Alkaline Cleaner at pH 13.4: Non-Regulated or Class 8?
Buckeye Chemical Blending fills 55-gallon open-head steel drums with 'Alkaline Cleaner 2000,' a liquid the batch sheet describes as 6% potassium hydroxide, 3% surfactants, balance water. The QC lab recorded pH 13.4 and found no flash point by Pensky-Martens closed cup. The product has never been tested for skin corrosion or for corrosion rate on steel or aluminum. A customer orders four drums, shipped LTL from Columbus to a plant in Tennessee. The shipping clerk, who holds a current DOT hazmat function-specific training certificate, prepares a bill of lading describing the freight as 'Cleaning compound, non-regulated, 4 drums,' and the drums carry only the product label and a UN 1A2/X/250 mark on the bottom. The drum supplier's mark is valid, the drums are closed and undamaged, and the customer wants them fast. The plant's SDS lists the product as 'not classified as hazardous' under GHS, with the pH shown in Section 9.
1. Is the shipment properly described as non-regulated? State what must be established before the drums can move, and who is responsible.
Read the worked answer
No. The absence of a flash point rules out Class 3 only; Class 8 is a separate question decided by 49 CFR 173.136 and 173.137.
A liquid is Class 8 if it causes full-thickness destruction of skin within the specified exposure period, or if it corrodes steel (SAE 1020) or aluminum (7075-T6) at more than 6.25 mm per year at 55 °C. The batch sits at pH 13.4-well above the 12.5 level at which corrosivity must be actively evaluated-and the one test that would settle it, the corrosion-rate test, has never been run. The product therefore cannot be declared non-regulated on the present record; the clerk is inferring a negative from an incomplete data set.
Before the drums move, the offeror must either (a) run the UN/OECD skin corrosion test, in vitro or in vivo, and assign class and packing group from the result, or (b) run the 173.137(c)(2) corrosion-rate test on steel and aluminum and assign packing group from the measured rate. The result and the rationale must be documented and retained.
Responsibility sits with the shipper/offeror under 173.22. It is not the customer's call, and it is not the drum supplier's call. If the product is a mixture, the proper shipping name is likely UN1814, Potassium hydroxide solution, with the class and packing group determined by the test.
2. Assume testing classifies the product as UN1814, Potassium hydroxide solution, 8, PG II. Describe the marking, labeling, shipping paper, and placarding requirements for the four-drum LTL shipment.
Read the worked answer
Each 55-gallon drum is about 208 L, so it is a non-bulk single packaging (under 450 L) and needs:
- Marking: the UN number and proper shipping name on the package (172.301). The existing UN 1A2/X mark is acceptable-an X-rated packaging may be used for PG II material-provided the closure is correct and the liquid filling limit/outage requirement is satisfied.
- Labeling: a Class 8 corrosive label on the package (172.400). Orientation arrows are not required for a single packaging; they apply to combination packagings with liquid inner packagings.
- Shipping paper: the basic description in the required sequence-UN1814, Potassium hydroxide solution, 8, PG II-plus the number and type of packages, total quantity, the shipper's certification, and a 24-hour emergency response telephone number with the response information behind it (172.604). The carrier must keep the paper in the cab.
- Placarding: Class 8 PG II is a Table 2 material. The 1,001-pound exception in 172.504(c) turns on aggregate gross weight. Four drums at roughly 480 lb of product each, plus packaging, is about 2,000 lb-well over 1,001 lb-so the vehicle must display CORROSIVE placards. Verify against the 172.504 tables rather than assuming.
- Carrier: use a hazmat-qualified LTL carrier and confirm the driver is trained and the shipment is eligible for the route.
3. The clerk argues that the GHS SDS and a decade of unremarkable shipments settle the question. How do you respond, and what documentation and training follow-up do you require?
Read the worked answer
The SDS is not a shipping classification. GHS and the DOT hazard classification scheme use different criteria and different cutoffs; an SDS can be conservative, out of date, or simply wrong, and it does not relieve the offeror of the 173.22 duty to classify. 'We have always shipped it this way' is not a defense-it describes an uncorrected violation, and repeat shipments can support a knowing-violation theory with criminal exposure, not just civil penalties.
Documentation to build now: the corrosion test report or a written classification rationale; the updated SDS if the GHS classification changes (the manufacturer/importer has an obligation to keep it current); a revised shipping paper template and a package marking/labeling instruction for this product; and a record of the correction, since the same error may exist on other products in the line.
Training follow-up: the clerk's certificate shows attendance, not competence on this decision. Cover classification responsibility under 172.704(a)(1) general awareness and the function-specific requirement for preparing shipping papers (172.704(a)(2)), plus a second-person verification step at the shipping desk for any load described as 'non-regulated.' Then audit the last twelve months of non-regulated descriptions for other products with extreme pH, oxidizer potential, or untested characteristics. Finally, notify the customer that the shipment will be delayed for classification testing.