{"operation":"document","citation":"05-0235R","title":"Huntsman — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2007-07-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"05-0235R response to Huntsman concerning 173.12, 173.28.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0235r.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0235r.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-05-0235r","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2005/050235.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington. D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nJUL 17 2007\nClifford W. Lester, MSPH. CIH, EMT B. DGSA\nHazardous Communication Specialist\nReference No. 05-0235R\nHuntsman\n10003 Woodloch Forest Drive\nThe Woodlands, TX 77380\nDear Mr. Lester:\nrequest for clarification on how to package and describe spent catalysts being transported to a\nThis serves as a retraction of our June 7, 2006 (Ref. No. 05-0235) letter responding to your\nfacility for reclamation under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-\nclasses under the HMR, and your company enters the appropriate description for each material\n180). In the scenario described in your letter, the catalysts meet the definitions of various hazard\non a standard bill-of-lading. You also state the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has\ndetermined these materials are solid wastes under 40 CFR 261.1(c)(1) and (c)(4),\nbut does not require them to be manifested as hazardous waste. Upon further review, we find\nour previous responses to your questions were incorrect. Your paraphrased questions and the\ncorrect answers are specified below. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.\nQ1.\nWe currently use new UN standard drums to transport these spent catalysts to a facility\nfor final reclamation because we interpret that the original drums do not conform to\nIs our understanding correct?\n§ 173.12(c) solely because these material do not meet the definition of a hazardous waste.\nYour understanding is not correct. As specified in the preamble of Docket HM-218D\n(68 FR 48563; August 14, 2003; pertinent pages enclosed), § 173.12(c) authorizes the\nreuse of packagings for shipments of all wastes, not just waste materials subject to EPA\nwaste manifest requirements, to designated facilities. The preamble further states, \"This\nincludes shipments of spent/waste materials which are being returned to or shipped to an\nEPA licensed and certified Storage or Disposal facility, but are not subject to the Uniform\nHazardous Waste Manifest requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.\"\nQ2.\nIs the term \"waste\" as it is used in §§ 173.12(c) and 173.28 restricted to those materials\nmeeting EPA's definition of a hazardous waste?\nA2.\nThe answer is no. See Al.\n173.12 (c)\n173.28\n050235R\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nDoes a spent catalyst that is not an EPA-manifested waste being transported to a facility\nfor reclamation qualify for inclusion in the exception to reuse the non-bulk packagings\nauthorized for wastes under § 173.12(c).\nA3.\nYes. See answer Al.\nI hope this information is helpful.\nSincerely\nHattie L. Mitchell, Chief\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nRegulatory Review and Reinvention\nEnclosure\n10003 Woodloch Forest Drive • The Woodlands, Texas 77380 • 713-235-6000 • Fax 713-235-6416\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nEdmonson\n$173.12 (e)\nHUNTSMAN\n$ 173-28\nWaste/Reuse\nMr. Clifford W. Lester, MSPH, CIH, EMT-B, DGSA 05-02.35\n10003 Woodloch Forest Drive\nThe Woodlands, Texas 77308\nSeptember 19, 2005\nDirector, Hazardous Material Safety\n400 7* Street SW\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nWashingtor, DC 20590\nRef:\n§173.12(c)\n$173.28\nDear Sir,\nPursuant to the referenced requirements, we a looking for guidance concerning the shipment of DOT\nvarious components are reclaimed. These catalyst are a hazardous material as defined by the HMR in\nhazardous catalyst for reclamation. We ship a material that is a spent catalyst to a facility where\nladen not a waste manifest pursuant to the US EPA's determination in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(1) & (4) spent\n49 CFR 171.8 based on the characteristics of the material, however we ship this material on a bill-of-\ncatalyst is a solid waste (but not a hazardous waste requiring the use of a manifest).\nreclamation\nOur current practice is to use new UN specification drums when shipping these spent catalysts for fina\nrequirements of 49 CFR 173.12(c), solely as a result of the material not meeting the EPA definition of a\nur interpretation is that the use of the original drums does not conform to the\nIn light of the above, is the term \"waste\" as it is used in 49 CFR 173. 12(c) and 173.28 restricted to only\nthose materials meeting the EPA's definition of hazardous? Would the shipment of a spent catalyst to\na reclamation facility qualify for inclusion in the exception listed in 173.12(c) for reuse of a non-bulk\nShould you have any questions concerning my request, please contact me at (281) 719-6622\nSincerely.\nHazardous Communication Specialist\nClifford W. Lester, MSPH, CIH, EMT'B, DGSA\n10003 Woodloch Forest Drive • The Woodlands, Texas 77380 • 713-235-6000 • Fax 713-235-6416","truncated":false,"body_characters":4709}