The Chlorine Institute — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE of Transportation Washington, DC 20590 Pipeline and Hazardous Administration Materials Safety SEP 1 5 2015 Ms. Robyn Kinsley Director, Transportation The Chlorine Institute 1300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 525 Arlington, VA 22209* Ref. No. 14-0230 Dear Ms. Kinsley: This responds to your November 18, 2014 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the securement of Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs). Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows: Q1. In regard to § 177.834(a), how does PHMSA define "relative motion between packages"? Al. PHMSA does not define "relative motion between packages." Under the HMR, permanently attached to a motor vehicle to be secured against shifting, including § 177.834(a) requires any hazardous material (hazmat) package that is not relative motion between packages, within the vehicle on which it is being transported under conditions normally incident to transportation. Conditions normally incident to transportation include vehicle starting, stopping, cornering, accident avoidance, and varied road conditions. Thus, the securement of hazmat packages requires that such packages do not shift when experiencing these conditions. It is the opinion of this Office that "shifting" would involve a change in the place or position of the package from the original place or position that it occupied when it was loaded onto the motor vehicle. Section 393.100(c) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) is the general securement requirement for all types of cargo. It is a safety performance standard intended to prohibit shifting of cargo that would compromise the vehicle's stability or maneuverability. The requirements in the HMR § 177.834(a) represent a higher standard of safety for packages containing hazardous materials, where securing the packages against motion is necessary to prevent damage to the packages themselves, ensure their integrity, and prevent a release of the contained material.#

Page 2Q2. . Does "relative motion between packages" mean "zero motion"? A2. No. In terms of preventing motion of the package(s) during transportation, securement against shifting and relative motion between packages in accordance with § 177.834(a) requires that the package(s) be secured against shifting (see Al above) as well as secured against relative motion to the greatest extent practicable. I hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact this Office at 202-366-8553. Sincerely; Acting Chief, Standards Development Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division#

Page 3Boothe 177.8346) Dodd, Alice (PHMSA) 393.100(c) From: Ciccarone, Michael CTR (PHMSA) Packaging Seneral Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:43 PM To: Hazmat Interps 14-0230 Subject: FW: Requests for Interpretation Attachments: 2014-10-18 - PHMSA Interpretation Request - CL2 TC PRD Tell-Tale.pdf; 2014-10-18 - PHMSA Interpretation Request - Package Securement.pdf Shante/Alice, Please submit these for formal letters of interpretation. Note that there are two separate requests attached. Thanks, Mike From: Robyn Kinsley [mailto:rkinsley@CL2.com] To: PHMSA HM InfoCenter Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:30 AM Subject: Requests for Interpretation Please find attached two requests for interpretation from The Chlorine Institute. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Robyn Kinsley www.chlorineinstitute.org Robyn Kinsley | Director, Transportation | The Chlorine Institute | Arlington, VA | (703.894.4123 | rkinsley@CL2.com /#

Page 4THE CHLORINE INSTITUTE THE CHLORINE INSTITUTE 1300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 525, Arlington, VA 22209 Tel 703-894-4140 Fax 703-894-4130 www.chlorineinstitute.org November 18, 2014 Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ATTN: PHH-10 US Department of Transportation East Building 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Request for Interpretation - Highway Package Securement The Chlorine Institute ("CI" or the "Institute") is a 193 member, not-for-profit trade association of chlorine producers worldwide, as well as chlorine packagers, distributors, users, and suppliers. The Institute's North American Producer members account for more than 93 percent of the total chlorine production capacity of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The Institute's mission chemicals, namely chlorine, sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide (hereafter referred to as "caustic"), hydrochloric acid and sodium hypochlorite, are used throughout North America's economy and are crucial to the protection of public health. Many of Cl's members transport the Class 8 corrosive products noted above in bulk by highway either in cargo tanks or intermodal bulk containers (or "IBCs"). Recently some questions have been raised with regard to transporting IBCs and, in particular, proper load securement of those packages. There appears to be inconsistent language between PHMSA's 49 CFR 177.834(a) and FMCSA's 49 CFR 393.100(c) on which our members would like clarification. 49 CFR 177.834(a) states: "Any package containing any hazardous material, not permanently attached to a motor vehicle, must be secured against shifting, including relative motion between packages, within the vehicle on which it is being transported, under conditions normally incident to transportation. Packages having valves or other fittings must be loaded in a manner to minimize the likelihood of damage during transportation." 49 CFR 393.100(c) states: "Prevention against shifting of load. Cargo must be contained, immobilized or secured in accordance with this subpart to prevent shifting upon or within the vehicle to such an extent that the vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected."#

Page 5CI Request for Interpretation - Package Securement November 18, 2014 Page 2 of 2 The bolded and underlined phrases in the above regulations are what appear to be inconsistent. While the intent of §177.834(a) appears to not permit any shifting or movement of the packages, §393.100(c) appears to allow a minor amount of movement which does not affect the vehicle's stability. Because of the inconsistent language, the intent of the requirements for hazardous materials packages is uncertain. Specifically, it is uncertain what is meant by "relative motion between packages." Therefore, our question is: How does PHMSA define "relative motion between packages?" Does it mean enough motion between the packages that adversely affects the vehicle's stability guidelines on how to secure packages in order to prevent affecting the vehicle's stability and and maneuverability (per FMCSA's rule)? If so, how is that quantified or measured? Are there maneuverability? Or, does it essentially mean zero motion/movement? If so, we recommend that PHMSA change the language in the regulations to state just that. We have reviewed various interpretations and previous rulemakings PHMSA and FMCSA have issued in the past, but they do not seem to answer our specific questions. Our members are stewards of the safe handling of hazardous materials packages, and they strive to achieve compliance with the hazardous materials transportation regulations. Further clarification on this particular issue would greatly help that effort. Thank you for your time on this matter. Sincerely, Reye Kindley Robyn Kinsley Director, Transportation#