A colleague of mine is on an occasional run at night when there are no staff to confirm what he is carrying.
The management know that he does not have his ADR licence, so he is usually collecting Items which would fall under limited quantities.
A load that has got his attention recently did not have LQ on the paperwork, and judging by other stickers, is worried that the content would fall under ADR of which he does not have a license. He’s also worried about the safety levels, which is not suprising considering some of the stuff that is out there.
My own (adr) license has also expired, so I thought I would ask here. I thought there was an ADR thread, but I couldn’t find it.
There is the red flammable symbol, and UN 1950 UN 1993. Harmful to water and overpack markings on it.
From what I can tell as long as the actual product is within 1 L aerosol containers then he can carry limited quantity.
Thank you in advance
Saratoga:
I thought there was an ADR thread, but I couldn’t find it.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=23162
Do you want me to repost it there?
I don’t have my ADR anymore. It expired and I’ve not had much operational practice of ADR in the last 4 years.
Saratoga:
There is the red flammable symbol, and UN 1950 UN 1993. Harmful to water and overpack markings on it.
From what I can tell as long as the actual product is within 1 L aerosol containers then he can carry limited quantity.
Hi Saratoga,
I get the feeling that this is going to be a bit tricky… 
I’m afraid that the labelling shown in the picture is possibly incorrect (some of it is also very out of date) and therefore not of much help.
We also don’t know what was written on the paperwork. 
What we know so far… UN 1993 (if it has been correctly identified) is not an aerosol.
UN 1950 is aerosols, and you’re correct in that these can normally be carried in 1L (depending on the contents) as LQs and I’d just add that it’s without restriction of amount on the vehicle.
I could spend ages typing all the various theories as to how/why the shipper has chosen the labelling that they did and what they might think it means, but it wouldn’t get us to the answer.
The answer can only come from knowledge of the whole information relating to the substances and the packaging size(s) as presented for transport.
Thank you for the reply Dave.
I have spoken at length with my colleague Over this and other issues, and he is reassured by your responses.
I suppose this is to be expected when you are on general haulage. I work for the same company, well, we are sharing the same truck at different times of the day, but I am on a different contract on the day so I don’t have to worry about general Haulage and curtainsiders as much.
Saratoga:
Thank you for the reply Dave.
I have spoken at length with my colleague Over this and other issues, and he is reassured by your responses.
I suppose this is to be expected when you are on general haulage. I work for the same company, well, we are sharing the same truck at different times of the day, but I am on a different contract on the day so I don’t have to worry about general Haulage and curtainsiders as much.
Hi Saratoga,
Going on the generality of the info we know (including the PMs) it’s fair to say that you colleague is in the clear, and that the folks who do the package labelling should be following the rules for labelling LQs in current version of ADR. (ADR 2017 Chapter 3.4)
I’m glad that your colleague feels reassured. 