I did not mean to imply somehow that training was not required for someone shipping hazardous materials! My point was regarding MSDSs – they frequently have incorrect DOT shipping information. I have followed up on at least three different occasions where I felt a material should be regulated by DOT as hazardous but the MSDS did not reflect this. Upon researching, I discovered that the material was indeed DOT regulated, and I felt that perhaps the manufacturer or distributor saw some advantage in being able to ship the material as non-hazardous, non-regulated.
My point is (and was) – don’t depend on an MSDS to always have correct information, particularly in respect to DOT proper shipping names and hazard status.
WC Environmental, LLC
1085C Andrew Drive
West Chester, PA 19380
610-696-9220x12/ fax 610-344-7519
P Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail or any other document
There's a whole profession involving placarding, compatible materials
packaging, etc., etc. Not my field, but I used to have to know
Alan H. Hall, M.D.
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:42:38 -0500
> From: mubetcel_moorefield**At_Symbol_Here**STERIS.COM
> Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] FW: Blog link FYI
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
> One statement in Russ's comments bothered me. It is about shipping
> hazardous materials. A person has to be trained to be able to ship hazardous
> materials. A trained person would know where to go for the qualification of a
> material as a hazarous one or not and it is not an MSDS. (There is also
> knowledge of packaging involved).If you are not trained to ship hazardous
> materials you will get penalized if you get caught. "I didn't know" doesn't
> work with DOT. Please be careful.
found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.142/2623 - Release Date: 01/15/10 07:35:00
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post