{"operation":"document","citation":"09-0013","title":"Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2009-04-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"09-0013 response to Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. concerning 173.56.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0013.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0013.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0013","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2009/090013.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. Anthony P. Cellucci\nDirector, Transportation Compliance\nClean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.\n42 Longwater Drive\nNorwell, MA 0206 1-9 149\nRef. No.: 09-001 3\nDear Mr. Cellucci:\nThis responds to your electronic mail requesting clarification of the Hazardous Material\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171 - 180) pertaining to the classification of explosives.\nSpecifically, you request clarification on when an approval is needed for a waste stream\ncontaining a small amount of a Class 1 (explosive) material. You also ask if there is a\nthreshold upon which an assumption may be made by the shipper that the material meets the\ndefinition of another hazard class or does not meet the definition of a hazardous material.\nYour email provides two scenarios. In the first, a customer manufactures\nTrinitrotrimethylenetriamine (RDX) by incorporating the material into a solution of\nisopropanol and water in order to regulate the particle size. The explosive material is then\nremoved from the isopropanol/water/RDX solution in a rotary evaporation procedure. The\nresultant waste material consists of a solution that contains 4.5% water, 93.7% isopropanol,\n1.73% bis(2ethylhexyl) adipate (a non- DOT regulated plasticizer), .07% RDX and a non-\ndetectable amount of cyclotetramethylenetetramine (HMX). In the second, a remediation\nproject is conducted in which contaminated soils that contain trace amounts of RDX andlor\nHMX are excavated for disposal at a licensed waste management facility.\nA new explosive is an explosive produced by a person who has not previously produced that\nexplosive, or has previously produced that explosive but has made a change in the\nformulation, design, or process so as to alter any of the properties of the explosive. The term\n\"formulation\" as used in the definition of a new explosive applies to the entire mixture and\nnot just the explosive components. An explosive is not considered a \"new explosive\" if an\nagency listed in paragraph (b) of 9173.56 has determined and confirmed in writing to the\nAssociate Administrator that there are no significant differences in hazard characteristics\nfrom the explosive previously approved (see 173.56(a)).\nAll new compositions containing any amount of explosive material must be classed and\napproved by DOT, including compositions of diluted (desensitized) explosives or explosives\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\ncombined or contaminated with other materials. An approved explosive that has been mixed\nwith non-explosive or non-hazardous materials may be considered a new explosive if the\nchange in formulation increases its sensitivity toward initiation or energetic content. An\napproved explosive that is to be discarded as a waste because it is off-spec would be a new\nexplosive if the change in formulation that causes the material to be off-spec would increase\nthe sensitivity toward initiation or energetic content of the explosive. Therefore, if the\nexplosive properties of an approved explosive are increased after being mixec! with filters,\nrags, dirt, or other material, then the explosive produced is a new explosive and must be\napproved in accordance with 5 173.56(b).\nIn accordance with $173.56(i), if experience or other data indicate that the hazard of a\nmaterial or a device containing an explosive composition is greater or less than indicated\naccording to the definition and criteria specified in 55173.50, 173.56 and 173.58, the\nAssociate Administrator may specify a classification or except the material or device from\nthe requirements of the HMR.\nI hope this information is helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.\nSincerely,\nStandards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nClean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.\n42 Longwater Drive\nP.O. Box 9149\nNonvell, MA 0206 1-9 149\nVia Electronic Mail\nNovember 14,2007\nU. S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nSpecial Permits and Approvals\nEast Building, 2\"d Floor\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nRE: Request for Clarification - New Explosive Determination\nDear Sir or Madam:\nClean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. provides a wide range of environmental services to\nour customer base in North America. We provide transportation and disposal capabilities for a\nwide range of hazardous, solid and special wastes through an internal network of fully licensed\nwaste management facilities. In addition, we are a licensed hazardous waste transporter in the\nUnited States and Canada.\nIn the course of providing safe, compliant and economical solutions to our customer base, we\nhave encountered situations where a known explosive compound is a component of a waste\nstream that a shipper is attempting to dispose of at a licensed waste management facility. Below,\nI have outlined two (2) separate examples of current projects where the regulations and letters of\ninterpretations found on the DOT'S website appear to indicate that the material in question would\nneed to be approved in compliance with 49 CFR 173.56 \"New Explosives - definitions and\nprocedures for classifications and approval\". The purpose of this letter is to obtain clarification\nfrom your organization as to the requirement to follow these procedures as our customers do not\nagree that the DOT intended to regulate and/or approve individual waste shipments.\nEXAMPLE 1\nA customer manufactures Trinitrotrimethylenetriamine (RDX) by incorporating his material into\na solution of isopropanol and water in order to regulate the particle size. The explosive material\nis then removed from the isopropanol/water/RDX solution via a rotary evaporation procedure.\nThe resultant waste material then consists of a solution that contains 4.5 % water, 93.7%\nisopropanol, 1.73 %\n\"People and Technology Creating a Better Environment\"\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nUS Department of Transportation\nPage 2\nNovember 14,2007\nbis(2ethylhexyl) adipate (a non DOT regulated plasticizer), .07% RDX and a non detectable\namount of cyclotetramethylenetetramine (HMX).\nIn this example, would the DOT consider this to be a new formulation requiring testing to either\ndetermine that a new explosive exists and needs to be classed and approved for shipment or that\nit is not an explosive and can be classified and shipped as a Class 3 flammable liquid for\ndisposal?\nEXAMPLE 2\nA remediation project is conducted in which contaminated soils are excavated that contain trace\namounts of RDX and/or HMX. This soil is destined for disposal at a licensed waste management\nfacility. Would an approval process need to be initiated for this waste stream as a new explosive\nbecause it is no longer in the same state as when it was manufactured? Is there a threshold at\nwhich an assumption could be made whereby the material could be re classed as either a non\nregulated material or an alternate hazard class?\nIn summary, I am requesting clarification when compliance with 49 CFR 173.56 is mandatory\nand when a waste material would not need to be subject to this process. I have included a copy\nof the letter of interpretation that I review from the DOT whose applicability is being challenged\nby several of our customers.\nYou attention and consideration with this request is very much appreciated. If additional\ninformation is required please contact me at (781) 792-5760.\nSincerely,\nAnthony P. Cellucci\nDirector, Transportation Compliance\nCc: File","truncated":false,"body_characters":7540}