{"operation":"document","citation":"03-0120","title":"Department of California Highway Patrol — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2003-08-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"03-0120 response to Department of California Highway Patrol concerning 177.848.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0120.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0120.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0120","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2003/030120.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\ni\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nAUG 28 2003\nAdministration\nOfficer George Barber\nDepartment of California\n2072 Third Street\n• Highway Patrol\nRef. No.\n03-0120\nOroville, CA 95965\nDear Officer Barber:\nThis is in response to\nthe requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;\n• your letter requesting clarification of\n49 CFR Parts 171-180) for the segregation and separation of Class\nbeing shipped by highway. The scenario you describe is as\n8 (corrosive) and Division 5.1 (oxidizing) hazardous materials\nfollows:\nHazardous materials were being shipped in intermediate bulk\ncontainers by motor vehicle described as empty and last contained\nThe motor vehicle\npallets.\nalso contaired 11,234 pounds of Class 8 liquids in drums on\nand the\nDivision 5.1 hazardous materials,\nNo tangible barriers were present between the Class 8\nand the materials were\noffered by a single shipper.\nsegregation can be accomplished by several inches of air space\nSpecifically, you ask whether\nbetween the containers, and whether the two hazard classes may be\nloaded adjacent to each other if a barrier is placed between the\ntwo hazard classes.\nand\nSection 177.848 (e) (3) provides that a Class 8 corrosive liquid\na Division 5.1 oxidizer\nmay not be loaded, transported, or stored together\nin the same transport vehicle\nor stored together\nduring the course\nof transportation unless separated\nin a manner that, in the event of leakage from\npackages under conditions normally incident to\nwould not occur.\ntransportation, commingling of hazardous materials\nSeveral inches of air space between containers of incompatible\nliquid hazardous materials does not satisfy the requirements of\n177.848\n030120\n* :%\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n$ 177.848 (e) (3). Air space\nliquid hazardous materials in the\nwould not prevent commingling of the\ncontainers.\nSeparation must be accomplished by a means of\nevent of failure of the\nphysical separation, such as non-permeable barriers, non-reactive\npackagings or elevating certain freight in a manner that prevents\nfreight or non-combustible, non-reactive absorbents\nbetween the\ncommingling of the liquid hazardous materials required to be\nseparated.\nWith respect to whether the two hazard classes may be loaded\nadjacent to each other when\nhazard classes, § 177.848 (e) (3)\na barrier is placed between the two\nnot be loaded above or adjacent to Class 5.1 materials. However,\nstates that Class 8 liquids may\nthe exception in $ 177.848 (e) (3) states that a shipper may load\nwhen it is known that the mixture of contents would not cause a\ntruckload shipments of Class 8 and Class 5.1 materials together\nsection, the term \"truckload\" means a shipment of hazardous\nfire or a dangerous evolution of heat or gas. As used in this\nmaterials loaded into a transport vehicle by a single shipper.\nShipments of hazardous materials offered to a carrier by\ndifferent shippers and loaded into a transport vehicle are not\nstated that the\ncarrier had\nthe same shipper.\nTherefore, provided it is known by the\nreceived the hazardous materials from\nshipper that the\nmixture of\ndangerous\nevolution\nof heat or gas, the Class 8 and Class 5.1\ncontents would not cause a fire or a\nmaterials may be loaded together.\nWe note that the proper shipping name \"Hypochlorite solution\" is\nentered in parentheses on one of the shipping papers you\nprovided.\nThis is incorrect. The parentheses should be removed.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have additional\nquestions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.\nSincerely,\nHothed. Militels\nRegulatory Review\nHattie I. Mitchell, Chief\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nand Reinvention\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nState of California-Business, Transportation and Housing Agency\nGRAY DAVIS, Governor\nDEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL\n11337 Trade Center Drive\nCalifornia Highway Patrol, Valley Division\n(916) 464-2556 EXT 13\nRancho Cordova, CA\n(800) 735-2922 (Voice)\n(800) 735-2929 (TT/TDD)\nMCIntyre\n$177.848\nMay 8, 2003\nFile No.: 0201.010665.OC\nsegregation\nTo:\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\n0/26\n400 Seventh Street SW\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nFrom: Department of California Highway Patrol seND To\n2072 Third Street\nOroville, CA 95965\nOfficer George Barber 10665\nPlease provide a letter of interpretation on the following issue relating to segregation of incompatible\nhazardous materials transported in the same vehicle.\nliquid and Division 5.1. I discovered that the 5.1 materials and the Class 8 liquids were loaded adjacent\nWhile performing a vehicle inspection on a vehicle transporting hazardous materials classed as Class 8\nto each other. The 5.1 material was an \"Empty 330 Ga. Tote Bin Last contained Hydrogen Peroxide 35%\nUN2014, PGUI, ERG # 154\". It was loaded next to \" an \"Empty 330 Ga. Tote Bin Last contained Sodium\nTech Grade\" shipped under the shipping description of \"Hydrogen Peroxide, Aqueous Solution, 5.1,\nUN1791, PGIII, (sodium Hypochlorite 12.5%), ERG 154.\". Additionally, the vehicle contained 11,234\nHypochlorite 12.5%, shipped under the shipping description of \"RQ, (Hypochlorite Solution), 8,\nmaterials on pallets and the IBC's or between the IC's.\npounds of corrosive liquids in drums on pallets. There were no tangible barriers between the hazardous\n1) Could segregation of the above liquids be accomolished by \"several inches of air space\" between th\n(2) If a barrier is placed between the materials, can the shipper load the 5.1 and 8 liquids adjacent to each\nThank you for your prompt assistance in this matter.\nSincerely,\n1BS\nG. Barber/CHIPO/10665\nPOWER","truncated":false,"body_characters":5618}