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.

 

Russ

 

 

Agree.  ; There's a whole profession involving placarding, compatible materials packaging, etc., etc.  Not my field, but I used to have to know something about it.
Alan 
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.
>
> Mubetcel

No virus 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