# Lovitz PSC Environmental Services, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **operation:** document - **citation:** 09-0307 - **title:** Lovitz PSC Environmental Services, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **source type:** guidance - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** guidance - **official:** true - **published on:** 2010-01-28 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** 09-0307 response to Lovitz PSC Environmental Services, LLC concerning 172.101, 173.21, 173.2a. - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0307.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0307.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0307 - **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090307.pdf **body:** <<>> u.s. Department 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE of Transportation Washington, DC 20590 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration JAN 2 820m Mr. James V. Lovitz PSC Environmental Services, LLC 6405 Thornridge Dr. Avon. IN 46123 Ref. No. 09-0307 Dear Mr. Lovitz: This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the criteria used to select the appropriate proper shipping name or names (PSN) for multiple compatible waste hazardous materials of various hazard classes and divisions contained within one outer package under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You ask whether one generic PSN from the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table may be used to describe all the different materials contained in the package or if the PSN must first be detennined based on the Precedence of Hazard Table in § 173.2a(b). According to you letter, the waste materials are compatible and comingling of the materials in transportation would not result in a dangerous evolution of heat, flammable or poisonous gases or vapors or corrosive materials (§ 173.21 (e»). You may package inner containers of different compatible hazard classes in the same outer packaging. The materials must be described separately using the PSN, UN identification number, and hazard class for each material contained in the outer packaging. Thus, the outer package must display the PSN, identification number and hazard label, as appropriate, for each hazardous material contained therein. See §§ 172.301 and 172.404. Additionally, all descriptions must be described in the same manner on a shipping paper, if one is required. I trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Hattie L. Mitchell Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards <<>> U.S. DOT PHMSA Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Attn: PHH-l0 East Building 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590-0001 December 10, 2009 Re: Proper Packaging of Different Hazard Classes of Waste Pharmaceuticals Dear Directori I am inquiring about the proper guidance in properly packaging waste pharmaceuticals. In 49 CFR 173.21(e) it identifies that "A material in the same package, freight container, or overpack with another material, the mixing of which is likely to cause a dangerous evolution of heat, or flammable or poisonous gases or vapors, or to produce corrosive materialsH is forbidden from transport. Assuming through generator knowledge, all inner container materials within a single outer package, regardless of hazard class, would be conSidered to be compatible and would NOT create .....a dangerous evolution of heat, or flammable or poisonous gases or vapors, or to produce corrosive materialsu • Is it permissible to package inner containers containing materials of different hazard classes (In this case pharmaceuticals or other medical debris/waste (Non-Infectious, Non-Biohazardous» into the same outer packaging? And, if so, is it permissible to use: 1. The Proper Shipping Name (PSN) - UN3248, Waste Medicine, Liquid, Flammable, Toxic, N.O.S., 3 (6.1), PG II (Proper technical descriptors); or, 2. Should we assign the PSN by identifying the two highest priority hazard classes per the Precedence of Hazards table in 49CFR 173.2a? If so, would we need to identify the remaining hazard classes in the shipping description? - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 3422