I have come across a job vacancy that requires a ‘Class I Driver’
However is says that Tanker experience is essential. This may sound a daft question but i always though in order to drive a tanker you must have ADR, is this true??
Many Thanks 
PTC8:
I have come across a job vacancy that requires a ‘Class I Driver’However is says that Tanker experience is essential. This may sound a daft question but i always though in order to drive a tanker you must have ADR, is this true??
Many Thanks
Hi PTC8, no that’s not true at all.
It’s also not a daft question, because there are many people who also think in the same way that you did.
A tanker is a vehicle just like any other, so the class of licence you need for it depends on the GVW and whether it’s a bendy one. Eg. C1, C or C+E.
A tanker driver only needs an ADR licence when carrying dangerous goods.
Tankers come into ADR as soon as any dangerous goods are on board and they also remain fully “in scope” of ADR when they’re empty, but not washed out.
There are many possibilities of driving a tanker without needing an ADR licence, such as the food industry or many types of non-chemical waste and effluent disposal. It’s also worth bearing in mind that tankers don’t just carry liquids, there are tankers that can carry powdery or granular stuff too.
Many thanks for you speedy and informative reply mate
i drove a tanker for Scottish Water last year for a few months running sludge to treatment plants. Although i have ADR in tanks, didn’t need it as “non-hazardous” Loved it, everytime got a roadside check and you told the enforcement officer what you were carrying, they were reluctant to go under it to check for air leaks etc ;~)
bbez:
Although i have ADR in tanks, didn’t need it as “non-hazardous”
I thought all ADR was considered hazardous by definition 
no bbez holds an ADR licence in tanks, however, the load he was carrying was non hazardous so it wasnt required.
Gurner:
no bbez holds an ADR licence in tanks, however, the load he was carrying was non hazardous so it wasnt required.
Makes sense, I thought he’d written “in the tanks” 
mrpj:
bbez:
Although i have ADR in tanks, didn’t need it as “non-hazardous”I thought all ADR was considered hazardous by definition
Hi mrpj, That’s also a thought that a lot of people share.
bbez could have meant that his tanker had markings similar to my avatar, but where the orange areas are white. That type of marking might contain the words “non-hazardous,” but I’d point out that that marking scheme is voluntary and not actually a legal requirement, so that would be a matter of company policy.
Actually, the words “hazardous” and “dangerous” have slightly different definitions, and I’m the first to say that there’s not much of a difference at first sight.
It’s true to say that ADR regulates the carriage of “dangerous” goods by road, but very often goods which are merely “hazardous” aren’t included in ADR because they don’t present much/enough “danger” to be included in the dangerous goods list.
If I can use a football analogy, the teams all play football, but not all of them are good enough to play in the football league, so some play in the Conference instead. Substances and articles are exactly the same in that some of them play in the leagues (dangerous,) whilst others play in the Conference (hazardous.)
Bleach is a good example of this, because in its neat and highly concentrated form it counts as “dangerous” so it’s in Class 8 (Corrosive,) but in the form that people usually buy and use it (diluted) it’s only regarded as “hazardous” and therefore not regulated by ADR. (Not corrosive enough.)
As a very general rule, if a substance is transported using only the system of orange squares as labels, then ADR doesn’t usually apply to it at all.
EDIT: Blimey mrpj you posted whilst I was composing this. 
dieseldave:
mrpj:
bbez:
Although i have ADR in tanks, didn’t need it as “non-hazardous”I thought all ADR was considered hazardous by definition
Hi mrpj, That’s also a thought that a lot of people share.
bbez could have meant that his tanker had markings similar to my avatar, but where the orange areas are white. That type of marking might contain the words “non-hazardous,” but I’d point out that that marking scheme is voluntary and not actually a legal requirement, so that would be a matter of company policy.Actually, the words “hazardous” and “dangerous” have slightly different definitions, and I’m the first to say that there’s not much of a difference at first sight.
It’s true to say that ADR regulates the carriage of “dangerous” goods by road, but very often goods which are merely “hazardous” aren’t included in ADR because they don’t present much/enough “danger” to be included in the dangerous goods list.
If I can use a football analogy, the teams all play football, but not all of them are good enough to play in the football league, so some play in the Conference instead. Substances and articles are exactly the same in that some of them play in the leagues (dangerous,) whilst others play in the Conference (hazardous.)
Bleach is a good example of this, because in its neat and highly concentrated form it counts as “dangerous” so it’s in Class 8 (Corrosive,) but in the form that people usually buy and use it (diluted) it’s only regarded as “hazardous” and therefore not regulated by ADR. (Not corrosive enough.)
As a very general rule, if a substance is transported using only the system of orange squares as labels, then ADR doesn’t usually apply to it at all.
EDIT: Blimey mrpj you posted whilst I was composing this.
Thanks for the info. 
Im guessing from your address that you could be talking of Brockelsby. Non haz, not the cleanest job and not the most well paid in the world.