{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0106","title":"Inscite — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-03-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"99-0106 response to Inscite concerning 173.134.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0106.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0106.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0106","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990106.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nWashington, D.C.\nresearch and\nMAR 24 2000\nEdward Krisiunas, MT (ASCP),\nReference No. 99-0106\nCIC, MPH\nDirector, Inscite\n115 Lyons Road\nBurlington, CT 06013\n•\nDear Mr. Krisiunas:\nThis is in response to your letter concerning a provision in 49 CFR 173.134 that excepts waste\ntransported from households from regulation under the Hazardous Materials Regulations\n(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). You asked for a clarification of what constitutes household\nwaste. You also asked us to explain why regulated medical waste (RMW) that is transported\nby a courier from a physician's office is regulated under the HMR but it is not regulated when\ngenerated by a home health care provider and discarded in household waste. I apologize for\nthe delay in responding and any inconvenience this may have caused.\nHousehold waste is not subject to the requirements in the HMR. (See § 173.134(b)(1)(v).)\nIn 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an interim final rule (54 FR\n12326, 12339) that implemented a two-year demonstration program for regulating medical\nwaste. EPA excluded from regulation medical waste from households, including that generated\nby a home health care provider. I have enclosed a copy of the preamble discussion on\nhousehold waste that appeared in the EPA final rule. We agreed with EPA's position. When\nwe amended our infectious substance requirements in the HMR and added a definition for\nRMW, we provided a similar exclusion for household waste (56 FR 66124, 66142).\nI hope this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\nHothe 2. Mithell\nHattie L. Mitchell, Chief\nRegulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nEnclosures\n173.134\n990106\n-\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nmack\n$173.134\nINSCITE\nBURLINGTON,\n115 LYONS ROA\nPHONE • (860) 675-1217\n:т 0601\nLEADERSHIP THROUGH KNOWLEDGE\nOFFICES IN BURLINGTON. CTAND HOUSTON Tx\nFAX\n• (860) 675-1311\n99-0106\nApril 14, 1999\nHattie Mitchell\nAbele by\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration Program\n400 Seventh Avenue, S.W\nWashington, D.C. 20509\nDear Ms. Mitchell,\nI am writing in response to your letter to Dr. Woodard, Reference # 99-0009, on the\ntransportation of \"Regulated Medical Waste, 6.2, UN 3291, PG I' by couriers.\nThe letter states \"intrastate and interstate shippers and carriers, including couriers of\nhazardous materials, which includes certain RMW, are subject to the HMR. Examples of waste\nmaterials that are excepted from regulation under the HMR are waste from households, and\ncorpses or anatomical remains intended for cremation or interment\".\nI request a clarification on what constitutes household waste and what appears to be the\nexception of HMR for couriers who remove RMW from households. I raise this issue because I\nbelieve this is inconsistent with your regulations.\nMR - removal of RMW from a doctor or dentist's office by a courier service require\nYour statement above clearly indicates couriers of hazardous materials are subject to the\nmpliance with the HMR. I believe the logic that applies here is what is the waste (RMW), wh\nis generating the waste (healthcare professional), and who is removing the waste (courier).\nWould not the same logic apply to RMW generated in the home by the same health care\nprofessional and transported in commerce by the same courier service?\nThe use of home health care has expanded not only in the U.S but also across the world.\nProcedures, services, and treatment once conducted in the acute care setting are now occurring in\noffices and residences. The resulting waste stream generated pursuant to these services includes\nbut is not limited to sharps and chemotherapeutic agents in both settings. In both instances, the\nhealthcare professionals generate the same hazardous material. In both instances, the courier\ntransportation in commerce.\nwould be transporting the same type of hazardous material. These couriers are conducting\nI believe the exception for waste from households, which you referenced in your letter to\nDr. Woodard, applies to waste actually generated by the homeowner as a consequence of the\nhomeowner's personal healthcare and disposed of by the homeowner along with other non-\n1\nin-site (in' sit' ) n. 1 the ability to see and understand clearly the inner nature of things\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nINSCITE\nLEADERSHIP THROUGH KNOWLEDGE\nhazardous household waste. I would agree it is unrealistic and impossible to regulate the\nndividual homeowner. In most instances, the US EPA does not regulate hazardous waste\nenerated by the homeowner for purely practical reasons. This is addressed by programs in plac\nat the local level to assist homeowners in the disposal of hazardous waste materials and other\nhazardous materials they may accumulate. I note emphasis on who is generating the waste and\nthe transportation in commerce of that waste.\nThe movement of health care from the acute care setting to the home environment has\nI look forward to your response.\nRegards,\nEel Kusunos\nEdward Krisiunas, MT(ASCP), CIC, MPH\nDirector\nCc:\nAlan Roberts, RSPA\nEd Mazzulo, RSPA\nAlan Woodard, Ph.D., NYSDEC\n2\nin-site (in' sit') n. 1 the ability to see and understand clearly the inner nature of things\n-","truncated":false,"body_characters":5180}