{"operation":"document","citation":"12-0239","title":"ATMI, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2012-12-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"12-0239 response to ATMI, Inc. concerning 176.83.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0239.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0239.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0239","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2012/120239.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. James McManus\nATMI, Inc.\n7 Commerce Drive\nDanbury, CT 06810\nDEC 2 0\nRef. No.: 12-0239\nDear Mr. McManus:\nThis responds to your October 23, 2012 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the segregation of\nhazardous materials when transported by vessel. Your questions are paraphrased and\nanswered below.\nQ1: You ask if a Division 2.3 gas (with a subsidiary hazard of Division 2.1) and a Division\n2.3 gas (with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8) require segregation?\nAl: The answer is no, provided the Division 2.3 gases are shipped in accordance with the\napplicable provisions detailed in§ 176.83. Multiple Division 2.3 gases may be stowed\nin the same container for vessel transportation without regard to the subsidiary\nhazards, provided the different poison gas materials are not capable of reacting\ndangerously with each other and causing any of the conditions listed below.\nSpecifically, as provided in§ 176.83(a)(8) and notwithstanding the requirements of\nparagraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7), hazardous materials of the same class may be stowed\ntogether without regard to segregation required by secondary hazards (subsidiary risk\nlabel(s)), provided the substances do not react dangerously with each other and cause:\n(1) a combustion and/or evolution of considerable heat; (2) an evolution of flammable,\ntoxic or asphyxiant gases; (3) the formation of corrosive substances; or (4) the\nformation of unstable substances.\nQ2: You ask if a Division 2.3 gas (with a subsidiary hazard of Division 2.1) and a Division\n2.3 gas (with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8) can be stowed in the same transport unit\nwhen transported by vessel?\nA2: The answer is yes, as provided in A1.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\n~~~~\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n~~--,-----·--\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nAT M ~~\n7 Commerce Drive\nDanbury, Ct 06910\nOctober 23, 2012\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nEast Building\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nSpecialpermits@dot.gov\nRe: Request for Interpretation\nDear Sir or Madame:\nIn accordance with 49 CFR § 105.20, this letter is being submitted to PHMSA to request an interpretation\nof the Hazard Materials Transportation Regulations.\nATMI requests PHMSA to review an interpretation we have made regarding the carriage by vessel of\ncertain Division 2.3 (Gas poisonous by inhalation) gases with a subsidiary hazard of 2.1 (Flammable gas)\nand certain Division 2.3 gases with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8 (corrosive).\nSpecifically, ATMI requests PHMSA to review our interpretation that the gas combinations listed in Table\n1 do not require segregation as is allowed by§ 176.83 (a) (8) as these gases (substances) do not react\ndangerously with each other and lead to the conditions listed in§ 176.83 (a) (8) i-iv.\nTable l·List of Gas Combinations\nDiv. 2.3/Div. 2.1 Div. 2.3/Ciass 8 Chemically Segregation Required\nGas 1 Name Gas 2 Name Compatible as Per § 176.83\nUN 2188 Arsine UN 1008 Boron Trifluoride Yes No\nUN 2188 Arsine UN 1859 Silicon Yes No\nTetrafluoride\nUN 3308 Liquefied gas,\nUN 2188 Arsine toxic, corrosive, n.o.s. Yes No\n(Germanium Tetrafluoride)\nUN2199 Phosphine UN 1008 Boron Trifluoride Yes No\nUN2199 Phosphine UN 1859 Silicon Yes No\nTetrafluoride\nUN 3308 Liquefied gas,\nUN2199 Phosphine toxic, corrosive, n.o.s. Yes No\n(Germanium Tetrafluoride)\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nAnalysis of Current Segregation Regulations for Gases with Division 2.1 and Class 8 Subsidiary Risks\n49 CFR § 176.83 specifies the segregation requirements for hazardous materials transported by vessel\nstowed in cargo spaces on deck and under deck and in cargo transport units.\nTable 176.83 (B) sets forth the general segregation requirements between the various classes (&\ndivisions) of hazardous materials.\n49 CFR § 176.83 Table 176.83 (B)\nClass 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.3\nExplosives, 1.1, 1.2, 1.5 (*) (*) (*) 4 2 2\nExplosives, 1.3 (*) (*) (*) 4 2 2\nExplosives, 1.4, 1.6 (*) (*) (*) 2 1 1\nFlammable gases 2.1 4 4 2 X X X\nNon-toxic, non-flammable gases 2.2 2 2 1 X X X\nPoisonous gases 2.3 2 2 1 X X X\nFlammable liquids 3 4 4 2 2 1 2\nFlammable solids 4.1 4 3 2 1 X X\nSpontaneously combustible substances 4.2 4 3 2 2 1 2\nSubstances which are dangerous when wet 4.3 4 4 2 X X X\nOxidizing substances 5.1 4 4 2 2 X X\nOrganic peroxides 5.2 4 4 2 2 1 2\nPoisons 6.1 2 2 X X X X\nInfectious substances 6.2 4 4 4 4 2 2\nRadioactive materials 7 2 2 2 2 1 1\nCorrosives 8 4 2 2 1 X X\nMiscellaneous dangerous substances 9 X X X X X X\n34.1 4.2 4.3\n5.1\n5.2\n4 4 4 4\n4 3 3 4\n2 2 2 2\n2 1 2 X\n1 X 1 X\n2 X 2 X\nX X 2 1\nX X 1 X\n2 1 X 1\n1 X 1 X\n2 1 2 2\n2 2 2 2\nX X 1 X\n3 3 3 2\n2 2 2 2\nX 1 1 1\nX X X X\n4\n4\n2\n2\nX\nX\n2\n1\n2\n2\nX\n2\n1\n3\n1\n2\nX\n4\n4\n2\n2\n1\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nX\n1\n3\n2\n2\nX\nNumbers and symbols relate to the following terms as defined in this section:\n1-\"Away from.\"\n2-\"Separated from.\"\n3-\"Separated by a complete compartment or hold from.\"\n4-\"Separated longitudinally by an intervening complete compartment or hold from.\"\nX-The segregation, if any, is shown in the§ 172.101 table.\n6.1 6.2 789\n2 4 24X\n2 4 22X\nX 4 22X\nX 4 21X\nX 2 1XX\nX 2 1XX\nX 3 2XX\nX 3 21X\n1 3 21X\nX 2 21X\n1 3 12X\n1 3 22X\nX 1 XXX\n1 X 33X\nX 3 X2X\nX 3 2XX\nX X XXX\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nAn example of using Table 176.83 (B) as it applies to one of the gas combinations listed in Table 1 is as\nfollows:\nIn the case of UN 2188 (arsine), which has a subsidiary hazard of Division 2.1 (flammable gas) and UN\n1008 (boron trifluoride), which has a subsidiary hazard of Class 8 (corrosive), Table 176.83 (B) lists the\nnumber \"1\" at the intersection of Division 2.1 with Class 8. In this example these two hazardous\nmaterials would require segregation \"Away from\" as defined by the numbers and symbols used in Table\n176.83 (B).\nThis requirement is inferred from Table 176.83 (B) based on the requirement of\n§ 176.83 (a) (6) which states:\n\"When the§ 172.101 Table or§ 172.402 requires packages to bear a subsidiary hazard label or labels,\nthe segregation appropriate to the subsidiary hazards must be applied when that segregation is more\nrestrictive than that required by the primary hazard.\"\nFurthermore any two hazardous materials requiring segregation cannot be stowed in the same cargo\ntransport unit based on the requirement of §176.83 (d) which states:\n\"Segregation in cargo transport units: Two hazardous materials for which any segregation is required\nmay not be stowed in the same cargo transport unit.\"\nAt this stage of the interpretation it would appear that any Division 2.3 gas with a subsidiary hazard of\n2.1 would need to be segregated from a Division 2.3 gas with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8 and they\ncould not be stowed in the same cargo transport unit together.\nHowever further analysis of the regulations reveals there are exceptions to the requirement of\nsegregation for hazardous materials of the same class even though the subsidiary hazards appear to\nnecessitate segregation.\nATMI believes that the statement in§ 178.86 (a) (8} is included in the regulations to accommodate\nsituations where substances of the same class which are chemically compatible can be stowed together\nirrespective of the subsidiary hazards which would otherwise mandate unnecessary segregation.\n§ 178.86 (a) (8} \"Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) of this section,\nhazardous materials of the same class may be stowed together without regard to segregation required\nby secondary hazards (subsidiary risk label(s)), provided the substances do not react dangerously with\neach other and cause:\"\n(i) Combustion and/or evolution of considerable heat;\n(ii) Evolution of flammable, toxic or asphyxiant gases;\n(iii) The formation of corrosive substances; or\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n(iv) The formation of unstable substances.\nUsing arsine and boron trifluoride as an example, we believe that§ 178.86 (a) (8) would allow these two\ngases to be stowed together in the same cargo transport unit without the need for segregation as these\ntwo gases do not react with one another. [Martin and Dial1 report no reaction between arsine and\nboron trifluoride and postulate that the steric hindrance of the fluorine atoms in boron trifluoride\nprevents coordination of the arsenic atom in arsine from coordinating with the boron atom.]\nFor the other gas (substances) combinations listed Table 1, if simultaneously released from their\npackaging during transportation, would not dangerously react with one another to produce the\nconditions listed in§ 176.83 (a) (8) (i)-(iv).\nArsine+ Boron Trifluoride --------------> No chemical reaction under transport conditions\nArsine+ Germanium Tetrafluoride -------------> No chemical reaction under transport conditions\nArsine+ Silicon Tetrafluoride --------------> No chemical reaction under transport conditions\nPhosphine+ Boron Trifluoride --------------> No Dangerous Reaction under transport conditions\nPhosphine+ Germanium Tetrafluoride --------------> No Dangerous Reaction under transport conditions\nPhosphine+ Silicon Tetrafluoride --------------> No Dangerous Reaction under transport conditions\nIn summary ATMI requests PHMSA to provide an interpretation of the following as they pertain to our\ntransport situation, specifically with regards to the gas combinations cited in Table 1.\n1. If a Division 2.3 gas with a subsidiary hazard of 2.1 and a Division\n2.3 gas with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8 do not react dangerously with each other under\ntransportation conditions, then they do not require segregation per§ 176.83 (a) (8).\n2. If a Division 2.3 gas with a subsidiary hazard of 2.1 and a Division\n2.3 gas with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8 do not require segregation as per§ 176.83 (a) (8) then they\ncan they be stowed in the same cargo transport unit when transported by cargo vessel.\nIt is our belief that based on our review of the chemical literature and our own experience and data that\nthe gas combinations listed in Table 1 do not react dangerously with each other; then they would not\nrequire segregation and can stowed together in the same cargo transport unit when transported by\ncargo vessel.\nCited References\n1. D.R. Martin and R.E. Dial, J. Am. Chern. Soc., 1950, 72 (2), 852-856\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nIf PHMSA has any questions related to this document please contact:\nJames. V. McManus\nATMI, Inc.\n7 Commerce Drive\nDanbury, CT 06810\nPhone 203-207-9307\ne-mail: jmcmanus@atmi.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":10681}