{"operation":"document","citation":"23-0074","title":"Raytheon — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2023-10-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"23-0074 response to Raytheon concerning 173.56.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-23-0074.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-23-0074.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-23-0074","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/77981/230074_0.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nOctober 10, 2023\nSteven W. Steuer\nSystem Safety Engineer\nRaytheon\n1151 E Hermans Rd\nTucson, AZ 85706\nReference No. 23-0074\nDear Mr. Steuer:\nThis letter is in response to your August 7, 2023, email and subsequent email conversation\nrequesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180)\nregarding the applicability of the HMR to expended explosive devices. Specifically, you ask\nwhat the appropriate classification is for an expended explosive device, such as an initiator that\nwas originally approved for transportation as a Division 1.4 explosive.\nThe answer is that the classification of an expended explosive device must be determined case-\nby-case based on the presence or absence of energetic material remaining in the device. If the\nexplosive substance within the device has been consumed/expended and there is no energetic\nsubstance remaining, then the device would not be subject to the requirements of the HMR for\ntransportation as a Class 1 explosive material.\nIt is the responsibility of the shipper to determine whether the expended explosive device\ncontains residual energetic material or any other chemical residue that may be subject to the\nHMR prior to offering the device for transportation. If a shipper plans to offer a device\ncontaining residual energetic materials—including a “dud” or misfired device—for\ntransportation, they must seek a competent authority approval in accordance with § 173.56.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nDirk Der Kinderen\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nPatrick\n23-0074\nFrom: Foster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nTo: Date: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA); Jones, Jessie Jane CTR (PHMSA)\nSubject: Expended previous LIVE ordnance/explosives\nTuesday, August 15, 2023 8:21:35 AM\nAttachments: image002.png\nGood morning, Alice and Jessie.\nWas the following checked in as a request for an Interp?\nThanks,\nGlenn\nFrom: Fink, William (PHMSA) \nSent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 7:08 AM\nTo: Steuer, Steven W RTX ; Foster, Glenn (PHMSA)\n\nCc: Raszewski, Kimberly (PHMSA) ; INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\n; Singh, Harpreet (PHMSA) \nSubject: RE: Expended previous LIVE ordnance/explosives\nMr. Steuer,\nI will ask Mr Foster to open an interp on this question.\nNormally any residual amount of unreacted explosives would require a PHMSA classification\napproval for transportation.\nExample-\nLab waste – residual amounts on paper towels, gloves, etc.\nWilliam Fink\nTransportation Specialist\nWilliam.Fink@dot.gov\nUS Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHH24\n1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington DC, 20590\nMobile- 484-635-9384 ◊\nPHMSA Home | LinkedIn | Twitter | HAZMAT | OPS\nFrom: Steuer, Steven W RTX \n\n<<>>\n\nSent: Monday, August 14, 2023 9:12 AM\nTo: Raszewski, Kimberly (PHMSA) ; INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\n\nCc: Fink, William (PHMSA) \nSubject: RE: Expended previous LIVE ordnance/explosives\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do\nnot click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content\nis safe.\nThought I’d ask about this one again…I haven’t heard or seen anything from the INFO center about\nthis? Thanks, steve\nSteven W Steuer\nWLE System Safety Engineer\nO: +1 520-794-2363\nC: +1 520-425-5142\nSteven.W.Steuer@rtx.com\nRaytheon | An RTX Business\nWhole Life Engineering/System Safety Engineering\n1151 E Hermans Rd\nTucson, Arizona 85706\nFrom: Raszewski, Kimberly (PHMSA) \nSent: Monday, August 7, 2023 12:58 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) \nCc: Steuer, Steven W RTX ; Fink, William (PHMSA)\n\nSubject: [External] FW: Expended previous LIVE ordnance/explosives\nImportance: High\nGood afternoon Info Center,\nPlease see Mr. Steuer’s inquiry below.\nThank you,\nKim Raszewski\nTransportation Specialist, Energetic Materials Branch\nUS Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave., Washington, D.C., 20590\n\n<<>>\n\nOffice: 202-366-4498\nFrom: Steuer, Steven W RTX\nSent: Monday, August 7, 2023 9:29 AM\nTo: Fink, William (PHMSA) \nSubject: Expended previous LIVE ordnance/explosives\nImportance: High\nWilliam, good day!\nI am trying to determine whether DOT makes any distinction for how to handle “expended”\nordnance/explosives? I currently don’t see anything in 49CFR for this, and I haven’t found any DOT\nLetters of Interpretation for this subject.\nRaytheon has generally treated expended explosives as no longer being able to produce any LIVE\nexplosive reaction…and therefore no longer needing any EX letter for that condition. We know that\nthat doesn’t mean that in the case for rocket motors that there isn’t residual materials remaining in\nthe RM case, which also implies that it must be handled as ordnance waste for disposal…in other\nwords, it is NOT chemically INERT. We further believe that for smaller explosive devices… initiators,\nbottle cutters, etc, mostly 1.4 devices…this is even less of a concern for an expended item having\neven far less residuals and far less opportunity for any explosive reaction.\nLooking to see if there is any DOT policy or practice for transportation hazard classification of\n“expended” explosives? Thanks, steve\nSteven W Steuer\nWLE System Safety Engineer\nO: +1 520-794-2363\nC: +1 520-425-5142\nSteven.W.Steuer@rtx.com\nRaytheon | An RTX Business\nWhole Life Engineering/System Safety Engineering\n1151 E Hermans Rd\nTucson, Arizona 85706","truncated":false,"body_characters":6007}