Dangerous goods advice- UK regs and ADR

ASK THE EXPERTS SAFETY, LAW AND WORKING TIME DIRECTIVE FORUM (INTE
381

wood73:
it was a tanker, in all honesty, it was 99.999% water with a few 5p size blobs on top.

Hi wood73,
Thanks for the extra info. :smiley:

I’m sorry to have to say this mate, but you were subject to full ADR, because you were given a UN number AND there are no applicable Special Provisions (SPs) available with UN 3082 (in the circumstances you described) to exempt you from the full requirements of ADR.
That is regardless of the quantity or ratio of water to other product, simply because the dangerous goods were carried in a tanker.
The stuff you were carrying (according to the consignor, but see below) was:
UN 3082 ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS LIQUID, N.O.S., 9, PGIII

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

Having said the above, it’s possible that the consignor might have mis-identified the load.
I can’t be absolutely definitive on this point without knowing a whole load of extra info, which is known only to the consignor.
The consignor classified your load as ‘dangerous goods’ using UN 3082 as the correct UN number, so that’s the info we have to use and therefore you were subject to full ADR on the basis that a tanker was used to carry the load.

You clarified (or at least attempted to clarify) that you were OK to carry that load, and you were very clear that you don’t hold ADR.
I’m sorry to say that (from the information given) it seems that your office probably got this question wrong, but you can comfort yourself with the fact that it was their responsibility to have answered your question correctly.
To my way of thinking, your office/TM had the opportunity to ask the company’s DGSA to resolve the classification question with the consignor before you were sent/allocated to collect the load.
From the info you’ve given, it seems that your office might have had difficulty with knowing the legal difference in ADR between ‘carriage in packages’ when contrasted with ‘carriage in tanks.’
(You could have carried 1,000 ltrs of UN 3082 perfectly legally in packages without an ADR licence.)

:bulb: Isn’t it great that drivers aren’t responsible for classifying whether a load actually counts as dangerous goods, or for deciding whether some/all of ADR applies to any particular job ■■ :smiley:

382

Without meddling in a subject I don,t have your knowledge and expertise of Dave, (and not being condescending or patronising btw) as a union safety rep, on this one as you say the driver would in no way be to blame for the wrong info, then this (from my stage 1 course days) comes under the heading of “Due Diligence” which simply means that the driver has done all he / she can legitimately do to ascertain if the ADR regs are required on this occasion.

The driver is not in a position to question the statement by management unless he / she knows or can prove different!

As you say therefore no blame can be apportioned the the driver in this instance!

383

NEJ:
Without meddling in a subject I don,t have your knowledge and expertise of Dave, (and not being condescending or patronising btw) as a union safety rep, on this one as you say the driver would in no way be to blame for the wrong info, then this (from my stage 1 course days) comes under the heading of “Due Diligence” which simply means that the driver has done all he / she can legitimately do to ascertain if the ADR regs are required on this occasion.

Hi NEJ,
As far as I’m aware, what you’ve written is the position under UK law.
However, ADR places the responsibility for the correct classification of substances upon the consignor as follows:

ADR 1.4.2.1.1
The consignor of dangerous goods is required to hand over for carriage only consignments
which conform to the requirements of ADR. In the context of 1.4.1, [1.4.1 = general safety measures] he shall in particular:
(a) Ascertain that the dangerous goods are classified and authorized for carriage in
accordance with ADR;
(b) Furnish the carrier with information and data and, if necessary, the required transport
documents and accompanying documents

There’s also this snippet of responsibility concerning loading:

ADR 7.5.1.2
The loading shall not be carried out if:
(a) an examination of the documents; or
(b)

shows that the vehicle, the driver, a large container, a bulk-container, a tank-container, a
portable tank or their equipment do not comply with the regulatory provisions.

The carrier has some responsibility too:

ADR 1.4.2.2.1
In the context of 1.4.1, [1.4.1 = general safety measures] where appropriate, the carrier shall in particular:
(a) Ascertain that the dangerous goods to be carried are authorized for carriage in
accordance with ADR;
(b) Ascertain that the prescribed documentation is on board the transport unit;

However, and to be fair to the carrier, the carrier does have a fall-back position:

ADR 1.4.2.2.2
The carrier may, however, in the case of 1.4.2.2.1 (a), (b), , rely on information
and data made available to him by other participants.

Which means that the carrier (the OP’s boss) knew, or ought to have known that the load was subject to ADR because if they thought that the position was unclear, they could have simply asked the consignor. The fact that the load had a UN number was a massive clue and (IMHO) should have caused some questions to be asked.

In the ‘responsibility’ quotes above, the words “documents” and “prescribed documentation” are used.

ADR 8.1.2.2
Where the provisions of ADR require the following documents to be drawn up, they shall
likewise be carried on the transport unit:
(a)
(b) The driver’s training certificate
(c)

The upshot of this is that the carrier can only allocate a correctly certificated driver when a load is subject to the full requirements of ADR.
This is also the requirement that a driver carries an ORIGINAL ADR certificate when the load is subject to the full requirements of ADR. (Notice that there’s no mention of a photocopy!! :wink: )

NEJ:
The driver is not in a position to question the statement by management unless he / she knows or can prove different!

Correct!!
Then, once we realise the duties of the consignor and the carrier above, and that ADR does not require the driver to know such things, the driver bears no responsibility other than ‘due diligence’ exactly as the OP did.

NEJ:
As you say therefore no blame can be apportioned the the driver in this instance!

Agreed mate.
It would be a very bad state of affairs if a driver could be held accountable for being misinformed by those who are responsible.
:bulb: I’m not even going to consider whether the ‘misleading’ of the OP was done by accident or design, but some folks may have an opinion after reading the above. :wink: :grimacing:

384

I will be speaking to the office today, I am not happy about this. The thing is from my point of view having not done an adr course, I know very little about it and being relativly new to the job I done what I thought was correct by checking with the office.
The problem here lies with the very limited information regarding adr that you are taught when learning to drive hgv’s and anything I know is from talking to adr drivers and what I read on here, so how are you supposed to know what is and isnt subject to adr regs?

385

wood73:
I will be speaking to the office today, I am not happy about this. The thing is from my point of view having not done an adr course, I know very little about it and being relativly new to the job I done what I thought was correct by checking with the office.

Hi wood73,
The fact that you checked with the office keeps you out of trouble. It’s that simple.
The office then went on to mislead you, so that can’t be your fault.
If you read my reply to you (and NEJ) you should be comforted by the fact that what I’ve quoted is directly from ADR itself.

wood73:
The problem here lies with the very limited information regarding adr that you are taught when learning to drive hgv’s and anything I know is from talking to adr drivers and what I read on here, so how are you supposed to know what is and isnt subject to adr regs?

Whilst this part of what you’ve written is factually correct, you still don’t seem to accept that it ISN’T a driver’s responsibility to know the inner workings of ADR. Even if you completed and passed all modules of an ADR course, that wouldn’t alter the advice I gave you above.

People seem to think that an ADR driver qualification means that the holder understands the whole of ADR. :unamused:
I’m sorry mate, but that view couldn’t be more wrong. The certificate you would gain only entitles you to drive a vehicle loaded with dangerous goods. It would NOT alter a single word of what I’ve written or quoted to you and NEJ above.
There’s really no need to get your knickers in a twist mate, cos you’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. (Honestly :wink: )

I’ll agree that what is taught about ADR whilst learning to drive is rather scant, can you imagine how difficult it would have been for you to take all that extra info in during your training? Your training and driving test complied with the law’s requirements, so you’ve nothing to fear from that angle.

You checked with your office and were misled by them, so where does that leave you once the dust has settled?
It leaves you nicely in the clear, because you asked for guidance. :smiley:

386

Another one on this subject Dave as a DGSA shouldn,t you be (ahem ahem) offering your services to this co. as a DGSA as it looks like at present they might be in breach of the ADR regs for carrying goods in scope of ADR regs if they don,t have a designated DGSA on call. :laughing: :unamused: :unamused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :sunglasses: :sunglasses: :sunglasses:

Just a thought btw :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

387

Hi Dave.
How the devil are you?

I was just wondering the proportion of companies that actually ask for ADR certificates before they allow a driver on site to load. In Germany and most of Europe we had to show the trailer and unit papers, the ADR and even then had to go through a random security check for equipment, and could be rejected even if it was only cracked lamp lenses or loose spray suppression.

I know that things were a bit lacking in years gone by, but since the regulations were more closely aligned I wonder if the UK had caught up

how about a poll folks?

388

NEJ:
Another one on this subject Dave as a DGSA shouldn,t you be (ahem ahem) offering your services to this co. as a DGSA as it looks like at present they might be in breach of the ADR regs for carrying goods in scope of ADR regs if they don,t have a designated DGSA on call. :laughing: :unamused: :unamused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :sunglasses: :sunglasses: :sunglasses:

Just a thought btw :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Hi NEJ,

That thought had occurred to me, but it seems that the boss already knows everything. :laughing: :laughing: :wink: :grimacing:

389

Wheel Nut:
Hi Dave.
How the devil are you?

I was just wondering the proportion of companies that actually ask for ADR certificates before they allow a driver on site to load. In Germany and most of Europe we had to show the trailer and unit papers, the ADR and even then had to go through a random security check for equipment, and could be rejected even if it was only cracked lamp lenses or loose spray suppression.

I know that things were a bit lacking in years gone by, but since the regulations were more closely aligned I wonder if the UK had caught up

how about a poll folks?

Hi Malc,

I’m fine thanks. :smiley:

In the UK, it seems to only be the larger companies that ask such questions.

TBH, I put it down to the political will amongst the enforcement agencies. :wink:

390

Hi Diesel Dave, I’ve been trawling through the posts in here but can’t find the answer to my question,but I’m sure you’ll let me know if it has already been answered. Sorry but its another “bowser” question.
One of the companies I work for supply generators to the events industry, this particular generator in question is a large lorry-mounted one. The generator is permanently mounted on the rear load bed of the lorry and has an integral red diesel fuel tank, the capacity of which I am unsure of but I’d estimate it to be 100 to 200 litres. Also permanently mounted to the bed of the lorry is a 1000l bunded red diesel tank which feeds the generator also, as the smallish integral tank would be inadequate for extended running periods. The company in question has told me I can drive this as it falls outside of ADR regs. due to the 1000l capacity of the bunded tank. This may or may not be true, but of even greater concern to me as a driver is that it is regularly sent out towing in addition a 1000l red diesel bowser (a pupose built bunded tank permanently fitted to a trailer chassis), which is used to fuel heaters in marquees.
I am highly suspicious that if I were to be sent out driving this setup that it would be illegal. I read in previous posts of a 1000l limit per vehicle. Is the lorry/trailer combination classed as one or two vehicles?
I should add I do not hold any form of hazardous chemical certification or indeed have had no trainig to that effect.
Your views would be much appreciated. Thanks.

391

Hi Dave,
another question. I regularly take a load of solvent residue un 1993, pgII
The consignor gives me a consignment note which has printed on it the EAC 3Y, I looked this up to be sure but my book gives me 3YE as it is pg II
the consignor say there paperwork is correct so which should I use?
My book of EAC’s is 1997 so things could possibly have changed.

392

wood73:
Hi Dave,
another question. I regularly take a load of solvent residue un 1993, pgII
The consignor gives me a consignment note which has printed on it the EAC 3Y, I looked this up to be sure but my book gives me 3YE as it is pg II
the consignor say there paperwork is correct so which should I use?
My book of EAC’s is 1997 so things could possibly have changed.

Hi wood73,

The first thing to do is to throw your book of EACs away, cos it’s as out-of-date as it can be!!
Without me doing any research into what is only an academic point, the EAC list has been completely reprinted about 5 times since 1997. :open_mouth:
Since 1997, quite a number of the EACs have been radically altered.

Your transport document for this ‘stuff’ should read:

UN 1993 FLAMMABLE LIQUID N.O.S. (CONTAINS XXXX AND YYYY), 3, PGII

If you’re carrying this stuff in packages, the EAC is irrelevant and the transport document info above is correct.

If you’re carrying this stuff in a tanker, the EAC just happens to have stayed the same, and is 3YE

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “so which should I use?” because the PG is required to be written on your transport document for packages AND tankers, whereas the EAC is only required to be shown on the three Hazard Warning Panels displayed on a tanker carrying UN 1993 and is only of use to the fire-brigade during an incident. BTW, a PG is not required to be displayed on a Hazard Warning Panel.
Unless I’ve misunderstood your question (quite possible) is it possible that you might have got the purpose of PGs a bit mixed up with the purpose of EACs?

393

hi
yes it is a tanker, right on the consignment note it has pg II, un1993 3Y, flammable liquid n.o.s., class 3.
what I meant was, the consignor is giving the eac as 3y and as you said as i thought the correct eac is 3ye.
I did mention this to the chap there, but he just says ‘no, its 3y.’

394

wood73:
hi
yes it is a tanker, right on the consignment note it has pg II, un1993 3Y, flammable liquid n.o.s., class 3.
what I meant was, the consignor is giving the eac as 3y and as you said as i thought the correct eac is 3ye.
I did mention this to the chap there, but he just says ‘no, its 3y.’

Hi mate,

Thanks for clarifying that it’s a tanker. :smiley:

The info on the transport document MUST be in the order that I wrote it in my last post.
If your post above is an exact copy of the way that the info actually appears on your transport document, then it’s definitely written in the wrong order, so it might be worth politely pointing that out to the consignor.
(If they have ADR 2009, the bit they need to read is in 5.4.1.1.1 and he needs to read that subsection right to the end.)

I can confirm for sure that the EAC for UN 1993 FLAMMABLE LIQUID N.O.S., 3, PGII is 3YE

If it were UN 1993, but PGIII, then the EAC for that is 3Y.
The EACs are to be found in The Dangerous Goods EAC List 2009 section 4.
The entry that answers your question about the EAC for UN 1993 PGII is on page 71 (The second to bottom entry on that page.)

I hope that helps. :smiley:

395

oakeedokee:
Hi Diesel Dave, I’ve been trawling through the posts in here but can’t find the answer to my question,but I’m sure you’ll let me know if it has already been answered. Sorry but its another “bowser” question.
One of the companies I work for supply generators to the events industry, this particular generator in question is a large lorry-mounted one. The generator is permanently mounted on the rear load bed of the lorry and has an integral red diesel fuel tank, the capacity of which I am unsure of but I’d estimate it to be 100 to 200 litres. Also permanently mounted to the bed of the lorry is a 1000l bunded red diesel tank which feeds the generator also, as the smallish integral tank would be inadequate for extended running periods. The company in question has told me I can drive this as it falls outside of ADR regs. due to the 1000l capacity of the bunded tank. This may or may not be true, but of even greater concern to me as a driver is that it is regularly sent out towing in addition a 1000l red diesel bowser (a pupose built bunded tank permanently fitted to a trailer chassis), which is used to fuel heaters in marquees.
I am highly suspicious that if I were to be sent out driving this setup that it would be illegal. I read in previous posts of a 1000l limit per vehicle. Is the lorry/trailer combination classed as one or two vehicles?
I should add I do not hold any form of hazardous chemical certification or indeed have had no trainig to that effect.
Your views would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Not sure if you missed my post but here it is again in case you did. Cheers :wink:

396

oakeedokee:

oakeedokee:
Hi Diesel Dave, I’ve been trawling through the posts in here but can’t find the answer to my question,but I’m sure you’ll let me know if it has already been answered. Sorry but its another “bowser” question.
One of the companies I work for supply generators to the events industry, this particular generator in question is a large lorry-mounted one. The generator is permanently mounted on the rear load bed of the lorry and has an integral red diesel fuel tank, the capacity of which I am unsure of but I’d estimate it to be 100 to 200 litres. Also permanently mounted to the bed of the lorry is a 1000l bunded red diesel tank which feeds the generator also, as the smallish integral tank would be inadequate for extended running periods. The company in question has told me I can drive this as it falls outside of ADR regs. due to the 1000l capacity of the bunded tank. This may or may not be true, but of even greater concern to me as a driver is that it is regularly sent out towing in addition a 1000l red diesel bowser (a pupose built bunded tank permanently fitted to a trailer chassis), which is used to fuel heaters in marquees.
I am highly suspicious that if I were to be sent out driving this setup that it would be illegal. I read in previous posts of a 1000l limit per vehicle. Is the lorry/trailer combination classed as one or two vehicles?
I should add I do not hold any form of hazardous chemical certification or indeed have had no trainig to that effect.
Your views would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Not sure if you missed my post but here it is again in case you did. Cheers :wink:

Hi oakeedokee, I didn’t miss your post mate, but the last question was easier to answer and then I had to be somewhere. :wink:

I’ll be back to yours soon. :grimacing:

397

No problem. I appreciate you’re a busy man. :slight_smile:

398

oakeedokee:
Hi Diesel Dave, I’ve been trawling through the posts in here but can’t find the answer to my question,but I’m sure you’ll let me know if it has already been answered. Sorry but its another “bowser” question.

Hi okeedokee,
Aarrrgh!! Another bowser question!! (only kidding mate!! :wink: )

oakeedokee:
One of the companies I work for supply generators to the events industry, this particular generator in question is a large lorry-mounted one. The generator is permanently mounted on the rear load bed of the lorry and has an integral red diesel fuel tank, the capacity of which I am unsure of but I’d estimate it to be 100 to 200 litres.

The capacity of the fuel tank that’s part of the generator doesn’t actually matter, because the generator is exempt from ADR, no fuel tank size is specified.

oakeedokee:
Also permanently mounted to the bed of the lorry is a 1000l bunded red diesel tank which feeds the generator also, as the smallish integral tank would be inadequate for extended running periods.

I’m guessing a little here, but from what you’ve written I think this is an IBC.
If my guess is correct, this has a partial exemption from the full weight of the ADR Regulations under the ‘transport below ADR threshold’ rules.
Up to now, you’re fine as regards most of ADR, but now you do need an ADR compliant minimum 2kg dry powder fire-extinguisher, and some documented ADR ‘awareness’ training, but not a full ADR licence.

oakeedokee:
The company in question has told me I can drive this as it falls outside of ADR regs. due to the 1000l capacity of the bunded tank. This may or may not be true,

Up to now, I completely agree with the company’s ‘take’ on this, as long as they comply with the 2kg fire-extinguisher and the ADR awareness training I mentioned above.

oakeedokee:
but of even greater concern to me as a driver is that it is regularly sent out towing in addition a 1000l red diesel bowser (a pupose built bunded tank permanently fitted to a trailer chassis), which is used to fuel heaters in marquees.

Now this is where your question gets really interesting…
ADR requires a driver to hold an ADR certificate valid for tankers if the capacity of the tank exceeds 1,000 liters, so great care needs to be taken to get this point spot-on. We have to be VERY sure that the capacity of the tank is 1,000 liters or less in order for you to escape the need of an ADR licence and the full implications of all the other parts of ADR compliance that would then be needed.
Due to the definitions contained in ADR, it wouldn’t matter (makes no difference) whether the tank is mounted on the lorry or the trailer.

oakeedokee:
I am highly suspicious that if I were to be sent out driving this setup that it would be illegal. I read in previous posts of a 1000l limit per vehicle. Is the lorry/trailer combination classed as one or two vehicles?

The 1,000 liter limit that you mentioned is spot-on in the case of diesel fuel, but that limit relates to diesel fuel in packages. ( = the bunded IBC.)
(BTW, other kinds of dangerous goods may have different limits.)
You are towing a tank-trailer, which once coupled to the lorry makes the whole vehicle a tank vehicle that just happens to also be carrying a package as well.
There’s nothing in ADR that says that a vehicle can’t be a tank vehicle AND carry a package at the same time, so I’m going to stick my neck out a little and guess that the company has already taken advice.

oakeedokee:
I should add I do not hold any form of hazardous chemical certification or indeed have had no trainig to that effect.
Your views would be much appreciated. Thanks.

All covered above, I hope. :smiley:

Just to ease your possible fears about this subject, I’ll quote you a small snippet from ADR concerning the responsibilities of the “Carrier.”
Note: In ADR, the “carrier” is defined as:

“Carrier” means the enterprise which carries out the transport operation with or without a transport contract;

From the part of ADR that’s concerned with responsibilities:

the carrier shall in particular:
Ascertain that the dangerous goods to be carried are authorized for carriage in accordance with ADR;

So, provided that you’re an employed driver, it’s your boss (the carrier) who bears the legal responsibility to ensure that the job is carried out in accordance with ADR. From the info you’ve given, I can’t see anything wrong with the company’s thinking on the legalities as far as ADR is concerned.

399

dieseldave:
You are towing a tank-trailer, which once coupled to the lorry makes the whole vehicle a tank vehicle that just happens to also be carrying a package as well.
There’s nothing in ADR that says that a vehicle can’t be a tank vehicle AND carry a package at the same time, so I’m going to stick my neck out a little and guess that the company has already taken advice.


Platypus Trailer. Tank compartment below, Flat deck above! Fuel out, bags back, all for profit!

A little lighter relief :wink:

Health Warnings :open_mouth:

400

dieseldave:
Up to now, you’re fine as regards most of ADR, but now you do need an ADR compliant minimum 2kg dry powder fire-extinguisher, and some documented ADR ‘awareness’ training, but not a full ADR licence.

That’s great news, Dave, I presume it is the employer’s responsibility to give me the ADR awareness training? I haven’t been provided with any, is it something that there is an official course for or is it entirely up to the employer as to the content of this training? Also what would be the consequences of being stopped by VOSA and not having the documented training? (not that i don’t want to be trained you understand, I just want to have some ammunition to take back to the company to tell them I need some training).