{"operation":"document","citation":"06-0274","title":"HMTC Training & Consulting — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-05-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"06-0274 response to HMTC Training & Consulting concerning 173.403, 173.436.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0274.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0274.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0274","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060274.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nI b Z ; \\ Y 0 6 2008\nMr. Philip C. Rieke\nOwner\nHMTC Training & Consulting\n7109 West Wernett Road\nPasco, WA 99301\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nRef. No.: 06-0274\nDear Mr. Rieke:\nThis is in response to your December 5,2006 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171 -1 80) applicable to Class 7 (radioactive)\nmaterials. Your questions are paraphrased and answered below:\nQ1. If a non-hazardous solid object has a contamination level equal to or greater than the\ndefinition of \"contamination\" in tj 173.403, but the total activity in the package is\nbelow the consignment limit in 4 173.436, may the package be shipped as a non-\nregulated material?\nAl. The answer is yes. A solid object which is not radioactive that has contamination on\nits surface is not a \"surface contaminated object (SCO)\" unless it meets the definition\nof SCO in 5173.403. In accordance with 5 173.403, an SCO is defined as a solid\nobject which is not itself radioactive but which has radioactive material distributed on\nits surface. Therefore, if the total consignment activity does not exceed the value\nspecified in the table in 5 173.436 or the value derived according to the instructions in\n5 173.433, it would not be regulated as a Class 7 (radioactive) material in transport.\n(The concept of (volume) activity concentration is not applicable to a surface\ndistribution of radionuclides.)\nQ2. Would a packaging that previously had a radioactive contamination level equal to or\ngreater than the definition of \"contamination\" in 5 173.403, but did not meet the\ndefinition of a \"Class 7 (radioactive) material,\" be regulated if it were used, without\nbeing decontaminated, to package a radioactive mixture (e.g., soil matrix) which does\nnot meet the 173.403 definition of a \"radioactive material?\"\nA2. If the activity concentration of the mixture is not greater than its exempt activity\nconcentration, then the package would not be regulated as a Class 7 (radioactive)\nmaterial, since the only activity concentration that can be compared to the exempt\nactivity concentration is that of the mixture. The concept of (volume) activity\nconcentration is not applicable to the surface distribution of radionuclides on the\npackaging.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n43. A3. 44. A4. If the activity concentration is greater than the exempt activity concentration but the\ntotal activity of the mixture is not greater than the exempt consignment activity, the\ntotal activity of the surface distribution of radionuclides on the packaging must be\nadded to the total activity of the mixture. If the sum of these activities is greater than\nthe exempt consignment limit, the package would be regulated as a Class 7\n(radioactive) material. If the sum of these activities is less than the exempt\nconsignment limit, and the package is the only package in the consignment, it would\nnot be regulated as a Class 7 (radioactive) material. Finally, if the package and\n-\ncontents meet the definition of a Class 7 (radioactive) material, any contamination on\nthe external surfaces of the package must satisfy as applicable, the requirements of $\n173.443(a) or 8 173.443(b) during transport.\nPlease note that the above response is based on an assumption that the radioactive\ncontamination on the packaging has not been removed or otherwise altered before the\nradioactive mixture is placed in the packaging.\nIs it acceptable to transport a hazardous material in a package more stringent than\nrequired (e.g., placing a Packing group I11 material in a specification packaging rated\nfor Packing group I materials; shipping limited quantity radioactive materials in a\nType A packaging; or shipping Type A quantities in Type B packagings)?\nThe answer is yes. It is acceptable to package and transport a hazardous material in a\nmore stringent package than required (e.g., a Packing Group I packaging may be used\nfor a Packing Group I1 or I11 material and a Type B packaging may be used for a Type\nA quantity of material provided all of the performance criteria of the packaging can be\nmet). Section 173.24a contains general requirements for packaging material in\ncontainers rated for higher hazard materials.\nIf the answer to 4 3 is yes, would shippers of Class 7 (radioactive) materials be\nrequired to change any specification package markings when using a packaging that is\nrated higher than that required for the material?\nThe answer is no, provided the basic description is consistent with the specification\nmarkings of the higher rated packaging. Alternatively, if a shipper chooses to use the\nbasic description based on the actual contents, the packaging markings should be\nchanged for consistency.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nQ5. When shipping Class 7 (radioactive) materials, does the proper shipping name have to\nmatch up with the packaging or the contents?\nA5. See A4.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact this office.\nSincerely, ,\nRegulations Specialist\nOEce of Hazardous Materials, Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nnec 05 06 10:53a Philip C. Rieke\n7109 West Wcrnett Road, Pasco, WA 99301\n509-539-7286 1509-SU-0650 far\nhazmottcffl*ett.nut 5 ~ e i k u l d e\n3\\73 ../a3\n4 173. +36\nRA.M\n06 -027Lj\nDecember 5,2006\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo, Director\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nPHH-10\n400 7' Street S W\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nI have a few questions to pose concerning the shipment of Class 7 (radioactive) materials. These\nquestions have been raked with some regularity by some of my customers and while the current edition\nof 49 CFR, Parts 172 and 173 provide direction, these questions and some verbal guidance that has been\nreceived, leave some shippers a bit uneasy.\nThe first question was nearly addressed in a letter of interpretation (Refkrence No. 06-0002) concerning\nthe deftnition of contamination in 173.403. It seems clear in that letter that material that exceeds the\ncontamination thresholds in the definition must be regulated as Class 7. However this question pertains\nto the application of the definition of radioactive material in conjunction with the definition of\ncontamination and the fsct that there is no direction currently in the regulations as to when and how to\napply one versus the other or one in conjunction with the other.\nFor example, a package contains non-radioactive objects with actual radioactive contamination equal to\nor greater than the defdtion of \"contamination\" as defined in 49CFR 173.403. The total activity in t*\npackage is below the consignment limits of 173 -436. Assuming this package is the only package in the\nconsignment, may this package be shipped as non-regulated material, consistent with the definition\nof radioactive material?\nThe second question is also related to the topic, but not answered in the previously referenced letter. An\nempty packaging is shipped back to the original shipper and it was found to be a surface contaminated\nobject and regulated in transportation due to exceeding the definition of contamination. Then the\noriginal shipper reuses that packaging to ship a matrix that is not a surface contaminated object, but\ninstead something that contains radioactive material. (say a soil matrix), but does not exceed the limits\naccordmg to the definition of radioactive material. Would the packagdshipment still be regulated as\nClass 7 in this case?\nLastly, it is a common practice not only with Class 7 shippers, but hazardous material shippers of all\ntypes to over package their materials. For instance, shipping Acetone in a package rated to Packing\nGroup I rather than Packing Group I1 and in the world of Class 7, shipping limited quantities in Type A\npackaging and also Type A quantities in Type B packagings. My understanding is that there is nothing\nwrong with over-packaging a material in transportation If that is correct, would it be required for\nClass 7 shippers to alter any package markings wbeo over packaging? When asking this question,\nit may actually require an answer to another question, that being when shipping Class 7 materials,\ndoes the proper shipping name have to match up with the packaging?\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nDec 05 06 10:53a Philip C. Rieke\nThere has been some verbal guidance that if a shipper were to ship a limited quantity of Class 7 material\nin a Type A package, that the shipper should either delete or cover the Type A package markings or\nchange the proper shipping name to match the package. This has also been the guidance when shipping\na Type A quantity in a Type B package. This is a bit confusing and a contradiction to any other\nhazardous material, The confusion begins with what is a proger shipping name for? Is it to describe the\npackaging or to descrlh the contents within the package? If it is the latter, as with all other hazardous\nmaterials, why would anyone need to cover or delete any markings on the package? A Type A package\nis certainly an authorized package for a limited quantity just as a Packing Group I package is an\nauthorized package for a Packing Group II material. Likewise a Type B packaging is an authorized\npackaging for a Type A quantity of material and is specifically authorized in 173.41 5.\nI really appreciate your attention to these questions. As shipments involving these questions are\nongoing, prompt attention to these questions would also be greatly appreciate.\nSincerely,\nphilip e. Rieke, Owner\nHMTC Training & Consulting","truncated":false,"body_characters":9543}