{"operation":"document","citation":"13-0083","title":"Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2013-07-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"13-0083 response to Shane Havoc Consulting, LLC concerning 178.509.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0083.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0083.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0083","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2013/130083.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJUL 2 6 Z013\nMr. Gregory Sutherland, Ph.D.\nShane Havoc Consulting, LLC\n1905 English Ivy Ct.\nMount Pleasant, SC 29464\nRef. No. 13-0083\nDear Mr. Sutherland:\nThis responds to your April 14, 2013 letter regarding the packaging standards for plastic\ndrums and jerricans under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-\n180). You request clarification of the standards in § 178.509(b )( 1) and (2) associated with\nprotection against ultra-violet (UV) radiation for plastic material used in the construction of\nthese packagings. You indicate that you would like to use 1 H 1 plastic drums or 3 H 1\nplastic jerricans constructed of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic. Furthermore,\nyou indicate these single-use packagings would be used in a \"closed supply chain\" with no\noutdoor storage or use. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQl. Does the§ 178.509(b)(l) requirement for the packaging (i.e., the material of\nconstruction) to be adequately resistant to the aging and degradation effects of UV\nradiation apply only to those plastic materials that are affected by UV radiation?\nA 1. Yes. If a plastic material is not adequately resistant to the effects of UV radiation,\nit must be protected against UV radiation by addition of carbon black, or other suitable\npigment or inhibitor, to the composition of the plastic material, in accordance with\n§ 178.509(b)(2).\nQ2. Is the § 178 .509(b )(I) requirement dependent on exposure of the packaging to UV\nradiation during the course of its use in hazardous material service? Meaning, if a\npackage is constructed of plastic material affected by UV radiation but it is protected\nagainst exposure to UV radiation by being filled, stored, and used indoors and\ntransported in closed containers or vehicles, is it excepted from the requirement of\n§ 178.509(b )(2)?\nA2. No. The § 178.509(b )( 1) requirement for the packaging to be resistant to UV\nradiation is specific to the material of construction. The requirement is not dependent\non the degree to which a packaging may be exposed to UV radiation during the course\nof its use in hazardous material service.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nNote that as an alternative, you may wish to apply for a special permit in accordance with\n49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B. A special permit allows a person to perform a function not\notherwise permitted by regulation under the HMR. Section 107.105 explains how to apply\nfor a special permit.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.\nSincerely,\nRobert Benedict\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nShane Havoc Consulting, LLC\n1905 English Ivy Ct.\nMount Pleasant, SC 29464\nPhone: (843) 849-1463 Fax: (561) 423-3907\nApril14, 2013\nU.S. DOT\nPHMSA Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nAttn: PHH-10\nEast Building\n1200 New Jersey A venue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nTo: Delmer Billings, Sr. Reg. Advisor\nI am writing to you with regards to obtaining an official interpretation of the intent\nof the regulations detailed in 49 CFR 178.509 (b)(1) & (b)(2). The mandatory\nrequirement for the use of UV protection in plastic packages is unclear as written.\nWas the intent that since the regulation refers to plastic packagings in general\nand there are many types of plastic material that can be used; that only those\nplastic types affected by UV radiation are mandated to use UV protection? (As an\nexample HOPE plastic is affected by UV after prolonged exposure.)\nOr is the requirement for the use of UV protection dependent on the exposure of\npackagings to UV radiation in the supply chain. (As an example; if a package is\nfilled I stored I transported I used inside either buildings or closed transport\nequipment, there is negligible UV exposure.) I have attached a NEMA report that\nindicates an 8 hr day in a lighted interior area is equivalent to 1 min of sun\nexposure.\nI have reviewed the DOT website interpretation section and can find no prior\nofficial review of this section.\nThe packaging application that I would like to use is a 3H1 or 1 H1 HOPE\npackage, without UV protection, in a closed supply chain with no outside storage\nor use. This container would be a marked for single use only. Technically this\nshould not compromise safety in transport or use.\nThank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your response.\nSincerely\nGregory Sutherland Ph.D. (DGSA\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nLSD 7-1999\nSetting Standards for Excellence\nA NEMA Lighting Systems Division Document\nUltraviolet Radiation From\nFluorescent Lamps\nPrepared by\nLamp Section\nNational Electrical Manufacturers Association\n1300 North 17'h Street, Suite 1847\nRosslyn, VA 22209\nMay 4, 1999\nThe requirements or guidelines presented in this document, a NEMA Ughting Systems Division white paper, are\nconsidered technically sound at the time they are approved for publication. They are not a substitute for a product seller's\nor user's own judgment with respect to the particular product discussed, and NEMA does not undertake to guarantee the\nperformance of any individual manufacturer's products by virtue of this document or guide. Thus, NEMA expressly\ndisclaims any responsibility for damages arising from the use, application, or reliance by others on the information\ncontained in these white papers, standards, or guidelines.\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nLSD 7-1999\nULTRA VIOLET RADIATION FROM FLUORESCENT LAMPS\nIn recent years the popular press has reported various scientific studies on\npossible effects of skin exposure to light sources. This interest has been stimulated by the\nfacts that (1) most light sources emit some small amount of ultraviolet (UV) energy, and\n(2) extended exposure to the high UV levels in sunlight can causes adverse effects in the\nskin. Unfortunately, such brief summaries of technical subjects without either details or\nfollow-up can cause undue concern among the public about indoor lighting.\nMelanoma, the malignant form of skin cancer, has had increasing incidence over\nthe past half century. Considerable research on causes of melanoma has looked at\npossible links with factors of modem life-style that have changed over the same period of\ntime. In the early 1980's a suggestion was made that fluorescent lighting might be a\ncause of melanoma, but this suggestion could not be substantiated. In 1988, an\ninternational scientific review1 concluded that \"the available evidence does not support\nthe existence of any substantial association between melanoma risk and exposure to\nfluorescent lighting.\" This conclusion stands today.\nThe two most common kinds of skin cancer are the non melanoma skin cancers2\n,\nbasal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). These are slow\ngrowing cancers that seldom spread to other parts of the body. Nevertheless, treatment is\nessential because, as reference (2) points out, \"[i]t is encouraging to know that skin\ncancer is now almost 100 percent curable if found early and treated promptly.\" BCC\naccounts for more than 90 percent of all skin cancers in the United States. In a recent\npublication, Lytle et al.3 of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (FDA) report\nthat studies \"indicate that sec results from long-term chronic solar uv exposure,\nwhereas solar UV exposure after age 10 may not contribute to BCC.\"\n2\n·----------------\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nLSD 7-1999\nOn this basis, one could expect that the small contribution ofUV due to indoor\nlighting will not be a major health concern. Lytle et al.3 addressed this by surveying 58\nfluorescent lamp types for UV emission. Using these data, the UV exposure at typical\noffice light levels was calculated for luminaires using large grid parabolic louvers that did\nnot block UV. This estimated indoor UV exposure during one eight hour workday is\nequivalent to just over a minute of midday solar exposure on a clear July day in\nWashington, D.C. While there are different ways to interpret the UV due to fluorescent\nlighting, they all rely on a variety of assumptions. This comparison of the full day indoor\nexposure to roughly one-minute of outdoor exposure clearly conveys the relative\ninsignificance of the UV from fluorescent lamps. In addition, many luminaire types and\nlighting techniques (enclosed luminaires, indirect lighting, etc.) will further reduce or\neliminate the small amount of UV emitted from the fluorescent lamps.\nIn 1998 Driscoll and Pearson4 of the National Radiological Protection Board\n(U.K.) reviewed the relation ofUV from fluorescent lighting to skin cancers and\npresented results from new studies. Quoting from the summary, \"[t]herefore, it is\nconcluded that at commonly used illumination levels the measured UVR [ultraviolet\nradiation] emissions from fluorescent lighting do not present an acute or a significant\nchronic hazard.\"\n1 \"Malignant Melanoma and Fluorescent Lighting,\" CIE-Journal, 7:29 (1988)\n2 \"What You Need To Know About Skin Cancer,\" National Cancer Institute, NIH Publication No.\n90-1564 (1989)\n3 C. Lytle, W. Cyr, J. Beer, S. Miller, R. James, R. Landry, M. Jacobs, R. Kaczmarek, C.\nSharkness, D. Gaylor, F. Gruijl, and J. van der Leun, \"An Estimation of Squamous Cell\nCarcinoma Risk from Ultraviolet Radiation Emitted by Fluorescent Lamps,\" Photodermatol\nPhotoimmunol Photomed 1992/1993, 9:268 (1993)\n4 C. Driscoll and A. Pearson, \"Ultraviolet Radiation from Fluorescent Lamps for General Lighting,\"\nCroner's Occupational Hygiene Magazine, June/July, p.S (1998)\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":9598}