{"operation":"document","citation":"02-0055","title":"U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2003-02-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"02-0055 response to U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office concerning 171.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-02-0055.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-02-0055.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-02-0055","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2002/020055.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nFEB 2 8 2003\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. Steven H. Wisness\nDirector, Office of Site Services\nRef. No.: 02-0055\nRichland, Washington 99352\nDear MI. Wisness:\nThis responds to your letter regarding the applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HIMK; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to security force personnel contracted by the Department of\nEnergy (DOE) for the protection of Federal assets under DOE control. You state that, in\nperformance of their duties, the security force personnel also provide law enforcement support to\nother local, state, and Federal agencies. You inquire whether the contractor would be subject to\nthe HMR when transporting weapons and explosives in ready-to-fire mode in the performance of\ntheir duties. I apologize for the delay in responding and any inconvenience it may have caused.\nThe answer is yes. In general, any person who transports hazardous material in commerce or\ncauses hazardous material to be transported in commerce is subject to the Federal hazardous\nU.S.C. § 5103(b). Thus, a \"person\" who, under government contract, transports or causes a\nmaterial transportation law (Federal hazmat law), 49 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5127, and the HMR. 49\nhazardous material to be transported in commerce is subject to the HMR; see § 171.1(b). The\nterm \"commerce\" means transportation that is or affects interstate trade or traffic. 49 U.S.C.\n§ 5102(1) Consequently, the HMR do not apply to transportation that is entirely on private\nproperty and neither follows nor crosses a public way. Property is regarded as private if public\naccess is legally and actually restricted from the area where transportation occurs. Also\ntransportation of a hazardous material for national security reasons under the conditions specified\nin § 173.7(b) is not subject to the HMR.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nHotle 2. Mithel\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n171.1\n020055\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nStevens\nDepartment of Energy\n$171:1\nRichland Operations Office\nATES ORAN\nP.O. Box 550\nRichland, Washington 99352\nTraining\n02-OSS-0079\nFEB 0 4. 2002\n02-0055\nMr. Edward Mazzulo\nOffice of Materials Standards\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, SW\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Mazzulo:\nREQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION\nThe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL) is requesting a written\nclarification concerning the applicability of Subchapter C - Hazardous Materials Regulations to\noff-Hanford Site activities, as it relates to security forces contracted by RL for the protection of\nthe Hanford Site, Federal Building, and other DOE holdings.\ncontracted Protection Technology Hanford (PTH) as a direct subcontractor since March 1, 1999.\nRL, through Fluor Hanford Inc., the primary management contractor for Project Hanford, has\nPTH is responsible for management, operation, and integration of all safeguards and security\nservices of the Hanford Site, including the Hanford Patrol.\nWe previously contacted James Jones, Chief, Approvals Branch, concerning the use and\nresponsibilities of Hanford Patrol. Mr. Jones was given a brief description of the site, area north\nof the WYE barricade (the controlled access area, public access areas of northern Richland, and\nfor the Hanford Patrol. The Hanford Patrol has various site security responsibilities including\nthe downtown area where the Federal Building is located. We explained that PTH is responsible\nphysical protection of the Hanford Site, Federal Building, and other DOE properties and\nrederal tread of investanfoon trols activities ma state, are anderad Pati es resuding utsid\nederal Bureau of investigation.\nthe state of Washington.\nWe discussed with Mr. Jones the basis for the Hanford Patrol to be armed and carry ammunition\nHazardous Materials Regulations. Mr. Jones said that authority must come down through\nand explosives in patrol/security vehicles in a ready mode without regard to Subchapter C -\ngovernment channels, whether it is federal, state, or local government. Mr. Jones stated that\ndeputizing of security personnel by county and local government was typical. The county or\nLocal government is then responsible for the security service, and can set the rules and revoke the\nauthority, if necessary. In the case of DOE security forces such as the Hanford Patrol, Mr. Jones\nsaid that if a contractor was working under contract for DOE and the contract explicitly defined\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n:\nMr. Edward Mazzulo\nFEB 0 4 2002\n02-OSS-0079\n-2-\nthe contractor's duties and responsibilities for security, the contractor, in this case PTH, would\nin patrol vehicles, unpackaged and in the ready mode. It would also include the dog training\nnave proper authority. This would include movement of weapons, ammunition, and explosive\nactivities and the use of explosives necessary for other patrol training, if identified by DOE as\npart of their contractual responsibilities. DÓE is ultimately in control and responsible for\nsecurity operations.\nresponsibilities for direction and oversight in these matters. We request that a clarification letter\nWe concur with Mr. Jones' assessment of our status and assure that RL is fully aware of its\nfrom DOT be provided to RL. We request the letter include an interpretation that PTH is exempt\nfrom Subchapter C - Hazardous Materials Regulations, including transport of ammunition and\nexplosives while in performance of their security duties off of the Hanford Site, in support of\nother law enforcement authorities. In essence, these activities are not in commerce.\nIf you have any questions, please contact Dennis Claussen, of my staff, on (509) 372-0938.\nSincerely,\nOSS:DWC\ncc: J. H. Portsmouth, DESNW","truncated":false,"body_characters":5875}