The Chlorine Institute, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration SEP 1 3 2010 Ms. Robyn Heald Director Transportation & Incident Analysis The Chlorine Institute, Inc. 1300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 525 Arlington, V A 22209 Ref. No. 10-0176 Dear Ms. Heald: This responds to your August 10, 20 I 0 request for clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). In the scenario described in your letter, the end user returns a residue chlorine cylinder or ton container to the supplier. The end user secures the closure on the package, but is not the party who prepares and provides the shipping papers, nor does he perform the pre-transportation inspection to ensure the container is suitable for shipment. Specifically, you ask if the end user is subject to the hazardous'material security plan requirements. In accordance with § 171.1(b)(4), the end user performs a pre-transportation function by securing a closure on a package or container containing a residue of a hazardous material. Also, as provided in Part 172, Subpart I of the HMR, any quantity of a material poisonous by inhalation is subject to the security plan requirements. Therefore, the hazardous materials security plan requirements apply to the end user in your scenario you describe. I hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact this office at 202-366-8553. Sincerely, ~~ Ben Supko Acting Chief, Standards Development Office ofHazardous Materials Standards#

Page 2THE CHLORINE INSTITUTE, INC. 1300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 525, Arlington, VA 22209 Phone: 703-894-4140 Fax: 703-894-4130 www.chlorineinstitute.org 73004he ~ 111.,. 3(){) 'J 173· :L9 'bewr,'~ PICUlS t6-Q 11(P August 10,2010 U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Attn: PHH-10 East Building 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Interpretation of Docket No. PHMSA-06-25885 (HM-232F) Since the Hazardous Materials Risk-Based Adjustment for Transportation Security Plan Requirements (PHMSA-06-25885) final rule was published on March 9, 2010, some organizations have questioned on whether or not users who return containers with some residue are subject under the DOT Security Plan rule. Sp.ecifi,caHy,using the example of a water treatment facility, the user returns a residue ch:IOfine cylinder or ton container to the supplier. The only pre-transportation function that ttils USeF performs is securing a closure on a package or container containing a residue (>f:haz~rdous material, as described in the HMR. The end-user is not the party who,:prepah~'s . ana "provides 'the r shippihg papers, nor does it perform the pretransportation inspection to ensure the container is suitable for shipment (both functions related to the remaining pre-transportation functions described in the HMR). In this case, would public utility users be considered "persons who offer for transportation or tr~~spC?rt certain hazardous materials in commerce" as it is defined by the HMR? CI requests that PHMSA provide an interpretation of the rule as it relates to the described scenario. With the effective date of October 1, 2010 for the final rule soon approaching, a rapid response would be much appreciated. i • .... --J!.~ "'.li :I'~-r '. ~,'. f f"t' ,~.,. - ~ '. ~~':.- " " Robyn' He lu'; ::." 't" \. ; '~" "::,' t::';.j " f~ Director, TraAsportatio'n &, fnCiderit AnaI9sfS1:; TheChlo'fine Inslitute, Inc.:" , 'i " " 103-894-4123 \ 'i'.' , " rheafd@cl2.cOrri ' " , ' 'I, _ ...,,: "",j ,- . - < ,/"~'''' '11 I ! ( '.. .' t ... \ •. " " " .. .' , ,~ ,~ .#