{"operation":"document","citation":"22-0049","title":"Linde Gas & Equipment Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2022-08-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"22-0049 response to Linde Gas & Equipment Inc. concerning 176.83.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0049.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0049.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0049","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/76706/220049.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nAugust 5, 2022\nMr. Mike Stephens\nManager Distribution Compliance\nLinde Gas & Equipment Inc.\n217 Loren St\nWashington, IL 61571\nReference No. 22-0049\nDear Mr. Stephens:\nThis letter is in response to your April 14, 2022, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the segregation of hazardous\nmaterials when transported by vessel. Specifically, you seek confirmation that your\nunderstanding of § 176.83(a)(8) is accurate in that a Division 2.3 (Gas poisonous by inhalation)\nhazardous material with subsidiary hazards of Division 2.1 (Flammable gas) and Class 8\n(Corrosive) may—under certain conditions—be stowed in the same cargo transport unit on board\na vessel as a Division 2.3 gas with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8.\nYour understanding is correct. In accordance with § 176.83(a)(8) and notwithstanding the\nrequirements of paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) of § 176.83, hazardous materials of the same class\nmay be stowed together without regard to segregation required by secondary hazards—\nsubsidiary risk label(s)—provided the substances do not react dangerously with each other and\ncause: 1) combustion and/or evolution of considerable heat; 2) evolution of flammable, toxic, or\nasphyxiant gases; 3) the formation of corrosive substances; or 4) the formation of unstable\nsubstances.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nLarson\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Request for Interpretation\nDate: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 2:06:50 PM\nAttachments: Germanium Tetrafluoride Hydrogen mix segregation.docx\n120239 Segregation Interup letter only.pdf\n22-0049\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent: Monday, May 2, 2022 12:21 PM\nTo: Hazmat Interps \nSubject: FW: Request for Interpretation\nHello Hazmat Interps,\nBelow and in the attached word document is a request for letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nJonathon, HMIC\nFrom: Mike R Stephens \nSent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 12:23 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) \nCc: LG US DISTRIBUTION COMPLIANCE \nSubject: Request for Interpretation\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do\nnot click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is\nsafe.\nRe: Request for Interpretation\nDear Sir or Madame:\nIn accordance with 49 CFR § 105.20, this letter is being submitted to PHMSA to\nrequest an interpretation of the Hazard Materials Transportation Regulations.\nLinde Gas and Equipment Inc (LGE) requests PHMSA to review an interpretation we\nhave made regarding the carriage by vessel of certain Division 2.3 (Gas poisonous by\ninhalation) gases with a subsidiary hazard of 2.1 (Flammable gas) and Class 8\n\n<<>>\n\n(corrosive) and certain Division 2.3 gases with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8\n(corrosive).\nSpecifically, LGE requests PHMSA to review our interpretation that the gas\ncombinations listed in Table 1 do not require segregation as is allowed by§ 176.83 (a)\n(8) as these gases (substances) do not react dangerously with each other and lead to\nthe conditions listed in§ 176.83 (a) (8) i-iv.\nAttached above is an Interpretation reference number 12-0239 PHMSA approved that\nsupports our request.\nTable l - List of Gas Combinations\nDiv. 2.3 (2.1) (8) gas Name Div. 2.3 (8) Gas Name Chemically Compatible Segregation Required as\nper § 176.83\nUn 3305 Compressed gas,\ntoxic, flammable, corrosive,\nn.o.s. Inhalation Hazard\nZone B\nUN 3308 Liquefied gas,\ntoxic, corrosive, n.o.s.\nInhalation Hazard Zone B\nYes\nNo\nAnalysis of Current Segregation Regulations for Gases with Division 2.1 and\nClass 8 Subsidiary Risks\n49 CFR § 176.83 specifies the segregation requirements for hazardous materials\ntransported by vessel stowed in cargo spaces on deck and under deck and in cargo\ntransport units.\nTable 176.83 (B) sets forth the general segregation requirements between the various\nclasses (& divisions) of hazardous materials.\n49 CFR § 176.83 Table 176.83 (B)\n\n<<>>\n\nAn example of using Table 176.83 (B) as it applies to one of the gas combinations listed in\nTable 1 is as follows:\nIn the case of UN 3305 Compressed Gas, Toxic, Flammable, Corrosive, n.o.s.\n(Germanium Tetrafluoride in Hydrogen), Toxic Inhalation Hazard Zone B which has a\nprimary hazard of 2.3 and a subsidiary hazard of Division 2.1 (flammable gas), Class\n8 (corrosive)\nand\nUN 3308 Liquefied gas, toxic, corrosive, n.o.s. (Germanium Tetrafluoride) Inhalation\nHazard Zone B which has a subsidiary hazard of Class 8 (corrosive).\nTable 176.83 (B) lists the number \"1\" at the intersection of Division 2.1 with Class 8.\nIn this example these two hazardous materials would require segregation \"Away\nfrom\" as defined by the numbers and symbols used in Table 176.83 (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\nhazard label or labels, the segregation appropriate to the subsidiary hazards must be\napplied when that segregation is more restrictive than that required by the primary\nhazard.\"\nFurthermore, any two hazardous materials requiring segregation cannot be stowed in\nthe same cargo transport unit based on the requirement of §176.83 (d) which states:\n\"Segregation in cargo transport units: Two hazardous materials for which\nany segregation is required may not be stowed in the same cargo transport\n\n<<>>\n\nunit.\"\nAt this stage of the interpretation, it would appear that any Division 2.3 gas with a\nsubsidiary hazard of 2.1 would need to be segregated from a Division 2.3 gas with a\nsubsidiary hazard of Class 8 and they could not be stowed in the same cargo transport\nunit together.\nHowever further analysis of the regulations reveals there are exceptions to the\nrequirement of segregation for hazardous materials of the same class even though the\nsubsidiary hazards appear to necessitate segregation.\nLGE believes that the statement in § 178.86 (a) (8} is included in the regulations to\naccommodate situations where substances of the same class which are chemically\ncompatible can be stowed together irrespective of the subsidiary hazards which would\notherwise mandate unnecessary segregation.\n§ 178.86 (a) (8} \"Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) of\nthis section, hazardous materials of the same class may be stowed together without\nregard to segregation required by secondary hazards (subsidiary risk label(s)),\nprovided the substances do not react dangerously with each 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(iv) The formation of unstable substances.\nUsing Germanium Tetrafluoride/Hydrogen mix and Germanium Tetrafluoride as an\nexample, we believe that§ 178.86 (a) (8) would allow these two gases to be stowed\ntogether in the same cargo transport unit without the need for segregation as these\ntwo gases do not react with one another.\nHydrogen + Germanium Tetrafluoride --------------> No Dangerous Reaction under\ntransport conditions\nIn summary, LGE requests PHMSA to provide an interpretation of the following as they\npertain to our transport situation, specifically with regards to the gas combinations\ncited in Table 1.\nIf a Division 2.3 gas with a subsidiary hazard of Division 2.1 and Class 8 and a Division\n2.3 gas with a subsidiary hazard of Class 8 do not react dangerously with each other\nunder transportation conditions, then they do not require segregation per§ 176.83 (a)\n(8) then they can they be stowed in the same cargo transport unit when transported by\ncargo vessel.\nIt is our belief that based on our review of the chemical literature and our own\n\n<<>>\n\nexperience and data that the gas combinations listed in Table 1 do not react\ndangerously with each other; then they would not require segregation and can stowed\ntogether in the same cargo transport unit when transported by cargo vessel.\nCited References\nIf PHMSA has any questions related to this document, please contact:\nMike Stephens\nLinde Gas & Equipment Inc\n217 Loren St\nWashington, Il 61571\nPhone 314-568-6764\ne-mail: LG.US.Distribution.Compliance@Linde.com\nMike Stephens\nManager Distribution Compliance\nLinde Gas & Equipment Inc.\nLG.US.DISTRIBUTION.COMPLIANCE@LINDE.COM\nCell 314-568-6764\nThe information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential and is provided\nsolely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby\nnotified that any disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail, its attachments or any information\ncontained therein is unauthorized and prohibited. If you have received this in error, please contact\nthe sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments. No responsibility is accepted for\nany virus or defect that might arise from opening this e-mail or attachments, whether or not it has\nbeen checked by anti-virus software.\n\n<<>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMaterials Safet\nipeline and Hazardou\nAdministration\nMr. James McManus\nATMI, Inc.\nDEC 2 0 2012\n7 Commerce Drive\nDanbury, CT 06810\nRef. No.: 12-0239\n:\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?\nA1: 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,\nHenn Faster\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division","truncated":false,"body_characters":11551}