Products classified as hazardous under CLP vs. dangerous goods in transport – is there a difference?
In the chemical industry, we very often come across terms such as “hazardous product”, “hazardous substance”, “ADR product” or “dangerous goods in transport”. At first glance, these terms may appear to be synonyms. In reality, however, they refer to two different classification systems and two different areas of safety. It is therefore important to be able to distinguish between these concepts in order to understand which requirements may apply to a particular product with a given classification.
The ADR Agreement and the CLP Regulation have many points in common, particularly with regard to product classification. However, despite these similarities, a chemical product may be classified as hazardous under the CLP Regulation while at the same time not being classified as dangerous goods for transport. The opposite situation is also possible – a substance or article may be subject to dangerous goods transport regulations even though it is not classified as hazardous under CLP.
This distinction has very practical implications. The correct classification determines, among other things, the requirements concerning labelling, packaging, safety data sheets, transport documentation, the type of transport packaging and the marking of the transport unit.
CLP and ADR – Two Different Purposes
Although both CLP and ADR share a common core and are derived from the UN Model Regulations and the GHS framework, the fundamental difference between them lies in their purpose.
The CLP Regulation, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, is primarily intended to identify and communicate the hazards associated with a substance or mixture. It covers physical hazards, hazards to human health and hazards to the environment. CLP classification forms the basis for determining the appropriate labelling elements, such as pictograms, signal words, hazard statements and precautionary statements. Of course, some classifications may also be relevant from a transport perspective, which clearly illustrates the overlap between the two systems mentioned above.
Transport regulations, on the other hand, are primarily intended to answer a different question:
Does a given material pose such a hazard during transport that its carriage should be subject to specific requirements?
For road transport, the principal legal instrument is ADR – the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road. ADR sets out, among other things, the rules for the classification of dangerous goods, requirements for packaging, labelling, documentation, vehicles, crews and conditions of carriage.
Therefore, “hazardous under CLP” and “dangerous goods in transport” do not mean exactly the same thing. At the most basic level, we should focus primarily on how products are classified under each of the two systems. ADR and CLP have many areas in common, but there are also elements specific to each system that have no equivalent in the other.
What Does “Hazardous Product” Mean under CLP?
Under the CLP system, classification is linked to the properties of a substance or mixture.
The assessment considers, among other things, whether the product presents:
- physical hazards,
- hazards to human health,
- hazards to the environment.
If the criteria specified in CLP are met, the substance or mixture receives the appropriate classification. The relevant labelling elements must then be applied.
For example, a mixture may be classified as:
Skin Irrit. 2 – H315: Causes skin irritation
or:
Eye Irrit. 2 – H319: Causes serious eye irritation.
It may also be classified as a substance or mixture hazardous to the aquatic environment.
In such a case, we are dealing with a product classified as hazardous within the meaning of CLP, which may mean that appropriate labelling and other requirements arising from chemical legislation must be fulfilled.
For the purposes of simplifying the further discussion, it can be assumed that the range of hazard classifications available under the CLP Regulation is broader than the classifications resulting from dangerous goods transport regulations. In other words, not every CLP classification will automatically mean that a product is considered dangerous during transport.
What Does “Dangerous Goods in Transport” Mean?
Transport regulations apply separate, although in many respects overlapping, criteria.
ADR divides dangerous goods into Classes 1 to 9, including:
Class 3 – flammable liquids
Class 6.2 – infectious substances
Class 7 – radioactive material
Class 8 – corrosive substances
Class 9 – miscellaneous dangerous substances and articles.
For those familiar with the CLP classification system, the examples above clearly show that some CLP hazard classes have a connection with dangerous goods transport classification, such as flammable liquids or corrosive substances. Others, such as infectious substances or radioactive material, are outside the scope of the CLP Regulation altogether.
This leads us to a conclusion analogous to the one discussed in the previous section – not every item of dangerous goods in transport will require classification under the CLP Regulation.
Is a Product Bearing a CLP Pictogram Automatically ADR Dangerous Goods?
No. This is one of the most commonly made mistakes. Let us assume that a mixture bears the GHS07 – exclamation mark – pictogram on its label and has the following classification:
Skin Irrit. 2, H315
Eye Irrit. 2, H319
The mere presence of the GHS07 pictogram does not mean that the product must be transported as dangerous goods in accordance with ADR. A product with such a classification is not covered by the dangerous goods transport provisions – Class 8 (corrosive substances) does not include products that are only irritating. A similar situation applies to skin or respiratory sensitisation.
Therefore, when assessing a product, it is necessary to carry out a separate assessment under transport regulations, particularly because, as mentioned above, there are hazard classes that are not covered by the CLP Regulation. Consequently, it is even possible to have a product for which no safety data sheet is required, while the ADR Agreement may nevertheless impose specific transport requirements – for example, in the case of infectious substances or radioactive material, which are outside the scope of the REACH Regulation.
Where Are the Similarities?
We have discussed the differences and situations in which dangerous goods transport regulations assess products differently from the CLP Regulation. However, as mentioned earlier, there are also numerous situations in which both systems “speak a similar language”.
For products classified as flammable, corrosive or toxic, both ADR and CLP approach classification either identically or in a similar manner. This results from the fact mentioned earlier that both systems are based on the same UN Model Regulations and GHS principles, meaning that their classification criteria overlap in a number of areas.
This means that where we are dealing with a product classified as flammable under the CLP Regulation, there is a high probability that the product will also be considered dangerous goods in transport and will require the assignment of a UN number and the performance of the related activities. As a “rule of thumb”, we can assume that if a corresponding hazard class exists in transport regulations and in the CLP Regulation, a product meeting the criteria for that hazard will most likely be classified as dangerous or hazardous under both systems.
Why Is This Difference So Important?
Incorrectly equating CLP with ADR can lead to two types of problems.
The first is treating a product as dangerous goods in transport even though it does not meet the relevant transport criteria. This may result in unnecessary requirements concerning packaging, carriage and documentation. This is particularly relevant in communication with carriers, but it is also important when assessing additional obligations applicable to the company, such as reporting requirements or the appointment of an ADR Safety Adviser.
The second, equally serious issue, is considering a product safe for transport simply because it does not have a CLP classification or is not accompanied by a safety data sheet. In such a situation, a company may fail to apply transport requirements that should actually be fulfilled.
A proper assessment of the product under both systems is therefore essential for regulatory compliance. It should not be neglected, and where there are doubts, the matter should be consulted with a specialist in the transport of dangerous goods.
Contact
ANY QUESTIONS?
Contact us