{"operation":"document","citation":"21-0036","title":"Entergy Operations Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2021-06-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"21-0036 response to Entergy Operations Inc. concerning 172.302, 172.324, 173.427.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0036.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0036.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0036","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/75136/210036.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nJune 8, 2021\nMr. Donnie James\nShipping Technician, Radwaste/Shipping\nEntergy Operations Inc.\nWaterford 3 S.E.S.\n17265 River Rd.\nKillona, LA 70057\nReference No. 21-0036\nDear Mr. James:\nThis letter is in response to your April 8, 2021, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to marking requirements for\nbulk packages containing radioactive material. Specifically, you describe a scenario involving a\nbulk Type A package, containing a Type B quantity of “UN3321, Radioactive material, low\nspecific activity (LSA-II) non-fissile or fissile-excepted, 7.” The material is shipped via ground\ntransportation, in exclusive use.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. You ask whether the letters “RQ” are required to be marked on a bulk package that is not\nbeing shipped under the provisions of § 173.427. You provide “UN2916, Radioactive\nmaterial, Type B(U) package, fissile-excepted, 7” as an example of a material that does\nnot qualify for the provisions of § 173.427.\nA1. The answer is no. The letters “RQ” are generally not required to be marked on a bulk\npackage, except as expressly directed by a specific provision of the HMR.\nQ2. You ask whether a Type A quantity shipped in a bulk package as LSA or Surface\nContaminated Object (SCO) radioactive material, via domestic ground transport as an\nexclusive use shipment, must bear the “RQ” marking as required by § 173.427(a)(6)(vi).\nA2. The answer is yes, if the packaged or unpackaged LSA or SCO material contains a\nhazardous substance and utilizes the exception from the marking and labeling\nrequirements provided in § 173.427(a)(6)(vi). In final rule HM-230 (69 FR 3631;\n\n<<>>\n\n1/26/2004), the Research and Special Programs Administration, PHMSA’s predecessor\nagency, stated that the intent of § 173.427(a)(6)(vi) is that all packages transported in\naccordance with this provision, regardless of capacity or weight, that contain a hazardous\nsubstance must bear the “RQ” marking.\nQ3. You ask whether the “Radioactive-LSA” or “Radioactive-SCO” and RQ marking\nrequirements of § 173.427(a)(6)(vi) apply to LSA or SCO shipments of A2 quantities or\ngreater.\nA3. The answer is no, packages of LSA or SCO material that do not qualify for the\n§ 173.427(a)(6)(vi) marking and labeling exception are not subject to the additional\nrequirements found in this subparagraph. The requirements of § 173.427(a)(6)(vi)—\nincluding the requirement to mark the letters “RQ” on a package containing a hazardous\nsubstance—only apply to shipments that qualify for, and utilize, the marking and labeling\nexception described in this subparagraph. Please note that non-bulk packages of LSA or\nSCO material of A2 quantities or greater that contain a hazardous substance must bear the\nRQ mark, in accordance with the general non-bulk package marking requirements in\n§ 172.324.\nQ4. You ask whether the marking size requirements of § 172.302(b) apply to the RQ marking\non a bulk package.\nA4. The answer is yes.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nDirk Der Kinderen\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nPatrick\n21-0036\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nCc: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Request assistance submitting a request for a formal Letter of Interpretation.\nDate: Friday, April 9, 2021 9:29:47 AM\nAttachments: LOI request RQ markings.docx\nHello Alice,\nPlease see the attached interpretation request.\nShould you need anything, please do not hesitate to let us know.\nRegards,\n-Breanna\nFrom: James, Donald [mailto:djames7@entergy.com]\nSent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 9:35 AM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) \nSubject: Request assistance submitting a request for a formal Letter of Interpretation.\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or\nopen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nDear Sir or Ma’am,\nI have recently submitted a question about RQ markings on bulk packages.\nI was telephoned with an answer that I found to be completely satisfactory, but my peers have asked\nme to request a formal Letter of Interpretation.\nI have attached a Microsoft Word document of the request, but I’m not 100% sure how to go about\nsubmitting a request for interpretation.\nWould you be so kind as to look this over and see if the format and wording are acceptable?\nIf it is not, would you please tell me what could be done better?\nIf it is, would you please direct me through the next step for submitting the request?\nYour help is greatly appreciated.\nDonnie James\nShipping Technician\nRadwaste/Shipping\nWaterford 3 S.E.S.\n504-464-3379\nThis message is intended for the exclusive use of the intended addressee. If you have received\nthis message in error or are not the intended addressee or his or her authorized agent, please\n\n<<>>\n\nnotify me immediately by e-mail, discard any paper copies and delete all electronic files of\nthis message.\n\n<<>>\n\nDear Sir or Ma’am,\nI am respectfully requesting an official Letter of Interpretation.\nRecently we were trying to determine if an RQ marking on a bulk package is subject to the size\nrequirements of 49CFR172.302(b)(3). It was in association with a shielded cask with 133 cu ft capacity, a\nUSA DOT TYPE A specification cask with a Type B quantity of material shipping as UN3321 Radioactive\nMaterial, Low Specific Activity (LSA-II) Fissile Excepted, via domestic ground transport, Exclusive Use.\nMy understanding is:\nPer 49CFR173.427(a)(6)(vi), this is not excepted from marking and labeling requirements of subchapter\nC, Hazardous Materials Regulations due to being greater than a Type A quantity.\nThe Type A DOT Specification markings must be at least 0.47 inches high per §178.3(a)(4),\nThe Identification Number markings will meet the Orange Panel requirements per §172.332(b), and\nAll other required markings must be 2.0 inches high with a width of 0.24 inches per §172.302(b)(3).\nWe reached out to our peers and the vendor that does our DOT training, and the consensus was that the\n2.0 inch size requirement for Bulk Packaging markings did not apply to the RQ, but we could not find a\nwritten exception within the regulations or in an existing Letter of Interpretation. In our research, we\ncould not find in the regulations where a RQ marking is required for a bulk package. §172.324(b)\nrequires an RQ marking for non-bulk packages containing a Hazardous Substance, and Subpart D,\nAppendix A, II, List of Frequently Cited Violations under D. Package Marking Requirements there is a “12.\nFailure to apply limited quantity markings or RQ marking on a non-bulk package containing a hazardous\nsubstance” without listing a violation for failure to exhibit RQ on a bulk package. The violation\ndescription citations for “15. Failure to properly mark a bulk container” (172.331, 334, 336, and 338) do\nnot appear to address RQ markings.\nI am officially requesting an official interpretation of the following:\nQ1. Is an RQ marking required on Bulk Packages with a Class 7 Hazardous Substance that is NOT being\nshipped under the exceptions of 49CFR173.427 (for example, a bulk package of UN2916\nRadioactive Material, Type B(U) package, Fissile Excepted)?\nQ2. In the case of a Type A quantity of radioactive material being shipped LSA or SCO, via domestic\nground transport as an exclusive use shipment, would the RQ marking be required per\n49CFR173.427(a)(6)(vi) if shipped in a Bulk Package?\nQ3. 49CFR173.127(a)(6)(vi) has the exemption from marking requirements for marking Radioactive-LSA\n(or SCO) and specifies the use of “RQ” but is specific to