{"operation":"document","citation":"98-0573","title":"Mr. Bobby Roper — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1998-05-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"98-0573 concerning 178.700.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0573.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0573.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0573","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1998/980573.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashington, D.C.\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\n20590\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nMAY\n| 1998\nMr. Bobby Roper\n26521 Cardenio\nMission Viejo, CA 92691\nDear Mr. Roper:\nThis is in response to your letter requesting clarification of proper descriptions and testing of\nC apologize for the delay and regret any ter venience leased in transe our enemies,\nhave been paraphrased and answered as follows.\nIs either 11HZ2 or 21HZ2 intermediate bulk container the appropriate description for\nliner and a lid?\nan open top collapsible or rigid walled plastic multi-trip bin with a flexible plastic bag\nA.\nAs stated in § 178.707(a)(2), the marking must be completed by replacing the Z with\nthe appropriate capital letter for the material used as the outer packaging. Based on\n21HH2 IBC's.\nyour descriptions, the IBC's in your letter would most likely be described as 11HH2 or\nWhat is the proper marking and testing for a composite IBC constructed as described\nabove, that is loaded by gravity but discharged by either gravity or vacuum?\nA.\nA composite IBC with a flexible plastic liner that is discharged by vacuum would be\nconsidered a UN11HH2 IBC. Discharge by vacuum is not considered discharge under\npressure. An IBC discharged by pressure has a potential safety impact of blowing the\nwould be the inward collapse of the IBC; no release of hazardous material outside of.\ncontents outward in case of rupture. When discharged by vacuum, the failure mode\nthe IBC would occur. Testing would be as for any other 11HH2 IBC.\nQ. What are the maximum permissible reductions in container dimensions allowed\nwithout requiring retesting under the provisions of selective testing? Are shorter or\nnarrower versions of the originally tested and qualified container design permitted as\nlong as it meets the capacity requirement of an IBC?\nA.\nThe maximum allowable reduction in IBC exterior dimensions has not been established\nat this time. All requests for selective testing will be handled on a case by case basis\nuntil those limits are defined. However, it is the responsibility of the IBC\nmanufacturer to assure that each IBC is capable of passing all prescribed tests. The\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n=\nmanufacturer may conduct tests on the design type, or the manufacturer may receive\napproval for selective testing from the Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals.\nQ.\nWould a shorter and/or narrower variation container differ from the original tested\ncontainer design if the width of the container was reduced but the width of the forktine\nopenings remained the same?\nA.\nBased on the limited information presented, the container appears to be acceptable as a\nvariation under selective testing; however, a formal request for approval would need to\nbe submitted. Additionally, in order for the Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals\nto conduct a thorough evaluation, the request should provide greater design detail.\nShould the distance or spacing between and the depth of any external and/or internal\nbosses or ribs be scaled down proportionately to the overall dimensional reduction in\norder to be considered the same design?\nA.\nSection 178.801(c)(7) 'provides that different intermediate bulk container design type is\none that differs from a previously qualified intermediate bulk container design type in\nstructural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness, or manner of\nconstruction. If internal or external bosses or ribs are scaled down to meet a smaller\nsize, and it affects the structural design, the IBC must be tested as a new design type.\nOnce again, the Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals must approve the\nqualification of a container using selective testing.\nI hope this answers your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate\nto contact us.\nSincerely,\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n1:\"\nJale\ntell 178,700\n330\n26521 Cardenio\nMission Viejo, CA 92691\nSC.362,\n.-\nRopard\nJuly 12, 1996\nThe U.S. Dept. of Transportation\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n400 Seventh St., Southwest, Room No. 8430\nTel. (202) 366-4488 / Fax (202) 366-8700\nRE: Desired clarification concerning the proper classification and testing of\ncertain types of IBCs intended for use in transporting solid materials.\nDear Ladies and Gentlemen:\nWhen I spoke with Bill Gramer yesterday over the telephone, he suggested that I submit my\nquestions in writing and request a formal written interpretation from RSPA. Hence, I have\nlisted my questions below, and I would like you to provide me with the necessary clarification.\nTo begin with, the type of containers that I am referring to are collapsible and fixed-wall\nopen-top rigid plastic multi-trip bins with provisions for fork truck entry and a lid of some\nkind that would be secured to the base of the container using plastic or metal strapping, which\nwould be tested and qualified for use in transporting solid hazardous materials in pellet or\npowder form. The containers would make use of one or two-ply, two mil or thicker flexible\nplastic bag liners (i.e., seamed polyethylene bags serving as the inner receptacles) in order to\npertorm part of the containment function (1.e., in order to prevent fine particles from spilling\nout of the containers). Hence, these containers would be classified as either 11HZ2 or\n21HZ2-type composite Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) based on their volumetric\ncapacities and manner in which the contents are emptied (i.e., by gravity or under pressure),\nand some of the smaller containers could perhaps be classified as 6HH5-type composite non-\nbulk packagings because they would not meet the lower definitional limits for IBCs (i.e., their\ncapacities are less than 0.45 cubic meters, 450 liters, 119 gallons, or 15.9 cubic feet) that are\npresently found in 49 CFR 178.700(c)(1). Alternatively, Bill indicated that competent\nauthority approval could be sought from RSPA allowing one to classify certain containers\nwith lesser capacities as IBCs because they would be subjected to the same mechanical\nhandling practices of slightly larger capacity containers that meet the definitional limits of\nIBCs. However, competent authority approval would be contingent upon the ability to\ndemonstrate that the containers would endure three additional drop tests. (i.e., impacting the\ncontainer flat on the most vulnerable or weakest side section, flat on its top surface, and\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nPage No. 2 of 3\ndiagonally on the most vulnerable or weakest bottom corner section using separate containers\nfor each drop if desired), in accordance with Chapter 16 of the UN Recommendations.\nFirstly, I require some clarification concerning the proper classification of 11HZ2 and 21HZ2-\ntype composite IBCs, based on the method in which the containers are intended to be emptied\nof their contents. 49 CFR 178.707(a)(1)(ii) simply states that 1IHZ2-type composite BCs\nare intended for use in transporting solid materials which are loaded or discharged by gravity;\nsolids which are loaded or discharged under pressure.\nwhereas, 49 CFR 178.707(a)(1)(iv) states that 21HZ2-type. composite IBCs are intended for\n178.705(a)(2) in order to get an indication of what is meant by the word \"pressure\" (i.e., that\nOne must reference 49 CFR\nthe contents are loaded or discharged at a gauge pressure greater than 1.45 psi or 10 kPa).\nHowever, no distinction is made between positive pressure and negative pressure (i.e.,\nvacuum; which has led me to question whether the previously mentioned containers should\nbe classified, tested, and marked as 21HZ2-type composite IBCs because they would\nLa. \"\nfrequently be unloaded using pneumatic conveying equipment that would draw the material\nout of the container under vacuum (i.e., negative pressure). Yet at other times, these\ncontainers would be manually unloaded using shovels, tractor scoops, and etc., which leads\none to question if they shouldn't be classified, tested, and marked as 11HZ2-type composite\nIBCs. To the best of my knowledge, many bulk transferring and conveying systems for\npelletized and powdered solids utilize positive displacement or peripheral vacuum pumps that\ngenerate somewhere between 8 and 15 inches of mercury (i.e., 3.9 to 7.3 psi or 27 to 50 kPa)\nof vacuum in transfer lines, hoses, storage vessels, and etc. while operating under normal\nconditions. However, most all vacuum conveyor systems are vented to atmosphere (e.g., they\ncontainers are to be classified as 21HZ2-type composite IBCs, then 49 CFR 178.801(f) would\nrequire the inner receptacles to be production leakproofness tested in accordance with section\nLes ar of lo 20 deser guare and in to pend en\nrequalification tests. Needless to say, production leakproofness testing each and every inner\nreceptacle for composite IBCs that are intended to contain solid materials would be\ncumbersome, and I would tend to question its effectiveness and worth. How should these\n:\ncontainers be classified, tested, and marked based on the preceding information? What is the\n:\nproper classification if the container is loaded under pressure, but discharged by gravity (e.g.,\na bin which is filled by blowing the solid contents into the container under pressure, and\nutilizes a hopper gate valve on the bottom of the container to discharge contents)?\nLastly, I require some clarification concerning the permissible reductions in container\ndimensions, which can be made and do not require one to retest the smaller (i.e.,- shorter,\nnarrower, and etc.) version or versions of the originally tested and qualified container design\nfollows:\ntype. 49 CFR 178.801(c)(7) defines a different intermediate bulk container design type as\n\"...One that differs from a previously qualified intermediate. bulk container design\ntype. in structural design; size, material of construction, wall thickness, or manner\nof construction, but does not include:\n(i)\na packaging which differs in surface treatment;\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nPage No. 3 of 3\n(ii) a rigid plastic intermediate bulk container or composite intermediate\nbulk container which differs with regard to additives;\nheight, width, length) provided materials of construction and material\ni packag w differ on s lesser extemal dimensions i.e.,\n(iv) a packaging which differs in service equipment.\"\nthicknesses or fabric weight remain the same;\nHowever, it does not specify a maximum dimensional reduction (e.g., 25%) like 49 CFR\n178.601(g)(3), and the word \"or\" has been omitted. Consequently, I was wondering whether\nall of the dimensions (e.g., the length, width, and height of the container) had to be scaled\ndown proportionately? In the absence of the word \"or\" or \"and\", it would appear that\nsomeone could reduce any one or more of these dimensions to any extent, as long as the\ncapacity of the variation container design types still exceeded the 0.45 cubic meter (i.e.., 450\nliter, 119 gallon, or 15.9 cubic feet) lower definitional limit for IBCs. Would a shorter and/or\nnarrower variation container differ from the original tested container design type with respect\nto its structural design, if for example, the overall width of the container was reduced but the\nwidth of the fork tine openings along that axis was left their original size? Similarly, would\nthe distance or spacing between and the depth of any external and/or internal bosses or ribs\nthat are intended to strengthen and add rigidity to the container need to be scaled down\nproportionately to the overall dimensional reduction, in order for a variation container not to\nbe considered a different container design type which would need to be tested and qualified\nindependently of the original container design type (please reference the attached illustrations\nfor a better understanding of the nature and magnitude of the container design variations that?\nam referring to)?! Would the same rules apply to the determining whether a non-bulk\ncontainer is considered to be a different design type or whether it meets the definition of a\nVariation 3 packaging in accordance with 49 CFR 178.601(g) (3) which reads as follows?\nin external dimensions (i.e., length, width, or diameter) up to 25 percent of the dimen-\n\"...Packagings other than combination packagings which are produced with reductions\nalent level of performance is maintained. The packagings must, in all other respects\nsions of a tested packaging may be used without further testing provided that an equiv-\n(including wall thicknesses), be identical to the tested design-type).\"\nPlease address each of the preceding questions in writing, and feel free to telephone me at\nOtherwise, I will look forward to your receiving your reply.\n(714) 582-6289 if you require any additional information while preparing your response.\nSincerely,\nBalby toper\nBobby Roper\nAttachments - Illustrations of container design and dimensional variations.\n—cc: - Bill Gramer\n-----\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nYale\n26521 Cardenio\nMission Viejo, CA 92691\nDecember 9, 1996\nEileen Martin\nThe U.S. Dept. of Transportation\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n400 Seventh St., Southwest, Room No. 8102\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nTel. (202) 366-8553 / Fax (202) 366-8700\nRE: Status of various DOT interpretations that were requested several months ago.\n•\nDear Eileen:\nI wanted to take a moment to follow up with you, in order to see what progress your\n!\noffice has made with respect to answering and replying to the more than a half dozen\ndifferent written request for interpretations that you have received from me over the\npast several months.\nI am directing this correspondence to you, because you have been extremely helpful\nto me in the past and because I spoke with you on prior occasions about a few of\nthese matters.\nAs always, your assistance is greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to\ntelephone me at (714) 582-6289, if you should need to reach me for any reason. Best\nwishes to you and your family, for a terrific holiday season.\nYours truly,\nBaby Pope\nBobby Roper\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n- Origuial tested and qualified container design type.\n1H\nFork Tine Opening\n1W2\n1L\n1 We\n!\nThe letter \"L\" is used to represent the length dimension,\n\"W'is used to signify the with, and \"H' to donde the height.\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nExample No. 2\nContamer which only differs with respect to it lesser widtth\ntested and qualified container design type.\nfrom the origuially\n1H\n1W2\n1L\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\n••\n= No. 5\n....\nContainer which differs from the origuially tested contanier design\ntype with regants to its lesser length, width, and height dimensions.\n(All dimensions were scaled down to 75% of the dimensions\nof the ovignially tested contained designtype.\n'.\n34H\n5/4N2 |\n3/4W1","truncated":false,"body_characters":14674}