Skip to main content

Implementation of the Harmonised Risk Management Framework (RMF)

POSITION PAPER
September 2020

European Chemical Industry Council - Cefic aisbl
Rue Belliard 40, b.15, 1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel.: +32.2.436.93.00 - mail@cefi.be - www.cefic.org
EU Transparency Register n° 64879142323-90

The RMF aims to set up a harmonised risk management approach based on a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) methodology, applicable for all modes of inland transport of dangerous goods (TDG) in Europe. Mandated by the European Commission's Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE), it was issued by the European Railway Agency (ERA) in 2018. Safety in handling and transport of all chemicals is at the heart of the Transport and Logistics activities of Cefic’s members. Through the long-lasting Responsible Care programme, the European chemical industry has adopted a sustainable strategy aiming for “zero accidents” in chemicals logistics based on a coordinated continuous improvement approach.

POSITION​

  1. TDG Regulations First

    • The modal transport regulations (RID/ADR/ADN) provide internationally agreed and globally harmonised transport conditions that effectively control the risk posed by the intrinsic hazards of the dangerous goods transported. The European RMF should not be used to assess each individual TDG operation and even less as an alternative measure for compliance to RID/ADR/ADN. The RMF should instead be focused on assessing residual risks in specific local situations for TDG operations.

  2. The Use of RMF Must Remain on a Voluntary Basis

    • The RMF constitutes one approach among other existing methodologies to manage residual risks related to inland TDG. Other risk management methods are also valid and are, in certain circumstances, more effective than a QRA approach.

  3. The RMF Can Only Be Used for Comparing Transport Options

    • The lack of reliable TDG incident statistics and the fact that business and technical standards are constantly evolving mean that the calculated results for a specific TDG operation will vary. Given this, absolute thresholds are not an effective means for providing practicable and sustainable criteria for assessing residual risks in transport. The RMF results can only ever support the evaluation of the effectiveness of risk mitigation measures by comparing alternative transport options.

TECHNICAL BACKGROUND​

Responsible Care in Chemicals Transport​

Safety in handling and transport of all chemicals is at the heart of Cefic’s members Transport and Logistics activities. Through the long-lasting Responsible Care programme, the European chemical industry has adopted a sustainable strategy aiming for “zero accidents” across the chemicals logistics based on a coordinated continuous improvement approach.

Over the years, Cefic members have developed and promoted numerous prevention and mitigation measures in the form of best practice guidelines, based on shared expertise and lessons learnt from incidents and near-misses:

This voluntary and proactive approach by European chemical companies towards safe and responsible transport is in line with HSE standards and goes beyond the applicable legislations, e.g., the regulations for the inland TDG by rail (RID), road (ADR), and barges (ADN). The chemical industry listens, engages, and works with all stakeholders to foster responsible initiatives on behavior-based safety training for operators, on interoperability between service providers, on improving traffic infrastructures and vehicle equipment, as well as on strengthening emergency response services. This is how we could successfully improve industry’s safety performance for the transport of chemicals and effectively avoid harm to people and the environment.

Introduction on the Development of the RMF​

The multimodal inland Transport of Dangerous Goods (TDG) in Europe is governed by the regulatory frame of RID/ADR/ADN. Compliance with these regulations provides a high level of transport safety as well as legal certainty to all stakeholders, including industry and Competent Authorities (CA).

In specific local situations, as prescribed in the regulations, national CA of the Contracting Parties may ask for additional provisions that go beyond the requirements of RID/ADR/ADN. The CA are guided to provide evidence of the need for such additional provisions and to assess the residual risk of these specific situations.

With the objective of leveling the approach to risk-based decision-making, the European Commission Directorate General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE) ordered a study about the feasibility to establish “Harmonized Risk Acceptance Criteria (RAC) for TDG” (2014). The study revealed that the implementation of harmonised RAC requires, in the first instance, a harmonisation of risk management concepts currently applied in Europe. Based on these recommendations, DG MOVE mandated the European Agency for Railways (ERA) to develop the RMF. ERA, in collaboration with interested stakeholders, has developed the RMF for the multimodal and the inland TDG applicable to road, rail, and inland waterway transport in Europe.

The RMF is intended for different types of users like local, regional, national, and international authorities and organisations as well as companies, consultants, professional associations and institutions, agencies, and regulatory bodies. The first version of the RMF was published in 2018.

The RMF Must Not Replace the Rule-Based Approach of RID/ADR/ADN​

Intermodal inland TDG in Europe is well regulated by RID/ADR/ADN, which lays down the transport requirements for dangerous goods.

The Future Use of the RMF Must Remain on a Voluntary Basis​

Cefic supports the view that the use of the RMF must remain on a voluntary basis. The current inland TDG legislation foresees the use of risk assessment in Chapter 1.9 of RID/ADR/ADN. The two initial UNECE guidelines facilitate the work of the CA in this task. To safeguard the flexibility for the CA, the application of these initial UNECE guidelines is not mandatory. The RMF aims to further estimate the risk in a harmonised way. As a complement to these guidelines, the RMF should also be used on a voluntary basis rather than being imposed by Member States or by the EU. It constitutes one approach among others to manage residual risks that can be used according to the wide variety of possible circumstances, situations, and factors. Other risk management methods are also valid and under certain conditions may be more effective than a QRA approach.

The Application of the RMF Must Be Used for Comparing Alternative Transport Options​

  • The RMF must only be used for comparing alternative transport options.
  • Absolute thresholds for determining the acceptability of residual risks in TDG are not a durable element of risk control.

RAC Cannot Take the Form of (Harmonised) Absolute Ceilings​

RAC in the form of absolute thresholds would set a cap or even ban certain inland TDG operations without alternatives, making it impossible to find competitive transport solutions. Inland TDG that is compliant with RID/ADR/ADN must always be accepted. Special provisions may apply or even be added to RID/ADR/ADN, if required. The RMF can then be used to determine the optimum level of safety when competitive alternatives are available for the transport conditions of the scenarios that already comply with RID/ADR/ADN.

The Choice and Use of RAC Must Remain a Member State’s Prerogative​

Risks arising from specific local situations occur locally, depending on location-specific situations, circumstances, and factors. Taking account of the wide variation of possible location specifics, there is no one-size-fits-all (combination of) criteria that could be applied in all situations and that could value a calculated numerical risk number. Therefore, the RAC for these specific situations must be determined locally, under the responsibility and expertise of the Member State and in due respect of the principle of subsidiarity and sovereignty in the EU.

RAC Do Not Need to Be Harmonised at European Level​

Taking account of the above, Cefic believes that it is not worth harmonising the RAC at European level. However, the DNV-GL study on “Harmonized RAC for TDG” (2014) has inventoried the 10 candidate approaches for RAC existing in Europe. They do not just take the form of numerical values, but also RAC concepts and/or methodologies. The study also highlights four areas of challenges to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of candidates for harmonised RAC. Most of these challenges are met by the following combination of RAC approaches:

  • “Uniform application of the codes” combined with
  • “Expert judgement approach” and
  • “Risk ranking of alternatives (road tunnel approaches)”, to be applied in the management of the residual risks related to individual (regional) local situations.

Quantitative RAC with fixed threshold values are too rigid and are not long-lasting to respond appropriately to those requirements. Conscientious selection amongst adequate alternative options, rather than simply prohibiting transport, reveals to be the most suitable and practicable approach.

For More Information​

Peng Paternostre
Manager Transport & Logistics
Tel: +32.2.436.94.08
Email: ppa@cefic.be

About Cefic​

Cefic, the European Chemical Industry Council, founded in 1972, is the voice of 28,000 large, medium and small chemical companies in Europe, which provide 1.2 million jobs and account for 15% of world chemicals production.

Image

Image

Image