{"operation":"document","citation":"02-0133","title":"gh Package/Product Testing & Consulting, Inc — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2002-07-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"02-0133 response to gh Package/Product Testing & Consulting, Inc concerning 178.602.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-02-0133.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-02-0133.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-02-0133","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2002/020133.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n:\n:\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh St., S.W\nResearch and\nJUL 17 2002\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nMr. Bernhard Bieri, III\ngh Package/Product Testing & Consulting, Inc.\nRef. No. 02-0133\n325 Commercial Drive\nFairfield, OH 45014\nDear Mr. Bieri,\nThis responds to your April 25, 2002 letter requesting we consider alternative testing\nprocedures to those under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nSpecifically, you ask 'that we consider two options that you are recommending for retesting of\npreviously certified UN hazardous material packages. You state that these recommended testing\nprocedures will help the environment and reduce waste and costs involved with UN hazardous\nmaterials testing. Your further state that these recommended options are to be used only when agreed\nupon by the customer and testing laboratory performing the test.\nYou propose the following options: Option #1- The quantity of packs required for drop tests be\nreduced to three (3) packs with multiple drops performed on two (2) packs, and Option #2 - Use only\ntwo (2) complete filled packs for stack, vibration and drop testing. You recommend these procedures\nfor: (1) retest only when no substantial change in supplier or material has been made since previous\ntests and, (2) when both testing lab and customer preparing pack for distribution agree that past history\nof pack tests and field distribution show leakage of product or significant damage to product has not\noccurred. Your premise for these recommendations are that any pack that withstands multiple tests and\npasses performs better than multiple packs of the same pack design that are subjected to only one (1)\ntest per box.\nCurrently, the HMR do not authorize the test procedures identified in your letter. In accordance with\nprovisions in § 178.601(k), provided the validity of the test results is not affected and with the approval\nof the Associate Administrator, several tests may be performed on one sample. You may submit an\napplication for approval from the Associate Administrator to use fewer samples in testing in accordance\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nwith provisions in Subpart H- Approvals, Registrations and Submissions of the HMR. You may also\npetition the Associate Administrator to establish, amend, or repeal a regulation under Subpart B-\nProcedures for Adoption of Rules. (See § 106.31).\nI hope this answers your inquiry.\nSincerely,\nRuhm Hillio\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n...\n• ..\n•.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\ngh Package\nJgh\n& Product\nFail, OH 45004\none 513) 870-008\nax (513) 870-001\nTesting and\n• Consulting, Inc.\n335 W. Melinda Lane\nPhoenix, AZ 85027\nPhone (623) 869-8008\nFax (623) 869-8003\nDATE: April 25, 2002\nBoothe\nTO: Mr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\n$178.602\nU.S. DOT/RSPA (DHM-10)\n400 7* Street S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nTesting\nFROM: Mr. Bernhard Bieri, III\n02-0133\nLaboratory Manager\ngh Package/Product Testing & Consulting, Inc.\nSubject: UN Hazardous Materials Retest Certifications (POP\nPerformance oriented packs).\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nIn an effort to #1 Help the Environment - #2 Reduce waste and\ncosts involved with UN HazardSus Matenals Testing the\nfollowing iwo test options ăre being recörménded for rétesting\nof previously certified UN Hazmat Packages.,\nOptión #1\n- The quantity of packs required for drop tests be\nreduced to three (3) packs with multiple drops\nperformed on two (2) packs.\nOption #2 - Use only two (2) complete filled packs for stack,\nVibration and drop testing.\nThese options are to be used onlý finen agreed upor vy the\ncustomer and testing laboratory performing the test.\nNOTE: Cigrent procedure requires a minimum oi elsven (v4)\n„packs if new (untestew\", pacis is use for vibration,\ndrops, and stack test.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nPage 2\nReasons for this recommendations:\n1. Currently many companies over pack hazardous\nmaterials in packs that far out perform required UN\nTests. History shows that some packs are so\nsubstantial that one pack will hold up to all five (5)\n-\ndrops as well as the vibration and stack test. The use of\nthree (3) packs would reduce the waste while providing\n--\n-\na sample size of three (3) to eliminate the objections of a\nsample size of one (1) not being statistically significant.\n2. The multiple drops on a single pack that has been\nsubjected to vibration testing is far more likely to result in\npack failure than only one (1) drop to a pack that has been\nsubjected to no other testing. (Therefore only extremely\nwell designed packs would be tested using one of these\noptional procedures).\nAgain, the premise is that any pack that withstands\nmultiple tests and passes performs better than multiple\npacks of the same pack design that are subjected to only\none (1) test per box.\n3-These-procedures are recommended.-\nA). For retest only when no substantial change in\nsupplier or material has been made since previous\ncertification.\nB). When both testing lab and customer preparing\npack for distribution agree that past history of\npack tests and field distribution show leakage of\nproduct or significant damage to product has not\noccurred.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nPage 3\n4. With all the efforts being made in the packaging industry\nto reduce waste, costs, and environmental impact on\nlandfills, I believe this is a step the UN Hazmat Committee\nshould consider with high priority.\nI work for one testing laboratory and it is not unusual to fill\none - 6 cubic yard dumpster with corrugated material and a\nsecond 6 cubic yard dumpster with all other pack materials\ntwo or three weeks each month. Ninety percent (90%) of\nthis material is from hazardous materials testing. As the\nmajority of our other testing is preformed on one (1) sample\nof each pack design. (I.S.T.A. and A.S.T.M. 4169 Tests) and\nmost of those are returned to the client.\nBecause we are only one of over 25 independent Testing\nLabs in the United States it is easy to see we are only \"the\ntip of the iceberg\" in this monumental waste of natural\nresources and environmental pollution.\nPlease give this serious consideration so that we can make\na significant move to preserve the environment without\nhaving to get the environmentalist involved\nRespectfully,\nBernhund Bien Is\nBernhard Biere, III\nLaboratory Manager\ngh Package/Product Testing & Consulting, Inc.","truncated":false,"body_characters":6390}