{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0021","title":"Mr. Theron R. Brayman — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-04-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0021 concerning 173.12.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0021.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0021.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0021","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000021.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n..\nUS. Department\nof Transportation\nResearch and\nAdministration\nSpecial Programs\nAPR 2 1 2000\nMr. Theron R. Brayman\nRef. No. 00-0021\nDow Corning\nP.O. Box 995\nMidland, MI 48686-0995\nDear Mir. Brayman:\nThis is in response to your letter dated January 18, 2000, requesting clarification on the proper shipping\ndescription for a lab pack containing materials with the same primary hazard class but different\nsubsidiary hazard classes under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nSpecifically, you ask whether materials with the same primary hazard class with different subsidiary\nhazard classes in a lab pack, may be described by a single generic shipping description that includes all\nthe possible subsidiary hazard classes that may or may not be present in the outer packaging at the time\nof shipment. For example, is \"flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s.\" an acceptable description for a\nlab pack containing flammable liquids, some of which have toxic or corrosive subsidiary hazards?\nA generic description from the § 172.101 table may be used in place of specific chemical names, when\ntwo or more chemically compatible waste materials in the same hazard class are packaged in the same\noutside packaging. Chemically compatible materials having the same primary hazard class, but different\nsubsidiary hazard classes may be packaged together in the same outer container.\nThe generic description that best describes the waste materials corresponds to the primary hazard class\n(Class 3) of the materials contained in the lab pack. The generic description, \"flammable liquid, toxic,\ncorrosive, n.o.s.\" is an acceptable generic description for materials shipped in a lab pack when all the\nsubsidiary hazards are present. However, when materials being shipped in a lab pack have only the\ntoxic or corrosive subsidiary hazards present, the generic descriptions, \"flammable liquid, toxic, n.o.s.\"\nor \"flammable liquid, corrosive, n.o.s.\" must be selected, as appropriate.\nI hope this answers your inquiry.\nSincerely,\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n173.12\n000021\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n•Jan: 18-00\n02:17P\nDow Corning\n517 496 5457\nr. ue\nDOW CORVING\nPost-I!™ brand fax transmittal memo 7671 *of pager » /\n[MR. EDWARD MAZZULLO\nFOT THERON BRAYMAN\nCOUS DEPr. or TRANSPORTATON\nco. Sow CORNING\nOtIcE or HAZMATE SHETY.\nphons (517) 496-8674\n=* (202) 366-3012\nrax (517) 496-5457\nJanuary 18, 2000\nBoothe\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\n517312\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials and Safety\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n00 - 0021\n4007\" Street, SW\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nRe:\nRequest for regulatory interpretation\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nI wish to request a clarification on how the regulations at 49 CFR 173.12(b)\nregarding lab packs may be applied to the choice of a proper shipping name for a\nlab pack containing materials with the same primary hazard class but different\nsubsidiary hazard classes. I called the Help Line with this question and got a prompt\nresponse from a very helpful young woman, but I wish to request a determination in\nwriting.\nused in place of specific chemical names, when two or more chemically compatible\nThe regulation states that \"a generic description from the §172.101 table may be\npackaging.\" In a reply to Mr. Michael Hayes of Lawrence Livermore National\nwaste materials in the same hazard class are packaged in the same outside\nLaboratory dated July 25, 1997 and posted on the RSPA web site as guidance\ndocument number 8209, Mr. Billings of D.O.T. further explained that chemically\ncompatible reagents having the same primary hazard class, but different subsidiary\nhazard classes, may be packaged together in the same outer container.\nDo these two statements taken together then mean that when materials with the\nsame primary hazard class, but different subsidiary hazard classes, are packaged\nincludes all the subsidiary hazard classes present, even though not every individual\ntogether in a lab pack, that a generic shipping description may be chosen that\nspecific example is the packaging of compatible lab wastes that include the following\nitem in the outer packaging may exhibit all the subsidiary classes named? My\nhazard classes:\n• Flammable liquid\nFlammable liquid, toxic\n• Flammable liquid, corrosive\nWould the shipping description, \"Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive, N.O.S.\" be\n• Flammable liquid, toxic, corrosive\nacceptable for this lab pack?\nA second, related question concerns this same lab pack. Suppose that the overall\nwaste characterization for this waste stream includes materials with all of the above\nshipping descriptions, however, due to the nature of a lab pack waste stream, at any\nMidland, Michigan 18686-0995\nDow Corning Corporation\nPhone: (517) 496-4000\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n51/\n42u\na..a.\n. Jan: 18-00\n02: 17P Dow Corning\ngiven time any one outer packaging may or may not include all the subsidiary hazard\nclasses listed. Would the same generic shipping description of \"Flammable liquid,\ntoxic, corrosive, N.O.S.\" still be acceptable?\nThank you for your help with this.\nSincerely,\nTheron R. Brayman,\nDow Corning\nP.O. Box 995\nMidland, MI 48686-0995\nPhone: (517) 496-8674\nFax:\n(517) 496-5457","truncated":false,"body_characters":5211}