{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0308","title":"URS Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2009-03-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0308 response to URS Corporation concerning 171.8, 172.101.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0308.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0308.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0308","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080308.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMAR 0 9 2009\nMs. Erin N. Jarman\nEnvironmental Scientist\nURS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nRef. No. 08-0308\nDear Ms. Jarman:\nThis responds to your December 15,2008 letter and subsequent conversation with a member\nof my staff regarding the applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49\nCFR Parts 171-180) to the transportation of a non-compartmentalized cargo tank containing\nmultiple materials. Specifically, you state that a cargo tank is loaded with both a corrosive\nliquid and a combustible liquid with a flash point ranging between 160 - 200\" F; however,\nafter loading, the two hazardous materials \"separate\" into two distinct layers inside the tank.\nYou ask whether you should select a proper shipping name for each unique material contained\nin the tank or select a proper shipping name based solely on the hazard posed by the corrosive\nmaterial.\nUnder 5 173.22, it is the shipper's responsibility to properly class a hazardous material. This\nOffice does not perform that function. For purposes of classification and assignment of a\nproper shipping name, the two materials in the cargo tank should be treated in the manner it is\nbeing transported; that is, as a single material. Thus, you should select a proper shipping\nname that most appropriately describes the material and the hazards it presents in\ntransportation (see 5 172.101(c)(l2)(ii)).\nBased on the limited information provided in your letter and supplementary correspondence,\nit is the opinion of this Office that one of the corrosive liquid n.0.s. descriptions listed in the\nHazardous Materials Table could suffice as the proper shipping name that most appropriately\ndescribes the material, depending on the characteristics of the final single material present in\nthe cargo tank. Also, it should be noted that the technical name(s) of the hazardous material\nmust be entered in parenthesis in accordance with 5 172.101(b)(4) for these entries. By\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\ndefinition, a combustible liquid is a material with a flashpoint between 60' C (140' F) and 93'\nC (200' F) that does not meet the definition of any other hazard class. As you indicated, your\nfinal material meets the definition for a corrosive liquid, and therefore it would not be\nappropriate to classify the final material as \"Combustible liquid, n.o.s., NA1993.\"\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDecember 15,2008\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Ofice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nU.S. DOTIPHMSA (PHH- 10)\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\n1 am writing to you with regards to a clarification of the requirements for shipping\nnon-compartmentalized cargo tanks containing more than one hazardous material. On\nDecember'9,2008, we received a verbal clarification on this issue fiom Ms. Susan Gorsky of your\noffice. While we appreciated Ms. Gorsky's response and found it to be very reasonable, we would\nlike to request a formal written confirmation of her recommendation(s) for our records. The scenario\npresented to her is as follows:\nA non-compartmentalized cargo tank is transporting a corrosive liquid as well as another liquid\nwhich has been reclassed as a combustible liquid. The two materials separate into two distinct layers\ninside the tank and do not mix. Therefore, it is our determination that the materials do not meet the\ndefinition of a \"mixture\" which is provided in 49 CFR 5171.8. When selecting a proper shipping\nname (PSN), should we select a PSN for each of the unique materials contained in the cargo tank or\nselect a PSN based solely on the hazard posed by the corrosive material?\nPer our conversation with Ms. Gorsky, we were instructed that it would be acceptable to use either\nof the following methods when describing our material:\n1) Select a PSN which is appropriate for the corrosive hazard only and disregard the combustible\nhazard, or\n2) Select a PSN which is appropriate for the corrosive hazard and put \"Combustible Liquid\" in\nparentheses as if it were a subsidiary hazard.\nPlease confirm that either of the above scenarios would be acceptable for shipping these cargo tanks.\nThank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your response.\nSincerely,\nErin N. Jarman\nEnvironmental Scientist\nURS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\nSuite 400\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nTel: 919-461-1478\nFax: 919-461-1371\nErin-Jarman@urscorp.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":4736}