# Heritage Environmental Services, LLC-ETS — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 03-0203
- **title:** Heritage Environmental Services, LLC-ETS — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation
- **source type:** guidance
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** guidance
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2005-01-19
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** 03-0203 response to Heritage Environmental Services, LLC-ETS concerning 173.301.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0203.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0203.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0203
- **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2003/030203.pdf
**body:**

<<<PAGE 1>>>

of Transportation
U.S. Department
400 Seventh St., S.W.
Special Programs
Research and
JAN 1 8 2005
Washington, D.C. 20590
Administration
Mr. David E. Blair
Ref. No. 03-0203
Heritage Environmental Services, LLC-ETS
9730 Lathrop Industrial
Drive
Suite E1
Olympia,
WA 98512
Dear Mr.
Blair:
This responds to your letter regarding the classification and
packaging requirements for compressed gas samples under the
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).
Specifically, you request clarification of the shipping
description
and packaging requirements for cylinders containing
unknown liquefied and compressed gas samples in DOT 3E
cylinders.
In addition, you ask if a previously issued letter
from this Office on this subject, dated April 10, 1993, remains
valid.
We apologize for the delay in responding and any
inconvenience it may have caused.
Our previously issued letter on this subject remains valid.
Under § 172.101 (c) (11), a sample of a material for which the
hazard class is uncertain and must be determined by testing may
be assigned a tentative proper shipping name, hazard class,
identification number, and packing group, if applicable, based
on the conditions specified in S 172.101 (c) (11)(i) through (iv).
based
sample must be transported in the most appropriate packaging
on the tentative description assigned and the physical
state of the material.
The general packaging requirements for compressed gases in
cylinders are found in $ 173.301. DOT 3E cylinders must be
shipped in strong
outer packagings, as required by
$ 173.301 (a) (9).
The packaging method described in your letter
satisfies this
requirement if a tentative non-toxic
classification is assigned to the gas sample. However, a
packaging containing a cylinder filled with a suspected toxic
gas or mixture (see SS 173.115 (c) and 173.116) must conform to
the additional requirements of $ 173.40 and CGA Pamphlets S-1.1
and S-7.
173.301
030203

<<<PAGE 2>>>

I trust this satisfies your inquiry.
can be of further assistance.
Please contact us if we
Sincerely,
Hattie I. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

<<<PAGE 3>>>

HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLG-ETS
HERITAGE
9730 Lathrop Industrial Dr.
Suite E1
lympia, WA 9851
8/13/03
Fax: 360/705-9383
hone: 360/705-900
Stevens
Internet: www.getetsi.com
"Dedicated to the safe management of High Hazard Material'
$173.301
August 5, 2003
Cylinders
Mr. Edward T. Mazzullo
03-0203
• Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
U.S.DOT./RSPA (DHM-10)
00 7". Street S. W
Vashington, D.C. 20590-000
Dear Mr. Mazzullo:
I am writing to you with a question concerning the transportation of
lecture bottle samples of compressed gases for analysis by a testing laboratory.
Please reference the attached USDOT interpretation found in the "Letters of
interpretation by section number" of the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety of the
USDOT. The interpretation letter is dated "4/10/1993" and addressed to "Emergency
Technical Services Corporation". A Mr. Irv Kraut is the one who submitted the inquiry in
1993, and the attached has both his original inquiry and the DOT's response at that time.
Specifically, Mr. Kraut inquired about the shipping of "Unknown Lecture Bottles: a
small, 2" × 12" hand-held cylinder that contains less than one pound of liquid or gas". He
states "the cylinder is thoroughly inspected utilizing CGA. methods which
is in condition for ground transportation per DOT regulations". After being "given a
include leak testing, valve integrity, and cylinder wall measurements to insure the vessel
"the small cylinder is packaged according to DOT regulations and transported via ground
tentative shipping description which results from the inspection and shipper knowledge",
transportation to a testing laboratory for analysis."
The company I am currently employed by, Heritage Environmental Services, wishes to
ask the USDOT if this particular scenario given above by Mr. Kraut in his letter dated
4/10/1993 and the response by USDOT are still valid. The question is - Is the shipping
by ground, as samples to a testing laboratory for analysis, of original lecture bottle
samples that have passed the rigorous inspection process specified by Mr. Kraut and are
being described, packaged, labeled, and marked per current USDOT regulations still
allowed under the current USDOT regulations?
As voted Paper

<<<PAGE 4>>>

HERITAGE
As the DOT interpretation (07313) states, "section 172.101 (c) (11) requires that a
material for which the hazard class is to be determined by testing or a material that is a
hazardous waste may be assigned a tentative shipping name, hazard class, and
identification number. The required packaging is determined by the proper shipping
name." Additionally, the interpretation letter further states "if an appropriate technical
name is not shown in the Hazardous Materials Table, section 172.101, selection of a
generic or n.o.s. shipping description responding to the specific hazard class, packing
group, or subsidiary hazard, if any, for the material should be determined as specified in
section 172.101 (c)(12). The name that most appropriately describes the material should
be used. The additional technical names for materials described by n.o.s. shipping
descriptions as specified in section 172.203 (k) do not apply to materials shipped under
section 172.101 (c) (12)."
We have also found that section 172.101 (c) (11) (iv) now requires that "for a material
other than a waste...the word "Sample" must appear as part of the proper shipping name
or in association with the basic description on the shipping paper". And, 172.101 (c) (11)
(iv) (C) states "A sample must be transported in a combination packaging which
conforms to the requirements of this subchapter that are applicable to the tentative
packing group assigned, and may not exceed a net mass of 2.5 kg. (5.5 pounds) per
package."
In the instance where the sample is a lecture bottle of a compressed gas, a generic n.o.s.
shipping description is chosen based on the the inspection process and the "shippers
knowledge of the material". "The name that most appropriately describes the material" is
used.
However, the generic n.o.s shipping descriptions for compressed gases in the 172.101
Hazardous Materials Table do not have packing groups assigned as is also specified in
section 172.101 (f) for hazard class 2 materials. The guidelines we are currently using for
DOT packaging selection are as follows. In section 173.301(k) of the regulations, certain
compressed gas cylinders, specifically lecture bottles that are DOT specification 3E,
"must be shipped in strong outside packagings...(1) Outside packaging must provide
protection for the cylinder. Unless the cylinder has a protective collar or neck ring, the
outside packaging must provide protection to the valve against accidental functioning and
damage."
The current thought is that company policy specify any samples of compressed gases in
DOT specification cylinders shipped by ground to the testing laboratory for analysis are
packaged in properly closed DOT specification pails or drums cushioned in an ine....
packing material such as vermiculite for protection to the valve during shipment. Does
this method of packaging meet the requirement of "combination packaging" as specified
in 172.101(c)(11)(iv)(C) for compressed gas cylinder samples being shipped to the
testing laboratory for analysis?
Recycles Paper

<<<PAGE 5>>>

HERITAGE
Thanking you in advance for your time,
Somed 5. Blair
David E. Blair
Heritage ETS Laboratory
Olympia, WA. Office
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 7637
