-------
11
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Docket Section,
Room 2111, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Also, at the Department of Transportation, Room 6500,
Trans Point Building, 2100 Second Street, S. W., Washington,
D.C. 20590. Anyone wishing to submit a written state-
ment may do so by November 9, 1977, to either of these
addresses, which are also in the Federal Register Notice.
Let me take a moment now to remind you that
those of you who did not fill out a registration sheet
this morning, those of you who arrived very early this
morning, we would appreciate it if you would do that.
If you do that, you will be mailed a copy of the trans-
cript of the proceedings.
I would appreciate it if during the morning,
you would go out to the registration table and fill out
a registration sheet. There is also a space on the
registration sheet to indicate, if you wish today, to
give an oral statement. The oral statements are very
important
-------
12
all aspects of hazardous wastes, not just transportation.
At registration, you will find a white brochure which has
a list of cities with early October dates on them, on
which is a description of the regulations that we are
currently considering. If you wish a draft copy of the
regulations that you may hear some of the speakers discuss
today, please leave your business card or your name and
address at the registration table. We will return with
those lists to Washington and mail you a copy of the early
drafts, which are not proposed in the Register, these
are just early drafts.
Let me now -- Alan, do you want to say anything
to open?
MR. ROBERTS: Individual register notices concern-
ing this hearing, also just discussed a series of questions.
I would request that the persons making statements here,
they would follow the written comments, make every reason-
able effort to be responsive to those questions. I don't
think there is a lot of generalities to be generated from
something like this. I think the questions should be
addressed by both agencies. I think we both would be very
appreciative if, commenters, either making statements here
today or in writing, would be as responsive as practicable
to the questions raised in the notice of the Federal
-------
13
Register. That's the only comment I have.
MR. KOVALICK: That's a real good point.
We are getting some additional agendas printed.
It's an excellent turn out we have today. Those of you
who have an agenda see that we have approximately five
individuals scheduled prior to the lunch break. We plan
to take a lunch break at 12:30 to 1:45. We plan at 1:45
to hear additional six, seven individuals who are cur-
rently signed up, and anyone else who signs up during
the day, if you are giving a statement, we have to have
one copy of the statement for the court reporter, so it
will appear properly in the record.
Even though we have a fairly lengthy day today,
we plan to adjourn by 5:00 o'clock or 5:15. If you find
it possible to abbreviate your remarks to highlight your
responses to the questions, and submit your whole statement
for the record, we would very much appreciate that.
I am informed that the first speaker, who I
believe is, Mr. Harvison, of the National Tank Truck
Carriers, is here. I thought he was going to be delayed.
The speakers, who are in this order, Mr. Clifford Harvison,
of the National Tank Truck Carriers, will be first; Mr.
Thomas Altpeter, of the Midwest Research Institute, will
be on standby, and Dr. Roy Ball of the American Society
-------
14
for Civil Engineers, will be on alert for the third
speaker.
Is Mr. Harvison available?
MR. HARVISON: Yes.
MR. KOVALICK: Will you accept questions when you
are through? -
MR. HARVISON: Yes.
Mr. Chairmen, first I want to apologize that
I do not have copies of my written statement. They are
basking, thanks to one of the airlines, in Phoenix,
Arizona. However, I will supply the copies directly to
Mr. Roberts upon my return to Washington.
Mr. Chairmen and members of the Panel, my name
is Clifford Harvison, and I am the Managing Director of
the National Tank Truck Carriers, Incorporated, 1616 G
Street, N. W., Washington, D.C.
NTTC is a trade association with the tank truck
industry. Our members transport a variety of liquid and
dry products throughout the 48 continental United States.
As prime service carriers to the major energy carrying
companies, it is axiomatic that the tank truck industry,
its duties fall to the transportation of hazardous com-
modities, has knowledge about and are responsive to the
regulatory structure of the U. S. Department of
-------
15
Transportation. Additionally, to the trade association,
both aspects of the tank truck industry, the private and
domestic carriers are aware of the EPA Administrator man-
date regarding hazardous wastes and hazardous substances.
That's why I believe that this session is both timely
and positive for two reasons: First, it seems to be that
the rulemaking is truly in its formative stages. And
secondly, it demonstrates the willingness of both federal
entities in the necessity of internal cooperation, which
will hopefully pre-empt duplication of their efforts in
resultant regulatory double standards.
I am sure that we are most anxious to avoid
the bureaucratic power grab for regulatory jurisdiction
which seems to dominate the Federal breathern at the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
We believe that the cooperation already shown
by both EPA and DOT, regulatory duplication and juris-
dictional overlaps can in fact be avoided. What we
propose is frightfully simple, and it is that the current
DOT regulatory structure be utilized for publication
purposes, and EPA be charged with providing primary
technical input and evaluation. Both entities would be
involved in enforcement.
Furthermore, we are suggesting that the Secretary
-------
16
of Transportation and the EPA Administration jointly
appoint a committee in the format of Section 11.007, and
to monitor the progress and efficiency of other regula-
tions, the committee should operate under the initial
two year concept provision.
In advancing this proposal, NTTC is cognizant
of two basic points. First, that the Department of
Transportation does not have the technical expertise or
staff to develop the mandated regulations. But it does
have access to the transportation community, which must
comply.
Second, EPA, while not having the ear of the
transportation industry, will certainly have the technical
expertise and backup. The proposal we are suggesting
would work this way: EPA would submit petition to cer-
tain DOT members under Title 49 , and other members of
the public. Together with the petition, EPA would supply
whatever technical and editorial justification it so
chose.
DOT would then be responsible for docketing,
federal registration publication, management and evalua-
tion of responses that follow the comment period. DOT
would either amend or decline to amend.
Mr. Chairman, we propose this contract within
-------
17
the light of the positive factors already shown today,
and I shall enumerate on them further. Initially, it is
quite clear that the RCRA Act mandates EPA/DOT coopera-
tion. We can understand that the technical environmental
concerns are DOT' s bag. At least, we can appreciate that
a trucking terminal or railroad yard must chill the
hearts of some EPA personnel. "However, we consider that,
legally speaking, you have no choice but to cooperate.
Additionally, we believe that many elements
work within the EPA/DOT and influx with the requirements
of RCRA. The placarding system is in place. Documenta-
tion regulations are in place. Classification system is
in place. Under our reporting rules, NTTC regulatory
rules, documentation should include "our name and iden-
tification number". Our vehicle should give ready access
to carrier management in case of an accident.
Again, Mr. Chairman, allow me a fervent personal
prayer: that it is my hope that one and all recognize a
good regulation does not have to cover 100 percent of
contingencies to be effective. There will be some com-
modities, the characteristics of which are so treacherous,
that they can't be classified under the present DOT rules.
We have some specification containers that will be unsafe
for certain hazardous wastes. Let's not hold up the
-------
18
implementation of the Act because a few square pegs
won't fit into a few round holes.
DOT has long recognized and dealt with this
problem with special permit procedures, just as EPA has
granted various special permit procedures. At this point,
during my 12 years of trade association work, I've seen
together, all together, too much positive regulation
delayed or forgotten generally, because some individual,
who chose to be a lawyer rather than an attorney, looked
at the hole rather than the donut.
Surmise, just surmise -- give you a conceptual
rather than specific answer to the ten discussion topics
posted in the notice of this meeting. X am sure that
the answer I have given to all of those ten questions
require DOT to have regulatory control over the implemen-
tation of RCRA, and does, in fact, suggest transportation
problems dealing with hazardous waste management.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
voice a concern that you mentioned that is specifically
concerning the shipping paper requirements. And that is,
we hope that while certain amendments to the shipping
paper requirements are most necessary and should be
accomplished, we hope that you will avoid a mandate
of putting countless chemical names, formulaes,
-------
19
percentages, et cetera, et cetera, on the shipping
documentation.
We believe, and particularly in this case,
that information of course must be available in case of
an accident and we also believe that - the information
should be available and catalogued at the source of
generation. It is not always for a fact, but we think
that there is a. reason for all of this and some of it,
to say the least, would be quite voluminous. It really
wouldn't do that much good at the accident site for
dealing with the either professional or volunteer emer-
gency personnel responses, or what have you. It is just
as we supported RCRA when it was in its beginning stages
before Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Panel for
your time this morning, and I'd be happy to attempt to
answer any questions.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Harvison.
While the Panel thinks a moment, those of you
in the audience who might have questions for Mr. Harvison,
there are several persons in the back of the room who
have blank 3 by 5 cards and if you will raise your hand,
they will come up and give you one during the course of
our questions, and we will follow that procedure for the
-------
20
other speakers today. Be alert, they are ready to give
you cards.
Does anyone -- Alan -- would you like to start?
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Mr. Harvison, did you issue a statement previ-
ously?
A It was a separate detailed statement, to EPA,
in this case.
Q Well, let me pursue a question. Question No. 5,
"Should hazardous materials --"
A That's not the correct question.
Q I'm sorry, I was talking about Question No. 7.
A Do you have a copy of the document here?
Q (No audible response.)
"In the event of a spill, the material cleaned
up may become a hazardous waste. Should DOT or EPA
develop the regulations for handling the spilled hazar-
dous material?" It is becoming a very significant fun-
damental problem based on several instances in recent
times about who handles the mess after the incidents take
place. You indicated that your general statement was
responsive in the general way.
A That's correct. Who would maintain at current
costs, Mr. Roberts, in that DOT should, in essence,
-------
21
handle the regulatory problems evidenced in that question.
I would add, for instance, right now, that in the tank
truck industry sometimes, it was revealed that the com-
modity does not have to be spilled to be released into
the environment, to create a hazardous waste.
In the tank truck industry, particularly when
one is cognizant of the very, very high quality control
standards evidenced and mandated by the chemical industry,
again, what is the problem, what is called contaminated
loads? And this is where any material that formed material
that may have been in the tank before mixes with the
product coated on the tank or perhaps there is some pro-
duct degradation particularly'in certain sensitive
chemicals, that by the time the unit reaches the delivery
point, we've got contamination problems. And so we are
currently handling that and other DOT regulatory structures.
Now to go specific on your question about
product incident, accident, when a product is released,
I would say definitely that we would continue to seek
DOT'S primary guidance just because, in essence, it is
still a transportation problem.
Q Then your answer to that is DOT should develop
the regulations for handling the spilled hazardous
material?
-------
22
A DOT should develop the regulatory format for
handling that. I can't conceive of any one rule possible
when one considers the thousands of commodities that are
transported every day in bulk. I can't see a regulatory
structure that would deal individually within every one
of those contingencies.
I do believe, however, that regulatory permits,
particularly one that would mandate prompt response by
the carrier, and getting ahold of the generator in this
case, or, in this case, the shipper, who is considering
the virgin product that was spilled at this point, that
should be the regulatory format. I can't see taking all
of the chemicals and saying, this is what you do when
this one is spilled. That's an impossible situation just
from the standpoint of volume.
Q In the earlier part of your response you said,
"regulatory format". I think your answer again is that
DOT should formulate regulations for the half million
spilled hazardous materials?
A That is correct.
Q Would that be in a general sense or specific
sense?
A That is correct. And it is almost, as I say,
the same situation mandating the course of the EPA
-------
23
naturally. In some cases, the Coast Guard would become
physically involved at a spill.
Q Well, recording is the easy part. The require-
ments of RCRA are the requirements I am concerned about.
A I don't think DOT personnel should respond to
the incident at the site, I don't mean that. The only
thing I am saying is that a regulatory format should be
formulated to mandate. Certain actions should be taken
immediately upon release.
Q Well, I guess the key word to my question that
I didn't use is "responsibility". You said, seeing that
DOT not only specified requirements for handling the
spilled hazardous material, but it also specified who is
responsible for handling that.
A That is correct. It is still within the
transportation mission as far as we are concerned; for
the sake of consistency and uniformity, that is a DOT
problem.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Harvison, first of all, you
have to appreciate that our law says that within 18
months --
(Brief interruption.)
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you.
(Continuing) -- should develop and promulgate
-------
24
regulations affecting the transportation of hazardous
waste. And so you have to give me a little comfort in
suggesting that we form a committee to attempt to persuade/
if that's the logic you are saying, for DOT to add onto
the regulations for hazardous wastes. Obviously, that
makes us non-responsive, by Congressional mandate. So,
do you have any comfort for solving our irreconcilable
problem?
A I don't think the problem is irreconcilable.
I tried to allude that as far as we are concerned, in a
legal sense, there is no, really no, option as we read
the law, and I am talking directly to this point. There
is a mandate for cooperation.
Q Yes.
A I don't mean to put DOT as not being respon-
sive and EPA as being overly responsive. I think you are
doing the right thing. But as I tried to point out, and
as I said specifically in my statement, DOT/EPA coopera-
tion in this sense, is mandated. That is the only way we
can look at it.
While we have only an 18 month deadline, and
that's why I was positive in the opening statement, saying
that I think this hearing and others that have been held
in conjunction with the RCRA regulations, are positive
-------
25
steps. There have already been a lot of positive ground-
work done and I've tried to participate in that. I think
you're doing the right thing, that's why I came.
Q Okay. Let me ask a question that relates to
Question 1 of the Discussion Topics. You made a state-
ment that you feel,that you thought,the classification
was in place, meaning, I presume, DOT's classification
of hazardous materials. However, what we tried to high-
light in Question 1, to refresh your memory, was because
DOT has a slightly different position than ours, that is,
health and safety, and ours is public health environment.
But there are some materials that you made a most per-
suasive argument of environmental damage, I would not
expect DOT to recognize as their mission, if I were they.
Therefore, how does that work? How are we able
to fulfill our mission of regulation of biocumulatives
and others, DOT would probably, and I would in their
place, decline that because that is not part of the
transportation mission. So, do you see the problem?
A I see the problem. But again, Mr. Kovalick,
it is my fervent personal prayer, that is, that I recog-
nize and my industry recognizes that there are certain
commodities that are not going to fit hand and glove
in the classification of DOT and what have you.
-------
26
You see, there are some commodities and prop-
erties of which are so treacherous that they are not
going to fit in. The only thing I ask you is that when
you consider the mandates of the Act, would you consider
the requirements? Think of the 18 months deadline and
come out with positive regulations with regard to these
extremely dangerous commodities that are going to have
to be studied. Of course, we recognize that in essence,
we have to set them aside.
We feel, very frankly, that the vast amounts
of tonnage of industrial wastes, particularly industrial
liquid wastes, and I'm speaking from a tank truck stand-
point, we think that you probably have 90 percent of
your problem taken care of. The only thing we're saying
is, let's not fall into the trap of holding the whole
shooting match up, if you will, for the sake of a problem
that is only 10 percent of the scene.
Yes, we recognize that you are not going to
be able to handle every possible contingency with the
first draft of the regulations. This is another reason
why I suggest that an industry advisory committee for
the study should contain or should be composed, rather,
of representatives of government, industry and environ-
mental groups. Should oversee this with the objective
-------
27
of, first of all, to make sure that the mandates of the
Act are indeed completed, and secondly, giving some
guidance on how to treat this, maybe, five or ten percent
of the problem, really doesn't fit into the regulatory
structure, and possibly never will.
I say DOT's special permit problem, special
permit, in a case nozzle tank permit, has always recog-
nized that there are exceptions to the general rule. But
let's not stop the whole regulatory process for the sake
of a small part of the problem.
Q But what I hear you say, and correct me if I
am wrong, that if it were true that there are certain
"t~(e,<*.<- ^ £r
-------
28
background that EPA has, you really can't shift them to
the Department of Transportation and say, "Hey, you've
got a bad actor here." All I'm saying is, you've got
the technical background material, put a petition to
DOT and let DOT regulate on it. They must, depending
on the background, the technical background, that is,
and put it on the docket. If industry and other parties
can't refute it, then it is amended. The only thing we're
saying is is it amended under Title 49.
Q All right. We have at least a couple of
questions from nhe floor and maybe from the Panel. Mr.
Edelman.
BY MR. EDELMAN:
Q I have a question from the audience and also a
question from myself. A load of ethyl mercury is spilled
in Indiana at 3:00 a.m. What good would that information
be in a shipping room in Upstate New York?
The question I have that follows this question:
You mentioned that it was your hope that an EPA developing
shipping document manifest would not clutter that shipping
document with detailed information that is unnecessary.
And, to extend that question, what information is necessary
on a shipping document for answers on the spot to properly
handle a spill situation?
-------
29
A Most assuredly classification. In plain simple
English, I have always -- I had personal feelings and
this is after many years of conversation with our safety
personnel, I have always taken the position that both the
placard and the shipping document, which is only two
pieces of paper, must be clear to the eye of the public.
In the highway mode, 99 out of a 100 cases, the
first personnel at the scene is a member of the public.
A lot of policemen and a lot of firemen generally quote,
"a fel-low traveler" and I would like that printed in
context, please.
So the first thing you have to do is warn the
public. I believe, if at all possible, and I recognize
this is a rough situation in a hazardous waste, because
you are probably dealing with a complex waste, is that
the name of the commodity, the common generic name of
the commodity should be on there, most certainly for
the public's benefit,
We have to presume that under this that some
people understand the meaning of the word "flammable".
We have to understand that Joe Doe knows what corrosive
mean. It would come up with, I think, Mr. Roberts will
attest to this, the best possible way of informing the
public that we have. It is not perfect but it is a good
-------
30
sound system. But I would say particularly the amount
and type, most definitely, and its common generic name
inasmuch as you can.
Q Should special recommended procedures and
emergency phone numbers be required on a shipping document?
A I am pointing right now to the CHEMTREC program
which is sponsored by the Manufacturers' Chemist Associa-
tion. They have an excellent program. I would want to
be the last one to say CHEMTREC' s phone number, which is
an emergency 24-hour service run by the chemical industry
for the benefit of the public. I'd really want to look
into the legal problems and say from a social standpoint,
I'd love to see CHEMTREC's phone number on here, yes, and
that's purely a personal situation. But I really don't
know what the legal contingencies of that are, or I would
say the very bottom line, the contact points, be they
phone numbers, name, reference or what have you, with
the generator, should be on there, and they will be on
there and the manifest system as we understand it, as
they are occurring on the bill of lading and shipping
documents.
In other words, get back to the guy who
developed the products and find out what it is. 1 don't —
you've asked me that question before --
-------
31
MR. ROBERTS: I just want to break in. Someone
wrote, "they seriously contend --" I don't quite under-
stand the question.
BY MR. EDELMAN:
Q The question is, "If a load of ethyl mercury
is spilled in Indiana at 3:00 a.m., what good would that
information be in the shipping room in Upstate New York?"
I assume the question is referring to having detailed
information on the shipping document.
MR. ROBERTS: Excuse me. I think whoever wrote
the question should elaborate on what he is asking us
there before we pursue it. I don't quite understand it.
MR. KOVALICK: Why don't you send up another
card?
MR. ROBERTS: I don't know what he is talking
about in Upstate New York.
BY MR. EDELMAN:
Q What information is available at the scene of
the a-cident regarding the material that was spilled?
MR. KOVALICK: While we're waiting for a
clarification, our question seems to be directed both
to the Panel and perhaps for your comment, which you did
not allude to in your remarks but you could comment: Will
not spill situations resulting from transportation incidents
-------
32
be fully addressed under Section 311 of Public Law 92-500
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
We are not the chief spokespersons for that
but it suffices to say that two factors relate to that.
First of all, that the Act comes under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to some extent, but as to navigable
waters, which have been very broadly defined. And,
secondly, only unlisted substances is covered by those
regulations, I should say, when they are promulgated soon.
There are about 300 substances, a little over that.
A Yes. Those are the so-called hazardous regula-
tions of EPA. They are not out yet, so I'm not familiar
with them.
Q But I think the context of your statement was,
that you said DOT ought to be regulating spills. In
effect, EPA is already regulating the actions to be taken,
penalties and so forth, by spills.
A Mr. Kovalick, that is true, and I would like to
elaborate at this point that one of the basic reaxsons
that HM-145, and I believe Mr. Roberts would confirm this,
issued in the first place, resulted from the petition
for rulemaking to the U. S. Department of Transportation
by National Tank Truck Carriers, and the reasons I put
in that petition dealt specifically with the regulatory
-------
33
overlap problems created by the then anticipated
release of Section 311 regulations.
In other words, in October -- excuse me,
December 31st, 1975, I believe, EPA published a notice
of proposed rulemaking, listing 311 regulations. And
the emphasis on HM-145 was the fact that we as tank
truck carriers, we tender certain products and may or
may not know whether those products, if spilled, would be
under 311 regulations as a hazardous substance released
and we as carriers would be charged with massive for-
feitures .
So what we wanted in HM-145 was for the shipper,
in this case, the generator, to simply put a check mark
or a box on the bill that says, in essence, "Hey, if you
spill this you must contact EPA immediately. It is a
hazardous substance."
And the reason for that is that many chemicals
are tendered, they are not hazardous under DOT but many
chemicals are tendered to the tank truck industry under
trade names and, or in compliance with other trade names.
So, we may have a hazardous substance for which we have a
tremendous liability and we don't report a spill or we
don't even know it. We don't even know the fact that
it is indeed a hazardous substance.
-------
34
MR. KOVALICK: We have a comment from the
audience for the record. "The Department of Transporta-
tion in the Transportation Safety Act of 1974, defines
hazardous materials as any material that poses a threat
to public health or welfare, which implies that all
hazardous wastes would be included and identified by a
section of DOT which implies EPA should not interfere
in transportation aspects which implies needless dupli-
cation of regulatory activity by EPA into transportation
Act business which proves that the Resource Conservation
Recovery Act is a bad law.
(Laughter.)
MR. KOVALICK: Unquote. I return with a question
for you which I am reading.
MR. ROBERTS: Do you want to comment on that?
MR. KOVALICK: No, I don't want to comment on
that.
(Laughter.)
MR. HARVISON: Mr. Kovalick, if you want all
these bad laws, the RCRA is a bad law, too.
MR. KOVALICK: I'm reading this so you know that.
BY MR. KOVALICK:
Q Regarding Mr. Harvison's statement, it has been
suggested that DOT be under the regulatory aspect of the
-------
35
transportation of hazardous wastes, I think EPA, in an
opinion supported by the members of the National Tank
Truck Carriers based upon a survey of each member?
A I can answer the question. No problem.
The Association makes policy the same way that
other democratic institutions do and that is with a board
of directors. The National Tank Truck Carriers has
approximately 215 domestic members, that is individual
companies. We have a board of directors and a staff of
52 individuals.
This specific question regarding DOT and EPA
was addressed to the board of directors by formal ballot.
And there was not one dissenting vote to the opinion that
we are expressing here this morning. And I hope that that
type of unanimity, not only first it points out our trade
association makes policy, but also hopefully responds to
the theory of the question.
MR. KOVALICK: Any questions.
MR. EDELMAN: This is a follow-up of the earlier
question.
BY MR. EDELMAN:
Q I think you may have already answered it. If
only a generic name is provided on the manifest, what good
would that do local emergency personnel in cleaning up
-------
36
the accidents? Certain constructions are extremely
hazardous and some handling information should be avail-
able on the scene of the accident, not three or four
states away. And — I can't read the rest of the card —
and not locked up until, say, the opening time.
A I think I can respond to that in two ways.
First of all, knowledge is -- shippers (?) have their
own 24-hour emergency response service. Half cf the
nation's shippers already have that service. I believe
Monsanto Company and several of them have access to good
information.
Secondly, I would remind the questioner that
this is a "where angels fear to tread" situation regard-
ing hazardous spills. As our experience has proven,
beyond a doubt, that you just can't write a set of
instructions for a hazardous spill. There are so many
contingencies involved in the highly volatible chemical
that's spilled. Maybe one of your first questions is,
in responding to that spill, is it raining or not; is it
into a waterway or water stream? If so, what type of
water stream. You can write volumes of books about all
the possible spill contingencies for each and every produci
Again, going back to my earlier statement, you
can probably get the information over the phone Easter
-------
37
then you can look it up in any anthology.
MR. KOVALICK: Alan.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q I think that I have belabored-you long enough,
Mr. Harvison, but I just want to be very clear on one
point I believe you've made regarding Question No. 1; a
very lengthy question. In essence, it says, "Should DOT
modify its definition of hazardous materials to include
all hazardous wastes? Should EPA then incorporate DOT
regulations by reference or should EPA consider a separate
set of regulations to supplement the gaps in DOT regulatory
coverage, in that EPA regulations would cover only wastes
which are hazardous, and not all hazardous materials?"
I gather from your comments, and a very simplis-
tic manner, what is on your comments, I would assume that
you said, and I'll read it. I think you said, "DOT should
do it all so far as transportation is concerned," am I
correct?
A DOT should publish it all, should make the final
decisions, but be highly responsive to EPA's technical
expertise.
Q This would include materials beyond the scope
of the present DOT regulations?
A That is correct. They may have to be handled
-------
38
separately, and again, let's not hold up 100 percent of
the regulations for five or ten percent of the problem.
Q Okay. Thank you.
MR. KOVALICK: This is a -- I guess a question
and a comment.
BY MR. KOVALICK:
Q If DOT'S regulated role of commodity becomes
a hazardous waste, the next logical step is to seek proper
disposal. However, disposal sites under the Resource
Conservation Recovery Act or RCRA, would be regulated
under EPA, so undfer what brand of mechanism could the
affected shipper avoid dual regulations. I don't know
if that's a -- that may be an all morning question.
A We are anticipating, first of all, how this is.
It might be forfeited for the questioner at the meeting
regarding the transportation regulations at the Ramada
Inn in Rosslynn, a week ago Wednesday, EPA representa-
tives made certain comments regarding when a particular
commodity fell under hazardous wastes.
Perhaps Mr. Trask or Mr. Edelman might want
to comment on that, but I think that the question was
answered. It's in a transcript of that meeting, and
that is, that this has got to be a designated waste. It
has got to be going to a designated disposal facility,
-------
39
to follow the regulatory regime.
And really, the question is more in the area
of contaminated loads. I think the question was, "If
a DOT regulated commodity . . . something happens to it,
and all of a sudden it becomes a hazardous waste."
There is something when a load as a practical point is
not released, and I am talking contamination now, not
a spill environment. If something happens to that com-
modity, either it's contaminated by another product in the
tank or container or degrades in the tank and what have
you, that load is returned to the shipper and then a
decision is made.
Is it going to be redefined. Is it going to
be sold to what element in the economic industry or
chemical industry, people who do nothing but buy and
reprocess contaminated chemicals. Such a decision making
process in back of what happens to that load does not,
in my opinion, at least, axiomatically become a hazardous
waste.
Q We are running over the time we are going to
allot for speakers, but let me read one statement. Let
me comment that we are getting several cards that ask for
clarifications on all of the EPA proposed regs, about
how DOT regs affects them and how EPA proposed regs
-------
40
affect them, for you.
A I'll be here. If I can make it, I'll be here
throughout the entire day, and explain as much as I can
to anybody.
MR. KOVALICK: Our problem is, we are trying
to gather data on our questions, so it means for those we
are not reading, to catch us during the breaks or at the
end of the meeting. We will be available and limit our-
selves to not answering questions from the Panel. If
we can, we will get through all the speakers and possibly
come back to them.
I do have one statement to read and I guess Alan
has at least one question, and then we will go on to the
next speaker.
The statement is, "A spilled material by
definition is no longer being transported, but it is
under the environment, EPA should develop regs to address
all spills of hazardous wastes." So, I guess that's a
comment on the opposite side.
A I wouldn't consider that as a comment.
Q This is another question for you, Mr. Harvison.
You stated that 90 percent of the problem, "is
being handled and transported in a satisfactory manner.
What data supports this contention?"
-------
41
A No, I didn't state that it is being handled.
I am anticipating. I would be the first to admit that
I have no technical data. What I said was, that regula-
tions, I believe thanks to current DOT classification,
placarding, commodity and container requirements, will
take care of 90 percent of the problem. We, in the tank
truck industry, are hauling today very safely, very
efficiently, and economically, one heck of a lot of sludge,
glasses and pickling solutions and what have you. We are
doing it and we are doing it safely.
What I am saying is, that these regulations,
the way they're written, the way they're proposed, rather,
90 percent of the problem will fit hand and glove with
the DOT requirements. The 90 percent figure is no tangible
basis. We are well aware that there are many, many wastes
that cannot be handled. First of all, cannot be handled
in tank vehicles and rail cars. Radioactive wastes, cer-
tain other types of wastes, are extremely sensitive. we
recognize that. But again, I apologize to the questioner
but I do not have chapter and verse on the 90 percent, and
won't bother to produce it.
MR. KOVALICK: I believe that the 90 percent statement
was addressed much earlier to the point that 90 percent
of the entire scope of the problem is simply handled with
-------
42
the existing format or scheme of things.
A Proposed scheme of things.
Q I didn't mean that that meant everything was
satisfactory.
A No, I'm not saying that.
Q But the question does raise a point that I
would like to pursue just for one moment. I'd like to
approach this from two standpoints: one, is the potential
foursome type of failure in the transportation to get
from Point A to Point B?
A Which is statistically predictable.
Q The other thing is to form some manner or
mechanism to guarantee that a material got to where it
was intended to go in the first place. Do you feel sure
that the latter portion of this thing is being adequately
addressed? In other words, do you have assurances that
the material is going for shipping and not being dumped
in somebody's sewer, for example?
A Yes. The way that the proposed manifest has
been explained to me, that there would be three signoffs,
that while mostly you can't have a regulatory regime,
you are going to have either an EPA, fish or fowl, of
every load, of every waste, that thousands of them are
transported throughout the country. There will be, as I
-------
43
understand it, within the manifest system, a signoff
provision with all the legal background for forfeiture
provision with falsification.
In other words, we believevthat the Act contem-
plates whether a stringent or severe penalty provision
for anyone who is attempting to defraud these.
MR. ROBERTS: Do you have any question about
DOT's authority to engage in a regulatory requirement as
specified, say, in transit of destination, hazardous
wastes material, do we have that authority, in your
opinion? I know you don't practice the law.
A Do you wish a legal conservative implementation
of the '75 Act, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.
J. would say that today, if you came out with regulations
along that line. National Tank Truck Carriers is going
to raise its regs as long as, of course, its tagged in
with hazardous materials.
Q Well, the question is, as you suggested earlier,
that DOT would have the authority to do everything that
is intended by this Act. Take an example. Take a solution
as contaminated as PCB.
A Okay.
Q And everything is going according to the
published regulations with one exception; instead of
-------
44
taking it to the proper disposal facility, he takes it
to a gravel pit and dumps it. Do you find anything in
the DOT statutory authority that would permit DOT to
engage in enforcement relative to the fact that he
wilfully dumped it on somebody's private property, not
in a place of licensed disposal of that material.
A I would say that he is currently in violation
of two, if not three, existing statutes. First of all,
the enactment clause on a 2-500, and secondly, most
assuredly, the Interstate Commerce Act regulated carrier,
and I would like to see it effective here before the
DOT gets to him.
Q After imposing social penalties on somebody --
I would like the opportunity, however, to research such
a question and respond to you directly with respect to
the possible violation of the existing oversight statute
of the Department of Transportation. I will respond for
the record.
Q My question is representative of the common
carrier group.
A The question is a real live question, I appreciate
that.
Q I recognize you said the statutory authorities.
The question was addressed specifically to the Hcizardous
-------
45
Materials Transportation Act.
A I would like to have the opportunity and will
indeed research that, and have my attorney research that,
and we'll respond for the record.
MR. KOVALICK: I guess that's just about it.
Again, we seem to have several questions that
seem to be for the Panel. We're going to hold those until
later in the day and we'll get to you individually.
Off the record for a moment.
(Remarks made off the record.)
MR. KOVALICK: On the record.
Thank you very much, Mr. Harvison.
(Applause.)
MR. KOVALICK: I hope our questioning will not deter
any future speakers.
(Laughter.)
MR. KOVALICK: While we are waiting for Mr. Thomas
Altpeter from the Midwest Research Institute, I would
like to alert Dr. Roy Ball that he will be next, followed
by Mr. Morris Hershson of the National Barrel & Drum
Association.
Don't forget, if you have questions or- wish
to participate, we have cards available.
Mr. Altpe ter.
-------
46
MR. ALTPETER: Apparently there is some mistake. I
don't have a statement at this time.
MR. KOVALICK: Okay. Thank you. Sorry if there
was an error.
Dr. Ball, representing the American Society for
Civil Engineers, from the University of Tennessee. Dr.
Ball.
Well, we will come back later.
Mr. Hershson. You're here.
MR. HERSHSON: I have filed a written statement,
which is too lengthy to bore this group with.
MR. KOVALICK: Why don't you take the lectern.
MR. HERSHSON: I didn't want to waste time.
I said, I have filed a written statement which
is too lengthy to read, concerning my specific industry.
However, I would like to state that I have aligned myself
with generally evasive comments from Mr. Harvison's
statement. I believe that transportation regulations of
DOT should goven the transportation of hazardous wastes.
I think that whatever regulations EPA finds necessary
for alternative disposal or for additional generation,
which are both outside the field of transportation, should
remain with EPA. And that EPA should permit the trans-
portation to remain with the agency which has the
-------
47
greatest experience in that field, and with which industry
is presently involved.
That's my general statement.
MR. KOVALICK: You've generated at least one question.
MR. HERSHSON: Good. I knew I would from Mr.
Roberts.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q I have not read your statement, Mr. Hershson,
but I've read an earlier statement that you've presented
to the Rosslynn meeting.
A They are practically the same.
Q Then I've read it several times then.
Several questions have been raised informally
concerning the use of drums. You are an expert in that
field and while we have you up here, we might as well ask
the question; two questions.
A Ail right.
Q One is, at the present time at 49 CFR 173.28,
there is a restriction against the use of the reuse of
the 17 series drum for Poison B materials, the drums having
been reconditioned may hot be reused in Class B poisons.
In light of the joint attention and effort being
devoted to this field that we are discussing here today,
I would like to have your reaction, current reactions to
-------
that particular restriction.
A Well, I've always felt a restriction was unneces-
sary and I have, I think, stated that on several occasions.
That comes of consolidation and simplification of J;he Act
which is principally attempting with M-153 and -55, We
would recommend acception of 73.28 be modified or amended.
So that Class B poisons should be permitted in new or
reconditioned drums, because there is no real hazard in
reconditioned drums in that field anymore than there is
in flammable.
Q Same reason for reconditioned regulation?
A Right.
Q The second part of that question. The comment
is raised, if a drum is intended to go to a waste disposal
facility, where it is going to be lawfully and legally
buried, as a disposal mechanism, a number of people have
raised the point, why should they have to go through the
reconditioning process on a drum's life that is going to
be very short, when its purpose is to do nothing but to
go to a waste disposal facility for permanent disposal?
A Well, there are several aspects to that situation.
In the first place, I find that inconsistent with the
general objectives of the EPA, to take a current reusable
drum which may have a life of three, four, five, six
-------
49
additional trips and bury it. You are thereby burying
a drum which would take the place of six new drums with
the concommitant use of iron, ore, coal, energy, et cetera.
So, it is inconsistent, of course, from one aspect of the
Act to bury a drum, and on the other hand say we need
resource conservation.
The second part of your question is whether or
not a reconditioned drum should be used since we repre-
sent reconditioners. I think a reconditioned drum should
be used rather than new. I think there are some technical
and important significant reasons why a drum should
either be used or reconditioned, for the transportation
of even one mile, let alone two or three hundred miles of
a hazardous waste.
Q Leakage, of which there is no guarantee of an
unreconditioned drum. The regulations say that recondi-
tioned drums must be tested for leaks.
That perhaps incompatibility of the material
being placed in the drum, with the basic material previ-
ously in the drum. And for those two reasons alone, I
think that it is dangerous to use unreconditioned drums
for the disposition of hazardous wastes and alternate
materials. I have recommended to EPA that a very inten-
sive study be made for packaging, whether it be paper,
-------
50
steel, plastic, box for the specific purpose of this
disposition of hazardous materials.
A Not to use good reconditioned drums which I
endorse today under the present regulations, and B, in
order to create a vehicle which would be suitable for
this purpose, and which would be designed for this purpose,
rather than take packaging designed for a multitude of
purposes.
Q Well, going back to your earlier part of the
statement, I still have several questions, and I think
that it is important that we pursue this a little bit,
because drums are a significant factor in the inter-
change between DOT and EPA, and the standards for the
packages to be used for materials; DOT regulations plus
additional materials not presently subject to DOT regula-
tions. We have a term that is reconditioned, therefore,
it is usable under regulations, assuming it has passed
the required test for another trip for a commercial
product.
You're also suggesting that reconditioned drums
be used for hazardous material, even if it is going to go
one mile, it's a hazardous waste.
In fact, there is some kind of paradox in what
you are saying, in that, if there is good resource, in
-------
51
terms of burying a good reconditioned drum, and you infer
that we mutually infer that we should all need authori-
zation for reconditioned drums for hazardous wastes.
Which way are you going to have it?
A If you were going to use drums for the ultimate
disposition of hazardous wastes, I would say you should
use a reconditioned drum because of the safety factor. I
am not in favor of using used drums, if drums are reusable
for the reasons I have already advanced. But since we
cannot have any other package of that size, that could
be used for that purpose, and until we develop under
EPA's research, I hope, until we develop some specific
package for that purpose, I see no alternative, if we are
going to use drums, but to use either a new or reconditioned
drum, and obviously reconditioned drums are cheaper.
Q If we are going to a waste facility, I would
assume we are not concerned with the efficacy of a product
in terms of its commercial value, in the sense that we
don't want to contaminate Coca Cola with served (?)
I think we all understand that. That's a poor illustration.
But material of that type. I think we understand that.
If it is to a waste facility, is this incompatible. The
question that you've raised is really a significant
problem to be addressed.
-------
52
A I am told that it is important. I am not a
technical man in that respect that I can give you any
technical data. I can check it and find out, and submit
an answer to you. But the leakage part problem is
definitely important because if a drum is going to leak,
it can leak in that first mile as well as the 15th mile,
in terms of leaking a hazardous material, because the drum
is reconditioned and untested, but I think you have a
genuine real hazard that can cause serious problems.
Q One of the drafts, and I don't know whether it's
final or semi-final, but the present draft that T saw
does not jibe with the DOT or OSHA regulations. There
are no specification of containers in DOT for 73 degrees.
A Right.
Q Obviously, some materials on that level on the
part of the draft regulations would be subject to hazar-
dous wastes regulatory requirements.
Are you suggesting that reconditioned crams would
be required under DOT regulations where the materials have
a higher flash point?
A I am suggesting that it would be advisable.
Q What about materials not presently subject to
DOT regulations outside flammability?
A I am suggesting that it would be advisable.
-------
53
Q Do you know of any instances based on recent
experience which would illustrate the need for that in
terms of transport requirements?
A Well, there is a whole file of accident reports
that you have access to in California's Safety Council
with transportation of hazardous materials, but I don't
know if any of those materials are necessary to hazardous
wastes or hazardous materials. We have many of such
hazardous materials delivered in certain drums and leakage
in transport, and therefore it can be argued that in some
of those instances, they are not in reconditioned drums.
Also, there is no requirement that the drums
be registered by DOT, not being a red label product.
MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. KOVALICK: We have several other questions.
For a person who hasn't given a statement, you are getting
a lot of questions.
MR. HERSHSON: I shouldn't have come up here.
MR. KOVALICK: I hope you don't believe that.
BY MR. KOVALICK:
Q Again, I have to ask you to comment on our
dilemma. We understood your endorsement on Mr. Harvison's
remarks in which we would present EPA evidence to DOT,
as to the need to regulate biocumulative materials that
-------
54
they currently do not regulate. That is above, if you
will, above the toxicity levels that they might currently
choose criteria that we feel cause hazard to the environ-
ment. And again, we have a mandate protecting the
environment. How do you view our dilemma and, in good
conscience, which again DOT reviews their mission and
finds that those materials are not affecting the criteria
even though they do affect the environment. How do we
make sure that our mandate is assured by becoming a
petitioner to DOT rather than regulating it ourselves?
A Well, the best way I can answer your question
is this. I think Mr. Harvison's question and basic
thesis of the agency involved in transportation regula-
tions should remain involved in this industry. Now, if
the DOT, for example, in answer to your question about
the product mix, can it remember how to pronounce a
regional word, does DOT, for example, refuse to exercise
its transportation regulatory authority with reference
to that product because of its own mandate under its own
Act, then you have an interagency dilemma, and it seems
to me that if the two agencies cannot come together under
your own mandate, if I were running your office, and I'm
glad I'm not, if I were running your office I would
develop the regulations under those circumstances and
-------
55
under that dilemma. I would issue the regulation, having
first attempted to comply with the section of your own
Act to get consistency with the DOT regulations. So if
I were there, I1would say, well, you don't want to handle
this, and we think it is important, we're issuing the
regulation on that product. v
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you.
Mr. Trask.
BY MR. TRASK:
Q Mr. Hershson, I would like to pursue a slightly
different angle — I'm sorry, I can't look at you and
talk at the same time.
/-/fffsrf-sa/v:
MR. KWKE^eW: You're lucky.
BY MR. TRASK:
Q (Continuing) -- and this is in the area of
how we should treat the standards that are being developed
for generators, and I'm speaking now with generators who
are your sources of supply for your reconditioned plants.
It has been suggested that in order to speak to one of
the major purchasers of RCRA, which is Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act, that we somehow relax the
standards and list those instead that are available for
those wastes, that are somehow going to the resource
material recovery.
-------
56
I am wondering how you view what we should be
doing, how far should we relax these, if at all.
A I think you should relax your generation require-
ments and your current requirements for empty drums which
previously contained hazardous materials.
Q The question of the generator in reconditioning,
in the same manner and to the same extent, are considering
relaxing those requirements, going from the generator to
the salvage company facility. Because the purpose of your
Act, to some extent, is resource conservation and instead
of a resource conservation facility, you start making
them into a usable solvent, take your drums and make them
into reusable drums, then the requirements for the genera-
tor and the requirements for the recovery treatment
facilities should be eased under both circumstances.
A Well, specifically, the record requires that
you deliver standards for record keeping, manifest and
reporting. All three. Those are only part of the
general requirements, but those are needed for a permit
here. Which, if any, of those should we relax or should
we eliminate them altogether? How do you feel about
that?
A Well, I heard in Rosslynn, that with reference
to, for example, a salvage recovery facility, when giving
-------
57
thought to exempting, we merely would have record keeping
requirements for him under those circumstances. Is my
recollection correct?
I also heard, in reference to the same salvage
recovery facility, that you are considering easing any
requirement for issuance of a permit for such a salvage
facility for hazardous wastes; am I correct in that?
Q (Nodding.)
A That the reconditioning drum facility should
have the same exemptions as the salvage recovery.
Q Do you really believe that relaxing these
restrictions or standards on the generators would have a
significant economic impact on your industry?
A Relaxing --?
Q In other words, would it make drums easier to
get for your reconditioner? You mentioned to me one time
some time ago that drums were not readily available,
would this change that?
A I'm not certain that it would or wouldn't. I
think the reason for the drum shortage, outside the pur-
view of this meeting, the reason for the drums should
just have to do with throwing away light weight drums,
and therefore not have any significance to reference
to EPA or even DOT at this moment. But I don't know whether
-------
58
it would increase or decrease, and I have no thought on
that.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Roberts.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Mr. Hershson, when you were talking about the
transportation requirements, I am being parochial about
this, do you see any rationale in terms of the — the
tk«t-
motivation c£. this seems to be giving to recycling or
recovery? Do you see any rationale in that portion of
the Act pertaining to the transportation contols that
would call for unequal treatment of materials? In other
words, more rules on materials going to the trash dump
than to the recycling facilities? Do you see any?
A Are you talking about incentives of both Acts?
Q Incentives of the hazardous -- RCRA?
A Yes. I see a very important reason for recon-
ditioning treatment, because when you treat a used drum
going through a reconditioning facility, you are, in
effect, conserving your recovery resources. When you
bury that material in a disposition facility, you are
doing just the opposite. So there's great rationale
in reconditioning treatment, yes.
Q What agency should regulate the safety mandate?
A Well, it seems to me that if EPA were to ask
-------
59
DOT for the easing of these requirements, assuming the
requirements have to be eased under your DOT regulations,
but I doubt that they do, but assuming that they do, it
seems to me that you would be violating the spirit, even
the letter of your own Act where you are coinciding
regulations with EPA. I don't see how DOT authority
would be undermined or would be exaggerated.
Q Well, let me go back for a moment. One of the
commenters wrote a card and tried to provide his analysis
of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. I thought
it was very interesting because he left out key words,
"unreasonable risks," which is part of that definition.
jjoi^iklo >"\--t><( by fhi-t [
Now if I had been peiyeoo-rctis^Fbed fey phecctn (??)
pardon me for taking all of that, that is, to a waste
disposal facility — you're not allowed to do that any-
more -- or a facility for recycling or a facility for
commercial purposes, or placement for transport, that's
a lousy word. All I am doing is making my point in terms
of transportation safety. Do you believe that there
should be different treatment given to that transportation
of that particular material during the course of trans-
portation because of the incentives portion or incentives
aspect of the RCRA?
A Well, you are using a bad example for me when
-------
60
you use PCR's. I don't think there should be incentives
to give either transportation or anything else for PCB's.
Q What is the OD of 500 material?
A Just stay away from any such material. There is
some toxicity that's considered to be more of a toxicity,
not significantly acute in terms of the transportation
portion that's being dealt with.
Q You have to be going to a waste facility, a
recycling facility, or you have been going to someplace
for commercial purposes. By the same truck, you may
have three drums side-by-side. One billed to recycling;
one billed to commercial user and a farmer's fill, for
example. Do you feel like the rules affecting the Act
should apply differently to the three different fills?
A I think you and I have a different concept
about how these two Acts will work. In unison, that's
very possible.
Q Now, if EPA came to you and said, "We would
use your regulation concerning classifications; flamma-
bility, for example, insofar as transportation require-
ments are concerned. In other words, packaging reauire-
ments, flammable material for other requirements, EPA
will endorse.
As a matter of fact, they have a disconnection
-------
61
with the package which is different, and the case of
Drum A against Drum B has nothing to do with you because
of the transportation requirements that you have; that's
the kind of package it is, and the shipping paper, the
back writing and so forth. But the ultimate disconnection
is not your concern. It is the concern of EPA and of
this Act.
Q Then you say DOT should stay away from any
terminology that uses words like "hazardous wastes,"
"DOT hazardous material," regardless of what the criteria?
A I don't necessarily say that. I think you also
have categories of hazardous wastes. I hadn't thought
about that.
Q Hazardous material poses same hazards?
A It poses the same hazards. It should be subject
to the same DOT regulations, and the DOT regulations today
makes no distinction as to where the drum is going.
Q I realize I have been belaboring this with
you, but the point that addresses all the comments and
all the expressions, is that DOT should do this and it
sounds like DOT is being negative towards doing anything.
I just want to draw out points of view from all its
*•
aspects.
The basis for asking you this is your statement
-------
62
that some recognition should be given to these so-called
"empty drums".
A Yes, but the latitude I'm not -- the latitude
from DOT -- it's my latitude from EPA, and that's the
great distinction here. It seems to give latitude, in
my opinion, on both ends, not in the middle, not in
transportation.
Q Okay.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you, Mr. Hershson.
MR. HERSHSON: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. KOVALICK: Our next question, before I go on to
Mr. Graziano — Mr. Graziano might want to move to the
podium — I have a statement for. the record.
The Panel's questions concerning why the short-
age of reconditioned drums and the answer by Mr. Hershson
that the shortage is because of the use of light gauge
drums, I'd like, as representative of the Steel Shipping
Container Institute to make a statement to rebut Mr.
Hershson's statement.
So I will add Mr. Schultz, from the Steel
Shipping Institute, to the end of this afternoon's
speakers and we are planning on hearing from him then.
We have Mr. Graziano of the Association of
American Railroads.
-------
63
MR. GRAZIANO: Good morning.
MR. KOVALICK: Will you accept questions?
MR. GRAZIANO: Absolutely.
Considerable background has already been given
on the subject by EPA in public meetings held to discuss
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. EPA
has been moving ahead developing regulations which
affect transporters of hazardous materials. In 1976,
the DOT published an advanced notice of proposed rule-
making, HM-145, to deal with environmental and health
effects materials in transportation. In a joint communi-
que of September 22, the DOT and EPA notified the public
of this hearing and presented a series of discussion
topics. Those discussion topics were identified in the
Federal Register by EPA/DOT, and also in a brochure.
I would like to address those discussion topics one by
one.
It is clear from the action to date that the
EPA has taken the lead in developing regulations for
hazardous waste transportation. Several proposals have
been circulated to industry suggesting certain transpor-
tation requirements. DOT has likewise recognized a need
to address this concern by issuing HM-145. While EPA
has moved ahead as a result of the RCRA Act, DOT, as a
-------
64
regulatory agency for transportation, must continue to
cooperate toward the development of regulations for
transportation which will not be conflicting, overlapping,
or in contradiction with one another.
What approach should be taken? In the spirit
of looking for a common solution for the problem of accom-
modating hazardous waste transporters, EPA should carefully
review DOT quantitative and qualitative criteria for
hazardous materials and adopt, where necessary, those DOT
requirements. Where it is not possible for EPA to adopt
DOT criteria, then EPA criteria should also be stated in
the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations as they apply to
shippers and transporters when transporting materials not
specifically covered by DOT regulations. Because of the
interrelationship between hazardous materials which will
be identified as hazardous waste and subject to DOT
regulations, it is not sufficient to rely on publication
of transportation requirements for hazardous waste solely
by EPA.
Those regulations must be accommodated in the
DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations. This accommodation
can take place in several ways. However, by following
the format of the DOT regulations, a separate section
could be established for environmentally hazardous
-------
65
materials. This section could cover requirements which
are not consistent with DOT. DOT should review possible
amendments to regulations to accommodate EPA concerns in
the environmentally hazardous area.
Should DOT modify its definition of hazardous
materials to include all hazardous waste? Yes. Materials
which are identified by the EPA as requiring identifica-
tion, packaging control, classification, and labeling
should be properly identified under the DOT regulations.
This may require DOT establishing in the regula-
tions a new class of materials as suggested above --
environmentally hazardous for those materials which are
not directly covered by DOT regulations. This would mean
the adoption of EPA criteria for those materials, with
specific identification found in a separate section within
the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations. In this way
transporters and shippers would have a ready reference
to the transportation requirements for environmentally
hazardous waste. DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations
for transportation are the proper repository for regula-
tions which affect transportation of materials identified
as hazardous.
Should EPA then incorporate DOT regulations?
EPA should publish a set of regulations which deal with
-------
66
requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. However, EPA regulations dealing with transportation
should also be found in the DOT regulations.
Discussion Topic No. 2. Where EPA and DOT
concerns on materials are the same, flammable materials,
for example, EPA should carefully review DOT requirements
and adopt them. Where DOT regulations do not speak to
hazards such as bioaccumulative, carcinogenic, infectious,
or lower degrees of toxicity, then a special category for
these materials should be established, as I indicated
above. This adoption is necessary if the cycle of waste
generation, generation, and disposal is going to be
successfully completed by all persons who have a respon-
sibility for meeting these requirements.
I would recommend the establishment of an
environmentally hazardous classification for adoption
by DOT. The establishment of this category, in my
opinion, is consistent with DOT efforts to logically
identify the kind of hazard presented by the material.
Materials which are environmentally hazardous only, do
not present the same kind or degree of hazard in trans-
portation as would hazardous materials. However, by
establishing this class, it would alert shippers,
transporters, and emergency services personnel of the
-------
67
type of hazard presented by these materials. Its estab-
lishment conveys the concern of the EPA for the material.
Where a material is both a DOT regulated material and a
material regulated by the EPA, an a-dition to the DOT
description and classification should be provided for
to adequately identify the EPA concern.
Discussion Topic No. 3. In my opinion and the
opinion of the railroad industry, DOT should modify as
necessary shipping paper requirements to accommodate EPA
requirements. A separate document for transportation
purposes is merely another burden on the shipping and
transporting companies. A separate manifest system is
not necessary to accomplish the purpose of RCRA. This
proposed duplication can be avoided by coordination between
EPA and DOT. We believe that information necessary to
satisfy both EPA and DOT can be accommodated in a single
shipping document.
Topic No. 4. The current DOT requirements are
sufficient for handling hazardous waste in transportation
when hazardous waste meets the requirements of DOT
regulations.
If DOT regulations are amended to include EPA
hazardous wastes and a special class as recommended is
adopted and shipping paper requirements are consistent,
-------
68
EPA and DOT could give consideration to adoption of a
label or a placard which would be consistent with DOT
requirements; but its use should only be required where
DOT does not provide for either a label or placard.
Topic No. 5. Registration requirements seem to
be an unnecessary burden and a duplication of effort
insofar as the transporters of hazardous materials and
wastes are concerned. All rail carriers are currently
required to be registered with the Interstate Commerce
Commission. In addition, rail carriers are an immediately
identifiable transportation entity. Every carrier is
listed in the publication known as the Official Guide,
which includes the name, title, and location of all prin-
cipal officers of the company. Suggesting that a further
registration is necessary for these carriers is essentially
an overlapping of current requirements imposed by other
jurisdictions. I do not believe it is necessary for
rail carriers to register as transporters of hazardous
waste. If the information is needed by the EPA, it can
currently be obtained from other federal entities.
Topic No. 6. With respect to notification of
spills of any material identified as hazardous, a single
telephone response number should be utilized. since the
Coast Guard has responsibility within the DOT for
-------
69
emergency response, it would seem logical to suggest the
Coast Guard as the organization to notify the spills of
hazardous waste. Significant benefits can be derived by
both EPA and DOT in having a single telephone number for
referral of emergency response. A single telephone number
would be of immense benefit to the shippers, transporters,
and other public organizations who would have only one
single number to call.
With respect to DOT incident reports, it is my
opinion that these reports can be modified to provide
the necessary information desired by EPA regarding a
spill of a hazardous waste. This action would be prefer-
able to EPA developing a separate and distinct report for
hazardous waste. Those reports should be filed with DOT.
If DOT adopts certain hazardous waste requirements, then
reports could be shared with EPA. When a material is
spilled which is both a DOT hazardous material and an
EPA environmentally hazardous waste, a single report
required to be filed with DOT by the shipper or carrier
could be shared with EPA, assuring consistent application
of information.
Topic Mo. 7. Current DOT regulations with
respect to spilled material address acute hazards prin-
cipally directed to the protection of life, whereas the
-------
70
EPA is principally concerned with materials which affect
the environment. These concerns, while apparently
addressing different goals, are not necessarily incon-
sistent.
It is possible and even urged that if spilled
material must be handled that cooperation between the
EPA and the DOT would be beneficial to the shipping and
transporting Washington services, as well as other agencies
that are concerned about spilled materials.
I might add that regulations which set the
control goals should be provided for on a performance
oriented basis and not intend to write, all in detail,
all the necessary steps by chapter and verse.
Topic No. 8. Significant progress has been
made by transportation companies involving response to
spills. Companies have developed procedure manuals and
programs for emergency respnse and cleanup. The railroad
industry has developed a. program to identify materials
which when spilled present hazards to the public and
has recommendations on cleanup and neutralization of such
spills. This information has been developed in a com-
puter format and will be available in hard copy. Com-
pany procedures have been in existence for some years,
and insofar as the rail transportation of these materials
-------
71
is concerned, they have been effective.
Prior to developing an opinion on a regulatory
program on cleanup of spills, a thorough examination of
this area should be made by EPA and DOT.
Topic No. 9. The loading and stowage chart
developed by the DOT should only be modified after care-
ful review and consideration by technicians of the con-
sequences of such modification. For example, if the
modification of the loading and stowage chart will create
a more hazardous condition, then it should be avoided.
If, on the other hand, it can be shown that mixed loading
and stowage of materials will not create a more hazardous
condition, then the requirements of the loading and
stowage chart could be modified.
As Director of the Bureau" of Explosives and
principal spokesman for the railroad industry in matters
involving hazardous materials, I urge DOT and EPA to work
toward the goal of developing a single set of transporta-
tion regulations covering EPA hazardous wastes for shippers
and transporters, thereby eliminating conflicting, over-
lapping, and contradictory regulations.
Conflicting, overlapping, and contradictory
regulations will produce nothing more than mass chaos
for who issue the regulations by people called upon to
-------
72
implement them. This sentiment was most pointedly made
in a seminar I attended earlier this year in Los Angeles.
During a ouestion and answer period, a Traffic Manager of
a small company asked the question, "With DOT, EPA, OSHA,
and other agencies all issuing regulations and requirements,
is there anyone at the federal level looking out for the
concerns of the people who must use these regulations on
a day to day basis so that we don't have conflicting,
overlapping, and contradictory requirements?"
I suggest that that is the job of the Panel at
the table. Thank you.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you, Mr. Graziano.
(Applause.)
MR. KOVALICK: Alan, will you start?
MR. ROBERTS: All right.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Again, I must ask you the question I've asked
other.s , "Do you see any rationale or logic in DOT promul-
gated safety regulations? Whatever distinctions would
be made into the area of the discussion here today. It
can apply only to waste materials, apply to all materials
with similar characteristics?
A I know you've asked this three or four times,
-------
73
but frankly I am having difficulty understanding your
question. Are you seeking to elicit from the speakers
whether or not DOT requirements go far enough or whether
the law permits them to go far enough?
Q I've a fundamental problem, Mr. Graziano. In
terms of applying the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act, there is no reference to the term "waste" to
materials, whatever form or whatever intended purpose
they may have. So we have again three materials that
have material-like hazards that went to three destina-
tions, two of which have something to do with the RCRA
jurisdiction, one of which has nothing to do with RCRA?
A Point A or B for commercial purposes. All of
the materials fall within the same criteria, whatever
that may be as to their risks during transportation
decided by the materials. I have to pursue this with
you because of your reference to hazardous waste, and I
reali2e that's the topic at this particular hearing
"hazardous waste".
But in asking you the question, the purpose
was to find and determine your views relative to all
materials posing a like risk during transportation, and
do you feel that the same rules should apply to these
materials or are you only addressing yourself to
-------
74
hazardous wastes?
A Well, again, are you talking about only
hazardous waste regulations; are you talking about other
aspects of EPA regulations which might involve transpor-
tation. For example, the Hazardous Substance Act.
Q No. Excuse me. Allow me to clarify it further.
You and Mr.- Harvison and Mr. Hershson, all
three were rather unanimous in supporting DOT's adoption
of regulations pertaining to the materials presently
under consideration by EPA for regulation of hazardous
wastes. The question is, are you -- is it your purpose
merely to keep it under DOT in one bag, or is it a con-
cern for the safety of these materials, and if so,is
your concern only to materials having like hazards,
regardless of their destination?
A Yes, I don't think destination really makes
any difference, does it, because it is still involving
the transportation cycle.
Q Right.
A And I think that point to me is pretty clear.
Q Okay. Then do you see any need for DOT to make
specific reference to the term "hazardous waste" as a
definitive mechanism to get into the regulations of
materials that it does not presently regulate?
-------
75
A If your question really is, does the Act contem-
plate the use of the term, obviously, it doesn't, but
does it contemplate the use of the kinds of hazards that
we're talking about, again, I think the answer is yes.
I think you're posing an unreasonable risk to
life and health and welfare, in a manner, in a form, in
quantity of the sufficient latitude. Now, whether or
not you care to interpret it that way, I think is another
question. But I would interpret it that way, and it gives
you the opportunity, if you choose, to address waste
materials, and for that fact, any other materials which
may have a "hazardous" effect. And that term "hazardous"
has been used by several organizations, OSHA, EPA, even
the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Even some toys
are hazardous, but they are not hazardous in the extent
that they were previously hazardous.
Q Just like I get from your statement today, they
may, and maybe from your viewpoint, it's possible, that
when you're referring to hazardous wastes, you're adopting
regs.
A I think you can. If you are not adopting regu-
lations that are referenced in a specific reference to
hazardous wastes, it is certainly applicable.
I think your statute accommodates the opportunity
-------
76
for you to determine that certain materials presents
certain waste materials -- presents substances as hazar-
dous and therefore are capable of adoption.
Q I would have to agree with that. In some areas,
reading the draft material, I would assume that in all
circumstances, sludge coming out of the waste water plant,
which is waste.
A I don't know that, but it's possible.
Q And the wastes out of hospitals, places like that,
medical facilities. You see it in terms of the placarding,
that whatever placarding that is adopted should be con-
sistent with DOT requirements?
A Yes.
Q Is that present DOT requirements or contemplated?
A I don't talk about contemplated. I am talking
about current DOT requirements. In the adoption ol the
current placard scheme, suggestion is made that the
symbol, the key word, and the color of the placard indicate
in some references the kinds of hazard that exists for the
material.
And if the material is hazardous, maybe there
would be a green placard or some other symbol on it, that
symbol and that wording should be such that it would indi-
cate to those that have to deal with the material what
-------
77
the hazards are that the material poses. So, we see
by your statement when you say "consistent with DOT
requirements" for placarding, but as they are right now?
A Yes. I feel that it is necessary in this
process to go right now to suggest that an expansion is
necessary as you go about the formal rulemaking on it,
and the comments of industry and the public to determine
what.
Q Perhaps you may want to clarify your statement
because it's much clearer the way I heard it, I didn't
read it, as to what you really meant by that particular —
A Well, let's just change this. Simply, if a
DOT requirement consists at the moment of circulating
placards under EPA, if the material meets the DOT require-
ments, it should be adopted. The placarding system is
the manner and the means of identifying the hazard.
If, however, a material which is not identified by DOT
but is identified as an EPA hazardous waste, it has to
be identified for the public through the placarding system.
It can be worked out by that placarding system, but it
should be consistent with the DOT requirements.
MR. KOVALICK: Could I just ask a question
following through on that?
BY MR. KOVALICK:
-------
78
Q Suppose, for example, waste containing some
toxic materials which might normally fall under the poison
class except that the definition is not within the current
DOT range, so there's no placard today for that material.
So would your suggestion be then that we urge DOT together
create a new diamond-shaped placard, in order to be con-
sistent with something, or on the other hand, that EPA
have a marking or different shape so as not to be confused
with DOT. That would be another option that is not
inconsistent because DOT is silent. So are both of those
or one of those preferable?
A Either of those options are worthy of discussion.
Q So the point is, DOT is silent, which is what
Mr. Roberts is driving at. There is no inconsistency.
A That's a very important point that was brought
up earlier, where there is no requirement, we have to
develop something new, either collectively or individually.
A That's correct. But even in developing that
proposal, I think you should review the DOT requirements,
for example, for the diamond-shaped placard and other
criteria that they have already develop-d. I suppose
what we are saying is, that we prefer -- do not try to
reinvent the wheel on the whole scheme.
-------
79
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Let me go back again. Based on what you know
right now, about everything that's been under considera-
tion, in drafts and scope, say, in your opinion right now,
the principal representative of the AAR, the Bureau of
Explosives, as you see right now, do you see a need for '
expansion of requirements, for other further material?
A No, I think that that would have to be looked
into, Alan. I would want to review that very carefully.
I don't think that this is the forum for such decision
or any expression of an opinion without reviewing it,
would be acceptable.
Q Well, okay. I want to ask you one more
question, hopefully. Question No. 7. "In the event of
a spill, the material cleaned up may become a hazardous
waste. Should DOT or EPA develop the regulations for
handling that spilled hazardous material?" I would like
to refer to one section of existing DOT regulations,
I'm really not either bragging or complaining about it,
but it is there. It concerns Section 174.57, "cleaning
cars which has hazardous material which has leaked from
a plackage in a rail car or on other railroad property
must be carefully removed." End of rule.
I would go back to the question, "In the event
-------
80
of a spill, the material cleaned up may become a
hazardous waste." I think that's a logical assumption.
Should DOT or EPA develop the regulations for handling
the spilled hazardous material?
Now, we can hook this particular rule to the
word "remove". Where, how, what means, whatever, it
is a suggestion that EPA or DOT further develop regula-
tions that would address this particular area?
A I'm not suggesting any further regulations with
respect to that, at the moment. I think what I am suggest-
ing is that before a rulemaking is put forth to the public
which suggests certain courses of action, and are found
to have regulations not in company practices, that EPA
and DOT review carefully to see whether or not they are
going to accomplish these objectives that you are trying
to address.
Q In the statement there that the material must
be removed, for example, it's pretty clear that you
can't inspect either on railroad property or railroad
cars. I agree with you it doesn't address where it should
be removed to or how it should be removed, or even who
should remove it. These are the questions that I think
it falls under, fundamental, legal, fundamental problems
of trying to codify a requirement detailing the removal
-------
81
of material.
MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Edelman has several questions
from the floor. Mr. Edelman.
BY MR. EDELMAN:
Q I'd also like to ask one question in reference
to Item No. 9, about loading and stowage of hazardous
wastes, specifically for the railroad.
Let me address the express concern to us,
specifically in the State of California and Texas, that
in the next year regarding incompatible wastes in trans-
portation vehicles. It is my current understanding that
the DOT regulations do address the loading and stowage
of materials, but they are not that concerned with the
mixing of chemicals. It is not to anyone's advantage
to to mix a pure chemical if they are to be permeated
to a product. Do you feel that this area should be
addressed in the regulations since there is a very great
potential that wastes that are picked up, be loaded into
tank cars, multiple wastes, and the potential for mixing
of incompatible wastes.
Should this be addressed by DOT or EPA?
A In my response to Topic No. 9, I indicated
that if modification of the loading and stowage create
-------
82
a more hazardous condition; in other words, the mixing
of incompatible wastes, then that should be avoided.
That should be looked at by technicians and people who
are qualified to determine whether or not mixing of
wastes is acceptable.
If, on the other hand, it won't create a prob-
lem, then I think that loading and stowage could be
modified. Now, I think you ought to be mindful of the
fact that the loading and stowage chart basically speaks
to individually packaged materials, and does not, I believe,
contemplate materials which may have more than one hazard
that are contained in a single container. And I think
your question goes, what happens if we have a big tank
and start putting three or four different kinds of wastes
in it.
My answer to that is if three or four different
kinds of wastes are not going to cause a problem, then
go ahead and do it. But if they are, and that should be
again decided by the technician, then that should be
avoided.
Q I still have a few questions and also a
statement. The statement is, It appears, One. EPA should
determine a list of materials, a duty of RCRA and inform
DOT.
-------
83
Two, DOT has the duty to regulate transporta-
tion of all materials designated as hazardous and a threat
to the public, to the public safety or the environment.
Three, EPA should develop a commercial response
system, a personnel qualified to handle spills, the
experts in protecting the environment, the Coast Guards
assistance.
And, four, EPA should establish various disposal
sites and process facilities to destroy and dispose of
all hazardous waste materials.
That is EPA's mandate.
MR. KOVALICK: And another statement which I
should read, and then we will go back to questions.
If EPA defines material as hazardous, quote-
unquote, be they a waste or not, then DOT should address
the requirements involved in assuring the safe handling
of that material to DOT'S protection.
Let EPA define the hazard and DOT define the
safe handling.
We're getting some mini statements from the
floor here.
A general question: Does the Panel consider
the word "waste" description of the hazard or a destina-
tion for the material?
-------
84
And I guess the answer is "neither." It is a
material, a kind of material.
Thank you, Mr. Graziano.
BY MR. KOVALICK:
Q Can the Panel or Mr. Graziano address how the
railroads would respond to implementation of a joint
EPA/DOT regulation on the State level by one or more
State agencies. This makes reference to the fact that
you may be aware that EPA is allowed to give the program,
if you will, of operating hazardous wastes, some control
to the State agencies, be it environmental, DOT, CSPC or
joint arrangement.
Would you care to comment?
A Would you like to comment first?
Q From our perspective, we are endeavoring to
require the Governor to make a statement as to who the
responsible agency will be in terms of developing each
part. The responsibilities we may undertake are under
our CIA and if those include economic or safety, then
they can be included in that plan.
A I listened very carefully to the word "imple-
mentation" arid while our industry, I believe, has no
problem with the implementation, I do suggest strongly
that any state regulations that are adopted be
-------
85
consistent and compatible with DOT, if not in fact in
your image of that.
I think it is not in anyone's best interest
to have regulations at the state level which are incon-
sistent with national regulations, when carriers and
shippers must ship domestically throughout the United
States. So that our urging would be that you adopt,
the States adopt regulations, and those regulations be
consistent, not a mere image.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Edelman, do you want to
proceed with the questions you have.
BY MR. EDELMAN:
Q First of all, your statement dealing with the
Coast Guard, in the event of an emergency, your response
notification of a spill emergency situation, you recom-
mended that the Coast Guard be an agency to whore a spill
situation is reported.
You, by this comment, are proposing establish-
ment of a federal agency, a response system, the way we
are referring to reporting only.
In a particularly bad winter w-en you are report-
ing to the Coast Guard, -you didn't seek emergency aid from
that Coast Guard number, did you?
I'm not sure if that's a plea or not.
-------
86
A It sounds like one of my constitutents here.
The Coast Guard, as I understand it, the DOT
people can correct me if I'm wrong, have prime respon-
sibility for spill response and spill notification in
the Department. And I believe, Alan, that that is the
telephone number that you use for notification when a
hazardous material gets spilled, is that correct?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes.
A It would seem to me that if that number is
already established and in use by OHMO, it would circulate
it to the world, if that number should be continued to be
established, we don't need to establish another number
to accomplish the same purpose.
MR. ROBERTS: I'd better qualify that.
The reporting requirements in the hazardous
material regulations under Sections 15 and 16 concern
any requirements for the immediate reporting of certain
types of accidents, either high cost accidents, if that's
the correct expression, high consequence, more than $50,000
property damage, injuries or injuries requiring hospitali-
zation and fatalities, that are directly involved.
This is an immediate telephone requirement and it has no
direct relationship under the spills contingency plan.
The spill contingency function, which is handled
-------
87
separately through the immediate reporting system, for
serious hazardous materials accidents, I would give the
Agency the information necessary to make a judgment as
to whether its investigator should be assigned to the
scene to investigate the accident after the fact, but not
to participate in the spilled clean up type responsibilities.
That's a preview of that particular regulation.
MR. TRASK: I have a couple of questions.
BY MR. TRASK:
Q Should there be filings with other agencies,
such as sent to EPA, a copy of the DOT reports?
A I think EPA should receive copies of DOT
reports. Those regs should be modified to reflect your
concern about hazardous wastes.
I believe DOT could, at least through the use
of its system of reporting, provide you with copies of
those reports.
MR. ROBERTS: Under the Freedom of Information
we would be required to if they asked for it.
MR. TRASK: Another question in this same general
area.
BY MR. TRASK:
Q Mr. Graziano, you stated that you did not feel
that a duplication of shipping documents was necessary.
-------
88
Since the manifest forms an intricate part of RCRA, are
you then suggesting that DOT shipping paper requiiements,
i.e., shipping certification statement or HM column, be
worked into the manifest format and manifest be the
preferred format?
A No.
Q Second part. What is Mr. Robert's opinion?
MR. TRASK: He says he has none.
MR. ROBERTS: As I stated earlier I have no
notions about this whole thing. I am simply asking
questions that may sound leading in my motivation, but
I am just -- I am very interested in the outcome of this
in terms of the attitudes and opinions of all commenters,
concerning how could two agencies get together and work
out this legislative mandate.
In what form or manner should we accomplish this
purpose? I am mostly interested in hearing from com-
menters as to the extensive scope of the mandate of RCRA
requiring implementation of additional control of the
transport environment. I have no preconceived notions
about what the outcome should be.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Trask, that was a very short
answer to the question. However, let me just state that
in deciding what information is required, that information
-------
89
requirement should be found in the DOT regulations or
shippers and carriers two views. I must say that DOT
in recognition of the various formats that can be used
for materials has not specified a format, rather they
have specified information and that's important. The
information is what's necessary whether it comes out on
computer paper or whether it comes out on any other kind
of paper, I think is of less significance. And the fact
that the information that you require is there.
MR. MORRIS: I have a question from the floor,
Mr. Graziano.
BY MR. MORRIS:
Q Section 3002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended by RCRA, particularly Subsections 1, 2 and 4,
"The plant regulations (inaudible) of such hazardous waste
to persons transporting such wastes." This language seems
to require a new accurate manifest covering such wastes
while in the hands of the transporter.
A It seems to me that it can be interpreted and
looked at in more than one light. For the transporter
to know that there is two percent carbon tetrachloride,
two percent mercury lead and five percent of something
else and on up the ladder, ad infinitum. It's not going
to serve its purpose, it's just pointing out material,
-------
90
even if its spilled. Our requirements are eventually
laid down as to how that spill must become commented.
It doesn't serve the transporter and isn't of
significant benefit to have all the percentage breakdowns
of the materials, would have all of the materials iden-
tified, especially since material happens to be flammable
and/or solvent. And, there are 10 or 12 types of solvents
in a composition.
MR. ROBERTS: Let me inject something in there.
One of the concerns that has been raised in verbal com-
munications is labeling and placarding coming from
Section 3002, specifically subparagraph 2. I think the
key words there should be recognized to the last few
words.
In the paragraph it says labeling practices for
any containers used for the storage transport of a dis-
posal of such hazardous wastes such as identified
accurately as such wastes. I would not say that the
present DOT label would in any manner accomplish the
purpose of that mandate.
To assign DOT a new combustible label has some
people concerned. Any particular DOT label presently
prescribed by the Department of Transportation regulations
would accomplish this. In the DOT requirements, it is
-------
91
important.
All this type of language would label the
issues of marking, we would say marking of the contents
which would come under Section Subpart D of your regula-
tions 172.300 series mark contents on the packages. I
believe that is to be clarified because there is a key
genesis requirement as to who must place information
on the packaging as to what's in that particular package.
That's probably one of the most difficult things for
some of the generators to accomplish, especially people
cleaning up messes coming out of railroad cars, for
example.
Q I beg your pardon.
A So here you have the words accurately identi-
fied. I think it's a very important set of words and
I think everybody should very seriously pay attention.
MR. KOVALICK: We have a couple more from the
floor. This is in reference to our brief discussion
about states supplementing RCRA. Is the speaker infer-
ring that the states should not be allowed to enforce
regulations or stringent federal regulations even though
they feel that federal regulations are inadequate?
A I think there would be some burden of proof
that they are inadequate before you make the statement.
-------
92
It is theoretical. I think you have to adopt the assump-
tion, at least for the moment, that for purposes of the
discussion, that the EPA has the mandate from Congre-s
to develop regulations which will satisfy that mandate.
Whether or not it satisfies everyone's liking remains
to be seen. However, if states do have materials which
they feel should be regulated under the RCRA Act or even
under DOT, they can petition EPA or DOT and have relief
or amendment of the regulation and that's the mechanism
that should be used rather than establishing their own
criteria and their own requirements over and above the
last band which is required at the federal level.
MR. KOVALICK: Just to clarify for the questioner,
I feel I should point out both sections 3009 of RCRA
which says the states cannot have requirements that are
less stringent than EPA's in terms of adopting and
creating a state program. However, it is silent on being
more stringent. Section 3006, it talks about word such
as "equivalent to the federal program and consistent with
state programs, but not identical". The word "identical"
does not appear in Sub-title C.
So there is a dilemma here which basically
says that federal regulations are a floor and this
questioner is implying that "is it not possible for a
-------
93
state to go above the floor" and I guess in fairness
I would have to say it is technically possible, however,
you are urging them to use the mechanism of developing
the regs now nationally rather than doing that on a state
by state basis.
This is in the manner of a statement, I gather,
EPA should petition the DOT for an amendment to 49 CFR
149.201 for shipping regs such as the hazardous material
wastes and oils, gases, poison, et cetera with appropriate
labels. Let me answer yes, that's possible. That's why
I address the large percent, 90 percent to a question
mark for materials. The others could be identified in
a meeting in accordance with this established DOT pro-
cedure. So this is a question related to Mr. Graziano's
statement -- Mr. Harvison's statement -- of petitioning
DOT for changes.
(Discussion had off the record.)
MR. ROBERTS: A number of these questions we have
here are really -- have nothing to do with Mr. Graziano's
presentation. I suggest we save some until later. They
have to do with jurisdictional matters and intrastate
carriers and things like that.
Mr. Graziano, as he stated, I think, only
represents interstate carriers. The only intrastate
-------
94
carriers within the United States, I think, haul logs.
I don't think we are covering them this week. So I prefer
to hold those until later on.
MR. KOVALICK: We will save those.
Thank you very much, Mr. Graziano.
(Applause.)
MR. KOVALICK: I would like to press on with the
schedule, because during the question period, someone
indicated that they wished to give a statement, a Mr.
Gordon Russo of Washington, D.C. following Mr. Schultz
of the Steel Shipping Containers Institute.
To press on with the schedule. This afternoon
we will worK until 12:30 with Mr. William Johns of the
American Trucking Association. Yes, he is available.
MR. JOHNS: (Tendering document to the Panel.)
HR. KOVALICK: Will you accept questions?
MR. JOHNS: I will be more than happy to accept some
questions and reject others. Some of them might be'beyond
our particular interest.
MR. KOVALICK: Fine. Thank you.
MR. JOHNS: My name is William E. Johns, Director
of Safety and Security for the American Trucking
Association, Inc.
In Docket HM-145 of the Office of Hazardous
-------
95
Materials Operations, American Trucking Association, Inc.,
filed comments that the Department of Transportation
should be the sole federal authority for safety, health
and environmental regulations governing transportation.
We wish to unequivocally restate that belief at this time.
This is the only way in which a well structured and well
coordinated set of regulations can be developed. As
different government agencies, such as, EPA, OSHA, DOT,
the Department of Energy, DOD, NRC, Consumer Protection
and Safety Commission, attempt to carry out their Con-
gressional mandates, industries of all types are being
subject to overlapping, duplicative and sometimes con-
flicting regulations of each. Industry is subject to
the visitations of armies of compliance personnel from
these agencies, each attempting to enforce and achieve
safety in its own way. In this climate, the compliance
problems of industry are being unbearable.
In considering the need for regulation of
"hazardous wastes", it is important to remember that,
for materials meeting present definitions of hazardous
materials, the regulations of the Department of Trans-
portation apply whether the material is newly-processed
or is a waste material. In response to inquiries from
industry, the Department of Transportation has clearly
-------
96
stated this position. Therefore, it is only logical
that DOT extend its functions to exercise control over
those additional commodities which do not meet the present
definitions of hazardous materials/ but which may create
environmental problems under conditions incident to
transportation.
We do not believe that the end result should
be accomplished by any modification of the present DOT
definition of hazardous materials. The hazardous
materials regulations should remain unchanged. Any
commodity currently subject to the hazardous materials
regulations have proven their effectiveness and are
adequate to control the environmental hazards of any
commodity subject thereto.
Additional substances identified as hazardous
waste under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and
which do not meet the current DOT criteria for hazardous
materials should be dealt with separately from those
substances which do meet the hazardous materials defini-
tions. For the purpose of transportation regulations,
it will be essential to maintain clear distinctions
between the DOT regulations for hazardous material,
either new or waste, as they are understood in the trans-
portion community and those hazardous wastes which are
-------
97
not presently subject to regulation.
To the extent that it is necessary to estab-
lish classes of hazardous wastes, every effort must be
made to minimize any confusion between the classes of
waste and the present DOT classes of hazardous materials.
We urge that no hazardous waste be listed in transporta-
tion regulations unless it creates an acute hazard to
persons or the environment under conditions likely to
occur during transportation.
For example, if a substance is hazardous only
after prolonged chronic exposure of personnel, or becomes
hazardous to the environment only after large quantities
have been left in place for an extended period of time,
its transportation should not be subject to regulation if
the quantities handled do not pose a threat in an actual
transportation movement. We know of no evidence to
indicate that normal post-accident cleanup procedures
would not afford adequate protection.
We believe that a complete separation of the
present controls for hazardous materials and those for
hazardous wastes offers the least likelihood for confusion,
misunderstanding and inadvertent violations of the regula-
tions. Parts 180 to 189 of Title 49, CFR, are reserved
for expansion of the hazardous materials regulations.
-------
98
They would appear to be available for use in the pro-
mulgation of appropriate DOT regulations for the trans-
portation of waste materials warranting such controls.
Motor carriers are deeply concerned with the
interaction of RCRA Sections 3002, applicable to genera-
tors, and 3003, as applicable to transporters, insofar
as they may tend to cause a further proliferation of
shipping documents. In the implementation of regulations
under PCRA, we urge that all approprr jbe references use
the term "shipping paper" rather than "manifest" which,
in the minds of transportation personnel connotes a
specific kind of shipping paper. For guidance in this
matter, we urge that you consider and incorporate a
definition of "shipping paper" essentially as it is set
forth in Section 171.8 of the current hazardous materials
regulations, backed up with appropriate references to
the information that must appear on the shipping paper
such as that required under the hazardous materials
regulations as set forth in Section 172.202 and 172.203.
This approach would permit the continued use of com-
mercially available and presently used shipping papers
such as the Uniform Straight Bill of Lading, in its
various forms.
Interstate motor carriers are currently affected
-------
99
by the Bill of Lading Act which specifies certain infor-
mation which must be on all shipping papers. For shipments
of hazardous materials, the special prescribed information
as to the proper shipping name of the commodity, its
hazard class and the prescribed shipper's certification
can be readily entered. Similarly, the DOT requirements
for highlighting the presence of hazardous materials can
be met by existing types of shipping papers.
Present practices of showing the name of the
shipper and the cosignee on shipping papers should ade-
quately meet the mandate of the RCRA. The act of the
carrier's employee in signing the shipping paper when
picking up the load, and the signature of the cosignee's
representative obtained upon delivery should afford
adequate proof that the transportation was properly
carried out. The transporter (carrier) has neither the
ability nor the right to independently determine that
the shipper (generator) has cosigned his material to an
authorized disposal site. The transporter's obligation,
for any type of shipment, is to deliver it to the destina-
tion designated by the shipper. If a hazardous waste is
cosigned by the generator to an improper destination,
the responsibility for the violation must rest wholly
with the generator and/or the receiving point.
-------
100
Transporters cannot be burdened with a multi-
plicity of shipping papers covering a single shipment.
For this reason, in an actual transportation movement, it
is essential that shipping paper requirements for shipments
of hazardous waste utilize the approach already in effect
for DOT-defined hazardous materials so that transporters
may continue to utilize existing forms.
With respect to labeling, marking and placarding
of shipments of wastes which meet the present DOT defini-
tions of hazardous materials, we wish to reiterate our
position that such materials be subject only to the present
DOT requirements. In the absence of any information to
the contrary, it is our belief that the DOT-prescribed
class gives an adequate indication of the environmental
hazards of the material and that no additional labeling,
marking or placarding is necessary.
As stated previously, we believe that special
labeling, marking and placarding of shipments of hazar-
dous waste should be limited to those substances which
would create an acute hazard in the one-time or occasional
accidental release, as might occur during transportation.
There should not be any need to require additional con-
trols for substances which create hazards only over long,
periods of chronic exposure. Any additional labels, and
-------
101
placards found necessary should be developed by DOT
to insure compatability with requirements for hazardous
materials.
We are aware that provisions of the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act of 1974 authorize the regis-
tration of transporters of hazardous materials. So far,
no effort has been made to implement this provision of
the law. To do so seems likely to create enormous com-
plexities for motor carriers who are already subject to
a multiplicity of registration requirements.
A motor carrier generally cannot operate in
interstate commerce without first obtaining authority
from the Interstate Commerce Commission. Present ICC
authority for the transportation of general commodities
normally authorize the carrier to transport hazardous
materials, with the possible exception of Class A and B
explosives and materials in bulk. Such authority would
also permit the carrier to transport hazardous wastes.
In the case Long Island Nuclear Service Corp.
Common Carrier Application, the ICC held that radioactive
wastes and contaminated materials to be transported to
burial sites are "property" within the meaning of the
Interstate Commerce Act, and are subject to ICC regulation.
A similar interpretation could be extended to other
-------
102
classes of hazardous wastes.
The interstate carrier holding ICC authority
must generally register that authority with the appropriate
regulatory agency of each state in which it operates.
Similarly, most states require that intrastate
carriers obtain authority from the state regulatory agency
before they can commence operations. In some states, such
as Colorado, a trash hauler must obtain authority from
the state. If the trash hauler is not subject to state
regulations, he is often subject to health department
regulations of local jurisdictions, which may also include
licensing.
Overall, those conducting truck operations of
all kinds are on record with one or more governmental
agencies. We feel that additional registration require-
ment for transporters of hazardous wastes would be
unduly burdensome.
We see no way in which registration would
expedite the control of an emergency such as a spill.
The principal concern would be to identify the material
and then take the necessary steps to clean it up. Iden-
tification of the material, its source, and its destina-
tion are achieveable through insp-ction of the shipping
paper. If the transport vehicle is on the scene, the
-------
103
identity of the owner and operator can be readily obtained
and recorded and would be available for future follow-up.
If the transport vehicle cannot be identified for any
reason, the existence of a registration requirement would
be of no significance.
With respect to the reporting of transportation
incidents involving both hazardous materials and hazardous
wastes, we believe it is essential that all such reporting
be made to one agency, preferably the Office of Hazardous
Materials Operations of DOT. We urge that any extension
of the requirements for immediate reporting of hazardous
wastes incidents utilize the criteria now in effect with
respect to the immediate reporting of hazardous materials
incidents. We also urge that requirements for written
reporting utilize the present 5800.1 form required by
DOT for the reporting of hazardous materials incidents.
With a minimum of change, we believe that this form can
be adapted for both purposes.
With respect to the transportation of hazardous
materials, as presently defined and controlled by DOT,
the regulations have long required that shippers and
carriers work to make the regulations effective within
their operations, and to conduct the training of employees
that is necessary to accomplish the objective. American
-------
104
Trucking Association, Inc., has made training materials
available to motor carriers for many years, and this
material has been updated to reflect this amendment.
Our material covers the provisions of the regulations,
the responsibilities of the motor carrier and its
employees for compliance, the means available to insure
compliance, and general information about the need to
exercise the utmost care in the handling of hazardous
materials. Such training could be expanded to cover
the same areas of knowledge with respect to hazardous
wastes.
We seriously question the feasibility of train-
ing motor carrier employees in the specific clean up
techniques for different kinds of hazardous wastes. Our
materials directed at the general commodities carriers
do not now deal with the specific techniques for handling
the present classes of hazardous materials in emergencies.
Rather, we provide information as to the need to contact
the shipper, or a centralized source of information and
assistance such as Chemtrec.
The present regulations of DOT governing the
loading and storage of hazardous materials have demon-
strated their worth and effectiveness in avoiding mixing
of substances. Barring a specific showing to the
-------
105
contrary, we believe the present regulations in this
matter are adequate for hazardous wastes.
Gentlemen, that's 'our statement.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you, Mr. Johns.
(Applause.)
MR. KOVALICK: Do you want to start?
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Mr. Johns, now in your statement, you indicated
that hazardous material poses an acute hazard during
transportation. Can we assume from your statement that
you are basically saying that materials presently regu-
lated by this hazardous material prior to DOT, are the
materials that should be regulated in terms of hazardous
wastes in transportation.
A Yes, that's right.
Q Unless you are alleging that DOT doesn't express
hazards at the present time.
A To our knowledge, we do pursue all those par-
ticular hazards, in our opinion. We recognize that there
are some materials which in the disposal situation over
a period of years may create a hazard for the public
health, so we are limiting our remarks only to the
hazards which might result during' the> actual: transpp-rta-
tion. .
-------
106
Q You are aware of some of the requirements of
RCRA?
A Yes, I am.
Q As far as EPA?
A I think there is definitely an inference in
the RCRA requirements that they approve of delivery of
hazardous wastes, which I would not consider post-acute
accurate hazard.
Q For instance, just let DOT stay away?
A We have no problem now with approved delivery
form. We make deliveries; we make approved deliveries.
Q In the present DOT regulations for shipping
documents, you made reference to, are you aware of the
fact that the present DOT regulations, except for ship-
ment by water, you are required to show the name of the
shipper?
A I am. I am aware of that but on the bill of
lading we do have that requirement.
Q And the bill of lading emanates from the Bill
of Lading Act of 1930?
A That is right.
Q Are you with the Bill of Lading Act in decisions
of interstate commerce which you recognize blind shipments?
Do you know the term "blind shipments?"
-------
10'
A I am aware of the term but I am not that
familiar with it.
Q What blind shipment is basically, where the
buyer really doesn't know from whence the product came
because it had been sold under the trade name of the
shipper, who had not actually manufactured the product.
That's about as clear a definition as I can give.
Getting to the point now, are you suggesting
by your statement that the carriers always show the
name of the shipper/generator. That it should become a
specific requirement of the regulation and that the
shippers be shown in all cases?
A We would have no problem with that as a
requirement. In most cases we do have the name of the
shipper and the cosignee shown on the shipping paper.
Q Is the name of the shipper on shipping papers
not necessarily the name under the existing law and regu-
lations be the name of the person who is actually the
physical generator of the material?
A That's correct.
Q The person physically puts it on the vehicle
and the document HM-112 that was still under debate, and
it was made a requirement for shippers.
So I take it from your statement that ATA
-------
108
would make a statement that the true generator shipper
be shown on the shipping tag?
A Yes, I understand that at this time we would
take no opposition to that.
Q Okay. Now recognize that there is an element
of proof of delivery in the RCRA requirements so far as
that aspect is concerned, taking into account your comment
about acute hazards, whatever they may be, if EPA adopts
requirements that go well beyond so-called acute hazards
and accomplishing this mandate which presently is for DOT
to repose requirements that relates approved delivery,
or would you prefer to see that done before the EPA,
independent of DOT?
A As a general principle, we would rather see
this accomplished through DOT.
Q That in contravention stimulates in initiating
a regulatory program involving ourselves with hazardous
waste.
A We still oppose a position of regulations of
those materials which do not afford an acute hazard
during transportation.
MR. ROBERTS: But if — okay. I think I under-
stand what you are saying. But in terms of your statement
on labeling, I don't know if I can find it now, if you
-------
109
didn't mark it.
Are you aware that RCRA does require any usable
labeling affirmation that was specifically identified or
identified accurately such wastes in this other statement
that jibes with that. In the transport requirements it
says "Transportation of such wastes always be properly
labeled." When you read that, going back to require-
ments 3002, paragraph 2, you made a statement about label-
ing. Were you talking about a DOT label or were you
talking about a label that's addressed in 3002 which I —
DOT parlence marked the name of the content.
A Let me make a statement here. This is talking
about the DOT label. But really we have not that much
concern with labeling as this is a shipper or generator
function which very seldom affects the carrier. Unless
there is some restriction, the carrier operation is
attached to that particular label.
Q Okay. Just one more question. In terms of
the clean up responsibility, and I believe you tie your
entire presentation to training.
Recognizing again RCRA's responsibilities, should
DOT involve itself in clean up requirements or defer to
the EPA's established requirements, assuming that to
accomplish it, it must go much further. EPA must go
-------
110
further than just addressing key hazards transportation.
A On the first instance, if you are referring
only to hazardous materials, we don't believe that this
becomes hazardous wastes automatically. It becomes a
waste but is still a hazardous material and it self-
destructs. In most cases we have only wastes, not often
hazardous at all. If it is a hazardous substance, we
believe that that should include the clean up and the
process that goes with any accident or any incident.
MR. ROBERTS: Okay.
MR. KOVALICK: I have both a question of my
own and one from the floor that seems to speak to this.
BY MR. KOVALICK:
Q The question from the floor is, "Acute hazards
are the only ones to be regulated in transportation as
your statement indicates." Are, therefore, environmental
hazards which "prolong exposure" and not covered under
DOT health and safety deal consistently with some examples
of the DOT regs. On radioactive materials, again, the
implementation is radioactive materials are often
hazardous because of chronic and long term exposure as
well as single or etiologic, which might not fall to
the acute category.
Again, we're asking the question. Mr. Roberts
-------
Ill
was trying to ask and I'm trying to ask, which is, as
I understand your association's point of view on acute
materials. Unfortunately, from your point of view, I
lost -- for example, biocummulators, like wastePCB, so
I understand you don't recognize perhaps the need for that
but given that we have to do that, we're trying to get
what you would recommend. That is, shall we take these
materials as exceptions: carcigens, biocumulators, PCB's
and shall we design regulations for this small subset of
chronic hazardous material or wastes, or do you prefer
to read all those regs in the 0 OT. That's the essence
of what I am trying to get.
A I understand the problem. We've talked about
it quite a bit. Getting back to radioactive material, I'll
give you an example. If you expose six bulls to radio-
activie material, they may not die on the spot, might
not die for ten years.
Q That's the point of the question.
A But the exposure, that short period afterward
would result in a bad condition. I think we should look
at it as being acute condition. We have other materials
I think and asbestos is one.
If an individual works with asbestos day in and
day out over a long period of time, and his health can
-------
112
be damaged. And this is my conclusion from what I've
read. I would not consider that to be acute in the
transportation sense. In the sense that the spill of
asbestos and I think that you might get exposed to it for
an hour, two hours, three hours, and then it is free loaded
and taken on its way. I would not consider that to be
an acute hazard.
Q I understand your contention but the scientific
community is still out on that question. Well, I suppose
carcinogens --
Well, I still would like to know what your
association's judgment is regarding whether EPA should
design those regulations, for that special set which
already recognizes the problem as critical. As Mr.
Graziano said, whether DOT should control those materials
in the regs.
A We feel that the criteria should come from the
scientific side of the community.
Q That's assuming.
A I would like to see the regulations by DOT.
Q By DOT, fine.
Thank you. I am sorry to belabor it but it is
very interesting. Thank you.
(Luncheon recess had until 1:50
o'clock, p.m., on the same day.)
-------
I 13
AFTERNOON SESSION (1:50 p.m.)
MR. KOVALICK: Let me reconvene our public meeting
on -- joint meeting between the U. S. EPA and DOT.
Welcome to those of you who were not with us
this morning. Our format is one of taking statements
from individuals who have contacted us prior to the
meeting, then taking statements from individuals who
indicate an interest during the meeting.
We are not permitting questions directly from
the floor to the person giving the statement. We are
providing you an opportunity to list questions on cards
and the Panel will ask those questions of the speakers.
Proceeding with the agenda that some of you
have, let me alert the next two speakers: Mr. Fred
Flowers,of General Electric, will follow the first
speaker, and Mr. Bob Wilson of Stauffer Chemical, will
follow Mr. Flowers.
Let me also remind you that -- two things that
I mentioned this morning. Please register at the table
outside the door. It is primarily for your benefit as
well as ours. By registering you will receive a copy
of the transcript of the proceedings and you will also
be added to our mailing list for all regulations that
are promulgated and proposed — proposed and then promul-
gated in the Federal Register.
-------
f 14.
In addition, I mentioned this morning -- you
heard discussions about draft regulations, referring to
EPA. If that's news to you, if you will leave your name
and address or business card at the desk -- registration
desk -- we will mail you whatever current drafts we have
available.
Finally, we've received a number of questions
addressed to the Panel on a variety of subjects, including
DOT and EPA authorities, spills and so forth. We are
saving them, and if we get finished early enough and you
want to stay, we will respond to these and then we will
deal with questions from the floor.
Our main purpose is to hear the speakers today
and gather information from them. We are going to try to
be done between 5:30 and 6:00, for those of you who have
travel arrangements and want some assurity. We will call
a ha!' to this at 6:00 o'clock if we still have work on-
going.
Now I'd like to call on Mr. Sigeti, of the
National Industrial Traffic League, please.
MR. SIGETI: Thank you.
MR. KOVALICK: May I ask you a question? Are you
willing to answer questions after your presentation?
MR. SIGETI: Yes, if my voice holds up. I have a
-------
little laryngitis.
MR. KOVALICK: I think you will have to pull that
mike down so that it will be close enough to you. It
will help your largyngitis, hopefully.
MR. SIGETI: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ernest
Sigeti. I am the Manager of Regulatory Services of Allied
Chemical Corporation with offices located in Morris Town-
ship, New Jersey.
I appear before you, and make this statement
in behalf of the National Industrial Traffic League. I
am the Chairman of that organization's Safety Environmental
and Related Regulatory Matters Committee. This statement
is submitted in response to the Environmental Protection
Agency's public notice published in the Federal Register
of May 2nd, and September 29th's issue, pages 51625 and 6.
The League, through its attorneys, submitted a 10 page
statement on the subject of this hearing, dated July 1,
1977. The League stands by that statement and in the
interest of saving time, will restate portions of that
document only to the extent necessary for clarity.
The League is a voluntary organization of
shippers, groups and associations of shippers, boards of
trade, chambers of commerce, et cetera, located through-
out the United States. The members of the League conduct
-------
various types of industrial and/or commercial enter-
prises -- large, medium and small, and are substantial
users of the various modes of surface transportation --
by rail, by truck and by water.
The League has been in continuous existence
for 70 years and has participated in major proceedings
affecting the members of the shipping public before the
federal agencies with jurisdiction over transportation
and before the Congress of the United States.
The League is dedicated to the promotion of
a financially sound and efficient national transportation
system. The League believes that this goal can best be
achieved by regulation which is not duplicative or un-
necessarily burdensome and complicated. The overlapping
of jurisdictions, whether between agencies of the Federal
Government, or between the National Government, on the
one hand, and the states and their subdivisions, on the
other, must lead to confusion and unnecessary duplication
of effort and should be avoided whenever possible.
The day-to-day operations of the League are
governed by its policies, which may be amended only at
the November annual membership meetings. As pertinent to
this hearing, the 1975 meeting produced the following
two policies:
-------
17.
N-l Safety Jurisdiction -- The League favors
the Department of Transportation's having exclusive juris-
diction of transportation safety within the United States.
N-2 Recognition of Need -- The League supports
transportation safety regulations that recognize the
safety and economic needs of the nation.
A portion of my statement is labelled, "The
League's Response to the 10 Questions Contained in the
Federal Register of September 29 labelled Discussion
Topics."
Topic No. 1. The first question in No. 1 is,
"Which agency should take the lead in developing the
regulations for hazardous waste transportation?"
The question seems to presuppose that presently
there is no regulation of the transportation of hazardous
wastes. Of course we all know that the DOT has had the
responsibility of formulating and enforcing regulations
applicable to hazardous materials (virgin or waste) while
in transit since 1967 and the I.C.C. performed a comparable
function in years prior to that. Thus, even as we sit
here today hazardous waste materials are being regulated
while in the stream of commerce.
MR. KOVALICK: Excuse me, I will have to ask you to
move closer to the mike. The people in the back of the
-------
room can't hear you.
MR. SIGETI: All right.
A more appropriate question might be: Should
the regulation of hazardous waste material, while in
transit, be transferred from the DOT to the EPA? Should
the answer be positive? The next question necessarily
ensues: How can waste hazardous materials be defined
in relation to non-waste hazardous materials? That which
is a waste product to one company may meet the lower
standards of another. When such a product is rejected
by the first company because of impurity or other reasons,
would the EPA regulate its movement because the rejecting
company feels it is a waste material or would the DOT
regulate it because the receiving company views it as
first class material?
All these questions can be avoided simply by
having the DOT continue to regulate the flow in commerce
of all hazardous materials, be they virgin, substandard,
waste or what have you. The League believes this position
is manifest because we can conceive of no particular rea-
son why, for example, a leaking tank car of virgin sulfuric
acid should be treated any differently by emergency per-
sonnel then an identical tank car of waste (spent) sul-
furic acid.
-------
I would call to your attention that 49 CFR
172.101 lists alphabetically all products which the DOT
has found to present a danger via one or more of the modes
of transportation. One will not find any differentiation
in classification or treatment of virgin versus waste of
the same product. Specifying on labels or placards that
a particular commodity is being transported in its waste
condition, would tend merely to confuse those who have
a need to know, while the shipment is in transit.
The spirit of Section 1006 (b) of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act calls for the avoidance of "duplication
to the maximum extent practicable, with the appropriate
provisions of other laws. ..." In this regard it is
strongly suggested that your agency, or I should say
Agency, execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the
DOT as did the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) concerning the trans-
portation of radioactive materials. See the resulting
regulations contained in 49 CFR 173.389 through 426.
See also the Federal Register of October 11, 1977, pages
54856 and 7, which announces an interagency agreement
among your agency, that is the EPA, and the HEW, the
Food and Drug Administration, et cetera.
Another question in No. 1 is, "Should DOT
-------
modify its definition of hazardous materials to include
all hazardous wastes?" If a commodity poses a hazard
while in transit, regardless of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, the DOT should impose regulations upon that commodity.
This conforms to the language 49 CFR 172.100(a) which
states, "The table set forth in Section 172.101 con-
stitutes a designation of the materials listed therein
as hazardous materials for the purposes of the transpor-
tation of those materials in commerce." In short, if a
commodity presents a hazard while in transit, the DOT
is obligated to impose regulations and, conversely, it
is respectfully suggested that if a given commodity
(whether waste or virgin) does not constitute a hazard
while in transit, it should not be listed. The fact that
a particular material left in a landfill for a few years
might generate a hazard to the environment is totally
irrelevant insofar as whether that material is or is not
a hazard while in transit.
The spirit of Discussion Topic No. 1 might
lead one to believe that the DOT has not been concerned,
for example, with etiologic agents. Of course, that is
not the case. See 49 CFR 173.386.
Topic No. 2. While I believe a large part of
the League's statement up to this point, constitutes an
-------
121,
answer to No. 2, I would specifically add that if the
DOT were to expand its list of current hazardous
materials to include those waste products, which the EPA
may define to be hazardous under conditions not associated
with transportation, nothing positive would be accomplished.
On the contrary, the transportation bill of lading will
become burdened with additional information of no conse-
quence to those who transport freight and might serve
to detrack from vital information presently contained on
shipping papers. Additionally, if freight cars, trucks,
barges, et cetera, were to display placards for the EPA
materials, it would dilute the impact of placards pres-
ently affixed to vehicles transporting DOT hazardous
materials. In short, such placards and labels would
produce an effect similar to the little boy who con-
tinuously cried wolf.
Topic No. 3. The hazardous waste materials
manifest required by the Act is, to use the language of
that law, for the purpose of assuring "... that all
such hazardous waste generated is designed for treatment,
storage, or disposal in treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities . . . for which a permit has been issued as
provided this subtitle: ..." It would appear to the
League that the purpose of the manifest is not related
-------
22
to the transportation of waste material. The manifest
will serve as an inventory control document. Again, the
shipping papers, currently in use, should not be further
burdened with extraneous information. However, if it is
your Agency's desire that a manifest accompany hazardous
waste shipments, it is suggested that the manifest be in
a sealed envelope, attached to the shipping papers, thus
not confusing personnel of the carriers.
Topic 5. It is presumed that the primary
thrust of No. 5 is to assure that each hazardous waste
shipment arrives at the proper destination; the purpose
is not to assure the safety of the shipment while in
transit. Under the circumstances, there does not appear
to be a need for the transporters of hazardous materials
to be registered.
Topic 6. As I have consistently stated, the
League sees no useful purpose being served by treating
the waste versions of given commodities (assuming one
can define waste) from their virgin counterparts. In
short, the current regulations concerning the notification
of accidents and spills of hazardous materials in transit,
should remain undisturbed.
Regarding Topic No. 7, the League takes no
position on this question.
-------
123
No. 8. It is believed that the answer to No. 6
applies equally to No. 8.
Lastly, No. 9. The League will require addi-
tional time to formulate a response to the question of
waste mixtures. We propose to submit a written reply
by November 9th.
Thank you.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Sigeti.
Let me remind the audience, while we are asking
our questions, if you want a card just raise your hand
and one will be brought to you.
BY MR. KOVALICK:
Q I'd like to start with a similar question that
I asked Mr. Johns earlier, which is, "Given that EPA has
this mandate to recognize materials which would be called
biocumulative, carcinogenic or mutagenic," is it your
statement that DOT should stick to the currently regu-
lated materials that they cover today?
I was unclear from your statement as to
whether the League prefers that those additional materials
are to be regulated; EPA to adopt supplemental regulations
covering them or DOT to incorporate those additional
materials. In other words, for DOT to recognize a
broader mandate then they currently have.
-------
A Premising your question, which I'd like to
just first -- and that is, apparently, that something
I said led you to believe that I thought the current mandate,
Part I, 72.101 was immutable, for all times. That cer-
tainly is not the case.
What we are saying is this: That if a product,
not presently regulated, should be regulated, because of
its hazards evidenced while in transit, then the proper
procedures, the appropriate procedures should be taken
to initiate rule making proceedings before the DOT. Pre-
sumably any citizen can do that, and I would suspect that
greater weight would be given to any petition filed by
EPA then that by the ordinary citizen.
But that, plus the fact, that we also suggest
a Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies,
should go very far in that direction. But if, in fact,
there are numerous products which pose some sort of
hazard. The previous speaker spoke of asbestos, and
again, I take no position as to whether asbestos is
or is not a carcinogenic agent. But the point is, for
the sake of argument, that if one works with the product
for 10 or 15 years, one has a higher possibility of obtain-
ing lung cancer, for example. That seems to be an appro-
priate subject for OSHA, but I don't see what in the
-------
\25
world that has to do with a cargo or truckload, for that
matter, of asbestos being shipped from one point to
another. It constitutes no danger. The danger of pla-
carding every possible conceivable item which might be
dangerous, somehow or other, is that, everytime you come
up with another product on which another label and yet
another placard must be affixed, you are, regardless of
your good intentions, detracting from the effect of those
placards which already exist.
Just as the more regulations are promulgated,
the more likely it is that they will be inadvertently
violated in some form or other. This is one of those
counterproductive efforts that have to be considered.
So when we sit or stand and think in terms of
"should we regulate this, that or the other thing; come
up with a fushla colored placard," for example, one must
realize that one is detracting from the impact of other
placards. It is not what we want, it is a fact of life.
Q Well, I didn't mean to extend the discussion
into placards. I was basically, again, trying to focus--
not to belabor -- on this point that if there are materials,
such as your example on asbestos or other biocumulatives,
that do end up, in EPA's judgment, to be a hazardous waste,
not because of transportation, particularly. Perhaps
-------
because of disposal or other reasons, still speaking of
where do you want those materials to appear, even though
they may not have a transport risk, as you describe it,
on DOT's 172 series, or do you prefer to have them appear
under EPA?
A Neither of the above.
The law specifically says that they will be
of benefit and the law specifically says that there must
be a label. As to what color that label will be, how big
and what it might say is something else again. But indeed,
we now have OSHA labels; we have DOT labels; now we are
going to have EPA labels. I would suggest that when we
look at this container, it's going to look like that of a
world traveler and when looking at a world traveler's
suitcase you can't tell whether he's coming from or to
New York, Brussels, Berlin, or anything else. And that's
what you are running up against.
We just cannot label every blasted thing
hazardous.
Q Well, I understand that point.
Let me move on to another item in your state-
ment.
Do I understand, Mr. Sigeti, that, where you
say, "shipping papers currently in use should not be
-------
further burdened with extraneous information. However,
if it is your Agency's desire that a manifest accompany
the waste" --and I should correct that, it is the law that
says that-- "it is suggested that the manifest be in a
sealed envelope attached to shipping papers."
From that, I conclude that your position is
that we should have a separate document called a manifest
to accompany wastes. Is that correct?
A Well, attached to the current shipping papers --
right, that's what the law says.
Q No. That's your position.
A No. I am saying that the law says that there
will be a manifest, so there is no point in our discussing
the merits of it. It is the law.
Now the only question is whether it will be
incorporated on the bill of lading. I have been in the
transportation business since 1955 and that bill of lading
is getting more crowded all the time.
Q Well, I just want to clarify. So it is the
position of your organization that we ought to have another
document accompany the waste then?
A The League always supports the law, whatever it
may be. If the law requires a manifest, the League supports
a manifest. However, the law doesn't say that it will be
-------
displayed prominently or anything else. Now the beauty
of the thing with an envelope is that, what reason do
you need to see what the content of the product is unless
there is a spill. Now you might write across the envelope,
"Open in case of emergency"; in which case, there it is.
But in 99 cases out of a 100, when a shipment is trans-
ported from here to there, I don't want the truck driver
being puzzled and confused by what, at that moment, is of
no consequence.
MR. KOVAL1CK: Okay. Mr. Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS: I really have nothing to ask you with
regard to your statement. I have a comment. It points
out one of the problems that I personally have, facing
the mandate.
You made a statement here' written permission
supported by a. document in a sealed envelope. And then,
almost ad hoc, you toss the statement in, well, it can
be opened in ease of an emergency. I would -- you know --
now that's a serious proposition. That's a very major
suggestion you are making there.
A Any sealed envelope can be opened.
Q Well, I would suggest that your comments, the
way it is committed here in writing, and the way you made
your statement, you are suggesting that nothing be done
-------
in terms of communication relative to these materials
during transport. That only some arrangement be made
through the use of a sealed envelope to get from Point A
to Point C.
Now, my only comment to the question -- you
suggest that the possibility of a statement being added
to the envelope. I am suggesting that that is a very
significant comment. And possibly, some people in looking
at this thing, should look at things like that much more
seriously then I would suggest has happened up to this
point. Because, if the material does spill in transport,
it does apparently become some form of a hazardous waste;
if it is material that is listed by either agency.
MR. SIGETI: Well, hazardous, by EPA standards. We
are talking about products which are hazardous by EPA
but not by DOT.
MR. ROBERTS: Right.
MR. SIGETI: Which, almost by definition, I think
requires some lapse of time as opposed to an immediate.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, I think we ought to get into that.
Are you suggesting that because of a lapse of times in
terms of, say, chronic toxicity, that nothing should be
done immediately to clean up a spill should it occur in
transportation?
-------
30
MR. SIGETI: No, but if it should impose an immediate
threat, then it should be under DOT regulations right now
at this moment.
MR. ROBERTS: We are talking about the meaning of
threat in terms of burning people, corroding them to
death, immediately causing them fatality through inhalation
of the vapors or the fact that the material is spilled
and subsequently, due to that chronic exposure, some
adverse event takes place. For example, a contamination
of a rail car, where through several subsequent events,
other materials are affected by it. Now, is there some-
thing to be done to clean it up? Is the material hazard-
ous wastes at that time and should some regulatory con-
trol be imposed in terms of its proper disposal? It all
ties back to the statement about putting the added
comment on the envelope.
MR. SIGETI: Well, any comment -- well, that is in
the event of a spill. Now everything you have spoken of
follows that point; if there's a leakage or a spill or
the container has lost its integrity. At that point the
envelope can be opened, although I don't really consider
that to. be substantive or, getting in touch with the manu-
facturer, which is usually done in the case of the DOT,
through the contract system. The problem with the contract
-------
131,
system is that it cannot be activated without knowing
the name of the product. To come up with a list that
might be in the manifest, and again, we have a manifest,
whether either or both of us likes it or not, that act of
Congress, if one were to open a manifest and find 2 per-
cent of this, 3 percent of that, 5 percent of something
else, unless one has a Ph.D. on the site with a chemical
degree, I don't know what good that's going to do. I
would submit that that certainly is no substitute for
calling Chemtrec and telling them what the name of the
product is on the bill of lading. And then they have their
records and they will read off what to do in the next 30
minutes. And then if it's Allied Chemical Products, they
will call me at 2:00 in the morning or some such other time.
And, I will get in touch with the technical people in
Allied who live with this stuff and we will then tell you
what to do with it.
If anyone thinks they can take that manifest
and use it as a substitute for actual knowledge of the
manufacturer, I think he's grossly misleading himself.
MR. ROBERTS: Okay. I don't want to belabor it. I
just want to read back your statement. Hopefully, not
out of context. It's the Jast part on top of page 7. "it
is suggested that the manifest be in a sealed envelope,
-------
attached to the shipping papers, thus not confusing per-
sonnel of the carriers."
My only reason for raising this with you and
added to that, a comment in terms of possibility from a
similar consideration. I would request that possibly
you investigate that further and possibly submit, con-
sider the possibility that you may want to submit modi-
fied comments. Possibly.
MR. SIGETI: All right. I will take it under
advisement with the League.
MR. ROBERTS: Okay.
MR. SIGETI: Hopefully, we will have a reply by
November 9th, but I am not certain of it.
MR. KOVALICK: The only problem with November 9th is
that is the day we are going to go to press with printing
the record. We will be glad to have your comments after
November 9th, but just everyone won't be able to read
them, except in the docket book,
MR. ROBERTS: Just one other question that relates
to some of your other comments about labeling. Looking
at Section 3002, Subparagraph 2, how would you read the
requirements for labeling as specified therein?
MR. SIGETI: In relationship to the EPA mandate under
RCRA, and also in relationship to presently proposed
-------
labeling requirements of the Department of Transportation.
I will read the gist'of it, it says, "labeling practices
for any containers used for the storage, transport or
disposal of such hazardous wastes such as will identify
accurately such wastes". Mainly the last four words.
MR. SIGETI: Well this could be done in several
ways that I can envision. One of them is, if the product
has a name and if you're talking about waste from an
industry manufacturing process, my understanding is that
normally the same waste that is produced day after day
in bulk is nothing new and is produced in such volumes
that it probably will not be mixed. In which case it
doesn't seem terribly difficult to me to produce the
name for this product; have it on file with the Chemtrec,
and then put that name on a particular label. I don't see
anything very difficult ' about that.
One might also do what I believe has been
suggested, and that is, come up with the chemical formula
for what's in it. Although, I would strongly suggest
that if the same product were in its virgin state, there
is no label required, which in a sense, makes this law
of Congress a little absurd. That is to say, if it is
a little wasted, diluted or contains foreign matter, then
suddenly we get hysterical and we start slapping labels
-------
34
all over the place. I would submit that there isn't
one iota or degree of increased danger in the product.
So we come up with, what's to me, lacks rationality.
So, in the end we have something, whatever this product
is, which is fundamentally very dangerous in some respect
or other, and heaven forbid we should drop a dead mouse
in it. It's contaminated. It's waste. Now, the whole
force of the federal government challenges it, and runs
for us like Don Quixote.
On the other hand, if it's an identical product
and is pure, no one seems to care about it. Now that may
be a strange interpretation, but that's the way I read it.
MR. ROBERTS: I appreciate your comments because
they have been along, more or less, along the line of a.
number of questions 1 have already asked you today, con-
cerning the risks of all these materials in transportation,
whether they be for purposes of going to a waste disposal
or recycling facility or for some other commercial
purpose, or a commercial purpose. Thank you.
MR. KOVALICK: We have one question from the floor
and then we will proceed. This question says: "Since
most waste products do hot have a commodity name, how do
you propose to adequately describe it without the chemical
composition information?"
-------
35
MR. SIGETI: Well, it reminds me of my son when he
was 3 or 4 years old. Most children think their fathers
£ou«u^a1~iaf\
are the f-aanA" of all great wisdom and I never like to
disappoint them. And so we went someplace and he would
say, "Why is that called a chair?" "Well," I said, "be-
cause if they called it a desk, people would get confused.
Well, that's the way adults get out of things.
I would suggest that all we do in civilization
is put labels on things. I mean not DOT, EPA labels, but
names. Now, in my opinion, we have a lot of Ph.D's
around, and I am sure they can come up with names with
26 or more letters in them. And that seriouslyr-it may
sound somewhat joking --I think we can come up with names
for most of these products, and then those names, and the
importance of it, not with regard to this proceeding,
but the hazard really is such, and I think the waste
product as the DOT considers it, is getting to be more
and more of a problem. That which we use to flush down
a sewer system, we don't anymore. We are not allowed to.
And we are an industrial society and we will be producing
more wastes. We can't dump it in the ocean anymore. We
can't dump it down an abandoned coal mine in Pennsylvania.
We have to send them somewhere.
And we should, hopefully, be concerned and
-------
136
to salvage something out of it rather than to continue
to destroy the assets of the society, not to continue
polluting the environment. We have to give these names.
Now the problem at Allied seems to be not so
much with the manufacturer's formula or what have you, it
is the research lab, where we have a beaker of this and
a test tube of that. We are going to have to work on
that sort of thing. There are various solutions we might
have for that but that bears on Question No. 9 which I
have promised I won't address myself to until the
Environmental Regulatory Committee, which has been alerted,
and I specifically asked for solutions to No. 9, until
we reach that point.
But to suggest that we can't come up with names
for waste materials, I think we give the scientists of
this country a gross injustice.
And some speaker before me talked about how
we have to put all these into the Chemtrec system. Well,
I would suggest that all of you would be astounded if
you ever went down to Washington to the Manufacturing
Chemists Association's offices, to see all of the things
they have identified. They have the generic name, they
have the chemical name and they have the trade names.
Hopefully, they are all cross referenced, and we keep
-------
37
adding to this list. And they do this all on a pittance
budget of $200,000 a year. So, I suppose, maybe for
another $50,000 or a $100,000, we can come up with names
and put in cards for waste materials to the extent that
they pose a hazard while in the flow of commerce. If
we are going to take everything, like cigarette butts,
because cigarettes cause cancer, somehow, then I think we
get to a point where we are making such a mess out of this
problem that we can't solve it.
And just one little thing for a little humor
before I leave. I think it is a disgrace if we don't
mention HM-126. You remember I spoke about placards and
what have you on a car of nitrogen, nitrogen being inert.
If you put a green placard on for compressed gas because
it's compressed gas and then when you take it out, then
you've got, more or less the same atmospheric temperature,
you have theoretically an empty car, but yet it's full of
nitrogen. What placard will we put on it, and all that
sort of thing. Is it hazardous or isn't it hazardous.
It is not really unless somebody slids down into the tank
car, in which case, he will be asphyxiated. So the
attorney for the League said, "I don't see how you can
make a statement like that. Here's something that will
kill someone and yet you suggest we put no placard on it
-------
38
because it is not hazardous. So I said to the great
John F. Donovan, that more people are killed in water,
would you therefore suggest that when we ship a tank load
of water, we put a placard on it? The answer is obvious.
I think that's an extreme analogy of what we
are doing here today, but I think it is valid relation-
ship.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Sigeti,
(Applause.)
MR. KOVALICK: While Mr. Flowers of the General
Electric Company is coming forward, I have another question
related to solid materials and related to EPA's definition
of hazardous wastes. What we are contemplating is,
again, we will try to get into that later, but let me
refer the writer to the copy of the Research Conservation
and Recovery Act, Section 3001. That is where it defines
the criteria, that is, the factors we are to take into
account. That may tide you over until we get back to the
general subject.
Mr. Flowers, are you willing to accept questions?
MR. FLOWERS: Yes.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you.
MR. FLOWERS: My name is Frederick D. Flowers and
I am Senior Specialist - Technical Traffic and Hazardous
-------
39
Material, Nuclear Energy Operation of the General --
MR. KOVALICK: They can't hear in the back. Would
you get a little closer to the mike.
MR. FLOWERS: Okay.
My name is Frederick D. Flowers. I am Senior
Specialist - Technical Traffic and Hazardous Material,
Nuclear Energy Operation of the General Electric Company,
located in San Jose, California.
My purpose in appearing here today is to present
comments on proposed rules for the Development of regula-
tions for the Transportation of Hazardous Waste on behalf
of the General Electric Company, with corporate offices
in Fairfield, Connecticut.
The General Electric Company, as a shipper and
transporter of hazardous waste, make the following comments
in response to discussion topics set forth in Federal
Register Docket 77-28591, September 29, 1977. I would
like to go over this by topic.
Discussion Topic 1. We believe that the Depart-
ment of Transportation (DOT) should be the prime federal
regulatory agency to develop regulations for hazardous
waste transportation. Our position is predicated on the
years of experience and outstanding record in the control
of hazardous material and the thousands of materials
-------
already regulated by the DOT, which should not be over-
lapped by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regula-
tions .
The current approach to be taken on hazardous
waste is to allow present DOT regulations to apply for
those items already regulated as hazardous material. The
EPA could incorporate these materials by reference to DOT
regulations.
Those materials designated by Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as hazardous waste and
not presently regulated by the DOT should be combined into
several major categories by the EPA. These designated
items would be turned over to the DOT and made a part of
DOT regulations under categories of "EPA Hazardous Waste
Materials".
The EPA would designate the type of containers
required and would specify the DOT specification container
when necessary. The EPA and DOT should jointly determine
and develop new labels and placards compatible with current
DOT designs for this material and describe how it should
be shown on shipping papers. After a while these factors
would be incorporated within DOT regulations. The EPA
would incorporate these materials by reference to DOT
regulations.
-------
4h
Topic 2. The DOT should not modify its
definition of hazardous material but would however
specifically address the transportation of hazardous
waste (not presently covered by DOT, but considered
hazardous by EPA) as indicated above.
Topic 3. The DOT should modify its shipping
paper requirements to meet the needs of the EPA. There
is already shipping paper regulations in existence, which
could be modified to meet RCRA requirements for a mani-
fest. Present DOT form could be used if additional EPA
certificate is not required. Should EPA certificate be
required, use present form and make additional forms avail-
able for use if only EPA materials are being shipped to
avoid duplicate certifications.
Topic 4. Current DOT regulations for labeling,
marking and placarding are sufficient for handling ha-
zardous waste materials presently regulated by DOT. For
those materials not presently regulated by DOT we recom-
mend the procedure as previously outlined under discussion
topic No. 1.
Topic 5. One big question in our mind is: Why
does the RCRA require notification of hazardous waste
transportation when the DOT does not require such noti-
fication? If regulations for shipment of hazardous
-------
A 2
waste are incorporated within DOT requirements, these
shipments could be handled in the same manner as other
hazardous materials presently regulated by DOT.
Along this same vein, registration requirements
need not be developed if hazardous waste is handled the
same as hazardous material under present DOT regulations.
Topic 6. Notification for any spill of EPA
designated hazardous waste material should be directed
to the DOT and not the EPA. The DOT presently has in
existence requirements to be notified in case of accidents
or spills of hazardous material associated with transpor-
tation and to receive a report of the incident. This is
a long standing procedure which could easily incorporate
any information required by EPA in regard to spills.
The DOT could advise EPA or other appropriate
agencies as required if EPA designated the material as
hazardous and it is shown as such within DOT regulations.
Topic 7. EPA should develop requirements for
handling any spilled material considered hazardous by
EPA. Such requirements should be incorporated within
EPA regulations and these requirements could be incor-
porated by reference within DOT regulations.
Topic 8. Training programs should be conducted
by EPA on a voluntary basis, if so desired. EPA
-------
43
regulations, however, should include sufficient infor-
mation to provide guidance to all associated parties in
regard to emergency response and clean up of hazardous
waste and reference to such information could be incor-
porated within DOT regulations. If found to be necessary,
training programs could be made a requirement at a later
date.
Topic 9. This statement needs more definitive
explanation regarding "incompatible wastes". Does incom-
patible waste mean hazardous as far as DOT is concerned?
If so, then DOT regulations already exist stipulating
specific segregation of hazardous waste.
If the term further applies to waste materials
which EPA considers environmentally incompatible, then
this fact should be conveyed to the DOT and specific
requirements incorporated into DOT regulations to address
this situation.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in
this public meeting and compliment the EPA and DOT for
their foresightedness in coordinating regulatory require-
ments for the transportation of hazardous waste, thus
eliminating duplicate requirements for compliance by
shippers and transporters.
Respectfully submitted, Frederick D. Flowers.
-------
A 4
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Flowers.
I'll start. I have a couple of items on your
statement. I gather, from the cooperative tone that you
suggested throughout for the EPA and the DOT, that
General Electric advocates this recognition of environ-
mental hazard by the DOT. In other words, in order for
us to cooperate and develop jointly labels or placards,
it would have to be a broadening of the statement that
I ran through briefly this morning.
Do you think that's appropriate under the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act?
MR. FLOWERS: That's correct.
MR. ROBERTS: The other question I had — and this
relates to the reporting on incidents of spills. And I
mentioned earlier this morning that many states may take
on the hazardous waste management program, which isn't
just transportation, but a variety of other things. And
they have suggested to us that it is not adequate for them
to be not getting reports on incidents, if you will.
Would it be your -- it is your recommendation
then that DOT receive all reports and feed bhem to us.
I can certainly that in the case where the State takes on
the program from the U.S. EPA, is it still your view that
the incident report goes to the U. S. DOT and they then
-------
have to forward it on to the State?
MR. FLOWERS: That could be included in the other
appropriate agencies, yes.
MR. ROBERTS * As opposed to- the incident report
going both to the State and the DOT?
MR. FLOWERS: I think in that type of situation,
the individual has enough on his hands trying to take care
of the incident.
MR, ROBERTS:. This is not during the first three
hours. I am talking about within 15 days. Obviously
some States would like to know that directly, that's why
I am asking.
MR. FLOWERS: I would assume that the Department of
Transportation would immediately notify the State.
MR. ROBERTS: We just signed an agreement; I'm
not looking forward to it with much relish. We just signed
an agreement with the State of Illinois concerning the
580.1 report, wherein we agreed to supply the State of
Illinois copies of all reports made concerning incidents
occurring in the State of Illinois, thereby precluding
the State from imposing the same requirement on a local
level. In other words, to save carriers from making
duplicate reports: one to Illinois and one to DOT, I
signed an agreement with the State of Illinois that I
-------
would supply those reports so the Illinois carriers would
not have to do it.
MR. FLOWERS: All I can say to that is, "Amen".
MR. ROBERTS: I'm not happy about it because the
administrative load is amplified nationwide. I don't
know we are going to do it.
MR. FLOWERS: Mr. Roberts, speaking to that point,
I think it gets down to, things that are federally
regulated, should be federally regulated throughout the
State, and it is our contention that we hope the federal
regulations, and that the States adopt the federal regu-
lations. That should be the situation. We do not see
the need for the adoption of Federal -- State regulations--
anticipating the development of State regulations that
override Federal regulations, which would interfere with
commerce.
BY MR. KOVALICK:
Q I have a question from the floor related to
the container discussion, container specs for waste.
"Why should EPA prescribe the container if DOT regulated
material spec is already known?" And I think you suggested
using the DOT material spec.
The rest of the question is, "If a none DOT
regulation material, that is, the other materials, why
-------
47
can't the same container that transported the virgin
material be used?" Which gets at the question of using
that grade container for the waste, which was a part of
the question to Mr. Hershson this morning.
A We were speaking of a situation where there would
be a material that we felt like the EPA, the additional
EPA hazardous material regulations, would be in a better
position to evaluate the type of container that would be
required. Should you so desire or if you decide you
need a DOT spec, specification container, then you would
so identify that container.
Q For example, let's take an example, it might
be easier. If there was some caustic material above
50 milligrams per kilogram body weight above poison B,
if I'm correct, you would either choose that kind of
container, that is, a poison B container or specify some
other kind of container. That would be our two options?
R Right.
We don't have any other questions?
MR. TRASK: Yes.
Mr. Flowers, I'm a bit confused about how you
would treat the non-DOT regulated materials, at the moment.
I think I heard you say one time that we should add to
the DOT standard section for the EPA materials. And
-------
48
then you later said that we should not modify the DOT
criteria. And I am a little confused as to how we ought
to do that.
A I think that the first topic that we discussed
says that the present hazardous materials that can be
identified under DOT regulations should be identified as
such, and where we made the recommendation to modify --
MR. ROBERTS: Would you point that out to me?
MR. TRASK: I don't have a copy of your state-
ment here. I'm not sure where it came in your statement.
MR. KOVALICK: Well, as I recall, you were
suggesting that where we did have EPA, EPA hazardous
waste'materials, they create a new class; perhaps handle,
I presume, biocumulative, or carcinogens not currently
recognized. I think Mr. Trask was asking, isn't that
in fact creating a new criteria? When you do that, is
that called a new criteria; is that anything that EPA
recognizes as a criteria for that class of material?
A Whatever EPA recognizes or develops as their
criteria, would be the one.
MR. KOVALICK: Falls into that new class?
A That's right. There would be no modification--
Q Of current DOT criteria?
A No, no modification at all.
-------
49
MR. KOVALICK: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Roberts.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Since you brought it up and Mr. Sigeti also
mentioned that further consideration will be made of
No. 9, I think it might warrant some clarification.
Perhaps you may want to comment on it?
A There are principally two loading and stowage
compatibility requirements, both of which I think many
of us agree are rather archaic. One is 17481, for rail,
and the other one is 177848, for highway. What is
possibly by inadvertency, in the way this is stated, it
ignores the provisions of Section 17321, mainly A, B,
and C, which is the general prohibitions against the
shipping of certain materials that will involve dangerous
evolutions into either gas, pulverized, decomposed
materials that are unstable. Now, if that's the nature
of the concern about this, I would suggest that all of
these prohibitions be specified in the regulations in
terms of the prohibited materials. We apply this
restriction to materials that we realize are under the
classification of hazardous materials under the Depart-
ment's regulations.
Q As recently as about two years ago, we had
-------
50
a case like that. There was no definition of the DOT
regulations to be submitted with materials subject to
decomposition. Therefore, we notified the shipper that
it was our position that this was a forbidden material
and may not be out for transportation in commerce.
Also, under the provisions of Section 17351 we
have a stability requirement pertaining to materials
generally regarded as forbidden explosives should they
fail to meet the specific test of stability requirements
of 75 degrees centigrade for 48 consecutive hours.
Now, with all that in mind, those people who
are planning additional comments -- Mr. Sigeti -- wherever
you are, and also, anyone else who is making further
comments — I think that this particular question, at
least from the DOT standpoint of asking the question , is
it necessary for DOT to modify its existing requirements
pertaining to these things, including 17321, 17351, as
well as 17481 and 177848.
Before someone makes a rapid judgment as to
whether that's necessary or not, I would recommend a
very, very careful reading of Paragraphs A, B and C of
17321, because I think you will find a couple of little
loopholes in there that have possibly been overlooked by
people over the years. And, possibly, if we are really
-------
IS.
going to properly address this area in terms of mixing
different things up in tank wagons and whatever, it
possibly should be reassessed.
I just wanted to clarify that because apparently
when we came to this question, there were a number of
comments and there were some hangups with it. I think
it needs to be clarified. So, if you want to add to your
comments later about that, or you may have something now.
A No, I have no further comments at this time.
MR. KOVALICK: There's one more question from
the floor, Mr. Flowers.
BY MR. TRASK:
Q Mr. Flowers, what is your position on a nation-
wide uniform manifest?
A A nationwide uniform manifest?
Q Yes. I believe that your statement indicated
that you thought DOT should modify its shipping paper
requirements to accommodate the RCRA hazardous waste
information needs and this question, I think, agrees with
that.
A I think basically the information could be
placed on a bill of lading; it could be made a combination
manifest. However, as we pointed out earlier, our con-
tention is, if this is not satisfactory, then the
-------
52
requirements as called upon by RCRA, for a manifest to
identify the quantity and the hazards of the material
and exactly where it's going to in a licensed facility,
then, I don't have the slightest idea at this time, if
that is what you are asking.
Q Now, if I could speculate just a bit on this.
This question has come up a number of times at other
meetings we have held, and I think what the questioner
is asking here is, should we have a rigid, fixed form,
instead of the current uniform bill of lading format
that is now widely used?
A I think definitely there should be a stipulated
type of format because, for instance, we have the
situation in the State of California, where I happen to
be from, where there is a specific form issued by the
State of California by EPA to be filled out in exactness.
You don't just get general formalities or idea or infor-
mation, you are issued a specific format by the California
EPA. And therefore, I think again, to get the federal
situation, to have a better understanding, there should
be a federally established manifest, specifically formated.
MR. KOVALICK: All right. Thank you very much,
We keep getting cards on OHMO and EPA
authorities and plans, and we will continue to hold those
-------
until the end.
While Mr. Wilson of the Stauffer Chemical
Company comes to the podium, let me alert Mr. Patrick
Wicks, of Chem-Nuclear Systems, that he will be next and
also -- off the record for a moment.
(Remarks made off the record.)
MR. KOVALICK: Back on the record.
Will you accept questions, Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON: Certainly. Yes, I will.
Mr. Chairmen, and members of the Panel, my name
is Robert Wilson and I am employed by Stauffer Chemical
Company as the Director of Transportation Operations in
the Distribution Department. My responsibilities relative
to this area includes development of procedures and
training programs for loading and unloading personnel
of bulk rail and truck equipment. Additionally, I am
Stauffer's coordinator of our CHEMTREC internal response
network.
Stauffer is a manufacturer of agricultural,
industrial and specialty chemicals; plastics, fertilizers
and food ingredients with annual sales over one billion
dollars. Stauffer, in common with other chemical manu-
facturers, must necessarily generate waste materials at
various production facilities. These wastes result from
-------
unsaleable product or by product, equipment cleaning,
waste water treatment sludes, collected air pollution
control wastes, et cetera. Certain of these wastes will
be characterized or identified as hazardous. Although
we make extensive efforts to minize these wastes, process
and product requirements and pollution control facilities
make a certain amount unavoidable. Therefore, Stauffer
has a direct interest in the guidelines and regulations
that are to be developed for the transportation of hazard-
ous waste.
Since we are concerned at this public meeting
with the transportation and control of hazardous wastes,
we should review certain definitions and constraints in
order to keep this discussion to a minimum. The term
"hazardous waste" relates to "discarded" material. All
other materials that are recycled, regenerated, sold,
consumed for energy value, transferred for use by others,
recovered or exchanged are not wastes. We are limiting
this discussion, therefore, to the control of "discarded"
material because we firmly believe that the other recycle-
able materials are or will be controlled from a safety
point oi view within the existing DOT regulations as they
will be amended.
With this constraint applied to the wastes
-------
under discussion, the remainder of this presentation
relates to the numbered "Discussion Topics" published
with this meeting notice in the September 29 Federal
Register.
In response to Discussion Topic No. 1, Stauffer
firmly believes that it is most important to have only
one federal agency identified as having overall juris-
diction in transportation of hazardous wastes. This is
necessary in order to avoid development of uncertainty
among the regulated or duplication of effort in the
application of regulations. We do believe that the
health, environmental and etiologic hazards referred
to in the preamble can be captured into the existing
DOT regulations and cite the advance notice of proposed
rule making, HM-145, as the existing mechanism. The
development of a separate set of regulations would be
of benefit to no one and would, in fact, be counter-
productive. We would strongly recommend that the DOT
be encouraged to complete HM-145 with the assistance
of the EPA and the regulated parties so that these
definable hazards can be adequately controlled in
transportation.
Stauffer has urged the adoption of a new
hazardous materials classification, called "Other
-------
Regulated Materials-E (ORM-E)" or, as MCA proposed, a
class called "Environmentally Regulated Materials (ERM)"
as a means of classifying these health, environmental
and etiologic hazard wastes. Stauffer's proposal was
submitted as a response to HM-145 and dated June 1, 1977.
Because of the brief time allotted for this presentation,
we will not go into the proposed new hazard classifica-
tion but will instead include our response to HM-145 as
Attachment No. 1 to this presentation for placement in
the record.
Under Discussion Topic No. 2, we would recommend
that the new hazardous material classification proposed
as ORM-E include a definition of a "hazardous waste".
With this mechanism in place, special requirements on
hazardous waste shipments such as carrier registration
numbers and special certifications on shipping papers can
also be included in the DOT regulations.
We will speak more definitively to a proposed
combination hazardous waste manifest and shipping paper
to show that both the EPA and DOT requirements can be
combined to a single format.
Discussion Topic No. 3. By combining the
hazardous material manifest and the DOT shipping paper
into a single form, many benefits are derived. The
-------
157
generator of the waste, the transporter and the receiver
will have only one form to handle. Additionally, copies
of shipping papers are normally held by the transporters
for a three year period in order to comply with the
statute of limitations established by the ICC. This
availability of the shipping paper/waste manifest would
certainly aid federal and state agencies who wish to
review shipping records. The use of a combined standard
form for all 50 states would also eliminate the inevitable
problems should each state wish to develop its own
separate hazardous material manifest. We offer as
Attachment No. 2 to the presentation a proposed form as
an example of how both EPA and DOT shipping paper require-
ments can be combined.
If you will turn to this form, I will point
out some of the major new items. We have taken a standard
straight bill of lading and combined it with the hazardous
waste manifest now being used in the State of Texas as
a requirement of the Texas Water Quality Board. A copy
of this form and backup information is also attached for
your reference. You will note that there are three
separate boxes for the shipper, carrier and consignee
each requiring a business address and a shipping address
if it is different, an emergency phone number and, if it
-------
58
develops as a requirement, a registration or permit
number. We have also included in the section for the
description of the hazardous materials separate columns
to include hazardous properties and waste code number
should one be developed or required in certain states.
Finally, there are three separate certification require-
ments to be signed by each of the three parties involved.
Included in the shipper's certification is the standard
DOT hazardous materials statement as well as a proposed
statement for passage of the hazardous waste to the
carrier.
We wish to point out that this example Ls
intended only as an illustration that it is possible to
combine the bill of lading with the hazardous waste mani-
fest. There would be no objection to a separate hazardous
waste manifest as an option that may be preferred fcy
other shippers and carriers.
Discussion Topic No. 4 relates to the marking,
labeling and placarding of the containers or packages.
We must again recommend against duplication of markings,
labels or placards while a waste is in transit. If the
product were not already classified as one of the exist-
ing hazardous materials, then an environmental or health
effects label and/or placard consistent with the proposed
-------
hazardous waste classification and existing DOT labeling
and placarding could be offered. The proliferation of
multiple labeling would be counter-productive and con-
fusing and would, as a result, fail to accomplish the
purpose for which it was intended. The shape and size
of these labels and placards should remain within the
established DOT design standards. Also, the existing
DOT requirements for markings, labels and placards should
be extended to cover this proposed new hazardous classi-
fication ORM-E.
With regard to registering transporters of
these hazardous wastes, per Discussion Topic No. 5, we
would point out that the existing DOT and ICC regulations
provide adequate control and registration of transporters
of hazardous materials and thus hazardous wastes and see
no benefit in establishing additional registration require-
ments. Accidents or spills involving hazardous materials
are subject to special incident reporting procedures
already established in the DOT regulations. When the
health hazard wastes are also incorporated into the DOT
regulations, they would also be captured into this report-
ing system.
One note of concern on the proposed EPA registra-
tion requirements for carriers. Stauffer and many other
-------
chemical companies produce small volumes of waste which
require infrequent transport to a disposal site. Because
of our plant locations and the infrequent number of small
shipments, we must turn to common carriers. While these
carriers regularly move hazardous materials, it would be
very burdensome for them to stencil certain trucks with
a hazardous waste registration number as proposed in the
EPA regulation. There would, on the other hand, be no
resistence to placing a registration number, if it is
found to be necessary, on a shipping paper. We believe
vehicle markings with registration numbers are unnecessary
and offer no improvement in the safe movement of hazardous
wastes.
Discussion Topic No. 6 relates to accident or
spill reporting and control. For the past six years,
the Manufacturing Chemists Association has operated a
Chemical Emergency Transportation Center known as CHEMTREC.
CHEMTREC was established to give emergency handling infor-
mation in the event of an accident involving chemicals
in transit on a 24-hour-a-day basis. This system has
been judged by public safety agencies, transporters and
governmental agencies as extremely effective. The
CHEMTREC system could provide for emergency response
information on hazardous wastes in addition to the
-------
chemicals it is now prepared to handle.
There is also a procedure under consideration
by the DOT under notice HM-126 which provides for a
three digit hazardous information numbering system to
be placed on shipping papers and placards. This system
would provide immediate identification not only of a
hazardous material's primary hazard but would also
identify the secondary and tertiary hazards. This rule
making proposal is considered an important tool in pro-
viding emergency personnel at the scene of a spill with
immediate precautionary information on the multiple
hazards of a leaking product. Hazardous wastes would be
incorporated into this proposed hazardous information
numbering system when placed in the DOT regulations.
The existing DOT procedure for reporting spills
of hazardous materials can be adapted to include hazard-
ous waste spills. The Federal Government's internal
procedures for promptly notifying other agencies of a
spill is a matter of discussion between the agencies
involved. We would, however, recommend that a single
phone contact be the key connection between the carrier
or shipper and the federal agencies. Concurrently,
incident reports should also be filed at one central
point for dissemination, as required.
-------
162
Discussion Topic No. 7 points out that a
spilled hazardous material could become a hazardous
waste. If this occurs, then the "waste" would be classi-
fied and transported from the site of the incident to
the disposal location as discussed in previous items in
this proposal.
Regarding the possible introduction of spill
control procedures, we believe that a response from
CHEMTREC will provide the necessary containment and clean-
up information for immediate handling of the products.
In addition, CHEMTREC would notify the parties involved
with the shipment in order to provide assistance in the
clean-up. Existing regulations requiring assistance in
clean-up will more than adequately provide incentive
requirements for the involved parties to participate.
Discussion Topic No. 8 questions the need to
train shipper and carrier personnel in spill clean-up
and emergency response. As mentioned in the Federal
Register, the DOT currently requires training of per-
sonnel in the safe handling of products. The extension
to spill clean-up and emergency response is, we believe,
unnecessary for two reasons. First, experience in
handling spills shows that each incident requires its
own specific solution. There are so many variables
-------
involved beginning with size of spill, location of
incident, weather conditions, et cetera, that required
training programs can becom- excessive and still not
provide the answers for the next field situation en-
countered. Concurrently, the training required under
the current DOT regulations, which, by the way, we assume
will include hazardous wastes, will provide personnel
with sufficient knowledge to make judgments and recom-
mendations at a spill location.
The stowage and storage of mixed wastes is
exposed in Discussion Topic No. 9. We believe it would
be a natural extension of the proposed changes to the
DOT regulations incorporating hazardous wastes that the
loading and storage charts be expanded to include require-
ments to prevent any mismatching.
In closing, Stauffer is most interested in the
establishment of one agency to control the transportation
of hazardous waste. We firmly believe that through
prudent changes to existing DOT regulations, the health
and environmental hazardous wastes can be captured and
controlled. The EPA's assistance and assignment of
wastes to this classification is of prime importance.
The development of the regulatory controls related to
shipping papers, marking, labeling, placarding and
-------
164.
selection of specification packages and containers can
be developed by the DOT based on the proposal and
responses to HM-145.
Finally/ any accidents or spills in transit of
hazardous wastes can also be captured within the existing
incident reporting systems including Manufacturing
Chemists Association's CHEMTREC emergency response net-
work. Thank you very much.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
for a very precise time-wise as well as content-wise
statement.
Mr. Roberts, do you have a lead-off question?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I do.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Mr. Wilson, at the bottom of page 3 and the
top of page 4 of your statement, you made reference to
the fact that there is no need to register carriers
because the ICC regulations presently provide an adequate
control and registration of transporters of hazardous
materials. I will defer to your expertise, sir, and
I respect it.
Isn't it true that the private motor carriage
business in the United States is larger than the common
and contract motor carriage business?
-------
'65
A That's not my area of expertise. I can --
Q Well, I'll put that question to Mr. Johns
on the floor, representing the ATA, and will accept
your response from the floor -- is that correct, Mr.
Johns?
MR. JOHNS: That general statement or —
MR. ROBERTS: General statement. Am I generally
correct in making that statement?
MR. JOHNS: Generally correct, but in the
hazardous materials field, I don't think so.
MR. ROBERTS: Have transportation with petroleum
products?
MR. JOHNS: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Okay. I won't argue.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q In what manner would you suggest we address the
private carriage fleets in the United States in terms of
the transport of hazardous wastes?
A Private carriers involved and operated by the
companies generating the wastes, I think they can be
captured into the system, at that stage of the game.
Q Then your response is still negative in terms
of the fact that these carriers in some other way are
registered or identified by --
-------
A They are captured under the controls. I would
think that the majority of the hazardous materials that
we are really concerned with here are moved and controlled
by the companies and not the private carriers, as Mr.
Johns stated.
Q Now at the bottom of page 4 of your statement,
you said there is a procedure under consideration by the
DOT under notice HM-126 which provides for a three digit
hazardous information numbering system to be placed on
shipping papers. What document are you referring to, sir?
A HM-126.
Q 126 to my knowledge does not propose anything
like that.
A Yes, I would say it's referring to" the MCA and
other chemical company respondents, to HM-126.
Q Is it not correct that 126 is just a request
for public comments --
A Yes. One of which is the three digit HIS system
under discussion.
Q Okay.
A Was that not presented at the U.N.^on behalf of
the U. S. Government?
Q Not presented by the U. S. Government.
A It was modified?
-------
Q No. It was supported by the U. S. Government
as opposed to other systems under consideration. It was
not proposed by the U. S. Government though.
On page 5, third paragraph, you made reference
to CHEMTREC. "CHEMTREC will provide the necessary con-
tainment and clean-up information for immediate handling
of the products."
A Immediate response information, yes.
Q Isn't it basically in the form of a 24-hour
operation by communicators to provide very general infor-
mation of this nature. But isn't their principal function
to get ahold of shippers or other expertise outside of
CHEMTREC to assist in handling the hazardous material
spill?
A The first response from the answeer at CHEMTREC
is to go to the CHEMTREC card destination and read to the
emergency response people requesting information, what the
general immediate handling procedures are for that parti-
cular product or class products, whatever they can answer
to.
At that time the operator at CHEMTREC will
solicit extra information from the caller and try to
locate the shipper or the receiver of the goods or some-
one else who they've identified as knowledgeable in the
-------
hazardous properties of the product and the procedures
containment of that spill.
Q The last sentence in that paragraph and I will
quote, "Existing regulations requiring assistance in
clean-up will more than adequately provide incentive
requirements for the involved parties to participate."
Would you describe that regulation, please?
A I think that's a general statement towards the
public and, well, towards Section 311 of Public Law 92,
or something like that. 95-500, thank you.
Q So that's the reference for your saying the
existing regulations --
A Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: That's all.
MR. KOVALICK: I have one question to follow up
on CHEMTREC and systems that provide information. Perhaps
you can, being a generator of wastes, as you point out,
help us.
BY MR. KOVALICK:
Q From our information, from studying some 14
broad industry categories, in terms of the kinds of waste
they generate and how they dispose of them, which, by the
way, are available through the National Technical Infor-
mation Service, indicates that generators often-times, at
-------
least, up until the passage of RCRA, are often hard pressed
to describe their waste in any detail at all; first of
all, that is beyond red slime or green mud or whatever.
Secondly, many of them pointed out during that voluntary
survey that we conducted, that not only is the batch for
this month's process different from the batch from next
month, the batch from the next shift's process is different
from this shift. And I guess, with that information, I
have difficulty understanding the principle that, I
guess Mr. Sigeti first offered and you have offered,
that it's going to be "easy or with competent help we
can easily define these materials which, from my infor-
mation, are like several orders of magnitude more variety
then the virgin materials that are registered with
CHEMTREC".
So, knowing that as my problem, I would apprec-
iate it if you could comment on whether that's really
feasible. I must admit that I am somewhat surprised
that several of you have argued that. If that's true,
that could solve a lot of problems. It's the first
time I have ever heard it.
A I think the first adage is to try to keep it
simple. And if a product is made up of several components
but the overall qualification is a corrosive, we know it
-------
70
as a corrosive. And whether you value the internal
complements in that mixture and it still stays corrosive,
it will be shipped as a corrosive.
Now, as it moves in transit and there's an
incident, let's say, the -- through CHEMTREC you can
identify the shipper, and the shipper should know the
special involvement in that particular product, could
get information to the scene. But in the interim, the
basic idea is that it is a corrosive, keep it out of
water, whatever you have to do to contain it, know how
to neutralize it and so on; that's basically where we're
at. That's why I say try to keep it in a package.
And I agree that in certain instances, a waste product
generated will vary from shift to shift or operation
to operation. That's true.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you.
Mr. Edelman.
BY MR. EDELMAN:
Q Mr. Wilson, on the first page of your statement
you mention the term "hazardous waste" relates to "dis-
carded" material, and should not include recycled,
regenerated, sold, consumed for energy value or dis-
carded materials. Later on in that paragraph you state,
"We firmly believe that the other recycleable materials
-------
are or will be controlled from a safety point of view
within the existing DOT regulations. ..."
Are you suggesting --
A "as they will be amended."
Q -- "as they will be amended."
A Don't leave that out.
Q Okay.
A HM-145.
Q If they are not amended, would you recommend
not carrying those wastes which are going for recycling
or should there be transportation controls for those
wastes that DOT is not currently regulating?
A I think we are talking about -- I think we
ought to try to keep it in some sort of prospective. I
would say -- I think someone mentioned 90 percent awhile
ago -- that 90 percent of the generated waste involved
here, are already classified as a hazard. The concern
now is with these new health hazards, and in those
instances, they are not captured in this area. But
they are, we think, a relatively small matter at this
stage of the game, which can be brought in under HM-145.
So the statement -- I will stand on that statement.
Q Also, you're proposing OR --
A ORM-E.
-------
72
Q ORM-E over ERM. I assume that would work then
if a material met the DOT definition and was also a
hazardous waste or a hazardous substance. It would
fit under a DOT classification, and if it wasn't, then
it would fit under the ERM classification.
A Yes, that's basically the steps in the classi-
fication process.
Q So that would be the final classification?
A If it did not come under one of the hazardous
classifications which specifies packaging everything
across the board, then you would capture it in an ORM-E
or some other classification.
MR. EDELMAN: Thank you.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. KOVALICK: While Mr. Patrick Wicks of Chem-
Nuclear Systems is coming to the microphone, let me alert
Mr. William Schaffer, of Monsanto Company; you will be
next.
Mr. Wicks, will you accept questions
MR. WICKS: Yes, I will.
First, I didn't have time to prepare a written
statement for you, but now I am kind of glad, because
you guys are going back and grilling everybody on what
-------
73
in writing. You can't do that to me.
MR. KOVALICK: But you will accept questions?
MR. WICKS: I will accept questions.
I did want to answer the discussion topic
that you indicated you wanted input on. First, I'd like
to tell you a little bit about what Chem-Nuclear does.
We are a service company. We provide various
waste management services both for nuclear wastes and
for chemical wastes. And we get involved in all aspects
of waste management, including transportation disposal
and in certain cases, management waste at the generator
site.
With respect to Discussion Topic 1, I concur
with one of the other speakers that the regulations
which are promulgated eventually should be incorporated
into the current DOT regulations in some manner. I am
not going to suggest just exactly how or which page they
should be incorporated in under CFR 149, but that is my
general comment, that I think that there should be one
set of transport regulations that is basically under DOT,
so that they are all essentially in one spot, whether it
covers strictly hazardous material under the current
criteria and in addition to adding EPA hazardous waste,
once those criteria are defined.
-------
74
With respect to Discussion Topic 2. We believe
that this should probably be a new set of materials
designated — I'm not sure what kind of name should be
given to it in terms of the regulations, but I believe
there should be another aspect of materials designated
to cover the materials which do not now currently meet
DOT hazardous material criteria but which meet the EPA
criteria.
Item 3, we believe that the DOT regulations
should be modified to the manifest that is required by
RCRA. I, in my own mind, am not firm as to just how that
should be done, whether it should be a completely separate
form or it should be a modification of the current ship-
ping papers. I think that's not of a great concern to
our company, and I think that either way it is done, it
can work out satisfactorily.
With respect to Discussion Topic 4. I think
that EPA and DOT should jointly develop a placard for
the new class of materials that will be designated. My
suggestion is to call it by the name of environmental
hazard, as the type of hazard that it represents, as
opposed to corrosive or some other placard designation
already used.
I didn't think that the word "poisonous" or
-------
75
"dangerous" or "toxic" or some similar term should be
used, because I think that is very much overstating the
case in terms of the hazard that these materials will
represent in the transportation mode in the event there is
an accident spill or other occurrence.
Item No. 5. A number of people in the trucking
and railroad industries indicated their concern over
possible registration -- re-registration under a new
system where there is activities in transporting hazardous
wastes. I can understand and sympathize with that they
don't want to go through another process of registration,
but I think there are a lot of companies out there who
are in the business right now, who are small, who don't
know what they are doing, and who do cause problems
from time to time, and in many cases they will not be
interstate carriers, they will be intrastate; therefore,
the regulations, if they are part of the DOT requirements,
will not affect them unless the local or the state --
or whoever the local agency is, and ask those regulations.
So I think there is a problem with some of the
smaller carriers in operation now, I think that all carriers
should be registered in some form or another. If they
are already registered in an appropriate fashion, that
that doesn't need to be duplicated, but that is not —
-------
76,
the current registrations, I believe, do not cover the
field at the present time.
On Discussion Topic 6. There should be a reported
mechanism for spills and other similar accidents, whatever
system is presently in existence now I think should be
continued, whether it be reported to DOT or the Coast
Guard or EPA, I don't think it matters much. I think
the reporting should probably go to an agency and if
that agency knows that other agencies have an interest
in those matters, then they can forward copies of the
reporting documents and so forth on to them. I think
when you get into a spill situation, the most important
thing to do is not to report it or call EPA or DOT and
notify them that it has occurred, the most important thing
is to do something about it.
So I think if requirements are written in
the new regulation to cover spills, that at least they
should recognize that the most important thing to do is
to take appropriate action to contain the spill, to do
what's necessary to clean it up. It should also be reported
to the appropriate agencies, but that doesn't necessarily
have to be the first thing to do.
On Discussion Topic 7, we went through the same
thing. My comment there is that the regulations should
-------
177.
somehow prohibit the improper disposal of spilled materials
which fall within the classification of hazardous wastes.
We know of, and have heard of a number of cases where
the transportation company has a spill and it is left
there, it is not properly cleaned up. I think that's not
done as much as it used to be, but we've heard cases of
the same done very recently. That of course, is not the
aim of these new regulations. The spill should be cleaned
up properly and disposed of properly. A number of trans-
portation companies are here and so they are aware of
the situation. I am sure they would agree with me.
But other transportation companies need to be informed
of this requirement also.
With respect to Item 8 Discussion Topic regard-
ing training. I don't think that it is necessary to have
a formal training program requirement at the present time.
I think that might be a good idea later and not now. I
think it is important that EPA and then DOT conduct some
of the programs that they have done in the past to infor-
mally train people who are in the business. I don't
think there should be a formal training required, however.
With respect to Item 9, the compatibility
question. As an operator in the field, we don't see
compatibility as being a big problem or incompatibility
-------
78
being a big problem. We don't face the problem very
often. Maybe this is made out to be more of a potential
problem then it really it. I think so. We run into
it occasionally. We are always guarding against it.
But we don't see it very often. So I think there is a
concern here that might not be completely warranted.
I think there might be some general statements made in
the regulations, however, which should be in considera-
tion.
But usually, if there is going to be an incom-
patibility problem with the generator of the waste, you'll
probably be aware of it immediately; if it is going to
blow up, it is going to blow up right then. I think most
people will be taking adequate precautions to preclude it
in most cases, in 99.9 percent of the cases, maybe more.
So I don't think it is a big problem.
If I can make a couple more comments on some
statements that were made by other commenters. One is
that there was a man drum conditioning organization pro-
testing the use of drums for burial of wastes. I think
that's a matter of choice. In many cases the containment
of wastes in drums is recommended, and often times it is a
necessity in terms of safety and reducing the hazards to
use those drums for disposal also.
-------
79
Making it a requirement that no drums could be
disposed of at a licensed hazardous waste facility would
be indigenous and in most cases it would cost considerably
more money to recover those drums and get them to a recon-
ditioner then it would be worth. I can name any number
of reasons why it wouldn't be feasible to do it in all
cases, at least not to make it a requirement.
Another statement was made regarding what
proportion of hazardous wastes are currently covered by
the existing DOT hazardous material criteria. The
statement has been made several times that 90 percent
is currently covered by the DOT requirements. I disagree
strongly with that. I think the number might be closer
to five or ten percent. In our experience, with the
kinds of waste we are handling and seeing, I would say
no more than five percent of those are currently covered
by the DOT hazardous material criteria.
So that the new criteria that EPA develops
will be a substantial addition. Nobody knows yet how
substantial because the criteria aren't set yet. But
it will be a substantial addition. That's not to say
that we shouldn't go ahead with the regulations. My
point is, there are lots of waste that are being trans-
ported right now that are not covered under a specically
-------
80
hazardous waste by any reasonable criteria that are not
covered by the DOT hazardous materia criteria. That is
not to say also that they are not handled properly now,
which they probably are. We handle ours properly and
I am sure many other companies handle theirs properly
also. But that doesn't mean that we have to put placards
on the waste that we have, because we don't, only five
or ten percent.
Another subject was brought up about -- I guess
the question came from the Panel regarding any kind of
special treatment or any laxity in the rules with respect
to resource recovery. I don't see any justification for
that approach. Certainly the objective of the Resource
Recovery Act is to promote resource recovery. It is
also to promote proper hazardous waste disposal and
proper treatment, recycling of materials and so forth.
But I see no justification in the approach that you say
solids that are going through a recovery system should
be thought of differently in terms of the transportation
requirements and anything related to it, and the reporting
requirements and so forth, they should fall within the
same purview as all other related activities.
Those are the extent of my comments. I will
answer any questions.
-------
8
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Wicks.
Mr. Roberts, are you ready to start?
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Mr. Wicks, is Chem-Nuclear operate motor
vehicles?
A Yes.
Q Transporting waste materials, mostly hazardous
wastes?
A Yes.
Q Are you presently required to register your
identity with any federal or state agencies?
A Yes, we are. We are -- it turns out that I
am involved with the chemical wastes part of our business
where we don't operate our own vehicles of transportation;
for the nuclear waste disposal, we do operate our own
vehicles and I'm sure we have to register them.
Q Chem-Nuclear -- chemical wastes, are you
registered with anybody?
A We do not operate our own vehicles; we use
common carriers.
Q You indicated that you thought some kind of
registration should be imposed, if I understood your
statement correctly, because there are small carriers out
there that don't know what they are doing.
-------
82
A Correct.
Q That's essentially what you said.
A Right.
Q Now what kind of carriers are those?
A One or two are five men operations; they will
hire themselves out to carry wastes. They have little
or no expertise in being able to do that. In many cases
it is intrastate so that the Federal Government has no
control over the situation. Whether the State has an
interest in it, I don't know. But my point is there are
lots of small operations who handle hazardous wastes
with the same number of hazards and hazardous commodities,
for that matter, I am sure, who have inadequate knowledge
and experience and equipment and capabilities to do the
job properly.
Q Is this based on your specific knowledge of their
operation --
A Yes. I have specific knowledge of those operations.
Q Do you feel one of the remedies would be to
put them under some form of registration?
A I would say it's a possible remedy. I think that's
about the only remedy necessary. •-,I think2 the'.manifest
system will improve that situation substantially. Bat I
think the registration would help.
-------
83
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Edelman.
BY MR. EDELMAN:
Q This is a question from the audience. You
mentioned the problem of small haulers.
A 1 meant their operations, not their height.
(Laughter.)
Q Right. Small shippers.
How are you prepared to change the manifest
requirements to provide for collection and transportation
of small quantities, i.e., to service small generators.
A We face the same thing in our own operation.
I think the manifest system has to take that into account.
For example, if a person -- a small operation -- by terms
of number of people or manner of equipment and so forth,
not by their height, were picking up small quantities
from various customers and then accumulating them on a
truck and eventually getting it full and going to a dis-
posal lot, a permitted disposal site, I think that in
that case, it's very easy that each generator has his
own manifest, and at each pick up point, he has a
separate manifest, and at the end of the run when he
gets to the disposal location, he has 10 or 20 manifests
for the materials that were picked up.
There are other situations that are not quite
-------
84
that easy, but I think that's an easy way of getting
onto it. That's more paperwork, but I don't know of
any other way of getting around it, easily.
Q I just want to follow with my own question.
Ir your experience have you found generally
in small companies that transport hazardous wastes,
that they go around and collect bulk shipments from
various sources and then consolidate them within the
single tank? Does that happen a lot?
A They will try to do that, yes. That way, we have
an incompatibility problem.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Trask.
BY MR. TRASK:
Q Mr. Wicks, you indicated that there is a sub-
stantial problem with many of the small transporters
who are not -- I think you used the term -- very well
educated or trained.
A I did not say they weren't well educated. I
said they didn't have knowledge of the art.
Q Excuse me. Weren't very knowledgeable and yet
you also indicated that we ought not to be thinking about
training programs for these kinds of people. And, doesn't
it seem to make some sense that we should be thinking
about them?
-------
85
A I said that I thought that EPA should be doing --
have some ongoing training programs. I did not go as far
as to say, however, that -- or to say that you probably
should not make a particular type of training a require-
ment to someone running an operation. I think that's
going a little bit too far. I think maybe the control is
in the registration. The company would have to demonstrate
its capabilities.
Q I have a couple of questions from the audience.
There are related and you might want to answer them toge-
ther. First, the original nine to ten ratio was made in
the context of the existing DOT classification regula-
tions. For example, a product is flammable, corrosive,
et cetera. Are you maintaining that 90 percent are nei-
ther flammable, corrosive, nor could fit in other exist-
ing DOT classifications.
The second question related. Can you give an
example of the ways that you consider to be "hazardous",
that is, not covered by CFR 49?
A Well, to Question 1, I know one or two people,
but anyway -- the 90 percent was confusing to me. I
wasn't sure what was meant by that ratio.
What I thought was meant, or one of the possi-
bilities was that, the statement was, 90 percent of the
-------
hazardous wastes now transported are, I should say, not
the DOT hazardous material criteria, that's not correct
as far as I am concerned. That's not to say that by
adopting new criteria we only add 10 percent to all of
the hazardous commodities that are shipped. That may
be true also.
In other words, 90 percent is now covered by
hazardous material criteria existing, 10 percent may be
added, but that serves all hazardous commodities and
hazardous wastes. Whereas, if you are just talking about
hazardous wastes, you're —
MR. KOVALICK: I think the question, if I may
interject here, do you have any example off the top of
your head which is not clear exactly, but if you did,
maybe that would help clarify.
A Yes. I have an example of an industrial waste
which has maybe 50 to 100 parts per mercury. It's not
formally classified and it has the DOT hazardous criteria.
Q For example, if it were in a solvent, would it
not be classified as a waste.
A Flammable (inaudible).
Q Are you counting NOS as not meeting any DOT
criteria, or as meeting it; that's what I am asking.
A What do you mean, NOS?
-------
87
Q The solvent, NOS. That is a DOT --
A No. NOS certainly could meet the criteria.
Q So these are other than those?
A Yes. Sure.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Mr. Wicks, it isn't fair talking to someone like
you about this because you are not in the business. Have
you ever cleaned out a laboratory on contract?
A We have accepted wastes from laboratories.
We have cleaned the whole thing out.
Q In the performance of that function, did you
actually go into the laboratory and --
A No. The customer did the collection, the packag-
ing, marking, et cetera.
And put the material, packed them properly and
put them in drums and various containers and was concerned
about the compatibility problem, and put the incom-
patible ones in certain containers.
Q Was this a university?
A Most of them have been industrial.
Q Considering the probability, some of those
materials would be under the DOT regulations?
A Yes. Yes.
Q And what would they do, provide you with
-------
188
certificates after it was properly packed, marked and
labeled?
A Yes.
Q And this was taking the bottles off the shelves
and putting them into what?
A I can't remember the whole details but I think
what they did was to package them in larger containers,
these were probably pint or quart jars; pack them in a
certain material in drums, and if the materials that were
in there met the DOT criteria, they were marked approp-
iately with placards and so forth.
Q Well, I am not trying to use entrapment; I am
trying to enter into a problem. Apparently you are not
exactly the right person to talk to as compared to some
people who have been in my office who actually hold them-
selves out to go into the laboratory itself and clean it
up. But, relative to the function you perform, do you
know of any problems that exist in that type of activity
relative to the present DOT packaging requirements?
A No. Not really.
Q Any problems?
A No. I don't see any real problems in that
activity.
Q Well, for example, if in a glass bottle there's
-------
89
a certain acid, and the existing regulations say that that
bottle will be packed in a certain fashion in a 12-B65
box, then are you taking to the facility 12-B65 boxes
because six bottles out of 500 require packaging of
12-B65 boxes?
A I agree with you that in cases like that, that
is probably an unnecessary expense under the regulations.
Q Would you hold yourself out to go into a
laboratory --
A Not that anyone's asked me yet, but, yes,
Q In your opinion, based on reading this'ActV
I assume you have heard here today, would you consider
yourself a generator or would you consider the university
the generator?
A In some cases we might be the generator, and
in some cases -- in most cases we would probably con-
sider ourselves the generator — we would consider our-
selves the shipper, let me say it that way.
Q The university may be all free?
A Right.
MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. KOVALICK: I have one other question.
You may want to do this later or do it now, but the
questioner wants to know, "Can Mr. Wicks document his
-------
IS'O
comments on spills that are not properly handled?" I
guess they are looking for some examples in reference
to improperly handled spills.
A I could if I really had to. I don't think either
the person or I want to do that.
MR. TRASK: One more.
BY MR. TRASK:
Q In the State of Michigan, anyone who is
engaged in hauling wastes is required to be licensed
annually by the State DNR. These licenses are proper
only after indepth Inspection. Are you suggesting that
these waste haulers, however small, probably don't know
what they are doing?
A No, I am not suggesting that. The system under
which we've operated is that the State agency has no
authority over waste haulers at all. But if they did,
they would probably do the same thing as developing a
system where they were reviewed and so forth, but they
don't. And in many states, that's the case, I am suro.
The system could be improved very well, and I am not
saying that all small waste haulers don't know what they are
doing. Some of them know very well.
MR. KOVALICK: Again, you have received several
questions which I am going to hold until later, so thank
-------
you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. KOVALICK: Let me ask Mr. Schaffer's indulgence
for a change. What I'd like to do now is read for the
record five new statements that I've accumulated, and
after that, I am going to call a ten minute recess for
a much needed break for some of us, I am sure. Then I
am going to reconvene the meeting at 4:00 precisely to
hear Mr. Schaffer's statement and continue on.
I am going to read these for the record, if
you would like to listen.
Here's a comment from a large chemical manu-
facturer: There seems to be a misunderstanding on the
part of some that a chemical waste, and in many cases,
a hazardous waste, is simply a waste mixture of what would
be a group of otherwise virginal easily identified
chemical substances. In practice, many wastes of our
company, and those of other companies/ comprise complex
chemical substances which are not usually carried in
commerce, which may be difficult to clearly identify
chemically, thereby making it very difficult to expect
CHEMTREC to be able to handle spill controls.
jso-tji"
At the PiCfpVt> hearing, EPA indicated its
understanding of the problem by indicating its probably
-------
acceptance of general processed descriptions to define
the generator's waste.
The second question -- statement from this
morning. On the subject of safe containers for ultimate
disposal of hazardous wastes. Recommend the requirement
that reconditioned drums or new drums must be used for
final disposal or hazardous wastes. When the hazardous
waste involved could cause injury, damage or fire if the
contents leak out; example, highly toxic material, strong
acids or low slash pump materials. The cost of the
recycled drum over the old used drum,may be incurred to
encourage more recycling instead of disposal.
Another comment. My observation regarding leak-
ing drums containing waste liquid in sludges results in
improper storage at generator site. Drums containing
products are usually stored in a protected area where
the weather will not corrode the drum. However, drums
used for storage or collection of products of no value
are usually kept out of doors, unprotected from the
elements to cause corrosion. Therefore, the problem is
primarily not whether a used or reconditioned drum
should be used for collection and shipment of wastes,
but should be the proper storage at the generator site.
I've handled many liquid wastes in drums and
-------
the problems the majority of the time comes from drums
left too long outdoors unprotected from the weather. EPA
should look into this.
Footnote: We are, in one of our regulations.
Another comment: Operators at waste treatment
facilities contract to dispose of prespecified wastes
from previously determined generators. The generators
are responsible for assuring that the wastes are within
the specifications. Combining wastes from multiple
generators, even similar, destroys the principle that
the generator has, that the generator has the respon-
sibility for the composition of the wastes.
Final comment. We talked about wastes going to
a disposal site for recycling facilities. Recycling
implies value, therefore, liquids, et cetera, going to
a facility, or if they are to be reused as is, should not
be defined as waste. Waste has no value. Intermediate
products that could be reused or recycled, should be
regulated as any manufactured product.
Those are the mini statements that I have. I'd
now like to recess the meeting for 12 minutes, we'll
reconvene at 4:00.
(Whereupon a recess was taken
in the above-entitled matter.)
-------
94
MR. KOVALICK: If you will take your seats we will
begin again. The first speaker this afternoon will be
Mr. William Schaffer, of the Monsanto Company, on behalf
of the Manufacturing Chemists Association.
While he is coming to the podium and while you're
taking your seats, I want to alert Mr. Jack Pulley of Dow
Corning Corporation and Mr. Schultz.
Off the record for a moment.
(Remarks made off the record.)
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Schaffer, are you willing to
accept questions.
MR. SCHAFFER: First, my name is spelled
S-c-h-a-f-f-e-r, I-don't want,the wrbng Bill Schaffer-to
get inbo trouble, and secondly, I will answer questions
to a limited extent, based on the fact that I do repre-
sent a national organization that's committee arranged,
and I can't possibly answer for 193 companies. So, if
I duck a question, it is only because I don't have a
consensus viewpoint of MCA on that question, which will
tend to be most of the questions probably.
Would you like to read it while I go along now?
This statement was actually written as a letter
presentation rather than an oral presentation because we
weren't quite sure whether we'd make it or not.
-------
195
My name is Bill Schaffer, and I am Manager of
Regulatory Compliance and Field Distribution for Monsanto
Company, located in St. Louis, Missouri.
I am presenting the Manufacturing Chemists
Association comments as a member of the Hazardous Materials
Sub-Committee of the Transportation and Distribution Com-
mittee.
The following comments by the Manufacturing
Chemists Association are submitted for your consideration.
Many of the member companies of MCA will submit individual
company comments in connection with this subject proceed-
ing. A couple have already made comments today, and I
hear you will get written comments from others.
Under this supplemental advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking; notice of Joint Public Meeting of
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of
Hazardous Materials Operations/DOT, the subject is Deve-
lopment of Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous
Waste.
The Manufacturing Chemists Association (MCA)
is a non-profit trade association having 193 United States
company members representing more than 90 percent of the
production capacity of basic industrial chemicals within
this country. Our members have plants located in nearly
-------
every state, for the manufacture of chemicals, some of
which are classified as environmental and health effects
materials. The wastes associated with many of these
products would also be defined as hazardous under proposed
EPA guidelines. Therefore, MCA companies have a direct
interest in hazardous wastes transportation regulations.
MCA submitted comments to the DOT in response to DOT
Docket No. HM-145 "Environmental and Health Effects
Materials" in June of this year. Those comments were
directed to environmental and health effects materials
in transportation but they bear a direct relationship
to the same problems of hazardous wastes in transporta-
tion. They should be incorporated into this record as
MCA comments.
In July, 1977, MCA also responded to EPA on
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 40 CFR Part 250-
Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations. Again, those
comments, as they were made in connection with the
transportation of hazardous wastes, should become part
of the MCA comments in this proceeding.
Now to the Comments on Questions in Discussion
Topics .
Many of the questions posed in the discussion
topics have already been answered in our previous comments
-------
to DOT and EPA as aforementioned. But we would like to
state some of the basic premises again.
No. 1. MCA believes it is the responsibility
of the Department of Transportation (DOT) to control
products and hazardous wastes only when in transportation
and that DOT should adopt appropriate regulations to pro-
vide for such controls.
No. 2. Generally speaking, the DOT should not
modify its definition of hazardous materials to include
all hazardous wastes. Under DOT regulations, materials,
that is, virgin products or wastes, that do not meet hazard
definitions are not considered hazardous in transportation.
To treat wastes as more hazardous than materials not
considered wastes, but having the same chemical hazards,
seems inappropriate. This does not mean that the DOT
should not modify its regulations to require some sort of
identification and listing of environmental or health
effects materials, wastes or otherwise.
Deviating a little bit from the statement here,
we did get in our HM-145 comments, you heard earlier today
that we suggested ERM, we also suggested ORM-E.
No. 3. The question of manifests versus DOT
bill of lading requirements poses problems depending upon
the complexity of your materials versus internal paper-
-------
work systems. If possible, a manifest system for hazar-
dous wastes incorporating the DOT required data on
hazardous material would eliminate some paperwork; how-
ever, for those generators who want to use a manifest
and a bill of lading with DOT required information on
it, this should also be allowed.
No. 4. Current DOT requirements for labeling,
marking and placarding are sufficient for handling of
hazardous wastes that qualify as hazardous materials under
DOT definitions. For hazardous wastes not meeting DOT
definition, only precautionary labeling and marking
seems feasible. Placarding does not appear necessary.
No. 5. Here's a cop-out. The remainder of
the questions are highly controversial and at this time
MCA reserves comments until we are better able to develop
a consensus opinion with our member companies. And I am
sure, deviating again from the statement, that you've
seen even in the companies that have been here, they
deviate on the emergency response.
That's about all I've got from the MCA. I will
be glad to answer any questions pertaining to what I've
given.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS: I always have a question.
-------
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q In the third paragraph of your statement, you
said, "some of which are classified as environmental and
health effects materials." By whom?
A By EPA. Under their proposed environmental
under Public Law 92-500, Section 311.
Q Well then, "some of which are proposed to be
classified as environmental and health effects materials."
In other words --
A I think it's far beyond proposal, Mr. Roberts.
I think its just due to come out as promulgation as these
are the substances. I don't think -- I'd be happy if it
weren't so proposed, but I don't believe that it is.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Edelman.
BY MR. EDELMAN:
Q Under Item No. 4, you mention that EPA should
not develop placarding for hazardous wastes vehicles and
that only precautionary labeling and marking should be
used.
Do you have any suggestions on the type of
labeling or marking specifically for say, both transports.
Should there be marking on the bulk container or also when
you have containers within a larger vehicle, should there
be marking or labeling on that vehicle?
-------
200
A I might say that this is not an MCA position
because I'm not sure of the consensus opinion on it.
Monsanto's viewpoint/ I will give you.
First, the question of labeling. We are not
talking about a diamond-shaped label. We are talking
about labeling to the extent of putting handling pre-
cautions in case of leak or spill.
Secondly, we are talking about marking such
as we do on a proper shipping label. If we can put down
a chemical waste nomenclature we will do that, and do do
that. In we are talking about a bulk shipment on pla-
carding. The placarding, if it is not hazardous under
DOT definition, it doesn't require DOT placarding. Then
we see the only thing to do is send a label along with
it on both the loading and unloading parts of the
vehicle, to indicate the same thing we would if had it
in a 55 gallon drum. We attach that, which we do today,
under both taggings.
Q So you do support the idea of marking some
sort of identification on a bulk shipment to say what's
in it. Or give an indication of what would be --
A I don't believe I said that. I said on bulk
shipments I would support putting a label in a packet
attached to the loading and unloading. I don't see a
-------
need for the marking of a product that's non-hazardous
under DOT definition anymore than you do with virgin
material.
Q Could I ask you on behalf of Monsanto?
A All right.
Q You point out that we should work towards
allowing many options under the manifest apparently,
that is —
A Not many options, I mean two.
Q Well, two options. Either'we'allow an integrated
shipping paper/manifest form or we allow two pieces of
paper. So, in terms of your company, db you'have a;-pre-
ference?
A Well, I think because of the fact that your --
the EPA regulations are going to allow the states to
adopt their own, and I am sure that the states are going
to take the position of a manifest paper. It's just a
gut feeling because a lot of them have it already, and
more of them are promulgating new regulations that way,
that I see a manifest as being the piece of paper that's
going to exist on hazardous wastes when they go to a dump.
I'm saying, if your system allows it, taking the DOT
definition and the DOT hazard class and the certificate
required by DOT and putting it on the manifest is not too
-------
202
difficult on a lot of products. Now, if you get into a
mixture where you're going to require a lot of identi-
fication on the hazardous manifest, I am saying it is
going to be difficult to do.
There's a lot of information on the shipping
papers now. And not only that, for identification labels
later by EPA state and federal people, you probably
wouldn't want it in all of your shipping papers. You
would want to keep those separate for other reasons or
use for other reasons.
Q Another question which is outside your state-
ment, but again, for Monsanto perhaps, to return to
a comment that Mr. Roberts has been asking most of the
morning about labeling, and this statement in RCRA that
says, "Labels," if you remember, "for containers, for
storage treatment disposal, such as will identify
accurately such wastes."
From Monsanto's point of view, do you a
prospective on what that requires — something beyond
the word "flammable," I presume, or not?
A Well, if you're talking about a hazard label,
we don't see that as under the DOT definition of a hazard
label, diamond-shape. We say a precautionary label, on
which we say on many products. We, at MCA, and also
-------
203
Monsanto, we've used combustible labels for years, long
before the DOT ever came along with the combustible
category. We identified products when they were com-
bustible on the labels. We would tend to identify those
hazards that have been identified by EPA on precautionary
labels.
Q I guess I was trying to distinguish between a
category of hazards, like combustible, and identify
accurately such wastes in terms of its constituents,
for example. Is that information, in your mind, required
or contemplated? Maybe I'm catching you on the spot.
A Well, I think in the draft guidelines, as I
recall some of it, I didn't participate, because that's
solid waste management in our company and it's also solid
waste management at MCA.
As I recall the identification, and we've
looked at this years ago, we identified waste on packages
by product, whether they were poisonous, corrosive, and
so on, we've done that for our own benefit.
I don't necessarily feel that in the long
range that makes sense for every company, but the position
that we've taken just for identification and segregation.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS:Thank you.
-------
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Are you presently subject to any valve tagging
requirements at the present time?
A Yes, we are. We're subject to it under/ I
believe, EPA on pesticides.
Q Pesticides. What is your feeling as to the
efficacy of the valve tagging requirements under pesti-
cides?
A Well the way the regulation is written, Mr.
Roberts, it is very difficult to say that its, I believe
it says that you shall give to the carriers two copies
or a copy of the label. I don't believe the carrier
will actually take that label with him to the destina-
tion and give it to your customer. If you tended it. to
the carrier to give to your customer in a real situation,
which is required. It says carrier. It doesn't indicate
that it be a truck carrier or rail carrier or air carrier.
It says you will do that on a bulk shipment.
We use a tag system. We use a tag system on
hazardous parts also, other than pesticides. We believe
that our customers are entitled to know as much about
our product as if he were buying it in 55 gallon drums.
Q Well, that's what I am pointing, is the tag
actually placed on the valve, not in the envelope given
-------
205
to the carrier.
A Oh, yes, the it is placed under the valve.
We have a polyethylene packet roiled up, folded, and
attached right to the valve.
Q Are you doing that now for materials covered
by the pesticide requirements of EPA?
A And the -DOT, both products. It's not required
by the DOT but we think it's a good idea.
Q And how's that working?
A Well, we think it's working fine. We haven't
had any lawsuits, we haven't had any problems.
(Laughter.)
Q Well, I guess maybe my question is more mechani-
cal in terms of the physical ability to keep them on there
during transportation.
A Oh, that's no problem at all.
Q Okay.
A I mean, we're talking about a good weather-
proofing material and no problem there, whatsoever.
Q When you're talking about valve tagging, you're
not talking about a loose flopping tag on a piece of
string?
A No. It's roll — it's a full label. It's a
full product label folded in a polyethylene pamphlet,
-------
206
wrapped up and stapled and put with a metal hat. Many
companies do it. Monsanto -- we're not the only company
that does that.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Trask.
MR. TRASK: Yes, a question from the floor -- two
questions.
BY MR. TRASK:
Q A previous statement implied that CHEMTREC gives
instructions on dealing with emergencies. My impression
is that CHEMTREC gives some information and then contacts
the shipper to respond. Which is correct?
A I understood your question correctly, and again,
I can't say I am not an expert with CHEMTREC because I am
involved all the time, but as the system workd, the
respondent at MCA upon receiving a call, pulls from the
bucket file the information about that product or product
class. He does at that time read on that card the things
to do with that product. In case of fire, what to do;
if it's leaking, what to do; to dikes or dams and so on.
At that time you get the information about the
shipment, find out who shipped it or where it's going, so
you can go to the shipper and he has right on that same
card the telephone number of the company who made that
product, of where to contact them. He makes that contact
-------
'207
and says that that company will get in contact with the
people at the emergency scene.
And, if it doesn't work within a certain period
of time, it goes almost through the same cycle again quite
often. But it does both of what you said, I believe your
question raised.
Q Yes. I tend to agree, after having seen that
CHEMTREC system in operation, t think that's essentially
true what you are saying, that when the caller asks
CHEMTREC about that waste, and he is given whatever infor-
mation that is available, if that is not enough informa-
tion, then the caller is referred to the chemical company,
or the chemical company is advised to get in touch with
him.
A Many of those chemicals are not hazardous under
the DOT definition and the company is so told that its
innocuous, you can sweep it up, you can do a lot of things.
CHEMTREC goes beyond what's on the bucket file in many a
case.
Q That's the second time this question has come
up. I hope that lays it to rest.
The other question is, "Today, many shippers
utilize shipping documents supplied and executed by the
carrier. If a separate manifest is required, do you
-------
208
agree that the shipper should provide the manifest in all
cases?
A I think it depends on how you promulgate the
regulations. If you say the generator is the generator,
and not necessarily the shipper, you are talking about the
person who is making the waste, it isn't the transporter
that created the waste. If your regulations say that
that's the way it will be, that's the way it will be.
Q That's not the way it would be. I don't know
how many companies — most major companies don't have
that pyramid bill of lading.
MR. ROBERTS: I'd like to interject on that.
A lot of people don't seem to be aware of it, but the
Bill of Lading Act really requires the carrier to provide
both ladings.
A Absolutely.
Q Then why under DOT, in this area, don't'we say
there will be a shipping paper. We'd bypass the whole
issue and say, somewhere, there will be created a
shipping paper.
A I think we go farther than that, Mr. Roberts,
we call it a shipping paper, a shipping paper document,
either-one will'identify the necessary criteria you
require.
-------
209
Q There are a few archaic references left, but
it's still basically shipping paper, which could be on a
sheet of legal notebook paper, as far as we're concerned,
and still be part of the requirements. And that again
is for private carriers.
Now in terms of the manifest requirement
suggested through RCRA. Obviously, it is suggested that
the burden be placed on the man offering the material for
disposal and prior to the disposal transportation.
There is a question as to whether, in consider-
ing constraints that would be recognized by statute.
Under the Bill of Lading Act, some separate distinction
would have to hear the question raised after the fact,
where a distinction would have to be made, relative to
a manifest requirement so that was clearly laid on the
generator offering the material. A statement separate
from the bill of lading.
A Many companies force the carrier to make --
Q Well, I think the general practice in the United
States is that the shippers take the bill of lading and
get them approved in their own format, even though,
technically speaking, it's the carrier that's providing
that bill of lading to the shipper at the time the
transportation is consummated.
-------
210
A You can believe we've even gotten him to pay
for it. (Laughter.)
Q I won't pursue that any further.
MR. KOVALICK: I think that's all the questions.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Jack Pulley, of Dow Corning Cor-
poration, to be followed by Mr. Schultz, of the Steel
Shipping Container Institute, and followed by Dr. Gordon
Russo.
Will you accept questions?
MR. PULLEY: No, in the interest of time.
MR. KOVALICK: All right.
MR. PULLEY: My comments are of a more general
nature.
Mr. Chairmen, members of the Panel, ladies and
gentlemen. I am Jack Pulley, with Dow Corning Corpora-
tion, we manufacture silicones , and our headquarters
are in Midland, Michigan. For those' of you who are not
familiar with us, we are the other chemical manufacturer
in Midland, Michigan.
(Laughter.)
One thing that is so nice about speaking so
late in the program, is that you have the opportunity to
-------
hear everything that you are going to say at least three
times, and the opportunity to abbreviate your talk accord-
ingly, and I have done so.
Basically, the comments are on a very simple
premise -- a hazardous material is a hazardous material,
period. Regardless of whether it's an article in com-
merce or a waste material. We feel that this should be
the governing pinnacle in this effort. Therefore, the
regulations imposed on the transportation of hazardous
material should be determined by the property of the
material and not upon the ultimate definition. Any
differences in these regulations which govern the
transportation will be sought, should be justified only
by absolute necessity.
And then, when these differences are necessary,
at least the two sets of regulations should be compatible.
I think it's of benefit if we just sit back
and look a minute on American history, on American society
in general. It is moving toward, as it must, a resource
recovery type of society and industry, and we are properly
placing a great deal of emphasis on the safe disposal of
industrial wastes.
As a result, two small -- relatively small
industries have sprung up, and it is our position that
-------
212
these industries must grow, must be allowed to prosper
and must be allowed to operate in a safe manner. We
encourage this development, the development of these two
industries, which we feel is in the vested interest of
everyone. However, looking at these industries, they
are small, in general. And their demands for materials
vary.
One key, we feel, to the stability of these
industries is promoting a set of regulations that not
only protect health and environment, but also provide
the necessary flexibility to meet the various material
demands. I believe this example will clarify what I am
trying to say.
Many industry big companies have "spent acid".
This type of a material can go to any one of four different
types of any usage. It can be reused by another manu-
facturer, right in the process, with no change. It can
go to a waste disposal facility. It can go for recycling -
or reclaiming facility. And our concern is that we
maintain a flexibility to channel these resources based
on the demands of the resource recovery industry, rather
than on the dictates of RCRA regulations.
In Michigan, we have a particular situation.
There is a Liquid Waste Hauler Act, in addition to DOT
-------
213
regulations, and as a result, when we are developing this,
potential sources, we run into a situation where we
begin asking questions, well can one hauler handle both —
the same material to both a reuser and a waste disposal
facility. I would submit that we should not be faced
with these types of questions. These regulations should
be consistent regardless of where the material goes.
Otherwise, we get into word games as to defining what is
a waste. Is a waste characterized by the material or is
the waste characterized by its ultimate destination.
I'm afraid that we have to accept the definition
the approach that a waste is defined by its ultimate
destination. One man's waste is another man's resource.
We want to get away from the word games of trying to play
with that particular term.
What specifically we would suggest as has been
done many times today. The DOT should take the lead with
EPA's expert advice in developing these types of regu-
lations. And, the basic approach should be, we would
suggest, that hazardous waste materials be considered
simply as a subgroup of hazardous material, and that
every waste possible treated as hazardous material.
In this regard, we believe that most DOT
regulations regarding hazardous materials can apply
-------
2!4
equally to hazardous wastes as to hazardous materials
which are determined to be unequal in commerce; for
example, labeling, placarding, and other matters of
identification.
Getting back to the spent acid situation, we
see no difference and no reason that a bulk tank of this
same acid going to a waste disposal facility should be
labeled or packaged any differently than it should be if
it is going to a user of this once used resource. The
same argument applies to any packaging regulations. Also
to the training of the haulers. An acid spill is an acid
spill. And also to the reporting requirements.
A few specific points that I will make as brief
as possible, because I believe they have been made very
well today, is, if we would believe that the manifest
that's been required by RCRA should be either a sinple
addition to or an expansion of the present shipping
papers .
We are concerned with two separate regulations
imposed on -- one for shipping papers; one for the mani-
fest system will create confusion and be counter—produc-
tive. We would also reflect that transportation on the
premises of a specific facility or between a joint
facility, should be exempt, from any manifest system.
-------
215
Again, referring to the Michigan situation.
We would hope that eventually there would be developed
one uniform licensing program, either handled by the
State or the Federal authorities. But right now we are
in a situation, as I say, where a hauler of "spent acid"
could be considered as hauling a waste material or as
a commodity, and then in Michigan we begin to deal with
two separate regulatory functions.
In closing I might reiterate a complaint that
has been expressed many times, that we primarily fear,
and that our primary concern is that we may be faced,
unless we are careful, with a redundant, overlapping
and counter-productive set of regulations.
I would like to compliment the agencies on
this type of a meeting and their effort to try and
coordinate their efforts in this area. Thank you very
much.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you, Mr. Pulley.
(Applause.)
(Remarks off the record.)
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Roberts pointed out, Mr. Pulley,
that you point out two industries that need encouraging,
but you didn't want questions. If you would do that
either by letter or verbally, we would appreciate it.
-------
2!6
(The names of the two industries were mentioned but were
inaudible to the reporter.)
MR. KOVALICK: Now, Mr. Schultz, from the Steel
Shipping Container , being followed by Mr. Russo, and
then I'll make a recall for Dr. Ball.
Would you accept questions?
MR. SCHDLTZ: Yes, I will, within the comments I
will make tonight, but they will be brief.
Mr. Chairmen, and Panel Members, my name is
I. Schultz. I am president of the Steel Shipping Con-
tainer Institute, and our headquarters is in Union, New
Jersey.
Mr. Chairmen, before I make my remarks, I
want to congratulate you on chairing a very fine ireeting.
And I think that everybody here will agree to that. I
think you've kept the thing going and think that the
questions of the Panel have been very pertinent to the
issues.
My remarks today will be brief. It was not my
intention to make a statement today, but in view of the
Panel's question concerning why is there a shortage of
reconditioned drums, and the answer by Mr. Hershson that
it is caused by the use of wide gauged drums, I will
give the Panel the view of the Steel Containers
-------
2! 7.
Institute on this matter.
First, I want to say that I respect the opinion
of my good friend, Mr. Hershson, but I cannot agree with
his comments on this matter. To my knowledge there are
no official statistics available to indicate, in fact,
that there is a shortage of reconditioned drums. That's
still a matter of opinion.
And next, if however there is a shortage of
drums, reconditioned drums, we believe at the Steel
Containers Institute that such a shortage is a result
of two few drums that were manufactured during the reces-
sion years, 1974-1975, and the fact that in the last five
years there's been something like 30 to 35 million drums
per year manufactured.
Now there may be many other reasons besides
that. In fact, I don't think that a comprehensive study
has been made in this matter, nor do I feel that a market-
ing issue is necessarily the type of thing that ought to
be discussed at this hearing. But since the issue was
raised, I did feel of course that I should make a comment.
Now a brief comment concerning energy saving
and the recycling of steel drums. Comprehensive tests
uJ/
of the-e^a 20 -gauge, 55-gallon drum, prove beyond a
doubt that the cost saving, light weight container is
-------
218
reconditionable by standard procedures. The rigid tests
which are made by Meyer-'sr Recondition Company, considered
One of the largest in the country, show a national success
rate involving repeated truck shipments of filled 20-gauge
drums, as well as repeated trips to the normal recondition-
ing process.
Chosen at random for testing, the light head
$e^er
-------
219
reported in detail.
After the first trip, all of the drums were
changed to see if this operation had any impact on those
drums. As a result, all drums were successfully changed.
The Meyer's report also stated the general opinion that
any normally equipped reconditioner could duplicate this
performance. And the consensus is, they all believe, that
Ojl
the -old 20 gauge 55-gallon drum, so called light gauge
drum, is amply capable of at least six trips by -recon-
ditioning it in a useful life as a shipping container.
A determination contrary to all claims from some sources
that the" ^820 gauge drum is not reconditionable.
And in closing, I would like to say that be-
0-^9^
cause the 1 /020 gauge weighs approximately four pounds less
then the 20/18 gauge and 12 pounds less than the 18,
it reduces freight costs to provide an important economic
benefit to shippers.
For the same reason, it also conserves the
OjJ-^
steel supply. The steel will produce 50 Jfl§ 55 gallon
drums as opposed to 45 18/20 gauge and only 37 all 18
gauge. Package reliability is an asset with incorpora-
1^
tion of a fatigue resistent body design. The #20 gauge
drum has been approved by the truck shipping (inaudible)
by the National Qualification Board. Thank you, sir.
-------
L20
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you very much.
Any questions.
I guess not, so thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Schultz.
Now, Mr. Gordon Russo, of Lawrence (inaudible)
& Associates. May I ask if Dr. Ball is here from the
University of Tennessee, he will be next in line.
Would you accept questions, Mr. Russo?
MR. ROSSO: I would accept questions within the
context of my remarks only.
One of the first questions when someone from
a law firm steps to a podium is, who are you representing
today. I'd like you to know that we are representing
ourselves. Our firm specializes in advice regarding
the transportation of hazardous materials, and in view
of that kind of background, we've developed some thoughts
and philosophies of our own, in approaching this problem.
The only point I want to make is one that was
raised this morning by Mr. Roberts in regard to three or
four of the early speeches. And, if I could paraphrase
the question, Mr. Roberts, and you kind of let me know
if I have done so accurately, I believe you asked, "Should
existing safety standards for DOT hazardous material be
reduced for hazardous waste which need a DOT definition?"
-------
I'll repeat it again. Should a good safety
standard for a DOT hazardous material, which are also
wastes/ be reduced for a hazardous material that is a
waste that happens to meet the DOT definition?
MR. ROBERTS: No. If you are asking me a question,
Mr. Russo, I --
MR. RUSSO: You asked the question of Mr. Harvison,
Mr. Johns and of Mr. Graziano, as I recall.
MR. ROBERTS: I recall a question like that addressed
to Mr. Hershson relative to the standards applicable to
reconditioned drums, as --
MR. RUSSO: That's right.
MR. ROBERTS: -- relative to the incentive aspects of
RCRA in usin§ that type of drum to be as an incentive with
relaxed standards applicable for transportation to a waste
disposal facility.
MR. RUSSO: Right. The question actually was raised
with all four people, I think with a tendency toward
packaging, although the word "packaging" wasn't used
each time the question was asked.
And my reply, basically, is going to sound
as if I am in contradiction with Mr. Pulley's comments,
but T think you will find that I am not.
First of all, DOT standards for hazardous
-------
L22
materials are predicted on the fact that those hazardous
materials in that particular container will be exposed
to the full gambit of transportation. That's the basis
for the DOT standard for drums, for boxes, for the label-
ing system, the filing system that is used. What we're
faced with is the transportation of a material that may
take place, starting out, for instance, in rail trans-
portation to -- let's take an example, from Chicago to
Woodbury, New Jersey, a terminal in Woodbury, New Jersey
by truck, from the pier facility by water overseas.
And, I would like to point out that in the
study being conducted by EPA with regard to transportation
of wastes, one of the characteristics coming out is that
wastes, generally speaking, are transported quite short
distances. And, what I am pointing to is the fact the
standards that were developed or have been developed, for
containers or other rules applying to transportation of
wastes -- excuse me -- hazardous material, may not neces-
sarily apply to wastes. Not because the material is a
waste, but because waste material inherently are exposed
to a different transportation environment.
What I am contending is, possibly, one should
not require for material that is to be transported ten
miles, the same requirements for material that would be
-------
transported by trainloads, five or six thousand miles.
And the fact that package, after that, being able to
be reconditioned or reused again. To illustrate the
point, and I only want to make this a point of considera-
tion. I am not saying that I have any solutions; I
actually haven't studied the prdblem in that depth.
But, to illustrate what I am talking about -- we could
take a metal drum, for instance, under the requirements
that DOT has on that, and consider that in shipping a
waste, a generator has three choices. He can use a new
drum, he can use a reconditioned drum, and if it is not
a DOT hazardous material, he can use a non-DOT drum, or
a so-called DOT single-use container that has not been
reconditioned.
What I am upholding is that it is possible that
an additional choice could be made. That is, that a DOT
drum without being reconditioned, might be evaluated by
the chemical processor, by the generator, and determined
through some criteria, to be adequate for transportation
to a disposal site that is probably not more than five
miles away. Under today's rules, that could not be done.
Under today's rules, for instance, for a number of
materials, you would have to use a new drum for that
transportation, where either reconditioned drums are not
-------
224
authorized or single-trip containers are not authorized.
The point I am trying to make here is that
hazardous wastes are transported in a different environ-
ment then most of our so-called commercial chemicals.
And, realizing this, it is very possible that the criteria
for transporting hazardous wastes might be very different
from those for transporting these hazardous materials.
Thank you.
MR. KOVALICK: Thank you, Mr. Russo.
Any questions from the Panel? I guess not.
Thank you.
I will make one final call for Dr. Roy Ball
from the University of Tennessee, who signed up. Let
the record show that he is not present.
What we propose to do now is, we each have a
fist full of cards that were given to us earlier in the
day, and some more on the way.
What we'd like to -- how about ten minutes on
each of our stacks. We'll go about 10 or 15 minutes
each and then we will see how far we are and then perhaps
questions from the floor will take us not beyond -- not
too much beyond 5:30
I think we're wearing the crowd down. (Laughter)
So why don't you start for the first 15 minutes?
-------
MR. ROBERTS: Oh, boy.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Crockett also has some questions
that he's been dealing with in terms of pre-emptions.
I'll let him deal with those.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q The question here: Would the phrase "... may
include but not limited to explosives, et cetera (within
the Hazardous Material Transportation Act) answer your
legal problems and leave DOT to regulate in this area?"
A I think I made a comment that was relative to
this earlier, when I felt that somebody had quoted the
Act out of context. This hazardous materials means a
substance or material, in a quantity and form which may
pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety c-r
property, when transported in commerce.
I have no problem at all with the portions
quoted here by the question. As a matter of fact, in
the drafting of the legislation, it is very clearly set
out that the materials listed in Section 104 were to
illustrate the responsibilities of the Secretary and
not to limit his ability to carry out responsibility.
It is not an inclusive list. It is to illustrate what
he is authorized to regulate.
So really, the key goes back to the basic
-------
definition of hazardous material and I did point out
that the term "unreasonable risks to health, to safety
or property in transported commerce is the key." Obvi-
ously it calls for some subjectivity and dialog and
interchange through the administrative procedures pro-
cess in terms of what the Secretary decides is a hazar-
dous material within that context.
I only want to emphasize that these words are
there and obviously they are addressed to the hazardous
material as posed by those hazards during transportation
and not in terms of the intended function of the
material at its destination, whether it be to function
as a waste material, trash dump or to go into a recycling
facility.
So I've always felt that we were obligated
to look at it relative to what hazards are posed during
the course of transportation by the material, not neces-
sarily what happens to it as it arrives at its intended
destination, wherever that may be.
I hope that's somewhat responsive to the question.
Q How would you handle the registration of
private carrier vehicles?
A I always have a facetious answer to something
like that. Very carefully.
-------
127
Well, there's some limitations on what we
may do in the registration, and actually under statutory
authority, we can go much further then we can under the
statutory [mandates of registration. For example, we can
operate under the exemptions process,, and we have.
And as a matter of fact, in one rule making action
involving PCB, in the preamble it was stated that we
intended to maintain it under the special permit/
exemption process because of our ability to control it
better then if we were to just promulgate general rules
authorizing anybody to transport the material without any
form of approval or registration.
We also have about 200 discretionary authori-
zations in the regulations; some of which are administered
by the Department, others by the Bureau of Explosives,
that do provide a greater degree of control then we have
under registration. Registration is good merely to
identify who the person is. It's not a license. It is not
subject to revocation per se.
But, private carriage vehicles would be to
promulgate a rule saying that all private carriers of
hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, albeit, shall
register. Not a very complex situation to adjust, if it
was found desirable, and probably more so if it was found
-------
22Q
to be effective; an effective method to do the job.
Supposing we have a form of registration required
for carriers using MT3331 carrier tanks to transport
liquid (inaudible) and gas, for example, at the present
time. I won't go into the merits of that in'terms of
its effectiveness, from a Government administered program,
but there is an existing requirement of that type.
We also have registration requirements for
several packaging --
Q I just wanted to supplement what you're saying
for anyone whose interested in the registration topic,
have him read Section 3010 of the Resource Conservation
Act, which I will briefly quote. It says:
"Not later than 90 days after promulgation
of the basic hazardous waste regulations, any
person (leaving some things out) transporting
hazardous substances (meaning hazardous wastes),
shall file with EPA a notification, stating
the location and general description of such
activity and identifying the hazardous waste."
So, as far as EPA is concerned, there is a requirement,
a required regulation for "notification."
And it then goes on to say that it is illegal
to transport, among other things, hazardous wastes, unless
-------
the notification has been offered. So in the case of
private carriers who transport,.their, companies must
notify as transports.
Q Okay. Well, two cards have come in on my response
about Illinois and our exchange of information. I might
elaborate on this a little bit. Maybe it will be more
responsive to these questions.
First of all, Illinois came in with a very
formalized proposal for a -- I guess you would characterize
this an agreement or memorandum of understanding' between
us and the State. On consultation with our fine counsel
here and anybody who knows me by nature, I said, "Well,
the State of Illinois can get anything from us they want
in the form of incident information anyway because of
the Freedom of Information Act. But why make a big deal
out of it? So we quickly agreed and more or less tore it
up and wrote back a letter, just a letter to the State of
Illinois saying, we would supply the information, if
that would alleviate the grief of a double reporting
system for carriers within that State.
I should clarify it. We don't have a large
fancy, wax sealed ribbon-type agreement with the State
of Illinois. It's just a letter that I wrote to Illinois
saying we would do it, which accomplished the purpose.
-------
230
Now the cards. Your comments on DOT to submit
incident reports to the State of Illinois -- is it not
true that transporters are also required to report inci-
dents in Illinois direct to that State? Is this Illinois'
one way of policing incident reports?
A I don't know that to be a fact. My understanding
was that if a report were made to DOT, Illinois was going
to modify its requirements and not require the same
report be submitted to the State of Illinois. Now some-
body here apparently has some information I don't have.
The agreement we had with Illinois through my letter, is
very, very limited.
Q Well, there were two parts to it: one was an
immediate report, a telephonic report, like we have, and
another requirement Was a -subsequent later report. As I
recall, it was one of the two, I can't remember. The
latter report, I think the statute, which the Agency was
operating under, provided that if DOT provided to Illinois
copies of the later report, then there would be no need
for the carrier to report directly to the State.
A As it stands right now, by statute, the Agency
has been told, if you have an agreement on one of these
two reporting requirements, you can eliminate separate
responses from the carrier. There is still a statutory
-------
requirement to report on an immediate notification, and
the Agency isn't authorized by statute to accept DOT
notification on that, so there is nothing you can do
about it. I am not sure that they are policing. I
suppose it can be used for that since, presumably, your
report would come in both immediate and late report.
But, that's the reason it is broken down like that. We
only have the ability to offer them because of our own
statute, to offer reports on the later rather than the
immediate reports, so the^ are still important.
Q I might add to that. Only the carriers of
public law reporting requirements are covered by the
understanding, and this goes to the second card.
You've indicated that OHMO has signed an
agreement with the State of Illinois concerning the
reports. Do you plan to publish this information in
the Federal Register?
A No.
Q Was this a result of a formal or informal
application for consistency with DOT regs?
A No. This was not a consistency planned pre-
emption determination-type action. It was merely, I believe,
a responsiveness on the part of the State officials, to
industry comments here in Illinois, that why not let
-------
DOT give you copies of our reports, we we don't have to
make two reports. And it seemed rather sensible. And it
is not like today's type of formal agreement we have
published in the Federal Register. So the Register would
be whatever type of mechanism is employed in the State of
Illinois to advise carriers that they do not need a report
to Illinois, should they report to DOT.
MR. ROBERTS: Time run out?
MR. KOVALICK: Four more minutes.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Part 1 says — not Part — Section 173.1. DOT
hazardous materials transportation regulations imposes a
requirement. Before I read the rest of it, it's a long
one. Is there somebody here from the Department of
Defense?
(No response.)
GSA?
(No response.)
It relates to regulations dealing with the
Department of Defense and their file of hazardous materials
so that DOD is packed in containers that meet or "speaks" -•
I don't think we can say that.
(Laughter.)
Q -- DOD shipment specs. DOD sells hazardous
-------
material and hazardous, but does not get involved in
shipments incident to sales. GSA sells the same.
Does anybody here recognize this question, or
has-.the person gone?
A VOICE: The person has gone.
MR. ROBERTS: It is a very long and involved thing.
I would :not want to get into it right now.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Where would intrastate transporters fit into
a DOT implemented regulatory scheme? Such carriers are
not regulated under the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act, yet. The controls of such carriers and the weight
they carry is required by RCRA.
A I believe the card is referring to Section 103.1.
"Commerce means trade, traffic, commerce for
transportation within the jurisdiction of the
United States: (A) Between a place in a state and
anyplace outside that state, or (B) which affects
trade, traffic, commerce or transportation described
in Clause A."
The second portion of that, Sub-B would be
addressing the intrastate transportation of hazardous
controls, say, for example, on public highways, by purely
intrastate means.
-------
In Docket HM-134, in converting the Department's
regulations to the -- under the -- under the authority of
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, twice
in the preamble it is stated that the adoption does not
affect any new class of shippers or carriers.
Now, a number of people are rather concerned
about that---Some are rather shocked by it--since there
was a statutory provision made for the Department to do it.
One of the principal reasons that we did not do it is, we
didn't feel we were ready for it in many aspects. For
example, under the Act, Puerto Rico becomes a state, for
purposes of the Act. And there are about a million homes
fueled by propane in Puerto Rico, and yet there are no
DOT approved requalification inspection facilities in
the "State" of Puerto Rico.
Until such time as things like that can be
accommodated, it does not seem appropriate to move into
the regulation of intrastate activities on the public
highway.
The other thing is, and the question yet to be
resolved, and it's going to be a major policy decisionr
is, to what extent should that regulation apply to intra-
state commerce in the context of affecting a trade,
commerce, or transportation described in quasai, which is
-------
between that place in one state and may be placed outside
of such state. In other words, two trucks moving in the
night/ side by side. One's intrastate, one's interstate.
What the effect of the one intrastate on the commerce
moving by the truck going interstate.
It's a lousy illustration, but it does point
out and illustrate what is meant by this in terms of
affecting commerce; only one type of illustration.
But the point to be made now is that we do
not exercise full statutory authority over intrastate
transportation under the Hazardous Materials Transporta-
tion Act. This does not mean we do not have the authority.
That's where we are right now.
MR. KOVALICK: My turn.
MR. ROBERTS: I kept the hard ones for later.
MR. KOVALICK: Hard ones for later.
BY MR. KOVALICK:
Q Please clarify the 14 day comment period to
November 9, 1977. Many of the discussion topics are
philosophical in nature. It is believed that a longer
comment period, 30 days, should be provided, in order to
prepare a proper response.
A First of all, the notice of this meeting was
in the Federal Register since late September, 30 -- about
-------
236
30 days before today, and you have another 14 days, so
presumably you already have 44 days to think about the
questions. But, as I mentioned earlier, the November
9th day is magic because that is the day when we go to
editing and printing of this record. If you wish to
submit comments later than that time, we will still take
them and consider them in our overall docket for the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act, but they will not
appear in the actual document that is mailed out to this
body.
Q Please explain why EPA feels it must impose
regulations on the transportation of contaminated, dis-
carded and hazardous materials, while "pure" uncontaminat^d,
hazardous items of commerce, essentially identical in
composition to the discarded materials, may or may not
have been deemed to require regulations by DOT. It seems
counter-productive to regulate transportation of small
amounts of a contaminated discarded material, while huge
quantities of the same pure material may go unregulated.
A All items proposed by EPA as genetically active,
persistent and biocumulative, are right now and have been
items of commerce and hence are now transport.
Again, it is not what EPA thought up to do.
The law says we shall deal with hazardous wastes and
-------
this question rings out a theme of Mr. Robert's
comment this morning/ it may be differences between
the regulation of hazardous wastes and all other virgin
materials with the same characteristics, unless, for
example, they were totally incorporated wastes in the
DOT regulations. But this comment points out that all
items that are genetically active are shipped in com-
merce. That's true. And they are transported now.
That's true. But he doesn't go on to say they are cur-
rently regulated, meaning, placarded, labeled and shipping
papers, and that is what it amounts to That they are
not currently, all of them, placarded or labeled or
marked or containing shipping papers in the way that RCRA
would contemplate they should be.
Q In EPA, you give several examples, for example,
actual incidents of non-DOT regulated materials that have
been involved in transportation related incidents that
are really significant, question mark; quantities of
biocumulative persistent or non-degradable materials in
the environment.
A You may wish to correspond or talk to us
further about this. We have developed a case study of
over 400 damage cases that relate to the movement of
waste from generation to ultimate disposal. And in
-------
more than 50 percent of those cases where damage is
downwater or air or surface water, and resulted because
the waste during the transporting didn't make it. So in
that sense, many of the issues that we are dealing with
on this manifest, for example, are the reasons we are
involved, as to whether there are transportation actual
incidents of non-DOT regulated materials.
Someone just passed me an article about the
Louieville sludge incident, where a C-56 compound was
dumped in the storm sewer as a method of disposal rather
than destined for proper disposal. Presumably that wasn't
a placarded, labeled, shipping paper commodity when it
went into the manhole. And, that may be an example.
Another one I know of, is an incident in Berlin,
Missouri, where a waste oil hauler had mixed TCDD or dioxin
with the waste oil and used it as a product. And had it
been treated as a waste, in the sense of going to a dis-
posal facility, it would have never ended up damaging
plants, animals and harming, to some extent, people.
But we have some more cases, so if you would
like to discuss that with us, we would be happy to.
Q To facilitate the afternoon discussions, the
real differences should be given between the materials
or the concepts of what materials are to be included as
-------
hazardous substances, hazardous materials, hazardous
wastes, and specifically provide to this audience the
identity of those materials that are creating these
gaps of regulatory coverage.
A Let me briefly refer you to laws or sections
of laws that you might want to look at when you think of
hazardous substances. We immediately, in EPA, think of
Section 311, of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
which deals with spills of oil and special hazardous
materials. Hazardous substances, excuse me. Section 307
of the Water Pollution Control Act, which has to do with
toxic substances in water discharges. And Section, I
believe it is 112, of the Clean Air Act, where hazardous
substances into the air are identified by EPA.
Hazardous materials today, which the trade
has generally be speaking of the DOT designation of
hazardous materials, usually including some wastes, and
hazardous wastes are a substance of all materials, and
we have been talking about those in the context of the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act.
Q This is a comment that should be added.
Discussion Topic No. 7 asks: If DOT or EPA should develop
regulations for "handling" distilled hazardous material,
handling requires a good deal more than transportation.
-------
240
It might be beneficial of a transport viewpoint to narrow
the handling definition, i.e., does handling involve
clean-up, transport, disposal, neutralization, et cetera?
That's a comment.
I have four -- five questions relating to
spills, which I will come back to.
Q Would it be feasible for the toxic hazardous
wastes to be identified in several classes by EPA, which
would then be taken by DOT, to revise the definitions
of Poison B, to establish types of poisons similar to
how DOT addresses types of explosives under Class A or
Class B.
A I guess the essential answer is yes. I mean,
that's one of the approaches that was extended this
morning, that possibly adding two current classes of
DOT additional levels or criteria is an approach.
I have three questions related to nuclear
wastes.
Q The United States Regulatory Commission has
allowed the disposal of certain low levels of short,
half-life isotopes as non-radioactive wastes. Does EPA
concur with the current NRC standards for this practice
or is there more stringent EPA standards under consi-
deration?
-------
-41.
A We are working with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and if you read Section 3001, you will see
radioactive in there, but in the definition of solid
wastes, you will see an inclusion for source byproduct
and special nuclear material. So if you boil that all
down, we are talking about accelerator produced radio-
active materials and naturally occurring radioactive
materials, and those are the ones with which we are having
an ongoing discussion with the NRC.
So that this question, I guess the specific
answer is we are investigating what regulations they
may have for low level radioactive wastes of the kind
I mentioned, that is, naturally occurring and accelerator
produced, and we will move on from there.
Q This was a question earlier, specifically to
radioactive materials. Are other Government agencies,
such as, NRC, Transportation Branch, Division of Waste
Management and Transportation, actively involved in
these rule making?
A I don't know if that branch is, but yes, we
are meeting with NRC.
Q In light of the clear danger to the public of
fish and waste products, would you support a requirement
that the state and local authorities be notified as to
-------
242
route and rate of passage of such materials, to make
sure that a quick and positive response can be made?
A From our point of view again, these would not
fall in the category that I was discussing earlier of
basically accelerator produced naturally occurring
radiations. Those would, in terms of wastes, still be
under NRC jurisdiction.
I have four questions here. Four questions
related to spills. Let me -- I don't think we can answer
these well because we are not the spill program EPA, but --
well --
Q Will there be two lists of hazardous substances:
one under Section 311, of the Water Pollution Control Act,
and another under RCRA?
A When I raced through a moment ago all the
sections that have hazardous in various air and water
acts in EPA, what I wanted to communicate was, we are, as
part of our rulemaking, trying to look at those other
lists, and to the extent possible, to incorporate them,
use the results of other parts of EPA in our efforts, be-
cause if you read our law carefully, we too, must have
lists.
So, it is possible that we will have two lists
and, as I mentioned at other public meetings, you must --
-------
you should not assume when you read the word "lists"
that that means substance. It is possible to have a
list of practices, or wastes containing substances/ or
wastes containing substances in certain concentrations.
All those things could be on lists. And not be assumed
that what we traditionally know as hazardous substance
lists are the final product under RCRA.
Q What good does a spill report do to protect
the environment? What do the EPA, DOT, or U. S. Coast
Guard do with these reports after they are received?
A From our point of view, the reporting on the
spill will help us revise and make regulations better.
That is, if we determine some problem with a certain
kind of package for wastes or container, or if we deter-
mine there wasn't sufficient information on a manifest,
for example, to provide the kind of response needed in
an emergency, that would lead us to revise the regulations.
So our need of the reports in the future, would be used
for that.
Alan, did you want to comment on what you use
your reports for?
MR. ROBERTS: I assume somebody's been parking them
in a filing cabinet someplace.
It depends on what kind of report you are
-------
•44.
talking about. The immediate report quite often is
received and quite often nothing is done. That's the
only way I can make a candid reply.
Quite often, the basic information received
in the immediate reporting, we immediately dispatch,
either somebody from our Washington staff or one of
the mobile field offices, to the scene promptly to
initiate investigation. The one thing that we have not
done in DOT, aside from the involvement of the Coast Guard
and their relationship with EPA, and I am not really
qualified to comment on that, they have not engaged in
any form of mitigation activity at the scene, at least,
up to this time. And they have not exercised any type
of jurisdiction. DOT is here, and we're in control, and
you are going to do as we say.
And we do it mainly to, as was indicated, the
reporting system is to form a -- be a mechanism for
highlighting the efficacy' of the regulations to determine
where we should allocate our resources or concentrate our
resources, in terms of field investigation or establishing
priorities, to develop trends, obtain the necessary
specifics required by the Hazardous Materials Transpor-
tation Act, with which to compile our annual report to
Congress, and things of that nature.
-------
A number of occasions where I was personally
involved, an effort was undertaken to either trace down
what occurred following the initial event. For example,
I spent hours one time tracking down a spill
in a semi trailer to see what was going to decontaminate
the trailer. I tracked the trailer throughout four
states and four stops, and found that nothing was done,
then did certain other things to convince the carrier's
management and other parties to get busy and recover
certain materials that were in the vehicle and to exer-
cise proper decontamination procedures.
I would say in all honesty, though, we do not
have the capability to do this on a full time basis for
all wastes reported to us. As I indicated, we have, over
a period of five years received approximately 44,000
incident reports. I would be totally dishonest to imply
that we have dealt with each one specifically in any
proper fashion. It would be a dishonest statement and
incorrect.
MR. KOVALICK: I have two more and then 1 am
through with my stack.
BY MR. KOVALICK:
Q In the event of an accident or spill during
unloading, that is, at a hazardous waste disposal site,
-------
should not this accident be reported to EPA if it occurs
on the hazardous waste disposal site?
A Our response is that we are contemplating having
a contingency plan requirement in our disposal site regu-
lations, which are not the subject of today's meeting,
and they will deal with the problem of what happens when
there are spillage and problems at the disposal site.
This person goes on to recommend detailed infor-
mation on shipping papers with the truckload, because
shipping officers are closed at night when an accident
can occur. "It's not practical to wait until the next
day to get information from the generator." This detailed
information may be always readily available from large
corporations, but definitely not available from small
generators or waste disposal trucking operators. Hazardous
wastes are more complex and variable then hazardous
materials.
Q Finally, in Illinois, is a private carrier
hauling dirty solvent, that is, a flammable liquid,
required to register with EPA if the material goes to
a refinery and not otherwise disposed of in a landfill?
I have the answer here to.
A The State EPA says no. The Federal EPA says
yes. All DOT regulations are followed in transporting
-------
via tank wagon.
Well, this person is laced with assumptions.
One is, that we are assuming that dirty solvents are
hazardous wastes, and of course, that is a subject for
future rulemaking. If it were, the results would,
assuming that there is some special treatment for things
going to recovery, that is material recovery versus dis-
posal, which is also not settled.
Q And finally, in the State of Illinois, would
it be authorized for EPA to take over, the notification
portion, that is the 3010 regulation that I made a brief
mention of this afternoon, then the Illinois EPA regula-
tion would apply in the State regarding the Federal
notification system.
A We do not authorize the Illinois notification
system, if it included non-notification, unless we felt
it compared with ours favorably, and that would be case-
by-case or state-by-state examination.
So, again the question has its own answers and
it's laced with several uncertainties regarding regula-
tions?
Now back to Alan.
MR. ROBERTS: All right.
-------
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Since training in hazardous materials is required
by the law, why can't the training requirements embodied
in HM-103/112 be expanded to include environmental and
health related materials?
A Why can't it? There is no good reason why it
can't. If a material not presently under our regulation
is classed as a hazardous material under some new
regulation, automatically, the various regulations in
the beginning of the operative parts that pertain to the
words "instruct this personnel," or words to that effect,
in terms of the duties of that personnel, that relate
to handling of hazardous material would be automatically
in force and effect. It would almost be automatically
required.
Now, if it expands the training requirements
to cover more things than they cover right now, that's a
different story. It would be similar to the system that
was done, accomplished a couple of years ago, for example,
in the FAA, where the Air Carrier Industry had to submit
written instructional plans, written training programs
to the FAA for their acceptance. Another way of doing it.
Q What position does DOT take on hazardous wastes
deposits and/or labeling systems presently in effect or
-------
£49
proposed by various states?
A If EPA develops a labeling system, well, a
tanker -- is that tanker? Yes, tanke,r, I guess it is.
I guess that means cargo, tank motor vehicle -- or drum
have three labels, DOT, EPA and State.
Well, first of all, I will have to be very
frank and admit I am not fully acquainted with what the
states are doing in this area. And apparently their
imposing, labeling or placarding requirements are
distinctly different from those of DOT.
As you are aware, we are going through a transi-
tion period on placards for the first time and we are
aware of the fact that some of the states have written
into their local statutes law, ordinances or requirements
that were consistent with the former DOT regulations
involving the retaining of motor vehicle placards, and
that there may be some problems in existence there in
terms of possible consistency in pre-emptive action in
the future.
A As a personal comment, I don't think that I
would consider the three way split of labeling and
placarding requirements to be very desirable. I don't
think that anybody up here suggested that such a thing
would be desirable. I think the line of questions would
-------
make it evident in terms of Mr. Schaffer's comments about
the methodology being employed in terms of special tagging
of discharge openings of cargo tanks and tank cars, as
presently required under the pesticide registration
regulations of EPA.
I don't think you will find that many of us
are desirable of doing much more in any of these areas
than we absolutely have to to accomplish the statutory
mandates.
(Remarks off the record.)
Q We don't know if we can deal with this now.
It says, "If there's time." I doubt it.
Could you explain how DOT Rule 49 applies to
the paper and pulp industry; specifically, is craft pulp
considered a hazardous material upon transportation? Are
we required to label unused chemicals that are sent back
to the manufacturer? Any information would be helpful to
us.
A I think maybe you ought to see me afterwards
and we'd better put you in touch with the appropriate
people where you may be able to get more specific
information on your responsibilities under the existing
Act. You're not addressing this question as to what is
at hand here today, but what exists today. I'm sorry,
-------
what is under consideration here today as related to
what has been required for some time. Is that correct?
(Person nods.)
MR. ROBERTS: I'd be delighted to help you out
on this but I don't think —
Assuming DOT establishes a new classification
for environmentally hazardous material, and promulgates
regulations governing transportation of those materials,
then would not the pre-emption clause of the DOT --
(Remarks had off the record.)
MR. ROBERTS: (Continuing) Let Mr. Crockett
answer that one.
MR. KOVALICK: Mr. Crockett.
BY MR. CROCKETT:
A Yes, it is possible. You have to remember when
you draft regulations, even with an express clause, which
the Hazardous Materials Act has, the manner in which you
draft them may influence how effective they are in terms
of pre-empting the state requirements. It is possible
to draft the regulations presuming the states are going
to continue to do certain things, and it would be possible
to draft one that would knock the states out of the game
entirely on a particular subject area.
Now we have procedures to provide opinions,
-------
anybody that's interested that's caught in one of the
situations where they feel the state requirement is
inconsistent with what we're telling them to do, there's
a way to go about filing a, basically, an application
for a ruling on the matter, and if you have a specific
problem in that area you might want to look at Part 107
of our regulations.
But the short answer to this is it depends on
how you draft the regulations, the capabilities there,
whether it justifies it or not is another matter.
MR. KOVALICK: Is that the bottom of your stack.
MR. CROCKETT: I wanted to make one other comment
on the subject of intrastate, if I could, which may not
have come through and is a factor, by the way, in consider-
ing whether you advocate DOT changing the regulations or
EPA adopting its own, and that is, that under the EPA
statutory mandate, the regulations that we are adopting
are -- or we would adopt -- are national standards for
transporters and they are, as I mentioned earlier, the
minimum floor for each state. That is, they can have no
regulations less stringent than that. So, in effect, any
state that would be, say, authoriz-d by U. S. EPA to
take over the whole hazardous waste program will have
intrastate regulations as least as stringent as the
-------
253
national standards. And that contraposes, and if EPA
were just to adopt by reference U. E. DOT regulations,
the same logic could apply. Before we could authorize
a state, they would have to have regulations we adopt
by reference, therefore, we are making waste materials
DOT regulations effective intrastate. So, either way
you cut it, waste materials moving intrastate can be
affected by the transportation standards whether they
are adopted by reference or whether they are generated
independently or by EPA.
MR. KOVALICK: Well, on behalf of EPA and DOT,
we'd like to thank you. Do we have any questions from
the floor from you hearty souls that have stuck it out
all day?
We found this most useful. It has served our
purpose, and obviously we expected a little smaller crowd
then we received. So, if you have other comments, as I
said, you may mail it into our offices and they will be
in the publication of the record if they're received by
November 9th.
Thank you very much. We would like to adjourn
our public meeting.
(Whereupon an adjournment was taken
at 5:45 p.m. on the same day.)
-------
254.
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
COUNTY OF C O 0 K )
I, Pauline James, do hereby certify that the
foregoing is a true, accurate and complete transcript
of the proceedings had at a Joint Public Meeting on
the Development of Regulations for the Transportation
of Hazardous Waste, sponsored by the Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, and the
Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation
Bureau, Office of Hazardous Materials Operations, held
in the East Ballroom A, at the Ramada O'Hare Inn,
Higgins and Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, Illinois, on
the 26th day of October, 1977.
,^~\
/
Pauline
Notary Public
Cook Count^, Illinois.
-------
STATEMENT Of ARTHUR J. SCHULTZ, JR. , PRESIDENT
STEEL SHIPPING CONTAINER INSTITUTE
FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE
EPA /DOT PUBLIC MEETING
"TO DISCUSS THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES"
RAMADA O'HARE INN, DES PIAINES, IL. , OCT. 26, 1977
Container Institute on this issue.
First, I respect the opinion of m} good friend Mr. Hershson nut I cannot agree
with him on this matter.
Second, to my knowledge there are no official statistics available to indicate,
in fact, that there is a shortage of reconditioned drums!
Third, if, however, there is such a shortage, we in S3CI believe thot sach s
shortage is a result of too few new drums manufactured in 1974 , 1975 dui ing the la. r,t recession ,
and only an average of 30-35 million new drums manufactured each yedr during i he pjs;
few years. There may be other reasons.
Now for a comment concerning energy saving and the recycling or steel drums.
Comprehensive tests of all/20 gage 55 gallon drums prove beyond a doubt inat the cost
saving, lightweight container is eminently recondhionable by standard procedures.
The rigorous tests, which showed an excellent success rate, involved rep?itcJ
truck shipment of filled all/20 gage, 55 gallon drums as well as lepeated trips through
the normal reconditioning process.
Chosen p>t landorr for tes+inn the t^rrhthead drur^s we.,e fir^t fiJlaJ witt1 v/atcr bv
the seven different manufacturers ir the Fast and M'cr.^Ll w'io produced tK,m , then
shipped by truck an average of 2,300 miles, wit!' somo traveling as fcr as 2,sGO rules
The carriers were not aware of the p-ogram, and a- 3 result, the drum? -vsre Sub}jcte.i
Lo normal carrier handling without any special treatment.
After unloading, emptying and inspecting, the drams veie processed truo"gn the
Standard tighthead reconditioning IJHD, including chaining an:J deJentin;-, a-ri ins.o^ctjo.i
by outside observers. Thoy wero then refilled, roioaded and trucked to My?rs Oalvlan'l,
Cal. , plant for unloading, emptying, inspecting, r< f:llm9 , reloading and shipment bsc'^
to Los Angeles .
-------
-2-
The drums made a total of six round trips of 850 miles each between the plants,
filled each way. There were six complete reconditionings at the Los Angeles plant,
each observed and recorded in detail.
After the first trip, all of the drums were chained to see if this operation had
any impact upon the drums. Result: All drums were successfully chained without
adverse effect.
The Myers report also statedH as a general opinion, that any normally equipped
reconditioner could duplicate this performance. As a consensus, it is now believed
that the all/20 gage 55 gallon drum is eminently capable of at least six trips and
reconditionings in its useful life as a shipping container, a determination contrary to
claims that the all/20 gage is not reconditionable.
The exceptional durability of the all/20 drums may be surprising to those
unfamiliar with the extensive design, development and testing program conducted by
the Steel Shipping Container Institute. During a two year program, drum bottom designs
were tested extensively to enhance resistance to flex fatigue which was the ordinary
cause of failure in drums after multiple, long haul trips. Then, on extensive, multi-
company two year program of shipments under special permits from the trucking industry
demonstrated highly satisfactory performance, and caused industry, with ICC sanction,
to authorize regular carriage of liquid filled all/20 gage drums.
The incentive for this exceptional effort was to achieve savings in steel usage
and in transportation cost at no sacrifice of transportation safety. Because the all/20
weighs approximately four pounds less than the 20/18 and 12 pounds less than the all/18,
it reduces freight costs to provide an important economic benefit. For the same reason,
it also conserves the steel supply: One ton of steel will produce fifty all/20 55 gallon
drums as opposed to forty-five 20/18 gage and only thirty-seven all/18 drums.
I greatly appreciate having this opportunity to comment in this manner. In support
of the remarks regarding the Myers' tests I attach a copy of their report to 3SCI.
/ek
11/8/77
-------
REPORT BY JOHN CUTT,MYERS DRUM CO. AT THE ANNUAL MEETING
APRIL 18, 1977 .
REPORT ON ALL/20 GAUGE DRUM
During the General Meeting at Los Anrtjeles in January 1977* It
was decided that Steel Shipping Container Institute had to refute
NABADA's charges with respect to the reconditionabi1ity of the
all/20 gauge drum, if possible. If not possible and the NABADA
charges were correct, then it was necessary that S.S.C.I, recognize
that fact in order to resolve their allegations once and for all.
It was agreed that those companies who were then manufacturing the
all/20 gauge drum would ship samples of their all/20 gauge drum to
the Myers reconditioning facility.in Los Angeles.
All participants (initially five and later increased to seven) were
requested to ship their drums filled wfth water via truck; carefully
documenting the distance shipped and the weight of each drum. None
of the drums in the test program were shipped less than 2,100 miles,
with some traveling as far as 2,500 miles. The carriers were not
aware of the program, and as a result, the drums were subjected to
normal carrier handling without any special instructions issued as
to the!r handl i ng.
The drums were unloaded at Los Angeles, inspected for physical damage
and emptied of their contents at this point. A full written report
was prepared on each company's shipment for the record and for the!r
information. The drums were then sequestered until all shipments had
been received.
The program established was to test the drums under actual field
conditions to prove or disprove NABADA's allegations. All drums
were to be tested as follows:
1. Shipped to Myers as previously described.
2. Unloaded, emptied, inspected and reconditioned.
3« After the initial reconditioning trip, the drums
were filled once again with water and shipped via
Myers truck to its Northern Californ i a pi ant; where
they were unloaded and then reloaded for a return
truck trip to Los Angeles, a total round trip
distance of 850 miles.
*t. Upon receipt at Los Angel es, the drums were unloaded,
inspected with a full written report and reconditioned
once more.
5. This process was repeated 3 totaJ of cix (6) times
with accurate records maintained of tl.e condition
and reconditionabi1 ity of the drums in this program.
-------
Except for some mi nor reduct ion in the dedenter air pressure, the
drums were handled in the exact same manner as our other product ton.
Let me repeat, with that one exception, the drums were processed
through the normal recond i t ion i ng procedures.
A repres en tat i ve samp]e (one drum) was taken from each manufacturing
shipment and the chime cut to measure the gauge of the steel used by
each manufacturer. This was done for the purpose of refuting any later
charges that the drums tested might have been of a thicker gauge. The
drums used in this program measured .033 to .035, well within the
20 gauge decimal range.
The initial reconditioning trip was purposely delayed until the
S.S.C.I. General Meeting that was held in Los Angeles in January.
At that t ime, a number of the submi tt i ng company represen tat i ves were
on hand to view this trip through the reconditioning facility. After
the first trip, all of the drums were chained to see if the chaining
operation had any Impact upon the drum?, ha 1 report to ycj, **t
this lime, that alt drums were successluliy chained .,'ithout any adverse
effect.
The Initial test pack from each participating company was for six drums
wi th one drum used for gauge verif i cat ion. The rema!n i ng fi ve drum^
were loaded and unloaded on trucks a total of fourteen (l*f) times each,
including the first shi pment from the manufactur i ng pI ant. The drums
had traveled an average distance of just over 7,000 miles and had been
reconditioned six (6) times each, except where failures did occur.
The twenty five (25) drums used In this testing program were successfully
reconditioned a total of 133 times out of a possible 150 scheduled, for
a success factor of 89%. No failures occurred prior to the jhird trip,
with one failure occurring at the end of the sixth trip; two at the
end of the fifth trip and two at the end of the fourth trip. Besr in
mind that the failures, while not usable for tighthead use, could be
converted to non-regulated full open top (FOT) usage. In other words,
the rejected all/20 gauge drums were not scrapped but could be converted
to other uses.
One last point, we believe that the parameters established for this
test accurately represent the best field simulated con'J i t ;ons yet
devised for a testing progr^r of t h, * r_;i.nr<- '''nc po. 11 pr ov^u is
that the all/20 gauge drum is reconditionable and refutes comp1etely
NABADA's charges. These results have been carefully recorded and
documented and each company's results, with supporting pictures, have
been distributed. Continued testing will take place. Two other
manufacturers have requested that we test their drums under similar
conditions; which we will do.
Dear In mind thnt nuc.! of the drums nre still in good, usable
condition ft ml In rill likelihood could l>o reconditioned two, three or
OVOI) four n (III I 1 I Dim I t lmr"t.
-------
October 21, 1977
Mrs. Geraldine Myer
Public Participation Officer
Office of Solid Waste
WH 462
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mrs. Myer.
This letter is to comment on questions raised in the Federal Register, Thurs-
day, September 29, 1977, page 51626.
1. The E.P.A should take the lead in writing the regulations pertaining
to R.C.R.A. A good approach to take would be involving the D.O.T.
only when the waste being transported is a hazardous material. The
scope of D.O.T. involvement is covered quite well in (49-CRF Parts
171-177) regulations. The E.P.A. should write a user guide to these
regulations so haulers of hazardous waste can find needed information
pertaining to them.
2. The D.O.T. should specifically treat hazardous waste separate from
hazardous materials. This would ultimately separate the haulers
into two types; those that haul waste and those that haul materials.
This is a very important idea that must not be overlooked. There is
an ever present danger of mixing toxic materials that have been left
in a tank truck with material to be used in a process. These trace
toxics such as PCBs can enter into a product without ever being de-
tected.
3. The E.P.A. should develop a separate manifest document so that the
information on the manifest can easily be read in case of a spill.
It would take too much time for someone who is not familiar with
the D.O.T forms (such as a local police officer) to separate out
the needed hazardous waste information.
4. The D.O.T. should have full control over anything that has to do with
trucks or carriers. With regards to labels, the D.O.T. should develop
new ones as the E P.A develops their list of hazardous wastes.
5. The registration of waste haulers is one of the most important ideas
that was overlooked in R.C.R.A. If these haulers are not registered,
there is no way to regulate them. Companies will find it cheaper to
find someone that will dump their waste out in the country. This is
especially true with small volumes of waste.
-------
Mrs. Geraldine Myer
Page 2
October 21, 1977
6. With regard to notification of spills, the hauler should only have to
report to the lowest level of government which regulates him. After
it is reported, that agency could report to the rest with minimum de-
lay. The easier you make it to report a spill, the more likely it will
be reported.
9. Yes, D.O.T. should modify its regulations to keep hazardous materials
separate from hazardous products.
Sincerely yours,
Division of Environment
JoVi W. Hughes, Environmental Engineer
Solid Waste Management Section
Bureau of Environmental Sanitation
JP
-------
Aomnmtttr Otmtntg Emttroranental (Hmmcil
MONMOUTH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ONE LAFAYETTE PLACE
FREEHOLD, NEW JERSEY 07728
October 18, 1977
Mrs. Heraldine Wyer
Public Participation Officer
Office of Solid Waste, WH-462
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
RE:
Notice of October 26 public hearing concerning EPA/DOT regulation of
transportation of hazardous wastes
Dear Ms. Wyer:
Please find enclosed the statement of the Monmouth County Environmental
Council on the hazardous waste regulations proposed by the State Department
of Environmental Protection in the October 6 issue of the New Jersey Register.
Although we regret that we will not be able to consider the particular ques-
tions raised by the Federal EPA and DOT as an official body before the period
of comment ending November 9, we would appreciate it if you would incorporate
the enclosed letter as part of the public record.
Sincerely,
David Morris, Jr.
Assistant Environmental Planner
DM,Jr.:age
Enclosure
"THIS IS 100% RECYCLED PAPER"
-------
October 17, 1977
Ms. Beatrice Tylutki
Tirpctor, Solid Waste \dmlnistration
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 1390
Trsnton, Mew Jersey 03625
Dear Ms. Tylutki:
The Monmouth County Environmental Council supports the proposed regu
lations of the DEP which would require the completion of special manifest
forms by the producers, transporters, and disposers of hazardous wastes.
The Council shares the department's concern regarding the effects of Ille-
gally dumped materials and believes that the "cradle to prave control" i>ro-
vided in the proposed rule-? would go a long way In halting dangerous llanos
practices.
We would appreciate It if you vould incorporate our views into your
record of public comment,
Sincerelv,
David W. Morris, Jr.
Assistant Environmental Planner
DWM,Jr.Vage
-------
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
November 8,1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste ffeterials Division
U01 M St. SW.
Washington D.C. 2C&60
Gentlemen:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Room 6500, Trans Point Building
2100 Second Street, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Reference joint public meeting, EPA/DOT, October 26,1977, and notice thereof,
Federal Register, Volume U2, No. 189, Thursday, September 29,197?.
Response to above reference, all parts thereof, is hereby submitted by
Velsicol Chemical Corporation.
Velsicol Chemical Corporation, a Corporation of the State of Delaware, located
and doing business at 3^1 East Ohio Street, Chicago, Illinois 6o6ll, is a
party of real interest, in that Velsicol Chemical Corporation is engaged in the
manufacture of chemical compounds and thus has occasion to generate and arrange
disposition of hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
J.S. Avren
Director of Distribution
JSA: ak
enclosures
-------
RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING AND NOTICE
OF MEETING FRL 797-6
Response to Discussion Topic 1,
Regulation concerning the transportation of all hazardous material (waste or
otherwise) is the regulatory province of DOT. Title 1+9 USC mandates this
responsibility to DOT and provides the framework within which hazards can be
defined and hazardous materials classified. Transportation of many hazardous
wastes , due to their corrosive, poisonous, flammable, or other previously
established hazardous criteria, are already controlled by DOT, Therefore, the
question of control of transportation of hazardous wastes is open only to the
extent that certain hazards not currently recognized and defined in ky USC are,
or -nay be, present in certain wastes being transported. Since Title U9 USC
defines all presently known and recognized acute hazards, the question is cne
of recognizing an regulating materials (waste or otherwise) transportation of
which poses a hazard of a delayed nature, such as carcinogens, mutagens,
sterilants, delayed neurotoxicants etc. These materials have three basic
characteristics in common;
a. Improperly handled,they pose a very real threat to the human
environment.
b. They do not pose an acute or immediately detectable threat to health
and safety.
c. They are not currently eligible for classification as hazardous
materials under any DOT category.
Therefore what appears to "be called for is another classification of haz-
ardous materials. This classification should embrace all hazards of the type
described above. DOT should prescribe a generic hazardous material desig-
nation, such as ORM-E, if it is desired to preserve the ORM (Other Regulated
Material) format begun by DOT to handle less acute hazards, or "ENVIRONMENTAL
HAZARD" with an appropriate label and placard design. DOT should also list the
categories of hazard belonging in this group and define each. Utilizing tiis
list, EPA, OSHA, or any other competent entity could then report to DOT an,- and
all materials falling within thJE category, as well as prescribi ,g the tests for
detenu nation cf eligibility of materials for inclusion in this list. In the
case of EPA, hazardous wastes would be included in this category However,
having established this new hazardous category, if would be incumbent upon
all shippers of materials falling therein to comply with the labelling and
placarding requirements, whether or not the intended disposition of the material
involved was as waste.
Response to Discussion Topic 2.
Title Ug USC makes no provision for designating the ultimate disposition
possibilities of materials falling within its purview. It is not within
the mandate of DOT to prescribe or distinguish erd. uses of the hazardous materials
whicn it regulates.
-------
Response to Discussion Topic 3.
Response to Discussion Topic
Current DOT requirements for labelling, marking, and placarding, of all
currently recognized hazardous materials are sufficient. Having established
the new category referred to in response to Discussion Topic 1 above, DOT
should then proceed to develop the labels and placards for this new category.
Compatibility' with current design should be at the discretio i of DOT.
Response to Discussion Topic 5.
Registration requirements for transporters of hazardous wastes, once the new
category is established, would be fully con^ru^nt with HMTA requirements. As
such, no new registration requirements should be developed.
Response to Discussion Topic 6.
Since under the recoirnerded new hazardous materials category, DOT would be tne
regulatory agerc/ involved, accident and spill reporting procedures would be
synonymous with current DOT reporting practices. However, in view of the
recognized interest of EPA in this category of rasardous material DOT should
have, as part of 'he procedures pec1 liar to this new category, the obligatio*-
of reporting all such incidents involving this class of material to EPA.
Where the material involved is "waste," provision of RCR£ would be satisfied:
where it is not, it is still of interest to EPA.
Response to Discussion Topic 7 £ 8.
Spill and training procedures and obligations, having been established in
conjunction with ongoing practice and procedure, would be synonymous with
those extant on existing classifications of hazardous materials. The
question of special procedires (given that each ard e~very spill incident
entails its own special procedure) is therefore considered moot and redundant
as regards special cr additional regulatior , other than the establishment of
a new Hazardous materials class.
Resp-.nse to Discussion Topic 9.
Quoting from enclosed resp^nsr to a previous advance notice of proposed rule
making (FRL 710-U), "There shoi. Id be a regulation reqjinro; that any mix tare
of chemicals i n tended for transportation •"ust be f, 11, reacted prior tc such
transport. The ^erm "fully reacted" should lie defined as f oil cws:
-------
Ft-lly Reacted- reduced to its final form, with no gas generation,
exother-tiy, or exothermic potential, including dela/ed reaction."
Response to Discussion Topic 10.
It 3S requested that review of our previous response to another notice1 of
proposed rule making, copy attached as enclosure II, be undertaken with a
view towards its pertinence and application to tne instant notice. A3so,
for information only, is the Chicago Tribune's report on the joint EP£/DOT
Hearing (enclosure III).
-------
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
CORPORATE STANDARD PROCEDURE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST SYSTEM
Prepared by: R . B . Bay r
Re f er enc e :
Approved by: V. J. Baarman
Number: 90. 21
Date Effective: 9/1/77
Supersedes:
Page 1 of ?
Distribution LIB r :
A, B, C, D, E
A. PURPOSE
This procedure defines the responsibilities and steps to be taken for
the issuance or use of the Hazardous Waste Manifest (HUM) in states
where such a system is not presently in use.
B. SCOPE
The HWM is a multi-part form. Each section of the form must be com-
pleted in order to assure Velsicol Chemical Corporation that its haz-
ardous waste is disposed of properly. This system will be required
under the "Resource Conservation & Recovary Act" (RCRA) of 1976. VCC
will adopt this program of self-compliance conmencing the effective
date shown above.
C. LOCATIONS
All Velsicol Cheirical Corporation facilities or subcontractors.
D. GENERAL
This procedure offers guidelines for the proper personnel to follow
relative to the initiation and completion of the HWM form whenever
off-plant disposal of liquid and solid waste is necessary. All
-------
Standard Procedure No.
90.21
Date Effective
9/1/77
Supersedes
Page 2 of 7
hazardous waste sViitraents will be accompanied by a hazardous waste
manifest. In states where an HWM system exists, the state provided
manifest will be used in compliance with that state's regulations.
Where no manifest system has been adopted bv state agencies, the
following HWM will be used.
E. FORM
Velsicol form 96.40-250, Exnibit A, titled "Hazardous Waste Manifest"
can be obtained from the Corporate printshop (mailing address 4010).
The HWM is a four page forn (Form #96.40-250) with three (3) sections,
titled, I-Generator of Waste, II-Hauler, and Ill-Waste Disposer.
The pages are distributed as follows:
White page- To be returned to generator along with invoice after
waste has been disposed. NOTE: No invoice will be paid
without the white copy being received bv the generating
facility.
Canary Page (Light Yellow)- Disposer's copv for their files.
Pink Page- Hauler's copy for their files.
Goldernrod Page (Dark Yellow) - To be retained bv the generator of
waste after the hauler has signed Section II- tt at time
of pick-up. This copy will be kept on file by the Purch-
asing Department, and matched with the white copy that
the disposer must return to the generating facility certifying tha
shipment had been properly disposed.
F. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Purchasing Department at Location Generating Waste
a. Maintain inventory of HVM forms
90.10-912
-------
S tanda rd
Proc edure No.
90.21
Date Ef fee t ive
9/1/77
Supersedes
Page 3 of 7
b. Maintain record and/or file of each shipment.
c. Complete forns and insure that all shipments of hazardous
waste is accompanied by a manifest in cooperation with
department generating waste. Use Schedule A as reference.
d. Release invoice for payment only upon receipt of the completed
original (White) COPY showing that the waste has been disposed of
leeallv or as specified on the H"*"M form.
e. Maintain the white on file on the plant at least 3 years. The
goldenrod HWM raav be distroyed at the present time. (Future EPA
or state regulations will require this copy be sent to them .
2. Department Generating Waste (Plant Manager or Area Superintendent)
a. Request shipment of hazardous waste to disposal site.
b. Provide information necessary to complete manifest to the Purchasing
Department.
c. Delegate authorized agent to to sign HWM form after loading.
d. Authorized agent oversees loading of waste.
e. Authorized agent signs HVM under Section I along with hauler
representative (II-H) as to accuracv of information furnished.
f. Return golderirod copy to the Purchasing Department.
G. COMPLETING FORM 96-40-250
Generator of Waste: The Purchasing Department of the generator or Originator
of the hazardous waste will complete the HWM with the following information:
Manifest Number: To be distributed by the Purchasing
Department. Explanation of coding is in
Appendix B. Use Table A as reference.
SIC Code: Definition in Appendix B.
90.10-912
-------
Standard Procedure No.
90.21
Dace Effective
9/1/77
Supers edes
Page of
Section I - Generator of Waste
Line Number
I/A
I/B, C
I/D
I/E
I/F
Description
NAME- Name of facility generating or desiring disposal
ADDRESS- Address of location or originator of waste
TELEPHONE NUMBER - Area Code/telephone number of location
described in Lines I/A, B, C. Local emergency
number that can be called, in the event of an acci-
dent or transfer of information is required.
TELEPHONE NUMBER OF CHEMTREC.
DESCRIPTION OF WASTE CRefer to Schedule A for information).
NAME: Name of waste as described in Schedule A.
COMPOSITION: If different from Schedule A, designate-
METHOD OF DISPOSAL
HAZARDOUS PROPERTIES
FLASH POINT
PHYSICAL STATE AT 70° F
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
SPECIAL HANDLING INSTRUCTION: If adverse effects may
be encountered or special precautions should be
taken by hauler or disposer, it must be so desig-
nated here.
DOT CLASSIFICATION: As described in Schedule A, Title
49 , Departnent of Transportation. For no re infor-
mation, contact the Traffic Departnent .
QUANTITY : Fill in proper amount of waste according to
unit shown-
-------
Standard Procedure No.
90.21
Date Effective
9/1/77
Supe rs edes
Page 5 of
SAMPLE RETAINED: Indicate whether or not a sample of
the waste was retained for future reference if neces-
sary, End the laboratory's sample identification
number assignee' to it for future reference. Retain
sample three (3) months.
II/A, B, C NAME AND ADDRESS OF HAULER: Name and business address of
contracted company that has been choosen to transport
the hazardous waste from the site shown in I/A, B, C
to the disposal site indicated in III/A, B, C.
II/D TELEPHONE NUMBER: Business location shown in II/A, B, C,
or an emergency telephone number that can be called
if necessary.
III/A, B, C WASTE DISPOSER: Name and address of disposal site where
hazardous waste will be disposed or destroyed. If
an alternate site or method has been choosen, it is
the disposer's responsibility to indicate so.
Section II- Hauler
The hauler will complete Lines II/ E, F, G and H at time of pick-up.
Lines II/I and J are to be completed at time of off loading.
Section III- Disposer
Disposer is to complete Line III/F and G at the time waste if off
loaded at the disposal site. lines III/H, I and J are to be filled
in after the wasfe has been disposed. The white copy, alonf, with
the invoice, will be returned to the originating Purchasing Department.
90.10-912
-------
Page 6 of 7
APPENDIX B
DEFINITION OF TERMS
GENE3JATOR - Person, (s) or manufacturing location, requesting the disposal of
hazardous waste.
S. I. C. CODE - Standard Industrial Classification Code assigned by the Federal
EPA
HAULFJR - Person (s) or company delegated by either the generator or disposer,
to transport the hazardous waste to the disposers site.
AUTHfOSIZED AGENT - Generator facility - to be designated by location plant
manager.
METHC2S OF DISPOSAL - Incineration, secure 1 andttill, recovery, chemicpj. fixation
or polimerization, reprocessing
HAZAP030US PROPERTIES - Consult with Director of Distribution
Toxic
Flammable
Water Reactive
Corrosive
Air Reactive
Irritant
FLASa POINT - cc - closed cup
-------
Page 7 of 7
DEFINITION OF TERMS
MANIFEST NUMBER - YYXXXX
YY- First two digits of the locations account (General Ledger
Control and Responsibility Area) code. See Table A.
XXXX- Sequencial manifest number (0001-9999)
TABLE A
Accounting
Plant Prefix (YY) SIC Code
Bayport State of Texas manifest system used
Beaumont State of Texas manifest system used
Chattanooga 55 2870
El Dorado 63 2819
Glendale 54 2870
Marshall 51 2870
Memphis 53 2870
St. Louis 61 2819
-------
(El '.Vji-;Hjul«r?;iTO.[Num!wr [!! ApoHncjbl!)
(F) Vehicl- Id-riification Nu.-nbw
1C) Veh.d* Lo»!«d\Vt
1 hereby ccnifv *« ** abo»* tfaicr'Oed wut« ww acc»o:»d lor t.-amjo/iiLon'»t (hi producw'i nt* jnd tfil««—rf to and
Of tojid?d j( ihehjtjfdoot wam f^cilirji. boi*i a; tisisd htfiuco"
(C) dry
(Dl T;l?cnoo»
(H) Me"iotl of O.ip.
!l) D.tpout On? .
-------
VELSICOL CHHIVUCAL CORPOFIATION
341 EAST OHIO STREET . CHICAGO. ILUNOIS BOSH * 3!J2-S?Q-45OO
June 28, 1977
Mr. Alan Corson
Hazardous Waste Management Div. (AU-U65)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
ENVIROOTffiHTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1*01 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20U60
Dear Sir:
Reference advance notice of proposed rule TOXing, FRL 710-U.
Response to above reference, and all parts thereof, is hereby sub-nit ted
by Velsicol Chemical Corporation.
Velsicol Chemical Corporation, a Corporation of til.-1 State oi Delaware,
located and doing business at 3^1 East Ohio Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60oll,
is a party of real interest, in that Velsicol chemical Corporation is en^a^ed
in the manufacture of cheiiical compounds and thus have occasion to generate
and arrange disposition of hazardous vastes.
Therefore, full consideration of the recoimendationSj views, and opinions
contained in the enclosed submission is respectfully requested.
Sincerely,
| J. S. Avren
'Director of Distribution
JSA:ah
enclosure
-------
RESPONSE TO ADVAIICE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE IttKXIKJ, FRL 710-h
References:
l) Advance notice of proposed rule Taking, FRL 710-U, Federal Register
vol. H2, //8U.
2) Sub-title C Resource Recovery Act, Public Lav gu-^ou.
RESPONSE 70 SECTIOIJ 3001
It is our opinion that ^uch of the information being considered in sections
3001 (a) and (b) of reference (l) above as T-andated "by rederence (2) above,
is covered in various sections of Title '1-9, CFR. Such coverage pertains to
parts (1), (2)3 (3), (H), 0nd (?) in their entirety. with regard to tho&c
matters of i-nport not covered by Title U9, attention is respectfully invited
to the following:
Fully Reacted - reduced to its final form,
witn no gas generation, exotherny, or exo-
therric potential, including delayed reaction.
It is reco"" ended that Section 3001 not concern it sell with neutral! 22. tic^,
since it is entirely psssib3e to prop3rly dispose of waste raterial, re^ard-
le^R of its reaction potential. This pertains to conditions at tho sice
of dispcsil, rather than to th-> nature of the cheTical itself, and dees not
appear to fall within the purview of Section 3001 (a) and (b) of reference
(2) above.
Part (o). This sectio-i p^rt-iinc to administration of th^1 disposal site
which is rot considers! an appropriate subject for attenti^ii in this parti-
cular section in view of the basic tenor of Section 3001 (a) and (b) of
ref erence (? ) abo1 e .
-------
Fart (8). This Is considered the most vital aspect of this section.
There should be a cross-referenced list of hazardous wastes and
hazardous waste receivers. These lists should comprehensively inter-
relate to one another, as follows:
l) Hazardous Waste Generators.
a) Definition - A hazardous waste generator is any person who
generates a hazardous material as defined by Title ^9, CFR
ultimate disposition of which is disposal as waste. This
shall apply whether or not disposal takes place at the
site of the generator, excepjt t^at hazardous wastes disposed
of at the generating site by destruction shall not be consi-
dered in this part.
b) Administration. Each generator of hazardous wastes shall
report generation of such wastes to the Office of Solid
Waste, EPA. Each generator shall have 60 days fron the
date of enactment of this reflation to report generation.
Full disclosure of the identity of all hazardous wastes
generated or intended to be generated shall be required.
2) List of Receivers. Each person engaged in the "business of treatment
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes shall have 60 days from
enactment of this part in which to register as a receiver of hazardous
wastes. Each person intending to engage in such business on or after
the date of enactment of this regulation shall apply for and receive
such registration prior to the commencement of operations. Upon publi-
catiQn in the Federal Register of the list described below, such person
shall report to the Office of Solid Waste by list nu-nber all materials
in which he engages or holds himself out to engage ir process of treat-
ment, storage, or disposal. This shall include all generators of hazar-
dous wastes, i/ho dispose of such waste themselves, except that those
wastes disposed of by destruction at the generating sate need not be
reported, piovidcd that the residue of such destruction is nonhazardous.
3) List of Hazardous Wastes. Tne Office of Solid Waste, EPA, should establish
and Taintain a list of Hazardous Wastes by che-nical na^e. Ter'ns such as
"bottoms", "residue", "waste", "extract", or "distillate" of other com-
pounds shall not be considered adequate description. Therefore, the pro-
duction process or industry shall not be considered in compilation of this
list. The list will be maintained in alphabetical order, by name of com-
pound. Where the compound has an alternate ra^e, cross-referencing shall
-------
"be made to such na'ne. The list shall include a!3 materials produced as
wastes, whetber or not such Taterial is capable of utilization in any
other capacity.
Administration. The list shall "be initialized from the first reporting
by hazardous waste generators, as described in (1) above.
It must be made clear within the title or explanation of the list that
any rnaterial meeting hazardous material criteria under Title 1*9, CFR whose
ultimate disposition as described in part (l) hereof is as hazardous
waste, is to be added to the list if it does not already appear. Each
hazardous waste shall be assigned specific numerical identification within
the list. Where a listed Taterial is produced by five percent or more of
all generators, the Office of Solid Waste shall petition the Director of
the Office of Hazardous Materials Operationss D.O.T., for the inclusion of
the material in ^9 USC 172.101. Two reports should be created, titled
"GeneratQi's Report of Additional Hazardous Waste" and "Receiver's Report
of Additional Hazardous Waste", accomodating additional operations subse-
quent to initial reporting and registration, for inclusion in records, for
reporting riev handling of materials already on the list, or for reporting
new substances for addition to the list, by previously reporting generators
and/or receivers, except th'it no person en^a^ed in the business of treatment,
storage, or disposal of others' waste sball be pemitted to generate any
hazardous waste.
Interaction of ^Lists. There should be a cross-referenced codification of
both lists, such that it will be possible for the administrator or adminis-
trators of hazardous waste pro^ra-ns and the public to readily identify and
interrelate receivers to their activities. Receivers of others * wastes should
be prohibited froii eligibility as generators.
END OF RESPONSE TO SECTION 3001
-------
RESPONSE TO SECTION 3002
Where the generator of a hazardous waste, upon rccoTiTendation of the agency,
upon its own motion, or in conjunction with the agency, ascertains, recognizes,
or demonstrates to the satisfaction of the agency that the development of fac-
ilities for the disposal of hazardous wastes by the Generator would he in the
public interest, the Administrator should Take available grants equal to so-ne
significant percentage of the total cost of the installation of such facility.
To this end, both the percentage and an appropriation should be stipulated in
these regulations.
Concerning this section, we note that option (1), Section 3002, reference (l)
above, would result in an undue and self-defeating clerical burden on the agency
by virtue of the volume of paper to be handled. Such volume would have a ten-
dency to preclude adequate identification of the very situations which the
regulation is being promulgated to handle. Concerning option (2), the quarterly
report is superior to the daily report by virtue of its lesser volume; however,
the submission of quarterly reports is of likewise questionable significance.
Therefore, we note the following:
(l) Options (l) and (2) above, while administratively sufficient to m-et
record keeping and reporting requirementst are not considered opera-
tionally viable.
(2) If manifest forms are adequate in and of themselves, the generator
should certainly provide the transporter with a manifest listing each
hazardous waste. Hazardous waste receivers should be required to
return copies of the manifest to the generator from the receiving loca-
tion. Generators, transporters, and receivers of hazardous wastes should
retain copies of the canifest for three years. Hovever, no agency should
avoid regulatory responsibility by conceiving of such responsibility as a
clerical filing tasK. Tnese manifests would serve as records of the acti-
vities of generators, transporters, and receivers of hazardous wastes.
As such, they would be subject to census, survey, inspection, aid other
active examination by appropriate agencies as lies within the '-a.ridate of
those agencies and their active administration of their mandates. Exam-
ples of such agency activity -night be a survey of the volume and -novement
of specific hazardous wastes; geographical sampling of certain receivers;
comprehensive sa -pling of certain industries, etc. Bearing in sind that
the requirement for record keeping, as stipulated above, would be absolute
as regards generators, transporters, and receivers, such files would
already be maintained by law (in triplicate), and available by law to
appropriate agencies. Therefore, any requirement for automatic submission
of manifests or compilations of manifests is a duplication of effort.
Therefore, it is recommended that options (l) and (2) be adopted with
respect to their requirement for maintenance of records by generators,
transporters, and receivei-s, but that inspection and survey procedures of
the agency replace any daily, quarterly, or other periodic automatic
-------
submission by generators, transporters, and receivers.
3) Enclosed please find recommendation as to an adequate form of manifest.
U) It is believed that if these regulations are adequate in final for 11,
there is no need to deviate from the standards created thereby. Here
again, part (U) continues with matters presently fully regulated by
Title Ug, CFR and administered by D.O.T., and O.H.M.O. thereof.
END OF RESPONSE TO SECTION 3002
-------
It is our opinion that Section 3003 o/erlaps In lai^e part, as the section
itself recognizes, ICC, D.O.T, and other existing regulations. Uith the
exception of the requirement for -raintenanoe of nanifest records as covered
in Section 3002 and additions to ^9 CFR 17-5.101, as described in response to
Section 3001 or additions at the discretion of the a~ency, there is no need
for other direct action by the Office of Solid Waste in the transportation
area. Thereforej it is suggested that Section 3003 confine itself to inter-
agency coordination. Note also the redundancy of Section 3002 (l) and Section
3003 (l) of Reference (2),
END OF RESPONSE TO SECTION 3003
-------
RESPONSE TO SECTION 30C&
(l) EPA has established air pollution standards which are of general applica-
tion and have been adopted and expanded upon various corresponding state agencies.
This regulatory framework appears adequate for the purpose of controlling air
pollution by hazardous waste receivers and by generators in disposal of their
own hazardous wastes. The only additional control over receivers of hazardous
wastes should again be a prohibition against generating of hazardous wastes by
receivers.
(2) All land fill sites for disposal of hazardous wastes are devoted to that pur-
pose. This simply means that the location has been given over to waste disposal as
an industry and has therefore been designated as a recipient of impurities. So
long as such pollution is contained (a) beneath the surface and (b) within the
confines of the geographical location designated for purpose of disposal of hazar-
dous wastes, both the disposal activity and its effects should be considered under
acceptable control. Leachates, run offs, ground water contamination, and any other
form of hazardous emission from within the site referred to above to any territorial
entity exterior to the site referred to above would render such receiving site a
generator of hazardous waste and as such in violation of the regulations. It is to
be understood as falling within the spirit and intent of these regulations that a
receiver of hazardous waste is the termination point of such hazard and that such
termination point can in no wise be construed or allowed to become itself a genera-
tor of further hazard.
(3) The question of regulation pertaining to industrial accidents is considered the
proper functional area of the Labor Department, and OSHA thereof, except that nothing
in these regulations shall preclude recommendation to OS'IA by EPA concerning peculiar
safety hazards associated with waste disposal.
(^) and (5) Receivers of hazardous wastes must be required to b& located at sites
which are self-contained with regard to the operations in which they engage. Ko
geological setting which (-1) has the unavoidable potential of pollution to any part
of the surrounding area, (b) has not been subject to appropriate precautions which
would lender the? site unable to contaminate the surrounding area, (c) is likely to
become a source of pollution to the surrounding areCvS, (d) is not intended to
operate: as a djsposal site for an indefinite period, (e) is not stable ^ear round
with regard to jts surface ard or sub-surface character when impacted by any
ambient climactic condition, (f) is located in the pith oi any known federal, state,
or local develop i-nt or construction, actual or appro\ed (except as such federal,
state, or local construct ion or develop nr-nt per tr.i"s to the disposal, tre? tvent, or
storage of ha^ai Jous was ten), ((0 cont.iirs no !'ncr."i natural fuel resources, (h) is
not, at tiinc of lease or salj at a fixed pi ice bnaT'~ subjected to an offer for lease
or p'.a chase by an entit; othT than a receiver of > iz^vdous waste, (i) is in-1-en Jed
to be owned by an entity rot ha1 inj; or nviintjiinin;; a fiscal responsibility sufficient
to restore the cite of its original co-uUtlon up—i cessation of opji'ations for any
reason within one yeai of initial activity, or (K) v.;.s not been subt ected to a
proper determinition. by the agency thttt all trc lore^oin^ provisions h^e been
-------
coTJplied uj th and evidence thereof Ti3.de a ratter of recorJ wj th the agency; shall
"be approved for operabioa as a waste storage, treatment, or disposal site.
(6) Within 60 days of enactment of this regulations, all receivers of hazardous
wastes should be required to submit an operating plan. Thifa operating plan, to
be retained as a TAtttr of record, wi '1 co"SiGt 01' the following Lections •
I Quarterly f inoncial st ite^nt.
II Public IrabiHty Insurance.
HI Closure bo;>d, ^aiP—Y.f!teeing site restoration upo:>
closure of the' facility withIn one ye_ir of operation.
IV List of records to b^ ^lii.ta.Lrtsjv.U
(7) Radioactive wastes, like aH oth -r venter;, nuct b" dL:,po~ed in sach Tanner
as to preclude generation of further Iri'/ard follavin^ disp^^a.1. Iioi&e level at
any facility not operated cm feder^J pri ur;'_.j IH considered the province of local
ordinance.
(8) Subnission of an oper.i tirij; pl?n, ar> re'nu^cd in (6) abo.'e, aiui proper levie*;
by the agency of t'ne operating plan, inc Ludir^ the ansvot ii^ of any aril all ques-
tions concerning acceptable practice Ls coiPiclcred p.-.rt of appro al procedure for
coTjiiencement of operations, 01 for co-iLip\riiioi of op,ratio.~c of hazardous waste
receivers.
-------
RESPONSE TO SECTION 3005
(l) The following persons shall be required to obtain permits for treatment,
storage, or disposal of hazardous waste:
(a) All receivers of hazardous wastes.
(to) All generators of hazardous wastes who dispose of such wastes on
premises not integral to, or adjacent to, the generating site.
There shall "be no exemptions to this permit regulation. All person registered
under Section 3001 hereof as a receiver of hazardous vastes shall be required to
obtain a permit. Failure to obtain a permit under conditions stipulated herein
shall "be cause for cessation of such receiving and disposal activities. Enforce-
ment of such permits could be rendered practical by assignment of priorities to
the permit process. These priorities are recommended as follows:
(a) Existing facilities concerning which co-iplaint has been received by
the agency.
(b) New faciliti.j&.
(c) Existing facilities.
It is understood that, due to the extensive number and variety of existing facili-
ties for the storn/~<.', treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes, issuance of a
permit for such f^rility can be delayed at the convenience of the agency and
without interference in the ongoing operation of such existing facility. Existing
facilities and cpcrators thereof shall be notified in advance of the date on which
the agency intcnls to determine their eligibility for granting of a permit under
this regulation.
plob plan shall be submitted, defining the site. Utilizir
the technical and economic c/;pcndi.tme involved in arrivn1
reviewing official is essentially concerned with a chec-rnn
this approach, and given
at thic poi^t, the
procedure.
-------
(3) Given the stringent requirements with which a. receiver of hazardous waste
must comply in order to obtain the permit, the fee therefor could take into
account all expense factors incurred by the government in the checking procedure.
(H) In order to comply with site eligibility requirements as stated in Section
300U (h) and (5) above, the question is considered noot.
(5) There should be only one permit issued for the facility. Such permit should
require annual reporting. A form should be designed a,nd icquired to be submitted
for this purpose. This form should be of such character as to require definitive
description of any change in operation since issuance of initial permit, or last
renewal.. Renewals should take place every five years.
(6) There should be three separote substantive and procedural aspects of the
program, covering:
(a) Lan«i fill operations.
(b) Incinerator operations.
(c) All other operations.
Mo differentiation should be "ade between different volu-ies of wastes. It must be
recognised that, while a hazard ^ay be compounded by the volume of a hazardous mat-
erial, it is the material itself that is the first deciding criterion.
(7) With the exception of process trade secrets, all information concerning hazar-
dous materials receivers should be a matter of public record.
(8) There is always a certain segment of the uninformed public which reacts to the
presence or proximity of a hazardous waste disposal site, on principle. It a
present or proposed hazardous waste operation is found to co-rply with all regula-
tions contained herein, such compliance shall constitute a primafacie defense against
anjunctive process. Concerning available capacity, it is to be recognized that
hazardous waste disposal, li.-;e aiy other industry, is subject to the rules of supply
and demand, "therefore, if a rejulrtory climate can be created, which, while strin-
gent, carries with it the guarantee that rjgid compliance with appropriate regula-
tion is itself a guarantee against legal strictures superimposed by lesser legal
bo.lies, such guarantee woul,l in and of itself, serve to encourage the creation one!
maintenance of proper cap icily.
-------
(9) IiC'pC'fly rE-ielj th' p"R.*. pern it systei, i;nii^- c"iy other exist?r>;; por'ai t
sys to**1, is in ar,i oi ':_-«" } r ;i f'uaiant'je to t;>,' OH-JAII or of treatment, :>tcragc,
crid/or di^po^a^ L 5 tx ' 11.. t continuous operation 1. jn-1 v/ill be pcir'ni" t'.nd. As
&uch3 it shou'if! not uo integrated witlri a,1/ oinir per-il. sy^toT, except insofar
as &u ji ol 'f c "r p>i=r r Lt 5 ;^ s te ni tthall have fi'' j.'_' r u , " j t n ic Luj.r ce critt'3\ a those
f,t rl f t • fVG ']nd requj . >n Is contained - n these r ' ulati or s . i'h^re i^Mtance of
a p~-Tr'i i r other tbuii IiCf{'\ p^r-'it hDi. c _; M , ti L,rt u>~" nr rfai.irc- ent, ar~L such
st' ACM ;e oi i' P'^re ^ent and the c"'foi •"'r; snt t'lL^eof can > 'la-u'y tjr.(1 Jo c^P-.l-L'J pjr~.it ur.umce.
>'pin3it.)n of rui C'.JI-MLL t'aci Lity M\I Lch in^ol-'f:, (a) inst i!LV' tj c n oT
iy> (^*) Il): r- Ju-e1 'ii'^Lcatioi i"i'ul\iri^; ar L"pa'i&ion of iianaJii1;;
(c) c^quLr-''. '-'.-1 ul j'!-1 H io i,.O adjar-ent properly, (d) r<-v for cl-ruc-
rrquirc ipnni( • I i', -> f^r pjr.-nt "irxl Li icatio'i.
-------
(U) Nothing in this reflation shall prohibit states ft OP application for full
program authorization at tic? f ol lo'.fin^ its enact-i, nt. Such applications shj.il
be acted upon in order of receipt, except that no such application shall be consi-
dered valnd unless ac co-roamed b,' a copy the state lav boin^ represented by the
state as the vehicle of compli u>co. The agency should have so, months fro-n date
of enactment of these rof;r. 1 j i i u:'S prioi to co-'jr^nceTrit o! & (ate authorization
processes.
(!)) In order for the state lav,r to have valid application, the ituestigitio"> proces-
ses, physical, auTinistrai" i^e, and procedural contained theivin should be verifjed
by the agency. This can ti>e form of rccrods auditing, field Jrvestigation, and
revicu of administrative process. to stai-e \;ill be authorized, or can continue
authorisation, vhich (a) does not hive regulations vhich are substantially th" same
as these regulations, (b) does not maintain co-plete rccrods of hazardous vaste
disposal activities i/itnin its borders, (c) is not in the opinion of the agency
adequately staffed to cope vjth the task of enforcing these reflations, (d) is not
actively engaged in en for L e~ ITI{ of these regulations, (e) is found to be engaged in
perfunctory or norproHeient enforcement of th^sc regulations, (f) prohibits or
attempts lo prohibit di&pociT-l ol hazardous T..'astes irhere cuch disposal, including
prior transportation thereof, if. in full corpHanee with existing federal regula-
tions , (g) imposes or attempts to impose restrictions ag tlnet disposal of hazardous
waste which are In excels, of thes-; regulations.
It is to be understood vjchm tne spirit and intent of these rG-;ulations that, al-
though coiipliance herewith a^d erf 01 cei ent of such co up"! lance aro stringent, such
compliance and enforce — '] t lie the ~; ara-ii.ee of an adequate and comprehensive solu-
tion to thp problem of Vri'.-rdou: vt^lc disposal.
-------
(c) cit.
(») T.I..V-, l-ul... .
(I) l"=tt 1 .^Hr K,,Il l.>l»r (.r ,„!!..i.1O
(A) II -
(II) »M
(C) rn
(n) in
(r) I"
(O *•
(1)11
-------
COPIES:
1. Disposal Facility Copy
2. Generator Copy
3. Hauler Copy
h~ To Be Returned to Generator
5_ Regulatory Agency
PROCEDURE
Generator fills in section I, A through F,
section II, A through G,
section III, A through D
Hauler tills in section II, M through L
Disposer fills in section III, E through J
-------
-------
STATEMENT CF MC ^RIS HF.RSHSON, PRESIDENT
NATIONAL BARREL & DRUM ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGARDING STORAGE & DISPOSAL CF HAZARDOUS
WASTE. HAMADA INN, ROSSLYN, VIRGINIA , OCT.11,1977
This statement is submitted on behalf of the National Barrel and
^rum Association of 1028 Connecticut Avenue VW, Washington D.C.20036,
which represents the steel drum reconditioning industry in the United States.
The 55-gallon steel drum is the primary package for the petroleum, chemicals,
paint, adhesives and other industries. About 20 million of these drums are
manufactured annually of 18-gauge and 20/18-gauge steel. Approximately 45
to 50 million of them are reconditioned annually and put back into commercial
reuse.
A study made by economists at the University of Illinois (copy of which
is attached) has proved that if all newly manufactured ^rums were ma^e of the
heavier 18-gauge steel, rather than thinner steel which produces short-lived
or throwaway drums, enough energy could be saved annually to light the city
of San Francisco for one month. This means a savings of over one million
tons of steel each year as well as the millions of tons of iron ore, coal, coke
and other metals which go into the manufacture of this steel.
The reason for this explanatory preface is to highlight the importance
of the reconditioned steel drum in the Nation's efforts to conserve energy and
natural resources. But there is an additional area in which our industry serves
to further the objectives of the EPA. All so-called "empty1 drums received
by reconditioners contain residue of their previous contents -- oil, paint,
chemicals, etc. -- sometimes as much as 3 gallons. This is industrial and
-------
-2-
of ten hazardous waste. Although we have no choice but to collect and Dispose
of it, we are nevertheless performing an important and necessary environ-
mental function* The EPA should therefore recognize our industry as a strong
ally and optimize its usefulness in this area.
A major obstacle to the health of the reconditioning industry ie the in-
creased production of light-gauge, short-lived or throwaway drums, which
cannot be returned to commercial reuse. This has already caused a national
shortage of used drums. It calls for the adoption of measures to Discourage
this waste of energy and natural resources, measures which would, at the
same time, encourage the purchase and reuse of the all-18-gauge drum.
Empty, used drums are also used today by many generators of hazar-
dous waste for the storage and disposition of such materials. Such use of an
preconditioned, untested drum is illegal under ^OT Regulations for the trans-
portation of hazardous materials, which require either new or reconditioned
specification drums for this purpose. Furthermore, dangerous conditions may
be created at the landfills, or other disposition areas, because the wastes being
poured into a drum may not be compatible with the residue of other hazardous
materials, and fires or explosions may result.
If drums are to be used for the disposition of hazardous wastes, they
should be new, or reconditioned and tested.
In addition to the necessity for waste generators to be made aware of
this requirement through appropriate educational and enforcement activities,
we recommend two additional projects for the EPA's consideration, in order
to further Congressional intent. The Act requires a stu^y of the appropriateness
of incentives and disincentives to promote resource conservation, and of res-
trictions on the manufacture or use of the product,and of disposal charges.
-------
-3-
1. The first research project should be an intensive and
exhaustive study into the possibility of incineration, chemical
Degradation, or other means of reducing waste materials to the
lowest possible volume. vVe understand that some efforts have
already been initiate^ but we believe that this problem is of such
vast importance and consequence that far greater efforts should be
made. We also feel that the results of all such research to date,
both private ant? public, should be collected, analyzed and distribute^
2. We believe a second research project should be undertaken
to seek the optimum package for the transportation and burial of
hazardous wastes. Perhaps the answer is an extremely light-gauge
steel drum — 26,28, even 30 gauge, with some lining, suitable for
a single short trip from generator to landfill; perhaps fibre, or
plastic, or some cheap material not presently being used in the
packaging field. We recommend a multi-industry task force to
consider this problem, to include such organizations as the Manu-
facturing Chemists' Association, the National Riint & Coatings
Association, the Society of Adhesives Manufacturers, the Fibre
Trum Association, the Steel Shipping Container Institute, the Na-
tional Barrel & Brum Association, and others keenly interested
and involved in the packaging, transport and disposition of industrial
wastes of all kinds.
With EPA and industry working together, we believe
solutions can be found that are environmentally acceptable and economically
feasible.
########
End.: Energy Study by Ers. Laurel & John Prussing, Univ.of Illinois.
-------
THE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF STEEL DRUM
MANUFACTURING AND RECONDITIONING
by
Laurel Lunt Prussing
and
John E. Prussing
Urbana, Illinois February 14,1974
-------
ABSTRACT
This study estimates and compares the energy require-
ments of reusable and single-use steel drums. Single-use
drums require twice as much energy per fill as heavier drums
which can be reconditioned. This is because the greatest
energy requirement in the steel drum system is for the manu-
facture of steel. It takes roughly ten times as much energy
to manufacture a drum as to recondition a drum.
A shift from the current mix of reusable and single-
use drums to an all IB gage drum system with an average of
eight recondition!ngs per drum (9 fills) would create energy
savings of 17,043 billion BTU per year, which is 23% of the
total energy requirement of the present system and enough
energy to provide electric power for one month to a city
the size of San Francisco.
Further energy savings could be realized if the number
of reconditionings of reusable drums ccald be increased.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Charts and Tables. ii
About the Authors • iii
Introduction 1
Estimates of the Energy Requirements for Steel Drums...1
Conclusion 10
References 12
Technical Appendix • A-l
-------
ii
LIST OF CHARTS AND TABLES
Flowchart, Steel Drum Reconditioning System 3
Table I Estimated Energy Requirements for the
Manufacture, Transport and Reconditioning of
Steel Drums .. 4
Table II Energy Requirementsi Manufacture and
Delivery of New Drum to Filler; Reconditioning
and Delivery of Used Drum to Filler 8
Table III Comparison of the Cumulative Energy
Required for 100 million fills of Reusable
and Single-use Steel Drums 9
-------
iii
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
LAUREL LUNT PRUSSING
Mrs. Trussing is an economist with research and
practical experience in the economics and politics of
rscycling. Her academic background includes A.B..Wellesley
College, A.M.,Boston University, and graduate study at the
University of California, San Diego* She is presently a
Ph.D* candidate in the Department of Economics at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. As an elected
official of Champaign County, Illinois, she is charged vith
the responsibility of finding solutions to county solid
vaste problems. She vas formerly an Urban and Regional
Economist with Arthur D, Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts and an Economist at the Center for Advanced
Computation, University of Illinois.
JOHN E. PRUSSING
Dr. Prussing is an Associate Professor of Aeronautical
and Astronautical Engineering at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign. His academic degrees are S.B., S.M.,
and Sc.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
His research and teaching interests are in optimal control
of dynamic systems, a field in which he has published
numerous articles in professional journals. Prior to
joining the faculty at the University of Illinois, Dr.
Prussing was Assistant Research Engineer and Lecturer at
the University of California, San Diego and at M.I.T.
-------
ItfTRODUCTION
This study was commissioned by the National Barrel
and Drum Association to determine the energy requirements
of reconditioning steel drums versus discarding or recycling
drums by scrapping and remelting. The steel drum recondition-
ing industry has long promoted its product as a more economical
alternative to single-use or limited reuse drums. However,
as in other types of packaging, there has been a trend toward
throw-away steel drums.
In 1973 fuel shortages caused Americans to realize that
nature's riches are not infinite. The United States may be
returning to an earlier ethic of resource conservation. It
is appropriate to examine the role of the steel drum recon-
ditioner in such conservation.
The method used in this report is based on Bruce Hannon's
classic study of the energy requirements of reusable versus
recyclable beverage containers. Professor Harmon has been
of invaluable help in this analysis of the steel drum industry.
ESTIMATES OF THE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR STEEL DRUMS
Energy use can be studied at many levels, for most industries
are interrelated. This report is based on a model which abstracts
1 Bruce Hannon, "System Energy and Recyclingi A Study of the
Beverage Industry", Document No. 23, Center for Advanced
Computation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
January 5, 1972, revised March 17, 1973.
-------
2
from that maze of interrelationships and selects the most
significant energy requirements of the steel drum system.
This study traces the energy needs of steel drums from
raw materials procurement through steel making, drum manu-
facturing and reconditioning and all transportation links
between these activities. The flow chart on page 3 shows
the steel drum system and the processes for which energy use
was estimated. Activities enclosed by broken lines on the
chart were not included in the energy estimates. The energy
requirements of fillers and industrial users, for example,
dwarf the portion that might properly be allocated to the
use of steel drums within the industry.
Although there are other industries besides steel from
which drum manufacturers purchase inputs (e.g., paints) sheet
steel comprises 95% by weight of all such inputs. Similarly
an insignificant fraction is omitted by not including chemical
and paint purchases by reconditioners.
Table I on page 4 gives the energy required at each
stage of the flow chart for three types of steel drums,
the durable 18 gage drum, the lighter weight 20/18 gage
drum and the single-use 22 gage drum. Although the 13 gage
drum is heavier and requires more steel and more transport
energy at each stage, its ability to withstand many recondi-
tionings eventually reduces its total energy requirements
considerably below the 20/18 gage reusable drum and the 22
gage single-use drum.
•Notei the finished weights of these drums are 46 Ib., 38 Ib.
and 28 Ib,, respectively. Each requires an additional 25X of
steel from the steel mill to allow for fabrication scrap.
-------
FLOWCHART
STEEL DRUM RECONDITIONING SYSTEM
FILLER
I INDUSTRIAL I
I USER I
Scrap
DRUM
MAKER
-J 1
-------
TABLE I
ESTIMATED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MANUFACTURE,
TRANSPORT, AND RECONDITIONING OF STEEL DRUMS
Energy Requirement
Process
(1,000 BTU/drum)
1
Mining of ores
Transport of ore
Manufacture of steel
Transport of steel to
drum manufacturer4
Manufacture of drums
Transport of scrap from
drum manufacturer to
steel industry
Transport to filler
Transport of filled drums
to industry
Transport of used drums i
a) to reconditioner
b) to scrap dealer
c) for discard
Reconditioning of drums
Transport of reconditioned
drums to filler11
Scrap yard
Transport of scrap to
steel industry
LB qaqe drum
(46 Ib.)
100.1
27.0
1,322.5
10.9
113.0
2.7
7.2
10S.7
2.0
1.4
1.4
147.6
2.5
0.9
5.9
20/18 pane drum 22 ciaqe
(38 Ib.)
82.7
22.3
1,092.5
9.0
113.0
2.3
6.0
107.0
1.7
1.2
1.2
147.6
2.1
0.9
4.9
(28 Ib. )
60.9
16.5
805.0
5.7
113.0
L.7
4.4
104.8
C.9
C.9
0.6
3.6
Notes on following page
-------
Notes for Table I (complete list of references on p.121
1. Hannon, Table 3i 1,740 BTU/lb. of finished steel
2. Ibid., 470 BTU/lb, of finished steel
3. Ibid.. 23,000 BTU/lb. of finished steel
4. Ibid., 190 BTU/lb. of finished steel to transport steel
to drum manufacturers an average of 392 miles. Includes
weighted average of rail and truck transport at 640 BTU
per ton-mile and 2,400 BTU per ton-mile respectively
(Hannon, p. 12)
5. Census of Manufactures, MC67(S)-4, Table 4, "purchased
electricity" converted to thermal energy at 1 kwh= 11,620 BTUj
"kilowatt hour eqivalents of purchased fuel" converted to
thermal energy at 1 kwh=3,412 BTU (Hannon, p. 12). Alloca-
tion of fuel requirements for steel drums in SIC 3491,
"Metal Barrels, Drums and Pails" computed from the value
of steel drums as a percent of the value of the industry's
total output in 1967 (reference 3). This share—65%—is
virtually identical to the physical measure of drum output
versus total output in terms of the surface area of the
steel processed.
6. 25% of the transport energy used from steel industry to
drum industry
7. Average distances and mode of transport from reference 4
8. Share of drum output to each filler from reference 5,
distance and transport mode from reference 4
9. Reconditioner receiptsi 85% local by truck 10 miles; 14%
by truck 100 miles) 1% by rail 250 miles. Energy of local
truck shipments! 4 miles per gallon diesel fuel; 138,000 BTU
per gallon. Energy to scrap dealer and discard] 10 miles
by truck; 4 miles per gallon diesel fuel; 240 drums per
truck. Energy reduced for lighter drums by weight.
10. Reconditioning energyi natural gas (1 therm= 10 BTU),
purchased electricity as in note 5 above
11. Reconditioned drums shipped an estimated 25% further
than reconditioner drum receipts
12. Gasoline consumption of scrap dealer less energy for
10 mile haul from local sources (note 9 above)
13. Based on average shipping distance of a midwest scrap
dealeri 400 miles by rail
-------
6
The manufacture of a steel drum begins with the mining
and transport of ores to the steel industry. Sheet steel
from the mill is then shipped to the drum manufacturer.
The steel required to make a drum includes an extra 25%
allowance for each pound of finished drum to account for
scrap incurred in the drum manufacturing process. This
scrap is returned as an input to the steel industry.
Steel requirements and transportation energy are estimated
in proportion to the weight of each of the three types of
drums. Drum manufacturing energy, however, was estimated as
equal for all three, since surface area rather than weight
seemed a more reasonable measure of the energy used in the
fabricating of drums from sheet steel.
The transport energy required to ship drums to fillers
was estimated from a weighted average of the proportion of
drums shipped by rail and by truck. Slightly more than half
of new drums are shipped by truck and the rest are shipped by
rail. Rail shipment takes about one fourth as much energy
per ton-mile as truck shipment (640 BTU per ton-mile, versus
2,400 BTU per ton-mile according to Harmon's estimates).
The energy required to ship filled drums to industrial
users was computed as a weighted average based on the type of
filler (chemicals, SIC 281) paints, SIC 2851; and petroleum
products, SIC 291), the average distance to customers from
each filler by rail and by truck, and the proportion of each
filler's output shipped by rail and by truck.
-------
7
Once drums are emptied by industrial users they can
be reconditioned, scrapped, or discarded. (In this model
we have included in "discard" drums which may find a useful
purpose such as highway markers or even stoves and shower
stalls in Alaska; in short, drums which are no longer used
to ship the output of fillers.) The energy required to ship
used drums to any of these alternatives is relatively small.
Information on the energy used to recondition drums was
supplied by a reconditioner who prefers to remain anonymous.
Reconditioning energy was assumed to be the same for both
types of reusable drums since the energy is needed to clean
and repair drum surfaces.
The energy requirements to ship reconditioned drums to
fillers and to compress drums for scrap and to ship the scrap
to steel mills are negligible compared with other requirements
of the drum system.
Table II on page 8 sums the appropriate energies from
Table I and indicates the savings made possible by recondi-
tioning a drum rather than manufacturing a new one. For the
18 gage drum reconditioning energy is one tenth as much as
manufacturing energy.
Table III on page 9 indicates the total amount of energy
which would be required for each type of drum to provide 100
million fills, the estimated annual number of fills of steel
drums in the United States. The energy ratios at the bottom
of the table show that an all single-use drum system would
-------
TABLE II
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS I
MANUFACTURE AND DELIVERY OF NEW DRUM TO FILLER;
RECONDITIONING AND DELIVERY OF USED DRUM TO FILLER
(1,000 BTU/drum)
18 gage 20/18 gage 22 gage
1583 1328 1008
Reconditioned drum 152 151
1 Table I down to and including transport to filler
2 Table I, transport to reconditioner, reconditioning
energy, and transport to filler
-------
TABLE III
COMPARISON OF THE CUMULATIVE ENERGY REQUIRED
FOR 100 MILLION FILLS OF
REUSABLE AND SINGLE-USE STEEL DRUMS
Reusable Single-use
18 gage 20/18 gage 22 gage
56,489 bil. BTU 77,735 bil. BTU 111,400 bil. BTU
(9 fills per (4 fills per (new drum for
drum) 8 recon- drum; 3 recon- each fill)
ditionings) ditionings)
ENERGY RATIO
20/19 gage drum . . 22 gage drum ._ 2 Q
18 gage drum = ' IB gage drum
-------
10
require twice as much energy as an all 18 gage system.
A complete 20/18 gage system would require 40* more energy
than an all 18 gage system.
Table III is based on a systems analysis in which all
flows of material on the flow chart have been estimated.
The equation and an explanation of the variables upon which
Table III is based are given in the Technical Appendix.
Table III is based on the reconditioning industry's
conservative estimates of eight reconditionings per 18 gage
drum (9 fills) and three reconditionings per 20/18 gage
drum (4 fills). Lighter weight drums which can be recondi-
tioned have an initial advantage over heavier drums until
the number of reconditionings of the heavier drum exceeds
that for the lighter drum. (Single-use drums are at a dis-
advantage after the first reconditioning of an 18 gage drum.)
Lighter weight drums are less durable and generally cannot
be reconditioned more than three times. The 18 gage drums,
however, could be reconditioned up to 16 times with little
problem. Any increase in the number of reconditionings will
lower the enerqy requirements of the steel drum system.
CONCLUSION
The estimated energy requirements of the current mix of
reusable and single-use steel drums in the United States is
73,532 billion BTU per year. If the system were converted
to all 18 gage drums with an average of eight reconditionings
(9 fills per drum) an estimated 17,043 billion BTU per year
-------
11
could be saved. This is enough to provide the equivalent
in electrical energy for a city the size of San Francisco
for one month.
If the return rate of 18 gage drums were increased so
that the average number of reconditionings was raised to
15 ( 16 fills per drum) then the United States could save
an estimated 29,707 billion BTU per year, the equivalent
of 238 million gallons of gasoline, by converting to an
all 18 gage drum system. This would raise the ratio of
energy requirements of the 22 gage single-use drum to
energy required for the 18 gage (16 use) drum to 2.5.
Clearly efforts to increase the use of 18 gage drums
and the rate of return of such drums(by such means as
deposits) would conserve energy. Conversely, a trend to
use more light weight drums or to reduce the return rate
of drums would further burden American energy resources.
2 See Hannon, op. cit.. p. 23.
3 If no losses occurred in the 18 gage system (no discards
and no drum failures) the ratio would reach a maximum of
4.2. This is because as the number of reconditionings
increases, the average energy approaches the reconditioning
energy, since the energy required to manufacture the drum
becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of the cumulative
energy used. Mathematically, in equation A-4 of the Techn-
ical Appendix the average energy for the 18 gage drum
approaches a lower limit of 265.5 x 10 BTU per fill as
the number of fills becomes infinite. The average energy
for the 22 gage drum is 1113.5 x 103 BTU per fill.
-------
12
References
1. Hannon, Bruce, "System Qiergy and Recycling! A Study of the Bevoi-age
Industry" > Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois,
CAC Document No. 23, revised March 17, 1973.
2. U.S-. Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufactures, 1967, Special Series!
Fuel and Electric Energy Consumed, MC67(S)-£, U.S. Government Fronting
Office, Washington, B.C., 1971.
3.. U.S. Department of Commerce, "U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1974, Ne1.nl
Shipping Drums and Pails".
4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Transportation, 1967, Vol. Ill,
Commodity Transportation Survey, Part 3, Commodity Groups, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. , 1970.
5. U.S. Department of Commerce, "Current Industrial ReportslSteel Shipping
Drums and Pails, Summary for 1967", M34K(67)-13.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
Technical Appendix
The system analysis of the steel drum reconditionina
system is based on the flowchart of the system. On the
next page the flowchart is shown vith the energy
variables of the system labelled. These variables denote
the amount of energy required by a process, such as EDR
(the amount of energy required to make a drum) or the
amount of energy required for transportation, such as
ES-, QR ( the energy required to transport the steel for a
drum from the steel industry to the drum maker). On the paqe
following the flowchart a symbol list is given vhich defines
each of the symbols appearing on the flowchart.
The total energy required to mine raw materials,
make a new drum, fill it and deliver it to the industrial
user is called E f and is equal tot
*
E " £M + EM,ST * EST * EST,DR * EDR,ST + £DR +
F * E 'A'1'
hDR.F * '•F.I
Next, an equation is derived, based on the flowchart,
which describes the total energy requirement for the
complete reconditioning system. The total energy
-------
FLOWCHART
STEEL DRUM RECONDITIONING SYSTEM
-------
A-3
LIST OF SYMBOLS FOR FLOWCHART
Energy Requirements
£„ = Mining of ores
E^ ST = Transport of ore
EST = Manufacture of steel
Eg- DR = Transport of steel to drum manufacturer
EpR = Manufacture of drums
EDR ST = Transport of scrap from drum
' manufacturer to steel industry
EpR p = Transport to filler
E_ = Transport of filled drums to industry
ET „ = Transport of used drums to reconditioner
Ej D- = Transport of used drums to discard
E_ sc = Transport of used drums to scrap dealer
E_ = Reconditioning of drums
E_ ., = Transport of reconditioned drums to filler
n i r
ER sc = Transport of reconditioned drums to
scrap dealer (equal to Ej gc)
ES(, = Scrap yard
ESC ST = Transport of scrap to steel industry
-------
A-4
requirement, E, is expressed in terms of N, the number
of reconditionings of a drum. By changing the value of
N in the equation, one can calculate the energy requirement
for any number of reconditionings.
The general equation for the energy requirement for
N reconditionings (N + 1 fills) is i
E = E + N fE^sc + Esc + ESC>ST)
E
R + f4 (ER,F + EF,I> + f5 (ER,SC + (A-2)
1
,STj
where
f. = fraction of drums from industrial user to scrap
f3 = " " " " " " " reconditions
( Note that these fractions must sum to one. f, + f, t f = 1)
f4 =• fraction of drums from reconditioner to fillei
f_ =• " " " " " " scrap
Numerical values for these fractions are giver on the foj lowing
page. The values for the energy variables are given in Table I
of the report.
-------
Numerical values for the fractions f. i
?n/i a GAGE
f3 1.03 N/(N+1) 1.05
f. 0.97 0.95
4
f5 0.03 0.05
Notei f, is determined from fjf^i which is the return
rate for the reconditioning loop, equal to
While expressions for the fractions f and f-
( the fractions of the drums from the industrial user
which go to scrap and discard) can be determined, the
terms in Eqn. (A-2) in which they appear have very small
coefficients. These negligibly small terms are ignored
in obtaining the simplified equations which appear later
in the appendix.
Assuming f, and f^ are equal, expressions for them
arei f. = f-, = ~^m!777rm\\ f°r t^le 18 gage drum, and
1-0 05N
fl = f2 = 2(N+i) for the 2°/l8 gage drum-
-------
A-6
Once the total energy requirement E for a given number
of reconditionings N is calculated for a given weight
drum, the average energy requirement per fill can be
calculated by dividing E by the number of fills, N+l.
This average energy per fill, Eav , is the number which
decreases as the number of reconditionings of a drum
increases. The total energy used, E, increases each
reconditioning, but less than for new drums.
average energy per drum ,. ,.
per fill. tA'JJ
The magnitudes of the energy variables in the energy
equation are given in Table I as followsi (in 1000 BTU's
per drum)
18 gage 20/18 gage 22 gage
1692.1 1434.8 1113.5
EI,SC + Escl
+ ESC,ST J
8.2 7.0 5.1
EI,DI
EI.R * ER
ER,F + EF,I
ER,SC * ESc7
f
4- F I
"•SC.ST J
1.4
149.6
111.2
8.2
1.2
149.3
109.1
7.0
105.3
4.2
-------
JU7
SIMPLIFIED EQUATIONS for the cumulative energy per drum
(E) for an arbitrary number of reconditioning^. (N)i
Equation (A-2) , after substitution of the values of
the energy variables, can be simplified. Some of the terms
in the equation are negligibly small and can be ignored.
The simplified equations are as follows i
16 GAGE DRUM
E = 11692.1 (2N+1) + 265.5 N2J/ (N+l) (A-4)
mum of 3 reconditionings)
= J1434.8 (2N+1) + 266.0 N2J/ (N+l) (A-5)
20/18 GAGE DRUM (maximum of 3 reconditionings)
for N^3 i E
E = E(3) + E(N-4)
E . E(7) + E(N-8)
etc ......
22 GAGE DRUM Since f3 = 0, Eqn. (A-2) reduces to
E = (N+l) E* (A-6)
(Thus for this weight drum the average energy per
drum per fill is just E )
-------
JUS
COMPUTER PROGRAM
A small computer program was vritten to calculate
the cumulative and average energy requirements per drum
for the reconditioning system. A listing of the program
appears belov.
DIMENSION EC50)
NR-0
NO4
C NC IS THE MAX. NO. OF FILLS FOR 20/18 DRUM.
KMOD-0
DO 100 K-l,16
NF-NR+I
NZ-NF+NR
NSB»NR*NR
El8- GO TO 10
E20I8-C U34.8*NZ+266.*NSa>/NF
AV20-E8018/NF
E(NF)»E2016
GO TO 99
10 IF(MOD(NF/NC).E0.1) KMOD-KMOD+1
E2018-E(KMCD«NC:)+E(NF-KMOD»NC)
E-E2016
AV20»E2018/NF
99 WRITEC6-98) NF,MR,E22,E2018,E18.AV20/AV18
98 FORMAT(1X,215,5F11-1)
100 NR-NP.-H
97 STOP
END
On the following page a list of symbols and their
explanation is given. The equations programmed are the
simplified equations from the preceding page.
-------
A-9
COMPUTER PROGRAM SYMBOLS
NR = number of reconditionings
NC = maximum number of fills for the 20/18 gage drum.
NF = number of fills
E18 = Cumulative energy requirement in 1000 BTU's per
drum for 18 gage drum
E2018 = Cumulative energy requirement for 20/1B gage drum
E22 = Cumulative energy requirement for 22 gage drum
AV18 = average energy per drum per fill for 18 gage drum
AV20 = average energy per drum per fill for 20/18 gage drum
-------
TABLE A-l
OUTPUT OF COMPUTER PROGRAM
A-10
Dl
0) CO
EO
H
H
-H
O
01
£
|
,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
9
•H
C
o
O -P
•H
«o o
1 u
z £
0
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
IS
01 T)
oi at
> 0
•r4 RJ
+J Oi
H &
.H
4J CO
n **
H
3
u
1692.1
2670.9
3174.2
3558*5
3895*4
4208*4
4507.9
4798.9
5084.2
5365*5
5644*0
5920*3
6195*0
6468*3
&M
L4 H
at -H
C L4
1692. 1
1335.4
1058. 1
889.6
779. 1
701.4
644.0
599.9
564.9
536.6
513. 1
493*4
476.5
462.0
Notei The average energy per drum per fill for the 22 gage
drum is 1113,5 regardless cr The value of N.
ALL NUMBERS SHOWN ARE IN UNITS OF 1000 BTU'S per drum.
-------
GENERAL® ELECTRIC NUCLEAR ENERGY
SYSTEMS DIVISION
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 175 CURTNER AVE . SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95125
Environmental Protection Agency and
Office of Hazardous Materials,
Department of Transportation
My name is Frederick D. Flowers and I am Senior Specialist - Technical Traffic 6
Hazardous Material, Nuclear Energy Operation of the General Electric Company. My
office address is 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, California 95125.
My purpose in appearing here today is to present comments on proposed rules for the
Development of regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Waste on behalf of
the General Electric Company, with Corporate offices in Fairfield, Connecticut
06430.
The General Electric Company, as a shipper and transporter of hazardous waste,
make the following comments in response to discussion topics set forth in Federal
Register Docket 77-28591, September 29, 1977.
DISCUSSION TOPICS
1. We believe that the Department of Transportation (DOT) should be
the prime federal regulatory agency to develop regulations for
hazardous waste transportation. Our position is predicated on
the years of experience and outstanding record in the control of
hazardous material and the thousands of materials already
regulated by the DOT, which should not be overlapped by Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.
The current approach to be taken on hazardous waste is to allow
present DOT regulations to apply for those items already regulated
as hazardous material. The EPA could incorporate these materials by
reference to DOT regulations.
-------
GENERAL 0 ELECTRIC Page 2
Those materials designated by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
as hazardous waste and not presently regulated by the DOT should be
combined into several major categories by the EPA. These designated items
would be turned over to the DOT and made a part of DOT regulation under
categories of "EPA Hazardous Waste Materials".
The EPA would designate the type of containers required and would
specify the DOT Specification Container when necessary. The EPA
and DOT should jointly determine and develop new labels and placards
compatible with current DOT designs for this material and describe
how it should be shown on shipping papers. After a while these factors
would be incorporated within DOT regulations. The EPA would
incorporate these materials by reference to DOT regulation.
2. The DOT should not modify its definition of hazardous material but
would however specifically address the transportation of hazardous
waste (not presently covered by DOT - but considered hazardous by
EPAjas indicated above.
3. The DOT should modify its shipping paper requirements to meet
the needs of the EPA. There is already shipping paper regulations
in existence, which could be modified to meet RCRA requirement for
a manifest. Present DOT form could be used if additional EPA
Certificate is not required. Should EPA Certificate be required
use present form and make additional forms available for use if only
EPA materials are being shipped to avoid Duplicate Certifications.
4. Current DOT regulations for labeling,marking and placarding are
sufficient for handling hazardous waste materials presently
regulated by DOT. For those materials not presently regulated by
DOT we recommend the procedure as previously outlined under
discussion topic No. 1.
-------
GENERAL 0 ELECTRIC Page 3
5. One big question in our mind is - Why does the RCRA require
notification of hazardous wastes transportation when the DOT does not require
such notification? If regulations for shipment of hazardous
waste are incorporated within DOT requirements these shipments could
be handled in the same manner as other hazardous materials presently
regulated by DOT.
Along the same vein, registration requirements need not be developed
if hazardous waste is handled the same as hazardous material under
present DOT regulations.
6. Notification for any spill of EPA designated hazardous waste
material should be directed to the DOT not the EPA. The DOT presently
has in existence requirements to be notified in case of accidents or
spills of hazardous material associated with transportation and to
receive a report of the incident. This is a long standing procedure
which could easily incorporate any information required by EPA in
regard to spills.
The DOT could advise EPA or other appropriate agencies as required if
EPA designated the material as hazardous and it is shown as such
within DOT regulations.
7. EPA should develop requirements for handling any spilled material
considered hazardous by EPA. Such requirements should be incorporated
within EPA regulations and these requirements could be incorporated
by reference within DOT regulations.
8. Training programs should be conducted by EPA on a voluntary basis
^ if so desired. EPA regulations, however, should include sufficient
information to provide guidance to all associated parties in regard
to emergency response and clean up of hazardous waste and reference
to such information could be incorporated within DOT regulations.
If found to be necessary, training programs could be made a requirement
at a later date.
-------
GENERAL 0 ELECTRIC Page 4
9. This Statement needs more definitive explanation regarding
"incompatible wastes". Does incompatible waste mean hazardous
as far as DOT is concerned? If so, then DOT regulations already
exist stipulating specific segregation of hazardous materials.
If the term further applies to waste materials which EPA considers
environmentally incompatible then this fact should be conveyed to the
DOT and specific requirements incorporated into DOT regulation to
address this situation.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this public meeting and
compliment the EPA and DOT for their forsightedness in coordinating
regulatory requirements for the transportation of hazardous waste thus
eliminating duplicate requirements for compliance by shippers and
transporters.
Respectfully submitted
(Signed)
Frederick D. Flowers
Presented: October 26, 1977
-------
Allied Chemical Corporation
PO Box 105'R
Mornstown New Jersey 07963
November 3, 1977
Docket Section
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Materials Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St. SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Supplemental Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
40 CFR Part 250, Standard Applicable to Hazardous
Waste Transporters
Gentlemen:
The following is submitted in response to the Notice of Joint Public
Meeting held by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department
of Transportation, Office of Hazardous Materials on October 26, 1977, for
inclusion in the minutes of the meeting.
Our comments are, of course, only a preliminary response to the dis-
cussion topics posed. These comments are not numbered in sequence but
are given the number of the discussion topics for ease of comparison.
No response is made at this time to Item 9 of the notice. We will wish
to add to these as these issues develop.
1. We believe that the existing Department of Transportation ("DOT")
hazardous materials definition and classification system should not be
changed as this system is established. The DOT has had the responsibility
of formulating and enforcing regulations for transportation of hazardous
materials, including waste materials, since 1967. Change at this time
would only result in disruption. The DOT'S success to date in regulating
the transport of materials (like spent acids or waste solvents) and the
reliance of industry upon their regulatory format under the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act ("HMTA"),argues for a simple, workable addi-
tion to this format in conformity with the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act ("RCRA") rather than multi-level responsibilities and whole-
sale changes in transportation practices.
The notice states that EPA is required by the RCRA to identify haz-
ardous wastes which include a category of materials not covered by existing
DOT regulations that are bioaccumulative, infectious, carcinogens, having
the potential for genetic change, and toxic short of the current DOT
definition.
-------
Page 2
November 3, 1977
Such materials may not fall under DOT" s purview because EPA used the term
"hazardous" as it applied to environmental concerns which are not normally
associated with transportation.
We suggest to resolve these somewhat divergent concerns and to stay
within the requirements of Sections 1006 and 3003{b) that EPA and DOT
institute a joint effort {perhaps through a joint committee) to develop
a new DOT hazardous materials classification for those materials which are
defined as "hazardous" wastes for the purposes of the RCRA and which do
not come within the existing DOT hazardous materials categories. Then for
such category of hazardous wastes, labels and placards compatible with
current DOT designs would be established. These new labels and/or placards
would be used only on waste containers when no existing DOT hazardous ma-
terials classification applies.
We believe this format is in keeping with the intent of the two rele-
vant acts, would provide effective control; and be the least complicated
to administer and live with.
2. We see no administrative reason nor environmental justification
for distinguishing between wastes and other materials, except based upon
their intrinsic character (as we stated in 1 above). In addition, multi-
plication of DOT categories is likely to be inefficient and confusing to
all concerned.
3. The development of manifest requirements pursuant to Section 3002
of the RCRA is intended to serve as inventory control standards. Using
the already complicated DOT shipping paper forms for this purpose, we
believe, would cause disruption of transportation services without any
commensurate benefit. Instead, the existing DOT requirements should be
continued and a manifest meeting RCRA requirements should be attached to
these shipping papers during transport.
4. The DOT requirements are generally sufficient as discussed in
1 above.
5. It is not clear, as is suggested in Item 5, that the RCRA
mandates pre-notification of transportation. What the act says is that
standards for transporters shall include requirements for:
"(1) record keeping concerning such hazardous
waste transported, and their source and
delivery points."
Realistically, adding a notification procedure to the record keeping will
only impede disposal of regulated materials and impose huge burdens on
the agencies involved with no clear benefit. If it is felt that the agency
must undertake this clerical burden, receipt of copies of the shipping
papers and manifest could be required.
There seems to be no special benefit to be gained by requiring any
special registration of transporters, other than imposed already by DOT.
-------
Page 3
November 3, 1977
6. if necessary, existing DOT regulations concerning notification
of accidents and clean up of spills of hazardous materials in transit
should be expanded to deal with these materials. EPA could, if desired,
obtain incident reports from the DOT or provide for contact with the
Emergency Response Center.
7. A joint EPA/DOT Advisory Committee should review current DOT
spill containment and clean up provisions and supplement these as
necessary.
In closing, the most efficient approach to implementing the hazardous
waste transport aspect of the RCRA would be, in our view, to utilize and
expand the existing DOT's procedures.
Very truly yours,
Milliard F. Potter
Environmental Consultant
Corporate Environmental Services
WFP:ep
-------
THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS,
WASHINGTON EXECUTIVE OFFICES
1600 WILSON BOULEVARD
3f$T31
'OCT311977
October 27> 1977
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Wastes
Hazardous Materials Division
Docket Section, Room 2111
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Department of Transportation
Room 6500 Transpomt Building
and 2100 Second Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20590
Re:
(FRL 797-6), Federal Register,
Vol. 42, No. 189, September 29, 1977
Dear Sirs:
The American Waterways Operators, Inc. represents the barge and towing
industry and serves as its national spokesman on regulatory matters
affecting shallow water transportation. We are, of course, keenly aware of
the need for safety in transportation and the protection of the environment,
and maintain close liaison with the Environmental Protection Agency, the DOT
office of Hazardous Materials Operations, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Our members do not transport hazardous waste on a regular basis.
However, there are occasions when industrial wastes are moved by barges on
the inland rivers. We are, therefore, interested in the proposed rules
being developed by EPA for transportation of hazardous wastes and would like
to submit the following comments relating to the ten discussion topics
outlined in Federal Register Notice of September 29, 1977, which will be
taken up at the Joint Public Meeting between EPA and the Office of Hazardous
Materials, DOT, on October 26, 1977. The comments are numbered to coincide
with the numbered discussion topics.
1. One of the difficulties facing industry, generally, is the over-
lapping 3urisdictions on transportation of hazardous materials currently
exercised by EPA, DOT, and OSHA. We recognize that environmental impacts
affect many industries and EPA has considerations other than transportation.
However, based on past experience on the transportation of petro-chemical
products by water, we feel that those hazardous materials problems which are
peculiar to transportation should be under the scrutiny of the DOT and would,
therefore, urge that DOT be the lead agency. A separate set of EPA regulations
for the transportation of waste hazardous materials would be an extension of
current DOT rules and would only serve to further complicate things for
shippers as well as carriers. The technical input for such regulations can be
effected by EPA-DOT coordination as has been done in the case of oil pollution
prevention regulations.
2. If DOT does modify its definition of hazardous materials to include
all hazardous wastes, it would be beneficial to both shippers and carriers to
-------
3
rather than
4- .. ..__
placarding, etc., -—,
manifesting of the ma
treat wastes specifically rather than incorporating them into the
hazardous materials or substances rules. Separate treatment will
assist industry in identifying the rules and more readily interpret
requirements. A second existing difficulty is the complexity of
current rules.
We believe DOT should modify its rules for shipping manifests
• than the development of a separate set of EPA rules.
We will refrain from commenting on labeling, packaging,
ig, etc., since our movements are primarily in bulk. The proper
jiicui-vJ_vji,4.ng of the materials to be moved, as suggested in Item 3 above,
will suffice for bulk movements. Other identifying requirements are
specified by the U.S. Coast Guard as they deem necessary under the rules
in Title 46 CFR.
5. Normally, any cargoes moved in bulk by water, are moved only in
certificated vessels if the cargo is either liquid petroleum or chemicals.
We assume that transportation of hazardous wastes in dry form may be a
possibility and that some form of registration or certification might be
needed to insure the integrity of the cargo and the prevention of spills.
This is a matter that should be determined by EPA and DOT/U.S. Coast Guard,
with industry participation.
6. The notification of a hazardous waste spill should be directed to
the U.S. Coast Guard National Emergency Response Center. Again, we would
point out that the more sijmple and direct the requirements, the easier it
is for carriers to comply. Miltiple reporting requirements just add to the
confusion factor. Filing reports to only one agency for further distribu-
tion as necessary will be appreciated by all carriers.
7. Regulations for the handling of a spill of hazardous waste
materials can be the result of joint efforts by EPA and DOT. Our concern
is more toward participation in the formulation of the rules and the
enforcement of the regulations. We would prefer to deal with one enforcement
agency and would like to see DOT as the enforcement body.
8. The National Contingency Plan for the cleanup of oil and hazardous
substances is an effective doctrine and provides good guidance and informa-
tion to those who are in the cleanup arena. It can be easily expanded to
accommodate the cleanup of hazardous wastes. Training programs over and
above what are currently in effect would seem to be superfluous and
unnecessary.
9. DOT should look into the need for modification of its loading and
stowage requirements as they might be affected by the incompatibility of
mixed cargoes, resulting from hazardous waste shipments.
-------
10. The only other comments we have are to re-emphasize the need
for clarity in writing the rules, the need for assignment of jurisdiction
to one agency whenever practicable, and last but not least, a need for
industry participation in the early formulation of the rules. Technical
and operational input provided by industry will eliminate much confusion
and result in better compliance with regulations, and safer transportation
of hazardous wastes.
^
^ /- HaroV DC Muth
Vice President - Government Relations
HEM-gv
-------
BASF Wyandotte Corporation
BASF
100 Cherrv Hill Ronri
P 0 Box 181
ParsiDparty N J 07054
201/2630200
November 2, 1977
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Haste
Hazardous Waste Materials Division
Docket Section, Room 2111
401 M Street, SU
Washington, D. C. 20460
U. S. Department of Transportation
Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
Room 6500
Trans Point Building
2100 Second Street, SW
Washington, D. C. 20590
Subject:
Development of Regulations for the
Transporta bion of Hazardous Waste
Gentlemen:
BASF Wyandotte Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
BUG) desires to respond to the invitation for comments
on the above referenced subject appearing on page 51625,
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 189 - Thursday,
September 29, 1977.
BUG is a major supplier of organic and inorganic industrial
chemicals, organic intermediates, foam chemicals, dyestuffs
and pigments, textile, paper and leather auxiliaries, agri-
cultural protection chemicaIs, cleaning and sanitizing
chemica-ls and magnetic recording media. Net sales in 1976
were $710 million and Corporate Planning and Development
project this figure to reach SI billion by 1980.
As a potential generator of what may be defined as Hazardous
Waste, BWC wishes to offer our views to the Discussion Topics,
in the sequence they aopear on page 51626 of the aforementioned
Federal Register volune.
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U, S. Department of Transportation
November 2, 1977
Page 2
1, Any regulations for the transportation of hazardous waste
must be promulgated by DOT and published in 49 CFR, with
EPA jointly involved only in establishing criteria for
defining an environmentally hazardous waste. We feel there
is no need for DOT to modify its current definitions for
hazardous material; however, an additional definition should
be established jointly by DOT and EPA for identification of
environmentally hazardous wastes that are not otherwise
regulated in parts 100 to 199 of 49 CFR. EPA would incorporate
these requirements by reference.
2. Where hazardous wastes are not currently regulated by DOT,
then 172.101 of 49 CFR should be amended to include a new
proper shipping name of "Environmentally Hazardous Waste"
with a hazard class of "ORM-E". It is felt that a hazardous
waste not regulated under existing regulations would not
possess a significant potential hazard to humans from acute
exposure during transportation, but would have the potential
to be a threat to humans or the environment over a long term
period at a disposal facility. Accordingly, we believe that
the-suggested proper shipping name and hazard class is adequate
for the purpose of alerting transporters and emergency personnel
of the potential hazardous nature of the material in the event
of a transportation incident.
3. For any environmentally hazardous waste, not currently regu-
lated by DOT, existing shipping paper requirements can
accomodate the RCRA manifest. Under no circumstances should
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Aqcncy
U. G. Department of Transportation
November 2, 1977
Page 3
a separate shipping document be required. In addition,
we are of the opinion that the chemical names which
constitute the waste, should not appear on the shipping
paper. Because of their chemical mixtures the description
could become lengthy and tend to clutter a shipping paper
as well as provide meaningless information to transporters
or emergency personnel. So that technical expertise can
be provided in the event of spillage or accident, the
telephone number of the generator or a central number such
as that of CHEMTREC should be required on the shipping papers.
4. For those hazardous wastes not currently regulated by DOT,
it is felt that labeling and placarding requirements are
not necessary for the reasons stated in comment number 2. The
containers could be marked "ORM-E" similar to the requirements
in effect today for other "ORM" materials. Inasmuch as
shipping papers will accompany a shipment, notification to
emergency personnel can be accomplished by this method.
5. We do not feel that transporters of hazardous wastes should
be further registered, thereby causing an overlap of juris-
diction. The Interstate Commerce Commission now requires
that all common and contract carriers be registered.
6. As DOT currently provides the mechanism for notification of an
accident or spill involving hazardous materials in transporta-
tion, we feel that this could be broadened to include all
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Department of Transportation
November 2, 1977
Page 4
hazardous waste spills, with notification directed to DOT
only. Accordingly, all incident reports should be filed
with DOT, as, all hazardous waste transportation would be
regulated by DOT. With this provision the transporter would
be responsible for notifying DOT only, and DOT would assume
responsibility for alerting any other Federal or State agency
that should be notified. This method of reporting will relieve
the transporter of unnecessary burden and reduce the possibility
of error that could arise if the transporter were required to
notify more than one agency.
7. Since DOT regulations will include all hazardous wastes, as
we have suggested in comment number 1, and a spilled material
has been cleaned up now becomes a hazardous waste, we feel
DOT regulations will provide the means for such contingencies.
8. Existing DOT regulations now require training to be conducted
by shippers and transporters of hazardous material. We feel
there are too many variables involved in the transportation of
hazardous waste that training of Emergency Response personnel
would provide little benefit. Again, the best source of
information on handling and cleanup is the generator who could
supply technical expertise.
9. DOT current loading and stowage requirements could be modified
to accomodate the mixing and stowage of incompatible wastes.
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Department of Transportation
November 2, 1977
Page 5
10. We firmly believe that the best source for any regulation
governing the transportation of hazardous waste must rest
with DOT, thereby utilizing existing regulation and controls
in an effort to provide compatibility therewith. EPA should
provide technical expertise in the area of hazardous waste
and could petition DOT for changes or additions to the
regulations. To allow all parties a reasonable means for
compliance with transportation regulations, it is important
that DOT and EPA provide one set of regulations which will
eliminate conflicting, overlapping and contradicting require-
ments . To this end, we suggest the DOT Docket HM-145 be
progressed.
Respectfully submitted,
BASF Wyandotte Corporation
by:
EugeQe H. DeVoid
Transportation Regulations Manager
-------
.OM PRESSED GAS ASSOCIATION. INC
', 5OO FIFTH AVENUE-NEW YORK, N.Y 1 OO3€
»«-,« 7. iJ''?- N°V141977
U.S. Department of Transportation
Room 6500 Trans Point Building
2100 Second Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency-
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Materials Section
Room 2111, Docket Section
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
SUBJECT: FRL 797-6
40 CFR Part 250
Development of Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Waste
Gentlemen:
The Compressed Gas Association, Inc. is a non-profit company membership organi-
zation solely supported by membership dues, representing 250 companies including
producers and shippers of compressed, liquefied and cryogenic gases and manu-
facturers of containers and related equipment and services utilized by the
various compressed gas industries. CGA represents many different compressed
gas industries many of which compete in completely different marketing areas.
However, they all have commonality in that all compressed gases are handled in
pressurized equipment, the standards for which should be reasonably uniform,
and to this end CGA has worked consistently throughout its existence.
The following comments are offered following review of the proposed rulemaking
as published in the FEDERAL REGISTER for September 29, 1977 and referenced
document therein:
1. DOT should have exclusive jurisdiction over the transportation of
hazardous wastes. Existing regulations of DOT already govern the
portation, the EPA should petition DOT through the established rule
making procedure to have DOT amend their regulations to include wastes
which EPA believes pose a hazard during transportation. Those wastes
not currently covered by DOT hazardous materials definitions, but
to carriers and disposers of the nature of materials and reporting
procedures to DOT in the event of a spill. EPA should then incor-
porate the DOT regulations by reference, i.e. Title 49CFR.
-continued-
-------
COMPRESSED OAS ASSOCIATION INC
Fundamentally, any definitions and/or regulations developed must draw
a distinction between materials which pose acute hazards during trans-
portation and those which pose long-range hazards if spilled or disposed
of in an incorrect manner. Current regulations on acute hazards are
adequate. These regulations should only apply to hazardous wastes
being transported to disposal sites. Regulations developed by DOT
for transportation of materials posing long-range hazards must be
addressed to the need to notify carriers and disposers of the nature
of the material. DOT should define hazardous vastes in 49CFR171.8.
3.
and responders to acute hazards which are present immediately after
spill or accident. Additional information on long-range hazards wou
tend to dilute the acute ha2ard information, which roust be shown on
shipping papers. This information would be shown on a combined bill of
lading/hazardous waste manifest form or on a separate hazardous waste
manifest attached to the bill of lading. The above mentioned manifest
form should not be related to the transportation of hazardous wastes.
This manifest should alert carriers and disposers of waste materials
DOT labeling, marking and placarding requirements are sufficient for
hazardous wastes that meet present DOT hazardous materials definitions.
Specific labels and placards along the lines of DOT labels and placards
are not necessary for other hazardous wastes (such as bioaccumulative,
etc.) as these present no acute transportation hazard. These would only
be confused with or dilute the affect of the present DOT labeling and
placarding system. Further, RCRA does not require such labeling.
DOT should develop a waste label in cooperation with EPA to include
such information as a) identification, b) means of disposal, c) desti-
nation, d) control number, and e) nature of hazard. This would be
used on smaller than bulk shipments and could also be used (minus the
nature of hazard statement) for non-hazardous wastes at the individual
generator's discretion.
RCRA requires notification of the transportation of hazardous wastes
through the manifest system and subsequent reporting. Additional
carrier registration requirements would only duplicate existing re-
quirements and present an additional paperwork burden with no apparent
benefit.
-continued-
-------
.9SOCIATION INC
6. After DOT and EPA have defined hazardous wastes, incident reports for
all hazardous spills in transportation should continue to be sent to
DOT. If the material poses a long-range threat that requires special
clean-up precautions, the DOT should notify EPA of the spill. In the
event of a spill, the actual clean-up operation should be undei the
jurisdiction of EPA. With the development of adequate regulations, as
mentioned above, further transportation of spilled material as a
hazardous waste would fall under the jurisdiction of the DOT,
7. Formal training programs should not be required. The shipper should
stand ready to assist and advise emergency response personnel in
clean-up operations. Emergency response personnel should be in-
structed to contact CHEMTREC and/or the shipper in the event of a
spill for immediate response information and subsequent clean-up
actions.
8. For hazardous wastes that meet present DOT definitions, the loading
and storage chart is sufficient. For the new class of hazardous
wastes, there should be no applicable loading or storage restric-
tions.
Thank you for this opportunity to present comment for consideration.
Very truly yours,
JCC/cam
cc: Transportation Committee
J. C. Crawfo/
-------
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER
550 SOUTH VERMONT AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90020
974 7111
November 3, 1977
JAMES T ROSTRON
CHIEF DEPUTY
IRA H ALEXANDER
ASST CHIEF DEPUTY
GEORGE J. FRANCESCHINt
ASST CHIEF DEPUTY
COLEMAN W JENKINS
ASST CHIEF DEPUTY
RICHARD T REID
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPUTY
Mr. Thomas C. Jorling
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Jorling:
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
As the local agency responsible for solid waste management planning and
industrial waste disposal for portions of Los Angeles County, we are very
much interested in the development of regulations for the transportation
of hazardous wastes. Unfortunately, we were unable to attend the
October 26, 1977, public meeting. However, we do wish to submit the
following comments for inclusion in the record of the meeting.
Specific comments on the discussion topics follow
1. A single definition that is all encompassing is preferred.
This would suggest DOT modification of its existing definition
with EPA adoption by reference. Efforts to reduce the number
of definitions should be encouraged to reduce confusion.
-------
Mr. Thomas C. Jorling
November 3, 1977
Page 2
2. It would seem appropriate that wastes be identified as such.
However, a waste substance' in most cases requires the same
precautions as the parent material and should be regulated
as such.
3. The federal effort to develop a shipping manifest should be
interfaced with the existing California Waste Haulers manifest.
If present DOT manifests for hazardous materials can be adopted
to wastes without introducing confusion, this should be encouraged.
4. It would not be helpful to develop a separate set of labeling and
placarding requirements. Modify present DOT requirements if
necessary.
5.
Should be interfaced with existing state requirements in
California.
6. To make a distinction between a material and waste seems inap-
propriate here. Anything spilled becomes a waste. DOT apparently
already has a reporting procedure and this should be expanded
where the spill is involved in transport. Local and state agencies
will most probably be involved in clean-up and disposal and their
notification should be required.
7. See comments on Topic 6 above.
8. Training of shippers should be encouraged and this program should
also be extended to local agencies that will most probably be
involved in clean-up and disposal of spilled materials.
9. Regulations should incorporate recognition of incompatible wastes
such as those which are in the California Hazardous Waste Management
regulation administered by the California Department of Health.
10. Existing state programs should be incorporated into the federal
program rather than duplicate effort. Of course, state programs
would have to meet at least the minimum federal standards. Problems
involving hazardous materials are best solved as rapidly as possible
by qualified persons or agencies close to the scene.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the development of these regulations.
Please do not hesitate to call if we may be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Stephen cJ. Koonce
ACTING COUNTY ENGINEER
SJK:spb
California Department of Health
-------
DEERE & COMPANY
JOHN DEERE F
i MOLINE ILLINOIS 612
November 4, 1977
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Docket Section, Room 211
401 M Street S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Gentlemen:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Section 3003
The following comments address the questions raised in the September 29,
1977 Federal Register notice of a public meeting held October 26 at the
Ramada O'Hare Inn, Des Plaines, Illinois. The comments are presented in
the same order as listed in the Federal Register. It is requested that these
comments be included as part of the record for the public meeting.
1. The EPA should provide the DOT with a list of hazardous wastes. The
DOT should incorporate the hazardous wastes into Title 49 of the Code
of Federal Regulations. Industrial shipping and receiving personnel
routinely deal with DOT requirements. Their unfamiliarity with EPA
structure and procedures would create untold problems in implementing
any overlapping EPA rules. EPA should not issue a separate set of
regulations to fill in the gaps in the DOT coverage.
2. Hazardous wastes of such toxicity that a rupture or spill could
immediately endanger the public health should be handled in the same
manner as new materials. Hazardous wastes such as acids, bases,
plating waste, paint waste and sludges should be subject to special
exemptions. These wastes are usually in the containers only for
transport and thus for a relatively short period of time.
-------
DEERE & COMPANY
U.S. EPA
November 4, 1977
Page Two
3. The DOT shipping paper manifest system is already functional. The
simple inclusion of the additional EPA hazardous wastes into Subsection
172. 101 of Title 49 would result in a workable manifest system. EPA
should not attempt to add more paperwork to the transportation network.
The generator and hauler must retain records of hazardous material
shipments. With the addition of a few pieces of information to the
existing DOT forms, such records should be adequate to assure the
hazardous wastes reach approved sites.
4. DOT should develop the necessary labels and placards for hazardous
waste transportation.
5. Existing registration requirements will be adequate.
6. Hazardous material spills and hazardous waste spills during transpor-
tation should be reported to DOT. Hazardous material spills and
hazardous waste spills during loading and unloading should be directed
to EPA. DOT and EPA should then arrange communications for
incidents requiring the knowledge of both parties. The rules oi both
parties should clearly state this distinction.
7. Each spill will be a unique incident. A lengthy set o£ rules is worthless
in an emergency situation. Both the EPA and the DOT must rely on
police and fire departments to make emergency decisions. Once the
emergency nature of the incident has passed, the EPA or state environ-
mental rules should be applied with a liberal amount of reason and
common sense. DOT should not be involved in hazardous materials
spill cleanup or hazardous waste spill cleanup once the appropriate
environmental agencies have been notified.
8. Few people in the transportation industry have the specialized education
or training necessary to handle hazardous materials or hazardous
waste spills. Hazardous spill containment and cleanup are difficult for
trained environmental specialists. It is doubtful that any training
program developed by DOT or EPA could be relied on for safe emergency
response and clean up of spills. Training for transportation personnel
should be oriented to what can happen and who should be contacted to
make emergency and cleanup decisions.
9- No opiiion.
-------
DEERE & COMPANY
U.S. EPA
November 4, 1977
Page Three
10. The DOT should streamline the classification of hazardous waste. It
is presently very difficult to determine the class and container require-
ments for a hazardous waste once a chemical analysis is in hand. No
one should be expected to conduct the exhaustive testing of waste
materials that chemical manufacturers provide for new products. The
normal process variations also cause fluctuations in waste concentrations.
It must be recognized that a complete chemical analysis cannot be con-
ducted on each container of waste. The DOT and the EPA must accept
this variation and should design their waste shipping requirements
around no more than five waste classes which encompass most of the
hazardous wastes generated by all industrial and commercial activities.
In addition, some type of assistance must be provided to help generators
locate container manufacturers. Many generators do not package
materials of this kind and it is difficult to locate manufacturers that
can produce containers meeting the required specifications. If possible,
a list of such suppliers should be made available.
The DOT and EPA should also review the economic impact of any rules
developed for hazardous waste disposal. It is very likely that the rules will
impact small industries shipping small quantities of wastes much more
severely than it would affect the large industry shipping tank car quantities.
The cost associated with obtaining special waste analyses, special disposal
permits, purchasing less than carload lots of new containers, transporting
less than carload lots of wastes, labelling each container, providing placards,
preparing shipping papers and maintaining records will be large. These costs
will be one more factor in the demise of small businesses even though their
waste volumes and potential threat to the environment as a whole may be
small.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations.
Yours truly,
Michael E. McGuire
Environmental Control
W. J. Abel, Deere & Co.
B. E. Harthoorn, J. D. Waterloo Tractor Works
N. N. Sacks, Deere & Co.
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
PO BOX 898
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95804
(916) 445-6211
October 28, 1977
File No.: 60.A1801.A2030
EDMUND G BROWN JH , Govern
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Materials Division
Docket Section, Room 2111
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20590
Gentlemen:
We welcome the opportunity to comment on proposed action to be
taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Office
of Hazardous Materials Operations (OHMO) as outlined in the
September 29, 1977, Federal Register. Particularly gratifying
is that inputs from the several states concerning hazardous
wastes are being solicited during the early stages of regulation
development.
We have an interest in hazardous waste and hazardous materials by
virtue of having adopted U.S. Department of Transportation regu-
lations for application to the highway transportation of hazard-
ous materials (except LPG and flammable liquids in bulk, and
radioactive materials). Further, our Patrol members frequently
become involved as they may be the first to arrive at an acci-
dent or spill scene.
Our experience with hazardous wastes goes back almost four years
and we believe that because of the cooperation between ourselves
and State Department of Health we were successful in resolving
inconsistencies regarding waste management. This all occurred
when, waste transportation reached a volume ol over 400,000 tons
annually in this State.
In light of our experience we offer these comments concerning
topics to be considered (in order of listing in the Federal
Register):
1. We would not presume to indicate a preference
for either EPA or DOT in developing hazardous
waste regulations. However, the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act of 1974 assigns
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2
October 28, 1977
broad authority and responsibilities to DOT
in this area. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) appears to require
coordination between EPA and DOT but does not
preempt the latter; therefore, it appears that
the point is moot.
As we see it, existing transportation regulations,
proven and refined over the past 70 years could
serve as a framework and be expanded to cover
materials posing minimal acute hazards in event
of accidents or spills. Since this is in the
transportation area, and acknowledging OHMO's
experience and responsiveness to industry and
State needs, we suggest that the only areas where
transportation and environmental control regula-
tions coincide be limited to the shipper
(generator) level, or possibly in event of spills.
2. Whether definitions in existing regulations should
be modified, or how, is a matter of OHMO to decide.
Perhaps the approach used for requirements apply-
ing to the transportation of etiologic agents and
radioactive materials, where other federal agencies
are involved, could be considered.
3. Comparison of projected RCRA and existing DOT ship-
ping paper requirements simply cannot be made:
These are designed for entirely different purposes.
In this, we would demur at any dilution of exist-
ing shipping paper format and availability require-
ments .
Moreover, we presently require the DOT-prescribed
shipping paper for wastes defined as hazardous
materials, i.e., a second document is required.
Simply stated, the hazardous waste manifest in use
in this State does not adequately communicate
information required by public safety personnel
in event of spills and accidents.
4. Present DOT hazardous materials communications
requirements are adequate for wastes defined as
hazardous. Doubtlessly, some requirements for
identifying other wastes may be necessary.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 3
October 28, 1977
Here it is necessary to first consider the many
different aspects o-f waste transportation.
Transporters range from the one-truck operator
to multistate rail and highway carriers; dis-
tances vary from across town to across the nation.
We believe that a transportation oriented agency
could best evaluate communications needs. Whether
the need really exists should be determined. If
so, how best to provide some clear indication of
what is required would follow.
The matter of registration of waste transporters
is a matter of little concern to us. However,
we question the need to restrict occasional ship-
ments of wastes in small quantities to "registered"
transporters.
A few years ago at the behest of EPA we arranged
internal reporting procedures for spills. Basically,
this involves telephone notification to the California
Office of Emergency Services (OES) of any highway
spill that might cause pollution of surface or under-
ground water. OES upon receipt of this information
relays it to interested federal and State agencies
(California Department of Fish and Game, regional
water quality control agencies, public health
agencies, etc.).
In addition, we require hazardous materials incident
reports from highway carriers. This entails dupli-
cate reporting in the case of interstate carriers.
Our reason tor requiring additional reporting is to
permit monitoring container failures and spills over-
all, and particularly those involving nonfederally
regulated carriers. The situation is unique, we
suppose, but incident reports by carriers are valuable
in detecting trends on gross violations of packaging
and other requirements; details are not readily
available from OHHO.
It is evident that a multiplicity of reporting
requirements now exists. So, rather than establish-
ing another tier of reporting requirements, federal
agencies involved might seek to simplify reporting
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 4
October 28, 1977
and provide easier retrieval of needed data.
Above all, reporting of incidents should not be
unduly confusing or burdensome. We can only
assume that the more painless the reporting
procedure the better the compliance achieved.
7. In the area of spills, EPA in conjunction with
State agencies could provide valuable assistance.
Relaxation of existing requirements for packaging,
shipping papers, labels, placards, and loading
under DOT specified conditions could facilitate
cleanup and disposal of spilled materials. As
it is, few private salvage and disposal concerns
can comply with all the niceties of the transpor-
tation regulations under hectic conditions
prevalent at spill scenes.
8. We assume that OHMO will address the training
problem as soon as more pressing problems are
out of the way.
9. As to loading and stowage requirements, we assume
that OHMO will provide timely guidelines, if it
thinks such is necessary.
10. We suggest the following be considered by OHMO:
a. Prompt regulation development to cover
hazardous and other materials being trans-
ported as wastes. The problem is not one
downstream several years; it is here.
Additionally, the exemption procedure is too
cumbersome to apply to waste packaging
requirements.
b. Relaxation of sanctions concerning over-
classification of wastes known to be hazard-
ous. It is not always possible to precisely
classify waste mixtures.
c. Development of single-trip packaging, including
overpacks, for wastes only (hazardous and
otherwise).
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 5
October 28, 1977
d. Relaxation of prohibition against use of
openhead reconditioned drums for wastes
known to be poisons B.
The recommendations and comments we have made are meant to be
helpful. No one knows the extent of hazardous materials trans-
portation, much less the extent of waste transportation.
Moreover, with constraints imposed by HMTA it is difficult to
address the safety and practical problems posed by the prolifera-
tion of waste hauling in and between states. Federal action
would be of assistance to State agencies and to transporters
alike; otherwise we may be faced with patchwork State and federal
requirements that do not promote transportation safety, but
further confuse the issue.
Very truly yours,
DONALD L. GIBS
Deputy Chief
Commander
Enforcement Services Division
cc: State Department of Health
Vector Control & Waste
Management Section
714 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
-------
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Dixy Lee Ray
Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Olumpia, Washington 9&5Q4 206/753 2800
November 3, 1977
Mr. Thomas C. Jorling
Assistant Administrator for
Water and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Management Division
401 M Street S.W.
Washington D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Jorling:
We appreciate the opportunity to review the material pertaining to the
development of regulations for the transportation of hazardous waste -
subject to your meeting of October 26, 1977. We would like to offer the
following comments on discussion topics regarding development of regula-
tions for the transportation of hazardous waste:
(ij Since all "hazardous wastes" are in fact "hazardous materials"
the simplest approach would be for the Department of Transportation
to take the lead in developing regulations for hazardous waste
transoortation. These substances can be encompassed in the
DOT-HMTA as a subclass e.g., flammable-waste; explosive-waste;
poison A or poison B-waste, etc. and if classification gaps
exist they can be filled as appropriate. EPA can then incorporate
the DOT regulations by reference.
(2) If DOT does modify its definition to include hazardous wastes they
can treat them the same as hazardous materials except perhaps to
limit them per the hazardous waste manifest - i.e., specific
destination as a limit. The manifest being a specific document
generated for hazardous wastes. With reference to definition here
as in //I it is important that special attention be given to corre-
lation and coordination between POT and EPA/RCRA definitions.
(3) (See No, 2 above) The hazardous waste manifest is a specific
document for hazardous waste handling and should be part of the
hazardous waste regulation. It can be treated as a supplemental
document by DOT in the case of hazardous waste transportation.
If this requires DOT modification of its shipping paper require-
ments , it should be done.
(4) The current DOT requirements for labelling, marking and placarding
can be sufficient if properly augmented within an appropriate
"hazardous waste" manifest. If additional labels or placards are
indicated (by gaps, etc.) they can be developed as appropriate
in conformity with DOT designs.
(5) If DOT is the lead agency on transportation of hazardous materials
and wastes - registration is already part of HMTA for transporters
and RCRA registration would be superfluous. Notification would
still be able to be required per RCRA.
-------
Mr. Thomas C. Jorllng
November 3, 1977
Page Two
(6) Notification and reports concerning accidents or^spdlla of hazardous
materials and/or wastes should be directed to /aljL concerned agencies
particularly if emergency and/or cleanup procedures are involved.
In the case of a state agency involved in the hazardous waste program
they must receive notification and the other agencies may also
be notified if they desire.
(7) When the spilled material becomes a "hazardous waste" it is
encompassed in the PL 94-580 regulation to be developed by EPA
with reference to the DOT regulations pertaining to the applicable
occurrence.
(8) Are training programs necessary relative to emergency response and
cleanup of hazardous wastes? Yes.
If so to what extent should they be required? To the same extent
required for hazardous materials.
(9) Yes. The question of mixing and storage of incompatible wastes is
a significant problem and will have to be addressed specifically
in the transportation requirements no matter who generates the
requirements.
Jotfn Conroy
S/lid Waste Management Division
Office of Land Programs
-------
Department of En*. rny
Washington, D.C 20345
HOV 131977
Docket Section, Room 211]
Hazardous Waste tlaterials Division
Office of Solid Fdste
U. S, Environmental Proteci ion Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, U. C. 20^60
Docket Section, Room 6500
Office of Hazardous >lateri
-------
Given these considerations, we have the following responses to your
specific questions:
1. Lead s£C^cy_. We would prefer that
to include the necessary provision
hazardous wastes. EPA would then
rather than establishing a new and
for these wastes. The two agencie
of Understanding, as now exists be
regulation of nuclear shipments.
provision similar to that in 18 U.
adopting any regulations relating
would seek the advice and consulta
DOT expand its regulations
s for the transportation of
refer to the DOT regulations,
separate regulatory scheme
might consider a Memorandum
tween DOT, DOE, and NRC for
You might also consider a
S.C. 834 (b) , whereby before
to hazardous wastes, the DOT
ce of the EPA,
Definition of_ waste
For consistency and simplicity, Che
_
hazardous wastes could fall under the existing DOT definitions,
and be regulated based on the nature of their hazard rather than
the nature of their end use.
-* • j)hip£ing^ Papers. We have looked at the multiplicity and complexity
of the existing shipping paper requirements which are required of
carriers for safety, economic , and operational purposes . We
believe it would be counter-productive to add to this burden with
yet another set of documents. It appears to us that the ex is t in E
hazardous materials manifest, required by DOT, already appears
suitable, and, with only slight modification, would meet the RCRA
requirements,
4- Lg/bels and_ Placar d q . The existing DOT system for labeling and
placarding has been derived only after long and arduous efforts
on the part of both DOT and the regulated industry. We would be
very concerned if a new scheme were to be introduced at this
time — the new DOT requirements are just now being implemented by
shippers and carriers. If there is a need for new labels and
placards, DOT should develop them to be totally consistent with
the existing DOT system,
5, Registration. Whatever requirements are imposed by the DOT for
other hazardous materials would appear to be equally applicable
to hazdrdjus wastes, Tn any case, it would not seem necessary to
set up special notification or registration just for wastes,
-------
6* Accj.den.ts. The DOT hazardous materials Incident reporting system
seems well suited to handle reports of incidents of hazardous waste
transport accidents. EPA and DOT could work out informal arrangements
for communications on accidents involving wastes,
7* J5£i_llj3. Once the accident occurs, transportation usually stops. It
would seem appropriate for EPA to establish guidelines for cleaning
up spills, recognizing the need to coordinate this activity with
other Federal actions and responsibilities for handling of spills.
DOT could limit its after-incident actions to investigation of cause,
which is right in line with DOT's usual role in hazardous materials
accidents,
8. Training Programs. The training of personnel who might be involved
in hazardous waste transportation spills should be handled just as it
is done now for spills of other hazardous materials. DOT and EPA
would provide guidance and assistance to the State and local authorities
and other responsible persons,
9« Loading and Storage. DOT regulations for mixed or incompatible
loading should apply to hazardous wastes just as for other hazardous
materials.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
William A. Brobst, Chief
Transportation Branch
Division of Environmental
Control Technology
-------
Department of Environmental Quality
1234 S W MORRISON STREET, PORTLAND OREGON 97205 Telephone (503) 229- 5^13
November 1, 1 977
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous
Waste Materials Di vi s ion
Docket Section, Room 2111
401 "M" Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Gent 1emen•
The Oregon Department of Envi ronmental Dual i ty is presently i nvolved in i:he
drafting of regulations for a hazardous waste man i fest system. Many of the same
questions arose here, the resolutions of which may be applicable on the federal
I eve] as wel1.
the
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act only requires consistency betv/een
regulations of the Envi ronmenta1 Protect ion Agency (EPA) and Department of
Transportation (DOT). Recommendations may be made to the DOT but nothing else
is mandated. And, as presented in the Federal Register September 29, 1977, the
quest ions do not venture beyond the rni n imum of i nteragency coord inat ion , provi d i ng
basically only two options: either vesting all authority over hazardous waste
in one of the two federa 1 agencies; or, distributing that authority in a manner
that , to a transporter, could only appear utterly random.
If we may discard the latter, because of the obvious drawbacks of fragmentally
written, admin!stered, and revised regulations, the decision is simplified to
determining which agency should have authority over the transportation ol
hazardous waste.
There are three points favoring DOT authority over the transport of hazardous
waste: (1) avoiding duplication of effort; (2) single-agency authority over
transporters; and, (3) intrinsic similarities of hazardous wastes and other
hazardous materials
First, in administering a program to regulate the transportation of hazardous
waste, the EPA would likely develop an organization and methods very similar in
natu re to the organ i zat ion and methods already being used by the DOT to regj 1 ate
the trans portat ion of haza rdous mater i al s . A records di vi s ion, surve i 1 1 £>nce and
i nvest i gat ion d i v i s ion, emergency response division, and all the support services
would occur both in the DOT and the EPA.
-------
U. S. Envi ronmental Protect ion Agency
Page 2
November 1, 1977
Second, transporters, already under the jurisdiction of the DOT, would also have
to report to the EPA. This not only complicates transporter activities, it also
complicates the EPA. Each extension of EPA authority into new areas puts added
burdens on the organization which, to some, now appears overextended. Some
discretion must therefore be evinced.
The above points do not say, however, that the EPA should yield all authority
over the transport of hazardous waste to the DOT. If, for reasons of environmental
protection, specific regulations become necessary, they could be presented to
the DOT for that agency's review, revision, negotiation with the EPA, and ultimate
ratification and administration. A Memorandum of Understanding could be drafted
between the agencies which would give either agency the right to open negotiations
for review, and that revisions could not occur without agreement between the
agencies .
In Oregon, the Legislature held that, before any regulations could be enacted
concerning transporters of hazardous waste, the Department and the Public Utility
Commissioner, the agency enforcing DOT regulations in Oregon, must consult on
the matter.
Out of this mandate came a Memorandum of Understanding between the two state
agencies delegating statutory authority over the transportation of hazardous
waste to the PUC, the necessary rules being drafted jointly with the Department.
Such an approach we believe would be effective on the national level as well.
Since regulations best followed are those best administered, the ultimate savings
in hours, dollars, environmental damage, and perhaps even lives, should more
than compensate for any initial difficulty in implementing a joint-agency
program.
Sincerely,
^
Fred S. Bromfeld, Supervisor
Hazardous Waste Section
Sol id Waste Division
GB/kz
cc Mr. Toby Hegdahl , EPA - Seattle
Ms, Terry Grasso, National Governor's Association
Mr. Jay Snow, NGC Hazardous Waste Task Force
-------
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Dixy Lee Rdy
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Highway Administration Bmldmg, Olympla, Washington 98504 206/753 6005
October 21, 1977
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Materials Division
Docket Section, Room 2111
401 M Street S.W.
Washington D.C. 20160
Refer: Development of Regulations for
the Transportation of Hazardous
Waste
Gentlemen:
Our comnents on the proposed rules contained in the Federal Register dated
September 29, 1977:
1. The DOT should modify its definition of hazardous materials to
include all hazardous waste.
E.P.A. should incorporate DOT regulations by reference in order
to cover all hazardous materials.
2. All hazardous waste should be treated the same as hazardous
materials that are bioaccumulative, toxic, infectious, carcin-
ogenic, etc.
3. No comment.
4. The DOT should develop the labels and placards for hazardous
waste that are compatible with current DOT design.
5. No comment.
6. All reports should be filed with DOT even when spilled hazardous
waste are not covered by DOT regulations.
7. The DOT should develop the regulations for handling the spilled
hazardous materials.
889. No comments.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page Two
October 21, 1977
10. (a) The common denominator for these proposed rules is transportation;
therefore the DOT should be the responsible agency.
(b) There should be less red tape if a single agency is charged with
the regulation of hazardous materials when related to transporta-
tion.
(c) With one set of regulations there will be a better opportunity to
get compliance from industry.
Very truly yours,
W. A. BULLEY r
Secretary of Transportation
WAB:vw
cc: Henrik E. Stafseth
Executive Director AASHTO
-------
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS s, COMPANY
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19398
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
November 7, 1977
File: OOM-653
COM-6'I6-HM-145
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Docket Section
Room 2111
401 M St. SW.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Department of Transportation
Room 6500
Trans Point Building
2100 Second Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: FRL 797-6
Development of Regulations for the
Transportation of Hazardous Waste
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find three (3) copies of comments
and views of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company concerning
the above-entitled proceeding.
Very truly yours,
W. R. BECK, STAFF ASSISTANT
COMMERCE COUNSEL'S OFFICE
WRB/dss
Enclosures
-------
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND
OFFICE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OPERATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PRL 797-6
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
COMMENTS OF
E. I. DU FONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY
Pursuant to the supplemental Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and Office of Hazardous Materials Operations (OHMO)
of Department of Transportation (DOT) desires to determine
whether current DOT regulations under the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) of 1971* may have
potential to be expanded to partially meet the mandates of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.
A purpose of this consideration would be to maximize the
coordination of RCRA regulatory requirements with existing
DOT hazardous materials regulations for the benefit of all
parties.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (Du Pont)
supports, in general, any effort to prevent duplication of
-------
administrative regulations (EPA and DOT) and to preclude
any regulations that may be promulgated which would detract
from current DOT transportation hazard classifications and
regulations. Statement similar to the above was submitted
by Du Pont in comments under Docket No. HM-1^5> Environ-
mental and Health Effects Materials. Du Pont has con-
sistently taken the position that DOT is the logical
regulatory agency to promulgate regulations involving
transportation of hazardous materials. EPA in comments
made under FRL-710-4 "Hazardous Waste Guidelines and
Regulations" Federal Register- May 2, 1977, Section 3003
stated tnat "The agency Is considering adopting the DOT
requirements with regard to marking, placarding, packag-
ing to provide a base for Section 3003 standards".
The EPA and DOT are to be commended for taking concerted
steps toward promulgation of regulations for hazardous
waste transportation that will not be a confusing overlap
of requirements which In turn would serve, we believe, to
detract from the intent of hazardous materials transporta-
tion regulations.
RCHA's principal obj ective is to insure that
hazardous waste is properly disposed of, basically through
a system of transferring the waste from the generator to
the "permitted" disposal facility. Section 3003(a) requires
-------
- 3 -
EPA to promulgate regulations applicable to transporters
to insure that this important step does occur, with the
necessary recordkeeping, manifest system compliance,
labeling and delivery to the designated disposal site.
Requirements for the actual handling of materials con-
sidered to be hazardous in transportation have, for many
years, been fully and adequately covered by the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) and DOT regulations.
Congress obviously recognized this in that RCRA requires,
under Section 3003(b), that EPA regulations be consistent
with HMTA/DOT requirements and simply authorizes EPA to
make recommendations to DOT for additional coverage.
RCRA necessarily required a broader definition
of hazardous, including environmental concerns, because
waste material may be deposited in disposal sites for an
eternity. However, RCRA nowhere suggests that a more
stringent definition of "hazardous" than expressed in HMTA
be required for the relatively brief period that such
wastes are being transported to the disposal site. Any
other construction leads to the anomalous conclusion
apparently reached by several participants in the
October 26, 1977 Chicago EPA/DOT Joint Public Meeting,
considering whether EPA or DOT should expand the HMTA/DOT
definition of "hazardous material" to include RCRA
-------
"hazardous wastes". Such an expansion would result in
considerably more stringent transportation requirements
being placed, for example, a small quantity of waste
material considered to be "hazardous" under RCRA, than
on a large quantity of virgin material, having the same
or possibly greater environmental hazards If spilled,
yet not classified as a hazardous material under HMTA/DOT.
Section 3003 does not contemplate EPA inter-
ference with DOT's handling of the transportation of
hazardous materials. House Commerce Committee Report
No. 94-11)91, dated September 8, 1976, on H.R. l4Hg6,
which contained Section 3003 in essentially the form
ultimately signed into law, stated that
"It is not the committee's intent
to interfere with the transportation
of the waste but rather to provide
a system through which the movement
of the waste can be traced. Too
often trucks bearing hazardous waste
have been unloaded along the road-
side or at a nearby landfill."
EPA regulation under Section 3003 must simply insure that
RCRA's ultimate safe disposal objective is not thwarted
during the transfer to the disposal site.
EPA/OHMO in order to determine potential
regulatory requirements requested that comments as refer-
enced in to CPR Part 250, Federal Register Vol. t2 51625-
September 29, 1977 be directed to certain "Discussion
-------
Topics". Comments are as follows, keyed to the ten (10)
"Discussion Topics" listed:
1) The DOT should be the agency responsible
for developing all regulations for trans-
portation of hazardous materials, virgin
or waste. Development of regulations
should be approached on the present basis
of designating as hazardous those materials
which by testing and expertise fall into
existing DOT definitions of corrosive,
flammable, poison, etc. (49 CFR 173).
Du Pont sees no need to differentiate
between hazardous materials and hazardous
wastes insofar as hazard classifications
and proper shipping names are concerned.
Du Pont believes that hazardous wastes
should continue to be shipped as classi-
fied under 49 CFR 172.101.
DOT definition of hazardous materials
should continue to be based on those
materials which when introduced in com-
merce pose an immediate and unreasonable
risk to health and safety or property
and are based on acute hazards as opposed
-------
- 6 -
to chronic/long term effects. Wastes
which are bioaccumulatlve, contain
carcinogens, etc., have not been
established as posing hazards in trans-
portation. Inclusion of such materials
in DOT regulations should be weighed
very carefully based upon realistic
scientific and toxicologlcal data. DOT
has recognized some of EPA's concerns
for carcinogens, environmental accumula-
tive materials, etc., under Docket No.
HM-145 - Environmental and Health Effects
Materials Vol. 1)1 FR 5382>)-December 9,
1976. Responses to HM-l'JS should be
carefully examined by both agencies as
background source information relative
to transportation of hazardous waste.
Any regulations that may be adopted
should be required to show unreasonable
risk under foreseeable exposure condi-
tions which may occur in transportation.
Du Pont believes that EPA should incor-
porate DOT regulations by reference
since separate EPA regulations to
-------
supplement "gaps" in DOT regulations
(hazardous wastes vs. all hazardous
materials) would be unwieldy and con-
fusing to shippers and carriers.
2} Du Pont believes that if DOT were to
modify its definition of hazardous
materials to include all hazardous
wastes, then DOT regulations should
specifically treat them the same as
hazardous materials that are bioaccumu-
lative , toxic, infectious, carcinogenic,
etc. However, for transportation pur-
poses, consideration of long-term
chronic effects is not believed to be
realistic or meaningful since the
period of time in which a material is
in transportation is relatively short,
This point was discussed to some extent
in Du Pont response to Docket No. HM-145.
3) In order to fulfill requirements of
Sections 3002 and 3003 of the RCRA,
Du Pont believes it is logical for DOT
to require a separate manifest to
accompany bills of lading thereby
assuring that the hazardous waste is
-------
transported to a permitted hazardous
waste management facility. A separate
EPA document requirement would be an
unnecessary burden on shippers and
carriers alike,
4) Current DOT requirements for labeling,
marking and placarding are sufficient
for handling and identification of
hazardous wastes in transportation.
For those wastes which are not subject
to current DOT regulations, DOT rather
than EPA should develop labels and
placards "compatible" with current DOT
design. A separate EPA label, marking
and placarding system would lead to
confusion for all shippers and trans-
portation agencies concerned with
physical distribution of hazardous
materials.
5) There appears to be no need for regis-
tration requirements applicable to
transporters of hazardous wastes even
though registration is authorized under
HMTA. Current DOT regulations are
-------
adequate for shipment of hazardous
materials Including hazardous wastes.
6) DOT regulation (1)9 CPR 171.16) requires
detailed hazardous materials incident
;
reports by carriers for each incident
that occurs during the course of
transportation (including loading,
unloading or temporary storage) in which,
as a direct result of the hazardous
materials, any of the circumstances set
forth in Section 171.15(a) occurs or
there has been an unintentional release
of hazardous materials from a package
(including a tank).
When EPA promulgates 1)0 OFR Parts 116,
117, 118, 119 reporting of spills to
EPA will be required. In addition, the
USCG has regulations (33 CFR Part 153)
which make reporting of hazardous spills
(other than oil) mandatory when EPA
promulgates 40 CPR Parts 116-119. Here
it would appear that there is duplication
of effort in reporting and notification
requirements which we believe would lead
-------
to confusion.
It is suggested that DOT, through the
U.S. Coast Guard National Emergency
Response Center, receive all notifica-
tions and written reports of accidents
or spills occurring during transporta-
tion. Intergovernmental response and
follow-up could be coordinated through
that single agency.
7) Need for additional regulations Is
questionable In view of specific laws
and regulations under PL 92-500 which
make owners and/or operators responsible
for proper cleanup or mitigation of
spills or discharges resulting from
accidents during transportation.
8) Emergency response Is currently well
handled under the auspices of MCA's
CHEMTREC Center in Washington, D.C.
and through Its participants from the
Chemical and Transportation Industries.
Many shippers and carriers have excellent
emergency response and cleanup programs.
The chemical transportation and related
-------
- 11 -
industries undoubtedly will continue
to participate and increase their
dedication to the areas of response
to emergencies in the event of trans-
portation mishaps.
9) Loading, stowage and transportation of
hazardous wastes (including materials
which may be mixed during collection
for transportation) is not a new
situation. It does not appear
necessary, therefore, for DOT to modify
its loading and stowage requirements to
address the mixing and stowage of incom-
patible wastes. Experience in collection
and movement of waste materials has been
good under existing DOT regulations.
10) Many wastes, although environmentally
hazardous, are not hazardous in trans-
portation. This has allowed a certain
degree of flexibility in the selection
of packaging and method and type of
transportation. Attempts to modify
hazardous waste regulations without
considering the method of disposal
-------
- 12 -
employed could create problems by not
permitting use of the most effective
disposal methods, e.g., waste packaged
in fiber drums can be incinerated (con-
tainer and contents) whereas if packaged
in metal drums, it would be buried which
may not be the most environmentally
sound method of disposal.
In general, every effort should be made
to authorize DOT to regulate those areas
specific to transportation and make
"gray" areas as limited as possible.
Both agencies (DOT and EPA) should strive
to preclude overlap.
Du Pont appreciates the opportunity to respond
to this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Respectfully submitted,
Don A. Boyd
William R. Riitfbfcrt
Date: November 7, 1977
Due: November 9, 1977
-------
EXXON CHEMICAL COMPANY U.S.A.
November 4, 1977
Supplemental Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rule Making for
the Transportation of Hazard-
ous Wa_st_es
File: 04-02-01 (C+l)
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Materials Division
Docket Section, Room 2111
401 M Street, S.tf.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Department of Transportation
Room 6500, Transpoint Building
2100 Second Street, S.tf.
Washington, D. C. 20590
Gentlemen:
Exxon Chemical Company U.S.A. has reviewed the discussion topics related
to the development of regulations for the transportation of hazardous
Wastes. The discussion topics were published in the September 29, 1977,
Federal Register, Our comments are attached with the item numbers cor-
responding to the discussion topic numbers as published in the Register.
Briefly, it is our belief that the EPA should set 4the criteria for defin-
ing hazardous wastes and that the DOT should promulgate all regulations
which relate to the loading, transport, and unloading of hazardous wastes.
We would urge the Agencies to establish a Memorandum of Understanding
based on this principle.
We hope our comments will be helpful to you in resolving these important
issues.
JGW/EMT/nm
Wainwright
-------
EXXON CHEMICAL COMPANY U.S.A.
COMMENTS ON DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
REGULATIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
SUPPLEMENTAL ADVANCED NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
1. EPA should be the lead agency in setting the criteria for defining Hazard-
ous Wastes » DOT should be the lead agency in developing the regulations
for hazardous waste transportation.
DOT should modify its definitions of hazardous materials to include all
hazardous wastes. We would suggest an "EflW" (Environmentally Hazardous
Waste) classification for this purpose.
2. DOT's regulations should specifically address the transportation of hazard-
ous wastes for those hazardous wastes which are not hazardous under current
DOT hazardous materials definitions. Where hazardous wastes meet current
DOT definitions of hazardous materials, current DOT regulations should take
precedence,
3. Based on EPA needs under Section 3002 of B.CRA, the DOT should modify its
shipping paper requirements to fulfill the needs of the manifest require-
ment. In any event, the requirements should not mandate a separate docu-
ment . Use of the economic document or use of a separate document to ful-
fill the manifest requirements should be an option left open to the gener-
ator.
4. For those wastes which are hazardous under current DOT criteria, we believe
the current labeling, marking, and. placarding requirements are sufficient
since the manifest requirements will cover hazard-type information in detail.
Where wastes are not hazardous by current DOT definition, but are hazardous
by RCRA criteria, a single label or placard should be authorized by DOT to
identify these materials. Labels should be used on small containers and
placards on bulk containers, consistent with present DOT practices.
5. HMTA registration authority was not intended for hazardous waste transport
-------
purposes and should not be used for transporters of hazardous wastes. Noti-
fication to EPA under RCRA should be adequate.
6. Various agencies of the federal government presently require spill report-
ing and have implemented, or are authorized to implement, response centers.
We believe these agencies should form a single reporting and response center
capable of handling all agencies' needs rather than each individual agency
requiring separate reporting. This would be more efficient from the stand-
point of both the agencies and the regulated.
If this is not possible consistent with the timing needs for reporting
then, under the concepts outlined above, reports should be fi]ed with the
DOT's Office of Hazardous Materials Operations.
7. Under the law and the concepts outlined above, the regulations developed
would automatically apply to spilled materials which meet the criteria
for hazardous wastes. As we see it, the only added, regulation development
needed would be to allow the exempt movement of hazardous wastes, generated
as the result of a spill, from the spill site to an initial holding location.
8. We believe the subject of emergency response is being addressed in the
DOT's OHMO docket HM-126 as it applies to present DOT hazardous materials.
Under the concepts outlined above, emergency response systems and training
requirements for hazardous wastes should be developed by the DOT under that
docket.
9. We do not believe it necessary for the DOT to modify its loading and stowage
requirements to address the mixing and stowage of incompatible wastes.
The DOT regulations in this area are rightfully pointed at preventing re-
leases of hazardous materials. Concern for the prevention of mixing of
hazardous wastes is primarily a concern of chemical reactivity of different
wastes. The regulations should place the burden of not mixing chemically-
reactive wastes on the generator, transporter, and disposer without attempt-
ing to apply rules to specific materials or classes of wastes,
10. Various development documents have indicated that the EPA is considering.
-------
in addition to the nine areas discussed above, packaging and manifest
certification requirements. Under the concepts as set forth above, we
believe that packaging requirements, where necessary, should be developed
by the DOT. The manifest certification requirement should be identical
to the current DOT requirement, without modification.
We believe that the EPA and the DOT should establish and publish a Memorandum
of Understanding relative to the regulation of hazardous wastes which embody
the above concepts of agency responsibility.
-------
[6560-01J
[40CFRP*rt250 J
JFRt 7B7-aj
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARD-
OUS WASTE
Joint Public Meeting
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency and Office of Hazardous Mate-
rials, Department of Transportation
ACTION Supplemental advanced notice
of proposed rulemakmg, notice of meet-
ing
SUMMARY The Envronmental Pi elec-
tion Acency announces a joint meeting
with the Office of Hazardous MatenaU
Operations/DOT to determine whether
current DOT regulations unaer the Haz-
aidous M&tenala Transportation Act or
1974 may have the potential to be ex-
panded to paitiahy meet Uie mandates
of the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act of 1976 ' The purpose of this
meeting is to maximize the coordination
of the RCRA regulatory requirement*;
»'iLh exiiUng DOT rules tor the benefit
of all parties
DATES The meeting will be held on
October 26. 1977 Comments must be ic-
ceived on or before November 9, 1977
ADDRESSES Stnd comments to U S
Emnoimiental Protection Agencj Office
of Solid Waste. Ha/ardous Waste Mate-
rials Div ision. Docket Section, Room
2111, 401 M St SW, Washington. DC
20460, and Department of Transporta-
tion. Room 0500, Trans Point Building,
2100 Second Street SW, Waihmeton.
date of RCRA EPA would like to maxi-
mize the coordination of the RCRA regu-
latory requirements with existing DOT
rules for the benelit of all parties.
The Act requires that regulations de-
veloped under Subtitle C of RCRA be
consistent with the requimnents of
HMTA and the regulations thereunder
in addition, it authoiizes the EPA to
make recommendations to DOT respect-
ing regulations for ha/ardous waites
under HMTA and for the addition of
materials to be covered by that Act.
Authority for the regulation of haz-
ardous waste tianspoitation is contained
m both HMTA and RCRA The HMTA Is
conceined with the motuction of public
safety, healUi and propeuy during the
loading, transportation, storage incident
to transportation, and unloading of haz-
ardous matciidls IIMTA requnes Uie
Secietary of Tran--poitation to designate
materials as hazaitlous upon finding
that the tunsportation of a paiticul.tr
quantity and form of i
. . lable n
health and s.ifeiv or pioperty The
isk to
elude, but are not limited to explosives,
radjoaclJie frj.UenaL ctsologic agents,
flammable liquids 01 solids, combustible
liquids or solids poisons, oxidi/hig or
corrosive materials, and completed
g.ises
Under Subtitle C, RCRA ii concerned
aith the protection of the public health
mid the environment Iroin Improper
lazaidous wa^te management during
ranspoitntion, tic.it ment, storage or
ispo^a] H.i/ardous waste as defined bv
CRA Is a solid waste or combination of
olid wastes vJilch because of its qu.ui-
sijunficanth contiibute to an
treatment, storage or disposal to a per-
mitted hazardous waste management fa-
cility. The manifest as defined by the
Act means the form used for Identifying
the quantity, composition, and the
origin, routing, and destination of haz-
ardous waste during its transportation
from the point of generation to the point
of disposal, treatment, or storage Sec-
tion 3003 requires the Administrator to
develop standards for transporters of
hazardous waste concerning recordkeep-
ing. transportation of hazardous wastes
only if properly labeled, compliance with
the manifest system and transportation
of all the hazardous wastes to the desig-
nated permitted facility In addition the
Administrator Is considering the devel-
opment of standards for the acceptance
of hazardous waste for transport loading
and stowage of hazardous wastes notifi-
cation In the event of a spill and spill
reporting marking and placarding of ve-
hicles, and notification of the transpor-
tation oLha'zardous \vastcs '
"Many of the slAndirds bemt> con-
sidered under RCRA for transportation
are currently required under HMTA
Specifically, definition of a hazardous
material (waste), labeling placarding
packagmg. manifest or jn increase in "with regard to hazardous %aiU"> wh.xt
The meeting will be held at the Ra-
mada O"H,ire Inn. Mannheim and liig-
gms Road DCS Flames, 111, 312-827-
5131
SUPPLEMKNTARY INFORMATION
The Rcsouice Conservation and Recov-
ery Act of 1976 (RCRA) mandates a com-
prehensive Federal -State- local appioach
to all a.sputi of wa^te management, in-
cluding resource conservation and recov-
ery, 'arid disposal of municipal and
Industrial wastes, and authorizes a
new regulatory program for hazardous
wastes
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Subtitle C — Hazardous
Waste Management— 13 required to write
standards for generators, thjpperi-,
trans porters, and receivers of hazardous
wasU> in addition KPA Is required to
develop cnteria and a list tc deilne ^hat
are hazardous v-nstes
During the amiljMs of the RCRA re-
tjulrement-s it became apparent Unit
tmU'nt Lk'DuiUiH-iiL of TituiDporlulluii
(DOT) rt'culutiorLs under Uie Hazard-
ous M.itf i idls Tran-s porUtion Act of
1974 (HMTA) may have Uie poWntiiU to
be expanded to parUtilly meet Uie man-
serious nre\ei iiblr or incapacitating
reversible illness or po-,t> a substantial
present or potential ha/ard to human
health or the environment when im-
properly treated stored ti.msported or
disposed of In turn RCRA defines
"solid" waste to include solid liquid
seiuKohd or cont.nnrcl gaseous inateml
resulting from inju-triil. commercial,
mining, and with some exception, agri-
cultural opeiations and fioin couiinu-
tak.e into account, when designating haz-
ardous wastes, toxlclty. perslbtence and
deeradabillty In nature, potential for
accumulation In tissue, arid other related
factors such as flammabllity, corrosive-
ness and other h^/ardous characteristics
For the transports lion of hazardous
wa-sLes under RCRA Section 3002 re-
standaixji lor frencrators/ shippers of
ha-;arciom wa*>trs concern mg labeling
prattlcot, for any conUdnprs used for
storage, transport, or disposal Uiat will
IdonLlfy ucciiruUly stiih wiwttH, use of
approprlftU' rojitalncr-), nnd use of a
manifest svstem to assure tliat all h.xz-
ardous V\,L.-,U> generated is det.itrnated for
classification system may be used to
clearly identify mixtures as opposed to
single compound m^teiiaLs what patk-
aKinf- ma> be appropriate for trans-
portation, and how existing transporta-
tion documentation can be used to cover
Lr.msport of haziijdoiis va.jtc(, from the
generator (shipper) to the disposer
(consignee) " Several comnitnts w&re re-
ceived exjiressing concern for the devel-
opment of hazardous waste transporta-
tion regulations by both LPA and DOT.
A one-day public meeting nil] be held
on October 26. I9T7, to soUcit public, in-
dustry, state and local government com-
ment on the regulation of hazardous
waste transportation by the Depaj-tinent
of Transportation ajid the Environmen-
tal Protection Agciicy T he public meet-
ing will begin at 9 30 a m at the
Ramada O'Harc Inn, M,iimheim and
Higglns Road Des Flame* 111 31^-ii27-
5131 Interested membeii. of the public,
representatives of Industry tint, siiip a=
well «_•> Lraiiiport tiiiziirdoii^ ni.ilt rj.ijs
(waste' entities both public, iinci pri-
-------
vale, that respond to ti.Lji.iKUt.ilmu
emergencies, fataU; find Jocitl tfineni-
menU, and Hi ins that receive h i7.irdous
wastes for itonitc. treatment .aid ct i-
posal are urceri to attend and n •-pond to
any or all of the discu-v-ion topics listed
below, as well as any other i',sue-, con-
cerning the regulation of haz.irdous
waste transportation
The meeting is open to the publu and
will be conducted by a panel from the
US Environmental Protection Agency
and, the US Department o£ lianiixsr-
tation
The following proceduial lule Mil! ap-
ply The Chairman of the panel is em-
powered to conduct the meeting in a
manner that In his judgment will facili-
schedule presentations by paiticipants,
and to exclude material which Is Inele-
vant. extraneous, or repetitious The
time allotment for oral statements shall
be at the discretion of the Chairman, but
filial! not oidmailly exceed 15 minutes
With the permission of any person offer-
Ing a statement, questions may be asked
by members of the panel At the discre-
tion of the Chairman, a procedure may
be made available for presentation of
pertinent questions from other persona
or participants Individuals with pre-
pared statements are requested to bring
at least one copy for the record Persons
unable to attend, but wishing to com-
ment on the Discussion Tonics are in-
vited to send written comments to the
address below by November 9, 1977
A transcript of the meeting will be
made and a copy of the tra^t rlpt. to-
gether with copies of all documents pre-
sented at the meeting, and aU written
submissions will constitute the iccord of
the meeting A copy of the record of the
meeting will be available for public In-
spection by December 16. 1977, at the
US Environmental Piotection Aceticy,
Office of Solid Wa-stc, Ha/ardous Wa^te
Management Division, DOiAet Section,
Room 2111, 401 M Street SW. Wash-
ington, D C 20460 and at the Department
of Transportation Ttoorn 6SOO, Trans
Point BuildinR 2100 Second Street, S W ,
Washington. D C 20590
Anyone aeiirmg addition.il informa-
tion on the mc-titing or wishing to be
placed on the program to present a state-
ment is reo.ui.'iU'd to contact Mrs
Geraldme W>er, Public Participation Of-
ficer, Omce of Solid Waste. WH-162,
TJ.3 Environmental Protection Agency.
WashliiKton, DC 20460 Phone 202-7^5-
9157 before October 21. 1977
DISCUSSION TOPICS
1 Regulations beinp developed by Jie
Emironnient'U Protection Agency pud
exiting refiujation-s of the Dtpartnunt
of 'I raivipoi tauoii impact the U.iiispoi-
lation ct hi/artioiLs u-asUb \Vhich,
Agency should take the lead in devel.^-
iii£- the rtrul.itiuas far h.i/anlou., wti-sie
transportation' What ain)rin\ch should
be t.aen' Shdukl IX) r
DOT definition levels, infectious
H IIMTA Bullion/3. DOT to lequ
unojuis or havuiK poltntml foi i uu'lii
chance .lie hkelj to be idfiitihid under
gaps in DOT ieg\iUtory coveiaee in that
EPA retiulalioas would cover only waites
whJLli are hazardous, not all h.izardous
materials1'
hazardous materials to include all haz-
ardous wnit«s, should DOT reRulutions
specifically .address the transportation
of hazardous v.tustes or treat them the
same as hazardous materials that are
bioaccumulatlve, toxic, infectious, car-
cinogenic, etc 9
3 Section 3002 of RCRA icquires the
development of a manifest (shipping
paper) to assure that the hazardous
waste Is designated to a permitted haz-
ardous waste management facility and
that ftll the hazaidous waste is delivered
to that facility Should DOT modify its
shipping paper requirements to fulfill
the needs o£ the RCRA manifest or
should EPA develop requirements to sup-
plement existing shipping paper re-
quirements {including the possibility of
a separate document) ?
4 Aie the current DOT lequiiements
for labeling marking and placarding
sufficient for handling of hazardous
waste In transportation? For those haz-
ardous wastes which will not fall under
DOT purview, should EPA ckvclop labels
and placaids of separate det^n or should
DOT develop the labels and placards for
these hazardous wastes that are com-
patible with current DOT design?
5 IIMTA authorizes the registration
of anyone transporting hazardous ma-
terials, RCR* reoulres notification of
the t.i!m.s.L>nr|fi,t!on of Ji^ardou' wastes. _
,unme to lie conduced b/ shippeis and
aiispoiUi , of ha/, ii ions niuleuuls Au'
tuning proKiania n.Less.iry relative to
or transportation is it necessary for
DOT to modify its leading and stowage
equnement to address the mixing and
towage of incompatible -wastes'1
the development of regulations for
transportation of huzardous wastes by
the Department of Tiam-portaUon and
the Environmental Protection Agency
are welcome ,
Dated September 22, 1977 \
\
THOMA;, C JOHLING. \
^ssis(a«J Administrator }
for Water and Hazardous Materials i
ALAN I ROBERTA, /
Dirt ctor. Office o! '
Ilazaidous Material Operations
|f K Doc 77-28591 Piled 9-28-77,8 45 am]
.
/
/ -J\
'j/l
u*7 Z
•of " 7-
f j'l/
\n
tr V
•n^"
^
ou regiiiaion requremens e e-
veloped for transporters of hazardous
wastes'
6 In the event of an accident, or a spill
of a ha/ardous material during loading,
transportation or unic-arlipg DOT re-
quires notification of the incident and
the filing of a repoit For the spill of
hazardous waste, EPA Is abo considering
similar requiri-meriti Should notlnca-
tlon of spills be dnected to EPA, DOT
(OfEce of Hazardous Material Opera-
tions), or the U B Coa^t Ounixl NuUonal
Emereency Response Center? Should
EPA and DOT receive incident reports
(DOT for ha/aidoi,, maleiu'l:, and EPA
for hazardous wastes) or should all re-
ports be flltd v,ilh LX)T (even when
spilled hazardous v^isteA are not coveied
by DOT rcRUlatlonj '
7 In the event of a spill (he matenal
waste Should DX")T or FP\ develop the
leBuUtioiis lor liandlmy tht spilled haz-
ifio
Kll.til
FEDEKAl REGISTER, VOL 42, NO 189—THURSDA
, StPIEMBEIt 29, 1977
-------
Ford Motor Company
Environmental and Safety
Engineering Staff
One Parklane Boulevard
Dearborn, Michigan 48126
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Docket Section
Room 21II
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
October 27, 1977
Subject:
Hazardous Waste Transportation Regulations
Enclosed are comments submitted in response to 42 FR 51625 (September
29, 1977} which solicited comments from interested parties regarding the
subject regulations. Kindly include these comments with those which you
received during your meeting in Chicago, Illinois on October 26, 1977.
Yours very truly,
A, B. M. Houston, Manager
Compliance and Liaison Department
Stationary Source Environmental Control
Enclosure
cc Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C,
-------
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
COMMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department oF
Transportation (DOT) should make every effort to develop a uniform set of hazardous
waste transportation regulations which avoid duplications and ambiguities. These
regulations should be consistent with existing regulations governing the movement of
hazardous materials of a similar nature. Separate regulations can only lead bo
uncertainty and confusion among manufacturers, waste transporters, and waste recep-
tors. A hazardous waste is only a special type of hazardous material, and should be
treated as a hazardous material.
The information required by DOT for shipping papers is very similar to that
which will be required by EPA for the hazardous waste manifest. A hazardous waste
shipper should be able to satisfy the requirements of both EPA and DOT by using a
single form. Use of separate shipping documents can be avoided, if EPA and DOT
develop common requirenents for shipping papers/manifests. It is unlikely that DOT
would need to radically change its existing requirements for hazardous material
shipping papers. However, a few minor modifications may be necessary.
Existing DOT container specifications and labeling requirements for hazardous
materials should be the basis for similar requirements for hazardous wastes. For
most hazard categories the existing DOT requirements may be extended to include
hazardous wastes. Any new container specifications or label requirements which may
be necessary should be developed jointly by EPA and DOT and based on DOT's experience
with the existing regulations.
Many states have already implemented hazardous and/or liquid waste transporter
registration systems Those states which do not now have hazardous waste transporter
registration systems should be encouraged to adopt and implement a system. This
strategy is suggested by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 winch
encourages states to implement their own hazardous waste management programs.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that EPA or DOT will have adequate resources to
effectively enforce a registration system.
-------
The BFGoodrich Chemical Division with its offices located
at 6100 Oak Tree Boulevard in Cleveland, Ohio 44131 has eleven
manufacturing plants that generate various quantities and types of
hazardous wastes which are presently regulated by the U. S. Depart-
ment of Transportation. Due to the nature of the chemicals that are
utilized as raw materials and the types of chemicals/products that
are produced, the development of regulations for the transportation
of hazardous waste materials will have a significant impact upon
the BFGoodrich Chemical Division. Therefore, the following comments
are offered in response to the solicitation for comments published
jointly by both the DOT and the EPA in the Federal Register Vol. 42,
No. 189 Thursday September 29, 1977 edition.
The comments provided below address each of the questions
raised in the Federal Register in their listed numerical sequence as
shown in the Federal Register, and the BFGoodrich Chemical Division
would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions which may
arise in regard to these comments.
-------
A. Which agency should take the lead in developing the regulations for
hazardous waste transportaUon?
If there are waste materials which can be identified to cause a hazard
during transportation other than those wastes which are presently
regulated by the Department of Transportation, it should be the respon-
sibility of the Department of Transportation to take the lead in developing
the regulations applicable to the materials. The Department of Transpor-
tation has the expertise to identify the types of hazards that may occur
during transportation, and has a system of regulations which could be
easily adopted to regulating hazardous items other than those already
regulated.
For an agency such as the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt
regulations concerning the transportation of hazardous wastes independ-
ently of the Department of Transportation, the agency, in order to develop
appropriate levels of regulation for these additional items would first have
to study each mode of transportation and the various circumstances and
transportation conditions attendant to each of the modes before proposing
any regulations. There is no worthwhile reason for the EPA to develop
an expertise in transportation and duplicate the efforts of the Department
of Transportation, especially since Congress in Public Law 94-580 in
Section 3003 paragraph (b) has provided for the possibility of the EPA
coordinating with the DOT in developing transportation regulations
applicable to hazardous wastes. Furthermore, Public Law 93-633 allows
the Secretary of Transportation to declare an item hazardous wnen during
transportation "a particular quantity and form of material in commerce may
pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property." Without a
doubt the Department of Transportation has the expertise to determine the
degree of hazard that can be posed by any substance during transportation
and the Environmental Protection Agency should defer to that expertise.
The benefits of the EPA deferring to the DOT in matters of transportation
would be twofold in nature. First, the cost for administering the trans-
portation of hazardous wastes would be minimized as the EPA would not
have to assume the burden of developing an expertise in transportation.
Secondly, the generators and transporters of hazardous wastes would
have only one agency regulating the transportation of hazardous wastes
and thus their compliance with the regulations concerning the transportation
of these items would be facilitated.
B. What approach should be taken? Should DOT modify its definition of haz-
ardous materials to include ail hazardous wastes? (wastes which are bio-
accumulative, toxic above current DOT definition levels, infectious,
carcinogens, or having potential for genetic change are likely to be identi-
fied under RCRA as hazardous wastes and are not currently covered by the
DOT hazardous materials regulations). Should EPA then incorporate DOT
regulations by reference or should EPA consider a separate set of regula-
tions to supplement the gaps in DOT regulatory coverage, in that EPA
regulations would cover only wastes which are hazardous, not all hazardous
materials ?
-------
The above questions raise the general topic of the methodology that
should be used to regulate hazardous wastes during transportation.
This topic should most appropriately be addressed on the following
basis •
1. Tne EPA should provide definitions for hazardous wastes as
required under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976.
2. The EPA should then request the DOT to determine the hazard
that these materials pose during transportation, and request the DOT to
develop regulations covering the degree of hazard associated with the
transportation of these materials.
3. The DOT in assessing the transportation hazards associated
with the hazardous wastes as defined by the EPA, and in developing the
regulations applicable to the transportation of these materials should
draw upon both its own expertise and the expertise of the shippers and
carriers of the items.
By using the above methodology the following benefits would be derived:
1. By having the EPA provide the definitions of hazardous wastes
the DOT would not be burdened with the responsibility of attempting to
define what is a hazardous waste under RCRA, and the DOT thereby will
be relieved of having to develop an expertise in matters not related to
transportation.
2 . Conversely, the EPA will not have to develop an expertise
in transportation in order to determine the degree of hazard posed by
the hazardous wastes (as defined under RCRA) during transportation.
3. Hazardous wastes will be reguiated on the basis of the hazard
they pose during transporta11on rather than because they may be hazardous
during packaging, handling, or disposal, and the EPA can implement
separate regulations to control the other aspects of hazardous waste dis-
posal. This would provide the proper degree of regulation during trans-
portation of the items, but without imposing unnecessary burdens on the
shippers and carriers of hazardous wastes.
In developing regulations for the transportation of hazardous wastes under
RCRA, the DOT and EPA should use the following factors as premises for
the development of reasonable regulations.
1, Under Subtitle A of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 in section 1003 the objectives of the act are listed. A part of
section 1003 reads as follows:
-------
"The objectives of this act are to promote the
protection of health and the environment and
to conserve valuable material and energy
resources by - ..."
(4) regulating the treatment, storage, transpor-
tation , and disposal of hazardous wastes which
have adverse effects on health and the environ-
ment;
The DOT and EPA must work within the boundaries of this objective. In
other words transportation regulations must be promulgated to "promote the
protection of health and the environment". If a particular proposed regu-
lation will not promote the protection of health and the environment it
should not be adopted. An example of the importance of this premise is
illustrated below.
Presently the DOT regulates as a hazardous material various types of
flammable liquids. For the purpose of this example we shall assume that
a particular waste material has a flash point of 125°F based on a tag
closed cup test, and that it does not meet any other DOT hazardous
material definition and/or any other EPA definition of a hazardous waste.
Under the present DOT regulations this material would be classified as
a combustible liquid for transportation purposes and would net be
regulated under CFR 49 parts 100-189 when shipped in a package having
a rated capacity of 110 gallons or less. The DOT has determined that
a material meeting the above requirements can be transported safely with-
out being subject to strict packaging, marking, labeling and shippirg paper
requirements .
. te ha s
The EPA in a preliminary draft has proposed that a material would be
consideicd a flammable waste if a representative sample of that waste
a flash point less than 140°F. This criteria may be necessary for
regulating the handling and/or disposal of the material, however, in respsct
to transportation since the DOT has already determined that a material with
a flash point between 100°F and 140°F can be transported without tie need
for detailed regulations the EPA should defer to that expertise, and not
impose unnecessary regulations which will not promote the protectjon of
health or the environment
RCRA does not mandate the EPA to regulate the transportation of everything
it determines to be hazardous under the law. Rather the law mandates
the EPA to regulate the transportation of hazardous wastes when a sub^-
stantial present or potential hazard may be caused to human health or the
environment.
-------
This point is substantiated in the definition of a hazardous waste
under subtitle A section 100-4 wherein Congress defined a hazardous
waste as:
"...a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes,
which because its quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical or infectious characterists
may —
A. cause, or significantly contribute to an
increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness , or
B. pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the environ-
ment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, or disposed of, or other-
wise managed.
(emphasis added)
On the basis of this definition it would be difficult for the EPA to impose
transportation restrictions on the material cited in the earlier example.
The material does not qualify under Section A above, and cannot be judged
under Section B to pose a substantiaj. present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment during transportation. Thus, although it might
be appropriate for the EPA to promulgate regulations for the treatment and
disposal of a material with a flash point of 125°F ( which does not meet
the definition of any other hazard class) it would not be appropriate for
the EPA to promulgate regulations on the transportation of the material.
Any such regulations would not promote the protection of health and the
environment and thus could not be justified under the objectives of the
RCRA.
2. Furthermore the DOT and EPA must recognize that under sub-
title C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 in section
3002 which addresses the standards applicable to generators of hazardous
waste and in section 3003 which addresses standards applicable to trans-
porters of hazardous waste the EPA is directed to develop regulations
applicable to generators and transporters of hazardous waste "... as may
be necessary to protect human health and the environment." (quoted
directly from Public Law 94-580) These two sections mandate the EPA
to develop those regulations which are necessary, and they dp not reguire
the EPA to develop regulations covering every aspect of packaging,
labeling, transporting, identifying, and documenting every hazardous waste.
The EPA is required by the law to be selective in the regulations it pro-
mulgates. The regulations must b_e_ necessary to protect human health and
the environment. Thus in the example cited earlier which addressed the
transportation of a hazardous waste with a flash point of 125°F, the EPA
when promulgating regulations for such a material may find it necessary
-------
to develop regulations for regulating the treatment and disposal of such
a material, but can determine it to be unnecessary on the basis of
information supplied by the DOT to impose further transportation regula-
tions either directly or indirectly through the DOT. In other words the
law allows the EPA to rely upon the expertise of the Department of
Transportation, and if the DOT determines that it is unnecessary to
regulate further the transportation of a hazardous waste as defined under
RCRA the EPA can accept the DOT determination, and still be fulfilling '
its mandated responsibilities under RCRA. The EPA does not have to
regulate every aspect of the disposal process for a hazardous waste for
every hazardous waste. The EPA is not required by RCRA to impose un-
necessary burdens on generators and transporters of hazardous wastes.
On the basis of the above two premises the following position can be
adopted by the DOT and EPA regarding the definitions of hazardous
wastes to be used by the agencies for regulating their transportation,
A. The existing DOT definitions for hazardous materials should not
be altered because they have proven to be adequate for defining
the presently regulated types of hazards that the DOT regulations
address for transportation purposes. For instance, the DOT
definition for flammable liquids limits the parameters of that
hazard class in a manner that is appropriate for transportation
purrjQses and. the scope of the definition should not be expanded
to accommodate an EPA definition of a hazardous waste under
RCRA. Such an expansion of the definition to include items as
flammable when their flash point is at or below 140°F would
cause an unnecessary burden on shippers and transporters of
flammable liquids, because the present DOT cut off point of
100°Ffor a flammable is adequate to control that hazard for trans-
portation purposes.
B. The existing DOT definitions for hazardous materials should bo
supplemented^ with additional definitions which a re operationally
quantifiable for defining hazardous wastes which pose a hazard
durm.g^tninF-portation. If a presently unregulated hazardous waste
which is bioaccumulative poses a hazard during transportation and
that hazard has until this time not been recognized, then the EPA
should provide the DOT with an operationally quantifiable definition
of that hazardous waste or specifically identify it for the DOT and
petition the DOT to adopt the definition as an addition to its
present def nitions. The DOT would of course before adopting the
definition determine whether the material in fact did pose a hazard
during transportation. If the material poses a hazard during trans-
portation the DOT should adopt the definition and add to the
hazardous naterial table in 49 CFR section 172.101 an entry which
properly identifies the newly regulated item. If, however, the
DOT determines that the bioaccumulative waste poses no hazard
-------
- 6 -
during transportation then the EPA should accept that fact,
and not promulgate any regulations to control the transporta-
tion of that material other than imposing required paperwork
as mandated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976.
If the DOT does accept a new definition of a hazardous waste
into its transportation regulations because of the hazard the
material poses during transportation then the DOT should:
1. Require the EPA to provide a quantifiable operational
definition i.e. , a definition which specifies measur-
able physical characteristics for identifying whether
a particular waste would qualify as hazardous under
the definition.
2. Adopt the new definition (s) under a title that wiJl not
conflict with present DOT definitions i.e., under a new
ORM definition or under some other non-conflicting title.
3. Only regulate the hazardous waste during transportation
to the degree necessary for protecting human health and
environment. In some instances simple shipping paper
and placarding requirements may be sufficient where in
other instances specification packaging, marking and
labeling requirements may also be necessary.
C. The EPA should incorporate by reference the DOT regulations (includ-
ing definitions) that are applicable to controlling the transportation
of the hazardous wastes as defined by the EPA under RCRA; and on
the basis of the premises stated earlier should not adopt any
separate set of regulations to control the transportation of hazardous
wastes when the DOT determines that it is unnecessary to further
regulate a given material during transportation.
Question: 2. If DOT does modify its definition of
hazardous materials to include all hazardous
wastes, should DOT regulations specifically
address the transportation of hazardous
wastes or treat them the same as hazardous
materials that are bioaccumulative, toxic,
infectious , carcinogenic, etc . ?
The word "modify" in this question can be interpreted in two ways.
First the word modify can mean to change the scope of existing
DOT definitions. Secondly, the word modify can mean the addition
of new definitions to existing DOT definitions. The answer pro-
vided to question number one rejects the alternative of expanding
the scope of present DOT definitions, and espouses the addition of
new definitions under separate titles if necessary.
-------
- 7 -
The response to question number two will be based on the
concept of adding definitions to the present list of DOT
hazardous material definitions.
When the DOT considers adding a new definition to its list
of hazardous material definitions it must incorporate the
addition in a manner that will not cause an unequal regulation
of materials in commerce. In (other words, if the DOT deter-
mines that a particular waste material does pose a hazard
during transportation because it meets a specific set of
criteria -which are found to be hazardous during transportation
then the DOT must incorporate a new definition into the trans-
portation regulations which will equally regulate all materials
which meet the same criteria. New definitions should reflect
characteristics of materials that caus_e a hazardous condition
to exist during transportation and new definitions should not
be based on a consideration such as the ultimate destination
of the material - possibly a disposal site. If a particular
waste material is hazardous during transportation because it
meets a certain criteria then materials other than wastes that
meet the same criteria must also be judged to be hazardous
during transportation.
However, the crucial questions which must be asked by both
agencies before promulgating regulations to control the trans-
portation of hazardous wastes are:
1. What criteria can be used for determining that a
particular material causes a substantial hazard to
human health or the environment during transpor-
tation?
If a hazardous condition does exist regarding
human health or the environment during the
transportation of a hazardous waste as defined
by the EPA under RCRA, does the hazardous
condition during transportation exist equally for
all levels of concentration and/or physical
characteristics of the hazardous wastes regulated
under a given hazard definition.
If the hazardous condition during transportation
varies according to the level of concentration or
according to the characteristics of the material
within the definition, then the regulations which
control the transportation of that material should
reflect varying levels of control over the transporta-
tion based on the actual hazard the material poses to
human health or the environment during transportation.
-------
Can the present DOT definitions of hazardous materials
be judged by the EPA to be sufficient for identifying
severely hazardous wastes during transportation? Can
the EPA adopt the present DOT definitions of hazardous
materials as a starting point for identifying hazardous
wastes under RCRA (especially since under DOT regu-
lations they already do apply to waste materials) and
then either add to the definitions and/or adopt new
definitions to completely fulfill the mandate for
identifyjng hazardous wastes under RCRA? Or has the
EPA already determined that some materials which are
already considered hazardous by the DOT during trans-
portation will not be considered hazardous by the EPA
for waste disposal purposes?
If the DOT definitions were used as a base for
identifying hazardous wastes, it would be relatively
easy to make a distinction between the wastes that
must be fully regulated during transportation and
wastes which would be partially regulated during trans-
portation due to the lower hazard that they pose to human
health and the environment during; transportation.
The EPA must fulfill its responsibility to provide for
the safe transportation of all hazardous wastes, but
the EPA must accomplish this task by recognizing
that the situation encountered during the transporta-
tion of hazardous wastes is significantly different
than the conditions encountered during the treatment
and disposal of a waste material. During transpor-
tation human exposure and/or environmental exposure
to the hazardous waste will be significantly less,
because the material will be transported in a con-
tained fashion, and generally exposure will only
occur in an accident situation. Certainly the EPA must
also strive to minimize the hazard during an accident
situation, but generally speaking the threat to human
health and the environment during transportation will
be significantly less than during the actua] disposal
process wherein workers may have to be directly
exposed to the material and/or the environment may
have to be exposed to the material for many years
while the substance disintegrates slowly.
-------
- 9 -
To account for the substantially different circumstances
during transportation as opposed to other steps during
the disposal process possibly the EPA should, consider
adopting two sets of complimentary definitions for
identifying hazardous wastes. In other words, a given
hazard class would be composed of whatever criteria
the EPA determines to be necessary for identifying the
hazardous waste under RCRA, but within the given
hazard class a distinction would be made as to which
characteristics of that waste would be fully regulated
(including transportation) and which wastes under the
hazard class would be partially regulated as necessary
during transportation.
Possibly for some wastes, such as the material cited
earlier which had a flash point of 125°F and did not
meet any other hazard class as specified by the DOT
and/or the EPA, only the paperwork requirements man-
dated under RCRA would be a sufficient control during
transportation.
The above discussion brings into focus the importance
that both agencies, the DOT and the EPA, must assign
to determining the criteria by which a material will be
judged to be a substantial hazard to human health and
the environment during transportation. Neither Public
Law 94-580, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, nor Public Law 93-633 the Hazardous
Material Transportation Act of 1974, allows either the
EPA or the DOT to declare a material hazardous on an
arbitrary basis, nor do the laws allow for the adoption
of arbitrary regulations.
Under RCRA, as pointed out earlier, waste materials
are to be declared hazardous under either of two conditions
(Public Law 94-580 subtitle A section 1004 item 5) and
then if declared hazardous are to be regulated "as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment"
(Public Law 94-580 subtitle C section 3002 and 3003).
Under Public Law 93-633 a material in commerce must
pose an "unreasonable risk to health and safety or
property" before being declared a hazardous material
(Public Law 93-633 Title I section 104), and Congress
allowed the Secretary of Transportation to use discretion
in establishing appropriate levels of regulations for
hazardous materials in commerce by using the word "may"
when describing various safety aspects of transportation
-------
- 10 -
that the Secretary could regulate under the law
(Public Law 93-633 Title I section 105 paragraph
(a). And in fact the Secretary has regulated
hazardous materials in commerce to varying degrees
depending upon their physical characteristics ,
quantity being shipped, and type of packaging being
used .
Due to the above standards that have been incor-
porated by Congress into both public laws it seems
most appropriate for both agencies to address the
topic of what criteria should be used to determine
that a particular material poses a substantial and/or
unreasonable risk to human health, and the environment
during transportation. Possibly the agencies should
solicit comments from the generators, transporters,
and other government agencies regarding the develop-
ment of such criteria.
Transportation experience and/or data should be relied upon to
provide insights into hazardous transportation conditions.
For instance many of the items presently regulated by the
DOT have been known to cause a dangerous situation during
transportation. The concept of experience, however, roust
be viewed from two perspectives . Not only can transporta-
tion experience and/or data indicate hazardous conditions,
but it can also substantiate non-hazardous situations. For
instance, experience with the present DOT definition of a
combustible liquid has shown that it is unnecessary to
further regulate the transportation of such items. Therefore,
although the EPA may need to incorporate into its definition
of flammability characteristics which the DOT defines as a
combustible liquid the EPA should not require an increase
in the transportation regulations applicable to the category
of items the DOT considers combustible unless such
additional transportation regulations can be justified on the
basis of a hazard heretofore unrecognized in the transpor-
tation of these items. It must also be recognized that
experience alone cannot be used as the only factor for
determining a transportation hazard, as in many instances j
waiting for the experience will cause an unnecessary risk
to human health and the environment.
-------
2. Other governmental agency standards should be consid-
ered as criteria for judging hazardous conditions during
transportation when they can be appropriately applied
to the transportation situation. For instance, OS HA sets
standards for allowable worker exposure to various chem-
icals, and in fact will be developing standards for the
identification classification, and regulation of toxic sub-
stances posing a potential occupational carcinogenic
risk. (Federal Register Vol. 42, No. 192 Tuesday,
October 4, 1977) If OSHA defines a level of exposure
to such materials that a worker may tolerate and/or the
conditions under which the exposure may be tolerated it
would not seem appropriate to require stricter
standards to be made applicable to workers m the field
of transportation than to workers in other fields. In
other words if the workers in the field of transportation
are not exposed to unreasonable levels (as defined by
OSHA) of carcinogenic materials then the DOT and EPA
may be able to determine that a hazardous condition does
not exist during normal transportation, and that the only
threat to human health and the environment would occur
during an accident situation. In thiscasethe DOT and
EPA instead of fully regulating a carcinogenic waste
material during transportation could instead address the
potential threat to human health and the environment that
may occur in the transportation accident situation. Thus
the DOT and EPA may find it reasonable and sufficient
to develop better communication regulations regarding
emergency situations for these materials.
3. Research and statistical analysis of accidents involving
presently non-regulated solid waste items in commerce
can be pursued to provide an insight into the problems
that occur with these materials during transportation.
This will be authorized under RCRA in subtitle B
section 2002.
In summary, the EPA and the DOT should be able to justify, as
required by the laws which are applicable, the reasons used for
declaring an item hazardous during transportation and should be
able to provide an explanation as to why a given material is
regulated to a particular degree.
-------
- 12 -
Question: 3. Section 3002 of RCRA requires the devel-
opment of a manifest (shipping paper) to assure
that the hazardous waste is designated to a
permitted hazardous waste management facility
and that all the hazardous waste is delivered
to that facility. Should DOT modify its shipping
paper requirements to fulfill the needs of the
RCRA manifest or should EPA develop require-
ments to supplement existing shipping paper re-
quirements (including the possibility of a
separate document)?
The EPA and DOT should adopt regulations which will allow the
generators of hazardous wastes to choose between two options for
complying with the manifest requirements under RCRA. The DOT
should modify its shipping paper requirements to allow a generator
of a hazardous waste to use one shipping paper for complying with
both the DOT and the EPA requirements, and the EPA should allow
for both the use of one shipping paper to fulfill the needs of
RCRA or the use of separate shipping papers. This comment is
based on the fact that some hazardous waste shipments will be
able to be adequately handled on a single shipping paper due to
the simplicity of the chemical composition of the hazardous waste
and/or the fact that merely one hazardous waste is being tendered
for shipment, whereas in other instances, due to either the chemical
complexity of the waste and/or due to the number of wastes being
tendered for shipment,possibly a two document approach would be
better suited for reducing any confusion associated with the ship-
ment.
Question: 4. Are the current DOT requirements for
labeling, marking and placarding sufficient
for handling of hazardous waste in transpor-
tation? For those hazardous wastes which
will not fall under DOT purview, should EPA
develop labels and placards of separate design
or should DOT develop the labels and placards
for these hazardous wastes that are compatible
with current DOT design?
The current DOT requirements for labeling, marking, and placarding
are sufficient for handling the presently regulated hazardous waste
materials under the DOT regulations. If through a joint effort of
the DOT and the EPA new hazardous definitions are added to DOT
regulations or if further information is deemed necessary during
transportation to avoid hazardous situations to human health or the
environment then the current DOT regulations should be modified
to require whatever additional information is necessary, but the
regulatory control over a material which poses a hazard during
transportation should remain with the Department of Transportation.
-------
Question: 5. HMTA authorized the registration of
anyone transporting hazardous materials;
[RCRA requires notification of the transpor-
tation of hazardous wastes.] Should reg-
istration requirements be developed for
transporters of hazardous wastes?
Hazardous wastes that meet the current DOT hazardous material
definitions are presently being transported by many carriers, and
the DOT has not found it necessary to have these transporters
register themselves v/ith the Department of Transportation. Unless
some special reason is uncovered that will cause the registration
of transporters to yield an improvement in the protection afforded
to human health and the environment during transportation,
registration of hazardous waste transporters should not be
required .
Question: 6. In the event of an accident or a
spill of a hazardous "material during loading,
transportation, or unloading, DOT requires
notification of the incident and the filing of
a report. For the spill of hazardous waste,
EPA is also considering similar requirements .
Should notification of spills be directed to
EPA, DOT (Office of Hazardous Material
Operations), or the U. S. Coast Guard National
Emergency Response Center? Should EPA and
DOT receive incident reports ( DOT for hazard-
ous materials and EPA for hazardous wastes),
or should all reports be filed with DOT
(even when spilled hazardous wastes are not
covered by DOT regulation)?
The DOT incident reporting system can easily bo adopted to include
any EPA requirements for reporting spills of hazardous wastes.
It seems logical and appropriate to utilize a reporting system for
incidents already in effect rather than develop an overlapping report-
ing procedure which will cause an unnecessary burden of additional
paperwork. Since the EPA will probably require all hazardous
wastes to be regulated during transportation at least in so far as
a manifest (shipping paper) will be required, it seems that it would
be most expeditious to have all incident reports filed with the
DOT, and have the DOT in turn provide the EPA with any data and/
or copies of reports the agency may need for its purposes.
-------
Question: 7. In the event of a spill, the material
cleaned up may become a hazardous waste.
Should DOT or EPA develop the regulations
for handling the spilled hazardous material?
The EPA has the expertise to determine the proper handling of
hazardous waste materials therefore it seems appropriate for the
EPA to develop the regulations for the clean up and handling of
hazardous waste material, and it would seem reasonable for the
DOT to adopt the EPA clean up and handling procedures for the
spilled hazardous wastes as appropriate for transportation
situations.
Question: 8. HMTA authorizes DOT to require training
to be conducted by shippers and transporters
of hazardous materials. Are training programs
necessary relative to emergency response and
clean up of hazardous wastes specifically?
If so, to what extent should they be required?
This question as it is stated seems to be directed neither toward
generators nor transporters of hazardous wastes, but rather toward
those agencies such as local fire departments, and police units
that would respond to an emergency situation. It seems these
agencies would best be suited for commenting on whether they
need training programs relative to emergency response and clean
up of hazardous waste incidents.
Question: 9. Since hazardous wastes are mixtures
or may be mixed during collection for trans-
portation, is it necessary for DOT to modify
its loading and stowage requirement to
address the mixing and stowage of incompatible
wastes ?
It would be reasonable for the DOT to modify its loading and
storage chart if newly identified hazardous wastes are found to
cause a hazard during transportation when loaded or stored in close
proximity to other hazardous materials. Regarding the bulk transport
of hazardous wastes it would also be reasonable for the DOT to
adopt guidelines prohibiting the unsafe mixing of the items during
collection.
-------
- 15 -
The BFGoodrich Chemical Division fully supports the need to recognize
all hazardous conditions associated with transportation which will
jeopardize human health and the environment including the need for
identifying previously unrecognized hazardous transportation situations,
and fully supports the development and promulgation of regulations
which will improve protection against these hazards during transpor-
tation, but BFGoodrich Chemical Division fully opposes unnecessary,
duplicative, overlapping, conflicting, arbitrary, and unjustified regu-
lations which will not improve the safety to human health and/or
the environment.
The BFGoodrich Chemical Division applauds the efforts of the DOT
and the EPA to work jointly in developing appropriate regulations for
controlling the transportation of hazardous wastes, and urges the
agencies to establish a solid foundation on which to base any new
transportation regulations for controlling the transportation of these
items. The work the agencies perform in this regard will set a
precedent for future rule making considerations, and a solid foundation
of premises on which to base the regulations can simplify and facili-
tate future work in the area of regulating the transportation of hazardous
materials.
Respectifully submitted by:
T. H. Smith
Director of Distribution
' (I fl
Nfetl^g^A^^
bmes P. JadJtura
Transportation Regulation
Specialist
11/8/77
-------
Akron , Ohio
November 7, 1977
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Materials Division
Docket Section, Room 2111
401 M Street, S W
Washington, D C 20460
U.S. Department of Transportation
Room 6500
Trans Point Building
2100 Second Street S W
Washington, D C 20590
Subject:
Development of Regulations for the
Transportation of Hazardous Waste
Gentlemen:
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company hereby submits comments
on the subject notice published in the Federal Register, Volume
42, No 189, September 29, 1977. This notice requested comments
on the proposed coordination by The Environmental Protection
Agency of its regulatory requirements on the transportation of
hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
with existing Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations on
the transportation of hazardous materials.
Goodyear submits that there should be only one set of
regulations on the transportation of hazardous materials and
waste in order to prevent the unnecessary burden on interstate
commerce that will result from having two separate sets of
regulations developed by the Department of Transportation and
the Environmental Protection Agency. Goodyear supports the
proposal to allow the Department of Transportation to promulgate
the regulations on the transportation of hazardous waste utilizing
technical assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The existing Department of Transportation regulations on the
transportation of hazardous materials are sufficiently capable
of being amended to include any items determined by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to be a hazardous waste. The current
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Transportation
Department of Transportation regulations on shipping documents,
markings, labels, and placards are sufficient to cover the
transportation of hazardous waste materials. In the event of a
spill of hazardous waste, notification should only be required
to be submitted to the Department of Transportation, who will
then notify any other interested governmental agency.
Goodyear respectfully requests that the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation consider
the issue of reusing approved DOT containers for shipping waste
materials instead of a requirement to use costly new or recon-
ditioned containers for waste disposal. Unlike interstate
shipments of hazardous materials, the majority of hazardous
waste will be transported a relatively short distance to a
disposal site, and therefore can be adequately handled by the
reuse of approved DOT containers as provided in the existing
regulations.
In summary, Goodyear supports the proposal to develop only
one set of regulations on the transportation of hazardous materials
and waste by amending the existing Department of Transportation
regulations on the transportation of hazardous materials to in~
elude hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
Vice President
J F Hutchinson
eg
-------
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD Co.
210 N 13TH ST
ST. LOTTIS, MISSOURI esios
622-24-
R C MIX
622-2483
D M TUTKO
October 25, 1977.11
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Docket Section
Room 2111, 401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
Gentlemen:
The Federal Register, Vol. 42, No, 189, dated Thursday, September 29, 1977
provided notice of the public meeting to be held on October 26, 1977 in connec-
tion with the development of regulations for transportation of hazardous waste.
In accordance with the provisions of this notice, we are submitting the follow-
ing written comments on the discussion topics.
Item I
It is most important that the Environmental Protection Agency and the De-
partment of Transportation coordinate their requirements to prevent duplication
of efforts, and, overlapping and conflicting regulations. To prevent this, the
Department of Transportation should modify its definition of hazardous materials
to include hazardous waste.
Item 2
Hazardous waste should be treated the same as hazardous materials and in
accordance with the degree of risk involved. The shipping document rules would
remain the same but would provide for desirable changes in train placement.
Item 3
The Department of Transportation should modify its definition of hazardous
materials to include hazardous waste and any requirements for shipping papers
would be changed accordingly. The Law presently requires the railroads to de-
liver shipments to the consignee and the shipper would be required to submit
quarterly or annual reports listing the hazardous waste shipments.
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
October 25, 1977
The present Department of Transportation labeling and placarding system is
adaptable for handling hazardous waste in transportation.
Item 5
The shipper should be required to register both shipments of hazardous
materials and waste, and, provide the maintenance records of shipments along
with the necessary reports.
Item 6
A modification in the Department of Transportation definition of hazardous
material (to include hazardous waste) would eliminate the necessity to notify
multiple agencies and the current emergency response number would be adequate.
This would also eliminate the need for filing incident reports to various agencies.
Item 7
The railroads have adequately demonstrated their ability to transport and
pick up hazardous material in the event of a spill and there would be no need for
additional regulations if hazardous waste is included in hazardous material.
Item 8
The railroads presently have instructions (copy of the Missouri Pacific's
"Emergency Handling of Ha2ardous Materials in Railroad Cars" attached) and pro-
cedures such as emergency response systems that are adequate for this purpose
and additional regulations are not required.
Item 9
Item 10
The key to this proposal is centered around the word "hazard" and the sub-
stance should be treated in accordance with the amount of risk involved. Also,
as a practical approach, this matter needs to be placed in the proper perspective
regardless if called a material or a waste.
Sincerely,
-------
Or Jack D Early
President
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ASSOCIATION
THE MADISON BUILDING
1155 Fifteenth Slreet, NW, Washington, 0 C 20005
202" 296-1585 c*tw* UAQRCHEM
November 9, 1977
5. Environmental Protection Agency
fice of Solid HaV£@*V Hazardous Wast
U.S.
Offi
Materials Division
Docket Section, Room 2111
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Department of Transportation
Room 6500, Trans Point Building
2100 Second Street/ S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20590
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
Development of Regulations for the Transportation
of Hazardous Waste (FRL 797-6)
The National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA) respectfully
submits herein our views and comments on the ten Discussion Topics
contained in your supplemental advanced notice of proposed rule-
making concerning the Development of Regulations for the Transporta-
tion of Hazardous Waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) of 1976, promulgated jointly in the Federal Register of
September 29, 1977, by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and Department of Transportation (DOT) (under Docket No. HM-145-A).
The National Agricultural Chemicals Association is a non-profit
trade association representing manufacturers and formulators who
produce and sell virtually all of the pest control chemicals and
most of the formulated pesticide chemicals used for agricultural
protection in the United States. As a substantial number of prod-
ucts manufactured and offered for transportation by our Association
member companies are regulated under regulations promulgated by
both the EPA and DOT, NACA has a vital interest in the development
of new regulations which will have an effect on the pesticide
industry, including the dealers, distributors and customers of our
industry's products. Our views on the ten Discussion Topics which
were listed in the notice are as follows:
1. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is now and must con-
tinue to be the sole agency empowered by law to regulate
safety in transportation. We feel this authority should be
broadened to encompass the transportation of all hazardous
waste materials. We recognize that the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act provides open-ended secretarial discre-
tion in designating substances to be designated "hazardous"
in transportation. We further recognize that regulations
promulgated by several other federal agencies, primarily
the EPA, may have a potential to infringe upon DOT1s
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Transportation
November 9, 1977
Page Two
statutory charge to regulate safety in transportation. How-
ever, the Secretary, DOT, has full authority to propose and
enact regulations which would eliminate information gaps and
coordinate regulations of the several federal agencies in
such cases.
In this regard, we feel present DOT definitions for the iden-
tification of the various hazard classes are adequate for the
classification of rauch of the material now being transported
as hazardous waste. We recommend only the inclusion of two
new proper shipping names under Column (2) of Section 172.101,
preceded by an asterisk in Column (1); i.e., "Waste Material,
Solid or Dry, N.o.S." and "Waste Material, Liquid, N.O.S."
Entries should provide for all appropriate hazard classes and
packagings therefore. Wastes which are bioaccumulative, in-
fectious , or which are toxic above current DOT definition levels
should, however, be recognized within the scope of DOT's
Hazardous Materials Regulations.
The existing list of hazardous materials descriptions and proper
shipping names presently specified in 49 CFR 172.101 should not
be diluted by the addition of several hundred additional common
or chemical names of materials which do not possess a signifi-
cant potential hazard to humans from acute exposure incident to
transportation. Rather, a listing of specific waste materials
which are so designated by the EPA under RCRA and which are not
presently designated in 49 CFR 172.101 as hazardous materials
should be included under a separate section of Part 172. Those
materials which are presently listed in Section 172.101 and
which also appear on such a list of hazardous wastes, or which
are identified by OSHA, could be further identified by symbol
reference in Column (1). Suspected carcinogenic, mutagenic,
teratogenic, or tumorogenic agents should not be included in
such a list. A general proper shipping name, classification
and definition should also be included for waste materials which
do not currently meet specific DOT hazard definitions.
When the above is accomplished, the EPA should then incorporate
DOT regulations by reference.
If DOT definitions are amended to include hazardous wastes which
are presently not recognized within the scope of DOT's Hazardous
Materials Regulations, regulations should be imposed only for
communication or reporting in the event of a transportation inci-
dent. Specific requirements for packaging (other than that which
is now provided in 49 CFR 173.24(a)), marking, placarding.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Transportation
November 9, 1977
Page Three
and labeling requirements should not be required for materials
in 49 CFR unless such materials are specifically defined there-
in as hazardous during transportation.
3. To meet the requirements of Section 3002 of RCRA which require
a manifest to assure that hazardous waste is designated to a
permitted hazardous waste management facility, we feel the
existing DOT shipping paper requirements can be modified to
accommodate the RCRA requirement without the necessity of pre-
paring additional documentation. Such modification could take
the form of a simple certification, stamped or preprinted on
a shipping paper, that a specific volume, weight or as other-
wise appropriate, of material meeting the definition of hazardous
waste was delivered to a proper facility (to be designated) and
was, in fact, received at such facility at a time and date
specified. Copies of such shipping papers should then be re-
tained by both the waste management facility, carrier and
shipper for a fixed period of time, in consonance with DOT and
EPA regulations. We suggest that DOT and EPA eliminate dupli-
cative documentation wherever possible.
4. Hazardous waste materials which are presently defined under DOT
regulations can be readily transported under existing DOT
classifications and packaging specifications prescribed in
49 CFR. Currently required labeling, marking and packaging for
such materials are certainly adequate now. For waste materials
which are not presently covered by existing DOT hazard classes,
but for which a new DOT definition should be promulgated, no
labeling, placarding or marking should be required. Identifica-
tion and certification on shipping papers should be adequate to
ensure safety in transportation.
5. We do not feel transporters of hazardous wastes should be re-
quired to be registered. compliance with the requirements of
49 CFR with regard to hazardous materials transportation should
suffice.
6. Provisions for the reporting of accidents and spills of hazardous
materials, including waste materials now meeting DOT definitions
of the various hazard classes, are reportable to DOT. As all
earners are familiar wi th current reporting requirements for
accidents and unintentional releases of hazardous materials, any
spill of hazardous waste during transportation should also be
reported directly to the DOT in the same manner presently pre-
scribed in 49 CFR. Incidents or spills should not have to be
reported to more than one federal agency. DOT should then be
the agency solely responsible to coordinate with all other affected
agencies.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Transportation
November 9, 1977
Page Four
7. In the event of a spill, the material cleaned up, which may
become a hazardous material, would certainly have to be further
transported to a waste management facility. Again, DOT regula-
tions promulgated in 49 GFR should cover such contingencies.
8. Existing DOT regulations now require training to be conducted
by shippers and transporters of hazardous materials.. We
definitely feel such training programs must include provisions
for emergency response to and clean-up of hazardous wastes.
Such training should be sufficiently detailed and comprehensive
enough to ensure complete safety, both in the clean-up itself
and in the proper handling and containment of the wastes during
transportation to the disposal facility.
9. Present DOT regulations relating to the compatibility of loading
and storing hazardous materials should be sufficient to encom-
pass hazardous wastes.
10. We definitely feel close cooperation and coordination between
the DOT and EPA must be maintained to ensure each agency's area
of concern does not overstep its legislated limits. Where
definitions and criteria are included in the regulations of the
various federal agencies, they should all be in concert; today
they are not.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer the above comments and hope
they will be of assistance to you in the development of further
rulemaking.
Very truly yours.
Jack D. Early
JDE:etb
NACA Board of Directors
NACA Transportation and Distribution Committee
-------
PALM BEACH COUNTY
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
208 Clematis Street
Suite 506
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone (305) 659-7828
October 26, 1977
OCT31 i377
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Docket Section, Room 2111
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
ATTENTION: Mr. Alan I. Roberts, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES -
MANIFEST
Dear Mr. Roberts:
I have many reservations about the handling and final disposition of hazardous or
potentially hazardous wastes. However, my comments will be restricted just to two areas.
MANIFEST SYSTEM
The cradle to grave concept is a good one providing that it accomplishes the
intended goal. My concern is for those toxic materials that are produced as
a processing agent for further manufacturing uses which alter the original
agent, although still toxic, to some form other than the original material.
It would appear that at this point the original manifest will follow the small
amount of residual remaining to be disposed of while another manifest will
have to begin with the newly evolved toxic material.
If this is to be the practice I think that it may become extremely cumbersome
from an administrative, regulatory and enforcement perspective.
RESTRICTING HAZARDOUS WASTE PLANNING CONTROL AT STATE LEVEL
Closer coordination between EPA, State and local government on this matter may lead
to the beneficial and economical development of regional storage or neutralization
facilities for small quantities of locally produced hazardous wastes.
-------
Page 2
I think that you will find that local government is just as concerned with the economic
viability of small industry as it is with environmental protection and the regulation
of these industries.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments on this subject.
Sincerely yours,
Timothy F. Hunt, Jr
Executive Director
-------
October 26, 1977
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Materials Division
Docket Section
Room 2111
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.c. 20460
Department of Transportation
Room 6500
Trans Point Building
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Sirs:
This is in response to invitations published in the Federal
Register, Volume 42, No. 189 inviting comments regarding the
minimization of the coordination of the mandates of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) with the Office of
Hazardous Materials of the Department of Transportation.
As I understand it, Section 104 of the Hazardous Materials
Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-633, 88 Statute 2156) authorizes the Secretary
of Transportation to designate as a hazardous material any material
the transportation of which in a particular quantity and form may
pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property.
I realize that one of the functions of the current series of
meetings is to define what are hazardous wastes and what regulatory
programs are needed in their handling. But as a shipper, we feel
that as the Hazardous Materials Regulations have developed, there
appear to be numerous areas where uniformity between these regulations
and the regulations of various other government authorities seem lacking.
This is especially so when assigning the definition of product and re-
quirements for labeling as specified by the Hazardous Materials Act,
Solid Waste Act, Hazardous Substance Labeling Act, and OSHA as they all
have variations. The Hazardous Material Transportation Act makes it
illegal to overlabel and, therefore, further complicates the situation
from that aspect.
-------
Page Two
October 26, 1977
In dealing, for example, with irritants, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission has a. rather clear cut definition and test procedure
by which products are evaluated. The Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act has only a vague definition and no test procedure. It omits some
very strong skin irritants, required for transportation, yet we must
label them as an irritant for the CPSC. Our overlabeling would seem
in violation of the Hazardous Materials Act.
As I understand it, OSHA is also currently working to specify
what labels will be required on Hazardous Materials, some of which will
probably be solid wastes.
It seems to us that certainly coordination between these efforts
by EPA and DOT are in order. Moreover, it would seem to me that the
Department of Transportation should act as an overall coordinator between
all the agencies to prevent conflicts and insure uniformity as much as
possible. Perhaps a current "audit" of present requirements might be
in order as a step in that direction.
Yours very truly,
*t>
llley
General Transportat£orT~ttaiiager
GEL/ala
cc: Mr. J. E. Bartley, Executive Vice President, NITL
Mr. E. Sigeti, Chairman, Special Environmental and Related
Regulatory Matters, NITL
-------
SHELL OIL COMPANY
TWO SHELL PLAZA
P O BOX 2099
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77U01
November 7, 1977
mF.rargin.CE
NOV111977
Director
Office Of Hazardous Materials Operations
U. S. Department of Transportation
Room 6500 - Trans Point Buildinq
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Materials Division
Docket Section
Room 2111
401 "M" Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20160
Dear Sirs:
The Shell 011 Company respectfully submits this response to the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Hazardous Materials
Operations, Department of Transportation's announcement 1n the Federal Peqi'ster
on Thursday, September 29, 1977. This response pertains to the Development of"
Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Waste. Comments are to be
received by the EPA and DOT on or before November 9, 1977.
Shell Oil Company (Shell), a Delaware Corporation, is engaged in the
production, refining and manufacturing of petroleum, petroleum products and
chemicals. Shell, also, is a nationwide marketer and distributor of these
materials, as well as an Importer and exporter of them. In the course of these
operations, waste materials accumulate. Some of the wastes are hazardous,
and when transported, they are subject to the Department of Transportation's
Hazardous Materials Regulations published in Title 19 Code of Federal Regulations
Parts 100-139. These hazardous waste materials subject to 49 CFP as well as some
other wastes will become subject to the regulatory standards that are developed
under the mandate of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
Therefore, Shell has a vital interest 1n any regulations developed that will
affect the shipping, receiving and transporting of waste materials.
-------
Director - Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
Shell wishes to commend the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Office of Hazardous Materials Operations for their joint cooperative
efforts in this very important matter. It is essential that there be continued
coordination between the EPA and OI'MO to bring about effective regulations for
waste materials and not confusing and conflicting ones that would ntb^nnsn
exist.
Shell's response to the ten discussion topics in the sequence
published in t'r.e F_edertV^ Regi ster on September 2°, 1977 are as follows
Topic One - Response
The transportation of hazardous wastes should be subject to the
regulations of the DOT published in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations. The
DOT should take the lead with coordination from the EPA in promulgating regulations
to include all hazardous wastes. Publishing regulations in 4n CFP for the
transportation of certain wastes and 10 CFP for others would only lead to confusion
and to conflicting and ineffective regulations. The DOT should have a
regulatory mechanism fully utilizing and incorporating by reference FP^
criteria end information for waste materials that are not now subject to 4° CFP.
The EPA should incorporate by reference to 49 CFR for regulations for transpor-
tation of materials that are considered hazardous under TCP/1.
] opic Two - Response
All waste materials that are considered hazardous under the criteria
established by the E.PA should be considered for transportation purposes as a
hazardous material. Materials that do not now meet the acute hazard definition
in 41 CFR should have those waste materials assigned another hazard class, i.e.,
Other RoQulated Materials - Environmental (ORM-E) or Environmental Regulated
Materials (ERM). To include waste materials in 49 CFR and not have them all
treated as hazardous would tend to downgrade the importance of all regulations
in 49 CFR. The OQT, however, should publish a separate list for those materials
tnat are considered hazardous !y the FPA and not already listed in § 172.101 of
49 CFR.
Topic Three - Response
The DOT should modify its regulations pertaining to shipping documents
to include EPA manifest requirements. This modification would include the
name of the consignee, consignor, route, etc., not now required on shipoinq
documents by the DOT but are the practice to be shown on shipping papers of the
shipper and carrier. Paper wort- should be minimized as much as possible. For
simplification, it is recommended there be a single format whereon generators/
shippers would be required to show the chemical composition of waste materials
whenever necessary for the transporter and receiver to identify the hazards
involved if they wish. Mo need exists for the transporter to report to generators
that delivery has been accomplishpd. The manifest system involving the generator
and receiver accounts for delivery to the proper destination.
-------
Director - Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
Topic Four - .Response
The DOT should devplop a new label and placard to identify hazardous
wastes other than those wastp materials that are now considered hazardous
subject to current regulations. This identification is necessary for safety
of thf transporter, receiver and the public. No additional marking is required
on the outside of containers. However, this does not oreclude the placing of non-
conflicting precautionary labels on containers should the generator/shipper
so wish.
Top i c _Fi^ve - Respo n s e
No additional registration of transporters with either the HOT or EPA
is necessary. All railroads and manv of th^ for-hirp motor carriers are now
registered with the ICC or State Authorities. Manifest procedures should ^
sufficient. Hpnorator and receivers of waste materials have a pan^n'ori-
reporting responsibility that assures the oenerator that the material has f^f"
delivered in accordance with the shipping paner requirement.
The reporting of spills should he directed to one agency and with one
telephone number to call except where current lavs renn rr another agency such as
the u. 5. Coast Guard be notified when there are spills into navigable waterway:
Since immediate notice of certain hazardous material incidents must now be
reported to the DOT by telephone, it is recommended that the HOT receive all
calls including hazardous waste incidents and that the DOT notify the EPA and
other agencies if necessary. The same situation should exist with respect to
filing incident reports. Current regulations in 49 CFR should be amended to
include all waste materials and that the DOT furnish these written incident
reports to other agencies as needed or upon request.
TcipJLC Seven -_ Response
The DOT has responsibility with respect to transportation. The
handling of waste materials that have been spilled should be under the guidance
of the EPA. Should the EPA develop guidelines they can be Incornorated into
49 CFR as reference.
Topic £jght_^_Re^p_onse
!Jo formal training programs specifically for emergency response to
hazardous waste spills and clean-up are necessary. The EPA and DOT, CHEMTREC,
Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee, Association of American Railroads,
American Trucking Association and others informally through seminars have
been educating those in need about emergency responses. Somp industries, such
-------
Director - Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
Topic Eight - Response (cont'd.)
manufacturing
as the railroads and many/companies have developed their own systems appropriate
for the materials they are transporting or shipping. For example, Shell
has its Transportation Emergency Response Procedures (STERP) and Toxicology
Emergency Response Network (STERN) for responding to emergencies. Usually, the
generator/shipper has the most expertise with respect to the materials they
ship and in case of an incident they best would be in a position to respond to
the proper handling. Most programs, including Shell's, are tied into the
Manufacturing Chemists Association's CHEITTREC. It is recommended that CHEKTREC
records be upgraded to include waste materials so CHEMTPEC can furnish the
necessary precautionary information to those at the scene of an incident until
the generator or shipper is notified and responds to those at the scene of an
incident. This upgrading of CHEMTPEC records is an interim measure, until a
Hazardous Information System is established by the DOT under Docket No. HM-1P6.
Topic Nine - Response
Current DOT Regulations 49 CFR contain loading and storaqp charts
for hazardous materials in packages. If any problem exists with respect to
other waste materials not now included in the charts, they should be amended
accordingly. However, with respect to the loadlnq of bulk materials in carqo
tanks It is necessary that the DOT modify requirements when mixtures are involved.
The generator/shipper usually is in the position to know whether the material
he is shipping is compatible with other material already loaded. Therefore,
regulations should be amended to require the transporter to inform each generator
at time of pick up what waste materials are in the vehicle so that the generator
may determine whether his material is compatible or not.
Topic Ten - Response
Many shipments involving the movement of hazardous wastes for disposal
are for short distances only. Also, the containers of these waste materials are
not transferred from one vehicle to another nor are they moved over a carrier's
docks. It is recommended that regulations permit generators to use single trip
or used containers and containers that have not been reconditioned when in the
generator's opinion the container is safe and will satisfy DOT requirements
for transportation of hazardous materials. Such requlations would eliminate the
need for purchasing new containers when both the container and its contents
are going to a disposal site. Further, where definition and criteria arc
included in the regulations of the various agencies they should all be in concert.
-------
Director - Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
Also attached 1s a copy of Shell's response to DOT Docket No. HM-145
wherein it is stated there should be coordination among the Agencies in
promulgating regulations and that the Federal Agency for the responsibility
of regulating transportation of hazardous materials including waste materials
should be the DOT.
Thank you for the opportunity of responding and offering comments on
such an important matter as the transportation of hazardous waste materials.
Yours very truly,
Attachments
W. D. Aronson, Manager -
Equipment Engineering - Land
Transportation Department
-------
SHELL OIL COMPANY
TWO SHRL PLAZA
P O BOX 2099
HOUSTON TEXAS 77001
'Vy 24, 1077
Docket Spction
Office of Hazardous "atcnals
U S rnpartir^nt of Transportation
Uasiirv,ti r, LJ. C. 2r"jc'0
The Shell (Ml Company r^spectf ul ly submit1; this response to the
"ateridls Transportation fur(.\nj'r, n^uest fnr comments to Advance f.'ntic" rf
Proposed I'ulomaki ng, Tocfct fo. l'"-l<"i, tnvi rormental and health ! ff rets
iiitcrials. Pocket No. !i!M4fj i',ir, puhlishe^ in the Federal urn is tor dated
uecer"--ef rj, 1"7'". The '"j^™ L ^-HJ-'^S1^ dated ."arch 1^, 1077 exTend^d thp
date for filin'j consnents f rcn* 'VTch'T^V 1077 to June 13, 1977.
Shell Oil Company (Lr^ll), a L1ela>/aro Corporation, is cnqaq^d In
the production, refining and n\ii uf jcturinq of r"^trol euti;, ['ptroloun products,
and c'u'i.ncal s . ''any of the*;0 rati-riMs arc subject to t'H1 HAT ' s I'azanlous
Material1; Regulations and subject to or will bo involved in Occupational
^afety and Healt'') /^'iirinistratirn, food an! Hrug fl,dmini strati on or Environmental
Protection Agency regulations. S^nl 1 is a natipin/idn marteter and distributor
of tluse materials as ^ol 1 ai> ar1 n.^ortor and exporter of tl.e'n Therefore,
Shell hrr, a vitril int^ro^t in r"iul,itiar,s pramul-jatcd und^r noc^ "t l'"-H5
that i'il1 affect thn shiT'inrt of its i.-aterials.
Tr.ere nas hern ,M\ i rcrvn rr] trrnd ny Fpdrral ^jt-rcios to further
rtnjulatr tazardous, envircni,.' "ttil and health effects ma tonal1; U times,
the rf'juLitions Ly these rT , \\n , I??-, and OSli''1, in its response (copy attached)
to OSriA's /"dvdncc Notice cf rVnpnseJ 'ul enaki nn on hazardous ''atenal',
LaL-elir"j t^ at -as puDlisf.^d IP ^ho rrf{ora1_F^nst_or on Janu.T\ 28, V-77
It is rcC',,'MeF'ded that there f.r c -or'i i n"o"t"i"on a!Ficn^rtlne aqrhcius in pr^^uT'iitinq
any re Qul .itirr.s un(if-r Doc1'^ 'i -1" This interface iin^ r^np'!i natuui wit-i othi_>r
a'jencieb ic, essential to t^c cr, In1 nshr,;f nt of roiiulations t uit are i^easonahlr
and u-if'f'ly a,\ol i ca"l e .
-------
Envi roryienta' and '-j~i'J :_ffcict5 "-it'trlals should >>c r>',i\y>rt to U.o
transport^ ion rr^juld ti ..i c "f ' • ' "'"Mrt'i^rt of TrjnsportatTnr {'"""I) TV-
areai nr^,)csi a for rcrjuldt '< ~'M jn t1 osc t'lat ar^ n-^; nr .ill '^ irvt-lvr'd 11
rujulat i u1:, of certain '.ji(.ri'1 • / the tiTir1 prrr.fint acirinr i r^, i <-• ,
CtcupfiPri-,,!! Saffty and Mr1"1^. ' '"n m s trciti nn (PS1|"), fro,! [U,d I" rv-i
-V 11 mi s ',riiti CM (F I1/1), jpc1 '•',• ' - '. i ri "f; ntal Pro t ret i rn ;>' crc" ('"'"}. T! ' ''^r
sl'd'j 1 d riv j a rc(j j"i 3 t-"'ry > r < h1! i > ' f i.l"! v uti 11 zi tK1 i1 ^ i n f ot i j 11 f n ar'1 c r ' ^r1
of t'rn'^ f other iyf nc"] i"^ T • ' ""\ r-t p^ (lot cs ta il i 'j'1 ?nv 10 '(rf i r i *• i f s nr-
' tiu.1 rp rr •' i ! ° i ' ' ' •, i • ^f n r""'li t\' n 1 lu ' 1 4 r i !pnt 1 fh t1 i <-,
cl <"•r £ i ' r ,1 ton cil ir ri'Cf ' ',<' : 'c. rv^r , ^! •' ' "^ f, r ul d ^ v^1 * e-i / '^v'l1 mt
tr ..T.I (.j.'icft" la'"! "i frr " - -r >• of v'^r'ti'T ^ti f-i 7' i s n.">: lo'-l
'-'Gill, I" ,bf ( fO id.'lt^fj -u Vr ^1*^ rff/c*-. ''tin.il' Hfilv - '•' * f '• ' ^ ,
"
.'if1 LT'M fids ir". ;• i- c( •" i ' ntion PMifSi'd re , jl ati o;is i1 t'ti1 (i.viror>
^(ar, fvi1 i.C"J ir !'. i1^1 , r'lo-. ,^1 Tn, c-iv1 r.ip' icrt • I i'f'.^ct'- "^'"M?
•'n '' ' ul-f f -id-nt1!! • "t ir,"i ^rtata"! ''r -^ ", r r "T T- <••
1 :'-"r; ' "•" '1'C '•' <• i ' ' •• wirTii, ut.il 'i^t'"" 1,1 i',
-------
' ' <•''<,l /,"iec of thn cr.rnria ^ t?» i ir,ii"r' '<\. nt'u-r
!>' 'rif 'MS stricter r^'L.I n';1 f'its , t P criteria
uf ct i- '.jtuCles sliould '.i' I,-,/,' T;,o [-pj can (.;,[,. those crlti'Mf art! th" ll^ts
of '.. 'rials I'.sued hy t'ior" / _n ncics anJ i/wc "\-i<\'i tlr'j-,1 ,• tn nicer, nr.iti-
tfir n't the ' ctjula tl ons. ['c^'wr, since it i.av n"t hp ncc^'^.^ry !(i i nccrpnrut"
31] of '.',« ntl > r I'jcncv rc''rilit-J njts'rfals, orovision'. s uvjM ho ni,o 1 .at t'.c
:cditi' ^t i iteriils of t!''sr citicr /^'lonclrs Mil h^ l ncorinir i*"'1 I-*TI
r.'jUl , i n, on y jndcr ' !,T rulcrMlr/l '.rocr Jur<-s Furt'icr, the TiT re'ill 3t1onr,
str.'ilJ :ta»" if fie cfan-n involvrl l', d dunl ic.iti -n of an r1'!1'", r'\". or rTA
A nfi' uOT cliissi f icnt-i,-i for t'icse nidtenalj i'^ rocni cndf]. Either
:f" - ti.vironncnt and lu-alt'i ^ ' sletr<'( "atenals, or i"-r."-r - Ot'npr S'ci'jlatfd
,'(iterir'r. - fr,v i rcnn^nt . r-.j *r >]th I^.ulattJ, i.oul-J he accf't(ifslp A n-j','
bquir,1 r r Diamond sha')p'l ^i t t'/jr ". ' 1*1^1, as d^scn1-.1'! in ^ur"-tion ?, tou1d
It rr' i' ' ;:nta ti vc of fiat r,f",' cl ISM f icitiop . An alpha lettering on ff
l'l»l cl^.tin'juishod frr( a f'i'ii'^1 v-otf^ for ?cuto luizarJs (K"-l?r) \iuld further
Hitntify t!i' nr-altri o^ 'T-M r-j : -ntol i^tervil.
r«co i-'nH.r-1 ,,r-;si '!-> controls are an additional mctcim'1" la^cl
n-J , 'jLipmnn pt»^r -E r ui rpnent for the 1 denti f ic<»ti on n^ FP'i (or
.'AtcnaU The- ir^sont pacVaging rroul rnicnts under S 173 24 1s
'i'.nie ccritrol. Vills of these materials should !;p ro^nrt^d
tii" DOT who will fi^ndl" wltii otner /'';pic1ps as r.ay t-e rucsssary,
'uting any ct'ipr dills r'^uirod under laws or rcTul ati on:,. Those
y to a new classpd n^terial
-------
g -
Tne impact is vrry difficult to Quantify. nu[~l lection of effort hv
regulatory O'jcncies and consc^u^nt inefficient uso of re sources s[>oul d he
jvu1d"C. At tne s.in-e tin-o, it is rccogmzcd tvi,n t'icro is a nped to rstahllsh
appropriate ccntrols on t'.csc natenals.
Yours y^ry truly,
-------
OIL COMPANY
indnstry i, t,::,d nt- four federal Hindu's ,m-.:\\ k>'. a'-"! in,
in'un*) ovor icu,)nl;''d ,-n 1 oot'>ntial hazardous matfji alr " in ' f aic
>TK v ,7 Pi i, tnc j.,\iif it uf iran^L i tation (i'OT) ano t',.j C'-.i ,n c, i i on 11
J.^i't> ,i-[i Healtn i" o n n i-,' i i r > on (OSIIA) OSHV s aut'\,i;tv ij c n ; n. d to
[iri'trotlon of m, ,>] oy, , r ,,, (Jil, i,,-,vatc sectnr rathet tna" t'u1 ;',',l'ti-n as
^ • I'^l!-- Tiis a l,,',in.|j |.r,,.,.,.g built solely on OSMA autmi.' .:nM
Ie, v? ] ii-i| ' riji'ibors of otoi'lo uni'rotcctLd It is c^uallv i'ic
i-'ie '>« tri.cn to [,IL.O- t • , ol iteration of nnzirdous nati-ruil ,,l
i" 'ilunn. b/ c'-i, i'.irij '-coral a j thoi 1110;.
It'l' Uritnn, I ! i ,u,',|,urt jtuin ['.'jrcdu (M1B) ,T 11" f"1! li i '!.•',
'-'-' 'i-t;af it lj (vj-isi; ::»; n-^,, or additional tran >pu-'ta 11 ^n L'".;'''.
f: ' olaS'.L". of paler •. 1 ; ,v, ' .'i,t l n'j ocitain hazard1, to ,ifj[lo a- ' t1,.-
r '. on i r at i on of infon,:t>,n on 1 ho1 rraterial and its Oiza-d tr ;•>• ••^n'i
' 'trllirin thf n a t '~ia! \iMlo •' is in t'"an ipoi tation O'r in r,tot,:' <'
'!• ': i.0",);c"i'jrit tl" j.,l , "t:,"otiyr;s el cont'-ol for V'f ' OL I r •_,:, t , . f.
J( i 'O'-, forn'ula tor, ,,'in 1,0' _ iei
-------
To avoid duplication ,
the Manufacturer v*ho intend' to
labels agreed to by all U'dc-iiil
re-rain fi>ed to the co'it.iir.er v.'i
is bo i r | processed hy a u >t i -PI .
nd confusion in labeling hazardous DM trn-
*n;> such ratenal should l>e able to u~<
Jiencies of concern The warning 1,'V 1 '.h
!]!' it it in transport and while the 'Vt'T
k'e teconiiierid that th( lo;,' federal authorities (PDA, LI >\, 0'(;
DOT) agtee on label retjinrt'M rti', for hazardous materials used or tr v-.p
in interstate cofnmerce V'^y -.vnild develop measures to ossure contviu
intenritv of the label .'•nd its ^jTiunqs. If Guch an arrancement cr.uld
reached, conflicts, rn sunc^ei st in'jin'j: and ccst^ would be saved OS["\ ^
consider such .in approach dr, ^tc torable to developing its own system
V'f-ry/truly yours,
tloward L Kusnetz, Manager
Safety S Industrial Hygiene
-------
THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY
October 27, 1977
File: 23-AA-21
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Materials Division
Docket Section
Room 21 LI
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D. C. 20460
Gentlemen:
The Standard Oil Company (Ohio) and its Subsidiaries are manufac-
turers and marketers of petroleum and chemical products in the Eastern
United States. As such, its plants are generators of potentially
hazardous wastes that may be shipped 01 transported in intra or inter-
state commerce.
In response to the notice for a joint public meeting published in
the Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 189, Thursday, September 29, 1977,
listing discussion topics The Standard Oil Company submits the following".
(1) (a) It is our opinion the Department of Transportation is the
agency that should develop regulations for hazardous waste transportation.
This would prec]ude dual or conflicting regulations. The D.O.T. presently
regulates all modes and transportation of hazardous materials and the
shipping public should be required to deal with only one agency; that
which is best suited for and most capable of proposing, regulating and
enforcing.
(b) We would question the necessity to modify definitions to
regulate all wastes. For example, how many are already regulated as
other hazards7 What is the primary hazard9 Would containment of a waste
spill and clean-up differ significantly from that of a prime product?
And finally, what are the alternatives7
(2) The D.O.T. should establish criteria through rulemaking to
allow generator/shippers to classify their waste products as is
presently done for "N.O.S." commodities.
(3) Existing shipping papers can be used with the additional
information required by the E.P.A. added within the existing format.
-------
THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY
U. S. E.P.A.
October 27, 1977
(4) It is our opinion that current D.O.T. regulations for labeling
and placarding are sufficient and should it be necessary, new labels and
placards should be developed by the D.O.T. compatible with current design.
(5) If the D.O.T. becomes the regulatory agency it would have
jurisdietion to require registration under the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, should that be deemed necessary or desireable.
(6) In the event of accident or spill the D.O.T. should be
notified consistent with existing regulations. We would also strongly
suggest that the carriers voluntarily contact Chemtrec for advice, as
is presently done when an incident involving hazardous materials occurs.
Reports should be submitted to the D.0.T. who would disseminate as
required-
(7) In the event of a spill of what' A prime product that may or
may not be a hazard by current D.O.T. definition9 If so, our answer to
discussion topic #2 would also be our answer to this discussion topic.
(8) Except for additional training that might be required due to
the nature of the hazardous classification, we believe that established
training programs under mandate from the H.M.T.A. should be adequate.
(9) The D O.T. should only modify its loading and stowage
requirements insofar as it does not presently cover classifications
which may be added as a result of new rulemaking.
(10) The Standard Oil Company would like to emphasize that the
D.O.T. has enforcement authority only on interstate commerce. We
recognize that many states have adopted in toto the D.O.T. regulations,
while others have or are in the process of proposing more strict
regulations. However, the D.O.T. still would not have enforcement
authority over intrastate transportation.
While we endorse D.O.T. j urisdiction, we must emphasize that each
state, and individual iiunicipality, wi 11 require incentives to enforce
the regulations if they are to be effective.
Very truly yours,
Coordinator-Transportation Regulations
-------
y__\
INDUSTRIAL GAS DIVISION
TELEPHONE
215-398-4911
NOV111977
7 November 1977
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Docket Section Room 2111
U01 "M" Street, S. W.
Washington, D, C. 20U60
SUBJECT: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Uo CFR, Part 250
Development of Regulations for the Transportation of
Hazardous Waste
Gentlemen:
Attached please find the comments of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. in
response to the Environmental Protection Agency's Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for Development of Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous
Wastes published in the Federal Register, September 29, 1977.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this rulemaking and hope the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation favorably
consider our comments.
Very truly yours,
W. N. West
Hazardous Materials Supervisor
WWW:sip
Attachments
cc; Department of Transportation
Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
Room 6500, Trans Point Building
2100 Second Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20590
-------
COMMENTS TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND
DEPARTMENT OF,TRANSPORTATION
FRL 797-6
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBMITTED BY
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.
-------
1. a.
Regulations being developed by the Environmental Protection Agency and
existing regulations of the Department of Transportation impact the trans-
portation of hazardous wastes. Which Age'ncy should take the lead in
developing the regulations for hazardous waste transportation?
The Department of Transportation must have exclusive Jurisdiction over
the transportation of hazardous materials. We feel this Jurisdiction
should continue to stay vith that agency. Hazardous wastes are no differ-
ent than the hazardous materials as defined in DOT regulations. Those
regulations make no reference or distinction between virgin materials
and waste hazardous materials.
1. b.
What approach should be taken?
We feel that a Memorandum of Understanding should be entered into between
EPA and DOT as allowed under the Administrative Procedures Act. Such a
memorandum would be published, in the Federal^ Register similar to the
agency agreement between EPA, HEW and FDA. We feel this approach would
give everyone the opportunity to understand the relationship between the
two agencies and give the public the opportunity to comment on that
relationship. Duplication of regulations between federal agencies is
not in the best interest of the general public and we are sure neither
the EPA nor DOT would want such duplications.
In addition, shoold any of the regulations be required by EPA for the
transportation of hazardous wastes, the EPA should petition the DOT
through their rulemaking process to have DOT amend their regulations.
1. c.
Should DOT modify its definition of hazardous materials to include all
hazardous wastes? (Wastes which are bioaccumulative, toxic above current
DOT definition levels, infectious, carcinogens, or having potential for
genetic change are likely to be identified under RCRA as hazardous wastes
arid are not currently covered by the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations.)
In response tc DOT Docket HM-1^5, it was suggested that a new classification
of ORM-E be added to DOT regulations to cover those items that may have a
detrimental effect on the environment. We think that if DOT incorporated
those suggestions, the EPA requirements would be satisfied. The regulations
relating to such waste materials should provide for notice to carriers and
disposers of the nature of materials and reporting procedures to DOT in the
event of a spill,
-------
1. d.
Should EPA then incorporate DOT regulations by reference or should EPA
consider a separate set of regulations to supplement the Raps in DOT
regulatory coverage, in that EPA regulations vould cover only wastes
which are hazardous, nqt^ all hazardous materials?
We feel that by taking the options offered above and the EPA incorporating
DOT regulations by reference, this question vould be adequately answered.
2.
If DOT does modify its definition of hazardous materials to include all
hazardous wastes, should DOT regulations specifically address the trans-
portation of hazardous wajrtej; or treat them the same as hazardous materials
that are bioaccumulative, toxic, infectious, carcinogenic, etc.?
We feel that there is no need to address the transportation of hazardous
wastes specifically. As was stated above, there is no distinction be-
tween waste and virgin materials in the DOT hazardous materials regulations.
We also feel that there should be no regulations of hazardous wastes that
are intended for recovery, recycling or use for energy value internally.,
Only those hazardous waste products that are intended for disposal should
have any regulatory requirements. They should not be extended to include
other hazardous non-waste materials.
Fundamentally, any definitions and/or regulations developed must draw a
distinction between materials vhich pose acute hazards during transportation
and those which pose long-range hazards if spilled or disposed of in an
incorrect manner. Current regulations on acute hazards are adequate, Reg-
ulations developed by the DOT for long-range hazards must be separate and
addressed to the specific need to notify carriers and disposers of the
nature of the material.
Section 3002 of RCRA requires the development of a manifest (shipping paper)
to assure that the hazardous waste is designated to a permitted hazardous
waste management facility and that all the hazardous waste is delivered to
that facility. Should DOT modify its shipping paper requirements to fulfill
the needs of the RCRA manifest or should EPA develop requirements to supple-
ment existing shipping paper requirements {including the possibility of a
separate document) ?
The EPA should establish a certification procedure for approving hazardous
waste management facilities, and the DOT should require, on its existing
-------
Page
shipping papers, to reference any EPA standardized information and the
designated, certified vaste management facility. We feel by having; a
certification procedure that could be referenced through code designation,
all shipping papers would then meet the reouirements of RCRA. We also
note that many of the individual states have or are adopting their own
manifest forns and ve feel these could "be pre-empted by the EPA require-
ments. We feel every effort should be made ty EPA to take the lead In
certification and standardization so that individual states would not,
of necessity, have to develop their ovn regulatory requirements.
If for some reason, substantial amounts of analytical information are
required to "be on the manifest, we recognize the possibility of a
need for a separate document * Additional information on long-range
hazards vould tend to dilute the acute hazard information, which must
be shown on shipping papers.
Are
suffi
-,he current DOT requirements for labeling, marking and placarding
.cient for handling of hazardous vaste in transportation?
Yes—With the addition of the ORM-E to the DOT regulations, we feel the
labeling, marking and placarding regulations of DOT are sufficient. It
is also important to note that RCRA does not require such labeling and
we would not recommend additionsl labels or placards as this would only
have the tendency to "be confusing to emergency personnel and dilute the
effectiveness of the present labeling and placarding system.
It. b.
For those hazardous vastes which will not fall under DOT purview, should
EPA develop labels and placards of separate design or should DOT develop
the labels and placards for these hazardous wastes that are compatible
with current DOT design?
EPA should develop a waste label to include some required information.
This information would include such items as the identification of the
materials, the means of disposal, the control number and the nature of
the hazard. The labeling would be used only on packaged waste materials
and vould be standardized so that additional information would not have
to be added for each individual type of waste. We would suggest that
such a label be devleoped in conjunction with DOT and published in DOT
regulations. Existing placarding standards "by DOT are sufficient and
should not require any changes.
-------
Page k
5.
HMTA authorizes the registration of anyone transporting hazardous materials;
RCRA requires notification of the transportation of hazardous vastes.
Should registration requirements be developed for transporters of hazardous
vastes?
Regulations should not be required as we see no benefit to safety and
extreme difficulty in compliance and enforcement.
RCRA requires notification of the transportation of hazardous vastes through
the manifest system and subsequent reporting. Additional carrier regis-
tration requirements would only duplicate existing requirements and present
an additional paperwork burden at no apparent benefit.
6. a.
In the event of an accident or a spill of a hazardous material during
loading, transportation, or unloading, DOT requires notification of the
incident and the filing of a report. For the spill of hazardous waste,
EPA is also considering similar requirements. Should notification of
spills be directed to EPA, DOT (Office of Hazardous Material Operations),
or the U. S, Coast Guard National Emergency Response Center?
We feel that EPA should work with the existing notification system whether
that be DOT of the U. S. Coast Guard, which is part of DOT.
6. b.
Should EPA and^ DOT receive incident reports (DOT for hazardous materials
and EPA for hazardous vastes), or should all reports be filed with DOT
(even when spilled hazardous wastes are not covered by DOT regulation)?
We feel that the present system of incident reporting is sufficient and
that if EPA requires those reports, they be forwarded by DOT.
7.
In the event of a spill, the material cleaned up may become a hazardous
vaste. Should DOT or EPA develop the regulations for handling the spilled
hazardous material?
We do not feel that any reflations should be developed for handling
spilled hazardous materials. As you are aware, at the incident of a
-------
Page 5
spill, emergency personnel respond expeditiously to insure a fast and
efficient clean-up operation with the best means they have available
to them at the scene. Hampering this operation by imposing regulations
that may not be known by local clean-up personnel would be detriment EL!
to the public's safety. We therefore think that only regulations
should be developed to control the disposal of these products after
they are cleaned up.
With the development of adequate regulations, as mentioned above, further
transportation of spilled material as a hazardous waste would fall under
the Jurisdiction of the DOT.
ICMTA authorized DOT to require training to be conducted by shippers and
transporters of hazardous materials. Are training programs necessary
relative to emergency response and cleanup of hazardous wastes specifically?
If so, to what extent should they be required?
Formal training programs should not be required. The present DOT regulations
are very clear that it is the shipper's responsibility to properly train
all its people in the handling of hazardous materials. We feel such i state-
ment is sufficient and we would think that a similar statement in EPA regu-
lations would suffice.
Emergency response personnel should be instructed to contact Chemtrer and/or
the shipper in the event of a spill for immediate response information and
subsequent clean-up actions.
Since hazardous wastes are mixtures or may be mixed during collection for
transportation, is it necessary for DOT to modify its loading and stowage
requirement to address the mixing and stowage of incompatible wastes?
Section 173.21 (a), (b)» and (c) of the present DOT regulations prohibit
the mixing of incompatible substances in the same container. This requirement
is sufficient to prevent the mixing of incompatible wastes during collection
for transportation.
For hazardous wastes that meet present DOT definitions, the loading and
stowage charts are sufficient. For the new class of hazardous wastes, there
should be no applicable loading or stwage restrictions.
AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS, INC.
-------
Department of Energy
Washington, D C 20545
NOV 211977
Docket Section, Room 2111
Hazardous Waste Materials Division
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Docket Section, Room 6500
Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
Materials Transport Bureau
U, S, Department of Transportation
2100 Second St., S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20590
Gentlemen:
This is in response to your request for comments on the development
of regulations for the transportation of hazardous waste, FRL 797-6,
Federal Register 42, 189, pp 51625-51626,
We find it encouraging to learn that EPA intends to maximize the
coordination of its regulations under the RCRA with the DOT hazardous
materials regulations. A single set of Federal regulations covering
transportation safety is more desirable than multiple, and sometimes
overlapping and conflicting, regulations. We support the development
of a uniform and simple regulatory scheme for the transportation of
hazardous waste.
In developing these regulations, we believe it important to recognize
that as far as public safety is concerned, it matters not whether the
end use of the hazardous material being transported is a useful product
or a waste to be disposed of — it must be transported safely. A
hazardous material; whether it is a waste or a commodity is Immaterial,
We recognize that some of the wastes which the Congress considered in
enacting the RCRA are outside the kinds of hazardous materials now
defined and regulated fay the DOT, and that the DOT already has the
statutory authority to include them under its jurisdictional blanket.
-------
Given these considerations, we have the following responses to your
specific questions:
1. Lead agency. We would prefer that DOT expand its regulations
to include the necessary provisions for the transportation of
hazardous wastes. EPA would then refer to the DOT regulations,
rather than establishing a new and separate regulatory scheme
for these wastes. The two agencies might consider a Memorandum
of Understanding, as now exists between DOT, DOE, and NRC for
regulation of nuclear shipments. You might also consider a
provision similar to that in 18 U.S.C. 834(b) , whereby before
adopting any regulations relating to hazardous wastes, the DOT
would seek the advice and consultance of the EPA.
2, Definition of wastes. For consistency and simplicity, the
hazardous wastes could fall under the existing DOT definitions,
and be regulated based on the nature of their hazard rather than
the nature of their end use.
3. Shipping Papers. We have looked at the multiplicity and complexity
of the existing shipping paper requirements which are required of
carriers for safety, economic, and operational purposes. We
believe it would be counter-productive to add to this burden with
yet another set of documents. It appears to us that the existing
hazardous materials manifest, required by DOT, already appears
suitable, and, with only slight modification, would meet the RCRA
requirements.
4. Labels^ and Placards. The existing DOT system for labeling and
placarding has been derived only after long and arduous efforts
on the part of both DOT and the regulated industry. We would be
very concerned if a new scheme were to be introduced at this
time •— the new DOT requirements are just now being implemented by
shippers and carriers. If there is a need for new labels and
placards, DOT should develop them to be totally consistent with
the existing DOT system.
5. Registration. Whatever requirements are imposed by the DOT for
other hazardous materials would appear to be equally applicable
to hazardous wastes. In any case, it would not seem necessary to
set up special notification or registration just for wastes.
-------
-3-
6. Accidents. The DOT hazardous materials incident reporting system
seems well suited to handle reports of incidents of hazardous waste
transport accidents. EPA and DOT could work out informal arrangements
for communications on accidents involving wastes.
7' SRJllj^. Once the accident occurs, transportation usually stops. It
would seem appropriate for EPA to establish guidelines for cleaning
up spills, recognizing the need to coordinate this activity with
other Federal actions and responsibilities for handling of spills.
DOT could limit its after-incident actions to investigation of cause,
which is right in line with DOT' s usual role in hazardous materials
accidents.
^~ Training Programs. The training of personnel who might be involved
in hazardous waste transportation spills should be handled just as it
is done now for spills of other hazardous materials. DOT and EPA
would provide guidance and assistance to the State and local authorities
and other responsible persons.
9- j^oadlng and Storage. DOT regulations for mixed or incompatible
loading should apply to hazardous wastes just as for other hazardous
materials.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
William A. Brobst, Chief
Transportation Branch
Division of Environmental
Control Technology
-------
Attendees—October 26, 1977
Oscar J. Ackelsberg
W.R. Grace & Co.
Ind. Chem. Group
Ass't Vice President
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
David E. Murray
Reitz and Jens, Inc.
Vice President
111 S. Meramel
St. Louis, Mo. 63105
Tom L. Altpeter
North Star Division, MRI
10701 Red Circle Drive
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Joel S. Avren
Velsicol Chemical Corp.
341 E. Ohio Street
Chicago, Illinois 60559
L. Ray Bailey
Indiana State Board of Health
Division of Water Pollution Cont
1330 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Buford L. Baker
Magnavox Electronics Company
1313 Production Rd.
Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46808
Sanford E. Balick
FMC Corporation
Assistant Transportation Counsel
200 E. Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Carl Banks
PPG Industries
Sr. Distribution Eng.
One Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Robert Bayr
Velsicol Chemical
341 E. Ohio Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Eugene Berman
E.I. Dupont
1007 Market St.
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
Robert E. Besalke
A. P. Green Refractories Co.
Green Blvd.
Mexico, Mo. 63265
Delmer F. Billings
MCIB Manf. Chem. Inc.
2909 Highland Avenue
Cincinnati, Onio
John A. Blaha
U.S. Steel Corp.
600 Grant Street
Room 517
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15230
R.W. Bock
National Sales Mgr.
Chemical Waste Management
P.O. Box 214
Calumet City, Illinois 60409
M. T. Bohlman
Sea-Land Service Inc.
P.O. Box 1050
Elizabeth, N.J.
Ernest Bo1linger
Envirex
5103 W. Beloit Rd.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
B.L. Bolton
Browning Ferris Industries
P.O. Box 3151
Houston, Texas 77001
James W. Borcherding
Abbott Laboratories
700 S. Lewis Avenue
Waukegan, Illinois 60085
Asher Borton
Eastman Kodak Co.
1669 Lake Avenue
Rochester, New York 14650
-------
W.C. Brittain
MGR Transportation & Inter-
national Operations
Koppers Co. Inc.
850 Koppers Bldg.
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219
Dr. R.J. Buchanan
State of N.J., Dept. of
Environmental Protection
32 E. Hanover Street
Trenton, N.J. 08625
Clay Buntrock
Wheeling Disposal Service
1805 S. 8th Street
St. Joseph, Mo. 64503
John M. Capriccioso
DOW Chemical
2030 Dow Center
Midland, Michigan 48640
Robert Cascarano
Commonwealth Edison
72 W. Adams
Rm 850 E.
Chicago, Illinois 60690
Clifford J. Chandler
Nuclear Engineering Co.
P.O. Box 7246
Louisville, Ky. 40207
Hak K. Cho
Dept. of Environmental
Control
320 N. Clark St.
Chicago, Illinois
C.E. Clark
E.P.A.
2200 Churchill
Springfield, Illinois 62706
James Cowhey
Land and Lakes Co.
123 Northwest Hwy.
Park Ridge, Illinois 60068
Howard Cunningham
WITCO Chemical
277 Park Avenue
New York City, N.Y. 10017
James T. Curtis, Jr.
Georgia Pacific Corp.
900 S.W. 5th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Arthur A. Daniels
John Sexton Contractors
900 Jone Blvd.
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
David M. Dennis
Michigan DNP
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan
R.S. Detrick
Koppers Co. Inc.
440 College Park Drive
Monroeville, Pa. 15146
Gene De Void
BASF Wyandotte Corp.
100 Cherry Hill Rd.
Parsippany, N.J. 07054
Howard E. De Void
American Cyanamid Co.
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
W.W. Dodge
Caterpillar Tractor Co.
100 N.F.. Adams Street, 3C
Peoria, Illinois 61629
Irvin Dzikowski
E.P.A., Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, Illinoi 60604
Greg Easterbrook
Waste Age Magazine
6311 Gross Point Rd.
Miles, Illinois 60648
-------
William Engiecs
IBM
P.O. Box 10
Princeton, N.J. 08540
George E. Eubanks
Emergency Services & Disaster
Agency
333 S. Main
Edwardsville, Illinois
Michael Evelsizer
Goodyear Tire Co.
1144 E. Market Street
Akron, Ohio 44316
Arthur A. Favory
Magnavox Gov't & Ind.
Electronics Co.
2131 Coliseum Blvd. South
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46803
Fred Fehsenfeld
ILWD
P.O. Box 68001
Indianapolis, Indiana
Victor M. Fetterman
Labelmaster
44 Oak Shade Rd.
Gaithersburg, Md. 20760
Roderick Fifield
University of Illinois
301 S. Locust
Champaign, Illinois
Craig Firestone
Witco Chemical
277 Park Avenue
New York City, N.Y. 10017
David J. Fischer
Abbott Laboratories
Abbott Park Bldg. 8
North Chicago, Illinois 60064
R.C. Fischer
State of Wisconsin, Dept. of
Natural Resources
Box 7921
Madison, Wi. 53705
R.S. Formentini
Waste Management Inc.
900 Jorie Blvd.
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Walter C. Foster
Dart Industries Inc.
3480 Beverly Boulevard
P.O. Box 3157, Terminal £nnex
Los Angeles, California 90051
Stanley W. Foy
Alabama Public Service Comp1.
P.O. Box 991
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Art Franzen
AMOCO Oil Co.
P.O. Box 710
Whiting, Indiana 46394
Linsner Freitag
A.B. Dick Co.
5700 W. Touhy Avenue
Niles, Illinois 60648
William J. Freling
Chemetron Corp. IGD
111 E. Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Don Frybarger
Coastal Tank Lines Inc.
P.O. Box 5555
Akron, Ohio 44313
Harry Fund
Labelmaster
6001 N. Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois
Ronald J. Ganim
Chemetron Corp.
Ill E. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Richard E. Gortowski
Hercules Incorporated
814 Commerce Drive
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
-------
Chester J. Grabiec
Shell Oil Co.
Room 1550 Two Shell Plaza
Houston, Texas 77001
Rosalie Grasso
Nat'l Governors' Assn.
444 North Capitol St.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Robert M. Graziano
Bureau of Explosives
1920 'L1 Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
F.R. Griffith
Union Carbide
Transportation Regulations
Charleston, W.V.
Allan P. Grimm
EXXON Chemical Co.
1333 West Loop South
Houston, Texas 77027
Donald R. Grove
Eli Lilly & Co.
P.O. Box 618
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Mark J. Groves
Waste Acid Services
6520 Georgia
Detroit, Michigan 48211
Stanley F. Gutowski
General Motors Logistics
Operations
30007 Van Dyke Avenue
Warren, Michigan 48090
Fred W. Hahn
Hyland Laboratories
Rt. 120 and Wilson Rd.
Round Lake, Illinois 60073
A.N. Hainline
Dow Corning Cp.
2200 Salzburg Rd. Co 2108
Midland, Michigan 48640
Richard D. Hall
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
1100 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
W. Ernest Halley
Chicago & North Western R.R.
500 W. Madison
Chicago, Illinois
John Ham
PPG Industries
Pittsburgh, Pa.
15222
Michael L. Hanson
Phillips Petroleum Co.
10 C-l Phillips Bldg.
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004
David Hantz
WIS DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
D.E. Hardacre
Commonwealth Edison Co.
6401 W. 43rd Street
Stickney, Illinois
Marvin G. Hardin
Illinois Dept. of Transportation
2300 South Dirksen Pkwy.
Springfield, Illinois 62764
James Z.B. Harding
Consolidated Rail Corp.
17th and Market Streets
Philadelphia, Pa. 19104
John W. Harris
Int'l Minerals & Chemical Corp.
521 Hawley Street
Mundelein, Illinois 60060
Clifford J. Harvlson
Nat'l Tank Truck Carriers
1616 P Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
-------
P.B. Harrison
Chicago Paint k Coatings Ass'n
Suite 1700
33 N. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinoi 60602
Samuel M. Hart
US CPSC
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Burton C. Haworth
Dupont Co.
Transportation & Distribution
Dept.
200 Bldg.
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
Loren D. Hennekens
Landfill Owner & Refuse Hauling
North Woods Refuse Service
Star Route
Saxona, Mn. 54870
Michael Hermesmeyer
American Admixtures Corporation
5909 N. Rogers
Chicago, Illinois 60646
Morris Hershson
National Barrel & Drum Assoc.
1028 Connecticut Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
A.T. Hoekstra
Chicago & Sub'r Refuse Disp.
Association
Rm. 10 - 138 Industrial
Elmhurst, Illinois 60126
James D. Hoe]zeman
SCRAP HAVLERS
13840 South Halsted
Riverdale, Illinois 60627
Pter W. Hohenhaus
Union Pacific F. Co.
1416 Dodge Street
Omaha, Nebrasks 68179
James R. Hoi]is
SEA Corp.
P.O. Box 1108
Peoria, Illinois 61653
J.S. Horn
Mr. Frank, Inc.
201 West 155th Street
S. Holland, Illinois 60473
James W. Horton
Coastal Tank Lines, Inc.
250 N. Cleveland Kassillon Rd.
Akron, Ohio 44313
Michael F. Huban
AB DIFK CO
5700 Touhy Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60648
E.F. Hughes
Container Corp. of America
500 r. North Avenue
Carol stream, Illinois 60287
William D. Hull
G.D. Searle & Co.
4901 Searle Parkway
Skokie, Illinois
James H. Hurst, Jr.
Magnavox Gov't & Ind'1 Electronics
Company
1313 Production Road
Ft. Wayne, Indiana
Mr. Derek Irlam
Waste Management Inc.
900 Jorie Blvd.
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Joe Jack
Theta Systems, Inc.
15 Spinning Wheel Rd.
Hinsdale, Illinois 60521
Patricia A. Jackson
Virginia State Water Control
Board
2111 N. Hamilton Street
Pichmond, Virginia 23230
James P. Jackurh
B.F. Goodrich Chemical Division
6100 Oak Tree Blvd.
Cleveland, Ohio 44131
-------
Arthur G. Janssen
Illinois Tool Works
St. Charles Road
Elgin, Illinois 60120
Harry E. Jaworski
U.S. Dept. of Labor - OSHA
203 S. Dearborn St.
Room 3263
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Downing B. Jenks, Jr.
Sante Fe Railway
80 E. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Bert Jody Jr.
Davis Transport Inc.
1345 S. 4th Street
Paducah, Kentucky 42001
William E. Johns
American Trucking Associations
1616 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Charles A. Johnson
NSWMA
1120 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C.
John Joines
TRI State Motor Transit
P.O. Box 113
Joplin, Mo. 64801
Ellen Jurzak
U.S. EPA - Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
William G. Kahler
Union Carbide
270 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y.
D.G. Kettner
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
100 Wisconsin River Drive
Port Edwards, Wisconsin
William Kirtigh
National Can Corp.
8101 W. Higgins
Chicago, Illinois
Donald W. Kloda
Hooker Chemicals and Plastics
Corporation
222 Rainbow Blvd.
Niagara Falls, N.Y. 14302
Sam Ko
Hyland Lab
Rt. 120 and Wilson Rd.
Round Lake, Indiana
S. Kuzina
Allied Chemcal Corp.
P.O. Box 1134R
Morristown, N.J. 07960
L. G. Kunts
Amoco Chemcal Corp.
200 E. Randolph Place
Chicago, Illinois
John J. Kasper
Nalco Chemical Co.
2901 Butterfield Rd.
Oak Brook, Illinois
W.G. Kahler
Union Carbide
270 Park Ave.
New York, N.Y. 10017
R. K. Von Kampen
Commonwealth Edison
1319 S. First Avenue
Maywood, Illinois
Joseph N. Kavanagh
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Ir
506 E. Lancaster Avenue
Downingtown, Pa. 19335
W.L. Kelly
Arco/Polymers, Inc.
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
Virgil E. Kingsley
Jackson Community College
2111 Emmons Rd.
Jackson, Michigan 49201
James L. Kirk
OH Materials
P.O. Box 1022
Findlay, Ohio 45840
-------
E.W. Kleppinger
EWK Consultants, Inc.
9143 Fordham Street
Indianapolis, Indiana
Michael T. Korpan
Asarco, Inc.
120 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10005
David D. Lamm
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana
David Langton
Mosinee Paper Mills
Mosinee, Wisconsin 54455
Douglas K. Larsen
Int'l Minerals & Chemicals
521 E. Hawley
Munderlein, Illinois 60060
E.J. Lauer
Waste Management of Wisconsin
W 124 N 8925 Boundary Rd.
Menomouee Fall, Wisconsin
Richard LaRocca
Goodyear Tire
1144 E. Market
Akron, Ohio
Edward J. Lewnard
FTE Automatic Electric Inc.
400 N. Wolf Rd.
North Lake, Illinois 60164
R.H. Lichtenheld
The Upjohn Co.
7171 Portage Road
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001
Alan M. Lindsey
Int'l Paper
Box 16807
Mobile, Alabama 36616
Ian Lisk
Pollution Engineering Magazine
1301 South Grove Ave.
Harrington, Illinois 60010
R.L. Liss
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh
St. Louis, («o. 63166
F.T. Luarde
Magnavox G&I Elec. Co.
1313 production Rd.
Fort Wayne, Indiana
James L. Magruder
Bureau Nat'l Affairs Inc.
535 N. Michigan
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Ms. Marcella Marcin
Travenol Laboratories
1 Baxter Parkway
Deerfield, Illinois
James McCarthy
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
527 Madison Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10022
Nathan D. McClure, III
Winnebago Country Emergency
Services
420 West State Street
Rockford, Indiana 61101
G.E. McDonald
F.D.A.
175 W. Jackson
Rm. A-1945
Chicago, Illinois
Paula McLain
Defense Logistics Agency Hdgtrs.
Dept. of Defense
Cameron Station
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Chilton McLaughlin
U.S. EPA - Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Mo. 64108
Richard R. Merner
Urchem - Dupont Co.
Wilmington, Delaware
19898
-------
R.J. Mesler
Dow Chemical USA
2030 Dow Center
Midland, Mi. 48640
Russell Meyer
Paul Reilly Company, Inc.
3035 W. Vera Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53209
Paul Miller
Scrap Haulers
13840 S. Halstcd
Riverdale, Illinois 60627
Mervil Moore
Ind. Liquid Transport
Columbus, Indiana
ILL. Moore
Atomic Energy of Canada LTD - C.P.
Box 6300 - Station J
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
John C. Morton
Mobil Chemical Co.
150 E. 42nd Street
New York, N.Y. 10017
Scott P. Murray
Abbott Labs
Rts 137 and 43 APS
North Chicago, Illinois 60064
Thomas P. Napier
Chemtrol Pollution Services Inc.
1550 Balmer Rd.
Model City, N.Y. 14107
W.T. tliggel
Mobil Chemical Co.
Penn Lincoln Pkwy.
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15205
Karsten odland
NALCO Chemical Co.
2901 Butterfield Rd.
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
James J. O'Donnell
AMCHEM Products, Inc.
Ambler, Pa. 19002
J.J. O'Driscoll
Southern Railway Systems
99 Spring Street S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Philip A. Palmer
E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.
Engineering Dept. L13W75
Wilmington, Delware 19898
James T. Parsons
Reosurce Industries of Alabama
P.O. Box 1200
Livingston, Alabama 35470
H.P. Patterson
Union Pacific RR
1416 Dodge Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68179
Robert Persyn
Inland chemical Corp.
1702 Winter Street
Ft. Wayne, Indiana
Elaine Peters
Waste Management of Wisconsin
9050 North 124th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 5322'1
D.E. Peterson
Uniroyal Inc.
Oxford Mgmt. S Res. Center
Middlebury, Connecticut 067^9
Frank Porrello
A.B. Dick
5700 W. Touhy Avenue
Klles, Wisconsin
Herbert T. Perrin
Inland Steel Container Co.
4300 W. Born Street
Chicago, Illinois
Richard Pico
Kraft, Inc.
801 Waukegan Rd.
Glenview, Illinois 60025
A.D. Pittuck
Environment Canada
Environmental Protection Service
14th Floor Place Vincent Massey
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A1C8
-------
Robert E. Plier
Peoria Disposal Co.
1113 N. Swords
Peoria, Illinois 61604
Dennis A. Poole
Rohm & Haas Company
Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, Pa. 19105
Don Price
Chemical Waste Mgt.
P.O. Box 214
Calvert City, In.
E.W. Pritchard
U.S. DOT - Federal Railroad
Adminstration
536 S. Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Jack Pulley
Dow Corning Corp.
South Saginau Road
Midland, Michigan 48640
Harold Radandt
Manitowoc Disposal Co.
2418 South 18th
Masitowoc, Wisconsin 54220
Nancy Ranek
Florida Power & Light Co.
9250 W. Flagler
Miami, Florida 33101
Michael W. Rapps
Chemical Waste Management
P.O. Box 214
Calumet City, Illinois 60409
Ted J. Reese
Cadence Chemical Resources Inc.
P.O. Box 315
Michigan City, Indiana 46360
Harold D. Rehkup
McDonnell Douglas Corp.
McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Dept. 790 Bldg. 250 Pt B4
P.O. Box 516
St. Louis, Mo. 63164
Paul J. Reilly
Paul Reilly Co., Inc.
3035 W. Vera Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53209
John Reinhardt
Wisconsin DNB
P.O. Box 7921
Nadison, Wisconsin
Robert S. Richard
Resource Industry of Alabama Inc.
P.O. Box 2069
Montctonery, Alabama 36103
M. Wm. Richter
A.B. Dick Company
5700 W. T'ouhy Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60648
Gil. Riordan
Dow Chemical Co.
Freeport, Texas
Ted A. Ritter
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.
3M Center, Transportation Dept.
Bldg. 224-1E
St. Paul, Minnesota 55033
William T. Ro
Wisconsin Dept. of Nat'1 Res.
Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53705
John A. Robb
Huntington Laboratories Inc.
P.O. Box 710
Huntington., Indiana 46750
Keith Roberts
Indiana Liquid Tran.
Box 168
Columbus, Indiana
Charles L. Robertson
ENSCO
P.O. Box 1975
El Dorado, Arkansas 71730
E. Gene Rogers
York Container Corp.
838 Larch Avenue
Elmhuret, Illinois 60126
-------
Dr. Stephen Rosen
Parsons Brinckerhoff
One Penn. Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10001
Gordon Rousseal
Council for Safe Trans, of
Hazardous Articles
910 17th Street N.W.
Suite 701
Washington, D.C. 20006
Earl Rutenkroger
IRI State Motor Transit
P.O. Box 113
Joplin, Mo. 64801
John D. Samuels
General Motors
Environmental Activities
Staff
P.E. Dept.
E.A. Bldg
GM Tech. Center
Warren, Michigan
William R. Schaffer
MCA
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, Mo. 63166
E.R. Schlaf
E.R. Schlaf s Associates
2136 W. Rowland Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60620
R.G. Schmitt
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
1200 Firestone Pkwy.
Akron, Ohio
Bill Schremp
EPA
Region III
Philadelphia, Pa.
Arthur J. Schultz, Jr.
Steel Shipping Container
Institute
2204 Morris Avenue
Union, New Jersey 070B3
William M. Shapleigh
Central Foundry Div - GMC
77 West Center
Saginaw, Mi. 48603
Ronald Sharp
Norfolk & Western Ry.
8 N. Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24042
Dick Sheets
Huntington Laboratories
P.O. Box 710
Huntington, Indiana 46750
Chun-Yen Shih
Procon Inc., Environmental
Systems Dept.
30 UOP Plaza
Des Plaines, Illinois 60016
Ernest Slgeti
Nat'l Industrial Traffic League
Allied Chemical Corp.
P.O. Box 1057-R
Morristown, N.J. 07960
Donald W. Simmons
National Steel Corp.
2800 Grant Building
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
James L. Stamler
EPA - Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Stelle, R.T.
3388B Comm. Avenue
Northbrook, Illinois
60062
Carl Strohm
Metro. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago
666 North Lakeshore Drive
10th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Roy M, Strong
Enviro-Chem Corporation
RR 1 Box 197 A
Zionsville, Indiana 46077
-------
]1
William L. Swihart
Continental Forest Industries
1200 West 76th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60620
G.H. Thompson
BaHelle
2030 M Street M.Vv.
Washington, 7.). G . 20036
Williari A. Thompson
Ashland C'hem Leal
Ass ' t traffic "lar.
P.O. Box 2219
Cc lutnbu s, Chic 43216
J.E. Thornton
Sherwin-Willlams Co.
11541 S. Champlain Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60628
Joseph Tiben
Inmont Corp.
4801 S. Kedzie Avenue
Chicago, !llineis 60632
L.R. Tier ney
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
1416 Dodge Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68179
Richard 0". Tighe
Waste Mgmt. Inc.
P.O. Box 250
Portage, Indiana 46368
Ar ne M. Toothaker
General Electric
IT Dvek Road
Schenectady, New York 12345
Richard Toth
Union Carbide Corp.
120 S. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Russell Toth
U.S. DOT/BMCS
Haz. Mat. Liaison Office
Washington, D.C. 20590
Max G, Totten
ICI A-iericas
Wilmngton, De [aware
19897
Ernest TraKas
House Commerce Comn ttee
HOB Annex ? 2
3rd and D Streets, S w .
Washington , D . C .
Sue Treimaii
Suburban TRIB
2720 Dos PLaines Avenue
DCS Plainer, Illinois 60018
Hlrmand I, . Trim "apt. -i
Wisconsin '"lect r ' c Power Co .
231 E. Michigan Street
Milwaukee , Wisconsin 53201
Paul 71. Trout
Container Corp. of America
500 E . North Avenue
Carol Streuir, Illinois 60187
Joseph F . Urbonas
Betz Laboratories Inc .
Somerton Road
Trevose , Pennsylvania 19047
Arlie J. Ullrich
Eli Lilly Sr Comcany
Me Carthy 5 tree r
Indianapol is , Indiana 46206
Michael Varricchio
Brown Company
243 E. Patterson
Kalamazoo, "lich • n~
Freeland, Vincent
A.B . Dick Co.
57 00 Touhy Avenue
Miles, Illinois 60C IE
Ron Walchshauser
ACF/SCL
620 North 2nd Stroot
St. Charles, Mo. 63301
-------
12
James S. Walker
O.K. Materials, Inc.
P.O. Box 1022
Findlay, Ohio 45840
Paul H. Watkins
Illinois Fire Inspectors
Association
112 E. Northwest Hwy.
Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056
George N. Weegar
Brown Co.
243 E. Paterson
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
Eugene Whitaker
Tri State Motor Transit
P.O. Box 113
Joplin, Mo. 64801
Bruce A. Whitten
Chem-Dyne Corporation
500 Ford Blvd.
Hamilton, Ohio 45011
Patrick H. Wicks
Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1269
Portland, Oregon 97223
O.W. Wieggel
Eastman Kodak Co.
343 State Street
Rochester, N.Y. 14610
George L. Wilson
Haz. Materials Advisory
Committee
Suite 908
1100 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Robert E. Wilson
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Distribution Dept.
Westport, Ct. 06611
J.T. Wisecup
Union Carbide
4700 McCorkle Avenue
Charleston, West Virginia
Philip W. Witimer
Magnavox G&I Electronics Co.
1313 Production Rd.
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46808
Robert S. Wright
Int'l Paper Company
P.O. Box 16807
Mobile, Alabama 36616
Dick zielinski
Van Waters & Rogers Div. of Univar
7603 Nelson Road
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46803
uo!621d
SW-28p
Sh-653
-------
-------