08
sorting systems, which subject packages to stresses that weren’t “normal” back when specification packaging tests were added. Now we might need a side crush test, and not just a compression test from the top. And/or we might need to test packagings with inner containers to demonstrate prevention of leakage in all orientations, which could then obviate the need for orientation arrows. Wait, packaging developments could potentially affect marking requirements? Sure, maybe. • Hazards in those long-ago days were expressed in words, and there were no packing groups. Toxic materials in the USA were Poison A or Poison B, analogous to today’s 6.2 degree of danger rating system. Now, those two are 6.1, I and 6.1, II (roughly speaking). To add 6.1, III, we had to regulate some previously unregulated materials, for which we created a new hazard label, Keep Away From Food, which oddly enough didn’t say Keep Away From Food, but Stow Away From Foodstuffs. We do keep some vestige of the old hazard class words around though, occasionally to the detriment of safety and emergency response. When we put words on a 4.1 hazard label, those words are usually “Flammable Solid”. What could possibly go wrong in responding to a selfreactive liquid or polymerizing liquid or legacy desensitized explosive liquid inside a damaged package bearing a label that says “Solid”? If we looked at our hazard classification system all over again, and tried to make it have some guiding, consistent principles, it might look entirely different. Just think about our current inconsistencies. Sometimes we categorize by physical state, as with the gases all being in Class 2, and other times we just don’t. Sometimes we categorize by a type of hazard, as with all corrosives being assigned to Class 8, and yet for materials whose only hazard is that they will burn we use 2, 3, and
why did we put lithium batteries in Class 9 instead of in 4.1? Of all the changes made from the past, this is the area that I think most needs continuing change, and unfortunately, the area least likely to change because of its complexity and the consequences of introducing a whole new system. • Shipping papers used to be laboriously hand printed by whichever unlucky employee had the best handwriting, sometimes pushing the pen down hard to make that bottom piece of paper under the layers of carbon paper legible. Then we got a typewriter, which was great, but still took a lot of time to make multiple copies. Giant copiers arrived, and DG paperwork was often important enough to warrant permission to use those expensive beasts and their inks and toners. Printers got cheap, and typewriters were replaced with Word or Excel templates to ensure everything was lined up properly when generating shipping papers. Now, of course, FedEx Express in the United States won’t accept handwritten nor typewritten nor PC-generated DGDs, insisting only upon DGDs produced from an error-checking software system. And
world, it seems likely that e-docs are the wave of the future. Of course, there are potential issues with lack of connectivity to the internet in ‘dead cell’ areas, but preemptive autoloading of e-documents onto local emergency responders’ phones before the transport vehicle/boat/train/plane enters a geographic region could render that problem moot. And while we’re on technology fixes for e-generated shipping documents, it’s probably worth mentioning that more and more of these document-generating softwares include some classification determining capability, too. I use the word “capability” lightly, though, because with all of the non-objective classification criteria, such as usage, packaging type, mode of transport, quantity, subjectivity, and destination, I have been able to make every single one of these that I’ve ever tested, fail. So, more work remains to be done before these softwares can perform all the DG functions for us. • Tracking of shipments just wasn’t really done in those old days. Notification of arrival could be done by telephone or by postcard. About the time I started DG work, barcodes were in their infancy, but within a contained system could be used for tracking. At one point, while working for a parcel carrier, we would use a big, handheld “gun” to scan barcodes, but then at the end of the shift had to dock the gun into a cradle so the stored information could be shared via wired connection with the rest of the system. In other words, no WiFi. And barcodes were often used for an entire shipment, not the individual packages within a shipment. Tracking down the 1 of 6 packages that didn’t get delivered was quite difficult, because the barcode would erroneously say that the 1 was delivered with the 5 of 6 that actually were. Fortunately, that practice seems dead as far as DG is concerned. Now, barcodes are usually not
4.1. And heck, we don’t even pay attention to our own current system sometimes. The definition of a 4.1 flammable solid used to include words similar to “burns so persistently or vigorously as to create a hazard in transportation”, which pretty much describes lithium batteries. So,
those error-checking, document generating, software systems are proliferating. Some of the new software systems, especially those provided by carriers, also send electronic versions of the DG documents instantaneously upon printing. With testing of e-documents going on in many parts of the
actually bars, gun-style scanners are small and communicate instantaneously, and when conveyer belts are used, code readers are installed in arches over the belts and/or along the side and/or underneath, so no matter the package orientation, everyone everywhere can instantly see the location of a package.
HCB MONTHLY | SEPTEMBER 2020
“BY FOLLOWING THE PROGRESS WE’VE MADE SO FAR, WE MAY HAVE A BETTER IDEA WHERE PROGRESS WILL TAKE US IN THE FUTURE”
