{"operation":"document","citation":"10-0202","title":"Office of Packaging and Transportation, and Office of Environmental Management — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-10-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"10-0202 response to Office of Packaging and Transportation, and Office of Environmental Management concerning 171.8.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0202.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0202.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0202","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2010/100202.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration OCT 1 2 2010\nMr. Stephen O'Connor\nDirector, Office ofPackaging and Transportation,\nand Office of Environmental Management\n1000 Independence A venue, SW\nU.S. Department ofEnergy\nWashington, DC 20595\nReference No. 10·0202\nDear Mr. O'Connor:\nThank you for your September 15, 2010 letter concerning a final rule we issued under Docket\nNo. PHMSA-06-25736 (HM-231; 2/2/2010) entitled \"Hazardous Materials; Miscellaneous\nPackaging Amendments\" that became effective on October 1,2010. The rule revises the\ndefinition for a bulk packaging under § 171.8 ofthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;\n49 CFR Parts 171-180) by removing the phrase \"no intermediate form ofcontainment.\" You\nasked us to restore this phrase, stating its removal will adversely impact the transportation of\nradioactive material and radioactive waste packaging by causing them to be considered bulk\npackagings that require additional hazard communication.\nYou also asked that PHMSA consider adverse impacts that may occur as the result of future\nregulatory changes to the bulk packaging definition and other matters affecting the safe\ntransportation of radioactive materials in a proposed future rulemaking to harmonize the\nHMR's transport requirements for radioactive materials with the requirements in the 2005\nedition ofthe International Atomic Energy Agency's Regulations for the Safe Transport of\nRadioactive Material (IAEA Regulations). In addition, you ask that PHMSA include the DOE\nin a timely manner in the interagency review process for all future rulemakings involving\nDOE activities.\nOn September 30, 20 I 0, we published a final rule in the Federal Register under this docket\nthat makes several editorial corrections and responds to one petition for reconsideration and\nfour appeals we received in response to the February 2 fmal rule. The petitioner and two\nappellants requested that we restore the phrase \"no intermediate form ofcontainment\" to the\nbulk packaging definition prescribed in § 171.8. In response to the petition and in agreement\nwith your request, we reinstated this phrase in the September 30 final rule, effective as of\nOctober 1,2010.\nRegarding your request for DOT involvement in PHMSA rulemaking process, PHMSA\nattempts to obtain information from various sources, including on occasion entities that may\nbe subject to and affected by the HMR. On a case by case basis, we will consider your\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nrequest to provide infonnation in a future regulatory rulemaking action. Please note we\nreceived and considered your agency's comments, available at the \"www.regulations.gov\"\nwebsite under Document Identification Number PHMSA-2006-25736-0015, in the\ndevelopment ofthe notice of proposed rule making issued under this docket.\nI-Sibaie\nAssociate dministrator Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nDepartment of Energy\nWashington, DC 20585\nSeptember 15,201 0\nMr. Magdy EI-Sibaie, PhD\nAssociate Administrator for Hazardous Material Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nEast Building Second Floor (PH)\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E ..\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nDear Mr. EI-Sibaie:\nThe United States Department ofEnergy (DOE) Office ofEnvironmental\nManagement's Office ofPackaging and Transportation is submitting this\nInteragency Memorandum to request urgent reconsideration of implementation of\nFinal Rule HM-231 as it relates to the new definition ofbulk packaging with\nregard to packages containing radioactive materials in commercial transport.\nWe have determined that the definition of\"bulk packaging\" in 49 CFR 171 is\nsignificantly different than the definition proposed in the Notice of Proposed\nRulemaking (NPRM) issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdmini$tration (PHMSA) on September 1,2006. The published change in\ndefining criteria for bulk packaging would create an adverse impact on the\ntransportation of radioactive material and radioactive waste as is supported by the\nattached analysis. We note that the International Vessel Operators Dangerous\nGoods Association and the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council have submitted\npetitions and appeals for reconsideration describing similar concerns regarding\nthe new definition of \"bulk packaging.\"\nDOE ships hazardous materials including radioactive material and waste in\nsupport of its research and development, environmental cleanup, and national\ndefense activities. During the last two fiscal years, DOE has transported 15,300\nshipments of radioactive material and waste. During the first half of FY 2010, we\nhave completed 8,000 shipments; this is a significant increase over the past 2\nyears. DOE follows or exceeds International and Federal requirements such as\nthose of the International Atomic Energy Agency (lAEA) and the Department of\nTransportation (DOT) that apply to comparable commercial shipments. The\npublished change in the bulk packaging definition would require additional\nunnecessary hazard communication, thus adding to confusion and ambiguity for\ncertain packages containing radioactive material and radioactive waste.\n®Printed with soy ink on recycled paper\n-------.--\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n\"'\nInteragency Communication - Privileged - Not Intended for Public\nDissemination\nDOE requests PHMSA to consider the potential adverse impact of the published\nchange in the criteria for bulk packaging as it relates to the transportation of\nradioactive materials and delay the effective implementation date currently\nscheduled for October 1,2010. We also ask PHMSA to consider this issue during\nthe forthcoming proposed rulemaking to harmonize DOT radioactive material\ntransport requirements with the IAEA Regulations for Safe Transport of\nRadioactive Material (TS-R-l) 2005 edition. In the future, we would like to have\nan opportunity to provide comments to you in a timely manner through the\ninteragency review process for rules that impact DOE activities.\nIf you need additional information, please contact me at (301) 903-7848, or\nMr. Ashok Kapoor of my staff at (202) 586-8307, (e-mail:\nashok.kapoor@hq.doe.gov).\nSincerely,\n~ ~h\nStephen 0' Connor\nDirector\nOffice of Packaging and Transportation\nOffice of Environmental Management\nAttachment\ncc: R. Boyle, DOTIPHMSA\nC. Betts, DOTIPHMSA\nN. Eisner, DOT/GC\nF. Marcinowski, EM-40\nA. Kapoor, EM-45\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nInteragency CommWlication - Privileged - Not Intended for Public\nDissemination\nAttachment\nAnalysis of Change in Bulk Packaging Definition Criteria on\nRadioactive Material and Waste Transportation\nThe United States Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental\nManagement's Office of Packaging and Transportation is requesting urgent\nreconsideration of implementation of Final Rule HM-231, as it relates to the new\ndefinition of bulk packaging with regard to packages containing radioactive\nmaterials in commercial transport.\nBackground\nOn September 1, 2006, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Docket .\nnumber PHMSA-06-25736 (HM-231) was published. DOE submitted comments\non the NPRM to DOT, PHMSA-06-25736-15. DOE strongly opposed the new\ndefinition ofbulk packaging. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) published the final rulemaking on February 2, 2010.\nPHMSA acknowledged the strong opposition from DOE and other commenters to\nthe proposed definitions for \"bulk packaging\" and \"non-bulk packaging\" and\ndecided not to adopt the proposed definitions in the final rule.\n:,However, significant words \"with no intermediate form ofcontainment\" were\n. omitted from the definition for bulk packaging in 49 CFR 171.8 by PHMSA\nwithout providing any opportunity for comments.\nWe also believe that rulemaking HM-231 is inconsistent with international\nstandards in that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Regulations for\nthe Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (referred to as TS-R-l) do not define\nradioactive material packaging in terms of \"bulk\" and \"non-bulk\". By delineating\nthese terms, inconsistencies arise when tryinyto apply international standards\nwithout providing any added safety benefits. In addition to the conflict between\nDepartment ofTransportation (OOT) and IAEA regulations, DOT has also issued\nan interpretation (reference number: 01-0153) in which it is stated that DOT\nviews radioactive material packaging as \"non-bulk\".\nImpact Analysis\nDOE ships hazardous materials including radioactive material, and waste in\nsupport of its research and development, environmental cleanup and national\ndefense activities. During the last two fiscal years, DOE has transported 15,300\nI We note that the International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Association and the\nDangerous Goods Advisory Council have submitted petitions and appeals for reconsideration\ndescribing similar concerns regarding the new definition of\"bulk packaging.\"\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nInteragency Communication - Privileged - Not Intended for Public\nDissemination\nshipments of radioactive material, transuranic waste, and other types of\nradioactive waste. It is DOE's policy to follow or exceed International and\nFederal requirements such as those ofthe IAEA and DOT that apply to\ncomparable commercial shipments. Therefore, DOE operations pertaining to\ncertain shipments will be significantly affected by the new definition. Several\nexamples ofthe effects are:\n1. 2. Special provisions in the Hazardous Material Table have not been\nincluded for radioactive material packages for volumetric considerations.\nFor example, venting on bulk packaging to reduce internal pressure is not\nallowed unless specifically authorized by a special provision for a\nparticular hazardous material or referenced by the applicable bulk\npackaging specification in Part 178. Many existing designs of radioactive\nmaterial packaging incorporate venting. In fact, the definition of\nradioactive material packaging in section 173.403 includes that packaging\nmay include venting and pressure relief devices. A common packaging\nutilized by DOE facilities which incorporates vents is the Type A box.\nThese boxes generally have a volume ofapproximately ninety cubic feet\nand will fall under the new definition ofbulk. Most Type A boxes used\nfor this type of material have nuclear filters as part ofthe design.\nWhen the words \" .......with no intermediate form ofcontainment,\" were\ndeleted from the rule, the status ofcertain radioactive material waste\nshipments was changed. For example, the high activity Type B\npackagings in use by the DOE for transporting radioactive transuranic\nmixed waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the TRUPACT-II,\nHalfPACT, and RH -TRU 72B cask became bulk packages. These\npackagings are doubly contained. Previously these packages were\nconsidered non-bulk and marking, labeling, and placarding was done\naccording to applicable DOT regulations. The TRUPACT-II is 6009 liters\n(1,587.41 gallons), the HalfPACT 3,972 liters (1,049.29 gallons), and the\nRH-TRU 72 B 1,460 liters (385.69 gallons). Now classified as bulk, this\nrequires a major change in marking, labeling, and placarding of these\npackages for shipment. The DOE estimates about 1200 shipments in FY\n2011 using the TRUPACT-ll's and HalfPACTs. The new rule will require\n12 additional markings per shipment for a total of 14,400 additional labels\nin FY 2011. The labels will require about 30 minutes per shipment to\ninstall and about 1 hour to remove because to ship empty requires removal\nofthe package marking. At least 4 of the labels on each shipment will not\nbe normally visible. The total cost of this change to the TRU waste\nshipping program is expected to be about $300,000 per year without any\nadditional safety benefit. The bulk of the cost is due to the repair of\ndamage to the protective coatings on the packagings caused by taking\nlabels off. The TRU waste campaign will be completed in 2030. We\nexpect similar cost impacts on certain other shipments ofType B\npackages.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nInteragency Communication - Privileged Not Intended for Public\nDissemination\n3. Communication requirements are further confused with this definition\nchange. Another example is the shipment ofthe low activity radioactive\nwaste in certain Type A or Industrial Packaging when the new bulk\ndefinition is applied. Placarding is only required for Radioactive Yellow\nIII packages and those shipped in accordance with § 173.427 (b) (4) and\n(5) [and (c)]. Two recent interpretations, Reference numbers 09-0231 and\n10-001 highlighted this confusion. The interpretations indicate that for\n\"bulk\" radioactive material packages shipped in accordance with §\n173.427 (b) (4) or (5) a placard is required for both the package and the\ntransport vehicle. Packaging once considered non-bulk is now considered\nbulk with the new definition. The preface of § 172.504 (a) specifies that a\nplacard is required in accordance to Table 1 for \" ... bulk packaging ... \". In\naddition, § 173.427 (a) (6) (v) requires the transport vehicle to be\nplacarded in accordance with subpart F ofpart 172. The additional\nplacarding requirement has caused considerable repetition for placarding\nfor these types of shipments. For example: using the current loading\nconfiguration of 90 cubic foot metal boxes, which would meet the\nproposed definition of bulk, sixteen can be loaded on a 53' flat bed truck.\nIf all are shipped in accordance with § 173.427 (b) (4), one ofthe most\nutilized paragraphs for this type of shipment, the shipment would have 36\nplacards. The addition of placarding requirements on the package is an\nadded cost in regard to personnel time and material costs with no\nadditional safety or communication benefit.\nIn general, DOE has treated radioactive material packages as non-bulk in\naccordance with the aforementioned interpretation and the DOT definition of\n\"intermediate packaging\". The DOT regulations for marking, labeling, and\nplacarding all have specific sections to address the unique nature of radioactive\nmaterials. International regulations for marking and labeling are consistent with\nDOT \"non-bulk\" requirements. For example, international standards require that\nthe proper shipping name and identification number proceeded by the letters\n\"UN\" be marked on radioactive material packages. However, under DOT bulk\nmarking requirements, these are not required. Thus, imposing bulk requirements\non radioactive material packages creates inconsistency with international\nstandards.\nThe flow-down oflAEA requirements into the U.S. domestic and international\nregulations is well recognized. According to the Regulatory Agenda, PHMSA\nand the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plan to issue a Notice of\nProposed Rulemaking to harmonize DOT radioactive material transport\nrequirements with the 2005 edition of IAEA Regulations for Safety Transport of\nRadioactive Material (TS-R-I) sometime this year. Therefore, we recommend\nthat PHMSA consider this issue in that proposed rulemaking.\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n\"\"\nInteragency Communication - Privileged - Not Intended for Public\nDissemination\nConclusions\nChanging the definition ofbulk packaging will have consequences that DOT has\nyet to consider in totality relating to all types ofhazardous materials. We urgently\nrequest DOT fully consider all consequences and inconsistencies that changing\nthis definition will create prior to implementation of the bulk packaging definition\nto certain radioactive material packages. We also request a delay in\nimplementation of the bulk packaging definition for radioactive material\npackaging and ask PHMSA to consider this issue during the forthcoming\nproposed rule making to hannonize domestic regulations with the IAEA\nRegulations for Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (TS-R-I) 2005 edition.\n4\n--_._--_.._--_...\n__._\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nDepartment of Energy\nWashington. DC 20585\nDocket Management System\nU.s. Department ofTransportation\n400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room PL 402\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nTo Whom It May Concern:\nThe purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the September l, 2006,\nnotice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), \"Hazardous A4aterial; Miscellaneous\nPackaging Amem;l.ments,\" Docket Number PHMSA-06-25736 (HM-23I ). This\nNPRM proposes to make miscellaneous amendments including those intended to\nclarify certain regulatory requirements specific to bulk and non-bulk packaging.\nWe will provide you the following comments relatcd to your proposed changes to\nbulk or non-bulk packaging, hazard communication and shipper's responsibility\nwith regard to documentation requirements:\nI. Proposed revisions/clarifications to definitions of bulk or non-bulk\npackaging\nThe Department of Energy (DOE) is concerned about the adverse impact of the .\nfollowing proposed revisions/dari fication to the definition of bulk and non-bulk\npackaging tor Hazardous Class 7, radioactive material. The proposed changes do\nnot clarify current requirements associated with bulk or non-bulk packaging (e.g.,\nsteel boxes) used in the transportation of radioactive material and radioactive\nwaste but further add confusion and ambiguity.\nThe NPRM proposes the following definitions for radioactive material (RAM)\npackaging:\nBulk packaging means:\n(3) Any Industrial Packaging, Type A, Type B. Intermediate Bulk Container,\nLarge Packllging, or non-specification packaging that has a volumetric capacity\nafgreater than 450 L (119 gallons).\nNon-bulk packaging means:\n(3) Any Indus/rial Packaging, Type A, Type B, Intermediate Bulk Container.\nLarge Packaging, or non-specification packaging that has a volumetric capacity\nof./50 liters (119 gal/ons) or less.\nDOE is opposed to classifying Hazard Class 7 radioactive material and\nradioactive waste packages in a bulk or non-bulk category based on internal\nvolumetric capacity because it is meaningless and doesn't reduce any risk to\nworkers, emergency responders, the public and environment. For example: The\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\n2\nstainless steel Calitornium shipping packaging is ofspherical shape consisting of\ntwo, Y.z -inch thick, 66-inch diameter hemispherical heads joined by a 6-inch\ncylindrical section, that has internal cylindrical containment volume capacity of\n0.025 cubic feet (liters) to hold a maximum of85 milligrams ofradioactive\ncontent consisting of Californium-252. The outer containment shell volume of\nthe packaging is 87.0 cubic feet. Based on proposed definition in the NPRM, this\npackage could be classified as bulk or non-bulk, depending upon how \"volumetric\ncapacity\" is interpreted. However, regardless of bulk or non-bulk classification,\nthe package is a Type B package designed and tested to the performance based\nrequirements commensurate with the risk imposed by the amount of Californium\nactivity authorized in the package. Theretore, bulk or non-bulk packaging\ncJassiiication for Type A and Type B packaging is deceptive for the Class 7\nmaterial.\nAnother example: The TRUPACT II, a Type B stainless steel shipping container\noverpack that allows for up to (14) 55-gallon drums oftransuranic waste to be\nshipped. The package is a right outside circular cylinder with outside dimensions\nof approximately 94 inches in diameter and 122 inches in height. Within the\nouter cylinder, there is an inner cylinder with a volumetric capacity of\napproximately 1,725 gallons or 230 cubic teet. Based upon more than a single\ninner drum, this will be a bulk packaging. As such, it will lose a significant\namount of hazard communication under the proposed classification for these\nhighly visible shipments oftransuranic waste .\n. Moreover, the proposed volumetric capacity based packaging classitjcation also\ncontradicts the Department ofTransportation (DOT),s current efforts to\nharmonize domestic regulations with the International Atomic Energy Agency\n(IAEA) \"RegulationsJor the SaJe Transport <?lRadioactive Material (TS-R-l}.\"\nPresently, during transport, the RAM packaging (Industrial Packaging. Type A.\nand Type B) provide the primary protection based on a graded approach that has\nbeen applied in the DOT and IAEA's regulations to ensure the required level of\npackage pertormance (through design, testing. multiple layers a/material\nconfinement. marking. labeling. etc.) that are commensurate with the potential\nhazard presented by the contents of the package. The placement of these\npackages in a bulk or non-bulk category is inconsistent with international\nregulations and particularly not meaningful tor RAM because of the added\nconfusion in packaging testing and marking requirements. Some instances of\nparticular concern are the following:\nRadioactive Materials\n• Because the intermediate containment statement has been removed from\nthe proposed bulk packaging definition, these packagings would require\nfewer hazardous communication information markings including\nreportable quantity indication, proper shipping name and shipper's name\nand address.\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\n3\n• Under 173.24(g), venting on bulk packaging is allowed if authorized by a\nspecial provision. There are no special provisions which allow\nradioactive material packaging to be vented. Many packagings exist for\nradioactive material that are vented and are, in fact, required for some\npackaging per the design, testing and certitication but this would not be\nlisted in a Special Provisions.\n• For low-specific activity (LSA) material, 173.427 (b) (4) specities that the\npackaging conform to I 73.24(a) (non~bulk). Most LSA packaging will be\nbulk by the new definition. This is a contradiction in the regulations and\nwould need to be resolved.\n• Which design elements constitute a new or different design for radioactive\npackagings (e.g., lndustrial, Type A, and Type B packagings) such that\ntesting and engineering evaluations will be required to prove compliance?\nFor UN packagings, \"A Different Packaging\" is clearly defined in\n178.601(c)(4), but no similar guidance is provided for radioactive\npackagings.\n• Without performing an engineering evaluation and in order to physical1y\nprove compliance to173.410 (t) for a new or different design ofa bulk\nradioactive packaging, what are the testing criteria that should be used?\nThere is no stated reference for bulk packagings to a vibration\nstandard/test in 1 73.24b as exist for non-bulk packagings in\nI 73.24a(a)(5).\n• There are some restrictions placed on non-bulk/bulk packaging which are\nnot compatible with radioactive material (i.e. filling limils on non-bulk\npackagingjor liqUids refers 10 the specific gravity within the UN\nmarking). For example, in accordance with I 73.24a (b)( 1) an authorized\nType A, non-bulk packaging that does not have UN markings would have\nlimits for specific gravity of 1.2. Another example would be for an\nauthorized Type A packaging with a tested gross weight of 120 pounds\nlhat is also UN-marked for 90 pound could only be loaded to 90 pounds\nper 173.24a (b)(2). (This also appears in the hulk section. but references\nthe specification plate which Type A packagings do 110t have).\nNon Radioactive Hazardolls Material\nThe following concerns are related to non radioactive hazardous materials:\n• Limitations on certain specification packaging volume will impact some\npackaging already in existence at DOE sites. This packaging will have to\nundergo additional requirements ifdetermined to be a \"Large Packaging\".\n• Manufacturers may also be confused when a limit (119 gallons) is placed\non steel boxes which are UN specification packaging.\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\n• Large packagings are indicated for PG III material unless specifically\nauthorized for PG II or III. When will they be authorized?\n• Bulk packaging stacking only allowed when tested and designated.\nHowever, there is not a marking requirement except for \"Large\npackaging\" which shows the stack strength. How will this be\ncommunicated to transporters?\nII. Hazard Communication\nThere would be less hazard communication for the majority of high-level waste,\nlow-level waste and spent fuel shipments under the proposed rule. For example,\nin case ofTRUPACT II as a bulk shipping package under the proposed definition,\nthe package would lose some present hazard communication requirements such\nas: marking ofreportable quantity, proper shipping name, and shipper's name and\naddress. This may result in not only confusion, but extensive re-training of\nworkers and tirst emergency responders. This change will be very costly, and\nwith arguably less safe than what is currently provided by present regulations.\nDOE supports marking, labeling and placarding requirements for radioactive\nmaterial packages; therefore requirements should be consistent with the IAEA '5\nregulations (TS-R-l). The following is our specific concern with the proposed\nnew requirement tor drum marking;\nDrum Marking\nPresently, tor drums with a gross mass of more than 30 kg (66 pounds), the\nmarkings or duplicate thereot~ must appear on the top or on a side of the drum. In\nthis NPRM, the DOT proposes to allow a lesser design standard (e.g., PG II) on\nthe side or top marking than that which is required on the bottom (PG I) of the\ndrum. The bottom marking must be of a permanent type.\nThis proposed change creates confusion, reduces safety and increases cost. If the\npackaging is loaded with hazardous material that required a container meeting\nPG I and that marking is on ly at the bottom, then based on the side/top view of\nlesser standard marking, any handler or inspector would believe the hazard\nmaterial is improperly packaged and could result in additional handling of the\npackage. An inspection of the bottom of the packaging would require additional\nhandling of the package and increase in cost. This would also expose the\ninspector and material handler(s) to additional occupation hazards.\nThe present drum marking requirements are much safer and make more sense\nthan the proposed changes in the NPRM.\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\n5\nIII. Shipper's Responsibility-Documents Retention Requirements\nThis NRPM proposes to revise the shipper's responsibilities in Sec. 173.22(a)(4)\nto include the requirement to maintain a copy of the manufacturer notification,\nclosure instructions. and supporting documentation for variations in selective\ntesting of combination packaging for 375 days after offering the package for\ntransportation.\nIn general DOE supports this additional shipper requirement to ensure that the\nnecessary document retention closure instructions and supporting test documents\nare available and used. The NPRM is appropriate when shipping certain\npackages, e.g. non-bulk boxes or drums. However, the proposed rulemaking\nrequires clarification. For example how does the DOT intend tor this ruiemaking\nto apply to gas cylinders, cargo tanks, or portable tanks?\nVariation Docllmentation Requirements\nIn the preamble, a documentation requirement for variation packaging showing\nequivalence is discussed. The requirement in the preamble appears to only apply\nto variation 1. However, with the 173.22 (a) (4) changes, it appears that all\nvariation packaging will have to show equivalence by a documented method.\nHow detailed will the shipper documentation need to be (i.e., will inner container\nsizes need to be described. a 112 liter bottle instead (~f a I liter bottle even though\nthe box clearLy indicates a variation packaging)? We suggest DOT simplify\nvariation document requirements to keep document retention costs at a minimum.\nIfyou have any questions, please contact me at (202) 586-8548 or Ashok Kapoor\nof my office at (202) 586-8307.\nSincerely,\nDennis Ashworth\nDirector tor Office of Transportation\nEnvironmental Management\ncc:\nDae Chung\nAshok Kapoor","truncated":false,"body_characters":27627}