{"operation":"document","citation":"20-0012","title":"Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2020-05-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"20-0012 response to Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC concerning 173.56.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-20-0012","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/73841/200012.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMay 6, 2020\nChris Carthel\nSenior Transportation Specialist\nConsolidated Nuclear Security, LLC\nPantex Plant\nPO Box 30020\nAmarillo, TX 79120-0030\nReference No. 20-0012\nDear Mr. Carthel:\nThis letter is in response to your February 6, 2020 email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to explosives\napprovals. In your email, you state it is your understanding that installation of an unaltered,\npreviously-approved explosive device into a new, larger article would alter the design of the\nexplosive, thereby constituting a “new explosive” and requiring a new approval in accordance\nwith § 173.56 of the HMR. You also state this requirement is appropriate for explosives\nclassified in Divisions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, as there is a relatively high probability that placing those\nitems into a larger article may introduce new hazards, such as additional fragmentation sources.\nHowever, you further state that it is your belief that this requirement is not appropriate for items\nclassified as a Division 1.4S, particularly when the design is inherently self-contained and does\nnot rely on packaging for the classification as Division 1.4S. Finally, as background, you refer to\na previously issued Letter of Interpretation (LOI) Reference No. 10-0087 by PHMSA which\nstated that installation of an unaltered, previously approved explosive device into a new (larger)\narticle alters the design, thereby constituting a new explosive and requiring a new examination,\nclassification, and approval in accordance with § 173.56 of the HMR.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. You ask whether the response in LOI Reference No. 10-0087 applies when an unaltered,\npreviously-approved explosive device will be assembled in or on a new, larger non-\nexplosive assembly when the previously-approved device has a classification of Division\n1.4S (self-contained designs), Division 4.1 (ref. EX 1995060038), Division 2.2 (ref.\nEX2007030164), or “not regulated as a Class 1 explosive” (ref. EX2003080116).\nA1. The answer is yes, for all articles which have been assigned a classification in Class 1,\nincluding Division 1.4S, as well as for articles which are assigned a classification other\nthan hazard Class 1 on a conditional basis. By installing a previously-approved explosive\ndevice into a new article, you create a new explosive article, which may have different\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nexplosive hazards or properties from the previously approved article. As a result, the\nproper shipping name and hazard class may no longer be appropriate, depending on how\nthe explosive device is installed, the overall size, and the packaging. Thus, the article is a\nnew explosive as defined in § 173.56(a) and must be examined, classed, and approved in\naccordance with § 173.56. For articles that are approved and assigned a classification as\nDivision 4.1, Division 2.2, or as “not regulated as a Class 1 explosive,” and that are not\nconditional upon packaging or limited by regulatory provision, the answer is no. In these\ncases, the article is no longer considered to pose an explosive hazard and is not a Class 1\nexplosive; therefore, installation within a larger article containing no other explosives\nwould not require re-examination unless the approved article itself has been altered or the\nmanner of installation in the larger assembly directly affected the hazard of the energetic\ncomponents.\nQ2. You ask if the Department of Energy (DOE) determines and confirms in writing to the\nAssociate Administrator that there are no significant differences in hazard characteristics\nfrom the explosive previously approved, would that allow the use of the previously-\napproved explosive’s EX approval for the new and larger article configuration which\ncontains the unaltered, previously approved explosive device.\nA2. The answer is yes. In accordance with § 173.56(a)(2), an explosive will not be\nconsidered a “new explosive” if an agency listed in § 173.56(b) has determined and\nconfirmed in writing to the Associate Administrator that there are no significant\ndifferences in hazard characteristics from the explosive previously approved. DOE is one\nof the agencies listed, and is authorized to make this determination for articles made by or\nunder the direction or supervision of the Department of Energy.\nQ3. You ask whether the DOE must receive acknowledgement in writing from the Associate\nAdministrator before the explosive is authorized for transportation in accordance with\n§ 173.56(c).\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nA3. The answer is no. Since the article is not considered a “new explosive” per DOE, and\nDOE has confirmed in writing to the Associate Administrator that there are no significant\ndifferences in hazard characteristics from the explosive previously approved, no\nacknowledgement is required. Once the Associate Administrator has received\nconfirmation from the DOE, the article may be transported under the direction or\nsupervision of the DOE utilizing the EX approval of the previously approved explosive,\nand PHMSA will revise the approval to include the new article.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nSent:\nTo:\nSubject:\nAttachments:\nFriday, February 7, 2020 1 :11 PM\nHazmat lnterps\nFW: Request for Interpretation Regarding New Explosives\nChris LOl.docx\nHello Alice and lkeya,\nSee below for a request for letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nJonathon, HMIC\nFrom: Carthel, Chris [mailto:Chris.Carthel@cns.doe.gov]\nSent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:27 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) <INFOCNTR.INFOCNTR@dot.gov>\nCc: Beyers, Jesse <Jesse.Beyers@cns.doe.gov>\nSubject: Request for Interpretation Regarding New Explosives\nHello:\nAccording to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) interpretation 10-0087, installation of an unaltered, previously-\napproved explosive device into a new (larger) article alters the design, thereby constituting a new explosive and\nrequiring a new examination, classification, and approval in accordance with 49 CFR § 173.56.\nThis makes particular sense for 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 explosives, because there is a relatively high probability that placing\nthose items into a larger article might introduce new hazards such as additional fragmentation sources (projection\nhazards, etc.); however, this starts to makes less sense for 1.45 items (particularly when the design is inherently self-\ncontained and does not rely on packaging for the 1.45 classification*), and even less sense for items which are unaltered\nand assigned a hazard classification by the EX-document of other than Class 1.\nQl: Is DOT interpretation 10-0087 also true when an unaltered, previously-approved device (which will be assembled\ninto/onto a larger, otherwise non-explosive assembly) has been assigned a hazard classification of:\n• Division 1.45 (e.g., inherently self-contained article designs)?\n• Division 4.1 (ref. EX1995060038)?\n• Divisi. on 2.2 (ref. EX2007030164)?\n• \"Not regulated as a Class 1 explosive\" (ref. EX2003080116)?\nThe second half of the new explosive definition at§ 173.56(a) states\" ... An explosive will not be considered a 'new\nexplosive' if an agency listed in paragraph (b) of this section [e.g., the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)] has determined,\nand confirmed in writing to the Associate Administrator, that there are no significant differences in hazard\ncharacteristics from the explosive previously approved.\"\nQ2: If DOE determines, and confirms in writing to the Associate Administrator, that there are no significant differences\nin hazard characteristics from the explosive previously approved, does that allow use of the previously-approved\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nexplosive's EX-number for the new (larger) article configuration which contains the unaltered, previously-approved\nexplosive device?\nQ3: If yes to question 2, must DOE first receive acknowledgement in writing from the Associate Administrator [ref. §\n173.56(c)]?\nChris Carthel\nSenior Transportation Specialist\nContractor to the Department of Energy\nChris.Carthel@cns.doe.gov\n(806) 573-5703 Office\nNotes:\n* This is based on the definition of Compatibility Group Sin Table 1 at§ 173.52(b) which includes the phrase\" ... so\npacked or designed . .. \" [italics added for emphasis].\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":8578}