{"operation":"document","citation":"06-0201","title":"Oak Ridge National Laboratory — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2006-11-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"06-0201 response to Oak Ridge National Laboratory concerning 173.410, 173.461.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0201.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0201.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0201","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060201.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nMaterials Safety Administratio\nipeline and Hazardou\nNOV 2 2005\nMr. Mark B. Hawk\nRef. No.: 06-0201\nNuclear Science & Technology Division\nP.O. Box 2008\nOak Ridge National Laboratory\nOak Ridge, TN 37831\nDear Mr. Hawk:\nThis is in response to your letter concerning requirements in the Hazardous Materials\nmaterial packagings used for the transport of low-level radioactive materials.\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) for steel boxes and other types of radioactive\nThe requirements for steel boxes designed and fabricated to be used as IP-1, IP-2., or IP-3\nand Type A packaging are contained in §§ 173.24, 173.24a, 173.410, 173.411 and\n173.412, respectively. You ask several questions regarding these requirements. Your\nquestions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1.\ndifferent design such that testing and engineering evaluations are required to prove\nWhat design elements of Class 7 (radioactive) packagings constitute a new or\nconformance with the applicable design requirements of §§ 173.410, 173.411, and\n173.412?\nAl.\nthe same package content evaluations and testing as the original. Regarding\nhe reauirements in $ 173.461\nlemonstration of compliance, packages for radioactive materials must comply wit\nQ2.\nWhat vibration test should be used to ensure a package complies with the\nrequirements in § 173.410(f)? Is there a different vibration standard for bulk and\nnon-bulk packages?\nA2.\nSection 173.410(f) states that a package must be capable of withstanding the effects\nof acceleration, vibration, or vibration resonance that occur under normal\nHIVININ\n173.411\n173.46\n060201\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nconditions of transportation without any reduction in the effectiveness of the\nbulk packages must conform. It is the responsibility of the shipper to ersure that\npackage. The section does not prescribe a specific standard to which bulk or non-\nany package constructed in accordance with § 173.410 maintains its integrity under\nnormal conditions of transportation and repeated use. In addition, all non-bulk\npackages are subject to the general packaging requirements in § 173.24a. and in\naccordance with paragraph (a)(5) must be capable of withstanding, without rupture\nor leakage, the vibration test in § 178.608.\nQ3.\nSection 173.410(f) refers to general package and packaging requirements contained\nin § 173.24 and general non-bulk and bulk package and packaging requirements in\n§§ 173.24a and 173.24b, respectively. Are the terms \"bulk,\" \"non-bulk,\" and\n\"IBC\" applicable to Class 7 packages and packagings? If these terms do apply, are\nall of the requirements throughout the HMR (i.e., marking) for each term\napplicable?\nA3.\nThe terms \"bulk\" and \"non-bulk\" are applicable to packagings used for the\ntransportation of Class 7 materials. However, the packaging and hazard\ncommunication requirements specific to shipments of Class 7 materials supersede\nthe packaging and hazard communication requirements that apply to other classes\nof hazardous materials. See, for example, the specific marking requirements for\nof Class 7 materials in § 172.403.\npackages of Class 7 materials in § 172.310 and labeling requirements for packages\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nSEP-01-2006\n14:47\nORNL NSTD NTRC\n865 574 3431\nP.Ø2\nOAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY\nMANAGED BY UT-BATTELLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY\nNuclear Science & Technolo. Box 200n\nM. B. Hawk\n2'73\nelephone: (865) 946-1275 Fax: (865) 946-127\nOal: Ridge, TN 37831-6472\nnternet Address: hawkmb@orl.go\nackaa\n4ngs\nSeptember 1, 2006\n06-0201\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nEdward T. Mazzullo, DHM-10\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 7* Street, SW\nWashington, DC 20590-001\nAttention: DHM-10\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nThis letter is requesting clarifications associated with steel boxes and other types of radioactive\nmaterial packagings that are commonly used to transport low-level radioactive materials for\ndisposal. Throughout the United States, steel boxes of various volumes (45 cubic feet to over\n120 cubic feet) are designed to contain payloads of approximately 10,000 pounds. These steel\nboxes are designed and fabricated to meet the requirements for industrial packagings (IP-1,\nIP-2, and IP-3) per §173.411, as well as the requirements for Type A packages per §173.412.\nIt is requested that clarifications to the questions below associated with these types of packagings\nbe provided.\nQuestion 1\nWhat design elements of radioactive packagings constitute a new or different design such that\ntesting and engineering evaluations are required to prove compliance to the applicable desigr\nrequirements of §173.410, §173.411, and §173.412? Fabricators of these boxes are continually\nimproving and changing various features and design elements but are uncertain as to whether\nthese improvements/changes constitute new designs.\nQuestion 2\nFor new or different designs of radioactive packagings that do not have any historical data that\nproves the designs are capable of withstanding the effects of acceleration and vibration per\n§173.410(f), what vibration standard/test should be used to prove compliance? It is noted that\n§173.410 (f) references §173.24, §173.24a, and §173.24b. Of these three sections only §173.24a\nfor non-bulk packagings identifies a vibration standard - §178.608. Does the Hazardous\nMaterial Regulations (HMR) only require a vibration test for non-bulk packagings? If not, what\nregulatory requirements for a vibration standard/test should be used to prove compliarice for bulk\npackagings?\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nSEP-Ø1-2006 14:47\nORNL NSTD NTRC\n865 574 3431\nP.03\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo, DHM-10\nPage 2\nSeptember 1, 2006\nQuestion 3\nrespectively, should it be assumed by users of the HMR that the terms \"non-bulk\" and \"bulk\" are\nSince §173.410(f) refers to non-bulk and bulk requirements found in §173.24, 24a, and 24b,\napplicable to radioactive packagings? Is the term \"intermediate bulk container\" applicable to\nradioactive packagings? If these terms are applicable and a radioactive packaging meets the\ndefinitions of \"non-bulk\", \"bulk\", or \"intermediate bulk container\", do all of the requirements\nthroughout the HMR (i.e., marking requirements) for each term have to be met?\nYour clarification of these issues would be appreciated!\nSincerely,\nMarket Hawk\nMark B. Hawk\nOak Ridge National Laboratory\ncc: M. B. Hawk\nTOTAL P.03","truncated":false,"body_characters":6530}