[NHCOLL-L:3302] RE: Shipping dangerous goods

[Gregory Watkins-Colwell]

FedEx has that extra little issue about not shipping "dead 
animals".  This has put them off our list for the 
time-being.  Dangerous goods are one thing, but make sure that the 
thing you are actually trying to ship is handled by the carrier.

Greg




At 01:50 PM 1/23/2007, Bentley, Andrew Charles wrote:
>Hi Paul
>
>In answer to your questions below:
>
> >> - what the most economical carriers are. FedEx, for example, is
> >> hideously expensive if even excepted quantities of alcohol are in a
> >> package;
> >> - what (if any) work-arounds people are employing to avoid massive
> >> surcharges for DG shipments;
>
>All three of these carriers require a dangerous goods contract.  I know
>that Fed-Ex is a little more expensive that the other couriers but none
>of them should be charging the surcharge for expected quantities.  It is
>on the website of both FedEx and UPS and DHL gave me the same
>information over the phone.  I have never heard of FedEx automatically
>upgrading their shipments to priority for dangerous goods - I would
>check with their dangerous goods helpline on this (800-463-3339).
>
>For domestic shipments you can use USPS using 49 CFR 173.4 - which is
>the most cost effective method.
>
> >> - which countries are known not to accept any dangerous goods
> >> shipments. I have heard that this is true of at least New Zealand.
>
>The list of countries is constantly changing and so there is no
>authoritative list of countries.  You will need to call and check with
>the individual courier at the time of shipping to determine the
>viability of sending to a particular country unfortunately.
>
> >> - what resources are available on the web to folks like me who want
>to
> >> keep up with developments in this field.
>
>Unfortunately, there is very little on the web in this regard that would
>be of any help.  Both DOT and IATA release updates to their regulations
>very so often that can be accessed from their websites but very rarely
>do any of these affect us in any way.  The largest problem that we have
>is that the regulations are not written with our scenario in mind and so
>we are co-opting existing regulations to fit our situation.  We would
>like to have specific regulations written for natural history shipments
>but as you can imagine this is very low on their priority list and would
>take a number of years to be promulgated even if accepted.
>
>I would not suggest what Randy mentions in his email - transferring
>specimens to propylene glycol for transport.  There is no data out there
>that documents what changes to specimens occur in the transfer (ethanol
>to propylene glycol to ethanol and then the same sequence on the way
>back if it is a loan and multiple times depending on ho many times the
>specimens are loaned).  If done numerous times I would think that this
>would irreparably damage specimens especially if there is a specific
>density difference between the two fluids.
>
>I am in the process of writing an article outlining all of these issues
>and hoping to submit to Collection Forum in the near future so watch out
>for it.
>
>Hope that helps
>
>Andy

******************************************************
*       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
******************************************************