{"operation":"document","citation":"07-0218","title":"Mr. Michael Lambert — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-01-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"07-0218 concerning 173.401.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0218.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0218.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-07-0218","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2007/070218.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJAN 1 5 2008\nMr. Michael Lambert, CHP\n4 Stonegate Drive\nBurgettstown, PA 1502 1\nRef. No. 07-021 8\nDear Mr. Lambert:\nThis is in response to your November 1, 2007 letter regarding the applicability of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR 17 1 - 1 80) to shipments of soil containing natural uranium.\nYour question regards a former commercial site, licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory\nCommission (NRC) that received a variety of ores primarily for the processing of these ores for\nthe manufacture of molybdenum products, as well as ferroalloys. The facility operated in this\ncapacity from approximately 1920 to 1991. Since 199 1, the facility has been idle and is now\nundergoing remediation. A portion of the site has been identified through preliminary site\ncharacterization where appreciable natural uranium concentrations exist in soil. Additional\ncharacterization (soil sampling and radiological analysis) is needed to determine the uranium\nconcentrations and better define the volume of the material that will be processed. Preliminary\ncharacterization results for the natural uranium from the area in question indicate that the activity\nconcentration for exempt material and the activity limit for exempt consignment would be\nexceeded. In addition, the known concentration of natural uranium is only slightly less than 10\ntimes the activity concentration for exempt material (approximately 96% of the limit, with the\nremaining 4% well within the analytical error).\nYou plan to transport the soil samples to a laboratory for characterization by tentatively selecting\na proper shipping name, hazard class and identification number in accordance with the\nprovisions in 5 172.101(~)(11) for samples of material for which the hazard class is uncertain and\nmust be determined by testing.\nAfter the additional characterization you plan to hire a contractor to package and transport the\nexcavated soil to a processing facility for recovery of uranium radionuclides for commercial use.\nYour questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1. May the samples of material that are to be shipped for additional characterization be offered\nfor transportation and transported under the exception in 173.40 1 (b)(4) for natural materials\nand ores?\nAl. Yes. Section 173.40 1 (b)(4) provides an exception for natural material and ores containing\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nnaturally occurring radionuclides which are not intended to be processed for use of these\nradionuclides, provided the activity concentration of the material does not exceed 10 times the\nvalues specified in 9 173.436. Since the preliminary characterization of your material shows that\nthe known concentration of the natural uranium is slightly less than 10 times the exempt\nconcentration limit, and because the sample of material is being transported for purposes other\nthan the extraction of radionuclides, the exception in 9 173.401 (b)(4) may be used.\n42. May the material that is to be shipped for the recovery of uranium be transported under the\nexception in 9 173.401@)(4).\nA2. No. The material may not be transported under the exception in $ 173.401@)(4) because it\nis being transported for the processing and extraction of radionuclides.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiry. If we can be of hrther assistance, please contact us.\n[ Chief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nNovember 1,2007\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n400 Seventh Street S W\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nSubject: Interpretation of 49 CFR 1 73.40 1\nTo whom it may concern:\nI am interested in obtaining an interpretation of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part\n173.401 (49 CFR 173.401). Specifically, I am seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR\n173.401 (b)(4) as it applies to shipments of material via public roadways as discussed in\nthe following paragraphs.\nA former commercial site, licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),\nreceived a variety of ores primarily for the processing of these ores for the manufacture\nof molybdenum products, as well as ferroalloys. The facility operated in this capacity\nfrom approximately 1920 to 199 1. Since 199 1, the facility has been idle and is now\nundergoing remediation in an attempt to terminate the NRC license.\nAlthough a large portion of the site (remaining land areas) are contaminated primarily\nwith thorium-232 (232~h), one portion of the site has been identified through preliminary\nsite characterization where appreciable natural uranium concentrations exist in soil. It is\nnot known whether the natural uranium contamination in soil is the result of the presence\nof ore brought onto the project site over the many years of operation or residual material\nresulting from processing ore of a presently unknown origin. The site owner and\nremediation project management believe the concentrations of natural uranium in soil and\nvolume of soil with these elevated concentrations of natural uranium at this location are\nsufficient to warrant contracts with two companies: one to facilitate the packaging and\ntransport of excavated soils containing this elevated natural uranium activity, and the\nsecond company to receive and process the soil for the recovery of uranium for\ncommercial use. Both companies specialize in these areas. The obvious benefit of this to\nthe project is to offset some of the remediation costs.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nHowever, to fully understand the potential value of this material from the proposed\nuranium recovery, additional characterization is needed to better define the volume of\nmaterial that will be processed. For the performance of this additional characterization\n(soil sampling and radiological analyses), the following conditions exist and actions are\nplanned:\n1. 2. 3. Analytical capabilities do not exist at the project site for the determination of\nuranium concentrations present in soil samples.\nSoil samples are to be collected, packaged and transported to an off site\nlaboratory for the determination of uranium concentrations in the samples.\nTransportation will be via courier over public roadways.\nPlanned soil sampling in this area is extensive and many samples will be\ncollected and submitted to the off site laboratory for analysis in several\nseparate conveyances.\nIt is clear from 49 CFR 172.1Ol(c)(ll) the hazard class, proper shipping name, etc. are to\nbe tentatively assigned for the shipment of radioactive samples from this area based on\nthe \"shipper's knowledge of the material.\" However, it is first necessary to determine if\nthis material (soil samples) does in fact fall under the hazardous material regulations\n(HMR) as Class 7 (radioactive). To determine this, it is necessary to reference 49 CFR\n173.40 1, specifically 49 CFR 173.40 1 (b)(4). To further understand the applicability of\nthis scope exception it is also necessary to reference the background information\nspecifically related to this topic in Federal Register, Volume 69, Number 16, dated\nJanuary 26,2004. However, after review of this information it is still unclear to project\nmanagement whether the criteria (used to determine whether the soil sample shipments\nfall under the scope of the HMR) are based on the 49 CFR 173.436 exempt activity\nconcentration and consignment limits as written or 10 times the applicable exempt\nactivity concentration as allowed by 49 CFR 173.401.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nIt is clearly the site owner and remediation project management's intent to facilitate the\nremoval and shipment of this material to a processor for recovery of the uranium for\ncommercial use, i.e., extracting the radionuclides, and not \"some other physical or\nchemical processing.\" It is worth noting that preliminary characterization results for\nnatural uranium from the area in question, which are to be used as the \"shipper's\nknowledge of the material\", indicate the exempt activity concentration (and consignment\nlimit) would be exceeded if the 49 CFR 173.401(b)(4) scope exception does not apply\nand, therefore, each shipment of soil to an off site laboratory would be Class 7 per the\nHMR. However, if the 49 CFR 173.401 (b)(4) scope exception does apply to this\nmaterial, the concentrations of natural uranium in the samples, again based on prior\npreliminary data which was of very limited investigation, does not exceed ten times the\nexempt activity concentration limit and the material would not be Class 7. It is also\nworth noting that in this latter case, the known concentration of natural uranium is only\nslightly less than 10 times the exempt concentration limit (approximately 96% of the\nlimit, with the remaining 4% well within the analytical error).\nTo clarify the understanding of the regulations in 49 CFR 173.40 1 (b)(4) for this\nparticular material, given the conditions stated, your assistance is necessary. Simply put,\ngiven the information provided, does the scope exception in 49 CFR 173.401 (b)(4) apply\nto shipments of soil samples from this area of elevated natural uranium radioactivity and\nany subsequent shipments of the excavated material, with the understanding that the\nintent is to facilitate recovery of the uranium isotopes for commercial use?\nThank you for your assistance.\nSincerely,\n~ichaelyambert, CHP\n4 Stonegate Drive\nBurgettstown, PA 1 502 1","truncated":false,"body_characters":9438}