Carrying dangerous goods and passengers

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
1

Just come across this http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15112709._This_explosive_fertiliser_is_fine___but_your_wife_shouldn_t_be_here_/in the local rag relating to a non trained passenger being carried in a vehicle carrying dangerous goods, according to North Yorkshire police, non trained passengers can’t be carried.
You learn something new every day, or do you?

THE driver of an HGV carrying 1000kg of fertiliser was stopped by police in North Yorkshire.

The lorry was carrying ammonium nitrate fertiliser and heading south on the A19, when it was pulled over by North Yorkshire Police just before 1.30pm on Wednesday.

A spokesman for the force said: “All safety equipment and documentation was in order. Unfortunately, he was carrying his wife in the cab.”

Because the fertiliser contained ammonium nitrate, an explosive chemical compound, anyone transporting the substance must adhere to the European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road 2003, known as ADR.

The driver was heading for Scunthorpe, but was stopped near Exelby in North Yorkshire The police spokesman said: "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods rules (ADR) doesn’t allow non-trained personnel in the vehicle.

2

It’s good to see that Yorkshire plod have their priorities right, and are proactively hunting down the dangerous drivers that blight that fine counties roads.

3

I’m surprised at this. I can see that all crew members must have appropriate tickers for goods but am surprised a passenger needs it.
My own Haz ticket expired some time ago. Can’t remember a no passenger rule.
Im sure our resident expert will clear it up.

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

4

As the driver was ADR trained (or should have been if he was carrying an ADR load) then he would have known that his passenger wasn’t allowed with him unless they were also ADR aware and had their own hazardous kit, albeit in basic form.

5

I’m sure Dave will confirm, but I suspect that passengers would need at least hazchem awareness training.

6

And loaded with fertiliser too. He could have blown up half a bus stop queue of feline infant nuns. I hope the police get a medal for bravery.

7

Many times I’ve suspected I’ve carried ADR with wrong weights on with no ADR licence. Stuff buried by the employees at my previous place. No spill kit, no paper work. All I got was ‘YOU can carry so much and on the paperwork it’s just under’

Wonder who I could report them to for that?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

8

I wonder if the driver will get invited for tea and biscuits?

9

JaxDemon:
Many times I’ve suspected I’ve carried ADR with wrong weights on with no ADR licence. Stuff buried by the employees at my previous place. No spill kit, no paper work. All I got was ‘YOU can carry so much and on the paperwork it’s just under’

Wonder who I could report them to for that?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Similar thing a few weeks back, 30T of fertiliser supposedly organic in bulk bags with ammonia sulfate painted out with black spray paint. Id already hitched up to it but the smell was nothing like organic, turned out it was actually chemical based with false paperwork…

10

Pity they weren’t as efficient at stopping a bit of overnight park truck crime on the A19 .
Easy options easy pickings as usual.
Let’s do a bloke for carrying his Mrs with him. :unamused:

11

JaxDemon:
Many times I’ve suspected I’ve carried ADR with wrong weights on with no ADR licence. Stuff buried by the employees at my previous place. No spill kit, no paper work. All I got was ‘YOU can carry so much and on the paperwork it’s just under’

Wonder who I could report them to for that?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Unless the goods packaging has an eq (exempted quantity) stamp on it, it’s in scope. And the only exemption from adr goods in scope is if you’re carrying it for personal use, i.e. a builder carrying gas bottles etc. If it’s hire and reward transport, the driver and vehicle need to comply with the rules

12

** Rolls sleeves up ** :grimacing:

According to the report, the driver was carrying 1,000Kg of ammonium nitrate fertiliser.

Ammonium nitrate fertiliser in the amount carried is not fully in scope of ADR because it’s in ADR Transport Category 3, which has an ‘allowance’ of 1,000Kg. (1,000 Litres if the substance being carried is a liquid.)

The driver did not need an ADR licence, nor were orange plates needed.
The driver ONLY needed 1 X 2kg ADR compliant fire-extinguisher and NOTHING ELSE.

The driver was carrying a passenger (his wife.)
Anybody carried as part of a vehicle crew needs the carrier’s permission (or instruction) to be on board, plus some documented ADR awareness training.

A passenger does NOT need an ADR licence if they aren’t going to drive the vehicle, but this load wasn’t in scope of ADR anyway, so the police were correct to say that it is an offence for a person who hasn’t had any training to be on board a vehicle carrying dangerous goods.

In this particular case, it’s a mistake to assume that the ‘not trained’ comment means an ADR licence. :wink:

====================================================================================

The term “Excepted Quantity” is a similar concept to “Limited Quantity” (a small quantity per package) but refers to extremely small amounts.
The maximum size of an Excepted Quantity is 30g, which is slightly bigger than an English ounce, so EQs are not relevant to this case.

The part that made me smile is that ADR 2003 was quoted in the report, but ADR is completely renewed and republished every two years. There was a version of ADR called ADR 2003, but there’s been SIX later versions of ADR since then. :open_mouth:

The current version is ADR 2017, but ADR 2015 can be used up to 30/06/2017.

I’m agreeing with those who said that this is a mountain being made from a molehill, but I can’t tell whether it’s the police or the reporters that made it so.

13

No mention of reflective orange boards front and rear either…

14

dieseldave:
** Rolls sleeves up ** :grimacing:

According to the report, the driver was carrying 1,000Kg of ammonium nitrate fertiliser.

Ammonium nitrate fertiliser in the amount carried is not fully in scope of ADR because it’s in ADR Transport Category 3, which has an ‘allowance’ of 1,000Kg. (1,000 Litres if the substance being carried is a liquid.)

The driver did not need an ADR licence, nor were orange plates needed.
The driver ONLY needed 1 X 2kg ADR compliant fire-extinguisher and NOTHING ELSE.

The driver was carrying a passenger (his wife.)
Anybody carried as part of a vehicle crew needs the carrier’s permission (or instruction) to be on board, plus some documented ADR awareness training.

A passenger does NOT need an ADR licence if they aren’t going to drive the vehicle, but this load wasn’t in scope of ADR anyway, so the police were correct to say that it is an offence for a person who hasn’t had any training to be on board a vehicle carrying dangerous goods.

In this particular case, it’s a mistake to assume that the ‘not trained’ comment means an ADR licence. :wink:

====================================================================================

The term “Excepted Quantity” is a similar concept to “Limited Quantity” (a small quantity per package) but refers to extremely small amounts.
The maximum size of an Excepted Quantity is 30g, which is slightly bigger than an English ounce, so EQs are not relevant to this case.

The part that made me smile is that ADR 2003 was quoted in the report, but ADR is completely renewed and republished every two years. There was a version of ADR called ADR 2003, but there’s been SIX later versions of ADR since then. :open_mouth:

The current version is ADR 2017, but ADR 2015 can be used up to 30/06/2017.

I’m agreeing with those who said that this is a mountain being made from a molehill, but I can’t tell whether it’s the police or the reporters that made it so.

So just to clarify, if the load is under ADR threshold, do all the occupants of the vehicle need ADR awareness training or just the driver?

In which case are the Police wrong to pull up the driver on having a passenger or not?

15

Goldfinger:
No mention of reflective orange boards front and rear either…

I’m sure if the copper thought he was being so clever by picking up on the non qualified passenger, I’m sure he’d have also picked up on no plates.
But as Dieseldave said, it was under the ADR threshold so no need for orange plates anyway.

16

How I mean is…

What made the officer(s) curious in the first place - could they see the load, and therefore decided to dig a bit deeper?

Just doing my ADR this week, so this thread caught my eye… :blush:

17

Goldfinger:
How I mean is…

What made the officer(s) curious in the first place - could they see the load, and therefore decided to dig a bit deeper?

Just doing my ADR this week, so this thread caught my eye… :blush:

Hi Goldfinger,

It might have been that they could see this on the bag:

5_1.gif

Maybe there was something that they thought needed them to have a word with the driver, but that wasn’t made clear in the report.

18

muckles:
So just to clarify, if the load is under ADR threshold, do all the occupants of the vehicle need ADR awareness training or just the driver?

In which case are the Police wrong to pull up the driver on having a passenger or not?

Hi muckles,

All occupants of a vehicle carrying dangerous goods need ADR awareness training, including the driver.
This includes when it’s a not ‘in scope’ load.

When the load is ‘in scope’ the driver needs an ADR card valid for the UN Class of dangerous goods being carried, and the mode of carriage… either ‘in tanks’ or ‘other than tanks.’
Passengers in an ‘in scope’ vehicle need documented ADR awareness training the same as they would if it’s not ‘in scope.’

Dave’s ADR trivia:
ADR awareness training must be documented (ie kept in the employee’s personnel file back at base) but does NOT need to be carried on board the vehicle.

A passenger who holds an ADR card does NOT ‘cover’ a driver who does not have an ADR card.

19

Goldfinger:
No mention of reflective orange boards front and rear either…

A good spot Goldfinger. :wink:

Your instructor should have already mentioned the concept of some loads in normal kinds of packages not needing to obey the whole of ADR, ie the carriage of small loads.

The amount of ‘allowance’ depends on the ADR Transport Category (degree/severity of danger) of the goods in question.

In the case in point, the ‘allowance’ is 1,000Kg because the goods in question are in ADR Transport Category 3.

:bulb: If the instructor has time (takes about 2mins,) ask him to show you the entry for UN 2067 in the dangerous goods list in his ADR book and how I get to the ‘allowance’ being 1,000Kg in ADR 1.1.3.6.

Good luck in your exams!! :smiley:

20

Sometimes I wonder if the ADR “Training” does anything like inform the driver on what the real dangers of different substances are.

Ammonium Nitrate on it’s own is pretty harmless. Mix it with any powder though, and it becomes as dangerous as gunpowder. “Any powder” includes fluff, brick dust, and indeed normal human dust.

Instead of banging on with “Oxidizing Agent” labels, it might be better if people were told to keep this away from warm, dry, dusty places - rather than “keep away from fire risks such as wood and paper” or “keep away from sources of ignition” which doesn’t tell anywhere near enough of the story.

How many people think the big danger from “Hydrofluoric Acid” is “It’s a strong acid, causes burns, highly dangerous to skin” etc etc.

That’s not it at all. The danger from HF is contact fluoride poisoning. The fluoride ion attaches itself to calcium, primarily found in teeth and bones - and converts things like Calcium Phosphate into Calcium Fluoride. This, in turn causes the degradation of bones within the body, and the person ends up dying as if they’d had a compound untreated fracture of the type one gets when being caught up in an explosion.
By implying it’s the “Acid” aspect of this substances that represents the danger - people are lulled into a false sense of security by the fact that upon getting this stuff on the skin - it doesn’t hurt, doesn’t seem to burn straight away, and the sense of imminent peril is reduced - with deadly effect.

In my mind then - the entire ADR course should be modified to bring drivers up to speed with the FULL dangers of what they are carrying. If that means employing drivers that effectively have Chemistry qualifications - then so be it. If this were nuclear material - we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If enough care can be taken there, then why not across the entire dangerous goods spectrum? :confused: