Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.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 2Shane 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#