{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0119","title":"Department of the Army — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1999-06-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"99-0119 response to Department of the Army concerning 173.443.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0119.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0119.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0119","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990119.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n!\n173.443\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashington, D.C.\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\n20590\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nJUN | O 1999\nMr. Vernon E. Vondera\nRef. No. 99-0119\nChief, Safety Office\nDepartment of the Army\nU.S. Army Tank-Automotive and\nArmament Command\nArmament and Chemical Acquisition\nand Logistics Activity\nRock Island, IL 61299-7630\nDear Mr. Vondera:\nThis is in response to your letter dated May 4, 1999, requesting a clarification of the\nrequirements in 49 CFR 173.443, concerning the control of contamination on the external\nsurfaces of packages of radioactive material offered for transportation.\nYou state that before the regulations were revised ( Docket HM-169A, which became effective\non April 1, 1996), the second sentence in § 173.443 (a) read: \"The level of non-fixed radioactive\ncontamination may be determined by wiping an area of 300 square centimeters of the surface\nconcerned...'\" whereas after April 1, 1996, the wording wås changed to: \"The level of non-fixed\nradioactive contamination may not exceed the limits set forth in table 11 and must be determined\nby either:\n(1) Wiping an area of 300 square centimeters of the surface concerned....: or\n(2) Using other methods of assessment of equal or greater efficiency, in which case the\nefficiency of the method must be taken into account:....\"\nYou also state that in 1985 the Department of the Army requested a clarification of\n§ 173.443. You enclosed a copy of RSPA's response, in which we stated \"... it is desirable to\nallow flexibility in the manner of ensuring compliance,\" and \"if a shipper utilizes methods which\ndo not rely on actual wipe samples, such as new packaging material which is protected from on-\nsite contamination, it is acceptable as long as it ensures compliance.\" You asked if the current\nregulations allow the same degree of flexibility.\nThe answer is yes. Sections 173.443 (a)(1) and 173.443 (a)(2) allow a shipper the same degree\nof flexibility as before. The shipper must either make one or more wipe measurements and\ncompare the results against the limits in table 11, or use another method of equal or greater\nefficiency.\n990119\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nAs used in § 173.443(a)(2), \"efficiency\" means either the ratio of a measured value of\ncontamination (such as from a wipe) divided by the actual contamination on the surface of the\npackage, or, in a more general sense, an alternate method which gives the same or greater\nassurance that the package contamination levels do not exceed the stated regulatory limits.\nI hope this information is helpful. Should you have further questions, please contact us.\nSincerely,\nNethe 2. Mitchell\nHattie L. Mitchell, Chief\nRegulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nUNITED STATES ARMY TANK - AUTOMOTIVE AND ARMAMENTS COMMAND\nDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY\nARMAMENT AND CHEMICAL ACQUISITION AND LOGISTICS ACTIVITY\nROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 61299-7630\nREPLY TO\n4 May 99\nBetts\nATTENTION OF\nS173.443\nSafety Office, Armament and Chemical\nAcquisition and Logistics Activity\n99-0119\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nU.S. DOT/RSPA (DHM-10)\n400 7th Street SW\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nThis is in reference to Title 49.\nWe would like an\ninterpretation of section 173.443, Contamination Control .\nrequirements and how it applies to the U.S. Army.\n03 S\nFirst a little background information. Our Command procures\nand manages Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed\nradioactive material for use in Army weapon systems.\nThese\nweapon systems are distributed throughout the country, and the\notherwise). Many of these systems were procured and distributed\nworld to be used for military purposes (exercises and\ntwenty or thirty years ago and are still in the field. The\nradioactive material consists of low level radioactive material\nthat qualifies it to be shipped as \"excepted packages-\ninstruments or articles\" under Title 49 Code of Federal\nRegulations (CFR) 173.424.\nThe NRC requires our Command, as the entry point for these\nweapons systems into the Army arsenal, to hold a NRC license.\nAs the NRC licensee, we are responsible to ensure that end users\nhave a radiation protection program (RPP) that meets the minimum\nCFR and NRC license requirements. The RPP consists of written\ndocuments, guidance, newsletters, website material, and periodic\ninspections or visits.\nIn 1985, we requested an interpretation of 49 CFR 173.443\nand obtained\nthe enclosed DOT letter (September 25, 1985).\nHowever, we feel that this issue needs to be revisited due to\nthe amendment of 49 CFR in 1995. Prior to 1995, the rule for\ncontamination control (49 CFR 173.443)\nstated: \"The level of\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n- 2-\nnon-fixed radioactive contamination may be determined by wiping\nan area of 300 square centimeters.\" The wording was changed to:\n\"The level\nof non-fixed radioactive contamination may not exceed\nthe limits\nset forth in Table 11 and must be determined by\neither (a)\nWiping an area of 300 square centimeters... or (b)\nUsing other methods of assessment of equal or greater\n_ efficiency.\"\nalways assumed the CER provided a.\n- wide degree of variance\nor flexibility based on the 1985 letter (like a performance\nstandard). However, its seems that it has become more rigid in\nspecifying (like a specification standard) the exact steps to\ntake in shipping packages.\nWhat alternative \"methods of\nassessment\" can be justified by\nthe statement of 173.443(2)?\nWe are not\nsure how much variance\nthis statement allows\nus.\nFor example, many times the device is\nwipe tested prior to maintenance.\nIf the device is clean and\nnew packaging material is used, is this acceptable? However,\nthe terms \"equal or greater efficiency\" implies nothing less\nthan a wipe tests analysis of the package surface.\nTypical shipment methods the Army uses in lieu of wiping the\nsurface of the package may include any or all of the following\nprecautions:\n• Using new packaging materials.\n• Wiping the device instead of wiping the surface of the\npackage.\n• Invoking 49 CFR 173.7 (b).\n• Personally transporting the device instead of consigning\nit to a carrier.\no Checking the annual leak test records (for those items\nthat require it).\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n- 3-\n• Checking tritium devices for illumination. The\nassumption is that if all sources are illuminated, it can\nsafely be shipped.\n• Shipping the instrument or article\nas \"Limited Quantity.\"\nOur program\nis based on the cooperation of a great many\npeople.\nWe can\nmake recommendations to limit the spread of\ncontamination. However, we cannot mandate that all installations\nset up and use counting laboratories. The funds are just not\navailable.\nSending wipe samples off to a qualified laboratory is\nanother options that many installations take.\nHowever, the turn\naround time may be up to two weeks. This delay is often not\nacceptable.\nTitle 10 CFR 20.1906 (d) requires us as licensee to report\nimmediately to the NRC and the final delivery carrier any time\nthe surface contamination exceeds the limits of 173.443. This\nhas become a point of constant emphasis in our program. It is in\nour best interest to find\naway to comply.\nYou are welcome to review our draft transportation\nguidelines. It can be downloaded from the following FTP site:\nttp://ftpserver.ria.army.mil/Safety/TB430197/Draft/. More\nacalal.ria.army.mil/ACALA/SAFETY/safe.htm.\ninformation can be found at: http://www-\nWe\nappreciate any comments, interpretation, or advice on how\nwe may best comply with the regulatory requirements.\nThe point of contact is Mr. Gavin Ziegler, (309) 782-2995.\nSincerely,\nFame Condua\nVernon E. Vondera\nChief,\nSafety Office\nEnclosure\n• 2.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nEnclosure\nCopy Furnished:\nMr. Fred Ferate\nRadioactive Materials Branch\nU.s. DOT/RSPA (DHM-23)\n400 7th Street sw\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashingson, D C. 20590\n400 Seventh St.. S.W.\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\nSEP 25 :SE5\nCommander, U.S. Army Armament,\nMunitions and Chemical Command\nATTN: AMSMC-SFS\nDepartment of the Army\nRock Island, Illinois 61299-6000\nDear Sir:\nremovable contamination limits specified in 49 CFR 173.443.\nThank you for your letter of August 22, 1995, concerning compliance with the\nAs with many of the DOT requirements, the removable contamination limits specify\nwhat must be accomplished and do not elaborate on how this must be accomplished.\nGiven the very diverse shipping situations to which these limits apply it is desirable\nto allow flexibility in the manner of ensuring compliance.\nThe shipper has responsibility for ensuring that every package complies with the\nsuch as new packaging material which is protected from on-site contamination, it is\nstated limits. If a shipper utilizes methods which do not rely on actual wipe sampies.\nacceptable as long as it ensures compliance:\n•Sincerely,\nRichard R. Rawl\nChief, Radioactive Materials Branch\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Regulation","truncated":false,"body_characters":9010}