[NHCOLL-L:3110] Re: FW: Shipping of dangerous goods
Gregory Watkins-Colwell
gregory.watkins-colwell at yale.edu
Wed Jun 7 07:53:46 EDT 2006
Andy,
where in the regulations for IATA (or DOT) did
you see that it can only be transported as
excepted quantities? UN2209 has no such
limitations. For that matter, nor does UN3334
(which can go as high as 200L in Air Cargo!...
though one would assume in a several hundred dollar container).
During our training here the instructor told us
that the use of UN3334 was up to the carrier and
not a regulation. Could you point me to that
please when you get it? I too would like to see
what the DOT actually says. Also, it will be
interesting to resolve such conflict of
information between IATA rules and DOT
regulations. If IATA doesn't cover it for air
transport, but DOT does for ground, then one
cannot legally get the stuff to the airport
(unless there's a helicopter pad on top of the
museum). That said, I don't know when I'd
personally need to ship something still in
formalin that is too big for the Excepted
quantities, except maybe for amphibian egg
masses, which I probably would prefer to not ship
anyway. I guess some large amphibian larvae
would be too large for such a small volume of fluid.
Greg
At 11:09 AM 6/6/2006, you wrote:
>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
><http://www.iata.org/dangerousgoods>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:
><mailto:bob.richard at rspa.dot.gov>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>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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1e5aff.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4911 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/nhcoll-l/attachments/20060607/7fa54d62/attachment.obj
-------------- next part --------------
******************************************************
* Gregory J. Watkins-Colwell
* Vertebrate Zoology
* Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History
* 170 Whitney Avenue, P. O. Box 208118
* New Haven, CT 06520-8118
* Phone: 203/432-3791
* FAX: 203/432-2874
* http://www.peabody.yale.edu
******************************************************
More information about the Nhcoll-l
mailing list