By Lonnie Jaycox   July, 2007

On June 21, 2007 PHMSA hosted an Enterprise Meeting entitled “The Discussion of Failures in Combination Packagings Containing Liquids in Air Transportation”. Mr. Jaycox reports on the salient content of the meeting and examines some of the underlying conditions that can lead to containment failures in combination packagings. PHMSA’s incident data is critiqued and assessed relative to how it might or might not stear decision makers to the causes of leakers in combination packages. This report examines the current regulations, probable causes for the problem of leakers in combination packages, and then offers suggestions for consideration by shippers, packaging producers and regulators.

This article condenses a detailed presentation prepared for HAZMAT Packager and Shipper by the author. Its objective is to help persons evaluate an on-going internal review by DOT of current regulations for air transportation packaging standards. There is a strong suggestion by DOT that some of the 49 CFR Part 173, 175 and 178 regulations relating to air need changing. One DOT approach is based on the Michigan State University research project referenced in the article and covered in HAZMAT Packager and Shipper, (November/ December 2005, p 31).

Introduction
This article reports on the salient content of the meeting (PHMSA Enterprise Meeting “The Discussion of Failures in Combination Packagings Containing Liquids in Air Transportation”; June 21, 2007) and examines some of the underlying conditions that can lead to containment failures in combination packagings. DOT’s intent is to eliminate packaging failures in the air transportation mode as much as possible, while recognizing the crucial commercial need to transport these materials in a safe, cost effective manner. DOT has stated that it wants to see further regulatory development rationalized, data driven and based on solid risk/cost assessments. This requires the proper use of high quality data. Several who attended the June 21st meeting expressed concerns that the data currently available may be insufficient for a modification of the regulations on the scale being contemplated by the Department of Transportation and especially the Federal Aviation Administration.

All parties with a stake in this process need to bring serious attention to the early stages of what may become a significant rulemaking. It could greatly affect packaging and testing requirements for shipping liquid dangerous goods by air. This article raises the question of whether the same goals might not be achieved through re-formatting of the current regulations with better and more comprehensive training. Meanwhile, closer analysis might reveal that the problem does not lie with the testing but could stand more broadly applied enforcement.

Much of the DOT’s initiative in this area is driven by the existence of package failures from inner packages of combination packages. It is based further on the results of the Michigan State University School of Packaging studies, conducted in an attempt to determine the performance of UN performance packaging under the simultaneous conditions of pressure and vibration. While the efforts behind this work can be appreciated, at least one major question remains. Did these studies do anything to show that current package testing provisions in the 49 CFR or the ICAO/IATA regulations are not demonstrably adequate? There is further some question with respect to the data that has been generated by PHMSA on air incidents. Just under 500 reportable incidents occurred in 2006. Authorities are suggesting this is unacceptable, but unfortunately the data lacks the granularity to specifically pinpoint the extent to which these package failures originated from UN performance packaging or limited quantity packaging. Further, while data is presented on failures associated with consumer commodity shipments, it is not detailed enough at this time, to differentiate between an ORM-D package and an ID8000 exception package which has substantial test/capability requirements.

It is in everyone’s interest, particularly those subject to the risks of hazardous materials transportation – passengers, pilots and crew and ground personnel, to rationally approach and resolve this issue, especially in the absence of highly-specific data.

Section I
Current Regulations: A problem with shipping liquids?
 
At the meeting it was agreed that the regulatory focus should be on general integrity, testing and assembly of packages. Pressure differential requirements specified for inner containers of combination packagings for which retention of liquids is the basic function were emphasized.

Specific air packaging requirements are located in three places: Title 49 Parts 100-185 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR), the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Technical Instructions (ICAO TIs), and the International Air Transport Association’s Dangerous Goods Regulations (IATA DGR). In all three regulatory texts, these requirements are located in the general packaging requirements sections and not in the performance oriented packaging sections. It results from this arrangement that these requirements are applicable to both UN standards packaging and packaging that is not required to meet the performance standards, such as limited quantity and consumer commodity packaging.

49 CFR: The general packaging requirements for shipments by aircraft are set forth in Section 173.27. These requirements include, by reference, the general packaging requirements found in Sections 173.24 and 173.24a. Specific evaluation of design requirements for containment are based on design capability rather than specified testing requirements.

IATA and ICAO standards, in comparison, set forth specific test requirements. (ICAO 4-(i), Introductory Notes, and 4-1.1.6 as well as IATA 5.0.2.9 IATA/ICAO Packing Instruction (PI) 910 (c).) Though we again find the phrase, “must be capable,” it is at least further stated that tests on sample receptacles must be carried out to demonstrate the capability of the primary packaging to withstand a specified pressure. Nevertheless, although there is an invocation of testing to demonstrate capability, it is not a model of regulatory clarity on how this requirement is to be met. ICAO/IATA PI 910 simply states that “Tests on sample receptacles must be carried out to demonstrate the capability of the primary packaging to withstand the above pressure.” In the ICAO/IATA general requirements there is a note that the required capability “…should be determined by testing samples…”

The format of the regulations could be contributing to the problem. ICAO/IATA standards may be clearer in their structure where these general packing requirements are listed at the beginning of the specific packing instructions. In 49 CFR, Sections 173.24, 173.24a and 173.27 are not in an intuitively obvious place. Section 173 is huge and covers a multiplicity of shipping topics in addition to packaging.

For many shippers the path to the completed packaging is through the hazardous materials table (HMT). By its structure, this table drives the shipper through to the specific packaging requirements. On the other hand, I note that there are many places where Sections 173.24 and 173.27 are explicitly referenced.

The use of the term “combination packaging” is not well understood. In the U.S., this may stem from the widespread industry use of “combination packaging” as being synonymous with performance oriented packaging (POP). Many think the term only applies to performance oriented packagings because of its use in 49 CFR to denote performance oriented packaging. Hence, they overlook that limited quantity, consumer commodity, and excepted quantity shipments are subject to the general capability requirements.

Section II
Is a new test protocol needed?
Results of the Michigan State University Testing Program

Even if conformance with the capability requirements in the regulations were demonstrated using the current standard test methods contained in IATA/ICAO, are these sufficiently rigorous to screen out primary containers that will leak their liquid contents during normal air shipment? Some proponents of a new test protocol claim just that.
 
A presentation by Janet McLaughlin of FAA covered research studies conducted at Michigan State University on liquid filled packaging in simulated air shipping environments by combining both vacuum (simulating ascent) and vibration simultaneously during the test period.

This article, in its entirety,  is archived in HAZMAT Packager & Shipper's HazMat Database, an optional feature to subscribers. Information on obtaining a subscription to HAZMAT Packager & Shipper and its associated features can be found here.