{"operation":"document","citation":"13-0231","title":"Universal Well Services, Inc — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2014-06-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"13-0231 response to Universal Well Services, Inc concerning 171.4, 171.8, 172.101, 172.203, 172.800.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0231.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0231.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0231","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2013/130231.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMaterials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous\nAdministration\n'JUN 1 O 2014\nMr. Tom Cloud and\nMs. Janelle Agnew\nUniversal Well Services, Inc.\n18360 Technology, Box 4\nMeadville, PA 16335\nReference No. 13-0231\nDear Mr. Cloud and Ms. Agnew:\nThis is in response to Mr. Cloud's letter postmarked November 19, 2013, the February 14, 2014\ntelephone conversation in which you both spoke with a member of my staff, and Ms. Agnew's\nFebruary 26, 2014 e-mail and attachments requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to transportation security plans. You state\nyour company's employees transport certain hazardous materials by motor vehicle in non-bulk\nand bulk packages when they travel from site to site to service oil and gas wells to facilitate their\ncontinued safe operation. We have paraphrased your questions and answered them in the order\nyou provided.\nQ1. Do materials that meet the definition of a Division 6.1 (poisonous) \"material poisonous-\nby-inhalation,\" as this term is defined in § 171.8, require a security plan prescribed in\n§ 172.800(b)(5) when placed in commercial transportation?\nAl.\nYes. Each person who offers for transportation in commerce or transports in commerce\none or more of the hazardous materials listed in § 172.800(b), including if the material is\na subsidiary hazard, must develop and adhere to a transportation security plan for\nhazardous materials that conforms to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart I.\n• Q2.\nIn her e-mail, Ms. Agnew provided a list of 20 materials, material safety data sheets\n(MSDS) for 4 materials on the list and 5 materials not on the list, and packaging\ninformation for 14 of these materials. She also inserted question marks and blank spaces\nin the table to denote materials not currently transported by your company, and packaging\nweights or volumes that are unknown. You ask if these materials require a security plan\nunder the HMR.\nA2.\nFor some of these materials the answer is yes depending on their hazard class, amount per\npackage, and packing group, as prescribed in § 172.800(b). The HMR's security plan\nrequirements, prescribed in 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart I, are designed to enhance through\ntraining the security of certain highly hazardous materials transported in commerce. The\nlist of materials subject to these requirements is based on an evaluation of the security\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nthreats associated with a material's type and degree of hazard and quantity, as well as\nterms specifically defined in 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart I. For example, § 172.800(b)\ndefines a \"large bulk packaging,\" as it applies to that section, as a quantity greater than\n3,000 kg (6,614 pounds) for solids or 3,000 L (792 gallons) for liquids and gases in a\nsingle bulk packaging. Also, § 172.800(b)(5) requires a security plan for any quantity of\na Division 6.1 material in one packaging that is poisonous-by-inhalation. The table\nbelow shows how the HMR's in-depth security plan requirements apply to the hazardous\nmaterials you inquired about.\nNo.\nHazard Class &\nSecurity Plan Needed\nSection\nPacking Group\nReference\na) 8 - PG II & III\nNo, this is not a PG I, Class 8 material\n§ 172.800(b)(16)\nb)\n8, 3 - PG II\n2\na) 8, 3 - PG II\nYes, if the Class 3 material is a PG (I\n§ 172.800(b)(6)\nb) 3 - PG II\nor) II material is in one packaging in a\nc) 3, 6.1 - PG II\nlarge bulk quantity\nd) 6.1, 3 - PG II\n3\n5.1 - PG II\nYes, if the PG II, Division 5.1 material\n§ 172.800(b) (10)\nis in one packaging in a large bulk\nquantity\n4\n5.1 - PG III\nNo, because this is not a PG I or II,\n§ 172.800(b)(10)\nDivision 5.1 material\n5\na) 3, 6.1 - PG II\nYes, if the Division 6.1 material is in\n§ 172.800(b)(12)\nb) 6.1,3 - PG II\none packaging in a large bulk quantity\nc) 6.1 - PG III\n6\n2.1\nYes, if the Division 2.1 material is in\n§ 172.800(b)(3)\none packaging in a large bulk quantity\nQ3.\nIs the material with the product name \"EC6116A\" a marine pollutant? The ingredients\nlisted in its MSDS are not named on the \"List of Marine Pollutants\" table prescribed in\n§ 172.101, Appendix B. If EC6116A is a marine pollutant, is it correct for us to include\nthe wording \"Marine Pollutant\" in association with the proper shipping name when we\ntransport this material by motor vehicle in a bulk packaging?\nA3.\nThe answer is yes to both questions. The MSDS you provided for EC6116A states in a\nnote in Item 14 that this material is a marine pollutant. Further, the HMR require that a\nbulk package containing a \"marine pollutant,\" as defined in § 171.8, is subject to the\nrequirements for marine pollutants prescribed in § 171.4 when offered for transportation\nor transported in any mode. Therefore, for a marine pollutant in a bulk packaging the\nwords \"Marine Pollutant\" must be entered on a shipping paper in association with the\nbasic description as prescribed in § 172.203(1)(2). However, please note that if this\nmaterial is placed in a non-bulk package, it is subject to regulation as a marine pollutant\nonly when it is offered for transportation or transported by vessel. See § 171.4(c).\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nQ4.\nHow do you determine if a material is a marine pollutant when its ingredients are not\nlisted in the marine pollutant table prescribed in § 172.101, Appendix B?\nA4.\nThe List of Marine Pollutants Table in § 172.101, Appendix B, lists potential marine\npollutants based on the provisions of Annex III of the 1973 International Convention for\nPrevention of Pollution from Ships, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (Marine\nPollution (MARPOL) 73/78) (see § 171.4(b)). The list is not all inclusive. If a material\nis not listed in this table and meets the criteria for a marine pollutant as provided in\nChapter 2.9 of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, the material\nmay be transported as a marine pollutant in conformance with the applicable\nrequirements of the HMR (see § 172.101, Appendix B, paragraph 4). Further, a material\nor solution that meets the definition of a marine pollutant in § 171.8 of the HMR but does\nnot meet the criteria for a marine pollutant as provided in Sections 2.9.3.3 and 2.9.3.4 of\nthe IMDG Code may be excepted from the requirements of the HM as a marine\npollutant if that exception is approved by Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration's Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety (see § 172.101,\nAppendix B, paragraph 5).\nI hope this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\nAllen stor\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nEdmonson\n$172.800\nsecurity, 3-0231\nPlans\nHAZMAT SECURITY PLAN REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FROM PHMSA - HAZMAT SECURITY\nPLAN.\nUniversal Well Services, Inc. transports hazardous material with a subsidiary hazard class of 6.1.\nDoes a subsidiary hazard class have to be considered when determining if a Hazmat Security Plan is\nrequired by regulation?\nWe have received varying responses to this question.\nTom CLOUD\nUNIVERSAL WELL SERVICES, INC.\n18360 TECHNOLOGY, BOx 4\nMEADVILLE, PA. 16335\nOFFICE: 814-373-3251\nCELL: 724-866-2044","truncated":false,"body_characters":7164}