HMT Associates, L.L.C. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 DEC 2 2 2016 Mr. Andy Altemos HMT Associates, L.L.C. 6416 Grovedale Drive Suite 202B Alexandria, VA 22310 Reference No. 16-0107 Dear Mr. Altemos: This letter is in response to your June 17, 2016 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the relationship between certain entries in the Organic Peroxide Intermediate Bulk Container (IBC) Table in§ 173.225(e) and the primary Organic Peroxides Table in§ 173.255(c). Your question relates to the material "Peroxyacetic acid with not more than 26% hydrogen peroxide" meeting the criteria for classification as a type F organic peroxide. Specifically, you seek confirmation of your understanding that any peroxyacetic acid formulation with not more than 26% hydrogen peroxide may be transported in IBCs without the need for an approval and without regard to the concentration of peroxyacetic acid, provided the formulation has been determined by appropriate testing to meet the criteria for classification as a type F organic peroxide. Although the current HMR does not limit the concentration of peroxyacetic acid meeting certain requirements when packaged in IBCs, this was not the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration's (PHMSA) original intention. A transcription error occurred when the Organic Peroxide IBC Table was adopted into the HMR under a Final Rule entitled, Harmonization with the United Nations Recommendations, International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions [68 FR 44991]. It was our intention for the listing "Peroxyacetic acid with not more than 26% hydrogen peroxide" found in § 173 .225( e) to read "Peroxyacetic acid, not more than 17%, with not more than 26% hydrogen peroxide." PHMSA will work to correct this drafting error in a future rulemaking. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, T. Glenn Foster Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division#

Page 2(ioodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA) From: Betts, Charles (PHMSA) Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 1:16 PM To: Hazmat Interps Subject: FW: Request for interpretation Attachments: Request for interpretation of organic peroxides IBC table.pdf Shante/ Alice - Please log and assign for response. Thanks, Charles From: Altemos, Edward A. [mailto:ealternos@pipeline.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 1:12 PM To: Betts, Charles (PHMSA) Subject: Request for interpretation Hello Charles, Long time no see - I hope all is well with you. Please find attached a request for an interpretation relating to the Organic Peroxides IBC Table in §173.225{f) of the HMR. I look forward to receiving your thoughts on this matter in due course. Thanks, and best regards, Andy 1#

Page 3HMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. AI6 GROVEDALE DRIVE AEN ANDRIA. NA23310-2504 SUITE 2028 A. ALTEN 703-5-49-0727 PATRICIA LOUINS WRITERSMARKCT DESI VE MBER FACSIMILIE: 703-549-0728 703-549-0727 June 17, 2016 Mr. Charles Betts Director, Standards and Rulemaking (PHH-10) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building, 2^d Floor Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Betts: This is to request an interpretation regarding to the relationship between certain Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-180, "the HMR") and those in the entries in the "Organic Peroxide IBC Table" in §173.225(e) of the Department's "main" Organic Peroxides Table in §173.225(c) of the HMR in the case where there is some variance between the entries as listed in each for a particular organic peroxide. My specific interest in this connection - although there or other entries that could be cited - relates to "Peroxyacetic acid with not more than 26% hydrogen peroxide," meeting the criteria for classification as a type F organic peroxide. The entry "Peroxyacetic acid with not more than 26% hydrogen peroxide" appears in the Organic Peroxide IBC Table under the UN No. 3109 ("Organic peroxide, type F, liquid," and formulations meeting this description are allowed in certain types of IBCs with certain maximum capacities. The entry does not prescribe any limitation on the concentration of peroxyacetic acid, although clearly only formulations meeting the classification criteria for a type F organic peroxide could fall under the entry. On the other hand, in the "main" Organic Peroxides Table listing all formulations authorized for transportation without approval, the entry for "Peroxyacetic acid or peracetic acid [with not more than 26% hydrogen peroxide]" which is assigned UN3109 (i.e., type F, liquid) further indicates a limit on the acetic acid concentration of not more than 17 percent by#

Page 4JMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. Mr. Charles Betts June 17, 2016 Page2 mass. Thus, the "main" Organic Peroxides Table applies a constraint on the type F entry for peroxyacetic acid with not more than 26% hydrogen peroxide that is not specified under the corresponding entry in the Organic Peroxide IBC Table. Importantly in this connection, the introductory text to the Organic Peroxide IBC Table in § l 73.225(e) clearly states: "The following Organic Peroxide IBC Table specifies, by technical name, those organic peroxides that are authorized for transportation in certain IBC and not subject to the approval provisions of§ 173.128 of this part" (emphasis added). Against that background, it would be my understanding that any peroxyacetic acid formulation with not more than 26% hydrogen may be transported in IBCs without the need for an approval and without regard to the concentration of peroxyacetic acid, provided the formulation has been determined by appropriate testing to meet the criteria for classification as a type F organic peroxide. Consequently, the 17% peroxyacetic acid limitation as prescribed in the "main" Organic Peroxides Table is not applicable in this case. However, your confirmation of this understanding would be most appreciated. Your consideration of this request is most appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions concerning this request or if you require additional information or clarification. Sincerely, E. A. Altemos#