{"operation":"document","citation":"16-0004","title":"Texas Department of Public Safety — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2016-06-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"16-0004 response to Texas Department of Public Safety concerning 171.8, 172.328, 172.331, 172.332, 172.516, 178.707.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-16-0004","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/160004.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMaterials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous\nAdministration\nJUN 0 1 2016\nTrooper Kelly F. McClatchy\nTexas Department of Public Safety\nCommercial Vehicle Enforcement\n2405 S Loop 250 W\nMidland, TX 79703\nReference No. 16-0004\nDear Trooper McClatchy:\nThis letter is in response to your January 7, 2016 email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to special\npermits for intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) and portable tanks with a reduced capacity.\nIn your letter, you explain that \"Treater Trucks\" are commonly operated by the oil industry\nunder special permits, such as DOT SP-13027, DOT-SP 11947, and DOT-SP 8627 that allow\n60 gallon non-specification containers to be manifolded and used as portable tanks or IBCs.\nYou enclosed photographs as examples. Your questions, which pertain specifically to the\nmarking and placarding requirements for these packagings, have been paraphrased and\nanswered as follows:\nQ1. Can a special permit change the definition of a packaging with a non-bulk capacity\ninto a bulk package?\nAl.\nThe answer is yes. Special permits may authorize relief from any requirement in the\nHMR, provided the applicant demonstrates an equivalent level of safety to that\nintended by the regulation. A bulk packaging as defined in § 171.8 has \"a maximum\ncapacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a liquid\" or a maximum\nnet mass greater than 400 kg (882 pounds) and a maximum capacity greater than 450\nL (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a solid.\"\nSection 171.8 includes \"a bulk packaging\" as part of the definition of a \"portable\ntank.\" Therefore, portable tanks cannot be manufactured with a capacity of less than\n119 gallons when intended to contain liquids without a special permit. DOT-SP 8627\nauthorizes the transportation of certain materials in \"multiple non-DOT specification\nportable tanks or IBCs manifolded together within a frame.\"\nThe design standards for composite IBCs, such as UN31A in § 178.707(d) specify the\nvolumetric capacity may not be less than 450 L (119 gallons). DOT-SP 13027 and\nDOT-SP 11947 authorize \"the manufacture, marking, sale, and use of multiple non-\nUN standard containers conforming to all regulations applicable to a UN31A\nintermediate bulk container\" except for conditions specified within the special permit.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nAll three special permits provide relief from the 119-gallon minimum volumetric\ncapacity for liquids in bulk packagings by authorizing a 60-gallon capacity for the\nIBCs and/or portable tanks meeting the requirements in the special permits.\nTherefore, the holders of these special permits should apply the regulations for the\nappropriate bulk package type, unless otherwise specified in the special permit.\nQ2.\nIn the attached photographs, a Treater Truck operating under DOT-SP 13027 has\nplacards with the identification number displayed on at least two opposing sides of the\nmanifolded unit. Neither the front nor end of the unit is visible in the photographs.\nYou ask whether this configuration meets the marking and placarding requirements.\nA2.\nThe answer is yes, provided the front and end of the transport vehicle meet the\nrequirements for placard visibility as specified in § 172.516. Paragraph 8.f. of DOT-\nSP 13027 stipulates \"marking and placarding requirements specified for cargo tanks in\n49 CFR Subparts D and F must be met.\" Therefore, the marking and placarding\nrequirements for cargo tanks must be applied to these IBCs, irrespective of packaging-\ntype definition. Display of the identification number on the placard is one method that\nfulfills the marking requirements for cargo tanks specified in § 172.332. Section\n172.328(a) provides additional marking requirements for cargo tanks and permits one\nidentification number to be displayed on each side and each end of a multi-\ncompartmented cargo tank containing only one hazardous material.\nQ3.\nIn the attached photographs, a Treater Truck operating under DOT-SP 8627 shows a\nClass 3 placard without an identification number on each side of the manifolded unit.\nNeither the front nor the end of the unit is visible in the photographs. You ask\nwhether this example meets the marking and placarding requirements or whether the\nidentification number must also be displayed.\nA3. DOT-SP 8627 neither specifies requirements nor provides additional relief related to\nmarkings, labels, or placards. Therefore, the containers must be marked and placarded\nin accordance with the requirements for a portable tank or IBC, as appropriate. Under\n§ 172.331(c), the transport vehicle must be marked on each side and each end with the\nidentification numbers in the appropriate orange panel, placard, or white square-on-\npoint configuration as required by § 172.332. Thus, while individual containers may\nutilize options for various marking configurations under subpart D of part 172, both\nthe identification number and placards must still be visible from the sides of the\nvehicle.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nlenn Taster\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nhehman\n$ |72.301\nManking\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\n16-000%\nFrom:\nGeller, Shelby CTR (PHMSA)\nSent:\nTo:\nThursday, January 07, 2016 4:38 PM\nHazmat Interps\nSubject:\nFW: Request for formal letter of interpretation\nAttachments:\nTREATER TRUCK HM - PHMSA1.docx; DOT-SP 13027.pdf; DOT-SP 8627.pdf\nDear Shante and Alice,\nForwarded is a request for a formal letter of interpretation. Mr. McClatchy spoke with Eamonn.\nThanks,\nShelby\nFrom: McClatchy, Kelly [mailto:Kelly.McClatchy@dps.texas.gov]\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:03 AM\nSubject: Request for formal letter of interpretation\nI am requesting a formal letter of interpretation and have provided a word document as an attachment for the request.\nThank you for your time and effort in this matter.\nTrooper III Kelly F McClatchy\nTexas Department of Public Safety\nCommercial Vehicle Enforcement\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nI am respectfully requesting clarification and a formal letter of interpretation as to the\npackaging definition of the individual containers contained on a Treater Truck (see attached\nphotos). Specifically, can a special permit change the definition of a non-bulk package into a\nbulk package?\nIn the oil industry a treater truck is used in everyday activities and where we are located\nin the Permian Basin they are seen everywhere. An issue has arisen where different companies\nare using different manufacturers and different company issued special permits while operating\nthese types of vehicles containing hazardous materials. There seems to be a disconnect with the\nlanguage of the varying special permits in regards to the marking and placarding requirements.\nMost of the special permits contain language that requires the company to \"mark and placard the\nvehicle like a cargo tank\" but others do not contain that language so therefore the requirements\nthat those vehicle must follow is a little cloudy. What we are seeing roadside is that the\ncompanies that carry the special permits that do not have that requirement within the special\nprovisions, marking section, of the permit are only placarding the vehicle when containing a\nhazardous material or multiple hazardous materials. If considered as a non-bulk package there is\nno additional labeling and marking in accordance with 172.400 or 172.301 on the containers\ncontaining the hazardous material. My interpretation is that the special permit changes the\ndefinition of each 60 gallon capacity container into a bulk package, therefore, whether or not the\nspecific language contained in the special permit as to marking and placarding like a cargo tank\nbecomes a moot point because of the classification of the packages being a bulk package.\nI earlier spoke to representatives at the 1-800-467-4922 number who after conferring\nwith members within the special permit division contacted me back and stated the containers\nwould be considered a bulk package because of the language of the special permit and thus the\nmarking and placarding regulations for a bulk package (cargo tank) would apply. I later spoke\nwith a field representative out of the Houston District office with PHMSA who stated that the\npackages meet the definition of a non-bulk package and the special permit does not have the\nability to change the definition as found in 171:8.\nThe DOT-SP 13027 and DOT-SP 11947 special permits are industry standards for all\ntreater trucks manufactured by Hearnco Fabrication and Services of Midland, Texas and Patts\nFabrication of Odessa, Texas. DOT-SP 8627 is an individual special permit issued to companies\nfor the use on these treater trucks as well developed by Clarks Engineering of Odessa, Texas.\nAll special permits read essentially the same in regards to the effects of this request. After\nstopping Baker Hughes, Kel-Tec, Nalco, Impact, X-Chem, WadeCo, Endura, Rock Water,\nOmega, Chemical Specialist, and others in our area, every one of them are using one of the\nabove mentioned special permits.\nAfter stopping a company that was using a DOT-SP 8627 special permit issued to them\nwhile operating a treater truck and only displaying placards without ID numbers, and no marking\nor labeling on the individual tanks, I began digging further into how and why these are\nconsidered non-bulk packages and what regulations apply to them outside of the special permit.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nLooking at the special permits in detail, it references all regulations that the tanks,\n\"containers\" used on a treater truck must conform to a UN31A intermediate bulk container\n(IBC), or non-DOT specification protable tanks as referenced in DOT-SP 8627. PHMSA's use\nof the word \"containers\" become the key component of this request for change. Quoting from the\nPurpose and Limitations section of the DOT-SP 13027 and DOT-SP 11947 it states \"This special\npermit authorizes the manufacture, marking, sale and use of multiple non-UN standard\ncontainers conforming with all regulations applicable to a UN31A intermediate bulk container.\"\nThen it goes on to state, \"the containers are manifolded together within a frame work and\nsecurely mounted on a truck chassis.\" Further into the special permit in the Operational Controls\nsection PHMSA states, \"Containers are only authorized when manifolded together within a\nframe. The number of containers manifolded within a group may not exceed six. Each container\nmay not exceed sixty (60) gallons in capacity. The meaning of this I feel is that each \"container\"\nof the six must be constructed to the UN31A IBC standards thus making each container an other\nbulk package. In the Testing section of the special permits it instructs that \"each container must\nbe reinspected and retested once every two and one-half years in accordance with 180.352(b) as\nprescribed for UN31A IBC's and that \"each container must be visually inspected prior to each\ntrip to insure that it has not been damaged on the previous trip.\"\nAn IBC by definition is a bulk package with a capacity not to exceed 793 gallons. The\nspecial permit DOT-SP 13027 and DOT-SP 11947 under Special Control Measures, Packaging\nstates, \"Containers must conform with the requirements of a UN standard UN31A intermediate\nbulk container (IBC) in all respects except for specification marking, water capacity.....\" In\nDOT-SP 8627 special permit it states under this section \"Prescribed packaging is a groups of 60\ngallon capacity, IBC's or non-Dot specifications portable tanks, manifolded together within a\nframe and equipped with top and bottom opening conforming to the following:.... (2) The\nminimum 119 gallon capacity for a bulk packaging does not apply, and instead the capacity may\nnot exceed 60 gallons.\" The key word when going through the entire special permit again is\n\"container\" and by the above mentioned references throughout the special permits I believe each\ntank on a treater truck should be looked at in how the special permit references it as a container\nmeeting the standards of a UN31A IBC or non-UN standard portable tank thus essentially having\nsix UN31A containers that are each considered an other bulk package.\nBoth special permits DOT-SP 13027 and DOT-SP 13027 under Special Provisions,\nMarking, require that the marking and placarding requirements specified for cargo tanks in 49\nCFR Part 172, Subparts D and F must be met. This requires the placarding of any amount of\nhazardous material or residue contained within a container along with the marking requirements\nof displaying the ID numbers of that hazardous material to be displayed on placards, orange\npanels or on a white square-on-point. As we see throughout industry this requirement is met by\nplacing the UN number on the placard itself.\nIn DOT-SP 8627 this placarding and marking requirement is not expressly stated as in the\nothers. While discussing this issue with a PHMSA representative through the 800 number they\nstated that the wording \"marking and placarding requirements specified for cargo tanks in 49\nCFR\" is not required because of their intent on the packages to be considered bulk packages and\nare always required to be placarded and marked unless cleaned and purged or filled with a\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nmaterial that no longer possesses a hazard. However, when speaking to Mr. Rucker out of\nHouston, it was his belief that since the wording was not present to be marked and placarded like\na cargo tank then you have to go back to the definition of the package as found in 171.8 and the\nrequirements for a non-bulk package in 172.300 and 172.400 and 172.500 then apply.\nI have enclosed DOT-SP 13027 and DOT-SP 8627 for your viewing as well.\nThank you for your consideration on this matter.\nKelly F McClatchy\nTexas Department of Public Safety\nCommercial Vehicle Enforcement\n2405 S Loop 250 W\nMidland TX 79703\n432-413-0311\nkelly.mcclatchy@dps.texas.gov","truncated":false,"body_characters":14068}