ExxonMobil Chemical Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1of Transportation U.S. Department 400 Seventh St., S.W. Research and Washingion, D.C. 20590 special Program: Administration DEC 1 0 2002 Mr. Ronald J. Stokes Ref No. 02-02.58 ExxonMobil Chemical Company P.O. Box 3140 Edison, NJ 08818 Dear Mr. Stokes: This is in response to your September 17, 2002 letter requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations. (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the shipping description of a non- hazardous material. Specifically, you state your company ships an item. identified as a spent catalyst on a standard bill of lading to a separate facility for regeneration and return to your company for continued use. You reference the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) determination in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(1) & (4) that a spent catalyst is a solid waste, but not a hazardous waste mandating the use of a manifest. In a subsequent telephone conversation with a member of my staff, you stated that the spent catalyst does not meet any of the hazard classes or divisions under the HMR. Your subsequent questions are paraphrased and addressed as follows: Q1. In light of EPA and HMR requirements, can a spent catalyst be described as a waste on a standard shipping document without violating the HMR? Al. No. Use of the word "waste" preceding a proper shipping name is reserved for a hazardous waste. Materials that are excepted from the hazardous waste manifest requirements of the U.S. EPA are not "hazardous wastes" as defined in § 171.8 of the HMR. Using the word "waste" to describe a non-hazardous material may confuse a carrier or enforcement official, incorrectly communicate a hazard warning and could consequently frustrate the shipment. As provided in Section 172.101(c)(9), if the word "waste" is not included in the hazardous material description in Column 2 of the Table, the proper shipping name for a hazardous waste shall include the word "waste" preceding the proper shipping name of the material. Materials that are excepted from the hazardous waste manifest requirements of the U.S. EPA are not "hazardous wastes" as defined in § 171.8 of the HMR. Under your scenario, the shipping paper could show an entry such as "Non-HMR regulated waste catalyst" or "Waste catalyst, non-regulated." Q2. Is the word "waste" when used in the transport/transportation arena confined to its specified use as noted in the HMR? A2. The word "waste" when used with a proper shipping description under the HMR indicates material that is a federally regulated waste. There could be instances in transportation when the 020258 pl. 177.504#

Page 2word "waste" is used that do not specifically apply to the regulation of hazardous materials. Please refer to our response to Q1. Q3. If use of the word "waste" is acceptable on a non-manifest shipping document must the transporter (carrier) of such material be a licensed waste hauler? A3. Inquiries concerning the compliance regulations of carriers should be addressed to the Federal provided in $ 177.804, motor carriers and other persons subject to this part shall comply with Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) or EPA for "registered" waste transporter. As 49 CFR parts 390 through 397 (excluding §§ 397.3 and 397.9) to the extent those regulations apply. I hope this information is helpful. If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Delmer F. Billings Chief, Standards Development Office of Hazardous Materials Standards#

Page 3Foster 8171.2(f) 732 321 6057 Facsimile §172.101(c)9 September 17, 2002 EstoniMobil Definition Chemical Mr. Edward T. Mazzullo 02-0258 U.S. DOT/RSPA (DHM-10) Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards 00 7th Street, S.W Nashington, DC 20590-000 Ref: $171.2(f) 9172.101(c)(9) Dear Mr. Mazzullo: Pursuant to the referenced requirements, we are looking for guidance concerning the shipping description of a ind returned for our continued use. We ship this material on a normal bill-of-lading not a waste manifes on-hazardous material. We ship a material that is a spent catalyst to a facility where it will be regenerate (but not a hazardous waste mandating the use of a manifest). Pursuant to the US EPA's determination in 40 CFR (Paragraph 261.1(c)(1) & (4)) spent catalyst is a solid waste is in a package, if the HIM is not present (171.2(f)), and [2] the word "waste" is an operative and/or descriptive In light of the EPA rules and in consideration of the HMR requirements. [1] No person shall represent that HM to ta ta sping zard waste 172.101(9), can we describe the spent catalyst as a waste on a non-manifest shipping document without violating the HMR? Other specific questioris (Q) concerning this matter are: noted in the HMR? Q. Is the word "waste" when used in the transport / transportation arena confined to it's specified use as • (carrier) of such material be a licensed waste hauler? Q. If use of the word "waste" is acceptable on a non-manifest shipping document must the transporter numbers shown below. Should there be any questions concerning this request, I may be contacted at the above address or telephone Thanks for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Tel (732) 321-6046 Ronald J. Stokes Fax (732) 321-6057 Email: ron.j.stokes@exxonmobil.com#