U.S. Department of Energy — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington. DC 20590 Materials Safet Pipeline and Hazardous Administration APR 2 2 2015 Mr. Dennis W. Claussen Nuclear Safety Engineer and Traffic Manager Richland Operations Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 550, MS AS-17. Richland, WA 99352 Reference No. 15-0014 Dear Mr. Claussen: This is response to your January 15, 2014 e-mail requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to classifying non-spillable batteries contaminated with Class 7 (radioactive) material that the DOE is preparing for treatment and disposal. You state these batteries contain sulfuric acid and exceed limited quantity levels for radioactive material. We have paraphrased your questions and answered them in the order you provided. Q1. If the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) considers the above-described batteries to meet the definition of a "solid" as defined in § 171.8, can these batteries be transported in commerce as a surface-contaminated object (SCO) or a Type A radioactive material? Al. While the radioactive contamination on the batteries may only be present on the external surfaces, the batteries may not be shipped as SCO-I or SCO-II as the potential exists for the batteries to crack during transport with the inner liquid then mixing with the surface contamination. The definition in § 171.8 of solid is, "Solid means a material which is not a gas or a liquid." As the batteries contain liquid, the batteries themselves would not be considered to be solid objects under § 173.403, which defines a surface contaminated object (SCO) as "...a solid object which is not itself radioactive but which has radioactive material distributed on its surface...." If the batteries have less than an Az quantity of activity, they may be shipped in a Type A package, provided that the package meets the § 173.412(c) requirements for liquid content. The packages would also need to meet requirements for the subsidiary corrosive hazard presented by the sulfuric acid content in the batteries.#

Page 2Q2. If the USDOT considers these same batteries to meet the definition of a "liquid," as defined in § 171.8, can these batteries be transported in commerce as a low specific activity (LSA) material? A2. No. To be considered as a LSA material, the radioactive activity would need to be "distributed throughout." Assuming that the contamination is only on the external surfaces, the batteries could not be properly classified as LSA material. I hope this satisfies your request. Sincerely, T. Glenn Foster Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch Standards and Rulemaking Division#

Page 3Edmonson §173.15918) Dodd, Alice (PHMSA) Batteries 15-0014 From: Ciccarone, Michael CTR (PHMSA) Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:54 AM To: Hazmat Interps Subject: FW: Request for written letter of interpretation Shante/Alice, :. Please submit this for a formal letter of interpretation. Thanks, Mike From: Claussen, Dennis W [mailto:dennis.claussen@rl.doe.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:08 AM To: Ciccarone, Michael CTR (PHMSA) Subject: RE: Request for written letter of interpretation US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office P.O. Box 550, MS A5-17 Richland, WA 99352 Street address: 825 Jadwin Ave. Richland, WA 99352 From: m.ciccarone.ctr@dot.gov[mailto:m.ciccarone.ctr@dot.gov] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 9:32 AM To: Claussen, Dennis W Subject: RE: Request for written letter of interpretation Dear Dennis, We have received your request for a written letter of interpretation regarding the hazardous materials regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-180). Please include your company's physical address to expedite the submission process. Sincerely, Mike, Hazardous Materials Specialist be requested in accordance with 49 CFR 105.20. An e-mail response from this office is considered informal guidance. Formal guidance may http://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/regs/interps From: Claussen, Dennis W [mailto:dennis.claussen@rl.doe.gov] To: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 6:41 PM Subject: Request for written letter of interpretation 1#

Page 4To whom it may concern: A US Department of Energy facility has some non-spillable batteries [as defined 49 CFR 173.159(f)], which has become contaminated with radioactive material. These batteries exceed limit quantity levels for radioactive material. DOE is preparing these batteries for treatment and disposal. Several classifications are being considered. Each classification has potential issues. 1. Surface Contaminated Object (SCO): Since the batteries meet DOT requirements for non-spillable batteries, the batteries, which contain sulfuric acid, could be treated as a solid. Thus, these batteries can meet the definition of surface contaminated object. 2. Low Specify Activity (LSA) Material: These batteries can meet the radioactive concentration activity distribution requirement in the definition LSA material for a liquid. The issue with classifying these batteries as LSA is meeting "distributed throughout". These batteries are sealed; thus the sulfuric acid is not contaminated: 3. Type A quantity: If these batteries are considered liquid due the uncontaminated sulfuric acid, these batteries would have to be shipped in Type A packaging meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 173.466. These liquid Type A packaging are rare and expensive. Would US Department of Transportation (DOT) consider treating these batteries as solid for the purposes for packaging selection/proper shipment name classification? These batteries would be shipped as SCO or Type A. If DOT considers these batteries as liquid, could these batteries be shipped as LSA material? Dennes W. Claussen US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office Nuclear Safety Engineer| Traffic Manager Phone: (509) 372-0938 Email: dennis. claussen @el. doe. gou "Get your facts first and then you can distort them as much as you please. " Mark Twain#