Interpretation Response #09-0124 ([Parsons Corporation Newport Chemical Depot NECDF] [Mr. Lawrence S. Thompson])
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name: Parsons Corporation Newport Chemical Depot NECDF
Individual Name: Mr. Lawrence S. Thompson
Location State: IN Country: US
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
July 22, 2009
Mr. Lawrence S. Thompson
Waste Manager
Parsons Corporation
Newport Chemical Depot NECDF
Highway 63 South, P.O. Box 519
Newport, IN 47966
Ref. No. 09-0124
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This responds to your April 6, 2009 letter requesting clarification of the applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to materials designated as "hazardous wastes" by the State of Indiana. Specifically, you ask whether chemical munitions, including VX (O-ethyl-S (2-diisopropylaminoethyl) methyl phosphonothiolate), designated as hazardous wastes under state law are considered hazardous wastes for purposes of the HMR.
According to your letter, the 2003 State of Indiana Hazardous Waste Annual Update amended 329 IAC 3.1-6-3 to clarify that chemical munitions are acute hazardous wastes. You state that this amendment provided that the chemical munitions listed in this section must be managed in accordance with requirements for acute hazardous wastes in the hazardous waste program. You ask if you are correct in your understanding that it is appropriate to manage these chemical munitions under the HMR as a hazardous waste.
The answer is no. As defined in the HMR, a "hazardous waste" is any material that is subject to the hazardous waste manifest requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) specified in 40 CFR Part 262. Materials that are not subject to the EPA manifest requirements are not hazardous wastes under the HMR. Note that nothing in the HMR prohibits a state from "managing" these materials as state-designated hazardous wastes so long as the state does not require the material to be identified as a "hazardous waste" on the manifest. Note as well that if the chemical munitions described in your letter meet any of the DOT hazard class definitions in Part 173, they are subject to all applicable HMR requirements for that hazard class.
Shipping descriptions from the HMR may not be used to describe a non-EPA waste material on a state manifest document. Thus, the word "waste" may not precede the basic description for a DOT regulated hazardous material when the material is not an EPA hazardous waste. Use of the word "waste" preceding the basic description indicates that the material is a federally regulated hazardous waste. However, a shipping name from the HMR may be used following the word "waste" so long as the hazard class number, UN or NA identification number, and packing group number are not included in the description of the waste material.
Nothing in the HMR prohibits a state from imposing requirements on EPA-designated waste materials that are in addition to those required by EPA regulations so long as these additional requirements do not interfere with the actual movement of the waste. Thus, states may require certain additional information on the manifest form. However, this additional information may not be made mandatory during transportation of the material, and states may not apply enforcement sanctions on the transporter during transportation for any failure of the manifest to show optional state information entries.
I hope this answers your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Betts
Chief, Standards Development
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
171.3, 171.8
Regulation Sections
| Section | Subject |
|---|---|
| 171.8 | Definitions and abbreviations |
| 173.3 | Packaging and exceptions |