{"operation":"document","citation":"01-0234","title":"Mr. Lawrence W. Bierlein — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2001-01-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"01-0234 concerning 173.136.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0234.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0234.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0234","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2001/010234.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n•\n•\nCONCURMENCES\n:\nJAN 2 3 2001\nMr. Lawrence W. Bierlein\nRIG. SYMBOT\n2175 K Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20037\nDear Mr. Bierlein:\nOn September 1, 2000, on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company, you applied for an approval to\nRIG SYMBOL\nship certain inkjet cartridges as unregulated materials. This is in response to your subsequent\nletter of January 5, 2001, enclosing results of certain steel corrosion tests and a comparative chart\non steel compositions.\nWe have reviewed that test data and chart, and conclude that the K02400 steel tested is\nsufficiently \"similar to\" P3 and P235 steels, as that term is used in the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) and the United Nations Model Regulations on the\nTransport of Dangerous Goods, to be accepted for Class 8 classification purposes. We also\nBATE\nconclude, based upon the 14-day test results you provided, that the ink in the Hewlett-Packard\ninkjet printer cartridges does not meet the definition of a corrosive material as set forth in 49\nCFR §§ 173.136 and 173,137, and in international regulations based upon Chapter 2.8 of the UN\nDHM-30\nModel Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.\nINTALAKE\nAccordingly, because the ink is not regulated as a hazardous material, the approval you originally\nBATE\nrequested is not necessary.\n16. 3915801\n-L3-0\nSincerely,\n1/23/01\nEdward T. Mazzullo, Director\n-\nSYMBOC\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nDLM-20\nMazzullo:gt:dhm-10:68553:01/17/2001\nRevised\nSireechen\nFile: 173.136\n1/23/01\nR1a:39M80L\nDHM-10\n• TW\n....\n: /23/01\n01-0234\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nD\nCONCUMRENCES\n\"HITULUSKE\nTATE\nMr. Lawrence W. Bierlein\n2175 K Street, NW\nRIE SYNABO\nWashington. DC 20037\n\"ЖІТСАЖК)\nDear Mr. Bierlein:\nOn September 1,2000, on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company, you applied for an approval to\nship certain inkjet cartridges as unregulated materials. This is in response to your subsequent\nletter of January 5, 2001, enclosing results of certain steel corrosion tests and a comparative chart\non steel compositions.\n\"ВИТЕ\"\nWe have reviewed that test data and chart, and conclude that the K02400 steel tested is\nsufficiently \"similar to\" P3 and P235 steels, as that term is used in the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) and the United Nations Model Regulations on the\n\"STOLUSKE\nTransport of Dangerous Goods, to be accepted for Class 8 classification purposes. We also\nconclude, based upon the 14-day test results you provided, that the ink in the Hewlett-Packard\ninkjet printer cartridges does not meet the definition of a corrosive material as set forth in 49\niT SidES\nCFR §§ 173.136 and 173.137, and in international regulations based upon Chapter 2.8 of the UN\nModel Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.\nAccordingly, because the ink is not regulated as a hazardous material, the approval you originally\nTATE\nrequested is not necessary and, as you requested, we are returning the approval application to\nyou.\n\"RIC SEC\nSincerely,\n\"TATE™\nHIa знает\nEdward T. Mazzullo, Director\nDHM 1O\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nHITOSKE\n47-\nнавалоно\n01/19/01\nMazzullo:gt:dhm-10:68553:01/17/2001\nREE SYMEL\nFile:173.136\n!\n01/17/200\nOFFICIAL FRE COPY\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nOCT-0:-00\n13,42 FROMx\nXD.\n-\nPACE\n•\nMCCARTHY, SWEENEY & HARKAWAY, P.C.\n2175 K Street, N.W.\nWashington DC 20037\n(202) 393-5710\n(202) 393-5721 (Fax)\nlwbierlein@mshpc.com\nDate:\nOctober 1, 2000\nTo:\nJIM O'STEEN\nED MAZZULLO\nFax No.:\n366-3753\n366-3012\nFroma:\nLARRY BIERLEIN\nPages:\n9\nMESSAGE:\nFXI - The people at Hewlett-Packard are running tests on their inkjet\nprinter ink in accordance with the two attached test suites. Also\nattached is test protocol SW-846 Method 1110 on steel corrosion. We\nthink the results will support a revised \"quantity and form\" approach\nto an approval. I will let you kaow when the results are in, along with\nadditional info about the ink and its properties. Thanks.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nост-01-00\n13,42 FROM.\nPAGE 2\n•\nTest Suite One\n1) Obtain 3 samples of SAE 1020 Steel wilh dimensions of approximately 12\"X(2\".\n2) Prepare surfaces of all saxaples per SW-846 Method 1110 test methods.\n3) Simulate as ink spill (using our most aggressive ink) on 2 of the stocl samples\n(basically, cover tbe entire surface arca with ink). The 3\" sample will be used as\na control.\n5) Measure the dry time.\n4) Let the ink dry in standard atmospheric conditions (23C, 60% relative humidity).\n6) Clean and measure the corrosivity of 1 of the samples and the control samplo per\nSW-846 Method 1110 test methods.\n7) Let the other sample remain in standard atmospheric conditions (23C, 60%\nrelative bumidity) for au extended period (~1 week).\n8) Clear and measure the corrosivity of the 2% sample per SW-846 Method 1110\ntest methods.\n9) Compare the results of all 3 samples relative to each orber and guidelines for\ncorrosion rates (6.35 xampy).\n10) Document all results.\nTest Suite Iwo\n1) Obtain 3 samples of SAt 1020 Steel staadard coupons.\n2) Preparo surfaces of all samplos per SW-846 Method 1110 test methods.\n3) Subject two of the coupons per SW-846 Method 1110 tests methods (using our\nmost aggressive ink) for a period of time equal to the dry time calculated in Test\nSuite One. The 3\" sample will be used as a control.\n4) Clean and measure the corrosivity of 1 of the coupons and the control coupon per\nSW-846 Method 1110 test methods.\n5) Let the other coupon remain in standard atmospheric conditions (23C, 60%\nrelative humidity) for an extended period (~/week).\n6) Clean aud measure the corrosivity of the 2º% coupon per SW-846 Method 1110\ntest methods.\n7) Compare the results of all 3 coupons relative to each other and guidclines for\ncostosion rates (6.53 mampy).\n8) Document all results.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nOCT-01-80 13,42 FROM.\n1D.\nPAGE\n3\nMETHOD 1110\nCORROSIVLIY TOWARO STEEL\n1.O SCOPE AND APPLICATION\naqueous and nonaqueous líquia wastes.\n1.1 Method 1110 is used to measure the corrosivity toward steel of both\n2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOO\nevaluated and, by measuring the degree to which the coupon has been\nThis test exposes coupons of SAE Type 1020 steel to the liquid waste\ndissolved, determines the corrosivity of the waste.\n3.0 INTERFERENCES\nis usualdy reproducible to within en as ents one, corrosion of supicate coupons\nrates may occasionally occur under conditions where the metal surfaces become\nHowever. large differences in corrosion\nshould be made.\npassivated.\nTherefore, at least duplicate determinations of corrosion rate\n4.0 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS\nsuitable size (usually 500 to 5,000 mL). ¿ reflux condenser, a thermowell and\nAn apparatus should be used, consisting of a kettle or flask uf\na specimen support systen. A typical resin Mask set up for this type of test\ntemperature regulating device, à heating device (mantle, hot plate. or bath). and\nis shown in figure 1.\nThe method of supporting the coupons will vary with the apparatus used\nfor conducting the test, but it should be designed to insulate the coupons from\nactailic container or orner device used in the rest. some common support\neach other physically and electrically and to insulate the coupons from any\nmateríals include glass, fluorocaroon. or coated metal.\nwith the waste.\n4.4 The shope and form of the coupon support should ensure tree contact\nCO-ROM\n2120-1\nRevision _0.\nDate September 1986\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n0CT-01-00\n13,42 FROM»\nID•\nPACE\n4\n-G\nA-\nB-\n-E\n- D\nFigure 1.\nconventent apparatus to conduct simple immersion tests. Configuration of the\ntypical resin flask that can de used as a versatile and\nthe specific test being conducted.\nrask top is such that more sophisticated apparatus can de dodeo as required by\n^ ° thermowell. B - resin flask. C :\nspecinens hung on supporting device. Om heating mantle. E\n-opening in flask for additional apparatus that may be required. and G-\nliquid interface.\nreflux condenser,\nx\nCO-ROM\n1110 - 2\nRevision -\nReve Secrenber 1986\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nOCT-01-00 13:43 FROM.\nID.\nPAGE\ndiameter is a convenient shape for a coupon.\n1.s A circular specimen of SAC 1020 steel of about 3.75 ca (1.5 in.)\n0.32 cm (0.125 in.) and a 0.80 c= (0.1-in.) diameter hole for mounting. theso\nWith a thickness of approximately\nspecimens will readily pass through a 45/50 ground-glass joint of a distillation\nkettle.\nequation:\nThe total surface area of a circular soccinen is given by the following\nA -3.14/2(0'-d') + (2) (3.14)(0) + (*) (3.14) (d)\nwhere:\n0 - diamoter of the specimen.\n¿- thickness.\no-dianeter of the mounting hole.\nIf the hole is completely covered by the mounting support, the last term in the\nequation. (E) (3.14)(d), is ovitted.\n4.5.1\ncalculation of the exposed areas. An area calculation accurate to 12% is\nAll coupons should be measured carefully to pernit accurate\nusually adequate.\nof metal is removed from the coupons prior to testing the corrosivity of the\n4.5.2 More uniform results may he expected if a substantial layer\nelectrolytic removal, or by grinding with à coarse abrasive. At least 0.254\nîhis can be accomplished by chemical treatnent (pickling). by\nshould inciude finishing with #120 abrasive paper or cloth.\na (0.0001 in.) or 2-3 mg/en? should be renoved. Hinal surface treatment\nconsists of scrubbing with bleach-free scouring powder, followed by rinsing\nFinal cleaning\ndrying.\nin distilled water and then in acetone or methanol, and finally by air\nuntil used.\nAfter final cleaning, the coupon should be stored in a desiccator\n4.5.3\ncoupon to he used in this test is 40 mL/cal.\nThe minimum ratio of volume of waste to area of the melal\nS.O REAGENTS\n11 we a Sale daoxia (0). (204): Orsolves 200 g MaCH 1n 800 ML Type\n5.2 Zine dust.\n5.3\nHydrochieris acid (HCI): Concentrated.\n5.4\nStannous chloride (Snch,).\n5.5\nAntimeny chloride (S0C),).\nCO-ROM\n1110 - 3\nlate Septemner 198/\nrevision —e\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nOCT-01-00 13143 FROM,\nPAGE\n6\n*\n6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION. AND HANDLING\nthe considerations discussed in Chapter Nine of this manual.\n6.1 All samples should be collected using & sampling plan that addresses\n7.0 PROCEDURE\n2.1 Assemble the test apparatus as deseribed in Paragraph 1.0. above.\n1.2 Fill the container with the appropriate anount of waste.\n7,3\nBegin agitation at a rate sufficient to ensure that the liquid is kept\nwell mixed and homogeneous.\n(130°7). Using the noating device, Dring the tenperature of the naste to 35°C\nas to whether the rate of corrosion is less than or greater than 6.35 am per year\n7.5\" An accurate rate of corrosion is not required: only a determination\nis required.\nA 24-hr test period should be ample to detersine whether on not the\nrate of corrosion is >6.35 ma por year.\nIn order to determine accurately the amount of matertal lost to\ncorrosion, the coupons have to de cleaned after inmersion and prior to weighing.\nThe cleaning procedure should remove ail products of corrosion while removing a\nminimum of sound metal.\nCleaning methóds can be dividea into three general\ncategories: mechanical, chemical, and electrolytic.\nMechanical cleaning includes scrubbing, scraping, brushing.\nand ultrasonic procedures. Scrubbing with & bristle brush and mild abrasive\nis the most popular of these methods. The others are used in coses of heavy\ncorrosion as a first step in removing heavily encrusted corrosion products\nprior to scrubbing. Care should be taken to avoro removing sound metal.\nChemical cleaning implies the renoval of materíal from the\nsurface of the coupon by dissolution in an appropriato solvent. Solvents\ngrease, or resinous materials ard are used prior to immersion to remove the\nas acetone, dichloromethane, ane alconol are used to remove un.\nproducts of corrosion. Solutions suitable for removing corrosion from the\nsteel coupon are:\nSolution\nSeakina time\nIemperature\n20% NaOIl \" 200 g/l zine dust\n5 min\nBetting\nor\nconc. 1101=50 8/e such, + 20 gli socl, Until clean\ncold\n1110 - 4\nCO-ROM\nRevision -\nDate Sentember 1986\n:\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\n067-01-00\n13,43 FROM.\nID.\n\"PACE\n7\nrebove looser decerony co rosion preducts. one meted or electroly to\ncleaning that can be employed uses:\nsoluzion:\n50 g/L H,SO.\nAnode:\nCarbon or lead\nCathode:\nSteel coupon\nCathode current density:\n20 amp/ca? (129 arp/in.\")\ninhibitor:\n2. ce organic inhibitor/liter\n¡emperature:\n74 °C (165°5)\nExposure Pariod:\n3 min.\nNOLE: Precautions must be taken to ensure good electrical contact with the\nmetal ions and to ensure that inhibitor decomposition has not occurred.\ncoupon to avoid contamination of the cleaning solution with easily reducible\nInstead of a propriotary inhfoitor, 0.5 g/l of either diorthotolyl chiourea\nor quinolin ethiodide can be used.\nremoving sound metal should be determined by using a blank (i.e.. a coupon that\n1.7 Whatever treatment is employed to clean the coupons. its effect in\nhas not been exposed to the waste). The blank should be cleaned along with the\ntest coupon and its waste loss subtracted from that calculated for the test\ncoupons.\nreweighed. The weight loss is employed as the principal measure of corrosion.\nAfter corroded specimens havo been cleaned and dried. they are\nUse of weight loss as a measure of corrosion requires making the assumption that\nin order to determine the corrosion rate for the purpose of this regulation. the\nall weight loss has been due to generalized corrosion and not localized pitting.\nfollowing formula is used:\n¡orrosson Rate (ampy) - Weight loss × 11.34\nrer x rig\nwhere:\nweight loss is in milligrams.\narea in square centimeters.\ntime in hours, and\ncorrosion rate in sillineters per year (rapy).\n8.0 QUALITY CONTROL\n8.1 All qualsty control data should be filled and avallable for auditing.\n8.2\nDuplicate samples should be analyzed on a routine basis.\nCO-ROM\n1110 - 3\nRevision -\nDate September 1986\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nOCT- 01-00\n13x43 FROM.\nXD \"\nPAGE\n8\n9.0 METHOD PERTORMANCE\n9.1 No data provided.\n10.0 REFERENCES\n1. National Association of Corrosion Engineers. \"Laboratory Corrosion Testing\nNACE, 3400 West Loop South, Houston. IX /7027.\nof Metals for the Process Industries.\" NACE Standard TM-01-69 (1972 Rovision).\nCO-ROM\n1110 - 6\nRevision _e\nDate\nSentenner 1986\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nOCT-01-00 13144 FROM,\nPAGE\n9\nCORROSIVITY TOWARD STEEL\nMETHOD 1110\nStart\nress apparatus.\n7.1 Assemble\n7.6 Clean coupons\nchemical, and/or\nby mechanical.\nelectrolyric\nmethods.\n7.2 Fill container\n7.7 Check eftect\nwith waste.\ntreatment on\nof cleaning\nremoving sound\nmetal.\n7.3 Agirare.\n7.8 Determin\n¡orrosion rare\n7.4 Heat.\nStOP\nCO-ROM\"\n1110 ÷ /\nDate\nRevision\nSerener 1986\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nMazzullo. Ed\nFrom:\nIwbierlein(iwbierlein@mshpc.com/\nSent:\nMonday, January 22, 2001 11:08 AM\nTo:\nMazzullo, Ed <RSPA>\nSubject:\nHewiett-Packard\ngetting a letter this week? When ever it may be ready, please have someone\nEd, we are eager to bring closure to this inkjet matter. Any chance of\nphone me at 393-5710 and I will send a messenger to pick it up. Thanks.\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nLAW OFFicES\nLAWRENCE W, BIERLEIN\nJOHN M. CUTLER, JR\nDOUGLAS M. CANTER\nMCCARTHY, SWEENEY & HARKAWAY, P.C.\nSUITE 600\n202) 393-5721\nFACSIMIS\nSTEVEN J. KAUSH\nANDREW P. GOLOSTEIN\n2175K STREET, N.W.\nHARVEY L. RETTER\nRICHARD D. LUEBERMAN\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20037\nMISH@MSHAC.COM\nE-Mar\n(202) 393-5710\nWeesire\nWuUAM I. HARKAWAY\nOF COUNSEL\nHTTP//MNW.MSHAC.COM\nOctober 17,2000\nDANIEL J. SWEENEY\nKAREN R. O'BREN\nTo:\nJim O'Steen\nEd Mazzullo /\nFrom:\nLary Bin Ten\nRe:\nHewlett-Packard ink testing\nI appreciated the chance to talk to you about the Hewlett-Packard inkjet cartridges\nand our pending request for an approval. In order to provide you with more information\nabout the ink itself, I have enclosed two items\nFirst is an MSDS for the most aggressive of the range of inks aflected, Zaphod\nYellow. As you can see, the flash point is greater than 200°F The second enclosure is a\nrest report. As noted in the onginal application, the cartridges range in capacity from\nabout 35 mi to 750 mi, with more than 90% being about 35 ml. Because the device\ncontains the ink, and the device itself is extensively overpacked, the likelihood of any\nrelease is virtually non-existent.\nIf there were a release, however, the amount released would be small. This is an\nink and it is intended to dry rapidly. While it would dry faster on paper, nonetheless even\na spill onto a metal surtace dries quickly. In order to assess the corrosive effects of a\nsimulated spill, i.e., in which the steel coupon is wet with the ink but then the ink is\nallowed to dry, the company ran three tests. The test method is somewhat different from\nthe draft I sent you last week.\nIn the enclosed test report, three sample steel coupons were used. As described in\nfor a week. The assumption is that the comosive effects on steel stop when the ink dries,\nand this longer test should confirm that assumption.\nI will call one of you tomorrow to see how this information might be used to\nsupport the requested \"quantity and form\" approval requested Thank you.\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\n•\n.....\nMemorandum\nTo:\nTim Carey/SERM\nJim Colby/ISO Packaging\nCC:\nKathy Brewer/SERM\nFrom: Barbara Hanley/SERM\nDate:\nOctober 12, 2000\nRe:\nResults and Summary of Zaphod Yellow Ink Dry Tim and the Observed Affects on the Corrosion Rate to\nSAE1020 Steel\nThis memo is to inform the distribution of the results from a materials compatibility analysis completed today. The\nmemo is structured by giving a background as to why the experiment was performod, the summary of the results,\nfollowed by the analysis procodure usod.\nBackground and Analysis Goal\ndiscovered that the color (yellow, magenta and cyan) inks that are used in the No. 10 and No. 80 inkjet supplies\nDuring routine internal product testing of the inks and cartridge material used to manufacture inkjet supplies, it was\nexceeded the federal waste and transportation threshold for corrosivity to steel. The method used to determine\ncorrosivity is found in EPA 530/SW-846 Method 1110, Corrosivity Towards Steel.\nheated to 55 degrees C and agitated. Although the inks exhibit the corrosivity characteristic under these test\nThe method calls for the immersion of an SAE 1020 steel specimen in approximately 1000-ml of liquid, which is\nconditions, it was not known if they would corrode steel under more \"real world\" conditions. The analysis goal was\nto simulate an ink spill and determine if the ink would continue to exhibit the corrosion characteristic while drying\nor when dry. It is hoped that the data may answer this question.\nSummary of Results\nyellow showing the highest corrosion rate. For this reason, Zaphod yellow was chosen as the ink for this\nThe ink used in the No. 10 and No. 80 inkjet supply were developed under the codename Zaphod, with Zaphod\nthe Acid/Base fume hoods in the HP Corvallis Building 7 Analytical Lab as shown in Figures I and 2. For quality\nexperiment. Three SAE1020 round steel coupons were used as the specimens. The experiment was set-up in one of\ncontrol, a specimen was also exposed to DI Water, while another specimen was suspended in the hood, but not\nexposed to any liquid. Both the specimen and the liquid weights were measured on a Sartorius Model R200\nyear. The conditions of the analyses are listed at the end of this document.\nBalance, shown in Figure 3, capable of measuring out to five significant figures and calibrated in September of this\nthe corrosion rate in millimeters per year (campy) of the three specimens used in the experiment. It can be seen from\nNo significant differences were detocted between the specimens with regard to their corrosion rates. Table 1 shows\nthe table that there were no significant differences detected between the spocimens with regard to their corrosion\nrate.\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nhp\n..r..\nTable 1: Summary results from experiment\nZAPHOD-BASED COLOR INK CORROSIVITY ANALYSIS\nLaphod Yellow and SAE 1020 steel coupons, tested ia B-7 Analytical Lab (10/10-11/00)\nSample\nID\nSurface\n(ст)\nArea\nExposed\nTo:\nSample\nVolume\nLength of\nExposure\nTime\nDry\nInitial\nFinal\nWt\n(br)\n(br)\n(2\n(mg)\n(mm/Yr).\nIAO181\nAO182\n25.66\n25.63\nDI Water\nZ-Y\n1000 mol\n0.0167\n1000 mal\n0.0167\n24\n24\n23.99731\n23.81670\n23.99481\n0.002.50\n1.44\n0.03\nAO184\n25.54\nAir\nNA\n0.0167\n24\n23.45772\n23.457351 0.00037\n2.50\n0.05\n0.37\n0.01\nFigure I: Experiment set-up\n-\nFigure 2: Experimental setup after exposure\n993\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\nanys\nFigure 3: Balance used to weigh specimens\nAnalysis procedure\nSpecimen preparation and cleaning:\nThe specimens were ordered from Alabama Spocialty Metals, Lac. and arrived in sealed paper packets. Each\nspecimen was stamped with a material code (C1020) and individual identification number (AOXXX). The sealed\npackets for the specimens used in this experiment were not opened until the day of the experiment and were always\nhandled using nitrile gloves. Because the samples were brand new, a proclean step was not performed. Afer\nMicroscope (SEM) lab for pre-exposure surface micrographs.\nmeasuring the outer diameter, inner hole diameter and thickness, the specimens were sent to the Scanning Electron\nAttough he painis seld with a Fight , opt, lor dad erecipeate five, he samples le of ach\nspecimen was threaded with plastic fishing line.\nAfter exposure, each spocimen was immersed in a 1:10 non-chlorine cleanser/tap water mixture at ambient\ntemperature and allowed to soak for S minutes. Then, the immersed specimens were placod on an electric stirrer for\nanother five minutes. The specimens were removed from the immersion jars, rinsed with tap water and patted dry\nusing a sterile Tea-Wipe. The specimens were weighed and sent back to the SEM lab, where post-exposure\nmicrographs were taken. While at the SEM lab, the specimens were cleaned with high-pressure COr gas to remove\nink residue. To reduce variability, the cleaning tochnique was applied to all three specimens.\nLiquid Preparation, Ser-up and Specimen Exposure:\nfour neck Pyrex lid. Standard non-mercury filled thermometers were used to monitor liquid and air temperature.\nThe ink used was Zaphod Yellow from the Building 7 Proto Lak Lab. Two 1000-ml Pyrex Keck flasks, fitted with a\nChe DI Water was obtained tbrough the house system, which has a resistivity specification set at 18 MOms. The\nlasks were fitted with condensers, although these were not used during this experiment. Also, only one ink-filler\n\n<<<PAGE 17>>>\n\nEnviroa\nMP Supplice\nne specimen was suspended on the end of the lab rack as a control. The other two specimens were immersed it\naphod yellow ink or DI water for one minute. These spocimens were suspended on the lab rack for 24 hours, wit\nAfter the dry-time measurement, the specimens were removed from the lab rack, cleaned, dried, and weighed as\nperiod dry time checks taken at one hour and 13 hours and 24 hours, as shown in Figures 4, S, and 6, respectively.\nshown in Figure 7.\nFigure 4: Dry time check after exposure.\nFigure 5: Dry time check after exposure.\nElapsed dry time: 1 hour\nElapsed dry time: 13 hours\nFigure 6: Dry time check after exposure.\nElapsed dry time: 24 hours\n\n<<<PAGE 18>>>\n\nLIp\nà\nFigure 7: Specimens after various exposures\nA0182 -\nA0184 -\nAO181-\nZaphod Yellow ink;\n1 min exposure to\nControl spocimen;\n1 min exposure to\nAir, 24-hours\nDeionized Water\n24-hour dry time\n(18 MOhm); 24-hour\ndry time\n\n<<<PAGE 19>>>\n\n•\nDIJ00350\nMaterial Safety Data Sheet\nDuPont\nPage 1\nZAPHOD YELLOW INK\nRevised 21 June 2000\nPRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION\nProduct Name:\nZAPHOD YELLOW INK\nProduct Code:\nNos Assigned\nCompany Identification\nMANUFACTURER/DISTRIBUTOR\nDuPont Ink Jet Inks and Specialty Colorants\nWilmington, DE (USA)\nBarley Mill Plaza\nPHONE NUMBERS\nProduct, Safety, Health and\nTransport Emergency\nEnvironmental Information\nMedical Emergency\nCOMPOSITIONINFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS\nComponents (% by weight)\nMaterial\nCAS Number\nHumectant\nWater\n7732-18-5\n55-80\nSuccinic Acid\n5-10\n2-Pyrrolidone\nAliphatic Polyol\n110-15.6\n5-10\n5-10\nInorganic Nitrate\n616-45-5\n5-10\nYellow Dyes\n<1\n<\nComponents (Remarks)\nwithheld as a trade secret.\n\"The specific identity for each component not identified by a CAS Registry Number is\n\n<<<PAGE 20>>>\n\n* *\nDIJO0350\nDuPont\nMaterial Safety Data Sheel\nPago 2\n3.\nHAZARDS IDENTIFICATION\nPotential Health Effects\nTHIS PRODUCT CAN BE USED SAFELY WHEN USED AS DIRECTED AND WHEN\nAPPLICABLE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS ARE FOLLOWED.\nPOTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS FROM PRODUCT\ninhalation of vapor.\nPotential routes of overexposure to this product are skin contact, eye contact an\nIngestion is nor expected to be a significans route of exposure for this product under\nnormal use conditions.\nThere is no toxicity data avatable for this specific formulation. Any potential hazards are\npresumed to be due to exposure to the components.\nThis material has been found to be corrosive to SAE Type 1020 sleel. No skin test data\nare avatable.\nADDITIONAL HEALTH EFFECTS\nof exposure, information is provided for each hazardous component of the mixture to\nSince this mixture has not been tested as a whole to determine the hazards by all roules\nmeet requrements of OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200).\nThe effects noted occur from exposure to the pure component unless otherwise noted.\nINFORMATION FOR COMPONENTS\nHUMECTANT\nSkin Contact - Essentially non-imitating, Sightly foxic to animals by absorption.\nEye Contact - Essentially nor-irritating.\nMedical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure - Significant exposure to this chemical may\nadversely affect people with chronic disease of the respiratory system, skin and/or eyes.\nSUCCINIC ACID\nrats showed no adverse effects. Tests in chick embryos demonstrated no mutagenic\nThis material is a sight skin irritant and a strong eye irilant. Short term feeding studies ir\nactivity. Symptoms of acute toxicity in rats are weakness and diarrhea.\ninitially include: skin irrilation with discomfort or rash; or eye irritation with discomfort.\nHuman health effects of overexposure by inhalation, ingestion, or skin or eye contact may\nfearing or blurring of vision. Data to evaluate the skin permeation hazard of this material\nare insufficient.\n\n<<<PAGE 21>>>\n\nDIJO0350\nDupont\nMaterial Safety Data Sheet\nPage 3\nALIPHATIC POLYOL\nby skin absorption. Harmful if inhaled or swatowed. May cause eye imlation May cause\nNot a skin or eye imtans in animals. Low toxicty in animals by ingestion and sight toxicity\nskin irritation. Exposure can cause gastrointestinal disturbances, nausea, headache and\n2 PYRROLIDONE\nvomiting or diarrhea.\n2-Pymrolidone may irritate skin, eyes, nose and throal Ingestion may cause nausea.\nINORGANIC NITRATE\nThis material is an eye and upper respiratory tract irriant. Ingestion may lead to\nbreath, bluish discoloration of the skin and mucous membranes, nausea and headache.\nmethemoglobinemia and gastric tritation with symploms of weakness, shortnoss of\nCarcinogenicity Information\nby JARC. NTP, OSHA or ACGiH as a carcinogen.\nNone of the components present in this material al concentrations equal to or greater than 0.1% are listed\nFIRST AID MEASURES\nFirst Aid\nINHALATION\nlf inhaled, remove to fresh air, If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is\ndifficult, give oxygen. Call a physician.\nSKIN CONTACT\nFlush skin with water after contact. Wash contaminated clothing before reuse.\nEYE CONTACT\nIn case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at leas! 15 minutes.\nCall a physician.\nINGESTION\nIngestion is not an expected route of exposure during normal use of the product. if\ningested, consult a physician.\n\n<<<PAGE 22>>>\n\nDIJO0350\nMaterial Safety Data Sheet\nDupont\nPage 4\n5.\nFIRE FIGHTING MEASURES\nFlammable Properties\nFlash Point\nMethod\n: Closed Cup\n:>200 °F (>93.3 °C)\nApproximate Flammable Limits in Air, % by Votume\n* Nol Avadable\nAutoignition Temperature\n: Not Avatable\n: Not Avatable\nMaterialis a nonflammable water-based solution\nHazardous combustion products (gases /vapors) produced in fire can inctude carbon\nmonoxide, carbon dioxide and smoke.\nExtinguishing Media\nUse media appropriate for surrounding material.\nFire Fighting Instructions\nThis material is not flammable. Use normal firefighting procedures for the area.\n6.\nACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES\nSafeguards (Personnel)\nNOTE: Review FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES and HANDLING (PERSONNEL) sections\nEQUIPMENT during clean-up.\nbefore proceeding with clean-up. Use appropriate PERSONAL PROTECTIVE\nInitial Containment\nDike spil\nSpil Clean Up\nSoak up with absorbent material.\nHANDLING AND STORAGE\nHandling (Personnel)\nAvoid contact with eyes, skin, or clothing.\n\n<<<PAGE 23>>>\n\n*\nDIJ00350\nMaterial Safety Data Sheet\nDupont\nPage 5\nEXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION\nPersonal Prolective Equipment\nEYE/FACE PROTECTION\nVeas safety glasses. Wear coverall chemical splash goggles and face shield when th\nossibdity exists for eye and face contact due to splashing or spraying of the materia\nRESPIRATORS\nRespirators are not needed for normal use.\nPROTECTIVE CLOTHING\nif there is potential for significant dermal contact weas appropriate impervious clothing and\nExposure Guidetnes\npplicable Exposure Limit\nPEL (OSHA)\nLUMECTANT\nTV (ACGIH)\n: None Established\nAEL * (DuPont)\n* None Estabished\n* None Estabished\nSUCCINIC ACID\nTLV (ACGIH)\nPEL (OSHA)\n: None Established\nAEL • (DuPont)\n: None Established\n: None Established\nPEL (OSHA)\nALIPHATIC POLYOL\nTLV (ACGIH)\ni None Estabished\nAEL • (DuPont)\n: None Estabished\n2-PYRROLIDONE\nPEL (OSHA)\nTLV (ACGIH)\n* None Established\nAEL • (DuPont)\n: None Estabished\n: 10 ppm, 35 mg/m', 8 & 12 Hr. TWA\nINORGANIC NITRATE\nPEL (OSHA)\nAEL • (DuPont)\nTLV (ACGIH)\n¿ None Established\n: 10 mg/m*, 8 Hr. TWA\n* None Estabished\nYELLOW DYES\nPEL (OSHA)\nTLV (ACGIH)\n*None Established\nAEL • (DuPont)\n¿ None Estabished\n: None Estabished\n\n<<<PAGE 24>>>\n\nD1J00350\nMaterial Safety Data Sheet\nDuPont\nPage 6\n•AEL is DuPont's Acceptable Exposure Limit. Where governmentally imposed\ntake precedence.\noccupational exposure limies which are lower than the AEL are in effect, such limits shall\n9.\nPHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES\nPhysical Data\nColor\nForm\n: Liquid\nSolubility in Water\nOdor\n: Yellow\n: Slight\npH\n: Miscible\nSpecific Gravity\n·3.5-4.5\n: 1.06\n10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY\nChemical Stabitty\nStable at normal temperatures and storage conditions.\nIncompatibility with Other Materials\nCorrosive to SAE Type 1020 steel\nDecomposition\nDecomposition does not oocus during normal use.\nPolymerization\nPolymerization will nol occur.\n11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION\nAnimal Data\nNo data avalable for product.\n\n<<<PAGE 25>>>\n\nDIJO0350\nMaterial Safety Data Sheet\nDuPont\nPage 7\n12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION\nEcoloxicological Information\nNo data avatable for produce\n13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS\nWaste Disposal\nTreatment, storage, transportation, and disposal must be in accordance with appticable\nFederal, State/Provincial, and Local regulations.\n14.\nTRANSPORTATION INFORMATION\n(Not meant to be all inclusive)\nDOT (Department of Transportation):\nProper Shipping Name\n: CORROSIVE LIQUID, ACIDIC, ORGANIC. N.O.S.\nHazard Class\n(SUCCINIC ACID)\nIdentification Number\nPacking Group\n: UN3265\n15.\nREGULATORY INFORMATION\n(Not meant to be all inclusive - selected regulations represented)\nU.S, Regulations\nFederal Regulations\nTSCA Inventory Status - All components of this product are compliant with TSCA\nchemical inventory regulations.\nTSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification - This product can contain:\nNone\n\n<<<PAGE 26>>>\n\n•\nDIS00350\nMaterial Safety Data Sheel\nDupont\nPage 8\nState Regulations\nState Right-To-Know\nCANCER, BIRTH DEFECTS OR OTHER REPRODUCTIVE HARM (Caldomia\nWARNING - SUBSTANCES KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE\nProposition 65)\nEthytene Oxide (75-21-8)\nFormaldehyde (50-00-0)\n<0.5 ppm\n1,4-Dioxane (123-91-1)\n<0.1 ppm\nAcetaldehyde (75-07-0)\n0.1 ppm\n0.1 ppm\nThe above are trace impunties that can occur in the product.\nEuropean Union Regulations\ninventory regulations.\nEU Inventory Status - All components of this product are compliant with EU chemical\n16. OTHER INFORMATION\nHMIS Rating\nFlammabitty\nHealth\n\"1\nReactivity\n\"1\n* 0\nherein and does not relate to use in combination with any other material or in any process.\nThe data in this Material Safety Data Sheet relates only to the specific material designated\nMSDS Contact Information\nDuPont ink Jet Inks and Specialty Colorants\nProduct Stewardship Coordinator\nWimington, DE (U.S.A.)\nBarley Mitt Plaza\n1-302-695-9682 (U.SA.)\nRevision History\n2 February 2000\n2 May 2000\nNew MSDS format\nModifications to Sections 3 and 4 - Inhalation\n21 June 2000\nSection 15 - Calfornia Proposition 65\nSections 2, 3, 8, 10. 14, 15 - Corrosive to steel\n\n<<<PAGE 27>>>\n\nDIJ00350\nMaterial Safety Data Sheet\nDuPont\nPage 9\nKey\nACGIH\nAEL\nAmerican Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists\nET\nCmpos\nCompounds\nAcceptable Exposure Limit (DuPont)\nEU\nEastern Time (U.S.A)\nHMIS\nEuropean Union\nHazardous Material Information System (National Paint and Coatings\nLEL or LFL\nLARC\nInternational Agency for Research on Cancer\nAssociation)\nM-F\nLower Explosive Limit of Lower Flammable Limit\nOSHA\nNTP\nNational Toxicology Program (U.S.A)\nMonday through Friday\nSTEL\nPEL\nOccupational Safety and Heath Administration (U.S.A)\nPermissible Exposure Lmit\nTSCA\nTLV\nThreshold Limit Value\nShort Term Exposure Limit\nTWA\nToxic Substances Control Act (U.S.A)\nUEL or UFL\nTime weighted Average\nWEEL\nUpper Explosive Limit or Upper Flammable Limit\nWorkplace Environmental Exposure Level\nEnd of MSDS\n\n<<<PAGE 28>>>\n\n•\nLAW OFficEs\nLAWRENCE W. BIERLEN\nMCCARTHY, SWEENEY & HARKAWAY, P.C.\nJOHN M. CUTLER JR\nSUITE 600\n202) 393-5721\nFACSIMRA\nANDREW P. GOLOSTEIN\n2175 K STREET, N.W.\nHAAVEY L. REITER\nRICHARO D. LIEBERMAN\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20037\nMSH@MSMAC.COM\nE-MAT\n(202) 393-5710\nWessite\nOr COUNSEL\nMTT://WW.MSHOC.COM\nNUR HAKWAY\nJanuary 5, 2001\nDANIEL J SWEENEY\nMr. James O'Steen\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Technology (DHM-20)\nResearch & Special Programs Administration\nWashington, DC 20590\nDepartment of Transportation\ncc:\nMr. Edward Mazzullo, Standards (DHM-10)\nMr. James Enoch Jones, Approvals (DHM-32)\nRe:\nPending Hewlett-Packard approval\napplication; inkjet printer cartridges\nDear Mr. O'Steen:\nOn September 1, 2000, I submitted an application on behalf of Hewlett-Packard\nartridges shipped by that company and its customers\ncompany for an approval under 49 CFR 173.136(b) covering a range of inkjet printe\nMy request was prompted by preliminary test information indicating that some of\nthe inks utilized in the company's printers fell within the definition of a steel-corrosive\nmaterial in 49 CFR 173.137(c)(2), and therefore would require shipment of the cartridges\nin Class 8, Packing Group III.\nAs you know, while we have been discussing this application, the company has\ncontinued to have corrosivity tests conducted on its inks under the standards in the U.S.\nand the international dangerous goods regulations. This has been made somewhat more\ndifficult because of the commercial unavailability of the P3 and P235 steels cited in the\nregulations. Both title 49 CFR and the UN Orange Book, however, indicate that test\nsteels of \"a similar type\" may be used to determine the classification.\nEnclosed are the most recent results using K02400 steel to test the company's\nZaphod Yellow Ink. This ink was chosen because both company chemists and outside\nlaboratories determined it would be the most aggressive of the inks offered in the\ncartridges. Along with these test results is a chart comparing the chemistry of K02400\nsteel to that of P3 and P235 steels. Based on this chart, we believe K02400 to be a\n\"similar\" steel to P3 and P235 as that term is used in the regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 29>>>\n\nBased upon the 14-day test results utilizing this steel, we believe that the ink does\nnot fall within the scope of the hazardous materials regulatory definitions for steel.\ncorrosion. We chose this time period because we know it has been used before in the\ncontext of DOT corrosive materials classification, and because it appears to be a closer\nreplicate to an annual corrosion rate as specified in the regulations than a shorter test\nperiod. As indicated in our original application, based upon actual testing, we know that\nthe ink is not skin or aluminum-corrosive, and that it does not meet the definition of any\nother hazard class.\nIf, upon your review of this data and test results, you agree with my conclusion\nthat these inks do not fall not within the scope of the regulations, consider this a request\nto withdraw the pending approval application.\nPlease contact me if you have any questions on this material. Thank you.\nFor Hewlett-Packard\nEnclosures\n\n<<<PAGE 30>>>\n\n• Sent By: HEWLETT PACKARD;\n01/03/2821 27:12\n368-6361868\n5417152237 CUNETA AVAVICA\nJan- 3-01 6:19PM;\nPage 2/3\nPAGE 82\nA Combia\nAnalytical\nServices ac\nin Enooyoo-Omnad company\nJanuery 3, 2001\nService Roguest No: K2009326\nBarbara Hanley\nHowiett Packard Company\n1000 NE Circle Boulevard\nCorvallis, OR 97330\nDear Barbara:\nor your reterence, these analyses nave beca assigaed our service request numbes K 200932\nclosed are the roots of the rush samplo 3) submitted to our laboratory on December 04, 2001\nAll analyses were performed according to our leboratory's quality assurance programa. All results\nare interded to be considered in their entirety, and Columbia Analytical Services, Ina. (CAS) is\nnot responsible for use of less then the complete report. Results apply only to tho seoples\nanalyzed\nPlease call if you have any questions. My extension is 3280.\nRespoctfully submitted,\nColursbia Aralytical Services, Isc.\nLes Kennody\nProject Chemist\nLK/gep\nPagel of _\n1317 South 13th Avenue • P.O.Box 479 • Kelso, Washingion 98626 • Telephone 360/ 577-7222 • Fax 3601636-1065\n\n<<<PAGE 31>>>\n\n2/3/1\n5417152237;\nCAS XBLSO\nJan-3-01 6:19PW;\nPage 3/3\n4003\nCOLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC\nAretical Report\nCheats *\nProject:\nHewiet Packard Compery\nSample Matrixs\nNA\nSerrico Roguest: K2009326\nMisc\nDate Collected: 12/400\nDato Received: 12400\nCorrastriry Toward Secel (typo KO2100)\nPrep Method:\nAnalysis Method:\nASTM G31-72\nNONE\nTEst Nores:\nUnits: moWYR\nBesis: NA\nSample Nashe\nLeb Code\nMRL MDL Rector\nDilation Date\nIstracted Anstyced Result\nDale\nBarall\nNotes\nZephod Yetoresak A 186r\nZephod Yellow lak 3 45br\nK2009326-001\nK2009326-003\nK2009326-002\n:\nZaphod Yollow lak C 48hr\nZapbod Yellow bak D 48 br\nZephod Yellow Sax B 45tr\nK2009326-004\nZapbod Yellow lak 8 7 day\nK2009326-003\nZapbod Yollow Ink H 7 day\nZapbod Yellow Lak Q7 day\nK2009326-006\nK2009326-007\nK2009326-008\nK2009326-009\n-\n77737337777777\nZepbod Yellow Ink J 7 day\nZephod Yellow Ink 17 day\nZapaod Yellow Ink K 14 dey\nK2009326-010\nZepbod Yellow Ink L 1,4 day\nK2009326-011\nTaphod Yellow Ink M 14 day\n82009326-012\nZaphod Yellow Lak N 14 day\nK2009326-013\nK2009326-014\n-\nLA8267779\nApproved By:_\nis kenners\n-Date 1/3/01\n00528727992.seOE 2001\nPeso te\n\n<<<PAGE 32>>>\n\nCorrosion rate of K02400 When Exposed to Zaphod Yellow\nInk (CAS)\n42.00\n39.00\n36.00\n33.00\n32.91÷\n30.00\n27.00\n24.00\nCorrosion rate (mmpy)\n21.00\n- Corr rate (mmpy)\n18.00\n15.00\n12-86-\n12.00\n9.00\n6.00\n223\nU.S. DOT Threshold\n3.00\n6.25 mm/lyr\n0.00\n2-day\n7-day\n14-day\nTime interval of exposure\nCAS, KO2400\naverage\nlOW\nThigh\nTrange\nerror+/-\n# of samples\n2-day]\n32.91\n25.82\n39.35\n13.53\n6.94\n5\n7-day!\n12.86\n11.2\n15.02\n3.82\n1.91\n5\n14-dayl\n5.89\n5.71\n6.22\n0.51l\n0.25\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 33>>>\n\nSteel Type Composition\nSteel Type\n[Carbon (%) Silicon (%) Chromium (%) Manganese (%) | Aluminum (%) | Molybdenum (%)| Copper (%) Nickel (%)\n-\n<0.1\n0.1 - 0.4\n0.4 - 0.75\n0.2 - 0.6\n1.0 - 1.5\nP235\n<0.17\n<0.35)\n<0.3\n0.4 - 1.2\n<0.08\n<0.3\n20.3\nK02400\n0.241\n0.13 - 0.55\n0.25\n0.65 - 1.4\n0.08\n0.35\n0.25\n-\nSAE 1020\n0.18-0.241\n0.3 - 0.61\n* Sum of chromium, copper, molybdenum, and nickel is loss than 0.7%\n- Indicates elements are not added as an alloying agent but may be present in trace quantities\nSourcos: ASTM DS-56G: Unified Number System, 8th Ed., January 1999\nIntemational Standards Organization, Standard 9328-2, 1991\n\n<<<PAGE 34>>>\n\n-.\nJanuary, 2001\nMr. Lawrence W, Bierlein\n2175 K Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20037\nDear Mr. Bierlein:\nOn September 1, 2000, on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company, you applied for\nan approval to ship certain inkjet cartridges as unregulated materials. This is in response\nto your subsequent letter of January 5, 2001, enclosing results of certain steel corrosion\ntests and a comparative chart on steel compositions.\nWe have reviewed thai test data and c","truncated":true,"body_characters":40844}