Question for DieselDave

Hi Dave

I had to carry some un 1790 today…can you confirm the packing group? Dangerous goods note says “II”, tremcard says “I”-which is right?

ps…this happens with other PG’s too from time to time :unamused:

Cheers!

I am going to stick my oar in here again and post a link and my reason for doing so…

rockemat.com/upc/msds/English/REM020.pdf

I would always take notice of the DGN and the MSDS as instructions in writing can be mixed up easily by anyone, even the driver, some EIIW (Trem Cards) were slightly universal :wink:

The DGN must be completed by a competent person who has all the correct information to hand, they are also responsible for the information they have supplied, which is why it is their name & signature on the document.

On the Material Safety Data Sheet in the link it states UN1790 Hydrofluoric Acid 40 - 60% that is classed as PG II in ADR/RID and IMO/IMDG

However you did not mention the % strength so from the information you gave I have gone for the same packing group as the Dangerous Goods Note (DGN)


I have answered this as I am also interested, and try to keep my hand in although I haven’t done ADR for a long time, so please do not mind if I have led you up the garden path and Dave may want to slap me with a wet fish :stuck_out_tongue:

GlesgaBill:
Hi Dave

I had to carry some un 1790 today…can you confirm the packing group? Dangerous goods note says “II”, tremcard says “I”-which is right?

ps…this happens with other PG’s too from time to time :unamused:

Cheers!

Hi GlesgaBill,
:open_mouth: That’s rather nasty stuff mate.:grimacing:

There are three entries in ADR’s dangerous goods list for UN 1790, but the correct entry that should have been used will depend on the hydrogen fluoride content.

Option #1
1790 HYDROFLUORIC ACID, 8 (6.1), PGI
(with more than 85% hydrogen fluoride)

Option #2
1790 HYDROFLUORIC ACID, 8 (6.1), PGI
(with more than 60% but not more than 85% hydrogen fluoride)

Option #3
1790 HYDROFLUORIC ACID, 8 (6.1), PGII
(with not more than 60% hydrogen fluoride)

Now for the strange bit. :wink:
:open_mouth: The Packing Group (PG) isn’t legally required on the IIW (Tremcard) :open_mouth:

If I had made out the transport document(s,) I’d have included the optional info in lower case and brackets (just under each of the entries above) to avoid the confusion that’s clearly arisen. :unamused:
:wink: It wouldn’t have taken long to type it. :grimacing:

TBH, if I were the driver, I wouldn’t have had a clue from the conflicting info given, so I’d have asked the consignor for some clarification before setting off.

BTW, how much HF acid was there to carry and how was it packed?
I do hope you had the correct first-aid kit and some proper instructions / training on how to use HF gel. :wink:

If you could let me know the HF content and the packaging type and amount, I’ll probably be able to give you a better answer. :smiley:

Wheel Nut:
I am going to stick my oar in here again and post a link and my reason for doing so…

rockemat.com/upc/msds/English/REM020.pdf

I would always take notice of the DGN and the MSDS as instructions in writing can be mixed up easily by anyone, even the driver, some EIIW (Trem Cards) were slightly universal :wink:

The DGN must be completed by a competent person who has all the correct information to hand, they are also responsible for the information they have supplied, which is why it is their name & signature on the document.

On the Material Safety Data Sheet in the link it states UN1790 Hydrofluoric Acid 40 - 60% that is classed as PG II in ADR/RID and IMO/IMDG

However you did not mention the % strength so from the information you gave I have gone for the same packing group as the Dangerous Goods Note (DGN)


I have answered this as I am also interested, and try to keep my hand in although I haven’t done ADR for a long time, so please do not mind if I have led you up the garden path and Dave may want to slap me with a wet fish :stuck_out_tongue:

Hi Wheel Nut, Dave certainly doesn’t want to slap you with a wet fish, I’d reserve that for the consignor in this case. :grimacing:

because, with regard to tremcards:

in ADR is:
5.4.3.2 These instructions shall be provided by the consignor…

5.4.3.3 The consignor shall be responsible for the content of these instructions.

So, the consignor is legally responsible for providing the correct info. They seem to have failed… :frowning:

From the info given, I’d go along with your gut feeling too. :smiley:

Thats interesting DieselDave, especially this bit where there is no distinction between the two PG I items except for the twaddle.

Option #1
1790 HYDROFLUORIC ACID, 8 (6.1), PGI
(with more than 85% hydrogen fluoride)

Option #2
1790 HYDROFLUORIC ACID, 8 (6.1), PGI
(with more than 60% but not more than 85% hydrogen fluoride)

Option #3
1790 HYDROFLUORIC ACID, 8 (6.1), PGII
(with not more than 60% hydrogen fluoride)

unless it stems from this UK update

www.unece.org/trans/doc/2006/wp15ac1/EC … inf11e.doc -

above link opens in Word.

It seems slightly confusing, or is that just me? confusing things. :stuck_out_tongue:

Evening all :slight_smile:

Yes Dave, i can confirm that the %was 65%.

If i recall, the guy may have said the product was used for metal etching…that rings a bell.

The liquid was stored in 200 litre blue plastic drums (4 per pallet), 4 pallets.

First aid kid, spill kit, ppe etc all as standard :wink:

Put it this way, if i had ever been near a spill of that stuff, i think i would make the olympic 100m team(drug free of course) :smiley:

ps…thanks for supplied info thus far :slight_smile:

If i recall, the guy may have said the product was used for metal etching…that rings a bell.

I just spent a few minutes googling. I was actually looking for a picture of a road tanker, you know the type, armco barriers down the side and very rusty. :open_mouth:
But instead i have found a little story, taken from various sites.

To transport many fuming acids the tankers and valves will be lined with glass, lead or plastic

Tank container for Hydrofluoric Acid Solution has been developed n accordance with the requirements of the IMDG Code, aimed at transportation of hydrofluoric acid solution. The tank is made of carbon steel and lined with 20mm thick reinforced polyethylene plastic.

On October 30, 1987, a crane at Marathon Oil’s Texas City refinery dropped its load on a storage tank, rupturing a pipe and releasing 30,000 pounds of hydrofluoric acid. The resulting vapor cloud sent 1,037 people to the hospital suffering from respiratory problems and skin rashes and forced 3,000 residents out of their homes for three days. According to Ronald Koopman of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: “There were houses right up against the fence. The only thing that saved people was that the [hydrofluoric acid] plume shot 200 feet up in the air, and it went about 900 meters downwind before it actually came down into the neighborhood. If it had squirted out sideways, it would have killed hundreds, if not thousands.”

So, it is fairly nasty stuff as you can imagine :wink:

So when you see something like this,

I wonder if that 360 machine driver really knew what was hung onto his dipper arm. This tank was ripped out of a disused factory while it still contained acid.

But anyway, at least this bloke knew that he should wear gloves before cleaning his Alcoa wheels. :wink:

You wouldn’t catch me in that shed

My ADR ran out. I didn’t rush to renew it :slight_smile:

GlesgaBill:
Yes Dave, i can confirm that the %was 65%.

Hi GlesgaBill, Thanks for the extra info mate. :grimacing:

From your info, I can confirm that it was:

Option #2
1790 HYDROFLUORIC ACID, 8 (6.1), PGI
(with more than 60% but not more than 85% hydrogen fluoride)

Now for a bit of DGSA stuff. :wink:
For UN1790, there are three ‘entries’ in the dangerous goods list, but two of them meet ADR’s criteria for Class 8, PGI.
We also shouldn’t forget that HF acid is toxic enough to earn the secondary hazard of 6.1 and that an 8 label, plus a 6 label must be on the drums.
One is clearly weaker than the other, but in this case, that makes no difference.
Having a stab at an explanation, I’d guess that the industries that need UN 1790 require three different concentrations of it for their industrial processes.

As far as an ADR driver is concerned, the first two should be treated as being the same, ie there’s a 20ltr limit before ADR applies in full, because the goods are in transport category 1.

GlesgaBill:
If i recall, the guy may have said the product was used for metal etching…that rings a bell.

I’m no chemist, but IIRC, they use HF acid for etching glass, but I’m really not sure.
I do have access to an industrial chemist for such occasions, so please ask if you need that info.

GlesgaBill:
The liquid was stored in 200 litre blue plastic drums (4 per pallet), 4 pallets.

:open_mouth: 3,200 ltrs :open_mouth:
:open_mouth: Blimey, I hope you had your orange boards showing and that everything else was tickety boo. :smiley:

GlesgaBill:
First aid kid, spill kit, ppe etc all as standard :wink:

Put it this way, if i had ever been near a spill of that stuff, i think i would make the olympic 100m team(drug free of course) :smiley:

ps…thanks for supplied info thus far :slight_smile:

No problem Bill. :smiley:

:laughing: :laughing: For substances like this, I’ve long thought that a pair of spiked running shoes should be mentioned in the instructions in writing. :grimacing:

Good post/pics etc Wheelnut…scary stuff!!

Dave…sorry for being a spanner…i forgot to mention the secondary haz label (toxic) :blush: :laughing:

GlesgaBill:
Good post/pics etc Wheelnut…scary stuff!!

Dave…sorry for being a spanner…i forgot to mention the secondary haz label (toxic) :blush: :laughing:

Hi GlesgaBill, you’re not a spanner mate- far from it. :grimacing:

On your paperwork for HF acid, secondary hazards are shown in brackets just after the primary hazard eg:
UN 1790 HYDROFLUORIC ACID, 8 (6.1), PGI

On packages of HF acid, secondary hazards are shown by additional labelling like this:

As Wheel Nut, this is very nasty stuff indeed, I’d add that it should be treated with the utmost respect and that you should study your Information In Writing (Tremcard) very carefully, whilst making sure that you have all of the equipment mentioned and that you know exactly what to do in an incident / emergency. :wink:
You just can’t take chances with this stuff. :grimacing:

Here is a little video I prepared earlier :slight_smile:

youtube.com/watch?v=Lf4vq2UU9hk

Some of the comments are rather pathetic. Basically this chemical has eaten its way through the test tube. It does that to road tankers and skin :smiling_imp:

instead of starting another thread i thought i wopuld ask another question for dave…

Dave,

at work we have approximately 55 batteries to move (size is about 3ft by 2ft by 2ft) used in some of the remote underwater vehicles we have. they were wet batteries but have now been drained but supposedly our transport guru at the military transport garage says they are still subject to ADR as there is still residue in them from the acid (not sure what was in them but i wouldnt drink it :wink: ) that was in them. i’m not disputing this with him as he has the qualifications and i dont so he knows better.

the real question is how would i stand if i was invited along to help take one of the artics (going on two trailers) from where we are to donnington. i have told the transport manager i would like to go as it is a day out of the office and i might get a chance to get some more driving under my belt, if the chance arfose for me to drive up there with them loaded would it be legal for me to drive as long as i had the other driver with the ADR quals at the side of me? i’m guessing i wouldnt be allowed as everything is refered to as the driver but would like some clarification on this?

cheers dave

Giblsa:
instead of starting another thread i thought i wopuld ask another question for dave…

Dave,

at work we have approximately 55 batteries to move (size is about 3ft by 2ft by 2ft) used in some of the remote underwater vehicles we have. they were wet batteries but have now been drained but supposedly our transport guru at the military transport garage says they are still subject to ADR as there is still residue in them from the acid (not sure what was in them but i wouldnt drink it :wink: ) that was in them. i’m not disputing this with him as he has the qualifications and i dont so he knows better.

Hi Giblsa, From the info you’ve given, I’m afraid your “transport guru” might have missed a trick.
(He’s still wide of the mark, even if the batteries still had the acid in them. :wink: )

I think I’ve covered your question in my answer to trigger near the bottom of THIS PAGE IN THE ADR STICKY
If the guru needs some clarification, I could email you the relevant quotes and a sample of how the paperwork should be made out.

Giblsa:
the real question is how would i stand if i was invited along to help take one of the artics (going on two trailers) from where we are to donnington. i have told the transport manager i would like to go as it is a day out of the office and i might get a chance to get some more driving under my belt, if the chance arfose for me to drive up there with them loaded would it be legal for me to drive as long as i had the other driver with the ADR quals at the side of me? i’m guessing i wouldnt be allowed as everything is refered to as the driver but would like some clarification on this?

:smiley: You shall go to the ball. :grimacing:

:smiley: This isn’t a job that requires ADR, so yes you can drive because it’s ADR exempt. :smiley:

If the job did need an ADR trained driver, then you could go as a passenger, because I know you’ve had ADR awareness training, but you couldn’t drive whilst the vehicle is subject to the ADR regs.
I’d suggest that the best way to think of this is to imagine that the person with the steering wheel in their hand needs an ADR licence.
ADR doesn’t have the concept of ‘accompanying’ in the way that a qualified driver can supervise a learner driver on ‘L’ plates.
:open_mouth: Guess who will be at Donnington all next week :question: :grimacing:

Are you both referring to the same Donnington :question: :question:

ROG:
Are you both referring to the same Donnington :question: :question:

castlexplorer.co.uk/england/ … ington.php

castledoningtonmuseum.org.uk/

It wouldnt be the first time :smiley:

I know of someone who was riding round Newbury looking for a race circuit :wink:

Wheel Nut:

ROG:
Are you both referring to the same Donnington :question: :question:

castlexplorer.co.uk/england/ … ington.php

castledoningtonmuseum.org.uk/

It wouldnt be the first time :smiley:

I know of someone who was riding round Newbury looking for a race circuit :wink:

There are 5 places called Donnington in my UK atlas

cheers for that dave,

i had a feeling they didnt fall under the ADR umbrella but wasnt too sure so thought i would ask.

i guess we will wait and see.

Giblsa:
cheers for that dave,

i had a feeling they didnt fall under the ADR umbrella but wasnt too sure so thought i would ask.

No problem mate. :grimacing:

Giblsa:
i guess we will wait and see.

Did you follow the link??

The battery job is only exempt, if the job is compliant with the conditions under which the exemption is given. :wink:

I hope it works out for you. :smiley: