# Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

- **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:** Not available
- **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>>>

of Transportation
U.S. Department
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Hazardous Materials Safety
Pipeline and
Administration
MAR 2 3 2006
Dr. Gregory J. Sutherland
Ref. No. 06-0039
Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC
1905 English Ivy Ct.,
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Dear Dr. Sutherland:
This is in response to your February 5, 2006 letter requesting clarification regarding the
appropriate proper shipping name for your material as specified under the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask if your
client's material, which does not meet the definition of any hazard class except Class 9 for
hazardous waste, may be shipped in its original (non-specification) packaging and
PG III."
described as "Environmentally Hazardous Substances, Liquid, n.o.s. (D002), 9, UN 3082,
Under $ 173.22, it is the shipper's responsibility to properly classify a hazardous material
and assign it a proper shipping name from the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT). Based
on the information provided in your letter and to a member of my staff, it is the opinion of
this office that the material should be described as "Hazardous Waste, Liquid, n.o.s
(D002), 9, NA 3082, PG III." The material may be offered for transportation in non-bulk
packaging in accordance with § 173.203. Section 173.203 does not authorize
non-specification packagings; therefore, the original packaging may not be used.
I hope this information is helpful.
Falls emote
Hattie L. Mitchell, Chief
Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
172.101
060039
173.22.
173.203

<<<PAGE 2>>>

Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC
1905 English Ivy Ct.
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: (843) 849-1463 Fax: (561) 423-3907
Satterthwaite
February 5, 2006
Mr. Ed Mazzullo
$172:101
U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
Name
400 Seventh Street, SW
Proper Ship ong 3a
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Sir,
I have a client that has a product that they have tested for Corrosivity as required by 49
CFR 173.137. This product does not corrode skin and the corrosion test results are less
than the 6.25 mm corrosion rate on either steel or aluminum. It however has a pH that is
1.9.
The DOT non-regulated product is shipped for distribution in a non-UN package to their
customers. The package is designed to fit dispensing machinery and a design to UN
standards would be difficult to achieve. It is not an ORM-D since they ship to franchise
customers and not the general public.
The weight of the package is a maximum of 55lbs.
The issue that I have been asked to address is the shipment of out of date material for
disposal and what is appropriate packaging.
The EPA defines materials with a pH < 2.0 as a "D002 Hazardous Wastes Characteristic
of Corrosivity", this D002 name does not appear in the 172.101 Hazardous Material
Table, but it does appear in the Appendix A to the 172.101 table as a"D002 Unlisted
Hazardous Wastes Characteristic of Corrosivity". The Appendix lists the RQ as 100 Ibs.
The material as packaged does not meet the definition of a Hazardous Substance as
This would indicate that UN packages are not required for the D002 Material.
defined for the subchapter as listed in 171.8, since it has less than an RQ in a package.
In section 171.3 (a) "No person may offer for transportation or transport a hazardous
in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter." Seems to indicate that the
waste (as defined in §171.8 of this subchapter) in interstate or intrastate commerce except
requirements of the subchapter as defined in 171.8 for Hazardous Substances in packages
that weigh less than the RQ should be followed.

<<<PAGE 3>>>

Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC
1905 English Ivy Ct.
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: (843) 849-1463 Fax: (561) 423-3907
Since this material when sent to a TSDF for disposal, as required by the EPA regulations,
would need to be manifested on the EPA waste manifest as a D002 Unlisted waste, the
hoice of proper shipping name and package required is in question
Class 9 label.
no DOT proper shipping name or labels on the packages as this was prohibited since the
Since the material was shipped as a non-regulated material under DOT originally, it has
raterial is not a Hazmat as produced and distributed.
What I need is a DOT ruling on what is the proper interpretation of the regulations
or disposa
egarding packaging, shipping and marking, labeling for this material as it is transporte
If you need any further clarification to my questions please give me a call at:
843-849-1463
Sincerely,
Gregory Sutherland
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 4602