Interpretation Response #10-0252 ([The Dow Chemical Company] [Ms. Cherry Burke])

Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 05/12/2011

Company Name: The Dow Chemical Company

Individual Name: Ms. Cherry Burke

Location State: MI Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

May 12, 2011

Ms. Cherry Burke

Global Transportation Safety and Risk Management Leader

The Dow Chemical Company

2020 Dow Center

Midland, MI 48674 USA

Reference No.: 10-0252

Dear Ms. Burke:

This responds to your January 11, 2011 letter regarding the exception applicable to materials corrosive to aluminum or steel only found in 49 CFR 173.154 (d) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Your questions are summarized and addressed below:

Q1: If a bulk packaging is lined or coated with a material that prevents contact of the corrosive material with the steel, can the exception in § 173.154(d) be used?

A1: The answer is no. The intent of § 173.154(d)(2) is to provide an exception to bulk packaging constructed of materials that will not react dangerously with, or be degraded by the corrosive material. This office does not believe that placing liners inside a steel bulk container would be in line with the intent of this exception.

Q2: The exception for materials corrosive to steel in § 173.154(d)(2) applies just to bulk packagings, while the exception for materials corrosive to aluminum in § 173.154(d)(1) does not specify packaging size. Is this discrepancy intentional, and if so, why would only bulk packagings be excepted from the regulations for materials corrosive to steel, while both bulk and non-bulk packagings would be excepted from the regulations for materials corrosive to aluminum?

A2: As you stated, section 173.154(d)(2) applies only to bulk packagings, while

§ 173.154(d)(1) applies to both bulk and non-bulk packagings. Typically, non-bulk packagings would be shipped on trailers with other containers that may be made of steel (possibly more so than aluminum). This office believes that in the event of a breach of the corrosive material, other containers in the trailer could be damaged.

Q3: Does "bulk packagings" in § 173.154(d)(2) mean that the exception applies to any packages meeting the DOT definition of bulk (i.e. rail tank cars, cargo tanks, IBCs, and portable tanks)?

A3: The answer is yes. The exception in § 173.154(d)(2) would apply to any containers meeting the definition of a bulk packaging as defined in § 171.8.

I hope this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

T. Glenn Foster

Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch

Standards and Rulemaking Division

173.154(d), 171.8

Regulation Sections