{"operation":"document","citation":"10-0184","title":"Baker Petrolite Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-10-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"10-0184 response to Baker Petrolite Corporation concerning 173.29, 173.6.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0184.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0184.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0184","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2010/100184.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nOCT 2 1 2010\nMr. Aubrey Campbell\nSenior Transportation Specialist\nBaker Petro lite Corporation\n12645 West Airport Boulevard\nSugar Land, TX 77478\nRef. No.: 10-0184\nDear Mr. Campbell:\nThis responds to your August 31, 2010 request for clarification of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). According to your letter and subsequent telephone\nconversation with a member of my staff, you transport coiled tubing containing residual amounts of a\nClass 3 material, in Packing Group III. You indicate that the tubing holds 10 gallons at the most, but\nthe tubing and spool weigh over 1000 pounds. Specifically, you ask ifthe completed package would\nmeet the requirements of § 173.6.\nBased on the infonnation provided, the gross weight and capacity ofthe completed package is above\nthe limits for MOTs provided in § 173.6(a)(l)(ii) (66 pounds or 8 gallons). Therefore, you may not\nuse the MOTs exception.\nYou may wish to pursue transporting the packaging configuration you describe under § 173.29.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\n{l/Pl ~#...--\nBen Supko\nActing Chief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nBaker Petro6te ••• BAKI.\nHUGHIS\n12645 West Airport Blvd.\nSugar Land, Texas 77478\nP. o. Box5050\nSugar Land, Texas 77487-5050\nTel 281-276-S400\nTel 281·275·7282\nAugust 31, 2010\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Staridards\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,\nAttn: PHH-IO\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nEast Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nRe: Letter of Interpretation\nDear Office ofHazardous Materials Standards:\nBaker Petro lite Corporation (BPC) requests a letter of interpretation regarding the packaging\nprovisions in Title 49 Code ofFederal Regulation (CFR) Part 173.6(b) Materials ofTrade\n(MOT).\nBPC operates as private motor carrier under US DOT # 312743. During well drilling operations,\nwe flush Flammable liquid, n.o.S., PG III through metal tubing into the wellhead (see photo of\ncoiled tubing). After operations, we retrieve the tubing from the well and coiled it on a spool.\nThe coiled tubing contains residual amounts (approximately three gallons) ofthe product.\nPresently, we have no means to completely flush the product out ofthe coiled tubing.\nWe reviewed the MOT provision as a means to transport the coiled spool with residual\nflammable liquid back to our facilities for disposal ofthe product. Our concern is the MOT\npackaging provision, where it states, \"Each material must be packaged in the manufacturer's\noriginal packaging, or a packaging of equal or greater strength and integrity.\"\nWe ensure the metal tubing is leak-proofed by capping both ends with shut offdevices and we\nbelieve the metal tubing is of equal or greater strength and integrity of original packagings.\nPlease provide us an interpretation regarding this issue to help us promote the safe transportation\nofhazardous materials by highway.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>","truncated":false,"body_characters":3203}