Regulatory News About MSDSs, OSHA, DOT, EPA and Others
Hazmat Survival Tips This article, "Hazmat-Survival-Tips: Part of the Solution," from Fire Engineering highlights some incidents in which the first responders had to dig a little deeper to find the facts of the case before responding, obviously saving much trouble in the process. 8/18/2008
Battery hazards updated Batteries' hazard descriptions to be aligned with international standards as part of global hamonization. 8/4/2008
Every July, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) releases a report on violations from the previous calendar year. Here are a few excerpts from the 2007 calendar year report. These point out the importance of having proper shipping papers, employee training and knowing the hazards of the materials. 7/25/2008
A Memphis, TN company was fined $3200 because it failed to register with PHMSA; failed to provide general awareness, function-specific, safety, and security awareness training; offered sodium hydroxide, solid, 8, in a package that was not marked with the proper shipping name and UN identification number for the material; offered sodium hydroxide, solid, 8, accompanied by a shipping paper that failed to provide a shipper's certification.
An Alvin TX company was fined $5950 when they failed to provide general awareness, function-specific, safety, and security awareness training; offered hazardous materials, accompanied by shipping papers that failed to provide the (1) proper shipping name, (2) hazard class, and (3) packing group for the materials; offered corrosive liquid, n.o.s., 8, in packages that were not marked with the proper shipping name and UN identification number for the material; offered hazardous material in UN-certified 20-gallon closed-head plastic drums that were not closed in accordance with the manufacturer's closure notification.
A West Chester PA company was fined $2000 as it failed to register with PHMSA; offered flammable liquid, n.o.s. (naphtha solution), 3, in UN-certified 55-gallon drums that were not closed in accordance with the manufacturer's closure notification.
A Monterey Park CA freight forwarder was fined $4700 when it failed to register with PHMSA; offered corrosive liquid, acidic, inorganic, n.o.s. (nitric acid), 8, accompanied by a shipping paper that failed to provide the basic hazardous material shipping description , included additional information within the shipping description, and provided an unauthorized emergency response telephone number; failed to provide general awareness, function-specific, safety, and security awareness training.
An Albertville AL company fined $6650 when it failed to register with PHMSA; offered paint, 3, accompanied by a shipping paper that failed to provide the proper (1) hazard class and (2) packing group for the material, and (3) an authorized emergency response telephone number; offered paint, 3, in packaging that was not marked with the proper shipping name and UN identification number for the material; failed to provide general awareness, function-specific, safety, and security awareness training.
A Sunrise FL beauty supply company was fined $12000 because it offered acetone, 3, in unauthorized non-UN standard combination packages; offered acetone, 3, in combination packages that were not marked with the proper shipping name of the material or with required package orientation arrows; offered acetone, 3, in packages that were not labeled; offered acetone, 3, accompanied by a shipping paper that failed to provide (1) the hazard class, (2) UN identification number, and (3) packing group for the material, (4) a shipper's certification, and (5) an emergency response telephone number; failed to provide general awareness, function-specific, and safety training.
A West Chester PA company was fined $11,250 when it offered dangerous goods in apparatus, 9, as undeclared by air by failing to declare the material as hazardous on a shipping paper, failing to mark the package with the proper shipping name and UN identification number for the material, and failing to label the package.
A Stafford TX company was fined $20,889 as they failed to develop and adhere to a security plan; offered paint and paint related material, 3, in packages that were not marked with the proper shipping name and UN identification number for the materials; failed to label packages of hazardous materials; failed to register with RSPA; offered hazardous materials, accompanied by shipping papers that variously (1) failed to provide an emergency response telephone number, (2) included an unauthorized emergency response telephone number, (3) failed to provide the proper shipping name, hazard class, and UN identification number for the material, and (4) failed to include a legibly signed shipper's certification; failed to provide general awareness, function-specific, safety, and security awareness training.
A Decatur TN company was fined $7087 when they offered toxic by inhalation liquid, flammable, n.o.s. (acryloyl chloride), 6.1, (3), PG I, inhalation hazard zone A, in an unauthorized UN standard combination package.
A Midland TX company was fined $8190 as it offered and transported flammable liquid, n.o.s. (methyl alcohol), 3, and flammable liquid, n.o.s. (xylene), 3, in manifolded portable tanks, accompanied by a copy of special permit DOT-E 9418 in which the issue and expiration dates had been altered without the consent of the issuing authority; failed to provide general awareness, function-specific, safety, and security awareness training or create and retain training records; offered and transported flammable liquid, n.o.s., 3, accompanied by a shipping paper that failed to (1) provide an authorized emergency response telephone number and (2) list the exemption or special permit number in association with the applicable hazardous material description; failed to retain copies of hazardous material shipping papers for a minimum of two years.
An Anniston AL company was fined $4124 when it offered 2-dimethylethanolamine, 8, in unauthorized non-UN standard combination packages; offered 2-dimethylethanolamine, 8, in packages that were not (1) marked with the proper shipping name and UN identification number for the material, (2) labeled with the appropriate subsidiary hazard label, and (3) marked with required orientation arrows.
A Baltimore MD company was fined $7000 because they offered environmentally hazardous substances, solid, n.o.s. (antimony trioxide), 9, as undeclared in unauthorized non-UN standard bulk packagings that were not marked or labeled for the material, accompanied by shipping papers that failed to identify the material as hazardous or provide an emergency response telephone number.
A Maryville IL company was fined $7000 when they offered air bag modules, 9, when the material had not been classified as hazardous material; offered air bag modules in unauthorized non-UN standard packaging; failed to mark the packages containing air bag modules with the proper shipping name and UN identification number for the material; failed to label packages as required; failed to describe air bag modules as hazardous on shipping papers; failed to provide general awareness, function-specific, safety, and security awareness training.