{"operation":"document","citation":"04-0182","title":"Occupational Safety Specialists — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2006-02-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"04-0182 response to Occupational Safety Specialists concerning 172.203.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0182.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0182.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-04-0182","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2004/040182.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nMr. Steve Laughlin\nRef. No. 04-0182\nOccupational Safety Specialists\n519 Hillcrest Lane\nLindenhurst, IL 60046\nDear Mr. Laughlin:\nThis responds to your letter regarding hazardous substance\ndeterminations under the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). I apologize for the delay in\nresponding and any inconvenience it may have caused. Your\nquestions are paraphrased and answered as follows:\ne1.\nA hazardous waste generator is to offer spent sulfuric\nacid (100%)\nfor transportation.\nBecause it is also a RCRA\nwaste, it will require designation as a D002 unlisted waste\ncharacteristic of corrosivity.\nThe reportable quantity\n(RQ) for sulfuric acid is 1000 Ibs (454 kg) while the\nreportable quantity for uniisted waste code D002 is 100 lbs\n(45.4 kg). Which reportable quantity, if any, has\nprecedence over the other?\nAl. In the scenario you provide, since the specific\nconstituent of the hazardous waste and its respective\nconcentration is known, the RQ for the constituent (i.e.,\nsulfuric acid/1000 lbs\n(451 kg)) should be used when\ndetermining whether a reportable quantity has been met.\nQ2.\nA hazardous waste generator is to offer a waste stream\n(F003) that is primarily acetone with trace amounts of\nwater for transportation.\nThe reportable quantity for\nwaste stream F003 is 100 lbs (45.4 kg) while the reportable\nquantity listed for acetone in waste stream F003 is 5000\nIbs (2270 kg). Which reportable quantity, if any, has\nprecedence over the other?\nA2. In the scenario you provide, since the specific\nconstituent of the waste stream (acetone) is known but the\nspecific concentration of acetone is unknown, you would\napply the total amount of hazardous waste in the packaging\n172.203C)\n040182\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nreportable quantity listed for a known constituent\n(acetone)\nin this waste stream\nis 5000 lbs (2270 kg) ?\nA3. The lower RO value is a default RQ value only to be\nused when some or all the hazardous constituents of a\nparticular waste stream (e.g., F003) are unknown. Because\nthe specific hazardous constituent (acetone) in\nstream in your above scenario is known, it is permissible\nto use the higher RQ value.\nQ4. A hazardous waste generator is to offer a 55-gallon\ndrum of soil that is contaminated with lead (D008/15 ppm).\nThe reportable quantity for unlisted waste D008 is 10 Ibs\n(4.54 kg). A 15 ppm concentration of lead in a 55-gallon\ndrum of contaminated soil weighs less than 10 lbs.\nthe concentration of lead in the drum is known, it is our\nunderstanding that a reportable quantity has not been met.\nAre we correct?\nA4. Yes, you are correct.\n05. Is it permissible to use a waste code (e.g., D008) to\nidentify a hazardous substance on a shipping paper?\nA5. Yes, see § 172.203 (c) .\nQ6. Is it a violation of the HMR to mark a package or\nannotate on a shipping paper the letters \"RQ\" when a\nreportable quantity is not present?\nA6. If only the residue of a hazardous substance remains\nin a package, the \"RQ\" markings may remain on a package\neven when a reportable quantity is not present.\nshipping paper in this scenario should be consistent with\nthe markings on the package by prefacing the shipping\ndescription with \"RESIDUE Last Contained***\" as provided by\n§ 172.203 (e) (1). In all other circumstances, however, a\nshipping paper should not identify a package as containing\na reportable quantity nor should a package be marked \"RQ\"\nwhen a reportable quantity is not present.\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nhazardous substance must be entered in parentheses in\nassociation with the basic description. This may be\naccomplished by placing the name of the hazardous substance\neither immediately following the proper shipping name or\nthe basic description.\nQ8. If a material contains multiple hazardous substances,\nhow many must be listed on a shipping paper in association\nwith the basic description?\nA8. As specified in § 172.203 (c), when a material contains\ntwo or more hazardous\nsubstances, at least two hazardous\nsubstances, including the two with the lowest reportable\nquantities (R@s), must be identified.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if\nwe can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nHotte\nx. Michel\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and\nReinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials\nStandards\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nUS DOT/RSPA (DHM-10)\n400 7* Street S.W.\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nAttn: Mr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nDear Sir/Madame,\nOver the last several years I have heard varying interpretations on the proper\napplication of Reportable Quantities in association with proper shipping\ndescriptions. More specifically as this issue relates to the shipment of materials\nalso deemed hazardous wastes under the RCRA regulations. I am hopeful that\nyou will be able to provide me with some clear direction on how to proceed in\nthese matters including specific and clear-cut answers to the examples I have\nincluded in this correspondence.\nThere are several scenarios under common waste disposal practices that do not\nappear to be specifically addressed within the scope of the HMR and Hazardous\nSubstances Appendix. I believe that examples will be the most efficient method\nof discussing these issues.\n1) Hazardous waste generator has spent sulfuric acid no longer usable in\ntheir process. The material is primarily still sulfuric acid and would be\nproperly shipped using the PSD of Sulfuric Acid, spent, 8, UN1830, II.\nBecause it is also regulated as a hazardous waste under RCRA regulations,\nit also will bear a D002 waste code. The HS Appendix includes RQ's for\nwaste codes. In the table, the D002 states it is for Unlisted Hazardous\nWaste and has an RQ of 100lb. While sulfuric is not considered a \"listed\"\ncode under EPA regulations, it would still bear a D002 if the waste's pH\nwas ≤2. We will assume for our example that it should carry the D002.\nWhile it is not considered a listed waste, the generator/shipper does know\nthe specific chemical constituent (Sulfuric Acid - RQ - 1000lb).\nWhen waste codes apply and the constituent is known, which takes\nprecedence, the chemical RQ or the waste code RQ?\nEH&s Training Specialists\n519 Hillerest Lane, Lindenhuest, IL. 60046\nPhone: 847-265-1304\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nWillace drums We be a d a be de cas case re\nmaterial is considered a listed hazardous waste bearing an F003 waste\ncode (many states require all applicable waste codes be applied therefore\nrequiring a D001 as well).\nIn the hazardous substances table, the RQ directly across from the F003\ncode indicates an RQ of 100lb. The table then lists directly below the F003\nthe specifically listed solvents for that code, including Acetone and its\nchemical specific RQ of 5000lbs.\nAs the name implies, listed codes are for specific chemicals so it is not\npossible to carry an F listed solvent code and not know the specific\nchemical. Why the reference to Acetone and 5000lb directly below the\nF003 code, when an F003 has an RQ of 100lbs?\n3) Hazardous waste generator has soil contaminated with lead. The soil is\ntested for TCLP the results indicate the concentration of lead from the test\nto be 15ppm thereby making it regulated under RCRA as a D008.\nAccording to the RQ table, D008 has an RQ of 10lbs. Is the shipper\nallowed to calculate the actual amount of lead and compare it against\n10bls or is the entire container considered D008 hazardous waste and\ntherefore the entire contents of the container compared against lead? A\n55-gallon drum of contaminated soil would weigh more than 10lbs, but\n15ppm of TCLP lead in a 55 gallon would not calculate out to more than\n10lbs. Which would be the appropriate designation?\nAlso, can an EPA RCRA waste code be used as an NOS descriptor or RQ\nindicator when applicable? EX. Hazardous Waste Solid, n.o.s. (D008)...\n4) Can and would the DOT cite a shipper for carrying an RQ when it was not\nnecessary. I was told of an instance in Pennsylvania where this situation\noccurred, but I have no specific information to verify its accuracy?\nEH&S Training Specialists\n519 Hillerest Lane, Lindenhurst, IT. 60046\nPhone: 847-265-1304\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n6) For materials carrying multiple RQs, how many are required to be listed in\nassociation with the proper shipping descriptions?\nI thank you for your time in responding to these questions. Over the years, I\nhave found the RSPA hotline extremely responsive on most issues. I realize these\nquestions represent some of the more complicated issues in applying the\nregulations but it is why I turn to you for assistance in how the DOT would like\nto see these issues handled. A simple quoting of HMR and locations where RQs\nare referenced within them has proved ineffective and frustrating. I look forward\nto reading your response.\nSincerely,\nStave Jauflin\nSteve Laughlin\nEH&S Training Specialists\n519 Hillerest Lane, Lindenhurst. IT. 60046\nPhone: 847-265-1304","truncated":false,"body_characters":8838}