{"operation":"document","citation":"98-0510","title":"HMT Associates, L.L.C. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1998-02-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"98-0510 response to HMT Associates, L.L.C. concerning 171.8, 173.21.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0510.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0510.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0510","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1998/980510.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n•\n:\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n00 Seventh Street, S.V\nVashington, D.C. 2059\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nAdministration\n•\nFEB 1 | 1996\nMr. Gordon Rousseau\nHMT Associates, L.L.C.\n1850 K Street, N. W.\nWashington, D.C. 20006-3500\nDear Mr. Rousseau:\nThis is in response to your letter dated January 29, 1998 on behalf of CAT Contracting, Inc.,\nrequesting confirmation of the non-applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49\nCrR Parts 171-180; HIMR) to a cured-in-place pipe reconstruction material consisting primarily\nof resin-impregnated felt.\nIn confirmation of your understanding, this material does not meet the defining criteria for a\nhazardous material and is not subject to the HIMR. This determination is based on the\ninformation provided in your letter and the understanding that the material is neither a forbidden\nmaterial under the provisions of 49 CFR 173.21 nor a hazardous substance as defined in 49 CFR\n171.8. If the material is packaged in a quantity wherein the styrene constituent meets or exceeds\n1000 pounds, it would be regulated as a hazardous substance.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.\nSincerely,\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n•\n:\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.\n1850 K STREET, N.W.\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-3500\nSUITE 200\nE.A. ALTEMOS\n(202) 463-3511\nGORDON ROUSSEAU\nPATRICIA A. QUINN\nFACSIMILE (202) 463-3512\nWRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER\n(202) 463-3511\ne-mail address\ngorrou@pipeline.com\nThursday, January 29, 1998\nMs. J. Suzanne Hedgepeth\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Exemptions & Approvals\nResearch & Special Programs Admn.\n400 7th Street\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\nRequest for confirmation of non-applicability\nof DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(49 CFR Parts 100-199)\nDear Ms. Hedgepeth:\nOn behalf of CAT Contracting, Inc., a transporter of a cured-in-place pipe reconstruction\nrequest confirmation of the company's conclusion that this material, in the form in which it is\nmaterial for which some persons have questioned the DOT hazard classification, this is to\nshipped, is not subject to DOT's hazardous materials regulations for transportation by highway in\nA.\nHistorical information\nTo put the issue in proper historical perspective, we wish to provide you initially with\nsome background information which we believe will be helpful in your understanding of the\nsituation. Note that as a result of some confusion late last year, a DOT exemption E-11979, was\nissued for this product but it is no longer in effect (copy attached). As explained in this letter, we\nbelieve that the exemption was issued due to pressures of the moment to complete a vital\nwaterworks installation. CAT Contracting, Inc. was unable to gather up in a sufficiently prompt\nmanner the history of its product for which it is a licensee, and thereby the necessary background\ninformation that would have permitted DOT to make a more complete assessment of the\ncircumstances. If this had been done, it is our belief that an exemption would not have been\nnecessary.\nworked with DOT on a project to evaluate the application of the DOT regulations to a product\nA few years ago, when employed in the law firm of Lawrence W. Bierlein, P.C., the writer\nwhich could be described as the raw material state of Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP). This activity\npreceded DOT Docket HM-181. At that time, in cooperation with DOT staff and following its\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nHIMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.c.\nAssociate Administrator\nAlan I. Roberts\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nThursday, January 29, 1998\nPage 2\nthe DOT hazardous materials regulations. A copy of the exchange of correspondence that took\nstudy of the product, it was concluded that the material in question was not considered subject to\nplace is attached.\nThis same material which is the subject of this letter has not substantially changed from\nwhen it was first reviewed by DOT. Informational literature about the material and the\nhow the need for this technology arose and a more precise description of the material\nconstruction process in which it is used, is also enclosed. For a more detailed presentation of\ncomponents, DOT staff is referenced to the White Paper by Doug Kleweno (enclosed).\nDocket HM-181 have been adopted, certain pertinent hazard class definitions have been\nSince that first contact with DOT, however, we acknowledge that new rules under DOT\nchanged, and a new regulated category called marine pollutants has been added to the DOT\nregulations. The class definition pertinent to this material is Class 4.1 which is now defined by\nuse of a quantitative definition against which any questions concerning proper hazard\nthe present application of the DOT regulations, re-assessment of the earlier decision is\nclassification of the subject material must be measured. It is clear, therefore, that to determine\nreasonable and should be done. The company has done this.\nB. Description of material\nresin which are transported encased in sealed plastic tubing in a closed refrigerated vehicle, from\nThe material in question consists of a variable number of felt layers impregnated with\nthe manufacturing site to the application site. Typically, this transportation takes place over a\npublic roadway. No free liquid in the tubing is present at any time during transportation, or during\nhandling prior to or following transportation. All transportation of the material is done as part of\nthe manufacturing and application process. No product is transported as commercial goods for\nsale or as freight for delivery to other persons. No other chemicals or products are transported in\nthe vehicle transporting the subject tubing. The manufacturer of the product is the user. Also,\nnot exceeding 3 or 4 hours transportation time from the installation site. From a practical\nsuch matenais are always manutactured locally for application in the immediate vicinity, typically\nstandpoint, it is not feasible nor efficient typically, to have material to be installed produced\nfurther away than 150 miles from the installation site.\nThe material itself consists of resin impregnated felt contained in long, thick, flexible\npipeline or sewer installations. The prepared product as transported consists of a tube ranging\nplastic film, vacuum-sealed tubes that are destined to become the interior lining of existing\nfrom 6 to 96 inches in diameter. (Larger diameters, due to the weight of the finished product, are\nproduced on site.) A vacuum is pulled on the tube during the manufacturing process to insure\ntubing is manufactured the felt is pressed (pinched) by heavy rollers which squeeze the resin into\nfull absorption of resin into the felt when the resin is introduced into the tubular bags. When the\nthe felt to assure even distribution as the tubing is fed through the rollers. The resin in the tube\nis totally impregnated into the felt material lining the plastic tube. No free liquid resin is in the\ntube. The finished product, by weight, consists of 55% resin, 31% styrene, 1% Percadox™ and\n13% felt. Volumetrically, of course, it is mostly felt.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nHIMT ASSOCIATES, LL.C.\nAlan I. Roberts\nAssociate Administrator\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nThursday, January 29, 1998\nPage 3\nThe impregnated tubing is loaded by hand into the vehicle as it is made which permits on-\ntube remains completely intact. In the recollection of the company during all the years that it has\ngoing inspection at the final moment of loading. No mechanization is involved to assure that the\nvehicle crew has been trained in methods to reseal the tube should it become damaged.\nperformed this operation, it has never encountered any tears or cuts to the tube. However, the\nDamaged tubing is never loaded into the vehicle since the complete integrity of the tubing is\nparamount to the success of the installation. In addition, should it happen (it has not to date)\nthat the tube had a tear or hole in place, the resin impregnated in the material would not flow.\nAgain, there is no free liquid present so that even when the bottom of the tube is subjected to the\ndamaged, it will not spill resin. During transportation the resin-impregnated felt material is\nheavy pressure (crushed) from being loaded five or six feet high into the vehicle, should it be\ncompletely enclosed in vacuum-sealed plastic tubing.\nTo prevent unwanted or premature curing, the material is further placed in a refrigerated\nloading. The use of ice and/or refrigeration is not related in any way to preventing or avoiding the\nvehicle, which aiso is loaded with bags of ice that are placed between the tube folds during\nWill note that we did conduct an experiment in which a load was allowed to cure while in the\ndevelopment of a hazardous condition. In fact, in our earlier discussion with DOT in 1987, you\nThis test is described below.\nvehicle to demonstrate that no hazardous condition would result if such an incident did occur.\nto the degree such that when the tube is removed from the vehicle and is inserted into the\nWhen the matenal is loaded on the vehicle, it is loaded in tubular bags which are sealed\nunderground pipe to be repaired, it remains completely sealed until, at the site, one end is cut\nand attached to a standpipe placed inside of the manhole being used. The end that is cut\ntypically has about 3 or 4 feet of unimpregnated plastic-wrapped felt so that no significant, if any,\nresin exposure occurs to either personnel or the environment. The other end remains sealed. A\nand by water pressure is inverted and pushed through the plastic exterior-lined resin impregnated\ncalibration hose consisting of a plastic felt lined plastic tube is then inserted into the standpipe\ntube. Once the calibration hose has been forced in place to the end of the resin impregnated\ntube, hot water is then circulated through the calibration hose. The process consists of forming\nthe shape and size of the new pipe by water pressure on the resin impregnated felt-lined tube by\nthe calibration hose placed inside, which circulates first cold water under pressure and then hot\n• water. This sets the resin curing and hardening process into action. The entire process remains\nsealed to the environment thus avoiding completely any styrene exposure or spillage.\nC. Hazard Classification of resin impregnated felt-lined tube\nThe company has again investigated the application of the DOT hazardous materials\nthe fact that at no time is any free liquid present nor can be present, it concluded that the only\nregulations to its product. After review of the various classes and their definitions, and in view of\npossible hazard classification to examine would be the potential for fire as from a flammable solid\n(Division 4.1) or the risk of a reaction that might produce a dangerous heat of reaction,\nflammable gases or dangerous pressure (§ 173.21). It has examined these possibilities.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.\nAssociate Administrator\nAlan I. Roberts\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nThursday, January 29, 1998\nPage 4\nCat Contracting contacted the Southwest Research Institute and requested that it\nconduct flammability testing as described in the DOT regulations for Division 4.1, flammable\nsolids, § 173.124 and 173.125. The Packing Group for these materials was to be evaluated\nThe methods describe a preliminary screening test which includes a burning rate, all of which is\naccording to test results following test methods given in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria.\ndescribed in Figure 33.2.1.3, Flow Chart for Assigning Readily Combustible Solids, except metal\npowders, to Division 4.1 and 33.2.1.4.3, Procedure Preliminary Screening Test from the Manual.\nBy this preliminary screening test, it can be determined if one should proceed further in the\nclassification evaluation. The products of concer include two varieties of tubes, a polyethylene\npre-polymer \"cured-in-place\" pipe liner and another called a polyurethane pre-polymer \"cured-in-\nplace\" pipe line, each referred to by the trade name \"Interliner™ USA\". Tests were conducted on\nscreening test revealed that\nboth types and the test results are attached with this letter. In both cases, the preliminary\n(1)\nignition of the polyethylene material occurred after application of a burner\nflame for 3 seconds and continued to burn at the rate of 1.2 mm/sec and\nreached the 140mm mark at the end of the 2-minute period.\n(2)\nignition of the polyurethane material occurred after application of a bumer flame\nfor 9 seconds and continued to burn at the rate of 1.0 mm/sec and reached the\n150mm mark at the end of the 2-minute period.\ncombustion either by burning with flame or smoldering along 200 mm of the train within the\nThe UN test manual states that if the substance does not ignite and propagate\n2-minute test period, then the substance should not be classified as a flammable solid and no\nfurther testing is required. The tests reports enclosed so conclude.\nRisk assessment regarding vehicle loaded with resin impregnated tube\nhazard risk to property or persons, there has been concern about the reaction that takes place\nWhenever questions have arisen about the potential of this material for any significant\nand the heat and products of reaction that might be generated by the material should it react\nthrough exposure to heat and begin to cure, i.e., to solidify. This evaluation was conducted in\nOctober 23, 1987 to Mr. E. Mazzullo of your Office. I summarize the excerpt of that report here.\n1987 when DOT was first approached about this material and was reported in our letter of\nBased on a recommendation by your Mr. C. Schultz, the company involved at the time,\nInsituform, reported using a\n'worst case transportation situation. For this we hypothesized a circumstance\nwith no ice or refrigeration, with the temperature reaching 130°F inside the\nThe highest temperature found and measured in this reaction was 213°C.\"\nvehicle. As would be expected, the material reacted and deteriorated due to heat.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.\nAlan I. Roberts\nAssociate Administrator\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nThursday, January 29, 1998\nPage 5\n\"The highest level of styrene vapors under such conditions was determined to be\napproximately 400 ppm, still well below flammability limits. The reacted material\nbecame a hardened mass and, of course, was completely unusable. There was\nno unusuai or hazardous activity during the reaction. Such a material can be\nremoved from the vehicle without risk nor does the vehicle suffer any damage.\"\nThis test was complete and more unusual than typical in that an actual vehicle was used\nfor the test and involved actual packaging and an amount of \"multiple\" packaging, so to speak,\nsuch as would be shipped in day-to-day circumstances. Thus, no extrapolation was used in\nconsidering the result as acceptable. This was a life-size test.\nE. Lack of potential for spillage of resin\npollutant, we examined the potential for spillage of this totally impregnated form of the material\nInsofar as a styrene-containing material might be questioned for regulation as a marine\nwhile on the vehicle and the realistic potential for any entry into a waterway. As indicated above,\nthe installation of the pipe at the site is conducted in such a manner that there is no opening of\nthe tube except at the end at which several feet of non-impregnated felt is located, and this\nopening is done on the site after transportation has ceased and the manufacturing operation\ncommenced. Hence, the resin-impregnated felt does not come into contact with any persons,\nobjects or the environment. Once impregnated into the felt, free styrene is not released even\nwhen exposed to heavy pressures such as might be encountered by the stacking of the tube in\nthe vehicle for transportation to the application site. Should a tear develop in the tube, which as\ntube. There can be a smali release of vapor from the exposed material at the location of the\nwe noted in many years of operation has never happened, no liquid exudes from the stacked\nhole.\nF. Hazard classification conclusion\nIn 1987, another company, Insituform ™ obtained confirmation from DOT that the material\nin question was not considered to be subject to the DOT regulations. Since that time, while there\nhave been changes in the regulations, examination of the changes against the properties of the\nmaterial have caused CAT Contracting, Inc., likewise to arrive at the conclusion that there should\nbe no reason for change in the original DOT position. It believes that DOT should have no\nobjection to continued transportation of the product described above as a non-DOT regulated\nmaterial.\nBecause of the recent \"alert\" in California and the pressure exerted on the company to\nobtain DOT authorization for continued transportation a few months ago, the company was\nforced by the stress of circumstances to obtain a DOT exemption, i.e., DOT-E 11979, since the\ncompletion of a job was in jeopardy. Since obtaining this exemption which has now expired, the\ncompany learned of the former DOT decision. For this reason, it mounted a complete re-\nevaluation. As a result, it now requests that DOT acknowledge that an exemption is not\nnecessary inasmuch as it would be appropriate for the company to consider the material as not\nbeing subject to the DOT regulations.\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n.'\".\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.\nAlan I. Roberts\nAssociate Administrator\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nThursday, January 29, 1998\nThe action that had led to the decision for an exemption request of DOT had been\nconcern of other federal, state and local officials, Cat Contracting, Inc., requests DOT's re-\nConsequenty, to address the State of Califomia's present concem, and the potential\nconfirmation that the company, as the responsible shipper for the product, has properly exercise\nits responsibility as provided by DOT regulation in making its determination of a non-DOT hazard\nSincerely,\nCordon Facessa\nGordon Rousseau\nEnclosure\nMr. Alan I. Roberts,\nAssociate Administrator, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety\nMr. E. Mazzullo,\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.\nAlan I. Roberts\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nAssociate Administrator\nThursday, January 29, 1998\nPage 2\nstudy of the product, it was concluded that the material in question was not considered subject to\nthe DOT hazardous materials regulations. A copy of the exchange of correspondence that took\nplace is attached.\nThis same material which is the subject of this letter has not substantially changed from\nwhen it was first reviewed by DOT. Informational literature about the material and the\nconstruction process in which it is used, is also enclosed. For a more detailed presentation of\ncomponents, DOT staff is reference to the White Paper by Doug Kleweno.\nhow the need for this technology arose and a more precise description of the material\nDocket HM-181 have been adopted, certain pertinent hazard class definitions have been\nSince that first contact with DOT, however, we acknowledge that new rules under DOT\nchanged, and a new regulated category called marine pollutants has been added to the DOT\nregulations. The class definition pertinent to this material is Class 4.1 which is now defined by\nclassification of the subject material must be measured. It is clear, therefore, that to determine\nuse of a quantitative definition against which any questions concerning proper hazard\nthe present application of the DOT regulations, re-assessment of the earlier decision is\nB. Description of material\nThe material in question consists of a variable number of felt layers impregnated with\nresin which are transported encased in sealed plastic tubing in a closed refrigerated vehicle, from\nthe manufacturing site to the application site. Typically, this transportation takes place over a\npublic roadway. No free liquid in the tubing is present at any time during transportation, or during\nhandling prior to or following transportation. All transportation of the material is done as part of\nthe manufacturing and application process. No product is transported as commercial goods for\nsale or as freight for delivery to other persons. No other chemicals or products are transported in\nthe vehicle transporting the subject tubing. The manufacturer of the product is the user. Also,\nsuch materials are always manufactured locally for application in the immediate vicinity, typically\nnot exceeding 3 or 4 hours transportation time from the installation site. From a practical\nstandpoint, it is not feasible nor efficient typically, to have material to be installed produced\nfurther away than 150 miles from the installation site.\nplastic film, vacuum-sealed tubes that are destined to become the interior lining of existing\nThe material itself consists of resin impregnated felt contained in long, thick, flexible\npipeline or sewer installations. The prepared product as transported consists of a tube ranging\nfrom 6 to 96 inches in diameter. (Larger diameters, due to the weight of the finished product, are\nfull absorption of resin into the felt when the resin is introduced into the tubular bags. When the\nproduced on site.) A vacuum is pulled on the tube during the manufacturing process to insure\ntubing is manufactured the felt is pressed (pinched) by heavy rollers which squeeze the resin into\nthe felt to assure even distribution as the tubing is fed through the rollers. The resin in the tube\nis totally impregnated into the felt material lining the plastic tube. No free liquid resin is in the\ntube. The finished product, by weight, consists of 55% resin, 31% styrene, 1% Percadox™ and\n13% felt. Volumetrically, of course, it is mostly felt.","truncated":false,"body_characters":21778}