OOSC, Part III, Item 3. Bulk Packages d. Manhole Covers

Enforcement personnel have reported that they are uncertain as to what is considered an improperly secured manhole cover when said cover is equipped with multiple securement devices. For example, oftentimes a manhole cover is designed to be secured by six wingnut type securement devices. When one or more of the six securement devices is missing or unsecured, however, the manhole cover is still tightly closed, there is confusion on whether this should be documented as a violation of 177.834(j) and, if so, whether the condition meets the out-of-service criteria for an improperly secured manhole cover.

In order to ensure uniformed enforcement of the US DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations, a determination needs to be made whether or not one or more missing or unsecured securement devices on a manhole cover constitutes a violation of HMR 177.834(j) when the manhole otherwise appears to be secured (tightly closed/not leaking). Furthermore, the policy statement found in Part III of the Out-of-Service Criteria states that any condition which fails to communicate the hazard or is an imminent hazard shall be declared an out-of-service condition, so a determination needs to be made on whether or not this issue meets the definition of an imminent hazard and should be placed out-of-service.

I would like to request that the Hazardous Materials Committee review the issue and take the necessary steps to determine whether or not the aforementioned issue should be noted as a violation during a roadside inspection and whether or not it meets the definition of an imminent hazard and should be placed out-of-service.