{"operation":"document","citation":"06-0052","title":"The Dow Chemical Company — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2006-04-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"06-0052 response to The Dow Chemical Company concerning 172.302.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0052.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0052.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-06-0052","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2006/060052.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nUrs esporation\n• APR 21 2006\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nHazardous Materials Safety\nMr. Phil Stewart\nRef. No.: 06-0052\nThe Dow Chemical Company\n1424 Vidal Street\nSarina, ON N7T 8C6\nDear Mr. Stewart:\nThis is in response to your letter dated February 24, 2006, requesting further clarification\nof the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). In your scenario,\nyou indicate RCRA hazardous waste is shipped across and along public roadways that\nfollow the boundaries of your facility. Specifically, you ask whether shipping paper\nrequirements apply if your wastes are not required to be manifested under the U.S.\nmaterial under the HMR.\nEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), but still meet the definition of a hazardous\nA hazardous waste, for the purposes of the HMR, is any material that is subject to the\nHazardous Waste Manifest Requirements of the EPA specified in 40 CFR Part 262 (see\n§ 171.8). As provided in § 172.205(a), no person may offer, transport, transfer, or deliver\na hazardous waste unless an EPA Form 8700-22 and 8700-22A (when necessary)\nhazardous waste manifest is prepared in accordance with 40 CFR § 262.20 and is signed,\ncarried, and given as required of that person.\nIn the scenario you provided, the EPA does not require preparation of the manifest when\nhazardous waste is transported between two portions of a contiguous facility, across or\nalong a public roadway that follows the boundary of the facility. Therefore, your material\ndoes not meet the definition of a hazardous waste in § 171.8, and the Department of\nTransportation does not require a waste manifest to be created. However, if your material\nmeets the definition of a hazardous material in § 171.8 and is transported across or along a\nPabi r, slat loving the ard ap if abe faciy, the shipping paper requirements in\nI hope this clarifies your request,\nthank OBt\nCharles E. Betts\nSenior Transportation Specialis\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standard:\n111.8\n172-205(a)\n060052\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nThe Dow Chemical Company\nMidland, MI\n48667\nFebruary 24, 2006\nBAH\nJohn Gale\n3171.8\nChief, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n3,172.101\n400 Seventh Street SW\nWashington, D.C. 20590\napplicability\n06 ^ 0052\nReference 05-0298\nIn follow-up to your response letter dated January 17, 2006, concerning the transportation\nof waste, we are requesting additional clarification. The material we would transport is in\nfact a RCRA hazardous waste, not a non-hazardous waste as indicated in your response.\nIn some cases the waste would also be a DOT hazardous material, and our question\ncenters on a potential (presumably inadvertent) conflict between RCRA regulations and\nDOT regulations.\nExecutive Summary\nEPA (under the RCRA program), expressly does not require a manifest when hazardous\nwaste is transported between two portions of a contiguous facility, across or along a\npublic roadway that that follows the boundary of the facility. In contrast, DOT's\nregulations are silent on this subject and could be interpreted as requiring a manifest\nunder those circumstances. We are requesting an interpretation that the DOT regulations\nare in harmony with the RCRA regulations. This would allow us to follow the RCRA\nregulations (i.e., not issuing a manifest), so long as other appropriate shipping papers\naccompany the waste in accordance with normal DOT requirements.\nDiscussion\nOur company has a large (roughly 1900-acre) manufacturing facility with its own\nwastewater treatment plant, hazardous waste imcinerator, and hazardous waste landfill.\nAll are fully permitted. Due to the size of our facility, public roads divide some portions\nof the facility from other portions. However, the facility is considered contiguous under\napplicable state and federal RCRA provisions.\nThe facility includes a chemical storage area known as \"US-10 Tank Farm.\" This tank\nfarm, which occasionally generates small amounts of hazardous waste, is physically\nlocated across a public road from other portions our site. The hazardous waste landfill is\nsimilarly separated from other portions of our sitte by a different public road. Both roads\nrun along our facility boundary. In order to transport waste from US-10 Tank Farm to\n2/27/2006\nPage ! of 2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nour landfill, a truck would need to drive along these public roads. At all times while on\nthese public roads, the truck would be contiguous to a boundary of our site.\nEPA specifically exempts this situation from needing a manifest: see 40 CFR 262.20(f)\nThe requirements of this subpart and §262.32(b) do not apply to the transport of\nhazardous wastes on a public or private right-of-way within or along the border of\ncontiguous property under the control of the same person, even if such contiguous\nransporters set forth in 40 CFR 263.30 and 263.31 in the event of a discharge of\nhazardous waste on a public or private right-of-way.\nWe have attached several additional documents from the Environmental Protection\nthese circumstances.\nAgency (EPA) to further substantiate the fact that EPA does not require a manifest in :\nIn contrast, the DOT regulations at 172.205 could be interpreted, at least superficially, as\nrequiring a manifest. This is because the DOT regulations are silent on the subject of\ntransportation along a facility boundary between portions of the facility. We anticipate\nthat DOT did not intend to create an inconsistency between the regulatory programs.\nRather, we believe that DOT would have intended for its regulations to be consistent with\nthe RCRA regulations. Consequently, in situations where EPA has said no manifest is\n*1\nrequired, we are hopeful that DOT will accept normal shipping papers. We would\n-appreciate your written confirmation.\nPlease contact Phil Stewart or Sharon Woolman as given below if you have any questions\nregarding this request.\nRegards,\nPhil Stewart\nSharon Woolman\nThe Dow Chemical Company\nThe Dow Chemical Company\n1425 Vidal Street\n1261 Building\nSarnia, ON N7T 8C6\nMidland, MI 48667\n519-339-5047 (office)\n989-636-4644 (office)\n519-339-3912 (fax)\n989-638-7142 (fax)\nAttachments: DOT Letter\nEPA opinion letters\n*\nDepc 400\ndetermine\nEPA RCRA\nEPA Letter\nEPA\nventh.tif (52 k your.tif (21 knse Contiguotiguous Propeous Property |\n2/27/2006\nPage 2 of 2","truncated":false,"body_characters":6315}