{"operation":"document","citation":"24-0046","title":"Entegris — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2024-09-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"24-0046 response to Entegris concerning 176.83.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0046.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0046.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0046","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2024-10/240046.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nSeptember 25, 2024\nShelley Stampfler\nLogistics Specialist IV\nEntegris\n7 Commerce Drive\nDanbury, CT 06810\nReference No. 24-0046\nDear Ms. Stampfler:\nThis letter is in response to your May 22, 2024, letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) and the International Maritime Dangerous\nGoods (IMDG) Code applicable to the segregation of hazardous materials transported by vessel.\nWe have paraphrased and answered questions as follows:\nQ1: You ask whether a Division 2.3 gas poisonous by inhalation (with a subsidiary hazard of\nClass 8 corrosive) and a Division 2.3 gas poisonous by inhalation (with a subsidiary\nhazard of Division 2.1 flammable gas) require segregation.\nA1: The answer is no, provided the Division 2.3 gases poisonous by inhalation are shipped in\naccordance with the applicable provisions detailed in § 176.83 of the HMR and section\n7.2.6.1 of the IMDG Code. Multiple Division 2.3 gases poisonous by inhalation may be\nstowed in the same container for vessel transportation without regard to the subsidiary\nhazards, provided the different gases are not capable of reacting dangerously with each\nother and causing any of the conditions listed in § 176.83(a)(8), or section 7.2.6.1 of the\nIMDG Code. Specifically, as provided in § 176.83(a)(8) and in section 7.2.6.1, and\nnotwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs § 176.83(a)(6) and (a)(7) and sections\n7.2.3.3 and 7.2.3.4 of the IMDG Code, hazardous materials of the same class may be\nstowed together without regard to segregation required by secondary hazards (subsidiary\nrisk label(s)), provided the substances do not react dangerously with each other and\ncause: (1) a combustion and/or evolution of considerable heat; (2) an evolution of\nflammable, toxic, or asphyxiant gases; (3) the formation of corrosive substances; or\n(4) the formation of unstable substances.\nQ2: You ask whether a Division 2.3 gas poisonous by inhalation (with a subsidiary hazard of\nClass 8 corrosive) and a Division 2.3 gas poisonous by inhalation (with a subsidiary\n\n<<>>\n\nhazard of Division 2.1 flammable gas) can be stowed in the same transport unit when\ntransported by vessel.\nA2: The answer is yes, as provided in answer A1.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nDirk Der Kinderen\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nJones, Jessie Jane CTR (PHMSA)\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent: Friday, June 7, 2024 2:20 PM\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nCc: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Request for DOT Letter of Interpretation\nAttachments: USDOT-PHMSA Interpretation-Segregation of 2.3 Gases (002).pdf\nFollow Up Flag: Follow up\nFlag Status: Flagged\nHi Alice,\nPlease see the below interpretation request and supporting documents attached.\nLet us know if you need anything,\n-Breanna\nFrom: Shelley Stampfler \nSent: Monday, June 3, 2024 3:53 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) \nSubject: Request for DOT Letter of Interpretation\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links\nor open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nFrom: Shelley Stampfler\nSent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 12:27 PM\nTo: infocntr@dot.gov\nSubject: Stowage of Class 2 Gases for Vessel regarding segregation\nI have a question regarding stowage of the same types of gases in the same ocean container . The ocean carriers\nare consistently questioning the use of provision 7.2.6.1 of the IMDG code and 176.83 (a) (8) of the DOT 49\nCFR regulations to co-load class 8 sub risk with class 2.1 sub risk with Primary Hazard class 2.3\nWould it be possible to get a letter from the DOT in the form of a Competent Authority Approval that confirms the\nuse of this provision .\nSo the question would be\nCan a Class 2.3 Toxic Gas with a Sub risk of Class 8 be coloaded with a Class 2.3 Toxic Gas with a sub risk of class\n2.1 provided Entegris meets the requirements as written\nIn 7.2.6.1 of the IMDG code and 176.83 (a) (8) of the DOT 49 CFR regulations\n1\n\n<<>>\n\nI have attached a reference to an older interpretation letter from December 2012 showing ATMI as the company .\nATMI was aquired by Entegris in 2014 and would like to request a simliar letter to submit to the carriers that\nquestion the use of this provision .\nThank you for your assistance\nRegards,\nShelley Stampfler\nLogistic Specialist IV\nSCEM\nT +1 203 739 1432\nentegris.com\nDanbury Technology Center\n7 Commerce Drive\nDanbury, CT 06810 USA\nENTEGRIS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL – INTERNAL\n2\n\n<<>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMaterials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous\nAdministration\nMr. James McManus\nATMI, Inc.\nDEC 2 O 2012\n7 Commerce Drive\nDanbury, CT 06810\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?\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.\n02: 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 Al.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nHenn saster\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division","truncated":false,"body_characters":6913}