{"operation":"document","citation":"09-0206","title":"State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-03-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"09-0206 response to State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality concerning 173.403, 173.443.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0206.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0206.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0206","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090206.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Deportment of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E.\nWashington. D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous Material\nSafety Administration\nMAR 2 6 20m\nMr. Dane Finerfrock\nDirector\nState ofUtah\nDepartment of Environmental Quality\n168 North 1950 West\nSalt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850\nRef. No.: 09-0206\nDear Mr. Finerfrock:\nThis responds to your letter dated August 31, 2009, regarding the requirements for radioactive\ncontamination control in §1 73.44 3( c) and (d) under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;\n49 CFR Parts 171-180), as they apply to the definition of\"exclusive use\" found in §1730403.\nAccording to the information you provided, Energy Solutions, Inc., operates a low-level;\nradioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility at Clive, Utah, and has a radioactive materials\nlicense issued by the State of Utah. You indicate that Energy Solutions, Inc., receives LLRW\nfrom many States. You state that in most instances, Utah Radiation Control Rules mirror\nregulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and in cases involving transportation, you\nhave adopted by reference, the HMR. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQl. Are the provisions of § 173A43(d) ofthe HMR applicable to a lidded railcar (a closed\ntransport vehicle) that does not transport a Class 7 (radioactive) material?\nA I. The answer is no. The provisions of § 173 A43(d) of the HMR are applicable when the\nrailcar is \"used solely for\" the transportation ofClass 7 (radioactive) material packages.\nThe phrase \"used solely for\" the transportation ofradioactive material packages does not\nmean such packages always must be present on the railcar.\nQ2. Are the provisions of § 1 73.443(d) ofthe HMR applicable to an empty railcar when a\ncompany designates the railcars as \"sole use\" to return them to the generator, either\nanticipating reuse for Class 7 (radioactive) or non-Class 7 (radioactive) material?\nA2. The provisions of § 173 0443(d) ofthe HMR are applicable as long as the railcar is to be\n''Used solely for\" the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive) material packages, even if\noccasionally no packages are on the conveyance. However, if it is known that the railcar\nwill no longer be ''Used solely for\" the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive) material\npackages, then the provisions of § 1 73.443(d) are not applicable.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3. Can a railcar be designated as \"sole use\" during initial transport to a LLR W generator?\nA3. The provisions of § I 73.443(d) ofthe HMR including the \"For Radioactive Material Use\nOnly\" marking are applicable as long as the railcar is to be ''Used solely for\" the\ntransportation ofClass 7 (radioactive) material packages, even during initial transport to a\nLLR W generator.\nQ4. Ifthe railcar is marked in accordance with § 173.443(d)(2), where, when, and by whom\ncan and/or must the marking be removed?\nA4. When the railcar is no longer ''used solely for\" the transportation of Class 7 (radioactive)\nmaterial packages or does not meet the requirements of\n§ I 73.443(d), the marking must either be removed or covered prior to being offered for\ntransportation. Removing or covering the marking is the responsibility of the offeror.\nClass 7 (radioactive) material packages must be in conformance with all other applicable\nrequirements ofthe HMR.\nQ5. Should the dose rate conversion for the survey required by §173.443( c) take into\naccount the contribution from any beta component?\nA5. The answer is yes. The contribution from all types of ionizing radiation must be\nincluded in the radiation dose rate determination.\nQ6. Should the appropriate detection instrument selection be based on gamma emitters (deep\ndose) and the beta emitters (shallow dose) or the gamma emitters only?\nA6. See the answer to Question 5 above. Appropriate instrumentation must be\nselected so as to include the contribution for both gamma and beta radiation.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiry. Ifwe can be of further assistance, please contact us.\nSincerely,\nJC0U5\nCharles E. Betts\nChief, Standards Development\nftice ofHazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nState of Utah\nGARY R. HERBERT\nGovernor\nDepartment of\nEnvironmental Quality\nAmanda Smith\nActing Executive Director\nDNISION OF RADIA nON CONTROL\nDane L. Finerfmck\nDirector\nEns ruM.\nE§ l13. LJ.Ll3 (g.) ~tp)\n~ \\13. '1o~\nDef;n;tJons\n()q- OAJ Olo\nAugust 31, 2009\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nAttn: PHH-I0\nU.S. Department ofTransportation, E Building\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.\nWashington, D.C. 20590-00-1\nDear Sir or Madam:\nThe State of Utah, Division of Radiation,Control'ljn acco~dance~,i~h ~~ CFR 105.20(a)(2),\nrequests two interpretations regarding till; t).pplicatioD qf 49 qFR',I}3. A43(c) & (d), ~ they pertain\nto the definition of\"exclusive use\" found in 49 CFR 173 A03.\nBackground Information: . . . ,\".\n. 1.,,,,\nEp.ergy$olut,ions, Inc\" operates a low-Ieve~ radioactjve w,aste (Hrw) 4~sposal facility ,at Cliye, Utah.\nThe Company has a radioactive materials licen~y issuedby the State of Utah. In most instances,\nUtah Radiation Control Rules mirror regulations from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and in\ncases involving transportation issues, we have adopted, by reference, federal Department of\nTransportation regulations. EnergySolutions receives shipments of low-level radioactive wastes\nfrom most of the States.\nFirst Request for Interpretation\nLidded gondola railcar shipments arriving at the facility are emptied of their contents and\nsometimes returned to the generator as a \"sole use\" (marked For Radioactive Materials Use Only)\nconveyance.\nSpecifically:\nla) Is it permissible to apply 49 CFR 173A43(d) to a lidded railcar (a closed transport vehicle)\nthat does not ~arry Class 7 radioactive material. EnergySolutions currently designates the railcars\nas \"sole use\" to return them to the generator, a~ticipating reuse for Class 7 radioactive material or\nnon-Class 7 radioactive material.\nIb) Likewise, could a railcar be designated as \"so]e u~e\" by EnergySolutions in order to send it to\na llrw generator for first time use hauling radioactive waste for disposal. .\n168 North 1950 West· Salt Lake City, UT\nMailing Address: P.O. Box 144850' Salt Lake City, UT 841144850\nTelephone (801) 536-4250' Fax (801) 533-4097' T.D.D. (801) 536-4414\nwww.deq.lllah.gov\nPrinted on 100% recycled paper\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nPage 2\nlc) Can the railcar be marked \"For Radioactive Material Use Only\"? Ifso marked;\n1d) Where, when, and by whom can and/or must the \"For Radioactive Material Use Only\"\nmarking be removed?\nSecond Request for Interpretation\n49 CFR 173.443 (c), states in part, that after each use, a transport vehicle must be surveyed \"with\nan appropriate radiation detection instrument.\" Further, the regulation requires that a vehicle may\nnot be returned to service until the dose rate at each accessible surface is \"0.5 mrem\" per hour or\nless ...\" For gamma emitters, selection of an instrument, calibration, detection and dose rate\nconversion is fairly straight forward. However, that is not the case for beta emitters where there\nmay be great variation in beta particle energy. Also, converting the dose rate, measured in the\nfield as mrad per hour, to mrem per hour, is practically challenging.\nSpecifically:\n2a) Should the dose rate conversion take into account the contribution from any beta component?\n2b) When selecting an appropriate detection instrument should the surveyor select based on\ngamma emitters (deep dose) and the beta emitters (shallow dose) or the gamma emitters only?\nWe appreciate your assistance. If your need clarification or additional information, please contact\nme at 801-536-4250.\nSincerely,\n4J~7J.~ I\nDane LF;n;-~ \\\nDirector","truncated":false,"body_characters":7718}