DON’T PUT A LABEL ON ME!


IT’S A COMBUSTIBLE SITUATION

We are all getting less. Companies don’t charge more, they just reduce the amount they use to provide. It's called Shrinkflation. Chocolate bars from 100 to 90 grams, breakfast cereal boxes the same size, less contents. Toilet paper rolls have less sheets. Household cleaning solutions and laundry detergents packaging contain less liquid.

So too, as with the 49 Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR) Department of Transportation, (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, (PHMSA) Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) who is allowing shippers of hazardous materials and waste to reduce the size of the Class 3 Combustible Liquid placard for use on Intermediately Bulk Containers, (IBC’s) and Portable Tanks.  

Combustible liquids are defined by the DOT as liquids that have a flash point at or above 100°F (37.8°C) and below 200°F (93.3°C). The flash point of a liquid is the lowest temperature at which it can vaporize to form an ignitable mixture in air near the surface of the liquid (per ChatGPT). 

 If the new smaller combustible liquid placard were a combustible liquid label there would be no need for the revision as PHMSA already authorizes the use of labels on IBCs in place of placards per 172.514(c).

There is a lot of misunderstanding around combustible liquid regulations as the international community does not regulate combustible liquids, unless they flash above 100°F up to 140°, but as Class 3 Flammable Liquids.  When they flash over 140°F up to 200°F neither the United Nations, (UN), the International Maritime Organization (IMO) or the International Civil Aviation Organization,(ICAO) recognize domestic DOT combustible liquids as dangerous goods, because of their extremely high flashpoints, only DOT. 

 If a liquid flashes between 100°F and 140°F it could be flammable or combustible. But, if it flashes above 140°F up to 200°F in a bulk container, it is only combustible (per DOT).

Add to the confusion, DOT allows the reclassification of both bulk and non-bulk containers of flammable liquids flashing above 100°F, to combustible liquids under 173.120(b)(1) and 173.150(f)(2) based on the prior combustible definition. The PHMSA does not regulate non-bulk containers of combustible liquids. That’s why there’s no combustible label under 173.150(f)(2), only the combustible placard for bulk containers. 

 PHMSA has also revised 172.514(c)(1) and (4) to allow portable tanks containing combustible liquids to be placarded with a combustible placard that meets the label size specifications in 172.407(c).

Your UN/ID Identification number options are on the orange panel, inside the placard, or on a square on square point. Unless you meet the marking requirements in 172.301(a)(1), for non-bulk container markings, which would then include the proper shipping name, in addition to the UN/ID identification number.

Don’t use the new smaller label size combustible liquid placard on your trucks or trailers as they are not authorized. The IBC’s and portable tanks can use the label size combustible liquid placard with the proper shipping name and UN/ID Identification number on two opposite sides, however all four sides of the truck would be required to have the full size combustible liquid placard under 172.504(a) and the UN/ID Identification numbers under 172.302 (b).
 To be sure some people will wrongly believe that there is a new combustible liquid label and that DOT has started to regulate combustible liquids in non-bulk containers. Download the final rule and check the federal register regularly to prepare for any proposed and final rules in the future. If you have a comment or input on my blogs, a question about hazardous materials, hazardous wastes or hazardous substances regulations please feel free to contact us and we won't charge you at all.

Thank you for your support.

Robert J. Keegan
Publisher and President
Hazardous Materials Publishing Company
Transportation Skills Programs Inc
610-587-3978
www.hazmat-tsp.com

2023/2024 Hazardous Materials, Substances and Wastes Compliance Guide
from $110.00
Price per Quantity:
Quantity:
Add To Cart

TRAIN WRECK

emergency escape breathing
apparatus training


The 49 CFR Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) fine for failure to train, test, and certify hazmat employees, was recently increased to $601.00. Little more than the cost of a cup of coffee and attending our DOT, EPA & OSHA Hazardous Materials, Substances and Wastes Compliance Seminar.*  That is the minimum, for training violations, the maximum is not more than $99,756.00. 

A violation resulting in death, serious illness, injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property rises to a $232,762.00 civil penalty. That is per violation. Conversely, knowingly, willfully or recklessly violating the PHMSA regulations could result in an additional 5 years in prison, up to 10 years in cases of bodily injury or death.

Did you know, that the PHMSA and some of their friends at DOT in a recent final rule, increased their fines and penalties in the Federal Register? 

You know the PHMSA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Carrier Motor Safety Regulations (FMCSR), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Occupational Safety, and Health Administration,(OSHA), all regularly update their hazardous material and waste training and testing requirements. Did you read FRA’s final rule on Friday, the 26th of January for new emergency escape breathing apparatus training? This was in response to the East Palestine, Ohio hazardous material disaster where the wheels fell off, literally. 

At least with the seminar registration in addition to the peace of mind of knowing your employees have been trained, tested, and certified they would also receive the new 2023/2024 Hazardous Materials, Substances & Wastes Compliance Guide (over 2000 pages). Which includes the PHMSA hazardous material shipping, the EPA hazardous waste management, and the OSHA worker protection regulations. 

In addition to our Hazmat Compliance Guide and training and testing certification, seminar attendees receive a free** one-year subscription to our DOT, EPA, and OSHA Hazmat Regulatory Update Service. Sign up now. “Training it is the law”.

 Be prepared and relax. We have you covered.

* Note: Better rates are available for additional attendees, even in multiple seminars and time zones, on our website hazmat.tsp.com under Seminars.

** Note: Subscription of our Federal Register Regulatory Update Service for a limited time, is FREE, sign up on our website to receive your updates, whether you plan to attend a seminar or not.


Robert J. Keegan
Publisher and President
Hazardous Material Publishing Compan
Transportation Skills Programs Inc.
Hazmat.tsp@gmail.com
610-587-3978 text

 ‘Parlez-vous ERG?’

A baguette, bottle of wine, and a beret.

Emergency Response Information (ERI) must be immediately accessible to hazardous material and waste drivers, train, flight and vessel bridge personnel. But not the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG), as many shippers and generators, the ones required to provide the ERI information, believe. Nor does the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) for drivers. 

The ERG is only one of three ways that shippers can provide 49 CFR Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials (HMR), ERI. Shippers also have the option of making up their own ERI form in 172.602(a)(1) or attaching a OSHA Safety Data Sheet (SDS) under 172.602(b)(3)(iii). DOT used to recommend the ERG, or at least mention it in their regulations, years ago. Now, the only federal regulation I can find is that Haz-mat team members must “understand” the ERG under 1910.120(q) Emergency response to hazardous substance releases.

Should the ERG be required to accompany all shipments of hazardous materials?  

Do emergency responders rely on the carrier's ERG or their own information?  

How effective is the ERG in air and marine vessel incidents? 

 The answers to these questions could have been up to you. Sign up for our DOT/EPA /OSHA Regulation Update Service. Now!  You missed the first comment period. Don’t miss the second one in the forthcoming Proposed Rule and its crucial preamble, which explains the regulations in layman's terms. This will precede the final rule, which is then incorporated in the Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR) as law.

 Drivers would be in violation in 177.801 if they accepted a shipment without the shipper or generator’s ERI or their own. But it’s never been the carriers or transporters job to provide it, that’s always been the shippers responsibility.

The United States, Mexico and Argentina, all work on the ERG, but I feel that CANUTEC in Canada does most of the heavy lifting. Whenever I’ve called CANUTEC (canutec@tc.gc.ca. tel.613-992-4624) they've been extremely helpful. They answered my question and patiently waited as I brought forth the requested Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) information off their websites. 

One more thing, all government agencies in Canada are bilingual. So when you have a DGR question, you can also brush up on your French.

Merci beaucoup!

Robert J. Keegan
Publisher and President 
Hazardous Materials Publishing Company
Transportation Skills Programs Inc
Hazmat.tsp@gmail.com
Text : 610-587-3978

No Danger

  FRAGMENTATIONS AND FIREBALLS

 Even when faced with the fact that bonfire testing on Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBC) containing the residue of “ACETONE”, a 49 CFR Department of Transportation (DOT) Class 3, flammable liquid hazardous material that demonstrated that no fire, explosion, fragmentation or fireball hazards existed, however DOT is still considering more stringent transportation container requirements.

 On August 11th 2023, the EPA published the "Used Drum Management and Reconditioning Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." This was done to solicit input and comments  including regulatory and non-regulatory options under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for used container management. On September 5th 2023 EPA extended the comment period for this proposal until November 22, 2023. You can read more in my last blog, Empty Threats.

In response, the Department of Transportation (DOT) is also extending their comment period for the Hazardous Materials: Modernizing Regulations to Improve Safety and Efficiency (HM– 265A). Comments to the HM–265A notice will now be due by December 4, 2023, see link.

Intermediate Bulk Containers, commonly referred to as IBCs or Totes are a widely used means of transporting hazardous materials. These containers are designed to store and transport various substances, including flammable liquids such as acetone. However, what happens when the IBCs have been emptied, leaving behind residue?

Transporting Residue IBCs

Currently, the DOT Hazardous Material Regulations (HMR) in 40 CFR 173.29, mandates that packages containing residue of a hazardous material must be transported in the same manner as when they contained a greater quantity of the material. 

Disposing of Residue IBCs

The Environmental Protection Agency EPA Solid Waste Regulations in 40 CFR 261.7, on the other hand, have disposal exceptions for bulk containers of unwanted hazardous chemicals, including IBCs with residue not exceeding 0.3 percent. 

Transporting Residue IBCs in Canada  

Transport Canada, for the transportation of residue IBCs  in the Dangerous Goods Regulations require IBCs shipments to display a "DANGER" placard, and specific residue transport documentation. 

That is why DOT has requested comments to gauge if  Canada's DGR could be a guide to provide additional levels of safety compared to our HMR to account for the presence of vapors of hazardous materials in the residue IBCs. 

Other questions include, if placarding a motor vehicle carrying residue IBCs is no longer required then should hazmat endorsement on a Commercial Driver's License also be no longer required?

Key Residue IBC Questions in the Federal Register; 

  1. Should the requirement for placarding and hazardous material shipping paper be eliminated for vehicles transporting residue IBCs?

  2. What are the implications of adopting Transport Canada's approach to residue IBC transportation in the United States?

  3. How should the amount of material left in the IBC be determined and verified? Various methods and limits are proposed, including the 0.3 percent rule.

  4. Are there any known incidents or accidents involving residue IBCs, either in Canada under SU 11819 or in the United States?

  5. How would offerors of "empty" IBCs determine compliance with the 0.3 percent residue requirement before offering them for transportation?

  6. Should the exception be limited to IBCs of a specific size, such as 550 gallons, or should it apply to IBCs of all sizes?

  7. Should residue container requirements include pouring, upending, pumping, aspirating, scraping, rinsing for hazardous material even though it is less than 1 percent full?

 Help shape the future of these regulations, read the Federal Register, stay informed on developments that affect you. You have a stake in these regulations, so consider providing your input during the comment period.

Thank you.
Robert J. Keegan
Publisher and President
Hazardous Materials Publishing Company
Transportation Skills Programs Inc.
Hazmat.tsp@gmail.com
610-587-3978



EMPTY THREATS

The empty drum rabbit hole has opened, ready to hop in?

I bet you missed the first comment period in the Empty Hazardous Waste Drums, Notice of Advanced Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the federal register on August 11, 2023. I did! I have a life too. I was up at our St. John's Cathedral Boys School Reunion, camping with my classmates, in Alberta’s Banff National Park. 

Well, if you didn’t know, on September 5th the EPA extended its Comment Period until November 22, 2003, which means you only have a few days left to comment. And it doesn’t look good. As usual, the Feds or at least the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is going in the back door. They are trying to frame this as new requirements on drum reconditioners. However, since they have only identified 181 reconditioners in the country, it is clear EPA's intention to regulate the reconditioners, just as much as the hazardous waste generators who supply them with their product.

It’s kinda like Tyson chicken saying they’re raising the price that they sell chicken to the grocery store for, but they are not raising the price that consumers pay for it. Generators will be required to make up the slack. In other words, the drum reconditioners are not going to take your drums, unless they meet the new requirements.

It is quite clear the EPA’s plan was to portray the new empty drum rule about the drum reconditioner facilities, which I believe has little to do with their intent, as they eventually, freely and unabashedly admit in the federal register. 

“The EPA is evaluating the generation, transportation and management of used containers, (through this ANPRM)... to prevent future damage to human health and the environment from all entities involved in the used container lifecycle.”

 You should read it and make your thoughts known to the EPA before they promulgate this new requirement. How? By closely monitoring the federal register (Sign up for free! NOW!) for the Proposed Rule comment period. This is when you will have the opportunity to comment on the actual RCRA Empty Drum Rule. EPA is mandating major changes across the manufacturing and transportation spectrum.

Don't miss it again, or like I did, head to Canada.

Robert J. Keegan
Publisher and President
Hazardous Materials Publishing Company
Transportation Skills Programs Inc.
Text to 610-587-3978
Email- hazmat.tsp@gmail.com