USA Banner

Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation

Interpretation Response #07-0115 ([Mr. Philip Brandt])

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

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date:

Company Name:

Individual Name: Mr. Philip Brandt

Location State: TN Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

February 12, 2008


Mr. Philip Brandt

124 Jim Town Road

Jonesborough, TN 37659

Ref. No. 07-0115

Dear Mr. Brandt:

This responds to your letter dated May 30, 2007, requesting clarification on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration"s (PHMSA) June 16, 2006 response to Mr. Kurt Colborn [Letter Reference No. 06-0063 enclosed] regarding the use of freight containers as Industrial Packagings (IP) Type 2 (IP-2) or Type 3 (IP-3) containers under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you request additional clarification on our response A1(c) and A2 to Mr. Colborn.

Your questions are paraphrased and answered below:

Regarding PHMSA"s Response A1(c):

Q1. Does the containment system (an ISO 1496-1 compliant freight container on a container chassis) described in my May 30, 2007 letter meet the requirements of

§§ 173.410(f) and 173.411(b)(6) of the HMR?

A1. The described "containment system" does not meet all the cited requirements because it does not include a description of the radioactive contents. The ISO 1496/1 tests are permitted as an alternative to the tests normally required for IP-2 and IP-3 packages in § 173.411, but it must be shown that the particular radioactive contents will not be subject to loss or dispersal from the container, or loss of shielding integrity, as a result of those tests. The ISO tests allow some flexing of the freight container body which might be unacceptable for containment of the particular content. The potential for movement of the contents within the container must also be considered to evaluate compliance with the requirement for maintaining shielding integrity.

Q2. Can the requirements be satisfied by documenting the fact that a specified number of freight containers have been shipped on chassis under conditions of accelerations experienced during routine conditions of transport with no loss of containment?

A2. The container must be shown to meet either the IP-2, IP-3 or the alternative ISO 1496-1 tests along with preventing loss or dispersal of the particular radioactive contents being transported and loss of shielding under routine conditions of transport.

No specific tests beyond those in the ISO standard have been stipulated. The requirements can be met by testing, by engineering evaluations, or by comparative data, documented as required in § 173.411(c). The documentation should pertain to the entire package, including consideration of the properties of the particular radioactive contents.

Regarding PHMSA"s Response A2:

Q3. May the freight containers meeting the requirements of §§ 173.411(b) and 173.411(c) of the HMR also serve as a waste disposal package when shipping LSA and/or SCO material? If yes, should the freight containers be marked as "TYPE IP-1", "TYPE IP-1", "TYPE IP-2", or "TYPE IP-3" as appropriate?

A3. The HMR do not regulate waste disposal packages. Radioactive material (RAM) waste disposal is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The freight container should be marked with the appropriate IP Type marking.

Q4. Does the ISO 1496-1 requirement for the permanent attachment of the CSC Safety Approval Plate with the total gross mass (maximum allowable) of the package meet the requirements of § 172.310(a) for indicating the gross mass of the package or must the total actual gross mass of the shipment be marked on the freight container?

A4. The container must be marked with the total actual gross mass, unless, in accordance with § 173.427, it is being used to ship less than an A2 quantity LSA or SCO material domestically in exclusive use, in which case it would be excepted from that marking requirement.

Q5. Is the international vehicle registration code required to be legibly marked on the freight container? If yes, does the information on the CSC Safety Approval Plate meet this requirement? If not, where/how is the international vehicle registration code obtained for a freight container?

A5. In accordance with §172.310(c), each package conforming to a Type IP-1, Type IP-2, Type IP-3 or Type A package design must be legibly and durably marked with the international vehicle registration code of the country of origin of the design, unless it is being used to ship less than an A2 quantity LSA or SCO material domestically in exclusive use, in which case it would be excepted from that marking requirement.

The CSC Safety Approval Plate does not meet the international vehicle registration code marking requirement in § 172.310(c). The CSC plate indicates conformance with CSC requirements. It does not indicate conformance to Type IP-1, Type IP-2, Type IP-3, or Type A package design requirements.



Unless the container supplier has certified the container meets the requirements for the specified contents, the shipper must determine that the package meets the applicable requirements, and the shipper must apply the appropriate code. Note that the party certifying the design meets the requirements must comply with the documentation requirements specified in § 173.411(c).

Q6. Is it correct to assume that if the freight container is manufactured overseas then you would not mark the package with the "USA" marking?

A6. If a shipper in the United States is certifying that the freight container meets the applicable design requirements, the shipper is required to mark the package with "USA".

Q7. Would you mark the container with the country of origin (e.g., China)?

A7. It should be marked with the country of certification, not that of manufacture. This should be the country code of the party that holds the documentation required by

§ 173.411(c). This may not be the same as the country of origin of the freight container (see answer to #6).

Q8. Are the "Radioactive-LSA" or "Radioactive-SCO" markings, a "Class A Waste" label and the appropriate "IP" marking the only markings/labels required if the freight container is the waste package and the requirements of § 173.427 are met? (The labeling/marking requirements of §§ 172.310 and 172.403 do not apply).

A8. If the shipment is in compliance with § 173.427(a)(6)(vi) (less than an A2 quantity, domestic exclusive use), the only required DOT marking is "RADIOACTIVE-LSA" or "RADIOACTIVE-SCO", as appropriate and the marking/labeling requirements specified in §§ 172.310 and 172.403 do not apply: The "IP" marking would not be required if the shipment is in compliance with § 173.427(a)(6)(vi). The "Class A Waste" label is not a DOT requirement.



Q9. Is there a requirement for performing testing and an evaluation report for a freight container that contains LSA and/or SCO waste if the freight container is the waste package and is marked as LSA or SCO-Radioactive and there is no loose radioactive material in the conveyance, no leakage of the radioactive material from the conveyance and the packaged and unpackaged waste in the freight container is braced so as to prevent shifting of lading under conditions normally incident to transportation?

A9. If the freight container is being used to transport unpackaged LSA-I or SCO-I material, or is being used as an excepted package of less than an A2 quantity under exclusive use, in accordance with § 173.427(b)(4), then no documentation is required. If the freight container is being used as a Type IP-2 or Type IP-3 package, §173.411(c) requires the offeror to maintain complete documentation of tests and an engineering evaluation or comparative data showing that the construction methods, packaging design, and materials of construction conform to that specification.



Q10. If all the requirements of § 173.411(b)(6) are met and there are no other test requirements, may LSA-II/III or SCO-II/III material be shipped in a freight container without further testing (e.g. the requirement in § 173.468(b) to conduct a seven day immersion test)?

A10. The referenced immersion test is to qualify material as LSA-III and is not a packaging requirement. Also, see "A9" above regarding requirements for documentation of tests and evaluations.

Q11. If the freight container is the LSA or SCO waste package, are the marking requirements discussed in PHMSA"s June 16, 2006 "A2" response to Mr. Kurt Colborn [Letter Reference No. 06-0063] abrogated?

A11. Use of the container as a waste package has no impact on the DOT marking requirements. Freight containers used as a Type IP-2 or Type IP-3 package must be marked and labeled as such, except as provided for under

§ 173.427(a)(6)(vi) (less than an A2 quantity, domestic exclusive use) (see "A8" above).

I hope this answers your inquiry.

Sincerely,

John A. Gale

Chief, Standards Development

Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

Enclosure

173.411(b)(6), 173.427(a)(6)

Regulation Sections

Section Subject
173.411 Industrial packages
173.427 Transport requirements for low specific activity (LSA) Class 7 (radioactive) material and surface contaminated objects (SCO)