This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Daniels Training Services (https://dev.danielstraining.com) on December 05, 2019

Hello,

I am trying to name a chemical for transport. It has a flashpoint of 81 C. It is not a US DOT marine pollutant, but it is an IMDG marine pollutant. We ship in both bulk and non-bulk packaging, both domestically and internationally. I believe the US DOT name would be NA1993, combustible liquids, n.o.s. (name), 3, III -is that correct?

I am having a hard time with the IATA and IMDG name. Would those still be the NA1993? I know that NA1993 isn’t recognized internationally, so I am little confused as how this should be named. Any help you can provide with the naming would be greatly appreciated!!

My reply December 10th:

Thank you for contacting me.  I apologize for my delay. I will review and reply.  Please advise on the below.

A question from a former coworker on August 29, 2017:

Good morning Dan. We have a client that has soaps coming to the facility that are corrosive in totes. They have contracted a recycling service to come pick up the empty totes. The service provider is being very conservative and wants to ship the totes as hazardous material, even though the totes are empty by normal practical means. They are stating the totes are 150 pounds each so when over six are shipped they are asking the client to provide placards for the shipment. The client is not DOT registered, they normally do not offer hazardous substances for transportation. Does the client take on liability for misrepresenting the shipment? (should not be shipped as a hazardous substance) I assume they would need to become registered and pay the annual fee, correct? If they only ship six totes (900 pounds), they would not require placarding and therefore would not need to be registered. However, if the transporter still wants to ship with a placard, could the client be responsible for misrepresenting the load by providing placards and signing shipping papers? Where is this addressed in the rules?

My reply that same day:

Thanks for contacting me.

Another question through the Contact Me page of my website on April 3, 2016:

Dear Daniel,
A bulk container (rolloff box) requires to display the UN number in the sides?
Best Regards

My reply the next day (4.4.16):

Yes.  Pursuant to 49 CFR 172.302(a), a bulk packaging must display the identification number on all four sides if it has a capacity of 1,000 gallons or more and on two opposing sides if it has a capacity of less than 1,000 gallons.

• What is a bulk packaging?

Often I get questions from people who are not customers.  Though perhaps they will be customers in the future.

Hello

I came across your website and found the content to be very informative. I do have 1 question about bulk packages (I assume he read my blog article about Bulk Packaging for HazMat transportation). Can you further define the 3rd part of the bulk package definition? (3) A water capacity greater than 454 kg (1000 pounds) as a receptacle for a gas as defined in §173.115 of this subchapter.
Isn’t that a 119 gallon container? But how does that relate to gas?

Thanks for your time

My reply that same day:

That’s a really good question and one I struggled with when a customer of mine wanted to know the proper methods for shipment of compressed gas cylinders of Oxygen. Here is what I know about bulk packaging for a gas from researching the regulations and speaking with PHMSA/USDOT:

• It applies to a gas as defined at 49 CFR 173.115, which includes the following:
  • Division 2.1 (Flammable gas)
  • Division 2.2 (non-flammable, nonpoisonous compressed gas—including compressed gas, liquefied gas, pressurized cryogenic gas, compressed gas in solution, asphyxiant gas and oxidizing gas)
  • Division 2.3 (Gas poisonous by inhalation)
  • Non-liquefied compressed gas
  • Liquefied compressed gas
  • Compressed gas in solution
  • Cryogenic liquid
  • Refrigerant gas or Dispersant gas
  • Adsorbed gas
• The threshold amount for a gas (>454 kg or 1,000 pounds water capacity) is based on an estimated density of water of 8.403 lb/gal: 119 gal x 8.403 lb/gal = >1,000 lbs water capacity.
• You are correct that a bulk packaging for a gas (as defined at 49 CFR 173.115) has a maximum capacity of >119 gallons – the same as for a liquid.
• The definition of a bulk packaging for a solid also includes a threshold amount of >119 gallons, so clearly, this is a value used uniformly throughout the definition of a bulk packaging no matter the phase of the HazMat (liquid, solid, or gas).

I hope this helps. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.

His reply of gratitude and a good observation.

Daniel
Thanks for the quick response.
There is so much info out there so if you don’t travel with bulk quantities of material everyday it is tough to be sure we are in compliance.

Now I had a question for him.

Thank you for your cooperation.

One more thing, you may know this better than I, but I understand that it is unlikely to find a USDOT-approved compressed gas cylinder that meets the definition of a bulk packaging. Most gases if transported in a bulk packaging will either be in a cargo tank or portable tank. Is that your understanding as well?

Thank you and please advise.

Dan

And now he gave me some good advice.

Based on presentations and interaction with DOT enforcement offices and State Troopers, I believe you are correct. They mentioned something about older bulk containers being grandfathered in to the newest rules (like propane trucks?).
I didn’t pay much attention to it because we typically don’t get into it in our business. I have been told by our Mechanical Department that the 1 bulk compressed gas package we use is acceptable as long as we have a CDL holder with haz mat and bulk endorsements and the shipping papers/manifest to go with it.
I get the impression that the rules are interpreted differently from officer to officer too. There is just too much for 1 person to be an expert on.

I was grateful for his information and had an observation of my own.

While your Mechanical Department may be right, the packaging still must be authorized for the HazMat per column 8 of the Hazardous Materials Table and meet either the USDOT specifications for a compressed gas cylinder or the UN specifications for a pressure receptacle. Or, it could be subject to a Special Permit in which case neither may be necessary.

You are correct that it can be very confusing and you can hear different opinions from different people. That is why I always rely solely on the regulations and not what people tell me. If someone tells you something regarding compliance, they should be able to back it up by citing the applicable regulation.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Dan

A question directed to me from the CONTACT ME page of my website on January 21, 2015:

I was reading your article on infectious labeling and marking. Under marking it  states that a “bulk” is (a) less than 1000 gallons or (b) greater than 1000. What about 49 CFR (Department of Transportation) §171.8 – Definitions and Abbreviations.

Bulk packaging means a packaging, other than a vessel or a barge, including a transport vehicle or freight container, in which hazardous materials are loaded with no intermediate form of containment.

A Large Packaging in which hazardous materials are loaded with an intermediate form of containment, such as one or more articles or inner packagings, is also a bulk packaging.

Additionally, a bulk packaging has: * * *
(1) A maximum capacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a liquid;
(2) A maximum net mass greater than 400 kg (882 pounds) and a maximum capacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a solid; or
(3) A water capacity greater than 454 kg (1000 pounds) as a receptacle for a gas as defined in §173.115 of this subchapter.

So therefore any package less than 119 gallons would be considered a non-bulk package. I personally have never seen an infectious or biohazard bulk package. It does not clearly state the information above – only stating a bulk is less than 1000 gallons.
Additionally, it is allowed to use either the DOT or the OSHA label correct?
I had an inspector recently tell me that I could not use the DOT label that the OSHA label was the only label allowed. Looking for some additional guidance.

My, as it turns out, overly optimistic reply that same day:

Thanks for the contact.  I will research the topic and reply to you a little bit later today.

My final reply, a few days late (1/26/15):

Thank you for contacting me about my article:  The BioHazard Marking for the Transportation of Infectious Substances.  I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

And on January 28, 2015, another satisfied customer (well, not really a customer as they didn’t pay me.  But I’m glad to help):

Thanks!

Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have about the transportation of hazardous materials (which includes Infectious Substances) and the regulations of the USDOT/PHMSA.