Health and Safety
Executive / Commission
Regulatory Impact Assessments: Equipment
1. These proposals are intended to implement the Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive (TPED). The main requirements of the Directive must be brought into force by 1 July 2001.
2. TPED builds on the requirements for conformity assessment and periodic inspection in current EU Framework Directives (ADR/RID). In particular, TPED aims to:
3. The risks associated with the carriage of dangerous goods by road and rail, whether under pressure or not, have been previously assessed as low compared to the risks of other workplace activities. Work done previously by HSE suggests that these risks are equivalent to an annual event causing no more than one fatality and several injuries each year (although the events will vary in frequency and severity). In addition, there are around 500 emergency call-outs to deal with chemical spillage, at an economic cost of around £2 million each year.
4. This suggests that the risks associated with TPE are very low, since only a small proportion of the risk above will relate to pressure equipment.
5. TPED requires implementation in the GB by secondary legislation. The approach to the implementation of TPED is to go no further than the terms of the Directive, and to take full advantage of the derogations it offers. This issue is discussed further in the text. The wider EU issues concerning design and construction standards relating to the carriage of dangerous goods is complex, and is outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum.
6. This Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) has been revised following formal consultation, and post-consultation discussion with respondents about particular issues. The outcome of these discussions is reported in the text. Use has also been made of previous work done by HSE on the costs and benefits of ADR/RID harmonisation.
7. Only a fraction of the estimated risks relating to the carriage of chemicals (including gases) are due to transport in pressurised tanks or cylinders (referred to as transportable pressure vessels -or TPVs - in the proposals). In addition, only a small proportion of TPE will be affected by the proposals - ie that used for international carriage. The potential for improved health and safety benefits is therefore thought to be very low.
8. The principal benefit of the proposals is in the harmonisation of standards, so that any TPE that satisfies the proposals can be transported and unloaded, refilled and placed on the market throughout the EU. This is expected to bring real economic benefit. At present, TPE that satisfies ADR/RID requirements as far as the UK is concerned cannot, for example, be refilled in another EU country without ADR accreditation by the competent body of the country concerned. Also, it cannot be placed on the market in that country without such approval.
9. Industry has advised that this proposal will result in real operational benefits to multinational organisations who own and use TPVs in the UK and at least one other EU member country. If a piece of equipment is needed in the member country and is available in GB, the proposals will allow it to be transported and used in the member country, if it has already been satisfactorily assessed in GB. The alternative, of accrediting a TPV for use in the member country, can lead to further delay and result in the organisation actually purchasing a new piece of equipment in order to fulfil it's logistic requirements.
10. TPED affects all manufacturers and users of TPEs for which there are CEN Standards referenced in ADR/RID or which comply with standards which meet the design and construction requirements of ADR/RID. A good example is liquid petroleum gas (LPG). The LP Gas Association (LPGA) estimate that there are around 18 million transportable LPG cylinders of various types) in circulation at any one time. The vast majority of these are used exclusively for domestic carriage. Indeed, the LPGA have advised that gas cylinders are rarely used for export purposes. These cylinders are very long lasting. If we assume an average life of thirty years, then around 600,000 will be replaced each year.
Notified inspection bodies.
11. The UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) will carry out appraisals of organisations wishing to be designated as notified or approved bodies under these proposals, for TPVs only.
12. Notification will typically involve a site visit by two personnel of the competent authority (or a body appointed by the competent authority to advise it - in this case UKAS) lasting around two days. Actual costs will vary on a case by case basis, but a typical initial cost would be in the region of £4,000. This cost will be re-incurred on a three yearly basis. In addition, UKAS will carry out periodic inspections of the notified or approved body, typically taking two person days. If these inspections are carried out yearly, this would lead to additional yearly costs of around £2,000. These are predicted costs, and will depend on how the regime actually develops. The present value of this cost over ten years would be around £20,000 to each notified body.
13. There are currently 14 inspection bodies for assessing cylinders under ADR/RID. We assume all would wish to become notified or approved bodies. This suggests total ten year costs to the industry of £280,000 in present terms.
14. Personnel working for the new notified or approved bodies will also require familiarisation and training with these proposals. We believe this should be a relatively straightforward exercise, and would form part of a formal training course lasting a number of days. We allow a cost of one day's formal training covering just these proposals to say, fifty core personnel at each body (assuming again that each body will wish to become notified). This suggests an additional one-off cost of £10,000 to each notified or approved body, or £140,000 in total.
Familiarisation
15. Users of TPE will also need to become familiar with the new regulations, though not in as much detail as notified bodies. However, some respondents reported significant costs in dealing with the administrative aspects of recent regulatory changes, including meetings to discuss the Consultation Document and time taken to respond. These were estimated at several thousand pounds for a medium size organisation, and are in addition to our original estimate of the time taken to become familiar with the regulations, when they are finalised.
16. If the several dozen organisations who regularly consign cylinders abroad required one day's time for five key operations managers, and the several hundred organisations who may occasionally do this required one hours time for five key operations managers, then this would suggest one-off costs of around £50,000 in 2001.
17. In addition, we might expect a similar cost has been incurred by industry as a whole in responding to HSE requests for comments. However, this is a `sunk' cost, which would have been incurred whatever the outcome of the decision process.
Ongoing inspection
18. Existing cylinders which do not conform to one of the proposed standards, but are approved under current Regulations, will need to be assessed to see if they comply with the basic requirements of ADR/RID before they can be used for international carriage. Newly manufactured cylinders will also need to be assessed for ADR/RID compatibility before they can be used for international carriage.
19. In practice, cylinders are rarely used for international carriage. Inspection is currently determined by the competent person on a case by case basis. If an organisation wishes to use cylinders for future carriage abroad, then they would have to be reassessed to see if they met ADR/RID requirements, and then marked accordingly. This would represent additional costs to the industry.
20. However, industry specialists have advised that, since very few cylinders would be used for international carriage it is likely that the cylinders needed by those organisations that are involved in international carriage could be supplied from stocks that would already be due for their periodic inspection before the regulations come into force, thus limiting costs. If this is not the case, then the periodic inspection would need to be bought forward. We have been advised that TPED will not lead to any increase in the complexity (and therefore cost) of inspection, compared to those which are currently carried out under ADR/RID for equipment that is used in international carriage. The additional cost is therefore the cost of bringing an existing inspection forward, where this needs to be done.
21. It is not possible to quantify these costs. However, any costs incurred should be set against operational benefits. Industry specialists have offered a view on the overall cost-benefit balance of this provision, which is reported below.
Marking of cylinders
22. Several respondents to the Consultation Document reported large costs for cylinder marking equipment (for all cylinders). However, industry now accepts that new marking would only be required for cylinders transported abroad, and that this could take the form of marking that is currently done (tagging). The permanent stamping of new cylinders would be done during construction at very little additional cost. We are not therefore expecting any additional costs in this area.
Manufacture
23. It is highly likely that new pressurised equipment (other than tanks) will also currently be built to ADR/RID standards. This would be required if the equipment is to be used for international carriage, and also in anticipation of the standards if the equipment is to continue to be placed on the EU market. We are therefore not expecting any additional costs to manufacturers of TPE attributable to these proposals, and we asked for this to be confirmed during consultation. No manufacturer notified us of any additional costs in this area.
24. These will be very small. The additional costs to bodies that are expected to become notified will be passed on to the users of TPE (estimated at around £420,000 in total). If this affects several hundred users of TPE for international carriage, we would expect costs to each user to be no more than £1,000 over a ten year period. Familiarisation costs are expected to be modest, at around £50,000 to industry as a whole.
25. This is estimated at around £470,000 over ten years.
26. Since notified bodies will charge on a per-inspection basis, and other costs are equivalent to the volume of equipment used, we are not expecting any disproportionate costs to small or medium size enterprises.
27. HSE will incur a small administrative cost in developing the proposals. We are expecting no additional costs in enforcing the proposals, or to other government bodies.
28. None.
29. These are as detailed to industry.
30. These proposals will benefit the environment by continuing to enhance the legal framework that addresses the risks to do with the transport of dangerous goods.
31. It has not been possible to quantify the benefits and many of the costs of this proposal. However, we have been advised by one of the principal trade organisations that it is likely that the operational benefits to organisations who use TPVs in international carriage (or who operate in several member states), will more than balance the overall costs of the proposals over the long term.
32. These are as detailed in the text.
33. The continued development of the ADR/RID Framework Directives is an ongoing process. Ongoing monitoring of the impact of these regulations will be performed via a number of existing enforcement and industry liaison bodies.
POLICY CONTACT:
e mail cdgpolicy.spda@hse.gsi.gov.uk