e.g.
The Code of Practice for the Reprocessing of Closed Head Steel Drums in the
Nominal Capacity Range of 200-220 Litres (November 1992) is now located in
Appendix D of the 7th Edition. It includes a pictorial guide to assist in drum selection.
The supplement to the 6th Edition entitled ‘Specifications for Segregation Devices’
(June 2000) is now incorporated into Chapter 9.3 of the 7th Edition.
The remaining supplement on Intermediate Bulk Containers has been included
through adoption of UN Parts 4 and 6 and is fully covered in the 7th Edition.
Emergency Action Codes formerly known as Hazchem Codes are located in
Appendix C.
The Dangerous Goods List is located in Part 3 of the Code.
The 7th Edition now contains four Appendices:
Appendix A
Goods Too Dangerous to be Transported
Appendix B
Forms
Appendix C
Emergency Action Codes
Appendix D
Code of Practice for Reprocessing Steel Drums
Segregation and Stowage
Transfer of Bulk Dangerous Goods
8.
9.
15. Attachment 1 – Road Transport Reform
(Dangerous Goods) Regulations
14. Schedule 1 –Rail (Dangerous Goods)
Rules
13. Emergencies
12. Procedures during Transport
11. Safety Equipment
10. Documentation
Vehicles
7.
6. Marking and Placarding
5. Unit Loads
4. Freight Containers
3. Bulk Containers
Alphabetical Index of Substances and Articles
Appendix B Glossary of Terms
Appendix A List of generic and N.O.S. proper
shipping names
Table of Correspondence with IAEA
7. Provisions Concerning Transport
Operations
6. Requirements for the Construction and
Testing of Packagings, IBCs, Large
Packagings, Portable Tanks, Multiple Element
Gas Containers and Bulk Containers
5. Consignment Procedures
4. Packing and Tank Provisions
Volume 2:
Page 7
11. Documentation
10. Transfer of Fluid and Bulk Solid Dangerous
Goods
9. Segregation
8. Stowage and Restraint
7. Provisions Concerning Transport Operations
6. Requirements for the Construction and Testing
of Packagings, IBCs, Large Packagings, Portable
Tanks, Multiple Element Gas Containers, Bulk
Containers, Tank Vehicles, Freight Containers and
Segregation Devices
5. Consignment Procedures —including labelling,
marking and placarding
Volume 2:
4. Packing, Tank, Container and Vehicle Provisions
3. Dangerous Goods List, Special Provisions and
Limited Quantities Exceptions
2. Classification
1. General Provisions, Definitions, and
Interpretation
2. Classification
2. Packaging
2. Classification and other Key Concepts
3. Dangerous Goods List and Limited
Quantities Exceptions
Information Guide to the Australian Dangerous
Goods Code 7th Edition
1. General Provisions, Definitions, and
Training
Interpretation and Application
1.
Volume 1:
Structure of the 7th Edition
Volume 1:
Structure of UN Model Regulations 13
Volume 1:
Structure of the 6th Edition
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Appendix A – Goods too Dangerous to be
Transported
Appendix B - Forms
Appendix 1 – Numerical list of Dangerous
Goods
Appendix 2 – Alphabetical list of Dangerous
Goods
Appendix 9 – List of Common Pesticides with
corresponding UN numbers.
Appendix 8 – List of Generic or NOS Proper
Shipping Names
Appendix 7 - List of currently assigned
Organic Peroxides
Appendix 6 – List of currently assigned SelfReactive Substances
Appendix 5 – Goods too Dangerous to be
Transported
Appendix 4 – Hazchem Codes
Page 8
Model Subordinate Law on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail
(the Regulations)
Volume 3:
Appendix D - Code of Practice for Reprocessing
Steel Drums
Appendix C – Emergency Action Codes
13. Procedures during Road Transport
Technical Appendices
Appendix 3 – List of Special Provisions
12. Safety Equipment for Road Vehicles
Volume 2:
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
2.3
Page 9
Changes to Definitions and Terminology
UN definitions have been used to the extent possible in the 7th Edition and in the
accompanying Model Subordinate Law. Where a term takes its ordinary meaning in the
Code or the model legislation it is not defined e.g. this applies to the use of the term
‘article’ and of the term ‘container’. When these terms are used they are used with a
qualifier e.g. freight container, intermediate bulk container, bulk container and multiple
element gas container.
2.3.1 Redefinition of ‘Packaged’ and ‘Bulk’
In the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition, the distinction between ‘packaged
dangerous goods’ and ‘dangerous goods in bulk’ has been removed entirely as a result of
the adoption of UN Model Regulations 13 and 14. UN Model Regulations use a ‘container’
based approach rather than the ‘quantity’ based approach of the Australian Dangerous
Goods Code 6th Edition. This means the concept of ‘bulk’ no longer exists in the 7th
Edition.
The UN defines packagings as: “Packagings are receptacles and any other components or
materials necessary for the receptacle to perform its containment function.”
There is no upper size limit to what constitutes packaged dangerous goods.
The Code defines the term ‘packaging’ as follows:
1.2.1.2.6.2 Packagings are the receptacles in which the goods are received or held for
transport, and includes anything that enables the receptacle:
(a) to receive or hold the goods; or
(b) to be closed.
Note: This broad definition of packagings aligns with the concept, if not the wording, of UN
14. However in this Code, consistent with UN 14, the word ‘packaging’ is not used in such a
way that it includes articles, cylinders, pressure receptacles, MEGCs, tanks, bulk containers
or freight containers.
The Model Subordinate Law defines the term ‘packaging’ as follows:
4.1.2 Packages and packaging
(1) A package of dangerous goods or other goods is the complete product of the packing of
the goods for transport, and consists of the goods and their packaging.
(2) The packaging of the goods is the container in which the goods are received or held for
transport, and includes anything that enables the container:
(a) to receive or hold the goods; or
(b) to be closed. (2.7, amd)
Note 1 It may be that the container constitutes the whole of the packaging as in the case of a
drum in which is directly placed dangerous goods.
Note 2 Unlike in UN publications relating to the transport of dangerous goods, the term
packaging is used in {this subordinate law} in its ordinary meaning. As such, packaging
includes inner, outer and composite packaging; overpacks and large packaging; IBCs;
MEGCs; tanks; bulk and freight containers; drums; barrels; jerricans; boxes and bags.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 10
In some cases definitions in the model legislation may vary slightly from those in the Code
in order for the legislation to have force.
2.3.2
Containers
Containers are now divided into 4 groups:
-
packagings, including IBCs and large packagings (Chapter 4.1);
-
portable tanks and multiple-element gas containers (Chapter 4.2);
-
bulk containers for solids (Chapter 4.3); and
-
tank vehicles (Chapter 4.4).
The relevant packing instruction(s) for a particular substance is determined by reference to
the Dangerous Goods list and to Part 4 of the Code which provides detailed packing
instructions for the different types of containers within these groups.
2.3.3
Redefinition of Bulk Container
In earlier editions of the Code, the term ‘bulk container’ referred to containers over 450
litres and up to 1,000 litres or 3 cubic metres in size, portable tanks (6.1 metres in length),
demountable tanks and load compartments of vehicles for solid dangerous goods. In the
6th Edition a ‘bulk container’ was effectively any container capable of transporting
‘dangerous goods in bulk’.
In UN Model Regulations 13 and 14 the term ‘bulk container’ is restricted to containers for
bulk solids only. Bulk containers are defined as:
….’ containment systems (including any liner or coating) intended for the transport of
solid substances which are in direct contact with the containment system. Packagings,
intermediate bulk containers (IBCs), large packagings and portable tanks are not
included.’…
Bulk containers are:
-
of a permanent character and accordingly strong enough to be suitable for repeated
use;
-
specially designed to facilitate the transport of goods by one or more means of
transport without intermediate reloading;
-
fitted with devices permitting its ready handling;
-
have a capacity of not less than 1.0 m3.
In the 7th Edition and in the Model Subordinate Law, the term ‘bulk container’ now refers
to freight containers, offshore bulk containers, skips, bulk bins, trough shaped containers,
roller containers, load compartments of vehicles etc.
Bulk containers must only be used for substances for which there is a Bulk Container
Instruction in the Dangerous Goods List.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 11
Intermediate bulk containers, large packagings and portable tanks are not treated as ‘bulk
containers’.
2.3.4
Redefinition of Intermediate Bulk Container
Intermediate Bulk Containers are now treated as big packagings or receptacles.
An intermediate bulk container is defined as a rigid or flexible portable packaging for the
transport of dangerous goods. An intermediate bulk container:
(a) has a capacity of not more than:
(i) for solids of Packing Group I packed in a composite, fibreboard, flexible, wooden, or rigid
plastics container — 1 500 litres; and
(ii) for solids of Packing Group I packed in a metal container — 3 000 litres; and
(iii) for solids or liquids of Packing Groups II and III — 3 000 litres; and
(iv) for any other dangerous goods — 3,000 litres; and
(b) is designed for mechanical handling.
An Intermediate Bulk Container must be designed for mechanical handling, and should be
resistant to stresses produced during the course of handling and transport.
Rigid or flexible portable packaging complying with the requirements of Chapter 6.1, 6.3
or 6.6 of the 7th Edition of the Code are not Intermediate Bulk Containers.
2.3.5
Definition of a Large Packaging
th
The 7 Edition of the Code introduces the UN concept of a large packaging.
A large packaging means an outer packaging that:
(a) is designed for mechanical handling; and
(b) has a capacity of not more than 3 cubic metres; and
(c) is intended to contain articles or inner packagings with
(i) a net mass of more than 400kg; or (ii) capacities totalling more than 450 litres.
The use of large packagings is mainly restricted to articles, solids and liquids of Packing
Group III, packed in inner packagings. These packagings may only be used where there is
a Packing Instruction prefixed ‘LP’ applied to the particular dangerous goods in Column
(8) of the Dangerous Goods List.
2.3.6
Definition of an Overpack
Chapter 6 in the 6th Edition of the Code discussed the grouping of packages into unit loads.
This term has now been replaced in the 7th Edition with the term overpack. (Section 5.1.2).
An overpack refers to an enclosure used to contain one or more packages to form one unit
for convenience of handling and stowage during transport.
Examples of overpacks are a number of packages either:
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 12
(a) placed or stacked on to a load board such as a pallet and secured by strapping,
shrink wrapping, stretch wrapping, or other suitable means; or
(b) placed in a protective outer packaging such as a box or crate.
2.3.7
Definition of a Placardable Unit
A placardable unit is defined in the Code as:
any large receptacle or other large item such as a pressure drum, MEGC or demountable
tank, that individually has a capacity of 500 kg(L) or more, other than:
(a) a transport unit; or
(b) a large packaging meeting the requirements of Chapter 6.6; or
(c) an overpack used in accordance with Section 5.1.2; or
(d) a segregation device meeting the requirements of Chapter 6.11.
2.3.8
Definition of a Cylinder
The Code defines a cylinder as follows:
Cylinders are transportable pressure receptacles of a water capacity not exceeding 150 litres.
As a result of this change the current Australian Standard will need to be updated.
2.3.9
Definition of a Multiple Element Gas Container
A multiple element gas container or an MEGC is an assembly of UN cylinders, tubes or
bundles of cylinders interconnected by a manifold and assembled within a framework.
This concept has been incorporated into the 7th Edition with the introduction of ISO
standards for pressure receptacles.
2.3.10 Definition of a Retail Distribution Load
A load that includes dangerous goods is a retail distribution load if it has all of the
following characteristics:
(a)
all dangerous goods in the load are packed in accordance with either Chapter 3.4, or
the Packing Instructions referenced from Column 8 of the Dangerous Goods List and
any applicable Special Packing Provisions from Column 9 for the particular dangerous
goods, and
(b)
except where otherwise permitted by Clause 7.3.1.2, no dangerous goods inner
packaging or article is larger than the limited quantity specified for the dangerous
goods in Column 7 of the Dangerous Goods List; and
(c)
the dangerous goods are packed and distributed in a form intended or suitable for sale
through retail agencies for consumption by individuals for purposes of personal care or
household use; and
(d)
the aggregate quantity of dangerous goods in the load does not exceed 20% of the total
quantity of goods in the load; and
(e)
the aggregate quantity of dangerous goods in the transport unit does not exceed 2000
kg(L); and
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
(f)
Page 13
the load does not include dangerous goods of Division 6.1 or Class 8 other than those
that are packed and suitable for household use, such as:
(i) domestic pest control products; and
(ii) personal care products; and
(iii) domestic cleaning products;
(g) all the goods in the transport unit are consigned to or from:
(i) a retail distribution centre; or
(ii) a retail outlet.
The key characteristics are that the aggregate quantity of dangerous goods in the load is no
greater than 20% of the total quantity of goods in the load; and the aggregate quantity of
dangerous goods in the transport unit does not exceed 2,000 kg(L).
2.3.11 Definition of a Transport Unit
The term transport unit now refers to either a vehicle; a portable tank; a bulk container; or
a freight container.
The new definitions in the Code are reflected in the model legislation, however, in some
cases definitions in the model legislation may vary from those in the Code in order for the
legislation to have force.
2.4
Changes to Technical Requirements
The public consultation version of the draft 7th Edition omitted classification content for
Classes 1 and 7, the 3 x 1,000 IBC exemption from the 6th Edition, and the requirement to
have Emergency Information Panels on containers and Intermediate Bulk Containers.
Since public comment was received these decisions have been reversed. The end result is a
7th Edition more in line with the 6th Edition and with very few significant changes to
technical requirements or to underlying policy.
2.4.1
Classes 1 & 7
Chapters 2.1 and 2.7 from the UN Model Regulations 14 are now included in the
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition for the sake of completeness, for
classification purposes and to manage these goods on the few occasions when they are
being transported with other dangerous goods.
Provision 1.1.8 of the Model Subordinate Law reads as follows:
1.1.7 Application to transport by road and rail
(2) {This subordinate law} does not apply to the transport by road or rail or both rail and
road of dangerous goods of UN Class 1 (explosives) or UN Class 7 (radioactive)
except when being transported with other dangerous goods.
The Code explicitly states that it does not regulate the transport of either explosives or
radio-actives. Chapter 2.0 states:
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 14
Note
This Part provides the rules for classifying all classes of dangerous goods including Class 1
and Class 7 dangerous goods which are not subject to the Regulations except and insofar as
they are transported with other dangerous goods. Chapters 2.1 and 2.7 are therefore
provided for information purposes only. For Classes 1 and 7, reference should be made to
the Australian Explosives Code or the Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive
Substances as appropriate and the legislation covering transport of those classes in the
particular jurisdiction.
In effect, there is no change from the 6th Edition.
2.4.2
Goods too Dangerous to be Transported
th
In the 6 Edition this information was presented in Volume 2. Similarly, in the 7th Edition
the listing of Goods Too Dangerous To Be Transported is retained as an Appendix
(Appendix A) which will allow for ease of maintenance. Including these substances in the
main Dangerous Goods List in Part 3 would increase the potential for error and
maintenance would be a lot more onerous. Note this listing is not exhaustive.
Minor changes to the model legislation are outlined below.
2.4.3
Class 9 (Miscellaneous Dangerous Substances and Articles)
Due to the introduction of acute aquatic toxicity to the classification criteria for Class 9,
through the incorporation of Chapter 2.9 of UN 14, many substances exempt from
classification under previous editions of the Code have been classified by the 7th Edition as
dangerous goods of Class 9, specifically UN3077 and UN3082, Environmentally
Hazardous Substances, Solid or Liquid.
Submissions from the agricultural and veterinary sectors (CropLife Australia Limited
(formerly Avcare), the National Farmers Federation, the Grains Council of Australia,
Workplace Services South Australia, and others) were concerned about the inclusion of
herbicides and pesticides (environmentally hazardous substances) in Class 9.
Class 9 substances were originally incorporated in the UN Model Regulations to regulate
the transport of dangerous goods by inland waterway in Europe. However, spills of
dangerous goods of Class 9 can have a cumulative long term effect on scarce and valuable
water resources in a dry country such as Australia hence there is strong justification for
incorporating these substances into the 7th Edition of the Code.
However, to maintain the status quo in the 7th Edition except where these materials are
transported in tanks or bulk containers, a special provision has been inserted into Chapter
3.3 indicating that those substances assigned to UN3077 & UN3082 including herbicides
and pesticides, will not now be subject to any requirements under the 7th Edition of the Code
when being transported in Intermediate Bulk Containers or other receptacles < 500 kg(L).
Code
SP AU01 Environmentally Hazardous Substances meeting the descriptions of UN 3077 or
UN 3082 are not subject to this Code when transported by road or rail in;
(a) packagings;
(b) IBCs; or
(c) any other receptacle not exceeding 500 kg(L).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 15
Apart from substances assigned to UN3077 and UN3082, insurance and placarding will be
required for the transport of dangerous goods in Intermediate Bulk Containers if the
individual receptacles have a capacity greater than 500 kg(L) or the aggregate amount
being transported is a placard load. Licensing will, however, only be required for such
loads where the aggregate quantity in the Intermediate Bulk Containers is greater than
3,000 kg(L). Insurance will be at the same level as the same size aggregate load of
dangerous goods in packages.
In effect the status quo is maintained.
Waste substances now regulated under the 7th Edition are limited to those waste products
which are classified as dangerous goods.
Two other substances of note which have been added under Class 9 are UN3359 –
Fumigated Units and UN3363 – Dangerous Goods in Machinery or Apparatus.
2.4.4
The Dangerous Goods List)
A number of changes have been made to the Dangerous Goods List as follows:
(a)
In the 7th Edition, the Dangerous Goods List is now incorporated into the body of the
Code. In line with UN Model Regulations 13 and 14 and other international modal
codes, technical details about dangerous goods are now incorporated in the numerical
listing (Chapter 3.2.3), rather than in the alphabetical listing (Chapter 3.2.4) as in
previous versions of the Code.
(d)
Column 9 – Properties and Observations has not been reproduced in the 7th Edition
since it is not part of the UN system. Much of this information is now provided by
the Special provisions in Chapter 3.3 referenced from Column 6.
(e)
The term ‘Sulfur’ (6th edition) has been replaced with the term ‘Sulphur’.
(f)
The word ‘Inhibited’, where included in Proper Shipping Names, has been replaced
by the term ‘Stabilized’.
(g)
Additional UN Numbers have been added to the list. These are UN3357 to UN3468
inclusive, with the exceptions of UN3372, UN3412 and UN3463.
(h)
The following UN Numbers have been removed from the Dangerous Goods List:
0223*, 2003, 2068*, 2069*, 2070*, 2072*, 2530, 3049, 3050, 3203, 3207 & 3353.
However, although deleted from UN Model Regulations 14 and the 7th Edition,
deleted substances have been assigned to the following Special Provision to allow for
a period of transition between the 6th and 7th Editions of the Code:
AU05
The use of UN Nos. 1014, 1015, 1079, 1080, 1081 and 2600 should be fully phased out over
the life of this Code. Whilst they were included in UN 13, they have been deleted from UN
14. They may, however, still be valid under the ICAO Rules, IATA Regulations or IMDG
Code for at least some of the life of this Code.
Page 16
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Substances and articles previously transported under these numbers will need to be
assigned to the most appropriate current number and proper shipping name, using the
rules in Chapter 3.1 of the Code.
UN 2054 Morpholine has been reassigned from Class 3, (no Sub-risk, PG III) to
Class 8, (Sub-risk 3, PG I).
2.4.5
Australianisms
On labeling and marking of dangerous goods loads, Australian names such as ‘LP GAS
[AUST], PETROLEUM FUEL [AUST]’ or MINERAL FUEL [AUST]’ are retained in the
7th Edition in place of the proper shipping name for inclusion on packaging, Emergency
Information Panels and transport documentation. Conditions are included on the use of
these [AUST] entries. The use of `UN 1270 PETROLEUM FUEL [AUST]’ is restricted to
use on a Mixed Load EIP only.
Most [AUST] entries are expected to be phased out over the life of the 7th Edition.
2.4.6
Emergency Action Codes
The Hazchem Code, now known as the Emergency Action Codes, will be retained as an
Appendix in the 7th Edition (Appendix C).
When dangerous goods are transported in portable tanks, demountable tanks, bulk
containers or tank vehicles the relevant Emergency Action Codes must be displayed on the
Emergency Information Panel. These codes provide information on the recommended
initial emergency response in a dangerous situation such as a leak, spill or fire.
The UK body responsible for the maintenance of the Emergency Action Codes--the Fire
and Resilience Directorate, Department for Communities and Local Government, UK--has
made some changes recently. These changes have been incorporated into the 7th Edition:
x
reverse print codes have been dropped – breathing apparatus is now used for all
incidents;
x
a bullet has been adopted to indicate alcohol resistant foam;
x
there has been a change in what constitutes protection when handling incidents. In
the 6th Edition, Codes P R W and X indicated ‘Full Protective Clothing’. In the 7th
Edition, the term ‘full protective clothing’ refers to ‘Liquid-tight Chemical Protective
Clothing and Breathing Apparatus’.
x
In the 6th Edition, Codes S T Y and Z indicated ‘Breathing Apparatus’. In the 7th
Edition, this refers to ‘Full Fire Kit and Breathing Apparatus’.
Further advice is provided that, where an Emergency Action Code includes P R W or
X, Fire Kit may also be required for thermal protection for some substances e.g.
liquefied toxic gases.
x
The flow diagrams providing guidance on the allocation of Hazchem codes have
been removed from the Code. The diagrams in the 6th Edition and in the public
comment draft of the 7th Edition were not consistent with the above changes.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 17
Updated information provided by the Fire & Resilience Directorate, UK was not
suitable for incorporation. The NTC recognises that since Emergency Action Codes
have been specified by the UK for all applicable substances in the listing in Appendix
C there will be little if any real need for these diagrams by users of this Code.
x
Finally, the correct Emergency Action Code for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (UN 1075)
is 2YE not 2WE, in recognition that thermal protection (both from fire and the
extreme cold resulting from escaping gas), together with breathing protection, is far
more appropriate than an encapsulating chemical suit providing little thermal
protection. This change was made several years ago in the UK but to date has not
been adopted in Australia.
As a result of these changes Emergency Information Panels on tank vehicles transporting
Liquefied Petroleum Gas will need to be updated.
2.4.7
Australian Specific Special Provisions
A number of special provisions have been inserted into Part 3 of the Code to address
specific Australian conditions and providing exemptions for or prohibitions on the
transport of certain goods:
AU01
Environmentally Hazardous Substances meeting the descriptions of UN 3077 or UN 3082
are not subject to this Code when transported by road or rail in;
(a) packagings;
(b) IBCs; or
(c) any other receptacle not exceeding 500 kg(L).
AU02
GAS OIL or DIESEL OIL or HEATING OIL, LIGHT or PETROLEUM DISTILLATE is
not subject to this Code if it does not meet the criteria of Chapter 2.3 for assignment to Class
3; i.e. if the flash point is more than 60 °C and the substance is not offered for transport at a
temperature above its flash point. Such substances will normally be C1 combustible liquids
which are not classified as dangerous goods for transport purposes.. However, the presence
of a C1 combustible liquid in one or more compartments of a tank vehicle or portable tank
transporting other refined petroleum products must be considered when determining the
application of UN Number 1270 in accordance with 3.2.5.4 and 5.3.1.3.3.
AU03
The transport of un-odorized LP Gas is prohibited unless approved by the competent
authority.
AU04
Natural ‘greasy wool’ fleece and bales are not subject to this Code.
AU05
The use of UN Nos. 1014, 1015, 1079, 1080, 1081 and 2600 should be fully phased out over
the life of this Code. Whilst they were included in UN 13, they have been deleted from UN
14. They may, however, still be valid under the ICAO Rules, IATA Regulations or IMDG
Code for at least some of the life of this Code.
AU06
GMMOs and GMOs to which 2.9.2.2 applies are not subject to this Code.
Page 18
2.4.8
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Infectious Substances
A supplement to the 6th Edition of the Code ‘Guidance Notes for the Transport of Class 6.2
(Infectious Substances) Dangerous Goods’ (Nov 1997) provided information on the
transport of infectious substances.
Part 2 of the 7th Edition of the Code now incorporates requirements from UN Model
Regulations 13 and 14 and from the original supplement for the transport of these
substances.
Infectious substances are those substances known or reasonably expected to contain
pathogens which can cause infectious disease in people or animals. Commonly occurring
infectious substances include live viruses, infectious diagnostic specimens and those
clinical wastes with a high infection risk.
The majority of infectious substances transported in Australia are clinical wastes. These
materials are generally controlled by health or environment protection authorities.
In 1999 amendments were made to the Commonwealth legislation to exclude controls for
dangerous goods of Division 6.2 (infectious substances) due to administrative issues
related to the introduction of template legislation in the ACT which are no longer relevant.
Up to now, infectious substances such as live viruses and infectious diagnostic specimens
have not been controlled for land transport in Australia except in NSW and Queensland.
Instead, the transport of infectious substances has been managed through these guidance
notes. Other codes regulate the transport of these substances by air and by sea.
The Advisory Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods was concerned that the
transport of some infectious substances, particularly infectious diagnostic specimens, was
not being effectively controlled in Australia. The transport industry and emergency
services also expressed concern.
In 2002 the committee reviewed the dangerous goods controls. It recommended that the
earlier decision to exclude infectious substances be rescinded and that regulations
governing the transport of infectious substances be included in the next revision of the
dangerous goods legislation with requirements incorporated into the 7th Edition of the
Code.
Division 6.2 is divided into two main risk categories:
–
Category A where exposure may lead to permanent disability, life-threatening or
fatal disease to humans or animals (UN 2814 affecting humans, UN 2900 affecting
animals); including cultures and Medical or Clinical Wastes from these substances;
–
Category B infectious substances that do not meet the criteria for Category A,
including (UN 3373 Diagnostic or Clinical Specimens);
–
Clinical Waste Unspecified, Biomedical Waste and Regulated Medical Waste are
assigned to UN 3291; and
–
Diagnostic or clinical specimens are assigned to UN3373.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 19
The definition of a placard load now includes:
x
a load containing any quantity of Category A of Division 6.2; or
x
a load containing an aggregate quantity of at least 10 kg(L) of Division 6.2 other than
Category A.
The public consultation draft also included an aggregate quantity of at least 10 kg(L) of
clinic wastes as a trigger for placarding requirements based on requirements derived from
UN13, however, UN 14 treats clinical wastes and diagnostic specimens differently.
A number of submissions on the public consultation draft, including one from the Royal
College of Pathologists of Australia queried the definitions for Class 6.2. Australia Post
raised concerns about the categories provided for infectious substances, the limits which
trigger placarding and licensing, the restrictive requirements for the transport of Class 6.2,
and the current lack of a suitable packaging standard for transport of these and diagnostic
specimens (UN 3373). The last issue was of particular concern with pathology and
veterinary services outside larger cities often using the general postal carrier to transport
these substances.
Revisions incorporated from UN Model Regulations 14 include changes to the description
of Category B, changes to the treatment of clinical wastes, and the explicit exemption of
routine pathology specimens from requirements under the 7th Edition.
The Code contains the following provisions based on UN14 amendments:
2.6.3.2.2.1
Category A: An infectious substance which is transported in a form that, when exposure to it
occurs, is capable of causing permanent disability, life-threatening or fatal disease in
otherwise healthy humans or animals. Indicative examples of substances that meet these
criteria are given in the table in this paragraph.
2.6.3.2.2.2
Category B: An infectious substance which does not meet the criteria for inclusion in
Category A. Infectious substances in Category B must be assigned to UN 3373, except for
medical or clinical wastes containing infectious substances in Category B (see 2.6.3.5).
2.6.3.5
Medical or clinical wastes
2.6.3.5.1
Medical or clinical wastes containing Category A infectious substances must be assigned to
UN 2814 or UN 2900 as appropriate. Medical or clinical wastes containing infectious
substances in Category B must be assigned to UN 3291.
2.6.3.5.2
Medical or clinical wastes which are reasonably believed to have a low probability of
containing infectious substances must be assigned to UN 3291.
NOTE: The proper shipping name for UN 3291 is "CLINICAL WASTE, UNSPECIFIED,
N.O.S." or "(BIO) MEDICAL WASTE, N.O.S" or "REGULATED MEDICAL WASTE,
N.O.S."
2.6.3.5.3
Decontaminated medical or clinical wastes which previously contained infectious substances
are not subject to this Code unless they meet the criteria for inclusion in another class.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 20
Blood known to contain HIV, Hepatitis A, B and C is now considered a diagnostic
specimen whereas under the 6th Edition it was considered an infectious substance.
Specimens containing HIV and Hepatitis A, B and C are infectious only in culture form.
Under UN Model Regulations diagnostic specimens and substances are subject to
regulations only when they present a significant risk of infection.
Provision 2.6.3.2.3 in the Code now provides a list of those substances which are not
subject to the requirements of the 7th Edition including diagnostic specimens:
2.6.3.2.3 Exemptions
2.6.3.2.3.1 Substances which do not contain infectious substances or substances which are
unlikely to cause disease in humans or animals are not subject to this Code unless they meet
the criteria for inclusion in another class.
NOTE: Examples of such substances not subject to this Code are Diagnostic specimens
resulting from medical practice (specimens being transported from a doctor's office or
surgery to a laboratory, from a hospital to a diagnostic laboratory or from one laboratory to
another, except where it is being transported to determine if an infectious substance is
present) medical research, veterinary practice or plant material being transported to a
diagnostic laboratory.
Other exemptions include:
substances containing non-pathogenic microorganisms, substances with neutralized
pathogens, environmental samples, blood samples or blood collected for transfusion
or tissues or organs collected for transplants, medical research samples, veterinary
practice, plant or environmental material being transported to a diagnostic laboratory.
UN 14 requirements also address concerns about packaging.
The transport of infectious substances deemed exempt from 7th Edition requirements is
conditional upon the following packaging requirements being met:
2.6.3.2.3.6
Human or animal specimens for which there is minimal likelihood that pathogens are present
are not subject to this Code if the specimen is transported in a packaging which will prevent
any leakage and which is marked with the words "Exempt human specimen" or "Exempt
animal specimen", as appropriate. The packaging should meet the following conditions:
(a) The packaging should consist of three components:
(i) a leak-proof primary receptacle(s);
(ii) a leak-proof secondary packaging; and
(iii) an outer packaging of adequate strength for its capacity, mass and intended use, and with
at least one surface having minimum dimensions of 100 mm × 100 mm;
(b) For liquids, absorbent material in sufficient quantity to absorb the entire contents should
be placed between the primary receptacle(s) and the secondary packaging so that, during
transport, any release or leak of a liquid substance will not reach the outer packaging and
will not compromise the integrity of the cushioning material;
(c) When multiple fragile primary receptacles are placed in a single secondary packaging,
they should be either individually wrapped or separated to prevent contact between them.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 21
An additional packing instruction P62A has been included for clinical wastes assigned to
UN 3291, of Division 6.2 which are transported in dedicated vehicles specifically designed
and built to carry clinical waste over land and which have been approved by the competent
authority.
Additional requirements
Packagings intended to contain sharp objects such as broken glass and needles must meet all
the requirements of P620, IBC620 or LP621, be resistant to puncture, retain liquids under the
performance test conditions in Chapter 6.1 and comply with AS 4031, AS/NZS 4261 or AS
4939 as applies.
For packages containing larger quantities of liquid, rigid packagings must meet the
requirements of Chapter 6.1 at the packing group II performance level for liquids.
In summary, in the 6th Edition, any load of dangerous goods containing Class 6.2 was
considered a placard load and subject to placarding, licensing and insurance requirements.
(Regulation 2.13)
In the 7th Edition, the single change in the placard load from the 6th Edition relates to the
transport of Infectious Substances of UN Division 6.2 other than Category A. If a quantity
of 10 kg(L) or more of these substances is being transported then that load is subject to
placarding, and as a result to licensing and insurance requirements. Non-infectious
diagnostic specimens are exempt from the requirements of the Code.
The end result is a change from guidance notes to explicit model regulations to manage the
transport of these substances.
2.4.9
Genetically Modified Organisms
The agricultural sector expressed concerns about genetically modified seed/feed products
being classed as dangerous goods even through approved by Food Standards Australia
New Zealand and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator for human consumption.
The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, the competent authority with responsibility
for regulating genetically modified organisms and the Department of Transport and
Regional Services provided comment on this particular issue. Consequently, a provision
has been included in the Code to address concerns as follows:
2.9.2.2
Despite 2.9.2.1, GMMOs or GMOs are not subject to this Code when they are:
(a) licensed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR); or
(b) approved by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ); or
(c) exempt from such licences and approvals under the Gene Technology Act 2000.
The authority for the management of these products will remain with the Office of the
Gene Technology Regulator as requested and the inclusion of this provision will avoid any
conflicts with requirements under the Gene Technology Act 2000 but will still provide for
those genetically modified organisms regarded as dangerous goods for reasons unrelated to
their properties as genetically modified organisms.
Page 22
2.5
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Packing and Packaging
2.5.1
New Approach
The 7th Edition now incorporates detailed UN packaging instructions for each dangerous
substance. The Dangerous Goods List is used to determine what packaging (P, IBC, LP)
must be used to safely transport a particular substance (Section 3.2.3).
Portable Tank and Bulk Container instructions must be checked against the Dangerous
Goods List to determine:
–
if particular dangerous goods are permitted to be transported in portable tanks, bulk
containers or tank vehicles;
–
the types of containers, tanks or vehicles that may be used; and
–
any restrictions on usage.
Packing Instructions then specify the types of packagings, including single packagings,
combination packagings and composite packagings, which may be used for packing the
goods and the maximum capacity or quantity of the goods permitted. For combination
packagings, requirements are specified for both inner and outer packagings.
Section 4.4.5 in the Code now covers the use of Segregation Devices so that all provisions
for the use of packages, other receptacles, transport units etc. are located in Part 4. The
specification of segregation devices is outlined in Chapter 6.11 of the Code.
2.5.2
Pressure Receptacles, Aerosol Dispensers, and Gas Cartridges
Pressure receptacles can now be used for packing liquids and solids as well as gases.
Pressure receptacles and gas cylinders are widely used. Standards developed for cylinders
and other gas receptacles address manufacturing, approval, filling, and use of these
receptacles. General requirements for the design, construction, inspection, testing and
approval of all pressure receptacles are provided in Section 6.2.1.
The 7th Edition now refers to three types of pressure receptacles.
The first type-–UN pressure receptacles (See Section 6.2.2), are constructed in accordance
with specified ISO standards. The 7th Edition now permits a shipper to use an Australian,
US, UK specified cylinder or a UN pressure receptacle made to ISO standards, as
appropriate, for individual gases and circumstances.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 23
Section 6.2.2 of the Code contains the following note:
INTRODUCTORY NOTE:
This Section applies to those cylinders and other pressure receptacles that fully meet the
requirements specified in UN (ISO) pressure receptacles Standards. In Australia, most
cylinders covered by AS 2030 are not UN (ISO) pressure receptacles. Rather they are
Australian Standard [AS], American/Canadian [DOT/CTC] or British Standard [BS]
cylinders. For these, the technical detail of Section 6.2.2 does not apply, as their design and
operational requirements must follow AS 2030 and its subordinate Standards. The
requirements for Non-UN (ISO) pressure receptacles are in Section 6.2.3. Therefore:
x
Cylinders meeting UN (ISO) Standards must comply with Section 6.2.2 and be filled and
used in accordance with Packing Provision P200;
x
All other cylinders must comply with Section 6.2.3 and be filled and used in accordance
with AS 2030 and its subordinate Standards.
With the inclusion of UN standards have come some new concepts further expanding the
range of pressure receptacles permitted under the 7th Edition.
The UN standards refer to:
x
cylinders (pressure receptacles limited to a water capacity of 150 L);
x
tubes (seamless);
x
pressure drums (welded) (pressure receptacles with a water capacity exceeding 150 L
and not more than 3,000 L capacity);
x
cylinder bundles (cylinders held together in a frame and manifolded together with up to
a total water capacity of 3,000L or 1,000L for toxic gases); and
x
multiple element gas containers or MEGCs (assemblies of United Nations cylinders,
tubes or bundles of cylinders interconnected by a manifold and assembled within a
framework).
Australian Standard 2030 (Section 6.2.3 of the 7th Edition) sets out the terms for handling
gas cylinders or pressure receptacles made to Australian Standards. The limits set out by
AS 2030 cannot be exceeded. Another type of pressure cylinder permitted is an aerosol
dispenser and gas cartridge (see Section 6.2.4). The range of permitted receptacles in the
7th Edition is wide ranging as is the referenced standards for the use of these packagings.
To clarify, all pressure receptacles used in Australia are subject to Australian legislation.
The Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition requirements must be read in
conjunction with the pressure vessel legislation applying in that State or Territory which
takes precedence over the requirements of the Code.
In the event of any discrepancy between Australian and international standards, AS 2030
takes precedence over Packing Instruction P200 (Section 4.1.4.1) which refers to UN
pressure vessels made to ISO standards.
The growing volume of hazardous materials transported internationally warrants the
harmonisation of domestic and international requirements to the greatest extent possible.
The inclusion of a range of standards including the UN standards provides greater
flexibility for the movement of dangerous goods in these receptacles. The 7th Edition
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 24
permits a broader selection of pressure receptacles, the use of advanced technology for the
manufacture of pressure receptacles, and reduces the need for special permits. The
inclusion of these standards will ease the international movement of transportable pressure
vessels while maintaining safety levels especially where industry is importing quantities of
dangerous goods in packaging made to specifications other than Australian standards.
The end result is clarification on what type of ‘packaging’ can be used for transport of a
dangerous substance by providing detailed instructions and additional flexibility by
extending the range of packaging standards permitted under the 7th Edition.
2.6
2.6.1
Labelling, Marking and Placarding
New Approach
th
In the 6 Edition whether the goods were ‘in bulk’ or ‘packaged’ determined placarding
requirements.
In the 7th Edition placarding and labelling requirements are based on the type of containers
or transport units in which the dangerous goods are being transported.
Following the UN approach:
1.
Placarding refers to the placement of Class or Division labels, of the Mixed Class
placard/label and of Emergency Information Panels onto transport units such as
freight containers, portable tanks, bulk containers or vehicles.
2.
Label/Labelling refers to the application of Class or Division labels, including
Subsidiary Risk labels, to a single, outer or inner packaging, and an orientation label
when required.
3.
Marking is used to describe all other information that must be applied to packagings,
large packagings and transport units, such as the Proper Shipping Name, UN Number
and the mark indicating carriage at elevated temperature.
2.6.2
Labelling
Due to the long time frame between the 6th Edition (based on UN Model Regulations 9)
and the 7th Edition (based on UN Model Regulations 13 and 14), in Australia, few changes
have been implemented on signage and labelling. Changes to both the internationally
recognised Dangerous Goods List and the Emergency Action Codes (formerly Hazchem
Codes) take place approximately every 2-3 years and in future updates to the Australian
Dangerous Goods Code will take place more frequently.
Labelling instructions for gas cylinders are provided in the Code. Please note the
dimensions of the labels provided here are the minimum required:
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 25
Table 5.2 Minimum Dimensions of Labels
Class
Class 2
(other than
Aerosols)
Minimum
dimensions
of labels
(mm)
Recommended
minimum size
a
of lettering .
[see 5.2.1.2(d)]
(mm)
Cylinder of outside diameter:
< 75 mm
10 x 10
2.5
> 75 mm < 180 mm
15 x 15
3
> 180 mm
25 x 25
5
100 x 100
7
Package, Packaging or Article
Pressure drum or tube < 500 L c.
Class 2
(Aerosols) b.
All
Aerosol can containing:
< 25 g
10 x 10
2
> 25 g < 0.5 kg
15 x 15
2.5
> 0.5 kg
20 x 20
3
Package or inner packaging containing:
< 0.5 kg(L)
15 x 15
2.5
> 0.5 kg(L) < 5 kg(L)
20 x 20
3
> 5 kg(L) < 25 kg(L)
50 x 50
5
> 25 kg(L)
100 x 100
7
IBC < 500 kg(L) c.
100 x 100
7
Large packaging, overpack, segregation
device
100 x 100
7
Regarding labels in languages other than English, dangerous goods labels contain
internationally recognized symbols and text. The text however is optional under UN
requirements. Some countries still provide this descriptive text with the symbol, whether
this text is in English or another language is immaterial. It is the international symbols
used in these labels which provide the primary means of identification.
The implementation of the 7th Edition will involve some changes to labelling and signage.
However,
x
the model legislation incorporates a transition period of a minimum of 12 months;
x
in a number of cases the 7th Edition provides a transition period for changes in marking
and labelling, sometimes for the lifespan of this edition of the Code, before the new
requirements become statutory; and
x
where absolutely necessary, an application can be made to the Competent Authorities
Panel to extend the timeframe for implementation of new labelling and marking
requirements.
Section 5.2.2.1 Labelling provisions in the Code include some exemptions as follows:
NOTE 2: Labelling in accordance with the provisions of 5.2.2.1 is required on all dangerous
goods packages, cylinders, pressure drums, tubes, MEGCs, IBCs, overpacks and unpackaged
articles, except:
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 26
(a) those IBCs, pressure drums, tubes, MEGCs and articles which are placardable units that
are placarded with emergency information panels in accordance with Chapter 5.3; or
(b) where there is an exemption from labelling in an applicable Special Provision in Chapter
3.3; or
(c) for dangerous goods in limited quantities that are packed and marked in accordance with
Chapter 3.4; or
(d) where permitted in Chapter 7.3 for retail distribution loads.
2.6.3
Marking
The United Nations has introduced special markings for environmentally hazardous
substances UN3077 and UN3082.
AU01 Environmentally Hazardous Substances
meeting the descriptions of UN 3077 or UN 3082 are
not subject to this Code when transported by road or
rail in;
(a) packagings;
(b) IBCs; or
(c) any other receptacle not exceeding 500 kg(L).
Since the 7th Edition has adopted UN Model Regulations 14 requirements, orientation
marking of certain combination and single packagings are now required. Part 5 includes a
transitional provision to permit time for compliance with this new requirement. The
transition period for land transport within Australia is for the life span of the 7th Edition.
However, this marking will be required on packagings for sea or air transport when the
appropriate modal code adopting UN Model Regulations 14 becomes mandatory.
The UN has also introduced mandatory orientation marking (5.2.1.7.4).
However, a provision has been added to allow for transition between the
6th Edition and the 8th Edition of the Code:
5.2.1.7.4 Despite 5.2.1.7.1, orientation marking is not required on
combination packagings described in 5.2.1.7.1(a) or single packagings
described in 5.2.1.7.1(b) that are transported only by road or rail in
accordance with this Code.
A note has been included in 5.2.1.7.4 as follows:
NOTE: Orientation marking of certain combination and single
packagings is a new requirement of UN 14. This marking will be
required on packagings for sea or air transport when the appropriate
modal code adopting UN 14 becomes mandatory. 5.2.1.7.4 provides a
transitional exemption for this edition of this Code.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 27
The new labels for Organic Peroxide should be phased in where possible during the
lifespan of the 7th Edition. The use of the 6th Edition label for this substance will no
longer be permitted in Australia or internationally from 1 January 2011.
ORGANIC
PEROXIDE
ORGANIC
PEROXIDE
5.2
5.2
The Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals is not due
for implementation in Australia until 2008. However, the UN is already implementing this
system via a range of legal instruments. The Globally Harmonised System will be
mandatory under the International Civil Aviation Organisation technical instructions and
under other various international land transport regulatory instruments from 1 January
20072, and under the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code from 1 January 2008.
The 7th Edition will permit Globally Harmonised System (GHS) requirements for the
marking and labelling of inner packagings in lieu of markings specified by the 6th Edition.
This system has not yet been picked up by any Australian legislation or standard so inner
packaging marking has been retained in the 7th Edition until it is incorporated into an
appropriate Australian regulation or standard.
Finally, the Emergency Action Code for Liquefied Petroleum Gas has been changed from
2WE to 2YE. This changes the specified level of protection for emergency responders for
all incidents involving Liquefied Petroleum Gas. However, this change will only affect the
placarding of placard loads requiring Emergency Information Panels (one or more
receptacles > 500L). The transport of quantities of Liquefied Petroleum Gas in cylinders is
not affected either by the placarding or insurance requirements.
In effect, the 7th Edition imposes some changes to signage and labelling but this is
tempered by the inclusion of transition periods in some cases for the life span of the 7th
Edition or set by the UN to allow time for compliance.
2.6.4
Placarding and the Placard Load
In essence, placarding requirements for vehicles, freight containers and other transport
units, though regrouped, are essentially unchanged from the 6th Edition.
For placarding of dangerous goods in transport, the general principle is that all vehicles
carrying enough dangerous goods in packages to require warning signs must display the
appropriate class label and subsidiary risk label, if any, for each dangerous goods on board
on the front and rear of the vehicle. Combination vehicles must be placarded on both
sides.
2
UNECE, 2006
Page 28
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Where dangerous goods are transported in freight containers, bulk containers or portable
tanks, and these are placarded as required with clearly visible placards, no further
placarding is required.
In the 6th Edition, the trigger for placarding, licensing and insurance is:
Regulation 2.13:
(1) A load of dangerous goods is a placard load if the load contains dangerous goods in bulk.
(2) A load of dangerous goods is also a placard load if the load does not contain dangerous
goods in bulk, or is not a consumer commodity load, but:
(a) the load contains dangerous goods of Division 6.2; or
(b) for another other load containing dangerous goods of Class 2.1 (except aerosols), or Class
2.3, or dangerous goods of Packing Group I - the aggregate quantity of dangerous goods in
the load is at least 250; or
(c) for any other load—the aggregate quantity of dangerous goods in the load is at least
1,000.
In the 6th Edition the threshold for Class 2.3 or Packing Group 1 was 250 kg(L). The public
consultation version of the 7th Edition proposed an amount of 100 kg(L) for Division 2.3
and Packing Group I, however, this added to the complexity of determining a placard load.
Following review of public comment the threshold levels of the 6th Edition have been
reinstated.
In the 6th Edition, any load of dangerous goods containing Class 6.2 was considered a
placard load. (Regulation 2.13).
In the 7th Edition, the single change in the placard load from the 6th Edition relates to the
transport of Infectious Substances of UN Division 6.2 other than Category A. If a quantity
of 10 kg(L) or more is being transported of infectious substances other than Category A
then that load is subject to placarding and insurance requirements.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 29
Table 5.3 Placard Load (Minimum Quantities)
Dangerous Goods in Transport Unit
(a)
(b)
Any dangerous goods in a receptacle with
a:
x
capacity
> 500 L; or
x
net mass > 500 kg
Placard Load Quantity
One or more such receptacles
(i.e. one or more placardable units)
Includes any quantity of:
x
Division 2.1 (except Aerosols); or
x
Division 2.3; or
x
Packing Group I of any Class or
Division
Aggregate quantity of
all dangerous goods in the transport unit
t 250 kg(L)
(c)
Division 6.2 Category A
All quantities
(d)
Division 6.2 (other than Category A)
t 10 kg(L)
(e)
All loads where placarding is not required
by (a), (b), (c) or (d) above
Aggregate quantity of dangerous goods t 1000
kg(L)
—unless the load is:
(i) a retail distribution load that complies with
7.3.1 (–see Note 3); or
(ii) a Fumigated Unit (UN 3359 –see Note 4)
NOTE 1:
For placarding quantities of Class 1, see the Australian Explosives Code.
NOTE 2:
For placarding quantities of Class 7, see the Code of Practice for the Safe
Transport of Radioactive Substances.
NOTE 3: Where the total load in a transport unit is a retail distribution load that has all of
the characteristics prescribed in Section 7.3.1, the load is not a placard load (–see
7.3.4).
NOTE 4:
A Fumigated Unit (UN 3359) complying with Chapter 5.5 that does not contain
any other dangerous goods is not a placard load, and should not be included in
the aggregate quantity of dangerous goods when determining a placard load.
NOTE 5: For land transport wholly within Australia, this Code requires placards to be
displayed on transport units if they contain a placard load, as determined from
Table 5.3. It should be noted that transport units containing lesser quantities may
need to be placarded in accordance with the IMDG Code before they are
acceptable for transport by sea, even within Australian waters.
The same definition of a placard load is set out in the Model Subordinate Law as follows:
5.3.1 When load must be placarded
A load of dangerous goods must be placarded if:
(a) the load contains dangerous goods in a receptacle with:
(i) a capacity of more than 500 litres; or
(ii) a net mass of more than 500 kilograms; or
(b) the aggregate quantity of the load is 250 or more and the load contains:
(i) dangerous goods of UN Division 2.1 that are not aerosols; or
Page 30
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
(ii) dangerous goods of UN Division 2.3;
(iii) dangerous goods of Packing Group I; or
(c) the load contains dangerous goods of Category A of UN Division 6.2; or
(d) the load contains dangerous goods of UN Division 6.2 (other than Category A) that have
an aggregate quantity of 10 or more; or
(e) the load contains dangerous goods that have an aggregate quantity of 1,000 or more.
In the 7th Edition, the single change to the placard load definition relates to the transport of
infectious substances. The placard load sets an explicit limit of up to 10 kg(L) for the
transport of other than Category A substances before requirements for placarding, licensing
or insurance are triggered.
2.6.5
Emergency Information Panels
Emergency Information Panels provide information to emergency services about the
substances being transported, their recognised hazards and contact information in the event
of an emergency. (An Emergency Information Panel contains the proper shipping name for
the dangerous goods being transported, the UN number, the Hazchem Code reference,
contact details in the event of an emergency, the class label and the subsidiary risk labels
and the name of the organisation responsible for providing advice and or assistance). Initial
emergency services response to an incident is based on access to this information. This
requirement has been contrary to UN and other modal and international codes which have
treated and labelled Intermediate Bulk Containers as big packages not requiring
Emergency Information Panels.
The 7th Edition public consultation draft proposed the removal of the Australianism of
requiring Emergency Information Panels on Intermediate Bulk Containers. This
requirement currently adds to the costs of transporting these goods within Australia in
some cases leading to intermodal delays.
Instead, the public consultation draft proposed to treat Intermediate Bulk Containers as big
packages and remove the requirement for Emergency Information Panels. Intermediate
Bulk Containers would still be labelled with the UN no, the Class diamond and the Proper
Shipping Name. However, since Emergency Information Panels would no longer be
required on any Intermediate Bulk Container this would also result in the removal of the
Hazchem Code reference and the removal of emergency response contact details.
Submissions from emergency services and government agencies expressed major concerns
with this proposal and strong opposition to the removal of Emergency Information Panels
from Intermediate Bulk Containers. The principal concern was the lack of full
identification of the load and emergency response advice on the outside of the vehicle.
This would potentially put emergency responders at increased risk pending the receipt of
detailed hazard information, and could, as a result, slow down responses to incidents
particularly in regional areas.
A number of options were discussed by the Dangerous Goods Steering Group, namely,
1.
Retain the 6th Edition provisions;
2.
Retain the provisions in the public consultation draft;
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 31
3.
Treat Intermediate Bulk Containers as packages and placard the transport unit with the
Class label, the UN number and the Emergency Action Code (based on the European
Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road);
4.
Treat Intermediate Bulk Containers as packages and placard transport units with
Emergency Information Panels (Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association
proposal. This would result in operational complexity, delays in transport and
additional costs); or;
5.
Continue to treat Intermediate Bulk Containers as packages. Re-introduce distinctive
orange plates with UN numbers and Class Labels of the dangerous goods in the
Intermediate Bulk Containers to the sides of freight containers or sides and rears of
vehicles used to transport these packages.
The lack of the Hazchem Code would not be significant due to the ready availability
of better information from emergency response guides (e.g. HB76) and other systems
readily accessible to emergency services. These plates would be easily prepared,
removed and attached when required. This would provide ready identification from a
distance for incidence response while still permitting simpler, cheaper marking and
labeling of Intermediate Bulk Containers reducing inter-modal inconsistencies.
The Australasian Fire Authority Council considered these options but rejected any
proposal to change the treatment of Intermediate Bulk Containers. As a result, the
provisions of the 6th Edition have been re-incorporated into the 7th Edition and the status
quo will be maintained for the lifespan of the 7th Edition.
Part 5 of the Code has been revised in light of this decision and now includes all the
changes necessary to re-incorporate Emergency Information Panels on Intermediate Bulk
Containers. Table 5.3 Placard Load (minimum quantities) now refers to a placardable unit
which includes Intermediate Bulk Containers.
Code
Placards must be displayed on:
(a)
all placardable units containing dangerous goods or the residue of dangerous goods, in
accordance with Section 5.3.3; and
(b)
portable tanks and bulk containers containing dangerous goods or the residue of
dangerous goods, in accordance with Section 5.3.4; and
(c)
freight containers containing a placard load of dangerous goods for transport, in
accordance with Section 5.3.5; and
(d)
road vehicles transporting a placard load of dangerous goods, in accordance with
Section 5.3.6; and
(e)
rail wagons transporting a placard load of dangerous goods, in accordance with
Section 5.3.7.
5.3.3.1 This section applies to placardable units, being all receptacles, other than transport
units, that have a capacity > 500 kg(L), including:
(a) IBCs; and
(b) pressure drums; and
(c) tubes; and
Page 32
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
(d) MEGCs; and
(e) demountable tanks.
5.3.3.3 Except where 5.3.3.4 applies, two emergency information panels must be displayed
in accordance with 5.3.1.4, in a substantially vertical plane. Panels should, where
practicable, be displayed, such as to be best seen:
(a) from an approaching forklift; and
(b) when loaded onto a vehicle.
5.3.3.4 Despite 5.3.3.3, only one emergency information panel is required on pressure
drums, tubes and other placardable units having a diameter or side dimension of less than 1
metre.
Section 5.3.5 in the Code addresses the placarding of freight containers as follows:
NOTE 1: This Section 5.3.5 applies to the placarding of freight containers loaded with
dangerous goods in packages, large packages, overpacks, IBCs and other placardable units.
Section 5.3.4 applies to freight containers that are used as bulk containers in accordance with
Chapter 4.3.
Provision 5.3.5.2.4 has been inserted into the Code as follows:
Where any dangerous goods are transported in one or more placardable units (including any
IBC > 500 kg(L) the placards required by 5.3.5.1 must include emergency information
panels selected in accordance with 5.3.5.3.
In effect, the status quo has been maintained in the 7th Edition of the Code.
2.6.6
Movement of Dangerous Goods by Sea and Air
Provisions in Part 5 of the Model Subordinate Law addressing requirements for the
movement of dangerous goods by road or rail for domestic air or sea transport or for
import or export have been removed. Instead provisions have been written into the Code as
follows:
5.3.8 Placarding Intermodal Loads
A freight container, portable tank or bulk container in which dangerous goods are being
transported does not need to be placarded with emergency information panels, despite a
requirement in this chapter, if:
(a) the tank or container has been:
(i) placarded outside Australia and imported into Australia; or
(ii) filled or packed for export from Australia, or for transport between Australian locations by
sea or air; and
(b) the tank or container is marked and placarded fully in accordance with the applicable
modal code (IMDG Code, IATA Regulations or ICAO Rules); and
(c) no goods (dangerous or not) have been removed from or added to the tank or container:
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 33
(i)—if imported —since its arrival in Australia; or
(ii)—if to be exported —since the load was first consigned for transport to the place from
which it is to be exported; or
(iii)—if loaded for transport between Australian locations by sea or air —for the duration
of the complete journey including road or rail transport to and from the nominated ports or
airports.
and
Code provision 5.3.6.4.3
Despite 5.3.6.3, emergency information panels are not required on a road vehicle transporting
dangerous goods that are all in freight containers, portable tanks or bulk containers to which
Section 5.3.8 applies.
Part 5 of the Code also provides an exemption from marking requirements for import and
export freight containers as follows:
Code provision 5.2.1.1.2
Clause 5.2.1.1.1 does not apply when the dangerous goods are being transported in a closed
freight container that has been imported into, or is to be exported from Australia, if:
(a) no goods (dangerous or not) have been removed from or added to the freight container
since:
(i)—if imported —its arrival in Australia; or
(ii)—if to be exported —the load was first consigned for transport to the place from
which it is to be exported; and
(b) the freight container is placarded in accordance with section 5.3.8.
Provision 5.3.3.6 provides an exemption for import/export placardable units (Intermediate
Bulk Containers etc).
Exception to placarding with EIPs
This section 5.3.3 does not apply to a placardable unit that is being transported in a closed
freight container that has been imported into, or is to be exported from Australia, if:
(a) the placardable unit is marked and labelled in accordance with the applicable modal code
(IMDG Code, ICAO Rules or IATA Regulations); and
(b) the freight container is placarded in accordance with the applicable modal code (IMDG
Code, ICAO Rules or IATA Regulations); and
(c) no goods (dangerous or not) have been removed from or added to the freight container
since:
(i) —if imported —its arrival in Australia; or
(ii) —if to be exported —the load was first consigned for transport to the place from which it is
to be exported.
Again the status quo has been maintained and no change has been made to the 7th Edition
of the Code relating to the requirement to provide Emergency Information Panels on
placard loads of dangerous goods.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 34
2.6.7 Emergency Information Panels for Movements of Dangerous Goods
by Sea or Air
Some industry submissions supported the argument that Emergency Information Panels
should be retained for the transporting vehicle with the exception of the first movement for
imports and the last movement for exports. Both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Australia and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority provided submissions on this issue.
Again emergency services expressed concern with this continuing exemption.
Upon further discussion the National Transport Commission has decided to retain this
exemption for transport immediately before export and immediately after import by air and
sea.
A note under 5.3.5 of the Code—Placarding of Freight Containers reads as follows:
5.3.5
NOTE 2: If the loaded container is intended for transport by sea or air, then:
(a)
the placarding threshold of this Code does not apply and placarding may be required for
all loads that include dangerous goods. Reference should be made to the IMDG Code,
ICAO Rules or IATA Regulations as applicable; and
(b)
see 5.3.2.1.1 to determine if the UN Number must also be displayed.
5.3.2.1.1
For transport by sea or air, the IMDG Code, ICAO Rules and IATA Regulations require that,
except for goods of Class 1, the UN number must be displayed as required by this section
on consignments of:
2.7
(a)
solids, liquids or gases transported in tank transport units including on each component
of a multi-compartment tank transport unit; and
(b)
solids in bulk containers; and
(c)
packaged dangerous goods of a single commodity which constitute a full load for the
transport unit; and
(d)
unpackaged LSA-1 or SCO-1 material of Class 7 in or on a vehicle, or in a freight
container, or in a tank; and
(e)
packaged radioactive material with a single UN number under exclusive use in or on a
vehicle, or in a freight container.
Regulating Smaller Quantities of Dangerous Good
1.
The Dangerous Goods List contains comprehensive instructions for packaging of,
marking and labelling of what are referred to as ‘limited quantities’ of low and
medium risk dangerous goods.
2.
The 7th Edition now provides concessions for a retail distribution load (personal or
household use transported in mixed loads – max 20% of load) which now replaces
what was referred to as a ‘consumer commodity load’ in the 6th Edition.
3.
Small quantities of dangerous goods being transported solely for personal use or
business purposes other than transport (tools of trade) subject to reasonable quantity
limits and conditions will now be exempt from the requirements of the 7th Edition.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
2.7.1
Page 35
Limited Quantities
Limited quantities are dangerous goods that are considered by the UN to be of very low
risk during transport provided they are transported as packaged goods in sizes less than the
size specified for the particular dangerous goods in the UN Model Regulations. As the
volume / mass of goods increases so does the risk associated with an incident, hence the
additional requirements for packaging, labelling, marking, testing and documentation.
The transport of limited quantities of dangerous goods is permitted under the 7th Edition.
Details on the quantities permitted and the requirements for packaging are provided by
Column (7) of the Dangerous Goods List (Section 3.2.3). The list sets out the maximum
amount of a dangerous good that can be packed, labelled, documented and transported as a
‘limited quantity’. These quantities are exempted from the more onerous provisions of the
Code applying to larger sizes. Limited Quantities range from ‘NONE’ for all Packing
Group I, Division 2.1, Division 2.3 and some other high consequence dangerous goods, to
5 kg(L) for most Packing Group III substances.
The 7th Edition permits the use of generic documentation for land transport of these
quantities, provided the information required by Part 11 is made available. A multi-modal
dangerous goods form is provided in Appendix B as an example.
An additional step is required when preparing limited quantities for forwarding by sea or
air. Both the International Civil Aviation Organisation technical instructions and the
International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code require the following for limited quantity
consignments:
11.1.2.3 Additional information required for certain dangerous goods
NOTE: UN 14 specifies the following additional requirements which have not been applied by
this Code to road and rail transport, but which will be required for sea or air transport:
(a) UN clause 5.4.1.5.2 specifies that when dangerous goods are transported according to the
exceptions for dangerous goods packed in limited quantities provided for in Column 7 of the
Dangerous Goods List and Chapter 3.4, the words “limited quantity” or “LTD QTY” must be
included.
2.7.2
Retail Distribution Load
The concept of ‘Consumer Commodity Loads’ in the 6th Edition (Section 1.2.1 and related
provision 3.4.9 in the UN Model Regulations) was omitted from the public consultation
draft of the 7th Edition.
Submissions from Coles Myer Ltd, the Cosmetic Toiletries and Fragrances Association of
Australia (CTFAA) and Amway expressed concerns about this omission and the lack of a
generic shipping document from the 7th Edition. Comment maintained that this omission
would result in significant costs to the retail industry and to small business operators.
After further discussion and consultation, a new chapter, Chapter 7.3 – Retail Distribution
Loads has been included in the 7th Edition. This chapter provides a range of concessions
for these loads based on the concessions from 1.2.1 of the 6th Edition and some further
exemptions granted by the Competent Authorities Panel to the retail industry since the
publication of the 6th Edition.
Page 36
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
In the 7th Edition, a retail distribution load is defined as follows:
7.3.1.1
A load that includes dangerous goods is a retail distribution load if it has all of the following
characteristics:
(a) all dangerous goods in the load are packed in accordance with either Chapter 3.4, or the
Packing Instructions referenced from Column 8 of the Dangerous Goods List and any
applicable Special Packing Provisions from Column 9 for the particular dangerous goods, and
(b) except where otherwise permitted by Clause 7.3.1.2, no dangerous goods inner packaging
or article is larger than the limited quantity specified for the dangerous goods in Column 7 of
the Dangerous Goods List; and
(c) the dangerous goods are packed and distributed in a form intended or suitable for sale
through retail agencies for consumption by individuals for purposes of personal care or
household use; and
(d) the aggregate quantity of dangerous goods in the load does not exceed 20% of the total
quantity of goods in the load; and
(e) the aggregate quantity of dangerous goods in the transport unit does not exceed 2000kg(L);
and
(f) the load does not include dangerous goods of Division 6.1 or Class 8 other than those that
are packed and suitable for household use, such as:
(i) domestic pest control products; and
(ii) personal care products; and
(iii) domestic cleaning products; and
(g) all the goods in the transport unit are consigned to or from
(i) a retail distribution centre; or
(ii) a retail outlet.
Submissions were concerned about the documentation requirements for these loads since
costly changes would be required to automated pick and pack systems and to
administrative systems and procedures. Appendix B to the 7th Edition now includes a new
generic form based on Figure 1.1 from the 6th Edition to be used when transporting retail
distribution loads with small quantities of dangerous goods.
7.3.2 DOCUMENTATION
Where dangerous goods are transported in a retail distribution load in accordance with this
Chapter, transport documentation in the form or to the effect of Figure B 2 in Appendix B may
be provided instead of the transport documentation specified in Chapter 11.1.
These provisions address concerns about requirements for labeling, segregation, placarding
and documentation for retail commodity loads containing dangerous goods without
impacting on the ability to do business. In effect, this means no significant change to
current arrangements under the 6th Edition.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 37
2.7.3 Tools of Trade
The ‘tools of trade’ concept addresses the issue of transporting small quantities of
dangerous goods in the course of business when that business is not the transport of
dangerous goods.
A discussion paper on this issue was made available for review during the public
consultation period in 2005. Provision 1.1.11 in the Model Subordinate Law now provides
concessions for small quantities of dangerous goods used by tradespeople and others as
tools-of-trade, subject to reasonable quantity limits and conditions.
1.1.8 Special provisions for tools of trade
(1) This [clause] applies to a load that includes:
(a) an aggregate quantity of dangerous goods of less than 500 that does not include any
dangerous goods of UN Division 2.1 (that are not aerosols) or UN Division 2.3 or
Packing Group I; or
(b) an aggregate quantity of dangerous goods of less than 250 that does include
dangerous goods of UN Division 2.1 (that are not aerosols) or UN Division 2.3 or
Packing Group I, provided that the aggregate quantity of UN Division 2.3 and
Packing Group I is less than 100.
Note
(1) The total of both UN Division 2.3 and Packing Group I must be less than 100 for the
exemption given by this provision to apply, not 100 of each of UN Division 2.3 and
Packing Group I).
(2) Dangerous goods of UN Division 2.3 and Packing Group I with an aggregate quantity
of less than 100 may be included in the 500 for the exemption to apply – not 100 of
Packing Group I and 500 of other dangerous goods
(2) Despite the other provisions of {this subordinate law}. only the provisions of this
{clause} apply to dangerous goods to which {this clause} applies if the goods are not
being transported in the course of a business of transporting goods but are being
transported by a person:
(a) who intends to use them; or
(b) so that they be used for a commercial purpose.
(3) A person must not transport dangerous goods to which this {clause} applies unless:
(a) each package is loaded, secured, segregated, transported and unloaded in such a way as
to ensure that;
(i) its packaging remains fit for its purpose; and
(ii) the risks to any person, property or the environment are minimised; and
(b) each package complies with the packaging requirements appropriate to the quantity of
dangerous goods, as specified in Part 4; and
(c) each package is labelled and marked as specified in Division 5.1.
Offence provision.
(4) A person transporting dangerous goods in accordance with {this clause} of UN Class
3, UN Class 4, UN Class 5 and UN Class 6 with an aggregate quantity of more than
250 must not transport them:
(a) in the passenger compartment of a vehicle; or
(b) in an enclosed space that is not separated from the passenger compartment of the
vehicle.
Offence provision.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 38
(5)
A person transporting dangerous goods in accordance with {this clause}of UN
Division 2.1, UN Division 2.3 and Packing Group I with an aggregate quantity of more
than 50 must not transport them:
(a) in the passenger compartment of a vehicle; or
(b) in any other enclosed space in the vehicle.
Other Changes to the 7th Edition of the Code
2.8
2.8.1
Distance from Ignition Sources
Queensland Transport submitted a paper to retain the existing 8–10 metre separation rule
from the 6th Edition. In contrast, the Australian Institute of Petroleum supported the
definition of Hazardous Areas as per Australian Standard 2430—a 3 metre exclusion zone
—believing that there would be no reduction in safety. The Australian Institute of
Petroleum subsequently commissioned an independent sampling and research study to
assess whether there was any risk of fuel vapours in the flammable range occurring outside
the hazardous areas defined in AS 2430 during the transfer of Class 3 products. A copy of
the executive summary is provided with this document and was also provided during the
public consultation phase in 2005. The purpose of the study was to assess whether the 3
metre exclusion zone between petrol underground storage tank fill points and sources of
ignition during fuel delivery was adequate (AS1940)(1), as opposed to the current 8 metre
exclusion zone stipulated by the 6th Edition. Findings supported the proposal to refer to
AS 2430, since all readings were below the LEL of 1.4 percent volume in air for unleaded
petrol. Consequently,
10.2.2.1 Distance from ignition sources
‘During a transfer operation into or out of a vehicle, there must be no source of ignition within
any hazardous area determined in accordance with AS/NZS 60079.10, or AS/NZS 2430.3.3
(for Class or Subsidiary Risk 3), or AS/NZS 2430.3.4 (for Division or Subsidiary Risk 2.1).
In the Model Subordinate Law provision 13.2.3 has been reworded slightly as follows:
13.2.3 Control of ignition sources
(1) This {clause} applies to a road vehicle transporting a load of dangerous goods that contains
dangerous goods that:
(a) are in a receptacle with a capacity of more than 500 litres or kilograms; and
(b) are Class 2.1, 3, 4 or 5 dangerous goods or dangerous goods that have a subsidiary risk of
2.1, 3, 4.
(2) The driver of the road vehicle must not:
(a) have matches or a cigarette lighter in his or her possession in the road vehicle; or
(b) smoke in the road vehicle.
Offence provision.
(3) The driver must do everything practicable to ensure that anyone else in the road vehicle
does not:
(a) have matches or a cigarette lighter in his or her possession; or
(b) smoke.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 39
Offence provision.
{(4) An offence against {subclause} (2) is an offence of strict liability.}
2.8.2
Transport of Empty Vessels
Chapter 7.2 of the 7th Edition of the Code contains special provisions for the transport of
nominally empty containers. These requirements do not apply to packagings when
transported in accordance with the Code. Note this includes Intermediate Bulk Containers.
7.2.7.8
An exemption or determination must be obtained from the Competent Authority before
transporting, other than in accordance with this Section, tanks and other previously fixed
containers that have been used for the storage of dangerous goods and are not free from
dangerous goods.
In the Model Subordinate Law regulations 5.3.5 (4) and 5.3.6(4) address this issue.
2.8.3
Bulk Transfer of Dangerous Goods
Part 10 of the Code has been extended to include the transfer of bulk solid dangerous
goods as follows:
10.1.1.1 Application
This Part applies to the transfer by gravity, pump or pressure differential of liquid, solid or
gaseous dangerous goods into or out of a tank vehicle, or into or out of a portable tank,
demountable tank, bulk container, MEGC or IBC that is on a vehicle, utilising pipework
and/or hose assembly.
10.1.1.2 Definitions
Transfer out of a vehicle includes transfer out of the tank of a tank vehicle or from a portable
tank, demountable tank, bulk container, MEGC or IBC that is on a vehicle.
Transfer into a vehicle includes transfer into the tank of a tank vehicle or into a portable tank,
demountable tank, bulk container, MEGC or IBC that is on a vehicle.
2.8.4
Decontamination
The Code requires that units must be decontaminated after unloading and before removal of
placards before reuse:
7.1.7.1.2
Decontamination of transport units
A rail wagon, road vehicle, freight container or other transport unit which has been used to
carry substances marked as or known to be toxic (packing groups I, II and III) must, after
unloading and before removal of placards, be inspected for contamination. Until such
contamination has been removed, a transport unit which has been contaminated must not be
returned to service and placards and other markings indicating the presence of the dangerous
goods must not be removed.
Part 7 `Transport operations relating to certain dangerous goods’ in the Model Subordinate
Law assigns corresponding responsibilities to ensure decontamination has taken place.
Page 40
2.8.5
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Ullage and Burners
(i)
Chapter 10.3 of the Code sets out ullage requirements for the filling of tank vehicles.
Ullage requirements are set out elsewhere in the Code for other containers such as
Multiple Element Gas Containers, Intermediate Bulk Containers, bulk containers and
portable tanks.
(ii)
Part 13 of the Code sets out requirements for the operation of burners:
13.1.3.5.1 Except as provided in 13.1.3.5.2. where a road tank vehicle is equipped with a
burner to heat the load, the burner must not be operated when the vehicle is moving.
13.1.3.5.2 Burners may be operated on moving bitumen tankers if done in accordance with AS
2809.5, however the burner on a spray vehicle must not be operated when the vehicle is
spraying bitumen.
Neither of these requirements are significant.
3
3.1
CHANGES TO THE AUSTRALIAN DANGEROUS GOODS REGULATIONS
Summary of Changes
In the 7th Edition, model legislation developed by the NTC will replace the template
legislation used for the 6th Edition. The Inter-Governmental Agreement which established
the NTC in January 2004, and to which all States and Territories were signatories, directs
the Commission to
5.1 (a) develop uniform or nationally consistent regulatory and operational
arrangements for road, rail and inter-modal transport, including recommending to
the Council Proposed Reforms and amendments to Agreed Reforms.
The model legislation will be adopted by the States and Territories and either rewritten into
State-based legislation or referenced as appropriate.
The basis of the duties and responsibilities outlined in the Regulations are the technical
requirements set out in the Australian Dangerous Goods Code.
The structure of the regulatory framework remains unchanged in the 7th Edition, however,
changes made to the Code have resulted in consequential changes to the model legislation.
The new Model Subordinate Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail
replaces the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997 and the Rail
(Dangerous Goods) Rules.
In this section, the new regulations are referred to as the Model Subordinate Law.
The following principles were observed when revising the model legislation:
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 41
x
redrafted regulations to be as non-modal specific as possible resulting in a single set
of regulations for both road and rail transport;
x
reference UN Model Regulations 13 and 14 where possible and retain local rules
where appropriate;
x
impose corresponding obligations to meet Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th
edition requirements;
x
incorporate criminal code harmonisation requirements; and
x
retain the existing structure outlining roles and responsibilities of consignor, prime
contractor, loader, driver, etc.
The Model Subordinate Law has not adopted the complicated multi-decimal numbering
system of the Code.
3.2
Combining Road & Rail Regulations
The Purpose of the Model Law is clearly set out as follows:
(1)
The purpose of this Act is to regulate the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail
in order to promote public safety and protect property and the environment.
(2)
It is the intention of Parliament that the purpose of this Act will be achieved in the
context of nationally consistent road and rail transport laws, having regard to regional
and modal differences.
In the 6th Edition, the legal requirements for prime contractors, operators and drivers
involved in the transport of dangerous goods by rail were set out in the Rail (Dangerous
Goods) Rules (found in Schedule 1 of the 6th Edition).
In the 7th Edition, road and rail regulations have now been consolidated into one set of
standard obligations and duties for those involved in the land transport chain taking into
account the variation in roles and responsibilities between the road and rail transport task.
Duties are assigned to rail operators, prime contractors, owners, consignors, loaders, and
drivers as appropriate in each section of the model legislation.
Changes specific to rail include
(i)
the removal of the highly prescriptive requirements of the 6th Edition for separating
dangerous goods loads on trains. Simplified rules similar to those applying to the
segregation of incompatible goods on combination road vehicles now apply to rail;
and
(ii)
the removal of the requirement for rail wagon tickets and the placarding of rail
wagons carrying less than a placard load. This is in line with international practice
and aligns with requirements in the road transport sector.
Following public consultation, the rail industry continued to express concern on the
synchronisation of duties and responsibilities associated with rail and road transport. A
review of the draft model legislation has been conducted, provision by provision, to ensure
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 42
that responsibilities and duties are allocated appropriately in the model legislation in the
rail context. Where appropriate the model legislation will point directly to the recently
approved ‘National Model Rail Safety Bill’. However, as far as possible synchronised
legislative provisions for road and rail will be retained in this model legislation. This is the
preferred NTC approach.
3.3
Governance
Membership of the Competent Authority Panel is still limited to road and rail authorities,
however, if required, membership can be extended by the Australian Transport Council to
include Competent Authorities for other modes in order to maintain consistency among
regulations and modes of transport. For the time being these modes will retain observer
status only on the panel.
15.2.1
Membership and function of CAP
(1) Competent Authorities Panel or CAP means the panel of that name comprising
persons each of whom:
(a) is a Competent Authority (or a representative of a Competent Authority) of this or a
participating jurisdiction; and
(b) is appointed by the Australian Transport Council. (new)
(2) The function of CAP is to decide matters referred to it by a person mentioned in
{subclause} (1) (a CAP member).
All Competent Authority Panel approvals are now located in the Model Subordinate Law.
The Model Law has been checked to ensure that the Competent Authorities can, in fact,
issue the approvals mentioned in the Model Subordinate Law.
3.4
Exemptions – Additional Power for Competent Authorities
Section 64 gives the Competent Authority in each State and Territory the power to grant
exemptions on its own motion to a person, or class of people without the need for an
application to be made by an industry representative or body. This in effect allows the
Competent Authority to grant exemptions without waiting for a formal submission from
the person or class of people concerned.
64 Exemptions
(1) A person, or a representative of a class of persons, may apply to a Competent Authority
for an exemption from compliance with a provision of the {subordinate law} in relation to
the transport of particular dangerous goods. (32)
(2) A Competent Authority may, on its own initiative or on application under subsection (1),
exempt a person or class of persons from compliance with a provision of the {subordinate
law} in relation to the transport of particular dangerous goods if the Competent Authority is
satisfied that:
(a)
it is not reasonably practicable for the person or class to comply with the provision;
and
(b)
granting the exemption:
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 43
(i) would not be likely to create a risk of death or injury to a person, or harm to the
environment or to property, greater than that which would be the case if the person or
class were required to comply; and
(ii) would not cause unnecessary administrative or enforcement difficulties,
particularly with respect to maintaining national uniformity of road and rail transport
laws. (32)
3.5
Approvals
A number of approvals referred to in the 6th Edition have been removed from the Code and
incorporated into the Model Subordinate Law instead. For example, the Competent
Authority approval of the transfer of dangerous goods is now located in the model
legislation.
Competent Authorities can now specify routes—both road and rail—which may not be
used to transport dangerous goods.
1.6.3 Determinations — vehicles, routes, areas and times
The Competent Authority may determine that particular dangerous goods may be or must or
must not be transported:
(a) using a specified vehicle, or kind of vehicle; or
(b) on a specified route; or
(c) in or through a specified area; or
(d) at a specified time; or
(e) in quantities in excess of a specified amount; or
(f) in specified packaging. (13.7, amd)
3.6
Legal Liability
In the Model Subordinate Law, provisions now indicate the appropriate fault element for
an offence. Strict liability is clearly identified by the inclusion of words to that effect after
each provision. Alternatively, where the appropriate fault element is knowledge on the part
of a person charged with an offence, this is indicated by use of the words “knew or
reasonably ought to have known” in the provision in order to align with s5.33 of the
Criminal Code Act 1995.
In the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997 (C’wlth), the
nomination of offences with strict liability as the appropriate fault element was provided
by a table in Schedule 1 to the regulations.
3
5.3 Knowledge - A person has knowledge of a circumstance or a result if he or she is aware that it exists or
will exist in the ordinary course of events.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 44
The model legislation has been drafted in accordance with the Commonwealth Criminal
Code Act 1995. The provisions in the Model Subordinate Law now clearly identify the
appropriate fault element for an offence e.g. offence provision or {(3) an offence against
{subclause} (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.}
3.7
Goods Too Dangerous to be Transported
There is one change of note in the Model Subordinate Law in relation to goods too
dangerous to be transported.
The Competent Authority has the power to make decisions as to what is regarded as a good
too dangerous to be transported.
1.6.1(2) The Competent Authority may determine that:
(a) particular dangerous goods are or are not too dangerous to be transported; or
(b) particular dangerous goods must not be or may be transported in or on the same transport
unit or freight container as other goods, whether or not dangerous goods; or…
Provision 2.1.2 in the Model Subordinate Law addresses how to determine whether goods
are too dangerous to be transported:
2.1.2 Goods too dangerous to be transported
Dangerous goods are too dangerous to be transported if they are:
(a) goods set out or described in Appendix A to the ADG Code; or
(b) goods determined under paragraph 1.6.1 (2) (a) to be too dangerous to be transported; or
(c) goods (other than goods mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)) that are so sensitive or unstable
that they cannot be safely transported even if the relevant requirements of {this subordinate
law} and the ADG Code are complied with. (2.1,amd).
Note Section 70 of the Act provides that a person must not consign for transport goods that
{this subordinate law} identifies as being too dangerous to be transported.
A listing of Goods Too Dangerous To Be Transported is provided in Appendix A to the 7th
Edition of the Code.
3.8
Class 1 and Class 7
The 7th Edition like the 6th Edition of the Code now includes information on the
classification of Class 1 and Class 7 dangerous goods. The Model Subordinate Law makes
clear that this model legislation does not regulate the land transport of these substances
which are covered by other legislation.
1.1.7
Further exemptions
(1) {This subordinate law} does not apply to the transport by road or rail or both rail and
road of dangerous goods of UN Class 1 (explosives) or UN Class 7 (radioactive) except
when being transported with other dangerous goods.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
3.9
Page 45
Changes in Definitions and Terminology
With the adoption of UN concepts and terminology, the distinction between ‘packaged
dangerous goods’ and ‘dangerous goods in bulk’ has been removed entirely in the 7th
Edition and subsequently from the model legislation This means the concept of dangerous
goods in bulk no longer exists. Instead a ‘container’ based approach is used rather than the
‘quantity’ based approach of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 6th Edition.
Reflecting this fundamental change in the Code, the Model Subordinate Law sets out
definitions for the various types of packagings to be used when preparing dangerous goods
for transport by road or rail. Some of these definitions and concepts are new and are
introduced as a result of the adoption of the UN Model Regulations into the Code.
In UN Model Regulations 14 the term container takes its ordinary meaning is only used
with qualification e.g. freight container, bulk container, Intermediate Bulk Container and
Multiple Element Gas Container. In the Model Subordinate Law, and in the technical
Code, the term container also takes its ordinary meaning and is not included in definitions
without qualification.
1.2.6 Meaning of bulk container
(1) Bulk container means a container (with or without a liner or coating) that:
(a) has a capacity of 1.0 m3 or more; and
(b) is intended for the transport of solid dangerous goods that are in direct contact with
the container.
(2) To avoid doubt, the following are not bulk containers even if they have a capacity of 1.0
m3 or more and are intended for the transport of solid dangerous goods:
(a) a large packaging that complies with the requirements of Chapter 6.6 of the ADG
Code;
(b) an IBC;
(c) a tank;
(d) a tank vehicle;
(e) any other packaging that complies with the requirements of Chapter 6.1 and 6.3 of
the ADG Code.
In UN Model Regulations 14 the term packaging refers to a receptacle and any other
components or materials necessary for the receptacle to perform its containment function;
In the Model Subordinate Law the term packaging is defined as follows:
4.1.2 Packages and packaging
(1) A package of dangerous goods or other goods is the complete product of the packing of
the goods for transport, and consists of the goods and their packaging.
(2) The packaging of the goods is the container in which the goods are received or held for
transport, and includes anything that enables the container:
(a) to receive or hold the goods; or
(b) to be closed. (2.7, amd)
Note 1 It may be that the container constitutes the whole of the packaging as in the case of a
drum in which is directly placed dangerous goods.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 46
Note 2 Unlike in United Nations’ publications relating to the transport of dangerous goods,
the term packaging is used in {this subordinate law} in its ordinary meaning. As such,
packaging includes inner, outer and composite packaging; overpacks and large packaging;
IBCs; MEGCs; tanks; bulk and freight containers; drums; barrels; jerricans; boxes and bags.
To ensure enforceability in Australia, in a few instances definitions in the Model
Subordinate Law vary slightly from those in the UN Model Regulations.
Intermediate Bulk Containers are defined in the Model Subordinate Law as follows:
1.2.7
Meaning of IBC
(1) Subject to {subclause} (2), an IBC or intermediate bulk container means a rigid or
flexible portable packaging for the transport of dangerous goods that complies with the
specifications in Chapter 6.5 of the ADG Code and that:
(a) has a capacity of not more than:
(i) for solids of Packing Group I packed in a composite, fibreboard, flexible, wooden, or
rigid plastics container — 1 500 litres; and
(ii) for solids of Packing Group I packed in a metal container — 3 000 litres; and
(iii) for solids or liquids of Packing Groups II and III — 3 000 litres; and
(iv) for any other dangerous goods — 3,000 litres; and
(b) is designed for mechanical handling.
(2) Rigid or flexible portable packaging that complies with the requirements of Chapter 6.1,
6.3 or 6.6 of the ADG Code cannot be an IBC.
The new UN concept of a multiple element gas container is defined in the Model
Subordinate Law as follows:
1.2.8
Meaning of MEGC
MEGC or multiple-element gas container means:
(a) multimodal assemblies of cylinders, tubes and bundles of cylinders that are
interconnected by a manifold and assembled within a framework; and
(b) service and structural equipment necessary for the transport of gases in the cylinders and
tubes.
A large packaging is defined in the Model Subordinate Law as:
large packaging means outer packaging that:
(a) is designed for mechanical handling; and
(b) has a capacity of not more than 3 m3; and
(c) is intended to contain articles or inner packaging with:
(i) a net mass of more than 400kg; or
(ii) capacities totaling more than 450 litres.
This definition does not include Intermediate Bulk Containers or overpacks.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 47
An overpack is defined as follows:
overpack, in relation to the transport of dangerous goods, means packaging (other than large
packaging) used to hold and consolidate packages into a single unit for easier handling and
stowage.
Examples
Pallet, together with strapping or shrink wrapping, designed to hold packages
Box or crate into which packages are placed.
The term containment unit is defined as follows:
containment unit means a tank vehicle or any of the following packaging:
(a) an IBC;
(b) a portable tank;
(c) an MEGC;
(d) a freight container.
A transport unit is defined in both the Model Subordinate Law and in the Code as:
(a) a vehicle; or
(b) a portable tank; or
(c) a bulk container; or
(d) a freight container.
The definition of dangerous goods has been tightened to remove any ambiguity.
Dangerous goods are defined in the Model Law which in turn points to the Model
Subordinate Law:
4 Definitions
dangerous goods means:
(a) a substance or article prescribed as dangerous goods; or
(b) a substance or article determined by a Competent Authority, in accordance with the
{subordinate law}, to be dangerous goods. (6)
Model Subordinate Law:
2.1.1
Dangerous goods
(1) Goods are dangerous goods if:
(a) the goods are determined under paragraph 1.6.1 (1) (a) to be dangerous goods; or
(b) the goods satisfy the criteria set out, or referred to, in Part 2 of the ADG Code for
determining whether goods are dangerous goods.
(2) However, goods that satisfy the criteria set out, or referred to, in Part 2 of the ADG Code
are not dangerous goods if the goods are:
(a) determined under paragraph 1.6.1 (1) (a) not to be dangerous goods; or
(b) described as not subject to the ADG Code in a special provision in Chapter 3.3 of the
ADG Code that is applied to the goods by column 6 of the Dangerous Goods List.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 48
3.10
Licensing
In the 7th Edition, dangerous goods licenses will continue to be required for both vehicles
and drivers for the transport of dangerous goods.
The trigger for licensing in the 7th Edition is little changed from the 6th Edition. In the 6th
Edition licensing is tied to the concept of bulk dangerous goods and bulk dangerous goods
are defined in the 6th Edition regulations as:
‘2.12 Dangerous goods in bulk are dangerous goods that are not packaged dangerous
goods’. and
‘2.11 Dangerous goods are packaged dangerous goods if:
(a) they are dangerous goods of Class 2 in a container with a capacity of not more than 500
litres; or
(b) they are dangerous goods of another Class in: (i) a container with a capacity of not more
than 450 litres; and (ii) a container with a net mass of not more than 400 kilograms.
The trigger for licensing the 7th Edition is a single container of greater than 500 kg(L)
capacity. This trigger is set out in the Placard Load defined in both the Model Subordinate
Law and in the Code (see Table 5.3 and regulation 5.3.1).
The public consultation draft of the 7th Edition omitted the 3 x 1,000 kg(L) exemption
provided by the 6th Edition for the transport of dangerous goods in Intermediate Bulk
Containers.
The agricultural and veterinary sectors (CropLife Australia Limited (formerly Avcare), the
National Farmers Federation, the Grains Council of Australia, Workplace Services South
Australia, and others) were concerned about the loss of this exemption and the consequent
requirement for anyone transporting a receptacle with a capacity of greater than 500 kg(L)
to have a dangerous goods licence. Submissions contended that the loss of this exemption
would result in a major financial impact on the agriculture sector.
In contrast, emergency services were happy to see the removal of this exemption.
However, in light of public comment, and of the fact that there have been no demonstrated
safety issues with the existing exemption, the Dangerous Goods Steering Group and the
NTC have decided to retain the exemption from licensing up to a maximum of 3,000 kg(L)
in Intermediate Bulk Containers. In effect, this maintains the status quo. This decision is
reflected in the Model Subordinate Law:
18.1.2 Application of Part
(1) Except as provided by {clause}, this Part applies to the transport by road of a load of
dangerous goods that contains dangerous goods in a receptacle with a capacity of more than
500 litres or kilograms.
(2) This Part does not apply to the transport by road of dangerous goods on a vehicle if:
(a) the goods are transported in an IBC; and
(b) the IBC is not filled or emptied on the vehicle; and
(c) the total capacity of IBCs on the vehicle is not more than 3,000 litres.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 49
This will address the concerns of the agriculture sector about imposing requirements on the
large volume transport of herbicides and pesticides in Intermediate Bulk Containers.
As under the 6th Edition of the Code, licensing will be required only for such loads where
the aggregate quantity in intermediate bulk containers is greater than 3,000 kg(L).
Insurance will be at the same level as the same size aggregate load of dangerous goods in
packages. In effect the status quo is maintained.
One change to licensing involves the extension of the duration of the Dangerous Goods
Licence. The licence is now issued for a period of five years (three years under the 6th
Edition).
18.4.7 Licence periods
(1) A dangerous goods vehicle licence is granted for the period specified in the licence, being
a period not longer than 5 years.
Another change is that under the Model Subordinate Law a Competent Authority may now
delegate out the power to grant licences for example to a road transport agency handling
general licensing:
16 Competent Authority may delegate powers
(1) A Competent Authority may delegate any of its powers under this Act by signed
instrument.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a Competent Authority’s power:
(a) to appoint authorised officers; or
(b) to delegate its powers under this section.
A number of submissions requested that:
x
the vehicle and driver licensing regime be reviewed e.g. replace the current regime
with transport operator licensing;
x
requirement for vehicle licensing which is viewed as inefficient and of no benefit, be
removed; and
x
the licensing regime should cover packaged dangerous goods.
Proposals for changing the current dangerous goods licensing system have been rejected.
Any review of the existing licensing regime or any proposed change which would have a
major impact on the transport industry is not within the scope of the current work and
cannot be undertaken at this time. A review of the dangerous goods licensing regime may
be addressed in a future National Transport Commission work program.
Another proposal was put forward to restrict the issuing or renewal of dangerous goods
licenses to residents in the state of application, however, this was not supported by the
Dangerous Goods Steering Group since it would also require mutual recognition of
training and qualifications between jurisdictions which is currently not in place.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 50
3.11
Insurance
In the 6th Edition, insurance requirements are set out in the Code. In the 7th Edition,
insurance requirements are set out in the Model Subordinate Law.
In the 6th Edition, duties and responsibilities for checking that the required insurance is in
place to transport a placard load of dangerous goods are set out in regulations 8.5 and 8.6.
In essence, the owner or prime contractor of a vehicle must not use the vehicle, or permit it
to be used, to transport a placard load of dangerous goods by road unless the vehicle is
insured, or the owner or prime contractor is otherwise indemnified, in accordance with
Chapter 8 of the Code. Provision 8.1.2 of the 6th Edition states, ‘A road vehicle that is
transporting a placard load of dangerous goods must be covered by a policy of insurance
or other form of indemnity….’
In the 7th Edition, insurance is still tied to the placard load limit and the initial trigger for
insurance remains effectively unchanged from the 6th Edition. However, the minimum
amount of insurance required has been increased.
20.1.1 Owner’s duties
(1) The owner of a road vehicle must not use the vehicle, or permit it to be used, to transport
a placard load if:
(a) the use of the vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance or other form of indemnity,
for a sum that is not less than $5,000,000, in respect of:
(i) personal injury, death, property damage and other damage (except consequential economic
loss) arising out of fire, explosion, leakage or spillage of dangerous goods in, on or from the
vehicle or a container transported in or on the vehicle; and
(ii) costs incurred by or on behalf of a Commonwealth, State or Territory government
authority in a clean-up resulting from any event of the kind referred to in subparagraph (a) (i);
or
(b) the owner does not have an approval under {clause} 20.1.5 in relation to the vehicle.
Offence provision.
(2) Each load bearing vehicle, whether or not a motor vehicle and whether or not it is being
used in combination with another vehicle, is a vehicle for the purposes of {subclause} (1)
{(3) An offence against {subclause} (1) is an offence of strict liability.}
The requirement for additional insurance cover for transport of any ‘bulk’ in the 6th Edition
has now been replaced by a requirement for the owner or the prime contractor to ensure the
minimum insurance coverage has been purchased for each load bearing unit of the vehicle
transporting dangerous goods.
In the 6th Edition of the Code, the minimum amount of insurance coverage required was set
at $2.5M for bulk and $1M for packaged dangerous goods. The minimum amount of
insurance required has now been increased to take into account the increased costs of
environmental clean up after transport incidents and increased insurance rates since 1997.
The public consultation draft set the minimum requirement at $10M insurance per event.
A large number of submissions were concerned about this rise in the minimum insurance
requirement. The Insurance Council of Australia and the Australian Trucking Association
flagged that this requirement would put cost pressures on some sectors of the road
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 51
transport industry such as small regional operators, ad hoc transporters of dangerous goods,
and owner-operators who may have difficulties obtaining this level of insurance.
After further discussion and consultation with insurers, the minimum insurance
requirement has been set at $5M per event ‘this can be purchased without difficulty at
reasonable outlay’, (National Transport Insurance).
However, this minimum amount is required for each load carrying unit of a vehicle
carrying a placard load. For road combination vehicles this will be required for each trailer
in a combination carrying a placard load, and for rigid vehicles this will be required for
each load carrying area of a rigid vehicle on which a placard load is carried, whether or not
it is towing a trailer.
This will address an ongoing issue with combination road vehicles where different parts of
the ‘combination’ are owned and insured by different companies.
20.1.2 Prime contractor’s duties
(1) A prime contractor must not use a road vehicle to transport a placard load if:
(a) the use of the vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance or other form of
indemnity, for a sum that is not less than $5,000,000, in respect of:
(i) personal injury, death, property damage and other damage (except consequential
economic loss) arising out of fire, explosion, leakage or spillage of dangerous goods in, on
or from the vehicle or a container transported in or on the vehicle; and
(ii) costs incurred by or on behalf of a Commonwealth, State or Territory government
authority in a clean-up resulting from any event of the kind referred to in subparagraph (a)
(i); or
(b) the prime contractor does not have an approval under {clause} 20.1.5 in relation to the
vehicle.
Offence provision.
(2) Each load bearing vehicle, whether or not a motor vehicle and whether or not it is being
used in combination with another vehicle, is a vehicle for the purposes of {subclause} (1)
{(3)An offence against {subclause} (1) is an offence of strict liability.}
In the 7th Edition of the Code, the penalty for not having the required insurance has been
increased substantially for both individuals and organisations.
The maximum court-ordered penalty for a corporation is now set at $50,000 as opposed to
$15,000 under the 6th Edition regulations. The maximum court ordered penalty for an
individual is now set at $10,000. Penalty Infringement Notices are set at $2,000. These
were arrived after reviewing equivalent penalties under Occupational Health and Safety
legislation.
The 7th Edition continues to permit self-insurance. This will accommodate the rail industry
where self-insurance for an operator who could transport dangerous goods on any one of
10,000 rail wagons, is standard practice. Rail operators are also subject to additional
stringent accreditation requirements including a requirement for an environmental
management plan in the event of an accident.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 52
3.12
Transport Procedures – Additional Duties
The Model Subordinate Law sets out additional duties and responsibilities to cover
unloading, detaching of trailers and the operation of burners.
13.2.4 Unloading
(1) The driver of a road vehicle transporting dangerous goods must not permit the dangerous
goods to be unloaded from the vehicle except in accordance with Part 13 of the ADG Code.
Offence provision.
{(2) An offence against {subclause} (1) is an offence of strict liability.}
13.2.5 Detaching trailer
(1) The driver of a road vehicle that has attached to it a trailer transporting dangerous goods
must not detach the trailer or permit it to be detached from the vehicle except in accordance
with Part 13 of the ADG Code.
Offence provision.
{(2) An offence against {subclause} (1) is an offence of strict liability.}
13.2.6 Road tank vehicle equipped with burner
(1) The driver of a road tank vehicle equipped with a burner must not operate the burner or
permit it to be operated except in accordance with Part 13 of the ADG Code.
Offence provision.
{(2) An offence against {subclause} (1) is an offence of strict liability.}
Various submissions raised the issue of the transport of nominally empty storage vessels.
The Model Subordinate Law imposes duties to manage this issue as follows:
5.3.5 (3)
'A prime contractor or rail operator must not use or permit to be used a transport unit that the
prime contractor or rail operator knows, or reasonably ought to know is empty or is not
carrying dangerous good but is placarded as if it were carrying a placard load.'
and 5.3.6 (3)
A person must not drive a road vehicle or train if the person knows, or reasonably ought to
know, that it is not transporting goods but is placarded as if it were doing so.
Division 7.1 of the Model Subordinate Law deals with self-reactive substances, organic
peroxides and certain other substances such as toxic substances. This Division sets out
duties and responsibilities for ensuring transport units have been decontaminated before
reuse.
Division 7.3 Toxic Substances
7.1.3 Loader’s duties
(1) A person must not load dangerous goods to which this Division applies for transport by
road or rail in a transport unit other than in accordance with Chapter 7.1 of the ADG Code.
Offence provision.
(2) An offence against sub{clause} (1) is an offence of strict liability. (new)
7.1.4 Prime contractor’s and rail operator’s duties
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 53
A prime contractor or rail operator must not transport dangerous goods to which this Division
applies if the contractor or rail operator knows the dangerous goods will not be transported in
accordance with Chapter 7.1 of the ADG Code.
Offence provision.
3.13
Transition & Implementation (Part 22)
No details on a transition period were provided in the public consultation draft (July 2005).
This issue was discussed subsequently by the Dangerous Goods Steering Group.
A minimum transition period of 12 months is now proposed between the 6th and 7th
Editions of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code. This will allow industry some time to
adjust to 7th Edition requirements (training and education, etc.) and will provide
jurisdictions time to start redrafting State-based legislation where required.
22.1.2 Lawful conduct under previous law
(1)
A person does not commit an offence against the Act or {this subordinate law} if, within
the period of 12 months {local variation} after the commencement of the Act, the person
transports dangerous goods by road or rail in accordance with the law that regulated the
transport of dangerous goods by road or rail and was in force in this {State/Territory}
immediately before the commencement of the Act.
(2)
Where an exemption or approval that is continued in effect by virtue of this Part does not
have an expiry date, it will expire on the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the
Act.
In addition, approvals, determinations and exemptions provided under the 6th Edition will
be sunsetted on their stipulated date of expiry if provided or five years from the date of
commencement of the Model Subordinate Law whichever is the earlier. Any approvals,
determinations and exemptions which need to be continued will be reissued under the 7th
Edition.
This is a minimum transition period. Although a single date for completion of
implementation would be ideal there is no guarantee that States will implement in a timely
manner. In addition, there are no competition policy payments linked to implementation as
with the 6th Edition so the timeframe for implementation may vary from State to State
depending upon other legislative priorities, budgetary constraints and the availability of
drafting resources.
However, the NTC will make every effort to ensure the new dangerous goods legislation is
adopted as close to the Model Law (Act) and Model Subordinate Law (Regulations) as
possible given the range of State-based legislation involved (transport, environment,
Occupational Health and Safety, etc.).
4
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AUSTRALIAN DANGEROUS GOODS ACT
This section covers changes to the Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995
(Commonwealth).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 54
4.1
Model Law
The Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail replaces the Road
Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995. In this section, the new Act is referred to
as the Model Law.
The Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail establishes the
broad regulatory framework for the transport of dangerous goods and complements
changes in the Model Subordinate Law. The Model Law includes additional compliance
and enforcement provisions, and clarifies the role and responsibilities of the Competent
Authority Panel and the powers of authorised officers.
4.2
Additional Powers
As requested by the Dangerous Goods Steering Group, additional compliance and
enforcement provisions from the National Transport Commission (Road Transport
Legislation – Compliance and Enforcement Bill) Regulations 2006 have been fully
incorporated into the Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road or Rail.
This will assist States and Territories when implementing the new legislation.
In the Model Law, the powers of authorised officers have been expanded to incorporate
updated Compliance and Enforcement provisions. However, under Compliance and
Enforcement legislation the powers of authorised officers relate specifically to compliance
with general road laws. Under the Model Law on the Transport of Dangerous Goods by
Road or Rail the powers of authorised officers are extended to both the road and rail
transport of dangerous goods aligning two distinct sets of powers.
An authorised officer no longer requires a belief ‘on reasonable grounds’ in order to stop
and search a vehicle for dangerous goods, documents, equipment or other things relating to
the transport of dangerous goods in order to ensure compliance with the Model Law and
with the Model Subordinate Law . An authorised officer can give directions to rail
operators, inspect and search premises, seize and remove documentation, equipment and
records, obtain warrants, etc.
The meaning of ‘compliance purposes’ has been changed to incorporate investigation of
current breaches with compliance and allow investigation of a past breach or suspected
breach of the regulations.
By incorporating these additional provisions from the Compliance and Enforcement
regulations (2003) the model legislation aligns with current best practice in Australia.
4.3
Goods Too Dangerous to be Transported - Liability
The Model Law assigns strict liability to the consignor and not the transport operator for
ensuring that goods too dangerous to be moved are not transported.
70 Goods too dangerous to be transported
(1) A person must not consign goods for transport if the {subordinate law} identifies the goods
as being goods too dangerous to be transported. (36 + new)
Offence provision. (36)
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix C
Page 55
(3) Subsection (1) includes a person who transports goods too dangerous to be transported on
a vehicle owned or controlled by the person. (new)
4.4
Additional Sanctions and Penalties
Since the Model Law is model legislation, only recommended values for adoption by the
States and Territories can be provided. The States and Territories will determine the actual
penalties for offences in each jurisdiction.
However, the following administrative sanctions have been incorporated into the new Model
Law. These replace the contravention and eliminate danger notices under the 6th Edition.
(a)
Improvement notices. An improvement notice can be issued where an authorised
officer believes the Model Subordinate Law is being contravened or is likely to be
contravened. The notice requires the contravention to be remedied within a given
period of time. Failure to comply with the improvement notice constitutes an
offence.
(b)
Formal warnings. A formal warning is provided as an alternative sanction to taking
proceedings against a person for contravention of a law in circumstances in which the
person had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the contravention and was unaware
of it and where the nature of the contravention is such that it makes a formal warning
an appropriate response. A formal warning may be withdrawn within 21 days and
proceedings instituted in its stead. There is no specific penalty associated with the
issue of a formal warning.
Additional court based sanctions include:
(c ) Commercial benefits penalty.
of the benefit that would have
This penalty may be applied in
imposed and may range up to
commission of the offence.
(d)
A court may impose a penalty based on its estimate
been derived from the commission of the offence.
addition to, or instead of, other penalties able to be
a maximum of 3 times the expected benefit from
Supervisory intervention orders. The courts may make various orders in respect of
“systematic or persistent” offenders, requiring that they accept supervision by an
auditor, appointing or removing certain staff from particular positions, implementing
training and supervision as required, installing monitoring, compliance management
or operational equipment, implementing practices, systems or procedures, reporting
to the Competent Authority or court and conducting certain operations subject to the
direction of the Competent Authority.
New penalties for both road and rail have been added relating to consignor’s duties as
follows:
x
provisions 18.2.1 and 18.2.3 require that the prime contractor and the consignor
must ensure that the vehicle and the driver are licensed to transport dangerous goods.
x
provisions 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 relate to the responsibility of the consignor, prime
contractor and rail operator to ensure that consignments of dangerous goods for
transport are appropriately marked.
x
provisions 11.1.2 and 11.1.3 relate to adequate shipping documentation which must
be made available by the consignor of the dangerous goods to the responsible parties
including the driver for each load of the consignment (both road and rail).
End of Appendix A
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix D
APPENDIX D:
1
Page 1
DATA USED IN ANALYSES
INTRODUCTION
Although far fewer in number (0.09% of the annual road toll), road or rail accidents
involving dangerous goods can have higher consequences than general transport accidents
with greater potential to result in significant loss of life, injuries, and damage to property
and the environment.
The purpose of the dangerous goods Act, Regulations and Code is to minimise the
potential consequences of accidents resulting from the transport of dangerous goods.
The rates and costs of dangerous goods incidents and accidents presented here are
indicative.
2
AUSTRALIAN FREIGHT TASK
Domestic Movements
Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Bureau of Transport and Regional
Economics and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau estimate the size of the Australian
domestic freight task as follows:
1999-00
tonnes carried ('000)
tonnes/kms (M)
average distance
kms
2000-01
2002-03
Road
Rail
Road
Rail
Road
Rail
1,399,000
508,000
1,482,000
535,095
1,553,000
544,600
128,702
134,200
132,422
137,700
152,777
158,100
105
264
106
257
98
n/a
x
For 2002-2003 approximately 2,097,600 mt of freight was moved by road and rail over
a total of 310,877 million tkms.
x
Road accounted for 36% and rail accounted for 37% of the total domestic tkms moved
across all four modes in 2002-2003.1
x
Four per cent (84 mt) of the total tonnage moved is estimated to be dangerous goods
which also accounted for 8% (24,870 million tkms) of the total 310,877 mt kms
travelled.2
1
Australian Transport Statistics, ATSB, June 2005.
Page 2
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, August 2006: Appendix D
Freight statistics for dangerous goods for 2000-20013 indicate that road and articulated
trucks in particular carry the bulk of these commodities domestically:
Commodities Moved by Mode of Transportation - Tonnes Carried (2001)
Commodity
Road
'000
Gases
Rail
'000
Total '000
(all
modes)
Road
%Total
Rail %
total
2,234
6
2,418
92.4%
0.2%
Petroleum & petroleum
products
29,503
1,550
41,885
70.4%
3.7%
Chemicals
10,100
2,329
13,244
76.3%
17.6%
Fertilisers
9,990
85
10,544
94.7%
0.8%
x
In the year ending March 2001, petroleum and petroleum products accounted for
approximately 4.8% of the total commodities moved by road and 75% of the total
dangerous goods freight task. Chemicals and fertilisers accounted for approximately
1.6% each of the total road freight task. Much smaller quantities of these commodities
were moved by rail.
x
The bulk of dangerous goods are moved by articulated trucks.4
Imports and Exports5
Australia is a net exporter of liquefied petroleum gas and natural gas (coal and uranium)
and also exports aviation turbine fuel, diesel and automotive gasoline all classified as
dangerous goods. Australia is a net importer of crude oil importing over 1,000 petajoules6
in 2001-02 up 78% since 1991-92.
Volume of Exports of Petroleum and Gas Related Products
Exports (Petajoules)
Energy Product
1997-98
1998-99
547.0
528.5
889.6
83.6
65.9
71.6
82.5
Liquefied natural gas
415.8
425.4
409.6
413.4
Automotive gasoline
52.0
52.3
44.1
40.6
Aviation gasoline
83.5
2.5
0.9
2.3
Crude oil
Liquefied petroleum gas
2
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2001c).
3
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002d).
4
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005)
5
2000-01
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)
PJ = petajoule or 10 15 joules. 1 petajoule (PJ) = approximately
24 thousand tonnes of oil; is equivalent 34 thousand tonnes of coal equivalent
278 million kWh of electricity
26 million cubic metres of natural gas
6
2001-02
885.6
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix D
Aviation turbine fuel
Page 3
90.8
20.1
27.8
20.2
0.0
0.0
49.3
36.6
Fuel oil & kerosene
41.0
59.0
29.1
11.7
Other petroleum products
69.7
21.6
18.0
13.2
1,383.4
1,175.3
1,540.0
1,506.1
Automotive Diesel Oil & Industrial
Diesel Fuel
Total
In 2002-03, chemicals and related products accounted for approximately 11.5% of total
imports and in the same period mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials including
petroleum accounted for approximately 19% of total exports.7
Volume of Imports of Petroleum and Gas Related Products
Imports (Petajoules)8
Energy Product
1997-98
1998-99
2000-2001
2001-02
Crude oil
967.0
1,150.6
1,019.5
1,056.8
Liquefied petroleum gas
13.0
12.6
16.3
15.1
Liquefied natural gas
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Automotive gasoline
12.1
30.5
40.7
49.1
0.2
Aviation gasoline
2.4
1.4
0.0
Aviation turbine fuel
1.4
5.2
14.3
8.3
Automotive Diesel Oil &
Industrial Diesel Fuel
0.0
0.2
43.6
49.4
Fuel oil & kerosene
32.2
79.7
33.2
22.7
Other petroleum products
31.3
6.5
22.4
21.7
Total
1,059.4
1,286.7
1,190.0
1,223.3
Value of Imports and Exports of Chemicals & Petroleum Products9
Exports $m
7
19971998
19981999
19992000
20002001
20012002
20022003
20032004
Chemical & related
products
$3,298
$3,575
$4,193
$5,146
$5,293
$5,094
$5,298
Petroleum &
related products
(333,334)
$3,836
$3,133
$7,129
$10,868
$8,321
$8,335
$6,621
Australian Bureau of Statistics ( 2002, 2003, 2005)
8
PJ = petajoule or 10 15 joules. 1 petajoule (PJ) = approximately
24 thousand tonnes of oil; is equivalent 34 thousand tonnes of coal equivalent
278 million kWh of electricity
26 million cubic metres of natural gas
9
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)
Page 4
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, August 2006: Appendix D
Imports $m
19971998
19981999
19992000
20002001
20012002
20022003
20032004
Chemical & related
products
$10,277
$11,435
$12,498
$14,200
$14,635
$15,024
$15,075
Petroleum &
related products
(333, 334)
$4,312
$4,526
$7,543
$10,295
$8,614
$10,223
$9,632
2.1
Size of Dangerous Goods Domestic Freight Task
2.1.1 Current Size
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has found that dangerous goods accounts for
approximately 4% of total tonnes moved and 8% of total tonne-kilometres travelled10. The
Australian Trucking Association estimates there are currently between 100-150 small,
medium and large dangerous goods transport operators in Australia11. The size of the
Australian dangerous goods freight task would appear to be approximately 8% of the total
road freight task although NSW figures indicate a larger proportion of the road freight task
in that State is dangerous goods.
According to the NSW Environment Protection Authority, in that State, approximately 1015% of transport vehicles carry dangerous goods by road and about 2%-5% of dangerous
goods are transported by rail. Some States have indicated that transport of dangerous goods
by rail may be higher at around 10% approximately of the total rail freight task
(Queensland).
A NSW Occupational Health and Safety survey conducted in September 2000 involving
long distance truck drivers found that among the 300 drivers surveyed approximately
14.3% of the loads carried comprised dangerous goods.
Type of Goods carried by
300 Interviewed
Drivers12
owner/
drivers
(99)
small fleet large fleet other (12)
% of 300
drivers
drivers
drivers
(104)
(85)
carrying each
type of load
general goods
54.4%
55.8%
38.8%
50.0%
50.3%
dangerous goods / fuel
9.1%
11.5%
24.7%
8.3%
14.3%
cattle
7.1%
4.8%
7.0%
frozen foods
6.1%
7.7%
11.8%
8.3%
8.3%
other
40.4%
46.1%
42.3%
50.0%
43.3%
10
Statistics include articulated vehicles only.
11
Australian Trucking Association. (2005)
12
Quinlan, M. (2001).
6.0%
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix D
Page 5
This particular survey also indicates that approx 25% of drivers surveyed belonged to large
fleets with therefore a greater probability of having good risk management practices in
place with respect to the transport of dangerous goods.
Surveys conducted by the US Census Bureau13 found that 8.2% of all trucks carried
dangerous goods at some point during the year and 11% of all road tonnage was dangerous
goods.
Statistics for the period 2000-2001 indicate that the most frequently transported dangerous
goods in Australia are petroleum and petroleum products which accounted for
approximately 75% of the dangerous goods freight task in this period. Dangerous goods
petroleum products include liquefied petroleum gas (propane and butane), petrol, jet fuel,
bitumen and chemical feedstock. Non-dangerous goods petroleum products include diesel
and lube oils.14.
The US Census Bureau also found that more than 50% of dangerous goods vehicles were
carrying flammable liquids such as petroleum, diesel and fuel oil and more than 25% were
carrying flammable gas.
2.1.2 Projected Growth
The domestic road freight task is growing15 and is projected to grow at 3.6% per annum
between 2000 and 2020, with a 4% increase in freight for inter-capital corridors16. The rail
freight task has grown by approx. 14% from 470mt in 1997 to 535mt in 200117.
In line with the increased domestic freight task, heavy vehicle numbers are also growing.
Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Motor Vehicle Census, show that total
truck numbers have grown by about 5% between 1997 and 2005.
Growth in Freight Vehicle Numbers18
Year
Light
commercial
vehicles
Light
rigid
trucks
Heavy rigid
trucks
Articulated
trucks
Total all
Heavy
Vehicles
1997
1,632,217
72,131
270,281
59,292
2,033,921
2005
2,030,254
88,768
279,752
69,723
2,468,497
4.1
4.3
28.5
5.7
4.7
% growth
Articulated trucks and light rigids appear to be transporting a greater share of the overall
freight task. Articulated trucks account for the majority of interstate travel and rigid and
light commercial vehicles for intrastate and urban travel.
13
Federal Motor Carrier SafetyAdministration. (2004)
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002).
15
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (2003b).
16
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (2003b).
17
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, (2003d).
18
Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2005).
14
Page 6
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, August 2006: Appendix D
Goods Carried by Vehicle Type and by Commodity19 (mt)
Year
Light
Commercials
Rigid
Trucks
Articulated
Trucks
All
9
29
Chemicals & related products
1995
3
17
2000
2
7
17
27
2004
^5
^8
^28
41
estimated average
annual growth rate %
1.5
-1.9
0.5
2.4
Mineral fuels, lubricants & related materials
1995
2
21
47
70
103
2000
3
17
84
2004
^1
*17
^56
^74
estimated average
annual growth rate %
-2.0
-5.3
5.2
17.5
^ indicates an estimate with a relative standard error of 10-25%
* indicates estimate with a relative standard error of 25-50%
Bulk tankers, articulated trucks (includes road tankers), and B-doubles, are typically used
to transport dangerous goods in bulk with rigid trucks used to transport packaged
dangerous goods. Based on 2005 vehicle licence figures, an estimated 45,011 rigid and
articulated trucks transport dangerous goods in bulk and packaged form at some point
during the year.
2.2
Transport Fatalities, Injuries and Incidents
2.2.1 Overall Trends
Despite the increase in road vehicle numbers and distribution movements, the trend in all
road fatalities in Australia appears to be downwards with statistics indicating a drop of
71% in all road deaths between 1975 and 2004 and a 3% fall in all road deaths between
2003 and 2004.20.
This is in line with international trends. In 2004 Australia recorded 7.9 road fatalities per
100,000 of the population. This rate ranked 11 lowest of the 24 OECD nations and 17%
below the OECD median of 9.5 per 100,000 of the population.
19
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (2003b), Australian Bureau of Statistics (1995, 2000-2004b)
20
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2003b).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix D
Page 7
Fatalities per 100,000 population 1997-2001 – International Trends21
Year
Australia
Canada
UK
USA
OECD
Median
1997
9.5
10.2
6.3
15.7
13.20
1998
9.4
9.7
6.0
15.4
12.20
1999
9.3
9.7
6.0
15.3
11.70
2000
9.5
9.5
6.0
15.2
11.30
2001
8.9
n/a
6.1
14.8
11.10
2002
8.7
9.3
6.0
14.9
10.3
2003
8.2
8.7
6.1
14.7
9.5
2004
7.9
-
5.6
14.5
9.5
The degree of actual risk associated with road travel (all vehicles) declined in Australia
from 3.6 in 1975 to 0.8 in 2004. Again, this follows the international trend with the median
rate for OECD nations also dropping from 3.8 deaths in 1975 to 0.8 deaths in 2004.
2.2.2 Australian Freight Transport Fatalities
Statistics from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau appear to indicate that for the period
1998 to 200422 numbers of articulated trucks increased by 11%, tonnage carried per
kilometre increased by 37% and kilometres travelled by articulated trucks increased by
21%. Over the same period there was a decrease in the number of fatalities (16%) and of
fatal crashes (9%) involving articulated trucks despite the increase in the tonnage per
kilometre for these trucks.
Articulated Truck Fatalities and Fatal Crashes 1997 - 200523
Year
fatalities
fatal
crashes
1997
171
146
n/a
n/a
n/a
59,292
2000
208
165
5,578
103,515
1,852
61,117
2004
150
137
6,013
121,282
1,983
66,300
2005
158
135
n/a
n/a
n/a
69,723
kms
traveled
(m)
tonne/kms
(m)
avg
tonne/
km ('000)
no articulated
trucks
Additional statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that articulated trucks
have increased in number by 18% between 1997 and 2005 e.g. from 59,292 to 69,723.
Accidents relating to the transport of dangerous goods are a very small percentage of the
total annual accident statistics for road and rail transport.
21
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2001, 2006).
22
Complete sets of data are only available for years 1998 to 2004.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2005), Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005).
23
Page 8
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, August 2006: Appendix D
In Australia, from figures available from agencies responsible for the enforcement of
dangerous goods transport regulations, only 0.06% of all road fatalities involve heavy
vehicles carrying dangerous goods. For 2004, that was 1 fatality out of a total of 1,596. On
average 1.4 fatalities each year involve heavy vehicles transporting dangerous goods.
All Freight Transport Fatalities including Dangerous Goods Transport 24
Year
Road
Rail
Total
DG Fatal
25
Accidents
1997
1767
43
1810
0
0
1998
1755
43
1798
1
0.06%
1999
1764
41
1805
3
0.17%
2000
1817
38
1855
2
0.11%
2001
1737
34
1771
1
0.06%
2002
1723
30
1753
2
0.11%
2003
1634
29
1663
1
0.06%
2004
1596
0
1596
1
0.06%
% of Total
In the US, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration26 has found that only 4% or
200 trucks carrying dangerous goods out of a total of 5,000 trucks are involved in fatal
crashes and approximately 5,000 trucks or 1.25% out of a total of 400,000 are involved in
non-fatal crashes. This accounts for between 3.9% to 4.8% of the annual fatal large truck
crash figure in the US27.
USA: Fatalities in Crashes involving Large Trucks 1991-200028
Year
Total
Fatalities
Fatalities in
Crashes with
Hazmat Cargo
% with Hazmat
Cargo
1991
4974
230
4.6
1997
5615
228
4.1
1998
5629
277
4.9
1999
5696
232
4.1
2000
5567
249
4.5
Average
5302
238
4.5
24
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2003b) and Plastics and Chemical Industry Association (2002).
25
Plastics & Chemical Industry Association statistics (2002, 2004)
26
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (2004).
27
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, (2004). In the US 10-11% of the road freight volume is
attributed to dangerous goods as all or part of a shipment.
28
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (2004).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix D
Page 9
US statistics indicate that only a very small number of these fatalities, 16% of the total
number of fatalities recorded from accidents involving dangerous goods, died as a result of
exposure to a release of dangerous goods which in most cases was spilled petroleum.
No figures are available in Australia for any fatalities directly related to exposure to
dangerous goods in road crashes.
Estimated Injury Rate
It is very difficult to estimate figures on injuries associated specifically with the transport
of dangerous goods. Recorded Occupational Health and Safety injury figures relate to
general traffic accident statistics and no record is made as to the nature of the load being
transported by the heavy vehicle involved in the incident. More often than not related work
cover claims are recorded under the classification of ‘transport and storage’ and any
injuries relating to the transport of dangerous goods cannot be extrapolated.
However, from Australian Transport Safety Bureau29 road safety statistics on average 351
crashes involving serious injuries occur every year which involve articulated and rigid
trucks. Based on the size of the dangerous goods transport task relative to the total freight
task, serious injuries resulting from the transport of dangerous goods can be calculated at
approximately 28 road crashes per annum involving heavy vehicles.
Estimated Incident Rate
Dangerous goods incidents are most often associated with fuel and chemical spills.
Statistics reported by EPA, NSW30 report an average of 353 incidents per annum with an
average of 47 penalty infringement notices issued and an average of 22 prosecutions
handled each year.
NSW Dangerous Goods Incidents 1999-2005
Year
EPA
attended
Roadside
checks
PINS
issued
No
prosecutions
1999-00
No DG
Reported
Incidents
423
121
10
59
n/a
2000-01
368
116
11
68
n/a
2001-02
383
92
24
76
n/a
2002-03
344
65
14
37
21
2003-04
323
61
4
12
10
2004-05
279
73
1
31
35
However, the severity of a ‘reported incident’ can vary from a minor fuel spill requiring an
emergency callout for clean up, to one involving a serious injury or on rare occasions a
fatality. From the data available, between 1997 and 2005, Queensland reported an average
29
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2004c)
30
Environment Protection Authority (2005).
Page 10
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, August 2006: Appendix D
of 28 serious incidents, South Australia 21, West Australia 20, Victoria 7 and the Plastics
and Chemicals Industries Association 63 incidents per annum31.
The impact statement prepared for the NRTC in 1994 reported an incident rate Australiawide of 250 against 42,000 vehicle licences.
The Australasian Fire Authorities Council32 (AFAC) gathers hazmat incident data from
Queensland, Victoria, the ACT, South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales.
In the period 2004/05 Council reported a total of 1,364 serious dangerous goods incidents
for both storage and transport. This figure represents a decrease of 5% on 2003/04, 15% on
2002/03 and 44% on 2001/02 figures. For the same period the Council reported
approximately 10,825 hazmat incidents involving the less risky hazardous substances,
small fuel leaks, and incidents on site.
Incident type
Hazmat Incidents - excl
small fuel/oil leaks (#)
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2,424
1,601
1,426
1,364
The Council also reported that:
x
the primary hazards presented were those of flammable/combustible liquids (10%),
toxic substances (7%), flammable gases (5%), acids, (4%), poison gas (4%) and
infectious substances (2%);
x
most incidents responded to were leaks or spills (38%). Other common types were
contaminations (6%), vapour clouds (4%), chemical reactions (4%) and combined
hazmat/fire incidents (2%);
x
failures were recorded at incidents due to container (21%), open container spill (8%),
pipe/hose (6%), valve (4%) and coupling/flange failures (3%);
x
causes cited included human error (20%), vehicle accidents (9%), mechanical failure
(4%) and operational error (3%);
x
the main actions taken were removal (27%) and containment (16%);
x
fire fighting uniform was worn at 52% and breathing apparatus (SCBA) at 14% of
incidents;
x
negligible environmental impact was reported from 67% of incidents, minor impacts
from 30% and moderate/major impacts from 3% of incidents.
The Australasian Fire Authorities Council reported approximately 682 road incidents
involving dangerous goods although this figure also includes small spills. The 1994
Proposal for Accreditation of Carriers of Dangerous Goods33, reported 42,000 vehicles
carrying dangerous goods and an estimated a total of 432 incidents nationwide. This
compares with 2005 figures of 48,858 dangerous goods driver licences although not all are
active and 45,011 vehicle licences for the transport of dangerous goods. Based on these
31
Includes both packaged and dangerous goods in bulk.
32
Australasian Fire Authorities Council (2006).
33
National Road Transport Commission (1995).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix D
Page 11
figures, the total incident rate for dangerous goods is estimated to be in the order of 680 per
annum or 72 per 1,000 dangerous goods licences.
Given the growth rate in the freight task of 3.6% per annum, the growth in heavy vehicle
numbers on road and the growth in the transport of ‘mixed loads’ and packaged dangerous
goods, it would appear that the rate of dangerous goods transport incidents and accidents is
rising in line with this growth.
In summary, the number of fatalities related to the transport of dangerous goods is
estimated at 1.4 per annum or 2 over a two year period, the number of serious injuries is
estimated at 28 per annum and the number of reportable incidents is estimated at around
680+ per annum.
2.3
Causes of Dangerous Goods Incidents
Incidents and accidents associated with the transport of dangerous goods shipments present
additional risks of exposure to explosions, fire or the inhalation of toxic fumes from the
releases or spill of chemical and fuel substances.
However, most road accidents involving dangerous goods are usually caused by factors
common to all road crashes eg. driver error, road or weather conditions, and are rarely
directly attributable to the release of dangerous goods themselves. Trends identified from
available data include:
x
Vehicles carrying flammable/combustible liquids were the most likely to be involved
in incidents or accidents involving dangerous goods. This is borne out by data from the
Australasian Fire Authorities Council (10% of reported incidents) and by overseas data.
In the US, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration34 reported that trucks
carrying flammable liquids accounted for 64% of crashes involving a release of
dangerous goods.
x
In most cases, dangerous goods road transport incidents are usually related to a release
or a spill of the dangerous good being transported. The Australasian Fire Authorities
Council reported ‘most incidents responded to were leaks or spills’ (38%). In the
period 1998 and 2005, the Health and Safety Executive, UK, reported an average of 52
vehicle spill incidents per annum. In the US data indicates 30% of road accidents
involving dangerous goods involved spills.
x
Australian data also appears to indicate a number of incidents involving spillage
during transfer (pipe/hose 6%). Canadian statistics also show that in recent years a
number of accidents occurred during the loading / unloading phase35.
x
The US data indicates a preponderance of container failures (21%) and open container
spills (8%).
x
Bulk containers transporting dangerous goods appear to have a much higher accident
rate than vehicles carrying packaged dangerous goods. This is due to the fact that
34
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, (2004).
35
Transport Canada. (2005).
Page 12
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, August 2006: Appendix D
approximately 75% of the dangerous goods transport task involves the distribution of
petroleum and gas.
x
A frequent cause of incidents appears to involve fuel tanker / road train rollovers with
West Australia reporting an average of 41% of incidents related to vehicle rollovers in
the period 2000-2005.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration reported that rollovers were a
frequent occurrence in incidents and accidents involving dangerous goods vehicles. In
a comparison36 of a sample of hazardous material truck crash records from the
Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS) with records from the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS), US records showed the majority of
dangerous goods vehicle incidents involved rollovers and about 60% of all heavy
vehicle driver fatalities occurred in rollover accidents with 67% of vehicles having
‘cargo tank bodies’.
This trend is borne out by UK37 statistics. Between 1998 and 2005, the Health and
Safety Executive reported an average of 24 notifiable incidents per annum relating to
overturned tanks, uncontrolled release of substances and fire from a tank spill.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration38 also reports that between 1991 and
2000:
x
69% of fatal accidents involved collisions with another vehicle;
x
14% of fatal crashes involved fire;
x
71% of accidents involving dangerous goods shipments took place on rural highways;
x
48% of dangerous goods carrying vehicles involved in fatal crashes were operated by
interstate for hire operators;
x
only 34% of fatal dangerous goods accidents involved the release of the dangerous
good being transported;
x
only 16% of the total number of fatalities (117 in the period 1991-2000) recorded
involving dangerous goods vehicles died as a result of exposure to the dangerous good,
usually petroleum; and
x
shipments of Class 3 and Class 8 make up almost 75% of the heavy vehicle dangerous
goods road transport risk with Class 2.1 gases representing about 9%.39
Statistics from the US Department of Transportation bear out these trends40.
36
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (2003).
37
Health and Safety Executive (2004).
38
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (2004).
39
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (2001).
40
US Department of Transportation (2004).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix D
Page 13
USA – Hazardous Materials Highway Incidents, Deaths, Injuries Damages
Year
Deaths
Injuries
Incidents
Deaths Bulk
Deaths NonBulk
Injury
Bulk
Injury
Non-Bulk
1997
12
152
11,932
11
1
83
69
1998
13
151
13,108
13
0
80
71
1999
9
218
14,953
9
0
77
140
2000
16
164
15,063
16
0
79
85
2001
9
109
15,804
11
0
75
51
2002
8
118
13,501
6
0
56
55
2003
15
105
13,598
3
1
50
30
2004
13
168
13,101
2005
20
156
13,441
These statistics show a rise in the number of deaths and reported incidents in the US
however the number of injuries reported appears to have levelled out.
In Australia, statistics from the Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association (PACIA) for
the period 1997 – 2004 show a drop in the overall number of reported incidents and a drop
in the rate of bulk incidents but a rise in the incident rate for packaged dangerous goods
transport.
PACIA Health and Safety Performance Reports - Chemical Industry41
Year
Fatalities
Total No
Transport
Incidents
Emergency
Services
Attendance
No
involving
DG
No involving
Packaged
Goods
No
involving
Bulk
1997
0
1998
1
157
42
118
57
96
97
22
65
38
1999
56
3
110
22
71
52
45
2000
2
82
18
46
46
29
2001
1
93
19
63
49
40
2002
2
65
19
43
24
33
2003
1
103
17
35
17
37
2004
1
100
22
64
67
33
Average
1
101
23
63
44
46
The Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association conducts surveys annually. In 2004, 51
members of the association participated in the transport incidents survey. Members
reported an average lost time injury rate of 4 per annum with 30 companies reporting no
incidents. Loading and unloading activities were reported as a major contributing factor in
the number of incidents reported in 2003 and 2004.
41
Plastics and Chemical Industry Association (2002, 2004).
Page 14
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, August 2006: Appendix D
Rail Incidents
On the whole rail proves to be a safer mode of transport than road, although far greater
quantities of dangerous goods can be transported by rail with a higher safety risk. In
Australia no fatalities involving the transport of dangerous goods have been recorded for
rail over the period 2002-2005. Figures from the Plastics and Chemicals Industries
Association report an average of 4 incidents per annum (1997-2002) for rail transport of
dangerous goods mainly relating to the release of dangerous goods.
2.4
Costs of Dangerous Goods Fatalities, Accidents and Incidents
In 1997, the Bureau of Transport and Economics, now the BTRE, provided estimated costs
of road and rail crashes. For the purposes of this exercise, these costs are expressed here in
2006 dollar figures.
Estimated Costs of All Road Crashes 1996-200642
Year
Cost per Fatal
Crash
Cost per
Serious Injury
Cost per Minor
Injury
Property
Damage
Only
1996
$1,652,994
$407,990
$13,776
6,000
2006
$2,129,056
$525,491
$17,743
7,728
These figures include:
Human costs:
medical / ambulance / rehabilitation; long term care; labour in the
workplace; labour in the home; quality of life; legal costs; workplace
disruption; funeral and coroner costs.
Vehicle costs:
repairs; unavailability of vehicles; towing.
Other costs:
not included are costs of accident investigation, emergency services,
costs of traffic delays, and the cost of lost cargo.
Based on these figures, the average cost of a crash in 1996 was $24,000, in 2006 dollars
this comes to $30,912. Property damage only is estimated at $7,728 in 2006 dollar terms.
Costs for rail accidents not involving dangerous goods are based on 1999 figures provided
by Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics expressed here in 2006 dollars.
Estimated Costs of All Rail Crashes 1999-2006
42
Year
$Cost per Fatal
Crash
$Cost per
Serious Injury
Property
Damage Only
1999
$1,200,000
$130,000
$125,581
2006
$1,514,400
$164,060
$158,483
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (2003a).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix D
Page 15
However, accidents involving the transport of dangerous goods also involve costs
associated with the cleanup and disposal of dangerous substances and delays to business
associated with the closure of highways. The NSW Fire Brigade estimates that most road
incidents involving dangerous goods take about 2-3 hours to clean up and render safe, at a
cost of $25,000 per hour to emergency services. For example, in 2004 clean up after an
accident involving a truck carrying a mixed load of dangerous goods (hydrochloric acid,
insecticides, herbicides, hypochlorite solution) cost upwards of $600,000. The incident
necessitated the closure of the main Western Highway for 2.5 days to enable clean up. No
costs have been provided for the traffic delays incurred.
Estimated Costs of Road Crashes Involving a Dangerous Goods Spill43
Costs per Road Crash
Year
Rigid Trucks
Articulated
All Trucks
1995
$65,800
$117,000
$79,400
2006
$84,750
$150,696
$102,267
Costs per Dangerous Goods Spill
1995
$22,360
$22,360
$22,360
2006
$28,800
$28,800
$28,800
Costs for road crashes involving dangerous goods and dangerous goods spills were provided in
the 1997 impact statement prepared for the NRTC44 The statement estimated the costs of a
truck crash involving a dangerous goods spill as approx. 1.3 times the cost of other truck
crashes. The cost per crash expressed in 2006 dollar terms is estimated at $102,267 and the
cost of clean up of a chemical spill is estimated at $28,800 with the cost of minor property
damage estimated at $7,200 per minor incident, however, numbers for these types of minor
incidents are not available. These costs are most likely at the low end of the scale.
These figures compare with the following estimates from the US for dangerous goods
accidents and incidents. For the purposes of comparison these costs have been converted to
Australian dollars (2001 rate) and expressed in 2006 dollar figures.
Average Costs of HM & non-HM Motor Carrier Events45 US$ & A$
Type of Event
2001
Average
Cost US$
2001
Average
Cost A$
2005
Average
Cost A$
Average
Traffic Delay
US
Non-HM Event
$340,000
$601,983
$694,086
2 hours
All HM Event
$414,000
$733,003
$845,152
-
HM Event w/Spill Release
$536,000
$949,008
$1,094,206
5 hours
HM Event with Fire
$1,200,000
$2,124,646
$2,449,717
8 hours
HM Event with Explosion
$2,100,000
$3,718,130
$4,287,004
12 hours
43
National Road Transport Commission (1997).
44
National Road Transport Commission (1997).
45
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, (2001).
Page 16
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, August 2006: Appendix D
Although fewer in number by comparison with general road transport accidents, the costs
of road transport accidents involving dangerous goods can be very high with an estimated
total annual cost in the US of US$1.2 billion (2001). Rail accidents although even fewer in
number, can result in sudden spikes in overall transport fatality rates and in even higher
costs.
Some further work in estimating the costs of dangerous goods incidents in the US proposed
that in fact current estimated dangerous goods transport accident costs are underestimated
by between 56% and 59% respectively46.
Emergency services estimate costs for a 2-3 hour clean up operation are in the region of
between $25,000-$75,000 per incident. Based on the costs provided by the Bureau of
Transport and Regional Economics the following is an estimate of dangerous goods
incidents in current dollar terms including the average cost of a 2-3 hour clean up
($75,000):
Estimated Cost of Dangerous Goods Transport Incidents
Cost per event (2006)
A$ Costs
Including spill
and cleanup
Fatal incident
$2,129,056
$2,204,056
Serious injury incident
$525,491
$600,491
Average crash incident
(no or minor injuries)
$30,912
n/a
Clean up (minor spills)
$28,800-$75,000
n/a
These figures do not include the additional costs of accident investigation, of traffic delays,
and the cost of lost cargo to the transport operator or owner.
The estimated cost of a fatality comes to $2,129,056 and when combined with the average
cost of clean up, taking the larger figure of $75,000 comes to $2,204,056.
The cost of a crash involving a serious injury comes to $525,491 and when combined with
the average cost of clean up of $75,000 comes to $600,491.
Costs for fire and explosions are not factored into the Australian estimates.
Based on the estimated incident rates the total cost of dangerous goods transport crashes to
the community is estimated as follows:
46
US Department of Transport, (2005).
Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition Regulatory Impact Statement, November 2006: Appendix D
Page 17
Estimated Total Costs of Road Crashes involving Dangerous Goods47
Crash Severity
Cost per
Accident/
Incident
Estimated
no per
annum
Total Cost
per Annum
Fatal crash
$2,204,056
1.4
$3,085,679
Crash involving
serious injury
$600,491
28
$16,861,791
average incident
$30,912
680
$21,020,160
Total:
$40,967,629
Trends in Dangerous Goods Incidents
Canadian statistics48 for both road and rail transport of dangerous goods appear to show a
drop of 26% in reportable accidents for road and rail in the period 1997 to 2005.
US statistics appear to show an increase of 9.8% in all highway incidents involving
dangerous goods and an increase in injuries of 10.5% over the same period, which may be
related to the increased freight task. Rail statistics show a drop of 30% in the total number
of incidents reported but an increase in injuries and fatalities indicating an increase in the
severity of these incidents.
Available incident data in Australia for the transport of dangerous goods appears to show a
downwards trend in reported incidents. NSW figures show a drop of 34% in reported from
423 incidents in 1999 to 279 incidents in 2005. WA figures show a drop of 5% (28 to 9) in
reported incidents between 1997 and 2005. Based on the available reported incident data
the total incident rate appears to have dropped 34% in the period 2000 to 2005. An
assumption is made that this is most likely due to increased enforcement activity in these
jurisdictions. Figures from the Australasian Fire Authorities Council also appear to show a
drop in incidents reported of about 50% between 2001 and 2005. Incident data from the
Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association for the period 1997 to 2004 appear to
indicate a 46% drop in the reported incident rate for its members (from 118 in 1997 to 64
in 2004) although the incident rate for packaged dangerous goods appears to be rising (57
in 1997 to 67 in 2004). However, the total number of incidents involving the transport of
dangerous goods at approximately 682 is a jump from 43249 in 1994.
Given the rise in heavy vehicle numbers (4.7% growth), and the increasing freight volume
the assumption is made here that the available incident data appears to show a
corresponding increase in dangerous goods incidents in line with the increasing freight
task.
End of Appendix B
47
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (2003c).
48
Transport Canada (2005).
49
National Road Transport Commission, (1995).
Explosives Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010
1
2
ENDNOTES
Laid before the Legislative Assembly on . . .
The administering agency is the Department of Employment, Economic
Development and Innovation.
© State of Queensland 2010
Authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel
and printed by the Government Printer
Page 198
2010 SL No. 47

Download Report

Regulatory Impact Statement

Paperzz.com

Your Paperzz