[NHCOLL-L:3109] RE: FW: Shipping of dangerous goods

Tue Jun 6 15:51:54 EDT 2006

Jamie

I agree with you whole-heartedly that 3.7% formaldehyde is probably just as noxious and annoying as 10% but that is the ruling I got from phoning DOT Hazardous Goods (I finally had enough of getting various interpretations and so decided to go to the source).  There ruling is that anything below 10% is not considered Class 9 - why the 10% I am not sure.  There has always been this dichotomy between what we call 10% and what the actual solution contains (3.7%).  Maybe that is where they get the 10% from, I really don't know.

I really do think that it would be beneficial for us to get all parties together, show them what we do and how we do it (and maybe even explain to them that there are thousands of these packages that go through the mail and lots that are not packaged correctly) to get a standard interpretation of how the regulations apply and also to discuss the possibility of having regulations put in place specifically for natural history shipments.  I am convinced that once they see what it is we do, that this will become an ever more attractive proposition.  I am at present researching the best method of getting all parties together and where to get funding from to accomplish this.  Stay tuned!!!

Also, I think the reason lobbying for our interests is a slow process is because we don't have the monetary clout that, say an alcoholic beverage group has.  I am sure that if we had a couple of million bucks to throw at this problem it would go away in a heart beat.  I really do believe that it is the power of the mighty buck that runs this whole process and we just don't have the monetary clout to make it happen.

Thanks for the comments

Andy

   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V
Andy Bentley
Ichthyology Collection Manager
University of Kansas
Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center
Dyche Hall
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
Lawrence, KS, 66045-7561
USA

Tel: (785) 864-3863
Fax: (785) 864-5335
Email: ABentley at ku.edu       

   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V 

________________________________

From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of James B. Ladonski
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 2:13 PM
To: NHCOLL-L at lists.yale.edu
Subject: [NHCOLL-L:3108] RE: FW: Shipping of dangerous goods

Thanks Andy,

I want to be sure I understand this.  The US DOT ruled that formalin (3.7% formaldehyde) is not regulated as a Class 9 substance because it contains less than 10% formaldehyde?  Seems like that's a rather arbitrary cutoff, as anyone who works with formalin knows how unpleasant it is - even at the concentrations we use, it seems hard to believe it wouldn't be classified as UN 3334 ("Aviation regulated liquid, n.o.s."), a Class 9 substance:

"Any material which has narcotic, noxious or other properties such that in the event of spillage or leakage on an aircraft, extreme annoyance or discomfort could be caused to crew members so as to prevent the correct performance of assigned duties."

Certainly this is open to interpretation but as far as I know, the burden of proof would be on the shipper if an IATA or DOT inspector declared a package containing formalin to be dangerous goods.  Formalin, in the confined space of an airplane, would clearly cause "discomfort" in most people.  That's why we work with it in a hood or in the presence of other adequate ventilation.  Whether it would cause people to falter in their duties is questionable, but we have to get all the gray areas removed from this issue.  As Andy noted, we desperately need consensus and consistency on these matters.  Leaving things open to interpretation invites trouble.  

Andy's question about why wintergreen is unregulated ("...due to some lobbying by the undertakers who use this in embalming...") is interesting.  We as a community have discussed this dangerous goods problem for at least the last three years, and we still have no permanent solution.  I don't understand why we don't use our government representatives to approach the regulatory agencies, airlines, carriers, etc. and get the rules changed.  I know we are moving in that direction now, but why the delay?  Corporations do this routinely, especially in the US.  And it seems they don't just get exemptions; they get rewritten rules.  Natural history museums are global in distribution and the scope of their work, which should actually make lobbying easier.  I wonder how long a multi-national corporation like Microsoft (or Anheuser-Busch for a more accurate comparison) would sit idle while some government regulations inhibit their business practices.  

Andy Bentley has gone far above and beyond the call of duty in his pursuit to get these matters resolved.  When the dangerous goods shipping problem is finally resolved, I propose it be termed "the Bentley Solution" or some such thing to recognize all his hard work.  He has truly done a fantastic job.  But we are probably kidding ourselves if we (as a community) think we can fix this alone.  As distasteful as it may be, perhaps the corporate model is the one we should follow in this case.  We don't need to pay off politicians in some dark alley or back room, but let's at least get them involved.  "Big Business" has shown us repeatedly that this works (most folks complain about some aspect of it every day).  Our museums and universities are becoming more and more corporate every year; why not embrace it for once and get this problem fixed?

Sorry for my naive rant.

Jamie

Mr. James B. Ladonski
Assistant Collections Manager
Division of Amphibians and Reptiles
The Field Museum
1400 S. Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL  60605-2496  USA
phone:  312-665-7722
fax:  312-665-7697
email:  jladonski at fieldmuseum.org
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research_collections/zoology/divisions_amphibians.htm

At 6/6/2006 10:35 AM, Bentley, Andrew Charles wrote:

Hi all

OK, apparently, AGAIN, I am incorrect.  As what we are using (3.7% formaldehyde) is below the 10% outlined as the lower limit for classifying formaldehyde as a Class 9 substance, it is UNREGULATED by DOT and IATA.

This again highlights the need to get an authoritative ruling on all of this and is what I will be striving for in the near future a workshop in DC, bringing all interested parties and representatives of DOT, IATA, ICAO, USPS, Fed-Ex, DHL and UPS together to get to the bottom of this.

Apologies again

Andy

   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V
Andy Bentley
Ichthyology Collection Manager
University of Kansas
Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center
Dyche Hall
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
Lawrence, KS, 66045-7561
USA

Tel: (785) 864-3863
Fax: (785) 864-5335
Email: ABentley at ku.edu       

   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V 

From: owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-nhcoll-l at lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Bentley, Andrew Charles
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 10:10 AM
To: NHCOLL-L at lists.yale.edu
Cc: Rossillon, Jon
Subject: [NHCOLL-L:3106] FW: Shipping of dangerous goods

Hi all

I have just received an interpretation from my contact at IATA regarding the shipping of what we call 10% formaldehyde (actually a 3.7% formaldeyhde solution).  What I get from his interpretation is that UN 1198 is regulated as flammable due to the presence of methanol in the mixture whereas UN 2209 is simply an aqueous solution of formaldehyde and water (NO methanol).  I have just checked and what we order is UN 1198 WITH methanol flammable at full concentration and classed as a Class 3,8, Packing Group III substance.  Once diluted to 3.7%, as we do, this is no longer flammable.  However, the flammability risk aside, DOT has issued a ruling that formaldehyde is a noxious substance that may cause a hazard to occupants of an aircraft if opened and thus is classified as a Class 9, Packing Group II substance for AIR transport.  The MSDS for 3.7% formaldehyde (obtained from Sigma-Aldrich) states as such.  An interesting aside is that a similar MSDS from Sigma Aldrich but containing Wintergreen is unregulated is this due to the odor masking qualities of wintergreen or due to some lobbying by the undertakers who use this in embalming???  What would wintergreen do to our specimens? Is this stuff commercially available?

This aside, this means that 3.7% formaldehyde can be transported by air ONLY using small/excepted quantity regulations (30ml internal package: 500ml total) both domestically using DOT 173.4 and internationally using IATA 2.7.  Again, you MUST BE TRAINED to use these regulations and must follow all packing and shipping guidelines as outlined by DOT and IATA.  I am trying to get a copy of the actual DOT ruling so that I have the actual verbiage that they use.  If anyone has a copy of this I would appreciate seeing it.

Thanks

Andy

   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V
Andy Bentley
Ichthyology Collection Manager
University of Kansas
Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center
Dyche Hall
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
Lawrence, KS, 66045-7561
USA

Tel: (785) 864-3863
Fax: (785) 864-5335
Email: ABentley at ku.edu       

   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V 

From: BRENNAN Dave [mailto:BRENNAND at iata.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:18 AM
To: Bentley, Andrew Charles
Subject: RE: Shipping of dangerous goods

Andy,

I believe that the difference between the UN 1198 Formaldehyde, solution, flammable and UN 2209 Formaldehyde solution will be that the UN 1198 will be a solution using ethanol or methanol, which will create the flammability risk. An aqueous solution with 25% or more formaldehyde will just be corrosive. For solutions with between 10% and less than 25% formaldehyde there has been an interpretation issued by US DOT that because of the noxious properties of the substance it should be classified as UN 3334 Aviation regulated liquid, n.o.s.*.

I hope that this is of assistance.

Regards,

David BRENNAN
Assistant Director
Special Cargo Standards
Ph: +1-514-874 0202 Ext 3289
Fax: +1-514-874 2660

International Air Transport Association
800, Place Victoria, PO Box 113
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H4Z 1M1
www.iata.org/dangerousgoods

From: Bentley, Andrew Charles [mailto:abentley at ku.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, 1 June 2006 14:47
To: BRENNAN Dave
Subject: RE: Shipping of dangerous goods

Hi Dave

I was wondering if I could elicit your assistance with an interpretation of the IATA regulations once more.

In a number of cases specimens are preserved in 10% formaldehyde - 37% formaldehyde mixed with deionized water and a buffer to make a 10% solution (which is actually a 3.7% solution as it is diluted 9 times but is called 10% for reasons I won't go into) and in various instances these specimens are shipped in the same way that ethanol specimens are.

There appears to be some discussion amongst my colleagues as to whether this substance would be regulated by IATA?

Some have said that there are two UN numbers for formaldehyde (UN 2209 and UN 1198) and that our solution would more clearly be described by UN 2209 which is a formaldehyde solution with not less than 25% formaldehyde.  However UN 1198 is classed as Class 3,8 Packing Group III which would be allowed under excepted quantities but is still regulated.  There is a also a listing for formalin in the table which refers to the above two mentions.  As our concentration is below 25% does this mean that our "10%" formaldehyde is un-regulated?  The verbiage appears to be very similar for DOT too.

What is a distinction between the two UN numbers?  This is unclear to me...

Your help would be much appreciated

   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V
Andy Bentley
Ichthyology Collection Manager
University of Kansas
Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center
Dyche Hall
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
Lawrence, KS, 66045-7561
USA

Tel: (785) 864-3863
Fax: (785) 864-5335
Email: ABentley at ku.edu       

   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V 

From: BRENNAN Dave [mailto:BRENNAND at iata.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:38 AM
To: Bentley, Andrew Charles
Subject: RE: Shipping of dangerous goods

Andy,

I support your desire to have a clear set of rules that all of your members can work to, without the need for onerous requirements and costs.

1. As you correctly point out alcoholic beverages, in retail packagings, containing 70% or less alcohol by volume, in receptacles of 5 L or less are not restricted and may be transported in passenger checked or carry-on baggage.  I'm not aware of the "domestic" provisions allowing dangerous goods in accepted quantities. There are certainly provisions permitting passengers to carry certain dangerous goods, aerosols, medicines containing alcohol, etc., but these are standard for both domestic and international transport.

2. ICAO are the body that determines the 'legal' requirements for the international transport of dangerous goods by air. US DOT set the US domestic policy, which tends to mirror that of ICAO. The group responsible within ICAO is the Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP). The DGP comprises members from 14 States (countries) as well as IFALPA (the pilots' association) and IATA. The next meeting of the ICAO DGP is in Abu Dhabi in October 2004. I'd suggest that you approach the US Panel member, Mr. Bob Richard (E-mail: bob.richard at rspa.dot.gov) to raise your proposals. I would suggest that you consider limiting your request to carriage in checked baggage only. My reason for suggesting that is that the increase in screening of carry-on baggage and the security concerns means that are some issues with "unknown liquids". There has also been a concern regarding the carriage of "home brews". I appreciate that you don't fall into this category, however checked baggage would eliminate any problems.

3. Transport in the post may be problematic. For domestic US, the USPS can regulate what it likes. However, once you start talking about international air mail the Universal Postal Union (UPU) is the governing body. In this respect the transport of alcohol across international borders becomes an issue. Also the UPU have a very codified set of requirements and from practical experience getting any amendment to those is a very slow process.

4. The UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods is responsible for the development of standards to assist the multi-modal transport. I think that your best approach is with the ICAO DGP if what you're looking for is carriage in baggage. The DGP may also be able to propose a way forward to amend the current provision regarding "alcoholic beverages" vs. "ethanol".

Regards,

Dave

David Brennan
Assistant Director, Dangerous Goods & Safety
IATA
800 Place Victoria, PO Box 113
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4Z 1M1
Ph: +1-514-874 0202 Ext 3289
Fax: +1-514-874 2660
E-mail: brennand at iata.org <mailto:brennand at iata.org> 

Get more with the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations 2005
Order your DGR before September 15 and receive a FREE DGR Quick Reference guide.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Bentley, Andrew Charles [mailto:abentley at ku.edu] 
Sent: Friday, 20 August 2004 15:38 
To: BRENNAN Dave 
Subject: RE: Shipping of dangerous goods 
Hi Dave 

I was wondering if I could bother you for some more information regarding shipping of scientific specimens.  We have been meeting regarding this and have come up with two categories of shipments that we still need some clarification on - these being international shipments of specimens being sent through the mail and specimens being carried onto planes as hand baggage. 

What we are wanting to know is the following: 

On certain occasions we require taking specimens with us on a plane as hand baggage (e.g. returning from a field excursion, repatriating specimens to our collection etc.).  Domestic flights have a provision for hazardous substances in "accepted quantities" to be taken on board as hand baggage but there is no such provision for international flights.  You are however allowed to take up to 5 liters of beverage ethyl alcohol on board.  Is there any way that specimens being carried onto a plane could be made to fall under the existing beverage alcohol regulations, thus allowing for up to 5 liters of up to 140 proof ethyl alcohol to be carried onto a plane as hand baggage?  The alcohol that we are putting specimens into is beverage grade ethyl alcohol diluted to 70% with distilled water.  We are required to obtain a beverage alcohol permit to use and possess the alcohol and so the natural progression of this is that essentially the specimens are preserved in beverage alcohol.  In 99.9% of cases we would not come close to the 5 liter limit.  We are talking about tablespoons of 70% ethyl alcohol in the majority of these packages.  Is there any way that we could make use of existing regulations to make this possible? 
We would obviously like to attempt to fall within existing regulations, but, if this is not possible, what would it take for us (as an organization of natural history museums) to obtain exemption for these onboard packages as well as international packages being sent by mail?  It has become clear to us during our deliberations that regulations are actually promulgated by ICAO and DOT and that maybe we should be approaching these two organizations to obtain such an exemption.  Are we correct in this assumption?  Do you know whether this is even in the realm of possibility?  Who should we approach to, firstly determine if this is feasible and secondly to get such exemption.  After all, there are 1000's of museums throughout the world sending in excess of 10 000 such parcels a year, many of which are being sent illegally - either due to ignorance of the regulations or through blatant contravention of the regulations.  I would have thought that it would have been in the best interest of such organizations to provide some form of exemption in order to better control and keep track of such shipments.  This all goes back to the original problem of there being no specific regulations that these packages fall under and so people are interpreting the regulations (such that they are) in all sorts of different ways.  The amounts of alcohol that we are sending in these packages (way less than 30ml per internal package and 500ml total), as well as the method of packaging, means that the hazardous nature of such packages is drastically reduced.  We feel fairly confident that if we could get someone to take a look at the materials in question that we could convince them of this fact. 
The fact that we are now having to ship international shipments of specimens by courier (Fed-Ex, UPS or DHL) we are incurring spiraling costs associated with such shipments.  If we could in some way fall within the USPS regulations for shipping, we could get back to our normal mode of operations.  As mentioned above, the amounts of alcohol that we are shipping together with standing beverage alcohol regulations, is there no way that we could fall within existing USPS regulations in this regard too? 
Another organization that we have come across is the UN Transport of Dangerous Goods Sub-Committee.  Is this a committee that may be able to assist us in this cause? 

Any help that you may be able to give in this regard would be greatly appreciated.  We are members of an organization called the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC) and this organization has put together a committee to look into the issues surrounding transport of natural history specimens.  I am on this committee and would like to report any findings or progress to this committee. There are numerous natural history museums throughout the country who are finding it increasingly difficult to operate under these stringent regulations as the loaning of specimens to other institutions, both national and international is a core mission of our operation.

Thanks again

Andy

   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V 
Andy Bentley
Ichthyology Collection Manager
University of Kansas
Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center
Dyche Hall
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
Lawrence, KS, 66045-7561
USA

Tel: (785) 864-3863
Fax: (785) 864-5335
Email: ABentley at ku.edu        :
                          :                 :      
   A  :             A  :             A  :
}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
   V                V                V  

[]

________________________________________________________________________
This email has been successfully scanned for viruses, unwanted messages and unsolicited content.
________________________________________________________________________

This electronic mail transmission is confidential and may contain privileged information. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail at the above address.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/nhcoll-l/attachments/20060606/88c404cd/attachment.html 