{"operation":"document","citation":"17-0050","title":"Regulatory Resources, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2018-05-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"17-0050 response to Regulatory Resources, Inc. concerning 171.8, 173.159, 173.240, 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-17-0050.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-17-0050.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-17-0050","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/57876/170050.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nMAY 0 2 2018\nWashington, DC 20590\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nMr. Wade A. Winters\nPresident\nRegulatory Resources, Inc.\n379 Aragon Avenue\nLos Alamos, NM 87547\nReference No. 17-0050\nDear Mr. Winters:\nThis letter is in response to your May 5, 2017, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to bulk and non-bulk packaging\ndefinitions as they relate to solid material. Specifically, you ask several questions based on\nmultiple letters of interpretation (see Reference Nos.) previously issued by the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1.\nYou ask if Reference Nos. 15-0168 and 16-0081 supersede Reference No. 10-0026,\nwhich was issued by PHMSA's Office of the Chief Counsel on January 20, 2010.\nA1.\nThe answer is no. Because it is not consistent with the conclusions made by PHMSA's\nOffice of the Chief Counsel in Reference No. 10-0026, Reference No. 15-0168 will be\nrescinded and replaced as Reference No. 15-0168R. Prior to 1990, the non-specification\nclosed bin described in Reference No. 15-0168 would have been considered a bulk\npackaging. As currently defined in § 171.8 of the HMR, a bulk packaging must have a\nmaximum net mass greater than 400 kg (882 pounds) and a maximum capacity greater\nthan 450 liters (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a solid. Because the non-specification\nclosed bin used to package a solid material described in Reference No. 15-0168 has a\nvolumetric capacity of less than 450 liters (119 gallons) and a maximum capacity of\ngreater than 400 kg (882 pounds), it does not meet the definition of a bulk packaging\nunder the HMR; therefore, its use is not authorized under the entry's bulk packaging\nprovisions prescribed in § 173.240(c) and may only be used to package solid material\nunder the terms of an approval granted in accordance with § 178.601(h).\nReference No. 16-0081 remains valid and is not contradicted by Reference No. 10-0026.\nReference No. 16-0081 states, \"\n'... the size of the battery determines whether a package\nmeeting the requirements of § 173.159(d)(1) is considered bulk or non-bulk. Therefore,\nan electric storage battery exceeding 400 kg secured to a pallet is a bulk package...\" The\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nforklift battery described in Reference No. 16-0081 has a net mass greater than 400 kg\n(882 pounds) and a capacity greater than 450 liters (119 gallons) and, as an article, is\nconsidered a solid\nQ2.\nYou ask for explanation regarding PHMSA's rationale in identifying the hazard of the\nwet battery discussed in Reference No. 15-0014 and the memorandum issued on\nApril 22, 2015, to the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, as being a\nliquid, while the hazard in the wet battery discussed in Reference No 16-0081 is\nidentified as being a solid.\nA2.\nThe batteries described in Reference No. 15-0014 were contaminated with Class 7\n(radioactive) material that exceeded limited quantity levels. Thus, the liquid (sulfuric\nThe batteries described in Reference No. 15-0014 were considered receptacles for liquids\nacid contained in them was considered when classitying the batteries for transportation.\nunder that unique scenario and subsequently were classified as radioactive materials for\ntransport.\nThe batteries described in Reference No. 16-0081 were non-radioactive. Therefore, they\nwere appropriately classified as a solid.\nQ3.\nYou ask if Reference No. 16-0081 supersedes Reference No. 05-0017.\nA3. The answer is no. Although the pallet of batteries described in Reference No. 05-0017\nhad a net mass greater than 400 kg (882 pounds), no one individual battery secured to the\npallet exceeded 450 liters (119 gallons) in volumetric capacity.\nQ4.\nAssuming the wet battery discussed in Reference No. 16-0081 is a solid, you ask for the\nproper shipping name and corresponding packaging reference, noting that § 173.159 is\nspecific to batteries with fluid (i.e., liquid).\nA4.\nIn general, batteries and other articles are considered solids for the purposes of the HMR.\nThus, the proper shipping name for the battery described in Reference No. 16-0081 is\n\"Batteries, wet, filled with acid, electric storage\" (UN2794) and the packaging reference\nis any method authorized in § 173.159.\nPlease accept our apologies for any inconvenience this reversal of our original guidance may\ncause. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nShane C. Kelley\nDirector\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nStevens\n$171.8\nPackaging Specs.\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\n17-0050\nFrom:\nINFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent:\nMonday, May 08, 2017 9:32 AM\nTo:\nHazmat Interps\nSubject:\nFW: Request for Interpretation - Regulatory Resources, Inc. (May 5, 2017)\nAttachments:\nQuestions on changes in bulk and non-bulk defintions (May 2017).pdf\nHi Shante/Alice,\nPlease submit this as a letter of interpretation. Mr. Winters spoke with Eamonn on this.\nAlso, please note that Mr. Winters' mailing address is in the attached letter request. Please let me know if you have any\nquestions.\nThanks,\nJordan\nFrom: Wade Winters [mailto:wade@regulatoryresources.net]\nSent: Friday, May 05, 2017 6:12 PM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter <PHMSAHMInfoCenter@dot.gov>\nSubject: Request for Interpretation - Regulatory Resources, Inc. (May 5, 2017)\nDear PHMSA,\nPlease find attached a request for formal interpretation of the Hazardous Materials Regulations.\nThank you,\nWade Winters\nPresident\nYour Training and Compliance Professionals\nRegulatory Resources, Inc.\n505-393-0111\nwww.reghead.net\nattachments) are intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed; they may contain legally privileged and protected matter. Any\nThis e-mail and any attachments) are confidential and may contain proprietary information of Regulatory Resources, Inc. This e-mail and any\nreview, retransmission, dissemination or other use whatsoever by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If\nyou received this in error, please delete the original transmission, destroy all electronic and hard copies, and notify the sender by return e-mail.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nRegulatory\nLos Alamos, NM 87547\n379 Aragon Ave\nResources In\nVoice: 505-393-0111\nThe Source You Come Back To *\ninfo@regulatoryresources.net\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nMay 5, 2017\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nAtt: PHH-10\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nEast Building\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nDear Standards and Rulemaking Division,\nIn recent letters, you have stated the definition of bulk and non-bulk for solids in § 171.8 is not correct and\nthe conjunction \"and\" should be \"or\" when applying these terms for regulatory compliance. I am seeking\nfurther clarity concerning this change and its effect on other determinations.\nQuestion 1.\nDo letters Ref. No. 15-0168 and 16-0081 supersede letter Ref. No. 10-0026 from PHMSA Counsel with regard\nto the definition of bulk and non-bulk for solids?\nQuestion 2.\nCould you please explain the rational used to identify the hazard of the wet battery discussed in the PHMSA\nMemorandum, April 22, 2015, to the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, as being a\nliquid and yet the hazard in the wet battery discussed in Letter Ref. No. 16-0081 as being a solid?\nQuestion 3.\nDoes letter Ref. No. 16-0081 supersede letter Ref. No. 05-0017?\nQuestion 4.\nIf the wet battery discussed in letter Ref. No. 16-0081 is a solid, what shipping name and subsequent\npackaging reference is appropriate since § 173.159 is specific to batteries with fluid (i.e., liquid)?\nThank you.\nFor Regulatory Resources, Inc.,\nW. A. Winters\nPresident","truncated":false,"body_characters":7819}