Transportation Compliance Associates, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 MAR 1 9 2014 Mr. Mike Alston Owner/General Manager Transportation Compliance Associates, Inc. 1340 RT 30 Clinton, PA 15026 Ref. No.: 14-0014 Dear Mr. Alston: This is in response to your email dated January 16,2014, requesting clarification ofthe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CPR Parts 171-180) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code applicable to shipments of polymeric beads, expandable and plastics molding compound in ventilated freight containers, and security concerns for shipments being transported in freight containers utilizing one door off operation. In your email you include an informal email correspondence from a member of my staff and ask for a more formal-letter of interpretation from this office. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows: Q 1. Are the standard passive ventilation systems (two to four small vents along only the top side rails of a freight container) in freight containers considered ventilated containers as referenced in§ 176.907(a) and special provision 965 ofthe IMDG Code. AI. The answer to your question is no. When transported in cargo transport units polymeric beads, expandable and plastics molding compounds are required by§ 176.907(a) and special provision 965 of the IMDG Code to be transported in cargo transport units that provide an adequate exchange of air in the unit to prevent the build-up of an explosive atmosphere. One of the listed examples to achieve this adequate exchange of air is the use of a ventilated container. Unfortunately the term ventilated container is not a term defined in either 49 CPR or the IMDG Code. However, the ventilation that you are describing (2 or 4 passive vents at the top of the container) would not be considered an adequate exchange of air to prevent the build-up of an explosive atmosphere as required by both 49 CPR § 176.907(a) and SP 965 ofthe IMDG Code. The small passive vents you describe have little to no ventilation effect, and mainly equalize pressure differentials on opening and closing of containers. The pentane vapors potentially given off during transport are heavier than air. In our opinion, passive vents only along the top side rails are not sufficient to provide an adequate exchange of air in cargo transport units. Q2. Section 176.907(a) lists a container in one door off operation as one of the methods of achieving an adequate exchange of air in the cargo transport unit. How is a freight container in one door off operation viewed and handled from a security standpoint?#

Page 2A2. This office is unaware of any HMR security requirements that a cargo transport unit in one door off operation would be in conflict with. The United States Coast Guard Hazardous Materials Division notes that a freight container transported by vessel in one door off operation is viewed and handled, from a security standpoint, in compliance with the vessel's security plan requirements. I trust this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, >:v~"~ Duane A. Pfund International Standards Coordinator Standards and Rulemaking Division#

Page 3Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Lehman, Victoria CTR (PHMSA) Friday, January 17,2014 1:17PM Drakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA) FW: 49 CFR 176.907 lnterpretaion request 070155.pdf V.€sse~ ~ I M bG Code· l4-0DIY. Hi Carolyn, This caller requested we submit this e-mail as a formal letter of interpretation. Thanks, Victoria From: Mike Alston [mailto:Mike.Aiston@hazmat-l.com] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:06PM To: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Subject: 49 CFR 176.907 Interpretaion request Dear PHMSA: Can you help interpret the regulations in 49 CFR 176.907 and the new IMDG SP965. I recently contacted the DOT hotline on behalf of my customer and asked if passive vents on a shipping container were considered adequate ventilation. I was directed to the attached interpretation letter #07-0155 dated October 16, 2007 which indicates that that "natural vents" or vents that are not power generated are adequate and may be used to vent a shipping container of dangerous gases. I contacted my customer to provide them the information I received which appeared to clear up any doubts we may have had regarding ventilation. My customer then presented me with a unofficial but very credible note that they had received through one of their customers which states the following: From: Webb, Steven (PHMSA) Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 10:30 AM Subject: RE: Special Permits Feedback: Other Questions? Thank you for the question. You correctly note that PHMSA harmonized the transport requirements for shipments of plastics molding compound and polymeric beads (UN 3314 and UN 2214) with the IMDG Code in a recent rulemaking (HM 215-L). This change was made to prevent the buildup of dangerous pentane gases in freight containers. PHMSA created § 176.907 to be consistent with IMDG Code special provision 965. The transport of plastics molding compounds and polymeric beads in cargo transport units require an adequate exchange of air in the unit. Multiple options for achieving this adequate exchange of air are given; ventilated container, open-top container, or a container in one door off operation. There are is also the option to offer these materials in refrigerated cargo transport units. Further, an exception from the adequate exchange of air within the cargo transport unit requirement is provided if the substances are; packed in hermetically sealed packages or IBC's conforming to the PG II performance level for liquid dangerous goods, and the marked hydraulic test pressure exceeds 1.5 times the total gauge pressure in the packagings or ISS's at 55 degrees c. From looking at your question below it appears you would not like to utilize the packaging methods outlined above (which would provide an exception from the requirement to transport in a ventilated or refrigerated transport unit), and request clarification as to if a freight container with two (or 4) small passive vents would qualify as a ventilated container under the provisions of 49 CFR § 176.907 and or SP 965 of the IMDG Code. Unfortunately the term ventilated container is not a 1#

Page 4term defined in either 49 CFR or the IMDG Code. However, the ventilation that you are describing (2 or 4 passive vents at the top of the container) would not be considered an adequate exchange of air to prevent the build-up of an explosive atmosphere as required by both 49 CFR § 176.907 and SP 965 of the IMDG Code. My personal experience with these small vents is that they have little to no ventilation effect, and mainly equalize pressure differentials on opening and closing of the containers. I do not have access to the ISO standard that you reference below to find the code number for this particular container, but an acceptable ventilated container would be something along the lines of a container commonly referred to as a "coffee container". These containers have ventilation openings over the entire length of their side walls in the floor and roof areas. This ventilation is passive, but allows for air flow into and out of the container. There are pictures of such a container under the heading of "passively ventilated containers" at the link below. http://www.containerhandbuch.de/chbe/stra/index.html?/chb_e/stra/stra 03 01 01 01.html Hopefully the above is helpful. Please feel free to reach out to me with additional questions or concerns. It is worth noting that this office provides formal interpretations of regulations, and answers questions via a mailed letter response. If you would like to submit a formal request for interpretation you may do so by submitting a specific question (with as much detail as possible) and your contact information (name, company name, business title, mailing address) via email to infocntr@dot.gov. If this is desired it is recommended you submit your question in the form of a letter (as the incoming letters and responses are posted on our website) which you can then scan or attach to an email. Very Respectfully Steve Webb Transportation Specialist- International Standards Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) -U.S. DOT Office of Hazardous Materials Standards 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., E24-422, Washington D.C. 20590 E24-422 *********************** steven.webb@dot.gov *********** Mr. Webb provides a very good explanation as to why passive ventilation systems are not adequate but is this the official interpretation of the regulation. Some steam ship lines will accept the natural ventilation while others will not and I feel everyone is confused by the regulation. My second part of this question is in reference to the 49 CFR176.907 (a) When transported in cargo transport units, the accomplished by utilizing a ventilated container, an open-top container, or a container in one door off operation. cargo transport units must provide an adequate exchange of air in the unit. This adequate exchange of air may be In a one door off operation how is this viewed and handled from a security standpoint? Regards Mike Alston, CHMM Owner/General Manager Transportation Compliance Associates, Inc. 1340 RT 30 Clinton, PA 15026 Office: 724-899-4100 | Fax: 724-899-5049 www.Hazmat-1.com Cell: 412-651-8776 ransportation Compliance Associates Inc even Presses in Compasse Sately)) We are your Hazmat Compliance Partner for Rail, Truck, Air, Vessel, and Database Management 2#

Page 5Webb, Steven (PHMSA) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Tiffany.A.Duffy@uscg.mil on behalf of Duffy, Tiffany A L T <Tiffany.A.Duffy@uscg.mil> Monday, February 24, 2014 10:28 AM Webb, Steven (PHMSA) Parker, Amy RE: Ventilated Contianer lnterp Follow up Flagged Q2/A2: I would like to add that the security constraints/requirements may be detailed in each vessel's security plan (ISPS and MTSA), so we would like to add to your answer that they must consult with the vessel owners about such requirements. Might I suggest the following text: A door off operation is viewed and handled, from a security standpoint, in compliance with the vessel's security plan requirements. Thanks for letting us take the opportunity to review this. Sincerely, LT Tiffany Duffy United States Coast Guard Headquarters Stop 7509 2703 Martin Luther King JR. AVE SE Washington D.C. 20593-7509 Hazardous Materials Division (CG-ENG-5) Phone: (202} 372-1403 Fax: (202} 372-8380 tiffany.a.duffy@uscg.mil -----Original Message----- From: prvs=12274779d=steven.webb@dot.gov [mailto:prvs=12274779d=steven.webb@dot.gov] On Behalf Of steven.webb@dot.gov Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:46 PM To: Parker, Amy; Duffy, Tiffany A LT Subject: Ventilated Contianer lnterp Hello, Please see the attached incoming interp and draft response for your comments/concurrence. have any questions. Please let me know if you Steve Webb Transportation Specialist- International Standards Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) -U.S. DOT Office of Hazardous Materials Safety 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., E24-422, Washington D.C. 20590 E24-422 steven.webb@dot.gov 1#