{"operation":"document","citation":"03-0300","title":"Spray Chern Chemical Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2004-01-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"03-0300 response to Spray Chern Chemical Company concerning 177.848.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0300.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0300.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0300","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2003/030300.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nResearch and\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nAdministrations\nJAN 2 3 2004\nMr. Cliff Jacobson\nRef No.: 03-0300\nSpray Chem Chemical Company\n705 Keenan Court\nDurham, CA 95938\nDear Mr. Jacobson:\nThis responds to your November 25, 2003 letter requesting clarification of the requirements under the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) for the segregation and separation of\nClass 8 (corrosive liquid) and Division 5.1 (oxidizing) hazardous materials transported by highway.\nSpecifically, you ask whether two empty Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBC) that contain the residue of\na liquid Class 8 (corrosive) material and a Division 5.1 (oxidizing) material may be transported by\nhighway in the same vehicle with several inches of air space between the two containers.\nAs provided by § 173.29, an empty packaging containing only the residue of a hazardous material\ngenerally must be offered for transportation and transported in the same manner as when it previously\ncontained a greater quantity of that hazardous material. Section 177.848(d) establishes segregation\nrequirements for loading, transporting, or storing hazardous materials on a transport vehicle. The table\nin § 177.848(d) prohibits a Class 8 corrosive liquid and a Division 5.1 oxidizer from being loaded,\ntransported, or stored together in the same transport vehicle unless the packages are separated so that,\nin the event of leakage from the packages during transportation, commingling of the hazardous materials\nwill not occur. Further, despite the method of separation employed, Class 8 liquids may not be loaded\nabove or adjacent to Division 5.1 materials (see § 177.848(e)(3)). Packages containing residues of a\nClass 8 liquid and a Division 5.1 material must be loaded, transported, and stored in accordance with\nthe segregation requirements in § 177.848(d).\nSeveral inches of air space between containers of incompatible liquid hazardous materials does not\nsatisfy the requirements of § 177.848(d). Air space would not prevent commingling of the liquid\nhazardous materials in the event of failure of the containers. Moreover, merely placing the packages on\npallets to elevate them above the vehicle floor does not satisfy the separation requirements. Separation\nmust be accomplished by a means of physical separation, such as by placing non-permeable barriers,\nnon-reactive freight, or non-combustible, non-reactive absorbents between the packagings, or by\nelevating the freight in a manner that prevents commingling of the liquid hazardous materials required to\nbe separated. Note, however, that § 177.848(e)(3) permits a shipper to load truckload shipments of\nClass 8 corrosive liquids and Division 5.1 oxidizer materials together when it is known that the mixture\nof contents would not cause a fire or a dangerous evolution of heat or gas. As used in this section, the\nterm \"truckload\" means a shipment of hazardous materials loaded onto a transport vehicle by a single\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nshipper. Shipments of hazardous materials offered to a carrier by different shippers and loaded into a\ntransport vehicle are not truckload shipments.\nYou also ask whether an IBC that has been rinsed is subject to the HMR. In accordance with\n§ 173.29(b)(2)(ii), a packaging that is sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapor to remove\nany potential hazard is not regulated under the HMR. \"Cleaned and purged\" means that no residual\nmaterial and no residual vapor remains in the interior of a container. The methods used are intentionally\nnot defined because they vary greatly depending on the nature of the hazardous material and the type of\npackaging. In some instances, a packaging can be totally emptied of hazardous material, including\nresidue, without undergoing a cleaning process, and may be considered to have been cleaned and\npurged. In other instances, an active cleaning process may be necessary to purge a packaging of\nhazardous residue.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance\nSincerely,\nKhar they\nSusan Gorsky\nSenior Transportation Regulations Specialist\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\ncc: Paul Hogan, CHP\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nTROM : SPRAY-CHEM, FAX (530) 896-0147\nPHONE NO. : 5308953658\nNov. 25 2003 02:33RM P2\nRelerford =\n$177.848\nSpray Chem\nChemical Company\nSegregation\n(530) 895-3658 Fax (530) 896-0147\n705 Keenan Court, Durham, CA 95938\n03 - 03.00\nResearch & Special Programs Administration\n400 Seventh Street SW\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\n11/25/2003\nDear Mr. Ed Mazullo\nThis is in ref to a letter 03-0120 dated Aug 28 2003 sent to Officer George Barber of the\nCalifornia Highway Patrol.\n...\nIn review of this letter it appears to me that you were not clear on his question based on\n:\nyour response. Could you clarify this? He stated \"while performing a vehicle inspection\non a vehicle transporting hazardous materials classed as class 8 liquid and division 5.1 I\ndiscovered that the 5.1 materials and the class 8 liquids were loaded adjacent to each\nother\". He further, describes the remaining load on the vehicle then asks for your advise.\nI ask you to review the letter then both of his questions and finally clarify your response.\nIf his first question had been worded \"Could segregation of two empty IBC containers\nthat only contain the residue of a 5.1 and a class 8 be transported in the same vehicle with\nseveral inches of air space between the containers, would your response have been yes or (193,29)\nno. I ask this because his question asks if the above described liquids could be transported\nin that manner. He doesn't ask if empty packagings can be transported in that manner.\nIn your 49 CFR 177.848 you state that the separation of these two materials is\nperformance oriented and I have a letter of interpretation from your office 02-0310\nstating the appropriate distance for full IBC containers and 55 Gallon containers. The\nCalifornia Highway Patrol, in a letter dated April 29 2003 From the office of A.R. Jones?\nCaptain Commander of the Commercial Division has stated the following:\n\"The separation distance for IBC's that contain only the residue, is a performance\nstandard and would be whatever distance is required to prevent the two materials from\ncommingling. However, containers with only residue as you have defined in you letter\n(e.g. no free liquid in the container or only a few ounces) and without residue on the\nexterior of the containers could be separated by a minimal air gap\" I interpret this to\nmean that I can load Empty IBC containers adjacent to each other when they meet that\ncriteria.\n193-29\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nPHONE NO. : 5308953658\nNou. 25 2003 02:34PM P3\nDo you agree with this statement? if not, which part do you disagree with specifically?\nCaptain Jones's letter further states:\n\"An empty 330 Gallon IBC that previously contained any type of hazardous material, but\nis cleaned to the extent that the remaining material (residue and or cleaner) no longer\nmeets the definition of a hazardous material or hazardous waste is no longer regulated as\na hazardous materia.. Although not regulated as a hazardous material, 49 CFR Section\n171.1 (a) does prescribe regulations concerning communication elements relevant to\nhazardous material transportation; however, 49 CFR Section 173.29 allows empty IBC's\nto remain marked and placarded provided the placards and markings are not visible in\nconsignee (e.g. private carriage).\ntransportation, and the empty packages are loaded and unloaded by the shipper or\nSince the \"empty\" IBC does not contain a regulated hazardous material, it is not subject\nto any type of shipping documents, vehicle placarding, or separation and segregation\nrequirements.\nI interpret this to mean that if I rinse the IBC container to the point that the material in it\nwould not meet your definition of a hazardous material and I transport it in my truck\ncompletely obscured from the road it is completely non regulated and does not have to\nhave any of it's labels or placards removed.\nDo you agree with this statement? if not, which part do you disagree with specifically?\n• Your response on this matter is of the utmost importance. Please give it your full\nattention and be very specific in your response.\nRespecifully\nloy\nCliff Jacobson\nSpray Chem Corporation\n•.•","truncated":false,"body_characters":8338}