{"operation":"document","citation":"06-0039R","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":"2009-12-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"06-0039R response to Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC concerning 173.22.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0039r.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0039r.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0039r","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2006/060039R.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE\nWashington. DC 20590\nDEC 0 S 2009\nDr. Gregory J. Sutherland\nShane Havoc Consulting, LLC\n1905 English Ivy Ct.,\nMt. Pleasant, SC 29464\nRef. No. 06-0039R\nDear Dr. Sutherland:\nThis is in further reference to our March 23, 2006 response of your February 5, 2006 letter\nrequesting clarification regarding the appropriate proper shipping name for your material\nas specified under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nSpecifically, you ask if your client's material that is being shipped to an EPA approved\nTSDF facility, 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\ndescribed as \"Environmentally Hazardous Substances, Liquid, n.o.s. (D002), 9, UN 3082,\nPO III.\" In this letter we are clarifying the acceptable shipping descriptions.\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 infonnation provided in your letter and to a member of my staff, it is the opinion of\nthis office that the material may be described as either \"UN 3082, Environmentally\nHazardous Substances, Liquid, n.o.s. (D002), 9, PO III\" or \"NA 3082, Hazardous Waste,\nLiquid, n.o.s (D002), 9, PO III\" for domestic transportation. The material may be offered\nfor transportation in non-bulk packaging in accordance with § 173.203. Section 173.203\ndoes not authorize non-specification packagings; therefore, the original packaging may not\nbe used.\nI hope this infonnation is helpful.\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nShane Havoc Consulting, LLC\n1905 Englis~ Ivy Ct.\nMount Plea.ant, SC 29464\nPhone: (84$) 849-1463 Fax: (561) 423-3907\nSa ffe r-i-'\" wa. I' te\n~ 1'-/7,. II) /I\n1>ro fer Slu.rPI~ ~~41~e\n()(P - (j()':37\nFebrlllary 5, 2006\nMr. Ed Mazzullo\nOffic(~ ofHazardous Materials Standard$\nU.S. Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Stree:t, S W Washington. OC 20590\nDear Sir,\nI have a client that has a product that ther have tested for Corrosivity as required by 49\nCFR 173.137. This product does not cottode skin and the corrosion test results are less\nthan the 6.25 nun corrosion rate on either steel or aluminum. It however has a pH that is\n1.9.\nThe DOT non-regulated product is shipp~d for distribution in a non-UN package to their\ncustomers. The package is designed to ['lit dispensing machinery and a design to UN\nstandards would be difficult to achieve. It is not an ORM-O since they ship to franchise\ncustomers and not the general public.\nThe wl!ight ofthe package is a maximum. of55 Ibs.\nThe issue that I have been asked to address is the shipment ofout ofdate material for\ndisposal and what is appropriate packaging.\nThe EPA defines materials with a pH < 2,0 as a \"0002 Hazardous Wastes Characteristic\nofCorrosivity\", this 0002 name does not ,appear in the 172.101 Hazardous Material\nTable, but it does appear in the AppendixiA to the 172.101 table as a\"0002 Unlisted\nHazardous Wastes Characteristic ofCorrQsivity\", The Appendix lists the RQ as 100 lbs.\nTbe material as packaged does not meet 1pe definition ofa Hazardous Substance as\ndefmed for lhe subchapter as listed in 171 ~8, since it has less than an RQ in a package.\nThis would indicate that UN packages are, not required for the 0002 Material.\nIn section 171.3 (a) \"No person may offerlfor transportation or transport a hazardous\nwaste (as defined in §171.8 ofthis subchapter) in interstate or intrastate commerce except\nin ac(~ordance with the requirements ofthis subchapter.\" Seems to indicate that the\nrequirements ofthe subchapter as defined ~n 171.8 for Hazardous Substances in packages\nthat weigh less than the RQ should be foll~wed.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n\"--------,-----\nShane HQ~c Consulting, LlC\n1905 English Ivy ct.\nMount Plea,ant, SC 29464\nPhone: (843) 849-1463 Fax: (561) 423-3907\nSince: this material when sent to a TSOR for disposal, as required by the EPA regulations,\nwould need to be manifested on the EPA waste manifest as a 0002 Unlisted waste, the\nchoice ofproper shipping name and package required is in question.\nThe current practice is to collect expireq packages on a pallet and stretch wrap them for\nshipment to a TSDF with a proper shipping name of\"Environmentally Hazardous\nSubstances, Liquid, n.o.s. (0002). 9, UN3082. PG III\" applied to the stretch wrap with a\nClass 9 label.\nSince the material was shipped as a non1eguiated material under OOT originally. it has\nno OOT proper shipping name or labels ~n the packages as this was prohibited since the\nmaterial is not a Hazmat as produced and distributed.\nWhat I need is a DOT ruling on what is (he proper interpretation ofthe regulations\nregarding packaging, shipping and marking. labeling for this material as it is transported\nfor disposal.\nIf you need any further clarification to my questions please give me a call at:\n843-849-] 463\nSincerely,\nGregory Sutherland","truncated":false,"body_characters":5156}