{"operation":"document","citation":"22-0029","title":"Belshire Environmental Services Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2022-12-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"22-0029 response to Belshire Environmental Services Inc. concerning 173.401, 173.433, 173.436.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0029.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0029.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-22-0029","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/77076/220029.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nDecember 22, 2022\nMr. Bear Bridges\nBelshire Environmental Services Inc.\n25971 Towne Centre Drive\nFoothill Ranch, CA 92610\nReference No. 22-0029\nDear Mr. Bridges:\nThis letter is in response to your March 23, 2022, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to Class 7 (radioactive)\nmaterials. Specifically, you pose several questions pertaining to scenarios in which natural\nmaterials and ore are not subject to subpart I of Part 173 of the HMR and request clarification on\nhow to properly calculate the exempt activity concentration for mixtures of nuclides.\nWe have paraphrased and answered your questions as follows:\nQ1. You ask whether natural materials—which have been processed for purposes other than\nthe extraction of radionuclides—can utilize the 10 times exempt material activity\nconcentration values referenced in § 173.401(b)(4). You provide captured drilling mud\nor fluids from the installation of monitoring, remediation, or water wells as examples of\nsuch natural materials.\nA1. As provided in § 173.401(b)(4), natural materials and ores containing naturally occurring\nradionuclides which are either in their natural state or which have only been processed for\npurposes other than for extraction of the radionuclides—and which are not intended to be\nprocessed for the use of these radionuclides—are exempt from subpart I of Part 173 of\nthe HMR, provided the activity concentration of the material does not exceed 10 times\nthe exempt material activity concentration values specified in § 173.436, or determined in\naccordance with the requirements of § 173.433. However, the examples you provided do\nnot meet these requirements as the radionuclides would not be contained in natural\nmaterials or ores.\n\n<<>>\n\nQ2. You ask whether § 173.401(b)(4) would apply to residues that have been extracted or\ngenerated from other processing of natural materials such as groundwater treatment\nsystems.\nA2. Section 173.401(b)(4) applies to residues that have been extracted or generated from\nother processing of natural materials, but not when those residues have been transferred\nto other media such as groundwater treatment systems.\nQ3. You ask whether it is appropriate to apply the 10 times exempt material activity\nconcentration values to filtration media that is unintentionally capturing naturally\noccurring radionuclides—such as filter media that is designed to treat an organic or metal\ncontamination—and is inadvertently capturing radionuclides.\nA3. The answer is no. Section 173.401(b)(4) does not apply to radionuclides that have been\nfiltered out intentionally or unintentionally as the material has been transferred to media\nother than natural materials or ores.\nQ4. You ask whether it is appropriate to apply the 10 times exempt material activity\nconcentration values to filtration media in water treatment systems that have stages or\nprocesses explicitly designed to capture radionuclides for the purpose of removing them\nto meet drinking, wastewater, or other standards.\nA4. See answer A3.\nQ5. You ask when determining the exempt activity concentration for mixtures of nuclides\nprovided in § 173.433(d)(6) and/or the exempt consignment activity limit for mixtures of\nnuclides provided in § 173.433(d)(7), whether the variable “f(i)” is intended to be the\nfraction of activity attributable to a specific nuclide “i” divided by the total activity of all\nnuclides in the mixture, or the activity of a single nuclide in the mixture.\nA5. The variable “f(i)” in the formula provided in § 173.433(d)(6) is intended to be the\nfraction of activity concentration of a specific nuclide in the mixture divided by the total\nactivity of all nuclides in the mixture, while “f(i)” in the formula provided in\n§ 173.433(d)(7) is intended to be the fraction of activity of a specific nuclide in the\nmixture divided by the total activity of all nuclides in the mixture\n\n<<>>\n\nQ6. You ask whether the example you provided in your email—of a calculation utilizing the\nformula in § 173.433(d)(6)—is accurate.\nA6. The answer is yes.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nWolcott\n22-0029\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Copy of physical letter submitted to DOT Hazardous Materials Information Center\nDate: Monday, April 18, 2022 11:56:27 AM\nAttachments: Formal Interpretative Letter DOT.pdf\nHello Hazmat Interps,\nAttached is a request for letter of interpretation.\nThanks,\nJonathon, HMIC\nFrom: Bear Bridges \nSent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 4:21 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) \nSubject: Copy of physical letter submitted to DOT Hazardous Materials Information Center\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or\nopen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nHello,\nI received a voicemail from Alice Dodd requesting that I send a copy of a letter that I submitted to\nthe DOT.\nAttached is a PDF copy of the letter that I originally submitted to Shane Kelley for a formal letter of\ninterpretation per the instructions on this webpage: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-\nrulemaking/hazmat/hazardous-materials-information-center\nThe only changes from the original letter are that this is dated with today’s date (3/23/2022). The\noriginal physical letter was sent in November 2021.\nCan you please verify receipt of this email as well as the attached pdf titled “Formal Interpretative\nLetter DOT”.\nPlease feel free to call me at 949-795-0029 if you need any additional information.\nThank you,\nBear Bridges | Senior Project Manager / Technical Solutions\nBelshire Environmental Services, Inc.\n25971 Towne Centre Drive, Foothill Ranch, CA 92610\nOffice: 949-460-5200 | Mobile: 949-795-0029 | Fax: 949-460-5210\nCheck out our website at www.belshire.com for information that you may not know about\nBelshire.\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\nMarch 23, 2022\nMr. Shane Kelley\nDirector, Standards and Rulemaking Division\nU.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-10)\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nSubject: Request for formal letter of interpretation regarding Class 7 Hazardous Materials in particular 49\nCFR 173.401(b)(4), 49 CFR 173.433 (6) and 49 CFR 173.433 (d)(7).\nDear Mr. Shane Kelly,\nThe purpose of this letter is to request a formal letter of interpretation to help clarify several areas of\nregulation regarding the definition and determination of Class 7 materials. This includes the applicability\nof the 10 times exempt activity concentration values for natural materials specified in 49 CFR\n173.401(b)(4) and calculations required to determine exempt activity concentration and consignment\nactivity levels for mixtures of radionuclides as described in 49 CFR 173.433 (d)(6) and 49 CFR 173.433\n(d)(7).\nWe have reviewed all existing PHMSA Interpretation Letters available through the PHMSAs website and\ncontacted the PHMSA Hazardous Materials Information Center and have not received or found sufficient\ninformation to answer the questions below.\nNatural Materials and the 10 times exempt material activity concentration values\n49 CFR 173.401(b)(4) states that Subpart I – Class 7 (Radioactive) Materials does not apply to the\nfollowing:\nNatural material and ores containing naturally occurring radionuclides which are either in their\nnatural state, or which have only been processed for purposes other than for extraction of the\nradionuclides, and which are not intended to be processed for the use of these radionuclides,\nprovided the activity concentration of the material does not exceed 10 times the exempt material\nactivity concentration values specified in § 173.436, or determined in accordance with the\nrequirements of § 173.433.\nPHMSA Interpretation Letter reference No. 17-0114 states that the term “natural material” means:\n[M]aterial existing in a form as it would otherwise be in nature, not in a form manipulated by\nhuman application.\nWe could find no regulatory source for this interpretative definition of “natural material” however after\nreviewing the Federal Register publication of the final rule (Federal Register Vol. 69 No. 16, Jan 26 2004\n3636) the following is stated:\n\n<<>>\n\nThe [Class 7 hazardous material] regulations also do not apply to natural materials and ores\ncontaining naturally occurring radionuclides when these have been subject to physical or\nchemical processing, when the processing was not for the purposes of extraction radionuclides,\nagain provided that their activity concentrations does not exceed 10 times the activity\nconcentration in the table in 173.436. Examples of such materials are cement, coal, fertilizers,\nnon-radioactive metals, gypsum, residues from mining and smelting processes, etc.\nThe Federal Register goes on to state:\nThe factor of 10 times the regulatory exemption activity concentration values was chosen as\nproviding an appropriate balance between radiological protection concerns and the practical\ninconvenience of regulating large quantities of material with low activity concentrations of\nnaturally occurring radionuclides.\nBased on these statements it appears the intent of the regulation is to allow natural materials which have\nbeen chemically or physically processed (provided it is not for the purpose of extraction of radionuclides)\nand their residues (e.g. spent filter media and other process wastes) to fall under the 10 times exempt\nmaterial activity concentration values. The Federal Register explicitly mentions materials which would\nnot meet the strict definition of “natural materials” presented in Interpretation Letter 17-0114 such as\ncement and fertilizers. We believe that the restrictive interpretation presented in Interpretation Letter 17-\n0114 does not provide the “appropriate balance” mentioned in the Federal Register as it appears to imply\nthat all materials other than those completely raw and unprocessed “natural materials” at are required to\nbe regulated at the activity concentration levels listed in 49 CFR 173.436 or calculated per 49CFR\n173.433.\nOur questions related to the topic listed above\nPlease assume the following assumptions apply to questions 1 through 4:\n None of the materials that contain radionuclides are intended to be or will be further processed for\nthe use of the radionuclides.\n All sources of radionuclides are naturally occurring either present in existing soils or groundwater\ndue to local geologic conditions.\n1. Can you please confirm if per 49 CFR 173.401(b)(4) whether or not natural materials which have\nbeen processed for purposes other than extraction of radionuclides can utilize the 10 times\nexempt material activity concentration values? E.g. captured drilling mud or fluids from the\ninstallation of monitoring, remediation or water wells which may contain added materials such\nas drilling additives, lubricants or water.\n2. The Federal Register mentions “residues of mining and smelting process” as materials that the 10\ntimes exempt material activity concentration values may apply to. Can you please confirm if 49\nCFR 173.401(b)(4) would apply to residues that have been extracted or generated from other\nprocessing of natural materials? For example groundwater treatment systems are utilized for a\nrange purposes including treatment of drinking water and remediation of environmental\ncontamination such as clean-up of leaking underground storage tanks. These system can\ngenerate residues such as process tank sludges, knockout water and spent filtration media.\n3. Would it be appropriate to apply the 10 times exempt material activity concentration values to\nfiltration media that is unintentionally capturing naturally occurring radionuclides? For example\nfilter media that is designed to treat an organic or metal contamination and is inadvertently\n\n<<>>\n\ncapturing radionuclides. An example of this would be a system designed to remove Arsenic with\nion exchange resin and Uranium is also being captured in the resin.\n4. If a water treatment system has stages/processes explicitly designed to capture radionuclides for\nthe purpose of removing them to meet drinking, wastewater or other standards, rather than the\nuse of the radionuclides, would it be appropriate to apply to the 10 times exempt material\nactivity concentration values from 49 CFR 173.401(b)(4)?\nDetermining activity concentration and consignment exemption limits for mixtures of radionuclides\nThe definition of “Radiological Material” from 49 CFR 173.403 states:\nRadioactive material means any material containing radionuclides where both the activity\nconcentration and the total activity in the consignment exceed the values specified in the table\nin § 173.436 or values derived according to the instructions in § 173.433.\nFor a mixture of radionuclides to determine the relevant exempt material activity concentration limit we\nfollow 49 CFR 173.433 (d)(6) which states:\nExempt activity concentration limit for mixture = 1 / ∑i f(i) / [A](i)\nWhere:\nf(i) is the fraction of activity concentration of nuclide i in the mixture; and [A](i) is the activity\nconcentration for exempt material containing nuclide i.\nIn the below questions we will seek clarification on the following language:\nf(i) is the fraction of activity concentration of nuclide i in the mixture\nWe see two potential interpretations of this statement in particular the word “fraction”:\nPotential interpretation 1 – f(i) is the activity concentration value of that specific nuclide i. E.g. pCi/g\nvalue for a specific nuclide i determined from laboratory analysis of the material.\nPotential interpretation 2 – f(i) is the activity concentration of that specific nuclide i divided by the total\nactivity concentration (i.e. the sum of all activity concentrations for all radionuclides) of the mixture. E.g.\na number less than one (when in a mixture of nuclides) gained by dividing the activity concentration of\nthe nuclide i by the total activity concentration of the mixture (i.e. the sum of all activity concentrations\nfor all radionuclides).\nOur questions related to the topic listed above\n5. Can you confirm if when calculating exempt activity (49 CFR 173.436 (6)) and/or consignment\nlimits (49 CFR 173.436 (7)) for a mixture of nuclides that the variable f(i) is intended to be the\nfraction of activity attributable to a specific nuclide i divided by the total activity of all nuclides\nin the mixture (i.e. as specified in Potential interpretation 2 described above)?\n6. Assuming that f(i) is the fraction of activity concentration attributable to a specific nuclide i\ndivided by the total activity concentration of all nuclides in the mixture can you please confirm\n\n<<>>\n\nthat the example calculation and assessment below is accurate for determination of exempt\nactivity concentration per 49 CFR 173.433(6) is correct?\nSolid material (that does not fall under the 49 CFR 173.401(b)(4) 10 times exempt material\nactivity concentration values) contains nuclides with the following activity concentration\nlevels:\nUnat 500 pCi/g\nThnat 450 pCi/g\nK40 50 pCi/g\nTotal activity concentration for the mixture is 1,000 pCi/g\nDetermination of fraction of specific activity concentration:\nUnat Fraction of total activity = 500 pCi/g / 1000 pCi/g = 0.5\nThnat Fraction of total activity = 450 pCi/g / 1000 pCi/g = 0.45\nK40 Fraction of total activity = 50 pCi/g / 1000 pCi/g = 0.05\nValues for activity concentration for specific nuclides from 49CFR 173.436\nUnat 2.7x10-11 Ci\nThnat 2.7x10-11 Ci\nK40 2.7x10-9 Ci\nPerforming calculation to determine exempt activity concentration limit of mixture:\n1 / [ ( 0.5 / 2.7x10-11 Ci/g ) + ( 0.45 / 2.7x10-11 Ci/g) + ( 0.05 / 2.7x10-9 Ci/g) ] =\n2.84 x 10-11 Ci/g\nCalculated exempt activity concentration limit for mixture\n= 2.84 x 10-11 Ci/g\n= 28.4 pCi/g\nThe total activity of mixture was 1,000 pCi/g so the material exceeds the exempt activity\nconcentration limit for this specific mixture of nuclides.\nPlease feel free to contact me via email (bear.bridges@belshire.com) or phone (949-460-5200) if you\nneed any additional details or clarification in order to respond to this letter.\nThank you,\nBear Bridges","truncated":false,"body_characters":16515}