{"operation":"document","citation":"98-0522","title":"DuPont Sourcing — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1998-05-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"98-0522 response to DuPont Sourcing concerning 173.28, 173.35.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0522.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0522.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0522","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1998/980522.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJ.S. Department\nof Transportation\n20590\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nAdministration\n...-\nMr. Randolph Martin\nHazardous Materials Distribution Consultant\nMAY 7 1998\nDuPont Sourcing\nWilmington, DE 19898\nDear Mr. Martin:\nThis is in response to your letter dated November 3, 1997 concerning whether UN 11D wooden\nintermediate bulk containers (nailed plywood boxes with inner woven polypropylene bags) are\npermitted for reuse if they are refurbished and remarked.\nYou describe a situation wherein a used UN 11D intermediate bulk container (IBC) would be\nreturned to your manufacturing site, inspected for any defects, discarded if it showed signs of\nundue wear, corrosion, contamination or other damage which might render it unsafe for\ntransportation, refitted with a new polypropylene inner bag and remarked by application of a new\ndate of manufacture. Refurbishing the IBC and remarking the date of manufacture in the\ndescribed manner does not alter the fact that the IBC has been used and it is our determination\nthat the prohibition in 49 CFR. 173.35(b) against reuse of a wooden IBC would still apply.\nIf you can demonstrate that your procedures achieve a level of safety at least equal to that\nprovided by regulation, you may want to apply for an exemption under the provisions of 49 CFR\n107.105.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.\nSincerely,\n....-\nidward T. Mazzull\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nFile: 173.358, 173.28\nDuPont Sourcing\nWilmington, DE 19898\n5C: 664\nOU POND\nDuPont Sourcing\nNovember 3, 1997\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (DHM-10)\nUS Department of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\n400 Seventh Street, SW\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nWe currently ship large quantities of Sodium Cyanide, a Packing Group I Poisonous\nMaterial, in DOT-approved UN Specification 11D Wooden Intermediate Bulk Containers.\nThese IBC's consist of a nailed plywood box containing a woven polypropylene inner\nbag, which we test and certify to PG I standards. These IBC's are used in both the\ndomestic and export markets.\n49CFR 173.35(b) states that \"Fiberboard, wooden or flexible intermediate bulk\ncontainer's may not be reused\". We are trying to determine if reuse of ONLY the nailed\nremanufacture.\nplywood box, and not the inner woven bag, constitutes reuse or, in our interpretation,\nWe wish to return the nailed plywood boxes to our manufacturing site for possible\nreshipment, We would use a new, woven polypropylene inner bag for reshipment, since\n•\nthe inner bag is cut and destroyed in the unloading process. 49CFR 178.709 defines a\nWooden IBC as consisting of \"a rigid or collapsible wooden body together with an inner\nliner (but no inner packaging) and appropriate service and structural equipment\", and\nour interpretation is that reuse of just the wooden body is remanufacture rather that\nE. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company\n® Printed en Recycled Paper\nML-53 Rov.3:34\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n...- -\nй у\nI spoke with Fritz Wybenga of your office today and he seemed to agree with our\ninterpretation, but nonetheless suggested that we contact you for a written response.\nWe would thoroughly inspect each returning wooden body for any possible defects, and\ndiscard any which showed signs of undue wear, corrosion, contamination or other\ndamage which might render them unsafe for transportation. We would also apply a new\nmanufactured date to each box, certifying that each IBC is manufactured and assembled\nso as to be capable of successfully passing the required performance tests.\nWe would appreciate your quickest response to this request. Please contact me on 302-\n773-4248 if I can answer any questions.\nSincerely,\nRiat\nRandolph Martin\nHazardous Materials\nDistribution Consultant\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n=+\"\nMazzullo, Ed\nFrom:\nTo:\nBurger, Donald\nCc:\nBonekemper, Ed; Hochman, Charles; Smith, Doug S.; Wybenga, Frits; Hedgepeth,\nBetts, Charles; Mazzullo, Ed\nDate:\nSubject:\nSuzanne; Richard, Bob\nRE: Dupont 11-3-97: reuse of 11D IBCs\nThursday, March 26, 1998 2:48PM\nEd,\nThe more I think about this letter the less I agree. No matter how we phrase it in the letter, unless DuPont\ntears down the wooden structure and rebuilds it, they are reusing (or repairing) and not remanufacturing\nseveral exemptions that address similar issues of reuse for other IBCs. The difference is that they are for\nthese IBCs. Reuse is clearly prohibited in 49 CFR. I did some investigating and discovered we have\nidentical. As a matter of consistency, I believe we need handle this in the same manner as we did for the\nFIBCs and not for wooden IBCs. However, the thought process for the two should be similar, if not\nusers of flexible IBCs and indicate that the wooden IBCs may be reused only under the terms of an\nThe exemptions are 10880 and 11171 and both state in paragraph 4 that they are exempted from\n1/3.35(b) in that \"reuse of a flexible intermediate bulk container is authorized\".\nThe terms we impose for reuse of FIBC are highlighted below:\nThe filler must: remove the liner, inspect the IBC, replace the liner and refill.\nThe filler must record the usage of each IBC and these exemptions limit the reuse of the FIBCs to 6 and 15\ntimes respectively.\nbe returned and performance tested to determine if any degradation has occurred.\nAfter completing a specified number of shipments, a certain number of the FIBCs must\nWe may initially want to put a reuse limit on the wooden IBCs until a performance history is generated.\nThe only difference is that DuPont wants to add a new manufacturers mark. I believe if we permit DuPont\nand we should consider canceling their exemptions and advising them they can add a new manufacturers\nto reuse (remanufacture) a wooden IBC then we need to permit the others to reuse (remanufacture) FIBCS\nmark once they pass inspection and the liner is replaced.\nwe are planning to tell DuPont I believe an exemption would not be required. We could indicate to the\nIn addition, I have a current exemption application to reuse a FIBC with a replaceable liner. Based on what\napplicant may remove the liner, inspect the FIBC, correct damage, install a new liner and remark the IBCs as\nnew.\nbelieve we need to make DuPont apply for an exemption to 173.35(b) unless the they truly remanufactur\nthe IBCs, i.e. destroy and rebuild them\nDonB\nPS - Ideally we should change the regulations to permit the reuse of all IBCs if they are capable of meeting\nperformance requirements.\nSent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 10:59 AM\nFrom: Mazzullo, Ed\nTo: Betts, Charles\nCc: Bonekemper, Ed; Burger, Donald; Hochman, Charles; Smith, Doug S.; Wybenga, Frits\nSubject: Dupont 11-3-97: reuse of 11D IBCs\nPlease revise this letter per attached. Seek concurrence from D#K-20, DHM-5 and DCC-10. Thanks.\n«File: DUPONT-1.WPD»\nPage 1","truncated":false,"body_characters":6875}