Mr. Leighton Ford — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1• U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Research and Washington, D.C. 20590 Special Programs Administration OCT 3 0 2003 Mr. Leighton Ford 7011 East Avenue, MS9221 Ref. No. 03-0262 Livermore, CA 94550 Dear Mr. Ford: This is in response to your letter dated October 17, 2003 regarding the asbestos requirements found in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR: 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask if § 173.216(b) and Special Provision 156 preclude a shipper from offering "non-friable" asbestos under the description "Asbestos, 9, NA2212, III." The answer is no. Even though asbestos, when it is immersed or fixed in a natural or artificial • binder material, such as cement, plastic, asphalt, resins or mineral ore, or contained in manufactured products (i.e., non-friable asbestos), is excepted from the HMR by Special Provision 156 and § 173.216(b) a shipper may still classify it as a Class 9 material. In doing so the shipper could use the description "Asbestos, 9, NA2212, II" to ship the material domestically. I hope this satisfies your request. Sincerely, Disa Chof Susan Gorsky Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist Office of Hazardous Materials Standards#

Page 2supko $173.216 Dear Mr. Mazzullo, Asbestos I recently spoke with Ben Supko of your staff and he suggested that | write a letter to your office requesting an "It. 03-0262 official interpretation of 173.216 (a) and 173.216(b). Section 173.216 (a) lists the various types of asbestos subjected to HMR but it does not specifically address asbestos. I do understand that 173.216(b) does allow asbestos immersed in cement or manufactured articles, whether or not the "Asbestos, 9, NA2212, III" proper shipping name is only to be used for "friable" forms of etc., to be excepted from the subchapter (not subject to HMR). In addition, Mr. Supko also mentioned that Special excepted from the HMR. If I elect not to use 173.216 (b) and I do have non-friable asbestos, and I choose to use a Provision 156, as mentioned in HM215-E, July 31, 2003, specifically allows asbestos immersed in a binder to be uniform hazardous waste manifest, am I disallowed from using the "Asbestos, 9, NA2212, III" proper shipping violating any section in the HMR by shipping my non-friable asbestos waste under the "Asbestos, 9, NA2212, I!!" name in lieu of "Non-Hazardous" or "Non-RCRA Hazardous Waste Solid"? Said in a different way, would | be proper shipping name? Does the use of the "Asbestos, 9, NA2212, III" proper shipping name and the fact that it is a hazard class 9 insinuates that the asbestos being shipped is or has to be "friable"? My position is that the use of with whether or not the asbestos being shipped is friable or non-friable. Asbestos is Class 9 material because it is the "Asbestos, 9, NA2212, Ill" proper shipping name does not specifically indicate, nor does it have anything to do a listed hazardous substance and the only mention of a "friable" form occurs when one needs to RQ for Asbestos. in the hazardous substance table does it separate asbestos into friable or non-friable form other than when you It is my understanding that the double cent sign found in the RQ table ONLY applies to the friable form. Nowhere would have to RQ for the "friable" asbestos. Shipping me, its zard cass 9 material and therefore by default, the asbestos has to be friable. Non-friable A disposal facility here in California is saying that because 1 am using the "Asbestos, 9, NA2212, III" proper asbestos cannot be shipped under this shipping name and is a manifest discrepancy per DOT (incorrect shipping "friable" forms of asbestos but because it does so, this also means that the proper shipping name is ONLY for The disposal facility is also saying that the double cent sign not only applies to the RQ determination for "friable" forms. Again, I am saying that the HMR does not explicitly say that "Asbestos, 9, NA2212, III" can only bi if you meet the condition of 173.216(b) but is it incorrect to not choose this option? Is there any reason why you ised for "friable" forms of asbestos. I would like to point out again that I understand that asbestos is not regulates could not use "Asbestos, 9, NA2212, III" to describe non-friable asbestos while being transported to the disposal facility? It was at this point that Ben and 1 agreed that we should seek an official interpretation. (non-friable). A friable form of Asbestos-containing material exhibits the characteristic for toxicity and is a non- For your information, in California, transite forms of asbestos are not considered hazardous waste in California non-RCRA hazardous asbestos-containing material is 151. Non-Friable asbestos-containing waste is sent to a RCRA hazardous waste if it contains greater than or equal to 1.0 percent asbestos. The California waste code for landfill without a state code and is considered nonhazardous from a land disposal point of view. Nonhazardous asbestos-containing material is subject to regulation by the California regional air quality management district (AQMD). Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me @ (925) 294-4506 Regards, 7011 East Avenue, MS9221 Leighton Ford Livermore, California 94550#