Interpretation Response #09-0080 ([HMT Associates, LLC] [Mr. E.A. Altemos])

Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 05/26/2009

Company Name: HMT Associates, LLC

Individual Name: Mr. E.A. Altemos

Location State: VA Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

May 26, 2009

Mr. E.A. Altemos

HMT Associates, LLC

603 King St., Suite 300

Alexandria, VA 22314-3105



Ref. No. 09-0080

Dear Mr. Altemos:

This responds to your April 8, 2009 letter requesting clarification of the IBC design testing requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you request confirmation that an existing IBC mounted with certain bottom discharge equipment that is representative of the service equipment installed on the IBC during design qualification tests is not a "different IBC design type" requiring design qualification testing.

Your letter describes two alternative modifications of the bottom discharge outlet of an IBC in order to conform to a new EPA requirement that each opening (other than a vent) of portable refillable containers used for liquid pesticides must have one-way valves. The original design qualification tests for the IBC were performed with a "Banjo" ball valve installed at the bottom drain assembly. The alternatives are as follows:

Alternative 1: Replace the existing "Banjo" ball valve with a new "Banjo" ball valve fitted with an internal one-way valve. The new ball valve is identical to the existing ball valve except for the addition of a one-way valve at the rear (inlet) of the valve that is located completely within the IBC when installed.

Alternative 2: Retain the existing "Banjo" ball valve and add at its outlet a nozzle with a standard external coupler connection to which a hose is attached for unloading where the coupler contains the one-way valve.

Your understanding is correct. Based on the descriptions of the two alternatives and the drawings provided with your letter, neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 2 would result in the creation of a "different IBC design type" as defined in § 178.801(c) and therefore, neither alternative is subject to design qualification testing in accordance with § 178.801(d). Additionally, your understanding is correct that Alternative 1 is considered routine maintenance because the original valve is removed and replaced (see § 180.350(c)(1)(ii)). Thus, this modification would be subject to verification of leaktightness and marking of the IBC in accordance with §§ 180.350(c)(1)(ii) and 180.352(e), respectively. Note that the new "Banjo" valve described in Alternative 1 must provide an equivalent standard of integrity as the original valve. The modification described as Alternative 2 is not considered routine maintenance and, thus, would not be subject to the verification of leaktightness and marking requirements.

Sincerely,

Susan Gorsky

Acting Chief, Standards Development

Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

178.801, 180.350(c)(1)(ii)

Regulation Sections