{"operation":"document","citation":"06-0039","title":"Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2006-03-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"06-0039 response to Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC concerning 172.101, 173.203, 173.22.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0039.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0039.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0039","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060039.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nHazardous Materials Safety\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nMAR 2 3 2006\nDr. Gregory J. Sutherland\nRef. No. 06-0039\nShane Havoc Consulting, LLC\n1905 English Ivy Ct.,\nMt. Pleasant, SC 29464\nDear Dr. Sutherland:\nThis is in response to your February 5, 2006 letter requesting clarification regarding the\nappropriate proper shipping name for your material as specified under the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask if your\nclient's material, which does not meet the definition of any hazard class except Class 9 for\nhazardous waste, may be shipped in its original (non-specification) packaging and\nPG III.\"\ndescribed as \"Environmentally Hazardous Substances, Liquid, n.o.s. (D002), 9, UN 3082,\nUnder $ 173.22, it is the shipper's responsibility to properly classify a hazardous material\nand assign it a proper shipping name from the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT). Based\non the information provided in your letter and to a member of my staff, it is the opinion of\nthis office that the material should be described as \"Hazardous Waste, Liquid, n.o.s\n(D002), 9, NA 3082, PG III.\" The material may be offered for transportation in non-bulk\npackaging in accordance with § 173.203. Section 173.203 does not authorize\nnon-specification packagings; therefore, the original packaging may not be used.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nFalls emote\nHattie L. Mitchell, Chief\nRegulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n172.101\n060039\n173.22.\n173.203\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nShane Havoc Consulting, LLC\n1905 English Ivy Ct.\nMount Pleasant, SC 29464\nPhone: (843) 849-1463 Fax: (561) 423-3907\nSatterthwaite\nFebruary 5, 2006\nMr. Ed Mazzullo\n$172:101\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nName\n400 Seventh Street, SW\nProper Ship ong 3a\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Sir,\nI have a client that has a product that they have tested for Corrosivity as required by 49\nCFR 173.137. This product does not corrode skin and the corrosion test results are less\nthan the 6.25 mm corrosion rate on either steel or aluminum. It however has a pH that is\n1.9.\nThe DOT non-regulated product is shipped for distribution in a non-UN package to their\ncustomers. The package is designed to fit dispensing machinery and a design to UN\nstandards would be difficult to achieve. It is not an ORM-D since they ship to franchise\ncustomers and not the general public.\nThe weight of the package is a maximum of 55lbs.\nThe issue that I have been asked to address is the shipment of out of date material for\ndisposal and what is appropriate packaging.\nThe EPA defines materials with a pH < 2.0 as a \"D002 Hazardous Wastes Characteristic\nof Corrosivity\", this D002 name does not appear in the 172.101 Hazardous Material\nTable, but it does appear in the Appendix A to the 172.101 table as a\"D002 Unlisted\nHazardous Wastes Characteristic of Corrosivity\". The Appendix lists the RQ as 100 Ibs.\nThe material as packaged does not meet the definition of a Hazardous Substance as\nThis would indicate that UN packages are not required for the D002 Material.\ndefined for the subchapter as listed in 171.8, since it has less than an RQ in a package.\nIn section 171.3 (a) \"No person may offer for transportation or transport a hazardous\nin accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\" Seems to indicate that the\nwaste (as defined in §171.8 of this subchapter) in interstate or intrastate commerce except\nrequirements of the subchapter as defined in 171.8 for Hazardous Substances in packages\nthat weigh less than the RQ should be followed.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nShane Havoc Consulting, LLC\n1905 English Ivy Ct.\nMount Pleasant, SC 29464\nPhone: (843) 849-1463 Fax: (561) 423-3907\nSince this material when sent to a TSDF for disposal, as required by the EPA regulations,\nwould need to be manifested on the EPA waste manifest as a D002 Unlisted waste, the\nhoice of proper shipping name and package required is in question\nClass 9 label.\nno DOT proper shipping name or labels on the packages as this was prohibited since the\nSince the material was shipped as a non-regulated material under DOT originally, it has\nraterial is not a Hazmat as produced and distributed.\nWhat I need is a DOT ruling on what is the proper interpretation of the regulations\nor disposa\negarding packaging, shipping and marking, labeling for this material as it is transporte\nIf you need any further clarification to my questions please give me a call at:\n843-849-1463\nSincerely,\nGregory Sutherland","truncated":false,"body_characters":4602}