# Department of the Army — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation **Citation:** 99-0119 **Type / status:** guidance / guidance **Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration **Effective:** Not stated **Published:** 1999-06-10 99-0119 response to Department of the Army concerning 173.443. ## Document text <<>> ! 173.443 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. 20590 Research and Special Programs Administration JUN | O 1999 Mr. Vernon E. Vondera Ref. No. 99-0119 Chief, Safety Office Department of the Army U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armament Command Armament and Chemical Acquisition and Logistics Activity Rock Island, IL 61299-7630 Dear Mr. Vondera: This is in response to your letter dated May 4, 1999, requesting a clarification of the requirements in 49 CFR 173.443, concerning the control of contamination on the external surfaces of packages of radioactive material offered for transportation. You state that before the regulations were revised ( Docket HM-169A, which became effective on April 1, 1996), the second sentence in § 173.443 (a) read: "The level of non-fixed radioactive contamination may be determined by wiping an area of 300 square centimeters of the surface concerned...'" whereas after April 1, 1996, the wording wås changed to: "The level of non-fixed radioactive contamination may not exceed the limits set forth in table 11 and must be determined by either: (1) Wiping an area of 300 square centimeters of the surface concerned....: or (2) Using other methods of assessment of equal or greater efficiency, in which case the efficiency of the method must be taken into account:...." You also state that in 1985 the Department of the Army requested a clarification of § 173.443. You enclosed a copy of RSPA's response, in which we stated "... it is desirable to allow flexibility in the manner of ensuring compliance," and "if a shipper utilizes methods which do not rely on actual wipe samples, such as new packaging material which is protected from on- site contamination, it is acceptable as long as it ensures compliance." You asked if the current regulations allow the same degree of flexibility. The answer is yes. Sections 173.443 (a)(1) and 173.443 (a)(2) allow a shipper the same degree of flexibility as before. The shipper must either make one or more wipe measurements and compare the results against the limits in table 11, or use another method of equal or greater efficiency. 990119 <<>> As used in § 173.443(a)(2), "efficiency" means either the ratio of a measured value of contamination (such as from a wipe) divided by the actual contamination on the surface of the package, or, in a more general sense, an alternate method which gives the same or greater assurance that the package contamination levels do not exceed the stated regulatory limits. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have further questions, please contact us. Sincerely, Nethe 2. Mitchell Hattie L. Mitchell, Chief Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards <<>> UNITED STATES ARMY TANK - AUTOMOTIVE AND ARMAMENTS COMMAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMAMENT AND CHEMICAL ACQUISITION AND LOGISTICS ACTIVITY ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 61299-7630 REPLY TO 4 May 99 Betts ATTENTION OF S173.443 Safety Office, Armament and Chemical Acquisition and Logistics Activity 99-0119 Mr. Edward T. Mazzullo Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards U.S. DOT/RSPA (DHM-10) 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Dear Mr. Mazzullo, This is in reference to Title 49. We would like an interpretation of section 173.443, Contamination Control . requirements and how it applies to the U.S. Army. 03 S First a little background information. Our Command procures and manages Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed radioactive material for use in Army weapon systems. These weapon systems are distributed throughout the country, and the otherwise). Many of these systems were procured and distributed world to be used for military purposes (exercises and twenty or thirty years ago and are still in the field. The radioactive material consists of low level radioactive material that qualifies it to be shipped as "excepted packages- instruments or articles" under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 173.424. The NRC requires our Command, as the entry point for these weapons systems into the Army arsenal, to hold a NRC license. As the NRC licensee, we are responsible to ensure that end users have a radiation protection program (RPP) that meets the minimum CFR and NRC license requirements. The RPP consists of written documents, guidance, newsletters, website material, and periodic inspections or visits. In 1985, we requested an interpretation of 49 CFR 173.443 and obtained the enclosed DOT letter (September 25, 1985). However, we feel that this issue needs to be revisited due to the amendment of 49 CFR in 1995. Prior to 1995, the rule for contamination control (49 CFR 173.443) stated: "The level of <<>> - 2- non-fixed radioactive contamination may be determined by wiping an area of 300 square centimeters." The wording was changed to: "The level of non-fixed radioactive contamination may not exceed the limits set forth in Table 11 and must be determined by either (a) Wiping an area of 300 square centimeters... or (b) Using other methods of assessment of equal or greater _ efficiency." always assumed the CER provided a. - wide degree of variance or flexibility based on the 1985 letter (like a performance standard). However, its seems that it has become more rigid in specifying (like a specification standard) the exact steps to take in shipping packages. What alternative "methods of assessment" can be justified by the statement of 173.443(2)? We are not sure how much variance this statement allows us. For example, many times the device is wipe tested prior to maintenance. If the device is clean and new packaging material is used, is this acceptable? However, the terms "equal or greater efficiency" implies nothing less than a wipe tests analysis of the package surface. Typical shipment methods the Army uses in lieu of wiping the surface of the package may include any or all of the following precautions: • Using new packaging materials. • Wiping the device instead of wiping the surface of the package. • Invoking 49 CFR 173.7 (b). • Personally transporting the device instead of consigning it to a carrier. o Checking the annual leak test records (for those items that require it). <<>> - 3- • Checking tritium devices for illumination. The assumption is that if all sources are illuminated, it can safely be shipped. • Shipping the instrument or article as "Limited Quantity." Our program is based on the cooperation of a great many people. We can make recommendations to limit the spread of contamination. However, we cannot mandate that all installations set up and use counting laboratories. The funds are just not available. Sending wipe samples off to a qualified laboratory is another options that many installations take. However, the turn around time may be up to two weeks. This delay is often not acceptable. Title 10 CFR 20.1906 (d) requires us as licensee to report immediately to the NRC and the final delivery carrier any time the surface contamination exceeds the limits of 173.443. This has become a point of constant emphasis in our program. It is in our best interest to find away to comply. You are welcome to review our draft transportation guidelines. It can be downloaded from the following FTP site: ttp://ftpserver.ria.army.mil/Safety/TB430197/Draft/. More acalal.ria.army.mil/ACALA/SAFETY/safe.htm. information can be found at: http://www- We appreciate any comments, interpretation, or advice on how we may best comply with the regulatory requirements. The point of contact is Mr. Gavin Ziegler, (309) 782-2995. Sincerely, Fame Condua Vernon E. Vondera Chief, Safety Office Enclosure • 2. <<>> Enclosure Copy Furnished: Mr. Fred Ferate Radioactive Materials Branch U.s. DOT/RSPA (DHM-23) 400 7th Street sw Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 <<>> U.S. Department of Transportation Washingson, D C. 20590 400 Seventh St.. S.W. Research and Special Programs Administration SEP 25 :SE5 Commander, U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command ATTN: AMSMC-SFS Department of the Army Rock Island, Illinois 61299-6000 Dear Sir: removable contamination limits specified in 49 CFR 173.443. Thank you for your letter of August 22, 1995, concerning compliance with the As with many of the DOT requirements, the removable contamination limits specify what must be accomplished and do not elaborate on how this must be accomplished. Given the very diverse shipping situations to which these limits apply it is desirable to allow flexibility in the manner of ensuring compliance. The shipper has responsibility for ensuring that every package complies with the such as new packaging material which is protected from on-site contamination, it is stated limits. If a shipper utilizes methods which do not rely on actual wipe sampies. acceptable as long as it ensures compliance: •Sincerely, Richard R. Rawl Chief, Radioactive Materials Branch Materials Transportation Bureau Office of Hazardous Materials Regulation ## Provenance - Official: Yes - Source: - Source ID: `phmsa` - SHA-256: `e7d2b9a9839255ff317a10e151a509000682ea70d6d644ae538edb2781def938` - Retrieved: 2026-08-20T00:59:31.977Z - Exported: 2026-08-23T13:52:06.747Z - Document slug: `phmsa-interpretation-99-0119` ### Source metadata ```json { "materialSubtype": "interpretation", "interpretationArea": "hazardous_materials", "representation": "full_text_from_official_pdf", "companies": [ "Department of the Army" ], "individuals": [ "Mr. Vernon E. Vondera" ], "refIds": [ "99-0119" ], "catalogDates": [ "1999-06-10" ], "catalogParts": [ 173 ], "catalogRowCount": 1, "sourceRecordUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/node/64736" ], "linkedAttachmentUrls": [], "unavailableResponseUrls": [], "duplicateRepresentationUrls": [], "citedSections": [ "173.443", "173.424", "173.7" ], "catalogPageUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/173443" ], "pdfUrls": [ "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990119.pdf" ], "representations": [ { "viewUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990119.pdf", "detailUrl": null, "detailHtmlPath": null, "pdfUrl": "https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990119.pdf", "pdfArtifactPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/99-0119-fb74ada9b4.pdf", "pdfArtifactSha256": "04ab5410867767624e2ea90c121d2cea47ec53528a024459113048e42c853254", "extractedTextPath": "data/sources/phmsa-interpretations/99-0119-fb74ada9b4.v2.txt", "extractedTextSha256": "b6ae38158c09dcae6434ca9d121c2fe5b4a5116e4221750f388a07c092b1e668", "pageCount": 7, "extractionVersion": 2 } ], "caveat": "Interpretations apply regulations to the facts presented and do not create independently enforceable requirements.", "jurisdiction": "US" } ```