{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0224","title":"Strem Chemicals, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-10-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0224 response to Strem Chemicals, Inc. concerning 178.601.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0224.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0224.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0224","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080224.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave.. SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. Jason Stevens\nStrem Chemicals, Inc.\n7 Mulliken Way\nNewburyport, MA 01 950-4098\nRef. No. 08-0224\nDear Mr. Stevens:\nThis responds to your May 21,2008 letter to our Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement\nand your August 19,2008 email and telephone discussions with a member of my staff\nrequesting clarification of the applicability of selective testing of a combination package\nunder 5 178.60 1 (g) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 17 1-1 80).\nSpecifically, you request clarification of the use of \"Variation 4\" in combination with\n\"Variation 1 .\"\nYour company uses a combination package design-type that has been successfully tested for\nboth liquids and solids at the Packing Group I level. The combination package consists of a\nslotted fiberboard box containing four half gallon glass bottles and vermiculite as cushioning\nmaterial. You indicate your company also uses a smaller version of the tested design-type.\nBoth the outer dimensions and glass bottles are smaller than the original. The smaller\nversion includes steel cans as an intermediate packaging into which the glass bottles are\nplaced to provide an improved level of safety. Additionally, for certain shipments, plastic\nbottles are substituted for the glass bottles. Your understanding is that this packaging\nconfiguration is allowed, without having to test the combination package, in conformance\nwith the combined use of Variation 4 and Variation 1 ($5 178.601(g)(4) and 178.601(g)(l),\nrespectively).\nYour questions regarding the smaller version of the combination package design-type are\nparaphrased as follows:\nQ1. May the steel can be substituted for the glass bottle as the inner packaging?\nAl. No. Based on the description and pictures of the combination package you provided,\nthe steel can may not be substituted for the glass bottle. Section 1 78.60 1 (g)(4) allows the use\nof outer packaging conforming to all of the conditions in Variation 4 without testing to\ntransport inner packagings substituted for the originally tested inner packagings if the\nsubstituted inner packagings conform to all the conditions in Variation 1. It is the opinion of\nthis Office that the steel can does not meet all of the conditions in Variation 1. Specifically,\nthe steel can is not of similar design to the glass bottle (e.g., the bottle has a tapered neck),\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nand the steel can does not have the same opening and the closure is not of similar design.\nThat is, the steel can opening is larger than the glass bottle opening and the steel can closure\nis a friction lid versus a taped screw cap for the glass bottle.\nQ2. May the steel can be used as an intermediate packaging for the smaller-sized glass\nbottle?\nA2. No. Neither Variation 1 nor Variation 4, $ 5 178.60 1 (g)(l ) and 1 78.60 1 (g)(4),\nrespectively, allows the use of intermediate packaging as a condition for not having to test\nthe combination package.\nQ3. May the steel can be used as an intermediate packaging for a smaller-sized plastic bottle\nsubstituted for the glass bottle?\nA3. See answer to Q2. However, excluding the intermediate packaging of the steel can, a\nplastic bottle in conformance with all the conditions of Variation 1 may be substituted for the\nglass bottle. For example, as a condition of Variation 1, the shipper must ensure the plastic\nbottle offers resistance to impact and stacking forces equal to or greater than the glass bottle\n(§ 178.601 (g)(l )(i)(B)).\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.\nSincerely,\n~~~~~ Edward T. Mazzullo ?/\nDirector, Office of ~azgr$o\"us\nMaterials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nMr. Mazzullo:\nI am sending you a few questions that arose following a DOT inspection of our facility in\nNewburyport, MA on May 7,2008. Three Probable Findings were listed in the Exit\nBriefing, Report Control Number: 08422018, one of which was remedied immediately.\nThe other two have initiated some interesting conversations between the DOT inspectors,\nmyself, and other colleagues I have spoken with. Clarity on this matter would be very\nhelpful as it will decide how Strem Chemicals' interprets the regulation. I have included\na scenario along with three questions in which it can be assumed all other functions are\nproperly met:\nScenario: A shipper has boxes tested with four % gallon glass bottles containing both\nliquids and solids at a Packing Group I level for fragile inner packagings. After receiving\na successful test report, the Shipper has boxes made up consistent with the report, but\nalso elects to have smaller versions (outer dimensions) of the box made up in harmony\nwith 49CFR 178.60 1 (g)(4), \"Variation 4\". The Shipper then notes that 178.60 1 (g)(4)(iii)\nstates the use of inner packagings \"are identical\" except their size may be less. The\nShipper, in an effort to ensure improved safety, wants to prepare a shipment using a small\nglass bottle, but overpacked into a one quart metal can. The Shipper notes that\n178.60 1 (g)(4)(v) goes on to provide the additional relief necessary by allowance of\nsubstituted inner packagings from the originally tested inner packagings \"with the\nconditions set out in Variation 1 in paragraph (g)(l)\". The shipper notes that\n178.601 (g)(l)(i)(B) states the material of construction of the inner packaging must offer\nresistance to impact and stacking forces \"greater than that of the originally tested inner\npackaging\" which was \"fragile\" glass bottles. The Shipper concludes that helshe can use\nthe metal can provided that the other requirements set forth in \"Variation 1\" have been\nmet.\nQuestion #1: From this scenario, can the Shipper send small metal cans as they provide\ngreater resistance than fragile glass bottles?\nQuestion #2: From this scenario, can the Shipper place a small glass bottle into the metal\ncan and send in a sense viewing the inner packaging as glass or metal?\nQuestion #3: From the scenario, can the Shipper place a small plastic bottle into the\nmetal can and ship viewing the inner packaging as metal?\nPlease feel free to forward this along to the appropriate parties and do not hesitate to\ncontact me with questions in this matter as needed. My sole interest is to ensure that\nStrem Chemicals is following the regulations properly while placing the safest completed\npackages into transportation. I appreciate your help in this matter.\nKind regards,\nJason M. Stevens\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nWarehouse Manager, Strem Chemicals, Inc.\n7MulLken Way\nNewburypor~ MA\nTEL: (978) 499-1622\nFAX: (978) 465-3104\nEMAIL: jason@strern. corn","truncated":false,"body_characters":6688}