Zitat:
Zitat von nevada
Warum möchte dann das Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals eine Freistellung unter bestimmten Verpackungsvoraussetzungen durchsetzen? Eine Freistellung wovon? Von der Tatsache, dass die Bälle kein Gefahrgut sind?  Macht nicht wirklich Sinn oder?
TT-Bälle sollen nicht mehr unter die Regularien der UN 2000 fallen bzw. es wird eine Freistellung angenommen, wenn das Gewicht eines einzelnen Balles 3,0g nicht überschreitet und die Verpackungeinheit 500g nicht überschreitet. Wozu denn dieser Vorstoß, wenn die Bälle bislang sowieso kein Gefahrgut waren?
Umgesetzt ist es allerdings noch nicht. Wenn wird es wahrscheinlich Eingang in die ADR 2017 finden. Bis dahin..... |
So hab ich das jetzt verstanden
Aus welchen Gründen (welche irgendwie in den Punkten 2 und 3 versteckt sein müssen) auch immer sollen TT-Bälle unter UN-2000 fallen (was sie momentan nicht tun), und dann soll diese Befreiung gelten.
Zitat:
Proposal
7. Create a new special provision XXX for use with UN 2000 which reads as follows:
“Articles manufactured from celluloid, such as table tennis balls, are not subject to these Regulations when 144 or fewer celluloid articles are contained in a package or other article and when the total net mass of the celluloid articles does not exceed 0.5 kg.”
|
Zitat:
2. The majority view appeared to be that these articles are not inherently exempt from the provisions of the Model Regulations as DGAC believed, and although there was some discussion regarding whether they should be assigned to UN 1325 or UN 2000, a majority of the Sub-Committee appeared to favor classification as UN 2000. It was mentioned that the danger associated with these articles occurs when they are transported in large quantities and a suggestion was made that perhaps a special provision could be developed for use against UN 2000 that would create an exemption based on the packaging and quantity of table tennis balls. DGAC agreed to take the comments on board and return at the forty-sixth session with a revised proposal.
3. Celluloid table tennis balls do not meet the defined criteria for Division 4.1 in the Model Regulations which states,
Zitat:
|
“Readily combustible solids are powdered, granular, or pasty substances which are dangerous if they can be easily ignited by brief contact with an ignition source, such as a burning match, and if the flame spreads rapidly.”
|
. (See 2.4.2.2.1.2). Table tennis balls are not subject to the classification test for Division 4.1 in the Manual of Tests and Criteria which states,
Zitat:
|
“The tests should only be applied to granular, paste-like or powdery substances.”
|
. (See 33.2.1.3.2) Thus, classification as Division 4.1 is not possible other than by analogy with existing entries (per 33.2.1.2.1 of the Manual of Tests and Criteria), or through a specific entry being placed in the Dangerous Goods List. Special provision 223 is assigned to UN 2000, and states,
Zitat:
|
“If the chemical or physical properties of a substance covered by this description are such that when tested it does not meet the established defining criteria for the class or division listed in Column 3 of the Dangerous Goods List of Chapter 3.2, or any other class or division, it is not subject to these Regulations.”
|
.
|
Wie sollen TT-Bälle unter UN-2000 fallen, versteh ich nicht. Kann doch nur eins der beiden roten sein.