{"operation":"document","citation":"15-0125","title":"Westpak, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2015-11-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"15-0125 response to Westpak, Inc. concerning 173.203.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0125.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0125.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0125","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2015/150125.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nNOV. 2 5 LU15\nMr. Jorge Campos\nWestpak, Inc.\n83 Great Oaks Drive\nSan Jose, CA 95119\nReference No. 15-0125\nDear Mr. Campos:\nThis is in response to your e-mail requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR 171-180) applicable to package testing requirements for a\npressurized \"keg.\" In your letter you state that the \"keg\" is intended to contain 18 liters of\n\"UN3082, Environmentally Hazardous Substance, 9, III\" and 2 liters of nitrogen gas. The\n\"keg\" is filled with a vacuum system and pressurized to 10 psi. It is your understating that\nbecause the nitrogen gas does not exceed a gauge pressure of 200 kPa (43.8 psia), the material\ncontained in the \"keg\" does not meet the definition of a Division 2.2 material, and as such, the\nkeg does not need to be tested as a single packaging. In addition, you request confirmation\nthat the testing requirements for combination packages may be applied with the \"keg\" being\nthe inner package and a fiberboard box being the outer package.\nIn the scenario described the \"keg\" may be considered an inner packaging of a combination\npackage. As the nitrogen gas contained in the \"keg\" does not meet the definition of a\nDivision 2.2 material a specification inner packaging prescribed for gases is not required. The\ncompleted packaging may be considered a combination package and may tested in accordance\nwith Subpart M of Part 178 for a packaging authorized in § 173 .203.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely, ~--···-·\n, ----l /'\n..... -··-·:··---.) ... / ..... , ,,; / r<~(/\n__.-\" {/t·ti\"A.l ff· ' ! /·\n'\"···- f.l\n1\nDuane Pfund i\nInternational Standards Coordinator\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nSubject:\nAttachments:\nBetts, Charles (PHMSA)\nMonday, June 22, 2015 2:06 PM\nHazmat Interps\nFw: Pressurized 20 liter keg treating it as an article\n120216 Interpretation Letter.pdf\nPlease log and assign for response.\nSent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.\nFrom: Jorge Campos <Jorge@westpak.com>\nSent: Monday, June 22, 2015 11:25 AM\nTo: Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nSubject: Pressurized 20 liter keg treating it as an article\nHello Charles,\nI just spoke with Mark Toughiry from DOT engineering this morning and he advised that I go through you for the\ninterpretation of treating a pressurized keg at 10 psi. The keg is meant to contain 18 liters of Environmentally hazardous\nsubstances, liquid, n.o.s. UN3082, class 9 PG Ill and 2 liters of nitrogen gas. The keg is filled with a vacuum system and\nhence pressurized to 10 psi.\nPer the discussion, it was stated that per 173.115(b), the definition of a Division 2.2 material (Non-Flammable, Non-\nPoisonous Compressed Gas), is one the exerts a gauge pressure of 200 kPa (43.8 psia) and does not meet the definition\nof Division 2.1 or 2.3. Because the material used to pressure the keg shipped by my client, is not classified as a Division\n2.1 or 2.3, and exerts a pressure of less than 200 kPa, (in this case 10 psi) it is not classified as a Hazardous Material\nduring shipment. Therefore the keg does not require DOT Certification or a Special Permit. The Interpretation Letter I\nam attaching provided indicates that the Keg assembly is considered an Article for testing purposes and therefore can be\ntested as a non-bulk Combination Packaging.\nIt seems the confusion is to whether or not the material used to pressurize the keg meets the definition of a Hazardous\nMaterial. In this case it does not because the gauge pressure is only 10 psi and the material is not a Division 2.1 or 2.3\nmaterial. If the pressure was greater than 200 kPa and/or the material met the definition of Divisions 2.1 or 2.3, then\nthe keg would indeed need to be certified as a Single Packaging or would have to fall under a Special Permit.\nIn short, the keg will be treated as an article for the purposes and tested as a non-bulk combination package (Article\ncontained in a 4G box).\nPlease let me know if my interpretation is correct or if you have any questions.\nBest Regards,\nJorge Campos\nDirect (408)600-3436\nMain (408)224-1300\n'1f Westpak, Inc., an employee own company 11 ml\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nFEB 2 7 2013\nMr. J.D. Thomas\nDyno Nobel Inc.\nSimsbury Plant\n660 Hopmeadow Street\nSimsbury, CT 06070\nReference No. 12-0216\nDear Mr. Thomas:\nThis is in response to your e-mail requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR 171-180) applicable to the packaging for transportation of non-\nelectric detonators. In your letter, you state that the detonators are packaged in a 4G\nfiberboard '\"outer\" box in a manner that protects and prevents movement of the articles.\nYou also state that the detonator assemblies have a shock tube that is wound in a loop or\nfigure 8 configuration and that they have voids between the coils due to the coils\noverlapping each other. You ask whether a 4G fiberboard box used as a single packaging\nfor non-bulk materials is a receptacle and whether it would be considered a one-time use\nreceptacle. You also present your concern regarding the requirement to fill the box to 95%\nwhen testing.\nThe 4G fiberboard box is not a receptacle in the context of§ 178.602. Your package is a\ncombination package with the articles being the inner packages and the 4G fiberboard box\nbeing the outer package. The 95% fill requirement does not apply to articles and, therefore,\nthe testing should take place with the 4G fiberboard box filled as it would be prepared for\ntransportation or as otherwise specified in § 173.602. You must also determine whether\nadditional cushioning, et cetera, should be included in the package and otherwise ensure\nconformance with§§ 173.24 and 173.24a for general requirements for non-bulk packagings\nand packages.\nWith respect to reuse, to reuse a packaging, you must ensure that it conforms to § 173 .28,\nwhich in part requires that packagings and receptacles used more than once must be in such\ncondition, including closure devices and cushioning materials, that they conform in all\nrespects to the prescribed requirements of the HMR. If your packaging does not conform to\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nTo:\nSubject:\nAttachments:\nEckenrode, Andrew.CTR (PHMSA) on behalf of INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nWednesday, September 26, 2012 2:32 PM\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nFW: interpretation\npic19629.jpg\nCarolyn,\nWe received the following request for a formal letter of interpretation\nThanks\nAndrew\n----Original Message-----\nFrom: jd.thomas@am.dynonobel.com [mailto:jd.thomas@am.dynonobel.com}\nSent: Monday, September 24, 2012 1:50 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSubject: interpretation\nDear Hazardous Material Information Center:\nIs a 4G fiberboard box used as outer packaging in non-bulk packaging in a single packaging configuration (meaning it\ndoes not have any inner\npackaging) considered a receptacle? Would it be also considered a one time use receptacle?\nl package non-electric detonators in a 4G fiberboard outer box that are packaged in such a way that the fit prevents\nfreedom of movement and\nprotects the articles from sources of impact. The detonator assemblies\nhave shock tube that is wound in a loop or figure 8 configuration. When these articles are packed in the box they are\nsnug and once the box is full, we can not put more units in the box. The units do have voids between the coils as the\ncoils overlap each other.\nA DOT inspector for our UN POP test facility states that the detonator assemblies do not fill the box to 95% of its volume\n(required for a\nreceptacle) because of these small voids. This inspector believes that the outer box is a receptacle and/or a one time\nuse receptacle and therefore can not be used for my articles and can only be tested as a receptacle at 95% capacity\n(which has the definition of volume) . We can not putin another unit, it would burst the box.\nAgain - is a single packaging 4G fiberboard box used for non-butk materials a receptacle?\n(Embedded image moved to file: pic19629.jpg)\nYou can see the voids where coils of shock tube complete their figure 8 pattern. The units do not compress and fill the\nbox to a good snug fit.\nBest regards,\nJ.D. Thomas\nGlobal Product Management Support I Integration+ Packaging+ Change Management\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nDyno Nobel Inc.\nA business of Incitec Pivot Limited\nSimsbury Plant, 660 Hopmeadow St,reet, P.O. Box 2006, Simsbury, CT 06070, USA\nOffice: +1860 4081839 I Fax: +1860 4081983 I Mobile: +1860 713 3013 mailto:jd.thomas@am.dynonobel.com\nhttp://www.dynonobel.com\nGroundbreaking Performance Through Practical Innovation\nConfidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail {including any attachments) may contain confidential\nand/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient you must not use, disclose, disseminate, copy or\nprint its contents. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message\nfrom your system. Dyno Nobel does not undertake liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses and\nadvises that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>","truncated":false,"body_characters":9457}