# Huntsman — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation - **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:** Not available - **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:** <<>> of Transportation U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington. D.C. 20590 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration JUL 17 2007 Clifford W. Lester, MSPH. CIH, EMT B. DGSA Hazardous Communication Specialist Reference No. 05-0235R Huntsman 10003 Woodloch Forest Drive The Woodlands, TX 77380 Dear Mr. Lester: request for clarification on how to package and describe spent catalysts being transported to a This serves as a retraction of our June 7, 2006 (Ref. No. 05-0235) letter responding to your facility for reclamation under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171- classes under the HMR, and your company enters the appropriate description for each material 180). In the scenario described in your letter, the catalysts meet the definitions of various hazard on a standard bill-of-lading. You also state the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined these materials are solid wastes under 40 CFR 261.1(c)(1) and (c)(4), but does not require them to be manifested as hazardous waste. Upon further review, we find our previous responses to your questions were incorrect. Your paraphrased questions and the correct answers are specified below. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Q1. We currently use new UN standard drums to transport these spent catalysts to a facility for final reclamation because we interpret that the original drums do not conform to Is our understanding correct? § 173.12(c) solely because these material do not meet the definition of a hazardous waste. Your understanding is not correct. As specified in the preamble of Docket HM-218D (68 FR 48563; August 14, 2003; pertinent pages enclosed), § 173.12(c) authorizes the reuse of packagings for shipments of all wastes, not just waste materials subject to EPA waste manifest requirements, to designated facilities. The preamble further states, "This includes shipments of spent/waste materials which are being returned to or shipped to an EPA licensed and certified Storage or Disposal facility, but are not subject to the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." Q2. Is the term "waste" as it is used in §§ 173.12(c) and 173.28 restricted to those materials meeting EPA's definition of a hazardous waste? A2. The answer is no. See Al. 173.12 (c) 173.28 050235R <<>> Does a spent catalyst that is not an EPA-manifested waste being transported to a facility for reclamation qualify for inclusion in the exception to reuse the non-bulk packagings authorized for wastes under § 173.12(c). A3. Yes. See answer Al. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely Hattie L. Mitchell, Chief Office of Hazardous Materials Standards Regulatory Review and Reinvention Enclosure 10003 Woodloch Forest Drive • The Woodlands, Texas 77380 • 713-235-6000 • Fax 713-235-6416 <<>> Edmonson $173.12 (e) HUNTSMAN $ 173-28 Waste/Reuse Mr. Clifford W. Lester, MSPH, CIH, EMT-B, DGSA 05-02.35 10003 Woodloch Forest Drive The Woodlands, Texas 77308 September 19, 2005 Director, Hazardous Material Safety 400 7* Street SW Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Washingtor, DC 20590 Ref: §173.12(c) $173.28 Dear Sir, Pursuant to the referenced requirements, we a looking for guidance concerning the shipment of DOT various components are reclaimed. These catalyst are a hazardous material as defined by the HMR in hazardous catalyst for reclamation. We ship a material that is a spent catalyst to a facility where laden not a waste manifest pursuant to the US EPA's determination in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(1) & (4) spent 49 CFR 171.8 based on the characteristics of the material, however we ship this material on a bill-of- catalyst is a solid waste (but not a hazardous waste requiring the use of a manifest). reclamation Our current practice is to use new UN specification drums when shipping these spent catalysts for fina requirements of 49 CFR 173.12(c), solely as a result of the material not meeting the EPA definition of a ur interpretation is that the use of the original drums does not conform to the In light of the above, is the term "waste" as it is used in 49 CFR 173. 12(c) and 173.28 restricted to only those materials meeting the EPA's definition of hazardous? Would the shipment of a spent catalyst to a reclamation facility qualify for inclusion in the exception listed in 173.12(c) for reuse of a non-bulk Should you have any questions concerning my request, please contact me at (281) 719-6622 Sincerely. Hazardous Communication Specialist Clifford W. Lester, MSPH, CIH, EMT'B, DGSA 10003 Woodloch Forest Drive • The Woodlands, Texas 77380 • 713-235-6000 • Fax 713-235-6416 - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 4709