{"operation":"document","citation":"10-0010","title":"B&W Pantex, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2011-10-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"10-0010 response to B&W Pantex, LLC concerning 173.52, 173.58, 173.62.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0010","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2010/100010.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. Jesse Beyers\nCompliance Manager OCT 20 2011\nB& W Pantex, LLC\nP.O. Box 30020\nAmarillo, TX 79120\nRef. No. 10-0010\nDear Mr. Beyers:\nThis responds to your letter requesting clarification of the packaging requirements for certain\nDivision l.4S explosive articles under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n171-180). I apologize for the delay in responding and any inconvenience it may have caused. You\nask several related questions that are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQI. For Division 1.4, Compatibility Group S explosive substance or articles, is the classification\nassignment always packaging-dependent?\nAI. Not always. Generally, the assignment of Compatibility Group S to an explosive substance\nor article is based on the results of certain tests conducted on the completed package as\nintended for transportation. However, some substances and articles of Division 1.4 are\nconditionally assigned to Compatibility Group S based on authorized formulations or\nmanufacturing criteria and are not packaging dependent for their classification. If there is a\nnote in the EX-Approval which assigns the packaging, then it is packaging-dependent.\nQ2. If a Compatibility Group S assignment for a Division 1.4 substance or article is packagingdependent\nfor its classification, what methods are available to ensure any alternative form of\npackaging other than what was originally tested maintains the same level of performance?\nA2. The packaging specified in the approval note is the only packaging authorized. A change in\npackaging would require a new laboratory examination.\nQ3. For a Division 1.4 explosive substance or article conditionally authorized assignment to\nCompatibility Group S by the manufacturer without testing to determine its classification,\nhow is the required packaging selected for such materials?\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA3. Provided the classification or compatibility group assignment of an explosive substance or\narticle is not packaging-dependent (i.e., no packaging note is in the approval specifying the\npackaging), any authorized packaging in the packing method for the substance or article\nspecified in the § 173.62(c) Table of Packing Methods may be used. Unless otherwise\nexcepted in the HMR, the packaging design used to package the substance or article must be\nexamined by the laboratory with inner packagings of similar size, mass and density as the\nsubstance or article to be packaged for transportation at the Packing Group II performance\nlevel,\n04. An explosive manufacturer receives approval from the Associate Administrator for an article\nclassed as a Division l.4S. Is it then permissible for a third party to test the article in a\ndifferent packaging design authorized under § 173.62 and submit an approval request to the\nAssociate Administrator on its own?\nA4. If the original approval for the article includes a specific packaging configuration when its\nclassification is packaging-dependent, the answer is yes, but the laboratory must examine and\nrecommend it. Ifapproval of an article is not packaging- dependent (Le., no packaging note\nis in the approval specifying the packaging), it may be repackaged in any authorized\npackaging prescribed in § 173.62 for the article that is successfully tested (and documented)\nto the Packing Group II performance level without further testing or approval.\n05. In reference to the § 173.52 Table 1 entry for Compatibility Group S, where it states\n\"substance or article is so packed or designed ... \", if an article meets the definition of\nDivision l.4S by design (Le., explosive effects are largely confined within the article itself\nupon initiation), is the classification assignment of Division l.4S appropriate for the\npackaged article regardless of what packagings are used under the referenced packing\ninstruction?\nA5. We do not agree with the premise of your question; specifically, that a Division l.4S article\nis defined in the HMR as having \"explosive effects that are largely confined within the article\n. itself upon initiation.\" You may be misinterpreting the statement in .\n§ 173.58(a)(5) that assigns Division l.4S \"if the hazardous effects are confined within the\npackage or the blast and projection effects do not significantly hinder emergency response\nefforts.\"\nThere are numerous identification numbers with Division l.4S classification that are assigned\na corresponding packing instruction in the § 173.62( c) Table of Packing Methods. If the\nCompetent Authority approval letter issued by the Associate Administrator does not provide\na packaging note (normally indicated below the product description), then the shipper must\nselect an authorized packaging from the packing instruction assigned to the product in the\nCompetent Authority approval letter. Each of the § 173.62(c) Packing Instructions typically\nprovide a list of authorized inner, intermediate and outer packaging choices. A shipper is not\nrequired to have its choice of packaging for such a product examined or approved by the\nAssociate Administrator under this scenario. Further, it is a shipper's responsibility to ensure\nthat any packaging design used has been successfully tested at the Packing Group II\nperformance level for the maximum gross mass intended to be packaged.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nS+evens\n............................. \" ........\nB 'W Pantex, LLC § 173. 5z\n• p.o. box 30020 • amarUlo, tx 79120\n~ rI3·~-z.\n• phone 806·477·3000 • www.pantex.com £xp I05;v~ oS\n10- 0010\nU.S. Department of Transportation December 28,2009\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards, Attn: PHH-10\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nSubject: Packaging of 1.4S Explosives\nDear PHH-1 0:\nOur company has the need to ship articles classed as 1.4S by other companies or government\nagencies such as the U.S. Departments of Defense (000) and Energy (DOE). We are having a\ngrowing problem of finding the \"as-tested\" type packaging submitted during the 1.4S\nclassification approval process.\nIt is understood that explosives in general are packaged in accordance with the Table of Packing\nMethods found in 173.62; however, packaging is specifically mentioned for Compatibility Code\n\"S\" in the 49 CFR 173.52 Table of Classification Codes and for 1.4S in 173.58{a)(5). Table 1\nsays \"the substance or article is so packed or designed that any hazardous effect arising from\naccidental functioning are limited to the extent they do not significantly hinder ... emergency\nresponse efforts in the immediate vicinity of the package.\" In 173.58(a)(5) for 1.4S, it says \"if the\nhazard effects are confined within the package or the blast and projection effects do not\nsignificantly hinder emergency response efforts.\" This paragraph is also the only paragraph\nwhich mentions hazard class and division along with a compatibility group.\nBased on the wording in the above mentioned CFR references, we are requesting clarification\non the packaging requirements for 1.4S for the following questions.\nQuestion 1: Is it correct that 1.4S explosives are different than explosives in general in that\npackaging can be a part of the classification?\nQuestion 2: How would we know if the package configuration meets the requirements of 173.58\nif each packaging configuration is not tested and documented?\nQuestion 3: If an article has a DOT classification of 1.4S, are we free to select any packaging\nconfiguration provided in the referenced packing instruction in 173.62 each time the article is\nSCM· I O·5380()\"O I 89-SCM\nbabcock & wilcox technical services pantex,lIc. a Babcock & Wilcox company\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nPHH-10 Page 2\nPackaging of 1.4S Explosives\npackaged for shipment, regardless of the packaging configuration tested, or, do we package the\narticle in the \"as-tested\" packaging configuration each time the article is shipped in order to\nmaintain the 1.4S classification during transport?\nQuestion 4: If the manufacture/owner of an article received the DOT classification of 1.4S, can\nsomeone else test a different packaging configuration based on authorized packaging in 173.62\nand submit to DOT for approval?\nQuestion 5: This question is in reference to 173.52 Table 1 for Compatibility Code S where it\nstates \"Substance or article so packed or designed ... n. If the design of an article meets the\ndefinition of 1.4S, i.e. explosive effects largely confined within the article itself upon initiation, is a\n1.4S classification assignment appropriate for the packaged article regardless of what\npackaging are used under the referenced packing method?\nRespectfully,\n~~\nJesse Beyers\nCompliance Manager\nB&W Pantex\nSCM-I 0-53800-0 189-SCM\nbabcock & wilcox technical services pantex,lIc. a Babcock 8. Wilcox company","truncated":false,"body_characters":9110}