{"operation":"document","citation":"09-0260","title":"Regulatory Resources, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-01-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"09-0260 response to Regulatory Resources, Inc. concerning 171.2, 171.8, 173.22.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0260.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0260.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-09-0260","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2009/090260.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Deportment ofTronsportotion Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nJAN 5 2010\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. Wade A. Winters\nRegulatory Resources, Inc.\n240 Joshua Road\nKennewick, W A 99338\nRef. No. 09-0260\nDear Mr. Winters:\nThis responds to your November 6, 2009 letter concerning the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) classification requirements for Class 7\n(radioactive) material. Specifically, you request clarification of the defining criteria for\nclassification of Class 7 (radioactive) material as it applies to non-radioactive material that is\nradioactively contaminated. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\nQ1: Is it permissible to be conservative and class and describe a material as Class 7\n(radioactive) material even if the calculated activity per gram ofthe material does not meet\nthe Class 7 defining criteria?\nAI: No. Under § 171.8, the definition of a hazardous material includes material that meets\ndefining criteria for hazard classes and divisions in Part 173 ofthe HMR. It is the shipper's\nresponsibility to properly class and describe a material in accordance with the defining\ncriteria in the HMR (see § 173.22). No person may, by marking or otherwise, represent that\na hazardous material is present in a package ifthe hazardous material is not present (see\n§ 171.2(k)). While the shipper may take into account uncertainties in the measurements and\ncalculation methods, there must be a high degree of confidence that the material is properly\nclassified.\nThe scenario you describe with \"SCO-like\" material contained in a package along with\n\"distributed throughout\" material requires the shipper to determine whether the contents meet\nthe definitions of surface contaminated object (SCO) and low specific activity material (LSA\nmaterial) (see § 173.403). The activity per gram must be calculated solely for the\n\"distributed throughout\" material to determine whether it meets the definition of LSA\nmaterial and the contamination levels on the \"SCO-like\" material must be examined to\ndetermine whether it meets the definition of sca. It is not permissible to simply assume that\nall the material is LSA material.\nQ2: Ifthe material includes both \"distributed throughout\" and \"SCO-like\" materials, is it\npermissible to be conservative and class and describe the material as Class 7 (radioactive)\nmaterial when the calculated activity per gram (Bq/g) ofthe material does not meet the Class\n7 defining criteria and no data is available as to the surface contamination levels?\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA2: No. If there is no data available on the surface contamination levels, it is not possible to\nclassify the material as SCO. The activity per gram must be calculated solely for the\n\"distributed throughout\" material to determine whether it meets the definition of LSA\nmaterial and the contamination levels on the \"SCO-like\" material must be examined to\ndetermine whether it meets the definition ofSCO.\nQ3: Is there any means, for being conservative, to describe a radioactively contaminated\nnon-radioactive material as Class 7 (radioactive) material ifno contamination data is\navailable for the material and the calculated activity per gram indicates the material to be\nexempt (in accordance with § 173.436)?\nA3: No. For the situation you describe, it is necessary to obtain data on the contamination\nlevels to determine whether the material meets the definition of SCO. It is inappropriate to\nclassify the material as Class 7 (radioactive) material without knowledge of the\ncontamination levels.\nIn your letter, you also request clarification associated with guidance provided in the\ndocument \"Categorizing and Transporting Low Specific Activity Materials and Surface\nContaminated Objects,\" (NUREO-1608; July 1998) used for the characterization and\nidentification ofa mix of LSA and SCO materials. Your additional questions are\nparaphrased and answered as follows:\nQ4: A package contains potential LSA and SCO materials. The resulting total activity per\nmass does not exceed the LSA-U activity limit. However, the supporting characterization\ndocuments include the activity per gram based on the total weight ofthe matrix (and the\n\"LSA-like\" material weight is not separated from potential SCO materials). No data is\navailable concerning the SCO contamination levels. As long as the total activity does not\nexceed one A2, is it permissible to describe, pa~kage and ship the material as LSA material?\nA4: No. Data on the contamination levels must be obtained on the potential SCO materials\nto determine ifthey meet the definition ofSCO. Furthermore, the mass ofthe contaminated\nobjects must not be included in the calculation ofthe total activity per mass for comparison\nwith the LSA-II material activity limit.\nQ5: Is there ever a situation that will allow a Class 7 (radioactive) material to be described as\nLSA material when the matrix in the package includes \"LSA-like\" and potential SCO\nmaterials and no contamination data is available for the SCO materials content?\nA5: No. See A4.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact this office.\n~i:Jlb~\nCharles E. Betts\nChief, Standards Development\nIce ofHazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n240 Joshua Road\nKennewick, WA 99338\nvoice: 509·628·1020\nfax: 509·628·0972\ninfo@regulatoryresources.net\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nJ\n\"De.,- (Ltnde\".-e n\nNovember 6, 2009\n~ 1/3· ~03\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ~ 17.3· \"-4 '3 b\nMr. Charles Betts\n~ 1\"13. 433\nMr. Michael Conroy\nEast Building, 2nd Floor -\"RAM\nMail Stop: E21·317\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 0'1- 0 \"_AoD\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Messrs. Betts and Conroy,\nI want to thank you for the opportunity to submit these questions for formal clarification.\nThe defining criterion for Class 7 material is located in 49 CFR 173.403. Unfortunately in the codified\ndefinition only one of the two criteria is addressed - that is for those materials where the radioactive\nmaterial is 'distributed throughout'. The second of the defining criteria applies to non-radioactive materials\nthat are radioactively contaminated. As stated in the January 2004 Final Rule (69 FR 3631),\n\"We point out that our definition of contamination is similar to our definition of radioactive\nmaterial, in that the definition designates a threshold value below which the material in question is\nnot subject to the Class 7 hazardous materials transport regulations.\"\nThe application of contamination to the definition of radioactive material was further clarified by letter (Ref.\nNo.: 06-0274) to include both the contamination level on the material as well as the total activity of the\nconsignment:\n\"A solid object which is not radioactive that has contamination on its surface is not a \"surface\ncontaminated object (SCO)\" unless it meets the definition ofSCO in §173.403. In accordance with\n§173.403, an SCO is defined as a solid object which is not itself radioactive but which has\nradioactive material distributed on its surface. Therefore, if the total consignment activity does not\nexceed the value specified in the table in § 173.436 or the value derived according to the\ninstructions in §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 distribution of\nradionuclides. )\"\nOften, calculating tools such as spreadsheets and programs are used to assist in radioactive material activity\ndeterminations. In some cases, the content of the package includes both 'distributed throughout' and nonrad\nsurface contaminated objects. Quite often the calculating tools used cannot distinguish between these\ntwo matrices; therefore, the result for actiVity/gram will include the mass of the SCO-like material.\nQuestion I: Is it permissible to be conservative and describe a material as Class 7 radioactive material\neven if the calculated results indicate the activity/gram of the material does not meet the Class 7 defining\ncriteria?\nOuestion 2: When the material includes both 'distributed throughout' and SCO-like materials, is it\npermissible to be conservative and describe the material as Class 7 radioactive material when the\ncalculated Bq/g results indicate the activity of the material does not meet the Class 7 defining criteria and\nno data is' available as to the surface contamination ~vels?\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n.~ Regulatory Resources, Inc. 509-628- 1020\n240 Joshua Road info@regulatoryresources.net\nKennewick, WA 99338 www.regulatoryresources.net\nMessrs. Charles Betts and Michael Conroy\nNovember 6, 2009\n. Page 2\nQuestion 3: Is there any means. for the sake of being conservative. to describe a radioactively\ncontaminated non-rad material as Class 7 radioactive material if no contamination data is available for the\nmaterial and the calculated activity/gram indicates the material to be exempted?\nAnother area of confusion is in the application of surface contaminated objects when co-joined in a one\npackaging with low specific activity (LSA) material. The guidance document, NUREG-1608 (RAMREG-003),\npublisheq July 1998, provides useful guidance in the characterization and identification of LSA material and\nSeQ. Section 6.1, Packaging and Shipping Requirements, Question 6.1.1, identifies what description to use for\npackages containing these mix matrices. The material will be described as \"LSA Material\" if the activity in the\npackage does not exceed one A2• However, if the package activity exceeds one A2 • the description is to be\nbased on the material type that contributes greatest to the A2 fraction. In order to take advantage of this\nallowance, the shipper must be able to provide the necessary documentation that supports both the LSA\nmaterial and SeQ determinations (Question 6.6.1, Page 6-1).\n\"When mixing seo and LSA materials in a single package, both the objects and the LSA\nmaterials should meet their respective definitions before being mixed together and then, when\nmixed, the contents ofa package should be considered to be LSA.\"\n\"The method in section 3.3.1 may be used to categorize collections of small seos prior to mixing\nthem with LSA material provided the combined total quantity of radioactivity, in both the LSA\nmaterial and seos to be included in a single package, does not exceed 1 A2.\"\nThe questions below are to clarify confusion surrounding this application.\nQuestion 4: A package contains both candidate LSA material and candidate SeQ. The resulting total\nactivity/total mass does not exceed the LSA-II activity limit. However, the supporting characterization\ndocuments include the actiVity/gram based on the total weight of the matrix (LSA-like material weight is\nnot separated from candidate SeQ). No data is available concerning the SeQ contamination levels. As\nlong as the total activity does not exceed one A2• is it permissible to describe. package and ship the\nmaterial as \"LSA Material\"l\nQuestion 5: Is there ever a situation that will allow a Class 7 radioactive material to be described as \"LSA\nMaterial\" when the matrix in the package includes both LSA-like material and candidate SeQ and no\ncontamination data is available for the candidate SeQ content?\nGentlemen, thank you for your consideration of these questions and the valuable time required to\nprovide a response. I look forward to the formal clarification.\nFor Regulatory Resources, Inc.,\nPresident\nWAW/lom","truncated":false,"body_characters":11507}