T R A N S C R I
                      JOINT PUBLIC MEETING
                ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS
            FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
    UNDER THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT of 1976
               October 26, 1977, Des Plaines, 111.
This meeting was sponsored by the Environmental  Protection Agency
              and the Department of Transportation.
 The proceedings (SW-28p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
     by the official  reporter, with handwritten  corrections.
              U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                              1978

-------

-------
          ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
          MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU
      OFFICE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OPERATIONS

                JOINT PUBLIC MEETING

                       ON THE

           DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS FOR
        THE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
     REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had in the foregoing

entitled matter on Wednesday, October 26, 1977, in

the East Ballroom A, at the Ramada O'Hare Inn, Higgins

and Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, Illinois, at the hour

of 9:45 o'clock a.m.



PRESENT:

          Co-Chairmen:

          WALTER W. KOVALICK, JR., Chief
          Guidelines Branch, HWMD
          Office of Solid Waste, EPA

          Alan I. Roberts, Director
          Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
          Materials Transportation Bureau
          U. S. Department of Transportation

-------
PRESENT (Continued):

          Panel Members:
          HARRY W. TRASK ,  Program Manager
          Pesticide Waste Management, Guidelines
               Branch, HWMD '
          Office of Solid Waste, EPA

          ARNOLD M. EDELMAN,  Environmental Scientist
          Guidelines Branch,  HWMD
          Office of Solid Waste, EPA

          MARK L. MORRIS, Environmental Engineer
          Guidelines Branch,  HWMD
          Office of Solid Waste, EPA

          DOUGLAS CROCKETT, Attorney
          Office of General Counsel
          U. S. Department of Transportation

-------
     MR. KOVALICK:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.




          Those of you who can now find chairs, now that




they have added chairs, will take them.  We will begin.




          Let me welcome you to this public meeting,




joint public meeting between the United States Environ-




mental Protection Agency and the United States Department




of Transportation, to discuss the topic of transportation




of hazardous waste.




          Let me introduce myself, my name is Walter




Kovalick.  I am Chief of the Guidelines Branch of the




Hazardous Waste Division of EPA, in Washington.




          To my left is my co-chairman, Alan Roberts,




who is the Director of the Office of Hazardous Materials




Operations, Materials Transportation Bureau of the DOT.




          The remainder of the Panel is composed of EPA




representatives.  On my far right is Mark Morris, an




Environmental Engineer, Guidelines Branch of the Hazardous




Waste Division.




          Next to him is Arnie Edelman, who is an




Environmental Scientist, in that same Division, and on




my immediate right is Harry Trask, who is Program Manager




of the Pesticide Waste Management Program at the Guide-




lines Branch.




          And, on my far left is Douglas Crockett,

-------
with the Office of General Counsel, of the Department




of Transportation.




          Before I discuss the procedure for this




morning's meeting, let me give you a brief overview of




the relationship between the Department of Transportation




regulations which currently exist and the prospective EPA




regulations that we are going to be discussing today.




          As you may know, the Resource Conservation




and Recovery Act of 1976, abbreviated as RCRA, was signed




into law in October of last year.  It mandates a compre-




hensive Federal-State-local approach to all aspects of




waste management, including resource  conservation an<^




recovery, land disposal of municipal and industrial




wastes, and authorizes a new regulatory program for




hazardous wastes.




          The Environmental Protection Agency under Sub-




title C of that law, that is, Hazardous Waste Management,




is required to write standards for generators, shippers,




transporters, and receivers of hazardous waste.  In addi-




tion, EPA is required to develop criteria and a list to




define what are hazardous wastes.




          During the analysis of these requirements in our




statute, it became apparent that current Department of




Transportation regulations under the Hazardous Materials

-------
 Transportation Act of 1974 may have the potential to be

 expanded to partially meet the mandates of RCRA.  EPA
                                                #CRA
 would like to maximize the coordination of the BBS*-

 regulatory requirements with existing rules for the  bene-

 fit of all parties.

           The Act requires that regulations developed

 under Subtitle C of RCRA be consistent with the require-

 ments and regulations of the Hazardous Materials Trans-

 portation Act.  In addition, it authorizes the EPA to

 make recommendations to the DOT respecting regulations

 for hazardous waste under the HMTA and for the addition

 of materials to be covered by HMTA.

           Now the authority for the regulation of hazard-

 ous waste transportation is contained in both HMTA and

 RCRA.  The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act is

 concerned with the protection of public safety, health

 and property during the loading, transportation, storage

 incident to transportation, and unloading of hazardous

 materials.  HMTA requires the Secretary of Transportation

 to designate a material as hazardous  if its transportation


may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or

property.  The materials designated as hazardous may

include, but are not limited to:  explosives, radioactive

materials, etiologic agents, flammable liquids or

-------
solids, combustible liquids or solids, poisons, oxidizing


or corrosive materials, and compressed gases.


          Now in contrast are the Subtitle C or the


hazardous wastes provisions of the RCRA, which are con-


cerned with the protection of the public health, as well


as the environment, from improper hazardous waste manage-


ment during transportation, as well as treatment, storage


or disposal.  Hazardous wastes as defined by RCRA are


those which may pose a substantial present or potential


hazard to human health or the environment.


          I will emphasize — I am sure that this will


come up many times today. I am trying to point out the


distinctive difference in our missions as we are trying


to work through the regulations together.  HMTA deals


with public safety, health and property  and RCRA deals


with human health and the environment.


          The Administrator of EPA shall take into account,


when defining hazardous wastes, toxicity, persistence


and degradability in nature, potential for accumulation


in tissue, and other related factors such as flammability,


corrosiveness and other hazardous characteristics.


          As for the transportation of hazardous wastes

           ^t^urix
under the R»0'»arcfa Conservation and Recovery Act, which


I hope you got a copy of at the table, Section 3002 of

-------
our Act  requires  the Administrator of EPA to develop




standards  for  generators or shippers, as we might also




know  them,  of  hazardous wastes concerning labeling




practices  for  any containers  used for storage,  transport




or disposal that will identify accurately such wastes;




use of appropriate containers, and use of a manifest




system to assure that all hazardous waste generated is




designated for treatment, storage or disposal to a




facility which has a permit under the Resource Conser-




vation and Recovery Act.  So this manifest is the form




used  very similar,as you might note, to shipping papers




that you might be familiar with,  for identifying the




quantity, composition,  and the origin, routing,  and




destination of hazardous waste during the transportation




from the point of generation to the point of ultimate




storage or disposal.




          Now  this manifest form as currently envisioned




is very  similar to DOT's shipping paper.  This leads us




to several questions which we hope will be addressed




during the meeting today.  For example, should DOT expand




its shipping paper requirements to include EPA require-




ments?   Should DOT requirements apply to hazardous




wastes that do not meet the DOT criteria; which is




another  point  I am sure we will be discussing.

-------
          Some of the prospective requirements that EPA




has are:  use of appropriate containers, furnishing of




information about the wastes, and labeling on containers,




all those things that currently are regulated by DOT as




well.  There are other questions, such as, should EPA




reference DOT standards or adopt our own?  Not necessarily




different.




          Another section in which there was some con-




cern about in RCRA is Section 3003, which are the instruc-




tions to the Administrator to develop standards for trans-




porters of hazardous waste concerning items such as




recordkeeping, transportation of hazardous waste only if




properly labeled, compliance with the manifest system,




that I discussed briefly, transportation of all the hazard-




ous wastes shipped to be designated permitted facilities.




          In addition, the Administrator is considering




the development of standards for the acceptance of




hazardous waste for transport, loading and stowage of




hazardous wastes, notification in the event of a spill




and spill reporting, marking and placarding of vehicles,




and notification of the transportation of hazardous




wastes.




          Many of the standards being considered under




the RCRA for transportation are currently required under

-------
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.  Specifically,




they include the definition of a hazardous material, or,



in EPA's case, the waste, labeling, placarding, packaging,



what we call, manifest, and whatsis known under the DOT




regulations as a shipping document, spill notification




and reporting, loading and stowage.  In addition, the




Hazardous Materials Transportation Act has provisions for



the development of standards concerning recordkeeping and




registration.




          In December of 1976, the Department of Trans-



portation evidenced concern for the development of




regulations for hazardous waste transporters.  HM-145,



Environmental and Health Effects Materials Advance Notice




of Proposed Rulemaking, published December 9, 1976, in




the Federal Register, presented several questions concern-



ing hazardous wastes;  "With regard to hazardous wastes,



what classification system may be used to clearly



identify mixtures as opposed to single compound materials;



what packaging may be appropriate for transportation; and



how existing transportation documentation can be used to



cover transport of hazardous wastes from the generator



or the shipper to the disposer or the consignee."  Several




comments were received expressing concern that EPA




regulations not be consistent with those of DOT.

-------
                                                       10
The regulations by EPA for transportation must be promul-



gated by mid-1978 to become effective about six months



later.  Now, that is a brief background.




          Let me discuss the procedural rules for this




meeting today.  As Co-Chairmen of. the Panel, Alan and I




will conduct this meeting to facilitate the orderly con-




duct of business, including scheduling of presentations




by participants, and excluding material which is irre-




levant or repetitious.  The time allotment for oral




statements shall be at the discretion of the Chairmen,




but shall not ordinarily exceed 15 minutes.  With the




permission of any person offering an oral statement,



questions may be asked by members of the Panel.  Blank



cards will be available during this time.  You may write



your questions on the 3 by 5 cards, they will be brought



to us on the Panel, and we will ask the questions of the



speaker, off the cards.



          A transcript of the meeting will be made and



a copy of the transcript, together with copies of all



documents presented at the meeting, and all written



submissions will constitute the record of the meeting.




A copy of the record of the meeting will be available




for public inspection by December 16, 1977, at the U. S.



Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,

-------
                                                       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

-------

-------