US Environmental Protection Agency — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation 40ven Street, SW Washington. D.C. 20590 Research and Administration Special Programs DEC - 4 2000 Mr. David Friedman Ref. No. 00-0308 US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Washington DC 20460 Dear Mr. Friedman: This is in response to your letter dated August 22, 2000 regarding the shipment of environmental samples. Specifically, you ask if a inside receptacle of a combination packaging that does not meet the outage requirements of 49 CFR 173.24a(d) may be placed inside a secondary packaging capable of containing all of the liquid in the primary receptacle. Section 173.24a(d) states that liquids may not completely fill a receptacle at a temperature of 55 °C (131 F) or less. It is the opinion of this office that hazardous material may be placed in an inside container of a combination packaging that does not itself meet the outage requirements of § 173.24a(d) provided that the inner packaging is placed within a secondary inside packaging which does meet the outage requirements and other applicable packaging requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-180). I hope this satisfies your request. Sincerely, Thomas G. Allan Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist Office of Hazardous Materials Standards#

Page 2Gale UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.G. 20460 8173.24 Packaging 00 - 0308 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF August 22, 2000 Mr. John Gale Office of Hazardous Materials Technology (DHM-21) Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590-0001 Dear Mr. Gale, I am writing to follow up on our recent meeting concerning the Department of Transportation's (DOT) requirements with respect to the shipment of environmental samples that are to be analyzed for either purgable organic compounds or mercury. In order to prevent analyte loss, it is important that the vials containing the samples of water be completely filled. To ensure that they are filled, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued regulations that specify that the samples vials not contain any free headspace or outage. The confusion relates to the apparent contradiction between the EPA and the DOT regulations in 49 CFR 173.4(a)(2)(i) and 49 CFR 173.24(a)(d) which specify that containers may not be completely filled with liquid (i.e., requires headspace). Since the DOT regulations are designed to prevent loss of sample in the event the container holding the liquid breaks, it is our understanding that if the sample vial was itself packaged in a sealed container that meets the outage requirements and which would contain all the liquid in the event the inner vial ruptured, then the secondary inner receptacle's outage would meet the definition of an acceptable container and the combination would comply with the outage provisions of the Hazardous Materials Regulations. I would appreciate your confirming our understanding of the DOT regulations. If you have any questions about the information in this letter, do not hesitate to contact me at: (202) 564-6662 or at friedman. david@epa.gov. Thank you for the guidance you already have provided. I look forward to receiving your response. Sincerely yours, wit Tristman David Friedman Recycled/Recyclablo.• Printed with Vegetable Oil Based inks on 100% Recyced Paper (40% Postconsumer)#