{"operation":"document","citation":"07-0115","title":"Mr. Philip Brandt — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-02-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"07-0115 concerning 173.411, 173.427.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0115.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0115.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0115","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2007/070115.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. Philip Brandt\n124 Jim Town Road\nJonesborough, TN 37659\nRef. No. 07-0 1 15\nDear Mr. Brandt:\nThis responds to your letter dated May 30,2007, requesting clarification on the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) June 16,2006 response to Mr.\nKurt Colborn [Letter Reference No. 06-0063 enclosed] regarding the use of freight\ncontainers as Industrial Packagings (IP) Type 2 (IP-2) or Type 3 (IP-3) containers under the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 17 1-1 80). Specifically, you request\nadditional clarification on our response Al(c) and A2 to Mr. Colbom.\nYour questions are paraphrased and answered below:\nRegarding PHMSA's Response Allc):\nQ1. Does the containment system (an IS0 1496-1 compliant freight container on a\ncontainer chassis) described in my May 30,2007 letter meet the requirements of\n$ 5 1 73.4 10(f) and 173.4 1 1 (b)(6) of the HMR?\nAl. The described \"containment system\" does not meet all the cited requirements\nbecause it does not include a description of the radioactive contents. The I S 0\n149611 tests are permitted as an alternative to the tests normally required for IP-2\nand IP-3 packages in $ 173.41 1, but it must be shown that the particular radioactive\ncontents will not be subject to loss or dispersal from the container, or loss of\nshielding integrity, as a result of those tests. The IS0 tests allow some flexing of\nthe freight container body which might be unacceptable for containment of the\nparticular content. The potential for movement of the contents within the container\nmust also be considered to evaluate compliance with the requirement for\nmaintaining shielding integrity.\nQ2. Can the requirements be satisfied by documenting the fact that a specified number\nof freight containers have been shipped on chassis under conditions of accelerations\nexperienced during routine conditions of transport with no loss of containment?\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA2. The container must be shown to meet either the IP-2, IP-3 or the alternative IS0\n1496-1 tests along with preventing loss or dispersal of the particular radioactive\ncontents being transported and loss of shielding under routine conditions of\ntransport.\nNo specific tests beyond those in the IS0 standard have been stipulated. The\nrequirements can be met by testing, by engineering evaluations, or by comparative\ndata, documented as required in fj 1 73.4 1 1 (c). The documentation should pertain to\nthe entire package, including consideration of the properties of the particular\nradioactive contents.\nReparding PHMSA's Response A2:\n43. A3. Q4. A4.. Q5. A5. May the freight containers meeting the requirements of 5 tj 173.4 1 1 (b) and\n173.41 l(c) of the HMR also serve as a waste disposal package when shipping LSA\nand/or SCO material? If yes, should the freight containers be marked as \"TYPE IP-\nl\", \"TYPE IP-l\", \"TYPE IP-2\", or \"TYPE IP-3\" as appropriate?\nThe HMR do not regulate waste disposal packages. Radioactive material (RAM)\nwaste disposal is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the\nEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA). The freight container should be marked\nwith the appropriate IP Type markin,g.\nDoes the IS0 1496-1 requirement for the permanent attachment of the CSC Safety\nApproval Plate with the total gross mass (maximum allowable) of the package meet\nthe requirements of 5 172.3 10(a) for indicating the gross mass of the package or\nmust the total actual gross mass of the shipment be marked on the freight container?\nThe container must be marked with the total actual gross mass, unless, in\naccordance with 5 173.427, it is being used to ship less than an A2 quantity LSA or\nSCO material domestically in exclusive use, in which case it would be excepted\nfrom that marking requirement.\nIs the international vehicle registration code required to be legibly marked on the\nfreight container? If yes, does the information on the CSC Safety Approval Plate\nmeet this requirement? If not, wherelhow is the international vehicle registration\ncode obtained for a freight container?\nIn accordance with 5172.3 1 O(c), each package conforming to a Type IP- 1, Type IP-\n2, Type IP-3 or Type A package design must be legibly and durably marked with\nthe international vehicle registration code of the country of origin of the design,\nunless it is being used to ship less than an A2 quantity LSA or SCO material\ndomestically in exclusive use, in which case it would be excepted from that marking\nrequirement.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n46. A6. 47. A7. Q8. A8. Q9. The CSC Safety Approval Plate does not meet the international vehicle registration\ncode marking requirement in 5 172.3 10(c). The CSC plate indicates conformance\nwith CSC requirements. It does not indicate conformance to Type IP- 1, Type IP-2,\nType IP-3, or Type A package design requirements.\nUnless the container supplier has certified the container meets the requirements for\nthe specified contents, the shipper must determine that the package meets the\napplicable requirements, and the shipper must apply the appropriate code. Note that\nthe party certifylng the design meets the requirements must comply with the\ndocumentation requirements specified in $ 173.41 l(c).\nIs it correct to assume that if the freight container is manufactured overseas then you\nwould not mark the package with the \"USA\" marking?\nIf a shipper in the United States is certifylng that the freight container meets the\napplicable design requirements, the shipper is required to mark the package with\n\"USA\".\nWould you mark the container with the country of origin (e.g., China)?\nIt should be marked with the country of certification, not that of manufacture. This\nshould be the country code of the party that holds the documentation required by\n5 173.41 1 (c). This may not be the same as the country of origin of the freight\ncontainer (see answer to #6).\nAre the \"Radioactive-LSA\" or \"Radioactive-SC0 markings, a \"Class A Waste\"\nlabel and the appropriate \"IP\" marking the only markingsllabels required if the\nfreight container is the waste package and the requirements of 5 173.427 are met?\n(The labeling/marking requirements of $ 8 172.3 10 and 172.403 do not apply).\nIf the shipment is in compliance with 5 173.427(a)(6)(vi) (less than an A2 quantity,\ndomestic exclusive use), the only required DOT marking is \"RADIOACTIVE-LSA\"\nor \"RADIOACTIVE-SCOW, as appropriate and the marking,labeling requirements\nspecified in $5 172.3 10 and 172.403 do not apply: The \"IP\" marking would not be\nrequired if the shipment is in compliance with 5 173.427(a)(6)(vi). The \"Class A\nWaste\" label is not a DOT requirement.\nIs there a requirement for performing testing and an evaluation report for a freight\ncontainer that contains LSA and/or SCO waste if the freight container is the waste\npackage and is marked as LSA or SCO-Radioactive and there is no loose\nradioactive material in the conveyance, no leakage of the radioactive material fiom\nthe conveyance and the packaged and unpackaged waste in the freight container is\nbraced so as to prevent shifting of lading under conditions normally incident to\ntransportation?\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nA9. Q10. A10. Q11. A1 1. If the freight container is being used to transport unpackaged LSA-I or SCO-I\nmaterial, or is being used as an excepted package of less than an Az quantity under\nexclusive use, in accordance with 5 173.427(b)(4), then no documentation is\nrequired. If the freight container is being used as a Type IP-2 or Type IP-3 package,\n5 173.41 l(c) requires the offeror to maintain complete documentation of tests and an\nengineering evaluation or comparative data showing that the construction methods,\npackaging design, and materials of construction conform to that specification.\nIf all the requirements of 4 173.4 1 l(b)(6) are met and there are no other test\nrequirements, may LSA-111111 or SCO-IIIIII material be shipped in a freight\ncontainer without further testing (e.g. the requirement in tj 173.468(b) to conduct a\nseven day immersion test)?\nThe referenced immersion test is to qualify material as LSA-111 and is not a\npackaging requirement. Also, see \"A9\" above regarding requirements for\ndocumentation of tests and evaluations.\nIf the freight container is the LSA or SCO waste package, are the marking\nrequirements discussed in PHMSA's June 16,2006 \"A2\" response to Mr. Kurt\nColbom [Letter Reference No. 06-00631 abrogated?\nUse of the container as a waste package has no impact on the DOT marking\nrequirements. Freight containers used as a Type IP-2 or Type IP-3 package must be\nmarked and labeIed as such, except as provided for under\ntj 173.427(a)(6)(vi) (less than an A2 quantity, domestic exclusive use) (see \"A8\"\nabove).\nI hope this answers your inquiry.\nSincerely,\nOffice of Hazardous ater rials Standards\nEnclosure\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Tronsportotlon\nPlpdlna and\nHazardous MOt@dalS Sd*\nAQmlnlrttaHon\nJUN 16 2006\n400 Swenlh Sheet. S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20580\nMr. Kurt Colbom\nDirector, Technical Services\nLogistical Solutions\n800 Cranberry Woods Drive, Suite 450\nCranberry Township, PA 16066\nRef NCI. 06-0063\nDear Mr. Colbom:\nThis responds to your March 13, 2006 letter requesting clarification on 5 173.41 1@)(6) to\nallow the use of freight containers as Industrial Packagings (P) Type 2 or 3 c:ontainers\nunder the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171 -180).\nSection 173.41 1@)(6) authorizes the use of freight containers a s industrial packagings\nTypes 2 or 3 (Type IP-2 or (Type IP-3) provided that:\n(i) The radioactive contents are restricted to solid materials;\n(ii) 5 173.410; and\nThe freight containers satisfy the requirements for Type IP-1 as specified in\n(iii) The freight containers conform to the standards prescribed in the International\nOrganization for Standardization document I S 0 1496- 1 : \"Series 1 Freight\nContaizers-Specifications and Testing-Part 1 : General Cargo Contai~zrs; sxcluding\ndimensions and ratings. They must be designed so that if subjected to !he tests\nprescribed in that document and the accelerations occurring during routine conditions\nof transport they would prevent loss or dispersal of the radioactive contenrs and loss\nof shielding integrity that would result in more than a 20% increase in the radiation\nlevel at any external surface of the freight containers.\nYour questions are paraphrased and answered beIow:\nQ1. May packages meeting the IP-1 freight container and IS0 1496 standard:: be used as\nIP-2 or 1.P-3 packages when used to consolidate small loads for shipment?\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nAl. In accordance with 173.41 1@)(6), fieight containers may be used as 11'-2 or IP-3\npackages, as long all of the following four conditions are met:\na) The freight container meets the requirements for an IP- 1 package.\nb) The freight container is designed to conform to the standards prescribed ill: \"Series 1\nFreight Containers - Specifications and Testing - Part 1: General Cargo Q~ntainers for\nGeneral Purposes; excluding dimensions and ratings. It should be noted that freight\ncontainers approved in accordance with the International Maritime 0rganl.zation\nInternational Convention for Safe Containers are not necessarily equivaleiit to the\ntesting prescribed by IS0 1496- 1.\nc) The freight container is designed such that if subjected to the tests prescribed in I S 0\n1496-1, as well as accelerations occurring during routine conditions of transport,\nthere would be no loss or dispersal of the radioactive contents nor loss of t:hielding\nintegrity which would result in more than a 20% increase in radiation levels on any\nexternal surface of the freight container. It should be noted that the test conditions of\naccelerations occurring during routine conditions of transport are in addition to the\ntesting prescribed by IS0 1496-1 because the IS0 Standard. does not include dynamic\ntests.\nd) The radioactive contents of the fieight container are limited to solid materials.\nAdditionally, radioactive contents that have not satisfied the requirements of\n$ 173.41 1 @)(6) must not be transported in an IP-2 or IP-3 container.\n42. What marking and labeling requirements apply to a freight container used as an IP-2\nor IP-3 package? What marking and labeling requirements apply to internal containers?\nA2. Freight containers used as an IP-2 or IP-3 package must be marked and la.beled as\nsuch, in accordance with 44 172.3 10 and 172.403. Inner containers are authorized\nprovided they are specified in the IP-2 or IP-3 test and evaluation report. Inner containers\nmust be marked in accordance with the specification specified in the test and evaluation\nreport. For example, if the test and evaluation report specify the presence of inner LP-1\npackages, the packages must be marked as such, in accordance with § 172.3 10. If the test\nreport specifies inner containers (i.e. wooden boxes, bags, etc.) marking of the inner\ncontainers would not be required. Additionally, hazard communication markiligs and\nlabels are not required for the inner containers.\n43. May freight containers not meeting the IP- 1 and ISO-1496-1 standards be used to\ntransport loose bulk material if testing demonstrates the containers prevent the loss or\ndispersal of contents while subjected to the ISO- 1496-1 test requirements?\nA3. No. The freight container must meet all the requirements outlined in Anscver 1.\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nQ4. Are the requirements in 5 173.41 1(b)(6) intended to be used as an alte~native means\nto certify packagings? If an IF'-1 freight container is used an IP-2 or P-3 package, how\nshould the package be marked?\nA4. The provisions of 4 173.41 l(b)(6) are to be used as an alternative means of IP-2 and\nIP-3 packaging certification. Freight containers used as an IP-2 or IP-3 packaging must\nbe marked accordingly.\nI hope this answers your inquiry.\nSincerely,\n6 ( J\nJohn A: Gale t'4\"\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nMay 30,2007\n124 Jim Town Rd.\nJonesborough, TN 37659\nMr. John A. Gale\nChief, Standards Developn~ent\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSubj: Request for Clarification Document Ref. No. 06-0063\nDear Mr. Gale:\nOn June 16, 2006 you responded to questions posed by Mr. Kurt Colborn regarding the\nuse of freight containers as Industrial Packages (IP) Type 2 or 3 containers under the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-1 80).\nIn your response (c) you stated, in part, that the test conditions of accelerations occurring\nduring routine conditions of transport (49 CFR 173.410(f) General Design Requirements\nare in addition to the testing requirements prescribed by I S 0 1496-1 because the I S 0\nStandard does not include dynamic tests. The DOT acceleration test requirement in the\nregulations does not specify and/or provide a reference as to what constitutes acceptable\ntesting.\nFor over the highway use a freight container is transported on a container chassis and as\nsuch meets the DOT definition of a containment system. Consequently, the requirement\nto perform acceleration tests during routine conditioils of transport must be considered\nwith a freight container mounted on a container chassis. Chassis built to American\nBureau of Shipping requirements are designed to have sufficient structural strength to\nremain serviceable and withstand, without significant permanent deformation, the static\nand dynamic loads imposed by nornial service in highway, railway, and shipboard service\nwhen loaded with a freight container to its GVWR of approxin~ately 68,000 lbs. The twist\nlocks that hold a maximally loaded (68,000 lbs. GVWR) freight container on the chassis\nniust meet, in part, the design requirements to withstand a horizontal or longitudinal\nacceleration force of 3.5G where G represents the acceleration due to gravity. IS0 1496-\n1 includes as an appendix the Association of Anlerican Railroads Specification M-943-80\nto assist manufacturers in the design of the chassis to meet this criterion. I S 0 1496-1\nalso has under Series 1 Freight Cor~turtrers - SpecrJicatiori atill Testillg - Part I : Gerierc~l\nC'L[I-QO C'otlt~i~tersfor Getiercrl Prltposes under Section 6 Testitlg the requirements for\ntesting and documenting that a freight container can withstand longitudinal external\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nrestraint under dynamic conditions of railway operations, which implies an acceleration\nof 2 G. IS0 1496-1 also specifies the design and test requirements for the closure system\non the freight containers during conditions of normal transport which is also part of the\ncontainment system.\nThe successful completion of the IS0 1496-1 test (Test No. 4) requires that the container\nshall, in part, show neither permanent deformation which will render it unsuitable for use\nnor abnormality which will render it unsuitable for use, and the dimensional requirements\naffecting handling, securing and interchanges shall be satisfied. It should be noted that\nfrom a design standpoint that the maximum GVWR for the freight container on a chassis,\nwhen pulled by a tractor with a sleeper compartment (approximately 20,000 lbs.), is an\nestimated 60,000 lbs. or 10% lower than the rated design capacity and would yield an\neven higher G rating than discussed above.\nSince the DOT requirements do not specify a required test does the containment system\ndescribed above meet the requirements of 49 CFR 173.4 10(0 as well as 49 CFR\n173.41 1 (b)(6)? Can the requirements be satisfied by simply documenting the fact that a\nspecified number of freight containers have been shipped on chassis under conditions of\naccelerations experienced during routine conditions of transport with no loss of\ncontainment? If neither of the above satisfies the referenced DOT requirements can the\nDOT provide references andlor guidance for the testing that does meet the specified\nrequirements?\nIn your A2 response you state, in part, that freight containers used as IP-2 or IP-3\npackages must be marked and labeled as such, in accordance with 49 CFR 172.3 10 and\n172.403. 49 CFR 172.3 10 requires, in part, for non-Type B packages that weigh more\nthan 50 kgs. that they be legibly and durably marked on the outside of the package in\nletters at least 13 mm high with the appropriate specified markings. Can the freight\ncontainers that meet the 49 CFR 41 1 (b)(c) requirements also serve as the waste disposal\npackage when shipping LSA and/or SCO material? If yes, should the freight containers\nused to ship the LSA or SCO materials be marked as TYPE IP- 1, TYPE IP-2 or TYPE\nIP-3, as appropriate? Does the I S 0 1496- 1 requirement for the permanent attachment of\nthe CSC Safety Approval Plate with the total gross mass (maximum allowable) of the\npackage meet the requirement of 49 CFR 172.3 10(a) for indicating the gross mass of the\npackage or must the total actual gross mass of the shipment be marked on the freight\ncontainer? Is the subpart (c) requirement for the international vehicle registration code to\nbe legibly marked on the freight container applicable? If yes, does the information on the\nCSC Safety Approval Plate meet this requirement? If not, wherehow is the international\nvehicle registration code obtained for a freight container? Is it correct to assume that if\nthe freight container is n~anufact~lred overseas then you would not mark the package with\nthe USA label or marking? Would you mark the container with the country of origin e.g.\nChina?\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nAre the Radioactive - LSA or Radioactive - SCO, a Class A Waste label and the\nappropriate IP label the only labels required if the freight container is the waste package\nand the requirements of 49 CFR 173.427 are met (the labelinglmarking requirements of\n49 CFR 172.3 10 and 172.403 do not apply)?\nIs there a requirement for perfomling testing and an evaluation report for a freight\ncontainer that contains LSA and/or SCO waste if the freight container is the waste\npackage and is marked as LSA or SCO - Radioactive and there is no loose radioactive\nmaterial in the conveyance, no leakage of the radioactive material from the conveyance,\nand the packaged and unpackaged waste in the freight container is braced so as to prevent\nshifting of lading under conditions normally incident to transportation? If there is no test\nrequirement and all other requirements of 49 CFR 173.41 1 (b)(6) are met then can LSA-\n111111 or SCO-IVIII material be shipped in the freight container without further testing e.g.\nthe 49 CFR 173.468(b) requirement for a seven day immersion test? If the freight\ncontainer is the LSA or SCO waste package are the marking requirements discussed in\nyour A2 response abrogated?\nThank you for your assistance in clarifying the interpretation of this regulation\nSincerely, -af&ow\nPhilip ~ r a i d t","truncated":false,"body_characters":20900}