{"operation":"document","citation":"03-0037","title":"Regulatory Resources, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2006-01-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"03-0037 response to Regulatory Resources, Inc. concerning 172.101.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0037.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0037.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-03-0037","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2003/030037.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nJ.S. Department\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nHazardous Materials Safety\nJAN 12 2006\nMr. Wade A. Winters, CET, CHMM\nPresident\nRef. No.: 03-0037\n240 Joshua Road\nRegulatory Resources, Inc.\nKennewick, WA 99338\nDear Mr. Winters:\nThis is in response to your letter dated January 23, 2003, concerning requirements in the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) for determining the appropriate\nreportable quantity (RQ) for a hazardous waste. I apologize for the delay in responding to your\ninquiry.\nIn your letter, you question this office's previous interpretations on the appropriate RQ for a\nhazardous waste for which the constituents are known but specific percentages are unknown.\nYou state that our previous interpretations on this topic are inconsistent with interpretations and\nguidance issued t? the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).\nIn past interpretations, we have stated that if the constituents of a hazardous waste and its\nthat if the hazardous waste's constituents or their respective concentrations are unknown, then\nconcentrations are known, then the RQ for the constituent is appropriate. We have also stated\nthe appropriate RQ is that which is assigned to the hazardous waste.\nYou are correct that EPA interpretations and guidance state that, for a hazardous waste for which\nall of the constitu. ts are known but their respective concentrations are unknown, ..uRQ for the\nconstituent should be used. Therefore, we are revising our previous guidance on this issue. To\ndetermine the RQ for a hazardous waste for which the constituents are known, but their\nrespective concentrations are unknown, you should apply the total amount of the hazardous\nwaste in the packaging to the individual constituents to determine if an RQ has been met.\nI appreciate your bringing this inconsistency to our intention. We will make every attempt to\nring this change in policy to the attention of the regulated community. Please contact us if you\nequire additional assistance\nSincerely,\n172.101\nSusan Gorsky\nActing Director\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n030037\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nBelertord\n§172.101\nHazardous Substance\nKennewick, WA 99338\n240 Joshua Road\nvoice: 509-628-1020\n03-0037\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nfax: 509-628-0972\nJanuary 23, 2003\nDirector\nMr. Edward Mazzullo,\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards (DHM-10)\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\n400 Seventh Street, SW\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nRegulatory Resources, Inc. (RRI) is a consulting and training company serving clients subject to the\nDepartment of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) and the Environmental\nregulations are referenced by these, one being the requirements for reporting hazardous substances as\nProtection Agency (EPA) solid and hazardous waste management regulation. Naturally, other federal\nrequired by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).\nWe at RRI believe it is imperative that both the CERCLA and DOT's Research and Special Programs\nAdministration (RSPA) apply the hazardous substance reportable quantity determinations in the same\nmanner. For RSPA to impose differing RQ determinations places a tremendous and unnecessary burden\non consignors and carriers. Based on the letters from RSPA referenced in this request for clarification, a\nconsignor and carrier must designate a hazardous substance according to RSPA application and then\nprovide a completely new determination for actual CERCLA reporting. I find this to be in conflict with the\nstatement made in 49 CFR 172.101, Appendix A, paragraph 1, second sentence:\n\"This listing fulfills the requirements of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C 9656(a), that all \"hazardous\nsubstances\" as defined in 42 U.S.C. 9601(14), be listed and regulated as hazardous\nmaterials under 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127.\" (emphasis added)\nhazardous substances and the establishment of the reportable quantity (RQ) values. For the purpose of\nBefore we can present our concerns, RRI believes it is important to provide a brief background of\nthe background information, the term \"chemical\" includes compounds of chemicals, and the implying\nrelease or potential release of a hazardous substance assumes release within a 24 hour period.\nBackground\nTo provide an effective and comprehensive response to the problems caused by releases of hazardous\nAct of 1980 (amended in 1986). In this Act, Congress defined a hazardous substance (section 101(14))\nsubstances, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability\nto include \"...any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section\n3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act...\" To ensure that the EPA acted in a timely manner incorporating the\nrequirements of the Act, Congress established a \"hammer\" date that set statutory RQ values for hazardous\nsubstance for which RQ values were not yet established. The EPA has since developed and revised the\nmodeling program that evaluates a given chemical and determines its RQ value based on various criteria.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n40 Joshua Roa\negulatory Resources, In\nVoice: 509-628-102\nKennewick, WA 99338\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nax: 509-628-093\nJanuary 23, 2003\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nPage 2 of 8\nTherefore, chemicals specifically listed on the CERCLA Hazardous Substance list in 40 CFR 302.4 have an\nRO value established either through specific modeling results or statutory requirement (I believe many are\nnow based on modeling results).\nEstablishing an RQ Value\nThe RQ for a given chemical is determined based upon the intrinsic properties of the chemical. These\ninclude aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal and inhalation), ignitability, reactivity, chronic\ntoxicity (including neurotoxic effect), and potential carcinogenicity. Intrinsic properties are termed \"primary\ncriteria.\"\nGenerally, for each primary criteria, EPA ranks the chemical on a scale. The data for the chemical are\nthe primary criteria RQ for that chemical. Two factors play into this rating value, one being the dose that\nevaluated leading to different values for each specific criteria. The lowest of the tentative RQs becomes\ncauses a particular effect and the other based on the severity of the effect. The product of the dose and\n1-100.\neffect rating (both using a 1-10 rating scale where 10 is the most toxic) yields a composite score between\nThe EPA also considers bioavailability when determining RQ values. Bioavailability represents the rate and\nby various routes, such as ingestion. (Solubility, as used in context to bioavailability is different insomuch\nextent to which a chemical is absorbed or otherwise assimilated into the body tissue following exposure\nas solubility refers to the degree to which a material dissolves in the gastric fluid of the stomach.)\nAfter primary criteria are assigned, EPA further evaluates the chemical on its susceptibility to certain\ndegradative processes, i.e., secondary criteria. If the chemical, when released into the environment,\nlevel (e.g., from 4.54 kg to 45.4 kg). However, if the chemical degrades to a more hazardous product after\ndegrades at a relatively rapid rate to a less hazardous form, its primary RQ value may be raised one RQ\nits release, an adjusted RQ may be assigned lower than that obtained for the primary RQ.\nIn summary, the value assigned a given hazardous substance is not a random selection but rather is a\nvalue based on research and modeling results.\nIdentity of Listed and Unlisted Hazardous Substances\nIn 40 CFR 302.4 (a), EPA defines Listed Hazardous Substances to include \"...the elements and compounds\nand hazardous wastes appearing in Table 302.4..\" (emphasis added). This definition encompasses all\nmaterials, including hazardous wastes identified by name in the §302.4 Table. The fact that a chemical\nlisted by name may also be designated as a RCRA hazardous waste (e.g., waste codes assigned) is\nirrelevant in how it is identified in the $302.4 Table.\nFor \"unlisted\" hazardous substances, 302.4(b), states \"...a solid waste, as defined in 40 CFR 261.2, which\nis not excluded from regulations as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.4(b), is a hazardous substance\nunder section 101(14) of the Act if it exhibits any of the characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261.20 through\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nRegulatory Resources, Inc\nKennewick, WA 99338\n240 Joshua Road\nVoice: 509-628-1020\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nFax: 509-628-0972\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nJanuary 23, 2003\nPage 3 of 8\nregulations per §261.4(b) is an \"unlisted\" hazardous substance if: (1) the chemical name is not found in\n261.24.\" Therefore, a hazardous waste which cannot be excluded from RCRA waste management\nthe list of hazardous substances, and (2) the waste exhibits a characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity,\nreactivity, or toxicity (\"D\" coded waste).\nSince the definition of \"listed hazardous substance\" specifically includes hazardous wastes, acetone\nBased on these two definitions, acetone (listed by name at 2270 kg) is a \"listed\" hazardous substance.\nremains a listed hazardous substance even though it carries the characteristic of ignitability in 40 CFR\n261.21 when a hazardous waste. Therefore, acetone cannot become an \"unlisted\" hazardous substance\nuntil such time EPA removes acetone from the §302.4 list of hazardous substances.\nIsoamyl alcohol is not listed in the §302.4 Table. As a material, this chemical is not a hazardous substance.\n(D001). Because Congress specifically stated that all RCRA hazardous waste must be included as\nAs a hazardous waste, isoamyl alcohol meets the defining criteria for the RORA characteristic of ignitability\nhazardous substances, isoamyl alcohol, when a hazardous waste, becomes a hazardous substance\nbased on the \"unlisted\" application.\nThe RQ value for a hazardous substance is based, if not by the \"harmer\" provision, on results generated\nchemical is a product or waste; the regulatory status of the chemical has no bearing on the characteristics\nthrough specific modeling - primary and secondary criteria. This criteria is impartial to whether the\nof the chemical. Hence, the primary and secondary criteria results obtained through modeling is not\naffected by the regulatory definition (i.e., material or waste) of the chemical.\nRQ Value Assignment\nsubstance, §302.5(a) specifically states, \"The quantity listed in the column \"Final RQ\" for each substance\nAssignment of an RQ value to a hazardous substance is defined in 40 CFR 302.5. For a \"listed\" hazardous\nin Table 5302.4... is the reportable quantity (RQ) for that substance.\" Based on 5302.1, a \"substance\" (i.e.,\nNo exceptions to this statement are presented in §302.5.\nlisted substance in this context) is the element, compound and hazardous waste listed in Table $302.4.\nThe RQ value assigned for an \"unlisted\" hazardous substance is addressed in §302.5(b), \"Unlisted hazardous\nsubstances designated by §302.4(b)...\" This introductory statement specifically identifies that the\nassignment of an RQ value for unlisted hazardous substance applies only to RCRA hazardous wastes\ndesignated with a \"D\" waste code and for which are not specifically \"listed\" in the §302.4 Table.\nIt is important to recognize that the assignment of a waste code to a RCRA hazardous waste is to address\nand assianments are not a consequence of any requirement or action under CERCLA.\nthe proper management and disposal of that hazardous waste as defined in RCRA. Waste code criteria\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nRed Joshua Rearces, InC.\nVoice: 509-628-1020\nKennewick, WA 99338\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nFax: 509-628-097\nJanuary 23, 2003\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nPage 4 of 8\nDetermination for Notification\nsubstance is released into the environment. For example, a release of at least 2,270 kg of acetone to the\nNotification of a release of a hazardous substance is made whenever the RQ amount of a hazardous\nenvironment (including a containerized spil) within a 24-hour period is a release of an RQ amount of the\nhazardous substance acetone.\nTo determine if notification is required for releases of mixtures and solutions of hazardous substances,\nCERCLA applies the \"mixture rule\" [40 CFR 302.6(b)(1)(i)]. The use of the mixture rule hinges on knowing the\nconcentration of constituents present within the mixture. If concentrations are known; the mixture rule\nreleased in an amount greater than or equal to its RQ. Under this rule, hazardous substances are not\nprovides that releases must be reported as soon as a component hazardous substance of the mixture is\nadditive. For example, if one-half of an RQ of each of two hazardous substances in the mixture is released,\nCERCLA hazardous substance notification is not required.\nIf the specific concentrations of the hazardous substance constituents) in the mixture are not known, a\nrelease must be reported when the amount released of the constituents) comprising the unknown\nexample, two constituents comprise a five pound mix. The RQ value for the constituents is one pound and\nconcentration of the mixture reaches the RQ for the hazardous substance having the lowest RQ. For\nrequired based on the constituent with the one pound RQ value.\nten pounds. If one pound or more of the mixture is released into the environment, an RQ notification is\nThe application of the CERCLA mixture rule does not affect the designation of \"listed\" or \"unlisted\"\nto a given hazardous substance (40 CFR 302.5)\nhazardous substances (40 CFR 302.4), nor does it in any way alter the designation of the RQ value assigned\nApplication to the DOT HMRS\nThe requirements for determining an RQ for purpose of DOT regulations is located in $171.8 and §172.101,\nAppendix A. The requirement to assign the RQ value is addressed in 5172.101, Appendix A, paragraph 1,\nmaterials...\" (codified in 40 CFR 302.4 and 302.5). The criteria to determine if a release of an RQ amount\n\"...that all hazardous substances as defined in 42 U.S.C. 9601(14) be listed and regulated as hazardous\nis a release requiring notification (e.g., an RQ in a single package) is addressed in 40 CFR 302.6 and 49\nCFR 171.15.\nThree letters issued by RSPA concerning the assignment of RQ values to hazardous waste has confused this\nsubject since they do not agree with RI's understanding of the CERCLA process for identifying the\nhazardous substance and assigning the RQ value. These letters are Reference Nos. 99-0145 (June 28,\nfor your convenience.\n1999); October 21, 1997 (Mr. Bill Barrow); and 02-0111 (September 11, 2002). All three letters are enclosed\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nR4o aty Resources, In\nVoice: 509-628-102(\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nFax: 509-628-097:\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nJanuary 23, 2003\nPage 5 of 8\nReference No. 99-0145 (June 28, 1999) and Letter to Mr. Bill Barrow (October 21, 1997)\nThe June 28, 1999, letter lists eight questions (Q) with RSPA's responses (A). Questions 7a and 7b\ntrichloroethylene, F001 and F002, respectively. Please note that 1,1, 1-trichloroethane (RQ= 1000\nconcern RQ issues. In question 7a, RSPA is presented a scenario with 1,1,1-trichloroethane and\npounds) and trichloroethylene (RQ=100 pounds) are both listed hazardous substances. The letter\nstates:\nQ7a.\n\"..If the actual concentration is not known, then the reportable\nquantity for the entry F001 and F002 would be the threshold for\ndetermining if the material is a hazardous substance. Is this correct?\nA7a.\n076.\n\"Use the same scenario as in 7(a) above except that the\nconcentrations of each constituent is not known to be within\nspecified range. In this case, would I calculate the highest range\nlimit for each constituent and use that to determine if there is a\nA7b.\nreportable quantity for the entry F001 or F002 is the threshold for\nknown only approximately or within a specified range, the\nBased on RRI's understanding, the CERCLA determination for the identity of a hazardous substance\nare the April 4, 1985, RQ final rule; EPA guidance publication, \"Questions and Answers on Release\nand the assignment of the RQ value differs from RSPA's responses. The resources for this conclusion\nNotification Requirements and Reportable Quantity Adjustments\", Publication 9360.7-14, PB 94-\n963403, EPA/540-R-94-005; and subsequent conversations with the EPA Hotline CERCLA group. We\nbelieve, if a given constituent is listed in the list of hazardous substances, the RQ value used is that\nassociated with the listed constituent. The fact that the listed constituent is also a hazardous waste\n(RCRA) is not relevant in assigning the RQ value [40 CFR 302.4(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 302.5(a) and\n(b)]. For example, both 1,1,1-trichloroethane and trichloroethylene are listed on the hazardous\nsubstance list. Therefore, the RQ value assigned to each constituent, regardless of applicability to\nconcentration of the constituent. The CERCLA mixture rule addressed in 40 CFR 302.6(b)(1)( is used\nRCRA, is the listed value. The \"assignment\" of the RQ value has nothing to do with knowing the\nfor known concentrations. If any one or more of the hazardous constituents of the mixture or solution\nvalue. When to report the release of an RQ amount, as supported in 49 CFR 171.15, is found in 40\nare unknown, then the applicability of release reporting is affected, not the assignment of the RQ\nCFR 302.6.\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n240 Joshua Road\nRegulatory Resources, Inc.\noice: 509-628-102\nKennewick, WA 99338\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nax: 509-628-097\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nJanuary 23, 2003\nPage 6 of 8\nor contains unknown constituents (unknown wastes present other concerns beyond CERCLA, and is\nThe only time the F001 or F002 code is used as the \"default\" RQ, value is if the waste itself is unknown\nnot consistent with proper waste management operations). Therefore, based on our understanding\nof 40 CFR 302, the hazardous substance identity in Q7a and Q7b is the listed hazardous substance\nbased on the \"assigned\" RQ for each listed hazardous substance. The fact that the actual\n(e.g., 1,1,1-trichloroethane at 1,000 pounds and trichloroethylene at 100 pounds). The RQ value is\nconcentration is not known does not alter the identity or reassign the RQ value of the hazardous\nsubstance.\nThe second letter, dated October 21, 1997 again concerns the selection of the RQ value based on\n1,1,1-trichloroethane, a listed hazardous substance with an RQ of 1000 pounds. Below is an excerpt\nthe waste constituent or the applicable waste stream. An example was provided in this letter using\nfrom the letter:\n\"...1,1,1-trichloroethane is the only constituent and its concentration in a mixture or\nsolution is known, then the RQ for 1,1,1-trichloroethane is appropriate. However, if the\nwaste's constituent or its respective concentration is unknown, then the appropriate RQ\nis that which is assigned to the waste stream. For example, 10 lbs. is the appropriate RO\nfor\nwastes included under Waste Stream F001 (the waste stream for\n1,1,1-trichloroethane).\" (emphasis added)\nAgain, our conclusion (and that of the CERCLA hotline) differs from your view that the RQ value for the\n1,1,1-trichloroethane and trichloroethylene is based on the waste code F001 and F002, respectively.\nlisted RQ value is assigned to each, the reporting requirement is based on the constituent's listed RO\nRather, since both hazardous constituents are listed by name in the hazardous substance list and a\nvalue and not the default \"F\" waste code value. It is our understanding the only time the default \"f\"\nwaste.\nwaste code RQ value is used for assignment of the RQ value is if the waste is, or contains, an unknown\nthe CERCLA mixture rule as integrated into the DOT regulations\nThe following conclusions are provided based on our research of RQ designation and applicability of\nA.\nA package contains an F001 and F002 waste consisting of 150 pounds of\nAl'East\nby name on the hazardous substance list [40 CFR 302.4(a)] and are assigned their\n1,1, 1-trichloroethane and 150 pounds of trichloroethylene. Both constituents are listed\nrespective RQ values of 1000 pounds and 100 pounds |40 CFR 302.5(a)]. For EPA\nrelease reporting and DOT transport purposes, an RQ is present for the trichloroethylene\nGent\n(49 CFR 171.8).\nB.\nA package contains an F001 and F002 waste consisting of 1,1,1-trichloroethane and\ntrichloroethylene. The net weight of the waste is 300 pounds. The identity of all\nconstituents are known, however, the concentration of each is unknown [40 CFR\nEcol - 10\n111-\n1000\ntillere - 100\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n240 atua Resources, InC.\nVoice: 509-628-1021\nKennewick, WA 99338\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nFax: 509-628-097:\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nJanuary 23, 2003\nPage 7 of g\n302.6(b)(1)(ii)]). Both constituents are listed by name on the hazardous substance list (40\nCFR 302.4(a)) and are assigned their respective RQ values of 1000 pounds and 100\npounds [40 CFR 302.5(a)]. For EPA release reporting and DOT transport purposes, ar\nRO is present for the trichloroethylene (49 CFR 171.8)\nC. A package contains an unknown waste, net weight of 300 pounds. Halogenated\nhydrocarbons used in large scale and small scale degreasing operations (e.g., used\nas a solvent) are suspected based on process knowledge. The waste is, therefore,\nAll\nassigned waste codes F001 and F002. No other information is available on the waste\nGood\nthe F001 and F002 waste codes each at 10 pounds. Concentrations of the unknown\nat this time. Since the constituents are not known, the RQ value assigned is based on\nused [40 CFR 302.6(b)(2)(i)] and an RQ exists for both F001 and F002.\nconstituents cannot yet be obtained, therefore, the CERCLA mixture rule cannot be\nA package contains some trichloroethylene and other constituents yet to be\ndetermined. The net weight is 300 pounds. Halogenated hydrocarbons used in small\nknowledge. The waste is, therefore, assigned waste codes F002 and D040. No other\nscale cleaning operations (e.g., used as a solvent) are suspected based on process\nwrony,\ninformation is available about the waste at this time. Since the concentration of the\nconstituents is not known, the CERCLA mixture rule cannot be employed. However, one\nPerEPA.\nconstituent (tichoroethylene) of the mixture is known to be a listed hazardous 5'r C. you\nsubstance, therefore, the constituent and its assigned RQ value (100 pounds) apply.\nThe remaining constituents are not yet known. Forthese unknown constituents, the RO it e. A knom\nfor trichloroethylene and F002.\nassigned to each given waste stream (e.g, F002) applies. Hence, this waste is an RQ\ncansittuent,\nprovide clarification for your RQ value assignment and determination processes and provide any\nPlease provide comments for the above scenarios (A, B, C, and D). Since our views differ, would you\ninformation that indicates RSPA's authority to change the identity of the hazardous substance and its\nassigned RQ value.\nReference No. 02-0111 (September 11, 2002)\nThe September 11, 2002 letter lists three specific questions concerning RQs. Question 2 states:\nQ2: \"A D001 hazardous waste contains water and Ethyl cyanide, also known as\n\"Propionitrile, 3, 6.1, UN 2404, PG II.\" The concentration of Ethyl cyanide\nis not known. Its RQ is 4.54 kg (10 pounds). The net weight of the waste per\ncontain an RQ of Ethyl cyanide, my company does not know what specific\npackage is 25 pounds. Although it is possible the mixture in one package may\namount or maximum concentration is present. Should we use the RQ of 45.5\nkg (100 pounds) or the RQ for Ethyl cyanide to determine if the waste is a\nhazardous substance?\"\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\negulatory Resources, In\nVoice: 509-528-1020\nwww.regulatoryresources.net\nFax: 509-528-0972\nJanuary 23, 2003\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nPage 8 of 8\nA2: \"Because the concentration of the waste constituent is unknown, the RQ for\nD001 must be used.\"\nRRI does not agree with RSPA's conclusion. Ethyl cyanide is a \"listed\" hazardous substance [40 CFR\nwater mix is not known does not alter its listed identity or assigned RQ value. We agree the CERCLA\n302(a)] with an assigned RQ value of 10 pounds. The fact that the amount of ethyl cyanide in this\nmixture rule cannot be employed. Therefore, an RQ exist in this package for the \"listed\" hazardous\nsubstance at its 10 pound RQ value. The waste code D001 has no applicability to this RQ\ndetermination.\nBased on RSPA's conclusion, if a package of this ethyl cyanide/water mix were to release at least 10\npounds of contents to the environment (in a 24 hour period), a notification to the National Response\nwould violate 40 CFR 302.6 and subject the person responsible for notification to CERCLA criminal\nCenter for release of an RQ amount of a hazardous substance is not required. This lack of action\nenforcement action in 40 CFR 302.7.\nquestion 2 and the citation that grants RSPA the authority to change the CERCLA hazardous substance\nWe request RSPA to provide an explanation of the RQ determination process used in response to\nidentity and assigned RQ value.\nDr. Muzzulo, RRI believes it is imperative that RSPA and CERCLA work to arrive at a single application for\nletters, is providing consignors and carriers a false sense of security. If they comply based on letters from\nhazardous substance determinations. Conflicting designation criteria, as illustrated in the referenced RSPA\npackage for hazardous substances based on CERCLA regulations and then again based on RSPA's\nRSPA they may violate CERCLA reporting requirements. Currently, a consignor and carrier must check each\napplication of CERCLA's requirements, an application RRI believes is inconsistent with the regulations in 40\nThank you for the opportunity to submit this letter of clarification. RRI looks forward to your timely reply.\nFor Regulatory Resources, Inc.,\nPresident\nWade A. Winters, CET, CHMM\nWAW/lom\nEnclosed:\nLetter, June 28, 1999, Reference No. 99-0145\nLetter, October 21, 1997 (Mr. Bill Barrow)\nLetter, September 11, 2002, Ref No. 02-0111","truncated":false,"body_characters":25919}