skip
Hazard to Self
Posts: 54
Registered: 16-5-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
For sale
I was wondering the legality of selling off of excess stock I have on ebay. In particular I have pyrrolidine. It was legal for me to buy, shouldn't
it be legal to sell ?
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
This is all you need to find shipping regulations for most chemical compounds.
http://www.hazmattool.com/info.php?a=Pyrrolidine&b=UN192...
Shipping will have to meet regulations, and you will be fine.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
skip
Hazard to Self
Posts: 54
Registered: 16-5-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
thanks zom
|
|
|
violet sin
International Hazard
Posts: 1482
Registered: 2-9-2012
Location: Daydreaming of uraninite...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Good
|
|
I have found shipping difficult to research my self. Different carriers (USPS, UPS, Etc.) Carry different things in their own right. And certain
areas are serviced by different companies, not to mention hand-off's in rural places(mine). Some substances are only considered dangerous/restricted
in certain forms or states of division, like fine powders. Tellurium for instance is fine in lump form, but not fine powders. The latter needing box
labels/weight limits at least, and ground shipping in some circumstances to the best of my knowledge.
Community standards, local laws and state laws vary, in a confusing manner. After contacting my local USPS to no avail, I contacted the USPS 800
number. And later the Australian customs department. All willing to help. If you keep looking, it will become clear. You can also sell with the
disclaimer stating it is the buyers responsibility to keep to rules other than shipping. Seen that before many a time, though I am unsure of the
actual coverage of such a statement legally should something happen specifically somewhere.
[Edited on 17-5-2015 by violet sin]
Nice Link Zombie 
[Edited on 17-5-2015 by violet sin]
|
|
|
tomholm
Owner of BME Lab and Science and Elemental Scientific
Posts: 194
Registered: 24-2-2014
Location: United States
Member Is Offline
Mood: Good
|
|
Shipping Hazardous Materials
Yes, adhering to hazardous shipping regulations makes it difficult for a private party to sell excess stock of hazardous materials. (I'm guessing part
of the reason is they really don't want private parties to sell hazardous materials because it makes it much more difficult for them to track and
monitor.)
Reason #1: USPS will not accept any hazardous materials. UPS and Fedex require shippers to be trained and certified in how to package and ship
hazardous materials. You cannot just drop off hazardous packages at the UPS and FedEx stores. You need to establish an eligible account with them
and it usually has a cost associated with it.
Reason#2: Anyone shipping hazardous materials must provide emergency response service.
| Quote: |
The United States Department Of Transportation (U.S. DOT) requirements under CFR 49 Transportation § 172.604
”A person who offers a hazardous material for transportation must
provide a 24-hour emergency response number for use in the event of an emergency involving the hazardous material.“
*Failing to comply can result in civil penalties and significant fines per incident*
|
Reason#3: Even if you are selling it locally and not transporting through a delivery company, you are still required to properly placard a vehicle
transporting a hazardous material on a public roadway. (A requirement intended to protect emergency responders.)
Reason #4: Are you putting yourself in a position of additional liability (due to negligence), depending on the buyer or the chemical sold (DEA List
I or II chemicals)? Companies carry business insurance to help cover these concerns.
Of course, some sellers (eBay and foreign importers) may ignore these regulations, but do so at their own risk). They can be held liable, both
criminally and for monetary and punitive damages.
All of this makes it difficult and expensive for individuals to sell hazardous materials. Also, you start to understand why it's expensive for
companies to ship these chemicals and why small companies don't want to, or can't, deal with it. Generally, it's probably not worth it and you're
better off disposing of it through your local hazardous waste disposal site.
|
|
|
skip
Hazard to Self
Posts: 54
Registered: 16-5-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
tomholm , now thats a response that really make sense. Not to say others were invalid. Thats what I thought and thats why I asked first. What If it
were limited to 30 ml bottles ? I guess I will hold on to it all, until doomsday. I have bought other hazardous chems off ebay in small bottles,
however they were a chem company so. I know how to get them now I don't really care for them, and its a burden. Thanks for all the good advise . Love
for s/m.
|
|
|
tomholm
Owner of BME Lab and Science and Elemental Scientific
Posts: 194
Registered: 24-2-2014
Location: United States
Member Is Offline
Mood: Good
|
|
Well, that's where the training comes in. There are a number of exceptions that affect how regulated chemicals can be shipped. Some "exceptions",
because of packaging or quantity, allow certain chemicals that could not otherwise be shipped or only shipped via freight carrier, to be shipped by
common carrier. Some of these exceptions also allow some chemicals that would normally require hazardous shipping charges to be
shipped without the additional hazardous charges. As you might suspect, these "exceptions" cannot be used by an untrained/non-certified shipper in
order to enable them to ship a regulated chemical.
But to answer your question directly, there is not a limited/small quantity exception that would allow the shipment of pyrrolidine
without the hazardous shipping charges or by a non-certified shipper.
While I'm not a big proponent for regulations, I understand why they exist in this area. There are examples where people handling improperly packaged
and labeled chemicals have been injured. I can also think of a case where a $30M plane became scrap metal because of an improperly packaged and
documented shipment of chemicals. That's a lot of liability.
Tom
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6333
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
| Quote: | | a $30M plane became scrap metal because of an improperly packaged and documented shipment of chemicals |
Tom, can you give details of this case? I am interested. I am going to guess a spill of mercury that compromised structural integrity by an
indeterminate amount leading to an inability to certify the plane and consequential scrapping. Am I right?
If that indeed is the case (or even if it is not) it might be a good anecdote to put in my bag of teaching tricks.
|
|
|
tomholm
Owner of BME Lab and Science and Elemental Scientific
Posts: 194
Registered: 24-2-2014
Location: United States
Member Is Offline
Mood: Good
|
|
I quoted from memory earlier. Turns out it was a $65M plane. Chemical was oxalyl chloride.
Chinese firm ordered to pay $65m over chemical-damaged MAS A330
By: NICHOLAS IONIDESSINGAPORE Source: Flightglobal.com 11:49 6 Dec 2007
A Chinese court has ordered a state-owned company to pay more than $65 million in compensation over an incident nearly eight years ago in which
chemicals it was having transported on a Malaysia Airlines (MAS) Airbus A330-300 leaked and destroyed the aircraft.
State-run media say a unit of China National Chemical Construction Corp was ordered yesterday by the Beijing high court to pay more than $65 million
in compensation to five overseas insurers over the March 2000 incident.
The official reports say the company's shipment had been declared as a non-toxic solid substance known as hydroxyquinoline when in fact it was a
corrosive liquid substance known as oxalyl chloride.
Eighty canisters filled with the chemicals were sent on an MAS A330-300 that operated a regular passenger flight from Beijing to Kuala Lumpur on 15
March 2000. The canisters were due to have continued onward to Chennai in India.
Five airport workers fell ill as they were unloading baggage from the A330 at Kuala Lumpur International Airport after one or more of the canisters
leaked and chemicals spilled into the aircraft's cargo hold, resulting in extensive corrosion damage to the fuselage, wing box structure and landing
gear.
The six-year-old aircraft, insured for more than $90 million, was declared a constructive total loss around a year after the incident following
extensive inspections by Airbus and insurers.
In 2002 insurers and MAS filed a more than $80 million lawsuit in Beijing against the Chinese chemical company as well as a freight forwarder and
hazardous materials transportation specialist for damages relating to the loss of the aircraft.
Link: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/chinese-firm-ordered-to-pay-65m-over-chemical-damaged-mas-220107/
|
|
|
skip
Hazard to Self
Posts: 54
Registered: 16-5-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I too understand regulations and realize that its for a reason. I am a responsible person with all my hobby items and will abide by the rules weather
Im recognized as a scientist or not. Thanks S/M, much respect.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
