{"operation":"document","citation":"13-0084","title":"Chevron Products Company - Chevron Salt Lake Refinery — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2013-11-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"13-0084 response to Chevron Products Company - Chevron Salt Lake Refinery concerning 173.203, 173.213, 173.240, 173.241.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0084.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0084.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0084","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2013/130084.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nNOV 0 6 2013\nMr. Denton L. Schantz\nEnvironmental Specialist\nChevron Products Company\nChevron Salt Lake Refinery\n2351 North 1100 West\nSalt Lake City, UT 84116\nReference No. 13-0084\nDear Mr. Schantz:\nThis is in response to your April15, 2013 and April22, 2013 letters requesting clarification\nof the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to the\nselection of the most appropriate proper shipping name for certain hazardous wastes.\nSpecifically, you ask whether the most appropriate proper shipping name for the material\nyou describe, which is being transported to a facility for disposal is \"NA3077, Hazardous\nwaste, solid, n.o.s.\" with§§ 173.213 and 173.240 as the packaging authorization sections, or\n\"NA3082, Hazardous waste, liquid, n.o.s.,\" with §§ 173.203 and 173.241 as the packaging\nauthorization sections. You also ask whether your material can be transported under\n\"NA3077, Hazardous waste, solid, n.o.s.\" when the offeror is using§ 173.203 or§ 173.241\nfor the packaging authorization sections to account for the presence of liquids, or must\n\"NA3082, Hazardous waste, liquid, n.o.s.\" be used \"because a solid proper shipping name\nwould be incorrect.\"\nIn your letter, you state that the material being transported is a mixture of a solid phase,\nconsisting of the original waste material, and an aqueous phase, as the result of\nsupplemental water used to facilitate cleaning. You state that the amount of water used to\nfacilitate cleaning is kept to a minimum, and the solid phase is typically more than 80% by\nvolume in the container. Subsequently, the mixture in the final container being offered for\ntransport consists of a solid phase that is a hazardous waste under the Resource\nConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992k) and an aqueous liquid\nphase, that is not regulated. You believe that \"Hazardous waste, solid, n.o.s.\" would be the\nmost appropriate proper shipping name because the regulated material is from the solid\nphase material in the container. You also view the solid proper shipping name most\nappropriate due to the information that it provides to emergency responders.\nIn the scenario which you describe, the two-phase non-homogeneous material would be\nproperly described as \"NA3077, Hazardous waste, solid, n.o.s.\" Sections 173.203 or\n173.241 must be used to determine the appropriate packaging authorized to account for the\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\npresence of liquid, as prescribed in § 172.101 (iX 4 ). Because the shipping description\nidentifies the material as a solid, additional information may be included on the shipping\npaper, in association with the basic description, to convey the physical state of the\nmaterial. However, any additional information must conform to§ 172.201(a)(4) (not be\ninconsistent with the required description and must come after it) as well as all shipping\npaper requirements (e.g., the basic description must be in the required sequence with no\nadditional information interspersed). Additionally, unless the material is excepted under\n§ 172.203(k), the technical name of the hazardous waste may be required.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact this Office should you have additional\nquestions.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nChevron\n~\nDenton Schantz\nEnvironmental Specialist\nSalt Lake Refinery\nChevron Products Company\n2351 North 1100 West\nSalt Lake City, Utah 84116\nTel801 539 7378\nFax 801 539 7130\nApril15, 2013\nU.S. DOT\nPHMSA Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nAttn: PHH-10\nEast Building\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nRE: REQUEST FOR PHMSA INTERPRETATION\nPHMSA Office of Hazardous Material Standards:\nThis correspondence is submitted for the purpose of requesting a formal PMSHA\ninterpretation regarding a specific case that periodically occurs in the sector of D.O.T.\ncompliance involving transportation of RCRA hazardous wastes that are appropriately\ntransported under the NA3077 and/or NA3082 shipping names. Occasionally, differing\nregulatory interpretations between the shipper/offeror of these types ofhazardous wastes, and\nthe transporter (in some cases, also the integrated waste management company that is\nevaluating the wastes for treatment/disposal) of such wastes sometimes results in a difference\nof opinion as to the proper D.O.T. shipping name. Guidance from PHMSA on this specific\nissue would likely be of value to those involved in the D.O.T. regulated transport of\nhazardous wastes in commerce.\nBefore outlining the specific scenario for your consideration, let me first state that I\ndo understand that it is the responsibility of the shipper/offeror to determine the proper\nshipping name for a material (under 173.22); however, I, in the role of the shipper/offeror,\nam attempting to seek the interpretation from PHMSA as to the soundness and validity of the\napproach that I will be presenting on this specific subset of hazardous wastes. Specifically,\nPHMSA' s interpretation as to whether the outlined approach is somehow \"incorrect\" (as\nreferenced in 171.2(±)), and would rise to a level that would constitute a basis for refusal\n(from a regulatory standpoint) to transport by a qualified transporter with a differing\nviewpoint, based upon what that transporter deems that the proper D.O.T. shipping name\nshould be, is sought in this request.\nTo provide you with some basic background on the case for consideration, a common\nscenario which would cause such materials to be generated and containerized for D.O.T.\nregulated transport is often the following:\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n• A product storage tank, processing vessel, or other type of processing equipment that\naccumulates solid materials over time, as the result of normal manufacturing\noperations, is removed from service, and opened up for cleanout of the accumulated\nsolid materials.\n• Prior to commencing cleanout work, the tank, vessel, or other type of equipment is\nemptied/drained, purged, and prepared for safe entry. What remains in the equipment\nare the residues that constitute the solid waste material to be removed for disposal.\n• To facilitate cleanout of the material from the tank, vessel, or other equipment,\nsupplemental water is often used. The water may be applied to blast the material free\nof surfaces, and/or to assist with partially fluidizing the solid materials to accomplish\na more effective removal from the tank or vessel.\n• The final material that is containerized for D.O.T. regulated transport to a final TSDF\nfacility for disposal is a mixture of the solid phase, consisting of the original waste\nmaterial, and an aqueous phase, as the result of supplemental water used to facilitate\ncleaning. For waste minimization reasons, the amount of water used to facilitate\ncleaning is kept at a minimum, and the solid phase in the final mixture is typically\nmore than 80% by volume in the container used for its packaging.\nStarting from the basic background information provided just above for how the\nmaterial to be containerized for transport is often generated, I will now attempt to outline the\ncase for which an interpretation is being requested.\n• The solid waste material is sampled, analyzed and determined to be a RCRA\nhazardous waste, based upon characteristics alone (i.e., it is not from a RCRA listed\nhazardous waste source), and would, if containerized by itself (i.e., without\nsupplemental water) and shipped under regulated D.O.T. transportation, most\nappropriately be described with a NA3077 Hazardous waste, solid, n.o.s. generic\nshipping name.\n• The aqueous phase material is sampled directly from the final containerized mixture,\nanalyzed, and it is deterrilined from the analysis that, if it were to be physically\nseparated from the mixture in the container, it would not be a RCRA hazardous\nwaste, or a D.O.T. hazardous material, if it were to be shipped by itself.\n• Therefore, the mixture in the final container being offered for D.O.T. transport\nconsists of a solid phase that is a RCRA hazardous waste, and an aqueous liquid\nphase that is not regulated. This is the premise for the case I am requesting that you\nconsider.\nI believe a valid and proper approach is to identifY this D.O.T. regulated material as a\nNA3077, Hazardous waste, solid, n.o.s., supplemented with a change in packaging\nspecifications from 173.213 to 173.203 (for non-bulk) and 173.240 to 173.241 (for bulk), and\nbase that approach upon the following reasoning and interpretation from appropriate citations\nfrom 172.101 as described below:\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n• Although 172.101 ( c )(8) seems to apply to pure hazardous materials that can change\nphysical state due to environmental conditions, and the shipping names being\nconsidered already have the words \"liquid\" or \"solid\" contained within them, in such\ncases, the shipper must refer to the 172.101(i)(4) table to determine appropriate\npackaging, which seems consistent with the general issue involved in this case.\n• 172.10l(c)(lO)(i) does not seem appropriate in this case, because we do not have a\nmaterial identified by technical name involved, and therefore, it seems that use of a\n\"mixture\" qualifying word in the shipping name is not appropriate.\n• 172.101 ( c )(1 O)(ii) seems to apply by one or more criteria, depending how those might\nbe interpreted. 172.101(c)(lO)(i)(A) seems to apply, due to the proposed solid\nshipping name, while liquid is also present in the containers; however, there is the\nexception reference to the 1 72.1 01 (i)( 4) table, which also seems consistent with the\napproach of a change in packaging specifications, while still using a solid shipping\nname. 172.101 ( c )(1 O)(i)(D) may be appropriate, although both the NA3077 and\nNA3082 shipping names refer to ERG Guide 171 for emergency response, and ERG\nGuide 171 includes response provisions for either liquids or solids.\n• Under the assumption that 172.101 ( c )(1 O)(ii) does apply in this case, I am then\nrequired to use the shipping name selection process of 172.101(c)(12)(ii), which is\nclearly not inconsistent, given that a generic shipping name is already assumed to be\nthe proper one in this case.\n• Upon consideration of the proper shipping name in 172.101 ( c )(12)(ii), I am required\nto select \"the name that most appropriately describes that material\", which I believe\nwould be Hazardous waste, solid, n.o.s., in this case, because the source of the\nhazards in the mixture that are invoking the D.O.T. regulation of it are originating\nfrom the solid phase material in the container. The aqueous phase material present in\nthe mixture, taken by itself, would be non-regulated. In the event of a transportation\nincident involving the material, the hazardous material component of the mixture that\nwould constitute the more serious safety/health concern would be the solid phase\nmaterial, and, therefore, the solid shipping name seems most appropriate. For this\nreason, I would view a solid shipping name more appropriate than a liquid shipping\nname, primarily due to the information it provides to potentially-impacted emergency\nresponders.\n• Based upon the 172.101 (i)( 4) table, assuming that I am proceeding in a valid manner\nto invoke it, I would then be required to change the packaging specifications for the\nmaterial, because the packing specifications for NA3077 Hazardous waste solid,\nn.o.s. are obviously for solid material, and I would therefore change to packaging\nappropriate for liquids.\nThe alternative viewpoint on this, which is the basis for the assertion that the\napproach I described above for the above case is \"incorrect\", is that because the containers do\nhold hazardous waste, and because there is a liquid component in the mixture, that a change\nin D.O.T. shipping name must be made to NA3082 Hazardous Waste, liquid, n.o.s., and that\nthe material cannot be accepted for transport with a solid shipping name.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nSUMMARY:\nBased upon the case presented above, the following wouJ,-1\n' question that I am\nseeking interpretation for:\nIf the hazardous material described above werr --. ''?._,_-)\n\" .t, could the material be\n/1 ':) .\ntransported under a NA3077 Hazardous Wt, \\ , · • .,. shipping name, when the\nofferor of the material utilizes the 173.213 ):::: ( 4 packaging, as specified in the\n172.101(i)(4) table, to account for the presence '.1 tiquids, or, must a NA3082 Hazardous\nwaste, liquid, n.o.s. shipping name be used due to a solid shipping name being incorrect?\nI hope that I have provided sufficient clarity in detailing the issue for your\nconsideration, and would be happy to provide additional clarifying comments, in the event\nthat I have left any confusion in my attempts to define and describe this issue.\nSincerely,\nDenton L. Schantz\nEnvironmental Specialist, RCRA Compliance Programs\nChevron Salt Lake Refinery\nSalt Lake City, UT\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nChevron\n,,~\nDenton Schantz\nEnvironmental Specialist\nSalt Lake Refinery\nChevron Products Company\n2351 North 1100 West\nSalt Lake City, Utah 84116\nTel 801 539 7378\nFax 801 539 7130\nApril 22, 2013\nU.S. DOT\nPHMSA Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nAttn: PHH-10\nEast Building\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.\nWashington, DC 20590-0001\nRE: CORRECTION TO 4/15/2013 INTERPRETATION REQUEST LETTER\n, PHMSA Office of Hazardous Material Standards:\nIn a letter dated April 15, 2013, a request for a PHMSA interpretation was outlined,\nand I realized that there was an inadvertent error to one regulatory citation reference.\nSpecifically, on the last page of the letter, a reference to 173.213 was made, and the reference\nwas intended to cite 173.203. I apologize for this oversight, and hope you will understand\nthat 173.203 was the intended reference, in the context of the question for interpretation. The\nspecific text on the original letter should read as follows:\n\"If the hazardous material described above were to be transported, could the\nmaterial be transported under a NA3077 Hazardous waste, solid, n.o.s. shipping name,\nwhen the offeror of the material utilizes the 173.203 (or 241) packaging, as specified in the\n172.1 OJ (i)(4) table, to account for the presence of liquids, or, must a NA3082 Hazardous\nwaste, liquid, n.o.s. shipping name be used due to a solid shipping name being incorrect?\"\nI regret the confusion that this error in citation may have caused, and hope that you\nwill be able to apply this correction into the requested interpretation outlined in the original\nletter without significant difficulty.\nSincerely,\nDenton L. Schantz\nEnvironmental Specialist, RCRA Compliance Programs\nChevron Salt Lake Refine:ty_______\nSalt Lake City, UT","truncated":false,"body_characters":14782}