{"operation":"document","citation":"12-0003","title":"Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2012-02-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"12-0003 response to Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. concerning 172.101.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-12-0003","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2011/120003.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration FEB 2 8 2012\n1200 New Jersey Ave, S E\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. Tom Baker\nDirector, Environment and Transportation\nVeolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.c.\n1 Eden Lane\nFlanders, NJ 07836\nReference No.: 12-0003\nDear Mr. Baker:\nThis is in response to your December 22, 2011 letter questioning the guidance provided by\nthis office in interpretation 08-0123. You believe the interpretation does not accurately\nreflect the applicability of § 172.101(c)(9) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR)\nto shipments of PCB wastes.\nYour understanding of the HMR's definition of \"hazardous waste\" is correct; however,\nyour belief that interpretation 08-0123 is inconsistent with the HMR and other previously\nissued interpretations is not accurate.\nInterpretation 08-0123 does not, as you suggest, state that PCB wastes, when manifested,\nshould have the word \"waste\" preceding the basic description. Rather, it simply states that\nif a hazardous waste manifest is required under the Environmental Protection Agency\n(EPA) as specified in 40 CFR Part 262, then § 172. 101(c)(9) of the HMR specifies that if\nthe word \"waste\" is not included in the hazardous material description, for transportation\nby highway and rail, the proper shipping name for the hazardous waste must include the\nword \"waste\" preceding the proper shipping name.\nIn summary, the § 172. 101 (c)(9) requirement for the word \"waste\" to precede the proper\nshipping name applies only to those materials subject to the hazardous waste manifest\nunder the EPA regulations specified in 40 CFR Part 262. Section 172.101(c)(9) does not\napply to other materials, such as PCB wastes, that may be required to be shipped using the\nhazardous waste manifest under regulations other than 40 CFR Part 262.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nel~lrH'\nSenior Regulatory Advisor\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nveOllA\nDecember 22, 2011\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nAttn: PHH-10\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nEast Building\n1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E.\nWashington DC 20590-0001\nRE: Request for Interpretation Regarding Adding the word \"Waste\" to Shipping Descriptions\nfor Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) wastes\nTo Whom It May Concern:\nVeolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC. (Veolia) is an environmental services company that\nfrequently is involved with the shipment of PCB wastes for disposal. Recently, Veolia was\nmade aware of an interpretation letter issued by DOT regarding the use of the word \"waste\"\npreceding the shipping description when manifesting PCB wastes (October 23, 2008 letter from\nUSDOT to Mark Baron; Ref 08-0123). Veolia believes that this interpretation letter was issued\nin error and is requesting that USDOT provide a correction as to the applicability of\n172.101(c)(9) to shipments of PCB wastes.\nAs defined in the HMR, a \"hazardous waste\" is any material that is subject to the hazardous\nwaste manifest requirements ofthe EPA as specified in 40 CFR Part 262 (see § 171.8). The\nscope of Part 262 is stated in 262.10 as applying only to hazardous wastes as defined in 261.3\n(that is, RCRA hazardous wastes). Therefore by USDOT referencing Part 262 they are only\napplying this shipping name requirement to RCRA hazardous wastes. Materials that are not\nsubject to the EPA manifest requirements according to Part 262 of 40 CFR are not hazardous\nwastes under the HMR. Thus, use of the word \"waste\" preceding the basic description indicates\nthat the material is a federally regulated hazardous waste in 40 CFR Part 262 and therefore only\nthose materials that are regulated by USEPA as a hazardous waste and subject to Part 262\nmanifest requirements should include the word IIwaste\" in the proper shipping name.\nWaste PCBs are not regulated in Part 262 and are therefore not considered to be RCRA\nhazardous wastes. Rather PCB wastes are regulated for disposal under the TSCA regulations in\n40 CFR Part 761. Although 40 CFR 761.207 does require that certain PCB wastes be shipped\nusing the uniform hazardous waste manifest, this requirement does not trigger the DOT\nrequirement to precede the shipping description with the word \"waste\".\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nveOllA\nNumerous previously issued DOT interpretations on this subject have clearly limited the\nrequirement to add the word \"waste\" to RCRA wastes only. However the USDOT interpretation\nissued on October 23, 2008 to Mark Baron of Canton, Michigan, that states that PCB wastes\nwhen manifested should have the word \"waste\" preceding the basic description. \"eolia\nbelieves that this interpretation was issued in error and as a result requests that USDOT provide\nnew clarification on the use of the word \"waste\" in the shipping description for PCB wastes.\nYour written response to this request is greatly appreciated. If you require any further\ninformation regarding this request please feel free to contact me at tom.baker@veoliaes.com\nor 973-691-7330.\nThank you,\nTom Baker\nDirector, Environment and Transportation\nVeolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.c.","truncated":false,"body_characters":5186}