{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0293","title":"Denver Federal Center — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-03-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"99-0293 response to Denver Federal Center concerning 172.101.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0293.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0293.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0293","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990293.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashington. D.C.\nMAR 2 / 2000\nMr. Carlos Arozarena\nRef. No. 99-0293\nU.S. Geological Survey\nBox 25046 M.S. 407\nDenver Federal Center\nDenver, CO 80225-0046\nDear Mr. Arozarena:\nThis is in response to your letter of December 14, 1999, and subsequent telephone conversations with\nMichael Johnsen, of my staff, concerning the classification of water samples under the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You provided the following table of water\nsamples regularly shipped by the USGS and its clients:\nAnalysis Type\nWater Sample Preparation\nPreservative Concentration\n(% by weight)\nOil and Grease\n2 ml H,SO, (18M) / L sample\n0.35\nPhenol\n1 ml H,SO, (18M) / 500 ml sample\n0.35\nNutrient\n1 ml H,SO, (1:7) / 125 ml sample\n0.20\nCyanide\n5 ml NaOH (5N) / 240 ml sample\n0.42\nVolatile Organics\n0.1 ml HCL (12M) / 40 ml sample\n0.11\nMetals (RA/FA)\n2 ml HNO, (7.6) / 250 ml sample\n0.40\nMercury Sample\n10 ml HNO, (15.8M) / 240 ml sample\n4.15\n0.035 g K, Cr, 0,\n0.014\nIn addition, you included a letter issued by this office on December 13, 1993, which listed several\ncorrosive materials that were so dilute they are excepted from the HMR. According to our letter,\nH,SO, (sulfuric acid) in water solutions at concentrations of 0.35% by weight or less are excepted\nfrom the HMR.\nFrom the information you have provided, we have made the following recommendations for classifying\nthese materials:\n172.101\n990293\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n* Based on this exception, three of the Analysis Types in question which contain H,SO,\n(Analysis Type: Oil and Grease; Phenol; and Nutrient) are not regulated by the HMR.\n* Three water samples (Analysis Type: Cyanide; Volatile Organics; and Metals (RA/FA))\nshould be tested to determine if they meet the definition for corrosive material. It is the opinion\nof this Office that these three samples are not corrosive to skin. However, these preparations\nmay be corrosive to metal (steel and/or aluminum).\n* The sample containing HNO, (nitric acid) and K, Cr, 0, (potassium dichromate) (Analysis\ntype: Mercury Sample) is a corrosive material. Tests for skin corrosion should be conducted to\ndetermine the packing group.\nI hope this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\nAlm 16 this\nDelmer F. Billings\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nUnited States Department of the\nInterior\nU.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY\nBox 25046 M.S. 407\nDenver, Colorado 80225-0046\nDenver Federal Center\nDecember 14, 1999\nU.S. DOT/RSPA (DHM-10)\nMike Johnson\n400 7\" Street S.W Suite 8422\n20590-0001\nWashington, D.C\nDear Mr. Johnson:\n', 1999, The United States Geologic Survey is presently reviewing and\nandardizing its procedures for the shipment of environmental samples. Many of these materials contai\nhemical preservatives. Consequently, our greatest influence with this endeavor will be how th\nHazardous Material Regulations (HMR) of 49 CFR apply.\nof water sample solutions and, for those specific materials, has offered full relief from the HMR.\nOn at least one occasion (RSPA file #7326), the Department of Transportation has evaluated the content\nAlthough we recognize that the burden for hazard class determination lies with the Survey, any similar\nrelief you can offer would result in considerable savings to the public.\nThe table below identifies many solutions regularly shipped by the USGS and it's clients. The first three\nline items have been addressed in the above-mentioned RSPA file. Please review the remainder of the\ninformation provided and base your evaluations solely on the concentration of the preservatives. We are\naware that your conclusions may not apply if the water sample itself is known or suspected to fit HMR\nhazard class criteria.\nAnalysis Type\nWater Sample Preparation\nPreservative Concentration\n(% by weight)\nOil and Grease\nNutrient\nPhenol\n2 ml H,SO, (18M) / L sample\n0.35\n1 ml H,SO, (18M) / 500 ml sample\n0.35\nVolatile Organies\nCyanide\n1 ml H,SO4 (1:7) / 125 ml sample\n0.20\n5 ml NaOH (5N) / 240 ml sample\nMetals (RA/ FA)\n0.1 ml HCL (12M) / 40 ml sample\n0.11\n0.42\n2 ml FINO, (7.6M) / 250 ml sample\nMercury Sample\n10 ml HNO, (15.8M) / 240 ml sample\n0.40\n0.035 g K,C,0,\n0.014\n4.15\nIf unable to offer full relief from the HMR, please provide suggestions regarding the most logical avenue\nto pursue, whether it be testing, application for exemption, or full compliance with the HMR.\nWe greatly value your assistance.\nRegards,\nMiln a liaons\nCarlos Arozarena, Safety Manager","truncated":false,"body_characters":4485}