{"operation":"document","citation":"98-0550","title":"Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1998-01-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"98-0550 response to Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. concerning 173.240.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0550.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0550.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0550","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1998/980550.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S.Department\nWashingion, D.C. 2059\n400 Seventh Street, S.W\nResearch and\nAdministration\nSpecial Programs\nJAN 30 1998\nMr. Jerry D. Davis\nManger, Corporate Transportation Programs\nLaidiaw Environmental Services, Inc.\nP.O. Box 11393\nColumbia, SC 29211\nDear Mr. Davis:\n;\nThis is in response to your letter of January 5, 1998, regarding packaging requirements for\nClass 9 hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR\nparts 171-180). Specifically you ask whether a shipper may place ten cubic yards of\n:\nHazardous waste, solid, n.o.s., 9, NA 3077, III with several non-bulk packages containing\nAsbestos, 9, NA2212, III in a non-specification sift-proof closed bulk bin.\nThe answer is yes. As provided in § 173.240, a non-specification closed bulk bin is an\nauthorized bulk packaging for both of the described Class 9 materials. The fact that the\nasbestos is already packaged in bags is not relevant to this scenario.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\n•\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Regulations Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n........\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n...........\nMAR-17-1999\n13:46\nHMIC\nP.02/02\nUS.Deportment\nof Transportation\nHo segion. D.C. 3000\nResearch and\nspecial Prograins\nAdministration\nJAN 3D 1998\nMr. Jerry D. Davis\nManger, Corporate Transportation Programs\nLaidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.\nP.O. Box 11393\nColumbia, SC 29211\nDear Mr. Davis:\nThis is in response to your letter of January 5, 1998, regarding packaging requirements for\nClass 9 hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR\nparts 171-180). Specifically you ask whether a shipper thiay place tess cubic yards of\nHazardous waste, solid, n.o.s., 9, NA 3077, III with several non-bulk packages containing\nAsbestos, 9, NA2212, III in a non-specification sift-proof closed bulk bin.\nThe answer is yes. As provided in § 173.240, a non specification closed bulk bin is an\nauthorized bulk packaging for both of the described Class 9 materials. The fact that the\nasbestos is already packaged in bags is not relevant to this scenario.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Regulations Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nTATA P.DD\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nr.\n-:\nU.S. Department\n•\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh Streel, S.W.\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nWashington, D.C.\n20590\nAdministration\n•..\nNOV T 1997\nMr. Jétry D. Davis\nManger, Corporate Transportation Programs\n• ..\nLaidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.\nP.O. Box 11393\nColumbia, SC 29211\nDear Mr. Davis:\n...\nThis is in response to your letter of October 24, 1997 regarding classification and transportation\nof rags containing flammable liquid under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR\nparts 171-180). Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ.\nCan \"Solids containing flammable liquid, n.o.s., 4.1, UN 3175, PG II\" be used to describe\n!\nthese rags as long as there are no free liquids visible at the time of transportation?\nA.\n:\nYes. See special provision 47.\nQ.\nIs it permissible to put rags containing flammable liquid in plastic bags and fiberboard\nboxes and to transport the plastic bags and fiberboard boxes in a \"sift-proof\" closed\nvehicle (i.e., van trailers) under § 173.240?\nA.\nYes, provided the packagings are compatible with the lading as required by § 173.24(e).\nQ. May this same material be transported in \"sift-proof\" roll-off containers and dump\n11\ntrailers?\n:\nA.\nYes, as provided by § 173.240 sift-proof non-DOT specification closed bulk bins and sift-\nproof closed vehicles are authorized for transportation..\nQ.\nWhat is the definition of sift-proof?\nA.\nA sift-proof packaging is one that is constructed so that its contents cannot pass through.\nHas there been any interfacing between the Occupational Safety and Health\n:\nAdministration (OSHA) and DOT on the transportation of rags containing flammable\nliquid? Does RSPA's regulations take precedence during transportation?\n173.240\n-\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n.....:.\nA.\nDifferences in OSHA and DOT requirements are due to the fact that the two agencies\nhave separate mandates to regulate hazardous materials. RSPA is required to regulate\nmaterials in transportation that may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or\nproperty. OSHA is required to regulate hazardous chemicals that pose a physical or\nhealth hazard, but not a property hazard. OSHA requirements apply to storage of a\nhazardous material in a workplace. DOT requirements apply during transportation of a\nhazardous material including loading and unloading. DOT requirements definitely take\nprecedence during transportation.\nQ.\n**Does RSPA have any safety measures that can be.used to prevent a spontaneous\ncombustion from occurring when rags containing flammable liquid are transported in\nplastic bags, fiberboard boxes, roll-off containers, and dump trailers?\n:1\n•A.\nNo, the HMR provide safety measures for the safe transportation of a hazardous material,\nbut not how to prevent that material from posing a hazard.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\nDelmer F. Billings\n:\nChief, Regulations Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nDavis 2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nJAN-05-1998 14:33\nFROM LAIDLAW COMPLIANCE\nTO\n912023668700\nP.02\nDADDLAW\nLaValle\nSERNCES ING.\nEVERUNMENTAL\nFile Part 173\nSC: 300,380\n173.240\nVIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION\nJanuary 5, 1998\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Regulations Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, Southwest\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Billings:\nLaidiaw Environmental Services, Inc. is seeking guidance on the transportațion of two\nClass 9 materials. Our situation and question are as follows:\nSuppose a shipper puts ten cubic yards of a material in a twenty cubic yard roll-off\ncontainer (sift-proof closed bulk bin). The basic shipping description of this material is\n\"Hazardous waste solid, n.o.s., 9, NA 3077, PG III.\" The shipper also wants to put\nseveral non-bulk packages that contain a material described as \" Asbestos, 9, NA 2212,\nPG Ill\" in the roll-off container. Both materials are chemically compatible with each\nother. Is it permissible under the Hazardous Materials Regulations to transport both\nmaterials in the roll-off container?\nYour immediate response is greatly appreciated.\nGive me a call at (803) 933-4379 if you have any questions or need additional\ninformation.\n:\nSincerely,\nDavis\nJeny D.\nJerry D. Davis\nManager, Corporate Transportation Programs\n:\n1301 Gervais Street, Suite 300 (29201) Post Otice Box 11393 (29211) Columbia, South Carolina\nPhone 803.933.4200\n@irpaniona","truncated":false,"body_characters":6679}