Entegris, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1f Transportatior .S. Departmen Washington, D.C. 20590 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration APR 11 2007 Mr. Kevin Bevis Containers Engineer Ref. No. 06-0270 3500 Lyman Boulevard Entegris, Inc. Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Dear Mr. Bevis: This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the non-bulk and IBC packaging design and testing criteria under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR answered as follows: Parts 171-180). Your questions are paraphrased and Q1. We successfully tested three different non-bulk single specified in § 178.601 (c) (1). packaging designs under the design qualification criteria Under selective testing Variation 5, in § 178.601(g) (5), if a replacement closure 5 testing on one of the three designs presenting the most device or gasket successfully passes the required Variation severe test conditions on the original design, is it second and third design? permissible to use a replacement closure or gasket on the Al. The answer is yes. Would the answer be the same if the second and third authorized in § 178.601(g) (3) (Variation 3)? designs were qualified under the selective testing A2. The answer is yes. Under the design qualification testing for IBCs in § 178.801 (d), is it permissible to consider IBCs with identical bodies the same design type? and with similar service equipment to be 178.601 (g) 3) 178.801 060270#

Page 2A3. to other parts of the IBC (e.g., pallet base, cage The answer is yes, provided there are no changes made support) . I trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Hole 20h11 Hattie L. Mitchell Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention#

Page 3Stevens $178.601(9X6) Entegris §178:801 HEADQUARTERS CORPORATE Testing Entegris, inc. 06-0270 Chaska. Minnesota 56318 USA 3500 Lyman Boulevardi Fax 952-555-1890 Tel. 952-558-3131 November 17, 2006 Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Mr. Edward T. Mazzullo 400 7th Street SW U.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-10) Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Dear Mr. Mazzullo, I am writing to request clarification of two paragraphs in CFR 49 Part 178. After reading the Letters of Interpretation relating to my questions, available on your website, I spoke at length via telephone with Rob at your interpretations, and encouraged this written request for clarification. Hazardous Materials Information center. His interpretations of the paragraphs in question appeared to agree with my its use in certified non-bulk and bulk specification packagings produced by Entegris. Fluids are dispensed through My questions concern service equipment, specifically a drum insert with related closures, and the testing required for this drum insert by the end-user. We have qualified this service equipment as part of two non-bulk specification packagings. (Please find enclosed reference drawing.) packagings, and I am seeking clarification of the qualification testing required for use in various other specification to close and seal the drum insert for shipment or storage, two different plastic resins (polypropylene and PFA), and This drum insert product includes several possible configurations: three caps (vented, non-vented, and manual relief) many different O ring combinations. Every configuration to be offered for sale was qualified under Variation 5 on requalify, as a new design type, each IBC with every combination of drum insert/closure/O ring. the two specification packages mentioned above. My intent with Ql below, is to determine if Entegris needs to 178.700(c)(2) defines "service equipment" as including "filling and discharge... devices.." 178.801(c)(7)(iv) defines a "different IBC design type" as not including "a packaging which differs in service 178.801(c)(1) identifies "representative service equipment" as a feature of any "IBC design type". equipment". service equipment to be the same "design type" ? Q1. For the purposes of 178.801(d) Design qualification testing, may I consider identical IBC bodies with similar second sentence following paragraph 178.601(g)(5)(ii) "Replacement closures and gasketings qualified under the My purpose with question 2, below, is to better understand the intent of 178.601(g)(5) "Variation 5". I find the above test requirements also are authorized without additional testing for different tested design types packagings of the same type as the originally tested packaging, provided the original design type tests are... " to be unclear. When considering three different packagings (all tested, qualified, different design types, single packagings under Q2. Does the following example conform to the intent of 178.601(g)(5)? presenting the most severe test conditions of these three, the other two packagings may use closure device "A" or CFR 49), if closure device "A" or gasket "B" successfully passes the required variation 5 testing in the packaging gasket "B" without further testing, provided an equivalent level of performance is maintained. fritegris#

Page 4Please contact me if you would find more detailed information to be helpful, or I may be of any assistance. Thank you for help in this matter, and for your service, working to advance the safety and welfare of our country. Sincerely, Kevin Bevis Cell 612-819-6562 Containers Engineer Office 952-556-8663 kevin_bevis@entegris.com#