TRANSCRIPT
JOINT EPA/DOT PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE
PROPOSED REGULATIONS
FOR TRANSPORTATION
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND MATERIALS
JUNE 20, 1978
Al FXANDRIA VIRGINIA
-------
TRANSCRIPT
EPA/DOT Joint Public Hearing
on Proposed Regulations
for Transportation of Hazardous Wastes and Materials
June 20, 1978, Alexandria, Virginia
This meeting was sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Department of Transportation.
The proceedings (SW-41p) are reproduced entirely as transcribed
by the official reporter, with handwritten corrections.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT BY:
Opening Statement by
*'.r . Lehman
Walt Kovalick
Arnie Edelman
Terrell Hunt
Robert Graziano
Dr. Charles A. Johnson
National Solid Pastes "gmt Assoc.
Jack Lurcott
Collins Environmental Services
Wilmington, Delaware
"lorris Hershson
I-Iat ' 1 Barrel & Drum Assoc.
Alexandria, Va .
Neill Darrnstadter
American Trucking Association
Al Posenbaum
Nat ' 1 Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
Anthony M. Tse
United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Zugene C. Bailey
Dolio and vietz Ltd., Chicago, 111.
James C. Knudson
State of Washington
William D. Friedmann
City of- New York
QUESTIONS BY PANEL ;
---- -- -- - - - - -
EXHIBIT 1, Testimony /D .J.Damiano, City of
page 121
PAGE :
3
8
13
18
23
47
62
73
97
115
122
127
131
137
142
— ~ ~
Philadelphia
-------
MEMBERS OF THE PANEL:
John P. Lehman, Co-chairman
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste, EPA
Alan Roberts, Co-chairman
Associate Director, Hazardous Materials Regulation, DOT
Doug Crockett
Office of Chief Counsel, DOT
Neil Cohen
Office of General Counsel, EPA
Terrell Hunt
Office of Enforcement, EPA
Walter Kovalick
Chief, Guidelines Branch, EPA
Harry Trask
Desk Officer, Sections 3002 & 3003, EPA
Arnie Edelman
Environmental Scientist, Section 3003, EPA
-------
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Good Morning. On behalf of EPA and
DOT I v/ould like to welcome you to the first joint public hear-
ing which is being held to discuss the proposed regulations for
the transportation of hazardous waste. We appreciate your
taking the time to participate in the development of these
regulations which are being issued under the Authorities of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—RCRA—and the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.
My name is John P. Lehman. I am Director of, the
Hazardous Waste Management Division of EPA's Office of Solid
Waste,in Washington. To my immediate left is the co-chairman
for this hearing, Alan Roberts, who is Associate Director for
Hazardous Materials Regulation for the Department of Transports
tion.
To Alan's left is Doug Crockett, who represents DOT'£
Office of Chief Counsel.
The remainder of the panel is composed of EPA repre-
sentatives. To Mr. Crockett's left are: Neil Cohen from EPA' s
Office of General Counsel; Terrell Hunt of EPA's Office of
Enforcement.
To my right are: Walter Kovalick, who is Chief of
The Guidelines Branch and is responsible for the overall
development of the RCRA 3001, 3002 and 3003 regulations.
Harry Trask, who is the Desk Officer for Sections
-------
3002 and 3003; and Arnie Edelraan , who is an Environmental Scie
tist and Principal staff person for Section 3003.
We Vould ask that smokers sit to the right where ash-
trays are located, and non-smokers may wish to sit to the left
As many of you will recall, a joint EPA/DOT meeting
was held'in October 1977 to discuss the development of regula-
tions under both the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act an<
the Resource Conservation and Pecovery Act.
Comments which we received at that meeting, and over
the months since that time, have strongly supported the develo
ment of joint EPA/DOT regulations for the transportation of
hazardous wastes and the inclusion of these regulations under
Title 49 CFB.
EPA and DOT have been working very closely together
to develop what is essentially a single set of regulations.
On April 28, 1978, EPA issued in the Federal Register their
proposed amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations
which specifically address the transportation of hazardous
wastes.
It is EPA's intent to adopt wherever possible the DO
regulations; however, I would like to point out that there are
some differences in the two sets of proposed regulations.
These differences pertain primarily to the bulk shipment of
hazardous materials by vessel, which is governed by the U S
Coast Guard Regulations, the use of an EPA iflor,+- • t •
uentlfication code
-------
and spill clean-up requirements.
EPA intends to propose generator standards under
3002 and all other standards required for hazardous waste undei
Subtitle C of RCRA this fall. The comment period for all
sections will remain open until at least 60 days after the lasl
section is proposed in the Federal Register.
It is my understanding that DOT will also extend the
comment period on their proposed amendments until 60 days aftei
the last section is proposed in the Federal Register. It is m^
understanding that DOT will also extend the comment period on
their proposed amendments until 60 days after the EPA hazardous
waste regulations are proposed.
However, we would appreciate receiving your comments
as soon as possible on these proposed regulations. After
careful consideration of all comments and at the end of the
final 60-day comment period, EPA and DOT will jointly promulgate
regulations for the transportation of hazardous waste.
With that background information, I'd like to lay the
groundwork and rules for the conduct of this hearing.
The focus of a. public hearing is on the public's
response to a regulatory proposal of an Agency, or in this cas«
Agencies. The purpose of this hearing, as announced in the
April 28 and May 25, 1978 Federal Registers, is to solicit
comments on the proposed regulations including any background
information used to develop the comment.
-------
This public hearing is being held not primarily to
inform the public nor to defend a proposed regulation, but
rather to obtain the public's response to these proposed
regulations, and thereafter revise them as may seem appropriate
All major substantive comments made at the hearing will be
addressed during preparation of the final regulation.
This will not be a formal adjudicatory hearing with
the right to cross-examination. The members of the public are
to present their views on the proposed regulation to the
panel, and the panel may ask questions of the people presentim
statements to clarify any ambiguities in their presentations.
If any member of the audience wishes to question the
speaker, he or she should write the question on a card and
pass it to the panel. The panel will then ask the questions
of speakers, and they will be given the opportunity to respond
accordingly.
Blank cards will be available and will be passed out
by EPA personnel.
Due to time limitations, the chairman reserves the
right to limit lengthy questions, discussions, or statements.
We would ask that those of you who have a prepared statement t
make orally, to please limit your presentation to a maximum of
15 minutes, so we can get all statements in a reasonable time.
If you have a copy of your statement, please submit it to the
court reporter.
-------
Written statements will be accepted at the end of th
hearing. If you wish to submit a written rather than an oral
statement, please make sure the court reporter has a copy.
The written statements will also be included in their entirety
in the record.
Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have
not made an advanced request by telephone or in writing should
indicate their interest on the registration card. If you have
not indicated your intent to give a statement and you decide ti
do so, please return to the registration table, fill out anothe
card and give it to one of the staff.
As we call upon an individual to make a statement, he
or she should come up to the lectern after identifying himself
or herself for the court reporter, and deliver his or her state
ment.
At the beginning of the statement, I will inquire as
to whether the speaker is willing to entertain questions from
the panel and the audience. The speaker is under no obligatioi
to do so, although within the spirit of this information shar-
ing meeting, it would be of great assistance to both Agencies
if questions were permitted. Anyone wishing to make statement:
will have an opportunity to do so, even if we have to run the
hearings into the evening.
Our day's activities, as we currently see them, appea
like this: We will recess for a 15 minute break at about
-------
10:30, then a. one and one-half hour luncheon break at 12:00 p.n.
and reconvene at 1:30 p.m. Then, depending on our progress,
we may have a one-hour break in the afternoon and for dinner,
at 6:00. Phone calls will be posted on the registration table
at the entrance, and restrooms are located outside to the left.
If you wish to be added to our mailing list for futuie
regulations, draft regulations, or proposed regulations, please
leave your business card or name and address on a three by five
card at the registration desk.
A court reporter is here today. The statements,
questions and comments will become part of the public record,
and this record will be available for public inspection in
EPA's Docket Section, Room 2111, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, Office of Solid Waste, U. S. Environmental Protectioi
Agency, 401 M Street, Southwest, Washington, D. C.
A copy of the transcript will be available upon
request to any interested person in eight to 12 weeks. Please
sign up on a separate list at the registration table if you war;
a transcript. A copy of the transcript will also be available
for review at DOT's Docket Section, Room 6500, Trans Point Build-
ing, 2100 Second Street, Southwest, Washington, D. C. 20590.
Mr. Roberts, do you wish to make any opening remarks'
MR. ROBERTS: No.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I would like now then to turn the
hearing over to Walt Kovalick, who will give you an overvi
-------
of the Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.
STATEMENT BY WALT KOVALICK, CHIEF, GUIDELINES BRANCH
ON OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
MR. KOVALICK: Before I give an overview of the regu-
lations as a. group, please note that public hearings will be
held on each set of regulations after they are proposed, and
that an additional EPA/DOT joint hearings on Section 3003 will
also be held around the country.
Public hearings have already been held on Section
3006, Guidelines for State Hazardous Waste Programs. I would
ask that you keep in mind that we are here today to address
only the proposed regulations for the Transportation of Hazard-
ous Waste under Section 3003 of RCRA and the DOT provisions
of the Transportation of Hazardous Waste Materials.
You will have opportunity at other hearings to commer t
on the other sections, that is, Sections 3001, 3002, 3004, 300J
and 3010 , which deal with the definitions of hazardous wastes
and the detailed listings, standards regarding generators,
treatment storage and disposal facilities/and notification.
I am sure the most effective use of everyone's time
here today would be for you to mentally review and edit your
statements and questions accordingly, in order to minimize the
involvement of these other sections and focus on the proposed
regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Wastes.
Subtitle C in the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amendec
-------
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of of 1976,
creates a regulatory framework to control hazardous wastes.
Congress has found that such wastes present special
dangers to health and require a greater degree of regulation
than does non-hazardous solid wastes. Because of the serious-
ness of this problem, Congress intended that the States develop
programs to control it. In the event that States do not choose
to operate this program, EPA is mandated to do so.
Seven guidelines and regulations are being developed
and will be proposed under Subtitle C of RCRA. to implement the
Hazardous Wastes Management Program. Subtitle C creates a
management control system which, for those wastes defined as
hazardous, requires a cradle-to-grave cognizance-, including
appropriate monitoring, record-keeping and reporting throughou<
the system.
It is important to note that the definition of solid
wastes in the Act encompasses garbage, refuse, sludges and
other discarded materials, including liquids, semisolids and
contained gases, with a few exceptions , from both municipal
and industrial sources.
Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set of all solid
wastes, and which will be identified by regulations being
developed under Section 3001,are those which have particularly
significant impacts on public health and the environment.
Section 3001 regulations define the criteria and
-------
characteristics for identifying hazardous waste and will inclu
a listing of the wastes. The characteristics may take into
account such factors as toxicity, persistence, degradability it
nature, potential for accumulation in tissue, flaramability,
corrosiveness, and other factors.
Generally, hazardous waste will include discarded
hazardous materials as defined by DOT and hazardous substances
or toxic substances as defined by EPA under the Clean Water
Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Section 3002 addresses standards applicable to
generators of hazardous wastes. A generator is defined as any
person whose act or process produces a hazardous waste. Miniimjm
amounts generated and disposed per month may be established
to further define a generator. These standards will exclude
household hazardous waste.
The generator standards will establish requirements
for: recordkeeping, labeling and marking of containers used
for storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous waste; use of
appropriate containers, furnishing information on the general
chemical composition of a hazardous waste; use of a manifest
system to assure that a hazardous waste is designated to a
permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility; and sub-
mitting reports to the Administrator, or an authorized State
Agency, setting out the quantity generated and its dispositi
Section 3003, -which we are having the hearing on
-------
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
today, requires the development of standards applicable to
transporters of hazardous wastes. These proposed standards
address identification codes, recordkeeping, acceptance and
transportation of hazardous wastes, compliance with the mani-
fest system, delivery of the hazardous wastes; spills of
hazardous wastes and placarding and marking of vehicles.
Section 3004 requires standards affecting owners and
operators of hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal
facilities. These standards define the levels of environmental
protection to be achieved by these facilities, and provide
the criteria against which EPA will measure application for
permits.
Facilities are covered by these regulations and will
require permits; generators and transporters will not otherwise
need permits. I would like to re-emphasize that the only
people who require permits are those who treat, store and
dispose of hazardous wastes, not generators and not transporters
unless they also treat, store and dispose.
Section 3005 regulations describe the scope and
coverage of the actual permit-granting process for the owners
of the facilities and their operators. Requirements for the
permit application, as well as the issuance and revocation
process, are to be defined by these regulations. It should be
noted that Section 3005(c) provides for interim status during
the time period that the agency or the states are reviewing th<
-------
pending permit application.
Section 3006 requires EPA to issue guidelines for
State programs and procedures by which States may seek both
full and interim authorization to carry out the hazardous wast'
program in lieu of the EPA-administered program.
States seeking authorization in accordance with
Section 3006 guidelines are not required to adopt in entirety
all Federal hazardous waste management regulations promulgated
under Subtitle C in order to receive EPA authorization.
Such a State regulatory program need only demonstrab
that their hazardous waste management regulations are consist-
ent with and equivalent in effect to these EPA regulations und
Section 3006 to operate and impose a hazardous waste managemen
program
Section 3010 regulations define procedures by which
any person generating, transporting, owning or operating a
facility for storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous
waste must notify EPA of this activity within 90 days of
promulgation of the regulations which identify hazardous waste
the regulations under Section 3001.
EPA is making provisions in these regulations for
States to be delegated this function upon application to the
Regional Administrator. It is significant to note that no
hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C regulation may be legall
transported, treated, stored or disposed unless this timely
-------
notification is given to EPA or a designated State. Section
3010 should be published as a proposed rule, this month.
A copy of the most recent public draft is on the registration
table.
EPA intends to promulgate final regulations by
Spring of 1979 under all sections of Subtitle C. However, it
is important for the regulated communities to understand that
the regulations under Section 3001 through 3005 do not take
effect until six months after promulgation. That would be
approximately-Fall of 1979.
Thus, there will be a time period after final promul-
gation during which time public understanding of the regulatiors
can be increased. During this same period, notifications required
under Section 3010 are to be submitted, and facility permit
applications required under Section 3005 will be distributed
for completion by applicants.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you, Walt.
I would like now to turn the meeting over to Arnie
Edelman, who will give you an overview of the EPA proposed
transportation regulations. Arnie...
MR. EDELMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF ARNIE EDELMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
PRINCIPAL STAFF PERSON FOR SECTION 3003
MR. EDELMAN: The proposed standards consist of eigh
sections: Scope, Definitions, Identification Code, Record-
-------
keeping. Acceptance and Transport of Hazardous Waste, Compli-
ance with the Manifest, Delivery of Hazardous Waste, Spills,
Placard and Marking of Vehicles.
Any person or Federal Agency who transports a hazard-
ous waste which requires a manifest will be subject to the
regulations. Under draft Section 3002 standards, a. manifest
will not be required for transport on the same premises where
the waste is generated, treated, stored, or disposed. Draft
copies of Section 3002 standards are available at the registra-
tion table.
Even though a manifest may not be required under
Section 3002, generator standards, transporters who knowingly
consolidate shipments of hazardous wastes will be required
under EPA standards to deliver the wastes to a permitted
facility. In addition, all transporters will be required
under the EPA proposal to comply with the DOT Hazardous
Materials Transportation Regulations for interstate as well as
intrastate shipments.
All transporters of hazardous waste must receive an
identification code from EPA prior to engaging in the transpor- na-
tion of hazardous waste. The identification code will be
issued to the transporter upon compliance with the Section
3010 notification requirements, or compliance with the Section
250.32 of the transporter standards, which address identifica-
tion codes.
-------
The information requirements for the 250.32 refer
ence the 3010 notification regulations of 250.023. Draft
copies of the information requirements, as well as the identi-
fication requirements, are available at the registration table
In furnishing information concerning the transporta-
tion of hazardous wastes, the transporter will be required to
list any existing permit number to the transporter. These
numbers may include the Interstate Commerce Commission number,
the State Public Utility or Service Commission number, the
State Health Department number, or any other number that is
issued to the transporter.
EPA will then issue to the transporter an identifica-
tion code based upon one of his existing numbers. Each trans-
porter of hazardous wastes will be required to keep for three
years a copy of the manifest signed by the Agent of the desig-
nated facility, or signature of the receiving transporter
where the shipment is transferred between carriers.
The shipping paper that contains the basic informati<
requirements of the manifest, and is signed by the Agent of
the designated facility or receiving transporter, can be
used in lieu of the manifest for the record.
EPA is proposing acceptance regulations that are
similar to those already in effect under the DOT Hazardous
Materials Transportation regulations. Hazardous waste must be
properly manifested, packaged, marked and labeled. jn add-fc-
-------
the transporter must sign the manifest, certifying acceptance
2
of the waste shipment from the generator and he must not accept
consolidate or mix hazardous wastes consisting of materials
4
or mixtures that are prohibited by DOT from transportation.
In transporting hazardous waste, each transporter
shall assure that the manifest, or similar shipping document
that contains the same information, is with the waste shipment
at all times. If manifest is carried with the shipment, upon
delivery of the waste to the permitted facility, the transporter
must acquire a signature indicating delivery of the waste
shipment.
If the manifest is not with the shipment of hazardou;
waste, a delivery document must be issued and signed by the
facility. A delivery document, as a minimum, must contain the
basic manifest information and may take the form of a standard
bill of lading or the waybill.
The transporter must deliver all the waste received
from a generator or transporter to the designated permitted
facility. If transporters treat, store or dispose of the
hazardous waste, then this activity must be done at a permitted
facility.
During transportation, in the event of a spill of
hazardous waste, the proposed standards will require the trans-
porter to telephone the National Response Center, file a
written report on the spill to the Department of Transportatioi
-------
using the existing hazardous material incident report. DOT wil.
then take these reports and fill them in to EPA; the transport*
will also be required to clean up the spill, or take such
actions as may be required by Federal, State or Local agencies
so that the waste no longer presents a hazard to human health
or the environment.
Every spillage of a hazardous waste during transport;
tion, regardless of its quantity, will require a telephone
contact to the National Response Center.
Finally, for hazardous wastes which meets DOT's
definition of hazardous materials, EPA has adopted the exist-
ing DOT placarding requirements.
EPA at this time has not developed a. new placard for
those hazardous wastes. Under the proposed DOT regulations,
it does not require it. However, both EPA and DOT are open
to suggestions regarding the need for such a placard.
In addition to placarding, motor vehicles involved ii
the transportation of hazardous wastes must be marked to ident:
the name of the transporter and the home base of the vehicle.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you, Arnie.
I would like now to turn the hearing over to Terrell
Hunt, from EPA's Office of Enforcement, for a few remarks.
Terrell...
MR. HUNT: Thank you, Ja<_K.
-------
STATEMENT OF TERRELL HUNT, ESQ., OFFICE OF ENFORCE-
MENT, EPA
MR. HUNT: I would like to take just a minute to
express the interest of the Office of Enforcement so far in
the rule-making process that has generated this proposed regul
tion, and give you some ideas of the areas that we are interes
ed in learning more about. Hopefully, you can tailor some of
8 your remarks to the areas that I touch upon.
Those of you who have endured to this point the
Agency's rule-making process understand that it's a long-term,
cumbersome, cooperative effort within the Agency to establish
a new regulatory program in the area of hazardous wastes.
The Office of Solid Waste has the lead in directing
this rule-making effort, and many other offices within the
Agency participate actively with them in advising them of the
interests of the various offices.
The Office of Enforcement has participated in three
broad areas. First of all, the rule-making process itself is
the process by which the substantive standards and requirement:
are made. It is of particular interest to the Office of
Enforcement that the standards are reasonable, that they impos
requirements on the regulated community that are perceived by
the community as being reasonable and making sense.
It is our experience in other programs that require-
ments that are perceived as being overly stringent and
-------
25
1 unreasonable are not complied with.
Secondly, we have a particular interest in the precis
language in the regulation itself, seeing that the language is
such that the regulated community understands what is and what
is not lawful conduct under the requirements.
The second broad area of enforcement interests is
in the development of what we call the "enforcement strategy'1.
For every regulation promulgated and, in this case, for the
package of Subtitle C regulations, we are interested in design
ing in cooperation with the Office of Solid Waste,
to notify each element of the regulated community of the
requirements that we intend to place upon them; by prioritizin
the requirements or the violation of those requirements from
our perspective, so that we can allocate our own limited
resources to that area of best environmental payoff.
In that sense, we design compliance, monitoring and
enforcement strategies, focusing on the particular violations
that we feel are crucial to be complied with, and hoping in
fact to get compliance across the board.
The third area of enforcement interests involves the
implementation of the remedies that appear in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. As you know, the Act authorize
the Agency to assess civil and criminal penalties of up to
$25,000 a day. we are forced to make some decisions about the
•ray we allocate this penalty, with the kind of penalty structu
-------
we design, so that we can provide reasonable incentives for
compliance and remove the benefit that a noncomplying firm may
derive by violating certain provisions.
We are taking steps to implement the Civil Penalty
Program by promulgating rules of practice governing civil
penalty hearings. These rules of practice should appear in
the Federal Register within the next few weeks, and proposed
for. And those of you who are interested will have an oppor-
tunity to comment.
We are also working with the Office of Solid Waste
to implement procedures to respond to imminent hazards , or
environmental circumstances that pose an imminent and substantial
danger.
It has been my perception that hazardous wastes
transporters have long been the easily identifiable whipping
boy, so to speak, of the hazardous wastes community. In fact,
the Agency has compiled a number of damage cases which—many
of which--have involved hazardous wastes transporters or the
transportation link. And, in fact, this is one of the motiva-
tions that led Congress to pass the Act of 1976 anyway.
It is our hope that through implementing a broad-
based regulatory program the relatively slight environmental
burden imposed by the transportation link can be brought into
perspective, and that an overall regulatory program from the
generating through the disposal stage will be implemented.
-------
We have discussed many times the interests of the
Department of Transportation in this regulation. The Office
of Enforcement has met with the Compliance and Enforcement
representatives of the Department of Transportation. And we ai
hoping to negotiate with them a cooperative enforcement kind
of program.
The details of this program have not been establishei
but, in general, we have an agreement in principle to avoid
duplicative compliance monitoring and enforcment activities,
to try to structure a cooperative program that will minimize
the burden on the regulated community.
So the areas that I hope to learn more about today
as we proceed through the hearing involve, first of all, the
question of compliance monitoring. At what stage and in what
manner does it make sense for the Department of Transportation
and/or EPA to find violations of the substantive requirements
that this regulation imposes on transporters?
How can we design an affirmative or response-
type monitoring program that makes sense?
Secondly, in the area of penalty policies: -That are
the violations that we should conceive as being most important
How can we design a penalty assessment structure that will
remove the economic incentive for noncompliance?
Finally, in the area of voluntary compliance, what
kind of cooperative educational programs make sense? What
-------
1 actions can we take in the Office of Enforcement to maximize
the intent throughout the industry to voluntarily comply with
these requirements?
I look forward to hearing from you and getting answer
to these other questions as we proceed.
6
7
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEHITAH: Thank you, Terrell.
Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that these introductory
remarks have put the Subtitle C regulations in general, and
the proposed regulations for hazardous wastes transportation
in particular, into proper context for discussion here today.
At this time, I would like to get to the main busines
of this hearing, which is to receive statements from the public
concerning EPA's and t)OT's proposed regulations.
Before I get to that though I would like to just note
that those of you who are standing at the rear of the room—
it is somewhat like church. There are some seats up here in
front if you would like to come up and sit down.
With regard to the statements from the public,
speakers will be called in the order that their requests for
speaking time were received by EPA.
I would like to call first Mr. Robert Graziano,
of the Bureau of Explosives, Association of American Railroads
Washington, D. C.
Mr. Graziano... Would you please indicate whether
-------
you will take questions?
MR. GRAZIANO: I'll be happy to.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GRAZIANO, BUREAU OF EXPLOSIVES,
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, WASHINGTON, D. C.
MR. GRAZIANO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to address my remarks principally today to the
DOT proposal of May 25, which also recognizes some differences
between your proposal and theirs.
Comments that we make today are reflective of our
intense interest in the matter in which environmental regula-
tions affecting shippers and carriers are coordinated and
implemented into current DOT regulations.
As has been noted by the MTB in the Federal Register
of Thursday, May 25, 1978, Docket RM-145-A contains several
requirements proposed which are substantially different from
the requirement for transporters published by the EPA on
Friday, April 28.
The basic overriding concern that we have is that the
two agencies develop a uniform and consistently applied set of
regulations for the transport of these materials.
We urge that MTB and EPA work for a single, uniform
set of regulations for transporters. We believe this should b<
the primary goal of the agency.
We draw your attention to Section 3003 B of Public
Law 94-580, which deals with coordination of regulations with
-------
the Secretary of Transportation.
The purpose of including this statement in the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is to preclude dissimil
4 transport regulations from being implemented. Congress intend-
ed the regulations for transport to be consistent with the
HMTA. It seems clear that Conaress intended also the safety
7 regulations as regard transportation must continue to be issuer
by the Department of Transportation, and to deal with preemp-
tion requirements afforded by Section 112 of that Act.
These two basic requirements must not be overturned
by developing rule-making which would circumvent the require-
ments of the statute.
With respect to the proposed regulations for trans-
port of hazardous wastes under Docket HM-145, the rail industry
believes that the following areas need substantial review and
revision to accommodate practical operating problems and to
specifically deal with modal differences.
The following areas are highlighted for the purpose
of this hearing and will be contained in our written comments
filed at a later date when we are advised by MTB of that filin
requirement.
Section 171.3, Hazardous Wastes, para. C, should be
changed to be consistent with the Bill of Lading Act under the
jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which
requires rail carriers to deliver goods offered to them to the
-------
consignee shown on the bill of lading. Specifically, shipments
must be delivered to the person designated, and this luxury of
being able to switch it from one to another is not enjoyed by
the rail industry.
5 The bill of lading is a contract of carriage between
6 the shipper and carrier. We do not have the authority to chanc
7 from one destination to another to, as you said in your rule-
making, "not reasonably possible to deliver the material".
That opportunity does not exist for us; therefore,
some revision of that will have to be undertaken.
Section 171.3-B(1): The code referred to in this
12 section should be the three digit accounting code currently
13 used by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and currently
14 required on all waybills of all rail carriers.
15 This number, since it appears in each waybill, shoul(
16 not be a duplicative control effort by EPA; rather, it should
I7 recognize one that is already in existence.
18 Section 171.3-E, Proposed Regulations, are clearly
19 in opposition to 112 of the Hazardous Material Transportation
20 Act, Subpart C, Section 107; The preemption notice and
21 inconsistently ruling rules which emanate from such notice
22 were clearly designed to preclude different requirements for
23 carriers imposed by state and political subdivisions, which ar
24 inconsistent with the Hazardous Materials regulations
25 This inconsistency in the proposed regulation will
-------
ignore the mandate of Congress and prejudge rule-making that
n
will initiate, or will be initiated, as a result of different
regulations for transporters imposed by different jurisdictions
We do not believe that this was what was intended.
We believe that the MTB should re-evaluate that position and
strike it from current rule-making procedures.
Section 171.17-A(1), Notification, should be a
centralized, single telephone number for notification. It
should be easily obtained and conveniently used by the persons
who must notify the Department. This would be of benefit to
the carriers and you would have reduced the number of phone
calls which must be made in the case of an emergency.
Section 172, the Hazardous Materials Table, I refer
you to the proposed rules, page 22,629, Section 172.101, and
J. would like to quote . It says :
"Paragraph C-8- would be added to specify that a
proper shipping name include the word "waste1' when the material
described is a waste material subject to EPA's requirements
in 49 CFR Part 250. Use of this method to appropriately des-
cribe the proper shipping name for hazardous wastes alleviates
the necessity for the addition of hundreds of proper shipping
entries to the hazardous materials table. Only one shipping
name, Hazardous Wastes Nos., would be added to the Hazardous
Materials Table .
We do not believe that this is appropriate. We
-------
believe that the EPA and the DOT should develop pooper shippin
names and identify them so that each shipper and the carrier
can use them successfully, without trying to obscure the
regulation that is being imoosed in thi«? rulemaking nrocedure.
We think it is confusintr and. we think it is improper
It will not increase the opportunity for compliance with the
regulation in this proposal.
Section 172.101-B(2), which identifies the symbol A
as a requirement for transport by Air only. It is noted that
this symbol has been revised. The text of the symbol has been
revised, and it would not apply to the material if it is a
hazardous material. However, if it is a hazardous waste, then
the material would be subject to the regulation.
We find this a little inconsistent and a little
confusing when talking about how you can comply and apply the
regulations consistently. We would recommend that you rethink
that particular position.
Further, with Section 172.101, it is not clear to me
in the proposed rule whether the term "ORME" would be used in
addition to the primary classification. It is extremely
important that the proper informative message be given by the
shipper to the carrier that the material offered for transport;
tion needs to meet certain requirements of the EPA
These specific requirements and others which are
sure to follow, such as . Hazardous Substances, Toxic Sub-
-------
stances, et al, can be better dealt with from a regulatory
2
viewpoint by specifically identifying those classes, those
o
hazardous materials as classes, rather than putting them under
the umbrella "ORME".
Regulations peculiar to each become lost as a result
of putting them under the term "ORME"-
We believe that waste materials that are specifically
identified by EPA. should be specifically listed in the hazard-
ous materials table, and that a class of materials identified
as "environmental and hazardous wastes" be created in a separa
section of the regulations to detail the unique requirements oi
each of these proposals.
We believe that this will reduce confusion and
increase the opportunity for compliance with the EPA and
Department of Transport Regulations.
We further recommend that shipping papers which des-
cribe the hazardous material, which is also a hazardous waste,
identify the name of the material, its primary hazard class
and the fact that it is an •nvironmentally hazardous waste.
If I understood the example given in the proposal
of the MTB, a waste turpentine flammible liquid, it is not
clear by looking at that that the material is subject to EPA
regulations.
I cite you the other materials that are currently
identified in DOT regulations: Waste paper, waste textiles wel
-------
This recognition factor of the additional requirements for
transport of this material states more specifically the need
for identification and control of the material, better than
the stated proposal of ORME.
Requirements for notification are important, and
this is the message, we believe, will be lost in the current
proposal put forward by the DOT. When a material is filled
or other requirements are imposed by tile EPA, are to be met
by both the shipper and the carrier, including the manifest
and other requirements, it is necessary to know that we are
dealing with an EPA hazardous waste.
Section 172.203, Additional Description Requirements
there needs to be some ongoing followup by the EPA and the
Department of Transportation to identify substantial movements
of traffic and specifically get them listed in the table by
name.
We believe that the Department and EPA should focus
a substantial effort on the placement of specific materials in
the table.
Section 172.205, Hazardous Wastes, the hazardous
waste manifest information required by EPA should be capable
of implementation on the shipping paper required by the Depart-
ment of Transportation. There would not, therefore, be a
necessity for a separate document to accommodate shipments for
transnort, which could be used utilizing the DOT shipping
-------
paper information.
The existing system of using a shipping paper could
be modified to incorporate the information required by EPA
for hazardous wastes manifest system. It is noted that the rail]
carriers already are required to show in the identification the
consignee's name, the shipper's name, the addresses and the
information is currently required by 172.204.
Thus, the shipping paper used by the railroad indust-
ry is essentially the same as an EPA hazardous waste manifest.
And we can see no gain but rather a burden to the rail carrier:
to prepare another piece of paper, which meets the same require-
ments as the current hazardous materials shipping paper.
Further, we would recommend that rail carriers use
shipping papers as their movement document from origin to
destination. There is no necessity to have three copies of the
hazardous waste manifest.
The rail system is so highly controlled with the
requirement that the original shipping document be filed at
the destination and three copies transported by the train crew
that it just doesn't seem to us to be realistic.
The interchanges that could take place could be as
few as two railroads; it could be as many as 30 railroads. You
suggest that three documents is insufficient, but we have one
document that does the job for one, two or 31 railroads. We
suggest that that is the document which the EPA should recommend,
-------
which would require use for the rail industry.
Shipper's certification on a bill of lading should be
required for hazardous wastes just as all other hazardous
materials' requirements. This document that is in use now by
the transoort industry, including the shippers, does contain
the certification for hazardous materials. And I think there
is a certain question that might be asked as to whether or not
materials which are incorporated into the hazardous materials'
regulations are not in fact hazardous materials by virtue of
their incorporation, and that the shipping requirements for
both the shipper and the carrier must be met, including all
other departmental requirements such as the shipper certifica-
tion .
I appreciate any comments you may make and I'll be
naPPY to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: All right, thank you very much for
your remarks, Mr. Graziano. Do we have any comments by the
panel? Mr. Roberts...
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Graziano, I am somewhat confused b
one of your statements and I need clarification. I was always
of the understanding, from my experience in Transportation,
that the shipper has the authority to divert traffic after it
was once tendered to a carrier.
Under traffic penalties it is, and things like that.
Are YOU telling this hearing that there is no mechanism
-------
available to shippers to reassign or divert traffic once it is
given to a carrier?
MR. GRAZIANO: Not at all, but the carrier does not
have the luxury of doing that; that's my point. The way the
regulation is written it is not the carrier, it is not the
shipper, who would divert the traffic. Rather, it says, the
carrier, I believe, cannot reasonably...
MR. ROBERTS: Well, let me read you the words, sir,
so we can get the point straight. I'll try to cut it down to
the bare minimum.
''If it is not reasonably possible to deliver that
waste to a permitted facility, permitted consignee facility,
when one is designated on the shipping paper, he may deliver it
to another permitted facility otherwise identified by the
shipper."
Now would you like us to rewrite that? Is that what
you are concerned with?
MR. GRAZIANO: Well, our problem is this, that if
a permitted facility were shown to be one in New York, and
always a permitted facility shown to be in Pennsylvania, and w<
were directed to deliver the shipment to Pennsylvania first,
and then, because it was unreasonable for the facility to, in
Pennsylvania, accept the shipment, we don't have the authority
to divert that shipment automatically to New York; we simply
can't do that.
-------
We can only do that under instructions of the shippei
And the instructions in the Bill of Lading Act are that you
will identify the name and address of the consignee. So we do
deliver to one consignee.
If you're asking me: Are diversions possible? Sure,
a diversion is possible. But diversions can only be accomplisl
ed by specific instructions of the shipper at the time that the
shipment is not accepted at the first facility.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, I can assure you, Mr. riraziano,
that there is no intention to fly in the face of the Bill of
Lading Act of 1939 .
In the submission of your comments if you would care
to tell us how you would suggest this section be rewritten,
then, certainly, ™e will carefully consider it.
~'7e designed this not to recognize just common carriei
but all classes of carriers. If it flies in the face of the
Bill of Lading Act I think you should let us know in specific
detail.
Z-1R. GRAZIANO: The only reason we brought up the
comment today, Mr. Roberts, is because we did think there was
an element of confusion in that particular statement and we an
prepared to offer comments as to how it might be corrected.
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Graziano, we have more or less mad'
a declaration in this proposed rule-making that all materials
regulated by the Department of Transportation as hazardous
-------
materials, if they are waste materials, lacking the definition
criteria also yet to be published by EPA, we have to see that
before we finalize it. Are you suggesting that we just have a
double-sized commodity list, shipping list, for every entry,
such as turpentine? Do we have a separate entry titled "waste
turpentine"?
MR. GRAZIANO: I'm not sure that that is entirely
feasible and I'm not sure it is entirely necessary. We have
been following the EPA proposals on hazardous wastes and, unfoi
tunately, there is no stated definition on what is a hazardous
waste.
And 1 think the crux of the matter lies , and the
regulation development lies, with: What is a hazardous waste?
If we are talking about materials which have no
further utilization or economic value and are to be discarded,
then I think that your list that you talk about would be very
small because there are a number of commodities that are on
the hazardous materials list today that are by-products of
manufacture that are used as virgin products in other industris
In my conception, that is not a hazardous waste.
It may be a waste material for one but not a waste
material for another. So I think that you ought to carefully
look at that rather than concluding rather quickly that every
hazardous material has a hazardous waste as its by-product. I
don't think that's necessarily so.
-------
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Do any of the panel have any furth
questions?
MR. EDELMAN: Bob, your remarks this morning focused
on the DOT proposal and you focused one area of your concern
as dealing with the shipping documents and the need, or
unnecessary need, to carry additional shipping documents.
In your reviewing of the EPA proposal, do you feel
that you are allowed in that proposal to only carry one ship-
ping document to the shipper? Or do you have the same type 0f
difficulty with multiple-type documents?
MR. GRAZIANO: I'm not in the position to answer that
at the moment because I don't have that information in front oi
me. But if the EPA proposal proposes only one shipping docu-
ment, then that's fine. That will meet our objective..
And we are trying to meet the objective of the EPA
and the Department by the use of a. single shipping document
which could be implemented by the rail carriers from the origii
to the destination. We think we have a document that does thai
MR. EDELMAN: Also, you were very concerned about the
coordination and consistency between the different regulations
-that we have proposed.
MR. GRAZIANO: Correct.
MR. EDELMAN: If EPA were to, in its final promulga-
tion of these regulations for rail carriers, air carriers,
motor carriers, adopt these proposed EPA regulations in addition
-------
to the existing regulations, would that solve your concern?
MR. GRAZIANO: Well, yes and no. I have some partial
lar problems and comments with the way the DOT has developed
the regulations. But if you're talking about if EPA were to
adopt the DOT proposal, I think that's the proper way to go.
I have always felt that way. Our comments have
always been directed in that vein.
MR. EDELMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: All right, Mr. Cohen.
MR. COHEN: ,Mr. Graziano, I think we had the same
discussion in October but I'll have it again to make sure I
understand what you mean by the word "consistent", to make sur(
•that we all think about that word the same way.
As I recall, we had extensive testimony in Chicago
and, after repeated questions to a variety of speakers, my
understanding of the word "consistent'1 is: In the case where
DOT and EPA believe they both have regulatory authority to
regulate a certain subject—establish a phone number, or what-
ever it might be--there is no question that "consistent'' means
very similar or not duplicative.
MR. GRAZIANO: How about "identical"?
MR. COHEN: Possibly identical but it's not the read-
ing of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act from State
Programs. They do not have to be identical in their system.
However; in the cases wfcert the Department of Trans-
-------
portation deems it not to have legislative authority to cover
a certain subject, a certain requirement, and EPA does, then
EPA has nothing to be consistent with.
For example, in our current proposal, DOT has to relji
on EPA's broader authority to require the cleanup of a spill,
which DOT felt they did not have the legal authority to require
that. There is no question that proposals were to go on as
they are now, that there will be an EPA regulation covering the
requirement that a spill be cleaned up, which, regrettably,
there is no way to be consistent because, for failing of
legislative authority, DOT cannot cover that subject.
So that is our understanding of "consistent" and I
wanted to make sure that it is yours also.
MR. GRAZIANO: My understanding of "consistent",
really, it goes to the heart of the current DOT regulations.
For example, the shipping paper, the example that I gave, I
think that there is an opportunity for both the EPA and DOT to
be consistent, in fact, identical, in terms of the requirements
that need to be put on a piece of paper for transporting that
material.
But I can appreciate that EPA's legislative mandate
does go beyond transportation. It covers disposal. It covers
cleanup. And in those areas, we are prepared to work with EPA
in that particular rulemaking.
But I think the real answer to that is, where it
-------
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
involves transportation as a regulation that is already being
covered by DOT, then it should be identical.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Yes, Mr. Crockett...
MP. CROCKETT: I want to rephrase something and make
sure I understand you. Let me try it and see what happens.
Under 171.3 (e), concerning Preemption. From what you said, I
gather you feel that the rail industry would be more comfortab! e
with that subject and preempting not being addressed just by
your regulation.
I gather that the logic you employed to reach that
conclusion involved the feeling that DOT is going to lock
itself in. It's, in effect, prejudging something that may
occur in the future regarding federal and state relationships
in this area.
The rail industry would be more comfortable in deal-
ing with -these federal/states situations on an ad hoc basis,
through part 17 procedures.
I assume you understand also that the states on thei:'
part would be left to pretty much guess at what DOT is going to
do within the confines of what they can come to in understanding
from reading the Hazardous Materials Act.
There will be uncertainty on both sides?
MR. GRAZIANO: Yes, I think our problem with it,
Doug, is this. It has been prejudged by putting that statemen :
in I think E-3--little "3"—which talks about the inconsistenc;
-------
if I may. It says: "Format of contents of shipping papers,
except any additional requirements to the state or locality of
consignment, which is part of an authorized state waste manage-
ment program under 42 USC 5926."
What that says to me is : If the State of New Jersey
wanted to require a different shipping manifest with a little
nuance on it than the State of Pennsylvania, or than the State
of New York and each had different requirements, the carrier,
the rail carrier, would transport this waste to Boston and is
going to have to meet the requirements to get through those
states to the destination.
Or, he will have to meet them at the State border
when the material is finally... I don't want to say "dumped
into New Jersey, because that's bad, but...
(Laughter.)
...but when the material is finally delivered to a
permitted disposal facility in New Jersey.
And we don't think that the Department should pre-
judge that particular activity prior to seeing what states and
the EPA finally come up with.
If I recall correctly, in the EPA statute, require-
ments that the EPA look at consistent and equivalent regulatioi
state to state.
And I can't see any particular reason why, given the
DOT format, all the information that is necessary should not b
-------
shown on that particular shipping document and it serve every-
one's purpose, without having three, four, five different
pieces of paper.
MR. CROCKETT: Is this an argument for a single
document again?
MR. GRAZIANO: Sure, it is.
MR. CROCKETT: Then what you're saying is,it is not
so much the fact that preemption has been addressed in here as
you have a different idea.
MR. GRAZIANO: No, I think preemption has been
addressed in here; that was the text of my statement earlier.
It has been. And I think you have set up a mechanism to deal
with preemption, 107.
MR. CROCKETT: My question is,is it your concern the
fact that we are attempting to address that question one way
or another, or does it go to the substance of what we've said.
MR. GRAZIANO: It's both.
MR. CROCKETT: You would rather not see us address
it. If we did, you don't want to see us address it this way?
MR. GRAZIANO: I don't mind if you address it provid-
ed you address it as you have done in the consistency rulings
thus far, and give everybody an opportunity at it rather than
blindsighting us. Yes, sir...
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Graziano, in draft 172.205 (b), it
says: Hazardous waste manifest required by 40 CFR 250.22,
-------
containing all the information required by this subpart may be
used as a shipping paper.
Are you suggesting that it more or less be reversed?
That if you have a shipping paper complying with the DOT
requirements, then no hazardous waste manifest is required? I
don't quite understand what you are saying.
MR. GRAZIANO: What I'm saying is that there is no
need, at least, in our opinion, of a single document, a. single
shipping paper, that meets the information requirements of EPA
and meets your information requirements, and that there is no
need for three or four manifests to be transported between
carriers, which, you know, the whole thing is inter-related,
Alan. You can't divorce one from the other without considera-
tion of each of these segments.
^ly whole' point is that your regulations and their
regulations and their information needs should be consistent
so that, when a shipper gives the bill of lading, that's all h
has to tender: a bill of lading.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, you're talking about bill of
lading and I do know that DOT constantly uses the term "shippin
paper" because somebody might want to write out the requiremen
on a. piece of yellow legal paper, because he is not interested
in bills of lading. That's an old story.
But we have information requirements. EPA is propos
ing information requirements. I think you have seen some of
-------
the drafts of the hazardous wastes manifests that are being
proposed and circulated. Now which one requires more information?
Which has a requirement that has a greater information content
Or, more information?
MR. GRAZIMIO: Simply because two proposals are plao
before the public, one containing more information than the
other, does not mean that each of those cannot be integrated
into one proposal and that proposal be used for the shipping
document. That's all we're saying.
We don't want to see two pieces of paper.
t*R. ROBERTS: Then DOT possibly would include all
the information that EPA finds necessary to carry out its
legislative mandate. The DOT, in order to be consistent with
EPA, should require for all hazardous material transportation?
MR. GRAZIANO: No, I think you have an opportunity
here to identify information that is consistent, that is equal
and put that into your regulations, such as you have tried to
do here.
What I am saying is that we don't want to see two
pieces of paper, two separate pieces of paper. If there is a
need for a manifest, or if there is a need for additional
information, the transporter has a need for only one piece of
information. He does not have to know what the basic breakdowi
of the material is. That is between the shipper or the
generator,' if you will, and the person who is either going to
-------
3
dispose of it or recycle it.
As a transporter, I have no need to know that. So
why burden my industry with carrying a piece of paper between
two people? It doesn't make any sense.
IIP,. ROBERTS. Okay, now I think we're getting to the
point here. As I would understand it, you question the need
or viability or efficacy, or whatever, of the proposed wastes
manifest and all information content?
MR. GRAZIANO: That's right. We've been trying to
set forth the DOT shipping paper rules.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, now 1 understand your comments.
If that's the point you tried to make earlier, you secured this
route to get to your point.
MR. KOVALICK: I don't think I understand your
comment now.
(Laughter. )
MR. GRAZIANO: How to confuse the government in one
easy lesson.
'1R. ROBERTS: I would suggest you have commented on
something yet to be published in the Federal Register, which
is being circulated by draft.
And, obviously, in order to get on with the concurre;
publication of transportation proposals from DOT, we published
without seeing d fullbown publication of the manifest require-
ments. We acknowledge that. We accept that.
-------
That's why it's an open-ended rulemaking with no
closing date for comment, because you will have the opportunity
to see all that before you go through the final round of this.
One other point I must go back to because it is very
important to DOT resourcewise and how much bureaucracy the DOT
is going to plow into this particular field of endeavor.
Going back to the proposal for listing of hazardous
materials, I just want to make one other point. You made
reference to the turpentine. One of the reasons we selected
that was it was a material slightly above the flammable liquid
category and yet below tiie 141 degree breakpoint that had been
suggested in one of your earlier EPA drafts.
It's not necessarily concurred in by DOT, but in
the draft. Now proposed paragraph 172.101 (c)8 activates the
waste requirement, the waste entry, or the word "waste" as part
of the shipping name only if the material is subject to
40 CFR 250.
I don't believe you brought that out in your comment
or your objection as to the way we were employing this. For
example, there were a number of commodities in the DOT list
that will never be, in my opinion, regulated as hazardous
wastes because EPA would never consider them to be hazardous
wastes .
For example, cocoa beans, or jasper beans, or cocoa
nuts, is one of the things we talked about, and some other
-------
materials, that had peculiar problems posed by these materials
in certain transportation environments they are regulated in.
But, in your comment, are you fully cognizant of
the way this wab designed and to te implemented?
MR. GRAZIAHO: Well, I think that the designation am
the way that this is to be implemented is, I believe, a bit
confusing. I've begun to understand it, I believe, but I don't
think it is easy for the people who have to employ it to under-
stand it.
I don't think it's easily readable; I don't think it
is easily understood. I think there are better ways to do it.
7-ind our comments spoke to that particular issue.
!"?.. ROBERTS: Nell, would you prefer twc federal
regulatory agencies dealing in the area of wastes, one more
or less following the lead of the other? And that's a policy
statement of DOT that declaring of things to be waste. We
would look to the other agency for environmental hazards, heaH
hazards.
T?e would look to the other agencies to make the
determinations, like we did in the area of asbestos? Would yo>
want both agencies to deal with both agencies in each case for
the rulemaking process for the determination of what is a waste
material?
One agency has already said it is and "I have the
statutory mandate to regulate it, and I hereby declare it to
-------
a waste. Then everyone comes to the DOT and it's regulated
all over again? When the other agency says: DOT, if you donM:
do it, we're going to have to do it"?
MR. GRAZIANO: No, we're not interested in getting
into your internal squabbles.
(Laughter.)
MR. ROBERTS: It's not a squabble, it's a matter of
procedural question as to how much you want to do it.
MR. GRAZIANO: That's correct and I guess my comment:
were pretty specific: We want the materials that are identified
by EPA as Hazardous Wastes to be listed on your table for
transportation requirements.
We also would like a more definitive explanation of
what the hazard is, because, as I pointed out earlier, toxic
substances, hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, and
others, are coming down the pike. And we are going to be goint
through the same kind of rulemaking procedure for those that
we are going through for this.
Without a specific identifier, for example, Hazardous
Substances, or Hazardous Wastes, EPA regulated waste, something
along that line, we, the transporters, are the people who have
to comply with the regulations and we are not going to have a
good opportunity to do it. That's my point.
MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Graziano.
-------
At this time, I would like to call a 15-minute break
Please return promptly at 11 p.m.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: At this time, I would like to
reconvene the hearing. For your information, our intelligence
is that sneaker number two will not arrive at the hearing unti]
this afternoon, so we will proceed to speaker number three.
I would like to call Dr. Charles A.Johnson, Technical
Director of National Solid Wastes Management Association of
Washington, D. C.
Dr. Johnson.. .
DR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Lehman.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Will you accept questions from the
panel?
DR. JOHNSON: Yes, I will.
STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES A. JOHNSON, TECHNICAL
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT ASSOCIA-
TION, WASHINGTON, D. C.
DR. JOHNSON: The National Solid Wastes Management
Association includes among its members most of the leading
companies offering the services of chemical and hazardous waste
management to American industry today.
Through the NSWMA Chemical Wastes Committee, we are
pleased to offer our comments on the two sets of regulations
being considered here. But, first, let me comment that it
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
seems strange that we are considering two sets of regulations
today, both proposed to implement the same section of PCRA.
We wonder-why it was not possible for these two
agencies to arrive at a single set of regulations before publi
cation in the Federal Register and consideration by the
general public.
In view of some substantive differences between the
two regulations, our question is more than rhetorical. Inas-
much as EPA has said that, if DOT would prepare regulations
to add to CFR 49 to implement Section 3003 of RCRA, and EPA
would incorporate them by reference, we would consider the
DOT version as the operative proposal and direct our comments
primarily to that version.
As I said, there are some substantive differences
between the two proposals. Probably, the most important singl<
difference—to us, anyway—is the preemption of state and
local requirements when they are inconsistent with these
regulations, as stated in Section 171.3 (e) of the DOT proposal
EPA, on the other hand, states in the background
discussion that transporters will be required to comply with
any consistent state and local regulations.
I'm sure you are aware that the hazardous wastes
function is increasingly becoming an interstate operation. W»
no longer have the luxury of having sites located a few miles
away.
-------
In view of that fact, we strongly endorse the DOT
position that differing state and local requirements, particu-
larly for transporters, should be preempted by the regulations,
Another substantial difference between the two
regulations is in regard to spills. Several of our members
have expressed a concern that EPA reporting requirements, if
taken literally, would apply to incidental or minor spills
which occur during loading and unloading.
DOT resolves this concern by excluding spills on the
property of the shipper or the consignee from the reporting
requirements.
Still another difference appears in the manifest for
a comingled shipment where the original wastes did not indivi-
dually require a manifest. In that case, DOT suggests that a
permanent consignee may require a manifest, which presumably
the transporter would originate and, thus, by definition,
become a generator.
EPA, apparently, would not so require.
We suggest that this inconsistency needs resolution.
EPA, on their background information, asked for comment on the
adequacy of present DOT placarding requirements. We believe
that they are adequate. And to add several new placards,
especially with names largely unfamiliar to the general public
would severely confuse people and negate the purpose of placar'
ing.
-------
We have a question regarding Section 173.2A1 of the
DOT regulations, the section covering Reuse of Containers
Previously Holding Hazardous Materials.
This rule would apparently allow such containers to
be reused for nonhazardous materials without prior cleaning.
We question the desirability of such a procedure if indeed thai
is the intent, and recommend that this paragraph be clarified.
Let me comment on two ooints that '''ere raised
earlier. First, categorization of wastes beyond the single
category of ORME or Hazardous Wastes Nos.
an
We believe that.attempt to do so would create a very
considerable amount of confusion and add very little to the
overall information provided to the shipper or the public.
We would recommend that the single category be
retained as proposed by DOT and, furthermore, we would contend
that the manifest or shipping papers containing the hazardous
nature of the materials would provide any additional informa-
tion that might be required.
^s far as diversions of materials, we note that the
draft of the generator regulations would allow the possibility
that a generator could designate one other single site for the
ultimate disposal of the waste. It isn't completely clear fror
the EPA proposal we are considering today that this is the
case, but there is a word "a" in there as opposed to the
word "the" in one spot, which would indicate that that is the
-------
intent.
Generally speaking, our members would support that
possibility because of the possibility of the transporters,
particularly by vtruck, sometimes of necessity have to take a
shipment to a site other than the prime one designated by the
generator.
So with those few comments I would close my remarks
and attempt to answer any questions that might be put forth.
ClIAIRflAN LEJDIAH: Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Are there
any questions from the panel? Comments? ''r. Roberts?
MR. ROBERTS i. Dr. Johnson, if I understood your
comment about 173.28 correctly, you are raising a matter that
I would not consider within the scope of this ruling action.
You have to look at existing Section 173.28 to under-
stand my point. But I would suggest that you examine it before
you submit your written comments.
And, also, if you pursue the point that you raise,
and I'm not taking issue with it, I would suggest it would
require a petition for rulemaking separate and distinct from
this particular rulemaking action.
It would be my opinion that we could not enter into
that without a separate rulemaking action because the reuse of
containers, the restrictions on it, is w historic provision of
the DOT regulations. And what you are talking about has nothi:
to do with hazardous wastes per se but the reuse of containers
-------
that were previously used for any material. I think that it i:
broader than just the issue of hazardous wastes.
DR. JOHNSON: I was referring specifically to 173.29
for A-l.
MR. ROBERTS: I see.
DR. JOHNSON: This says: This paragraph does not
apply to packaging that has been cleaned and purged of all
residue, and this is the part I was referring to: Or, to a
packaging refilled with material that is not subject to this
subchapter.
It doesn't say "cleaned and refilled".
J'R. ROBERTS: Okay. My point is still the same.
There is a relationship between 173.28 and .29. And DOT has
never entered into the business of addressing itself to the
reuse of packaging for materials it does not regulate. I
think that's basically a correct statement.
I could qualify it and go into dialogues about radio-
active materials and tilings like that. The whole issue of
whether DOT should, can, has the authority to regulate ship-
ments of nonhazardous materials based on what a container
previously contained, it's quite an issue. I would suggest
that the whole topic that you raise in that context is beyond
the scope of this ruling.
But you can disagree with me...
DR. JOHNSON: Well, speaking from relatively little
-------
1
knowledge on the subject, I'll leave it at that.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Are there any other comments?
Arnie Edelman...
MR. EDELMAN: Dr. Johnson, you opened your statement
by asking why there were two separate sets of proposed regula-
tions. I just wanted to see if you were aware: Under the
Hazardous "aterials Transportation Act, those regulations
developed under Title 49 do not apply to bulk shipments by
9
barge ,
If EP^ did not propose a regulation, that segment
of transportation would not be covered. That is why we did
propose these regulations.
Regarding your comment on spills, it is EPA's intent
not to receive notification of spills at a consignor's or
consignee's facility, faring the transportation frtt«». OBJH+ A
*e peirff Bf EPA s(ve»U fce flohfied of a* 7 Sp,H.
You also brought up the question of comingling of
wastes, The question I have is: Were you stating that, when
a transporter picks up a hazardous waste that does not require
n manifest, that he then should become a generator of that
waste?
DR. JOHNSON: I think the comment was addressed at
a section of the DOT regulations, the preamble, which states
that: Under some circumstances, a transporter might pick up
several shipments, each individually not requiring a manifest,
-------
and then aggregate a shipment that a disposal site might
require a manifest to accept. And that there, reference was
made in the preamble that, in this case, disposal site might
require a manifest.
In that case, the manifest would clearly have to be
produced, originated by the transporter, which would then caus
him, I presume, to become a generator; and he would have to
go through all the requirements of a generator.
I'm not suggesting I like that procedure. But I am
suggesting that, if you take that to its logical conclusion,
that'« where you end up.
MR. EDEL.MAN: Do you have any suggestions on how to
handle that?
DR. JOHNSON: I think I would want to talk consider-
ably more with some of our people about that.
CHAIRMAN LEH'-V>.N: Mr. Crockett...
**.R. CROCKETT: There were two situations that you
referred to there where you get a shipment that's not covered
by a manifest that somehow ends up being delivered with a lot
of other stuff that has been collected.
Then, one situation where, hypothetically, you go to
two points and pick up materials and, say, put them in a cargo
tank where they mix and react and become something different.
That, as opposed to where you go to two different
sites and pick up the same material and comingle them. The
-------
section of the preamble you were referring to addressed both
hypothetical^ .
In the case where the materials change identity,
that is, the person who is mixing the materials together
caused this change himself becomes the generator and would,
indeed--at least, based on my present understanding of what
we are going to see when EPA develops its proposals—the
transporter who mixes and changes the identity of the materials
would indeed be the generator and subject to the whole panolply
of rules applied to Generator.
On the other hand, a transporter who puts together
materials the identity of which doesn't change, the point that
the preamble attempted to make on that was: Although we are
not proposing to require that he carry a manifest, it may be
that EPA will require that he carry a manifest.
That, as a matter of business, he may find that, as
he gets to the point at which he intends to unload his collect-
ion of materials, that the individual to whom he wishes to
deliver it will not accept it unless there is a manifest.
This means it is a practical business matter. In
both hypotheticals... in one case, you have to have it under
penalty of law. In the other case, you will have to have it
because you cannot deliver this stuff without it.
In the latter case, it doesn't necessarily mean that
the transporter is necessarily a generator.
-------
D^. JOHNSON: I suspect that the case where someone
accumulates a shipment requiring a manifest, or that wouldn't
normally require a manifest, because of quantity would be more
usual than one where he obtained a hazardous material by
comingling two different nonhazardous materials.
Therefore, I think the confusion should be resolved
and the disposal site operators should be made aware of the
fact that there is no manifest required in such a case. Or,
if there is one, somebody should be made aware that person
should produce it.
I don't think that point should be left hanging.
CHAIRJ1AN LEHMAN: Mr. Kovalick . . .
MR. KOVALICK: I'd like to clarify one point and ask
if you are going to submit something later, to ask you to think
about, one: particularly because there is a representative of
state government in the audience and I want them to hear what
you have to say.
That is that I take it that your statement says that
you wish to have state requirements for manifests? That is,
what is on a manifest which occurs outside this hearing and
their use be exactly identical; it's a federal requirement.
There are no differences allowed, which, of course,
have to interpret the words "consistent" and "equivalent- in a
different way than the word "identical". If we thought those
words were interchangeable, then Congress would have used thos
-------
words.
So your point is that they should be, according to
your committee, identical?
DR. JOHNSOiJ: Yes, we are coming to that conclusion.
•'R. KOVALICK: Yes, and the other area on which you
heard Mr. Graziano comment this morning, the problem of the
railroads "ith a tank car arriving. r'nd they prefer only one
consignee.
Since you are the representative consignees, we wouL
be very interested in what you have to offer to ourselves as
language to allow the generator, or the shipner-~in DOT
parliance--to, in advance, from our point of view, so that he
knows the permitted facility is an acceptable one, and still
reach i!r. Graziano's concern that they don't have the option
of moving the railcar from Pennsylvania north, and so forth.
So if you can think about that and...
DR. JOIEJSON: Veil, I might comment on that right
here.
"•'R. KOVALICK: Trucks are different.
DR. JOHNSON: Trucks are different. That's your...
well, in the first place, well in excess of SO percent of the
wastes which are transported to hazardous wastes service
facilities are transported by truck.
The rail transport is the exception, not the rule.
And to write the rule for the exception seems to me to b<= a
-------
little bit misguided.
I'd rather write the rule for the majority and then
consider the exception. How, as far as the transporters go,
we have a number of operators of sites who are also involved
in the transportation system, either directly or through
subsidiaries.
Very often, they have a situation where they must,
for some reason, divert a shipment from one of their facilitie
to another while it is in' transit, or perhaps even after it has
arrived at one of their sites. This happens; it is not unusua
Another circumstance arises where a transporter
arrives at the gate of a facility and finds it closed because
he arrived a little bit after-hours. If he has an alternate
available near enough, he might possibly be able to take it
to another location and offload it and avoid the hazard, the
problems of having to contain this vehicle for perhaps for as
long as several days.
So there are situations where it would be advantageo
to the transporters and to the disnosal site operators, and I
think to the generators, as well, to be able to designate more
than a single site on their manifest.
I see that in your draft of 3002, I believe, that yo
have the plural included in parenthesis. I don't know whether
that means that you are thinking about it, or whether that
means that you are planning to write it that way. But it
-------
appears that maybe you are leaning toward the idea of permit-
ting the generator to indicate more than a single permitted
disposal facility on the manifest.
We've thought a good bit about this and, on balance,
we would agreevwith it.
MR. KOVALICK; I think Mr. Roberts believes that the
paragraph we were discussing earlier is written for the 91
plus percent delivered by truck, which allows the shipper to
designate multiple...
DR. JOHNSON: T7e do too and we agree with it.
"1R. KOVALICK: What I am interested in is, for that
percent that's not, do you have a suggestion so that we can
take it along to Mr. Graziano for the part that isn't?
DR. JOHNSON: Perhaps for that alone, if it's going
to be shipped by one particular conveyance for which this
particular type of specification is awkward, perhaps you could
limit that situation to a single specified consignee. The
exception.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Mr. Roberts...
MR. ROBERTS: One point, talking about the consist-
ency of a requirement. In proposed Section 171.3 (e)3, we
have a provision, sort of a safety valve provided for a
consignment's state of consignment, or state or locality of
consignment, in terms of information requirements.
In other words, if it started out in Virginia and
-------
went through Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio , Indiana in route
to Iowa, none of those states could put up barriers at their
doors as a traversal state, or state of traversal.
But, Iowa, being the state of consignment, could have
some requirements imposed at the state level that would require
additional data be supplied by the consignor or generator.
I heard your comments surrounding this, but I don't
think you addressed that specific point.
DR. JOHNSON: I will. In the first place, if the
first part of the manifest were common to all states, that
would certainly solve our first problem. We think that the
front page, if you will, the basic information, should be
common.
If there was a requirement that the designated state
of consignee would have additional information requirement, I
don't think we would have any objection to that at all.
MR. ROBERTS: As long as it's confined or isolated
to that one community or locality or state entity.
DR. JOHNSON: State, please. Let's not go beyond
state.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, then you'd better comment on the
other point because it says state or locality. State or
Locality. So I would appreciate comments on this.
DR. JOHNSON: I would prefer you leave it at ''State".
We haven't yet talked about hazardous wastes management prograns
-------
below the state level, and I hope we don't ever start.
MR. ROBERTS: So I would assume that, in your writter
comments, you will put considerable comment into that.
DR. JOHNSON: I will.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Are there any further comments or
remarks?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Evidently not. I thank you very
much. Dr. Johnson.
I might point out to the audience that we do have
so far one question from the audience on three by five cards.
This particular question is really not addressed...It's more
of a generalized question. It is not addressed to any one
point or phrase by the speakers so far. So what we'll do is
try to fit these generalized questions into the hearing at a
later time.
At this time, I would like to call speaker number
four, Jack Lurcott, Director of Corporate Development, Rollins
Environmental Services, Wilmington, Delaware. Mr. Lurcott..
Excuse me for just a moment. For those of you who
may not have been here early on in the hearing, if you desire
to ask a question, just raise your hand and a staff member will
provide you with a 3X5 card to write questions OA.
Mr. Lurcott, would you accept questions from the pan
MR. LURCOTT: I certainly will.
-------
STATEMENT OF JACK LURCOTT, DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE
DEVELOPMENT, ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, WILMING-
TON, DELAWARE
'.'&. LURCOTT: Thank you, t'r. Lehman. Good morning,
Gentlemen of the Panel and Ladies and Gentlemen of the audienc^.
I would like to address several comments here, three, to be
precise, as a hazardous waste management firm that is a receiver
of these materials for treatment disposal, and also as a.
transporter of some portion of it.
Picking up on the first item, and I think you
addressed this some to Dr. Johnson, but it has to do with
Section 172.205 and the Hazardous Waste Manifest, we applaud
your statement to the effect that the manifest may be used as
the shipping paper. We are very favorably inclined to that.
We go further and urge acceptance of a nationwide
manifest form, or at least one that could have cross-acceptance
from the various states.
And on the question you asked of Dr. Johnson, I
think we would go ahead and say we are very much in favor of
an identical form. However, being somewhat pragmatic about it,
there may be a necessity for individual states to have some
modification to it.
But I would like to further urge the use of the idea
that Chuck Johnson put forth of a common section perhaps, with
some additional subsections. Some states like checklists.
-------
Every state has got its own several politically hazardous
wastes. They want to have special attention, too, and whatevei
But the main thing we want to see is if we can have
some commonality of the manifest. At the present time,
operationally, we are picking up waste in a given state, trans-
porting it to as many as seven other states to a treatment
disposal si'te in another state.
Mow there is nothing particularly uncommon about
this relative to hazardous materials. It may be a little
uncommon relative to hazardous wastes, but it is happening
and much more of it will happen as the regs come into effect.
So we would like to see attention paid to this and
a maximum of cooperative effort to achieve this end.
The second section has to do with Section 173.510
on the General Packaging Requirements. There is a statement
there to the effect that open-top freight containers in
transport vehicles are not permitted for bulk shipments.
It also says that hopper or dump-type transport
vehicles must be free from leaks, and all openings must be
securely closed during transportation.
We have no particular concern with that. However,
in the discussion section of the proposal, it goes on to note
that there is a potential prohibition of tarp-covered dump
trucks, and the like, and the request for comment upon this.
.A_nd I guess the point that I want to bring forth is
-------
that there is a lot of difference between a vehicle that has
an open top which may be covered, double sealed with various
mechanisms, and a completely contained steel tank, for instancf
We are developing some comments on this that address
several vehicles of this type that we now operate. They are
directly related to the handling of sludges, residual material:
the amount of which that will be transported is increasing
rapidly under the new regs.
And to do them, to handle them, with anything other
than a vehicle which you can get at the top at would probably
be unsafe for operators, would involve the generation of a lot
of additional hazardous waste and loss of resources and energy
in doing it.
We recognize that something needs to be addressed
between just a closed top or an open top with a tarp thrown
over it. And you can envision a tarp thrown over a truck. !'•
seen them myself, out there.
There are provisions, however, for engineered vehicle
which do have a double seal abilities , tarpaulin which come
down in track type of containment units, so that you can open
it up when you are emptying the material but that, from a
transport view, I think it will meet the 173.24 requirements
and will in fact be sealed, as noted here.
We will be submitting some written comments and
detail on that, but we urge your consideration on that because
-------
a large amount of the hazardous waste that will be moved will
in fact be sludge and residual type materials that will not
flow. They will not float either on air or in water. And
they are going to need some special transportation equipment
to handle them safely and effectively.
My final comment relates to a special case situation
and it may be possible to address it within the words in these
two proposals. But I'm not sure how to get at it that way.
But, earlier this month at a hazardous material
training course in Houston, several of our transportation
people came away from it with the major thing having been
impressed upon them being a statement and series of discussions
that indicated that, if a receiver of hazardous material,
including hazardous wastes, were to open a vehicle and find
leaking containers within that vehicle, that, if they were to
send that back out on to the road, that they would be equally
liable for anything that happened as a result of those leaking
containers as the transporters and the original shipper.
Now at first blush there is a lot of logic in that.
If the material is there and is leaking, certainly, a waste
management facility should be in a position to know what to do
with it and to respond appropriately. And I agree with that.
However, I raise this special case situation. Withii
the development of the RCRA regs per se, tremendous emphasis
has gone on the receipt of material in proper containers.
-------
Historically, there's been a long run of using poor
drums, old drums, the worst containers around, to dispose of
waste. I would maintain that, if a waste management facility
loses its opportunity and ability to reject a shipment of
waste that has been sent to it, let's say in a generator's
own vehicle or in a third party-owned vehicle, to reject it
from their site because it is in leaking containers, then we
will have lost a lot of the opportunity to bring waste movement
into the controls we're looking for.
Certainly, it is not our effort in business to turn
away business. But, by the same token, in a series of times,
you can call a generator, you can address the fact that the
drums are in bad shape; several of them are leaking. But, if
ultimately, you do not have the opportunity or the authoriza-
tion to reject that shipment, I think we're going to lose a
lot of the controls we would need.
And I would urge some review of that special situa-
tion. As I say, this comment is not addressed here in these
rules, but it was made very, very emphatically in the hazardous
materials training course. And several of our people from tw<
of our facilities who were in attendance just came right up
that this was something that was completely at odds with what
we saw as the developing trend to something that we needed to
do.
Gentlemen, I thank you for the opportunity to presen-
-------
those comments. I would certainly welcome any question you
might have.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lurcott. Are there
any questions from the panel?
MR. POBERTS: Mr. Lurcott, I find your comments about
the open-top vehicles rather interesting. I might point out
that even some of the EPA staff expressed some apprehension
about this.
I would point out that, in the preamble, we felt
it necessary to do this because of obligations imposed under
Section 173.24, about discharge or leakage during transit.
I think you can understand DOT's position that waste
impregnated with arsenic, for example, running down the road
in an open-top vehicle, dump truck, could pose some kind of a
problem that would be less than desirable from everyone's
standpoint.
Relative to your statement about engineering criteria
being developed for special closures, or special types of
I guess flexible fabric-type closures, do you know of any
published standard in this particular area that pertains to
closures on an open-top type of vehicle?
MR. LURCOTT: No, sir, I do not know of any such
standards. Our intent, and we came upon this particular
element here fairly recently and did not have time to prepare
a full set of comments, but it is being done now and will be
-------
submitted in writing, what we are going to do is we are going
to take the type of vehicles that are now operating and our
operating experience with them.
We have several of these vehicles on the road and
several more on order, and we sure don't want to make antiques
out of them real quickly. So we'll give it a real good shot
in terms of what we can see.
I think you've got something there that you can
address as being a double-sealed type of container. Of course
the material you put in it has got a lot to do with it, too.
If you have control of the material in the sense it is a no
float, no flow type of material, that's something else. I
certainly couldn't advocate the use of these for a liquid
material.
VR. ROBERTS: Well, I've issued some exemptions to
the DOT rules to enable people to move... actually, it was in
a garbage dump, arsenic. It'= reregulated down to a very low
level in dump truck type vehicles, but under very, very string-
ent, written out detail type controls. They do not lend
themselves to be cast in federal regulations.
Now getting back to my question, to accomplish what
you are interested in, in other words, not to preclude open
top type vehicles under certain controls, there are two routes
One is to draft up some rather exotic working regula-
tions, probably with pictures, which causes us no end to
-------
difficulty. Or, to deal with the subject by exemption.
That is why... and there is a third option that
exists. That's the possibility for incorporation of an
acceptable standard by reference. That's why I was asking you
the latter.
MR. LURCOTT: I don't know of any but I would certair
ly support"your interest there. The sentence from the proposec
regulation reads: And all openings must be securely closed
during transportation.
10 If we can come up with a definition of what "securel;
11 closed" means, then we probably have it right there.
12 MR. ROBERTS: Well, I'm sure, sir, that, being in
13 the business you're in, that you know when you enter into a
14 dialogue with a truckdriver about a rag on top of a truck, as
15 to what that constitutes, you can understand why we are dubious
16 about it.
17 MR. LURCOTT: It may be a long definition.
18 (Laughter.)
19 MR. ROBERTS: In the opening remarks of the hearing,
20 that was one thing I was going to raise in my comments and I
21 was sure it would come up in the hearing, that this particular
22 restriction proposed by DOT, I think, illustrates what we
23 would ask commoners to recognize in so many constructive cri-
24 ticisms of the proposed rule.
25 I think we're well aware, and we say so in the
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
preamble, of what we're doing there. And we're asking for you
to show us the best way to address the thing in terms of
resolution without total preclusion or elimination of the use
of open top vehicles.
And whatever you can do constructively in this area
will be of great assistance.
tin. LURCOTT: Fine, well, as indicated earlier, our
written comments, which will follow in several weeks time,
will address specific technical aspects of what we consider
"securely closed" to be. It will not encompass necessarily all
options, but certainly our operating experience. And we hope
it will be a constructive contribution.
MR. ROBERTS: The only other thing concerns your
meeting in Houston. I'm not aware of who conducted the meetinc
You'll probably tell me it was somebody at the DOT. But there
are quite a number of ifs , ands and buts, as any lawyer — and
there are quite a number of them here in the room—will tell
you, that would be tied to that statement, whoever made it,
that there could not be just a carte blanche out and out state-
ment that the consignee is responsible if something goes back
out in the road.
I think that, in the DOT Act, there are words like
"culpability", things like that, that will be used in making
that kind of determination.
But, in your comment, I sort of heard you say it two
-------
ways. One, you objected to the idea that there would be
responsibility if you didn't put the stuff off your premises
and. back on the road. Then, another one, where you objected
that there was any restriction where you could not accept the
staff in leaking condition. Maybe I misunderstood.
'IR. LUBCOTT: Let me attempt to clarify my feeling
on it. I do not object with the concept from a. purely logical
approach of minimizing any public health or danger from puttinc
materials out on the road.
Certainly, in the sense of a waste management facili-
ty, we have the wherewithal to handle those materials knowledge
ably, safely and so on.
f-ly concern lies in the ability of the waste manage-
ment industry to provide the type of control we're all trying
to get over the movement of all these wastes.
And if, because of a generally applicable and I thin}
applaudable type of policy, if we were left in a position of
never being able to say no, "We will not take this load. The
last five loads you've sent in have been in leaky drums. We
had problems each time; we called you each time. You said,
"Gee, we'll look after it; it must be somebody at the loading
dock," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...
But if, ultimately, we don't have the ability to say
"That's it, we will not taka this material again. Take it off
our premises," I think we've lost an element of control.
-------
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ROBERTS; Let me stop you there; then we'll get
to the other point. Are you suggesting that there is something
in here that says that?
MR. LURCOTT: No, sir, I'm saying that the point was
made so emphatically to two of our people, and a good share
of this discussion at this particular hazardous materials
training program was emphasized to us so greatly that both of
my people called up. They knew that I was coming to this
session. They asked that I address it. It is a question of
concern.
As I indicated, I do not see anything in here that
specifically makes that a part of the policy. I'm just address-
ing the emphasis and the amount of time that the instructors
in the program put on it.
MR. ROBERTS: I think I should ask you who was runnirjg
the seminar.
MR. LURCOTT: It was the U.N.Z. Company session,
which we had sent people to in hopes of picking up, you know,
whatever valuable things might come out of it.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Do we have any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Evidently not. Well, Mr. Lurcott,
thank you very much.
To you folks who are standing at the rear, there are
some seats way up front here if you would like to sit.
-------
It is ray understanding that speaker number five and
speaker number seven have agreed to exchange their places on
our roster because of travel restrictions on one of the
participants. At this time, I would like to call Mr. Morris
Kershson, President of the National Barrel and Drum Associatior
of Washington, D. C.
MR. HERSHSON: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr.
Chairman, and I thank the National Tank Truck Carriers Associa
tion; I appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF MORRIS HERSHSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
BARREL AND DRUM ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
MR. HERSHSON: We represent the steel drum reconditi<
ing industry, which reconditions and returns to commercial
for use between 40-50 million 55-gallon steel drums annually.
The industry receives these steel drums containing
residue or wastes varying from zero percent to five percent
generally of the marked capacity of the container.
This results in our collecting from generators betwei
50 and 100 million gallons of waste annually, some of it
hazardous and some of it non-hazardous. Having done this for
the past 40 years, our industry has therefore been making a
sizeable contribution to the reduction of solid waste pollutio:
Additionally, we recondition these dirty containers
and make them suitable for reuse or recycling. Through this'
reuse, substantial natural resources and energy are conserved,
-------
1
as set forth in our previous submissions to both your agencies
2
Our industry's role in the battle against solid
3
waste pollution is an important and necessary one. To para-
4
phrase Voltaire, "If our industry did not exist, our Government
5
would have to invent it."
6
(Laughter.)
7
Under these circumstances, we believe that both the
EPA and the DOT, in their promulgation of regulations, should
9
avoid imposing restrictions which would disturb the normal
10
flow of drums from generator to transporter/reconditioner; nor
11
should they impose undue burdens which would seriously affect
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
our contribution to the reduction of solid waste pollution,
and the concurrent conservation of energy and natural resources
Our involvement in these proceedings stems only from
the residue contained in the empty containers we receive, which
it ha,s been stated at other meetings that the container might
be considered hazardous waste. Accordingly, we might be
included in the entire ACAA program.
In order not to disrupt the normal flow of empty drum
from generator to transporter/reconditioner, we believe that
commercially empty drums, having less than one percent of the
marked capacity of the container, should be deemed "empty" and
therefore, not "hazardous waste". The objective of tracking
hazardous waste could still be accomplished, since our industry
as a permitted resource recovery facility, would be required t
-------
issue manifests on the disposition of the total volume of
hazardous waste, which would include the residues received fron
generators .
Therefore, nothing would be lost by relieving genera
tors of the burden of marking, labeling, issuing bills of
lading and manifests for empty drums, and the normal pattern
and contribution of the industry would continue.
T-7e plan to submit a detailed analysis of the proposec
regulations at a later date. However, we would like to comment
at this time on certain provisions of the proposal which we
feel should be modified.
With reference to the ftCftft regulations, Section
250.36 (a) requires the transporter to deliver the hazardous
waste to a permitted facility, designated by the generator on
the manifest. This, in many instances, is commercially
impractical for empty drums vjhich are frequently delivered to
an intermediate dealer, who himself will select the ultimate
permitted facility, of the reconditioning.
Therefore, the generator may not be able in the
manifest to state which shall be the ultimate reconditioning
or treatment facility.
We are deeply concerned with several of the proposal:
contained in Docket HM-145A. Section 173.28(p). This provisl
permits the reuse of HRC or STC drums for the shipment of
hazardous wastes, subject to certain conditions, which make
-------
reconditioning and retesting unnecessary for the initial reuse
of that container.
In the first place, we believe it is highly dangerous
to use unreconditioned, untested drums for the transportation
of hazardous waste; the 24-hour standing test, named as one
of the conditions for reuse, does not prove that the drum will
not leak in transit.
Secondly, the provision that it may not be used agair
for shipment of hazardous wastes is, we believe, completely
unenforceable.
Section 173.29(a) & (c): These new provisions make
every empty drum, which previously contained a hazardous material
subject to all the requirements of a full drum of hazardous
material, such as marking, labeling, bill of lading, placard-
ing—in addition to the EPA nanifest--unless it has been
'cleaned and purged of all residue". So consideration is givei
to a drum which has no resiiuo, or a few ounces, or a pint: every
empty drum is now deemed c-'ll for the requirement described.
The explanatory preface states that the "Bureau
believes it is essential to deal with the subject of so-called
"empty packagings" containing residues of hazardous materials.
Why,?
Has there been a rash of accidents caused by such
empty drums? Based on Office of Hazardous Materials Operation:
data, have they been found to constitute a danger to public
-------
safety?
On the contrary, to our knowledge, and the experienc
of the entire industry, there has never been a single accident
in the past 40 years in which such empty drums caused any
injury to persons, or damage to property.
I have personally been connected with this industry
for over 30 years, during which virtually millions of such
drums have been transported in millions of truck trips, and I
have never heard of any such incident; this makes it hard for
me to believe that the OHMO possesses data justifying its
action.
Why, therefore ,is this stringent provision "essenti
tfot only will it place an undue burden on shippers of empty dr
but it will cause great damage, in our opinion, to the drum
reconditioning industry and disrupt the normal flow of drums
from emptier to dealer or reconditioner.
When this subject was considered by the DOT's OHMO i
1974, we submitted comments virtually similar to those above
and suggested then, as we do now, that a drum should be
deemed "empty", and not subject to these requirements, if the
residue in it did not exceed one percent of the marked capacit
of the container.
This would mean a maximum of approximately one-half
gallon in a 55-gallon drum. Such a restriction would prohibit
the generator from using the drum as a receptacle for other
-------
pollutants; it would free eir.ptiers from the burden of expending
labor to siphon out that last ounce and yet would stop viola-
tions of the ftCRA requirement.
As we mentioned earlier, the requirement that
generators "clean and purge" drums would create many more
problems than it would resolve. Instead of this residue being
collected in approximately 200 reconditioners' resource
recovery facilities, with 40 years' experience in handling it,
suddenly many thousands of inexperienced generator plants
would become involved in the collection, handling and dispositi|c
of contaminated wastes and effluent, posing fair more problems
and far more danger^ to the environment.
Ttany generator industries would be forced to go into
reconditioning themselves for the first time, thereby
obviously damaging our own existing industry, one which has sei-
ved the nation well and made relatively large contributions foi
its size in the reduction of solid waste pollution, considering
its size.
Surely, that is not the purpose "of the OHMO, to disrupt
and damage a small, economically functional industry, based on
the theoretical and rather academic reasoning that it is now
"essential" to deal with empty packaging.
RC/W does not prohibit the transport of these
commercially empty drums; at most, if &C$A does not accept
this definition of less than one percent not being hazardous
-------
waste, it will require a manifest from generator and permits
for the storage,treatment,reconditioning,and disposal facili-
ties .
Therefore, we respectfully submit that these provisi
should be modified as suggested, so that our industry may
continue to serve its essential economic and environmental
functions—as well as conserving natural resources and energy
and, most importantly, reducing solid waste pollution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you, Itr. Hershson, for your
remarks.
Mr. Trask, do you care to comment?
MR. TRASK: Mr. Hershson, you testified earlier that
your industry handles something like 50-100 million gallons
of waste a year. Did I understand that as an approximate?
MR. HERSHSON: I would say that's approximate.
MR. T.RASK: And you use about 50 million drums,
handle about 50 million drums.
HR. HERSHSON: Between 40 and 50, we believe.
MR. TRASK: That would seem to come out one or two
gallons per drum. This is mainly 55 gallon drums?
MR. HERSKSON: Yes, but I'm guessing...
MR. TRASK: A little more than one percent?
MR. HEHSITSON: Yes, but I'm guessing at these
maximum figures to make the cr.'T. The figure, I think, would
-------
be a whole lot less. There are instances, obviously, when
there is more than one percent. And those drums, we try to
avoid.
"iR. TRASK: Does your industry association have any
information on a breakdown of what quantities, number of
drums, and the quantity of waste that comes in each drum? That
might be helpful to us if we could have some of that.
KR. HEISIISON: T'7ell, we're trying to develop such
information and we'll submit it to your agency.
MR. TRASK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Mr. Kovalick.
MR. KOVALICK: I'm asking a question about fir.
Roberts' proposal but since we have joint interests, first of
all, I know that you are aware that we have a number of damage
cases in our files, even though your industry may not, involvirg
what we will call used 55-gallon drums which unfortunately have
led to direct poisoning in some cases of small children who
have had access to them in some cases, and other problems.
So, certainly, I know that Mr. Roberts had the
benefit of our thinking and the evidence that we do have among
the cases we have compiled.
There are occasions where, at least environmental
if not public health damage, have accrued through mismanaged
drums. And you correctly point put .that, if there were, by
some other regulations in the future, to become a hazardous
-------
waste, then they'll be managed but they will not be prohibited
from shipment.
So that's in response to where is the data on
problems.
I wanted to ask you another motivation, I think, and
a comment we have been receiving—and the many comments we do
get—is -frow shippers, generators, who know they have i one-
time use of trying to send the waste to say a land disposal
9 site.
10 And you correctly noted in your comments on 173.28 (p
11 that that is one effoft to try to address their concern.
12 And I guess my question to you is: Do you have a suggested
13 alternative for them, who are represented in this hearing,
14 between having to purchase a new or reconditioned drum, to
15 ship to bury in the landfill in this one time, and the proposal
16 that is suggested here.
17 In other words, this is an alternative for them, to
18 having to take a sludge or what might be a hazardous waste
and not have to purchase a. new or reconditioned drum in order
20 to ship it for this one-time disposal.
21 So I think their interests, and if your written
22 comments have an alternative, we would be glad to hear it
23 because we are concerned about their interests, theirs too,
24 and their conservation of resources.
25 MR. HERSHSOH: May I respond to the first part of
-------
your question with reference to data that you possess.
I'm aware of incidents in which, for example, a
pesticide drum containing a very tiny quantity of pesticide
residue has caused a problem in children.
I was not discussing that type of incident when I
was discussing the DOT proposed regulations because the DOT
regulations are regulations concerning the transportation of
drums and their safety in transport.
And I know of no incident where, in the transportation
of drums from a generator to a reconditioner, that there has
been a single such incident.
Secondly, the drums, even though they were being
commercially empty, should be by your provisions only sent to
a permitted facility. Therefore, they should never theoreti-
cally get into the hands of children, or laymen, or people who
are unaware of these contents.
i\s for the one-time disposition, I was under the
impression—correct me if I'm wrong, sir--that most disposal
sites are being phased out, that there was a shortage of
disposal sites in this country, and that you will have to get
new permitted disposal sites under rather stringent require-
ments in the next five years.
I was also under the impression that, in this
country, we are trying, according to the flC/Jfl Act itself,
and EPA itself, to conserve natural resources and energy. And
-------
one method of conserving resources is not to use iron ore and
steel. And we save iron ore and steel by using a drum seven,
eight and 10 times after reconditioning. And for EPA and
7?Cfl/? to encourage the, quote, "final disposition'1 of a drum
which has been received, emptied and never reconditioned, I
think is a mistake.
I think EPA and ftC,ftft should not get involved in
that kind of encouragement, but quite the contrary. EPA shoul>
encourage what we have been asking for, for a long time; the
prohibition, if you please, in some manner, of light gauge
throw-away drums which waste our resources rather than save
them.
MR.KOVALICK:Of course/- the question of the specifica-
tion of drums should be directed to Mr. Roberts under separate
rulemaking, but what you seem to be telling me,and the
generators in the audience may want to ask you questions throu'
us, is that you advocate them having to purchase a new drum
or a reconditioned drum in order to send a waste to be buried
in a land disposal facility, which will not be prohibited by
RC-ft/) regulations.
MR. HERSHSON: Certainly retested drum.
"1R.KOVALICK:I understand what you are telling them.
MR. HERSHSON: Mr. Kovalick, I was really speaking
to Hr. Roberts when I was looking at you.
(Laughter.)
-------
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Do we have any other comments from
the panel? Mr. Roberts...
MR. ROBERTS: If a shipper has on his premises some
spec 37 series type drums, which are infamous NRC container,
and he has some hazardous waste to move to a disposal facility
And he also has some DOT 37C or 17E drums on the premises, in
terms of protecting a valuable national resource, if the law
allowed it, which container would be to our advantage to allow
him to move the waste to a disposal facility?
MR. HERSHSON: Obviously, the one which would have
the shortest life. Obviously, the one which could not be
reconditioned and used as many times as possible. Therefore,
the NRC drum. If you had that choice to make, that would be
the choice to make, yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Then you indicated that the use once
again for a hazardous waste would be very unsafe, I think were
your words.
MR. HERSHSON: I said I think it would be unsafe
because unreconditioned or untested containers, yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Did you take into account the limita-
tions proposed in the new paragraph (p), limitations against
common carriage, or loading conditions, constraints?
And, also, are you aware of the fact... well, I'll
let you answer that part of it first.
MR. HERSHSON: I've read the section. I think I've
-------
taken those things into account. I still believe the drums
should be tested before shipped with hazardous wastes in any
interstate commerce, not with, if you please, 1.1 ounce, one
quart. But, with 55 gallons of hazardous waste in the drum
and the weight, the 55 gallons, it could be 500, 600 or 700
pounds, which would have its effect on the bottom of the drum
after having been used once, dropped several times, so forth.
And without testing, the bottom of that drum might
be questionable in a light gauge container such as NRC.
MR. ROBERTS: Are you aware of the fact that over
a period of years, on various occasions, reconditioners have
approached DOT and requested the 24-hour holding test, the
low pressure test?
MR. HERSHSON: No, I was not aware of that.
MR. ROBERTS: Paragraph C, the proposed new addition
to 173.29, I don't believe you commented on that.
MR. HERSHSON: No, I intended to.
MR. ROBERTS: Would you, please?
MR. HERSHSON: I find paragraph C a little bit
difficult to understand, so I thought I would ask you to expla
it to me, Mr. Roberts.
(Laughter.)
Paragraph C says the packaging contains, first of
all, I think, the paragraph that is printed here repeats a
phrase just the way you have it here: Packaging that contains
-------
a residue of hazardous material contains the hazardous waste..
l-7o, I have another one... contains a hazardous waste for
the purposes of this subchapter if the packaging is offered
for transportation to be discarded.
I just really don't know what you mean except that
you are saying the same thing here as you're saying in 173.29,
that a empty drum which (faulty) c&ntains a hazardous material
is not an empty drum.
MR. ROBERTS: No, sir, I think maybe we should
clarify it so you'll be able to make a more informed comment,
thank you.
What we are saying is that SPA, in their drafts,
which I know your organization has seen--and, unfortunately,
it is not a matter of full-blown proposal at the present
tiine--but there are certain materials, certain categories of
hazards that will be subject to EPA requirements, as I under-
stand it, regardless of qaantity. Very, very small quantities
of polychlorinated biphenyls, I would assume, are going to be
subject to the EPA hazardous wastes requirements. Do you thin)
that's a reasonable assumption?
MR. HERSHSON: I think so.
MR. ROBERTS: Now if I have an empty container—so-
called—with the residue of polychlorinated biphenyl, say the
drum previously contained ... and a lot of the ... leaks and
there's P.C.B.'s all over the drum.
-------
The rule here as oroposed says... let me use my
layman'=; language, if you will, the lawyers of the EP7> staff
said we had to use the word "discarded''.
But if I'm going to shoot that drum down the road
to the trash... dump as trash, then it's a hazardous waste
and becomes automatically subject to the EP? and DOT hazardous
wastes regulations.
flR. IIERSIIEON : How is that different from 29, sir?
MR. ROBERTS: How does it differ? There will be
quantities under EPA in some categories of material that will
not be subject to the-Hazardous Wastes Material.
The EPA staff can correct me on that, but there will
be certain exempt quantities. Then, in certain other areas
there will not be.
J1R. HERSHSOH: You don't mind if I ask you a. question
do you? You mean it might be there for two different standards
Eor example, EPA might come up with the eventual proposals
published in the Register, might come up with reference to
certain products of minimum quantities which are still deemed
a hazardous v.'aste, an ounce, for example.
In your case, you are saying: Even if there isn't an
ounce in that package, it's not an empty package. Is that
correct?
Under .29, you say: An empty drum which formerly
contained a hazardous material shall not be deemed empty but
-------
shall be subject to all the requirements as if it were being
shipped full. That's the way I read .29 unless I can't read
it properly.
TIR. ROBERTS: That's right. That is correct.
MR. iIERSHSON: That is correct?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes.
.MR. HERSHSON: Therefore, where EPA is satisfied
that say a gallon is all right of some other material but an
ounce is not good for material X, you are saying that in both
instances it is not an empty package. It is a full package
for DOT purposes. Wow isn't that rather inconsistent?
MR. ROBERTS: Wo, I don't think so.
(Laughter.)
MR. HERSHSOK: I see. Nell, I can't argue logic.
(Laughter.) (Applause.)
MR. ROBERTS: Let's go into the 173.29, the first
part of it, the DOT proposal.
MR. HERSHSOM: I beg your pardon, I wanted to under-
stand your (c) proposal. I think I now understand it to mean
that any drum, any previous drum, whether N^C or STC or whether
or not the drum previously contained a hazardous material, if
it contains the prohibited material that EPA will so designate
as a hazardous waste, it is a hazardous waste. Is that what
you are saying?
MR. ROBERTS: Now you've got me confused, the way
-------
you're asking.
MR. HEP.SHSON: That's the way I'm confused.
MR. ROBERTS: If the material is a hazardous material
and if the container is being thrown into the trash dump or
being discarded, by proposed rule : It is a hazardous waste
for the purposes of the DOT draft.
dow the point I'm trying to get to you, and I guess
I didn't make it yet, is should this be qualified, from your
point of view, to a cross-reference 40 CFR similar to the way
we did it in paragraph (c)(8) of Section 172.101, should be
only a waste if it's to be discarded and it's only a. waste to
LP<\ generator requirements it's a waste.
I guess that I didn't get thfe question across to you
clearly.
MR. HERSIISON: I know what you're trying to say.
MR. ROBERTS: In other words, is the paragraph over-
stated? Did DOT overstate, in your view, what should have been
the rule for hazardous materials as a waste, just from the
standpoint of defining waste requirements?
MR. HERSHSON: Personally, I think (c) is unnecessary
If, for example, you adopted my suggestion...
MR. ROBERTS: Well, okay.
MR. HERSHSON: I said, if," for example, you adopted
my suggestion, any drum which contained a previously hazardous
material is deemed commercially empty, or empty for the purpose
-------
of your regulation.
MR. ROBERTS: I know you disagree with the DOT pro-
posal from that standpoint. I don't think we have to reiterate
it as a disagreement. What I would like to know is what things
your people, the reconditioners, will be required to do as
transporters that you don't like, or don't care for, because
this proposed rule will impose transportation requirements on
them as if they were filled.
You know, keep in mind the placarding has been
addressed. So you know that we don't have to deal with placard
ing unless somebody has some fallacy in the way DOT drafted,..
MR. HEP.SHSON: Marking, labeling and bill of lading
in addition to EPA manifest. All of those are being made
requirements of the generator who is giving it to the transport
er with requirements that he does not have to fulfill today,
and with requirements that would be extravagant for him,
onerous for him, because he is dealing with the salvaged
material.
And he may very well say to EPA and DOT and the
reconditioning industry: To hell with all of you. I'll get
rid of this. I'll send it to some dump because I don't want to
get involved in all of this labor concerning salvage material.
MR. ROBERTS: All right, let's take a so-called
empty packaging that has not one gallon but one pint-- I hate
to use it but we use it consistently all the time—of methyl
-------
pyro... Now they'll pass on, I think...
;iR. HERSHSON: You're spoiling my lunch.
MR. ROBERTS: There are six to 10 drops on your
skin to make a fatal dose of that material. And there are
other materials. Everybody goes to ....phosphates. I feel
sorry for them. You are suggesting we perpetuate or continue
with all the other controls that are coming into being to
protect the environment, whatever, and that we continue to
condone the label removal for these so-called empty packages.
PLR. HERSHSON: No , I don't suggest removing labels.
MR. ROBERTS: Then it should remain labeled.
MR. HERSHSON: I can argue with your office that
for quite sometime it should remain labeled so that we'll know
what it is. You're asking a generator to take off a label; I
want him to keep it on.
MR. ROBERTS: Are you aware that under present DOT
regulations it is required in all cases that there is a hazard-
ous material in the package that the name of the material be
displayed on the package.
So there is a present DOT requirement for that
MR. HERSHSON: The label.
MR. ROBERTS: No, marking. Mark, name, contents,
173.300 series rules. So that if you have 'pa.ra.'Mfort In a drun
you must have the word, the proper shipping description of the
material in the drum. So that's the marking requirement. The
-------
1
drum previously contained parathion. So the drum is marked
2
"Parathion" at the time it is emptied of its contents, and
previously had a label on it, "Poison" label.
The label, if I understand your comment, you don't
5
object that the label should stay on.
MR. HERSHSON: Yes, sir.
MR. ROBERTS: Would you have any objection if the
marking stays on there?
MR. HERSHSON: As long as it doesn't have to be put
on if it stays. You see, I am objecting to any additional
labor on the part of the generator in each case. You are
creating the burden on an industry which depends upon...
i4R. ROBERTS: Excuse me. Your company goes and buys
drums from X, Y, Z Chemical Company.
MR. HERSHSON: Correct.
MR. ROBERTS; X, Y, Z Chemical Companies offers them
to your man to transport back to his facility. No person may
oEfer for transportation a hazardous material unless it's
properly marked, labeled, described, et cetera. You know these
rules.
You are telling me this is going to cause your indust
ry a problem because we're telling the shippers, the offerer
of the used drums, to your industr)'
w.R. HERSHSON: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: ...that the label must stay on the
-------
package. The words "methyl parathien" must stay on the pack-
2
age.
MR. HERSHSOW: I'm saying if they are required to
place it on the package. i-iov if it stays on I have no object-
ion. I am asking that no additional burdens be placet! on
the generator to dispose of the empty drum. That's all I'm
asking for.
MR. ROBERTS: Can you cite me cases where this is a
problem...
MR. HERSHSON: Fifty million will be a compara-
tive number that will have this kind of waste in it. A.nd I'm
suggesting that that might be deemed an exception to general
rules. I'm not trying to cause any problems, but we are also
not trying to cause a disruption of industry that's doing a
good job.
*'R. KOVALICK; Could I insert myself into this
discussion? First of all, the generator standards that were
out on the table--! think we're out of them now, but—they
do not suggest any differences for any materials below a
minimum quantity. That draft has a minimum quantity in there
on which generator needs to worry that he is involved with a
regulatory program.
So you know there is nothing going down to zero in
that draft. Let me say it another way: No waste goes down
to zero quantity in that draft.
-------
I just v/anted to clarify. You said there might be
some wastes where we might be concerned down to zero amount
in waste, and some waste where there would be some number, lik
that draft where there would be 100 kilograms.
MR. HERSHSOW: I got the impression from Al. I may
have misunderstood.
ilR. KOVALICK: The present draft that was on the
table has a uniform number in there, and none of them go down
to zero.
MR. HERSKSON: What is that number?
MR. KOVALICK.- The number in that draft is 100 kilo-
grams, about half a drum.
MR. HERSHSOtf: Half a drum?
MR. KOVALICK: About 220 pounds, density. But the
point I wanted to get back at was, if you take the scenario
that emptied drums are hazardous wastes — let's take that
scenario—then the generator that you're concerned about has
to comply with the rules that are either in draft or proposed
regardless of where he's sending those wastes; whether he's
sending them to you as a reconditioner, whether he's sending
them for burial, whether he's sending them for some other
process that I wouldn't know an example for.
So there is nothing unique. The question you seem t<
be addressing is whether or not emptied drums ought to be a
hazardous waste, or not. But, if they are, there is nothing
-------
uniquely burdening the generator versus your industry and thos
other options he has. Do you understand what I'm saying?
tlR. HERSHSON: Yes.
MR. KOVALICK: In other words, you're really debatin
and there will be an opportunity to comment on however we
come out, whether the empty drums ought to be a hazardous
waste. But your industry is not being more or less adversely
affected bv that decision versus other options that the
generator has.
The generator has the same burden no matter where he
sends it if it is a hazardous waste, which I'm not saying it
is.
*:R. HERSHSON: I urge you to consider that that
should not be an element with reference to our industry and
our activity as compared, for example, to a drum that is
going to a disposal site.
I think the situations are entirely different. We
perform a function as an arm of EPA; the disposal site does
not. We reduce solid waste pollution; the disposal site does
not. We conserve natural resources; the disposal site does nd
Therefore, I make the initial suggestion I made,
understanting that you are not singling us out because of the
manifest requirements, and so forth, but that you should
accept the manifest requirements under certain conditions.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Are there any other comments?
-------
I think I should make clear to the audience that we
have not deputized Mr. Hershson as an agent of the EP7i; he's
been using that term a little loosely.
(Laughter.)
Thank you.
MR. IIERSHSOM : I accept the criticism.
(Laughter.)
MR . LEHMAH : Thank you for your remarks , "r. Ilers'i-
son.
It is now 12:15. I would like to recess the hearing
for one and one-half hours. Vie will reconvene at 1:45 sharp.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned
for a luncheon recess, to be reconvened at 1.45 p.m. on the
same day.)
-------
AFTERNOON SESSION
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: We will reconvene the hearing at
this point. This morning, one of the speakers who is early
on your list, Speaker No. 2, indicated that she would be here
this afternoon. So I would like to call at this time Lorna
Salzman, Mid-Atlantic Representative, Friends of the Earth,
from New York.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEIP1AN: Is Lorna Salzman here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I will come hack to her later, thei
Next, I would like to call Speaker No. 6, Neill
Darrastadter, American Trucking Association. Mr. Darmstadter..
STATEMENT OF NEILL DARMSTADTER, AMERICAN TRUCKING
ASSOCIATION
MR. DARMSTADTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You will
be hearing later from a representative of the National Tank
Truck Carriers. I would like, before I go into my prepared
remarks, explain briefly that I am here representing the
carriers who may be called upon to transport hazardous wastes
as well as hazardous materials and other kinds of freight.
The trucking industry is gratified by the effort of
EPA. and DOT to develop consistency in the regulations for the
transportation of hazardous wastes. I am glad to see that
progress that has been made up until now, and we hope that
-------
further progress will be made, and that, basically, transporta-
tion will be regulated by DOT.
We have had problems right along with these proposals
because of the piece-meal nature in which they have been publish-
ed. So we'll have to condition our remarks by saying that
what we say here could conceivably be changed by proposals
that are published sometime in the future.
One of our big concerns is going to be the definitior
of hazardous wastes. Just to cite one example, briefly, some-
time ago, we saw one draft where flammable liquid wastes were
defined as those having a flash point up to 140 degrees. This
is in conflict with the DOT definition. In the case of our
segment of the industry, if it stands, it could create
considerable problem for us in training personnel in complying
with the regulations.
We frankly don't see why EPA and DOT in this area
cannot go along with the present definitions of flammable and
combustible liquids.
We are concerned with 250.32 with respect to the
identification codes. In the preamble it is stated, and I
quote that, with respect to these codes, that: In most cases
be identical to existing codes assigned to transporters by the
federal state agencies.
We frankly don't feel that this goes far enough. r'!e
would like to suggest three alternative approaches. One, that
-------
an interstate carrier having a certificate or a permit issued
by the Interstate Commerce Con-mission simply be authorized to
register his number with EFA, or with an authorized state
agency.
In the case of an intrastate carrier having a siinila
tvpe certificate or permit, or other identifying number issued
bv the state agency, should be permitted to register this
number '.--ith SPA or the appropriate state agency.
In the opening remarks this morning, somebody mention
ed the possibility or also accenting similar numbers registere^
with the state health department or a comparable organization,
they would have no objections to this .
But then, beyond that, and only beyond that, do we
feel that any transporter should have to apply to EPA or the
state agency for its identification number.
From the standpoint of our industry, there are enougi
of these numbers that the carriers have to have for one
purpose or another. We believe that they would be adequate
for the objectives of this legislation or regulatory scheme.
That is what ought to be adherred to.
In the case of the recordkeeping and in particular
the shipping documents, we fully support the principles set
down by Bob Graziano this morning in that one type of shipping
paper ought to be adequate to cover the transportation of
hazardous wastes.
-------
We, the carriers, find a degree of confusion--a
considerable degree of confusion—in the use of the term
"hazardous wastes manifest" because,in transportation, a
manifest connotes a particular type of shipping paper, namely,
a list of all of the cargo on a given vehicle, vessel or
aircraft, whereas, we don't believe that that's what is meant
here.
We believe that the situation has possibly been
further confused by the addition of the definition of a deliver y
document. We think it would be preferrable if there could be
a definition of a hazardous waste shipping paper and then
possibly some subheads under that which might include the
hazardous waste manifest as specified in the underlying legis-
lation and in some of the drafts that are now under considera-
tion, and then possibly something to cover other forms of
shipping papers that might be used, such as a delivery receipt,
a freight bill, or a waybill, or even a manifest with the
required information on it.
We would also like to point out that the proposed
requirements- that include the identification number of the
transporter go far beyond anything that is required for any
other type of freight shipment. It is not required for
hazardous materials. It's certainly not required for freight
in general.
We don't see where it affords any significant
-------
advantage. If you have an emergency, in all probability, the
carriers vehicle '-.'ill be on hand at the scene, the shipping
paper will be there, the driver will be there. We feel that
there will be adequate identification of the carrier,or the
transporter, to use EPA parlance, without the necessity to
revise a large number of different types of shipping papers
in use to add the identification number, whether it's the
ICC number or the state number.
'•7e would urge consideration for dropping of this
requirement.
'•'e haven't seen proposals for the wording of marking
packages. Am I correct in assuming that that has not yet been
published?
CI1AIRMAW LEHMAN: Correct.
MR. DARMSTADTER: We would certainly hope that the
markings required on packagings would be as nearly consistent
as possible with those required by DOT for hazardous materials
in the new condition.
A number of carriers are concerned over the lack of
clarity in the wording of 250.26(b) as it might imply that
truck terminals handling hazardous wastes in a cross-dock
movement might be required to qualify as permitted hazardous
wastes disposal facilities.
In the case of the carriers which ATA represents,
these carriers might very well have a situation where one
-------
vehicle goes out and makes a pickup of say several drums of
hazardous waste. They'll bring them into a terminal, transfer
them to a line haul vehicle to be transported to a distant
destination. At that terminal, they would again be put into
a local vehicle for delivery to the permitted facility.
The wastes themselves would not be handled, only the
packagings, and we believe that 250.26—at least, 250.26 (b)--
should be clarified to indicate that where the hazardous waste
is left in its packaging, there be no requirement for the moto
carriers terminal to qualify as a permitted hazardous waste
disposal facility.
In the case of spills, we would urge that a close
watch be kept on the efforts that we understand are being
undertaken at the Materials Transportation Bureau to
establish some floor for the reporting of hazardous materials
incidents, with the hope that there might be some relief from
the necessity to make reports of very small spills, and
inconsequential spills, of hazardous wastes.
It is our understanding that there are so many small
spills 6f hazardous materials incidents that are being reporter
in compliance with the present requirements that many of them
are not being put into the data bank for analysis.
And we would urge that, in the further development
of these regulations, you be cognizant of that and provide
whatever relief you can for the very small spills.
-------
Again, in the case of the written report of spills
we believe that there is no useful purpose served by inserting
the carriers' identification number on the report form. It is
not required by MTB for hazardous materials incidents. We
don't, from "here we sit, see any advantage in requiring it
for incidents involving hazardous wastes.
>-!e also believe, in the supplemental material that
EPrt and DOT propose to require, that many carriers , and
especially the snail ones, are going to have extreme difficul-
ty in ascertaining the quantity removed in a spill and the
quantities unremove-.l.
If the information is essential, the transporter
should be asked to provide it if it is known. Perhaps, if it
is neant that you report the total quantities of material
removed from the scene, such as a mix of dirt, and hazardous
wastes, that might be something within the practicability of
the transporter to determine from the people who come out and
do the cleanup work.
But to separate out the total quantity and the
quantity of the hazardous waste removed with it, and then the
hazardous waste that might be left on the scene,we think is
beyond the capability of many carriers to do.
Finally, we would like to speak to the issue of
placarding and say that we do not believe there is any need
for placarding of vehicles transporting hazardous wastes other
-------
than those which meet the definitions of hazardous materials
under current DOT regulations.
The placarding requirements as they now exist are
intended to warn of acute hazards, and where the materials
presenting these acute hazards are waste, we are fully in
accord with the idea that the vehicle transporting them should
be placarded.
Where there is a lower level of hazard, not acute,
and considering the fact that in emergency there will be
prompt efforts made at cleanup and removal of the material, we
believe there will be adequate identification of the material
and its nature from the hazardous material shipping paper.
Additional information which need be could be gotten from the
emergency instructions or the generator, and nothing is to be
gained by requiring of that vehicle.
We thank you for the opportunity to present these
views. If there are any questions, I will be glad to try to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN LEIW5.N: Thank you, Mr. Darmstadter. Are
there any comments or questions from the panel?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: I would like to make one comment,
Mr. Darmstadter. You indicated in your statement that you
felt, if I may paraphrase you, that there was really no need
for requirement to report all spills. In fact, there are so
-------
many of these smaller, inconsequential spills, they are over-
whelming the ADP systems of the regulatory agencies.
when one makes a comment like that, it always evolve
down to: What do you mean when you say "small"? So I would
like to, if you are not prepared at this time to discuss that,
suggest that, if you make similar comment in writing in
response to these regs, that you attempt to advise us as to
how you would define a "small spill", in quantitative terms.
r.R. DARMSTADTER: If I could respond to that, I'm
not sure that we'll be able to do that, but, from time to
time, hazardous materials incident reports are sent into our
office in error.
Just tiie other day, I got one where somebody had a
leakage of two cups of paint. I don't th^nk that the fact
that they sent that report on down to ?lr. Roberts' office is
going to greatly enhance either his or the trucking industry's
Knowledge of hazardous materials.
It's that type of thing that we think consideration
ought to be considered in providing an exemption for. That's
the best I can answer your inquiry.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Darmstadter.
f'r. Roberts, do you have a question?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes. The rumor is correct. At one
time, we were examining an exclusion for batteries in certain
small quantities of paint. And, possibly, we still will. I
-------
1
don't know if that's going to have any great impact on the
intent or purpose of the EPA hazardous wastes program. That
3
would be yet to be seen. But it was only battaries and small
4
quantities of paint.
Concerning your comments on the documents, do you
know what a "pro" is?
MR. DARMSTADTER: In general, yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Could I reasonably assume that a pro
9
would contain the name of a shipper?
;1R. DARMSTADTER: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Name of the consignee?
MR. DARMSTADTER: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: A description of the goods?
™R. DARMSTADTER: night.
MR. ROBERTS: It would not contain the i.d. code
that was discussed here and you expressed your opposition to?
MR. DARMSTADTER: No .
MR. ROBERTS: It would not contain emergency respons
information?
MR. DARMSTADTER: Mo.
MR. ROBERTS: It would not contain the required
certificate that we require under 172.204 of our regulations?
MR. DARMSTADTER: No, that's correct.
MR. ROBERTS: Certification? Whatever you want to
call it, it would not contain an emergency telephone number to
-------
be contacted?
::R. DARMST.ADTER : No.
:iR. ROBERTS: And is it true that these pros are
usually in many parts?
VR. DARMSTADTEK: I couldn't answer that.
".71. ROBERTS: Okay, I want to pursue with you, since
you are representing the trucking industry, because the
question was raised and should be addressed by somebody who ha
expert knowledge in the area of carrier documentation, whether
it is feasible to implement the so-called manifest system
within the existing carrier pro system, which is usually about
the size of an IBM card, a data processing card. And quite
often, one of the cards is the data processing card, pages.
That is the reason I raise the questions, because
you expressed strong opposition to a seprate document. tad
the question I would have to raise in connection with that is:
Did you examine the feasibility of having it in a single docu-
ment? That's the question.
;;R. DARMSTADTER: Well, the manifest provisions have
not been published in the Federal Register. Is that correct?
And the only thing I've seen, and I didn't see it until this
morning, was the draft that was available out here at the
table.
Slow based on what I've seen this morning, I would
have to raise the question as to whether or not it would be
-------
acceptable to attach the supplemental information to some
other document.
MR. ROBERTS: Okay, then 1 would assume, possibly,
as you indicated at the beginning of your comments, that...
MR. DflRMSTADTER: Yes, my comments may well be
modified by some of the things that a.re published in the futur
MR. ROBERTS: Ml right, you said something about
getting nailed for the small quantity spill or failure to
report, how it was handled in terms of the incident report.
In other words, the carrier unknowingly failing to report
something that he should have reported if the regulation was
literally construed. Did I understand that comment correct?
That you were objecting to, or raising the possibility...
MR. DARMSTADTER: >To, I was sug-^sting that there be
coordination between the two agencies on anything that may
be done to exempt the reporting of very small spills of
hazardous materials so as to see whether or not a similar
exemption might not be viable with respect to very small spill
of hazardous wastes.
WR. ROBERTS: Uo, I'm not talking about that, ;"x.
Darmstadter, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm not posing my question very
well, and I apologize.
In the latter part of the proposed new reporting
requirement, it says: The quantity of material removed,
disposition of material and quantity of all removed material
-------
and disposition.
I think, in your earlier comments, you expressed
some problems with that.
"R. DARMSTADTER: Well, I expressed some problems
assuming you spill say a. flammable liquid waste, and you may be
able to determine that you dug up 5,000 pounds of sod and dirt
and removed it.
Now if that's all you need to know, then I think we
orobatly could live on that. But, if a carrier, particularly
a smaller carrier without great resources, is supposed to
estimate that this 5,000 pounds of dirt that their cleanup
people removed contained 2,500 gallons of the material, I don't
think the carrier is going to be able to tell that.
;•«. ROBERTS: You also raise the argument about
evaporation.
MR. DAP'ISTADTER: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: But, in your experience, in the safety
department of the ATA, did you have knowledge of where, in the
existing reporting systems that your carriers are subject to,
'•/here you would suggest that the carriers have been abused by
the Bureau of .lotor Care Safety, or my office, in failing to
make a very accurate, absolute report which could be construed
beyond the realm of reasonable, or reasonableness?
Oo you have any knowledge of that kind of experience
or problem?
-------
5
6
ME. DARMSTADTER. Well, I can't cite specific
instances, no. You know, if you were at a Council Safety
Supervisors' meeting, why you would get a lot of complaints,
yr. Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS: Well...
MR. DARMSTADTER: .Many about the complexity of
these things and the way it's worded leaves it unclear as to
how much is expected of the carrier. I think that, if it
were spelled out the total quantities of material removed,
10 including the hazardous wastes, then maybe it would be better
11 understood.
12 But if it isn't misconstrued as to the specific
13 quantities of the hazardous waste removed with X-amount of
14 dirt, and how much may have soaked down so far that the clean-
15 up people deemed it impractical to dig that far, you're
16 presenting the carrier with a problem that he just can't meet.
17 MR. ROBERTS: Okay, now looking for a constructive
18 solution to the problem you're raising, and I assume it's a
19 serious problem, suppose each of those two sentences were
20 preceded by the word "approximate1', "approximate quantity"?
21 I don't think anybody is asking you to give it down to the
22 exact cc, or anything like that.
23 MR. DARMSTADTER: No.
24 MR. ROBERTS: T-7ould that relieve your problem, with
25 that reporting requirement?
-------
,:'*\. DARMSTADTE^• I think that would helo.
MR. P.OBEPTF •- IJoting that earlier in the series of
three requirements, it says: If known, location, et cetera.
J think you can refer to that that the rest of it is approx.ina-
•.Tobody is sawing exact. Vould that take care of your problem?
?'R. DARJ-'STP.DTER: T think that would help substan-
tially , yes .
M". F.OBEPTS. I clon't have anything further.
CHAirc-lAU LEHMAN: Okay, Mr. KoValick has a question.
-ilp- KOVALICK ;For the record, you are using 250.26(b)
and I think you :neant~ .36 (b), '-'here we were discussing the
facility wiere carrier transfers drums and night unlos/i onto
an on line vehicle. To we snould go back in the record anc
make sure... ve haven't proposed anythir'j, for . 2G(b). That's
the one you mentioned this morning.
:m. DfiD^GTADTEP : .All right.
-'H. KOVALICK :Eut I did './ant to make sure that you
'-'ere commenting that you felt that a terminal which might
handle packaged hazardous wastes in drums, or otherwise, shoul<
not be in anyway regulated in terms it wouldn't be a permitted
disposal facility. In our parlance, it would be a permitted
storage facility, because you're not getting rid of anything
there; it would fall into our definition under "storage" under
RCRA. Just take ny word for that, that a warehouse with
drums in it would be a storage ^acility. So you are advocatin
-------
that those not be permitted facilities when transporters do
operate in terminals. Is that what I understand?
f-;R. DARFSTADTEP.: That's a large part of it, but now
one of the problems that we run into in our industry is
confusion between a truck terminal which is basically a trans-
shipment operation, and storage which is a warehouse operation
v.'hich the truck terminal is not.
:-!P.KOVALrGK:pCPA would be a storage permit. They
would both be cast under the umbrella of a storate permit, if
there were one required for longer period than 90 days,
MR. D^RMSTADTER: Well, all right, 90 days, I don't
think, would present any of our people with a problem, because
we want to get it out the same day, if we can.
MR.KOVALICK:But, you see, from our point of view,
not having any controls means that a waste could be impacted
with a forklift, or whatever, and the waste could end up
anywhere than where it is intended. That's the source of that
concern.
Well, the other question I guess I had was you were
concerned about the i.d. codes, 250.32 and your answer, a
litany of using the ICC number, if you have that, and the PUC
number, if you have that, or the health department number.
It seems to me that's exactly the litany that is on
page IS. 508 where we discuss what an i.d. code is.
.MR. DARMSTADTER: You're talking in the Preamble?
-------
MR. KOVALICK :Yes.
MR. DARMSTADTER: I agree with you that...
MR.KOVALICK;Let me finish. So this is the only
place, admittedly, where we were able to write down what we
do say verbally. But that is o-jr intention r to do the litany
exactly as you describe it. That is, when a transporter who,
as you know, must notify—we discussed it in Section 3010 —
would be given a number using the litany you describe. So are
you not getting that signal, or did we say it well?
• 'R. DARMSTADTER: I got the signal all right from th<
preamble, but I did not see it in the regulations themselves,
and the carriers are concerned about it.
"R.KOVALICK:I see. But you have no problem with
that litany if we promise it better?
»-'R. DARMSTADTER: Not if it comes out in the text of
the regulations. But, if it's going to remain buried in the
Preamble, which will not appear in our hazardous materials
tariff, or in CFR, then, yes, we would have a problem.
MR.KOVALICK:The short explanation is that, during
the 90 day period, the exact language you are talking about
appears in Section 3010, where notification takes place. Afte
that 90 day period, which is fixed in time, this language
applies. And the same, you will notice it refers to that,
and that litany will apply.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Mr. Roberts...
-------
MR. ROBERTS: Hr. Darmstadter, :?r. Xovalick raised
a very important point about this word "storing". It's a
problem we tossed around quite a bit. ^nd perhaps the ATA
would like to submit constructive comments on how to resolve
it.
Storing, in certain circumstances, constitutes
disposal or discarding of material. For example, I think you
will find that--at least, there were when I was up there--
thousands of drums of material with residues in it, in so-call4d
empty containers, up at Point Barrow, Alaska. And they had
been there for years.
Now that's not the storage you're talking about,
which is temporary storage during the course of transportation,
I think DOT has used those words in the past to make the cut.
Obviously, I think you agree that, if somebody puts
drums out in the field for 10 years, or even extended periods
of time, he's not really storing them with the intent or
design of moving them on again in commerce. He's disposed of
them, in so many words.
I think this is basically what we are getting to
here, put some statutory constraints to be looked after. So
perhaps you people would care to, in your submission, look at
what we have here and maybe come up with a better way of
stating it. As you said, it would probably cause you no
problem if we state it properly. That's what you're concerned
-------
about.
MR. DARMSTADTER: Yes, that's right. My concern is
simply the way in which it's stated. It's not clear as to
how this would affect the normal motor carrier terminal
4
, operation.
0
MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEIP1AN: All right, I guess there are no
further questions. Thank you, Mr. Darrastadter, for your
remarks.
At this time, I would like to call A! Rosenbautn,
n National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc., Washington, O. C.
12 STATEMENT OF AL ROSENBAUM, ASSISTANT MANAGING
13 DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TANK TRUCK CARRIERS, INC-
14 MR. BOSENBAUM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is
15 Al Rosenbaum. I'm with National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.,
16 located at 1616 P Street, Northwest, in Washington, D. C.
17 NTTC is a trade association '.-/hose members constitute
18 over 225 motor carriers specializing in the transportation of
ig commodities in bulk over the nation's highways.
20 Presently, our segment of the industry is heavily
21 involved in the transportation of liquid chemicals, petroleum
22 products, and dry materials. We are cognizant of the ;- fact
23 that, as more stringent and elaborate controls over the dis-
24 | position of hazardous wastes come into being, in all proba-
25 i>ility, such wastes will be tendered to our care in larger
-------
and larger amounts. This is our interest in these regulations,
Initially, we wish to commend both the Department
and the Agency for the creation of what we believe is a
basically realistic and rational regulatory concept. We
believe that the spirit of this section of 1CRA, which mandatec
cooperation between the Secretary of DOT and the Administrator
of EPA, has been met.
IJhile my comments this afternoon will be brief and
concern only the tank truck industry, I hope that you ••/ill
accept them as being made in a constructive fashion in dealing
primarily with draftsmanship.
Our most immediate difficulty concerns EPA proposed
section 250.31, paragraph (e), wherein, designated routing
needs to be specified on the manifest. We are all too well
aware that this is a caveat of the law with which you must
comply, but this is a particularly onerous burden on the tank
truck carrier, which is almost exclusively a regular route
carrier operation.
In many cases, pre-specified routing is difficult, i1
not impossible, to comply with. Traffic congestion, weather
conditions, detours, mandatory rest periods for drivers,
rush hour prohibition against trucks on certain highways, and
many other problems, are but a few of the impediments to
compliance with this part of the regulation.
National Tank Truck Carriers suggests that the
-------
preamble of the regulations be used to temper the stricture.
Explanatory language permitting generalized brief and simple
routing descriptions would be a most welcome addition.
V7e also believe that Section 250.34(3) (b) is somewha
inconsistent with 250.34 (c) and 250.35(a) (b) (d)1 in that:
section, 250.34 (a) implies no substitution for the manifest
while the other cited sections discuss alternative documenta-
tion.
T'7e suggest that 250.34 (a) (b) be modified to add the
words "or delivery document" after the word "manifest".
•National Tank Truck Carriers also has many of the
same problems that ATA has regarding the part of the regulatioi
which require a tank truck terminal to be permitted because
it may have drums of material stored temporarily on the
property.
The tank truck industry has a particular problem in
that, when we unload a product, certain amounts of the product
will cling to the sides of the tank. These, in the industry,
are called "heels". They are taken care of by draining
through the lower valve in the tank into the small containers
or drums, and stored temporarily before treatment or disposal.
If some modification of the regulations is not put
in, and the regulation goes into effect tha T'ay it is right
now, it would require every tank truck terminal to be permit-
ted because we handle, mix or store drums of these hazardous
-------
wastes.
Ve also believe that EPA has erred significantly in
what we construe as an automatic assumption that a spill of
a hazardous material automatically becomes a waste.
In fact, the residues from such spills, even those
highly contaminated, are often re-refined or reprocessed and
utilized in other industries.
If such wastes are indeed determined to be non-
salvageable, we have no quarrel with the disposition of the
generator standards upon the carrier.
Conversely, however, we ask EPA to give regulatory
recognition to the fact that spills products are often made
suitable for future use. In EPA's draft standards, by-product
materials that were to be reused or recycled were exempted
froin thsse regulations. An example would be spent sulfuric
acid, so-called "pickling liquor", a waste product of the
steel manufacturing process, which is also used farther down-
stream as a resource material in other industries.
We hope that the continued exemption of these
materials destined for reuse or recycling will be extended in
the regulations.
Again, we also have a problem with the number.
National Tank Truck Carriers would like to see the identifier
number be the. ICC/"!C number for all interstate carriers, and
state numbers for—state PUC or PSC numbers--for intrastate
-------
carriers.
Mr. Chairman, two final items that we are interested
in: The preamble to the regulations propose an obligation
upon the carrier to contact the receiving facility to determiri'
its operating hours. This implies a duty not a part of
common carriage.
As we noted earlier, there is d variety of situation,
which could cause later-delayed shipments, many of them out
of the control of the carrier.
Should this task be transferred to the generator, it
will have a positive impact by giving greater impetus to
prompt loading and prompt dispatch, and thereby getting the
materials to the designated facility on time.
Lastly, and this is our most stringent objection, we
take strong issue with the preamble language on page 18.508,
which states, quote, "As a service to the generator, the
transporter may prepare a manifest, label and package the
hazardous waste. However, since the generator is responsible
for these functions under Section 3002 of the Act, the
generator may arrange with the transporter to privately
indemnify the generator against financial loss due to improper
performance." Unquote.
Well, we have no objection to the carrier preparing
the paperwork. The shipper must identify the classified
materials, as it is the best source of information on a
-------
problem. But the real problem in this paragraph is the last
sentence of the quoted paragraph, which suggests the promulga-
tion of so-called harmless agreements.
To put it bluntly, so-called agreements are poison
in our industry, since they are used by some shippers to force
carriers to accept liabilities far in excess of their common
law responsibilities.
The general tactic used is to threaten the carrier
with loss of business unless he signs such agreements. ^iven
a potential of millions of dollars in losses in any given
incident or accident, this becomes quite a roll of the dice,
but of the carrier.
Presently, Mational Tank Truck Carriers is in the
U. S. District Court with the District of Columbia, on just
this issue.
As far as NTTC is concerned, these regulations
clearly delineate responsibilities for all three entities
involved: the generator, the transporter and the disposer.
Any suggestion that such responsibilities can ana should be
diluted or co-mingled does not make regulatory sense to us.
Mr. Chairman, again, we applaud the effort of both
EPA and DOT for their obvious cooperation in the creation of
these regulations. We hope that our comments will be accepted
in a positive and I will attempt to answer any questions that
you have.
-------
1
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: All right, thank you, Mr. Rosenbaul
2
Do we have any questions or comments. Mr. Roberts...
3
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Rosenbaum, my feelings are hurt.
4
Don't you have any comments on the DOT proposal?
5
MR. "OSENBAUM: Ho, sir, not at this point.
6
"H. ROBERTS: Thank you.
7
MR. ROSENBAITW: We'll make them in writing.
8
(Laughter.)
9
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Evidently, there are no questions.
10
Thank you very much, Mr. Posenbaum.
11
MR. ROSEHBAUM: Thank you, sir.
12
f CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Our next speaker, Speaker Ho. 8,
13
has informed us earlier that he had to leave. Mr. David J.
14
Damiano, Streets Commissioner, City of Philadelphia. Mr.
15
Damiano has, however, provided a copy of his remarks, his
16
intended remarks, which will be made a part of the record.
17
(Whereupon, Exhibit 1, DAMIANO, was
18
received into the record.)
19
JHAIRMAH LEHMAN: next, I would like to call Mr.
20
Jack Greenspan, Vice President of the Coalition of United
21
1 Elizabeth, Elizabeth, Hew Jersey.
22
(No response.)
23
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Is Mr. Jack Greenspan, from Eliza-
24
beth, Hew Jersey, in the audience?
25
(No response.)
-------
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: All right, we'll have to come back
to you. Next, I would like to call Mr. Anthony Tse, of
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Tse, will you accept questions from the Panel?
MR. TSE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY N. TSE, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION
MR. TSE: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the NRC staff,
I offer the following two general comments for your considera-
tion.
After reviewing both SPA and DOT proposed regulation
on transportation of hazardous wastes, the staff is uncertain
how the proposed regulations would apply to wastes containing
byproduct, source and special nuclear materials subject to
NRC or agreement state licensing.
The NRC legal staff has noted that byproduct, source
and special nuclear materials are specifically excluded from
the definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Therefore, any EPA regulation promulgated under this
authority should exclude wastes containing byproduct, source
and special nuclear materials.
On the other hand, the DOT has authority to regulate
among other things, the transportation of byproduct, source
-------
special nuclear materials. These radioactive materials are
2
properly classified by present DOT regulations as "hazardous
materials" and are regulated by NRC and DOT from a transporta-
tion standpoint in accordance with a memorandum of understand-
5
ing between the two agencies.
These facts have not been clearly noted in the pro-
posed regulations. Therefore, it is not clear how EPA and DOT
propose to treat wastes containing radioactive materials.
I've believe that EPA and DOT need to clarify their positions
on how the" will treat wastes containing byproduct, source
and special nuclear materials.
Our second comment is minor and relates to the use oi
the acronym ''URC". EPA's proposed regulation uses NP.C as
short for the National Response Center...
(Laughter.)
DOT'S proposed regulation uses 3RC as short for the
term "nonreusable container".
(Laughter.)
A_s one might expect, the U. S. Muclear Regulatory
Commission also uses URC as an identifying acronym. Such
inconsistent usage of the acronym "I-IRC'1 is likely to create
confusion.
(Laughter.)
Hence, we would appreciate it if the term NRC is
only used when referring to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
-------
(Laughter and Applause.)
We are currently studying the proposed regulations ai(id
intend to submit detailed written comments at a later date.
We appreciate the opportunity to express our
preliminary views. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAH: Thank you, Mr. Tse. Do we have
some comments to address to Mr. Tse? Mr. Roberts...
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Tse, it's sort of embarrassing
since you mention we have a memorandum of understanding and
we see each other quite often.
f'R. TSE: That's right.
MR. ROBERTS: That we didn't get this straightened
out before we came to a public hearing. But I guess I should
mention again what I tried to persuade ^r. Graziano "of this
morning, and I don't think I was very successful:
If you look at paragraph 172.101 (c)8 of our proposal--
I'm sorry, you don't have a. copy there. ''Jell, all right, I'll
just mention it; I think you'll understand what I'm saying.
The DOT proposed requirements are activated through
this commodity list, this list of hazardous materials. For
example, if we have spent nuclear fuel, and you might want to
call it a waste, and people around here might want to call it
waste, but, under our shipping descriptions, you may not call
it a waste, because it is not a waste subject to the require-
ments of 40 CFR 250. So it would not be part of the proper
-------
1
shipping name under this proposed regulation to call it "waste
2
radioactive material NOS."
3
The only time it would be proper, in my interpretatic
4
of this proposal, the only time it would be proper to use
5
under the legal shipping name required by DOT,the word wasbe,
6
would be when the material was a hazardous waste subject to
7
the EP/\ regulations specified in 40 CFH. 250.
»nd as you indicated, such materials are excluded
9
from the statutory mandate there, so I think that responds to
your
Mi?. TSE; Yes.
"•IP.. POBEPTS: On the second point you raised about
NP.C,- I should point out that the use of NP.C, and it's embossed
on metal packaging, for example, has been in use, I believe,
since about 1938 or 1939.
(Laughter.)
It's not new and I would suggest, from that standpoii
we were there first.
(Laughter.
\nd I don't know if this is causing grief to the
Nuclear Pegulatory Commission because somebody thinks it's an
MRC drum. But I would suggest, sir, that it's really not that
much of a problem because it's associated always with the HRC
markings on it, three letters "DOT", followed by a spec number
The -•ir-.c never stands alone, by itself, unless some drum
-------
manufacturers voluntarily put it on some container that's not
2
anything to do with DOT.
3
So I'm not attempting to really respond to your
comment but I think, just addressing the merits of what you
said, I don't think they have that much merit.
6
(Laughter.)
MR. TSE : I agree that, if we look into detail of
8
all the implications, we will be able to find that those
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
materials are not subject to EPA's rule and therefore not
your rule.
But it's not very clearly indicated in the proposed
regulation; therefore, certain people may confuse. Therefore,
we suggest the final rule should be clarified. That's our
point.
Second point about NRC, I really think that we do not
have very much conflict with the I>?RC in that our uses, when
the National Response Center comes into the picture, then when
you say "Report to NRC," then which NRC are you supposed to
report to. So that's why we raised this minor question.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Are there any other questions or
comments from the panel?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Evidently not. Thank you very mucl
Mr. Tse.
-------
Next I would like to call Mr. Eugene C. Bailey,
Vice President from Dolio and Metz Ltd., Chicago, Illinois.
STATEMENT OF EUGENE C. BAILEY, VICB PRESIDENT OF
DOLIO AND METZ LTD., CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MR. BAILEY; Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEHV.AN: Will you accept questions from
the panel?
MR. B?ILEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: Thank you.
?TT,. BAILEY: My name is Eugene C. Bailey. I am
Vice President of the Dolio and Metz Limited of Chicago, a
consulting organization. I am here representing the American
Admixtures Corporation, and some utility companies. And I
wish to discuss a problem that the regulations cause in regard
to combustion byproducts resulting from burning coal, or
electrical power production.
Lack of definition of hazardous wastes places an
inordinate obstacle in the efforts of generators and their
sales agents to develop and promote use as a recoverable
resource of byproducts from the combustion of coal for electr:
cal power generation, such as fly ash, slag, bottom ash and
limestone water slurries from (stack gas scrubbers).
In an effort to determine what hazardous wastes are
being considered in this area, we refer back to Part II of
EPA's position statement, and this is t*ie clearest definition
-------
I can find, even though it's an old one, on effective wastes
management, nonradioactive, August 18, 1976.
Tt was published in the ^ederal Register, which
states; These hazardous wastes primarily consist of the by-
products of industrial production conversion and extraction
activities, and may be in the form of solids, sludges, slurrie:
liquids or powders; plus, hazardous wastes may include residue
from pollution control devices; that is, electrostatic preci-
pitated dusts.
Activities in the State of Illinois with which I
nave been concerned illustrate this. On February 2, 1975, I
testified at the all night Pollution Control Board hearing when
bae Illinois Environmental Protection Authority, proposed new
regulation 75-13, Liquid and ilazardous Wastes Hauling regula-
tions and (Errata).
This resulted in the inclusion of the following
statement in Section 2, paragraph 210, Exemptions, subparagrapl
(h) .
Any person who hauls only coal combustion fly ash
need not obtain the special waste hauling permit under these
regulations.
The Illinois Pollution Control Board accepted the
classification of fly ash in transport as a recoverable re-
source. Because of the references submitted regarding uses of
fly ash in concrete, plus in the base in oil well drilling,
-------
in asphalt paving, in concrete blocks and as a soil beneficial
ing agent in agriculture, these references from the public
and technical press which I have with me, and these are not
the entire group of references if someone wishes to examine
them--they cover a period from 1953 to date—regarding
constructive use of combustion byproducts in the development
and promotion of commercial utilization of combustion byprociucl
prevent having them buried, pounded or otherwise, concentrated
wastefully.
It is of interest that the Department of Transporta-
tion is one of the best customers we have for fly ash, and
other combustion byproducts, in the construction of foads in
this country.
Further, in the States of Maryland and Massachusetts
fly ash nas been declared a natural resource by legislative
action.
In summary, to ne and to "the organizations I represen'
it would be very helpful if we could get hazardous wastes
clearly defined and get the tag "hazardous wastes" removed
from these combustion byproducts that I've beer discussing.
Thank you, sir. Because it's a real problem when
you go over to talk to somebody about using something and they
say, "Oh, that's a hazardous waste: we can't use that." And
yet we've pointed to the fact that it has been used, it is
being used, constructively and to very good purpose. Thank yo
-------
CHAIPMAN LEHMAU: Thank you, Mr. Bailey. If I may
comment, I believe your remarks were perhaps more appropriatel
aimed at Section 3001 of Subtitle C of RC'RA., which has not yet
been promulgated. So it's a little hard to relate your remark
to the transportation regulation which we now have before us,
but we appreciate vour remarks.
MR. 3AIIEY: i'Je also have before us, do we not, sir
the EPA regulations?
CHAIPJ'lAfl LUHFJU: Ho, not on Section 3001, sir.
"!R. BAILEY: Ho, I realize that and I think this is
what I am asking if you have done. It would be real nice as
a n'atter of communication if somebody would get at 3001 and
get it settled so that we would each know what the other is
talking about.
CHAIRMAN LHH"A>I. Yes, sir.
"R. BAILEY: I feel like I am in the Tower of Babble
right now.
CHAIRMAN LEH'l.VI: Do we have any comments? ;
-------
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEHHAN: I guess not. Thank you, Mr. Dalle
I would like now to call "lr. James C. Knudson,
Department of Ecology, State of Washington, Olympia, Washingto:
Mr. Knudson, will you answers any questions put
forth by the panel?
"«. ICIUDSOa. I will.
STATEMENT OF JAMES C. KNUDSON, HAZARDOUS MASTS
SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, STATE OF WASHIHCTOM
;-!R. KIvUDSOW: First of all, my name is Jim Knudson.
I am -.jith the State of V'ashington Department of Ecology in
Olynpia, "Washington. And I will confine my comments to the
dract on Section 3003 of EP^.
The State of '-'ashington would like to take this
opportunity to support the concept of uniform national standan
such as 3003 for the transport of hazardous waste. We recogni
tnis need in the interest of maintaining the freest possible
flo>; of hazardous wastes between states.
In recognition of this fact, the State of Washington
has recently postponed implementation of its manifest system
until September of 1979. A copy of the notice to our code
revisor and the rationale is attached for the hearing record.
Because we will be implementing extremely hazardous
waste regulations starting on August 1, 1973, we will have
unmanifested waste for approximately 13 months. My primary
-------
comment therefore is to urge the speedy promulgation of 3913.
If other subparts of Subtitle C are held up by legal challenge
or technical uncertainties, we urge that EPA reassess the prom
gation of all subparts of Subtitle C simultaneously.
I would also like to comment on the possibility of
inserting a transporters liability section in 3093 similar to
Section 3934 requirements. I would ask that this be discussed
in the explanatory notes of the promulgation.
I might just add a side comment that this was
received from one of our local cities. They have just about
the kind of liability requirements that would be placed upon
transporters because of their great concern about spillage of
hazardous wastes in transport through their local communities.
In addition in the Section 250.37--Spills—paragraph
C should read:
(C) "The transporter shall clean up and dispose of
all spilled hazardous waste, or take such action as may be
required by federal, state or local agencies GO that the
spilled hazardous waste no longer presents a hazard to human
health or the environment.'1
The emphasis of this section should be placed upon
safe disposal as much as on clean-up, given the overall pur-
pose of PL 94-580.
We also wish to comment upon disposal of spilled
hazardous wastes as it relates to the proposed 220 pound limit
-------
of Subpart 3. Theoretically, a partial spill under that limit
would not be defined as a hazardous waste. T^e believe that
partial spills should be required to continue to their intends
destination; that is, a hazardous waste disposal, treatment or
storage facility. "e would recommend wording to consider any
partial spills a part of the original load and thus still
meeting the threshold quantity.
I would like to address one comment with respect to
this issue of the consistency of state rules and federal DOT
rules because we look at our present definition of hazardous
wastes and we have some real differences -vith EP& on the kind
of work they're doing on 3001.
So if we had to be completely identical to what EP71.
is promulgating under 3001, then we would have problems with
tne DOT rule on consistency and preerrmtion.
I will entertain any questions you gentlemen may hav<
CHM?.MAN LEiiJlAJJ: Okay, I have A question regarding
your comments on partial spills. I just want to clarify your
meaning there.
I presume I got the gist of your comments to mean
you want the regs to address the situation where you have a
load which is a manifested load, namely, it is greater than
100 kilograms. Yet, you have a spill of part of that load
such that the remainder is less than IOC kilograms. Is that..
:'R. XNUDSOW: Right, if you had something under 100
-------
kilograms, you could then say that material did not need the
3001 definition; "Under 100 kilograms". We think it should
be considered part of the original load so that it does not
escape proper disposal.
CHAIRMAN LEGMAN: All right, I just wanted to clarif
your intent there. ,Mr. Kovalick...
MR. KOVALICK. I did not understand your point where
you said the transporter regulations that we're hearing today
should have a liability section similar to the drafts in
Section 3004. I know what Section 3004 is; it's standards for
facilities, but what were you...
in. XNUDSQN: In that sense they talk about insurant
limits, for instance, as I understand 3004.
'•!R. KOVALICK: So you're advocating that transporters
by some £Pa/DOT regulation, have a minimum insurance carriage
type of situation?
MR. KNUDSON: Possibly, or fomehow or another, I
think this issue should be spoken to when you do promulgate
the regulations; that is, if you decide that this should not b<
done, I think you should give reasons as to why no liability
limits are included in the regs.
MR. KOVALICX: Financial responsibility. I guess
that's the section you're talking about.
MR. KNUDSON: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEHfLAN: Do we have any other comments?
-------
21
22
23
24
25
1
'•JR. KOVALICK: • You were talking about DOT preeraptior
2
I think Mr. Poberts would have responded that we're only
discussing DOT ^preemption for regulations that they currently
'•/rite. In other words, only as t'.ie regulations are reflected
in the transportation circles v;ould they have ureenotiv
power. DOT Joes not have proen.ptive power over a standard
for an operation ?or a facility, for example.
8
••'",. K.-TUDSCKJ ; Right.
9
-1R. KOVALICK. It's only as it's reflected in a
10
document or some other w?v would they have nreeTDtive. We are
clear i-e are on the same '-?ve length?
12
-•-.v . K.iUDTO 1 . ^icht, yes.
13
"H. KOVALICK •_ ^r.d I have total preemptive power for
14
the Hazardous -.caste program.
"". IC.CUDrOM: I think the kind of problem that I .-;as
16
trying to look at is where, for instance, we "night define a
material as a hazardous waste, and you, under 3001, -,.7ould not,
18
so tne transporter or somebody else would then be looking for
19
something in the IDOT regs, and he would not find it.
20
So I am concerned that, through the DOT regulation,
that we '-'ould be forced to accept an EP^ 30'~il definition, whic
we're very much against, at this point, any'ay.
CWIEI'IAJ LEF'IAM: w-r. Crockett.
IiR. CROCKETT: This matter that you're addressing
under the section on the nreerrotion reallv has two asoects to
-------
1
it. One which I think you have raised very well. Another
2
which I think has been raised elsewhere, which I think we're
going to have to address at some point in the game.
4
The problem, as I understand, that you are concerned
about is the language that is in the DOT draft as it now stands
if it's enacted, would have the effect of prohibiting a state
from regulatina as a hazardous waste some -material which EPA
does not regulate. Is that correct?
!*i3.. KLJUPSOH- Right.
;;.P.. CROCKETT: Because we wouldn't pick it up if CPA
didn't pick it up.
riR. IOJUDSOM: Yes.
"'~.. CRCC.'CETT; And I'm inclined to agree with you.
I think the language maybe could be clearer but I think the net
effect as it stands right now would be to have that exact
effect.
"laybe this is a subset of a larger question that lias
'^een posed to us since we have published, the rules for these
proposals. That question is whether a state could ban outright
something which DOT or EPA has either regulated, or not regulated
In other words, can a state deal with a hazardous
waste by simply forbidding its movement inside of the state.
That's another quite difficult question.
"1R. KU1TOSON: Yes.
"'.P.. CROCKETT: I mention that as obviously related to
-------
1
the question you raised.
MR. KNUDSON: Yes, I think we recognized that that
kind of possibility does exist. But the way in which we have
defined hazardous wastes under our own regulations is not for
that purpose. That is, when we talk about, for instance,
regulating 110 and 100 pounds under our regulations, that is
not for the purpose of excluding waste from a particular
state.
I guess I don't know how to get around that, the
issue that vou bring up.
""^. EDEL^AN; Regarding your statement about liability
for transoorters, do you have any suggestions on what type
limits should be set for carriers of hazardous wastes?
MR. XHUDSON: No, I do not. However, in responding
formally here, I will try to take that into consideration.
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: All right, I think they are all
the questions we have. Thank you very much, Mr. Kundson.
Jext, I would like to call Mr. "Ullia-n D. Friedmann,
General Counsel of the New York City DEP, _^Jew York, New York.
!"'r. rriedmann, would you take questions from the panel?
-IP. FRIEDMANN: Yes, certainly.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GENERAL COUNSEL
TO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF THE CIT
OF 'JEW YORK
MR. FRIEDt'ANN: Before making a few brief comments
-------
on behalf of the City of New York, I just want to say that,
while this important meeting was going on, I was going through
the odyss«y of a lost wallet. I want to pay tribute to the
Washington taxi drivers. '-Then I got out of the cab this
morning, and the cab pulled away, no wallet.
3o I chased the cab to the Washington Airport and
found the cab driver and he said, well, he doesn't have it.
And all of a sudden, of course, I had my wife cancelling all
of my credit cards in Mew York City.
And, lo and behold, I'm dozing in the lobby before
lunch, or after lunch, and a taxi driver cones and taps me
on the shoulder and says when he's cleaning his cab out, one
of his children found my wallet sandwiched In between the seat
and the door on the other side.
So you have some honest cab drivers here in Washing-
ton, D. C. My faith in humanity has been restored.
(Laughter.)
"'y name is William 0. Friedmann. I am General
Counsel to the Department of Environmental Protection in the
City of New York. I am here today representing the Mayor's
Office and the Mayor's Task Force on Transportation and Siting
of Hazardous Substances within New York City limits.
This Task Force, headed by Environmental Protection,
Commissioner Francis X. McArdle, was formed by Mayor Ed Koch
on May 16, 1978 to research existing procedures and regulation
-------
begin discussions with state and federal officials on improved
coordination, survey existing municipal testing facilities, and
recommend, if necessary, new laws and administrative regula-
tions with respect thereto.
The Task Force, in addition to Commissioner "cArdle,
includes representatives from the Fire, Police, Health and
Transportation Departments, the Corporation Counsel and the
Office of the .layor.
The 'layor, in announcing the formation of the Task
Force, stated as follows: "I am taking this action to ensure
that the safety of our residents is maintained at the highest
possible standard, as well as to improve the regulation of
hazardous substances which move through our City or are stored
within its limits.
These substances include corrosive, explosive, toxic
biological, radiological and chemical materials which are
required for the needs of industry and private citizens alike.
It is my hope that this Task Force will provide an
ounce of prevention so necessary to provide for the continued
safe handling, transportation and storage of these substances.
The Task Force is committed to a response network
of all public and private agencies. \t present, an inventory
of procedures and capabilities of all city agencies is under-
way with respect to spills of suspicious matter. Considerable
interest in the Task Force has been shown by members of the
-------
1
City Council and other legislators as well as from the private
2
sector and Mayors of other cities.
With respect to the proposed regulations of both
DOT and EPA, the Task Force is coordinating comments thereon
will be submitted by June 27th.
It is the intention of the City to work closely
with the federal government in this region in an effort to cor
uy with proposed standards and regulations in this area.
.However, we do feel that it is important, and strong
urge, that every effort be made for DOT and EPA to jointly
promulgate and enforce such regulations and standards governin
the transportation of hazardous waste.
CHAIRMAN LEIL;!AN: Thank you, Mr. Friedmann. Do we
have any comments or questions from the panel?
(.Jo response.)
CHAIRMAN LEHMAW: Evidently not. All right, thank
you very much, V.r. Triedmann.
At this time, I would like to go back and call for a
second time to people who indicated they wished to speak, but
were not in the audience when '*e called them earlier.
I would, like at this time to call A's. Lorna Salzman
"id-Atlantic Representatives, Friends of the Earth, New York.
Hew York.
(No response .)
CHAIRMAN LEHTAN: Is Lorna Salzman in the audience?
-------
(Mo response.)
CHBIUMAN LEH;;A^: Let the record show that we called
for Ms. Salznvan twice this afternoon and she is not in the
audience when I call.
next, I would like to call Jack Greenspan.. Vice
President of Coalition of I'nited Dliza'ieth, Elizabeth, lav
Jersey.
Ho response.)
CliAI'^'iAI'J LEH".^M . "r. "reenspan, from Elizabeth,
rlew Jersey. Is he in the audience?
(i\o response.)
CH'MTAJ LGirlv.VI: Lvidently not. Let the record
sho'v again we called ' "r. Greenspan twice during this afternoon
session, and he was not present either ti'ne .
That concludes the list of speakers v/ho had request
ed time to present their views. Again, if there are any who
wish to speak at this tinr.e, or later on, you have the oppor-
tunity to so register at the registration desk.
There have been a number of rather general questions
proposed by the written cards, which I... do some of these
refer to Section 3003, or are they more generalized?
>/e have an option to take a short break and come "oac
to answer these questions, or we can keep going and see ho™
far we go here. WTO is for a break? Let's see a show of hand
for a break.
-------
(Small response .)
CHAIRMAN LEHMAN: All right, we'll stick it out.
TJe will bring the formal hearing to a close and
we will continue to answer some of the more general questions
which were submitted to the panel.
j\7r. Roberts, you have several there. iVould you like
to start off? These questions would be on the record.
QUESTIONS ANSTORED BY THE PANEL:
MR. ROBERTS: A question concerning 173.29 (c). If
the container is not to be discarded, does the container
contain a hazardous waste for purposes of this subchapter?
/7ell, if the container contains a hazardous waste,
disposal of the waste, the answer would be yes. I think I
can tie this to another question about the empty last containe
package. Perhaps this will clarify the situation.
It says: If a returned bill of lading contains a
statement, quote, "Empty last contained", which is a provision
in 172.503 of our regulations, can the container be shipped as
a hazardous material rather than a hazardous waste?
The answer is definitely yes. The container is not
to be discarded; in other words, thrown in the trash pile.
And the material does not contain a hazardous waste until
going for treatment storage disposal. It is going back to the
shipper and be refilled, with another load of chlorine. The
answer would be the material is a hazardous material being
-------
1
returned under the last contained provision would not be a
2
hazardous waste.
I hope that that is responsive to the first question
Periodically, I am required to wash containers
containing the residue of hazardous material. "-lust I obtain
a permit other than the ;IPDE!7 permit I am currently operating
under. T assume that is a question to you.
ClIfllr-'ArJ LEI-r'AIl: Yes.
".". ;.'03E?TS: Question: On the hazardous waste
mixture containing -aethynol (flammable liquid) and phenol
(poison r.) , would the proper shipping name be "waste flammable
liauid Jos?"
The proper shipping name would be exactly what the
proper shipping name would be were the material a virgin
material or an industrial material, and not a hazardous waste.
If it was properly described as a flammable liquid
nos, as an industrial product being shipped from A to B, the
fact that it's a waste would just be preceded by the word
•waste ' • fo the proper shipping name is "flamvuable liquid nos
the proper shipping name in the waste case would be "waste
flammable liquid nos".
J.IQW if someone wants me to go into a classification
:latter here, I assume that the question's correct, or the
answer is correct to the question, that it would be a flammabl
liquid nos, pursuant to our regulations.
-------
Sornebidy is asking me in another question for a.
personal opinion. The answer is yes/no/maybe.
(Laughter.)
I v?on't give the personal opinion but I'll attempt
to answer the part I think is a question. He's asking for a
distinction between the terra "hazardous material1', "hazardous
waste", "hazardous substances", in three different acts. the
H11TA, PCRA, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
We have a policy statement. I think it was picked
up by the Bureau of National Affairs and published, but more
or less it implied where we were on this subject.
But we regulate hazardous materials, transportation
of hazardous materials. That's our statutory mandate under
Public Law 93-633.
If you go to the Preamble of the DOT notice, at
page 22627—that would be the second full page of text—in
the righthand column, at the end of paragraph 3, it says:
Hazardous wastes would become a subset of hazardous
materials.
And that's how we would treat tha hazardous waste
business. And if we get into the hazardous substances
business, or the environmental health effects business, it
would all become subsets of the hazardous waste/hazardous
materials transportation regulation system.
The xvriter of this card I think is probably asking
-------
1
a lot more than on the surface, like: What are we doing next?
2
That, I can't really give a specific answer to because I
3
very frankly don't know.
*'?e still have outstanding in the other matters that
were the subject of our Docket HM 145; it's not a dropped
subject. But certain other priorities have been established
7
in a short run and we have not mover1, very quickly in that area
It depends on who you are and where you're from, but that's
probably good news to some people and to some, very bad news.
And we're sorry about that either way.
"•'r . Crockett, I think , has one .
::T"!. CROCKETT : This question was addressed to Mr.
Roberts; Could you clarify Section 171.3(c)2? 'Doesn't
Section 171.3(c)2i cover all cases?
rv"ell, 171.3(c), the entire paragraph, essentially
addresses sure delivery, where you can deliver a hazardous
"aste. The provision in subparagraph 2 of paragraph (c)
starts out: This paragraph does not apply to a shipment of
hazardous wastes. Then it lists four subconditions, the first
one being: for which 40 C of part 250 does not require a
manifest.
I gather the question is basically: '-Thy can't you
just stop there and say that you don't have to have a manifest
on a waste that's being shipped, and you don't have to ship
it to the permitted facility that would otherwise be required
-------
1
by oaragrapa (c).
The best way I can answer that is to say we don't
think the lack of requirement to have a manifest is sufficient
because, once you start consolidating things, then they change
the nature of what it is you're shipping; you also wind up
with larger quantities.
The way subparagraph 2 is drafted is intended to be
a narro-,7 exception. And the other three conditions that go
9
along with it—that we have thought out and intended to go
'.••it'.i it-- I 'm not sure how much I really understand the guesti
If that doesn't answer it, whoever asked it could se
rao later, an-1 I'll be glad to talk about it.
CilAIiWiN LEHMAX: All right, shall we start at the
end. Vr . Sras!:. . .
•ir.. TPJ\SK. .7e have some questions here, one relatin
ho the area of spills and I'll attempt this, but I'm not certa
I'll have a complete response because some of this gets into
other Acts...
It says: Under Section 250.31(j), the term "spills"
is defined as any accidental discharge of hazardous waste onto
or into the land, or water.
The first question is: What is a discharge consider
ed to be?
Generally speaking, the Clean Water Act regards
discharqe as a release. So then we're talking about an
-------
accidental release.
Then, the second part of this question says. Does
land include vany pervious concrete loading dock?
I think our answer would be yes, it ".'ill because
it's not water. r,o, therefore, it's either land or it's
water.
The third part is . Does water Tie an only the
navigable waters of the U.S.?
I think it means any water of the U. S. Tt could be
navigable. It cou].d be oceans, or it could be ground water.
The fourth part of this question is . Is a person
who intentionally dumps hazardous waste not subject to
spillage or spill requirements?
Under the construction o1- those regulations, a
person who intentionally dumps hazardous waste at a non-
regulated or nonpermitted facility would be breaking laws.
It would be an illegal act. So any intentional dumping of
hazardous waste can be done only at a permitted facility
where there is a spill contingency cleanup plan in effect,
so that the ter"i "accidental discharge" doesn't necessarily
apply here, at least, not in the same context that it applies
here .
The conclusion on this card is: The proposed
definition is unsatisfactory as written.
Perhaps we can do something about that.
-------
On another card here it says: Proposed DOT 172.203 ({
an nos proper shipping name should have the EPA name for the
material in parenthesis. For example, flammable liquid nos,
and in parenthesis the EPA name.
The question is : 'lThat i-f EPA has no appropriate
nane?
I fell heir to this question because, again, we ar
developing generator standards and it gets into nomenclature
11
9 ,.
of the waste.
The order of priority is that naming a waste is,
cirst, iC there is a DOT name, you use that. If there is no
TiQT name and there is an E">\ name, you use that. If there is
no I,P.71 nans, then you're in luck, you get to use your own
nrui's. ?7hatever vou nomi.-'llv call it. \ brand name, whatever,
any other name that you want to coree up with. That would the
become the proper name, but only if you exclude both DOT—firs
DOT and then "JPA listed names.
r'r.. KOVALICK; Here's one. Alan might want to
respond to this also. The "'Tuclear "egulatcry Commission
regulates and licenses disposal sites of radioactive materials
They are now considering licensing common and contract
carriers of this material notwithstanding radioactive waste.
Have these proposed rules been reviewed with the
A'RC and what would be the interface bet'-'een 'KIT and ^PA and
the .JLVC should the latter impose transportation requirements
-------
on carriers?
Well, from our perspective, we, as our dialogue
with J'r. Tse indicated, we are in two different jurisdictiona]
areas, that is, those radioactive materials that are sort of
special nuclear byproduct radioactive materials are excluded
from the basic definition of solid wastes. So none of what
we have been discussing today reaches back to those materials
The only radioactive materials that could potential]
be included in the definition of an -EPA hazardous waste are
what are commonly referred to as KRRAW, or naturally recur-
ring radioactive materials, and some accelerator-produced
materials .
\nd we are meeting with L-IRC to discuss whether the
management of those materials is a problem in terms of both
commercial products that contain those materials, commercial
wastes, as opposed to extracted industry wastes that might
also have naturally occurring radiation.
Co there is a definite dividing line between the
things that i-TRC currently regulates and the ones that are
potentially regulatable by EPA.
Alan, did you want to comment on LTOC?
'IP. ROBERTS: Well, I might as well go into this
one I have here because it seems we 3o have some N.U.K.E.'s
in the room and we are not going to get with the M.U.K.E.'s
very easily in this hazardous waste business; I can see that.
-------
(Laughter.)
Mo personal insult intended.
Number one, I was totally unaware that there was
anything in process to license transporters of spent nuclear
materials; this is news to me. of course, I've been surprised
before at public hearings on what my agency, or somebody else,
was doing. But that's news to me.
Secondly, I think that we've said it over and over
again. The material is not subject to ^.CRA. The proposed
DOT hazardous waste regulations are not activated. rTow maybe
we'd better write that over and over again in every paragraph.
i'7e also have a question that says- In light... I
might point out also that the President has a Task Force
studying the whole subject of nuclear waste disposal management
et cetera, a big Blue "Gibbon Panel that's... I believe all
the reports, including those pertaining to the transportation,
the report is due back to the President sometime in November,
if I recall correctly. A-nd DOT has some people very actively
involved in that project.
My learned counsel points out, I was a-'are of this,
that i-IRC does have some involvement with the transnortcrs of
strategic materials, but I don't think anybody here was
raising that kind of issue. I was thinkinrr of spent waste
from nuclear power plants.
But the other nuestion I had -'as associated with
-------
this: In light of the ICC decision in MC 14-1213 of May 10,
1978, which exempts carriers of nuclear waste from ICC
jurisdiction, how will the EPA and DOT be able to implement
and enforce the provisions of the proposed regulations when
the carriers may not be known to them?
In the very same way that we are involved in the
regulation of all the other carriers who transport all the
other hazardous materials not subject to the licensing or
registration -provisions of the federal government.
The biggest transportation industry in the United
States, to my knowledge, is private carriage by motor vehicle
-AHL! they are not regulated by the ICC whatsoever.
Your memory is as good as mine but somewhere betweer
12 and 18,000 carriers are on record with the ICC either
licensed permit or common carrier's certificate. The Bureau
of 'lotor Carriers Safety lias approximately 150,000 motor
carriers on record.
flow who are the rest? They are private motor
carriers. And it's by far one of singlest identifiable
businesses in the United Ftates. And these peoole who trans-
port radioactive materials and are not subject to the licens-
ing provisions, whatever that is, of the ICC, where they
hand" them a piece of paper and say: You are authorized to
transport stuff between point A and point B. I would visual-
ize them being covered to the same extent as all the other
-------
private carriers who have been operating all of these years.
If that's posed as a problem, then DOT could
activate its registration authority, which it does hold. And
in certain areas, we are considering the activation of the
DOT registration card, even though we are not very enamored
with that registration authority because it's irrevocable.
'"Then you register, you register for life.
The statute does not permit... well, there's a
two-year renewal but we cannot revoke it. Tl7e cannot rescind
it, by law. It is absolutely prohibited from rescision, so
therefore it lasts forever as long as they keep renewing it.
I hope that that expresses my view of the subject.
I had about 50 phone calls from people that think that some-
how or other DOT is going to provide the great magic to get
these things back under economic regulation at the ICC with
some safety justification. And I doubt if that's going to be
the case. So maybe this will end it.
Crrvi^iA^ LEnPAIM: Arnie Edelman.
^J>. EDELKAII: The question is: EPA, Part 250.30 (c)
states: If a hazardous waste also meets the definition and
criteria for hazardous materials of DOT 49 CFP. 171.8 and 173,
et cetera, can you identify or summarize the DOT definition
criteria?
I can quickly go over what the DOT hazardous
requirements are and where we think the EPA hazardous classes
-------
will also be.
DOT has Explosive, Combustible liquids, Corrosive
materials, Flammable liquids, Tlammable gases, 1-Jon-f l?'.raa'?le
Tases, FlaTnnable solids, Organic peroxides, Oxidizers,
Poisons A and B, Irritating materials, ^tiologicnl agents
and Radioactive materials.
T.TA, under their criteria, nre coding up with
classes such as: Radioactivity, Tnnitable, Corrosive,
Reactive, Toxic and also Infectious.
To get a more detailed clarification of what the
DOT definitions and criteria are, I wish the individual -.-'ho
asked the qjestion would come up and identify himself.
JOT has a national handout that discusses the 'JOT
definitions and also the criteria, and te'lls when we are to
look at Title 49 to determine whether or not that material
they have is the DOT hazardous material.
C;j"VI"J"AM LEJIUVI: I jet the notion to answer a
question here. ..Tien will EPA issue an environmental impact
statement on Section 3003?
The answer is that we are not oreparing an 313
explicitly for Section 3003, but rather ve have chosen to
write an environmental impact statement for all of the sub-
title C regulations simultaneously.
Our plan is to issue the environmental impact
statement, a draft environmental impact statement, and at the
-------
1
same time, or shortly after, we issue the last subtitle C
2
proposed regulation. As we mentioned earlier today, all of
these regulations... the comment period on all of these
regulations, with a few exceptions, will be held open
until that period takes place.
Go that you will have an opportunity then to review
all of the proposed regulations and the draft EIS for that
entire set of regulations, during that final 60 day comment
period.
So the answer to the question really is that we are
currently in our schedule to propose the final set of
regulations approximately early fall, or September-October
period, in that period, and in that time we will issue the
draft Vis for all Subtitle C.
''P. POBEn.TS ; Somebody asked me a detailed question
concerning the... really, the present DOT regulations. "7itlv
out boring the rest of the audience, perhaps the person who
asked we about packing the bottles in tho 17 II d-'1"! would
see r-.e after the session. It's a little bit complicated but
there is a way.
The other question is: How will private carrier
be affected by these regulations? Will they receive the same
exemptions as previous hazardous materials regulations?
I don't really understand that question. There is
no distinction made, in most cases, between private and for
-------
hire carriage by our regulations except that, historically,
i-ie are more liberal-minded in some areas when private
carriage is used where the company performing the transporta-
tion service has intimate knowledge of. the material that it's
packaging, its drivers are trained, it doesn't get in the
hand of common carrier employees going across bhe freight
docks.
These are factors that are quite often considered.
Cut, in our exemptions program, for example, quite often we
will authorize something by private motor carriage that we
voulcl not authorize by conmon or contract carriage, namely,
co.'oivon carriage.
But, otherwise, I don't really understand the
question. Trioever asked it, if they want to clarify it, it
s?yF; . "ill they receive the same exemptions as previous
hazardous materials reaulations?
Is there an inference in that question that private
carriers presently are not subject to the DOT hazardous
materials regulations? If so, that person better see me
vory quickly.
(Laughter.)
Cr, he might have a problem.
CUPIR'-WS LEHMAN: Yes, do we have some more? Yes,
Terrell Hunt.
"IP. IIUIJT: Someone has asked: Could you expand
-------
more on the respective DOT and EPA enforcement resoonsibiliti
for Section 3003 as you see them now?
as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, we are really
at the very early stages in reaching a cooperative agreement
v.'lth DOT. I anticipate that the agreement will address two
broad areas. First of all, fie issue of concurrent jurisdic-
tion; secondly, the issue of joint program management.
'•lita regard to concurrent jurisdiction., there will
be a broad area of overlap where it ''.'ill be in the statutory
authority of either agency to conduct compliance monitoring
and enforcement activities for specific regulatory require-
ments .
This will be the case wherever EP~v incorporates
expressly or by reference HOT standards, or where OOT
incorporates expressly or by reference the ^P"- standards.
Either agency could take an action.
v'7ith regard to the program management and policy
issues, we expect to be able to enter into some kind of an
agreement or contractual relationship with OOT under which
we would agree on which agency has the lead in conducting
compliance monitoring and inspection activities, to establish
joint " complementary enforcement criteria for policies
regarding the kinds .of violations that would warrant the
specific types of enforcement response by either agency.
Thirdly, we would agree on the kind of evidentury
-------
requirements that we would undertake for the standards of
2
evidence that either agency would be subject to in developing
3
and prosecuting a case under either agency's authority.
finally, I would expect that we would reach an
agreement generally in the area of penalty policy and case
prosecution procedures.
Both agencies have the authority to assess adminis-
tratively-imposed composed dollar penalties. They have the
authority under their respective statutes to go into federal
district courts for criminal prosecutions where a severe
arid serious violation has occurred.
So I would anticipate that in these four areas of
compliance monitoring, enforcement criteria, case preparation
of case prosecution and penalty policy, we would have a joint
and complementary policy.
CHAIRMAN LErPWJ: Thank you, Terrell. Do we have
any other transportation-related questions?
(Ho response.)
CHAI^i.AN LEEIAjJ: If not, what T would like to do
at this time is to close the formal part of the hearing on
Section 3003 regulations by EPA and by the companion DOT
regulations. We do have a number of other questions that are
of a more general nature concerning other parts of Subtitle
C of HCRA, and we will answer those.
But since they are not appropriate, I guess is the
-------
"ore?, for the heerino, I think we will formally close the
bearing at this point and answer these general questions
for you.
Jixcuse me, we have one more that should be on the
record. '•',= -.'ill get this one last Question on the record.
'!" . KOVMjICT': i"r . Toberts may want to respond to
this, but the question is: Assuming that a material and
a waste are both well characterized and possess equal
degrees of the same hazard, would both the hazardous material
and the hazardous waste bo equally regulated in the transoor
tation mode as proposed? If not, why not?
iiy response to that, or our view on that, is the
subject of I would say a considerable period of discussion
at the October meeting wa.3 that there ?re differences in
the legislative mandates for EPA under the ^.csource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act and DOT under the Hazardous Material
Transportation Act.
And where we find that the legislative differences
ire so great that we can't stretch one or the other to meet,
then there ruay be occasions.where "e will not be equally
regulating the sa™\e material because Congress has asked us
to focus on hazardous wastes as a subset of all hazardous
materials, and may in those few cases not have given DOT the
broad mandate, the broader mandate, for all hazardous materia
There also may be administrative reasons which Alar
-------
may want to discuss. That's my general response.
"in. ROBERTS: That question reminded me of a quest-
ion that war, in this stack, but I did not respond to it
before.. I am concerned about the nature of some of the
questions we are receiving, that people are of the impression
that DOT'S proposal to regulate the transportation of hazard-
ous wastes is throwing out something that ~>OT regulated in
the past.
If that appears anywhere, it was not by design or
intent. ^or exampl-e, we regulate the transportation of
spent sulfuric acid. ,-!ow whether that's waste or spent
sulfuric acid as identified by the National Tank Truck
Carriers as being transported to one chemical company which
is located in ... Pennsylvania, for example. T believe it
is still in business and they specialize in that type of
work.
They clean it up and they sell'Vt to other people
for their ov.'n purposes. ~-?e regulate that stuff now. ,-iow
when we have rt concurrent application of the rule where
there's a waste, and also presently regulated DOT hazardous
material, all I see is some additional constraints added.
One is the manifest and more elaboration on the
manifest that's required by DOT For accomplishment of its
hazardous material proTram.
Two is some additional requirements in terns of
-------
1
incident reporting, basically, those two areas.
"•'ell, the third one, which is a biggy, is that we
would not exercise at the present time jurisdiction over the
material intrastate commerce where we would have for waste.
r'Te have ,) question here that's along the same line.
It says. IF a hazardous waste is classed as 0"?C by DOT and
corrosive waste by the EP7\, what class must be shown?
One, shipping paper for TOT. TVo, ^P0! manifest.
Three, "GPA -yaarterlv report.
"•nell, I can only answer for the DOT part of this.
Tro'Ti the standpoint of transportation, the class for this
Material, assuming that it is not a presently regulated
corrosive material rnder DOT regulations, and that is
concaivahle if sr>"3 of the draft definitions are applied,
bec = no.3 th^y are using di"ergnt criteria in the DOT. It's
broader in scope, the DOT, because DOT, from the standooint
oF tissue, says the tests must result in irreversible damage.
damage to the tissue based on four hours' exposure. It's a
rather conservative definition in terms of the application of
the corrosive Tiaterials criteria.
From our standpoint, the response to this question
is the a.hioping na-ns «ould oe that. If it is not a DOT
hazardous material by... corrosive material by definition,.
hazardous waste nos could oe classed as an O'C'K and that woul
'-o followed by that jarenthetical expression that would ;
-------
the EPA shioping name, which may be "corrosive waste', if
that's what the EPA designates it to be, the EPA shipping
name .
Or, as I've seen in some of the drafts, it probably
would be more oriented towards its prior use, like etching
aciJ, or something like that. -low that's my answer to that
question.
jJow as to the EPA manifest and the EPA quarterly
report, I would have to refer to the EPA to answer that
question.
::p. KOVALICX: The question is asking about the
draft standard which we have out on the table but which is
not formally proposed. In general, we are trying to match
the existing DOT requirements on the £PA manifest. I think
this would take more time to go into all the nuances of it
and L. robably we could discuss it after the meeting.
Our intention is that we not be different when
filling out the required DOT hazardous material shipping
capers, and that the EPA has its waste manifest parallel it.
The EPA report is compiled from the hazardous waste manifest.
So however we coordinate that, that will just
translate on to the report.
CHAIP.wArJ LEID1AN: Thank you. I just wanted to add
one last point to Mr. Kovalick's remarks. That is that EPA's
reporting requirements go well beyond wastes which are
-------
transported. I want to make the record clear there. In
other words, the reporting requirements apply to wastes that
are disposed of on site as well as those that are transport-
ed and disposed of off-site. So let's not forget that aspect
of it.
In other' words, the context of our discussion here
today is on wastes that leave the site and are transported
to some off site end point. And there are reporting require-
ments for that. But there are also reporting requirements
for wastes that are not shipped, and therefore would not
come under the DOT requirements, at all.
Okay, I think .it thir, time, we will close the
formal hearing on Section 3003 regs and the companion DOT
regulations. At this time, we will go off the record anc1
answer these r.ore gsnern!1 questions.
Ajid we will stay to answer any further questions
you may have, as necessary.
(Whereupon, at 3:35 p.™.., the hearing was
concluded.)
-------
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
DOCKET NUMBER:
r.,_ _T-T_. EPA/DOT Public Hearing on Standards Applicable
<_At,i. iiiiJi. to Transporters of Hazardous Waste
HEARING DATE: June 2°' 19?8
LOCATION: Alexandria, Virginia
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence herein
are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me
at the hearing in the above case before the
Environmental Protection Agency
and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same.
Date: June 27, 1978
Official Reporter
Acme Reporting Company
1411 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
-------
Joint EPA/DOT Public Hearing
June 20, 1978
oVlcK
Good Morning,
Jack:
On behalf of EPA and DOT I would like to welcome you
to the first joint public hearing which is being held
to discuss the proposed regulations for the transportation of
hazardous waste. We appreciate your taking the time to partici-
pate in the development of these regulations which are being
issued under the Authorities of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act.
My name is John P. Lehman. I am Director of the Hazardous
Waste Management Division of EPA's Office of Solid Waste in
Washington. To my immediate left is the co-chairman for this
hearing, Alan Roberts, who is Associate Director for Hazardous
Materials Regulation for the Department of Transportation.
To Alan's left is Doug Crockett, who represents DOT's Office
of Chief Counsel.
The remainder of the panel is composed of EPA representa-
tives. , ,,/
Neil Cohen from fetee Office of General Counsel;
Terrell Hunt of fake Office of Enforcement; *-~^
To
Walter Kovalick, who is Chief of The Guidelines Branch
and is responsible for the overall development of the -ws?sre5*— fial'-' K 1 1
3001, 3002, and 3003 regulations.
Harry Trask, who is the Desk Officer for Sections 3002,
and 3003, and
Arnie Edelman who is i3n Environmental, and Principal staff
person for Section 3003.
UJf
-------
As many of you will recall, a joint EPA/DOT meeting was
held in October 1977 to discuss the development of regulations
under both the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Comments which we re-
ceived at that meeting, and over the months since that time, have
strongly supported the development of joint EPA/DOT regulations
for the transportation of hazardous wastes and the inclusion of
as*
these regulations under title 49 CF/.)., EPA/DOT have been working
very closely together to develop what is essentially a single set
of regulations. On April 28, 1978, EPA issued in the Federal
Register, proposed Standards Applicable to Transporters
of Hazardous Waste; and on May 25, 1978, DOT issued in the Federal
Register their proposed amendments to the Hazardous Materials
Regulations which specifically address the transportation of
hazardous wastes. It is EPA's intent to adopt wherever possible
the DOT regulations; however, I would like to point out, that
there are some differences in the two sets of proposed regulations.
These differences pertain primarily to the bulk shipment of
hazardous materials by vessel, which is governed by the U.S. Coast
*~-
Guard RegulationSj the use of EPA identification code, and
spill clean-up requirements.
EPA intends to propose generator standards under 3002 and all
other standards required for hazardous waste under Subtitle C of
RCRA this fall. The comment period for all sections will remain
open until at least 60 days after the last section is proposed
in the Federal Register. It is my understanding that DOT will
also extend the comment period on their proposed amendments
until 60 days after the EPA hazardous waste regulations ifB ^r <.
-2.
-------
proposed. However, we would appreciate receving your comments
as soon as possible on these proposed regultions. After care-
ful consideration of all comments and at the end of the final
60-day comment period, EPA and DOT will jointly promulgate
regulations for the transportation of hazardous waste.
With that background information, I'd like to lay the
groundwork and rules for the conduct of this hearing .
The focus of" a public hearing is on the public's response
to a regulatory proposal of an Agency, or in this case, Agencies
The purpose of this hearing, as announced in the April 28 and
May 25, 1978 Federal Registers, is to solicit comments on the
proposed regulations including any background information used
to develop the comment. This public hearing is being held not
primarily to inform the public nor to defend a proposed regulation,
but rather to obtain the public's response to these proposed
regulations, and thereafter revise them as may deem appropriate.
All major substantive comments made at the hearing will be aci^-t^^,^
during preparation of the final regulation.
This will not be a formal adjudicatory hearing with the
right to cross-examination. The members of the public are to
present their views on the proposed regulation to the panel, and
and the panel may ask questions of the people presenting state-
ments to clarify any ambiguities in their presentations. If
any member of the audience wishers to question the speaker,
&
he/she should write the question on a. card and pass it to the
panel. The panel will then ask the questions of speakers, and
they will be given the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Blank cards will be available and will be passed out b^r EPA
3-
-------
personnel.
Due to time limitations, the chairman reserves the right
to limit lengthy questions, discussions, or statements. We
would ask that those of you who have a prepared statement to
make orally, to please limit your presentation to a maximum of
15 minutes, so we can get all statements in a reasonable time.
If you have a copy of your statement, please submit it to the
court reporter.
Written statements will be accepted at the end of the
hearing. If you wish to submit a written rather than an oral
statement, please make sure the court reporter has a copy.
The written statements will also be included in their entirety
in the record.
Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have not
made an advanced request by telephone or in writing should
indicate their interest on the registration card. If you have
not indicated your intent to give a statement and you decide
to do so, please return to the registration table, fill out
another card and give it to one of the staff.
or
As we call upon an individual to make a statement, he/she
should come up to the lectern after identifying himself/or
«f
herself for the court reporter, and deliver his/her statement.
At the beginning of the statement, I will inquire as to whether
the speaker is willing to entertain questions fE*w the panel
and the audience. The speaker is under no obligation to do
so, although within the spirit of this information sharing
meeti/^, it would be d>f great assistance to both Agencies '~f~
questions^re permitted. Anyone wishing to make statements
-y-
-------
will have an opportunity to do so, even if we have to run the
hearings into the evening.
Our day's activities, as we currently see thf.-?j appear like
,?,.'/>, A-
this. We will recess for a 15 break at about 10:30, then a one
and one-half hour luncheon break at 12:00 p.m., and. reconvene
at 1:30 p.m.. Then, depending on our progress we may
have a one-hour break for dinner at 6:00. Phone calls will be
posted on the hningi-Hi^ 'K^^V^I =.4- the "ir'-r-m"" -- ,
and rest rooms are located outside to the ( L*£+- i ) .
If you wish to be added to our mailing list for future regulations,
draft regulations, or proposed regulations, please leave your
business card or name and address on a 3 by 5 card at the registra-
tion desk.
A court reporter is here today. The statements, questions
and comments will become part of the public record, and this
record will be available for public inspection in EPA's Docket
Section, Room 2111, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office
of Solid Waste, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, Southwest, Washington, D.C.. A copy of the transcript
will be available upon request to any interested person in 8 to 12
weeks. A copy of the transcript will also be available for
review at DOT'S Docket Section, Rm. 6500, Trans Point Building
2100 2nd Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590.
Mr*,. -R<^j; , fa y*"1- ••"'•**• * •"•"*•*• *— 7 9/^^~f r--+*~~***t?
I would like nov/ to turn the hearing over to Walt Kovalick,
who will give you an overview of the Subtitle C hazardous waste
regulations.
Walt: Before I give an overview of the hazardous waste regulations
please note that public hearings will be held on each set of
regulations after they are proposed.
-------
Public hearings have already been held on Section
3006, Guidelines for State Hazardous Waste Pi .)rJ.ns. I would
ask that you please keep in mind that we are here today to
address only the proposed regulations for the transportation
of hazardous waste under Section 3003 of RCRA and the DOT pro-
visions for the transportation of hazardous waste materials. You
f^ / v J/iJr- S)*.:K/-. ^j~^
will have opportunities,, to comment on the other sections, that
is, sections 3001, 3002, 3004, 3005, and 3010, which deal with
the definition of hazardous wastes and the detailed criteria
standards regarding generators, treatment, storage, or dis-
posal facilities and notification. EPA and DOT will held additional
joint hearings after EPA's Section 3002 regulations are proposed
for generators. Therefore, it would ensure the most effective
use of everyone's time here today if you would mentally review
and edit your statements and questions accordingly in order to
mimimize the involvement of these other sections and to focus
on the proposed regulations for the transportation of hazardous
waste.
Subtitle C of the Solid waste Disposal Act, as amended
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976, creates a
regulatory framework to control hazardous wastes.
Congress has found that such waste pres*/;^ special
dangers to health and requires a greater degree of regulation
than does non-hazardous solid waste. Because of the serious-
ness of this problem. Congress intended that the States develop
programs to control it. In the event that States do not choose
to operate this program, EPA is mandated to do so.
Seven guidelines and regulation are being developed and
-------
will be proposed under Subtitle C to implement the hazardous
waste management program. Subtitle C creates a management
control system, which, for those waste defined as hazeirs^vr,
requires a cradle-to-grave cognizance including apppropriate
montioring, recordkeeping and reporting throughout the system.
It is important to not-, that the definition of solid waste
in the Act encompasses garbage, refuse sludges and other dis-
carded materials, including liquids, semisolids and contained
gases, with a few exceptions, from both municipal and industrial
sources.
Hazardous wastes, which are a sub-set of all solid wastes,
and which will be identified by regulations being developed
c.>.,-V,t^
under 3001 are those which have particularly significant impacts
on public health and the environment.
Section 3001 regulations define the criteria and character-
istics for identifying hazardous waste and will include a listing
of the wastes. The characteristics may take'into account such
factors as toxicity^ persistence, degradabitity in nature,
potential for accumulation in tissue, flammability, corrosiveness,
and other factors. Generally, hazardous waste will include
discarded hazardous materials as defined by DOT and hazardous
substances or toxic substances as defined by EPA under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Toxic Substances
Controls Act.
Section 3002 addresses standards applicable to generators
of hazarous wastes. A generator is defined as any person whose
lJ
act or process produces a hazardous waste. Mimium amouts
^•rt,,«*/*«/ anc3 disposed of per month may be established to further
- 7-
-------
define a generator. These standards will exclude household
hazardous waste.
The generator standards will establish requirements for:
recordkeeoing, labeling and marking of containers used for
storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous waste; use of
approoriate containers, furnishing information on the general
chemical compost.ion; use of a manifest system to assure that
hazardous waste is designated to a permitted treatment, storage,
or disposal facility; and submitting of reports to the Administra-
tor (or authorized State Agency) setting out quantities generated
and their disposition.
Section 3003 requires the development of standards applica-
ble to transporters of hazardous wastes (under consideration today) .
These proposed standards address identification code, recordkeeping,
acceptance and transportation of hazardous wastes, compliance
with the manifest system, delivery of the hazardous waste, spills
of hazardous wastes, and placarding/marking of vehicles.
Section 3004 requires standards affecting owners and opera-
tors of hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal facili-
These standards define the levels of environmental protection
to be achieved by these facilities and provide the criteria
against which EPA will measure applications for permits.
Facilities are covered by these regulations and will require
permits; generators and transporters will not otherwise need
permits. I would like to re-emphasize that the only people
who require permits are those who treat, store and dispose of
hazardous wastes, not genetfjtors and not transporters unless
they also treat, store or dispose.
-------
contiued from page 8.
Section 3005 regulations describe the scope and coverage
of the actual permit-granting process for facility owners and
operators. Requirements for the permit application, as well as
for the issuance and revocation process, are to be defined by
these regulabions. It should be noted that Section 3005 (c)
-------
provides for interim status during the time period that the
Agency or the States are reviewing the pending permit application.
Section 3006 requires EPA to issue guidelines for State
programs and procedures by which States may seek both full and
interim authorization to carry out the hazardous waste program
in lieu of the EPA-administered program. States seeking
authorization in accordance with Section 3006 guidelines are
not required to adopt in entirely all Federal hazardous waste
management regulations promulgated under Subtitle C in order
to receive EPA authorization. Such a State regulatory progam
need only demonstrate that their hazardous waste management
regulations are consistent with and eqivalent in effect to these
EPA regulations under Section 3006 to operate and impose a hazardous
waste management program.
Section 3010 regulations define procedures by which any
person generating, transporting, owning or operating a facility
for storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste must
notify EPA of this activity within 90 days of promulgation of
the regulations which identify hazardous waste, the regulations
under Section 3001.
EPA is making provisions in these regulations for States
to be delegated this function upon application to the Regional
Administrator. It is significant to note that no hazardous
waste subject to Subtitle C regulation may be legally trans-
ported, treated, or stored, or disposed unless this timely
notification is given to EPA or a designated State. Section
3010 should be published as a proposed rule this month.
-------
EPA intends to promulgate final regulations by Spring 1979
under all sections of Subtitle C. However, it is important
for the regulated communities to understand that the regulations
under Section 3001 through 3005 do not take effect until six
months after promulgation.
Th,us, there will be a time period after final promulgation
during which time public understanding of the regulations can be
increased- During this same period, notifications required
under Section 3010 are to be submitted, and facility permit
applications required under Section 3005 will be distributed
for completion by applicants.
Mr. Chairman Thank you,
,jYK/i: I would like now to turn the hearing over to Arnie Edelman
who will give you an overview of the EPA proposed transportation
regulations.
Arnie :Tne proposed standards consist of eight sections: Scope,
Definitions, Identification Code, Recordkeeping, Acceptance
and Transport of Hazardous Waste, Compliance with the Manifest,
Delivery of Hazardous Waste, Spills, and Placard/Marking of
Vehicles.
Any person or Federal Agency who transports a hazardous waste
which requires a manifest will be subject to the regulations^
Under draft Section 3002 standards^ a manifest will not be required
for transport on the same premises where the waste is generated,
treated^stored, or disposed. (Draft copies of Section 3002
standard-; are located at the registration table) . Even though a
manifest may not be required under the generator standards, trans-
porters who knowingly consolidate shipments of hazardous wastes
- /O-
-------
will be required to deliver the waste to a permitted facility.
In addition, all transporters will be require^ r-;der the EPA
proposal to comply J.'<'ith the DOT Hazardous Materials Transportation
Regulations for interstate and intrastate shipments.
All transporters of hazardous waste must receive an identifi-
cation code from EPA prior to engaging in transporting hazardous
waste. The ide^/fication code will be issued to the transporter
upon compliance with the 3010 notification requirement or compliance
with Section 250.32. The information requirements under 250.32
reference the 3010 notification regulations. Draft copies of
the information requirements of 250.023 are available at the
registration table. When furnishing information concerning the
transportion of hazardous waste, the transporter will be required
to list any existing permit number to include ICC, State Public
Utility Commission, State Health Department for any obher number.
EPA will then base the identification code on an existing number.
£c.
Each transporter of hazardous waste will^required to keep
for three years a copy of the manifest signed by an agent of
the designated facility or a signature of a transporter when
the shipment is transferred. A shipping paper that contains the
-/4a
basic information requirements of^ manifest and is signed by an
agent of the designated facility or receiving transporter can
be used in lieu of the manifest only if the orginal manifest
is not with the shipment.
EPA is proposing acceptance regulations that are similar to
those already in effect under the DOT regulations. The hazardous
waste must be properly manifested, packaged, and labeled. In addi-
tion, the transporter must sign the manifest certifying acceptance
-------
of the waste shipment from the generator and must not accept,
consolidate, or mix hazardous wastes consisting of materials
or mixtures that are prohibited by DOT from transportation.
When transporting hazardous waste, each transporter shall
assure that the manifest or similar shipping document that
contains-the same information is with the waste shipment at all
times. If the manifest is -oaS carried with the shipment, upon
delivery of the waste to the permitted facility, the transporter
must acquire a signature indicating delivery of the waste ship-
U,,V4
ment. If the manifest is not^ the shipment, a delivery document
must be issued and signed by the facility. The delivery document
as a minimun must contain the basic manifest information and
may take the form of the standard bill of lading or waybill.
The transporter must deliver all of the waste received
from ci generator or transporter to the designated permitted
facility. If transporters treat, store or dispose of the
hazardous waste, then this activity must be done at a permitted
facility.
During transportation, in the event of a spill of a
hazardous waste, -the proposed standards will require the trans-
porter to: a) telephone the National Response Center (NRC);
b) file a written report on the spill to the DOT using the
DOT Hazardous Materials Incident Report; and c) clean up the
spill, or take such action as may be required by Federal, State,
or local agencies so that the waste no longer presents a hazard
to human health or the environment Every spillage of a
hazardous waste during transportation, regardless of quantity,
will require a telephone contact to the NRC.
-------
For hazardous waste which meet DOT's definition^ a hazardous
material , EPA has adopted the existing DOT placarding require-
ments. EPA, at this time, has not developed a new placard
for those hazardous wastes which under the proposed DOT regulations
will not require one. However, we are open to suggestion
regarding the need for such a placard. In addition to placarding,
motor vehicles involved in the transportation of hazardous waste
must be marked to identify the name of the transporter and the
hone base of the vehicle.
Mr. Chairman Thank you.
Jack:! would like, now to turn the hearing over to Terrell Hunt
from EPA's Office of Enforcement.
(Terrell Hunts 's Speech)
Mr. Chairman, Thank you.
I hope these introductory remarks have put the Subtitle C
regulations in general and the proposed regulations for hazardous
wastes in particular into proper context for discussions here
today..., ,/ /JU- /, .,_. ^ ^ „ ....... ' .' . j ,?-
^ - r»i j i ^ ' ' * / y ' '• / -_/
At this time, I would like to begin the main business of
this hearing, which is to receive statements from the public
concering EPA;s and DOT's proposed regulations . j I would like
to call first .
-------
THIS IS THE STATEMENT OF R.M. GRAZIANO, DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OF EXPLOSIVES. AAR, PRESENTED TO THE MATERIALS
TRANSPORT BUREAU, DOT, AND THE OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE,
EPA. AT THE JOINT EPA-DOT PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 20, 1973
IN RESPONSE TO HM L45A, NOTICE 78-6
The comments that we are making here today are reflective of our
intense interest in the manner in which environmental regulations affecting
shippers and carriers are coordinated and implemented within the current
DOT regulatory framework. As"has been noted by the MTB in the Thursday,
May 25, 1978 Federal Register, Docket HM 145A, several requirements proposed
by DOT for transportation of hazardous waste materials are substantially
different from the proposed standards for transporters of hazardous wastes
published by the EPA on Friday, AprLl 28, 1978. Our basic overriding concern
is that the two agencies develop a uniform and consistently applied set of regu-
lations for the transport of hazardous wastes. Thus, we urge that MTB and
EPA to work toward a single, uniform set of regulations for transporters. We
believe this should be the primary goal of both agencies. We draw your atten-
tion to Section 3003(b) of P. L. 94-580 which deals with coordination with
regulations of the Secretary of Transportation. The purpose of including this
statement in the Resource of Conservation and Recovery Act is to assure that
the requirements and regulations developed under RCRA which impact transpor-
tation are consistent with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act as
Congress clearly intended, it seems clear that Congress intended that the DOT
remain the primary legislative agency with regard to transportation safety
-------
regulations and that the preemption of inconsistent State and Local require-
ments afforded by Section 112 of HMTA must remain effective in this trans-
portation rulemaking. These two basic requirements must not be overturned
by hastily developed rulemaking which would circumvent the requirements of
the statute. With respect to the proposed regulations for transportation of
Hazardous Waste under Docket HM 145A, Notice 78-6, the Railroad Industry
believes that the following areas need substantial review and revision to accom-
modate practical operating problems and to specifically deal with modal
differences.
The following areas are highlighted for the purposes of this hearing and
will be supplemented with more substantive details in written comments sub-
mitted to DOT.
(1) Section 171.3 Hazardous Waste (c) should be changed to be consistent
with Bill of Lading Act under the jurisdiction of ICC which requires rail carriers
to deliver goods tendered to the consignee shown on the Bill of Lading. Speci-
fically, shipments must be delivered to the person designated by the shipper on
the original document. This is a contractual instrument between carrier and
shipper and rail carriers have no authority to switch frDin one consignee to
another consignee simply because "it is not reasonably possible to deliver the
waste. " Therefore, special provision should be added to recognize this statutory
obligation imposed by the ICC on rail carriers.
(2) Section 171.3 Hazardous Waste(b)d): The carriers' EPA identification
code referred to this section should be the unique three digit accounting code
-------
currently required by the ICC on all waybills for all rail carriers. This
number, since it appears on each waybill, should not require a duplicative
control effort by the EPA, and thus increase the rail carriers' burden of having
yet another code number.
(3) Section I71.3(e)(3): The proposed regulations do not uphold the
preemption of inconsistent State or local requirements with regard to additional
requirements on shipping papers. This is clearly in opposition to Section 112
of the Hazardous Material Transportation Act and Subpart (r) Section 107 of
49 CFR. The preemption notice and inconsistency rulings which follow such
notice were clearly designed to preclude differing requirements for carriers
imposed by State and political subdivisions which are inconsistent with the
Hazardous Material Regulations. This inconsistency internal to the proposed
regulations will ignore the mandate of Congress and prejudice inconsistency rulings
that may be initiated as a result of different requirements for format of contents of
shipping papers. This is not what was intended in the Statute and the exception
in Section 171. 3(e)(3) must be deleted and the problem dealt with on an ongoing
basis as recognized by subpart (c) Section 107 of 49 CFR.
(4) Section 171.17(a)(l): Notification should be centralized with one easily
obtainable telephone number to satisfy all emergency notification requirements
This will be of benefit to carriers and you will have reduced the number of
telephone calls which must be made in case of emergency.
(5) Section 172-, Hazardous Materials Table: On page 22.629, Section
172.101, states the following: "Use of this method to appropriately prescribe
the proper shipping name for a hazardous waste and alleviate the necessity for
-------
the addition of hundreds of proper shipping name entries to the Hazardous
Materials Table. " It is our belief that the method choosen by DOT to identify
hazardous waste when also a hazardous material is confusing by including
"waste" in the proper shipping name. It will not solve the ultimate identification
problem with a catchall Hazardous Waste, n. o. s., ORM-E designation.
(6) Section 172.10l(b)(2) : Identifies symbol A as the requirement for
transport by air only. However, it is also noted that the symbol A would not
apply to the material if it is a hazardous waste unless identified as such
in the hazardous material table. Confusion over the shipment mode and appli-
cation of the proposed regulation will cause problems for those who must comply.
Further in Section 172.101, it is not clear whether the term ORM-E would
be used in addition to the primary hazard classification. It is extremely impor-
tant that the proper information be given by shippers to carriers that the material
being offered for transportation needs to meet certain EPA notification and cleanup
requirements. These specific requirements and others which are sure to follow
on hazardous substances (Section 311, FWPCA) and toxic substances (P.L. 94-469)
can be far more effectively dealt with from a regulatory viewpoint than using
the Umbrella Term ORM-E. We suggest that instead of using ORM-E designation,
such terms as "Environmentally Hazardous Waste (EHW) be considered. In
such laws affecting transportation specific language ought to be used. We propose
that waste materials that are specifically identified by the EPA be specifically
listed in the Hazardous Materials Table and that a class of materials identified
-------
as environmentally hazardous waste be created in a separate section of these
regulations to detail unique requirements which must be accorded to them.
We believe that this will reduce confusion and increase the opportunity for
compliance with both the EPA and DOT regulations. We further recommend
that shipping papers which describe a hazardous material which is also a hazardous
waste, identify the name of the material, its primary hazard class and the fact
that it is an environmentally hazardous waste. This indicator states the addi-
tional transport requirements for identification and control of the material more
clear than the stated proposal. If the ORM-E designation is used, it will not be
well recognized nor known that a hazardous waste which is also a hazardous
material has any special requirements for notification associated with its transport
unless this fact is plainly and simply stated in the regulations and on shipping
documents.
(7) Section 172.203: Additional description requirements and some ongoing
follow-up by both DOT and EPA to identify substantial movements of traffic and
specifically list them by name in the hazardous materials table is needed.
The Department should focus considerable effort on the placement of
specific material in the table.
(8) Section 172. 205: Hazardous Waste: The Hazardous Waste manifest
information required by the EPA should be easy to add to the shipping paper
now required by the DOT. Thus, there would not be a neccessity for a separate
document to accommodate shipments because transport forms could be used
for this purpose. The existing system using shipping papers could simply be
-------
6
modified to incorporate the information requirements of the EPA's hazardous
waste manifest system. It is noted that the rail carrier is already required
to show identification of the consignee's name, the shipper's name and address
and the information required by 172.204. Thus, the shipping paper used by the
railroad industry has essentially the same information requirement as the EPA
manifest system. We can see no gain in further burdening the Rail Carrier
by requiring preparation of another piece of paper which meets essentially
the same requirements as the current hazardous shipping papers. Further
we would recommend that because all rail carriers use shipping papers for
movement from origin to destination, there is no necessity to have three (3)
copies of the hazardous waste manifest. The rail system is highly controlled
from origin to destination. The bill of lading requires the carrier to transport
the material to the designated consignee and the system is under this control
whether one railroad 'or 30 are involved in the movement. The railroad also
has other systems to control traffic and the control is so effective that signature
and retention of a manifest at each interchange adds nothing and only burdens
the system.
-------
L/
'Motional 2o(M
1 120 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW • SUITE 930 • WASHINGTON. D C 20036
TELEPHONE (202) 659-4613
FUGENE J WINGERTER
•:vfi.urwE DIRECTOR
Testimony
of
Charles A. Johnson
Technical Director
National Solid Wastes Management Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 930
Washington, D.C. 20036
Presented at Public Hearing
The Transportation of Hazardous Wastes and Materials
Alexandria, Virginia
June 20, 1978
-------
The National Solid Wastes Management Association includes among its membership
most of the leading companies offering the service of chemical or hazardous waste
management to American industry. Through the NSWMA Chemcial Wastes Committee we
are pleased to offer our comments on the two sets of regulations being considered
today. I am Dr. Charles A. Johnson, Technical Director of NSWMA.
First, let me comment that it seems strange we are today considering two sets
of regulations both proposed to implement the same section of RCRA. We wonder
why it was not possible for these two agencies to arrive at a single set of
regulations before publication in the Federal Register and consideration by the
general public. In view of some substantive differences between the two regulations,
our question is more than rhetorical.
Inasmuch as EPA has said that if DOT would prepare regulations to add to CFR 49
to implement Section 3003 of RCRA, EPA would incorporate them by reference, we
will consider the DOT version as the operative proposal and direct our comments
primarily at that version.
There are some substantive differences between the DOT and EPA proposals.
Probably the most important single difference is the preemption of state and
local requirements when they are inconsistent with these regulations as stated
in Section 171.3e of the DOT proposal. EPA on the other hand states in the
background discussion that transporters would be required to comply with incon-
sistent state and local regulations. In view of the increasingly interstate nature
of haxardous waste management, we strongly endorse the DOT version.
Another substantial difference between the two regulations is in regard to spills.
Several of our members have expressed a concern that the EPA reporting require-
ments, if taken literally, would apply to incidental minor spills which occur
-------
-2-
during loading and unloading. DOT resolves this concern by excluding spills
on the property of the shipper or consignee from the reporting requirement.
Still another difference appears in the requirement for a manifest for comingled
shipments where the original wastes did not individually require a manifest.
In that case, DOT suggests that a permitted consignee may require a manifest which
presumably the transporter would originate and thus by definition become a
generator. EPA apparently would not so require. We suggest that this inconsist-
ency needs resolution.
EPA asked for comments on the adequacy of present DOT placarding requirements.
We believe they are adequate and that to add several new placards, especially
with names unfamiliar to the general public, would severely confuse people and
negate the purpose of placarding.
We have a question regarding Section 173.2a(l) of the DOT regulation; this
section covering reuse of container previously holding hazardous materials.
The rule apparently would allow such containers to be reused for non-hazardous
materials without cleaning. We question the desirability of such a procedure and
recommend that this paragraph be modified.
-------
STATEMENT OF MORRIS HERSHSON, PRESIDENT
NATIONAL BARREL AND DRUM ASSOCIATION ,
before the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and the
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
June 20, 1978 Alexandria, Virginia
This statement is being submitted with regard to the proposed standards
applicable to the Transporters of Hazardous Wastes, as published in the Federal
Register of April 28,1978, and to Docket HM-145A, issued by the Department of
Transportation, Materials Transportation Bureau Notice 78-6, as published in the
Federal Register of May 25,1978, Part IV.
My name is Morris Hershson, and I am president of the National Barrel
and Drum Association, which has its offices at 1028 Connecticut Avenue, NW, in
Washington D. C. We represent the Steel Drum Reconditioning Industry, which
reconditions and returns to commercial reuse approximately 40-50 million 55-
gallon steel drums annually. Our Association represents about 75% of all recon-
ditioners in this country and roughly 85%-90% by volume of the total national volume.
The steel drum reconditioning industry receives these approximately 50
million 55-gallon drums containing residue or waste varying from 0% to 5% of the
marked capacity of the container; this results in our collecting from generators
between 50 and 100 million gallons of waste annually, some of it hazardous and
some of it non-hazardous. Having done this for the past 40 years, our industry
has therefore been making a sizeable contribution to the reduction of solid waste
pollution.
Additionally, we recondition these dirty containers and make them suitable
for reuse or recycling. Through this reuse, substantial natural resources and
energy are conserved, as set forth in our previous submissions to both the EPA
and the DOT. (See Attachment #1, Energy Report, by Drs. Prussing, U. of Illinois. )
-1-
-------
Our industry's role in the battle against solid waste pollution is an
important and necessary one. To paraphrase Voltaire, "If our industry did not
exist, our Government would have to invent it. "
Under these circumstances, we believe that both the EPA and the DOT,
in their promulgation of regulations, should avoid imposing restrictions which
would disturb the normal flow of drums from generator to transporter/reconditioner;
nor should they impose undue burdens which would seriously affect our contribution
to the reduction of solid waste pollution, and the concurrent conservation of energy
and natural resources.
Our involvement in these proceedings stems only from the residue contained
in the empty containers we receive, which the EPA considers "Hazardous Waste1',
and, accordingly, includes us in the entire RECRA program.
In order not to disrupt the normal flow of empty drums from generator to
transporter/reconditioner, we believe that commercially empty drums, having less
than 1% of the marked capacity of the container, should be deemed "empty" and
therefore, not "hazardous waste". The objective of tracking hazardous waste
could still be accomplished, since our industry, as a permitted resource recovery
facility, would be required to issue manifests on the disposition of its total volume
of hazardous waste, which would include the residues received from generators.
Therefore nothing would be lost by relieving generators of the burden of marking,
labeling, issuing bills of lading and manifests for empty drums, and the normal
pattern and contribution of the industry would continue.
The alternative in the Regulations is that the drum be "cleaned and purged
of all residue"; this is a revolutionary step, which would require many thousands
of generators to become involved in a cleaning process, which itself would create
thousands of new source points of pollution and contamination, instead of limiting
-2-
-------
the collection of these pollutants to already existing facilities.
We plan to submit a more detailed analysis of the proposed regulations
at » later date; however, we would like to comment at this time on certain
provisions of the proposals which we feel should be modified.
At the moment, there is only one specific provision in the RECRA regulations
which We^believe, should be modified:
SECTION 250. 36(a) of the RECR Act requires the transporter to deliver the
hazardous waste to a permitted facility, designated by the generator on the
manifest. This, in many instances, is commercially impractical for empty
drums which are frequently delivered to an intermediate dealer, who himself
will select the ultimate permitted facility.
However, we are deeply concerned over several of the proposals contained
in DOT Docket HM-145A.
SECTION 173. 28(p)- This new provision permits the reuse of NRC or STC drums
for the shipment of hazardous wastes, subject to certain conditions, which make
reconditioning and retesting unnecessary for the initial reuse of that container.
In the first place, we believe it is highly dangerous to use unreconditioned, untested
drums for the transportation of hazardous waste; the 24-hour standing test, named
as one of the conditions for reuse, does not prove that the drum will not leak in
transit. Secondly, the provision that it may not be used again for shipment of
hazardous wastes is, we believe, completely unenforceable.
SECTION 173.29(a) & (c) - These new provisions make every empty drum, which
previously contained a hazardous material, subject to all the requirements of a
full drum such as marking, labeling, bill of lading, placarding (in addition to the
EPA manifest), unless it has been "cleaned and purged of all residue". No
-3-
-------
consideration is given to a drum which has no residue, or a few ounces, or a
pint; every empty drum is now deemed full for the requirement
described.
The explanatory preface states that the "Bureau believes it is essential
to deal with the subject of so-called 'empty-packagings' containing residues of
hazardous materials!' Why? Has there been a rash of accidents caused by such
empty drums? Based on Office of Hazardous Materials Operations data, have they
been found to constitute a danger to public safety?
On the contrary, to our knowledge there has never been a single accident
in the past 40 years, in which such empty drums caused any injury to persons,
or damage to property. I have personally been connected with this industry for
over 30 years, during which virtually millions of such drums have been transported
in millions of truck trips, and I have never heard of any such incident; this makes
it hard for me to believe that the OHMO possesses data justifying its action.
Why, therefore, is this stringent provision "essential"? Not only will it
place an undue burden on shippers of empty drums but it will cause great damage,
in our opinion, to the drum reconditioning industry and disrupt the normal flow
of drums from emptier to dealer or reconditioner.
When this subject was considered by the DOT's OHMO in 1974, we sub-
mitted comments virtually similar to those above and suggested then, as we do now,
that a. drum should be deemed "empty", and not subject to these requirements, if
the residue in it did not exceed 1% of the marked capacity of the container. This
would mean a maximum of approximately one-half gallon in a 55-gallon drum.
Such a restriction would prohibit the generator from using the drum as a receptacle
for other pollutants; it would free emptiers from the burden of expending labor
-4-
-------
to siphon out that last ounce and yet would stop violations of the RECRA
requirement.
As we mentioned earlier, the requirement that generators "clean and
purge" drums would create many more problems than it would resolve. Instead
of this residue being collected in approximately 200 reconditioners' resource
recovery facilities, with 40 years' experience in handling it, suddenly many
thousands of inexperienced generator plants would become involved in the
collection, handling and disposition of contaminated wastes and effluent, posing
problems far more dangerous to the environment. Many generator industries
would be forced to go into reconditioning themselves for the first time,thereby
obviously damaging our own existing industry, one which has served the nation
well and made relatively large contributions in the reduction of solid waste
pollution, considering its size.
Surely that is not the purpose of the OHMO, to disrupt and damage a
small, economically functional industry,based on the theoretical and rather
academic reasoning that it is now "essential" to deal with empty packaging.
RECRA does not prohibit the transport of these commercially empty drums; at
most, it will require a manifest from the generator and permits for the transporter
and the reconditioning facility.
We respectfully submit that these provisions should be modified as suggested,
so that our industry may continue to serve its essential economic and environmental
functions -- as well as conserving natural resources and energy and, most im-
portantly, reducing solid waste pollution.
#i####i#
-5-
-------
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 tvice 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 18 gage drum system with an average of
eight reconditionings 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 could 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 TRUSSING
Mr«. Prussing is an economist with research and
practical experience in the economics and politics of
recycling. 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 with
the responsibility of finding solutions to county solid
waste problems. She was 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.
-------
INTRODUCTION
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 18 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 25% of
steel from the steel mill to allow for fabrication scrap.
-------
FLOWCHART
STEEL DRUM RECONDITIONING SYSTEM
Scrap
I INDUSTRIAL '
I USER 1
_J
1
RECONDITIONER
DISCARD
SCRAP
DEALER
-------
TABLE I
ESTIMATED ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MANUFACTURE,
TRANSPORT, AND RECONDITIONING OF STEEL DRUMS
Process
Energy Requirement
(1,000 BTU/drum)
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 industry8
Q
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 yard12
Transport of scrap to
steel industry 3
16 aaae drum
(46 Ib.)
100.1
27.0
1,322.5
10.9
113.0
2.7
7.2
108.7
2.0
1.4
1.4
147.6
2.5
0.9
5.9
20/18 oaoe drum
(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
22 qaqe
(28 Ib. )
60.9
16.5
805.0
6.7
113.0
1.7
4.4
104.8
0.9
0.9
0.6
3.6
Notes on following page
-------
Notes for Table I (complete list of references on p.12)
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 milesj 14%
by truck 100 milesj 1% by rail 250 miles. Energy of local
truck shipmentsi 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
dealer: 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 2651; 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!
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
New drum1 1583 1328
Reconditioned drum 152 151
1 Table I dovn 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
18 gage
20/18 gage
Single-use
22 gage
56,489 bil. BTU 77,735 bil. BTU
111,400 bil. BTU
(9 fills per
drumj 8 recon-
ditionings)
(4 fills per
drumj 3 recon-
ditionings)
(new drum for
each fill)
ENERGY RATIO
20/18 gage drum
18 gage drum
= 1.4
22 gage drum _ 2 n
18 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 energy 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 103 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. Harmon, Bruce, "System Energy and Recycling! * study of the Beverage
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)-4., fl.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., 1971.
3.. U.S. Department of Commerce, "U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1974., Metal
Shipping Drums and Falls".
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 ReportsiSteel Shipping
Drums and Pails, Summary for 1967", M34K(67)-13.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
Technical Appendix
The system analysis of the steel drum reconditioning
system is based on the flowchart of the system. On the
next page the flowchart is shown with the energy
variables of the system labelled. These variables denote
the amount of energy required by a process, such as EQR
(the amount of energy required to make a drum) or the
amount of energy required for transportation, such as
EST DR ^ the ener9y required to transport the steel for a
drum from the steel industry to the drum maker) . On the page
following the flowchart a symbol list is given which 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 , and is equal toi
^ + SM.ST + EST + EST,DR + EDR.ST + EDR +
E + E (A-l)
EDR,F * EF,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-2
"DR
INDUSTRIAL I
| USE |
"I,R
-I,SC
'I.PI
RECONDITIONER
. DISCARD
SC,ST
"R.F
R.SC
"SC
SCRAP
DEALER
-------
A-3
LIST OF SYMBOLS FOR FLOWCHART
Energy Requirements
E.. = Mining of ores
£.,_„, = Transport of ore
^i,ST
E__ = Manufacture of steel
E__ __ = Transport of steel to drum manufacturer
oT i DR
EDR = Manufacture of drums
E__ s_ = Transport of scrap from drum
' manufacturer to steel industry
EDR F = TransP°rt to filler
E_ T = Transport of filled drums to industry
Ej „ = Transport of used drums to reconditioner
Ej D_ = Transport of used drums to discard
EI SC = TransP°rt of used drums to scrap dealer
ER = Reconditioning of drums
ED _ = Transport of reconditioned drums to filler
K g c
ER SC = TransP°rt °f reconditioned drums to
' scrap dealer (equal to ET _„)
X (o L>
ESC = Scrap yard
ESC ST = TransP°rt of scrap to steel industry
-------
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
3
LEI,R * ER + f4 (ER,F * *F,I} +^f5 (ER,SC * (A-2)
.ST]
ESC * ^C.ST'I * (1 " f3
where
f., = fraction of drums from industrial user to scrap
f2 = " " " " discard
f3 = " " " " reconditionci
( Note that these fractions must sum to onei f. + f^ + f3 = D
f. = fraction of drums from reconditioner to filler
f5 = " " " scrap
( f4 + fs = 1)
Numerical values for these fractions are given on the following
page. The values for the energy variables are given in Table I
of the report.
-------
A-5
Numerical values far the fractions
i R GAGE ?n/i R GAGE
f3
f
4
f*
1.03 N/(N+1)
0.97
0.03
1.05 N/(N+1)
0.95
0.05
Notei f3 is determined from fjf4> 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 fi = f2 = 1VN°[
-------
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, Egv , 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.
Eav = E / (N+l) = average energy per drum
per fill.
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
1113.5
5.1
0.9
105.3
4.2
*
E
EI,SC
+ ESC
EI.DI
EI,R-
ER.F H
ER,SC
+ Esc,
+ Escl
,ST J
> ER
>EF.l
"1
ST J
1692.1
8.2
1.4
149.6
111.2
8.2
1434.8
7.0
1.2
149.3
109.1
7.0
-------
Ar-7
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 followsi
16 GAGE DRUM
E
= J1692.1 (2N+1) + 265.5 N2J/ (N+l) (A-4)
for N^3 i E = J1434.8 (2N+1) + 266.0 N2J/
20/18 GAGE DRUM (maximum of 3 reconditionings)
11
(N+l) (A-5)
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 written to calculate
the cumulative and average energy requirements per drum
for the reconditioning system. A listing of the program
appears below.
DIMENSION E<50>
NH-0
NO4
CC NC IS THE MAX. NO. OF FILLS FOR 20/18 DRUM.
KMOD-fl
DO 100 K-l, 16
NF-NR*1
NZ-NF+NR
NSQ»NR*NR
E18-<1692.1«NZ+265.5»NSO)/NF
E22-1113.5»NF
AV18-E18/NF
IF(NF.QT.NC) 60 TO 10
E2018«(U34.8«NZ+266.»NSB)/NF
AV20-E2018/NF
E(NF)-E2018
GO TO 99
10 1F(MOD(NF,NC).EQ. 1) KMOD-KMOD+1
E20I8-E(KMOD»NC)*E(NF-KMOD«NC)
E(NF)-E2018
AV20-E2018/NF
99 WRITE(6/98> NF,NH,E22,E2018/E18>AV20>AV18
98 FORMATC1X>2I5,5F11.1)
100 NR»NR»1
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.
-------
COMPUTER PROGRAM SYMBOLS
MR = 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 20/18 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
JU10
•f
w
H
H
•H
Ijj
kJ
O
^j
!
z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
0)
B1
•a
o
0 4J
•H
V) *0
0) C
f 8
3 01
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
u g
ss
01 T5
01 01
•H re
4J O)
re
H (N
3 (N
1113.5
2227.0
3340.5
4454.0
5S67.5
6681.0
7794.5
8908.0
10031.5
11135.0
12248.5
13362.0
14475.5
15589.0
u,
* &
01
> o
•H rH
4J \
re o
HU
01
W
01 01
en a
m
h g
01 9
> u
< TJ
1434.8
1142.6
915.3
777.3
908.8
899. 1
836.5
777.3
850.4
850.4
815.0
777.3
827.9
829.5
01
o>
a
&
tH H
(U-H
C -< g
oi 3
> ij
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 BT THe value of N.
ALL NUMBERS SHOWN ARE IN UNITS OF 1000 BTU's per drum.
-------
EPA/DOT JOINT MEETING
PROPOSED RULES FOR TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
STATEMENT OF AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.
PRESENTED BY
NEILL DARMSTADTER
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY & SECURITY
-------
GENERAL
The trucking industry is gratified by the efforts of EPA and DOT
to develop the highest possible degree of consistency in the regulation
of the transportation of hazardous waste. It is clear that substantial
progress has been made in this direction.
While we are comnenting on proposals that have been published to date,
we would like to point out that the pieceiteal publication of proposals
makes it most difficult to be certain of the pertinence of our remarks.
We are concerned that what we say here and now could be completely negated
by something that is published tomorrow.
A case in point is the definitions of hazardous wastes. Many months
ago, we saw one draft which defined a flammable liquid hazardous waste as
one having a flashpoint up to 140 degres F. which is substantially different
from the DOT definition of a flammable liquid. Ke must hope that differences
of this kind are resolved by the tine EPA publishes its porposed definitions
of hazardous wastes. If this particular conflict is not resolved, it will
create a very serious problem for carriers. We believe that the needs
mandated by RCRA can be met by adherence to the DOT definitions of
"flammable liquid" and "combustible liquid" for such wastes.
TRANSPORTER IDENTIFICATION CODES
In its discussion of Section 250.32 in the preamble, EPA has stated
f(,'C\', Cede$ UJci,- Itl
that, "in most cases 'be identical to existing codes assigned to transporters
by Federal or State agencies." Ke do not believe the statement in the
preamble or the wording of proposed Section 250.32 is such as to assure
that this will be done. For this reason, we suggest that Section 250.32
be worded to present three alternatives for the transporter identification
code i
1) An interstate carrier havin a certificate or permit number issued
by the Interstate Comnerce Commission shall register that number with EPA
-------
Hazardous Waste 2
or with an authorized state agency;
2) An intrastate carrier having a certificate, permit, or other identifying
number issued by a state regulatory agency governing transportation in
the state shall register that number with EPA or an authorized statej
3) A carrier not having an identifying certificate or permit number
issued by a-Federal or State agency as specified in (1) or (2), above,
shall obtain an identifying code from EPA or an authorized state.
It is essential that carriers already having identifying numbers
issued by regulatory agencies not be burdened with the need to apply
for an additional identifying number pertaining to the transportation of
hazardous wastes. Ue believe the objectives of the proposed regulations
will be met through the utilization of identification numbers now held
by many transporters.
RECORDKEEPITO
It is the opinion of the motor carrier industry that EPA has unnecessarily
complicated its proposed regulations by its use of the term, "Hazardous
Waste Manifest" in those provisions dealing with recordkeeping. The
agency has further complicated matters by inserting references to a delivery
receipt being used in lieu of the manifest. These references appear to be
contrary to the expectations of EPA expressed in the preamble to its notice
indicating that current types of shipping papers would be used to meet the
requirements.
We suggest the substitution of the term "hazardous waste shipping paper"
for the two seaparate terms "Delivery document" and "Manifest" as now proposed.
The definition of "hazardous waste shipping paper" could properly contain
many of the features of the two definitions now used which would meet the
regulatory need. This action would be consistent with current practice
in the transportation of hazardous materials and would be a logical extension
of the term "hazardous materials shipping paper" as used in the DOT regulations.
We believe that substitution of the term, "hazardous waste shipping paper"
-------
Hazardous Waste 3
would increase transporter understanding of the requirements and would
facilitate compliance once the regulations take efCect.
The trucking industry fails to see any advantage in requiring the
carrier's identification number of the hazardous waste shipping paper,
or how it would enhance the protection of the public or the environment.
There is no comparable requirement for this type of carrier identification
on the shipping papers for any other class of freight, including the
transportation of hazardous materials.
To add the carrier's identification number would disrupt the
use of coimrercial shipping documents and this is undesirable.
In an emergency, such as a spill, it must be remembered that the
transporter's vehicle will be on the scene and it will be readily identifiable
by the name of the transporter and its principal location, or the location
at which the vehicle is based. The name and address of the transporter,
the generator, and the consignee will all be on the shipping document
together with the required information about the hazardous waste(s)
on the vehicle.
Thus we see no significant additional information that will be
provided by the presence of the transporter's identification code, nor
do we see any way in which that item of information will aid the clean-up
process.
For these reasons, we urge that the requirement for showing the carrier's
identification code be dropped.
Finally, we hope that both EPA and DOT can agree to the use of the
terminology, "hazardous waste shipping paper", that they can agree on
the items of information to be shown and that DOT'S proposed Section 172.205
can be amended to deal with a "Hazardous Waste Shipping Paper."
GENERAL MARKING REQUIREMENTS
The trucking industry has not seen the proposed wording of EPA's Section
-------
Hazardous Waste 4
250.26. We believe that a requirement for showing the name and address
of the shipper and consignee and the proper shipping name of the hazardous
waste on each packaging should afford adequate identification. Any
additional requirement for other types of markings, or for showing a
shipping paper number on each packaging do not appear to enhance the
safe transportation of hazardous waste and should not be put into effect.
In reviewing Section I72.300(b) as proposed by DOT, we note that
it refers to the EPA marking requirements of 40 CFR 250.26. For the
benefit of carriers, and to aid them in complying with the regulations,
the text of the EPA marking requirements should be made a part of the
DOT regulations and not simply adopted by reference. The small carrier
will be at a loss to obtain the appropriate material from Title 40 CFR.
DELIVERY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
We are concerned about the requirements of Section 250.26(b) as they
would require that hazardous waste be removed from a vehicle for "storing"
at a permitted facility.
We believe that EPA, in the final development of this rule, and
DOT in the development of any companion rule, must deal separately with
two basic situations.
1. This is the situation faced by the firm that deals in the processing
of hazardous waste and uses motor vehicles incident to its primary business.
We believe that it must be left to the representative of this type of firm
to comment on the reasonableness of the rule as it would affect their operations.
2. The other situation is that of the organization whose primary business
is the transportation of freight. Such a transporter may handle hazardous
waste, hazardous materials as defined in current DOT regulations, and
other types of freight. The motor carrier of general freight, including
shipments of hazardous waste, is customarily faced with situations in wwhich
freight is brought to a terminal, unloaded, transferred to another vehicle,
and then transported to a distant terminal. At the second terminal, freight
-------
Hazardous Waste 5
may again be unloaded for transfer to another vehicle and moveirent to
final destination. At each terminal, freight (including hazardous
waste) may be in the terminal for a period of time pending transportation
to the next point. It will not be removed from its packaging or receive
any treatment other than movement from vehicle to freight dock to
vehicle with intervening periods of short-term storage.
If the storing provisions of 250.36 are construed to require that
every truck terminal that might receive a shipment of hazardous waste
and that might have that shipment on hand for a short period of time
would have to qualify as a permitted facility, the burden on the motor
carrier industry would be intolerable. He do not believe that a requirement
of this nature would enhance the safe transportation of hazardous waste.
In the situation described above, the hazardous waste, itself, would not
be handled, nor would its character be changed. It would simply be
moved from one vehicle to another with an intervening short period
during which it would be on hand in the terminal.
We suggest that Section 250.36 be amended to provide an exception
for storage and handling situations where the waste, itself, is not
handled, or that there be separate treatment of, 1) the situation
where the waste, as such, is handled, treated, blended, etc.; and 2) the
situation where storage is strictly incidental to transportation.
SPILLS
To minimize reporting burdens, we urge that consideration be given to
developing criteria for types af hazardous waste and minimum quantities
for which reporting is not necessary.
In the area of reporting hazardous materials incidents under current
DOT regulations, it has been found that some 40% of the reports deal with
spills of paint and related products. The reporting of this type of
minor incidents is contributing nothing to the safer transportation of
hazardous materials. It has recently come to the attention of American
-------
Hazardous Waste 6
Trucking Associations, Inc. that no more than 50% of all current
Hazardous Materials Incident Reports are being fed into the data
bank for analysis because so many reports deal with inconsequential
incidents. The Materials Transportation Bureau is reportedly attempting
to deal with this situation and establish minimum reporting criteria
for hazardous materials incident reporting.
By the sane token, we believe that many spills of hazardous waste
are minor and that no useful purpose will be served by reporting them.
We urge that EPA and DOT jointly explore this possibility with the
objective of reducing reporting requirements to cover only those spills
of significance to the safety of the public and the environment.
WRITTEN REPORT OF SPILL
The trucking industry is gratified that EPA and DOT have cooperated
to utilize the present Hazardous Materials Incident Report Form 5800.1
for the purpose. Nevertheless, there are certain features of the requirements
that we believe will be unnecessarily troublesome for motor carriers.
1. We urge that the requirement for entering the carrier's identification
number be dropped. The name and address of the transporter should provide
more than adequate identification.
2. We believe that many motor carriers, especially small carriers,
wil experience extreme defficulty in ascertaining the quantity of material
removed, or the quantity of materials unremoved. If this information is
considered essential, then the transporter should be asked to provide it,
"if known".
PLACARDING
We urge that the placarding of vehicles transporting hazardous wastes
be limited to those wastes which meet the current DOT definitions of;
hazardous materials and which are subject to placarding requirements
under the current regulations. We do not believe that other wastes afford
-------
Hazardous Uaste 7
sufficient immediate hazard to the public or the environment to warrant
placarding of the vehicle. In the event of an emergency, information about
the hazardous wastes on board would be readily obtainable from the hazardous
waste shipping paper and clean-up operations would be initiated jon the
basis of information from that source rather than some special placard
for hazardous waste. Because every effort would be made to initiate
clean-up operations promptly, the chance of any long-terra or cummulative
problem would be minimal and the use of placards would be of no signficance.
-------
NATIONAL TANK TRUCK CABBIERS. INC.
1616 P. STREET. N W. WASHINGTON. D. C. 2OO36
AREA CODE 2O2 797-5425
26 June 1978
Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 -M- Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Gentlemen:
The following are comments submitted by National Tank Truck
Carriers, Inc. (NTTC) on the transportation regulations promul-
gated under the auspices of the Resource Conservation and Reco-
very Act.
By way of introduction, NTTC is a trade association of over 225
motor carriers specializing in the highway transportation of
commodities in bulk, located at 1616 -P- Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C.
Presently, our segment of the trucking industry is heavily involved
in the transportation of petroleum products, chemicals and dry
and pelletized commodities. At this time, waste transportation
is not a large dollar item in tank truck revenues, however, we
are cognizant of the fact that more stringent and elaborate con-
trols over the disposition of hazardous wastes will, in all pro-
bability, cause such wastes to be tendered to our carriers in
increasing amounts. ~"
Thus, our interest in this regulatory effort.
Initially, we wish to commend both the Department and the Agency
for the creation of (what we believe) is a realistic and rational
regulatory concept. We believe that the "spirit" of that Section
of RCRA, which mandated cooperation between the Secretary, DOT
and the Administrator, EPA, has been met.
While our.comments are brief, and concern only the tank truck
industry, I hope that you will accept them as constructive and
dealing, primarily, with draftsmanship.
Our most immediate difficulty concerns EPA's proposed Section
250.31, paragraph E wherein A designated "routing" is to be speci-
fied on the manifest.
-------
-2-
We are all too well aware that this is a caveat of the law with
which you must comply. But this is a particularly onerous burden
on tank truck carriers—which are almost exclusively irregular
route operations by nature. In many cases, preprinted specified
routing simply cannot be adhered to. Traffic congestion, weather
conditions, detours, mandatory rest periods for drivers and rush
hour prohibitions against trucks on certain highways are but a few
of the impediments to compliance with this Section. NTTC suggests
that the preamble of the regulations be utilized to temper this
stricture. Explanatory language permitting generalized, brief and
simple routing descriptions would be a most welcome addition.
We believe that Section 250.34(a) and (b) is somewhat inconsistent
with (c) and 250. 35 (a) (b) (d) and (d)(1) in that Section 250.34
(a) implies no substitution for the manifest while the other
cited Sections discuss alternative documentation. We suggest that
Section 250.34 (a) and (b) be modified to add the words "or delivery
document" after the word "manifest" -
EPA Section 250.36 raises a problem peculiar to tank truck opera-
tions. That Section mandates that any blending, mixing, treating
or storing of hazardous wastes shall be done at a permitted facility.
In bulk transportation, product residue (commonly called "heels")
is left in the tank after transportation. In other words, "com-
plete delivery1'—in the term's most literal construction—is
virtually impossible. This residue is generally drained into small,
closed containers prior to interior tank cleaning. To comply liter-
ally with this Section would mean the permitting of virtually every
tank truck terminal in the nation for no good reason. While we agree
that ultimate disposition of these drainings must be at a permitted
facility, we hope that appropriate preamble language will allow pro-
per removal of these "heels", without extensive permitting.
NTTC believes that EPA errs significantly in what we construe as
an automatic assumption that a spill of a hazardous material
automatically becomes a "waste". In fact, residues from such
spills—even those highly contaminated—are often re-refined
or reprocessed and utilized in commerce.
If such wastes are, indeed, determined to be non-salvageable we have
no quarrel with the imposition of the generator standards on the
carrier. Conversely, however, we ask EPA to give regulatory recogni
tion to the fact that spilled products are often made suitable for
future use.
In EPA's draft standards, by-product materials that were to be re-
used or recycled were exempted from these regulations. An example
would be spent sulfuric acid/so-called pickling liquor—a waste
product of steel manufacturing but used as resource material in
other industries. We hope for the continued exemption of products
for reuse.
-------
-3-
-Section 250.32 concerns the transporter "number". We strongly urge
Federal regulatory preemption over the states in those cases wherein
EPA issues a number. In short, the possible scenario of an inter-
state carrier having to gather a possible 49 identification codes
should be avoided. We believe it is EPA's intention to create a
"one carrier—one number" system, but clarifying language is neces-
sary.
Two final items, the preamble to the regulations propose an obliga-
tion upon the carrier to contact the receiving facility to determine
its operating hours. This implies a duty not a part of common
carriage. As we noted earlier, there is a variety of situations
which can cause late or delayed shipments. Should this task be
transferred to the generator, it will have a more positive impact,
by providing greater impetus for prompt loading and dispatch.
Lastly, and this is our most stringent objection, we take strong
issue with preamble language on page 18508 of the Federal Register
Notice which states:
"As a service to the generator, the transporter may pre-
pare a manifest (the generator must sign the certifica-
tion) , label, and package the hazardous waste. However,
since the generator is responsible for these functions
under Section 3002 of the Act, the generator may arrange
with the transporter to privately indemnify the generator
against financial loss due to improper performance."
ile we have no objection to the carrier preparing the paperwork,
the shipper must identify and classify the material, as it is best
\ qualified to do so. But the real problem is the last sentence of
/ the quoted paragraph which suggests the promulgation of so-called
/ "hold harmless agreements"-
/
x To put it bluntly, such agreements are anathema in our industry,
since they are used by some shippers to force carriers to accept
liabilities far in excess of their common law responsibilities.
The general tactic used is to threaten the carrier with loss of
business unless he signs such agreements. Given the potential for
millions of dollars in losses in any given incident—this becomes
quite a "roll of the dice" for any carrier. Presently, NTTC is
in the U^S. District Court for the District of Columbia on just
this issue.
As far as NTTC is concerned, the regulations clearly delineate the
responsibilities for all three entities involved—generator, trans-
porter and disposer. Any suggestion that such responsibilities can
or should be diluted or co-mingled does not make good regulatory
sense to us.
-------
-4-
Again we applaud both EPA and DOT for their obvious cooperation
in the creation of these regulations .
We hope our comments will be accepted in a positive light, and
stand ready to provide EPA and DOT with any further information
required on the for-hire tank truck industry.
Very truly
Albert B. Rosenbavun, III
Assistant Managing Director
-------
NRC Staff Presentation Before EPA - DOT
Joint Hearing on Transportation of Hazardous Wastes
June 20, 1978
xHy name is Anthony N. Tse. I am employed by the United
States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On behalf of the
NRC staff, I offer the following two general comments
for your consideration.
After reviewing both EPA and DOT proposed regulations on
transportation of hazardous wastes, the staff is uncertain
how the proposed regulations would apply to wastes containing
byproduct, source and special nuclear materials subject to
NRC or agreement state (l^-r-a-iHato to which the MRfr-ha*
trans-fen ed terlaln regulatuiy dirtheriJ
The NRC legal staff has noted that byproduct, source and
special nuclear materials are specifically excluded from
the definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Therefore, any EPA regulation,, promulgated under this
authority should exclude wastes containing byproduct, source
and special nuclear materials.
On the other hand, the DOT has authority to regulate, among
other things, the transportation of byproduct, source and
special nuclear materials. These radioactive materials
are properly classified by present DOT regulations as
-------
- 2
"hazardous materials" and are regulated by NRC and DOT
from a transportation standpoint in accordance with a
memorandum of understanding between the two agencies.
These facts have not been clearly noted in the proposed
regulations. Therefore, it is not clear how EPA and DOT
propose to treat wastes containing radioactive materials.
We believe that EPA arid DOT need to clarify their positions
on how they will treat wastes containing byproduct, source
and special nuclear materials.
Our second comment is minor and relates to the use of the
acronym "NRC." EPA's proposed regulation uses NRC as short
for the National Response Center..y'DOT's proposed regulation
f As
one might expect, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
also uses NRC as an Identifying acronym. Such inconsistent ^\jJ
usage of the acronym "NRC" is likely to create confusion'.V'^
Hence, we would appreciate it if the term NRC is only used
when referring to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
We are currently studying the proposed regulations and intend
to submit detailed written comments at a later date.
We appreciate the opportunity to express our preliminary views.
-------
DOL1O AND METZ LTD
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
JOHN OOLIO
CARL A. METZ
JOHN R. ALSTERDA
RALPH E. WARMAN
ROBERT E. LUNDBERG
ARNOLD M. COLANTONIO
July 11, 1978
Mr. Barry Clapsaddle
Office of Solid Waste
WH. 562
401 M. Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Clapsaddle:
Enclosed for your information and use is a clarified version of the
comments I presented at the joint US-EPA, US-DOT hearing on Standards
for Transporters and proposed provisions for Transportation of Hazardous
Waste Materials, at the Holiday Inn, Old Town, Alexandria, Virginia
on June 20, 1978.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely yours,
DOLIO AND METZ LTD.
Eugene C. Bailey/
Vice President
ECB/dg
Enclosure
2QB SOUTH LMSALLE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS B O 6 O -4 TELEPHONE 312-7S6-S5BO
-------
TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS
Regarding the Proposed Amendment of the
"Hazardous Materials Regulations" of the
US-DOT as published May 25, 1978, in the
Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 102, pages
22626 to 22634 incl., and the proposed
"Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Waste" as published by the
US-EPA, April 28, 1978, in the Federal
Register, VoJ. 43, No. 83, pages 18506
to 18512 incl.
presented by
EUGENE C. BAILEY, Vice President
DOLIO AND METZ LTD.
Chicago, Illinois
at the
Joint EPA-DOT Public Hearing
in the Holiday Inn, Old Town
480 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia
on June 20, 1978
-------
My name is Eugene C. Bailey. I am a registered professional engineer in
the State of Illinois and Vice President of Dolio and Metz Ltd., a consult-
ing engineering organization in Chicago. I am testifying at this joint
hearing in behalf of our client, American Admixtures Corp. and several
midwestern utility companies. My comments on the proposed standards of
the US-EPA applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Wastes and the inclusion
of provisions for Transportation of Hazardous Waste Materials in the regu-
lations of the US-DOT is that the actions discussed in the hearing "Develop-
ment of Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Waste", in DesPlaines,
Illinois, October 26, 1977, in this hearing today, June 20, 1978, and sub-
sequent hearings planned to be held in the near future are an unwarranted
burden and hindrance to a significant segment of one of our country's major
industries: power generation, due to the confusion caused by the actions
of the US-EPA and the US-DOT in writing rules for the transportation of
Hazardous Waste Materials without clearly defining and naming the hazardous
waste materials. The US-DOT has defined and named "hazardous materials"
in 10CFR49. the US-EPA has partially defined but it has not named the
"hazardous wastes" which are to be regulated by the proposed standards.
This has caused confusion in the minds of generators, transporters, users
and disposers of materials not listed as hazardous by the US-DOT but in-
ferred to be hazardous wastes by actions of the US-EPA. The lack of un-
iformity in State laws is evidence of this confusion.
I served Commonwealth Edison Co. in various engineering capacities for more
than 40 years. I have had a long and strong interest in "resource recovery"
from combustion by-products resulting from burning coal for power generation.
This was expanded to include resource recovery from municipal solid wastes
prior to my retirement from Commonwealth Edison Co. It has become my major
interest and occupation during the 3-1/2 years I have been with John Dolio
6 Associates, Inc. and Dolio and Metz Ltd.
I was Vice Chairman of the Illinois Board of Boiler Rules from 1965 to 1975.
I am a member of the Illinois Commission on Atomic Energy. I have been an
active member of many subcommittees of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Committee working to develop rules
for the design, construction, inservice examination and repairs of the
pressure parts of fossil and nuclear power generation units.
One of the major goals in my work as an engineer dealing with regulatory
agencies of the Federal and State governments has been to try to achieve
simplicity, avoid redundancy and prevent contradictory overlapping of laws,
regulations, codes and standards.
Examples of the successful achievement of this goal by my colleagues and me
are the adoption of Sections I (Boilers) and VIII (Pressure Vessels) of the
ASME Boiler Code by more than 40 States and the Provinces of Canada, as their
law and the adoption of Sections III (Nuclear Power Plant Components) and
XI (Inservice Examination) by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
as major parts of their laws.
-1-
-------
Further, as a result of my Testimony and Comments Regarding the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed New Regulation 76-10, "Liquid
and Hazardous Waste Hauling Regulations" and "Errata" at the Illinois
Pollution Control Board Hearing, February 2, 1978, in Chicago, Illinois
(Exhibit A), the Special Waste Hauling Regulations, Part II: Special
Waste Hauling Permits, Paragraph 210H. was added as follows: "Any person
who hauls only coal combustion fly ash need not obtain a special waste
hauling permit under these Regulations" (Exhibit B).
The procedure I have heard is to be used by the US-EPA and the US-DOT:
to develop rules for the transportation of hazardous waste materials before
defining and naming waste materials that are considered hazardous is puzzling
and disturbing. At the present time the utility industry considers the by-
products of the combustion of coal for power generation to be "recoverable
resources". The utility industry and its agents have developed beneficial
uses for these combustion by-products and promoted their sale quite success-
fully. Exhibit C lists 25 articles in the public and the technical press
which discuss these beneficial uses. These 25 articles which span the
period 1953 to date were taken from my personal file. A thorough compila-
tion of similar material at a technical library such as the John Crerer
Library in Chicago should easily increase these references by a factor of 10.
In an effort to learn what "hazardous waste materials" are the subject of
these hearings, the US-EPA proposed Guidlines published in the Federal Regis-
ter during the past several years were studied. In Part II of the EPA
position statement on "Effective Hazardous Waste Management (Non-Radioactive)"
of August 18, 1976, published in the Federal Register, Vol. 4, No. 161 on
page 35050, it is stated that "Hazardous wastes are those which may cause
or contribute to adverse acute or chronic effects on human health or the
environment when such wastes are not properly controlled." "These wastes
primarily consist of the by-products of industrial production, conversion
and extraction activities, and may be in the form of solids, sludges, slurries
liquids or powders" "Thus, hazardous waste may include residues from pol-
lution control devices (e.g., electrostatic precipitator dusts) as well as
production rejects, excess obsolete chemicals and substance (e.g., DDT)".
The by-products from coal combustion for power generation are fly ash, slag,
bottom ash and sludges from water/lime flue gas scrubbers. These combustion
by-products are "recoverable resources". They are being sold by the utilities
and their agents for use in concrete, concrete block, Poz-o-pac paving base,
asphalt pavement, soil stabilization, oil well drilling, roofing granules
and as a soil beneficiating agent in agriculture. The U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers were one of the major customers for fly ash. They have been sup-
planted by the US-DOT and the municipal, county and state Highway Engineers
and their road building contractors.
-2-
-------
Naming the by-products from coal combustion for power generation hazardous
waste materials will be harmful to the industry that produces and has developed
beneficial uses for these recoverable resources. The damage will not result
from the records, permits, waybills, etc., that will be required. The damage
will result from the naming of these recoverable resources as hazardous waste
materials by the US-EPA and the US-DOT. Further, the loss of markets that
will occur will require that increasing amounts of these materials be buried,
ponded or otherwise disposed of by environmentally and economically wasteful
rather than beneficial methods.
-3-
-------
EXHIBIT A
TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS
Regarding the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency's Proposed New
Regulation 76-10 "Liquid and
Hazardous Waste Hauling Regulations"
and "Errata *"
presented by
EUGENE C. BAILEY, Vice President
JOHN DOLIO S ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chicago, Illinois
at the
Illinois Pollution Control Board Hearing
February 2, 1977
University Hall, Room 60S
University of Illinois Circle Campus
Chicago, Illinois
* "Errata" were presented at a January 19, 1977
hearing in Chicago, Illinois.
-------
My name is Eugene C. Bailey. I am a registered professional engineer in
the State of Illinois and Vice President of John Dolio § Associates, Inc.,
a consulting engineering organization in Chicago. One of our clients is
Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute which I am assisting in
the demolition and removal of its decommissioned research reactor and
appurtenances.
I served Commonwealth Edison Company in various engineering capacities for
more than 40 years. I was an ex officio member of the Illinois Commission
on Atomic Energy for more than 10 years and Vice Chairman of the Illinois
Boiler Board for 10 years. Nationally, I have been very active in the.
development of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Codes relating to Nuclear Power Plant Components, their
design, maintenance and inservice inspection. One of the major goals in
my work as an engineer dealing with regulatory agencies of the Federal and
State governments has been to achieve simplicity, avoid redundancy and
prevent contradictory overlapping of laws, regulations, codes and standards.
Working for the Illinois Atomic Energy Commission, I tried to demonstrate
that the public interest could best be served by the State of Illinois
adopting the Federal Regulations relating to the transportation of hazardous
materials in their entirety, by statutory reference, without any changes,
as laws for the State of Illinois.
This action would simplify the problem of compliance by industry in the
same manner as has been achieved by the majority of the states and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the United States by adopting the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes Sections III, "Nuclear Power Plant Com-
ponents" and Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power
Plant Components" as their law.
There are already enough Federal Regulations on the transportation of
hazardous materials being published, as one can see from stacking "up one
year's output of the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT). The
thought of the State DOT duplicating even a part of the rule making activities
of the Federal DOT in regard to the transportation of hazardous materials,
intra 'state or interstate would deter all types of industries involved with
hazardous materials from developing beneficially in the State of Illinois.
My first comment regarding the adoption of a new set ox regulations entitled
"Liquid and Hazardous Waste Hauling Regulations" by the Illinois Pollution
Control Board as petitioned by the Illinois Pollution Control Agency is that
this is a confusing and redundant action on the part of a State Regulatory
Agency to establish rules and criteria for activities and materials which
are presently regulated by the Federal Government's DOT and the State of
Illinois' DOT. The particular term that is confusing is "Hazardous Wastes"
as used in the title and throughout the proposed Regulation 76-10.
-------
Hazardous materials are specifically and adequately defined in the Federal
DOT, Material Transportation Bureau, Hazardous Materials Regulations CFR 49,
Parts 171 through 189. "Wastes" are not defined in the Federal Regulation
49, Parts 170 through 189. However, in the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No.
238 - Thursday, December 9, 1976, the matter of "Environmental and Health
Effects Materials" is the subject of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-
making. A copy is attached as Exhibit 1. Under "Actions of Other Agencies",
reference is made to 306 materials identified by the Federal EPA as hazardous
materials and they are listed in Appendix A on page 2 of Exhibit 1. Further,
OSHA of the Department of Labor is referenced as having published a list of
materials it considers to be human carcinogens they are included in
Appendix B on page 3 of Exhibit 1.
Under the heading "Legislation" the subject of "hazardous wastes" is intro-
duced and under the heading "Request for Comments" numbered paragraph 7 asks:
"With regard to hazardous waste,, what classification system may be used, etc.
Finally, under the heading "Program Plan", the Materials Transportation
Bureau (MTB) is indicated as considering a limited revision of the hazard
classification and considering regulatory requirements pertaining to com-
munications, packaging, handling and personnel training.
The foregoing information regarding the regulations of the Federal Department
of Transportation leads to a recommendation that the regulation 76-10 proposed
by the Illinois EPA for adoption by the Illinois Pollution Control Board be
tabled and its contents studied in conjunction with the Federal and State DOT
regulations to aid in developing a new EPA regulation which will constructively
supplement these DOT regulations. Such an action will help prevent confusion
in the minds of industry and the public, encourage the growth of a viable and
vigorous hazardous materials industry in the State of Illinois, and at the
same time protect the health and safety of the public and the workers with
minimal regulatory effort on the part of the Illinois EPA.
My next comments are addressed to the "Errata Sheet" presented by attorneys
for the Illinois EPA at the first Illinois PCB hearing on proposed regulation
76-10 in Chicago on January 19, 1977.
The directive that the word "special" should be substituted for the words
"liquid and hazardous" and "liquid and/or hazardous" when those words are
used in the conjunctive, e.g. in the title as follows: "Special Waste Hauling
Regulations" appears to be a clarifying action taken to avoid redundancy by
the Illinois EPA. However, the changed definitions to be included as part of
proposed Rule 103 appear to indicate that the change to use of the term
"Special Waste" is a subterfuge employed to permit the Illinois EPA to regulate
the transportation of "Hazardous Wastes" redundantly with the Illinois and
Federal DOT, causing confusion in the minds of industry and the public and
preventing the development and growth of a viable and vigorous industry in
the State. Further, the use of broad and loose terms such as "industrial
- 2 -
-------
process effluents" and "pollution control residuals" in the context of
"hazardous wastes" which are by Illinois EPA definition "special wastes"
attempts to give Illinois EPA the broadest possible area of activity within
which they may choose certain industries and processes, the materials they
use and the products generated by their use as targets for discriminatory
actions which could be extremely damaging.
A case in point is available in the naming of "pollution control residuals"
as hazardous wastes requiring special handling as defined and permitted by
the agency. Fly ash, water granulated slag, bottom ash and cinders resulting
from burning Illinois coal and other similar bituminous coals are valuable
byproducts of fossil fuel power generation and viable vigorous businesses
have been developed in the State of Illinois and elsewhere based on their
use in concrete, concrete block, oil well drilling, asphalt paving, fire
resistant roofing materials, pozollanic concretes, and railroad track
ballast. It is especially interesting to note the use of bituminous coal
fly ash as a soil conditioner capable of providing valuable trace elements
removed from the soil by intensive farming. Exhibits 2 and 3 present
evidence of this beneficial use which has long been known in England as
well as in the United States.
Another material improperly classified as a special waste in the Errata is
"scrubber sludges". While there are scrubber sludges which can be classed
as Pollution Control Residuals in the category of Special Wastes and by
definition considered to be hazardous and/or liquid wastes, the scrubber
sludges resulting from the treatment of bituminous coal flue gases with
water containing lime, limestone or dolomite should not be classified as
hazardous or special wastes whose movement requires regulation by the Illinois
EPA. These sludges contain the valuable trace elements previously described
as the basis for considering bituminous coal fly ashes as beneficial soil
conditioners for agriculture. They also contain free calcium and magnesium
as well as beneficial compounds of these elements with the sulfur and nitrous
oxides removed from the flue gases by scrubbing. A list of the trace
elements and chemical analyses of some of the sludges generated by scrubbing
the combustion gases of Central Illinois coals is attached as Exhibit 4.
It is evident that these sludges could be mixed advantageously with commercial
fertilizers and thereby continue the growth of the market for these com-
bustion byproducts.
It is recommended that the "Errata" also be tabled and not used unless it
can be conclusively shown that use of the regulations of the Federal and the
Illinois DOT does not adequately protect public health and safety.
Eugene C. Bailey/
- 3 -
-------
EXHIBIT I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU
9fff WASHINGTON. OX. 10390 53824
w^'s^^aa Fzszsrsrsz'sz SSSSS.S5
?Ir iu.ua 18& 187 IBs! 189] materials, to Incorporate a systematic employed In this Department's definition
,,v_ii. «£ nsliui approach to Identification of the kinds ol of etlologfc agents. 49 CFB173 JM. which
(Docket iu.iDs.-iwi ^^^ hazards that might wrote attention. «*» on Identification of such agents by
amM>Ua^tiniSSjSaatt ^^^ S.ntmciUionof^Jiu.^.ipoImS SiSgSg"1* ol ****- Education,
s^eH^ofr^-. Ruto~W-. XZZSSXZSZSSt t^fo^Fe^^^S
ta fcsutag this advanc* notice atpro- transportation. Any rach action, would Control Act <33 UJSXX1321) which iden-
psMdnikm»tt»f,th,iCatsilaJ.»ana- I^I^^OB Section 104 iiftb* Hazardous tlfjr; 30« materials as hazardous sub-
y*^ZT?LSZZL^££ZZZ IsWertala.Tniwwrtatkm Act of 197* stances, based upon their tadcttr to
^tSSrfSjL^SrrfTI*. «**• u »*•*»• M 8tat *"•> *Mcn "W"1*1*- "-ammaltea and plant organ-
>^t!ra*£iiam*SSSrn£ aathorba* th* Becretery of Tnnsporta- Isms, as wen as their potential for crt-
osrtaln hazard* to humans ud ttan to designate as » hazardous mate- tertng the navigable waters of the United
to the envlrecuneat sad which an no4 rial any material th* transportation of states (see Appendix A). .
l«l^lhTsubJscttotb*e«letlngBaxard-- whJc* m a particular quantity and form The OSHA of the Department of La.
IrrwI^SlSLJSS'^lS'S'iiS' -^W««»»~eatiabtorlektobealth bor ha, published a list of material. It
S^em5Ton^e^ra^^aine.d *"* **?* " P^Ct> consider, to b* human cardnogBa *| Untmtlil Tiliaii itnrtnr nr Irri Historically, th* DOT baa established refognliM effects ot chronlo oooraiaHonsI
oint to transportation may result In an tta regulatory control upon properties of exposur* which may b* qultenmot* la
mm™i*-1« HrV *- j i I I'j. **-T *-- rr-T—<**?"•-'r~r* -^-"'—"t rnrtt^"-l time from the onset of exposure. OSHA
rtooament. or to human health-and nasard to humans from scute exposures. has also proposed rules governing occu-
rfttr mm '•*• ^teff ««»ft-T«*fa«^< t>j«^rtyii »rht rrTtmn tir nlfifnrwt thtf te*Tirr< K*T patlonal exposure to asbestos (see Appen-
espsssn la the work place or exposure been primarily directed at controlling the dlx B>. which would Include controls on
fry •"•*• »""t*"*-* rr^im^t'^rr K.^HM^S; of 1b* material* mftj\ was fur- asbestos h^fnhis; incident to transpor*
TM« —"—• Is hi response to reoom- ther confined to the ctreomataBoss of the tation. The mter-govemmental Mari-
•MBflatton* 'from other orcanJsatl0ns haMrrtmis •••*^«it tnnsportatlon ac- Vm Consultatlvtt OrganlcaUoa is ao-'
»bohav*expreseedadeslnfortheMTB ttnty. This philosophy has led to the de- Uvely concerned wim possible hazards
to take more effective steps to deal with velopment of a aeries of regulations found "•°flftelwlt"«rt*_«ire^o''**?*oi
eertato unncuuted materials. in Title « of the Code of Federal Regute- particles released during transportation.
amounts bt: March 14.1»7T. ttona.Thee*ree^ilatiomdean*th*ctasM The Organisation for Beonoinlc Co-
X4ilrei>*d'to: Docket Section, Office of of hazardous materials and list materials operation and Development has Issued a
Blzsidea Materials Operations. Depart- oontatoed in th* cli •• <4» CFB 172J01). declslm of the Council on Protection oC
•eat of Transportation, Washington. Present DOT deflntUons of classes of ^J^'S^Sf *L OaSSSift ^ft
DC. 90S90. Comments sbouU reference T—^-M. regulated as hazardous are thtori?*'f?J BhAenyl* (PCBTi). which
IXxxet No, Bl*-145.n Is requested that found ta 4» CFBS»rt 173. Definitions ™»do'ui»t'UJI*th.mB5UD«?IP"1t
——r^- ttt millull lul m ffrs rrrn4— •»—«•*» primarily with toxic effects. Prance. February 13. U73, and which
_„_____ foundtoSubpartHtberem.lncludethw rec«nmei^thati»em^eMmtrl«*r»-
n*rf* '*lm*?> *"
portstlonoontrols to deal with matertato limited in scope by raUance on testing part, upon tbePCB's levels found m the
*hkh an not regulated or ar* only criteria *>•** ~- not orovlae adeonate fisheries ot th* Oreat Lakes, certain
iSSiu^iStS^SivAO.SS. cmSerl^oi^to^trariorl! f^tuffs^^m tbemflkfatof nuralng
neat of TraaeportaUonl CDOT) HMB, Ing srsn* liietsiUle mar ris.. on tieeltll nr •"others to several States. In Section e
trsnspartatknofwhlchmayposeaertaln eavbonmentaleffecbrsomVofthese;Sn- <* °* To*" Bnhstsnoss control Act
hsords that the DOTmevlously has not ttattoMta the transportation regulations ,•
mucea Defense Counsel, th* General HMB. those materials which when di- methods ot marking and disposal of
Bectrto Company, th* national Tank recttr exposed to man over a prolonged fC^s slid has cooiplstely banned manu-
Auck Carriers, th* National Maritime period oTttoe (month to yemTeffeet facture and dlstributloa ot these ms-
Isfety AseodaUso, th. UJB. Environ- hts-naalth: (b) notl«togas»ra.teose terials wUhln two and one-half years of
y..»to£»o»..«OBA««y notlistme**7KA ttosTrmUerUls or m development, which address health
ktcUence of cancer, birth defects, gen*. which whenfoimd tatoansfoodTwateT OT environmental effects of various ma-
ttcd1anges.enTlronmentaldamage^d or^ lnsySd*.ier uTtoSSi Thes.' terUls. may exist at both the Federal and
ether effects, some poorly understood. riskshavebc^addressedtoTorneextent sut* >>T*L Sueb- Programs as can be
and whlehta th* pasthav. beenwi- byWencIesWtiUetmrD%.rtae?L "«"»•« may be considered by the MTB
lated. if at all. primarily becausTof W TZ^^o™T I:!™ m vna^Ua' any action It may take.
other mon easily recognized hazard Acnow or OCTM Acnrcna State programs pertaining to the trans-
thsncterlstles. Such mnterlili are re- In cormectlon with, passible modlflca- portatlorl of materials called hazardous
Jerred to herein as -environmental and tlon of existing MTB claealneatlon crt- wattes are of particular interest.
feeslth effect* materials." The MTB Is teria. the MTB may consider partial or Recent Federal legislation Includes
cnntlflerlng the development of rules to f ull adoption ot criteria, and lists of ma- ">* Previously mentioned Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act which provides EPA
-------
. a require pr
j^tiQD of new cbemlcalSv ES well as
jus-Llon of some presently known ma—
,-iais, jUdzougto fall imp! em equation of
i^ Ac1; by EPA is earns time olre acti?-
,tiei of EPA and IndtistriGS r^^gulated
under t^ie Act may provide a great deal
of Iniormati-oa coiicensi
tal and heeltii. ggecfca .
Title HI of the
tkra asid Reeovsry Acfc of S97S (Pols. 1=.
9-1—5SO. Ocfcots? 21, !976> direete the EPA
Admlnhtni£or to develop criteria for
idenfcUrtas ha^^cms wajjtss and a list
of such wejstss to ba subjsc^ to E£A reg-
lila tony ooafesL Aay prop«>sd or e
ao^a Jcs1
canted of
an4 toeaSfcte e&este ms^srtols
ssitojs^fcs wsmlffl bo wsaKM:
OF KC£
2.
3, Wha£ sort of
ahcuid feseonsMer
4. W&afe eritsrfa
certals effcets aswS
'sets
effects
to as=
agencies 'fe®
ma fas' os possible
of con=
fied by
,
e>S asw eSasies, wouldl
en-
&vaJ3a&Ss essitoste include
of s ha-
as ajstsms to
of in-
while it Ss to. ftrEasjm^atioB ©F in storage
incida
sons r
of a
trols toe sssesssary,,
ards
con-
stand-
•?, "Wltte ?e ,
what e3aas£QcciaoEi Gysfesm Eiay be used
to clearly Meatify Eatetareo as opposed to
single eom-p&^od mafcsrfels; •e/feffit pacfc-
agings may fe& appro^rtetis fo? temnspor-
tfition; an(£ how eirfsfeing fcmosportatlora
d acumen tailors can loe ased feo cover
transport of hazardous wastes-from the
generator to tlie disposer
(consignee).
3. Should new or additional (transpor-
tation controls be" necessary, what the
impact on affectsd industries may be,
and
schedule would be. The MTB Is specifi-
cally concerned with avoiding' costs
which are ssot essential to the mainte-
nance of transportation safety, and ob-
taining cost data to determine whether
an inflation Impact statsment will be
required.
9. Should new or additional transpor-
tation controls be necessary, whether the
preparation of ESI environmental impact
statement will foe required.
10. Any o-ther matterg'relevaiit to the
Jdeafiification and control in transporta-
tion ot environmental and health effects
sna&srisls,, or to the need therefore, in-
cludinc &*© need for uniforaiity in fche
appHcabillfcy of sueia safety regulations as
migM bs de^^oped inider tSsis docket to
fttoe wiriciss modes off feremportstioa.
' If mtesaakiiis Ss
priafee, noder this dcckefc, Sse MTB may
r a linaitsd pavislosa of tha hazard.
develop s lis£ of sub-
sj aad provide a disasslon for the
baste) of fcheir aeJectioa- Ja addition this
efiorfc saa^ Include consMorafeion of re@B-
Tequiramants pertalaizis to cora-
, packaging, k&zidUEigc and
The MTB will bs iraviewiag any com-
meats received to asiawer aguestions out-
lined above and with, a view fcc> establish-
ing selection criteria and rationale which
WCPUM . Sadleate- specifically: (a> What
fcypes stf todcolosical daia sra meaaing-
ful; 4bJ to what conteKfe should Uicse
dafea, be med; and (c> whsfe degree oj risk
may fe® viewed as accepftaMa under whafe
gtv^ condJltloDs, Certain ftefeiisff require-
ment may be eafcatttohed Ibgr the MTB to
S of a materHaS; am£ (to> the prob-
able Qccurreiice of that threafc dxoing
The mafcerlabi Snoluded Sa 6he EPA
Hasardous Substances Osfe and th©
OSHA Ust of e&rclnogenia chemicals,
y^iich are aot praseatiy regnlafced by the
MTB to £h® Code o< Federal Regula&loM,,
Title 4®, sure coimtatoed to Agspsndtit A and
B of £Ms advance moUc®. These Mats are
ppQsvM&ia as example lists of materials
only asud SnfcsFesfcad parties may wMn to
include tea their eoimnents spsciac refer-
ence to these listed materials as appro-
priate.
H soSeieofe interest is espnesaed in
coiHBisDtQ, laii issfornial he&rin£ on ffit^
subjeet wffl toa held to Washington, D.C.
no earliei" than Febraary 1. 1977. The
fcima, Sm^tion, caiuS os^ssSa of the hear-
Inv. tf ipssuired, wffl tea puWiahed to the
FEOEEM, REQISTBE.
<49 TTJS.C. 2S03, !8MB 18&S; 40 CFR 1-53
1 snd paragraph (a) (4> of Appendix
A to Part J02)
Eaaued !ii Washington, D.C., on Decem-
Etar 3. 1976.
DR. C. H. THOWPSOM,
Acting Director, Office of JHaz~
utrdoiLS Materials Operations.
ffiber 30, 1975)
HT W.3 DOT 43
Adlpoottrllo
Aluminum sulfata
Ammonium acetate
Ammonium blcar-
Ammanium blsulflto
Ammoulum broirddo
Ammonium carbn-
Amoionlum carbon*
ate
Amman! 11 m chloride
Ammonium citrate,
dtbasle
COMMON NA&
Ammoniuoi tiilo-
cy&aata
bora to
phoitiit«
borats
Ammoolunj p^r-
naUtocH
sulfats
fluoride
AxDmonlom u-ulln-
Ammonlum tortraio
E—con tinned
Endrlu
EthlOB
4^rtrato°
AzittmoDy trlbcomldw
Antimony trlnuorldo
Antimony trloaldo
AruenLc dVsulndo-
Benzole ncld
Benzonltrllo
Beryllium ctJorlda
Beryllium fluoride
Beryllium nitrate'
Cadmium bromide
Cadmium chloride
Calcium hydroxide
Calcium aside"
Captan
Carbaryl0
Cblord&ne
Cbloroform"
Ammonium chro-
CffiJctura; chromato
Ctorornls ocetato
Chrornlc oulfate
daronsouo chloride
UtMum cbrotnata
Potaaaiuaj cbmmato
ISodium bldu-otrmto
SoiUasri cbroniato
Strontiuai chrODoato
Zlno blciiromat®
CobfflJtou® bromldo
CobftltouB fluoride
Cuprlo acotata
Cuprto chloride0
Cuprlc formate
Cuprle Blyclnote
Coprto lAotate
Cuprtc nltrnto
Caprtc oEalat*
Cnprlc eiibacotato
Cuprlc syl/ate
Cuprlc euHate.
Cuprie to.rtrn.to
Cuprous bromide"
Coumaphos)
Cresol
oil Transport fttodeo.
2,443 (etcId or
ffistera)*
DsJapou
EHcaEaba-
EJicWobanll
Dlchlorvoa
Dleldrin
DtquaC
IM.SUlfOtClQ
Dluron
sulfonic Bcld
Dodecyl tienzen
tonlc acid, CB
tetraacwtta o
Alumluum fluoddo
bifluortd**
Anjowjolam fluortd*
Sodium blirnortdo
Bodluia Suorlda"
Stejiiioua flucrlds
-GutbJoo .
Heptscntor
HjrdrosylBmlno
Ferric smownlut
Perrto ammonium
ox&loie
J^ertlo cbtorida*
Ferrto ftoorid*
•Perrta nitrate
Ferrlo satiate
Ferrous ammolum
Ferrous cblorldo
Perroiis oolf»te
KsJUaoaa
S^ead
Lead
MalatSitea*
Maltrtc acid
. Mereurlo oltrsU
M*UiO5jcbJor
Mevlaphos
Ndlfd •
Nupb&enJc acid
sulist*
Nlckal toarmaU
Nlchd faydraddt
Wlcfcel oltnl*
WtcOcfflt oulfat*
Wltropb
blptionyta
Ptopr< eJcobol
Pyrathrtea-
Ssloalum oxlda
Sodium blsulQU*
Sodium selwilt*
Sodium bydroeulfldi
Sodium hyp«hlorlU
Sodium pbwphal*.
dlbasto
Sodium photphaM,
monobAslc
Sodium phwphi1'.
Styrene
3,4,5-T (acid)
-------
LKXl ocy 1 b« nzon osul -
foDlo »cld. Uopro-
pa.nolaroi:vft 3&1&
I>xl*cylb»nz*n *» ul-
fonic acid, sodium
eaic
EX>dttcylb« nzo n*4Ul -
Ionic acid, trlath-
Duraba
Trtchlorfon
TDB
Trlcnloraphftctol
Uranium paroxUie
TJranyl &«rtei»
Uranyl auKata
Vanadium peatoxlde
Xyleool
Zectrart
.atlnuad
Zino potaijiluj
cnrooiat*
Zloo bonA»
Ztrua c
ZUnf
• Zina rorm*t»
ZlcsbydmuU
ZliM nltnto
SLna auHsta, Ecotio-
Zbrontom acet&to
slum, fiuorltie
ZUw
chlortd»
CAUOOl SOBPEC7
din* (and Its ualte) bla-Cnloromatliyl
4-Elni*thjLamliio- ethor
azob«azaas Motiiyl cnloro-
»lpha-N»pQenyl" moUayl atbas-
(4O FH 47633— Oatotwi- 9, 1679)
DOT *B CPS S73-I
jbftstoJ, or cnryaotUa. amoait*, crocldollt*.
tnzaollt*
. fiWMSTBR, VOL 41, NO. 338—THUH5DAV, DECEMBER 9. 1976
-------
t 5» o "cmf" ««P fly ash o9 Cosnrah'a Quay poww etotfen
Succ®33/s$.l &xp®Fim<8n&s in England M CwmmsSs's Qwtsy power sUtlwn
&ha& fly ®sh by Bfiseff/ ss
-------
CEREAL CROPS . . .
(Continued from page 31)
pipeline is still pouring out the ash
and water mixture into another
lagoon, which next year maybe, will
be seeded and become as productive
as Its cultivated neighbors.
The process is continuous, and it
is expected that ten acres of marsh
will be reclaimed every year. The
lagoons are to be extended into the
area of Flint Borough, but it is not
expected that any difficulty will
arise in pumping the ash the longer
distance demanded.
In earlier experiments of this na-
ture, a top covering of soil and sew-
age sludge to varying depths was
used, and quite remarkable grass
yields were obtained in some cases,
as much as 40 tons per acre of
fresh-weight grass was obtained
from five harvests under plot condi-
tions using one variety of sludge.
These plots, established in 1951, still
continue to yield grass although no
manures have been added since
their Initiation.
At Connah's Quay top soil was
not available on the site. The seed-
ing operation, including seed and
labor, is estimated to have cost
about £100; the importation of soils
might easily have involved an ex-
penditure of £10,000.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ...............I
Summary ....3
Characteristics of Fly Ash .7
Utilization of Fly Ash
Fly Ash in Concrete and Cement Products 11
Fly Ash in. Pressure Grouting ..........21
Fly Ash in Concrete Blocks 23
Fly Ash in Asphalt Paving 25
Fly Ash in Soil Stabilization ,. . . .27
Fly Ash in Roofing ............ 35
Fly Ash as a Constituent of Portland Cement. ...... 37
Miscellaneous Uses of Fly Ash 39 ^p
Sintering of Fly Ash .43
Storage of Fly Ash ..51
Disposal of Fly Ash 57
Specifications For Fly Ash 59 r
Results of Questionnaires to Prime Movers Committee Members
Table I!. - Collection, Disposal and Research 61
Table II - Fly Ash Sales $3
Table III - Chemical and Physical Analyses of the Fly Ash Sold
and the Coal Burned to Produce the Fly Ash .... 65
Table IV Chemical and Physical Analyses of the Fly Ash
Collected and the Coal Burned to Produce the Fly Ash . . 67
Table V - Research on the Utilization of Fly Ash . - - 69'
Table VI Promotion of Fly Ash Sales 73
Bibliography ............ ...75
-------
EXHIBIT 4
ASPEHDE: i
FLY-ASS AS A SOURCE OP !"ER»C3 ELEMENTS" ESSENTIAL TO PLANT GROWTH
In th* biological senss, the t^rm "trace elesant'' is applied to
those eleEeoits wlile-h, In extremely entail tunounta, play eome part In
ths iastabolisai of plants and acimaas. , Sucli other terms as "minor
eleinsnts" and "aicro-nutplent elements" hive also bser. applied to these
elements which aye essential in plant sad aniEiil nutrition.
Twenty or so of tas chemical elements normally occur in extremely.
Bsiall amounts in foods of man -and other aninals. Of these, only .about
olz ars Jmown to be necessary to human or animal lifo (copper, zinc,
iron, mangaaaae, Iodine, aad cobalt). Thra* others, magnesium, molyb-
denum,.. and boron, ars apparently essential to plant life only. Moat
of tha saimal roods are daylvad filrectly or indirectly from plants.
Plants aui3t aeeesaarily obtain aud assind-lattf Etcfc elements from tha
soil. Wft atp*, thowfore, concerned mostly with the availability of
thesa esssntla.! elanents to plants.
If tba essential "tr*oe ftlemsnto" ans not availably in a soil, it
Is said ix> ba abnormal or deficient. Crops grown on enich soils may be
subjsctad to nutritional 'difficulties whi Added as >a remedy for "teace: element" deficien-
cies to soils which aho^i abnormalities.. One of the deterrents in tha
-------
us* of fly ash aa a. means for correcting deficiencies In soils in that
we do not yet know whether all of the "trace elements" in the fly ash
are available In a form which can reafiily be assimilated by plants.
This Is a very important consideration and the facts can be ascertained
only by experimentation.
Soias work has been done in England on the effects of fly ash on
plant growth.
In the vicinity of a power station at Hams Hall, there was a
40-acl-e fly ash dump on which not even weeds would grow.(l) Various
grasses were induced, to grow by treatment of the ash surface with sew-
age Biudge. Growth was much less favorable on plots treated with
Industrial Sewage Sludge probably because of its comparatively
content of toxic metals such as chromium, nickel, and copper. 12
Eeas & 3idr.sk (3)studied the growth of weeds and barley on fly ash.
Th«y found that aluminum and mangaasse were the two elements most prob-
ably ivsSyoaslble for lack of growth or poor grovrth, and confirmed this
with sand cultures to which theea elements were added.
Haas and Sldrak indicate that at certain concentrations, zinc,
cobalt, ohrositos, and titanium may be toxic to plants, but do not give
the toxic concentrations. They do, feowsver, give limits for aluminum,
manganese, and nickel. Except for alumlnus, the toxic concentrations
wera much higher than any that are likely to be fo-und in fly ash from
American Coal.
The faot that high concentrations of fly ash will actually kill
plants has teen confirmed in U.S.A. Since all fly ash examined con-
tains alumias., it may be that this element is the necrotic factor.
Many soils contain appreciable alumina, which, however, may be In an
insolubl* form. Oa tha other isnd., many analyses of the water soluble
constituents of fly ash hav« sluysii tha presence of only saall amounts
of alumina. The problem is still enigmatic.
Magnesium commonly is present in fly ash to the extent of about
one per cent. Potassium, a recognized plant nutrient, is present in
some fly aah to the extent of 4 per cent, but here again, it is not
known whether It is in a form available to p'lants.
Ristroph of Virginia Electric and Power Company reports the trial
use of fly ash produced by his Company as a filler in fertilizer.
Growth experiments were good, but farmers would not accept the product
because of Its color. He also sites two references. (*0(5)
The attached tabulations contain the results of spectrographlc
analyses for trace elements in several samples of fly ash submitted.
(1) "Grass Establishment on Power Station Waste'1 W.J. Rees & A.D. Skelding,
J. Ministry of Agriculture, 1953, 59 536-9-
(2) Letter cf W.J. Rees, University of Birmingham Dec. 12, 1955-
(3) "Plant Growth on Ply Ash" W.J. Rees & G.H. Sidrak, Nature, Vol. 1?6,
p. 352, Aug. 20, 1955.
(4) "Possibilities for Utilization of Pulverised Coal Ash" Thorson &
Nelles, Mesh. Eag, Vol. 60, 1933.
(5) "Fertiliser" Richard Heinrich, Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 39, p. 335.
-------
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
TRACE ELEMENTS IN FLY ASH
Vanadium
Manganese
Cobalt
Nickel
'Titanium
Germanium
Zinc
Copper
Boron
Molybdenum
Thallium
Sodium as NagO
Potassium as K_0
Fisk
0.02
0.02
0.0005 - o.ooi
0.005 - o.oi
0.4 - 1.2*(T102)
0.005 - o.oi
Less than \ **
0.002 - 0.02
0.01 - 0.04
0.005 - o.oi
Paint trace
0.6 *
1.3 *
Ridgelarid
O.OI - 0.02
0.02
0.0005 - o.ooi
0.005 - o.oi
0.3(T1)
0.01 - 0.03
Less than £ *•*
0.002 - 0.02
0.05 - o.i
0.005 - o.oi
Faint trace
10.0 *
4.0 *
* Quantitative results from a large number of samples.
** Subject to appreciable error because of interference from alkalies.
NOTE - These results are typical for fly ash from Central Illinois
coal. Results for Ridgeland are typical of fly ash from Central
Illinois coal burned in cyclone boilers. A.sh from this source
is always higher in alkalies.
-------
PENNSYLVANIA POWSR AND LIGHT COMPANY
TRACE ELEMENTS IN FLY ASH
ample No.
Vanadium
Manganese
Cobalt
Nickel
Titanium
Gernumium
Zinc
Copper
Boron
Molybdenum
Sodium
Potassium
Chpoolnum
1
0.01-0.03
0.03-0.06
0.0005-0.002
0.005-0.010
0.0-1.0
None
None
0.01-0.04
0.1-Q.2
None
0.15
2.4
0.005-0.010
2
0.005-0.02
0.01-0.03
0.0005-0.002
0.004-0.008
0.2-0.7
None
None
0.006-0.02
0.05-0.1
None
0.18
1.8
0.002-0.006
5
0.005-0.02
0.01-0.03
0.0005-0.002
0.003-0.006
0.1-0.5
None
None
0.003-0.01
0.1-0.3
None
0.26
1.2
0.002-0.006
6
O.C05-0.02
0.01-0.03
0.0005-0.002
•0.003-0.006
0.2-0.7
None
None
0.006-0.02
0.1-0.4
None
0.37
1.7
0.001-0.003
11
0.005-0.02
0.01-0.03
0 £(005-0.002
0.003-0.009
0.1-0.5
None
None
0.004-0.01
0.2-0.5
None
0.61
0.70
0.002-0,006
NOTE - Sample 1 contained a trace of lead also.
-------
UNION SZSCTRIC COMPANY
TRACE ELEMENTS IK PLY ASH
Element
Meramec Precipitator
Ply Ash (3713)
Meramec Pond
Fly Ash (3713A)
Vanadium
Manganese
Cobalt
Nickel
Titanium
GftKnaniura
Zlns
Copper
Boron
Molybdenum
Sodium (Na2O)
Potassium (KgO)
O.02 - 0.05
0.05
0.001 - 0.004
0.005 - o.oio
0.3 - 0.5
0.01
\*
0.003 - o.oi
0.05 - 0.5
0.005
O.I&
2.0
0.02 - 0.05
0.05
0.001 - O.OOU
0.005 - 0.010
0.3
0.01
i*
0.603 ~ o.oi
0.01 - 0.01
0.005 - o.oi
0.61
2.7
-------
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
TRACE ELEMENTS IN FLY ASH
Ply Ash Sample #2, Unit 2, A Preheater,
Chesterfield Station Collected December
7 to 9, 1954
Manganese 0.015
Titanium, 1.75
Selenium Less than 0.001
Boron 0.01
Sodium as N^O 0.71
Potassium as KgO 1.89
NOTE - Analysis by Rroehllng and Robertson, Inc. Richmond, Va.
-------
M- 1724-76
Date 8-50-76
OPERATIOHAL ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT REPORT
ON
SLUDGE AHD SLUHRT SAMPLES, WILL COUNTY STATION
(A-76-236)
. On 8/16/76 a sample of spent slurry and one of sludge (taken
from the bottom of the thickner) from the Scrubber System on Unit
#1, Will County Generating Station were submitted for analyses by
Mr. D. Miller, Production Systems Analysis. The samples were ana.-
lyzed for % solids and % liquid, by filtration. The solid portions
were then analyzed for calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, calcium
sulflte, and % flyash. The results are listed below. ' .J/V
Parameter
Scent Slurrv
Solids
Liquid
Parameter
14.2
85.8
Filtration Cake -
Sludge
51 .'5
48.5
Solids
/o by V.'eisht
"Speni Slurry
Calcium Carbonate,
CaCO,
Calcium Sulfite, CaSO,
Calcium Sulfate, CaSO^
Magnesium as MgO
Iron as Fe-0,
Aluminum as £L^>~
Sodium as Na20
Silica, SiO-
Acid InaoluBle
Moisture - 100°.C
Water of Hydration -180'C
13.0
18.0
10.2
0.52
0.66
0.65
0.10
1.8
1.0
51.2
1.7
Sludge
4.5
20.0
19.2
0.53
0.59
0.97
0.12
1.6
0.6
48.5
2^2
% Flyash (by Weight) (1) approximately 5
approximately 5-7
(1) % flyash is «.n estimate based upon the iron and aluminum contents
of the samples \
-------
Exhibit 4
Part t (Cont'd)
Trace elements in sludge from Unit 1, Will County Station, Commonwealth
Edison Co., Flue Gas Scrubber. Reported by telephone on 2/1/77.
Mine 10 Coal. Solid Sludge
Elements Micro Grams/Gram
Pb 53
Cd 13
Co 22
Zn 250
Mg 98
Ni 73
Cr 33
Cu 37
Fe 8400
Al 6700
Ba 180
Trace elements in pond water from Unit L, Will County Station
Decker Coal - Filtrate
Elements Micro Grams/liter
Pb
Cd
Ba
As
Be
Hg
Se
Ag 28.0
30.0
26.0
1300.0
50.0
1.45
0.1
10.0
- 2.0
- 0.2
- 100.0
-------
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RULES AND REGULATIONS
CHAPTER SPECIAL WASTE HAULING REGULATIONS
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
101 Authority, Policy and Purposes
Pursuant to. the authority contained in Sections S, lo,
13 and 22 of the Environmental Protection Act, and con-
sistent with the policy and purposes expressed in Section
20, thereof,,the Board adopts the following Rules and Reg-
ulations. These rules prescribe the procedures to be
followed in connection with the issuance of permits to
special waste haulers, provide procedures for the inspec-
tion and numbering of vehicles, tanks and drums, and
require legal hauling of special.wastes to approved dis-
posal sites. It is, therefore, the purpose of these
Regulations to control only special wastes as defined .
herein^fehoy wffiiitonJeJ^tu^iuiiUol matei-ialj irtiioh a»o
102 Severability
If any provision of these rules or regulations is adjudged
invalid, or if the application thereof to any person or
in any circumstance is adjudged invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect the validity of this Chapter as a whole,
or of any other part, sub-part, sentence or clause thereof
not adjudged invalid.
103 Definition's
"Act" means the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
"Agency" means the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
"Board" means the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
"Disposal" means disposition of waste by means acceptable
under regulations adopted by the Board.
"Hazardous Waste" means any refuse that, of itself or in
combination with any other substance, is harmful or potenti-
ally harmful to human health or the environment, and which
-------
conforms to Agency criteria. Hazardous waste, because
of its toxic, volatile, corrosive, explosive, reactive,
pathological or radioactive nature, requires special
handling as defined and permitted by the Agency,
"Industrial Process Effluent" means, any liquid, solid,
semi-solid or gaseous refuse generated as a direct or
indirect result of the creation'of a product or the
performance of a. service, including but not limited to
spent pickling liquors, cutting oils, chemical catalysts,
distillation, bottoms, etching acids, equipment cleanings,
paint sludges.incinerator ashesj, core sands, metallic
dust sweepings/-asbestos dust,Hospital pathological
wastes and .'off •specification, contaminated or recalled
wholesale or retail products,-and-specifically excluding
uncontaminated packaging materials, uncontaminated machinery
components, general household refuse7and construction or
demolition debris.
"Person"- means any individual partnership, co-partnership,
firm, company, corporation, association, joint stock com-
pany, trust, estate, political subdivision',-state agency,
or.any other'legal entity or their legal representative,
agent or assignee.
"Pollution Control Residual" means any liquid^ s ol id. semi-
solidor gaseous refuse e£3±rgt(H 'as ? Ai™'"t ar_imAv£art-
^esuTt'of th.e—rj8.moval_ o£_contaminants from the air T water
or"land._including but not limited to water and Wastewater
treatment plant sludges, baghouse 'dusts, scrubber sludges^
and chemical spill cleanings^
"Reclamation" means any process which returns a waste pro-
duct in whole or in part to'useful service.
"Refuse" means any garbage or other discarded materials.
"Septic Tank Pumpings" means the liquid portions and/or
sludge residues removed from septic tanks.
"Site" means any location, place or tract of land and
facilities used for collection, storage, disposal, and/or
treatment of special waste.
"Special Waste" means .any industrial process effluent,. )
pollution control residual or hazardous waste. /
*s
**
"Special Waste Hauler" means any perspn who transports or
otherwise conveys special waste to a site other than where
collected or generated.
-------
"Storage" means the interim containment of special waste
after generation, use or having been discarded, and prior
to disposal or reclamation.
"Tank" means any bulk container placed on or carried by
a vehicle to carry or transport special waste, including
wheel mounted tanks.
"Truck" means any unitary vehicle.
".Vehicle" means any device used to transport a tank, drums
or other containers for hauling or otherwise conveying
special waste.
"Waste" means refuse as defined by the Act. and these
Regulations.
HART'11: SPECIAL WASTE HAULING PERMITS
201 Special Waste Hauling Permits -- General
No person shall haul or otherwise convey special wastes
generated or to be disposed within the boundaries of the
State of Illinois without a valid-special waste hauling
permit issued by the Agency as described in this Chapter.
202 Applications for Special Waste Hauling Permit -- Contents
and Timing of Filing
A. Applications for special waste hauling permits shall
be made on application forms developed by the Agency
and may.require, but not be limited to:
(1) Name, address, telephone number, and location of
the vehicle and/or tank owner and/or operator
engaged in the hauling of special waste.
(2) A description of the service to be provided, in-
cluding the number and types of vehicles and/or
tanks to be used.
(3) A statement of the vehicle owner and/or operator
identified in Rule 202(A)(l) above that:
(a) Special waste loading, hauling, and unloading
shall be conducted in such a manner as to be
environmentally sound and not cause a nuisance,
and not present a hazard to public health.
-------
(b) All vehicles and/or tanks used in special
waste hauling shall be cleaned to prevent
nuisancees and shall be maintained in good
repair.
(c) All vehicles, tanks and associated piping,
valving, etc., shall be constructed and
maintained to prevent leakage or spillage ,
and shall be cleanable.
(d) Any mixing caused by receiving two or more
different wastes in one tank or on one vehicle^
shall not create a hazard. • -'
(e) The special waste hauling equipment and pro-
cedures to be used shall be proper for ade-
quate service, be safe for the haulers, handlers,
and others, and meet the .requirements of all
other applicable State and Federal laws and
regulations.
(4) Any additional information required by the Agency
in accordance with procedures, and guidelines adopted
by the Agency and filed with the Index Division
of the Office of the Secretary of State pursuant
to "An Act concerning Administrative Rules,"
approved June, 14, 1951, as amended.
B. All persons hauling special waste on or before the
effective date of this regulation must make an appli-
cation for a special waste hauling permit within 90
days from the effective date of this regulation.
C. All persons proposing to haul special wastes after
the effective date of this regulation, must make an
application for a special waste hauling permit at
least 90 days in advance of the proposed start of
hauling, unless a shorter time is approved by the
Agency.
D. The Agency may, if necessary to prevent an unmanageable
workload, extend the date by which special waste hauling
permits are required for a period not to exceed 180
days. The Agency shall notify the persons affected
and the Board, in writing, of such extension at least
ninety days -in advance of the dates set forth in Rules
202(B) and (C).
203 Applications for Special Waste Hauling Permit -- Signatures
and Authorization
All special waste hauling permit applications shall be
signed by the owner and/or operator of the vehicle, or by
-------
the owner's and/or operator's duly authorized agent,
and shall be accompanied by evidence of authority to
sign the application.
204 Applications for Special Waste Hauling Permit -- Filing
and Final Action by Agency
A. An application for special waste hauling permit shall
be deemed to be filed on the date of initial receipt
of the documents by the Agnency.
B. If the Agency fails to take final action, by granting
or denying the permit as requested or by granting the
permit with conditions, within 90 days from the filine
of the completed application, the applicant may deem
the permit granted commencing on the 91st day after
the application was filed.
C. The Agency shall send all notices of final action by
U.S. mail. The Agency shall be deemed to have taken
final action on the date that the notice is mailed.
D. Upon submission of .the application, the Agency shall
assure that the application is complete and consistent
with the provisions of these Rules and Regulations and
the Act and may undertake such investigations as it
deems necessary to verify the information and state-
ments made in the application.. If the application
is complete, verified and acceptable to the extent
deemed necessary by the Agency, the Agency shall grant
the permit.
205 Permit Conditions
A. The Agency may impose such conditions in a special
waste hauling permit as ma y be necessary to accom-
plish the. purposes of the Act, and as are not incon-
sistent with Regulations promulgated by the Board
thereunder.
B. The applicant may deem any conditions imposed by the
Agency as a denial of the permit for purposes of appeal
pursuant to Section 40 of the Act.
206 Permit Revision
The Agency shall revise any special waste hauling permit
issued by it under these Regulations to make the permit
compatible with any relevant new regulations adopted by
the Board.
-------
207 Transfer of Permits
No permit is transferable from one person to another except
as approved by the Agency.
208 Permit Revocation
Violation of any permit conditions or failure to comply
with any rule or regulation of this Chapter or with any
rule or regulation adopted by the Board shall be grounds
for sanctions as provided in the Act, including revocation
of permit. Such sanctions shall be sought by filing a
complaint with the Board pursuant to Title VIII of the Act.
209 Permit No Defense
The existence of a permit under these rules shall not con-
stitute a defense to a'violation of the Act or this Chapter,
except for hauling special waste without a special waste
hauling permit.
210 Exemptions
A. Any person licensed in accordance with the Private
Sewage Disposal Licensing Act, Illinois Revised Statutes,
Chapter 111 1/2, Paragraphs 116.301 et seq. , and who
hauls only septic tank pumpings,' need not obtain a
special waste hauling permit under these Regulations.
B. Any person who hauls only livestock waste intended
for land application pursuant to Agency Guidelines
• WPC-2 need not obtain a special waste hauling permit
under these Regulations.
C. Any person who hauls only municipal water or waste-
water treatment plant sludge which has been approved
for land application by the Agency need not obtain a
special waste hauling permit under these Regulations.
D. Any person licensed in accordance with "An Act in re-
lation to the Disposal of Dead Animals," Illinois Revised
Statute, Chapter 8, Section 149 et seq. , and who hauls
only grease, meat packing scraps, dead animals and/or
parts of animals intended for delivery to a Tenderer
need not obtain a special waste hauling permit under
these Regulations.
-------
E. Any person operating under rules and regulations
adopted pursuant to "An Act in relation to Oil, Gas,
Coal and Other Surface and Underground Resources",
Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 104, Section 62
et seq., and who hauls only oil and gas extraction
wastes as defined therein need not obtain a special
Waste hauling permit under these Regulations.
F. Any person who hauls only radioactive wastes as defined
by the Radiation Protection Act, Illinois Revised
Statutes, Chapter 111 1/2, Sections 211 et seq. , need
not obtain a special waste hauling permit under these
Regulations.
G. Any. p'erson holding a .permit or certificate issued by
the Illinois Commerce Commission or the Interstate
Commerce Commission and who handles only commodities
pursuant to a bill of lading in accordance with such
Commission's regulations need not obtain a special
—s waste hauling permit under these Regulations.
H. Any person .who_hauls. only coal combustion fly ash need
riot obtain a special waste hauling permit under these
Regulations.
PART III; DELIVERY OF SPECIAL WASTE TO. AND ACCEPTANCE OF SPECIAL
WASTE FROM. SPECIAL WASTE HAOLERS~~
301 Delivery of Special Waste to Haulers
No person may deliver special waste generated or to be
disposed within the boun daries of the State of Illinois to
a special waste'hauler unless that waste hauler has a I
valid special waste hauling permit issued by the Agency
under these Regulations.
302 Acceptance of Special Waste from Haulers
A. No person may accept special waste generated or to be
be disposed within the boundaries of the State of
Illinois from a special waste hauler unless that waste
hauler has a valid special waste hauling permit issued
by the Agency under these Regulations.
B. No person in the State of Illinois shall deliver special
waste for storage, transfer, treatment, processing,
incineration, recycling, disposal or reclamation unless
the person who accepts such special waste has all Agency
permits applicable thereto, as required by all other
existing regulations adopted by the Board.
-------
Exhibit C
References Demonstrating that Fly Ash,
Slag, Bottom Ash and Flue Gas Scrubber
Sludge are "Recoverable Resources"
1. "5-Year Study Eyes Fly Ash Potential", Electric Light and Power.
February, 1978.
2. "ERDA Coal Waste Recovery Process Could Help Meet U.S. Aluminum Needs".
Information from ERDA, Vol. 2, No. 39, Week ending October 8, 1976,
Page 2.
3. "Two Federal Agencies Try Coal Wastes in Agriculture", Information
from ERDA, No. 76-273, August 25, 1976.
4. "Fly Ash Collected from Electrostatic Precipitators: Microcrystalline
Structures and Mystery of the Spheres". Scinece, Vol. 192, May 7, 1976.
S. "New Look Into Fly Ash". Combustion, October, 1974.
6. "Ways and Means of Increasing Fly Ash Utilization". Environmental
Briefs, Power, September, 1971.
7. "IMR Process Maybe the Answer". The Michigan Tech-Alumnus, November-
December, 1970.
8. "How to Resurrect Bricks from Ashes". Business Week, August 1, 1970.
9. "New Uses for Fly, Other Ash Told to 300 at Pittsburgh'.'. Electrical
World, March 30, 1970.
10. "Water-granulated-slag and Fly Ash-Moldable Structural Materials".
Letter April 16, 1970, E. C. Bailey to L. F. Fischer.
11. "Expanding the Market for Fly Ash". Mechanical Engineering, January,
1970.
12. "Mineral Wool from Coal-Ash Slag Studied by West Virginia University".
NCPC Newsletter, December 18, 1969.
13. "Profit from Fly Ash". Power Engineering, November, 1969.
14. "Two Notre Dame Engineers Find Air Pollutants Usable in Eliminating
Water Pollution". Letter, Craig J. Cain, President, Chicago Fly Ash
Company to E. C. Bailey, November 12, 1969.
15. "Heavy Metals in Soils and Sewage and Relationship to Crop Growth".
Letter, Merlin E. Horn, PhD., Harza Engineering Co. to W. J. Bauer,
July 24, 1969.
-------
16. Research Report, "Properties and Utilization of Fly Ash" to Edison
Electric Institute by BattelleMemorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories,
June 30, 1966.
17. "Careful Selection of Materials Major Factor in Cost and Performance
of Paving Projects". Midwest Engineer, May, 1963.
18. "Fly Ash Bricks Stronger, Lighter Than Clay". Consol News, Vol. 4,
No. 1, First Quarter, 1965.
19. "A New Approach to the Production of Fly Ash Based Structural Materials".
Coal Research Bureau, West Virginia University, Report No. 11, September,
1964.
20. "A Critical Review of Technical Information on the Utilization of Fly
Ash" to Prime Movers Committee, Edison Electric Institute, July 13,
1962, BattelleMemorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories.
21. "A New Use for Fly Ash-A Lightweight Ceramic Building Material".
J. S. Griffith, J.T. Dusek and E. C. Bailey, AMSE Writer Annual
Meeting, November 28 - December 1, 1961.
22. "New Building Block Made from Fly Ash". New York Herald.Tribune.
November 28, 1961.
23. "A Correlation of Published Data on Lime-Pozzolan-Aggregate Mixtures
for Highway Base Course Construction". Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, July, 1960.
24. "Evaluation, Fly Ash in Concrete" with Bibliography, 1934-1959.
Edward A. Abdun-nur, Consulting Engineer, Denver, Colorado, October,
1959.
25. "Fly Ash Utilization". Prime Movers Committee, Edison Electric
Institute, February, 1958.
-2-
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
STATEMENT ON SECTION 3003, SUBTITLE C, R.C.R.A.
HEARING
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
JUNE 20, 1978
BY JIM KNUDSON, HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF UNIFORM NATIONAL STANDARDS SUCH AS 3003
FOR THE TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. WE *Rt RECOGNIZBtfi. THI S
NEED IN THE INTEREST OF MAINTAINING THE FREEST POSSIBLE FLOW
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES BETWEEN STATES.
IN RECOGNITION OF THIS FACT, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAS RECENTLY
POSTPONED IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS MANIFEST SYSTEM UNTIL SEPTEMBER o
1979, A COPY OF THE NOTICE TO OUR CODE REVISOR AND THE RATIONALE
IS ATTACHED FOR THE HEARING RECORD, BECAUSE WE WILL BE IMPLE-
MENTING EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS STARTING ON
AUGUST 1, 1978, WE WILL HAVE UNMANIFESTED WASTE FOR APPROXIMATELY
13 MONTHS. MY PRIMARY COMMENT THEREFORE IS TO URGE THE SPEEDY
PROMULGATION OFv-3003. IF OTHER SUBPARTS OF SUBTITLE C ARE HELD
UP BY LEGAL CHALLENGES OR TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES, WE URGE
THAT EPA REASSESS THE PROMULGATION OF ALL SUBPARTS OF SUBTITLE
C SIMULTANEOUSLY.
S & fcr i AJ G-
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE POSSIBILITY OF IN^BWtre A
TRANSPORTERS LIABILITY SECTION IN 3003 SIMILAR TO SECTION 3004
REQUIREMENTS. I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BE DISCUSSED IN THE EXPLAN-
ATORY NOTES OF THE PROMULGATION,
-------
PAGE Two
IN ADDITION IN THE SECTION 250.37 (SPILLS), PARAGRAPH C SHOULD
READ:
(C) "THE TRANSPORTER SHALL CLEAN UP AND DISPOSE OF ALL
SPILLED HAZARDOUS WASTE, OR TAKE SUCH ACTION AS MAY
BE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES SO
THAT THE SPILLED HAZARDOUS WASTE NO LONGER PRESENTS
A HAZARD TO HUMAN HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT."
THE EMPHASIS OF THIS SECTION SHOULD BE PLACED UPON SAFE DISPOSAL
AS MUCH AS ON CLEAN-UP, GIVEN THE OVERALLPURPOSE OF PL 94-580,
WE ALSO WISH TO COMMENT UPON DISPOSAL OF SPILLED HAZARDOUS WASTES
AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED 220 POUND LIMIT OF SUBPART B.
THEORETICALLY A PARTIAL SPILL UNDER THAT LIMIT WOULD NOT BE
DEFINED AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE. WE BELIEVE THAT PARTIAL SPILLS
SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO THEIR INTENDED DESTINATION I-rS
A HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOS_AL, TREATMENT OR STORAGE FACILITY. WE
wouLD/sa^ar WORDING TO CONSIDER ANY PARTIAL SPILLS A PART OF
THE ORIGINAL LOAD AND THUS STILL MEETING THE THRESHOLD QUANTITY,
-------
NOIICt. OK IMLM ION IO AI'OI'I, AM KM). OH KKI'tAL RULES
(Instructions lor complclion on b.ick ol p.ij:c)
(Addition:)) information nuty be l\pcd on back of p.i^i:)
•(I) Nolicc is hereby given in accordance wilh I lie pm
Ihiii the Department of Ecology
ol l« \\' 14 (I4.li:s and
inlentls u> adopt, amend, or repeal nncs concerning >
the identification, transport and disposal of hazardous wastes. The
amendment consists of a deferral of the manifest requirements for 13
months; amending chapter 173-302 WAC—Hazardous Waste Regulation.
(lll-AKINCi DA'll-. ANIJ I'l.ACM-)
(1) (Use only if hairing i.s In be /id<0 lhal such ai:cnc\ mil .11
(hme)
(date)
in Ihe
eonduet a hearing relative thereto:
(3) and that the adoption, amendment, or repeal ol such rules will take place at
10:00 a.m. Tuesday July 11, 1978
(time) Id.nl (date)
in lnc Hearings Room, Department of Ecology, Lacey, Washington.
(pl.iet)
(4) The authority under which these rules are proposed is' Chapter 70.105 RCW, the Hazardous
stg Disposal Act of 1976.
(5) Interested persons may submit data, vieus. or arguments to this a^enc;
(a| IX in writing to be received by this agency prior in July 7 ,—1978
. and/or
(b) \y> orally at 10:00 a.m.
(lime)
Tuesday
(ila>)
(dale)
July 11, 1978
(date)
Hearings Room, Department of Ecology, Lacey. Washington.- _
("plaid
(ft) The additional notice required by K("\V .U.04 ()?> has Ivcn m.ulc b\ mailing copies of this notice to all
persons who have made timely request of this agency Tor atlv,inee notice of ils rule making proceedings.
(7) This notice is connected to and con I nines the ma
liled wiih Ihe code reviser's ollice on
ticed in Nonce Nos.
(dale)
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
(AGIiNCY)
Dated: June 5. 1978
By:
Elmer C. Vogel
Deputy Director
None I II
-------
NEJLSECTION
HA.C 173-302r.1Ji5 CISfOSfiL PiiOHIHUTEC. No person shall dispose of
designated extremely hazardous waste at any disposal site in the state
other than the disposal site established and approved by the depart-
ment under chapter 70.105 RCli. No person is prohibited from the,
treatment of such waste, as set cur in WAC 171-302-350 through 173-
302-380, or from out-ot-state shipn-nt o£ such waste as a means of
complying with this section.
AHEJ!£ATOR.Y_SECTIOH (Amending order CE 77-3K, filed 12/29/77)
HA_C_.1 73 -3.01;:340 cc [1FI, I ANCC. All L •: T = ra tors , transporters, treat-
ers, and the operator shall comply with chapter 173-332 HAC according
to the following time scredulrs:
(a) HAC 173-302-010 through 173-302-060 upon t lie effective date
of this regulation. This includes:
BAG 173-302-010 - Curpose
HAC 173-302-020 - Applicability
WAC 173-302-030 Abbreviation
HAC 173-302-0"40 Definitions
HAC 173-302-050 Conference
HAC 173-302-060 Imminent Mazard
(b) HAC 173-302-070 through ( (1 73-33 i-^Sr-ttni-IM-SS
tH-38S-249-MMb)--and-W)) Ill-Ill.- lr'l- an.l 173-3J2-350
4?3-39J-3«d) )^ _173-302-36JJ.__l73-l02-l80Jil___lni __ 111 on August 1,
1978. This includes:
BAG 173-302-070 - Designation of fUV
WAC 173-302-080 Categorization
HAC 173-302-090 Criteria for DV!
BAG 173-302-100 criteria (OL- Ellk
HAC 173-302-110 Hazardous Due tc Toxicity Man and Hildlife
HAC 173-302-120 Hazardous DUG tc Cuar.tity
HAC 173-302-130 Hazardous Due tc Pt-rsistence and Potential
Hazard
HAC 173-302-1UO Containers
HAC 173-302-150 Division and Dilution ai.tl Accumulation
HAC ( (153-S81-166 --- f-17 l-36S-1h Z ]) ) 173;_J02^J60 Appeal of
Desig nation
Hft 6- f ?3 -362-21 S-f^Mbr- «"•!--< ?)- ----- ieaRspert-t--»pplicabiiiej— f
«-Shipped-eat-ef-s*a*.--ai:d-to-TJrrn *i?r) )
____
HAC 173-302-350 - Treat"! R iquirerr = n ts
HAC 173-302-360 - Trsater Applies tility
( (HA€-493-3rl2-379 --- f r-elmr- 1- 6r i t »ria) )
HAC 173-302-330JH_and_J3)_ Treatment Criteria
(c) HAC 173-302-170 throu-jh 17 3-3U2-3HOx J7 J- j }2- 11 0_an 1 J71-3«3
2S2J2L - on September 1, 1 979 ((7-* h--»itina-:-1-iia'e-3£-*.he-opiniit5-of
the-statc*-3-dispo3al-ait--) ) . This ircliHes:
HAC 173-302-170 - Generator He juircnent H
HAC 173-302-180 ( Hr«epp%-ai-nh'j»r-no--'»)-) ) danifest procedures
HAC 173-302-190 - rianif'.'-it. Four,
HAC 173-302-200 Transporter H'.tj UIL ements
HAC 173-302-210 (H^xee-t --- ta- - a be v«- - Ms-er^)-} ) Transporter
Appl icabili t y
UAC 173-302-220 taste Acceptance
-------
the Disposal Sito
WAC 173-302-230 - transportinq
HJC 173-302-130 [ 173-302-21} 1 Ofsrir.or Dequir;
WAC 173-302-250 - Yearly Oparitir.'j Plan
EHH Acceptances
EHW handling a
Enviior.Di9ntal S
Security Requir
Safety
WAC
WAC
Department Surrv
WAC 173-302-3110 - rinancial p.^.jui
«i£-lIlzlHl-nS---l:-«^--^cs£tt!:L
»AC_J23z302zJ80J21_z_lraat™Snt.Cr
WAC 173-302-260
HAC 173-302-270
WAC 173-302-280
HAC 173-302-290
WAC 173-302-500
173-302-310
173-302-320
WAC 173-302-330
me [its
n ts
e ir ent s
t? m jn t s
illancs
e rc c n t s
[ 2 1
-------
Explanatory Notes
Chapter 173-302 WAC requires that on August 1, 1978 the generator and/or
transporter of an extremely hazardous waste as defined in WAC 173-302
must use a State of Washington manifest for shipping such waste out-of-state.
The regulation also encourages the use of a manifest for shipments of
extremely hazardous wastes to treaters of such wastes. Disposal, except
for treatment, of extremely hazardous wastes is prohibited within the State
of Washington until after the establishment of an extremely hazardous waste
site designed to safely accomodate such wastes.
The present regulation developed a manifest to control and track the flow
of wastes to the one extremely hazardous waste site. This was-done by
requiring a separate manifest to be filled out for each waste transported
to the site, and each waste could be transported and disposed of only after
prior review and approval by the operator of the site and the .Department of
Ecology. Written notification of shipments leaving the generator and arriv-
ing at the treater or the one disposal site would enable the Department to
track such wastes to allow for their safe disposal.
Because of recent developments under Subtitle C of the Federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the Department of Ecology has had
to reassess the impact of implementing a separate and distinctly different
manifest system for Washington. Subtitle C deals with the nationwide con-
trol of hazardous waste, including its transportation and "cradle-to-grave"
identification. With the interstate movement of some hazardous waste, the
need for uniform tracking and manifesting will become an important part of
hazardous waste management. Draft federal regulations under Subpart B and
C of RCRA differ from provisions of Chapter 173-302 WAC in the following
respects:
(1) The federal regulation would require that a generator, treater
and disposer report quarterly on waste transfers. Matching of
manifest document numbers from generators and receivers of the
waste will allow tracking of such wastes. The present state
regulation requires ac tual copies of manifests be sent to the
department.
(2) The federal regulation allows the use of existing delivery docu-
ments such as the bill of lading in lieu of a standard manifest.
This will cause the least amount of disruption for transporters
especially. An added feature is that shipments containing several
hazardous wastes can be listed on one delivery document rather
than one standard manifest form for each separate and distinct
waste as the present state regulation requires.
(3) The proposed federal regulation provides for the development of
coordinated approaches to the shipping, labelling, packaging and
placarding of hazardous waste that will closely match the Federal
Department of Transportation of Hazardous Materials, 49 Code of
Federal Regulations. This is beyond the scope of state regulation.
-------
Page Two
Draft federal regulations cited above are expected to be promulgated by
mid-1979; qualified state programs would be authorized under Subtitle C to
carry out the federal hazardous waste program.
Therefore the department believes that initiating a separate State of
Washington manifest for Washington generators in effect for only a short
period of time is unwise. The department proposes to postpone any action
on a manifest system until federal regulations are promulgated under Subtitle
C of RCRA.
In order to do this, the department has considered three alternatives. First,
the department would amend Chapter 173-302 WAC to postpone the effective date
of a manifest system from August 1, 1978 to September 1, 1979. The latter
date would coincide with other sections of Chapter 173-302 WAC that come into
effect on that date. Further state action under this alternative depends
partly on the final development of federal regulations. Generators of
extremely hazardous waste would still be required to use treatment or out-of-
state disposal after August 1, 1978. This has been clarified by the addition
of a separate Section 173-302-165 WAC. The authority is the Hazardous Waste
Disposal Act of 1976 RCW 70.105.
The second alternative would modify existing rules to require generator
quarterly reporting and the use of delivery documents on board transport
vehicles, following draft regulations of Subtitle C. These requirements
would become effective on August 1, 1978. The department has not selected
this alternative because a change in final federal regulations would require
further changes in this state regulation. It was felt that it would be more
effective to coordinate the state manifest and generator reporting with the
nation-wide system after EPA promulgation of Subparts B and C.
The third alternative would be to continue with the present regulation.
Public comments on the department's choice of alternative 1 is especially
solicited by this notice.
-------
My name is William D. Friedmann. I am the General
Counsel to the Department of Environmental Protection of The
City of New York.
I am here today representing the Mayor's Office and
the Mayor's Task Force on Transportation and Siting of
Hazardous Substances within New York City limits. This
Task Force, headed by Environmental Protection Commissioner
Francis X. McArdle, was formed by Mayor Ed Koch on May 16,
1978 to research existing procedures and regulations, begin
discussions with state and federal officials on improved
coordination, survey existing municipal testing facilities,
and recommend, if necessary, new laws and administrative
regulations with respect thereto. The Task Force, in addition
to Commissioner McArdle, includes representatives from the
Fire, Police, Health and Transportaiton Departments, the
Corporation Counsel and the Office of the Mayor.
The Mayor, in announcing the formation of the Task
Force, stated as follows: "I am taking this action to ensure
that the safety of our residents is maintained at the highest
possible standard,as well as to improve the regulation of
hazardous substances which move through our City or are stored
within its limits. These substances include corrosive, ex-
plosive, toxic, biological, radiological and chemical
materials which are required for the needs of industry and
private citizens alike. It is my hope that this Task Force
-------
-2-
will provide an ounce of prevention so necessary to provide for
the continued safe handling, transportation and storage of
these substances."
The Task 'Force is committed to a response network of
all public and private agencies. At present, an inventory of
procedures and capabilities of all city agencies is underway
with respect to spills of suspicious matter. Considerable
interest in the Task Force has been shown by members of the
City Council and other legislators as well as from the private
sector and Mayors of other cities.
With respect to the proposed regulations of both
DOT and EPA, the Task Force is coordinating comments from the
various city agencies and formal comments thereon will be
submitted by June 27th,
It is the intention of the City to work closely with
the federal government in this region in an effort to come up
with proposed standards and regulations in this area. How-
ever, we do feel that it is important, and strongly urge,
that every effort be made for DOT and EPA to jointly promul-
gate and enforce such regulations and standards governing the
transportation of hazardous waste.
-------
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
DEPARTMENT OF STREETS
TESTIMONY
E.P.A. PUBLIC HEARING ON
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
JUNE 20, 1978
ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA
DAVID J. DAMIANO
STREETS COMMISSIONER
-------
E.P.A. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1978 40 CFR PART 250
General Comments
Although these regulations do not specifically address
what wastes shall be defined as hazardous, it is imperative
to place into the record that without clear, concise, and
^^
practical definitions of materials to be clarified as hazardous,
the issue of transport of such wastes is, at best, premature.
Neither Act referenced by these regulations provide the
slightest clue for resolving the primary issue of definitions.
PL 94-580 provides an all-encompassing, nebulous definition
which can only leave to the imagination what exactly is
"hazardous". PL 93-633 is even worse. The impact of the
Congress1 uncertainty is that the EPA or DOT or the States or
someone will eventually define these materials without the
benefit of statutory law, thereby leaving the entire issue in
doubt when taken into a court of law. Eventually, after
criteria under PL 94-580 Section 3001 are published and tested,
amendments to the law will be required to overcome this
obvious deficiency.
-------
- 2
Generators
The proposed rules for loading and storage for trans-
portation state that when hazardous wastes are mixed by a
transporter of wastes from different generators, the trans-
porter will be considered as a separate generator.
The definition implies that such mixing will take
place at a central storage and or treatment facility.
Clarification is required to identify whether or not a single
transport vehicle picking up at a number of multiple sources
would fall under the definition of a transporter considered
as a separate generator.
The regulations should be modified to include positive
notification of the proper authorities at the local level of
government immediately after s spill occurs. The—apprvpria4^
£adMo;al- eiuLl'Loj.'Jty-(tf..g. National Reaponco Canter and/or tho
ran-srrmna oooi.'i5li»nt.eii.') . The local authorities have a right
and a need to be told and consulted on such disasters as spills.
The public will be alarmed and will seek answers from local
authorities with regard to questions relating to why such
materials are allowed to be transported through their community.
-------
- 3 -
Enforcement
The regulations state that EPA will not permit
transporters of hazardous wastes, saying rather, that the
states and ICC -regulate transporters and therefore a
permitting system is not necessary. This is erroneous for
two reasons:
(1) Current hazardous waste problems created by
transporters are not adequately covered by
current permitting systems and
(2) Enforcement of these regulations cannot be
arbitrarily placed on state and/or other
governmental agencies.
Who shall enforce the laws? Who shall provide the
funds for enforcement? Under what law will violators be
prosecuted? What will be local governments' responsibility?
Summary
Technically, the subject document has provided agencies
with the tools to deal with the transport system of hazardous
wastes. However, there are two glaring deficiencies in the
document as it now stands.
-------
- 4 -
The first deficiency involves the omission of an
annual inspection by appropriate authorities/agencies on
the care and maintenance of equipment. Leaking bodies and
deteriorated equipment subject to failure will only increase
the incidence of risk and exposure to hazardous wastes. If
this provision is not contained in these regulations, it
should be in the permitting procedure. Regardless, the
question is of sufficient concern to require provision for
inspection.
The second deficiency involves the inadequacy of
these regulations in the area of the care and protection of
the environment. Although the manifest system provides for
controls, there is a serious doubt about the degree of
protection. Frankly, the only fail safe system is to have
each and every vehicle sealed. Under this concept, if and
when transfers of the hazardous wastes take place, the seals
are only broken for discharge by appropriate officials. This
is the only acceptable procedure. We cannot rely on the paper-
work of a manifest system. Cities are faced with daily
environmental problems. We cannot be expected to solve this
problem. Therefore, we should only accept locked and sealed
vehicles for transport through our community.
-------
CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS INC.
P. O.Box1269 • Portland, Oregon 97207 • (503)223-1912
June 5, 1978
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Wastes (WH-562)
U.S. Environmental -Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20U60
RE: Federal Register Docket Number 78-11698'
Gentlemen:
This letter presents our genera.1 and specific comments on proposed rules
published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal
Register April 28, 1978 relative to standards applicable to transporters
of hazardous wastes, UO CFR Part 250.
In general, the proposed regulations as written appear to be quite sound,
and we commend the agency for its efforts to date and the indicated future
efforts to coordinate any such standards with the U.S. Department of
Transportation. A coordinated approach is absolutely essential to minimize
confusion and conflicting or duplicate regulations. We have only two
specific comments on the regulations as follows:
1. In section 250.34(e), we suggest the following at the end of the first
sentence:
", to the extent that such containers could be reasonably
expected to leak in transit"
We believe this addition is necessary because in some cases a container
may sustain minor damage, such as a dent, during normal handling, which
would not affect its integrity.
2. In section 250437(b), appropriate wording should be added at-"the begin-
ning of this subsection to require that the first steps to be taken in
the event of a spill would be to secure the area and initiate appropriate
clean-up measures. Such measures should then be followed by the required
reporting procedures and subcategories (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3). The
reason for this addition is that we believe clean-up measures should be
initiated as soon as possible and that notification to the appropriate
regulatory agencies should follow immediately thereafter.
-------
We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments and hope that they
will be fully considered during review and revision of these proposed rules.
By copy of this letter, I wish to also advise Ms. Gerri Wyer of Chem-Nuclear'a
intent to attend and present comments at the public hearing scheduled for
June 20, 1978 in Alexandria', Virginia.
Sincerely,
CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.
ack G. Peabody, Assistant Manager
•'Chemical Disposal 4/Treatment
Ms. Gerri Wyer
Patrick H. Wicks
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION OF
DELAWARE & OTSEGO COUNTIES, Inc.
P. O. BOX 325 • ONEONTA, NEW YORK • 13820
June 14, 1 978
Mrs. Gerri Wyer
Public Participation Officer
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mrs. Wyer:
Our organization wishes to present the following statement for
inclusion in the records of the public hearing to be held June 20, 1978 in
Alexandria, Virginia concerning transportation of hazardous wastes and
materials.
It is our position that localities and municipalities have the right
and the responsibility to protect the health and safety of their citizens.
To this end it may be necessary to provide for more stringent safeguards
than those which have been enacted under federal regulation.
Much of the difficulty involved in regulation of transportation of
hazardous wastes involves those accumulated in nuclear facilities for
generation of electrical power. Currently available technology appears
to be clearly inadequate for safe handling and long-term storage and disposal.
We would there fore advise that further development of nuclear generating
facilities be curtailed and that those currently in operation be replaced by
other means of generation of electrical power. We would further advise that
this approach should serve as a model for other activities which result in
the accumulation of hazardous wastes, namely that stress be placed upon
alteration of processes now in operation so that hazardous waste production
is prevented, thus obviating the necessity for establishing means of disposal.
Respectfully submitted,
EADOC
William L. Butts
Corresponding Secretary
Wl_B:fa
THIS STATIONERY IS PRINTED ON RE-CYCLED PAPER
-------
OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
2637 SW WATER AVENUE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97201 / PHONE 503/222-1963
June 15, 1978
AMEBCAN SOCIETY or LANDSCAPE AICWTEOS
,
LAV AJtEA ENVntONMENIAl COMMtTTEE
Caen lor
t.1.1 N.G..G™IU
CtNTtAl CAJCADIS OONSEtVATtON COUNCR
CHEMEMTANS. Sab»
OTIHNJ KM A OiAN (NVKtONMENT
ConoS.
OTTZEM3 fOt A UTTH GOVEINMENT
OATSOf ENVUONMEMTA1 COUNOl
EAST iAIEM E*M»ONMENTAl COUMCtt
KO-ALUAXCE. Cor^b
CUOEKE FUTUIC I>OWEI COMMTTTC
EUOEME HATUHl HSICXT SOOETT
)* WOMEN VOTtIS
MdCENZIE GUAKDlANi, HH Bw
NOVTHWOT ENVWONMCNTAL OenNSl CENTEI
N01THWWI STBIK£AOOS COUNOl W TtOUI
Dgord. W
OtSIUANS.INC .Eu^M*
1.000 FBIKDS Of OtIOOH
OBOON iAiS AND FANWH CUII
OnOOM OULDU AND PACKttS
OttOON H)OH OUEKT STUDY OtOU'
OMOOH I.UHO ASSOCIATION. PvHond t Sol«-
OOOON NOttMC aui
IK 4 MCttAHON SOOETY
PLANNf D PARENTHOOD A5JOOATION. IMC-
MO TEAM. INC
PULE, fend
M ALPINE am
Mrs. Gerri ETyer
Public Participation Officer
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562}
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Public Hearing, Proposed Regu-
lations, Transportation of Hazardous
Waste and Materials, Subtitle C,
Section 3003 of PL 93-633.
Dear Mrs. Wyer:
Following is the th.e testimony of the Oregon Envir-
onmental Council for inclusion in official hearing
record and transcript.
Applicability of standards to transporters;
We strongly urge special standards be drawn for
air, rail and motor carriers.
Each transportation method poses special dangers
to the public which more specific standards would
help alleviate. Presently ICC and DOT regulations are
inadequate for a REASONABLE degree of protection of
the public and environment, considering the cost-
effective and highly respected "state of the art"
technology now available, specifically that proposed
by the National Fire Protection Association.
Air Cargo:
«£»« Wrf*,, AiMand
SOW
STEAMIOATEU
SUtV»Ai CEMTEI, U of O . Euo*»
TEAMSTEtS fOOO ftOCESiOtt
TH( TOWN FOtUM. INC.
Ce*t09«Grort
UMPQUA SWUDCTNESi DEFENDEC
WOTMN BVH G4JPD(3 ASSOCIATION, INC.
HVtl OtEENWAY ASSOCIATION
Elimination of hazardous materials and wastes from
passenger flights. Currently there can be no reasonable
protection for passengers, emergency personnel and
impact areas due to insufficient packing design and
non-uniform, mixed cargo of varying amounts of
hazardous materials.
-------
Hazardous Waste
June 15, 1978
Page 2
Rapid growth, in air cargo routes and schedules make
separation feasible practically and financially for the
first time in aviation cargo history. As new cargo flights
come on line, hazardous materials can be pulled from that
same passenger route with no loss- in cargo efficiency,
thereby making full use of each type of aircraft and
reducing the numbers of types of materials per flight.
Rail:
Specially outfitted cars and tankers designed for hazardous materials
only which are marked and easily identifiable as hazardous materials
carriers. Switching and storing in non-residential areas, away from
assembly halls and schools.
Truck;
Restricted transit through urban areas in peak traffic hours.
Prohibit use of routes or specific locations which are identified as
"high, incident" locations.
Placarding;
Use of National Fire Protection Association placarding system
I704M which identifies materials, degree of health and environmental
damage, and basic information as to how; emergency crews should approach
the materials to avoid loss of life and time. The current DOT system
is essentially useless and needlessly risks lives and property, as well
as the environment from the lack of useful, lifesaving information
they DO NOT contain.
N 0 S as a classification should be discontinued as worthless to
handlers, shippers, the public and emergency personnel.
All hazardous materials and wastes should be identified when they
exceed amounts which would be considered safe to public, emergency
personnel, materials handlers, etc., within a range of ten feet of
the material. Impact, broken containers, mixing of materials, fire,
water, fire fighting chemicals, heat and oxygen can all have a profound
impact on hazardous material and waste, in turn affecting the public
and environment.
Explosives:
We cannot determine the substantial degree of difference between 99
and 100 Ibs. of class A explosive which can be transported by truck
or train through neighborhoods, next to public assembly facilities,
schools etc. To require placarding only when amounts exceed 100 Ibs.
is absurd.1 Some explosives are more volatile than others, so weights
do=i not necessarily indicate potential damage.
-------
Hazardous Waste
June 15, 1978
Page 3
Contingency" Plans-:
* Specific routes for hazardous materials and wastes should be
created.
* Emergency departments should receive state and federal funds.
to update training, equipment and general response capacity.
* Actual emergency contingency plans should be planned on a county
or regional basis, indluding evacuation, medical treatment
capabilities and transportation, clean up procedures and
transportation alternatives. Accidents usually occur on trans-
portation routes- which Bisect one another, effecting fire
and ambulance response as well as general traffic.
Additional recommendations:
Land use regulations: Prevent construction of schools, gas stations
and public assembly facilities adjacent to hazardous materials
transport routes, or within 10QO feet.
Insurance ;
Every shipper/carrier of hazardous materials and waste MUST be
fully insured not only for liability;, b,ut for actual cost of damage
done to persons, property and the environment.
Insurance acturial rates and requirements will motivate a far
safer transportation and handling system than government agencies
can now induce. The burden of cost is tfien lifted from the small
community which could be bankrupted by a substantial crises. It
would end the rapidly polarizing system In which one side takes
all the risk and the other makes all the profit. Surely the public
has a right to expect better protection of their towns, homes,
lives and environment than the current one-sided system.
John C. Platt
Executive Director
JCP/eft
-------
ATTENDEE LIST: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUNE 20, 1978 Alexandria, VA
Amber, Jerome S.
Ford Motor Company
One Parklane Blvd
Suite 628W
Dearborn, MI 48126
Anderson, Malcolm M.
Manager-Transportation
Union Carbide Corporation
PO Box 670
Bound Brook, NJ 08805
Argiropoulos, Kathl
Attorney
Air Transportation of America
1709 New York Ave NW
Washington, DC 20006
Arnold, Theresa J.
Attorney
Standard Oil Company (Indiana)
200 E. Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60680
Austin, John D.
Counsel
American Mining Congress
1200 18th St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Bailey, Eugene C.
Dolio and Metz Ltd.
208 S. La Salle St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Bane, Philip
Environmental Protection Specialist
Defense Logistics Agency
Cameron Station
Alexandria, VA
Bartholomew, Richard
Sr. Associate Facilities Engineer
IBM, Inc.
D728-965-2
Essex, VT 05452
Barnes, Roy V.
The Maunders Company, Inc.
199 Pierce St.
Birmingham, MI 48011
Battle, Thomas C.
Chemist
Water Resources Administration
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
Benesch, Edna V.
Senior Analyst-Government Relations
AtlantlcRichfield Company
515 S. Flower St.
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Herman, Eugene
Legal Department
Du Pont & Company
Wilmington, DE 19898
Beygo, Turhan
Environmental Planner
Prince George's County
County Administration Building
Upper Marlboro, MD 20870
Blerlein, Lawrence W.
Attorney at Law
910 Seventeenth St NW
Washington, DC 20006
Biggs, Klrby
L. Mirand and Associates
1001 Third St SW
Washington, DC 20024
Black, Frank J.
Manager-Air Freight Services
Air Transport Association of America
1709 New York Ave NW
Washington, DC 20006
Blank, R.M.
Assistant to the President
Warner Company
1721 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Boenm, Louis
Manager-Environmental Engineering
Armco Steel Corporation
PO Box 600
Middletown, OH 45043
-------
Boltz, Sherry
Government Relations Representative
National Paint & Coatings Assn.
1500 Rhode Island Ave NW
Washington, DC 20005
Boyd, Don A.
Commerce Counsel
Du Pont & Company
Wilmington, DE 19898
Breckheiner, D.G.
General Distribution Manager
Rhodia, Inc.
PO Box 125
Monmouth Junction, NJ 08852
Brogan, Pam
Reporter
Pesticide and Toxic Chemicals
777 New York Ave NW
Washington, DC
Burgess, Honorable Isabel A.
Consultant
Explosafe
2500 Virginia Ave NW
Washington, DC 20037
Cahaly, Richard F.
Environmental Programs Manager
Polaroid Corporation
565 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA 02139
Cannon, John
Cannons Engineering Corporation
350 Main St.
West Yarmouth, MA
Carmel, Perry
Health Physics Representative
RAD Services, Inc.
500 Penn Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Carstea, Dumltru D.
Group Leader
The Mitre Corporation
1820 Dolley Madison Blvd
McLean, VA 22101
Caseman, C.E.
Manager-Traffic Regulation
Mobil Oil Corporation
150 E. 42nd St.
New York, NY 10017
Casey, Dr. Adria G.
Label Administrator
Stauffer Chemical Company
Westport, CT 06880
Cash, Paul F.
Manager-Environmental Control
Mobil Chemical Company
PO Box 26683
Richmond, VA 23261
Castellano, Eugene N.
General Manager
Liqwacon Waste Conversion
Old Waterbury Road
Thomaston, CT 06787
Gayer, T.S.
Engineer, Environmental Control
General Electric Company
1 River Road Bldg. 11-110
Schenectady, NY 12345
Chadwick, Roy W.
Manager-Distribution Safety Planning
DuPont and Company
1007 Market St.
Wilmington, DE 19898
Chandler, Clifford
Corporate Chemical Control
Nuclear Engineering Company
PO Box 7246
Louisville, KY 40207
Cherryholmes, Keith L.
Environmental Analyst
Stanley Consultants
Stanley Building
Muscatine, IA 52761
Christensen, Thomas S.
Regulations Specialist
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
2030 Dow Center
Midland, MI 48640
-------
Clark, Elton L.
Director-Government Relations
Rhodia, Inc.
600 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10022
Clark, Ray
Health Physicist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CM#2, Room 1021)
Crystal City, VA
Collova, Camilla L.
Government Relations Representative
Armstrong Cork Corporation
1666 K St NW
Washington, DC 20006
Conti, Ernest P.
Assistant Traffic Manager
Congoleum Corporation
195 Belgrove Drive
Kearny, NJ 07032
Corbitt, Delwyh C.
Sanitary Engineer
U-S. Army Environmental Hygene Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Aberdeen, MD 21010
Costello, Gerald A.
Attorney
Chessie System
3100 Terminal Tower
Cleveland, OH 11101
Damlano, David J.
Commissioner
Department of Streets
810 Municipal Services Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Daniels, Dr. Stacy L.
Research Specialist
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
1702 Building
Midland, MI 18610
Danz, Karl
Researcher
Center for Study of Responsive Law
PO Box 19367
Washington, DC 20036
Darmstadter, Neill
American Trucking Associations
1616 P Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Day, E.M.
Transportation Representative
Shell Oil Company
PO Box 2099
Houston, TX 77001
Di Nai, Joan G.
Attorney
AtlanticRichfield Company
515 S. Flower St.
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Dickman, Sandra
Arnold and Porter
1229 19th St NW
Washington, DC 20036
DiPiazza, Ronald
Western Electric Corporation
Monroeville, PA 15230
Doniger, David
Staff Attorney
Environmental Land Institute
1316 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Duter, -K.A.
Transportation Safety Manager
PMC Corporation
2000 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Downer, David
Office of Toxic Substances
U.S. EPA
101 M St SW
Washington, DC 20160
Doyle, James H.
Technical Service Engineer
The Chlorine Institute Inc
312 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10017
Dunlap, John P.
Transportation Coordinator
Babcock and Wilcox
20 S. Van Buren Ave
Barberton, OH 11203
-------
Duskin, Edgar W.
Executive Vice President
SACA Association
PO Box 686
Dawson, GA 317lt2
Early, Dr. James G.
Metallurgist
National Bureau of Standards
Building 223 Department of Commerce
Washington, DC 20234
Engelman, Charles H.
American Cyanamid Company
Berdan Avenue
Wayne, NJ 07170
Erk, Leyla
Research Assistant
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1901 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20006
Faber, John H.
Executive Vice President
National Ash Association
1819 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Fidell, Eugene R.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae
1757 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Fetterman, Victor M.
Labelmaster
44 Oak Shade Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20760
Flournoy, John R.
Traffic Department
Procter & Gamble Company
PO Box 599
Cincinnati, OH 1)5201
Fraser, Jack
Storage Specialist
General Services Administration
Crystal Square Building 5
Crystal City, VA
Friedman, William D.
General Counsel
Department of Environmental Protection
Municipal Building
New York, NY 10007
Gilding, Thomas J.
Manager-Regulatory Affairs
NACA Association
1155 Fifteenth St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
Gill, Susan T.
Research Associate
Division of Legislative Services
PO Box 3-AG
Richmond, VA 23208
Goddard, Charles N.
Associate Sanitary Engineer
State Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12309
Golinker, Lewis
C.E.Q.
722 Jackson Place NW
Washington, DC 20006
Gorman, Daniel
Environmental Waste Removal Inc
130 Freight St.
Waterbury, CT
Gran, Thomas E.
Senior Consultant
Abbott Laboratories
North Chicago, IL 60064
Grasso, Rosalie T.
Director-Waste Management Project
National Governors Association
444 N. Capitol
Washington, DC 20001
Qraziano, R.M.
Director
Bureau of Explosives
1920 L Street
Washington, DC
Grayson, Mark E.
Asbestos Information Assn.
1745 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
Griffin, John G.
Chief-Transportation/Logistics
NASA HQ
Washington, DC 20546
-------
Grove, Donald R.
Eli Lilly and Company
1200 Kentucky Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Quay, Thomas
Reporter
Toxic Chemical News
PO Box 1067
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Guinan, Mrs. O.K.
Manager-Environmental Services
Association of American Railroads
1920 L St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Hallberg, C.R.
Transportation Specialist
Allied Chemical
PO Box 1057-R
Morristown, NJ 07960
Hamill, Bruce
Assistant General Counsel
National Paint & Coatings Assn.
1500 Rhode Island Ave NW
Washington, DC 20005
Hanson, Robert J.
Manager-Environmental Quality
ICI Americas, Inc.
Wilmington, DE 19897
Harding, James
Conrall
Philadelphia, PA
Harness, Robert L.
Manager-Regulatory Affairs
Monsanto Company
1101 17th St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Harris, Geprge H.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Acorn Park
Cambridge, MA 0211)0
Hathaway, Bruce W.
Chemical Regulation Reporter
Bureau of National Affairs
1231 25th St NW
Washington, DC 20037
Hassett, John J.
Consultant
Intl Bridge, Tunnel & Turnpike Assn.
1225 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Hauss, T.H.
Hazardous Materials Analyst
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 11)650
Haworth, Burton C.
Transportation/Distribution Dept.
DuPont and Company
Wilmington, DE 19898
Heisey, L.C.
Manager-Distribution
PPG Industries
One Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Hendricks, James E.
Reynolds Metals Company
PO Box 27003
Richmond, VA 23261
Henkel, Lt. Clyde
U.S. Coast Guard
400 7th Street SW
Washington, DC 20590
Herbst, Richard J.
Office of Environmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Ave NW
Washington, DC 20230
Hershson, Morris
President
National Barrel & Drum Association
1028 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Hollingsworth, Joseph G.
Sellais, Collins & Colingio
1625 K St NW
Washington, DC 20006
Rollins, Arthur L.
RCRA Project Manager
Maryland DNR-WRA
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
-------
Hoover, M.M.
Chemical Engineer
Manufacturing Chemists Assn.
1825 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20009
Howard, Leroy
General Manager
RAD Services, Inc.
3527 Whiskey Bottom Road
Laurel, MD 20810
Howard, Robert
Vice President
Conservation Services Inc.1
PO Box 2563
Port Arthur, TX 77640
Hubbard, L.G.
Director-Hazardous Materials
Continental Oil Company
5 Greenway Plaza East
Houston, TX 77046
Hutchinson, Harold A.
Sea-Land Restoration, Inc
PO Box 2013 Byer Road
Oswego, NY 13126
Hyry, Edmund
Asplundh Environmental Services
Blair Mill Road
Willow Grove, PA 19090
Jakuboules, Craig
Transportation Assistant
National Paint & Coatings Assn.
1500 Rhode Island Ave NW
Washington, DC 20005
Jankoski, Prank
Environmental Engineer
Toms River Chemical Company
PO Box 37
Toms River, NJ
Jenks, D.B.
The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Pe
Railway Company
80 E. Jackson Blvd
Chicago, IL 60604
Jimmink, Mary
Manager-Washington Office
Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics
Industry
1500 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, DC 20005
Jody, Bert
President
Davis Transport Inc
1345 S. 4th St.
Padvcak, KY 42001
Johnson, Charles A.
Technical Director
Ntl. Solid Waste Management Assn.
1120 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Johnson, Karl T.
Vice President-Member Services
The Fertilizer Institute
1015 18th St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Johnson, Robert M.
Attorney
Macleay, Lynch & Gregg
Commonwealth Building
Washington, DC 20006
Jordan, Gayle
Ass. General Solicitor
Southern Ry Company
PO Box 1808
Washington, DC 20013
Kahler, William G.
Union Carbide Corporation
270 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Kay, Charles F.
Director-Environmental Conservation
AtlanticRichfleld Company
1500 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Keegan, Robert J.
President
Hazardous Materials Publishing Co.
458 W. Main St.
Kutztown, PA 19530
-------
Kerns. B.A.
Manager-Environmental Control
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
1601 Westinghouse Bldg.
Pittsburgh, PA
Kerstetter, Lester
Hercules, Inc.
910 Market St.
Wilmington, DE 19899
Kinsey, James A.
Research Scientist II
Minnesoto Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Kissinger, J. Peter
Transportation & Safety
National Transportation Safety Board
Government Liaison Branch
Washington, DC 20594
Kloda, Donald W.
Senior Packaging Analyst
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp
222 Rainbow Blvd N.
Niagra Falls, NY 11)302
Knudson, James C.
Hazardous Waste
Department of Ecology
Olympia, WA 98504
Krasker, Bruce
Assistant Counsel
Defense Property Disposal Service
70 ,N. Washington St.
Battle Creek, MI 49015
Kushner, Francine Bellet
Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
1001 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
Kulp, Jay V.
Asplundh Environmental Services
Blair Mill Road
Willow Grove, PA 19090
Kuzma, Stephen
Allied Chemical
PO Box 1139R
Morristown, NJ 07960
Linder, Robert J.
General Traffic Analyst
Ford Motor Company
One Parklane Blvd #200
Dearborn, MI 48126
Lurcott, Jack
Director-Corporate Development
Rollins Environmental Services
One Rollins Plaza
Wilmington, DE 19899
Lange, David
President
Clark Lange, Inc.
PO Box 217
Bridge City, TX 77611
Lieser, J.E.
Coordinator-Environmental Control
The Timkem Company
1835 Dueber Ave SW
Canton, OH 44706
La Barbera, D.R.
E.I. DuPont
Chambers Works
Deep Water, NJ 08023
Lawrence, J.T.
Transportation Associate
Western Electric
PO Box 25000
Greensboro, NC 27420
Levin, Debra
Institute of Scrap Iron & Steel
.1627 K St NW #700
Washington, DC 20006
Mahmud, Sarwar
Manager-Geotechnical Services
Science Applications Inc.
1651 Old Meadow Road
McLean, VA 22101
-------
Malone, Larry
Traffic Manager
Malone Company
PO Box 709
Texas City, TX 77590
Matthews, Judith A.
Research Specialist
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth St Office Bldg
Richmond, VA 23219
Mayer, Charles H.
Tri-State Motor Transit Company
PO Box 113
Joplin, MO 64801
McDougall, Steve
Industrial Hygenist
International Brotherhood of
Teamsters
25 Louisiana Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001
McPadden, Hugh F.
Plant Manager
The Chloramone Corporation
River Road & Red Lion Creek
Delaware City, DE 19706
McKelvey, J.R.
Staff Associate
Motor Vehicle Manufacturer Assn.
300 New Center Building
Detroit, MI 48202
Michel, Henry G.
Plant Manager
The Berkley Products Co.
PO Box 157
Ephrata, PA 17522
Miller, Michael L.
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Morrison, Ronald E.
Ash Utilization & Research
American Electric Power Co.
301 Virginia St E.
Charleston, WV 25327
Napowsa, C. Jan
Associate Attorney
Department of Justice
PO Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Nedry, Peter
Beveridge, Fairbanks & Diamond
1634 Eye St NW
Washington, DC 20006
Nelson, Robert J.
Coatings Engineer
National Paint & Coatings Assn.
1500 Rhode Island Ave NW
Washington, DC 20005
Ness, Ruth
Director-Information Analysis
Informatics, Inc.
6000 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20852
Nelson, William A.
Manager-Government Regulations
Reynolds Aluminum
6601 W. Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23229
O'Brochta, Andrew A.
Chemist
U.S. Army R&D Command
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Aberdeen, MD
Ostrowski, Camilla
Project Manager/SWIRS
Informatics, Inc.
6000 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20852
Overman, Orton
Corporate Labeling Department
Stauffer Chemical Company
Westport, CT 06880
Parker, Hampton M.
Technical Manager-Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Corporation
270 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Parker, Harold
Hazardous Materials Coordinator
Upjohn Company
Kalamazoo, MI 49001
-------
Fatten, Robert V.
Logistics Specialist
Defense Logistics Agency
Cameron Station
Alexandria, VA 22314
Persky, Tom E.
Legislative Assistant
National Pest Control Assn.
8150 Leesburg Pike #1100
Vienna, VA 22180
Pflug, Dale
Executive Vice President
RAD Services, Inc.
500 Penn Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Philbin, Mary
Research Assistant
SCA Services, Inc.
99 High St.
Boston, MA 02110
Plate, Stanley W.
Tri-State Motor Transit Company
1117 North 19th St #1001
Arlington, VA 22209
Plunkett, R.F.
Research and Tests
Southern Railway System
PO Box 233
Alexandria, VA 22313
Poole, Dennis A.
Hazardous Materials
Rohm and Haas Company
Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19105
Portela-Cubria, Gloria
Standard Oil Company (Indiana)
PO Box 5910-A
Chicago, IL 60680
Prokop, John
President
Independent Liquid Terminals Assn.
1101 15th St NW #509
Washington, DC 20005
Regna, Dr. Ernest
Director-Environmental Services
Allied Chemical
PO Box 1139R
Morristown, NJ 07960
Roeder, W.F.
Chief-Solid Waste Management
Montgomery County
6110 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20852
Rosen, James D.
Technical Representative
General Motors Corporation
1660 L St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Rosenbaum, Al
National Tank Truck Association
Washington, DC
Rudd, Frank
Administrative Manager
Burlington Industries
Burlington, NC 27215
Samuels, John D.
Senior Project Engineer
General Motors Environmental Staff
GM Technical Center
Warren, MI 48090
Sathue, Therese
Environmental Analyst
American Can Company
American Lane
Greenwich, CT 06830
Savage, W.
Hazardous Material Specialist
FHWA-Motor Carrier Safety
31 Hopkins Place
Baltimore, MD 21201
Scanton, Raymond D.
Operations Divisions
Port Authority of New York/New Jersey
One World Trade Center- 56N
New York, NY 10048
Schaffer, William R.
Manager-Regulatory Compliance
Monsanto
St. Louis, MO 63166
-------
Schilf, John J.
Department Chief
D.C. Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal
2nd and N Place SE
Washington, DC 20003
Schneider, Walter E.
Traffic Assistant
Ashland Chemical Company'
PO Box 2219
Columbus, OH 43216
Schroeder, Stephen H.
Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
917 15th St NW
Washington, DC 20005
Shattuck, Dallas D.
Staff Assistant-Hazardous Materials
General Motors Corporation
30007 Van Dyke Ave
Warren, MI 1)8090
Shorte, Cecil J.
Plant Engineering
Johnson & Johnson
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Simpson, Daniel M.H.
Pesticide Marketing Manager
W.R. Grace and Company
PO Box 277
Memphis, TN 38101
Smith, Norman F.
President
H.M.R. Advisors
684 Ridge Road
Wilbraham, MA 01095
Smith, Philip
Sales Coordinator
Liqwacon Corporation
Old Waterbury Road
Thomaston, CT 96787
Smith, Russell
Associate General Counsel
Conrail
PO Box 231)51 L'Enfant Plaza
Washington, DC 20024
Snyder, Bernard
Manager
Northeast Oil Service
PO Box 496
Springfield, VA 22150
Southers, Richard
Marketing Department
American Petroleum Institute
2101 L St NW
Washington, DC 20037
Staheli, A.H.
Senior Engineer
Western Electric
222 Broadway
New York, NY 10038
Stroud, Jennifer C.
Executive Secretary
Roadway Express, Inc.
1501 Wilson Blvd
Arlington, VA 22209
Swartz, Fred W.
Washington Representative
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.
1747 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20006
Taccone, Tom
Summer Assistant
U.S. EPA
401 M St SW
Washington, DC 20460
Taylor, John
Supervisor-Product Control
Allied Chemical
PO Box 1087-R
Morristown, NJ 07960
Thompson, Hugh
Manager-Hazardous Materials Research
Battelle Laboratories
2030 M St NW
Washington, DC 20036
Toothaker, Anne M.
Environmental Protection Operation
General Electric Company
Building 36 Room 120
Schenectady, NY 12345
-------
Toroslan, Joseph
Environmental Control Engineer
General Electric Company
One River Road, Bldg 269-E2
Schenectady, NY 1231)5
Tse, Anthony
Health Physicist
U.S. NCR
Washington, DC 20555
Valll, Berwin
President
Rapid Dairy Transport
Van Stone, Gary R.
Marketing Department
Calgon Corporation
PO Box 1316
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
Ventilla, Martha
Industry Liaison Officer
United Nations Industry &
Environment Program
866 U.N. Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Van Hook, Matthew B.
Attorney
Debevoise & Liberman
806 15th St NW #700
Washington, DC 20005
Vonderhaar, J.C.
Assitant Director-Insurance
Southern Railroad Company
PO Box 1808
Washington, DC 20013
Ungles, William H.
Western Risk Management, Inc.
PO Box P
San Gabriel, CA 91776
Williams, H.B.
Director-Environmental Services
Sherwin-Williams Company
101 Prospect Ave
Cleveland, OH
uo!719
SW-41p
Order No. 703
Wyche, Henry B.
Supervisor-Environmental Engineering
Southern Railway System
99 Spring St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Yeomans, William L.
Consultant
Transnuclear, Inc.
5205 Leesburg Pike
Palls Church, VA 22041
Young, Robert
Plant Manager
Cannons Engineering Corp.
First St.
Bridgewater, MA
Young, Robert A.
Cannon, Inc.
5261 N. Lake Road
Virginia Beach, VA 231*55
Urbanek, Joseph W.
Special Assistant-Environment
Defense Logistics Agency
Cameron Station (DLA-SME)
Alexandria, VA 22314
Zagrobelug, Ted
Sanitary Engineer
NAVFAL
200 Stovall St.
Alexandria, VA 22332
Wehner, Teresa
Office of Water Enforcement
U.S. EPA
401 M St SW
Washington, DC 20461
Wiese, Richard J.
Environmental Engineer
Procter & Gamble Company
7162 Reading Road
Cincinnati, OH 45222
-------
Region I
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-7210
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 10007
(212) 264-2515
Region III
6th & Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia. PA 19106
(215) 597-9614
Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 881-4727
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-2000
Region VI
1201 Elm St., First International Bldg.
Dallas, TX 75270
(214) 749-1962
Region VII
1735 Baltimore Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64108
(816) 374-5493
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 837-3895
Region IX
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)556-2320
Region X
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-5810
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Regional Offices
r\
------- |