Hazmat Safety Consulting, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 October 30, 2023 Mr. Robert Richard President Hazmat Safety Consulting, LLC 10036 Lake Occoquan Drive Manassas, VA 20111 Reference No. 23-0063 Dear Mr. Richard: This letter is in response to your July 11, 2023, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the packaging requirements for pyrophoric liquid materials as found in § 173.181(c). You state that the term “metal cans” is not clearly defined in paragraph (c), and that your client uses “tight metal receptacles”—which you describe as non-specification cylinders—to meet this packaging requirement. Specifically, you ask whether such packagings satisfy the requirements of this packaging instruction for pyrophoric liquid materials. It is the opinion of this Office that a non-specification metal cylinder could be a type of metal can or receptacle. In accordance with § 173.181(c), each inner metal receptacle must be strong, tight, closed by positive means rather than friction, and not over 4.0 L (1 gallon) capacity. 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 2Larson 23-0063 From: Bob Richard To: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA) Cc: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA); Pfund, Duane (PHMSA); Andrews, Steven (PHMSA) Subject: Please accept the attached request for Interpretation, Petition for Rulemaking and Request for PHMSA to Propose to Amend the UN Model Regulations Date: Attachments: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 1:57:03 PM Interp, Petition for Rulemaking and UN proposal request.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please accept the attached request for Interpretation, Petition for Rulemaking and Request for PHMSA to Propose to Amend the UN Model Regulations. This relates to the use of the wording “metal cans” in §173.181(c) and P400. Best Regards, Bob Richard Hazmat Safety Consulting, LLC.#

Page 3July 11, 2023 Shane Kelly Director Standards and Rulemaking Division Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Attn: Standards and Rulemaking Division, PHH-10 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building, Floor 2 Washington, DC 20590-0001 Subject: Request for Interpretation, Petition for Rulemaking and Request for PHMSA to Propose to Amend the UN Model Regulations – Use of the wording “metal cans” in §173.181(c) Dear Mr. Kelley, I am writing to confirm my understanding of the packaging requirements for Pyrophoric liquids in §173.181(c). §173.181(c) states: Steel drums (1A1 or 1A2), aluminum drums (1B1 or 1B2), metal drums, other than steel or aluminum (1N1 or 1N2) or fiber drums (1G); steel jerricans (3A1 or 3A2) or aluminum jerricans (3B1 or 3B2); or steel boxes (4A), aluminum boxes (4B) or metal boxes, other than steel or aluminum (4N) not exceeding 220 L (58 gallons) capacity each with strong, tight inner metal cans not over 4.0 L (1 gallon) capacity each. The strong, tight metal cans must be closed by positive means, not friction. (1) Inner packagings must have no opening exceeding 25 mm (1 inch) diameter and must be surrounded with (3) Each layer of inner containers must be separated by a metal plate separator in addition to cushioning noncombustible cushioning material. (2) Net quantity of pyrophoric liquids may not exceed two-thirds of the rated capacity of the outer drum. For example, a 220 L (58 gallons) outer drum may contain no more than 147 L (39 gallons) of pyrophoric liquids. material. Our client uses tight metal receptacles which are basically non-specification cylinders. The term “cans” is not defined in the HMR. I don’t believe that the intent of §173.181(c) is to not allow a metal receptacle as an inner packaging. Further confusion exists with §173.181(c) because §173.181(c)(1) refers to “inner packagings” and §173.181(c)(3) refers to “inner containers”. There is an obvious lack of consistency in the terminology. We have advised our client that the use of the strong tight metal receptacles that they are using meet the intent and requirements of §173.181(c). We request confirmation of our interpretation and guidance provided to our client. In addition, we are requesting that PHMSA amend §173.181(c) to change the words “strong, tight inner metal#

Page 4cans” to “strong, tight metal receptacles”. §173.181(c)(1) uses the words “Inner packagings”. §173.181(c)(3) uses the words “inner containers” this should be changed to “inner packagings”. §173.181(c) is based on Packing Instruction P400 in the UN Model Regulations. P400 also refers to metal cans. Specifically, P400 refers to “hermetically sealed inner metal cans”. P400 then goes on to use the term “inner packagings”. We request that PHMSA submit a proposal to the UN Transport of Dangerous Goods Sub-Committee to change the words “hermetically sealed inner metal cans” to “strong, tight metal receptacles”. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully submitted, Robert Richard President Hazmat Safety Consulting, LLC 10036 Lake Occoquan Drive Manassas, VA 20111#