Australia’s National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) issued a handbook for introducers to be used as guide by importers and manufacturers of industrial chemicals in Australia. A copy of the handbook can be downloaded in the official website of NICNAS.

The handbook is composed of at least 300 pages and is further divided into two sections. The first section pertains to the main content of the guide. It contains all information and details that is required in determining whether – and how – to make a notification. The second section is the appendices. It presents additional support, guidance and relevant comprehensive background information.

For example, the handbook outlines the benefits of registering with NICNAS such as providing industry training on the legal obligations of industrial chemical importers and manufacturers. It also draws a series of questions that will aid the introducer in deciding whether to notify a chemical or not.

NICNAS together with other Australian government agencies regulates the use of chemicals in Australia, both imported and locally manufactured chemicals. Also, it is in charge of assessing industrial chemicals and most important of all, ensuring that the effects of these chemicals upon the health of the public, workers and the environment in Australia are mitigated.

To download the full PDF version of the handbook, please click on this link.

The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada had recently released its statistical report regarding the railway occurrences in 2013. The report confirmed what everyone’s been speculating – that the number of rail accidents and fatalities rose in Canada last year.

All in all, there were 1,067 reported rail accidents to the TSB which is 4% higher compared to 2012 that had only recorded 1,027 rail accidents. Accounting to 70% of the rail accidents were freight trains, 4% were passenger trains, and the remaining percentage accounted to other automobile units.

Rail accidents involving dangerous goods have also significantly increased to 144 compared to the 119 recorded count in 2012. Seven accidents involving dangerous goods release were tallied in 2013 wherein five of the accidents involved petroleum crude oil. Compared to the two accidents in 2012, last year’s count is upped due to the increased dangerous goods shipment of crude oil by rail.

On the other hand, rail fatalities totaled 127 in 2013 compared to 2012’s count of 83. Rail fatalities have mainly increased due to the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway accident in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in July 2013 that claimed 47 lives. The Lac-Megantic accident involved a runaway train shipping hazardous goods, specifically the crude oil, in the said area. The train was derailed off the tracks, then exploded.

The Lac-Megantic accident only proves that main-track collisions and derailments are the most serious categories of rail accidents that pose great risk to the life of the public, as well as financial loss. Despite an increase in rail fatalities, there were only four main-track collisions in 2013 which is relatively lower compared to 2012’s count of six. No fatalities or serious injuries, and dangerous goods release were recorded main-track collisions.

However, there were a total of 92 accidents recorded in non-main-track collisions. Though there’s a total of 92, this is down from 101 in 2012. Twenty-eight percent of the non-main-track collisions is involved in dangerous goods shipment, one of which caused a release of sodium chlorate.

On the other hand, there is a 26% increase in last year’s main-track derailments. TSB recorded a total of 83 main-track derailments compared to 2012’s total of 66. The Lac-Megantic accident comprised all of the 47 recorded fatalities resulting from main-track derailments in 2013.

As for the non-main-track derailments, there were 520 non-main-track derailments which is 2% higher compared to 2012. Eighteen percent of the non-main-track derailments is involved in dangerous goods cars, one of which resulted in a release of liquefied petroleum gas. No fatalities or serious injuries resulted from non-main-track derailments in 2013 though.

Aside from the track collision and derailment occurrences, crossing accidents account to 20% of rail accidents resulting to serious or fatal injuries. Last year’s crossing accidents were down to 188 compared to the 190 total in 2012. Crossing accidents occur at either public or private crossings due to high vehicle and train traffic volumes.

Trespasser accidents also decreased. From a total of 74 accidents in 2012, it was down to 58 in 2013. The TSB defined trespasser accidents as people or pedestrians who are not authorized to be on railway rights-of-way and who are struck by rolling stock other than at railway crossings.

The TSB also provided data regarding dangerous goods (DG) leaker incident. DG leaker incident is defined as the unintentional release of a hazardous material while in transit where there is no accident. Last year’s DG leaker incident is upped by a single count (94) compared to the total of 93 in 2012. Most of the DG leaker incidents involved the release of petroleum crude oil.

These statistical data only show that changes should be made regarding the US rail safety. But the US government has already began to take action since the occurrence of the Lac-Megantic accident. The Lac-Megantic accident had served as the wake-up call among the US rail safety team.

Concerns to change the railway regulations when it comes to transporting hazardous materials have been raised for years but nothing happened until the Lac-Megantic incident. Crude oil transportation is not the only one that poses great risks to the public. Even the shipment of radioactive transport materials and blood transport materials are marked as hazardous. Biological transportation and blood transportation should also be given concerns.

Among the solutions to improve the US rail safety is to create new tank car designs. The US National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) is innovating new tank car designs for improved safety. The NSTB have said that poor tank designs could create unacceptable public risks like what happened to the Lac-Megantic crash. Aside from the new tank car designs, modifications have also been made in terms of railway speed restrictions and inspections. Freight trains carrying hazardous products are also prompted to fix their dangerous goods declaration papers.

International Air Transport Association (IATA) has complemented the Dangerous Goods Regulations 55th Edition by furthering with a new addendum recently. This addendum highlights corrections and amendments for 3 countries- including Australia, Japan and the USA, air operators, lithium batteries, packing instructions and Class 5 labels. These highlights are discussed below:

State Variations

For the transport of infectious substances other than human blood products, human urine and human tissue into Australia, it is required to get a prior approval from Australian Health Authorities. However, this requirement is now subject to a change because from January 2014, the requests for approvals should be directed to the Department of Agriculture, Biological Program.

Japan will comply with the amendment that the radioactive material (Class 7), except for “Excepted radioactive material”, must not be stored with packages containing explosives in the same container.

In the US regulations 49 CFR, the prior approval or Ex-number for an air bag module, air bag inflator, or seat-belt pretensioner is no longer required provided that the provisions of 49 CFR 173.166 have been met. The exception for dangerous goods in limited or excepted quantities, corresponding to 173.63(b), has been specified for Class 9, UN 0012, UN 0014 and UN 0055. The limitation for cargo aircraft of Division 6.1 (toxic) will apply unless the substance is also labeled for any hazard class or division except FLAMMABLE LIQUID.

Operator Variations

For Air France (AF), the restriction on the carriage of explosives classified in Division 1.1 and 1.2 and Class 8, UN 1798 has been deleted and replaced with “Not Used”.

For British Airways (BA), the provision regarding the single packaging of UN 1169, UN 1179, and UN 3334 with an exception of composite packaging has been deleted and the subsequent provisions have moved upward. The requirement relevant to UN 3164 for annotating the net weight of the non-flammable gas on the Shipper’s Declaration has also been deleted. Similarly, the restriction of carriage of UN 3356 has also been erased.

Royal Brunei Airlines (BI) is the new air operator with a permission of carriage of UN 3481, UN 3091 and lithium batteries (both rechargeable and non-rechargeable) through passenger and cargo aircrafts when meeting the corresponding requirements.

For Cathay Pacific (CX), the packaging instruction for liquid substances bears an amendment when replacing liquid substances with liquid dangerous goods.

For Federal Express (FX), the amendment that is effective from January 2014, includes the additional requirement that all the US domestic shipments of Division 4.3 will be regulated under a DOT special permit that will exempt FX from using placards during road transport. However, this requirement does not apply to the limited quantity packaging instructions. Another amendment that will be effective from April 2014, removes the requirement that the “IB” must be indicated in the Authorization Column of Shipper’s Declaration for UN 3480 and UN 3090. Among other key amendments that will be effective from May 2014, the requirements associated with handwritten Shipper’s Declaration are no more in place because the Shipper’s Declaration for all dangerous goods shipments handled by FX will be prepared electronically now.

Emirates (EK) will no more be accepting UN 3090 packages on their passenger aircrafts.

IBERIA, , Líneas Aéreas de España (IB) will be accepting shipments of UN 3091, UN 3480, and UN 3481 on their passenger aircrafts. However, they are no more allowed to carry UN 2814, UN 2900, and UN 3373 and Fissile Radioactive Material.

Japan Airlines (JL) will have to ensure suitable materials for protection of liquid dangerous goods in single packagings of the UN specifications 1A1 and 1A2 for steel drums and 3A1 and 3A2 for steel jerricans.

Atlasjet Airlines (KK) is another addition in the line of air operators with a permission to carry UN 3091, UN 3480, UN 3481 and lithium batteries (rechargeable and non-rechargeable) provided that the corresponding provisions are met.

Air Hong Kong (LD) should find LD-08 provision now in LD-07 and LD-07 in LD-08.

For Austrian Airlines (OS), the restriction on the carriage of wheelchairs or other battery powered mobility devices has been deleted because it is no more of use. The same applies to Tyrolean Airways (VO) and Croatia Airlines (OU). However, OU will also no more be accepting camping stoves and fuel containers including flammable liquid fuel in passenger baggage.

Singapore Airlines/ Singapore Airlines Cargo (SQ) will have to comply with Section II of PI 969 and PI 970 for lithium batteries packages (UN 3091).

The limitation for Air Tahiti (VT) that dangerous goods with a subsidiary risk are forbidden, with the exception of UN 1072, has been deleted along with specific limitations for Class 1 Explosives. Moreover, another restriction on the different dangerous goods packed in an outer package has also been erased because it is not used.

Lithium Batteries

Cells and batteries manufactured in accordance to the requirements of the subsection 38.3 of the UN Manual Tests and Criteria, Revision 3, Amendment 1 or any subsequent revision and amendment applicable at the date of the type testing will be permissible to be transported, despite of the fact that they are no longer allowed, unless otherwise provided in the relevant regulations. The cells and batteries manufactured before 1 July 2003 meeting the same requirements may continue to be transported if all relevant requirements are met.

Packaging Instructions

For packing instruction 101, the instruction that packagings must meet Packing Group II requirements has been deleted. The single packagings for wood replaces the specification for wood with 4C2. The packing instruction 953 now requires that the operator must stow the magnetized material according to 9.3.10. The operator variations for packing instruction 965 now adds BI-03. The additional requirements for section IB now amends marking instructions to meet the requirements of 7.1.4.1 (a) and (b) and (c). Moreover, the operator variations for packing instruction 968 are amended to include BA-01, BI03, EK-02, IB-01, KK-10, and LD-07 and to exclude BA-02 and LD-08. The additional requirements for section IB will bear the same changes as for packing instruction 965. However, it is no more essential that the IB should be located directly in the Packing Instruction column of Shipper’s Declaration provided that it meets packing instruction and is acceptable to be located in the authorization columns. For general and excepted packages containing radioactive materials, the additional marking requirements of 7.1.4.1 (d) for dry ice are now required. And finally, the packages containing the limited quantity of dangerous goods and bearing the appropriate marks for road, rail and sea transport will be permissible for air freight if they are in compliance with the pertinent regulations.

Labels

The new label for Class 5- Oxidizing Substances (Division 5.1) does not bear red background anymore.

The new label for Class 5-Organic Peroxides (Division 5.2) can be printed with black or white colored flame.

With the purpose of giving an updated technical basis for the transport sector and shippers of dangerous goods, the National Transport Commission (NTC) released an amended edition of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code (ADGC).

The Edition 7.3 of the ADGC is said to be of utmost importance to respective sectors because it integrates a couple of significant changes to the old edition. These changes include but are not limited to the following:

• Clarification and clear understanding of the description of dangerous goods
• The addition of new materials to the list of dangerous goods
• The requirement of minimum sizes for dangerous goods markings in relation to large packages
• As to the transportation of dangerous goods via vehicles, the Code outlines a clearer guidance on documentary requirements (How and where transport vehicles are kept on a vehicle)

Furthermore, the amendments shown above are in line with the 17th Edition of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Regulations.

NTC CEO Paul Retter commented about the amendments made. He said, “While this is an incremental upgrade rather than a complete revision of the code I encourage everyone involved in transporting dangerous goods to look at this new edition and the laws in their state and refresh their knowledge.”

The NTC CEO also said that the Edition 7.3 of the ADGC is good news for Australia’s importers and exporters as Australia’s dangerous goods requirements were now much more in line with those overseas. It cuts red tape and gave them much greater certainty. He also emphasised the need of examining the amended Code in relation to specific dangerous goods legislation that applies to individual states or territories.

Mr. Retter pointed out the responsibility of the persons who are in the business of transporting dangerous goods, “Everyone who uses Australia’s roads and other transport networks has a responsibility to keep themselves and the travelling public safe.”

“This code will help people transporting dangerous goods comply with the laws that are designed to keep them from harm.”

Finally, as expression of his gratitude to the people who made the amendments possible, Mr. Retter said, “I would like to thank the transport industry, dangerous goods experts, safety experts and government authorities who provided their know-how to help us provide this useful technical resource.”

Click here to download the complete ADGC Edition 7.3.

The safety hazards associated with the air freight of lithium metal batteries are still in place, reiterates ICAO recently. A Dangerous Goods Panel review meeting in Montreal during the upcoming week may spur on heated discussions in the aftermath if the proposed ban on the transport of lithium metal batteries from passenger and cargo aircraft receives a final approval. It is also noteworthy that the 2013-14 Technical Instructions have already excluded exceptions for “bulk shipments” of lithium batteries. But what’s still apprehensive? And what could be the repercussions if the ban be enforced? For knowing the answers, let’s cross examine the narratives and counter-narratives in this regard:

What DGP Have to Say?

· No fire suppressant systems could be validated effectively in the lithium metal batteries packages against fire. Though, Halon is instructed for safety but this still does not reduce the risk.

· A general duty of care is seriously missing among the lithium metal manufacturers and freighters. Whether it be about the production of counterfeit batteries or the defiance by lithium metal batteries shippers, deliberate violations are noticeable and unacceptable.

· Even with the stern enforcement of compliance, the desired safety would still be unachievable because of the absence of demarcation between compliant and non-compliant shipments and standard and substandard lithium metal batteries.

· The growth trends in demands for lithium metal batteries and the subsequent increase in shipments would place us in a more vulnerable situation in future.

· There are precedents from one State and many airlines that underpin our proposal.

· A sharp rise in the transportation of lithium metal cells by sea is encouraging and should be a safe alternative.

A Rebuttal by Manufacturers

· It would be an unfair disparity between compliant and non-compliant manufacturers of lithium metal batteries.

· The provisions regulating lithium batteries have been subject to amendments repeatedly, and we’re already coping with compliance pressures, still even doesn’t this suffice?

· We must keep in mind, who could be affected by the ban? The implications would be far-reaching: Life-saving medical and implantable medical devices, defense apparatus, electronics, information technology, communications, public safety, and other industries all are dependent on lithium metal batteries. Are we simply ignoring them in this ban-supporting argumentum?

· And how about the overnight shipments? Can you suggest a replacement?

· Why can’t we adopt further testing measures for increasing compliance rather to penalize all?

Safety matters but a holistic view is also essential.

What do you suggest?

a) Ban is justified

b) Ban is not justified

c) More testing measures

d) Transport by sea

The NSW Environment Protection Authority has issued its Regulatory Impact Statement on the Proposed Protection of the Environment Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems or UPSS) Regulation 2014. A summary of important details about the Proposed Regulation are available below.

Rationale of the Proposed Regulation

The proposed Regulation primarily aims to mitigate the occurrence of contamination from Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (UPSS) that could pose dangers on human health and the environment. Further, the requirements set in the proposed Regulation will enhance site infrastructure and will facilitate early detection of leaks thus contamination and clean – up costs will also be prevented. The said requirements are based from the Australian Standard 4897 – 2008: The design, installation and operation of underground petroleum storage systems.

Modifications contained in the Proposed Regulation

Modifications are made in such a way that will:

• Enable loss monitoring procedures to take into account the particular characteristics and usage patterns of a storage system
• Provide greater flexibility in the use of loss monitoring procedures for a storage site
• Enable the use of alternative secondary leak detection systems
• Enable environment protection plans to be kept electronically as either a consolidated document or a collection of documents
• Include new definitions such as the definition of ‘leak’ and clarify the meaning of existing definitions such as the definitions of ‘petroleum’, ‘routine maintenance’, ‘significant modification’ and ‘storage site’
• Clarify reporting requirements

People affected by the Proposed Regulation

The proposed Regulation will apply to persons who will operate the UPSS and take responsibility on the storage system. Thus, it will apply to every single site with active UPSS. Currently, NSW has about 2,200 active retail service station sites with UPSS. However, the Regulation excludes those premises licensed under the POEO Act that amass petroleum products. In like manner, sites with UPSS utilized for fuel storage for generators, heating and waste oil are exempted but only until May 31, 2017.

Under the proposed Regulation, the EPA continues to have power over the issuance of exemptions, just like in the current Regulation.

Current status of petroleum storage in NSW

The problem on leaks and spills coming from petroleum products stored in underground tanks has resulted to economic losses and environmental degradation. This reality is reflected in the New South Wales State of the Environment 2012 (SoE 2012) which tells that over 750 sites with leaking fuels have been accounted ever since the implementation of POEO Regulation in 2008. In the same token, UPSS are deemed to likely contribute to the contamination of groundwater resources which an estimated 11 percent of which (NSW’s groundwater) is used for both agricultural and domestic purposes. Aside from these, the following instances show some significant economic and environmental implications of the issue.

• Direct economic loss on the part of the UPSS owner operator
• Time consuming and high clean – up costs of contaminated soils and groundwater
• Considerable cost to remediate UPSS site as well as other affected properties
• Liability for third party damages

Despite the challenges, the current Regulation has developed environmental performance of UPSS sites in NSW. For example, new infrastructure and major chain operations are compliant to regulations except small operators and those located in regional areas which are being worked on.

For better understanding, EPA will continue to assist and educate:

• Local government
• Individual owners and operators
• Major fuel chains and service station retail chains
• Industry associations
• Contractors and consultants who provide equipment and services to the service stations to ensure progressive improvements to site and underground infrastructure management.

For more information on the Proposed Regulation for Underground Petroleum Storage Systems check out the (PDF Doc).

IATA has recently heralded 55th edition of the Dangerous Goods Regulations by outlining key amendments which would have definite impacts on the dangerous goods and hazardous materials industry. How? Let’s take a tour of key highlights from this new edition.

1) Repositioning Operators’ Practices

If you’re working as an operator in air freight, then this development is for you. Curious to know? Just check 1.4.2 now to find out what has been recommended for an operator to assist pilots whilst transporting particularly regulated dangerous goods via passenger and crew baggage.

2) Training Ambit Extended

Good news for flight operation officers and flight dispatchers, indeed. Now, they would be required to receive dangerous goods training under category (previously key) 10.

3) New Entries

Beware! The list of dangerous goods for air freight have been added up by “new entries”. Remember A 806? Yes, it is applicable to batteries and nickel metal hydride and has been furthered by the UN Number 3496 which remains valid for sea transportation only. Quite pertinently, the packing instructions for lithium batteries have been subjected to revisions with a directive for using Shipper’s Declaration necessarily. The documentation for lithium batteries is another addition accordingly. Going further, the clarification for “Marking & Labeling” compliance has redefined requirements for air transport.

4) Clarifying Electronic Devices

ICAO clarifies limitations for medical devices functional on lithium batteries and this aims to distinguish between permissible and impermissible portable electronic devices regulated as dangerous goods.

5) Radioactive Material

The provisions regulating storage, loading and inspection of radioactive materials should now be read under Section 10.

Some updates have also been introduced in the Appendices; particularly Appendix H which informs futuristic changes as per the 18th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations and the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel for 2015-16 Technical instructions that are scheduled to take effect from January 1, 2015.

Black box technology is not a novel concept in the world of safe transportation. But unfortunately, this term has been learned by the New South Wales Government when it was overdue. This delay turned out to be fatal in dangerous goods road transportation industry of Australia and the incidents like Mona Vale tanker explosion continue to be of concern.

But what makes them responsive now? Perhaps, it could be an immediate political reaction to the Mona Vale incident when the New South Wales Roads Minister Duncan Gay fingers on the “possibility” of implementing the Intelligent Access Program for safe trucking of dangerous goods. And it could also be an upshot of an alarming incline in the road freight accidents in Australia recently.

And why to go for black box technology? Certainly, precedents are there from Europe and America that clearly communicate a progressive success ratio of this technology when implemented in large fleet projects.

What’s debatable, then? A controversy emerges as to how to record the data. The voice of Australian trucking leader Lindsay Fox sounds convincing who suggests the gradual launch of the technology across the country. However, the strategic choice of the implementation plan still remains a barrier. Fleet Telematics could be a choice of proven success but options are still open.

Whatever it’d be, but no more lives should subject to the sheer negligence of unscrupulous road transport operators.

IATA’s vision for a paperless era should be an immense relievo for air cargo industry. This project was first revealed in 2006 by IATA with a mission to “Simplifying the Business” in air transport industry. The implementation process, since, is scheduled to achieve its 100% e-freight roadmap by the end of 2015, this paradigm shift from paper-based documentation to electronic data and messages is going to virtualize the whole air transport industry. And certainly, there are equal implications for dangerous goods transportation industry. Time has come to set our alarms and stand corrected that e-freight is futurism.

Fundamentals of E-freight

Whilst chalking out E-freight fundamentals, IATA has reaffirmed its commitment to safety, security, reliability and efficiency. These fundamentals include:

1) Implementation of across-the-board paperless transportation process within the global air industry

2) Inclusion of a set of business processes and standards defining the replacement of paper documents for the air shipping course of action

3) Identifying the locations for e-freight implementation

4) Motivating and driving industry stakeholders for the success of the initiative

5) e-Doc standards to depend upon EDI practice (IATA Cargo-XML or IMP)

6) Utilization of current infrastructure of air cargo messaging

7) Participants of the industry to link up with their partners through their in-house technology

Scope of E-freight

Now, the scope of e-freight documents is another question that is worth asking. E-freight envisions to involve shippers, origin freight forwarders, export/customs authorities, origin GHA, carrier, destination GHA, import customs authorities, destination freight forwarders, and the consignees.

Three Pillars of E-freight Roadmap

E-freight roadmap presents a structured approach towards the implementation process of 100% e-freight.

Pillar I: Creating consensus globally among regulators and governments on the defined framework of network

Pillar II: Initiating with e-Air Waybill and complementing with the e-documentation of airfreight industry

Pillar III: A plan of digitalizing the commercial and special segments of airfreight must be there.

Checking Preparedness for E-freight Implementation

It is crucial to first determine the country/location’s preparedness for e-freight and in so doing, HLA (High Level Assessment) embarks upon evaluating the legal space for introducing e-freight in that particular jurisdiction. After passing HLA, the DLA (Detailed Level Assessment) brainstorms the legal and technical perspectives through engagement with local stakeholders and to evaluate their will for implementing e-freight. However, if a country/location can’t pass DLA, then LAP (Local Action Plan) is devised to achieve agreement by identifying the sources of conflicts. After working through DLA and LAP, IMP (Ready for Implementation) phase starts and this progress ends in “Live” whereby the country/location enforces e-freight Operational Procedures (e-FOP) and e-customs.

What’s the Progress So Far?

During the kickoff phase of the project, only six countries: including Canada, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, and United Kingdom, could have developed their defined e-FOPS but for now till August 2013, 64 countries have successfully been forwarded for DLA and 59 countries have passed DLA. For LAP, discussions are on the way in 12 countries and 1 country has been staged in IMP by IATA. 47 countries go on live and 453 airports around the globe are already operating through e-freight. The e-freight monthly consignments have reached up to 1,693,62. This is a huge success so far but IATA has to cover more yet.

E-Docs in Dangerous Goods Transport

Ratifying IATA’s initiative of e-freight, ICAO mandated the dangerous goods transportation industry to adopt and implement e-documentation. For this purpose, the note at the beginning of Part 5, Chapter 4 of the Technical Instructions was found with sufficient legal space to introduce e-documentation in dangerous goods transport industry. On a contrasting finding, the requirements of attachment of two copies of the dangerous goods transport document and one copy along with the final destination of the consignment are haunting. Despite of existing odds, the futuristic e-Docs for shipping dangerous goods will transform the philosophy of transportation.

IATA has already published CXML Standards for e-freight in which the acronym for XML Shipper’s Declaration for Dangerous Goods is XSDG.

What’re the Strengths of E-freight?

e-Docs would replace the costs associated with paper-based documentation. Delays are always frustrating but thanks to e-freight, the data and messages would only be a click away. Efficiency would go higher and sustainability is achievable.

Possible Challenges

Adaptability is a key challenge particularly when we’re going to reform our working environment. The traditionalists may find it hard to keep pace with modern technology. The skilled human resource would be an asset but what about the old employees? Will they be willing to be trained? If no, are we going to fire them? And then, the electronic standards may cause a rift.

But are we really willing to live in old ages?

The regulations applicable to the transportation of lithium batteries by air have changed. While these amendments became available late last year, they only took effect this year.

Following the special meeting of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP), the changes in the lithium batteries regulation were incorporated in the 55th Edition of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulation. This edition of the DGR emphasizes the changes that were agreed upon by the IATA Dangerous Goods Board (DGB) and the changes that were adopted from the 2013-2014 edition of the ICAO Technical Instructions. These changes were implemented since January 1, 2014.

The purpose of this article is to provide guidance, especially in complying with the provisions applicable to the transportation of dangerous goods by air, like lithium batteries.

Since lithium batteries are fundamental to computers, watches, phones and other electronic devices, lithium batteries regulations have been essential to meet the 21st century necessities.

Electronic devices that require the use of lithium batteries are usually carried in passenger’s luggage and cargo on a daily basis. That being said, the industry is not proposing to prevent passengers form carrying these devices with them in the cabin. However, because of its potential of causing fire, air transportation of lithium battery should be subjected to strict regulations and in-depth monitoring. Likewise, the rules for transporting and shipping dangerous goods as cargo should be strictly observed.

Transport conditions

In an attempt to help you understand the regulations better, we have outlined a few conditions that apply to the various sizes of batteries and the transportation of dangerous goods by air.

• Shipper’s declaration (DGR Section 8)
• Marking and labeling of packages (DGR Section 7)
• UN Specification packaging (DGR Section 6)
• Limit on the quantity of lithium batteries per package (DGR 4.2)
• Classification (DGR 3.9.2.6)
• Dangerous Goods Training (DGR 1.5)

Transport within passenger baggage

Even when carried as baggage, certain restrictions still apply to the carriage of lithium ion and lithium metal batteries. Only the batteries that have successfully passed the test that were outlined in Part III sub-section 38.3 may be carried with them.

While batteries that were manufactured, sold and distributed by major companies actually meet these requirements, authorities also have to be cautious of certain replacement batteries that are not OEM or fake. These types of batteries may not have undergone the required tests. Consequently, untested batteries should be excluded from transport.

Consumers who use equipments that are powered by lithium ion and lithium metal batteries should be vigilant when buying replacement batteries. We strongly discourage buying replacement batteries from unknown sources. You may not tell the difference between a genuine and copied battery, but this may put you in danger. Mind you, untested batteries are more likely to overheat and cause fire.

Due to the risk associated with carrying spare batteries, these batteries are no longer allowed in passenger checked baggage. Instead, they should be packed in carry-on baggage. The above mentioned requirements are stipulated by subparagraph 2.3.5.9 of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulation.