{"operation":"document","citation":"04-0031","title":"Spray Chem Chemical Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2004-03-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"04-0031 response to Spray Chem Chemical Company concerning 177.848.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0031.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0031.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0031","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2004/040031.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nResearch and\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\npecial Program\ndministrariol\nMAR - 8 2004\nMr. Cliff Jacobson\nRef No.: 04-0031\nSpray Chem Chemical Company\n705 Keenan Court\nDurham, CA 95938\nDear Mr. Jacobson:\nThis responds to your January 24, 2004 letter and subsequent telephone conversation, requesting\nadditional clarification of our January 23, 2004 letter regarding segregation requirements under the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HIMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Your questions are paraphrased\nand answered as follows:\nQ1.. What is the definition of the term \"truckload\" as used in the segregation and separation\nrequirements specified in § 177.848 of the HMR?\nAl.\nThe table in section 177.848(d) provides that Class & liquids may not be loaded above or\nadjacent to Class 5 materials. Section 177.848(e)(3) also states that shippers may load\ntruckload shipments of such materials together when it is known that the mixture of contents\nwould not cause a fire or a dangerous evolution of heat or gas. The term \"truckload\" as used in\nthis section means a shipment of hazardous materials loaded into a transport vehicle by a single\nshipper. Shipments of hazardous materials offered to a carrier by different shippers and loaded\ninto a transport vehicle are not considered to be truckload shipments.\nQ2.\nMay a shipper of a truckload shipment of empty containers that contain the residues of Division\n5.1 and Class 8 liquid hazardous materials transport the empty containers adjacent to each\nother in the same transport vehicle when it is known by that shipper that the mixture of contents\nwould not cause a fire or dangerous evolution of heat or gas?\nA2.\nThe answer is yes. Although, as noted above, Class 8 liquids generally may not be loaded\nabove or adjacent to Class 5 materials, § 177.848(e)(3) permits shippers to load truckload\nshipments of such materials together when it is known that the mixture of contents would not\ncause a fire or a dangerous evolution of heat or gas.\nQ3.\nIf the shipper knows that commingling of the residue in the empty containers would not cause a\nfire or dangerous evolution of heat or gas, would the term \"incompatible hazardous materials\ntransported in the same vehicle\" be an improper term to use?\n177.848\n040031\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA3.\nTruckload shipments maybe offered for transportation and transported in accordance with\n§ 177.848(e)(3). In such instances, the Class 8 liquid and Class 5 material would not be\nconsidered incompatible hazardous materials.\nQ4.\nYou asked if the following scenario would be considered proper separation:\nTwo empty 330 gallon Intermediate Bulk Container (IBC) stored adjacent to each\nand safety caps and properly secured in accordance with the HMR\nother, drained of all material except residue, and tightly sealed with shut off valves\nA4.\nThe answer is no. In accordance with § 173.29, an empty packaging containing only the\nresidue of a hazardous material generally must be offered for transportation and transported in\nthe same manner as when it previously contained a greater quantity of that hazardous material.\nIn the scenario you describe, if the IBCs contain the residue of incompatible hazardous\n§177.848(d).\nmaterials, then they must be transported in accordance with the segregation requirements in\nSeveral inches of air space between containers of incompatible liquid hazardous materials does\nnot satisfy the requirements of § 177.848(d). Air space would not prevent commingling of the\nliquid hazardous materials in the event of failure of the containers. Moreover, merely placing\nthe packages on pallets to elevate them above the vehicle floor does not satisfy the separation\nrequirements. Separation must be accomplished by a means of physical separation, such as by\nplacing non-permeable barriers, non-reactive freight, or non-combustible, non-reactive\nabsorbents between the packagings, or by elevating the freight in a manner that prevents\ncommingling of the liquid hazardous materials required to be separated.\nQ5.\nIf a packaging that previously contained a Class 8 liquid and a Class 5 material are rinsed and\ncontain only the residue of the rinse water and minimal hazardous material residue to the point\nwhere the shipper knows the residues may still be classified as hazardous materials, but are\nmuch to diluted too cause any fire or dangerous evolution of heat or gas, may the shipper of\ntruckload shipments ship these empty IBC's adjacent to each other in the same transport\nvehicle when properly placarded and manifested?\nA5.\nSee answer A2 above.\nQ6.\nUnder the above example, would there be a difference between the requirements of a\n\"truck load\" shipment and a \"non-truckload\" shipment of hazardous material?\nA6. The exception in § 177.848(e)(3) applies to truckload shipments only. Non-truckload\nshipments containing residues of class 8 liquids and class 5 materials must be shipped in\naccordance with the requirements of § 177.848(d) and (e).\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nQ7. Are empty 55 gallon drums that contain only the residue of a hazardous material considered\nnonregulated, for shipment back to the manufacturer for reuse or disposal?\nA7.\nThe answer is no, unless cleaned and purged to the extent provided in § 173.29(b)(2)(ii). A\npackaging that is sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapor to remove any potential\nhazard is not regulated under the HMR. An empty packaging is not subject to the HMR if it: I)\nis unused; 2) is sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapors to remove any potential\nhazard; 3) is filled with a material that is not hazardous to such an extent that any residue\nremaining in the packaging no longer poses a hazard; or 4) contains the residue of certain\nhazardous materials specified in § 173.29.\n\"Cleaned and purged\" means that no residual material and no residual vapor remains in the\ngreatly depending on the nature of the hazardous material and the type of packaging. In some\nstances, a packaging can be totally emptied of hazardous material, including residue, withol\nndergoing a cleaning process, and may be considered to have been cleaned and purged. I\nother instances, an active cleaning process may be necessary to purge a packaging of\nhazardous residue. Therefore, unless your packaging meets any of these criteria, you must\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance\nSincerely,\nHusk Droz\nSusan Gorsky\nSenior Transportation Regulations Specialist\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\ncc: Paul Hogan, CHP\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nJan 27 04 12:03a\nCliff & Nancy Jacobson\n530\n877-3317\np.1\nReterford\nSpray Chem Chemical Co. Inc.\n$197.848\n705 Keenan Court\nDurham, CA 95938\nSegregation\n1/24/2004\n04-0031\nSusan Gorsky\nSenior Transportation Regulations Specialist\nU. S. Department of Transportation\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nDear Ms. Gorsky:\nOn Nov. 25Th. 2003 I sent your department a letter asking for an interpretation and further\nclarification on an interpretation letter that your office had sent to an officer George\nBarber of the California Highway Patrol. (ref. # 03-0120).\nYou responded to my request on 1/23/2004 (ref.# 03-0300).\nsome detail.\nAfter reading your response I called your office and you and I discussed your response in\nBased on our conversation we mutually agreed that further clarification would be\nappropriate and you suggested that I should draft an additional letter restating my\nposition more cleariy.\nIn Officer Barber's letter he states \"if a barrier is placed between the materials, can the\nshipper load the 5.1 and class 8 liquids adjacent to each other? The shipment was not a\ntruck-load shipment\".\nQuestion: If the entire truckload was loaded at my facility would Officer Barber's\nstatement \"the shipment was not a truck-load shipment\" be incorrect?\ncontainers that contain only the residue of hazardous materials, ship these empty\nQuestion: Can the shipper of truck load quantities of hazardous materials and empty\ncontainers adjacent to each other in the same transport vehicle, when it is known by that\nshipper that the mixture of contents from these empty containers would not cause a fire or\ndangerous evolution of heat or gas?.\nwould not cause a fire or dangerous evolution of heat or gas, would the term\nQuestion: If the shipper knows commingling of the residue in the empty containers\n\"incompatible hazardous materials transported in the sarae vehicle\" bo an improper term\nSection 177.848e of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that a class 8 corrosive\nsame transport vehicle or stored together during the course of transportation unless\niquid and a division 5.1 oxidizer may not be loaded, transported, or stored together in the\nseparated in a manner that, in the event of leakage from packages under conditions\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nJan 27 04 12:03a\n•\nCliff & Nancy Jacobson\n530\n877-3317\np.2\nnormally incident to transportation, commingling of the hazardous materials would not\nQuestion: Would two empty IBC containers which were stored adjacent to each other,\ninspected, permitted, drained of all material except hon pour able residue and tightly\nthat are designed to transport 330 Gallons of hazardous material and are currently\nsealed with shut off valves and safety caps and which were load locked securely meet the\nstandards stated in the above paragraph?\nThe author of this letter knows, as does your office, the rigorous testing required of these\nQuestion/Comment:\nIBC containers to become certified by the department of transportation for the\nnot be shipped adjacent to each other with only the residue of class 8 and 5.1 materials\ntransporting of hazardous materials. Is it reasonable to assume that these containers could\nwhen the separation requirements for 660 gallons of the same material only need be\nseparated by four feet?\nIn your letter to me you stated \"in accordance with 173.29(b) (i), a packaging that has\nis not regulated under the HMR\".\nbeen sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapor to remove any potential hazard\nQuestion: If the packaging is rinsed and then contains only the residue of the rinse water\nempty IBC's adjacent to each other in the same transport vehicle when properly\nplacarded and manifested?\nrequirements of a \"truck load shipper and any properly permitted carrier that had\nQuestion: Under the above example, why would there be a difference between the\nshipping documents correctly describing the above conditions?\nQuestion: Are empty 55 gallon drums that contain only the residue of a hazardous\nmaterial considered no regulated, for shipment back to the manufacturer for reuse or\ndisposal?\n55 gallon drums containing the residue of hazardous materials more secure that the\nQuestion/Comment: Does the department of transportation view the transport of empty\ntransport of empty IBC containers containing the residue of hazardous material? Does\nthis seem logical or reasonable to you?\nThank you\nClifford L. Jacobson\n1 істі-\nSpray Chem Chemical Co.\nCc: Paul Hogan, CHP","truncated":false,"body_characters":11003}