{"operation":"document","citation":"05-0226","title":"PTP Consulting, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2005-11-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"05-0226 response to PTP Consulting, Inc. concerning 173.12.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0226.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0226.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0226","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2005/050226.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nf Transportatio\n.S. Depanmer\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nNOV 8 2005\nMs. Carol Brozosky\nRef. No. 05-0226\nPTP Consulting, Inc.\n1531 Kings Highway\nSwedesboro, NJ 08085\nDear Ms. Brozosky:\nThis is in response to your letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials\n24-hour holding time requirement for the reuse of packagings for the shipment of\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) regarding § 173.12(c), which establishes a\nhazardous wastes. You ask whether the requirement applies to both non-bulk and bulk\npackagings.\nSection 173.12(c) applies to non-bulk packagings only. With respect to bulk packagings,\n§ 173.24 addresses the responsibility of the person offering a hazardous material for\ntransportation, including ensuring that bulk packagings, as well as non-bulk packagings,\ndo not leak; are compatible with the lading; and have no significant chemical or galvanic\nreaction between the materials and the contents of the packages. Further, § 173.24b'\nrequirements specific to portable tanks; and § 173.33 contains additional requirements\ncontains additional requirements for bulk packagings; § 173.32 contains additional\nspecific to cargo tank motor vehicles.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have additional\nquestions.\nSincerely,\nHottak Metho\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n173.12(c)\n050226\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n•\n09/14/2005 08:23\n8564679643\nPAGE 01\npte\nogress Traugh Performan\nONSULTING, INK\n856-467-5400 • Fax: 856-467-9643 • url: http://ehsprogress.com • info@ehsprogress.com\nPTP Consulting, Inc. • 1531 Kings Highway • Swedesboro, NJ 08085\nSeptember 13, 2005\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nUS DOT/ RSPA (DHM-10)\nM'Intyre\n400 7' St., S. W.\n$/13.12 (c)\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nFAX: 202-366-3012\nReuse Packaging\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\n05-0226\nPTP Consulting has been requested to assist with a regulatory issuc applicable to transporting hazardous waste in a\nhighway tanker, which was loaded from approximately one hundred 55-gallon drums of various wastestreams -\npresumably compatible with each other.\nMy question is twofold:\nFirst, we are seeking an interpretation under 49 §CFR 173.12 (c), where it describes conditions for the reuse of a\npackaging for the pupose of shipping a waste material. In 49 §CFR 173.12 (c), it explains that a previously used\npackaging - not subject to reuse or reconditioning provisions - may be used under five listed conditions within the\nsame paragraph. Condition 3 discusses the requirement that the packaging shall not be offered for transportation\nless than 24 hours after it is finally closed for transportation, and is inspected for leakage and is found to be free\nfrom leaks immediately prior to being offered for transportation.\nDoes the definition of a packaging extend to a bulk container, or more specifically, a highway tanker? When I track\nthe dcfinition of a \"packaging\", and consequently the definition of a \"receptaole\" in part 171.8, it is does not indicate\nthat this means non-bulk only. If it does not pertain to a bulk containment system, could you explain why?\nSecond, I would presume that this 24 hour holding period in the above regulatory citation is to ensure that the\npackaging will not fail due to leaks or incompatibility issues. If tankers are not subject to this 24 hour holding\nperiod, is there any regulatory requirement that would require a shipper to ensure the tanker will not have problems\nfor the same reasons, whether it is due to leaking, or due to a chemical reaction, or due to an incompatibility issuc?\nI most sincerely appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, and look forward to your response.\nSincercly,\nPTP Consulting, Inc.\nCarla frandy\nPresident\nCarol Brozosky, CET, CHMM","truncated":false,"body_characters":3908}