# Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

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

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE
Washington. DC 20590
DEC 0 S 2009
Dr. Gregory J. Sutherland
Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC
1905 English Ivy Ct.,
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Ref. No. 06-0039R
Dear Dr. Sutherland:
This is in further reference to our March 23, 2006 response of 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 that is being shipped to an EPA approved
TSDF facility, 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
described as "Environmentally Hazardous Substances, Liquid, n.o.s. (D002), 9, UN 3082,
PO III." In this letter we are clarifying the acceptable shipping descriptions.
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 infonnation provided in your letter and to a member of my staff, it is the opinion of
this office that the material may be described as either "UN 3082, Environmentally
Hazardous Substances, Liquid, n.o.s. (D002), 9, PO III" or "NA 3082, Hazardous Waste,
Liquid, n.o.s (D002), 9, PO III" for domestic transportation. 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 infonnation is helpful.
Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

<<<PAGE 2>>>

Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC
1905 Englis~ Ivy Ct.
Mount Plea.ant, SC 29464
Phone: (84$) 849-1463 Fax: (561) 423-3907
Sa ffe r-i-'" wa. I' te
~ 1'-/7,. II) /I
1>ro fer Slu.rPI~ ~~41~e
()(P - (j()':37
Febrlllary 5, 2006
Mr. Ed Mazzullo
Offic(~ ofHazardous Materials Standard$
U.S. Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Stree:t, S W Washington. OC 20590
Dear Sir,
I have a client that has a product that ther have tested for Corrosivity as required by 49
CFR 173.137. This product does not cottode skin and the corrosion test results are less
than the 6.25 nun corrosion rate on either steel or aluminum. It however has a pH that is
1.9.
The DOT non-regulated product is shipp~d for distribution in a non-UN package to their
customers. The package is designed to ['lit dispensing machinery and a design to UN
standards would be difficult to achieve. It is not an ORM-O since they ship to franchise
customers and not the general public.
The wl!ight ofthe package is a maximum. of55 Ibs.
The issue that I have been asked to address is the shipment ofout ofdate material for
disposal and what is appropriate packaging.
The EPA defines materials with a pH < 2,0 as a "0002 Hazardous Wastes Characteristic
ofCorrosivity", this 0002 name does not ,appear in the 172.101 Hazardous Material
Table, but it does appear in the AppendixiA to the 172.101 table as a"0002 Unlisted
Hazardous Wastes Characteristic ofCorrQsivity", The Appendix lists the RQ as 100 lbs.
Tbe material as packaged does not meet 1pe definition ofa Hazardous Substance as
defmed for lhe subchapter as listed in 171 ~8, since it has less than an RQ in a package.
This would indicate that UN packages are, not required for the 0002 Material.
In section 171.3 (a) "No person may offerlfor transportation or transport a hazardous
waste (as defined in §171.8 ofthis subchapter) in interstate or intrastate commerce except
in ac(~ordance with the requirements ofthis subchapter." Seems to indicate that the
requirements ofthe subchapter as defined ~n 171.8 for Hazardous Substances in packages
that weigh less than the RQ should be foll~wed.

<<<PAGE 3>>>

"--------,-----
Shane HQ~c Consulting, LlC
1905 English Ivy ct.
Mount Plea,ant, SC 29464
Phone: (843) 849-1463 Fax: (561) 423-3907
Since: this material when sent to a TSOR for disposal, as required by the EPA regulations,
would need to be manifested on the EPA waste manifest as a 0002 Unlisted waste, the
choice ofproper shipping name and package required is in question.
The current practice is to collect expireq packages on a pallet and stretch wrap them for
shipment to a TSDF with a proper shipping name of"Environmentally Hazardous
Substances, Liquid, n.o.s. (0002). 9, UN3082. PG III" applied to the stretch wrap with a
Class 9 label.
Since the material was shipped as a non1eguiated material under OOT originally. it has
no OOT proper shipping name or labels ~n the packages as this was prohibited since the
material is not a Hazmat as produced and distributed.
What I need is a DOT ruling on what is (he proper interpretation ofthe regulations
regarding packaging, shipping and marking. labeling for this material as it is transported
for disposal.
If you need any further clarification to my questions please give me a call at:
843-849-] 463
Sincerely,
Gregory Sutherland
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 5156