1. DOE Presentation for CTMA
June 4th, 2007
Myrtle Beach
When Packaging Headaches Become Migraines
(1) On behalf of Dean Ricker, Bill Fitzgerald and all of us at
Skolnik, I would like to thank you for offering me the
opportunity to share the current state of steel drums with
respect to the DOE. As many of you know, Skolnik has a
long history with the DOE and we value our participation in
the effort to safely transport and dispose of nuclear by-
products and an array of dangerous goods.
When asked by Ron Natali to present an update on current
events within the steel drum community, I suggested that
while the steel drum itself, is always evolving, the real focus
of a talk should be on regulatory changes effecting steel
drums of hazardous materials, and the effects of quality
programs within the DOE agencies and facilities. My talk
today will provide you with an update on the areas of steel
drum design, a review of some relevant regulatory issues,
and a look at how the DOE quality requirements and vender
issues, once in a while, can cause headaches to become
migraines on both sides of procurement.
Slide DESIGN CRITERIA
You all know what a 55 gallon drum looks like – for instance,
(2) this one
is the same as this one (3), or this one (4)?
(3 drums, differing weights)
Do you see the difference between these?

2. (5) tight head (6), open head bolt (7), open head Lever,
In the first 3 drums (8), you are right to think that they all look
alike, but
what you don’t see is that these three drums reflect a global
trend to reduce the overall weight of the drum by reducing
the metal thickness of the body, bottom and cover.
Depending on the metal thickness used in manufacturing,
these drums can vary from 25# to 60# - quite a difference in
protection - and in this case, thickness does matter!
What is even more surprising is that despite the difference in
weight and wall thickness, it is likely that all three containers
(9) could have the same or very similar DOT/UN ratings.
Let me explain: The original regulations for transport of
dangerous goods were Specification Standards. For steel
drums, terms such as 17E, 17H and 17C were used to
describe specific design details that, when manufactured,
yielded a compliant hazardous materials drum. In use for
almost 50 years, manufacturers began to complain that
these Specification Standards did not allow for
manufacturing or material improvements, and the result was
the introduction of POPS – Performance Oriented Packaging
Standards. Under POPS, the UN basically said, make the
drum out of anything you want, any way that you want – it
just has to pass the designated tests. (10) If it’s a paper bag
and can pass the tests, then the package is compliant.
As a result, the trend for the last decade in steel drums has
been to reduce the metal thickness to save material cost
while not reducing the performance capability. In essence,
taking performance testing to the absolute limits, allowing
little for marginal error. To illustrate my point about the

3. effects of reduced metal thickness, I would like to perform a
demonstration:
20, 18 and 16 ga. panels.
As you can see, in the case of packaging and risk reduction,
metal thickness does impact performance. Therefore, with
regard to metal thickness, ordering specifications are critical
to risk reduction.
(11) REGULATORY ASPECTS
Since most of you work for, or alongside of, the DOE, you
can comprehend the effects of regulatory changes on the
design, performance and compliance of steel drums. Based
on recommendations by the Committee of Experts at the
United Nations, and enforced by the US Department of
Transportation acting as competent authority, some recent
and pending regulatory issues addressed in HM-231 would
affect the use of your steel drum supplies.
1. (12) Closure Instructions 178.2(c)
Certainly this is one of the most basic requirements that
have been giving headaches to many packagers and
shippers. What was once a common-sense art, has now
become a scientific process that is very difficult to define and
repeat. Furthermore, as our manufacturing technology
changes and Closure Instructions are occasionally revised,
this further adds to the headaches suffered by both the DOE
and their venders. Some manufacturers are loath to write a
competent instruction, while the DOT expects that the
closure process be followed with exacting detail. It’s
appropriate to have proper instructions for closing, but since

4. the steel drum is not a finely machined, highly tooled
product, the closure system – while capable of amazing
security - can be influenced by elevation, temperature,
humidity, compression and, of course, the “human element.”
To this end, the DOT established a test laboratory at
Tobyhanna, PA, where they retest all types of DOT
packagings to verify that they perform as marked. As you
know, the in-field record of packaging failures in the US is
very low, yet the results of the testing at Tobyhanna
suggests that all packaging types are failing at surprisingly
high rates. Personally, I have worked with DOT and the
Tobyhanna staff to understand the reasons for so many
failures at Tobyhanna when the self-certifying
manufacturer’s and 3rd Party Testers are experiencing
successful tests. For instance, with Closure Instructions, the
lack of clarity and inaccurate procedures are seen as
principle causes of the laboratory failures.
Currently, DOT requires packaging manufacturers to only
notify persons to whom packaging is transferred of “all
requirements not met at the time of transfer.” In recent
legislation, HM-231, DOT proposes to revise this section to
ensure that closure instructions “…provide for a consistent
and repeatable means of closure that is sufficient to ensure
the packaging is closed in the same manner as it was
tested.” For example, if we use a Snap-On Socket wrench to
secure the cover after manufacture, the filler would have to
use the same tool. If we close with vertical compression, the
filler would have to do the same.
Skolnik opposes this proposal, as we are concerned that the
proposed new language would result in fillers being required
to perform the closure function in “the same manner” as
when the package design type was tested. This would mean
that packagings would have to be closed in precisely the

5. same manner as they are in test laboratories – a practical
impossibility in most cases. Given that industrial packaging
operations run the gamut from high-speed lines that are fully
automated to slower lines that are manually operated and
dependent upon employees to perform the closure function,
it is unlikely that fillers could duplicate the actual conditions
in which packages are closed by testers.
2. (13) Closure Instruction Notification 178.2 (c)
Currently, DOT only accepts printed documents as the
means of complying with this section. At a time when e-mail
is the predominant means of business-to-business
communication, it only makes sense that electronic
notification via e-mail should also be authorized. We believe
this subparagraph should be revised to authorize the use of
electronic means (e.g., email) to provide closure notification
to shippers. Furthermore, in most cases, notification is sent
to the buyer of the drums and the closure instructions are
often not passed on to those who are actually closing the
drum. While DOT has not addressed this point, we believe
that email would assist the circulation of the Closure
Instructions.
3. (14) Marking of Packagings 178.3
DOT wants to allow steel drum manufacturers to apply a
durable marking on the top or side of a steel drum which
identifies a lower performance capability than is indicated by
the permanent mark found on the drum’s bottom head. This
means that you could receive a drum in which the bottom
embossment might be a 1A2/X400/S and the durable side
mark could be a 1A2/Y200/S. I find such a proposal
disturbing because this could only detract from the marking

6. clarity, as there would be inconsistent marks on a single
drum.
4. (15) Marking of Packagings 178.503
DOT will authorize the application of a durable UN mark that
varies slightly from the examples given in 178.503, but which
nonetheless conveys the intended meaning of the mark. This
issue became relevant in 2002, the result of Sandia National
Labs requesting an interpretation from DOT regarding the
use of a stenciled circle around the UN letters which results
in a broken line. DOT responded that it was not compliant.
The result has required that, for us, a separate process has
been needed to ink stamp the circle – even though all the
remaining letters of the marking are stenciled with broken
lines. In 2005, Skolnik began pursing the reversal of the
DOT position in conjunction with the Dangerous Goods
Advisory Council (DGAC). On Oct. 11th, 2005, DOT offered
to accept the stenciled circle. We’ll talk more about this in a
few minutes.
(16) In addition, DOT is proposing to revise the current
regulation and stipulate that these letters appear “exactly” as
depicted in 178.3(e)(1)(i). Although their intention is to
prevent gaps in the letters, the impact of the proposal would
be far greater. If enacted, the provision would make illegal
any mark in which these letters appear in any way other than
shown in the example. This would mean, for example, that
spacing, font style, etc., would have to conform precisely to
the example.
We are grateful that DOT has reversed this requirement,
(17) (but we believe that the agency should simply authorize
the use of stencils and apply a performance standard to the

7. effect that the circle around the “UN” letters be recognizable
as such from a normal reading distance.
(18) The DOE Effect
Turning to the issues relative to the DOE, there are
approximately 60 million steel drums manufactured and
reconditioned annually in the US. Since most of the DOE
facilities specify new drums, let’s focus on the newly
manufactured 30 million. In the last decade, the steel drum
manufacturing community has shrunk due to company
mergers and closures. While there were about 60
manufacturing companies in the US in 1990, today there are
less then 10. And of these 10, only 3 are primary venders to
the DOE.
The DOE purchases less then 1 million steel drums per year,
However, given the trend that I described earlier, DOE
purchases the largest quantity of “heavy gauge” (1.5 and 1.2
mm) drums of anyone in the country. Therefore, I am happy
to say that it appears that the value of the thicker steel is
understood at the DOE. With that said, and with the
knowledge that Skolnik has been a supplier to the DOE for
over 2 decades, I cannot remember an incident that was
brought to our attention regarding the performance integrity
of a steel drum. In fact, unlike the points that were discussed
earlier, our experience shows that the issues relative to the
DOE and steel drums focus almost entirely on regulatory
compliance and document control. The conventional steel
drum community is mostly focused on principles of high-
volume manufacturing and turn away from projects which
have typical DOE requirements. The result is that DOE has
few options when seeking requests for bids on upcoming
projects.

8. The requirements of annual audits, quality programs such as
NQA-1, and a document trail longer then the Yellow Brick
Road have made DOE drum procurements the “poison fruit”
of our industry. However, the attitude at Skolnik has always
been that these requirements make us better as a company,
and valuable as a vender to all the DOE facilities.
With that said, it is the paperwork or documentation related
issues relative to the DOE that have turned some of our
small headaches into migraines. I would like to share with
you, the type of issues that, in the last 6 years, have created
the biggest “migraines” within Skolnik. Please note that in my
opinion, the reasons for the DOE position were absolutely
valid – however, I believe that the levels of attention given to
these issues were disproportionate to the question of
product integrity for each situation.
(19) It was Friday February 9th, 2001 when I received an
email from a DOE employee stating “I've discovered recently
during a review of a client's packages that most all of their
UN spec drums displayed inappropriate UN cert markings.
Either the certifications are not complete or are
inappropriately displayed.” He went on to tell me that as
technically non-compliant packagings, he was going to send
out a “Red Alert” to all the DOE facilities and that in his
estimation, this could result in repackaging costs for the
DOE that could exceed a cost of $6 Billion.
Going back to what I stated earlier about the issues being
disproportionate to the potential question of product integrity,
let me explain the cause for this statement.
In 178.503.(e), examples of the symbol used to indicate that
a container is UN certified shows a circle with the letter u

9. and n vertically positioned. There is no verbal description for
the lettering, just the illustration.
(20) 178. 503(a) states that, “A marking may be applied in a
single line or in multiple lines, provided the correct sequence
is used.” It then goes on to state that “A packaging
conforming to the UN standard must be marked as follows,”
and lists items 1-9 which are the marking information
sequence. They are:
First line:
The UN Symbol
The packaging ID code (1A1, 1A2)
The letter indicating performance standard,
The specific gravity or mass,
For liquids, the test pressure in Kilopascals (kpa),
Second Line:
The last two digits of the year the drum was manufactured,
The Competent Authority mark, USA
The manufacturer’s symbol or M-number, SDCC
The metal thickness
Prior to the Performance Standards, DOT open head drums
could be used for Solids or Liquids using the same marking,
usually a 17C or 17H. With the new UN standards, that
same drum would have to undergo a separate liquids and
solids test, and those marks would be permanently
embossed into the bottom head.
(21) tested separately and marked for both liquids and
solids. DOE welcomed this option, as it allowed for reduced
inventory and the continuation of liquid or solids usage
similar to the 17C series. When marking these drums, since
the last 4 items of the mark were the same for both the liquid

10. and solid marks, we embossed this drum with the first line of
the liquid test criteria (1-5), then the first line of the solids
criteria (1-5), and then embossed the second line
identification information that was the same for both marks
(year of manufacture, USA, the Skolnik mark, and the metal
thickness). In the case of the marking, the DOE
representative claimed that each complete mark required the
repetitive information to be embossed in sequence.
Therefore, by having a third line apply to both marks, one of
the two markings was non-compliant.
(22) The second non-compliance refers back to the
illustration of the UN symbol. The DOE representative was
claiming that some manufactures were using the Upper
Case UN letters, rather then the lower case UN – and thus,
the marking was non-compliant.
While technically, the DOE representative may have been
able to convince the DOT of a non-compliance issue, we
thought it was unlikely that the Federal government would
spend $6 Billion on repackaging drums whose non-complaint
violation was an upper case U and N. Furthermore, the DOT
thought both issues were insignificant. However, in order to
correct these issues for full compliance, Skolnik was one of 3
companies involved in these two non-compliance issues and
together, we applied for a (23) Special Exemption from the
DOT to accept all containers made using the upper case UN
and those that had the single second line embossment. The
Exemption was issued. In the end, Skolnik, alone, spent
more then $25,000 in legal fees on this matter.
(24) Another recent issue that turned a headache into a
migraine resulted from the letter I mentioned earlier that was
written to the DOT by Sandia National Labs in 2002. In it,
(25) Sandia asked DOT that if stenciling is used to apply the

11. UN mark, can the line be broken around the “un.” DOT
responded that no, the line had to be solid.
While in this case the interpretation from the DOT was, in my
opinion, wrong, the result was that for many DOE agencies,
and venders to the DOE agencies, we had to comply with
the design specification and ink stamp a solid circle over the
stenciled circle that accompanied the marking. Since
applying an ink stamp to a round metal surface is a difficult
task, the results were usually smeared, unclear and had to
be removed and restamped several times.
In 2005, I decided to put an end to the madness and through
the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC) we
proposed to the DOT that they review their original letter to
Sandia Labs and allow the stenciled mark – especially since
the remaining portion of the mark was stenciled. DOT initially
refused to recall their interpretation, and DGAC took the
matter to the Committee of Experts at the UN. Upon seeing
the proposal, the Committee was outraged that they should
be bothered with such a request. The DOT then chose to
review the request and did allow the circle to be broken as
long as the line to gap ratio did not exceed 10%.
Notice that in both situations that I just discussed, the
integrity of the container was never an issue. These were
cosmetic concerns that, in my opinion, provided no
additional safety to the DOE applications while costing
Skolnik 10’s of thousands of dollars in legal fees, staff time
and production loss.
(26) Another event that I am sure, many of you are aware of,
was the discovery in January 2007, that for a six month
period in 2006, Skolnik had performed an incomplete stack
test on several drum types that had been bought by

12. Savannah River. On Jan. 16th, I received a call stating the
problem and that this could result in all the drums Skolnik
had sold to the DOE being “exhumed and returned for
repackaging.” Migraine!!!
We investigated the claim and found that during a transition
of Testing management, our new Test Engineer misread
(27) 178.603, the Stack Test, and had been Periodic
Retesting for the UN and 7A using one sample – which is
correct for the more extreme 7A test, whereas the UN
requires 3 samples.
Immediately we sought our legal counsel for options. Since
the drums in question had been successfully Design
Qualification Tested in previous years, and since most of the
drum types had also successfully passed the current 7A
extreme testing – we chose to apply to the DOT for an
Approval of Equivalent Packaging. The application was
submitted on January 18th, and within 2 weeks, DOT had
issued their first Approval. (28) With some minor
modifications, the final Approval was issued on February
12th, 2007, less then 30 days from the initial contact.
Meanwhile, in the month that passed during the drafting of
the Approvals, an ORPS report had been sent to all DOE
agencies informing them of the incomplete Stack Test
situation, and further claiming that Skolnik was selling drums
in which the certifications had expired. While we are not sure
where the second issue came from, it now had been emailed
around to all DOE facilities and the calls started coming in to
Skolnik. Within days, we responded to numerous DOE
emails and callers wanting explanations and scheduling
audits. Though the DOE agency did realize that their
accusation was incorrect and printed a retraction of the

13. second claim, it was too late and Skolnik suffered the
consequences.
In February, Dean Ricker, our VP of Sales, and myself met
with the Savannah River staff to review the occurrence and
create a follow-up Corrective Action Report. Savannah River
was impressed with the speed of our reaction, the
responsiveness of the DOT to our request, and the intent on
Skolnik’s part to protect DOE compliance. This was an
expensive one for us, about $50,000 of legal and associated
expense.
(29) As suggested in the title of my presentation, there is
good cause for high stress factors to be a part of a DOE
vender relationship. As I mentioned earlier, the number of
domestic steel drum manufacturers has dropped from 60 to
8 and the number of drum manufacturer’s serving the DOE
has dropped from 60 to 3. Skolnik is one of the three. We
are an independently owned, small business and have
chosen to step up to the design, regulatory, quality and
documentation challenges that accompany DOE
procurement. At Skolnik, our DOE business is critical and
being a qualified vender for over 2 decades is an
accomplishment. We believe that safety and container
integrity is critical to your success and we support you. We
also believe that honesty, quality and partnering with DOE, is
critical to our success. There have been many headaches,
and some migraines, and I hope you understand that my
intention today is to enlighten you on the issues that we face
as a company, and as an industry in supporting the needs of
the DOE.