{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0222","title":"URS Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-10-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0222 response to URS Corporation concerning 173.136.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0222.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0222.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0222","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080222.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nOCT 3 2008\nMs. Erin N. Jarman\nEnvironmental Scientist\nURS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nRef. No.: 08-0222\nDear Ms. Jarman:\nThis responds to your August 28,2008 request for clarification of the applicability of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171 - 180). Specifically, you ask for\nfurther clarification of a letter of interpretation that was issued to Mr. Henry L. Longest 11,\nActing Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February\n13,2003 (Reference No. 02-0093). In that letter, PHMSA stated:\n\"Based on test results, it is the opinion of this office that the environmental samples\ncontaining the following \"upper limit\" concentrations: 0.28 weight percent Nitric acid, 0.38\nweight percent Sulfuric acid, 0.15 weight percent Hydrochloric acid and 0.20 weight percent\nSodium hydroxide, do not meet the definition of corrosive material in 5 173.1 36, and,\ntherefore, are not subject to the HMR.\"\nSpecifically, you ask if environmental samples preserved within the \"upper limit\" boundaries\nspecified in the February 13,2003 letter could be shipped as non-regulated materials, even\nwhen they are being shipped for reasons other than EPA testing.\nThe answer is yes. Samples preserved within the \"upper limit\" concentrations specified in\nthe February 13,2003 letter do not meet the definition of a corrosive material in 5 173.136,\nand therefore, are not subject to the HMR. The interpretation applies to environmental\nsamples being shipped for reasons other than EPA testing.\nI hope this answers your inquiry.\nSincerely,\nusan an Gorsky\nActing Chief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nAugust 28,2008\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nU.S. DOTIPHMSA (PHH-10)\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nI am writing to you with regards to a clarification on the definition of corrosive for the purposes of\nshipping samples preserved using various acids (nitric acid, sulfuric acid, and hydrochloric acid) and\na base (sodium hydroxide). In an interpretation letter dated February 13,2003 to Mr. Henry L.\nLongest 11, Acting Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it was\nstated that environmental samples which are preserved at the EPA prescribed preservation guidance\nconcentrations are not corrosive materials and are therefore not subject to the HMR, even when\nreasonably over-preserved\nIf a sample is preserved within the same \"upper limit\" concentrations prescribed in the EPA\npreservation guidance, but are being shipped for reasons other than EPA testing, would the samples\nstill be permitted to be shipped as non-regulated under the HMR?\nThank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your response.\nSincerely,\nErin N. Jarman\nEnvironmental Scientist\nURS Corporation\n1600 Perimeter Park Drive\nMorrisville, NC 27560\nTel: 919-461-1478\nFax: 919-461-1371\nErin-Jarman@urscorp.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":3177}