{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0090","title":"Greif Bros. Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1999-09-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"99-0090 response to Greif Bros. Corporation concerning 178.504.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0090.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0090.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0090","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990090.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n•\n•\nJ.S. Department\nof Transportation\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nSEP 2 3 1999\nMr. Joseph J. Grebe\nRef. No: 99-0090\nManager, Testing & Technical Service\nGreif Bros. Corporation\n1201A South Houk Road\nDelaware, Ohio 43015\nDear Mr. Grebe:\nThis is in response to your letter of March 30, 1999, requesting clarification on the maximum gross\nmass marking requirement for drums under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n171-180). You provide the following scenario:\nA steel drum which is manufactured to the minimum standards required by the HMR\nweighs 25 kg. The drum is tested with a net mass of 275 kg for a gross weight of\n300kg. However, when taking advantage of numerous variations authorized in the\nHMR (for example, the steel used is now 10% thicker, coatings, a liner, and various\ndecorations are added) the tare weight of the drum is now 3.5 kg heavier.\nYour questions are paraphrased and responded to as follows:\nQ. May I mark the drum with a maximum allowable gross weight of 303 kg even though it was tested\nto 300 kg?\nA. The answer is no. A packaging may not be marked to a maximum gross weight that exceeds the\ngross weight to which it has been tested.\nQ. Must the net mass in the drum be reduced to compensate for the additional tare weight of the\ndrum?\nA. The answer is yes.\nQ. Should the drum be tested at a level of net weight (275 kg) plus maximum tare weight (28.5 kg) to\nbe certain that the final gross weights of all drums do not exceed the tested gross weight?\nA. The answer is yes.\n990090\n118.504\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n-2-\nQ. Will customers (i.e., shippers) be required to weigh each drum to determine tare weight and\nmarked on the drum?\nassociated net weight of fill to be certain that they do not exceed the maximum gross weight\nA. As provided by 173.24a(b)(2), a non-bulk packaging may not be filled with a hazardous\nofferor of a hazardous materials package is responsible for compliance with this requirement.\nmaterial to a gross mass greater than the maximum gross mass marked on the packaging. Each\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely,\nShan Hiefs\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n118.504\n3/30/99\n99-0090\nSee 3/30/99\ne-ma.',\nBabM.\nQuestions for interpretation\n6-4346\nExample 1\nWhen a steel drum is prepared in accordance with 49CFR178 Subpart M its tare weight is used to\nminimums for mad at thicknesses, kadis the andra late maying forth fur est, calan be at east east10%\nheavier than tested?\ninimums for material thicknesses. I\nFor example, a steel drum 1A2/X300/S 1.2-0.9-1.2 weighs 25 kilograms when empty. This drum is\nunpainted and unlined when tested. All steel thicknesses fall at the exact minimum for this requirement.\nThis drum is tested with 275 kilograms net for a total of 300 kg.\nthe head, body, or bottom;\" would mean that the drum we describe could weigh up to approximately 10%\nAccording to 178.601(g)(8)(viii) \"An increase greater than 10% or any decrease in the steel thickness of\ngreater in tare wt or 2.5 kg without requiring additional design type testing.\na previously produced packaging in structural design, size, material of construction, wall thickness or\nAdditionally, according to 178.601(c)(4) \"A different packaging is one that differs (i.e. is not identical) from\nmanner of construction but does not include:\n(i) A packaging which differs only in surface treatment;\"\ndoes not require design type testing.\nThis would mean that the weight of additional coatings applied as part of the manufacturing process for\nsteel drum. These coatings could weigh as much as a kilogram depending on the size of a drum, number.:\nsteel drums i.e. paints, linings and decorations are not considered during our design type test on a bare\nof coats inside and out, and degree of decoration.\n25+2.5 + 1Kg (PAint)\nkilograms. Does the net weight allowed to be packed in this drum get reduced in proportion, to 271.5\nQ1-.: Therefore since our theoretical drum could be produced with a tare weight of up to 28.5\nQ2-\nkilograms for customer use?\nto be certain that the final gross weights of all drums do not exceed the tested gross weight?\nShould the drum be tested at a level of net weight required (275kg) plus max tare weight (28.5kg)\nQ3-\nweight of fill to be certain that they do not exceed maximum gross mass marked on the drum? (most\nWill customers be required to weigh each drum to determine tare weight and associated net\ncustomer filling systems fill to net weight)\nGBL\nGreif Bros. Corporation\nEstablished 1877\nanager, Testing & Technical Servi\nJoseph J. Greb\n201A South Houk RoE\nesearch & Development Buildir\nOlfice: (740) 549-6121\nDirect: (740) 549-6110\nDelaware. Onlo 43015\nEmail: Grebej@Greit.Com\nFax: (740) 549-6120\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nExample 2\nUsing the same regulatorý issues as in example 1, we produce an 85-gallon drum. This drum is intended\nfor use with contents weighing 400kg, the maximum non-bulk limit for steel drums. This 1A2 drum weighs\napproximately 33.0kg. at minimum material thickness. If the thickness of the body, bottom and cover are\nincreased in thickness by 10% the final painted and lined drum will weigh approximately 35 kilograms.\nQ1-\ndoes the net weight allowed to be packed in this drum get reduced in proportion, to 298 kilograms for\nTherefore since our theoretical drum could be produced with a tare weight of up to 35 kilograms\nQ2-\ncustomer use as the drum tare weights change to 35 kg?\nto be certain that the final gross weights of all drums do not exceed the tested gross weight? Note that in\nShould the drum be tested at a level of net weight required (400kg) plus max tare weight (35kg)\nthis case, the drum would have to be filled to 402 kg net, which is above the non-bulk limit.\nweight of fill to be certain that they do not exceed maximum gross mass marked on the drum.?\nWill customers be required to weigh each drum to determine fare weight and associated net\nComments\nIf your response to Example 2 Q2 is negative, please explain the following - A customer fills to 400kg net\nin a drum which we only test at 433kg (load plus actual minimum tare weight). The final delivered drum is\nmarked on the drum. Is this a violation of the HMR? How will an enforcement agency, which reviews\n35 kg tare weight. The loaded drum will weigh 435kg grass, which would be 2 kg above the certification\nshipping papers or weighs drums in commerce deal with this discrepancy.\nWe would suggest the following resolution to this situation. The 400-kg limit on net weights appears in\nshould be authorized to be tested at their maximum gross mass. Testing would be conducted at the\npart 178 along with ofher similar provisions for other packages. We believe that containers for solids\nwould reflect the user's restriction to the packing limits. Shippers should already be trained in these\nnecessary net weights to compensate for authorized differences in container tare weight. Test reports\nlimitations as part of their required Haz-Mat training program.\nWe believe that this solution provides an increased level of safety due to the overtesting of the drum\ndesign. This solution is also transparent to users of the package.","truncated":false,"body_characters":7197}