VOLUME #2 (BD-8 - BD-9)
DRAFT BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3002 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
BD-8 - SECTIONS 250.20 - 250.29
SECTION 3003 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
BD-9 - SECTIONS 250.30 - 250.38
-------
BD-8
DRAFT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3002 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SECTION 250.20 THROUGH 250.29
DRAFT
BACKGOUND DOCUMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
December 15, 1978
-------
Headquarters/Region_
Document Number
-ii-
-------
This document provides background information and support
for regulations which are designed to protect human health and
the environment pursuant to Section 3002 of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act of 1976. It is being made available
as a draft to support the proposed regulation. As new information
is obtained, changes may be made in the regulations as well as
in this background material.
This document was first drafted many months ago and has
been revised to reflect information received and Agency decisions
made since then. EPA made changes in the proposed Section 3002
regulations shortly before their publication in the Federal
Register. We have tried to ensure that all of those decisions
are reflected in this document. If there are any inconsistencies
between the proposal (the preamble and the regulation) and this
background document, however, the proposal is controlling.
Portions of this Background Document were written specifically
addressing sections of drafts of the regulation which were current
at that time. The reader is cautioned that references to section
titles or topics may have changed from draft to draft. For ex-
ample, the section on "Containerization and Labeling" was
ultimately split into two separate sections, while sections en-
titled "Reporting" and "Recordkeeping" were ultimately combined
into one section entitled "Reporting". Changes in the drafts of
this nature, as well as additions or deletions of sections, have
not changed the rationale or basis for establishing the proposed
version of the regulation. Where possible, section numbers of
-Til-
-------
the proposed version of the 3002 regulations, Standards
Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste, appear in
parenthases (250.20 - 250.29).
Comments in writing may be made to:
Harry W. Trask, Desk Officer
Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-iv-
-------
Table of Contents
I. Introduction, p. 1
RCRA Mandate for Standards
II. Methodology in Developing Regulations, p. 2
o Public Meetings
o Meetings with other Interest Groups
o Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
o External Review
III. Identification of Program Issues and Concerns, p. 6
o Manifest (250.22)
o Reporting and Recordkeeping (250,23)
o Containerization and Labeling (250.25 & 250.26)
o Waste Information
IV. Analysis of Regulation Issues with Alternatives, p. 8
and Rationale
o Resource Recovery
o Identification of Hazardous Waste Generators
o Manifest System (250.22)
o Reporting and Recordkeeping (250.23)
o Containerization and Labeling (250.25 & 250.26)
o Waste Information
o Other Topics
-v-
-------
TABLES:
Table I - Public Meetings, p. 4
Table II - Meetings with Other Interest Groups, p. 5
APPENDICES:
Appendix A - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act -
Section 3002
Appendix B - Summary of Comments from Invitational
Workshops (Type II)
Appendix C - Summary of Comments from Meetings with
Potentially Affected Parties (Type III)
Appendix D - Federal Register (ANPR)
Appendix E - Summary of ANPR Comments
Appendix F - Summary of Comments from External Reviewers
Appendix G - Standard Production Rate Summary (250.29)
Appendix H - Summary of Damage Report Study
Appendix I - Summary of Generator Data
Appendix J - Comparison of Subtitle C and Subtitle D
Facilities
Appendix K - Manifest Format DOT Shipping Paper Report
Form (250,22)
Appendix L - Analysis of Utilization of Manifest as
Report Versus Summary Reports (250.23)
Appendix M - State Recordkeeping Requirements (250.22)
-vi-
-------
BACKROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976
I. Introduction
A. RCRA Mandate for Standards
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 ,
Pub.L. 94-580, is a multifaceted approach toward solving
problems associated with discarded materials. Subtitle C of
RCRA deals specifically with hazardous waste management and
directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
promulgate regulations and guidelines to ensure the proper
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of all solid
waste that is hazardous. Section 3002 of RCRA requires
EPA to "promulgate regulations establishing ...standards,
applicable to generators of hazardous waste." These standards
establish requirements respecting: (1) recordkeeping; (2)
labeling; C3) containerization; (4) furnishing information;
(5) a manifest system; and (6) reporting.
-1-
-------
II. Methodology In Developing Regulation
Technical data have been gathered and developed to form
the basis for the regulations of Subpart B. In addition,
comments and data from the regulated community (i.e., hazardous
waste generators, transporters, treatment, storage, and
disposal operators), States, and the public have been utilized
in the overall formulation of the regulations. In keeping
with EPA's public participation plan and Section 7007(b) of
RCRA, which specifically states that "public participation
in the development, revision, implementation, and enforcement
of any regulation, guideline, information, or program under
the Act shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by
the Administrator and the States," the Office of Solid Waste
has and will continue to encourage the affected communities
to comment prior to implementation of regulations and guidelines
with respect to RCRA and more specifically Subpart B (Standard
Applicable to Generators).
A. Public Meetings
In accordance with EPA policy, RCRA, and the Administrative
Procedure Act, D.S.C. Section 553 (c) , ten meetings (see
Table I) were held with state and local government, private
and public interest groups, and the general public (EPA
policy, 2p, 2827 Section 7004(b), 3 U.S.C. Section 553(c)
(1970)).
The provisions of Section 3002 (see Appendix A) were
discussed at the meetings. The comments and data were
summarized (see Appendix B) and used to help formulate the
Subpart B regulations.
-2-
-------
B. Meetings With Other Interest Groups
In order to ensure consideration of all viewpoints;
one-to-one meetings were held with other interested parties
(see Table II) .
Information gathered from these meetings (see Appendix C)
provided insight into current practices employed by industry
and into areas where the environment and human health are
being compromised.
C. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) was
published on May 2, 1977, inviting the submission of comments
and data on major issues confronting EPA in the development
of regulations and guidelines. The notice included a series
of questions and presented two options related to Section 3002
(see Appendix D). The responses to the ANPR were reviewed
(see Appendix E) by the Office of Solid Waste and utilized
with other comments and data before standards for generators
of hazardous waste were proposed.
D. External Review
To assist in the development of standards for generators
of hazardous waste, comments were requested from more than 60
external reviewers. The sample population represented the
regulated industries, Federal and State regulatory agencies,
and other groups, such as environmental groups. These comments
have been considered and integrated into the regulations.
A summarization of the comments is presented in Appendix F.
-3-
-------
TABLE I
Public Meetings
February 3. 1977
February 24, 1977
March 9, 1977
March 10, 1977
April 6, 1977
April 8, 1977
April 13, 1977
April 27, 1977
May 25-26, 1977
May 26, 1977
San Francisco, California
Washington, D.C.
Cleveland, Ohio
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Hartford, Connecticut
Atlanta, Georgia
Ho us ton, Te xas
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Seattle, Washington
Denver, Colorado
-4-
-------
TABLE II
Meetings with other interest groups
Industry Associations
National Sold Waste Management Associations
National Tank Truck Carriers Conference
Liquid Water Control Association
Association of American Railroads
American Water Waterway Operators
National Barrel and Drum Association
Transporters
Chemical Leaman
Matlack
Bohager and Son
Chancellor & Odgen (BKK)
Missouri Pacific Railroad
Industry
Union Carbide
Environmental Group
Environmental Action
Federal Agencies
Department of Transportation
Interstate Commerce Commission
State Governments
California Georgia
Texas Tennessee
Illinois West Virginia
Wisconin
-5-
-------
III. Identification of Program Issues and Concerns
Several major issues and concerns were raised by EPA at the
meetings with various interest groups, the regulated 'coiranunities,
and government officials. These major issues and concerns can
be categorized as follows: (11 the Manifest System; (2) Report-
ing; (3) Containers and Labels; and (4) Waste Information.
A. Manifest System (250.221
1. How detailed should the manifest be? What kinds
of descriptions and instructions should be included?
2. What format should be required for the manifest?
Should there be a standard form or simply a set
of data requirements?
3. What should be done in the event that the manifest
is lost or a waste arrives without a proper manifest?
4. How should the manifest be circulated? Should
it simply move from generator to transporter to waste
management facility, or should there be more or less
movement?
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping (250.23)
1. How often should reports be filed? Should this
be different for generators and disposers?
2. How long should records be retained?
3. Should the waste management facility or the
transporter be allowed to file reports for small
generators?
-6-
-------
4. What should be required in a report? What format?
5. Should the manifest be used for reporting and
recordkeeping as well as for tracking?
6. Should a distinction be made between inter-
and intra-state transport?
C. Containerization and Labeling (250.25 & 250.26)
1. What information is necessary on labels?
What format should be used for labels?
2. Should vehicles be marked when transporting
waste?
3. Should different classification systems be
developed for labeling?
4. Should containers be reused?
5. What requirements are necessary for containers?
6. Should waste designated for on-site disposal
be subjected to labeling requirements?
D. Waste Information (250.22, 250.23 & 250.29)
1. What information is necessary when handling and
disposing of a hazardous waste?
2. Who should be responsible for supplying such
information?
3. Should this information travel with the cargo?
4. Should low-volume generators be subject to this
requirement in view of the high expense of analysis?
5. Should a form containing waste information be
required?
-7-
-------
IV. Analysis of Regulation Issues with Alternatives and Rationale
The Office of Solid Waste has received comments and data
presented in the meetings and on the ANPR. These responses led
to the development of several options relevant to the regulations
to be promulgated under Section 3002. This section enumerates
the various alternatives that were suggested and presents the
rationale for each.
A. Resource Recovery (250.21)
Two objectives of the RCRA are to protect human health
and the environment and to conserve valuable material and
energy resources. Resource recovery is desirable for several
reasons: it produces raw materials, while virgin materials
are becoming scarce; it can save energy, and it reduces the
volume of waste that must be disposed.
According to the legislative history, House Rep.-94-1491 at
2 (1976), "An increase in reclamation and reuse practices is
a major objective of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act." Encouraging resource recovery is within Congressional
intent. However, promotion of resource recovery must be
consistent with the requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA. An
important requirement of Subtitle C is that all regulated
hazardous wastes be designated to permitted waste management
facilities. This is especially important since certain suggestion
for promoting resource recovery include exempting resource
recovery from the treatment, storage, or disposal facility
permit requirements.
-8-
-------
Section 3002 of RCRA requires generator regulations for
six items: recordkeeping about generation and disposition of
hazardous wastes, labeling of containers, use of appropriate
containers, furnishing of information to transporters and
disposers, use of a manifest system and submission of reports.
The manifest system and reports are intended to ensure that
all regulated hazardous waste is properly disposed of.
Since resource recovery is addressed under other Subtitles
of RCRA, consideration under Subtitle C does not appear to be
a requirement. If resource recovery is to be promoted through
Subtitle C, the option selected for regulation of hazardous
materials sent to resource recovery facilities must provide
enough control to assure proper disposition of these wastes—
which is the main purpose of Subtitle C.
In deciding whether resource recovery should be promoted
through special provisions of the Section 3002 regulations,
consideration should be given to the status of exclusions
under Subtitle C. Resource recovery could be excluded from
the definition of treatment, storage, or disposal and therefore
be exempted from this part of the Act. First, the definition
of resource recovery, "the recovery of material or energy
from solid waste" differs from that of disposal which is,
"the discharge, deposit, injection, spilling, leaking, or
placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or onto
or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous
waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment
-9-
-------
or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters,
including ground waters." Resource recovery can be easily
distinguished from disposal.
Storage is defined as "the containment of hazardous waste,
either on a temporary basis or for a period of years, in such
a manner as not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste."
Resource recovery involves reuse and recycling of waste and
does not fall under the definition of storage.
Treatment is defined as, "any method, technique, or process,
including neutralization, designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous
waste so as to neutralize such waste or so as to render such
waste nonhazardous, safer for transport, amenable for recovery,
amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. Such term includes
any activity or processing designed to change the physical form
or chemical composition of hazardous waste so as to render it
nonhazardous." Most resource recovery processes do not obviously
fall under this definition. More complicated recovery, such as
solvent reclaiming, might change the physical form or chemical
composition of the waste and could be defined as treatment.
However, the phrase, "amenable for recovery" suggests that
resource recovery should be considered a post-treatment process
and not be subject to regulations covering treatment of hazardous
wastes. This is not conclusive, and the subject is not discussed
in the Act. However, the legislative history, House Rep.
No. 94-1491 at 4, notes that the regulation of hazardous waste
and promotion of resource recovery are separate and conflicting
functions. Consequently, the promotional functions of resource
-10-
-------
recovery technology, the development of markets, etc., are
placed with EPA and Department of Commerce (especially under
Subtitle E of RCRA), again suggesting that resource recovery
is not considered treatment.
Another possible exclusion is the exception of material
sent to resource recovery from the definition of hazardous
waste. Solid waste is defined to include "discharged materials."
If resource recovery becomes a significant part of the
hazardous waste cycle, then this defintion of waste may not
apply; the waste would become a raw material of a process.
Using a test of "economic value" could also eliminate materials
to be recovered from the waste definition. However, if
waste is defined as "no further use in its primary production
process" or similarly, then the material sent to resource
recovery could be considered waste.
If material sent to resource recovery is not considered
a waste, then it is not subject to any Subtitle C regulations.
Generators, transporters, and resource recovery facilities
would then be subject only to DOT regulations which cover
interstate transportation of designated hazardous materials
unless the handlers of resource recovery materials come
under the regulations another way. For example, resource
recovery facilities often produce hazardous residues. In
this case, the facility might be considered a generator and
possibly, a disposer.
-11-
-------
Despite the desirability of promoting resource recovery,
the purpose of Subtitle C is ensuring proper disposition of
hazardous waste, and protecting human health and welfare;
exempting materials destined for resource recovery may not
allow this.
Another problem is whether resource recovery facilities
should be permitted. Any waste requiring a manifest must be
designated to a permitted facility. If recoverable waste
requires a manifest, then the resource recovery facility
must be permitted unless some exclusion from the permitting
regulations can be developed. Exclusions from the Subtitle
C regulations may not be permissible, though modified reporting,
permitting, and manifest procedures may be. This modified
permitting, reporting, and manifest might be the more suitable
choice.
Even though it is not required, Section 3002 will make
some provisions for resource recovery. Several possible
options were considered. The options presented assume that
the resource recovery facility is off-site. Also, hazardous
waste sent to resource recovery facilities may be subject to
DOT'S hazardous materials regulations, 49 CFR Sections 170-
189, if they are shipped interstate and are listed in Section
127.101. OSW is considering four options for the handling
of -hazardous wastes sent to resource recovery facilities.
-12-
-------
OPTION I
(a) Under the first option, hazardous waste if sent to
resource recovery facilities is not covered by the definition
of "hazardous waste," and would not be subject to any Subtitle
C regulations, but still would be subject to DOT hazardous
material regulations, if applicable.
PRO
Option I would reduce the burden on generators who
send waste to resource recovery, providing an incentive
as intended by Congress. Since this can be considered
reuse and not disposal, it does not violate the intent
to manage the disposal all hazardous wastes. If a
waste can be sent to an unregulated facility, the
difference in cost between resource recovery and disposal
should increase, providing an additional incentive.
CON
Much of this incentive for resource recovery may
be illusory, since many wastes will also be subject to
DOT regulations and therefore subject to labeling,
containing, and shipping paper, etc., requirements.
Eliminating Subtitle C requirements will provide little
incentive for generators to send wastes to resource
recovery facilities in this case, and would remove all
control over an unknown amount of hazardous waste.
According to the preliminary OSW contract report, most
hazardous waste is transported less than fifty miles,
probably intrastate. Since DOT has only implemented
-13-
-------
regulations for interstate shipments, and many States
do not regulate at all, this would increase the possibility
of improper disposal of hazardous wastes, and foster
the establishment of "token" resource recovery centers
for circumventing Subtitle C regulations. Since Option I
would exempt resource recovery from reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, it would be difficult to
establish, for survey purposes, the amount and kind of
material sent to resource recovery.
(b) Alternatively, if the waste is sent to resource
recovery, the generator would be exempt from Subtitle C
regulations, but the resource recovery facility would be
issued a "special" permit.
PRO
This would control resource recovery facilities
and prevent the operation of "token" facilities. The
ultimate disposition of the hazardous waste would be
controlled.
CON
If material sent to resource recovery is not a
"hazardous waste" as designated by the generator, then
the facility could not be required to have a permit.
However, if the waste is considered hazardous, it
might be possible to exempt the generators from some or
all Subtitle C regulations.
-14-
-------
Several questions concerning Subtitle C exemptions
are pending with the Office of General Counsel. One is
whether a class of persons (small generators - but
perhaps also those sending wastes to resource recovery)
can be exempt from certain requirements of Section 3002
Cfor example, the manifest and reporting requirements).
Another question is whether resource recovery facilities
can be exempted from the standards relating to disposal
facilities. Section 3005 does not, however, prohibit
the issuance of several categories of permits for
different types of disposal or treatment facilities.
The answers to these questions will determine the
feasibility of this option.
OPTION II
This option does not exempt waste sent to resource
recovery from the definition of hazardous waste, but considers
it an alternative method of treatment. Under this approach,
the generator is exempt from the manifest and reporting
requirements, but must maintain records. The generator must
notify EPA annually that waste is being sent to resource
recovery. The waste must be sent to a resource recovery
facility that will receive a "special" permit. This permit
will probably be less complex than a regular disposal permit.
-15-
-------
PRO
This option is still less of a burden on generators
and consequently still within the Congressional intent
of providing an incentive for resource recovery. The
permitting of resource recovery facilities should
prevent the establishment of "token" resource recovery
facilities and keep the quantity of hazardous waste
sent to resource recovery under some kind of control.
CON
It may be permissible to exempt classes of
persons from Section 3002 or 3005 regulations. Since the
manifest and reporting requirements are contained in
the law, all generators may be required to comply with
them. This exemption may also violate the intent of the
Act, which is to control the disposition of all hazardous
wastes. The manifest and reporting systems are designed
to track the waste and are essential for this purpose.
OPTION III
Generators who send hazardous waste to resource recovery
must comply with all Section 3002 regulations except that
there will be a modified reporting procedure, probably an
annual report with a simplified listing of wastes. The
resource recovery facilities will be permitted, probably with
simpler reporting procedures.
-16-
-------
PRO
Option III presents no potential legal problems
with exemptions under Section 3002 or 3005. It still
provides less strigent requirements for resource
recovery, thus providing some incentive. Requirements
of the manifest system allows tracking of waste, following
the intent of Congress to manage all hazardous wastes.
Since Section 3002 states that regulations must be
written for the six listed items, it suggests that all
wastes must follow regulations for all six items.
Option III avoids this problem, by allowing less burden-
some reporting. Also, the permitting of resource recovery
facilities should assure generators and the general
public that waste is being properly treated.
CON
Since the only concession to resource recovery is
reduced reporting, there is less incentive than in
Option I and II. Resource recovery facilities are often
marginally profitable and too strigent permitting,
recordkeeping, reporting, manifest, etc. requirements
could put a marginally profitable facility out of
business, and would violate Congressional intent to
promote resource recovery.
OPTION IV
Under this option, generators who send waste to resource
recovery facilities would be subject to all Subtitle C
regulations. Resource recovery facilities will be permitted.
-17-
-------
PRO
Option IV maximizes control over treatment of
hazardous wastes. It poses no legal questions about
exclusion of classes of persons from Subtitle C regulations.
Incentives for resource recovery could be developed
under other sections of RCRA.
CON
Option IV provides no incentive for resource recovery
except its potentially lesser cost compared to that of
disposal. However, Congress intended resource recovery
to be promoted and this seems to violate that intent,
especially if sufficient control over hazardous waste
could be achieved while providing some incentive.
CONCLUSION
Option I (a) , I(b), and III are being considered as providing
incentives for resource recovery, while still controlling
hazardous wastes.
Option I(a) appears to meet all the requirements of the
regulation while providing incentives for resource recovery
(and industrial waste exchange). Since the definition of
solid waste (of which hazardous waste is a subset) pertains
to discarded material, any material going to a resource
recovery facility (or for waste exchange) would not be regu-
lated. This option has received the greatest support and was
presented in the proposed regulation.
-18-
-------
Option Kb) has the advantage of simplicity for the
generator, while providing for monitoring of the resource
recovery process. Since the waste is subject to Subtitle C
regulations if not sent to resource recovery, actual disposal
will be regulated in compliance with the requirements of the
Act.
Option III provides incentive for resource recovery, but
more control over hazardous waste. This option requires the
manifest and reporting and provides total monitoring of the
disposition of hazardous wastes. The requirements of this
option are not considered a great burden since some waste is
subject to DOT regulations, and normal business procedure
requires recordkeeping and shipping papers. The greatest in-
centive is economic, and lower requirements for resource
recovery will increase the difference in cost between recovery
and disposal.
B. identification of Hazardous Waste Generators (250.21 & 250.29}
RCRA defines hazardous waste generation to mean "the
act or process of producing hazardous waste." Hazardous waste
is a sub-category of solid waste. Solid waste by definition
is not hazardous waste, but can become hazardous waste when its
quantity or other characteristics cause irreversible illness or
death, or present substantial present or potential harm to
human health and the environment. The possibilities for mis-
management of a solid waste also play an important role in
determining whether or not it is hazardous.
-19-
-------
Regulatory control over hazardous waste produced by
households and control over general municipal solid waste
based on the presence of hazardous substances is not within
the intent of Subtitle C of RCRA (Senate Report No. 94-988
Solid Waste Utilization Act of 1976). Consequently, household
generated hazardous waste is excluded from the requirements
of Subtitle C.
Excluding households, the estimated number of potential
hazardous waste generators in the United States is as follows:
(1) farmers - 2.5 million;
(2) manufacturers (SIC 20-39) - 0.3 million;
(3) governmental and other services - 0.4 million.
If the intent of Congress is to be fulfilled and if EPA is
to implement RCRA so as to utilitize its resources most efficient!
in managing solid waste, generators must be properly identified.
The following options regarding generator identification
totally exclude household waste from Section 3002 regulations.
OPTION I
Option I defines a generator as any person whose act or
process produces hazardous waste as defined or listed under
Section 3001. A person who meets this definition must comply
with all the regulations under Subtitle C of RCRA.
PRO
Option I covers every person (except the household)
producing a hazardous waste and requires them to comply
with Subtitle C regulations. This leaves no loopholes
in Section 3002 regulations and could bring an estimated
3.2 million generators under regulation.
-20-
-------
CON
The task of enforcing Option I in an equitable manner
would be difficult. Enforcement problems would result not
only from the sheer number of potential generators, but also
because some generators produce small quantities of
hazardous waste or produce hazardous waste on an irregular
basis. Generators producing hazardous waste having the
same characteristics as some household solid waste would be
difficult to detect.
Assuming that enforcement is selective, Subtitle C
regulations will be directed only against certain parties.
This could lead to legal challenges that EPA is acting
arbitrarily and inequitably in its enforcement proceedings.
If the entire audience of hazardous waste generators is
brought into the regulatory system and must comply with Section
3002 regulations, a potentially unnecessary burden on the
treatment, storage, and disposal capacity could possibily be
imposed on Subtitle C facilities. If generators that mix small
quantities of potentially hazardous waste with large quantities
of non-hazardous waste segregate their waste, this segregrative
process may be more injurious to human health and environment
than allowing the waste to be transported by a municipal hauler
to a Subtitle D sanitary landfill. EPA does not have a substantial
body of damage cases created by codisposal of small quantities of
hazardous waste with municipal refuse in a properly designed
landfill. Therefore, the disposal controls required by Subtitle C
regulations may not be necessary for small quantities.
-21-
-------
The paper work impact of such a large regulated community
is estimated to be in the range of 9.2 to 18.3 million manifests
per year. This will result in approximately 1.5 million reports
per year to EPA and the States. CAppendix L)
OPTION II
This option provides for identification and classification
of generators by prose definition (i.e., SIC or industrial pro-
cessl. A generator included in the definition would be subject
to all Section 3002 regulations.
PRO
Option II would allow EPA to focus its resources
on a smaller population of potential generators than
Option I. This would result in better management of
hazardous waste since EPA could better insure that all
waste defined as hazardous would be sent to a Subtitle
C facility. The capacity and paper work burden on
Subtitle C treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDF) and EPA, as discussed in Option I, would also be
reduced proportionally.
CON
Enforcement based on definition by SIC would be
difficult, since many companies have more than one SIC.
Identification by industrial process also has limitations
due to variation in industrial processes within a given
industry and the unavailability of concise process
definitions.
-22-
-------
An inadequate definition could lead to a legal
challenge that EPA acted arbitrarily or that the definition
was inequitable. Areas overlooked or not covered by the
definitions could allow large quantities of hazardous
waste to enter the environment at an uncontrolled rate.
OPTION III
This option identifies generators based on hazardous waste
production rate of 100 kilograms per month. Five States' industrial
waste surveys and industrial waste data developed in the Subtitle
C Environmental Impact Statement were analyzed to help determine
the cut-off rate for hazardous waste production. This rate would
include a maximum amount of hazardous waste, but would
significantly reduce the audience to be regulated. (Appendix G)
With this exemption level cutoff, an exclusion for farmers
and retailers, and the provision for an assumption of duties
contract, the number of potential generators is reduced signi-
ficantly from the 3.2 million under Option I. The rationale for
these estimates can be found in the Reports Impact Statement.
It was these numbers of generators upon which the proposed reg-
ulations were based.
Manufacturing (SIC 20-39} 166,000
Retailers (waste oil) 63,000
Farmers (pesticide applicators) 10,000
Hospitals, labs, research 16,000
Total 255,000
-23-
-------
For manufacturers, the 100kg exemption level puts 166,000
generators in the system (Mitre data!. Retailers include the
62,000 waste oil generators plus 960 haulers exercising an
assumption of duties contract. Farmers still in the system would.
be primarily the 10,000 pesticide applicators. Hospitals account
for nearly 7000 generators; there are nearly 3000 medical
laboratories and almost 6000 research facilities. This accounts
for the 16,000 medical facilities.
PRO
The Standard Production Rate (SPR) of 100 kilograms
per month of potentially hazardous waste is based on
industrial waste data and would apply to everyone except
households. The SPR would allow EPA to focus its enforce-
ment on approximately 50 percent of the generators, who
produce greater than 99.5 percent of the hazardous
waste. "Non-generators" would be required to dispose of
their waste at a Subtitle D sanitary landfill pursuant to
Section 4004 criteria at a rate less than 100 kilograms/
month. The SPR would eliminate bulk shipments (tank and
drums) of hazardous waste from entering a Subtitle D
-24-
-------
sanitary landfill Cwhich will have many of the same
environmental performance features exhibited in a
Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill). In the past, it
has been the disposal of bulk shipments of hazardous
waste and the lack of leachate collection which have
been the cause of most incidents of environmental and human
health damage at landfills. (Appendices G & H)
Since the regulated audience would be lessened by
implementing an SPR, the capacity burden on Subtitle C
TSDF may be reduced. In addition, the paper work impact
on the regulated community and EPA would also be decreased.
CON
The Standard Production Rate does not distinguish
the degree of hazard for different wastes. Thus/ the SPR
applies to any person producing any hazardous waste
regardless of the hazard associated with that waste.
OPTION IV
This option uses the SPR of 100 kilograms per month
and includes a "Special Chemical List" of known wastes which
due to their inherent hazard or other characteristics must
be controlled regardless of the quantity. (Appendix G)
PRO
Option IV includes all the advantages covered in
Option III and, in addition, recognizes that some wastes
require greater control because of heightened public
concern for their physical and chemical properties or a
documented lack of proper management in the past.
-25-
-------
CON
If wastes which appear on the "Special Chemical List"
are not unique due to their hazard, then legal challenges
that EPA is being arbitrary and capricious could result.
Once a list of and/or criteria for hazardous waste
is established any attempt to develop a "Special Chemical
List" would require a judgement as to the relative
hazard of a material in order to establish the "cut-off."
This judgment may be subjective and any effort
to defend it difficult.
Each TSDF will be permitted based on their ability
to handle certain hazardous wastes. As long as a facility
is permitted, it could be construed as arbitrary or
capricious to restrict certain wastes from a properly
designated and permitted facility.
CONCLUSION
Generator identification will be a difficult and critical
problem when implementing Subtitle C of RCRA. Option III is
believed to offer the greatest control of hazardous wastes
with the least impact on the regulated community as compared
to Option It II, and IV. In addition, Option III should fulfill
the mandate of RCRA to protect human health and environment.
Option III allows a portion of the generators to be excluded
from compliance, based on quantity limits. This would allow
EPA to focus its resources and energy on the part of the
generating community producing the largest amounts of waste.
-26-
-------
Studies of past environmental damage incidents at landfills
(Appendix H) have shown that it was the very large quantities
of waste that caused damage in most documented incidents. Small
quantities of hazardous waste appear to have no adverse effects
on the environment, particularly if they are required to be dis-
posed of at a Subtitle D facility. Another study by OSW
(Appendix J> indicated that regulations covering the Subtitle D
facility are in most respects as strict as those covering
the Subtitle C facility.
Secondly, this option allows small quantities of waste to
go to Subtitle D facilities, saving landfill space in the Sub-
title C facility for the dangerous large quantities.
Option III provides discrimination between generators and
non-generators without having to develop and refer to a compli-
cated series of industrial SIC definitions. This option simply
excludes all generators who produce below a certain quantity
each month. This is much less complicated than exclusion by
SIC definition and does not allow excluded wastes to be disposed
of in any amount, as the SIC definition would.
While Option III excludes generators from reporting,
recordkeeping, manifest, etc., disposal at a properly designed
facility is still required. Highly toxic wastes would still
be managed properly, and as a result of the ratio at which they
might be mixed with municipal waste their potential hazard
reduced.
A more detailed discussion of the data used to support
option III is presented in Appendix G.
-27-
-------
Several other options were considered prior to proposing
this section of the regulations. Comments were solicited on
some of these options since insufficient data were available.
Some options were based on economic impact, and on this point
the Act was silent, making any decision difficult in view of
uncertain legal ramifications.
Raising the exemption level to a SPR of 1000 kg was considers
based on its lesser economic impact. Proper disposal would still
be required for all wastes. No final conclusion was made on this
option due to insufficient data on the number of generators affect
or the quantities of waste which they produced.
Another option which was considered, would allow each state
that undertook the Federal program to set its own small generator
SPR exemption level based on specific conditions of that state's
industry. Additional data are required before this option can
be considered viable.
Still another option would reduce administrative and technica
requirements without removing them all together. For example,
each generator of a small amount of hazardous waste would be
required to prepare a manifest for shipment with the waste but
he would not he would not be required to comply with the reporting
or recordkeeping requirements. Similarly, the technical require-
ments associated with the treatment, storage, or disposal of his
waste could be reduced or waived. Again, additional data are
needed to support consideration of this option before it can be
considered acceptable.
-28-
-------
Finally, a phased implementation option was discussed. By
phasing the degree of SPR exemption level, a gradual implementation
could occur. One method of achieving his transition would be to
establish the initial SPR exemption at a higher level, thus
impacting fewer industries. After a period of time, three years
for example, the SPR allowable would be lowered to a level
which would fully meet the requirements of the Act. This would
allow both industry and the state or Federal programs to adjust.
Insufficient data are available inorder to establish how many
steps there should be in any phased implementation of the
regulation or how much time should be allowed for each step.
Supportive data must be supplied or compiled before this option
can be considered viable.
C. Manifest System (250.22)
RCRA requires the use of a manifest system to assure
that all regulated hazardous waste is designated for treatment,
storage, or disposal at a facility permitted under Section
3005.
The manifest (see Appendix K) is a tracking document used
to certify the movement of a waste. The manifest originates
with the generator who supplies the necessary information,and
signs the document. The generator gives the manifest to the
transporter who certifies receipt of the shipment. The trans-
porter gives one copy to the generator prior to removing the
hazardous waste from the generator's property. The transporter
takes the manifest to the receiving personnel at the TSDF. The
TSDF receiving personnel sign the manifest, verifying receipt
-29-
-------
of the hazardous waste. The transporter retains one of the
signed copies to verify delivery. The TSDF retains one
copy for its own records and forwards the signed original to
the generator to vertify receipt.
For the manifest system to work effectively as a tracking
device, it must circulate in a closed system; to remove the
certification of any one actor (i.e., generator, transporter,
TSDF) would open one link in the chain. In an open system,
«
information necessary for tracking the waste would not be
available, since the parties involved in its transfer are
not actively tied to one another via a formal document.
So that the manifest may be consistent with common
transportation practices, provide for safe shipment and
tracking, and conform to the Congressional definition given
it within RCRA Subtitle A, Section 1004(12), the document
has taken on the appearance of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) shipping paper (see Appendix K) . The manifest has
a specific order of entries which includes emergency information
to assist in safe handling and transportation.
D. Reporting and Recordkeeping (250.23)
RCRA requires the establishment of recordkeeping practices
and of reporting to the Regional Administrator setting out the
quantities of hazardous waste generated and the disposition
of each waste. The criteria used in the selection of a reporting
scheme were as follows:
-30-
-------
(1) provide necessary after-the-fact information
for environmental management purposes; and
(2) minimize the paper work burden.
The use of the manifest as the report and the use of a
periodic, summary report (see Appendix K), formulated from data
contained in the manifest, were considered as providing the
most detailed after-the-fact information. Since the manifest
provides more information than would be needed for management
purposes, a periodic summary report (see Appendix L) was con-
sidered with respect to criteria 1. It was further determined
(see Appendix L) that a monthly summary report would decrease
the paper in commercial and Federal channels by 66.7 percent
if used instead of the manifest as the report. If a quarterly
summary report were used, a decrease of paper in commercial and
Federal channels of 88.9 percent over the manifest being
used as the report and 66.7 percent with respect to a monthly
summary report would be expected. For summary reporting
periods greater than quarterly, effective monitoring of
hazardous waste becomes increasingly difficult with only a
5.5 percent decrease in the reduction of paper flow to
Federal Agencies, when compared to quarterly reporting and
compared to using the manifest as the report.
Quarterly exceptions reports would decrease the paper work
burden even more. Under this scheme, generators would be required
to file a report to the Regional Administrator only when the gen-
erator did not receive the signed original of the manifest (or
-31-
-------
delivery document) within four weeks of the closing date of the
reporting quarter. The reasoning behind this reporting method
was to provide enough information to meet the first criterion
without requiring reports on properly disposed wastes, thus reduc-
ing paper work and satisfying the second criterion. This was the
option chosen for the proposed regulation.
Since the manifest is the generator's certification
that the waste was properly treated, stored, or disposed of, a 3
year recordkeeping requirement is placed on the manifest so that
monitoring or tracking of hazardous waste will occur while the
manifest is still in existence.
The manifest verifies the hazardous waste shipment by track-
ing the movement of the waste from the generator, to the
transporter, to the TSDF. The annual reports filed by the generat
and the TSDF are developed from the information on the manifest
and submitted to the Regional Administrator at the same time.
If a transporter or a TSDF wish to file reports for a
generator of waste oil he may do so but only if the generator
executes an assumption of duties contract with the transporter
or TSDF. Otherwise, a transporter or TSDF may prepare a manifest
for a generator, but the generator must sign it.
-32-
-------
For shipments of hazardous waste which move interstate,
a copy of the annual report must be sent by both the generator and
the TSDF to both the Regional Administrator with regulatory
authority over the TSDF and the Regional Administrator with
regulatory authority over the generator.
E. Containerization and Labeling (250.25 & 250.26)
The use of appropriate containers and labeling practices to
sufficiently confine and accurately identify hazardous waste
for shipment, storage, treatment, or disposal are mandates
of RCRA. The options available in the selection of appropriate
containers and labeling practices become apparent when reviewing
RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3003(b), which requires the regulations
promulgated under this subtitle to be consistent with the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (88 Stat. 2156; 49 U.S.C.
1801 and following).
In those areas where the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100-189)
criteria or list are in agreement with the criteria or list
developed under the authority of RCRA, Subtitle C, Section
3001 for hazardous wastes, the DOT labels will be used to
relay acute hazards to persons handling, transporting,
treating, storing, or disposing of the waste. In areas were
DOT is silent and EPA criteria or list identifies a waste as
hazardous, an EPA marking will be specified.
-33-
-------
DOT containers will be used in all cases pertaining to
movement of wastes. Provision are presently being made by
DOT for the use of one-way, unreconditioned containers for
disposal. Containers used for storage of hazardous waste must
be in accordance with Section 3004 of the Act (Part 250.44-2
of the proposed regulation!.
F. Waste Information (250.22 & 250.23)
RCRA mandates the furnishing of information on the general
chemical composition of hazardous waste to persons transporting,
treating, storing, or disposing of the waste.
Persons handling and transporting hazardous waste need
general information as to the chemical composition of the
waste and its acute hazard. This information will be supplied
on the manifest. Further information as to the hazard of
the waste will also be displayed on the container via a DOT
label or EPA marking. Persons treating, storing, or disposing
of hazardous waste may require more specific information as to
the specific chemical composition of the waste. It is the
responsibility of the person operating the TSDF to acquire this
information from the generator prior to treatment, storage, or
disposal of the waste as may be appropriate to assure that the
requirements of the permit (issued under RCRA, Subtitle C,
Section 3005) are met.
G. Other Topics
Definitions: It was necessary in some cases to expand on sonn
of the definitions provided in the Act. Other words or terms also
needed to be clarified as the regulation developed.
-34-
-------
Although very few changes occurred in the definitions, one
term was extensively defined. One of the first definitions of
a generator was "any person whose act or process produces solid
waste composed in whole or in part of hazardous waste." This
definition stayed basically unchanged with the exception of three
exclusions for volume generated, generation from farmers, and
generation from retailers. Within these exceptions there was
much debate. The Standard Production Rate (SPR) exemption level
is discussed elsewhere in this background document.
Several comments suggested that by using the word "solely"
to describe farmers' and retailers' activities that many of them
may have a small unrelated business and would not be included
in the definition. The intent initially was to exclude anyone
who was not exclusively involved in the business of farming
or retailing. This, it was felt, would control those "farmers"
who also ran aerial applicator businesses or pesticide ware-
houses or co-ops. Likewise, there would be greater control of
retailers also involved in wholesale or formulation of chemicals
and pesticides.
The draft was changed such that a farmer now needs only
to have his "principal business" be farming. It was felt that
the number of farmers whose principal business was farming
would not have a substantial aerial application, warehouse or
co-op business. The same argument, however, was not made for
retailers.
-35-
-------
Assumption of Duties Contract: Another provision in the
regulation which would allow a transporter or a facility to
accept the duties of a generator of waste automotive oil (later
changed to waste oil in general) was made. The addition of
this contractual agreement will significantly reduce the number
of generators required to report, without affecting the amount
of hazardous waste being treated, stored, or disposed. It
may in fact encourage waste oil rerefining and reuse by taking
the requirement of recordkeeping and reporting off the small
generator, increasing his incentive to seek a willing hauler
or rerefiner.
Certification: Some comments received pointed out that
other EPA offices were using a certification of information which
was considered to be more binding than the one used in the
October llth draft. The Justice Department had been instrumental
in helping to develop appropriate language in the suggested
example. It was explained, however, that the language chosen
was used extensively by the transportation industry and in
developing a manifest system, every effort was made to create
the least impact possible. Therefore, it was decided to leave
the certification wording unchanged on the manifest prepared by
the generator but use the new wording for the certification re-
quired on the quarterly exceptions and annual reports.
A few comments were received regarding the personnel level
of responsibility that should be required to sign the manifest
and report certifications. It was felt by some that the signatur
of any "authorized representative" of the generator could be used
-36-
-------
to hold the generator in violation as a result of a conviction.
Others felt that generators as a whole would be more attentive
to good hazardous waste management if they found themselves more
directly involved. The solution to the debate was to leave the
wording unchanged since it would be unreasonable to require a
high level executive to be on the loading dock just to sign
manifests. Although the same argument cannot be made for the
signing of the certification on reports, no justification was
made for requiring differing levels of "authorized representative"
for the signing of reports and manifests.
Notification of Foreign Governments: An additional change
was requested that would require generators to notify foreign
governments of shipments of hazardous waste. Although this issue
may not be totally resolved, the additional provision was placed
on generators of shipments outside the jurisdiction of the
United States; namely, they are required to send a copy of the
manifest within one week of the shipment to the foreign agency
having jurisdiction over the designated TSDF.
Single Manifests: Several questions were raised regarding
the need for a single manifest for multiple shipments. This
provision was made to simplify recordkeeping for generators and
transporters involved in moving several loads of the same
hazardous waste in any one day to the same permitted disposal
facility.
-37-
-------
APPENDIX A
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SECTION 3002
A-l
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
PUBLIC LAW 94-580
SUBTITLE C, SECTION 3002
"Sec. 3002. Not later than eighteen months after the date of
the enactment of this section, and after notice and opportunity
for public hearings and after consultation with appropriate
Federal and State agencies, the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations establishing such standards, applicable to generators
of hazardous waste identified or listed under this subtitle, as
may be necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Such standards shall establish requirements respecting—
"(1) recordkeeping practices that accurately identify
the quantities of such hazardous waste generated,
the constituents thereof which are significant in
quantity or in potential harm to human health or the
environment, and the disposition of such wastes;
"(2) labeling practices for any containers used for the
storage, transport, or disposal of such hazardous
waste such as will identify accurately such waste;
" (3) use of appropriate containers for such hazardous
waste;
"(4) furnishing of information on the general chemical
composition of such hazardous waste to persons
transporting, treating, storing, or disposing of
such wastes;
A-2
-------
(5) use of a manifest system to assure that all such
hazardous waste generated is designated for treat-
ment, storage, or disposal in treatment, storage,
or disposal facilities (other than facilities on the
premises where the waste is generated) for which
a permit has been issued as provided in this sub-
title; and
(6) submission of reports to the Administrator (or the
State agency in any case in which such agency carries
out an authorized permit program pursuant to this
subtitle at such times as the Administrator (or the
State agency if appropriate) deems necessary, setting
out—
"(A) the quantities of hazardous waste identified
or listed under this subtitle that he has
generated during a particular time period; and
" (B) the disposition of all hazardous waste reported
under subparagraph (A).
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM
INVITATIONAL WORKSHOPS
(TYPE II)
B-l
-------
CITIES IN WHICH WORKSHOPS WERE HELD
San Francisco, California
Cleveland, Ohio
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Hartford, Connecticut
Atlanta, Georgia
Houston, Texas
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Seattle, Washington
Denver, Colorado
February 3, 1977
March 9, 1977
March 10, 1077
April 6, 1977
April 8, 1977
April 13, 1977
April 27, 1977
May 25-26, 1977
May 26, 1977
B-2
-------
Manifest System
The type of information on the manifest and the degree
of detail were commented upon by those in attendance at the
meeting. There was a widespread difference of opinion as to
what should be included in the description. Some of the data
listed as important information was: emergency response
procedures, generic name of waste, hazard class, quantity,
general type of waste, phone number of the generator and
transport company, physical state of the waste, chemical
composition, and the process from which the waste was derived.
Some groups complained that the chemical composition was of
little value, since most drivers would not be able to understand
it in an emergency. Trade names were also to be avoided for
the same reasons.
The proposed format of the manifest drew varied responses.
Many suggested that the manifest be incorporated into the
DOT bill of lading. This could be done with modifications such
as allowing additional room at the bottom of the form, so
information could be included that would satisfy ICC/DOT re-
quirements. Several in attendance recommended that a set of
data requirements rather than a format be developed, allowing
the use of existing shipping papers. Most groups believed that
the use of a separate uniform format would be more desirable and
would facilitate computerization of the manifest. This uniformity
would be important in interstate transport, and it was deemed
B-3
-------
necessary to make sure all states use the same manifest format
for this reason. The State of Kansas suggested using its
manifest as the model for the proposed manifest.
Most groups in attendance felt that the manifest was a
tracking tool and should not be used in reporting procedures.
Instead, summary reports should be issued to the agency or
authority.
The circulation of the manifest was also the subject of
discusssion. The majority opinion was that the manifest should
follow the waste delivery from generator to transporter to
waste management facility. The waste management facility should
send a copy of the manifest to the generator and the generator
should then report to the state. Differences arose over
whether it was necessary for the disposer to report back to the
generator.
Questions were raised over what to do in the event that
a manifest, for one reason or another, does not accompany a
waste shipment. Several groups felt that allowances should
be made, such as allowing a second party (transporter or
disposer) to have the option of filling out the manifest, as
long as the generator has certified the waste shipment. Waste
disposers had questions about using transfer points where wastes
with the same manifest number may be designated for different
destinations. They argued that it could be necessary for a
manifest to originate from the transfer point in order to
legally ship the waste material.
B-4
-------
A plan for developing manifest numbers was proposed. The
numbers could be derived by using the prefix of the company's
phone number and the area code. A data bank would be established
with code numbers assigned to generators, transporters, and
disposers.
B-5
-------
Reporting and Recordkeeping (250.23)
All groups represented at the meetings felt that periodic
reporting by generators and disposers rather than the submittal
of manifest copies was the more practical form of regulation.
The frequency of reports was a subject of debate. The suggested
frequency ranged from bimonthly to annually, with most of those
in attendance favoring annual reporting. Those arguing for
yearly filing believed that any higher frequency would burden
the regulating agency with too much paper-work, causing un-
acceptable delays. They felt that a yearly report by both
generator and disposer would be reasonable and realistic.
A second suggestion was that reporting frequency be based
on volume, with those generating or disposing of large quantitie
having to file more often. Another suggestion involved not
requiring generators to report, since their records are open
and can readily be inspected. Waste management facilities shouli
be required to report, however, perhaps monthly or quarterly.
It was recommended that the periodic report by the generator
and disposer include the manifest number, quantity, and the
destination of the waste being transported. A set format for
reports should be developed by EPA.
There were a number of recommendations made concerning tha
recordkeeping system. The majority of those present believed
that the record should be a copy of the manifest plus any
analytical data available on the waste. Other groups felt that:
B-6
-------
certain data should be required rather than a specific form
for recordkeeping. The length of retention of records was
the subject of controversy. It was noted that pesticide
producers were required to keep records for twenty years, though
no one suggested a retention period this long. Several waste
disposer facilities felt that six months was long enough, but
most groups recommended retention times of from one to three
years. Another suggestion was that retention time should
coincide with the statute of limitations.
A recommendation was made with respect to snail generators.
It would allow the transport/waste management facility to
prepare manifests and summary reports for regular route customers
This is the same concept as preparing an income tax form for
someone else. The report would deal only with waste picked
up and delivered to the waste facility.
It was suggested by several groups that regulations make
a distinstion between inter- and intrastate transport. This
is necessary because federal and state regulations apply intra-
state, while only federal rules apply interstate. Another
recommendation proposed that the data system utilized should
identify the industrial source of the waste on the waste dis-
poser's report. This would help check the operation with the
generator's report.
D-7
-------
Containers and Lables (250.25 & 250.26)
A number of suggestions were made concerning the informa-
tion to be placed on the label and the format that should be
followed. Most groups felt that DOT requirements should be
followed, with some modifications pertaining directly to
hazardous wastes. DOT regulations require the generator's
name, the type of waste, and the chemical composition of the
waste on the label. The manifest number and the environmental
or occupational hazards should also be required. Others felt
that the labels should be color coded and represent the
highest level of hazard.
Many of those in attendance at the meeting felt that
placards should follow DOT requirements, with added regulations
where necessary. It was suggested that the word "waste" be
included somewhere on the placard.. United Nations code numbers
could also be used with DOT placards to handle the problem of
multiple hazards. Some persons felt that additional information
should be placed on the placard, since in the event of an
accident, the manifest could be lost and the placard would be
the only source of information. One group believed that no
additional placarding requirements were needed for hazardous
waste transport. Another felt that a limit should be imposed
on the number of placards allowed on a vehicle.
B-8
-------
Several persons suggested that labeling and placarding
system other than DOT should be used for hazardous wastes.
The National Fire Protection Association system was the most
commonly recommended alternative. Its advantage is that it
exhibits the multiple hazard of the material as well as its
health effects. A disadvantage is that these labels are not
recognized by all fire and emergency response personnel.
Another alternative is to develop a classification system
based on color or alphabetical designation where each letter
or color corresponds to a particular hazard or degree of hazard.
Other suggested labeling systems are the ANSI and the Material
Safety Data Sheets.
The consensus opinion pertaining to container regulations
was to utilize DOT container requirements as long as the wastes
being stored met DOT criteria. For those which do not, perfor-
mance standards must be developed which are adequate to insure
proper waste storage. One group felt that container regulations
were already too stringent and should not be added to. Several
groups also recommended that DOT container reuse standards be
modified to allow for more recycling of containers. Another
group believed that no containers should be reused under any
conditions.
Those participating in the meetings made it clear that
they expected regulations to be written that would insure that
all vehicles carrying hazardous wastes would be clearly marked
as such. Transport trucks should have "Hazardous Waste"
B-9
-------
stenciled on the side to warn the public of its contents.
Placards should be placed on all waste transport vehicles,
whether it is on or off-site.
Several groups felt that hazardous waste destined for
on-site disposal not be subject to any special labeling or
placarding requirements.
D-10
-------
Waste Information
A number of recommendations were made as to what should
be included in the waste information category. There was
general agreement that it include the chemical constituents
and the principal hazards. The important constitutents of a
waste are those constituent that in any amount cause contamina-
tion of ground water. An atidote to the waste effects could
also be included. Several groups complained that it would be
difficult to provide the chemical constituents of a waste,
since generators often only know the trade names of the raw
materials they use and not the chemical formula.
A second point of discussion involved who should be
responsible for maintaining this information. The consensus
opinion was that the generator should research and supply
waste data. This was thought to be the most economical method,
since it would be expensive for transporters to analyze each
shipment of hazardous waste from their terminal facilities.
This information should be required to be provided to trans-
porters and disposers, since in the past generators have
developed techniques to protect their own employees and then
not passed on this information. Some groups felt that a
generator should not be required to do additional testing once
a waste has been identified as hazardous. Information kept
on file should be able to show why the substance was classified
as hazardous.
B-ll
-------
Many persons at these meetings felt the need for the
development of a classification and data retrieval system.
A list of hazardous materials could be kept on file in the
data bank and would result in less testing. This data would
also benefit a small company that does not have the resources
to do analyzes on their own waste.
Several individuals suggested using data safety sheets.
National Fire Protection Association and Manufacturing Chemists
Association have established standard safety sheets for
commodities.
B-12
-------
Other Contents
The status of recyclable materials was a subject of
discussion. Most groups felt that these materials should be
exempted from the regulations. Less restriction would have
the effect of promoting the reuse of these wastes.
The State of Kansas suggested that before a waste is
transported, the generator must fill out a detailed waste
disposal request. The information is then used by both the
transporter and disposer and parts of it appear on the manifest.
Several groups recommended that emergency response
personnel and response manuals be upgraded. Truck drivers,
police, and fire departments should be educated in spill response
and clean-up methods. The emergency response manuals now in
use are too difficult to be understood by first-line emergency
units and should be rewritten.
One group wanted to know what the liability would be
of the generator who declares a waste non-hazardous based on
tests but later events prove it to be hazardous.
B-13
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM
MEETINGS WITH POTENTIALLY AFFECTED PARTIES
(TYPE III)
C-l
-------
Manifest System (250.22)
The participants at these meetings had a number of sug-
gestions about what sort of information should appear on the
manifest. For the most part, the format should follow the
presently utilized DOT bill of lading. The information on the
bill of lading includes: shipper's name, origin and destination
of the material, consignee, pick-up and delivery date, load and
unload time, total round trip time, tractor and trailer number,
quantity, and the commodity description. Most groups believed
that the bill of lading could be adapted to hazardous waste
transport with some modifications. A waste description, chemical
composition and emergency response information would be necessar
additions. DOT suggested that the manifest format be required i
under its regulations, but leave the development of the system
to EPA.
Several companies recommended using manifest systems that
they developed themselves. Union Carbide has designed a manifei
form that is attached to the bill of lading and is used for
tracking the waste. The Association of American Railroads has
developed a classification system called the Standard Trans-
portation Commodity Code. This is an identification system
where each commodity class has a code number. Hazardous wast as
are coded 49. With this system and the waybill combined, a
workable manifest system has been developed. If some minor
additions are made specifically for hazardous wastes, the railr<|
feel it will fulfill all EPA requirements. The National Solid
C-2
-------
Waste Management Association is also drafting a model manifest,
They feel that the EPA should design a uniform manifest but
be flexible in the design to allow for individual state needs.
Most groups were in favor of periodic reporting with
EPA enforcement by inspection of records.
03
-------
Containers and Labels (250.25 & 250.26)
All groups agreed that the placards should be designed
to represent that an environmental hazard exists to air, water,
or land. The placard should represent the primary hazard plus
the additional hazards of the material. The consensus
opinion was that DOT regulations should be the basis for placard
requirements with some additions and modifications where
necessary. These additions should be developed in conjunction
with DOT. One transporter was not in favor of the proposed
"Environmentally Hazardous" placard. He suggested using the
basic DOT placard plus a code indicating emergency response.
DOT recommended using the U.N. classification system in addition
to its regulations.
Some persons felt that DOT container regulations were not
stringent enough to regulate hazardous wastes. Several felt
that the DOT regulations are "impact" standards, directed
towards safety only during transport. There was also concern
that DOT standards were not sufficient for long term storage.
Most believe that performance standards should be developed to
determine the adequacy of containers.
C-4
-------
Other Comments
Union Carbide has developed a system to mark, label,
containerize, and handle waste materials that could serve
as a model for EPA.
A group of transporters were interested in knowing whether
the sludge formed when cleaning out the tanks of the trucks
would cause them to be classified as generators.
C-5
-------
APPENDIX D
FEDERAL REGISTER
ANPR
D-l
-------
Federal Register
Monday, May 2, 1977
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Section 3002—Standads Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste
Section 3002 requires EPA to develop and implement standards
applicable to hazardous waste generators. These standards
are to establish requirements for: (1) Recordkeeping practices
respecting quantities and constituents of wastes generated;
(2) labeling and other requirements for containers; (3) identi-
fication of chemical composition of wastes; (4) use of a mani-
fest system to control waste movement, and (5) submission of
reports. The Agency is considering two approaches to the
manifest system which are expected also to satisfy the record-
keeping and reporting requirements. The manifest form would
be the same for both options and would require substantial
information from hazardous waste generators regarding principal
constituents and chemical composition, together with the
designation of a permitted treatment, storage or disposal site
or facility. The options differ mainly with respect to the
system approach used and the reporting requirements.
D-2
-------
Option I would require the hazardous waste generator to provide
the waste transporter with a manifest for each hazardous waste
being shipped. Under this option, hazardous waste generators,
transporters, and storage, treatment, and disposal facility
operators would be required to retain copies of the manifest
for three years before discarding. In this option receivers
of the hazardous waste as well as generators would be required
to submit a copy of the manifest to the appropriate agency.
Receivers of hazardous waste also would be required to return
a copy of the manifest to the waste generator.
Option II would require generators to provide transporters
with a manifest for each hazardous waste. Hazardous waste
receivers would be required to return copies of the manifest
to the generator. Generators, transporters, and receivers
of hazardous wastes would retain copies of the manifest for
three years. In addition, generators would be required to
submit quarterly reports to the Agency describing the types,
quantities, composition, and disposition of wastes generated
during that period.
The Agency is specifically interested in obtaining com-
ments on the two basic options presented. Specially,
comment is solicited on the following.
1. Sufficiency of each option to meet recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
D-3
-------
2. Other manifest options which might satisfy the purpose
and intent of the Act including forms and examples
where appropriate.
3. Information needed on the manifest form particularly
with regard to level of detail necessary to properly
identify and described the waste.
4. Whether the same standards should be applied to
generators of all wastes or whether different
standards should be developed for different wastes.
With regard to the containers requirements, the Agency believes
that the U.S. Department of Transportation requirements (49
CFR 173) and container specifications (49 CFR 178 and 179)
offer a substantial base for developing the necessary container
and labeling standards. In addition, however, the Agency is
considering requirements that hazardous waste containers also
carry labels which indicate the chemical composition of the
contents/ the type(s) of hazard, hazard emergency procedures
and, if the container is used to transport the waste, the
manifest number.
The Agency is seeking information, comment and data relative
to such requirements including specific labeling suggestions
and the advantages and alternatives for various labeling
requirements. Specific comments are desired on:
D-4
-------
1. How to best use the DOT container, labeling, and
placarding requirements.
2. Identification of need and specification for other
types of containers which may be necessary for
contain waste classes.
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
SUMMARY OF ANPR COMMENTS
E-l
-------
Manifest Section (250.22)
1. Sufficiency of each option to meet recordkeeping and
reporting requirements
The consensus among those responding to this question
was that Option II was preferable to Option I because it
involved less paperwork. The suggested reporting intervals
ranged from monthly to annually, with most groups supporting
a monthly or quarterly filing period. There was substantial
support for Option I, however, since many felt that summary
reporting was too laborious and time-consuming. Several
companies thought either option was viable, while a few
supported neither since it was felt that the paperwork required
for both was too large.
2. Other manifest option which might satify the purpose
and intent of the Act including forms and examples where
necessary.
A number of groups recommended that the presently utilized
DOT bill of lading be required for hazardous waste shipment
rather than developing a separate manifest form. The transporters
were unanimous in the opinion that DOT regulations should be the
basis for any manifest system with minor modifications made
specifically for hazardous wastes. A number of waste generators
were also in agreement.
E-2
-------
Another proposed change in the manifest options involved
requiring only the waste disposer to turn in summary reports.
Both generators and waste management facilities favored this
approach. The State of Washington, Department of Ecology
stated that "only notification of waste transport by the
generator to an authority is necessary. Treaters and disposers
of waste must be required to report..."
Several state groups suggested that a certain amount of
flexibility be allowed in the manifest to accommodate state
regulatory systems that are currently in use. Several trans-
porters recommended that they not be required to report. The
State of Texas Water Quality Board suggested incorporating
its "Shipping Control of Industrial Waste in Texas" report
into the manifest proposals.
3. Information needed on the manifest form particularly
with regard to level of detail necessary to properly
identify and describe the waste.
Most of the groups responding agreed that many of the
proposed manifests were too detailed for their intended pur-
pose. There was little agreement, however, on what should
or should not appear on the manifest. Some, felt that the
chemical composition should be listed, while others argued that
the information would be of little use to drivers and handlers
in the event of a spill. Most agreed that emergency response
E-3
-------
information and an emergency phone number should be included.
There was also general agreement that a hazard classification
or a list of the hazardous materials be placed on the manifest.
Several of those responding to this question suggested
that DOT regulations governing the description of wastes were
sufficient for the proposed manifest. It was also recommended
that the DOT hazard classification be included.
Several groups believed that the proposed manifests were
not detailed enough in their descriptions and hazard warnings.
The Velsicol Chemical Corporation recommended that the mani-
fest include the chemical components by percentage, hazardous
properties, flash point, pH, physical state, specific gravity,
and the DOT classification. The Texas Water Quality Board
suggested using a system with a detailed description coded
according to the system developed in Texas. The State of
Washington recommended using its system, and the Association
of American Railroads felt the railroad system was adequate.
4. Whether the same standards should be applied to generators
of all waste or whether different standards should be
developed for different wastes.
About half of those responding to this question believed
that the same standards should apply to all generators of
waste and to all forms of hazardous waste. An equal number
E-4
-------
of groups suggested that standards should vary with the degree
of hazard. More dangerous substances should be subjected to
standards of greater stringency. Several groups expressed
the opinion that less stringent regulations should be enforced
upon small generators. The Alabama Power Co. felt that wastes
should be exempt from regulation if they are not the result
of some manufacturing process.
E-5
-------
Container and Labeling Section (250.25 & 250.26)
1. How to best use DOT container, labeling, and placarding
requirement^.
The consensus opinion was that the DOT requirements are
sufficient to cover hazardous waste handling methods and do not
need to be supplemented. Most groups felt that wastes should
be treated like other hazardous materials and would thus fall
under DOT regulations.
A second kind of response suggested that DOT regulations
should be used as the basis for handling regulations, but that
modifications and supplements may be necessary and should be
developed in conjunction with DOT. Several groups suggested
using additional labeling systems such as the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency if the need was warranted. Most of those responding
with this opinion agreed that any modifications and additions be
coordinated with DOT requirements. They also stressed that
changes be made only if the changes are not covered by DOT
regulations.
2. Identification of need and specification for other types
of containers which may be necessary for certain waste
classes.
An opinion expressed by many groups was that the DOT
requirements for containers are sufficient to cover most
-------
situations involving hazardous wastes. If any further require-
pnents are necessary, the DOT special permits procedure could
be used.
A smaller number of groups believed that the DOT require-
ments need to be supplemented when dealing with hazardous
wastes that do not meet DOT criteria. All stressed that these
additions should be made in conjunction with DOT.
Several responses involved the Other Regulated Material-
Waste (ORM-W) system. Many felt that a classification system
should be developed based on this since it includes provisions
for environmental and health effects.
E-7
-------
Other Comments
A matter of concern to several companies was the status
of recyclable wastes. One company felt that recyclables
should not be considered wastes. A governmental group believed
such materials must be regulated under the manifest and
reporting systems or else many could become "lost" and unac-
counted for.
A number of groups had opinions on problems peculiar to
their situation. The American Petroleum Institute suggested
that facilities with less than a 2,000 gallon waste oil storage
tank capacity not be considered generators. The Cad Nickel
Plating Co. felt that regulations on the electroplating industry
are unnecessary in California because state regulations are
enforced.
State Agencies had a number of individual concerns. Some
of these were: the exemption of households from waste regula-
tions, the licensing of generators, the addition of carcinogens
to the DOT hazardous materials list, special reporting practices
for infrequent and periodic shippers, and a new definition of
waste to include all materials no longer useful.
Waste generators made a number of comments not pertaining
directly to the questions asked in the Federal Register.
Celanese suggested that generators be required to file with
an authority a one-time detailed description of a particular
E-8
-------
waste. This information should not have to be on every mani-
fest. The Ford Motor Co. believed that generators should
furnish waste information to the receiver through contracts.
The National Association of Metal Finishers recommended that
the public be educated to the fact that disposal sites are
safe and need not be a detriment to a community. Rollins
Environmental Services felt the agency should assign identi-
fication numbers for waste streams. The Tennessee Eastman Co,
suggested that in instances where a waste is generated, trans-
ported, and disposed of by the same company, that the waste
not be subject to the manifest system even if limited travel
is required on public roads.
E-9
-------
APPENDIX F
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM
EXTERNAL REVIEWERS
F-l
-------
To assist in the development of standards for generators
of hazardous waste, comments were required from external
reviewers representing the regulated industries, Federal and
State regulatory agencies and other groups, such as environmental
groups. These comments have been considered and integrated into
the regulations.
Manifest - Section 250.23 (11/30/77 Draft)
The external reviewers made a number of recommendations
about the manifest system. Several recommendations concerned
coordination with existing State and DOT regulations. These
reviewers felt that felxibility in the manifest sytem was
important so that it could be incorporated into present State
and DOT systems* A second recommendation was that a copy of
the manifest be sent to the regulatory authority by both the
generator and TSDF to better insure the proper disposition of
the hazardous waste and allow more immediate action if discrepancie
occurred.
A number of reviewers commented on the problems caused by
transfer stations; they suggested that the regulations be
changed in order to accommodate these operations. Transfer
stations may alter waste received, extract certain components,
and then send the remainder on to other facilities. There would
be difficulty in trying to keep a manifest with these wastes.
The regulation solves this by requiring a new manifest if the
chemical or physical properties of the waste are altered.
F-2
-------
DOT regulations will be used whenever possible, for
example, the labeling and container standards will use DOT
standards. The need for flexibility in the manifest will be
met requiring certain information on the manifest rather
than developing a specific form. A manifest may remain with
a waste so long as the waste has the same chemical and physical
properties. If these properties are changed by storage or
treatment before the waste reaches its final destination, the
waste would require a new manifest form.
Transportation transfer points also could cause confusion
in the manifest process. It would be difficult to keep a
manifest with a shipment that was transported to a number of
sites before final disposition. Rather than requiring a
manifest to remain with a waste, it was recommended that the
generator give one copy of the manifest to the transporter and
send two copies to the facility of final disposition; the
facility would then return one copy to the generator. Mechanisms
should also be provided for exceptions that do not fit the manifest
system such as pipeline transfers. One reviewers suggested
that the manifest indicate the type of treatment the waste
shipment should undergo.
Some comments were directed at the structure or wording
of the actual regulations. Several reviewers felt that
paragraphs 250.24 (a) and (b) should be written more clearly.
Another pointed out that the instructions in the regulations did
not match the example manifest in some instances. The emergency
F-3
-------
response phone number caused some confusion. Some were
unsure whether twenty-four hour vigilance was necessary. One
reviewer was confused about the meaning of "special handling
instruction." A number of persons recommended that the
paragraphs in the manifest section which dealt with the trans-
port and TSDF be deleted and added to sections dealing with
these operations specifically. One reviewer was concerned with
the proper identification procedures when a waste shipment con-
tains more than one waste. Concern was also voiced that sub-
part A does not distinguish between "Shipping Description" and
"Hazard Class."
Reporting- Section 250.25 (9/14/77 Draft)
A large number of reviewers were concerned with the
designation of the authority which should receive the gener-
ator's report. Most felt that provisions should be made in the
regulations for a State agency to receive the report if the
program has been authorized by EPA. Presently, the Regional
Administrator is the only one officially designated to receive
the report. Reviewers also felt that a report should not be
sent both to the State and Region. These comments were incorporate
into the regulation.
Section 250.25(b)(6) caused confusion. Several reviewers
believed that the reporting requirements for on-site generators
needed to be clarified. The term "temporary pre-transportation
storage" needs defining and a reason stated for the exception
P-4
-------
given in this paragraph (6). Also, the paragraph referring to
TSDF requirements should be deleted from this section and
placed in a more appropriate section.
A number of reviewers proposed changes in the reporting
frequency. One groups believed that annual reports would be
more suitable, citing greater expense and more paper work with
quarterly reporting. Several reviewers recommended a monthly
report. They felt this would enable the authorized agency to
keep more current data, respond faster to possible problems,
and match-up reports with greater ease while placing little
additional burden on the generator. The regulations adopted
quarterly reports to keep waste data current without becoming
burdensome.
A question was raised concerning the amount of time allowed
after the closing date to send in the required quarterly reports.
Several reviewers suggested that a time limit of 30 to 45 days
was necessary to compile an accurate report. This would allow
timo for transactions late in the reporting period to be
accounted for. Other recommendations included placing the
general chemical composition on the report and requiring
industries to retain a copy of their report in case the
authorized authority should misplace it.
Generators Section 250.22(9/14/77 Draft)
There was widespread disagreement among the reviewers over
the generator classifications issue. Several groups recommended
that the classification be abolished entirely, thus requiring
F-5
-------
all hazardous waste generators to be subject to the regulations.
They felt that a generation rate was an inadequate demarcation,
since it established no levels for toxicity or concentration.
A number of reviewers favored an exemption for generator
classification and proposed several different methods for cate-
gorizing generators. One group suggested using the system
developed by the State of Texas, which divides industries into
very hazardous and less hazardous waste classes. The companies
who are in the less hazardous class and employ less than fifty
persons would be excused from compliance. Another recommended
method was to base the generator definition on "total toxicity."
This would represent a combination of toxicity and quantity and
would eliminate the problem of highly concentrated toxins
escaping regulation. In addition, comprehensive lists could be
developed that would exempt wastes which are below quantity and
concentration criteria developed in Section 3001.
Several groups favored establishing a threshold quantity
as the definition of generator. One reviewer suggested that
each waste stream be evaluated rather than combining all wastes
generated at a plant. Another recommended approach was to exempt
small quantities or "batches" of waste and not exempt the
generating facility itself.
Comments were also directed at the portions of the
regulations that deal with generator classification. Section
250.22 (Generators! was severely criticized for encouraging
F-6
-------
the improper disposal of hazardous wastes. Many suggested that
this clause be omitted in future regulations. Criticism was
also voiced concerning Appendix B, particularly the third
paragraph. These guidelines need to be developed that take
into account which generators are likely to follow them. These
comments led to the redefinition of "generator" and the elim-
ination of Appendix B. (This whole Section, originally 250.22,
was later incorporated into Section 250.20.)
Definitions Section 250.21 (9/14/77 Draft)
The definition of "on-site" drew a great deal of comment
from the outside reviewers, who believe that waste generated
and treated at a facility crossed by public rights-of-way
should be considered "on-site" disposal. This would allow the
facility to comply with fewer of the regulations of Subpart B.
The Union Carbide plant in Charleston, West Virginia was used as
an example. The facilities are located on both sides of the
Kennawha River, and under present regulations a waste shipment
transported across the river would have to be manifested, reported,
etc. It was suggested that the definition of non-site" has been
redefined not to exempt premises crossed by a public right-of-way.
Several groups recommended redefining household refuse to
include farm, commercial, and retail businesses. Some also
felt that gasoline stations with a waste oil capacity of less
than 2,000 gallons should also be excluded. The definition of
F-7
-------
general chemical composition drew varied comment. The definition
needed greater clarification of the amount of detail required
for constituents. The majority felt that the less testing
required, the better. Some of these comments were incorporated,
Chemical composition was changed to chemical and physical
properties.
Containers and Labels - Sections 250.27, 250.28 (9/14/77 Draft)
Most reviewers commenting on this subject believed that
the DOT regulations for containers were sufficient and that new
standards could be developed jointly by EPA and DOT if needed.
One group criticized DOT standards for containers on the
grounds that they were designed to safeguard materials only
during transport and not for long periods of storage. Another
reviewer felt container regulations under DOT were too confusing
and should be substituted. Several person recommended that
container specifications be required for the railroads also.
EPA agrees that the DOT regulations are generally suitable, will
adopt DOT standards, and will recommend container standards only
as necessary.
The labeling requirements under Subpart B received much
criticism. A number of reviewers suggested that the EPA label
be used only when the DOT label was not applicable, instead of
allowing either one to be used. One group felt that if the
DOT poison label were used, there might be confusion as to
whether the hazard was specific to DOT criteria or simply a
F-8
-------
general environmental hazard. They suggested using ANSI as
well as DOT labels. Another reviewer pointed out that using
an EPA label and/or a DOT label may violate DOT transportation
regulations. Several persons remarked that DOT labels were
designed primarily for transportation purposes and may not be
sufficient for disposal or long-term storage. All reviewers
agreed that DOT and EPA label regulations should be consistent
and that any new labels be developed in coordination. The
regulation adopt DOT labeling requirements 40 CFR 100-189.
Other Comments
There were a number of comments concerning the status of
resource recovery. Several reviewers believed that the de-
finition of waste as "discarded materials" exempts those
substances destined for resource recovery from Subtitle C
regulations. Other groups opposed this view, stating that in
order to have control over all hazardous waste materials, those
designated for resource recovery should also be regulated. One
reviewer suggested exempting particular phases of resource
recovery, such as fuel recovery, from compliance with regulations.
The recordkeeping section caused a good deal of confusion.
Some reviewers suggested rewriting the recordkeeping regulations
for greater precision and clarity.
Other Reviewers
The small generator issue drew varied responses from the
reviewers. Most opposed basing the definition on a quantity
limit. They felt that the problem may not be the major dis-
F-9
-------
charges but the smaller companies, which may discharge toxic
waste without treatment. One group suggested exempting certain
less toxic classes of waste. Regulation would have to include
genetically active wastes, however. Other reviewers recommended
basing the definition on volume and type of waste or on a
combination of toxicity, concentration, and quantity. One
reviewer suggested a quantity limit which excluded the lower
10% of all generators.
A number of comments were directed at the small generator
guidelines presently in the regulations. It was proposed that
small generators sending waste to a permitted facility should
not have to report or keep records. Several groups also suggested
deleting section 250.22(b) in the 9/14/77 draft (pertaining to
small generator exclusion guidelines) because it discouraged
proper disposal of waste. Another reviewer felt that Appendix B
in the 9/14/77 draft might place small generators in a legally
questionable position and also should be deleted. A suggestion
was made to establish penalities for failure of small generators
to triple rinse containers.
Several recommended changes were proposed with respect to
the manifest system. One reviewer believed that a uniform
manifest should be developed and should be required to be
utilized by all States. This would eliminate confusion during
interstate shipment. Another person felt that the manifest
was unduly burdensome to smaller companies. He pointed out
that many generators sign their wastes over to collectors "at
the door" and should not have to bear responsibility for errors
F-10
-------
made by the transporter or TSDF. It was also recommended that
the transporter fill out his portion of the manifest before
giving the generator his copy. This would insure tighter control
over the system.
Several reviewers made comments pertaining to the reporting
system. One group suggested dividing generators into two
groups, large generators and moderate-size generators. Large
generators would consist of the largest 10%, which create 80-
90% of all hazardous wastes. Those in the large generator
category would be required to report quarterly. Generators in
the moderate size category would report yearly. This method
would reduce paperwork, significantly and still cover the vast
majority of waste. As an example, EPA air emission regulations
divide point sources into large and small classes and have
different requirements for each. Another reviewers suggested that
the report be semi-annual rather than quarterly. A recommendation
was also made to require generators, transporters, and TSDF's to
report to the Region with authority over their operations.
One reviewer made a number of suggestions to improve the
labeling requirements. This group felt that the National
Fire Protection Association labeling system should be substituted
for the DOT system. It was pointed out that DOT only reports
the most severe hazard while the NFPA identifies health, flam-
nability, and reactivity hazards through diagrams. The reviewers
believed it to be a much more complete system.
F-n
-------
APPENDIX G
STANDARD PRODUCTION RATE SUMMARY
(250.29)
G-l
-------
The use of a Standard Production Rate (SPR) to define
generators was necessitated by several circumstances. Congress
has mandated the EPA to develop methods and allocate resources
to protect the environment from contamination by hazardous wastes.
EPA faces the task of using available funds to protect the
environment to the greatest extent possible.
It becomes clear that the real danger to the environment
is not posed by the many small generators of hazardous waste,
but by those few who produce large volumes. The large amount
of time and money necessary to regulate small generators is
questionable, in terms of the additional protection of the
environment that would result.
The problem is to find a production rate cut-off which
would exclude the small generators whose waste has an insignificant
effect on the environment, while concentrating on the large
producers who have proven so destructive in the past. It is
a matter of balancing the cost of enforcement versus protection
against damage to the environment, trying to minimize the former
and maximize the latter.
In order to determine an appropriate SPR, it was necessary
to gather data demonstrating the characteristics of the generator
population. Data from the Environmental Impact Statement and data
collected from five state hazardous waste surveys were utilized
in the analysis. Methods of this analysis are detailed in
Appendix I. The analysis indicated that there was a range
of production rates that excluded the most significant number
G-2
-------
of generators compared to the possible damage to the environment
that could result. The range was from 75 Ibs./month to 300 Ibs./
month.
The Office of Enforcement and OSW further restricted the
range of the SPR. Both felt that the SPR must be much less
than one drum (450 Ibs.) . The reasoning was that enforcement
of the SPR would be easier if determination of generator status
could be made simply by noting whether a drum of waste was on
the loading dock.
It was decided that a one-half drum quantity (220 Ibs.)
would satisfy both OE and OSW criteria. This also worked out
to 100 kgs. in the metric system. It was decided to test
this value for cost reduction (percent of generators excluded)
and possible environmental damage (amount of waste excluded).
According to the EIS data, 40%-60% of the generators would be
excluded from regulation while only .3-.4% of the hazardous
waste escapes control. In the five state data, 11.3% of the
generators were excluded while .0005% of the waste was excluded.
These figures satisfy our desire to reduce costs significantly
yet maintain control of the hazardous waste.
There is still the question of whether the unregulated
disposal of these small amounts of hazardous waste could cause
damage to the environment. The exempted waste would be required
to be disposed in a Subtitle D sanitary landfill. It was decided
to do a study of past incidents of environmental damage at
sanitary landfills to see what factors contributed to the con-
tamination. This analysis is detailed in Appendix H.
G-3
-------
It was found that two factors were primarily responsible
for past damage incidents. The first involves the quantity of
hazardous waste which was dumped at the site. There were few
incidents in which the quantity was documented where less
than 1,000 Ibs. of hazardous waste were involved. Most damages
were caused by quantities in the thousands of pounds. These
are well above the anticipated 220 Ibs./month limit to be pro-
posed by Section 3002.
«
The second important factor was related to the construction
of the landfill. At the time these damage incidents took place,
no regulations were in effect regarding construction and safety
considerations for landfills. Environmental damage occurred
because obvious errors in location, construction, and operation
took place. Subtitle D of RCRA is currently writing regulations
for sanitary landfills. All hazardous wastes excluded by the
SPR will have to be disposed of at a Subtitle D landfill (or go
to a Subtitle C facility. 1 In the present draft, Subtitle D reg-
ulations require damage control methods that would have prevented
or reduced the impact of every case of environmental damage in
the incidents outlined in Appendix H. The specific damage
control methods are expanded on in Appendix J.
It was stated in the previous paragraph that Subtitle D
regulations would have prevented all of the damage incidents
investigated or reduced the impact. It was questioned whether
a facility not designed specifically for hazardous wastes
should be allowed to handle them, even in small amounts. A
G-4
-------
comparison of a Subtitle D landfill and a Subtitle C facility,
which is designed specifically to accommodate hazardous wastes
was made. The study revealed that in every important facet
of location, construction, and operation, the Subtitle D
standard was as strict as the corresponding Subtitle C require-
ments (Appendix J).
From the previous discussion, it is clear that there is
reason to institute the SPR, in terms of reduction of cost
and effort spent in enforcing the regulations. It has also
been shown that protection of the environment is not compromised
by exempting smaller generators. Thus the Standard Production
Rate of 220 Ibs./month (100 kg.) is a reasonable and viable
proposal.
G-5
-------
APPENDIX H
SUMMARY OF DAMAGE REPORT STUDY
H-l
-------
A study was done of hazardous waste disposal incidents
in several states (Mass., N.Y., N.H., Conn., R.I., Penn., Md.,
Va., N.C., S.C., Ga., Fla., Tenn., Ala., Miss., Kentucky and
W. Va.). The purpose was to find out what bearing these
incidents had with respect to the proposed method of defining
a generator using the Standard Production Rate (SPR).
If the SPR definition is used, a quantity of hazardous
waste will be released from regulatory control. Some of the
waste may be taken to a Subtitle C facility (specifically for
hazardous wastes) . The remainder of the waste will be required
to be disposed of at Subtitle D facilities (sanitary landfills) .
A concern of many persons is that the Subtitle D facility
may not be adequately constructed to accept even these limited
quantities of hazardous waste. Sanitary landfills have, in
past incidents, caused damage to the environment because hazar-
dous wastes were indiscriminately dumped into them. This paper
will show that past incidents of environmental contamination
and damage at sanitary landfills would have been prevented had
the presently worded Section 3002 and Subtitle D landfill re-
ulations been in effect.
There are two aspects of these incident reports which we
are particularly interested in. The first is the quantity of
hazardous waste which was involved in each incident. Section
3002 regulations will limit the use of a Subtitle D site
(sanitary landfill) to those generators that generate and dis-
pose of less than 100 kg/month. The second important factor
concerns the method by which the environmental contamination
-------
or damage took place (i.e.: leachate entering groundwater,
explosion, production of toxic gases, etc.). Subtitle D
regulations have specific requirements to control such problems.
According to the incident reports surveyed, the quantity
of waste involved in every incident in which quantity was docu-
mented greatly exceeded the 100 kg/month limit that would be
imposed by Section 3002 regulations. This includes open
dumping incidents as well as accidents occurring at sanitary
landfills. The smallest documented amount which was involved
in an incident was several drums (1000 Ibs.) of a flammable waste
which exploded at a landfill in New Jersey. It is evident from
these reports that limiting the quantities of hazardous waste
that enter a sanitary landfill would greatly reduce contamination
and damage incidents.
It is also clear from reviewing the damage reports that the
mechanism of environmental damage, with respect to the landfill,
is generally limited to five pathways: groundwater contamination,
leachate infiltration, surface water runoff, explosions and fires,
and the production of toxic gases. All of these possible dangers
are dealt with in the Subtitle D disposal facilities criteria.
Subtitle D requires that contamination of ground water be
controlled by several methods. These include: a hydrogeologi-
cally sound location, an impermeable liner, a proper distance
between the water table and landfill bottom, and a monitoring
system. Surface water contamination is limited by diverting and/
or collecting runoff waters. Damage by leachate infiltration will
be controlled by leachate collection methods. Toxic gases, ex-
H-3
-------
plosive gases, and fires will be minimized by periodically
covering active sites with dirt. A more detailed analysis
of Subtitle D landfill regulations is found in Appendix J
of the background document.
V7e have shown that in all the incident reports surveyed,
environmental damage and contamination would have been eliminated
if the Section 3002 and Subtitle D regulations had been in force.
It can further be concluded that because of the safeguards pro-
vided by these regulations, it would be safe to dispose of limit-.
ed quantities of hazardous waste at Subtitle D facilities.
1. a. Northeast Bronx, N.Y.
b. private landfill
c. An organic solvent was dumped at
a landfill, causing bad odors to
emanate from the area,
2. a. Granby, N.Y.
b. land disposal
c. 55 gals, drums of liquid sludges were
stockpiled at a site. Subsequent leak-
age from the drums caused contamination
of nearby streams.
3. a. New York City
b. private dump
c. Sludge containing chromium and zinc was
disposed in a swampy area, resulting in
contamination of the groundwater.
4. a. Mamaroneck Village, N.Y.
b. surface dumping
c. An exterminating truck filled with a low-
concentrate solution of the pesticide
Aldrite dumped 50 gals of the liquid into
a storm sewer. This resulted in contamina*-
tion of a nearby creek.
5. a. Islip, N.Y.
b. Sanitary landfill
c. Industrial wastes containing bicarbonate,
HCT, CI, Fe, Mn were deposited in a sani-
tary landfill, causing contamination of
groundwater.
H-4
-------
6. a. Middleport, N.Y.
b. land disposal
c. Land disposal of pesticides on
company property caused contamina-
tion of groundwater and surface water.
7. a. New York City
b. surface dump
c. A small refiner dumped wastes containing CuSo4
and NiSo4 at the back of its property.
This resulted in pollution of groundwater.
8. a. West Valley, N.Y.
b. Radioactive waste burial facility
c. Radioactive wastes were buried in
capped trenches which allowed water
to infiltrate to form leachate. This
leachate seeped into the soil causing
contamination of ground water.
9. a. Babylon, N.Y.
b. landfill
c. The Babylon town landfill has 2.3 million
cubic yards of garbage deposited on 25
acres of land. Since the bottom of the
landfill is below the water table, leachate
has entered the aquifer, causing trace
amounts of arsenic, copper, lead sine, to
occur.
10. a. Foundry Cove, N.Y. - Cold Springs
b. land dump
c. A plant making nickel - cadmium batteries
dumped alkaline wastes at the edge of a
marsh that drained into the Hudson River.
Contamination of the Hudson resulted.
11. a. Olean, N.Y.
b. surface dumping
c. A fertilizer company spilled and dumped
numerous accumulations of nitrogenous
wastes. These wastes were washed into
the Allegheny River, causing major fish
kills. Groundwater contamination was
also noted.
12. a. Rensselaer, N.Y.
b. industrial spills
c. Waste oil from an underground tank seeped
into the ground water and was subsequently
transported by streams into the Hudson River.
H-5
-------
13. a. Bergen, N.J.
b. surface dumping
c. An abandoned manufacturing plant used
a nearby site for surface dumping of
mercury wastes.
14. a. Cape May, N.J.
b. Landfill
c. Oil and petrochemicals spilled at a
landfill site caused contamination of
a nearby creek and lake. This involved
30 truckloads of waste, about 150,000
Ibs.
15. a. Newark, N.J.
b. landfill,
c. Oils and chemicals dumped at a landfill
caused contamination of coastal waters.
This involved about 500,000 gals.
16. a. Mantua, N.J.
b. landfill
c. Leachates from industrial waste deposited
at a landfill caused contamination of
groundwater and a creek.
17. a. Atlantic City, N.J.
b. landfill
c. The city landfill caused high concentrations
of Fe and Pb.
18. a. South Jersey
b. landfill
c. Chemical wastes deposited in a company-
owned landfill resulted in the contamina-
tion of nearby drinking wells.
19. a. Jamesburg, N.J.
b. landfill
c. Leachate from wastes disposed in a landfill
caused contamination of ground water and
public wells.
20. a. Deepwater, N.J.
b. surface disposal
c. Leachate from waste sludge accumulated over
50 yrs. has resulted in contamination over
a 40 acre area.
21. a. Pine Beach, N.J.
b. landfill
c. 15,000 drums of hazardous waste was deposited
in a small landfill in the early 60fs. Ten
years later, leakage from the site caused
public concern.
H-6
-------
22. a. Lebanon, Pa.
b. landfill
c. Untreated leachate from refuse has caused
damage to ground water
23. a. Middletown, tt.J.
b. landfill
c. 60,000 gals of liquid chemical wastes were
spilled at the landfill and contaminated
nearby streams.
24. a. Baltimore, Md.
b. landfill
c. 2,000 gals of liquid sodium sulphide disposed
of in a landfill caused the release of noxious
gases.
%
25. a. Allegheny Co, Pa.
b. land disposal
c. 400 tons of a pesticide waste were disposed
on a site in the town of Hamilton. A bull-
dozer operator became sick and leakage to
groundwater has occurred.
26. a. Maxataway, Pa.
b. land disposal-Quarry
c. 55-gal. drums of paint solvents were disposed
of in a quarry. Contamination of several private
wells occurred.
27. a. East Cocolico, Pa.
b. landfill ...
c. 55 gallon drums containing nickel and beryllium
wastes caused damage to nearby wells and springs.
28. a. Sandy Lake, Pa.
b. land dumping-fill
c. 30,000 gallons of alkaline wastes were dumped
in a 3 acre area of a swamp. A large fish
kill occurred in a nearby river.
29. a. Springfield, Pa.
b. landfill , .. ,
c Tank-car quantities of waste were deposited
at a landfill, resulting in an explosion and
fires that burned out of control for several
days.
30. a. Ambler Twp., Pa.
" ^mflS'cubic yards of asbestos .were deposited
in several open piles, resulting in contamina-
tion II nearby land areas and degradation of
a creek.
H-7
c
-------
31. a. Rivera Beach
b. landfill
c. 3,000 gals of sodium sulfide was deposited
at a landfill resulting in the formation
of toxic gases and the disabling of a truck
driver and five other man.
32. a. Monroeville, Pa.
b. landfill
c. 50,000 gals per day of leachate from the land-
fill contaminated groundwater and a nearby
creek.
33. a. Kiskiminetas, Pa.
b. dump pile
c. 463 tons of acid per day were leached from
mine tailings. Contamination of the Kiski-
minetas River occurred.
34. a. Robinson, Pa.
b. land dump
c. 17 tons of sulphuric acid is leached daily
from a pile of waste coal debris. This
leachate contaminates nearby streams and rivers
35. a. North Cordurus, Pa.
b. landfill
c. Compaction of 1300 Ibs of lye waste caused
personal injury to persons at the landfill.
36. a. Solon, Me.
b. Dump
c. Twenty cases of pesticide disposed at the dump
have a potential for contaminating groundwater.
37. a. Bowdin, N.C.
b. improper disposal
c. 8 jugs of pesticide caused a major fish kill
in the river along which they were deposited.
38. a. Toone, Tenn.
b. land disposal
c. Steel drums of toxic wastes were buried in
lined trenches. Leaks in the drums have
allowed waste to escape to the subsurface
environment.
39. a. Dover, N.J.
b. land storage
c. Drums of various petrochemicals stored on
a farm leaked and caused damage to an aquifer
and creek. This involved 6,000 drums.
H-8
-------
40. a. Pennsville, N.j.
b. lagoons and landfills
c. Disposal of metal wastes in an unlined
landfill caused contamination of the
groundwater in the area.
41. a. Bridgewater, N.J.
b. subsurface disposal
c. Subsurface disposal of volatile organic
wastes caused pollution in a stream and
seewpage into basements.
42. a. Atlantic Co., N.J.
b. landfill
c. Lead wastes deposited at a landfill resulted
in the leaching of chemicals into the ground-
water .
43. a. Middlesex, N.J.
b. landfill
c. Fires and explosions from known sources
caused a fatality at this landfill. The
source of the explosion was several drums
of hazardous waste.
44. a. California
b. industrial waste disposal
c. Poisonous fumes from alkyl lead wastes caused
illness to workers in the disposal plant.
45. a. Oregon
b. disposal company - improper dumping
c. A disposal company improperly disposed of
hazardous waste by dropping several drums
off at a local dump. The drums were later
unearthed by a flood and began contaminating
the groundwater and emitting toxic gases.
46. a. Perham, Minnesota
b. burial of wastes
c. Arsenic wastes buried 30 yrs. ago contaminated
drinking water and caused several persons to
be hospitalized.
47. a. Los Angeles, Cal.
b. sanitary landfill
c. cyanide and acid wastes were mixed together
forming toxic hydrogen cyanide gas. This
involved 2,000 gals of cyanide waste.
48. a.
b. excavation
c. Mixture of aluminum sulfate with sulfide wastes
resulted in the production of H2S gas and the
death, of one person.
H-9
-------
49. a. Dundalk, Md.
b. sanitary landfill
c. Mixture of sulfides and organic materials
caused the production of H^S gas and re-
sulted in the hospitalization of several
persons. This involved a 2,000 gal-load.
50. a. Southern California
b. land disposal site
c. Unloading of waste acid into a bottomless,
open tank resulted in the production of
NO2 and the evacuation of nearby areas.
51. a. Contra Costa, Calif.
b. dump
c. Drums of solvents reacted with mineral
acids which were released by leaky containers.
Since no cover was applied that day, a
chemical fire resulted that dispersed
beryllium into the air.
52. a. Riverside Co., Calif.
b. dump
c. Several drums of waste were improperly
deposited at a dump. Later, during a flood
the drums were unearthered, ruptured, and
washed downstream. HC1 gas was released.
53. a. California
b. disposal site
c. Dichromate salts were dumped in a pit with
pesticides. The dichromate oxidized the
pesticides and caused fires to ignite.
54. a. De Quincy, Louisiana
b. disposal site
c. A company is storing hazardous wastes at an
unsuitable site. Leakage from the site is
causing damage to nearby vegetation and
potential damage to ground water.
55. a. Pience Co., Wash - 1971
b. open dump
c Hazardous pesticide chemicals were deposited
in an open dump. The material was subsequently
transported elsewhere.
56. a. Steven Co., Wash.
b. land dumping
c Radioactive wastes from an old uranium mine
were dumped land exposed on the ground, subject
to wind and water erosion.
H-10
-------
57. a. Kitsap Co., Wash.
b. dump
c. A high explosive was washed out of shells
by the Navy and resulting wash was sent
to a dump. Hazardous concentrations were
found in the groundwaters.
58. a. Great Britain
b. land disposal
c. A company bought a tract of land to store
wastes, sludges, and containers on. Drainage
from the site affected nearby streams and
ponds, killing livestalk.
59. a. Great Britain
b. dump
c. Run-off from an industrial waste, dump
contaminated drinking water for a community.
60. a. Colorado - 1954
b. industrial waste pit
c. An industrial waste pit caused contamination
of groundwater, affecting plants in the area.
61. a. Connecticut
b. land dumping
c. Public school wells were contaminated due to
surface dumping of industrial wastes.
62. a. Conn.
b. land disposal
c. Byproducts from manufacturing of antibiotics
were disposed of in an old sand pit and
contaminated the groundwater.
63. a. Conn.
b. land dumping
c. Waste solvents were dumped by a company onto
neighboring industrial land, polluting the
ground water.
64. a. Delaware
b. landfill
c. Leachate from city landfill contaminated
groundwater and aquifer with high metal
compounds.
65. a. Delaware
b. dump .
c. Leachate from abandoned municipal and indust-
rial dump has affected groundwater and drinking
water.
H-ll
-------
66. a. New Jersey
b. land disposal
c. Stored sludge is leaking organic chemicals
into the local aquifer recharge area.
67. a. New York
b. land disposal
c. Chromium was leached from plating waste
deposited on the land surface
68. a. New York
b. land dump
c. Leachate from film - manufacturing wastes
dumped into a peat swamp have affected the
groundwater.
69. a. New York
b. sanitary landfill
c. Leachate from liquid and solid waste has
degraded ground water in the shallowest
aquifer underneath.
70. a. Pennsylvania
b. industrial dump
c. Heavy metals were leached from a slag
pile and infiltrated to the water table.
71. a. Saco, Me.
b. open dump
c. Large quantities of sludge from a treatment
plant were deposited in an open dump. The
groundwater supply nearby was contaminated
by leachate from the waste and resulted in
high levels of Fe and Mn.
72. a. Solon, Me.
b. landfill
c. 20 cases of a pesticide were dumped at a
landfill, resulting in contamination of
surrounding soil and a nearby aquifer.
73. a. Ashland, N.H.
b. landfill
c. Several barrels of dyes deposited in a land-
fill began to leak and caused contamination
of a nearby aquifer.
74. a. Hudson, N.H.
b. surficial dumping
c. Surface dumping of industrail wastes in drums
caused the contamination of wells used for
drinking water.
H-12
-------
75. a. Coventry, R.I.
b. surface dump
c. Open dumping of toxic and explosive
wastes at a pig farm resulted in an
explosion and possible damage to the
water table.
76. a. Southern, R.I.
b. dump
c. An unspecified leachate from a dump
contaminated a portion of an aquifer
near some public wells.
77. a. Ledyard, Conn.
b. land disposal
c. Buried drums containing styrene con-
taminated six private wells.
78. a. Durham, Conn.
b. surface disposal
c. Two small manufacturing companies
deposited solvent wastes in a surface
dump, resulting in public wells being
contaminated.
79. a. Wolcott, Conn.
b. surface dumping
c. A tool company dumped oils and organic
solvents in the backyard of the business
establishment. Private wells and wells
of adjacent businesses were contaminated,
80. a. Milford, Conn.
b. landfill
c. Flyash was deposited in a landfill,
causing contamination of groundwater.
81. a. Windsor, Conn.
b. landfill
c. 55 gallon drums of chromic acid dumped
in a landfill caused contamination of
nearby streams.
82. a. Olean Co.
b. surface dumping
c. Chromium leached from plating wastes
discarded on the surface resulted in
high levels of Cr in nearby wells.
H-13
-------
APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF GENERATOR DATA
1-1
-------
Ideal Case
1-2
-------
Study of hazardous waste data from a number of sources
reveals that a graph of number of generators versus the rate
at which they produce in Ibs./month has a convex shape. This
shape can be approximated by two straight lines; one occupies
the lower intervals and has a large slope; the second line is
in the larger intervals and has a much smaller slope (fig. 1) .
These shapes indicate that for small generation rates, we
have large numbers of generators. For larger generation rates,
fewer generators are found. At a certain rate, a noticeable
break occurs. To the left of this rate, a large number of
generators are excluded for each additional increment of rate.
To the right, fewer generators are excluded per added in-
crement. In choosing a Standard Production Rate, it is desirable
to exclude the most significant number of generators per added
increment of rate. Using this criterion, the SPR should be
chosen at the rate where the break in the lines occurs.
1-3
-------
so
-------
SUMMARY OF EIS DATA
1-5
-------
It was necessary to convert the raw EIS data into genera-
tor and hazardous waste statistics. This was done by first
choosing six rate intervals: 100, 200, 400, 800, 1200, 1600.
These intervals are in Ibs./month. For each SIC value, the
calculated generation factor (table 1) was divided into the
rate interval being studied. This value revealed the number of
employees that a company at this rate interval would employ. By
looking at table 2, it was possible to determine how many
companies employed this number of persons and produced at this
SIC. This was done for each SIC category for each rate interval.
The total number of companies that fell into each rate interval,
for all SICs, was divided by the total number of generators
surveyed and multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage. This was
plotted versus rate interval on a graph (fig. 2) . The hazardous
waste curve was determined by multiplying the number of generators
falling into each rate interval by the value of the particular
interval. This was plotted on the same graph. An example using
an interval of 100 and an SIC of 20 is shown below.
SIC = 20 Rate Interval =100
0.544 * 0.1467 *= 3.7
(rate interval (generation factor (No. of employees
of 100 in metric from table 1) employed by gens.
tons per year} producing at this
interval.)
About four employees are employed by generators producing
at 100 Ibs./month. Looking at table 2 for this SIC, it can
by seen that 8,492 companies employ this number of persons and
thus produce at 100 Ibs./month. This procedure is continued
1-6
-------
for all the other SIC categories surveyed. The total number
of generators is added and this represents the total number
of generators/ in all SIC categories, that produce at 100 Ibs./
month.
To obtain the hazardous waste value at 100 Ibs./month,
the total number of generators for all SIC categories is multi-
plied by 100 Ibs(.544 metric tons). This is then surveyed and
multiplied by 100"to obtain a percent value.
126,012 X .544 metric tons/yr.(100 Ibs./mo.)=68,550 m. tons
(Total number of /YR
gens, in SIC 20-39
producing 100
Ibs./mo nth)
68,550 m. tons/yr. *43.4 X 106 metric tons/yr = 1.58 X 10
(Total amount of waste _3
surveyed) 2 x 10
2 x 10~3 x 100 = .2%
.2% of the hazardous waste is produced by generators who
produce at a rate of 100 Ibs./month.
The graph of the generator and hazardous waste data from
the EIS can be seen in figure 2. The hazardous waste data is
multiplied by a factor lo"1. It can be seen that the generator
curve has a large slope in the early rate intervals and then
rapidly flattens out between 100 and 400. The data continues to
flatten after 400, becoming very nearly flat in the intervals
from 600-800.
The generator curve in fig 2 is a realistic approximation
of the ideal case. The EIS data does not have a definite break
point as in the ideal case. Since it is raw data, such a pro-
nounced break would not be expected. However, a range of values
1-7
-------
s TA.CTC:IS roa THE CALCLATIOS OF ssrcjiisa orxrrrrtss
CT EAZAXDCCS VASTS SiSZSAlTJ 3t »c.-J?AC^.r3LIS3 tSDCST2!iS 2^313 OK DGLQYIE-
Srarcard laduscrial Classifiesilia
Calcularad
teserscion Jzcz
20 Food aad kisdred products
value
value
Low value
rf!7f -1*11 preeuaea
?*<*an -value
Low
23 Apparel aad other textile products
0.1467
0.3704
0.0237
Q.A635
1.2130
0.0366
0.1133
value
•*3ac:elle Sorc=w«*e Laboratories, 1377
r,*zies=*cic sear, a* =ae rang*.
0.10S3
0.0993
(SIC 22 i 33
-O.i613)
24
23
25
27
23
29
30
31
32
Zsaaer aad •wood products
2fieaa value
High value
Low value
FuraieurB aad Fixtures
Seaa value
High value
Low -value
Taper and allied products
Haan value
ff!gh value
Low value
Printing ac4 publish lag
Seaa value
gagh value.
Low value
**^en value
g
-------
Sczr.dard tadussria
lassif icasian
Calculated
Ger.aracisn Tacca:
35 Jiachinsry, exeepc «lec::lcs.l
Meaa value
Hisa value
Lav -value
36 Zl*c-cric -g^ electronic eculpcaac
0.2331*
Comparison
33 ?rls
3i eabr
ary seeai iaaus cries
Mean value
High value
Lou valu«
_cace
-------
• IKK I) lu ml mm on OK HANUPAtriuuim) PIHMS itv BTAHI>/VKI> HIMUNTHIAI. ci.AUiimoAi um - \<>n*
Stitii.f.irJ tudtifttrlal L'lAoul Hunt ion
20 Kiiud mid kindred |iruiluutn
22 Tom llu mill product a
21 A|i|iiirnl uiid otluT lull. Ill* pkuduct*
24 l.uinlior mid wnnd product A
71 t'ur ul turn 4i|u| ll»lmj;il
26 l'.»|>nr .iiid ul Hod product u
27 l'» hit liift mwl |iiililluliln||
2fl Clii'mlfiiln mid it 11 It'd |>riidiictii
29 Pel rnliiuw iiud mull (iroducla
10 Ritltlirr jnd «hn:. jilmit led product*
11 l.uniin'r mid Jorttlinr |iriuliitln
12 KluiMi, i:luy .mil ||lnuii product*
1.1 I'rlMMi'y »n;l/il liulunirluti
14 K.tlirli-iti i-.l mi-lnl pruditrtN
IS Myii lilnury, im>:i-|il duel rlcdl
i(l KliM-irlu jind uUtctriiiiic oqul|imcnt
17 Truitu|iiiiliil Inn i'<|ii ||>moilt
!)tl- IIIHI niMitntu A«ul ru lilt ml |>rmliicta
39 Mine. HiinufiiiiiurliiK liulimtri**
TrtTAI,
I'KIICIvNT (IF TtrlAl.
NUHUKH OK MANUWrfUHINC PIBMS .
1,492
1,085
1,462
17, fh
a 14
• ii.iflfi
3,749
591
1.522
791
,113
,250
,105
1 ,74|
,516
,989
,178
.54*
112,900
16.0
5-9
3,543
714
3,040
3,362
1 ,444
540
6,890
1,612
442
1,265
3
-------
!
-------
can be estimated over which this break point could occur.
Looking at fig. 2, the possible range of values is from abou>
75 to 300. Depending on how the two lines are drawn, any
value between these two limits could be a possible break poi;;t.
The rate cut-off could thus fall anywhere in this range.
Placing the rate cut-off either to the right or left of
this range would cause a deviation from the optimum break point,
If the cut-off were moved to the left, a large number of genera-
tors that could have been excluded with only minimal increase
in the SPR will remain in the system. If the rate cut-off were
moved to the right of this range, few additional generators
would be excluded from the system for each added unit of rate
excluded. Any realistic rate cut-off must lie somewhere in
this range.
1-12
-------
DATA FROM E.I.S
RATE
| IN
LBS/KOK
L 100
L 200
i
L 400
L 800
L 1200
L 1600
PERCENT
COM?.
40
50
58
61
70
73
!
PERCENT *
E.W. GOI:TG
TO SUB. D
0.2
0.4
0.9
1.9
3.3
4.6
1
i
PERCENT *
E.W. GCII-iG
TC SUB. C
99.5
99.6
99.1
98.1
96.7
95.4
1
1
\
5
"'
i
i
* Due to refinements in data as background information
improved, these percentages changed slightly.
1-13
-------
Summary of Genera-tor Data From Five States
1-14
-------
Generator data was obtained from five states; Illinois,
Maryland, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Texas. The amount of
waste produced by each generator and the identification number
(or SIC) were derived from the data in the surveys.
Hazardous waste quantities have been converted into units
of Ibs/month using the conversions at the back of this section.
A number of arbitrary rate generation cut-off values were
constructed. Cut-off values were: 25, 50, 100, 200, 350, 500,
750, 1250, 1500. In each state, the number of generators pro-
ducing in each rate category was calculated and divided by the
total number of generators polled in that state's survey. The
amount of hazardous waste produced by the generators in each rate
category was likewise calculated and divided by the total amount
of waste found in the paricular state survey. All of these
values (both generator and hazardous waste) were multiplied by
100 to obtain a percentage. These percentages enabled us to
know what portion of the generators and hazardous waste fell into
each rate generation category, in each state.
A composite graph with cumulative data from all five states
was developed. The number of generators in each rate interval
from each state was added together and and divided by the total
number of generators surveyed in all five states. The hazardous
waste produced in each rate interval was added together from all
of the states and divided by the total amount of hazardous
waste surveyed in all five states. A graph was constructed
using this data. The graph represents generator and hazardous
waste percentages on the y-axis. The rate in Ibs/month is on the
1-15
-------
x-axis. A best possible curve fit was constructed for each sec
of points, using a French curve.
The generator curve has a characteristic convex shape wh^ ch
can be related to the ideal case (fig. 3). The generator curve
from this data, like the EIS data, appears to have a range over
which the break point can occur. As in the EIS analysis, the
range is approximately from 75 to 300 Ibs/month. The SPR should
be chosen somewhere in this area in order to excluded the most
significant number of generators compared to the amount of waste
released from the manifest, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements.
1-16
-------
1
-------
APPENDIX J
COMPARISON OF SUBTITLE C AND SUBTITLE D
FACILITIES
J-l
-------
COMPARISON OF SUBTITLE C AND D LANDFILLS
I. GROUNDWATER
A. General
Standard
Subtitle D Landfill
1. Aquifers for human
consumption not ad-
versely affected
2, Aquifers not for
human consumption
maintained at levels
set by state
Subtitle C Landfill
Facilities must not
degrade aquifers beneath.
Degrade means not contami-
nate water to the point
where additional treatment
is necessary in order to
drink it.
V
N>
D. Methods for
Insuring G.W,
Quality
1. Artificial liners
2. Collect leachate
3. Use natural hydrogeologic
and soil conditions
4. Monitor ground water
5, Develop a contingency plan
in case of contamination.
1. Monitor ground water
a. grid system of
vacuum lysimetors
b. background wells
c. monitoring wells
d, sampling analyses
2. Collection of leachate,
Prevention of infiltration
a. natural soil liner
(1.) 10 ft. thick
(2.) impermeable
b. leachate collection
(1.) bottom liner
(2.) collection sump
(3.) periodic removal
3, Contingency Plan
ri. Surface Water
-------
A. General Standard
Subtitelo P Landfill •
1. Point source discharges
conform with NPDES per-
mits
2. Non-point sources must
be minimized
SubtltXe C. LandfXll.
1. Point sources
discharge must
conform with NPDES
2. Non-point sources
must be minimized
D. Methods for Control
10
No specified methods
1. Runoff from active
portions must be
collected and con-
fined to a point
discharge.
2. Diversionary structures
must be built
3. Runoff collected from
active area v/ill be
treated as a waste
III, Coyer
Material
A. Reason for regulation
B. Methods
For control of disease
and fire
To minimize fire, infil.tr
tion, odors, vectors, and
provide an acceptable
appearance
Cover must be periodically
applied
1. Daily cover applied to
active area - 6 ins.
2, If cell not to be used
for extended length of
time - 12 ins. of eartl
-------
Comparison of Subtitle C and D Landfills (Con't)
Subtitle D Landfill Subtitle C Landfill
IV. Operation of Facility
Operation requirements
in regulations
None
1. No mixing of incompatible
wastes
2. Position of each hazardous
waste must be noted.
V. Air Quality
A. General Standard
1. Air emissions controlled to
comply with all applicable
laws.
2. Open burning prohibited
3. Explosive gases must not
accumulate
4. Toxic gas must not move off-
site.
Emissions shall not exceed
N.P.S.A,A,Q.S. standards
and not significantly
deteriorate air. quality
hazardous air contaminants
shall not exceed OS11A levels.
D. Methods
Mo specified methods
1, Monitoring for emissions
once a year
2, gas venting installed where
problems occur.
VI, Other Topics
A, Closure
No closure requirements
Requirements
^ ^ r—^'-T • ~—
4. • v 4.fJai'tfJ.i . ai* yuci^ ai* - ^ > ti
2, Closure and long-term caro
plans must be developed
3, final oovor ~>.
-------
B. Contingency Plans
Subtitle D Landfill
Only a general requirement
to develop a plan
Subtitle C Landfill
Requirements
1. Procedures to notify public,
emergency response
2. Designate responsible
persons
3. List of equipment to combat
spill
4. Filed with Regional Admin.
C. Location
Ul
D. Containers
Landfills must not be located
in or near:
1. environmentally sensitive
areas
2. flood plains
3, permafrost areas
4. critical habitats
5. Recharge zone of aquifer
used for drinking water
6. Near public well, spring,
etc.
If certain conditions are
met, it is possible to use above
areas,
Landfills must not be located
in or near;
1. fault zones (active)
2, floodplains (100 yr.)
3. Wet lands
4. permafrost areas
5. critical habitat
6, Must be away from public
wella, springs.
Under some conditions,
above sites may be utilized.
No container requirements
General requirements per-
taining fr.o leakage, opening,
spills, and disposal of used
containers,
-------
APPENDIX K
MANIFEST FORMAT
ICC STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING
DOT SHIPPING PAPER (STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING)
REPORT FORM
K-l
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST j
I I
I
IDENTIFICATION
vTt;Vv'>;-:^g£
JENBRA.TOR
ft*MS»ORTER
»OF JTREATMENT. 3TOR-
GC Olt DISPOSAL FACILITY]
tJO. CODE
NAME
ADDRESS
«»
o^ YE awtoi
»•.-• R.SCEIV
||fg
WASTE INFORMATION
SMIRKING DE3C»W*»T1OM
'
NAXAMO CUASS
"
QUANTITY
-
fComplcf* AppUc«^» Cola^
. UNIT
-~
COKTAINKMT
_
' •
CMeRGENCY INFORMATION
IHMgDIATE RESPONSC INFOAMATIOM
Sf»CClAI.- HAMOUNC IMSTKUCTIONS
JCOMMKMTS
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that tho a&ovo-namecf materials are property classified, described, packaged, marked ax, / labeled,
zodaro in proper conditioa lor transportation according to the applicable regulations of the Department of Trans-
portation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
CKNENATOR SIGNATURE
DATE
This is to certify acceptance of the hazardous waste shipment.
TRANSPORTER SIGNATURE
DATE
This is to certify acceptance of the hazardous waste for treatment, storage, or disposst.
TSOF SIGNATURE
K-2
-------
-UNIFORM STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING
Shipp*r*a N
ORIGINAL—NOT NEGOTIAB1E—
! (SCAC
JECEIVSD, subject to th» clavMaeat-ara and toii£s la effect on th* dat* of th» LSJU* of thvt Bi
City,
.County,
•* J
iiir nn T*i» IIMU TII mil rtiiiimi'im tl '• iniiiiii"j »j int. 11 In ncti cwr.»*' ef »U or loj1 of v»'w4 yn
r««iri &>«>-« a n-
•£»
County,.
*&
. Vehic!» or Car Initial.
tor
^*t M fc * ^^7>^* ?*tfr<»fr^
Kind of Facias*, D*«ariptiaa of Axtfd»%
Special Maria, aad Esc»p*ioa»'
• .
!••.._
* J
^'
* "'
f
" ' •
• B
•
. . . . I
:•
Ss . - -
*•
Mfeere th» rat» b dependent on value. shtpp*r3 at
^Adarrd valu» of tha property.
bit! «f lxS"J »lnU>tai« •}^«»t: »
•» required to state sp*cifie»Uy Li wndn^
CLO-D. c^ivs^] Shi?f*r-
Subjvcr to Section 7 of coi
^ears, if thi» shipment t» t»
jn*« vr
out iscounar on ti» cotwij;
tb»^con»snor shall aija &»
Tha carnit shall a** m»!e»
lofsry of thr» shipocnt -sarjth-
pagrzamt of Crwrjhk and att ot
laarfoi char^sa. . .J _
.», _ .
17 c3targa» ar» t» bv prep
7*»— »«»y«j-a>
Chars-* advanced:
— Ship?**
C;:/.
-------
CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
• -r ,,-j. ^ ji^
itMJ j]n7| lj, fuWi M il
V- f -- J t—tii*ir»f t
*
f» No CMW* e» pMiy in pn . i 7m of *U
s-of CaO. ii« puiW Mmy. th» authority of Uw. or eh* M* or drbull of th» i&pp* or a*flM>. or f» lutoni ^rinWijft, T>» ewiiw « luaifilv sinU t» afc»» r*uk» of lh« MTT»*| of l>s» fnp^tf ml rf.riiji.iJan or »» CM port of npwt (iC inSMidid for upart> h*» U«« dul* »»1 «>• •><*•<* »rai at»» p*e«m«
»rf xl ;*iainiti>»vaT LuaL* o««u>vrr «f CMpnpw^ tvliMTMtjr mloM U >»««•• it. ba« b— <• BiJ*U. £mnp* ia Ci**otn-»»i"W»i>t th»cam«r or
c*cs**. is> asoM* or
or miitili«i» Tin iTiiii.»« ihitl tinlil itii nrriin hii—'— ' -
nf 1*11 tinnniQ rumrfh/ltih iiiafml Tutu IIQT p1ir« >ii'n* •*•- 1 — ''- • '• --- rr-ritninn
ii.tIiMt»'^^
k^
^ A 1^ . . «- ' %_ _ "• f~ __ _"""_• A " ^^«1 ~ ~«^. • ' "• '_» ' *• -—^ •_ I*-' -- ~^~ •. fc- - -«•--' - --^ • ** •*— - _ ^ ^ _^_ . V» ». _
* - _1 ^^. " .' -.
jir>Jt-""*»'i.* i
;• -. -"•-•"'" ~±zr::£^£££'~
ABM* *r nmir». M«4V^U^MAN
iTnii»iJllj. l»i l.iiln p'nj. h tH
•••««•* il ahoU Ut (•
!*»•!• «rp«M»i>l«i PKOVinSD,T1atg
»»»«^»«rth»i»»i>»l«f 0>»pia»»ty «rll» failure «•
«4 th»
of nei wv.
»*V *•!«. MH! oth«r
«am»y brxiiNmtiW by U»«.
m of Cr^fS
»«p«iw and of cari*i for »nd m«auiainx thr property, if pra7«r CM* of v»»n»
10 Pint-Mi/ tfnt>n«J to or t*V*n from A itoliMfl. »Jurf. I*«a1n( or oth*r D!M* «t N-NWh fhw» u no rrjuUrly •j>awrt«d fc»»i?ie »<««. »S»»5t ^
fro«» «»fx »»>^c4— ar wv-MU or until lo»dwl into CM*. »«)ue!w or »«~»U »«!. «K«al ia c»-» of c*rr:n'> iwrUjntc*. — fcn» p-c«i»nf &OK» c '
u, j,, ar olS« ptic«s >>ulS b* »C VMtir'* rs'« until th« can *r* »it»cS«l u> «nj tl-^r t.Srj trr d.uchwi from !dcan»fa<« =-^ Criia or u: - !
. cJi ry >"
-..^s^. .^.>c-: >.l or
tunwu, ««;.. or for .,-» jnlcl-. ar».ir
of t>» tr:»!** u» «r
-------
STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING
ORIGINAL—NOT NEGOTIABLE
Shipper No._
Carrier No..
Oat*.
HM
I CM pv4»CFM 17Z.10I)
RATE
tforC
MEETS REaUlHEM04TOF 49 CFR 17Z201
TIE &T3STZBTPRET
ISSTCATlONTARt
SHf
=Fcdpy
MEW HM-112 CSTHRCATtON
COD
/
r*cr*o a
cnnecTQ «
CMAMGO: 1
FREIGHT CHAAGE3
^-.^r- a
. Jo..rt-»J*e»»~«»»»»—n»
I*"—
YOUR NAME IMPRINTED HEBE
OAT?
NX» iacmi =•
K-5
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATOR REPORT
IDENTIFICATION
CXNKMATOn IOKMTIW1CATIOW
CLOSING DATE
WASTE INFORMATION
TMATMCMT. aTOKAOB OK
3>9»O»Ak FACILITY I.O. COOK
MAMFCST OO<
«MT NWMMM
or
COMMENTS
CERTIFICATION
I have personally exanined and am familiar with the information submitted in
ificaticn/ and I hereby certify nrjA»T- penalty of law that this inC'jtT'H'*"'0" is trJfi.r
accurate/ and conplete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
g the possibility of fine and imprisonment.1*
OATC
K-6
-------
APPENDIX L
ANALYSIS OF UTILIZATION OP THE MANIFEST
AS REPORT VERSUS SUMMARY REPORTS
L-l
-------
The OSW "notification System Supportive Services" study con-
tract No. 68-01-4631 Published December 21, 1977, listed
approximately .38 million generators of hazardous waste. The
study "Characterization of Potential Permittees under Section
3005 of the Resource Conservation and Reocvery Act" Contract "lo.
08-01-4456 published June 8, 1977 estimated .45 million generators
of hazardous waste. Assume (1) the average of the two estimates
to be the number of hazardous waste generators regulated under
Subtitle C Section 3002.
C38 + .45) X 1Q6 = .42 X 106
2
and (2) that these generators are uniformly distributed among the
States. Jay Snow of the Texas Water Quality Board has indicated
that in the month of May 1977 approximately 2500 tickets (manifests)
were issued by 600 to 1200 industrial generators
Assuming then 3 manifest per generator per month as an average,
if the manifest were used as the report, then;
.42 X 106 generators X 3 manifest =
generator month
1.26 X 10 manifest/month
EPA would receive 1.26 million manifests per month or
126,000 manifests per Region per month if no States
assumed the hazardous waste program.
On the other hand assuming one monthly summary report per generator
or one quarterly summary report per generator, then
1 report X .42 X 10 generator =
generator
.42 X 10 report/month or quarter
L-2
-------
fhus, EPA would be receiving 420,000 monthly or quarterly
summary reports or 42,000 monthly or quarterly report per
Region assuming no States assume the hazardous waste program.
Paper flow impact on a typical EPA Regional Office when comparing
aanifest reporting to monthly, summary reports;
126,000 Manifest - 42,000 reports X
126,000
100 = 66.7% decrease in paper flow impact when using a
monthly, summary report instead of the manifest
as the report.
Paper flow impact on a typical EPA Office Regional when comparing
•anifest reporting to quarterly, summary reports:
126,000 manifest X 3 month = 378,000 manifest
monthquarter quarter
then,
378,000 manifest - 42,000 reports
378,000
X 100 = 88.9% decrease in paper flow impact when using a
quarterly, summary report instead of the
manifest as the report.
Paper flow impact on a typical EPA Office Regional when comparing
jonthly, summary reports quarterly, summary reports^
42,000 reports X 3 months = 126,000 reports
montnquarter quarter
L-3
-------
then,
126,OOP reports - 42fOOO reports
126,000
X 100 = 66.7% decrease in paper flow impact when using
a quarterly, summary report, instead of a
monthly, summary report.
L-4
-------
APPENDIX M
STATE RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
M-l
-------
- ' v
State Recordkeeping Requirements
(Perlo
'
U a
State
.-^Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisana
Maine
•Maryland
^Massachusetts
Agency Requirement
Public Utility Coimn.
Public Service Conua.
*6
**6
2
3
3
2
2
N.A.
N.A.
1
3
2
5
N.A.
**2
**10
1
5
N.A.
3
N.A.
3
Otlier Agency
cruireraent •$
N.A.
*10 Health!
N.A.
1 Eealth
M-2
-------
Agency Requirement:
Public Utility £omro.
Service Comm.
Hichigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Hew Hampshire
Hew Jersey
Hew Mexico
Hew York
Horth Carolina
iorth Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Bennsylvania
Khode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
fenrtont
"Virginia
Washington
N.A.
3
3
N.A.
3
3
3
N.A.
N.A.
3
3
3
N.A.
3
N.A.
***2
3
1
2
2
N.A.
2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
3
OtherAgency Re-
quirements
2 Dept. of Naturai
Resource
N.A.
N.A.
*5 DEP
N.A.
N.A.
3 Health De?
U.A.
N.A.
N.A.
c
-------
State Agency Requirement Other
Public Utility Corom. guireroents
Public Service Coimn.
Wi scons in 6
Wyoming N.A. N.A.
*State Regulations Pending
**Statute of Limitation
***Records held for Audit
-------
BD-9
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3003 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SECTION 250.30 THROUGH 250.38
DRAFT
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
December 15, 1978
-------
Headquarters/Region_
Document Number
-11-
-------
This document provides background information and support
for regulations which are designed to protect human health and
the environment pursuant to Section 3003 of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act of 1976. It is being made available
as a draft to support the proposed regulation. As new information
is obtained, changes may be made in the regulations as well as
in this background material.
This document was first drafted many months ago and has
been revised to reflect information received and Agency decisions
made sirfjb then. EPA made changes in the proposed Section 3003
regulations shortly before their publication in the Federal
Register. We have tried to ensure that all of those decisions
are reflected in this document. If there are any inconsistencies
between the proposal (the preamble and the regulation) and this
background document, however, the proposal is controlling.
Portions of this Background Document were written specifically
addressing sections of drafts of the regulation which were current
at that time. The reader is cautioned that references to section
titles or topics may have changed from draft to draft. Changes
in the drafts, as well as additions or deletions of sections, have
not changed the rationale or basis for establishing the proposed
version of the regulation. Where possible, section numbers of
the proposed version of the 3003 regulations, Standards Applicable
to Transporters of Hazardous Waste, appear in parentheses (250.30
- 250.38) .
-111-
-------
Comments in writing may be made to:
Harry W. Trask, Desk Officer
Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-iv-
-------
Background Document
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ................... /
II. Methology Utilized in Developing Standards .... 7
A. Meeting with interest group
B. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
C. External review
III. Regulatory Development Options .......... /"/
IV. Identification of Program Issues/Concerns ..... / ^
A. Transporters
B. Hazardous waste generators
C. Public interest groups
D. State and local governments
V. Analysis of Standards
A. Scope of regulations
B. Recordkeeping
C. Acceptance and transport of hazardous waste
D. Compliance with the manifest
E. Loading and storage of hazardous /^^er/^/f (
F. Emergency/spill regulations
G. Identification of vehicles
H. Placarding of transport vehicles
I. Insurance requirements
J. Permitting of hazardous waste transporters
K. Identification Code
-------
List of Tables, Attachments, Appendixes
Tables
Paqe
Table I
Table II
Table in
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Table VII
Table VIII
Public Participation Meetings,, :?. /o
Parties Contacted Outside of Public Meetings^
Regulatory Authority of DOT/EPA, p* /S
Standards Required Under DOT/EPA, p. /b
State Recordkeeping Requirements,^. 2.?
State Insurance Requirements, p. 7*/
States Requiring Permits/Licenses, />. 8S
State Application Requirements and Revocation
Authority, f. fj
Attachment I
Attachment II
Attachment III
Attachment IV
Attachment V
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
Attachments
Status of Federal Hazardous Material
Regulations^
Status of Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations,
DOT Letter,
Bill of Lading,
Handling of Shipping Document by Motor
Carriage (DOT)./
Preparation of Waybills,
Computerized Waybill,
DOT L<*4ding and Storage Placement Chart,
Incidents from Mixing Incompatible Wastey
DOT Incident Report Form
DOT Incident Summaries
DOT Incident Summaries
DOT Incident Summaries
DOT Incident Summaries
DOT Letter
DOT Placards
ICC Certificate of Insurance
Texas Letter Concerning Permits for Waste
Transporters
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendixes
Summary of Type II Meetings
Summary of_Mav 2, 1977, ANPR Comments
Jc'Ay/- M?Tl',"fc. Of fco/Sc. '^Vtyv'o?
External Feview Comments/Actions
— VI _
-------
I. Introduction
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580),
signed into law on October 21, 1976, directs the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, under Subtitle C of
the Act, to promulgate regulations within 18 months of enact-
ment to ensure the proper controls on generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and/or disposal of all wastes defined as
hazardous. Section 3003 of the Act (RCRA) requires EPA to
develop standards applicable to transporters of hazardous
waste as may be necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
The standards developed shall include but need not be
limited to; (1) recordkeeping concerning the hazardous
waste transported, its source and delivery points; (2)
transportation of such wastes only if properly labeled; (3)
compliance with the manifest system developed under Section
3002; and (4) transportation of all hazardous wastes only to
the waste management facility which the shipper designates
on the manifest to be a facility holding a permit issued in
accordance with Section 3005 of the Act.
In addition to these minimum requirements, paragraph
(b) states "that in the event that any hazardous waste
identified or listed is subject to the Hazardous Materials
-------
Transportation Act (Pub.L. 93-633), the standards established
by the Administrator shall be consistent with the DOT regulatic as.
Also, the Administrator is authorized to make recommendations
to the Secretary of Transportation respecting regulation of
hazardous wastes under the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act (HMTA).
Current federal authority for the control of transporta-
tion of hazardous materials is shared by the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC).
ICC
The ICC has jurisdiction over hazardous materials (as
defined by DOT) transportation in two areas: 1) the authori-
zation of new services interstate and limitations thereon,
and 2) the investigation of tariff filings affecting hazardous
materials. The regulated transport companies are classified
either as common or contract carriers. A common carrier
offers service to the general public. Interstate common
carriers must hold a certificate issued by the ICC, which
limits service to a specific geographic area and, in many
cases to specific commodities. A contract carrier is a
company that engages in for-hire transportation of property
under individual contracts or agreements with one or a
limited number of shipments. The ICC does not regulate
transport of agricultural goods, private carriers (a company
not primarily engaged in the transportation business that
-------
hauls its own property in its own vehicles), local cartage
carriers, and intra-state carriers.
In addition to regulating the interstate transportation
of hazardous materials, the transportation of waste products
for reuse and recycling is currently, as of May 13, 1976,
covered under ICC authority (HC-85). In 1971, the Commission
ruled that waste materials which are recycled "assume all of the
characteristics of property." Interstate transporters of
waste must acquire a special certificate of public convenience
and necessity. In acquiring this certificate, the transporter
must file the following with the ICC: 1) name and address
of company; 2) carrier's agent; 3) evidence of carrier's
insurance coverage; 4) copy of carrier tariff; 5) statement
signifying that all appropriate state regulatory agencies
have been notified, 6) a statement describing the pollution
control program from which the wastes were generated; 7)
statement of operational feasibility; and 8) a statement
demonstrating the applicant's fitness to perform the involved
service.
The ICC, as stated, does not regulate intrastate transportation;
however, its regulations do have an impact on the State
Public Service Commissions or Utility Commissions that regulate
(license/permit) transportation. The State of Texas recently
(January 28, 1977) ruled that a person who performs solid
waste disposal services is regulated by the State of Texas as a
-------
"motor carrier", principally because the ICC ruled that waste
may be considered property. (See Permitting of Hazardous Waste
Transporters, Section V.)
DOT
The DOT regulates the interstate as well as the intrastate
transportation of hazardous materials under its Hazardous
Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100-189). The regulations
address all modes of transportation (air, rail, highway,
waterway, and pipeline). DOT has established requirements
for shipping papers, containers, marking/labeling/ placarding
of containers and vehicles, handling of materials, and
incident reporting.
According to a recent interpretation by the Office of
Hazardous Materials Operations (DOT), any material, including
waste, which meets the DOT criteria for a hazardous material
must be handled accordingly.
The Office of Hazardous Materials newsletter of April/May
1977 states: "There have been numerous inquiries to the
Office of Hazardous Materials Operations regarding the
applicability of the Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations
to the transportation of waste materials. These regulations are
structured to apply to any materials that may pose an undue
hazard in transportation and, as such, do not differentiate
between waste and other than waste materials. If, after
processing, a material meets the definition of a hazardous
material, then that material must be classed and shipped in
-------
accordance with the requirements prescribed for the hazard
associated with the material. Many materials, including those
considered waste materials, may have more than one hazard and
certain other materials may lose their hazardous characteristics
due to processing. A mixture of materials, both waste and
other than waste, must be properly evaluated to determine
its characteristics since after processing, a mixture may be-
come more or less hazardous than it was prior to processing.
The Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations may
apply to any material regardless of its end use and the fact
that a material is considered a waste material does not
relieve application of these regulations."
In addition to the Hazardous Materials Regulations, trans-
porters of hazardous materials must also comply with DOT
safety regulations for Motor Carriers, (49 CFR 390-397);
Transport by Rail, Federal Railroad Administration Emergency
Order No. 5; and transport by water, U.S. Coast Guard Shipping
Regulations (46 CFR). Currently, Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
apply to interstate transport. Under HMTA, the regulations
can be extended to also cover intrastate transport. Safety
regulations for carriage by air, rail, and water apply regard-
less of inter or intrastate shipment.
Several States have adopted the hazardous material regulations
and the motor carrier safety regulations in toto or in part, or
-------
have similar regulations (Attachment I & II). Twenty-seven
States have adopted in toto or have similar regulations for
hazardous materials transportation. An additional 12 States
have adopted in part the hazardous material regulations
leaving 11 States currently with no regulations for hazardous
materials transportation. Fourteen States have adopted all parts
of the Motor Carrier safety regulation. Of the remaining 37
political subdivisions, 35 either have similar rules, have
adopted the regulations in part for all or some sections, or
have adopted in toto for some sections the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations, leaving only two States currently
with no regulations for intrastate transportation (Louisiana
and Montana).
-------
II. Methodology Utilized in Developing Standards
As required under Section 3003(b) of RCKA, the standards
set forth under Section 3003 for transporters of hazardous
wastes shall be consistent with those standards developed
under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (PUB. L. . 93-
633). In order to be consistent, both substantively and
procedurally, the standards for hazardous waste transport
are modeled after the hazardous material regulations (49 CFR
100-189) .
In addition to using the DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations,
the EPA has solicited comments/data/opinions/suggestions from
the regulated community (i.e., hazardous waste generators,
transporters, treatment, storage, and disposal facility
operators), States, and the public on the major issues
confronting EPA as part of the regulation development process.
This has been done prior to the development of these regulations.
Section 7004(b) of the Act specifically states that "public
participation in the development, regulation, guidelines,
information, or program under the Act shall be provided for,
encouraged/ and assisted by the Administrator and the States."
Therefore, to fulfill the requirement of the Act and develop
a public participation plan, the Office of Solid Waste has
encouraged the regulated community to comment prior to
proposing regulations on the major issues of the Act, including
those dealing with Section 3003 (Standards Applicable to
Hazardous Waste Transporters).
-------
In addition to early public participation, EFA undertook
a study which examines and characterizes the Hazardous Waste
Transport Industry. The study, a first of its kind, identifies
the various segments of this industry: transportation by
the generator, transportation by the waste management facility,
and transportation by independent carriers. The data collected
from the study was used in the development of these standards
and also for input to EPA's recommendations to DOT. In
addition an economic analysis of the proposed regulation was
2
undertaken.
EPA also has an internal working group process which
met periodically to discuss and resolve the major issues
confronting EPA. The working group formed for Section 3003
is made up of representatives from the various offices in
EPA and representatives from the Department of Transportation
Office of Hazardous Materials Operations. All issues and
proposals are reviewed by the Agency (Steering Committee and
Administrator) prior to publication of the draft regulations
in the Federal Register as a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking."
At this point, the public has another opportunity to
provide comments/input by way of written responses and
public hearings which will be scheduled during the public
1. Arthur D. Little: "A characterization of the Hazardous
Waste Transport Industry," Contract No. 68-01-4381, 1977
2. Arthur D. Little: "The Economic Impact of the Hazardous
Waste Transportation Regulations", Contract No. 68-01-4381,
1977.
-------
comment period. EPA will then re-evaluate the regulations
in view of the comments received and forward the revised
final product to the Steering Committee for their final
approval. The Administrator will review the final regulation
for his approval. The regulations will then be published in
the Federal Register as the "Final Rulemaking" after considering
all points of view.
A. Meetings with Interest Groups
A series of 15 meetings were held with generators,
transporters, waste management facilities, State and local
government, and public interest groups to discuss the devel-
opment of Section 3003 standards. Approximately 1,000
people attended the meetings which were held throughout the
country (Table I). At ten of the meetings (Type II) the
requirements of the Act and various options for the regulations
were discussed. (For summary of meetings see Appendix A.)
Three meetings (Type I) were held with the public to review
the current direction of all the draft RCRA Standards. In
addition a joint public meeting was held with the DOT in
Chicago (10/26/77). Transcripts of these four meetings are
available for review at the Office of Solid Waste, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
-------
Table I
Public Participation Meetings
February 3, 1977
February 24, 1977
March 9, 1977
March 10, 1977
April 6, 1977
April 8, 1977
April 13, 1977
April 27, 1977
May 11, 1977
May 25-26, 1977
May 26, 1977
Type II (Informal meetings)
San Francisco, California
Washington, D.C.
Cleveland, Ohio
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Hartford, Connecticut
Atlanta, Georgia
Houston, Texas
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
Seattle, Washington
Denver, Colorado
Type I
October 11-12, 1977
October 13-14, 1977
October 17-18, 1977
Washington, D.C,
St. Louis, MO.
Scottsdale, AZ.
Joint EPA/DOT Public Meeting
October 26, 1977 Chicago, ILL.
In addition to public meetings, meetings have been held
with various interested parties (Table II).
-------
Table II
Par-ties Contacted Outside of Public Meetings
Industry Trade Associations
National Solid Waste Management Association
National Tank Truck Carriers Conference
Liquid Waste Control Association
Association of American Railroads
American Waterway Operators
Transporters
Chemical Lehman
Matlack
Bohager and Son
Chancellor & Odgen (BKK)
Missouri Pacific Railroad
Generators
Union Carbide
Environmental. Group
Environmental Action
Federal Agencies
Department of Transportation
Interstate Commerce Commission
State Governments
California
Texas
Illinois
)\
-------
Table II
Parties Contacted Outside of Public Meetings
Industry Trade Associations
National Solid Waste Management Association
National Tank Truck Carriers Conference
Liquid Waste Control Association
Association of American Railroads
American Waterway Operators
Transporters
Chemical Lehman
Matlack
Bohager and Son
Chancellor & Odgen (BKK)
Missouri Pacific Railroad
Generators
Union Carbide
Envir'brn"
-------
B. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
As part of EPA's public participation plan, an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) was published in the
Federal Register on May 2, 1977, and a Joint Notice of Public
Meeting was published (with DOT) on September 29, 1977, inviting
comments/data/information on the major issues confronting EPA
in the regulation development process. These notices included
a series of question related to Section 3003. The questions
raised are similar to the issues discussed during the earlier
public meetings (Appendices B and C).
C. External Review
In addition to the advance notices (ANPR), the second draft
Of the regulations were sent to over sixty outside reviewers
soliciting comments. See Appendix D for major comments received
and actions taken.
Comments from the public meetings, transport study, the
ANPR , external review, plus any additional information received
were reviewed and considered by the Office of Solid VTaste before
proposing standards for transporters of hazardous waste trans-
portation.
-------
III. Regulatory Development Options
A. Authority for the regulation of hazardous waste
transportation is contained in both the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (Table III). RCRA and HMTA, except for the reporting require-
ment, share authority, either mandatory or discretionary
(Table IV). The areas of RCRA mandatory requirements in which
DOT has discretion to develop regulations are intra-state control,
definition and criteria for hazardous wastes, recordkeeping,
and notification. DOT, on the other hand, has mandatory
requirements for (they are discretionary under RCRA) placarding,
marking, handling (operational), and incident reporting.
HMTA does not grant DOT the authority in a number of important
areas. There are hazardous wastes which do not come under the
definition of hazardous materials (e.g., carcinogens). DOT cannot
develop standards concerning: 1) bulk shipments of materials by
barge, and 2) spill clean up requirements.
B. There are three options for the development of
transporter standards under RCRA. Under the first option,
EPA would develop standards for the transporter which would
address only recordkeeping, compliance with the manifest,
acceptance of only properly labeled wastes, and delivery of
all the waste to the designated permitted facility. These
standards will afford only a minimum amount of protection to
the environment and human health. Although the standards
may guarantee delivery, they would not guarantee safety in
transport for hazardous waste, and they may not adequately
address the operational problems encountered by the transporter.
-------
Table III
Regulatory Authority of the Department of Transportation
and the Environmental Protection Agency Concerning
Hazardous Waste
DOT Authority HMTA (49 USC 1801, RCRA Authority (42 USC 6901,)
P.L. 93-633) P.L. 94-580
Safety, Health, Property Human Health, Environment
Transportation of Haz. Material Hazardous Waste Management
Packaging Containers
Repackaging
Handling
Labeling Labeling
Marking
Placarding
Routing (shipping paper) -Routing (manifest)
Manufacture, Fabrication, Marking
Maintenance, Reconditioning, Repairing
Testing of Package
Designation of haz. material Definition of Hazardous Waste
Recordkeeping Recordkeeping
Recordkeeping Recordkeeping
Registration Notification
Imminent Hazard Imminent Hazard
Reporting
Furnishing of Information
Compliance with Manifest
Transport of Properly Labeled
Waste
-------
Table IV
Standards Required/Discretionary Under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Coverage
RCRA
M
M
M
M
Standard
Interstate
Intrastate
Definition of Haz. Waste
Recordkeep ing
Labeling
Placarding
Harking
Packaging
Furnish Info. (Proper Desc.)
Manifest (Shipping Document)
Reporting
Handling
Incident Reporting
Notification/Registration M/D
Spill Reporting D
*Motor Carrier Safety Regs. D
M « Mandatory
D = Discretionary
N.A. = No Authority
* Separate Authoritv (Transportation of
Pub. L. 86-710 ,18
EMTA
M
D - State Pre-emption
D - DOT Newsletter 4-5/
D - Standards only for
Container Certification;
M
D
D
M
M
M
M
D
D
M
M
M
M
M
M
N.A.
M
M on
M only for limited
occurences.
D/D Std. not developed
M Accident/Incident
reporting
M
Explosives Act,
USC 831-835)
-------
The second option for the regulations development would
be to expand the scope of the regulations under Section 3003
which states "such standards shall include but need not be
Limited to..." to cover standards for safety in operation
and transportation of hazardous waste. Expanding the coverage
to include safety in operation and transportation would
require EPA to adopt existing Federal regulations for the
transportation of hazardous materials interstate and apply
them to hazardous waste transportation inter and intrastate.
The final option for regulations development is for EPA
to develop standards for transporters of hazardous wastes
and request that DOT incorporate all or reference EPA's standards
in its regulations. DOT would then modify or develop new
regulations for the transportation of hazardous wastes to
control inter as well as intrastate movements. EPA would
then adopt the new regulations. Various Offices would
become involved under this option. The principal one would
be the Office of Hazardous Materials Operations with other
contacts with the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal
Rail Administration/ U.S. Coast Guard, and the Federal Office
6f Pipeline Safety.
After reviewing these options, EPA believes that for
the most effective development of hazardous waste transport
regulations, the DOT's expertise, knowledge, and organizations
should be utilized to help develop the regulations. EPA
will develop regulations as required under Section 3003 and
work with DOT to have additions/modifications to their regulations
»ade. "Since there is no guarantee that DOT can respond to all
n
-------
of EPA's needs regarding especially bulk shipments by barge and
spill cleanup, EPA proposed the necessary standards as outlined
in Option II.
Since October of 1977, EPA and DOT have cooperated and
coordinated each agency's efforts in the development of hazardous
waste transportation regulations. In December 1977, DOT stated
that every effort would be made to either reference or incorporate
all standards that EPA deems necessary for hazardous waste trans-
portation (Attachment III). EPA, therefore is planning to adopt
those standards developed by DOT which meet the needs of EPA and
promulgate those standards that cannot be developed by DOT.
-------
IV. Identification of Program Issues/Concerns
Several major concerns were expressed by transporters,
generators, waste management facilities, public interest
groups, and State and local governments during the public
meetings and in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, Some of these are as follows:
A. Transporters;
1. A major concern expressed by transporters of
hazardous materials and industrial wastes is that
EPA's regulations for hazardous waste transport be
consistent or equivalent to the DOT Hazardous Materials
Regulations. The regulated community cannot cope with
different sets of standards for the same (chemically)
substance. EPA should do everything possible to have
DOT develop standards for hazardous waste transport.
Transporters expressed no objection to having EPA
reference DOT standards, thus giving both EPA and
DOT enforcement power.
2. A recommendation of the transporters was that
EPA should permit or license haulers. Transporters
feel that if it is EPA's intent to have responsible
carriers haul hazardous waste, the only way to achieve
this would be to issue licenses/permits. By issuing
hazardous waste hauler permits, the transporters believe
EPA could prevent the transport of hazardous waste by a
hauler who does not have the proper equipment or understand
the regulations. In addition, EPA can establish a data
-------
base that can be used by EPA and generators to identify
transporters.
3. The development of spill regulations was another
concern of the transporters. Section 311 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (Pub. L. 92-500) gives the EPA
Administrator authority to develop regulations for control
of spills of hazardous substances. When the regulations are
promulgated by EPA, every effort should be made to have
only one authority cover the spill of hazardous substances
and/or wastes. The preferred,authority by the transportation
community was Section 311 of FWPCA.
4. The problem of waste compatability was discussed.
The transporters feel that the generator must furnish
them with a description-of the-wastes so that wastes are not,*
*
mixed by the transporter so as to cause a chemical reaction,
explosion, etc...
B. Waste Generators, Waste Management Facility Operators
The only major concern expressed by these groups was
that any regulations developed for transportation of haz-
ardous waste should be consistent with the DOT Hazardous
Materials Regulations. Developing separate standards from
those promulgated under DOT would not only cause confusion
within the shipping/transport industry but would also in-
hibit the movement of hazardous waste.
-------
C. Public Interest Groups
The major concern of the public interest groups is that
the vehicles transporting hazardous wastes be identified
so that in the event of an emergency or spill, emergency
response personnel and the public at large will be aware that
the material spilled is a hazardous waste and, therefore, presents
a hazard to huinan health and the environment. In order
to achieve this, all vehicles transporting hazardous waste
should be identified by a placard or proper marking.
D. State and Local Governments
State and local governments shared the same concerns of the
public interest groups, hazardous waste generators, waste
aanagement facilities, and transporters of hazardous wastes.
-------
V. Analysis of Standards
The Office of Solid Waste has reviewed the public input/
comments/information that was received from the public meeting -
and the Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). These
responses include several suggested alternatives relevant to
the standards to be promulgated under Section 3003. This section
enumerates the various alternatives/options that were suggested
and which were selected.
Many of the wastes which are identified under Section
3C01 of RCRA also will meet the DOT criteria for a hazardous
material. Since DOT has authority for those wastes meeting their
criteria, EPA has no alternative except to require that the
hazardous waste be transported in compliance with the DOT
Hazardous Materials Regulations, developed under title 49 and
46 CFR that would apply to transporters of hazardous wastes both
inter and intrastate.
%. Scope of Regulations
RCRA grants EPA authority to regulate the transportation
of hazardous waste intra and interstate. Intrastate transport
control would only apply in those States which are not
granted interim or full authorization under Section 3006. Most
commentors (shippers, transporters, waste management facilities,
State governments and public interest groups) agreed that EPA
should develop regulations that are consistent with the DOT
Hazardous Materials Regulations for hazardous wastes. Being
consistent will enable the regulated community to easily comply
Z2.
-------
and understand the standards developed by EFA. The DOT
regulations apply to persons transporting hazardous materials
in commerce. DOT has interpreted "in commerce" to mean any
transportation on a public highway. Using this interpretation,
the regulations do not apply to "on premises" transportation
of hazardous materials. Also, no manifest is required for
"on premises" transportation as stated under Section 3002.
Since DOT regulations do not apply, and the manifest will
not be applicable to "on premises" transport, EPA should
exclude "on premises" transportation of hazardous waste.
Excluding "on premises" transportation from the regu-
lations does not compromise either protection of human health
or protection to the environment. The generator must properly
label and contain the waste and treat/store/dispose of the
waste at a facility permitted under Section 3005. In the event
of an accident or spill, the generator is also required to
have a spill contingency plan as well as a record describing the
wastes. Including the transportation on-premises within the
regulations would only create an unnecessary burden on the
regulated community without affording any additional protection
to human health or the environment.
Under Section 3002 Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste, a generator is defined as any person whose act
or process produced a hazardous waste and who generates or disposes
of greater than 100 kg per month of hazardous waste. Therefore,
-------
if a generator ships less than 100 kg per month, no manifest
would be required. EPA is concerned that small quantities of
hazardous wastes may be consolidated by transporters. A trans-
porter could pick-up wastes from non-generators (since the
quantity is less than 100 kg) and consolidate a shipment that,
if offered from one generator, would be subject to the regulations.
EPA believes that if the waste is a DOT hazardous material, regard-
less of quantity, the generator (shipper) would be subject to
the DOT regulations. The transporter would then also be subject
to the DOT regulations. Since the shipper is knowledgeable of the
waste, the transporter should not be made responsible to properly
describe, package, label, etc...the hazardous wastes. In addition
to the DOT regulations, the transporter will be required to
delivery the consolidated shipment to a permitted facility that
can properly handle the waste.
a-V
-------
B. Recordkeeping
As required by RCRA, records must be kept concerning the
hazardous waste transported, their sources, and delivery points.
The purpose of recordkeeping by the transporter of hazardous
waste is to document the delivery of all the hazardous waste to
the designated permitted facility or the transfer of the waste
to another transporter, identify the generator of the hazardous
waste, and also describe the hazardous waste. The record would
serve as a means of documenting delivery or transfer of the
hazardous waste and it would also provide a source of information
needed to characterize the hazardous waste transport industry
concerning types of hazardous wastes hauled and their destination
points either inter or intra state.
Common and contract carriers as required by the Interstate
Commerce Commission for interstate transport and the State Public
Utility/Service Commissions (PUC/PSC) for intrastate transport
require that a record be kept in the form of a bill of lading,
waybill, invoice, etc. These documents contain the following
information:
-------
the shipper's name, address, etc., the transporter's name,
etc., the consignee, the quantity of the material, and
description of the material. In addition the consignee may
also be required to indicate receipt (Attachment IV) of the
shipment.
In the May 2, 1977, ANPR the question was posed as to
what kinds of records should be kept. This question was also
discussed at the Type II meetings. All parties agreed that
a copy of the manifest or the information on the manifest
be kept as the record.
Since these types of records are currently being kept
by transporters, EPA has developed the recordkeeping standards
so as not to create additional unnecessary paper handling
and storing. The intent is to require that a record be kept,
which would contain information on the source and delivery points
of each shipment of the waste, date of pick-up and delivery,
quantity of waste transported, and description of the waste.
The record, therefore, could be a copy of the manifest or if
the document contains the information on the manifest the bill
of lading, waybill, etc., thus requiring in most cases the
retention of records already being kept.
The length of retention of records was also discussed
at the public meetings and addressed in the Kay 2, 1977, ANPR.
Suggestions which were made include: 1) the retention of the
records should coincide with the Statute of Limitations, or 2)
coincide with Federal/State requirements which vary from one
-------
to three years. The majority of comments supported the
adoption of a three year retention period, which is similar to
the current ICC requirement.
State requirements for retention of shipping documents
for intrastate transport vary widely. State PUC/PSC re-
quirements were reviewed. When the State had no recordkeeping
requirement, the State Health Department or Department of
Natural Resources regulations were reviewed (Table V). Sixteen
State PUC's/PSC's require the period of retention of records
to be three years. In those States with no PUC/PSC requirements,
two State Health Departments require retention of records by
waste haulers for a period of three years. In addition nine
State (PUC/PSC) Dept. of Health) require retention of records
for a period of five years or longer. Therefore, a total
of twenty-seven States require retention of records for at
least three years. Of the remaining twenty-four States, ten
have no recordkeeping requirements either by the PUC/PSC or
Health Department; four have a one year retention requirement;
and ten states require that records be kept for two years.
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) which has
jurisdiction over interstate transportation of hazardous
materials (as defined by DOT) and 66% of the States with
PUC/PSC or other Agency recordkeeping requirements, require
transporters to retain shipping records for at least a three
year period. In order to be consistent with existing ICC
-------
requirements and the majority of existing State requirements
for recordkeeping, a three year retention period has been
selected. By using existing requirements, many transporters
are today currently in compliance with the proposed record-
keeping requirements.
-------
••~ :
State Recordkeeping Reouireraents
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Agency Requirement
Public Utility Comm.
Public Service Comm.
*6
**6
2
3
3
2
2
N.A,
N.A.
1
3
2
5
N.A.
**2
**10
1
5
N.A.
3
N.A.
3
Other Agency Re-
ouireraents
N.A.
*10 Health Dep
3 IEPA
N.A.
1 Health Dept
-------
State
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
V (continued)
Agency Requirement
Public Utility Comm.
Public Service Comm.
N.A.
3
3
N.A.
3
3
3
N.A.
N.A.
3
3
3
N.A.
3
N.A.
3
1
2
2
N.A.
2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
3
5
Other Agency Re,
quxrements "*
2 Dept. of Naturai
Resource
N.A.
N.A.
*5 DEP
N.A.
N.A.
3 Health M
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
-------
Table V (continued)
State Agency Requirement Other Agency Re-
Public Utility Comm. quirements
Public Service Coinm.
Wisconsin 6
Wyoming N.A. N.A.
*State Regulations Pending
**Statute of Limitation
***Records held for Audit
-------
C. Acceptance and Transport of Hazardous Wastes
The existing hazardous materials regulations require that
a transporter cannot accept for transport or transport hazardous
materials unless they are prepared for transportation in
accordance with 49 CFR, Part 171, 172 and 173, which require
that the hazardous materials be properly described, packaged,
and labeled. The regulations require the transporter not only
to assure that the materials received from the shipper comply
with the regulatory requirements but also to assure that those
shipments received from or transferred to connecting transporters
are in compliance as well. Therefore, according to DOT, a
transporter cannot accept for transport or transport hazardous
wastes which meet the DOT criteria for a hazardous material
unless the shipment is offered with a shipping paper signed
by the shipper, properly labeled, and packaged.
In the development of the hazardous waste transportation
regulations, similar acceptance and transportation requirements
were discussed. Several comments were received during the
development of the regulations concerning the acceptance of
hazardous waste by the transporter prior to transport. "The
regulation. ..does not adequately provide for the acceptance
by the transporter of small quantities of hazardous waste
such as partially filled pesticide containers and bags,
etc. , which are not properly labeled and in poor condition.
We believe the actual transportation of such waste to a site
should be performed only in sound containers. However,
-------
for these small quantities of wastes, acceptance by the
transporter should be permitted, followed by repackaging..."
The EPA regulations regarding acceptance of a hazardous
waste shipment are modeled after existing DOT regulations.
According to DOT, a transporter prior to transporting a
hazardous material may repackage, label, etc...the shipment.
Therefore hazardous waste transporters prior to transport may
as a service to the generator properly describe and manifest the
wastes, and properly package, label and mark the package.
-------
D. Compliance With The Manifest
The manifest system developed under Section 3002 assures
that all the hazardous waste that is generated and transported
off-premises is designated for treatment, storage, or disposal, to
a permitted hazardous waste management facility. The manifest
document is designed also to furnish information to persons
transporting and handling hazardous waste concerning the
characteristic of the hazardous waste, emergency response
information, and certification by the generator that the waste
has been properly described, labeled, and packaged. The
regulations developed under Section 3003 concerning compliance
with the manifest are to assure that all of the hazardous waste
picked up from the generator is delivered to the designated
facility and also in the event of an emergency in transit,
that information concerning emergency response is with the
transport vehicle.
Under existing ICC and DOT requirements, the shipment
of hazardous materials interstate must be accompanied by a
shipping paper. The ICC requires that either a "Straight
Bill of Lading" (Attachment IV) be prepared or a form contain-
ing the following information be prepared (49 CFR 1051.1):
names of the consignor and consignee; the points of origin
and destination; the number of packages, description of the
articles; and weight, volume, or measurement of the property
received. The DOT also has shipping document requirements
specifically for the transportation of hazardous materials
(49 CFR 172). The basic difference between the ICC and DOT
-------
regulations is that DOT requires that the hazard be identified
and that the shipper certify that the package is in proper
order for transportation. In many instances the Bill of Lading,
which is required by the ICC is modified to meet the requirements
of the DOT.
Shipping documents are initiated by the shipper (generator)
of the hazardous material. The shipper either prepares a
shipping order (which meets the DOT requirements) and/or
contacts the transporter, who then prepares the Bill of Lading
(motor), Waybill (rail), or Dangerous Cargo Manifest (vessel,
barge). If a shipping order is not prepared, the transporter
will produce his own shipping document and acquire shipper
certification on it. The transporter's shipping document is
the primary document accompanying the hazardous materials
shipment.
Procedural differences exist among the modes for the
handling of shipping documents. Specifically, differences
exist between motor and rail carriage of hazardous materials.
The shipping documents for motor carriage are initiated by
the shipper via a shipping order, and the transporter
prepares a Bill of Lading, etc.. which is used during transport.
Currently DOT requires that the shipping document remain at all
times with the transport vehicle. Standards for the actual place-
ment and handling of the shipping paper have been developed
(Attachment VI) . Upon delivery of the shipment to the consignee
or transfer between transporters, the Bill of Lading must be
-------
signed or another document must be issued signifying delivery
or transfer and receipt of the shipment. The ICC requires
that when collecting transportation charges, the transporter
must issue a freight or expense bill covering each shipment.
The following information is required on the freight or
expense bill: names of the consignor and consignee/ the
date of shipment, the points of origin and destination, the
number of packages, description of the articles, weight,
volume or measurement of the property transported, the
exact rate or rates assessed, the total charges to be collected,
etc., the route of movement indicating each carrier participating
in the transportation service, and the transfer point or
points through which the shipment moved. (DOT shipping papers
do not need certification of receipt.)
Shipping documents for rail carriage are initiated in a
similar manner (Attachment VI); however, the handling of the
shipping papers are different from those procedures used
currently by motor carriers. The railroad has developed and
is developing for all rail carriers a computerized system
for handling the movement of rail cars and shipping documents.
The shipping document prepared by the shipper is translated
into a computerized waybill which is attached to a train
consist (Attachment VIII). DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations
allow for the computerization by the railroad of its shipping
papers, and accordingly have adjusted their regulations,
"No member of the train crew of a train transporting the
-------
hazardous material is required to have a shippers certificate
on the shipping paper in his possession if the original
shipping paper containing the certificate is in the originating
carrier's possession." Upon delivery of the shipment to the
consignee, the transporter prepares a delivery receipt
indicating when the shipment was delivered. The shipper in
addition to acquiring a delivery receipt also sends the Bill
of Lading "overhead" via the mail for certification of
receipt.
In developing the standards for compliance with the
manifest, EPA has taken into consideration existing industry
practices for the handling of shipping papers. Two elements
must be addressed in the standards: (1) certification of transfer,
receipt, and delivery; and (2) information for emergency
response with the shipment. Requiring that the original
manifest remain with each shipment of hazardous waste may
disrupt current shipping paper handling procedures by the
railroad and barge and also prevent the computerization of
all shipping documents by the other modes. (For discussion of
barge transport see ADL Study, Oct. 1977.) Important elements
of the manifest include the shipper's certification and
transporter's signature prior to transport, information
remaining with the shipment during transport, and certification
of receipt by the permitted facility. The above can be
achieved either by requiring that the original manifest
-------
remain with, the shipment of hazardous waste or the information
contained on the manifest accompany the shipment in the form
of any shipping documents. To certify delivery the manifest
must be signed by the designated facility. In the event that
the information is with the shipment, a certification on a
shipping document rather than the original manifest would
indicate delivery. In either case the transporter would
have documents certifying pickup, transfer, and delivery of the
hazardous waste. If the manifest or shipping document cannot be
immediately signed upon delivery, provisions need to be made
concerning acquiring a signature. Various suggestions were mace
concerning the time period for compliance for signatures from
one to thirty days. When developing the time period, holiday
weekends delays and delays for weather need to be considered.
Most holidays last no longer than three days and recent winter
storms have kept business closed for up to a week.
EPA's standards for compliance with the manifest shall
be based upon DOT'S requirements for handling shipping
papers and current industry practices for handling of the
shipping document. By employing existing procedures, the
regulations would simplify compliance with the regulations
as well as protect human health and the environment. Regardless
of the handling procedures used, the information needed for
emergency response will remain with the transport vehicle and a
certification of transfer and delivery would be assured.
-------
If certification of receipt cannot be made upon delivery the
circumstances describing why the manifest or shipping paper
could not be signed should be indicated. The time period for
acquiring signature will be five working days. This will allow
delays due to holiday weekends, facility delays and other delays
in final acceptance of the waste shipment by the facility.
-------
E. Loading and Storage of Hazardous Aig-/gA/«ls (jQ oTj
The DOT regulations for hazardous materials address
general handling and loading requirements for each mode: 49
CFR 174 Subpart C (Carriage by Rail) ; 175 Subpart B (Carriage
by Aircraft) ; 176 Subpart C through O) (Carriage by Vessel) ; and
177 Subpart C (Carriage by Public Highway) . According to DOT if
a hazardous waste meets the criteria of a hazardous material,
the above regulations must be complied with.'
In addition to the above standards, shippers of hazardous
materials are prohibited from: 1) "offering of packages of haz-
ardous materials in the same packaging, freight container, or
overpack with other hazardous materials, the mixture of contents
of which would be liable to cause a dangerous evolution of heat
or gas or produce corrosive materials (173. 21 (a)); 2) offering
for transportation of any package or container of any liquid,
solid, or gaseous material which under conditions incident to
transportation may polymerize or decompose so as to cause a
dangerous evolution of heat or gas; and 3) offering for trans-
portation of any package or container of any material which will
cause a dangerous evolution of heat or gas." As a result of
these regulations, DOT has placed the burden of incompatible
materials on the shipper.
For each mode there are several general requirements
concerning the loading and unloading of hazardous materials
from the transport vehicle. The following requirements concern
the loading and unloading of hazardous materials from motor
vehicles:
-------
1. Any tank, barrel, drum, or cylinder v/hich is not
designed to be permanently attached to the motor
vehicle and contains any flammable liquid, compressed
gas, corrosive material, or poison must be reasonably
secured from movement within the vehicle during trans-
portation.
2. No hazardous material may be put on or transported "
via any pole trailer.
3. No person may smoke near any vehicle while loading
or unloading any explosive, flammable liquid, flammable
solid, oxidizing material, or flammable compressed gas.
Extreme care should be taken during the loading or
unloading of these materials, and all fire and flame
should be kept away.
4. The carrier must not use any tools likely to damage
the closure or otherwise adversely affect the integrety
of any package.
5. Packages containing explosives, flammable liquids,
flammable solids, oxidizing materials, corrosive mater-
ials, compressed gases, or poisonous liquids or gases
must be braced to prevent motion relative to the
vehicle during transportation. Containers having
valves or other fittings must be loaded so as to min-
imize the liklihood of damage to them in transit.
6. Reasonable care should be taken to avoid any dangerous
rise in the temperature of the lading in transit. No
-------
one should tamper with any hazardous materials con-
tainer or its contents between the points of orgin , net
destination, nor may there be any discharge of the e on-
tents of any container other than a cargo tank prior
to the removal of that container from the trailer.
7. It is absolutely prohibited to leave a cargo tank
unattended during loading or unloading of a hazardous
material.
8. Flammable solids, oxidizers, and corrosive liquids,
/
when transported on a motor vehicle with other lading
must be loaded so as to provide ready access to those
materials for shifting or removal.
9. Use of cargo heaters with hazardous materials is
carefully regulated: (a) when transporting explosives
any cargo heater must be rendered inoperative by
draining or removing the heater fuel tank or dis-
connecting the power source for the heater, and
(b) when transporting labeled flammable liquids or
flammable compressed gas, a combustion cargo heater
may only be used if it is a flameless, catalytic
heater, which is not ignited in the vehicle and
which has a surface temperature that cannot exceed
130° F. (54° C.) either by thermostatic controls or
other controls when the outside or ambient temperatu ~e
is 60° F. (15 C.) or less. The manufacturer of sueA
-------
a catlytic heater must certify and mark the heater
indicating that it "Meets DOT requirements for cata-
lytic heaters used with flammable liquid and gas."
Such a heater must also be marked "Do not load into
or use in cargo compartments containing flammable
liquid or gas if flame is visible on catalyst or
in heater."
10- An automatic, cargo-space-heating, temperature
control device may be used when transporting labeled -
flammable liquid or gas only if (a) there is an
electrical apparatis in the cargo compartment; (b)
there is no connection or return of air from the cargo
compartment to the combustion apparatus; and (c) the
heating system will not elevate the temperature of
any part of the lading above 130° F. £54° C.). If
these restrictions cannot be met, the heating device
must be rendered inoperative through emptying or
removing the fuel tank. {Each LPG fuel tank for
automatic temperature control equipment must have its
discharge valve closed and fuel feed line disconnected
in lieu of actual emptying or removal of the tank.)
11. So-called ton tanks meeting DOT specifications 106A
or 110A, authorized to carry certain hazardous mater-
ials by highway, must be securely chocked or clamped
to prevent any shifting. Equipment suitable for
handling such tanks must be provided at any point
of loading or unloading.
-------
12. Specification 56 or 57 portable tanks may not be
stacked on top of one another, ncr nay other
freight be stacked on them during transportation.
13. No motor carrier may load any article bearing a
poison label into any vehicle with material marked
as, or known to be, foodstuff, feed, or any edible
material intended for human or animal consumption.
In addition to general requirements for loading and un-
loading of hazardous materials specific requirements regarding
the loading and unloading of articles under headings for
each hazard classification are included (Part 176, 177).
Also for each mode the DOT has produced loading and storage
charts. For example Section' 177.848 of Title 49 is a tabular
chart of the loading and storage requirements, pairing each
classification with potential loads of other classes (Attachment
VIII). The loading and storage chart may be summarized as
follows:
1. Labeled flammable liquids and flammable compressed
gases must not be loaded or stored with Class A
poisons.
2. Labeled flammable solids, oxidizers, or organic
peroxides must not be loaded or stored with labeled
corrosive liquids or Class A poisons.
2. Labeled corrosive liquids must not be loaded or
stored with labeled flammable solids, oxidizers,
organic peroxides, or Class A poisons, cyanides,
or cyanide mixtures.
-------
4. Nitric acid, when loaded in the same motor vehicle
with other acids or other corrosive liquids in
carboys must be separated from the other carboys
as prescribed in the notes to the loading and
storage chart.
NOTE: Shippers loading truckload shipments of corrosive
liquids and flammable solids or oxidizing materials
packages and who have obtained prior approval from DOT
may load such materials together when it is known that
the mixture of contents would not cause a dangerous
evolution of heat.
The storage requirements are principally developed for
the storage of containers on transport vehicles. Since
wastes are also transported in bulk, there is the potential
that they will be mixed during the collection phase of trans-
portation. The existing DOT regulations do not address the
nixing of wastes by the transporters. Though the regulations
apply to hazardous waste which meet the criteria for a hazardous
aaterial, the storage and loading requirements may not apply
to mixing. The rational for currently not addressing the subject
by DOT for transporters is that hazardous materials are not mixed.
Product integrity is of importance and, therefore, during
transportation the hazardous materials are not mixed. The
contamination of the material is avoided. However, in a spill
situation the potential exists for unintentional mixing.
-------
The following information is taken from a report done
for EPA concerning the Management of Incompatible Wastes.*
Though the study concentrates on waste management at treatment,
storage or disposal facilities, similar procedures are used
for storage and mixing during transportation.
Statement
Persons involved in the storage, handling, treatment, and
disposal of hazardous wastes shall not create a situation
whereby potentially incompatible wastes can come in contact
/
with one another and result in: 1) heat generation, 2) pressure
generation, 3) fire, 4) explosion or violent reaction, 5) for-
mation of substances which are shock sensitive, friction sensitive,
or otherwise have the potential of reacting violently, 6) dis-
persal of toxic dusts and mists due to an explosion or violent
reaction, 7) formation of toxic fumes, gases, or other toxic
chemicals, 8) volatilization of flammable or toxic chemicals
due to heat generation, and 9) solubilization of toxic sub-
stances. All storage and disposal areas shall be demarcated and
labeled such that the incompatible characteristics of the waste
are clearly displayed.
Rationale
The wastes accepted at hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities are usually very hazardous by themselves.
* Recommend General Options for the management of Incompatible
Hazardous Wastes at.Hazardous Waste treatment Storage and
Disposal Facilities, Grant fR-80469201.
-------
However, if a waste were to come in contact with another
waste which is incompatible with it, the consequences often
create much more hazardous situations than the reactants
themselves. Furthermore, wastes can contact other incompatible
materials during handling (transport) at a facility resulting
in the same consequences. The lack of accurate information
about the wastes, and the often indiscriminate handling of
the wastes contribute to the high risk of contact of potentially
incompatible substances at hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. The chemical reactions which result
from such contact can cause secondary consequences such as
injury, intoxication, or death of workers, members of the
public, wildlife, and domestic animals. They can also cause
property and equipment damage, and contamination of air, water
and land.
Many incidents have already occured (Attachment IX). The
incidents occured during normal handling operations and were the
results of lack of accurate information about the waste,
indiscriminate disposal practices, and indiscriminate combination
during other handling operations. They have shown that the
above mentioned reactions or primary consequences are those
that are most significant in the consideration of potentially
incompatible hazardous wastes. In many instances, these
consequences have been documented as a chain of events. An
example is where a violent hydrolysis reaction resulted in
hear and pressure which caused dispersal of highly corrosive
materials and considerable property damage.
-------
It is evident fc-3fm these cases that sensible precautions are''
extremely necessary in the handling of hazardous wastes to prevent
incidents from occurring. ' Such precautions must be directed
toward preventing contact of potentially incompatible wastes and
contact of waste with other incompatible materials. It is
imperative that these precautions are stated and clearly under-
stood by all involved in the management of hazardous wastes be-
.cause of the extreme hazards involved and the swiftness with the
consequences of contacting incompatible materials can occur.
Handling of Bulk Hazardous Wastes
Statement
In the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes, potentially
incompatible hazardous wastes in bulk shall be handled in-
dividually to avoid contact with each other except in the
mixing of one waste with another under controlled conditions
for the purpose of treatment.
Rationale
A hazardous waste in bulk must not be deposited into an
area which is already used for the containment of another in-
compatible chemical constituent since the two wastes may react.
to create a more hazardous condition than that presented by tie
components in each waste. Depositing of an acid waste into a
landfill containing a cyanide waste resulted in the evolution
of hydrogen cyanide, an extremely toxic gas. Such an accident
could have been averted if the handler had ascertained the nature
of waste in the landfill before depositing the acid waste. M
-------
other such accidents have been reported in the literature in-
volving heat, fire, and explosions resulting from mixtures of
alcohols with metal hydrides and mixtures of concentrated acids
with organic solvents.
All handlers of incompatible wastes must have explicit
information on the composition of both the waste being disposed
and the waste in the disposal site. Furthermore, they must be
aware of any potential incompatibility of chemical constituents
in the wastes so that chemical reactions between the chemical
species will not have any detrimental effects on the public
health, wildlife, environment, property, or equipment.
Under Section 3004, guidelines for hazardous waste manage-
nent facilities are being developed to prevent mixing of incom-
patible waste and handling procedures for storage of incompatible
waste in drums.
Alternatives Chosen
Rather than EPA developing at this time new loading and
storage requirements and since the DOT has developed loading and
storage requirements that are applicable to hazardous waste trans-
porters and shippers, EPA will incorporate the DOT regulations
under 250.34 of the regulations. Since generators/shippers are
familiar with the hazardous waste, it is their responsibility
to determine whether or not a waste should be offered for
transport and whether or not the container and the existing
vaste in the container are appropriate for the offered hazardous
waste. In addition, since Section 3004 is developing incompatibility
guidelines, these guidelines will be made available to transporters.
-------
F. Emergency/Spill Regulations
Emergency Situations
In the event of a spill of hazardous waste or a hazardous
material which then becomes a waste, special handling proce-
dures should be instituted. There is a concern that because
of the transport requirements, in the event of a spill which
requires immediate removal of a waste, the waste could not
be transported or that the transporter would be in violation
of the standards. EPA needs to consider the emergency
situation and allow for immediate response and ease of move-
ment of the waste. Requiring compliance with the regulations
may result in unnecessary delay in the removal of hazardous
waste spills. The transporter requirements once the emergency
is secured would then be in effect. In the event that an
on-the-scene coordinator (EPA, State police, etc.) determines
that the materials presents an immediate safety hazard, the
waste could be allowed to be transported outside of the
regulations to allow for immediate removal of the waste. The
coordinator would have the responsibility to designate the
waste management facility.
DOT Incident Reporting*
"The regulations of the Department of Transportation (49 CFR
171.15, 171.16} require all carriers, including private and
contract carriers, to file reports of any accident or incident
involving the spillage or unintentional release of any hazardous
material from its packaging."
*This discussion taken from Chapter 17 Hazardous Materials
Accident & Incident Reporting, Red Book on Transportation of
Hazardous Materials, Lawrence Bierlein 1977.
-------
the incident reporting system, as it is commonly called, was
developed in response to a recommendation made by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to the Secretary of Trans-
portation in 1969. The NTSB felt that an incident reporting
system was necessary because of an increase in traffic, demand
for hazardous materials, and the need for intermodal coordina-
tion. The system was designed to provide a unified data
system based on uniform definitions of terms and utilizes a
common reporting form submitted by transporters.
Beginning in 1971, the reporting system was instituted.
The system covers two primary areas. The first is a require-
ment that all carriers make immediate reports to DOT by tele-
phone when incidents of a specified severity occur." The second
part of the system is a routine reporting requirement governing
! the submission of written reports in a uniform format in those in-
stances when an immediate report is required and also in any
case where there has been an unintentional release of hazard-
ous materials from a package. The detailed written report must
be filed within 15 days of the date of discovery. If the
information at that time is incomplete, the carrier should file
within 15 days and complete it later.
-------
The reports on file with DOT are public information, as
are the accumulated totals and other compilation prepared by
the DOT staff from these reports. Any person may obtain a copv
of any report, and no information is considered confidential.
A detailed written incident report is required for every unin-
tentional spillage or release of a product. There is no
quantity threshold that would preclude reporting small amounts
of unintentional spills; although, no report is needed for
normal occurrences such as spills from hoses during normal
disconnections. As DOT said in adopting the system: "The
(Hazardous Materials Regulations) Board does not feel it is
in a position at this time to determine whether there are in-
significant unintentional releases of hazardous materials that
do not warrant the filing of a written report. While it may
be true that under the amendment the Board will receive re-
ports of unintentional releases of hazardous materials that
may prove to be insignificant, the Board does not have any
criteria at this time on which it could draw a line between
those releases that should be reported and those that should
not. As experience is gained under this incident report
program, the program will be subject to containuing review. If
it is found that the present criteria is (sic) putting an unduo
burden on carriers and that the Board is receiving unusable or
irrevevant incident reports, the Board will not hestitate to
review the reporting requirements and to take future rule-
making action".
-------
Although the matter of reporting every incident, no
matter how small, has been the subject of frequent critical
comment, there has been no indication from DOT that a rule
change is contemplated that would set a specific quantity
threshold for the reporting requirements. Given DOT's comments
during the adoption of these requirements, however, the door
has been left open for those who would care to suggest some
limitations.
The specific requirements are as follows:
Immediate Telephonic Hazardous
Materials Incident Reports
(a) At the earliest practicable moment, each carrier
who transports hazardous materials shall give notice in
accordance with paragraph (b), below, after each incident
that occurs during the course of transportation (including
loading and unloading and temporary storage) in which
as a direct result of hazardous materials-
CD A person is killed;
(2) A person receives injuries requiring his admission
to a hospital;
(3) Estimated carrier or other property damage exceeds
$50,000;
(4) Fire, breakage, spillage, or suspected radioactive
contamination occurs involving a shipment of radioactive
material.
NOTE: In these instances, the radioactive materials package
or materials should be segregated as far as practicable from
personnel contact. If radiological advice or assistance is
needed, the U.S. Energy Research and Development search and
Development Administration should also be notified at the
offices listed below. In case of obvious leakage or if it
appears likely that the inside container may have been
damaged, care should be taken to avoid inhalation, ingestion,
or contact with the radioactive material. Any loose
radioactive material should be left in a segregated area and
held pending disposal instructions from qualified persons.
1T3
-------
Note 2: Details involving the handling of radioactive
materials in the event of an accident can be found in
Bureau of Explosives Pamphlets 1 and 2.
(5) Fire, breakage/ spillage, or suspected contamina-
tion occurs involving shipment of etiologic agents; or
(6) A situation exists of such a nature that, in the
judgment of the carrier, it should be reported by
Immediate Telephonic Report, even though it does not
meet the criteria listed in this paragraph. For example,
a continuing danger to life exists at the scene of the
incident.
(b) Each notice required by paragraph (a), above
shall be given to DOT by telephone at Area Code (202)
426-1830. Notice involving etiologic agents may be
given to the Director, Center for Disease Control, U.S.
Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia, at Area Code
(404) 633-5313. instead of giving notice to DOT. Each
immediate telephone notification must include the
following information:
(1) The name of the person calling.
(2) The name and address of the carrier on whose
behalf the call is being made.
(3) A telephone number where the caller can be reached.
(4) The date, time, and location of the incident.
(5) The extent of injuries, if there are any.
(6) The classification, name, and quantity of hazardous
materials involved, if this information is available at
the time of the call.
(7) The type of incident and the nature of the involve-
ment of hazardous materials in the incident, and whether
a continuing danger to life exists at the scene of the
incident.
-------
(c) Each carrier making an immediate telephone report
of an incident must also make a detailed written report
as described below.
Detailed Hazardous Materials
Incident Reports
(a) Each carrier who transports hazardous materials
shall report in writing/ in duplicate, on DOT Form F
5800.1, illustrated below, to DOT within 15 days of the
date of discovery, each incident that occurs during the
course of transportation (including loading, unloading,
or temporary storage) in which, as a direct result of
the hazardous materials, any of the circumstances
warranting an immediate telephone report have occurred
or there has been any unintentional release of hazardous
materials from a package (including a tank).
(b) Each carrier making such a detailed written report
shall send it to the Director, Office of Hazardous
Materials Operations, Materials Transportation Bureau,
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590.
The DOT incident report is divided into several sections,
each given an alphabetical designation. Within each section
are items describing the details for that section (Attachment XI) .
The data collected from the incident reports are used
to determine whether greater emphasis should be directed to
shipper and carrier compliance with existing requirements, or to
the need for change in containers, hazardous classifications,
or in handling requirements. The Secretary of DOT responded to
this recommendation with agreement "as to the importance of
accident and incident data in evaluating the effectiveness of
existing regulations and in developing new hazardous materials
regulations."
At this time, the detailed information for the reports is
computerized, and it is possible to retrieve complied informa-
-------
tion according to each of the major subject categories on
form DOT F 5800.1. Incident data can be retrieved from the
full system by carrier name, shipper name, container speci-
fication, incident location, material classification, pro-
duct shipping name, etc.
With recently acquired direct jurisdiction over the
makers and reconditioners of packaging for hazardous materials,
DOT may be expected to rely on the incident reporting system
in its evaluation of the integrity of specification packaging
generally, and the products of certain manufacturers particularly.
Data summaries from DOT indicate that since 1971 approxi-
mately 44,000 written reports have been received. A majority
of 36,500 (83%) of the incident reports were submitted by for-hire
(common & contract) motor carriers. Data summaries are
also available on container failures, commodaties involved in
incidents, etc. (Attachments XII, XIII, XII)
DOT recently conducted an in-house study for 1976. The
number of written reports received for each commodity by shipping
name were tabulated. Because DOT has a classification N.O.S.
(not otherwise specified), it is impossible to determine
whether or not hazardous waste are involved. However, DOT
does identify by shipping name commodities which may be
hazardous wastes. In 1975 only two incident reports were
received: one for "acid sludge" and one for "Bottles, having
previously contained a hazardous material and not cleaned."
-------
SPA Spill Notification
Current authority over the spills of oil and hazardous
substances rests with EPA Section 311 of FWPCA and the U.S.
Coast Guard. Control and removal actions are required for
spills "into or upon the navigable waters of the United
States/ adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of
the contigous zones." The waters of the U.S., according to
the U.S. Coast Guard include all streams, creeks, lakes, and
ponds. . . Storm drains and similar artificially created
systems whose discharges are not processed through treatment
plants are 'waters of the U.S.1 . . ." The "waters of the U.S.
also include seasonally dry watercourses. U.S. waters should
not be construed as every puddle or depression containing or
capable of containing water."
The Coast Guard has developed a toll-free number that is
ased to report a spill of oil and hazardous substances. Once
notified, the U.S. Coast Guard contacts the appropriate spill
agency. Hazardous wastes may partially fall under the reporting
requirements of Section 311 once promulgated. Reporting to the
U.S. Coast Guard to the EPA Regional Spills Office would be
required for those wastes covered.
It is estimated that approximately eight million metric
tons/year (wet basis) of hazardous waste is transported within
the United States.* In order to estimate the potential number
*Potential for Capacity Creation, Foster D. Snell, August 1976,
-------
of hazardous waste incidents that may occur during transport,
the hazardous waste transported will be compared to the total
estimated hazardous materials movement. In 1976, it is esti-
mated by DOT that 5,000 million tons of hazardous materials
were transported resulting in approximately 12,000 incident
reports. DOT estimates that only 10% of the incidents are
reported; therefore, the total number of incidents may be
estimated at 120,000. Given the ratio of hazardous waste
transported to hazardous materials transported of 562:1, and
120,000 incidents, it would be expected approximately 213
incidents would occur involving hazardous waste.
5,000 million tons X 0.9 = 4,500 million metric tons
4,500 million metric tons 562
8 million metric tons = 1
This estimate of potential incidents may be low, however,
hazardous waste transported represents only .17 percent of
hazardous materials transported. In an EPA report** it is
estimated that 57% of the spills occur in transit.
Various alternatives are available for the development of
spill/emergency reporting for hazardous wastes. EPA could
develop its own notification and reporting system for hazardous
waste. This, however, ignores existing procedures and available
systems for notification and reporting of spills/emergencies.
**Documentation and analysis of Historical Data on Hazar lous
Material Spills, Contract No. 68-03-0317, April 1976.
-------
During the development of these regulations, the opinion
was expressed by outside reviewers and working group members
that existing systems should be used, if at all possible.
Since the basis for the regulations rest with existing DOT
requirements, the use of the DOT incident report to report
hazardous waste spills was supported by all. EPA has proposed
to DOT that minor modifications be made/allowed to the incident
report to cover and identify hazardous wastes and also determine
the disposition of the spill. Since DOT currently receives the
report, EPA is proposing, with approval of DOT, to have all
hazardous waste incident reports mailed directly to DOT. Upon
receipt, DOT would forward a copy to EPA.
Early in the development of the regulations, it was felt
that a 24-hour toll free number should be utilized. Since
such a number already existed under joint sponsorship, the
proposal was made that the existing U.S. Coast Guard system
be utilized. The Coast Guard has agreed to EPA use of the
toll-free number. (Attachment XV ) .
Alternative Chosen
Under DOT requirements, the spill of any hazardous material
is a reportable incident (49 CFR 171.15 & 171.16). Accordingly,
any waste which is spilled and meets the DOT criteria must be
reported. For those wastes not meeting the DOT criteria, it
was felt at the public meetings and during external review
that those incidents should be reported using the same procedures.
-------
The purpose of the reports is to determine what caused the
spill and also to evaluate the adequacy of existing containers
handling procedures, etc. for the transportation of the waste.
Use of existing DOT regulations, as stated in the other areas
of regulations development, simplifies compliance with the
regulations.
A notification system is also needed for hazardous waste
spills. Since the U.S. Coast Guard has agreed to the use of
their number, EPA is proposing the use of the existing 24-hour
spill notification phone lines. It is anticipated that approxi-
mately 120 notifications should be received concerning in-transit
spills.
Spill Clean-up
Various comments were received from both within EPA and
from outside agencies concerning who is responsible for spills
of hazardous wastes. According to the structure of the Act, EPA
believes that responsibility for the waste (as long as the regula-
tions are complied with) is transferred from the generator to the
transporter, to the final destination.
The transporter, once receiving the shipment of hazardous
waste, is responsible for the transportation and delivery of the
waste to the facility designated on the manifest. If a spill
occurs, the transporter is still responsible for the proper THE n-
agement of the spilled waste.
Under Section 3002, a generator is defined as any person
whose act or process produced a hazardous waste. If the transporter
-------
spills a waste, the composition of the waste may change. If
that is the case, the transporter would become a generator,
and again, be responsible for the proper management of the
waste.
Upon notification of the spill, either an EPA official or
other Federal, State or Local official representing various
agencies (Fire, Police, Environmental) would become involved in
mitigation of the spill. Emergency actions may be directed by
these officials to prevent endangerment to human health or the
environment.
Regulation Developed
Since the transporter is responsible for the delivery of
the hazardous waste shipment to a permitted facility, this respon-
sibility would be maintained if a spill occurs. EPA could be
silent concerning this regulation since the transporter is re-
sponsible for delivery or may become a generator. However, EPA
believes that responsibility should be clearly stated and there-
fore, has made the transporter responsible for clean up of a
hazardous waste spill.
-------
G. Identification of Vehicles
The Interstate Commerce Commission requires every for-
hire motor carrier (common or contract) operating under
authority granted by ICC to identify themselves as such. "There
shall be displayed on both sides of each vehicle operated under
its own power, either alone or in combination...the name, or
trade name, of the motor carrier under whose authority the vehicle,
or vehicles is or are being operated, and the certificate permit,
or docket number assigned to such operating authority by the
Interstate Commerce Commission." The purpose for the identi-
fication is to identify the transporter as being regulated by
the ICC and DOT. Many State PUC's/PSC's have similar identifi-
cation requirements for common and contract motor carriers. Of
those 49 States that have PUC/PSC requirements, the majority,
39, require identification of motor vheicles. In addition to
ICC requirements, 49 CFR 397 requires that any private carrier
operating a motor vehicle under its own power, which must be
placarded for the hazardous materials it is carrying, must also
mark the following information on that vehicle: The name or
trade name of the private carrier operating the vehicle, and the
city or community in which the private carrier maintains its
principal office or in which the vehicle is customarily based.
These markings must be on both sides of the truck, readily legible
from 50 feet while the truck is stationary.
Identification of the transporters hauling hazardous wastes
was supported by the majority of persons attending the Type II
-------
public meetings and the external reviewers of the draft regula-
tions. As pointed out in the transport study, the majority of
hazardous waste is being transported by motor vehicle. The
majority of problems concerning illegal disposal has been the
result of illegal disposal by motor carriers.
In developing the identification (marking) requirements
for transporters of hazardous wastes, the model differences
were taken into account. The rail, air, and barge carriers are
easily identifiable and are restricted, due to the nature of
the mode, as to their areas of services and use of communication
lines (track, rivers, air). The motor carrier, on the other
hand, is quite mobile. If there is a road, path or passable
route, a motor carrier could take it. Concern was expressed
that many motor carriers of hazardous waste, "gypsies", often
use unmarked vehicles so that they cannot be identified when
picking up, transporting, or disposing of hazardous wastes.
Federal, State, and local government representatives
are concerned that all transporters handling hazardous waste
be identified. Under existing ICC and State PUC/PSC regulations,
the private carriers are not regulated. In order for all
motor carriers to be identified, the standards should apply to
private, contract, and common carriers.
Alternative Chosen
Since carriers by air, rail, and barge are readily
identifiable and restricted as to their routes, EPA sees no
need to require identification of the vehicles for hazardous
waste transport. Transporters of hazardous waste by motor
-------
vehicle, as urged by the public, will be required to be identi-
fied. For the identification, existing ICC requirements will bf,:
incorporated into the regulations. Since the I.D. number
assigned by EPA under 3010 and these Standards is an existing
ICC, PUC, or IRS number, the majority of motor carriers will be
identifiable by name and also number. EPA plans to issue a lis™
of transporters who have notified EPA giving name, I.D. number,
etc. . . Since EOT uses the 1,000 Ib. limit for marking, EPA,
for those waste not covered has used similar weight limits.
According to existing data the majority of transporters both
inter and intrastate currently are complying with the proposed
standards. By referencing EPA's list of Transporters, EPA
enforcement personnel and State and local governments can
identify transporters of hazardous wastes. The identification
of the transporter also informs the public and emergency response
personnel as to the firm transporting the hazardous waste and
the location of the home base of the vehicle. In the event
of an emergency, the terminal can be contacted to determine
what is in the load.
-------
H. Placarding of Transport Vehicles
As required by the DOT, a transporter cannot move a transport
vehicle containing hazardous materials unless it is placarded in
accordance with 49 CFR 172 Subpart F - Placarding. DOT has
recently developed new placards to identify the hazards present
daring transportation (Attachment XVI). The DOT placard is a
rectangular, color-coded sign with a hazard warning word written
on it and attached to the four sides of a transport vehicle. The
following hazards and types of hazardous material are identified
by the placards: EXPLOSIVE, FLAMMABLE, NON-FLAMMABLE GAS, OXYGEN,
FLAMMABLE GAS, CHLORINE, POISON GAS, COMBUSTIBLE FLAMMABLE SOLID,
FLAMMABLE SOLID (do not wet), OXIDIZER, ORGANIC PEROXIDE, POISON,
RADIOACTIVE, and CORROSIVE.
Transport vehicles containing any quantity of explosives,
poison gases, flammable solids (do not wet), radioactive, and
corrosive materials must be placarded. Thansport vehicles
containing less than 1,000 pounds of the following need not be
placarded: flammables, non-flammable gases, chlorine, poisons,
oxygen, flammable gases, combustibles, flammable solids, oxidi-
zers, organic peroxide, and corrosives.
The warning word on the placard keys emergency response
personnel to the hazard of a spilled material and thus elicits
certain responses. DOT has published an emergency action guide
-------
to help emergency service personnel during the first 30 minutes
of an accident. The guide identifies both the chemical and the
hazard associated with that chemical (i.e., ammonia, corrosive)
Under existing DOT regulations, any hazardous wastes which
meet the DOT criteria of a hazardous material must be placarded
in accordance with the DOT placarding requirements. DOT regula-
tions currently apply to interstate transportation; however, a
majority of the States have adopted the DOT Hazardous Materials
Regulations. According to DOT, 39 States require DOT placards on
transport vehicles.
The placarding of transport vehicles was discussed at the
Type II meetings and in the ANPR. DOT, under their current
criteria, cover many hazardous wastes; however, those wastes
which are bioaccumulative, above DOT toxicity levels, may cause
genetic change, or are carcinogens do not require placards. The
majority of the respondents to the ANPR believe that the DOT
placarding requirements are sufficient for hazardous wastes. How-
ever, many stated that additional placarding is necessary to
cover those wastes which are not addressed under the DOT Hazardous
Material Regulations. The respondents favored the DOT developing
the placard, if deemed essential by DOT.
At the Type II meetings various alternatives were suggested
for placarding of transport vehicles. Many attendees suggested
use of DOT placards as a base and in addition develop placards
similar to the labels designed by the National Fire Protection
-------
similar to the labels designed by the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), Manufacturing Chemists Association (MCA), or
HIOSH.
The NFPA system identifies the hazard of the chemical
material in terms of three principal categories: Health,
flammability, and reactivity (instability). The order of
severity is rated numerically by fire divisions ranging from
four, indicating a severe hazard to zero, indicating no special
hazard.
The information on the label is presented by a spatial
system of diagrams with health always being on the left, flamma-
bility at the tope, and reactivity on the right. Supplementing
the spatial arrangement, color backgrounds and numbers are used
for the three categories: blue for health, red for flammability,
and yellow for reactivity. The fourth space is used to indicate
unusual reactivity with water or may be used to indicate other
additional information to fire and other emergency response
personnel and stresses that "the hazard should be assigned on
the basis of the greater hazard that could exist under fire
or other emergency conditions." Therefore, the NFPA system may
not impart a valid health hazard in the absence of fire.
Identification of the various hazards of a waste would be
helpful to emergency response personnel, as well as to those
individuals handling the waste. The NFPA system would require
additional testing and analysis of the waste beyond that required
by Sections 3001 and 3002 because wastes may vary from batch to
batch.
-------
The labels and precautionary information system of MCA
recommends the use of precautionary labels bearing such infor-
mation as the product name, signal words designating the degree
of hazard (i.e., danger, warning, or caution); affirmative
statement of hazards; precautionary measures covering actions to
be followed or avoided; instructions in case of contact or
exposure; antidotes and notes to physicians; and instructions for
container handling and storage. The MCA system is rather infor-
mative requiring a lot of information on a label and therefore,
would not be appropriate for a placard. For wastes, MCA labels
may present a problem in developing the information for each
waste stream or mixtures fo wastes. The system does not allow
for a numerical hazard rating.
"NIOSH's proposed system has drawn upon the most effective
features of each system." Basically, NIOSH proposes a label
with the following information: alert symbol of health hazard,
flammability hazard, and reactivity hazard along with a rating
for each (similar to NFPA) . The label includes the trade name
of the product, statements on the nature of the hazard (DOT),
action statements, and first aid statements (MCA). When
applicable specific cleanup and disposal statements shall be
included.
Each of the systems discussed, NFPA, MCA, and NIOSH in order,
relay increasing amounts of information to emergency response
personnel and handlers of the material. With too much informa-
tion portrayed on the placard, the effectiveness of quick re-
sponse is lost.
45
-------
Other recommendations to EPA concerning placarding of
vehicles for those wastes not covered by DOT were to develop
placards for each class of waste (i.e., bio accumulative,
carcinogen, mutagen, etc. . . .) or to develop one placard in
addition to the DOT placard or separate from DOT which would
indicate that the shipment contains a hazardous waste. By
identifying the shipment, emergency response personnel would be
alerted to a potential threat to human health and the environment,
and the manifest should be consulted. Terminology suggested by
participants at the Type II meetings for the placard included:
•Hazardous Waste," "Environmental Hazard," "Environmental
Contaminant," "Controlled Material," "Controlled Waste," "Waste,"
or "Dangerous." The terms "Environmental Hazard," "Environmental
Contaminant," "Hazardous Waste," and Dangerous" were rejected by
the majority of reviewers because the description of the hazardous
waste as compared to the actual hazard present during transporta-
tion was not consistent. Therefore, the terminology of "controlled
material," "controlled waste," or "waste" was supported.
Another approach for the development of placards for those
wastes not currently covered by DOT is to recommend to DOT a
unification of their regulations. DOT at this time does not see
the need for either DOT or EPA to develop a placard for hazardous
wastes. Since a placard has certain connotations for emergency
response personnel, there is concern that if in the event of a
hazardous waste spill which presents a chronic hazard, there is
the possibility that a full emergency response action would be
taken and, as studied by DOT, a potential exists for an accident
incurred by the emergency response personnel.
-------
Alternative Chosen
EPA has received several comments that pacards should onl-.
be used when the transportation of a material (waste) presents
a hazard during transportation. DOT has the responsibility fo
determining which materials present a transporation hazard and
whether or not a placard should be used to identify the hazard
of the shipment. It was recommended that EPA not develop a
placard independently of DOT. EPA, therefore, has recommended
to DOT that hazardous waste which currently do not require
placarding of the transport vehicle be placarded. DOT will
determine whether or not a new placard should be developed.
Current DOT thinking is that hazardous wastes which present a
chronic hazard need not be placarded since the information on
the manifest will supply sufficient information for emergency
response in the event of a spill.
-------
I. Insurance Requirement
Section 3003 of RCRA mandates that standards applicable
to transporters be developed to protect human health and the
environment. In order to fully coir.ply with this mandate,
the question has been raised as to whether there is a need
to establish minimum insurance coverage requirements for
hazardous waste transporters to cover the costs of spill
cleanup and the resulting environmental damage.
Comments to this question were invited in the May 2, 1977,
ANPR. Various State agencies believe that minimum insurance
should be required. However, concern was expressed that small
transport companies could be driven out of business because of
the high cost of insurance.
There was also general agreement among waste generators
that insurance should be required. However, the level of coverage
suggested varied. Several suggestions were received: transporters
should be insured to cover the cost of spill cleanup; minimum
insurance requirements should be established plus a $5,000,000
umbrella policy to cover all accidential spills of hazardous
wastes; insurance should be required but made available through
the public rather than the private sector; and the current ICC
insurance requirements are sufficient.
There was also a consensus of opinion among waste
disposers that minimum insurance requirements are needed.
Either the Federal government should provide the necessary
-------
insurance coverage or if the insurance industry is willing
to insure transport of hazardous wastes, the private insurance
industry.
Transport companies commenting, however, did not support
RCRA requiring minimum or additional insurance. Some felt
that no insurance regulations were needed other than to
cover unique hazards or extensions of the Price-Anderson
Act. Interstate common carriers believe that insurance
presently carried by most transporters was adequate and that
additional insurance would be expensive and hard to find.
Interstate Commerce Commission
Interstate transportation of hazardous materials (waste)
is regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).
Motor carriers are required by the ICC to obtain a certificate
of insurance before receiving authority to operate (Attachment
XVII). The minimum insurance requirements which are set forth
in 49 C.F.R. 1043.2 include $100,000 for bodily injury or death
of one person; $300,000 for bodily injury or death of more
than one person (limited to $100,000 per person); and $50,000
for property damage.
State Regulations
Insurance for the intrastate transportation of hazardous
materials (wastes) is required by the various State Public
Utility Commissions (PUC). Of the 49 regulatory commissions
-------
which certificate motor carriers, only New Hampshire, Maryland,
and New Jersey do not set minimum liability insurance requirements
Thirty States require a certificate of insurance or demonstration
of financial responsibility prior to issuing a license or
permit.
Among the other States, the minimum amounts vary widely
(Table VI) . The minimum insurance for bodily injury or
death to one person ranges from $10,000 to $100,000 (although
California requires $200,000 for petroleum carriers); from
$10,000 to $300,000 for bodily injury or death to more than
one person ($600,000 in California for petroleum carriers);
and from $1,000 to $100,000 for property damage. Although
some States have set their minimum insurance requirements
quite low, this is not always relevant because carriers in.
those States hold far more insurance than is required.
*Availability
Insurance coverage for hazardous material spills for
fixed facilities and transportation stock varies widely.
The trucking industry is the only transportation mode which
is required to carry minimum insurance levels. Although the
ICC requires minimum insurance coverage, coverage within the
industry varies. It is estimated that there are 16,000
(common, contract) truck lines. Of these, about 100 lines
carry large "umbrella" insurance policies which range between
$1,000,000 and $5,000,000. Another 1,000 truck lines
-------
Maximum for EocUly
Property Damage Financial P-egi
Alabama
Maska
Ari2ona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Lstrict of Columbia
•si'
alaware
Florida
Georgia
Hav;aii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
lov.'a
Kansas
Kentucky
or deatl
10.000
100,000
25,000
25,000
100,000
*** 200,000
25,000
100,000
N.A.
N.A.
100,000
25,000
25,000
100,000
20,000
100,000
25,000
25,000
*10,000
i one person Irrjtiry
300,000
300,000
100,000
50,000
300,000
600,000
100,000
300,000
N.A.
N.A.
300,000
100,000
100,000
300,000
40,000
300,000
50,000
50,000
*20, 000-30, 000
50,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
50,000
100,000
10,000
50,000
N.A.
N.A.
50,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
5,000
50,000
10,000
5,000
5,000-**25,000
or InfiuremciG rcouircx
for Perr.rJ t/1 .1 cor. re*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
y
toy
-------
louieana
Maine
Maryland
Me -.r sachusetts
Micliigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
^'.ssouri
Nebraska
Itevada
New Ilonpshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
K«w York
North Carolina
* Varies by weight of vehicle
** I'cr flanwable/ explosive/ oil, etc.
"•''* Petroleum Carrj.ers
UOClJLJtV ' Mnovury
— — • : — w p?.gqs
10,000
20,000
N.A.
N.A.
100,000
100,000
100,000
50,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
N.A.
N.A.
10,000
25,000
50,000
fimrtHfrfMl^ acoar c
-------
for Eodily
Prc-r.-.rt.y
Ljt
torth Dakota
)hio
)klahcma
)regon
'ennsylvania
ttioclQ Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
."ennescea
?exas
itah u-f-* k
'ermont
'irginia
Washington
?est Virginia
Ji socnsin
?yatiincj
Varies by weight of vehicle
'* FOJ. tlaixniable, explosive, oil, etc,
** Ptitxoleum Carriers
re ""Heath ones person
100,000
100,000
10,000
10,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
N.A.
25,000
25,000
100,000
N.A.
100,000
25,000
10,000
ir>,ooo
25,000
Injury
250,000
300,000
25,000
20,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
N.A.1
100,000
100,000'
300,000
N.A.
300,000
100,000
20,000
30,000
100,000
CL* Jn.'iUJ.vr^c re
lor rorndt/ljce
25,000 X
100,000
5,000 X
10,000 X
10,000
10,000
10,000 X
5,000
10,000 X
10,000
50,000
N.A.
50,000 X
10,000 X
5,000 X
10,000
5,OUO X
-------
carry property damage insurance between $100,000 and $500,000,
and are assumed to carry correspondingly large coverage for
personal liability. The remaining 15,000 truck lines carry
the minimum insurance levels as required by the ICC.
The insurance coverage for the trucking industry for
hazardous material spills as presently constituted will
cover mitigation expenses to prevent further property damage.
However, environmental mitigation expenses may not be recog-
nized by these insurers as necessary and valid expenditures
to mitigate damages.
There are no Federal requirements for minimum insurance
coverage for the railroad industry -for hazardous material
spills. Generally, railroad lines are self insured and,
therefore, cover their own damage claims. Some lines, however,
to carry special insurance policies to cover catastrophic
accidents and fires. Insurance levels for this type of
situation may be for $25,000,000 total coverage, with a $1,000,000
to $2,000,000 deductible clause written into the policy.
accident liability for the railroad industry is thus covered
either by the railroad line directly or through a large
catastrophe policy with a substantial deductible clause
tritten in. However, as presently constituted, it is not
likely that a large catastrophe policy would cover environmental
"litigation expense.
*EPA memorandum Johnathan Amson to Hugh Thompson 8/19/75
77
-------
Insurance coverage for vessel transportation of hazardous
materials appears to be different from that for the railroad
or trucking industries. Present insurance policies for
vessels transporting hazardous materials are indemnity policies,
whereby the insurance underwriter indemnifies the vessel owner
or operator for all costs the owner or operator must pay to
cover all liabilities. Current vessel insurance coverage for
most policies is for all liabilities encountered, regardless of
whether the substance causing the problem was designated a
hazardous substance. Thus, existing insurance for vessels trans-
porting hazardous materials includes all accidents resulting in
pollution incidents and the resulting mitigation expenditures.
Cost of Spills
The cleanup costs of hazardous materials far exceeds the
value of the chemical spilled. The following examples illustrate
the high cost of cleanup incurred on spills of polychlorinated
byphenyls (PCB's) during the last four years. (PCB's when
destinated for disposal will be considered a hazardous waste,)
March 1973 1,400 gallons spilled; $1.7 million
cleanup cost
November 1974 250 gallons spilled; $175,000 cleanup cost
December 1974 1,400 gallons spilled; $500,000 cleanup cost
January 1975 150 gallons spilled; $7,166 cleanup cost
February 1976 25 gallons spilled; $20,000 cleanup cost and
lab work
-------
The cost of spill cleanup varies from incident to incident.
Due to the paucity of data concerning cost of cleanup, it is
impossible at this time to determine minimum rates of insurance
coverage for property damage.
Section 311 FWPCA
Under Section 311 of FWPCA, a revolving fund has been
established to defer the cleanup cost of oil and hazardous
substance spills (once designated) . The fund, known as the
Revolving or Pollution Fund, is administered by the Commandant
of the U.S. Coast Guard and is available to EPA. This fund is
used
(1) to clean up "mystery spills," ones for which the
perpeptrator cannot be identified;
(2) to clean up spills from vessels where the limits of
liability as defined by the FWPCA have been passes; and
(3) to finance cleanup where the on-scene coordinator
has determined that the spiller is not capable of
cleaning up a spill even though identified. In these
latter cases, the spiller is required to reimburse the
fund. Often, these cases result in litigation for
final settlement.
EPA
EPA is currently examining the cost of dealing with
environmental emergencies. An analysis is being conducted which
will include all media and substances for which EPA has some
related statutory authority and which have the potential to
It
-------
cause an environmental diaster or emergency. The primary
objective will be to determine the appropriate and most
cost-effective approach EPA should support concerning environ-
mental diasters/emergencies. The study will consist of media
analysis of (1) the potential, type, and estimated frequency
of environmental diasters; (2) the feasibility of conducting
cleanup operations; (3) the level of contingency resources
necessary to provide technical assistance and monitoring
activities necessary to define the problem and to determine
what corrective actions should be taken; and (4) the level
of contingency resources necessary to cover the costs of
actual cleanup operations. In addition to the media analysis,
development of insurance requirements or a_ revolving fund
which would be reimbursed by industries that have the potential
to cause or do cause an environmental disaster is being reviewed
The need for legislative and regulatory revisions necessary
to establish such a fund will also be assessed.
Various issues that will require consideration during
the course of the analysis are listed: contingency funds,
environmental disaster/emergency, media/substance, contingency
fund reimbursement to include a taxing mechanism, and the
assignment of direct liability, fines, bonds, or insurance.
Alternative Chosen
The Agency is considering at the current time developing
mechanisms to cover the cost of spill cleanup. Until a
-------
final decision is made, no action will be taken concerning
insurance coverage for transporters of hazardous wastes. EPA
also believes that since the States as well as the ICC require
minimum insurance coverage, the property liability being carried
by transporters may be sufficient to cover the cost of spill
cleanup. A study by the Office of Solid Waste to examine
financial responsibility which will include the availability
and costs of insurance for transporters of hazardous wastes is
being conducted.
-------
j. Permitting of Hazardous Waste Transporters
A major concern expressed by the States, public interest
groups, waste management representatives, and transporters is
that a permitting system for transporters of hazardous wastes
should be developed by EPA. A permitting system for hazardous
waste transporters would serve two purposes: the firs.t woule;
be to identify and collect data on hazardous waste transporters;
the second, which is the major reason for the development of a
permitting system, would be the ability of the permitting agency
to revoke the permit, thus preventing a transporter from hand-
ling hazardous wastes.
Federal and State transportation agencies currently require
that transporters of hazardous materials (wastes) acquire a
permit/license before engaging in transportation. The Inter-
state Commerce Commission (ICC) requires transporters of
hazardous materials to obtain operating authority through the
standard ICC application procedures. The ICC is far more
stringent in its requirements for these transporters than
regular freight transporters. The transporter must demonstrate
a high degree of responsibility and strict compliance with all
safety regulations. The transporter's past record is carefully
scrutinized for violations. In addition, the carrier must
provide special training for personnel who will come in
contact with the hazardous materials as to proper handling
-------
techniques and applicable safety regulations. The transporters
equipment must be shown fit to carry dangerous materials, and
in accordance with marking and packing requirements. A five
year limitation is placed on operating authority granted
transporters of certain of the transporters continued fitness and
safety compliance.
Traditionally, the power of the ICC to regulate "property"
was interpreted to exclude waste products, but in recent years
environmental concerns have led to a re-evaluation of this
interpretation. Under Ex Parte M.C. 85, wastes to be reused
or recycled are deemed to have economic value and are subject
to regulation. The Commission further indicated in the Long
Island Nuclear Service Corporation Common Carrier Application
(110 MCC 393) that radioactive and toxic wastes are subject to
regulation regardless of value because of the inherent danger
involved in the unmanaged transport of such materials. In the
Tri-State Motor Transit Company case (125 MCC 343) , the need for
reliable and responsive transport services for hazardous wastes
was recognized when the ICC issued limited term (5 years)
certificates to two carriers of radioactive wastes after these
carriers demonstrated fitness to carry such materials. Two
additional carriers were denied authority due to a lack of
experience and trained personnel in the transportation of
radioactive substances.
-------
The above cases set the precedent for ICC regulation of
all carriers of hazardous wastes and also has influenced State
coverage (Attachment XVIII). It is the ICCTs current policy
to bring such carriers under regulation through their standard.
procedures, while at the same time giving special consideration
to the sensitive nature of the goods carried.
The ICC regulations pertain to interstate common and
contract carriers while State agencies control transportation
intrastate. The State Public Utility Commission is the
primary agency responsible for the permitting/licensing of
transporters. Table VII summaries those States that have
license/permit requirements. The first column indicates whether
or not the State requires transporters to file for authority
to transport DOT hazardous materials (waste). Of the 50
States, 49 require a certificate of authority to operate. In
addition to requirements for hazardous material transporters,
waste transporters also require permits/license. Of the 49
State PUC's that require certificates of authority for hazardous
materials, 38 also regulate waste transporters. Column two
indicates whether another agency within the State requires a
permit/license for hazardous waste transporters. The permit/
license is issued by various agencies within each of the Sta tes:
Health Department of Natural Resources, State EPA, Departmert
of Environmental Quality, or Water Pollution Control Board.. .
Of the 51 political subdivisions, 30
-------
roc
Operating Authority
Permits/Iicensing required
by other Agency
Joint
HJC/Other Agency
Poquirod ?vequi Tenants for
Hazardous Waste L^^^ys. Waste
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Coluiribia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Materials
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N.A.
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N.A.
haz, mat.
waste
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
N.A.
.
N.A.
£es (for
Ereatment}
N.A.
Pending Health Dept.
_
Pending Health Dept.
No
Yes ' Health Dept.
No
Yes ' liquid waste Dept.
Env. Protection
Pending Committee on TransportaT-
tion
No
No
Yes Dept. of Natural Re-<
sources
N.A.
X
-
X
-
X
-
X
'
-
-
X
-------
6fe. ISZZ7
ST^TEJ'EgMIT/LICENSE REQUIRKKENTS
PUC
Operating Authori.ty
rorrn.its/licenoing required
I>y odier Agc-ncy
Joint
FUC/Other Agency
* •> <*
Hazardous Waste
Stnto Mc-iteriaJH
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
•O
Louisana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michi gan
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Scnie
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
NO'
i •
No
Yes
Yes
Pending
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Pending
Yes
Yes
Requirements for
Hazardous Waste
Illinois EPA
liquid waste Board of
Health
Dept. of Env. Quality
Dept. of Health and
Environment
Dept. of Natural Re-
sources
Health & Human Resources
Adm.
-
Dept. of Health
Division of Water
Pollution Control
Dept. of Natural Re-
sources
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
-------
HJC
Cperati-ng Autliority
Permits/licensing recruirecl
by p bher Agency
Joint
KJC/Ofcher Agency
State
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missuori
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
>J
J New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
RCv'iuirf
fe^Iai!
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mes
No
Yes
\
Yes
Yes
»v_*
• Wr^*T" G.
Yes
Yes
reuse/re-
cycle
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N.A.
No
Yes
Pending
Yes
Pending
Yes
No
No
NO
Yes
Pending
Yes
No
Pollution Control
Agency
Board of Health
—
Dept. of Health and
Environment
-
••
Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Environment Improvement
Agency
Dept. of Environmental
Control
Requirements for
Hazardous Waste
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
-------
STATE PERMir/LICENSE
HJC
Operating Authority
required
l)y pij;or^ Agency
Joint
rue/Other Agency
;s for
Hasagfloua Waote I^J^^pyS. W?ste
State Material's
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
5Q
*
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
\
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5fes-unles3
clunped
fes-except
iebris/
garbage
N.A.
Yes
Yes
N.A.
No
Pending OEPA
Yes Dept. of Health
No
No
Yes liquid waste Dept. of
Health
i
Yes Board of Health
No
Yes Dept, of Health
Yes Water Quality Board
No
_
X
X
-
-
X
X
-
X
X
-------
POC
Operating Authority
itequiracl
Kar.to
rernd.1,s/lic.'enaing required
by other Aggncy
Joint
FUC/Other Agency
Itequirerrents for
VJante
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes-to treat
roent
Yes
Yes
Yes-except
disposal
Yes
Pending Env. Conservation
Agency
No-
No
Yes Health Dept,
Yes i Dept. of Natural Re-
sources
X
X
X
-------
existing or pending permit requirements. In 29 States
which have existing or pending hazardous waste transport
permits/license requirements, the PUC's of each of the
States also regulate the transportation of hazardous materials
(waste). Of the 29 States with other agency requirements,
24 State PUC's also regulate waste transportation.
It appears that in many instances there may be duplicat-.on
of effort in some of these states. As stated, one of the
purposes of requiring permits/licenses of transporters of
hazardous wastes is to identify and collect data on the
transporter. In filing for permit/license to the State PUC,
certain information is required of the transporter (Table VIII).
Each State requires that the name and address of the
transport company be included on the application for a permit
or certificate. Some States also require the names and addresses
of the principal officers of the firm. The majority of State
PDC's require the transporter to submit either a financial
statement or show evidence that it was "fit, willing, and
able" to perform the tasks specified in the application. Some
States required both a financial and fitness statement. About 50*
of the State regulations specified that a minimum amount of
insurance was necessary before a transporter could obtain a
permit. Some States, however, do not require insurance for -he
permit but require a certificate of insurance before the trans-
porter began service. Some state PUC's require a description
-------
KEY
STATE ^A _ j
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Arizona ***
California***
Colorado*
Connecticut
^District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia***
Hawaii***
Idaho
X
X
X
X
NA
X
X
* Requirements Not Specified
n c D B F_J
X
X
NA
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
X
X
X
X
X
X
NA
X
1 1
X
X
X
X
-------
FUG
STATE
i
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisana*
Maine
-O
J* Maryland***
Massachusetts
Michigan***
Minnesota*
Mississippi*
Missouri
* Requirements Not £oecifie
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IX
t
!
X
X
*j
B
X
X
X
X
i
1
u
^•MMM
C
:
X
X
X
X
X
.-' "'*-•
D
X
X
X
E
1
X
X
X
X
JL
X
X
G
X
I
1
1
i
i
1
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
JL
X
X
J
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K,
"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A.
B.
C.
D.
TT
•w •
F.
Ci.
.,
ij ^
T
-• *
: 0.
K.
"••--- - - •
KEY
Name, Address of Business
Office
iiame, Address of Pr.incdp^
Officers
Financial responsibility
StateiuenL
Description of Equipment
and Facilities
Services to be Performed
Typo of Transport
Schedule of Rates
Requires Public Hearing
Necessity of Service
Rovokation Authority/
Finalities Assessed
. .
** iJtato way have revokaticn authority but not: specific mention of complaints pathway-(K not
Tl \ 11 T* if TJ fl I
marked)
*** Data Not Available
-------
KEY
IM
STATE
Montana*
NebrasJca*
Nevada
New Hoi
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Ca
North Da
Ohi.o ***
Oklahoma
Oregon
A
1
Ik
shire
ey
CO
rolina
kota
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
rania*
X
1
D C D E P
X
X
X
X
X
t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x jx
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
G H.I J K
X
X
x
, 1
X
1
X
X
x
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A. Namo, Address of Busine
Office
B. Name, Address of Princi
Of f i.cers
C. Financial responsibilit
Statement
D. Description of Equipmen
and Facilities
E. Services to be Per forme*
F. Type of Transport
G. Schedule of Rates
U. Requires Public Hearing
I. Necessity of Service
J. Revokation Authority/
K» Penalities Assessed
**
State may have rcvokation authority but not specific mention of complaints pathway-(K not
marked)
*** Data Not Available
-------
PUC
7* 6k. ~WT
STATE
RlTOde
South
Sout±
Tennessee
Texas
Utah***
Vermont*
>-o
Virginia
Washington
West Virg
Wisconsin
Wycmijig
A ,B 0 D E F
dand*
/ .
iroli-na
ikota***
ie
it
i
jon
:ginia
in
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•>«»•• •«••••
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
t
X
X
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
G H.I J K
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
«• *•«•••>•» •— +*—**•
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
V
X
— "— -1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
1
1
.
KEY
'A, Name, Address of Business
Office
B. Name, Address of Principa
Officers
C. Financial responsibility
Statement
D. Description of Equipment
and Facilities
T3. Services to be Performed
F. Type of Transport
fi. Schedule of Rates
H. Requires Public Hearing
I. Necessity of Service
J. Revokation Authority/
K. Penalities Assessed
x
4*1. \£ WW.'*.WI-W*'W*9 tVWL- W£ST2K» J. *. .A-C^U
** State may have revokation authority but not specific itention of complaints pathway-(K not
nuirked)
*** Da«-.a Not Available
-------
I' Identification Code
Section 3010(a) requires all who transport a hazardous
waste, no later than ninety days after promulgation or revision
of the regulations under Section 3001, to file with the Adminis-
trator or an autorized State, a notification stating the general
description of the activity and identification of the hazardous
wastes handled. This ninety day notification period is a one-
time notification and does not require notification by transpor-
ters beginning operations in hazardous waste after that time
period.
Section 3003, as urged by the participants at the public
meetings, should require that any person who transports a hazard-
ous waste notify the State or EPA.
There are a variety of purposes for notifying the appro-
priate agency. The agency will be able to determine all new
transporters entering the business. Through the notification
and subsequent contact by the appropriate agency, the transpor-
ter would become aware of the transport regulations and of the
generator regulations. Also, the agency would then have a
sailing list to sand information concerning the regulations.
The notification could also be used to register.the transporter.
Begistration would only signify that the transporter is aware of
the regulations, not an endorsement by EPA.
At the Type II meetings all parties have called for a permit
system for transporters. Under Federal law, (there are no pro-
visions to permit the transporter), a transporter must notify the
appropriate agency before he transports the wastes. Since there
-------
is concern for permitting transporters, the notification syste-
coulc be used as a means to register transporters. The regist: a-
tion would not be considered a permit nor a stamp of approval;
only that the transporter is aware of the RCPA regulations. F ?.
could issue a publication or newsletter listing all registered
transporters.
Alternative Choosen
EPA believes that the -one time notification by transporters
would not be sufficient to determine who is transporting a hazard-
ous waste. By requiring notification and subsequent registration,
EPA would be able to identify transporters of hzizardous waste-.
The subsequent issuing of an Identification Code number by EF?
would be used by the transporter to identify himself as a hazard-
ous waste hauler and also that he has furnished information to
EPA.
In those States in which the hauler of a waste requires a
permit or is licensed by the State or ICC, that license or
registration number jwould be used for EPA purposes.
Requiring furnishing of information by the transporter e^ter
the 90 day initial notification period, allows for constant v. :date
of nailing lists, provides a current list of transporters foi
technical assistance, establishes a data base for contact wir.:
the transport industry and also allows sufficient time for t: ans-
porters (generators) to determine whether or not hazardous w: ste
is being transported. In addition, transporters would be re;-illy
-------
identifiable by permit number in case actions by EPA or States
[against the transporter's permit need to be made.
-------
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
LOUISIANA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN-
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
Attachment I
SECT i ON NUMiicKi)
171
1
0
3
3
3
3
0
0
3
3
1
1
-3
(P
0 0
0
2 o
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
" 3
172
2
0
3
3
3
. 3
2
0
3
3
1 .
1
= 3
0
0
0
?
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
173 [ 177
2
0
• 3
! 3
i
; 3
3
-2
0
3
3
^
1
1
3
0
0
0
7
3
3
0
Q
0
0
3
0
3
2
2
-3
-3
~"T7r
0
— — — — .
5
3
-3 ! 3
•
Z
2
3
'^•m™ l .—
2
~l 0
-3
-3
3
3
-1 1
'1
-3
1
0 0
0
0
0
^3
^
0
^3
-1
0
-- 3
0
"""" 3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
^
i -ir
_____>
1 - Has Similar Rule
2 - AdootKeJ in Parr
3 - Adopted in Toto
f) — Hae
DM 7 a
-------
IftTE
OTTANA
-gBRASKA
-PADA
-m HAMPSHIRE
-BIT JERSEY
-II? MEXICO
~m YORK
-DRTH CAROLINA
-BRTH DAKOTA
-OHIO
JBAHOMA
JBGOM
JBWSYLVANIA
JDDE ISLAND
.SOOTH CAROLINA
.SMITH DAKOTA
.OWES SEE -
.HAS
.UAH
..URMONT
JtRGINIA
JSIIINGTON
ttST VIRGINIA
HSCONSIN
IgOMING
SECTION NUMBERS
171 172 175
0
0
3
-1
1
3
1
3
n
0
0
a
3
3
0
3
3
2
3
0
1
3
0
3
3
3
0
3
1
1
3
1
3
0
c
0
0
0
3
3
0
3 r.
3
*
3
3
0
1
3
0
3
3
3
0
3
1~
1
3
1
3
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
3
0
3
3
177
-3
0
"3
-1
"l
'3
-1
'3
0
0
'1
-3
'3
'3
3
-3
'3
-3
'3
0
-1
-3
0
' 3
- 3
173
0
0
3
1
1
3
1 .
3
0
0
1
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
3
0
3
•j
«5f Explanation .
' — JIas Sixil&r Xule
^* Adopted an Part *
3 - Adopted in Toto
0 - Has Ho Rule
-------
STAT\ (tf FEDERAL MOTOR .CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY STATES
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA '
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
'FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII -"
IDAHO
ILLINOIS-
INDIANA
IOWA
LOUISIANA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY "
MAINE
' MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
' MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
: SECTION NUMBERS
351
, 2
3 /
/ .
3'
f 3
- 1
3
0
.1
1 -
3
2
2
3
0
3
*1
0 '
' 3
• 2
. 0
2 *
0
0
3.
-— *
3
592
• -2- <__..
3
3
3
1
3
0
1
1
3
3
2
.3
0
3
0
0
3
3
1
2
0
1 -
3"
3 .
595
2
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
2'
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
0
3
3
1
2
0
2
3
'3 '
594 595
2
1
3
•3
1
3
1 "
1
1
3
1
2 •
3
1
1 '
0
0
3
3
1
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
0
0
1 "
2
3
2
3
0
3
1
0
3
1
2
0
1
1
3
3
j 9 0 39,
2
3
3
3
1 •
3
0
0
0
3
3
2
3'--'
1
3
0
0
3
3
1
2
0
0
3
3
2
"\
3 !
3
3
?
0
1
0
3
3
2
3
0
s
1
- C
3
-
-
^
i
,'
-
-
Key Explanation
1 - Has Similar Rule
2 - Adooted In Part
3 - Adopted in Toto
— Kac tin Oii7
-------
'••{- Has Siailar Rule
~ Adopted in Part
3 — Adopted in To to
0 - Has Wo .Rule
~-
fcffE
ffSSOURI
UTTANA
• 0RASKA
ilWDA
0 HAMPSHIRE
0 JERSEY
'0 MEXICO
P YORK
*
»RTH CAROLINA
!1»RTH DAKOTA
;«0
JKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
* % • * *
ffiODE ISLAND
SODTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SNNESSEE
HXAS
8IAH
&RMONT
URGINIA
WASHINGTON
KST VIRGINIA
RSCONSIN ' '
DOMING
SECTION NUMBERS
391 392 593
3
«*
0
I/.
/"
2
1
0
3
0
3
2
1
0
3
3 o
• ' 3
3
3
3
' 3
* »
3
1
0
0
3
. l" .
.3
3
* *"** - •*
' 0
1
' 3
1
0
3
3"
3
2
0
-1
V
3
3
3 ~
3
3
3
3
1
0
0 -
3 '
1
^
3
0
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
3-
3
3
3
3
1
2
2 '
3
1
••-} ,
:>
394
3
0
0
3
1-
1
3
3
3
0
0
1
0
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
0
2
0
1
3
,
595
3
0
1
2
0
0
3
1
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
2
2
0
3
596
•*
0
1
'3
1
*
3
3
3
3
0
0
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
3
0
3
- t£-
397
3
0
1
3
1
0
3
1
*•»
0
0
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
1
0
3
1
3
-------
\ «>1J'JVj',,
/I /% DEPARTMENT OF TnANSPORTATfON-
j JVJ? -MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU
V^ . . V/ASKIKGTC.N. D.C. iOSPO
December 23, 1977
Mr. John P. L2hran, Director
!
Waste l-'anagerent Division (WH-565) UJ
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Eriv.ixonir.sntal Protection Agency
401 M.. Street, S.W. .
Vashiiigton, D.C. 20460
ASf-^r
11
Mr
In Decerriber of 1975, the "Departn>3nt of Transportation published
•an advance notice of proposed nHs-oakiny in the Federal Fegister
concerning environanental :anc5 health effects iraterials (DocJ:et M-l-145)
Recently, in October, our off ices held a joint public rnseting concern
the development of regulations for the transportation of hazardous ..a.
7\s you know, both the public n-eating and r.-?ritten conrr-nt-j received in
response to our joint notice of public meeting and supplc-ivanta! acv-^;-.-
notice of proposed n0.aitikirig overwhelmingly urge the Depai-fcnei-it of
Transportation to tal3-r
un,-;cr Section 3001, Identification ar.:l Listing of I-!a-i5rc.ov.s"v7as:-^?
Section 3002, Standards Applicable to Gsni-rators of Hazardous Waste;
cuid Section 3003, Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous
VSiste, 'itappsors that tha Hazardous I-^terials Itogulations can ba
rrodified to accornrxJate irost of the needs of the Resource Ccnssrvatior
and Recoveri' Act, Subtitle C (Hazardous Waste Harag-cosant) relative
to hazardous \>aste transportation.
The Dcpartaant is considering the development of a ncvv class of iratcri
v^--ich -will include those hazardous v.astes not curron civ regulated bv
DOT (.^ucli as wastes that are bioaccv^.rjlative,. toxic above current CO."
sfcan-JIitrds, or that iray cause genetic change). fe also expect to ir.cl.:
in our regulations references -bo EPA standards, -particularIv to deal
v/ith those cases v.ftere EPA standards apply to materials now' regulate"!
by DDT but which are not identified in"DOT regulations as wastes. As
you toto:.;, the ixrj1 Hazardous Materials Weqnlations do not row distircp.:.!
an
In order for D031 to develop comprehensive reg-olations for hazardous
waste transportation, it is necessary that I receive frcn vo;ar off jV--
l- drafts of tha Section 3001 and 3002 stenchrds prior to prooo -•'"•
-------
changes to-the DOT regulations. To date, I have received pralijr.irurv
drafts of thase standards in addition to receiving a -final draft en -the
Section 3003 standards.
After a. review of the draft Section 3003 standards, -it appears that
the Hazardous 1-jaterials Regulations can be irodified to reflect rn^st,
if not all, of your proposed .star.d£xrds. . The Dapartrnsntwill rr^ke
every attempt possible to develop or incorporate all Section 3003
standards necessary for the transportation of hazardous wastes,
It is nry understanding that EPA is planning to propose the Section
3003 standards soretirr^ in January, ]977, with the intention of jointly
proposing the DOT stsndarcls v;cen they are ready. It is likely that
v,-e v/jjrl not be prepared to publish a notice before the end of
Januarv, but v?e v;ill -be. prepared to publish in adequate tiirs to ;
allow final rules to be promulgated -before April2Lp, 1978. Consequently,
we believe that an earlier unilateral EPA proposal, appearing befcra 3
joint DOT-EPA proposal, or before EPA has published proposed Section
3001 and 3002 sfcandax'ds-, will only contribute to public confusion. . VJa
would orefer to rely eMClv.sJ.vely on. jojjitly proposed regulatiOits for
waste transpDrtsrc, v;hich \vould easily facilitate necessary cross-rriferer,
between proposed DOT ar.d H?A regulatory te>:ts. _
Ho-vevor if EP-\ rletenrinos to proceed v/ith proposed Section 3003 -
standards in January, I v.ould ask that the prearnble to ti^t prcposal
-(1) reference DOT's intention to publish, (2) indicate that a 3orr_
DOT-EPA prcrossl v/ill be fortl'.ccxtiiiicj, and (3).nake clear that alljDr
part of the" EPA propose 1 will be y/ithdrawn upon -tha publication or.
IX3T standards.
I look forward to a coritin^ticn of our past and current cooperation
to provide a siirple, unified set of regulations for shippers and ...
transoorters of hazardous v.sstes.
Sincerely,
Alan I. Roberts
Director
Office of Hazardous
I-^terials Operations
-------
RULES
|Be Printed on White Paper)
UNIFORM STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING
ORIGINAL—NOT NEGOTIABLE—Domestic
__„ , „ Carrier.
Shipper's N'o, ,
(SCAC)
RECEIVED, subject to th« clauiacarlora and tariffs la enact on th» date of tha issu* of this Bill of Lading.
. • .. - : . Data
City,
County,
.Stxt*
. in *ep*nM pod onUr. uc*p< u aaud ico«u»o and tonaitJcwi of co«it»fiu of p*c!uiA luOutown) nvirkML cauiimd, *a4 d«>tin*4 » jtaevn beta*.
Utrau|bout dxi> control at m*«ali| a.ir p«ne« or carpor»tia« in yni wroion o/ !i»ii«p«rtjr undx- thcaonlnct) »p*««
niUmi, *it»r tin*, hi{Av*y .T?UU or nu'-c*. or wtthta th« urritory at la hifhwiy opnvoon*, aihirnM ta>
aB Ux rout* u Hid dMuulwb ': i irruu-iUjr ipwri. u to *Kh uniiro; ^«-rK> V= b> p»rferra«J hrnun »U the ta»vlit»r«
t fT -r-i-fi'in-t *" '"---: ' -v:->- —»•—^T-J ..-^
County,
Zip.
aj.
*•( Carrier.
, Vehicl* or Car Initial.
.N
port, b, . «rrW, by «U». tk. U-
lh« bill oT Udiof *»» >u« «h« it
.
th« rat* is dependent on value, shippers ar» required to state specifically sn wntiug
valut o/ tha property.
or d»clar*d valu* of &• prop*rty i* hereby 3p*cL5c»Ily statad by the »hipp«r
Subject to Section 7 of condi-
tions, if this shipment is to bo
delivered to th« consjn»« vrjth-
out recourse- on tha consignor,
th* consignor shall sign th* fol-
lowing statemsnt;
*n» carrier shall not roafc» <3a-
Giiwy of this shipnaent vrithaut
payment of freight and all othtr
lawful charges.
If charges ajc« t» ba prepaid
write or stirr.p her* *To b«
Received 5 •.
t» upply in prepaymant of th«
cliarsas.on th» property ds-
scribed he
Per_
Agent or Cashier
Charge* advanced:
S_
P«r
**t*ddres» of Shipper. Street,
City,
.Sut«
C. O. D. Section to b« Printed in Red,
-------
RULES
CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Sec. I. (a) The earner or party U prussuian of any of the property herein described shall b. liable as at common law for any !o- thereof or i.m.te ^re-a
hareieiafter provided.
f» N» carrier o» p*rty in pismiiiii of aU or any ot th. property h*r*in dascribed shall be lib!* for any leas thereof or esnwse tSere'o or del,,, e "
Act of Cod, the, public enemy, th* authority of law. er th* act or default of the jhipper or o«ner. or for narjrsl .hnnkais. The esrnerV UaSwUty shil! be that of »-. .-,
only, tar loaa. dan***, or delay caused by fire occurrinj after th* npiration of th* free time (U any) ai!o»ed by tariffs lawfully on file t juch fnre time to be re.-np^i*c
provided) after notica of IB* arrival of th* property »« destination w at th* port of «port (if uijended far Mport) has been duly lent or pen. jnd after placemen t of ,
far delivery at destination, or uride* of c!*uv*ry of th* property to th* party entitled to receive it. ia* been mad*. Eicept a cu* of neejijence of the carrier or p»rt-J ir,
(and the burden to prove freedom from such Qee.lif.ence shall be on th* carrier or party in poswaioa). th* carrier or party in poaaasaion shall ixx be Hjbl* .'or JCM.
delay cecurrn*. wteU th* property ia stopped ana held a transit upon tt» raquast at the shipper, owner, or party entitled to make such r-quo^ or .-we'tine, .'lom
*ic» ia the proparty. or for country danaf* to cotton, or from riot* or strikes. Except ia ease of carriers neiiijenc*, ao carrier or party in po»ers»ion of ill or any/of :
herein Jpemtmi snail b* liable fcr delay caused by hijhway obsuuctioa, faulty or uapaaaable hithw.y. or lack of cap*citjr of any tu'inway. b«,e or .'rrnr. and ti
prove tfMdain from such n*fU(*ace shall b* oo th* carrier or party in pnaewina,
(e) lae»a»ef quanntuM th» ptoiMity nay b» d^har^ at i^ ««d «a»ii»« o/ o»aai« inia quatmntiBo dfpet » tlarwhyrT. »• r»quir«d by
or aulharitink or for th» eanur'9 dapxch at acamt awnaVh poini in curwr't judpnani. and w any such cs» earri»r's r»ponaibilU» ih^il cia?» »hrn property u i»
or propwty may b* ntumd by carriw at own*/* apMta* to ahipouif poiat. eunint fwijht ball) xaya, Qaarantin* npoua of »Nai»s«r t-jtu.-» or k.nd upon or >
prapMty akall b> bom* by th* owian of dw prapMty or b* a tint thmoa. Th» carmr ihail not b» UabU tot io» or danu;* ocea»on«i by (ami jiuon or i;i^,<,c;
Beta r»|uin4 or doa* by quaranein* nfuUtion* or authontin mm Ihoujh th* aun* may ha»» b»m oon« by cirrirr's 13cm, if rnta. or tmpiavm. nor for de-.«-i t
daoafaoraaykia4oearri*r, ita afiata, or o3c*r^ u b> quarantow lam or rrftilaUoiu, Ik* abippw *h»il hoU ih» earrirra hjrmJM« from »nv rjprnw ift,r mj» J.TCV.-
tlvrjr may b. rvquimi to pay. by rnuea of th» mtrodoction of tha propatty ommi by thtt contact inu» any pUea afitfiM th. suarandiw U-» or rriuUiun. in „-
&M. 2. (a) No earriar ia bound to rranapart uid preparry by i«y particular JchxJuU, train, «*rod* or -raael. or in tjnw for any particular matkat or ot>t«r»-W.- ;Ka« «it!i
mplr d»ony carrtw or nutr b*twt«B th> (xxnt o( ibipnwnt »r Ow point
of cimuauon. la all caa*a not prohibiud by law. wh*r* a lovtv valu* than actual rahit ha* OMI rrpm«it*d ia writinf by th« shipper or hu brrn tfmd upan . Tttinj u
th* rel««««d valu* of th* pnparty aa dMarmiiwd by th* daawAeatioi. or tariff! upon "hich th* rat* ia baMd, audl lower iaxo»*r*J. »b*th«r ar no* aud> leaa or damaax occurs from iwgtiiaiM*. • -
(b) Aa a> condition precedent to recovery, claim* must b* filed ia writing with th* rrceivinf or detiverinf carrier, or carrier Iseuinf thia Stil
* dam***, injury or delay occurred, or carrier in ponam'nn of the property when the loss, damtf *. injury or delay occumd. within nu>e
of cha property lor, inth»cae*of export traffic. withtA nut* months alter delivery *t port of export) or. in caj* of £sUur* to msie delivery, thin »iiSm t*'.nt rvonrhi ii-^f »s*un»bie
time for delivery haa *lap*ad: and mica shall b* instituted against any carrier only within two yean and on* d«y from the dsy when notice in wrinni i» jiv m b , -< carter
to th* claimant that th* carrier haa disallowed th* claim er any part or parts thereof specified ia th* notic*. Where claim* are not Sled or >U>LS are not :rucituc«L 'nrvoo is
accordance* with the foreroui| provisions, no carrier hereander shall be liable, and web cUu&a will not b* paid.
(el Any carrier or party EaU* on account of tc*a of or dama|*toany ef said property shsll have the full benefit of any insurance that miy ru>r bnn effected,
upon or on account of said property, so far aa tai* shall aot avoid th* policiea or contracts of insurance: PROVIDED, That i be earner reimburse ih» claimant l-jr - . prvoiiua
•cnary cooperaf> and b*li»( it owner'j cost.
over whoaa raw* cotton or cottoa liatenia to be traraaoriad r^ceiwdar shall hsv* th* privtl*fe. at ita ewa cost e :j brcarupu'. a* uierein
proeideaJ, after notice of the arrival of th* property at destination or altheport of iiport (if intended firetpont has been duly sent nr riveo. and 3/;er pjxr^-.trx ^< • property
for deUery at daouuiSo* ha* beea nade. Of property not recewai. at tin* tender of delivery of th* property to th* party entitled :o rcri.e it hu been .-!•_.._'„. -, 'i, kept
ia veaael. vehicV, ear, depot, warehouse or place of baaineas of th* carrier, subject to t>» UiiJ charse for xorat* and u earners resporuibiiity ss wsrehouserasn^ c.. . or at tbt
optio*) of Iho carrier, jnay be renevej to and stored in a pubbc ar UcenaW warehous* at th* point of delivery or other available point, « if r-.o i^n -.I^OMM i-. -,».Uale«t
poia^of de4iv»r» or at other svaiUble point, then in othersvsilabl*iior.je/jciljrr. el tieooetof the owner and there held without liat«.'i-.> on tHe part c,Crn» ci:-. .• jtijtci
to • Cea for all freitht tnd other tawAil ciurgM, indudiat * nawnabl* chart* for storare. In th* event const'ine* cannot b* found ac *dd,-e*t &\-f, tar deriv»r» tn in tlu!
event, notice of th* placing of each foods ifl warehouse shall b* rnailid tathaaddreasfivta for deiirery and mailed ta any other addmt ti»*n on the bill of ladir<( 'of .uScnion.
showins the <.areh0ua. ia which such property haa be« plac< subject to the c«ovisio« cJ thb parspsph. ='
(t) Wbm oonpensiLshl* property which has been tntaf^^ to <^ta>*^ btrr^~'a ntt^ fy °x>»fn~ or lit* ?*nj entitled !o rm^v it -j .-. , tetxltr of
to receive or dsim it wittet U days after aabc* of arrival shall have>b*en d«iy »e«t or r-ve«, OM ci n , r may »tfl
>*»auy be daatfaatadl by the carrier: .
Buy be, and that it will b* aubj*tt ta, «b o^W (h* t*mv> of th. bill of Udatj i/ dapositioa be not srrsnred for. and shaU ha». pubfuhej not.c. ^tMnlrTr , «y. the- ruea* rf th* party t« whom cnrtsipssd. or. if .topped oraV aotay. &, MTO rf a* auty u be notified, and the time and place of -wl,. once . v ,k !„ two
jntcasMn «***A w a Bvetpapw of t*n.rsl*a«lsuoB at the place of sale ar aearast pUc* where such newspaper is puUahed. ?ROV IDED. That 3O (isy» shsll >.... .l.piei
betat* pubVcatiofi of nocic. of s*U after said nolic* that (h* piopwty »« rrfusvJ e» r.«aii» anelJWned-a. maDed. sent or p»en.
... (c) WhervrjwiahabUpeopwtywhidlhaa beta tnueoRed h«r»und«tod»tinatioB is refosejby cormrne.orp.rty entitle toreceiv, ,t, «My c^^.
entuM to new* it *h*a fail to receive rt pmmptly, th* earlier may. m it* deration, to prevent detrriorstian or further deterioration. M)i the vine ,„ the b»« '.
y^ °L?^e **T ^?V1?*^ 1?Ut **""• ***** *"»«t»*"»'on •» «b* conaijnur or owner lh« refusal of the property or the failure to r«etve it and rK)u«.t fc:
»f th, property, such ootificaooii shall b* p«on. ia such maiuwr at th. auras, of due dui|e*ce requires, befor* the propertyj, »ld.
•*>»>
fa. fc^i k. -1 '7T'~1Tot"0™P^rf'w"^twr«»P«J*^l^pm-l^|bnotpoe>»bU.*»srveitha^ ;
» aimdre ttve njht of th* camw at 1U opOon to Mil th* property under juch QrcunsUoces and in auch manner as may be authoriwd by l»w.
anrf ,** <•) Th* PforW* ot any sale mad* under thii sectm, sh.ll b* sppOed by th* cairWr to th. payment of freijht, oVmurrafe. «o«,e. .nd any other !. "u. .—,--
•«« th* nperM of ««K*. ad»«taem«t, ail*, ml otjur Mcvwry .rpem. snd of eari«t for .nd msiatainin* the property, u* proper care of »me r^^-a ^»o,i pen»e. a«d
* b*.ance it shall be paid to th* owner of the property sold hemnder.
Property destined to or taken from a ststion. wharf, landuif or other place at which there a no rerularly appointed fre^St sjent, sJi.Jl b« entL-< .• at risk of
ded from can, whiciea or vessete or uatfl loaded into cats, vehicles or vneeU. and. escept in e»- of camera nejiij^nce. -sen recei.ed from o- iru- -rd !o jurt
or other ptacea. shall b* at owner's »k until th* cars ar* attached to and after they are detached from iocomoti.e or :rstn or ^-.:! kw- d '-e:o sod
•e~rw, ar if property u tnnaportad i« motor vehicle trailen or semi-trailen, unlS such trailers or semt-trsilm sre »t£ach*d to tnd if-^r Ctey •* •4it*cht&
P*-e» untta. Where a carrier is directed to unload or defiw property trsnaported by motor raajcle at a particular location -here coosi rn*. or n>r^rn«'» .ie-ve u - rv(uUti)
ea.th.n.»»/UT0nu>«iiI,t.0,dtHTrry. jhall be that of the owner.
-S'o carriee hemnder will carry or be liabU in any »ay for any decumenu, specie, or far any articles of * and a stipulated value of Ihe articles u* eadoryd hmon.
'•'and uvull Er*7 P*rt!'' *jM~"»n.r» the c»rrW .,^^1 ,n i~.^-^«.m.«.u_J «.. —-I, ,««l, «»d *»ch |ood* raay bewuenouedat ownersroa and e>pen.«or 2wr- • ' ' --.:-.
-------
STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING
ORIGINAL— NOT NEGOTIABLE
Shipper No.
Carrier No.
iiH-*"^ S* C-wt
Cats-
: Tip Co<:»
,•»•«
•n™^-™-"^""
HM
FROM:
Street
Or.gm
DESCoiPTTON ANO C'uASSiFiCATION
(Proper Sniooir-r; Naff-aa.-*: Class cef -S9CFR 172. to I >
*l(l»l| " ""'"^ '** *^"^° *
j4 T r«ns9on«f o"
TOTAL QUANTITY
(Wetgni. Volume.
Gallons. e!C.)
Ven-cl*
VVEiGHf
(SuOecl !o
-
X
-
COD Amt-.S
St,!>f«CI 1O S^cito** I* o' tP« Co**e"**O1(**. '* t-Ni* sAipm««t r-* to b* fi
;fvf ^-ynsi^-v^--* ^-HrVlnjt raCOu'l 4 Q-* '1^* C W^S-ftrt-O*. 'i*** CO*")*4TO' S-^
****n*S to
AH I^n tj*4
iy*ri«n* of
's-s"»"'"-'Co"'^>0"
RATE i
I
,
i
i
i
i
i
!
i
- i
C.O.O. r£5- -
PflSFAiO O
COLLECT O s
CHARGcS: S
FREIGHT C^A?
,__ __. !.>,., 3ow rt* ^jjrl nrnr^t-tv ev-f ail or an* oration o/ said rout* 'o o*«tin»:i:3
33
route iosa«i jtsimaiion. I: •» mu:'-i<:y
co-trsct) a
V"'* '•<> e*i..
-- carr;e> o'
nr< ' , ^
,-:y !iiT.» :nt*fesf»d in ail or any s^*o ji-fcos^v, .."at -j**ry S«-T<« 'o ^
ftai* M suCiflCT O 3*i t-ie ti*Jl c' laCi"5 twms arxl CO<-.CI;KX>* m in
SfliOw* "«*^Oy c»n:f •*.» *fi»t f^» *3 famiiiac wi(h a*i HNS D-O of '
I fo-f ^'T
CASRIcfl
-------
Attachment V
49 CFR 177.815
(e) Shipping paper accessibility - accident or inspection
A driver of a motor vehicle containing hazardous material* and
each carrier using such a vehicle^ shall ensure that the shipping
paper required by this section is readily available to, and
recognizable by, authorities in the event of accident or inspection,
Specifically, the drivar and the carrier shall-—
(1) Clearly distinguish the shipping paper, if it is
carried with other shipping papers or other papers of
any kind, by either distinctively tabbing it or by-
having it appear first; and
(2) Store the shipping paper as follows:
(1) When the driver is at the vehicle's controls,
the shipping paper must be: (A) Within his immediate
reach while he is restrained by the lap belt; and (B)
either readily visible to a person entering the
driver's compartment or in a holder which is mounted
to the inside of the door on the driver's side of the
vehicle.
(ii) When the driver is not at the vehicle's controls,
the shipping paper shall be: (A) In a holder which
is mounted to the inside cf the door on the driver's
side of the vehicle; cr (B) on the driver's seat in
the vehicle.
-------
OF i
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Attachment i/I) ^O^.
PURPOSE
KJNOF SHIPPING PAPERS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS !S GOVERNED
UjS MATERIALS REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT Or
fflATION, TITLE -9. CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PARTS 170 -133.
gjLATICNS ARE REPRINTED iN RM. GRAIIANO'S TARIFF PUBLiSH'NG
IATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
£WiTH VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE O.C.T. REGULATIONS, ALL 172 4 - Explanation of sicns and abbreviations.
:OR«SHIPPING PAPERS" PREPARED BY RAILROAD PERSONNEL, MUST^g Usj of Hazardous Materials
g» INFORMATION IN AN UNABBREVIATED FORM. 173.427 Shipping papers (radioaova material}
I OF THE D.O.T. REGULATIONS SPELLING OUT THE SPECIFIC 174.510 Shipping papers
}£ AS FOLLOWS: 174.511 Certificate
174.573 Sntermediata shippers and carriers
174.583 Examination of shipping order and pacs
174.534 Waybills, switching orcJe^ of cihar biilin
©
DANGEROUS
ORIGINAL FREIGHT WAY3ttL
CAM ivn^» *-* *^»*** | »•«
T, r*~^" ™J^*1" *™ ^ *"" }
0.
c.
^uu« *
T»^«
uM«r«
^»(T T"~^*i^
1.U.5/ I**-* •«.
r^ '-•*»•»
O^TI o» s»**^i
l^T
- | ~
STOF
THIS
CAR
TO ~-
F7CM MVMHJI
. X«MC e» v**rr-cn
I SWC
@
DOT SPECIAL PS^iri KO. ^63
Oi ji I UX SM4t «noM»«« ur.
1 T/C ??.C?XN3, rUVMXJ-5I.£
CAS
180,600
"DOT 112A MJS7 3£ AA:-'D
WITH ??A E.G. >;o. 5-
-------
PLACARD OR LABEL NOTATION
SHIPPERS ARE REQUIRED TO PLACE SPECIFIC LABELS ON PACKAGES
OFFERED FOR TRANSPORTATION, AND PARTIES WHO LOAD RAIL CARS ARE
REG'JIRED TO APPLY PROPER PLACARDS. THE SHIPPING PAPER MUST SHOW
THE COLOR OR KIND OF LABEL NOTATIONS FOR LESS THAN CARLOAD
SHIPMENTS. OR PLACARD NOTATIONS FOR CARLOAD SHIPMENTS OF
EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DANGEROUS ARTICLES. (SECTION 174.584)
COMMODITY CODE NUMBER
(7) USE THE 49 SERIES STANDARD TRANSPORTATION COMMODITY CODE (STCC)
NUMBER THAT MATCHES THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND
CLASSIFICATION ON THE WAYBILL UNLESS OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED 3Y YOUR
supsaioRa
SPECIAL. PERMIT
® WHEN A SHIPMENT IS MOVING UNDER A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(DOT) SPECIAL PERMIT. THE SPECIAL PERMIT (DOT) NUMBER MUST 3E SHOWN
ON THE SHIPPING PAPER AFTER THE COMMODITY. THIS ALSO APPLIES TO DOT
EXEMPTIONS.
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
(9) FOR SHIPMENTS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS, THE WAYBILL MUST
ADDITIONALLY CONTAJN ALL THE INFORMATION PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
PARAGRAPH (5) OF SECTION 173.427{a).
F.R.A. EMERGENCY ORDERS
ON THE LOWER PORTION OF THE COMMODITY DESCRIPTION SECTION OF THE
WAYBILL, A NOTATION MUST BE MADE FOR ANY APPROPRIATE F.R.A.
EMERGENCY ORDERS. THIS REFERENCE INDICATES SPECIAL
TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS NOT PUBLISHED IN THE DOT
REGULATIONS.
7T-2
-------
SHIPPING NAMS '
0 THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE DESCRIPTIONS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE THE
SHIPPING NAMES LISTED IN ALFHABETiCAL ORDER IN SECTION 172.5 Or THE '
TARIFF. YOU WILL NOTICE IN SECTION 172.5 THAT SHIPPING NAMES ARE
DESCRIBED IN BOTH ROMAN TYPE AND iTALJCS. ONLY THE ROMAN TYPE
DESCRIPTIONS MAY BE USED AS A SHIPPING NAME.
CERTIFICATE
EACH SHIPPER OFFERING A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL FOR TRANSPORTATION
MUST SHOW ON THE SHIPPING PAPER A SIGNED CERTIFICATE AS SPELLED
OUT IN SECTION 173.43C(a). A CARRIER CANNOT ACCEPT SUCH SHIPMENT
UNLESS IT HAS SEEN SO CERTIFIED A3 REC'JiRED IN SECTiCN 174.511.
CLASSIFICATION
(3) THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SHIPPING NAME IS LISTED TO THE RIGHT Or
EACH ARTICLE IN SECTION 172.5, UNDER THE COLUMN "CLASSED AS". THE
"CLASSED A3" COLUMN WILL GIVE YOU THE ABBREVIATION OF THE
APPROPRIATE CLASSIFICATION. NOW LOOK AT SECTION 172.4 OF THE TARIFF
FOR THe DESCRIPTION TO BE USED A3 THE CLASSIFICATION.
PLACARD ENDORSEMENT
(5) THIS IS THE NAME OF THE PLACARD APPLIED TO THE CAR. THE NAME OF THE
PLACARD MUST APPEAR ON THE SHIPPING PAPERS IN LETTERS NOT LESS
THAN V» INCHES HIGH, AND MUST BE LOCATED NEAR THE SPACE PROVIDED
FOR THE CAR NUMBER. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, THE PLACARD ENDORSEMENT
WILL BE APFUEO USING A RUBBER STAMP. WHEN A RUBBER STAMP IS NOT
AVAILABLE, THE ENDORSEMENT CAN BE HANDWRITTEN, BUT MUSI BS Ai
'LEAST Vs INCHES HIGH AND LOCATED NEAR THE CAR NUMBER. (SECTION
174.584)
TOTAL QUANTITY
QUANTITY MUST 3£ !ND!CA"D SY WEIGHT, VOLUME. GALLONS, POUNDS,
QUARTS. OR OTHERWISE INDICATED. (SECTION 174.510)
-3
-------
APPUCA3LS REGULATIONS
RMoacMmattriaaa -RAM
tcfanm. or a •>••«*«*• awrcwwi*, m* &• vo»n.
(SJ F» *v« «* r^o»* <«*•«**, *• sis*** o-e-
' IX* <"B«ut i* X X
« 7>» ow* 01 »» •wonuac** * 3» radwaCf.* maawH. and a
---r - •* -- " — •...-—^m
(«| Tni rrnr 1 ~i TTTT — "r • ..... •—-—
fM T>» cvp» o» 'ja»
-
{v> FaraA9*%n.»o..ctw«fn.«ur«..i
iuM CS.OB fH jn-pfiM. T* ME
r-iiani 'ir-i-tt—i -rf "—**—"a 1—^»-••-"••*•"*'•'-»'-«^»
J.B««eM.V*«VMMLl M «^ ^
nor avuoert nif nuxma IKMKII IWMCI » T<* nquwoni
tt 172Sai«avMt9«)a«*»> ^
xat «vgrv«*mw-in 'rvr o> "auMl Aoe<*<
(b) WK«Min>
o pwtgnBiw (« »« (» g«
*-r nn-qio
$ 1 Wi ol «"•
grand •««••>.
dasa A poaen gaa
For «>MnM. oa«» C .
For naovr-aDi* iQb^la ..
PO* CDrf*O(«W«d
tv-ntm oi^«r ?«i tytt can
For ox^rM»«d r.prt.mrwn.jo.1 Q*MS in ar*
Fir!
•jnt
fjarnmaOM potOrtOc* tqudlt C±J>«« A, m
fquca 9 sc«33.
For
»r«a-r or Tjooaer»« i.ic i
far
For or* earm.
For xnorr !an» :ui :r>> '«>
F**5aVll J ttV** ^C
nocaoean j *i Nqr- *t
to IC*DV i -^xp*mi en :
»n»f c* b-^~«5 r***.-
Twx^d* kc.,3c«3-p^
on :r* 1 ic» 7*
O*^ * Car -Ximtx-
PlaonT
"P>w« Oa* J
PucanT
Oaxwdai
8 .......
No*««i%&cvt. ??15*40fc
-------
3* - MISSOURI-FRCIF7*"
OflNGERGUS
*
8LCOMINGTCN
TX
33415 FREEFORT
9343' FREEPORT
• 701 S RVENUE D
DOW CHSMICRL U S R
•PONT DE NEMOURS & CO
8MO: V-3322
R/
31 533S42--1.49:::
65832
WEIGHT
CRLL 713-238-2112 IN EMERGENCY
4984128
CHLORINE
IBM FLflMMflSLE GRS
LIQUID LFOO
HLONS SHELL CRPfiOITV
*»"DflNGEROL!S PLRORRD "*"*
8N RHOTON
TOTRLS
TRRIr"
RS
178,
§ 174.24 Shippii^g papsra, (a) £xcspf as "provided
grapJi (c) o? this section, no- person may accept fcx trars^;,.
raii any hazardous ma.'sfia) whicn is subject to ifiia sutcrac
he has rcrceivecl a sfiipping psp-y preca/ec! in tr^a mar.nef ^
Subpart C of Part 172 oJ 7jii3 subchsptef. In acWiUon. u^c-
paper stTjji inciixda a cerSHcats, if required by § 1 72^C4 c!
charier. Howev&r. no me«>bet* of tf:a rrain crt*^ ci a !;-a)n !rr.
the hazardous material is required to havj- a shipper's cartiHca
snipping paper in fits possession if the original sMppirg p^
ing (he ceriificais is in tha onginaiirg CEinefs pcssessioo.
sc
-------
'257 82/23/77 U9398 01313913 . ON N0992 BV TCS
CLflSSIFJCRTION: CORROSIVE MRTERlfiL
COMMODITY NUMBER IS 4928253
SLUDGE RCID
FIRE RESPONSE:
EXTINGUISH FIRE USING flGENT SUITflBLE FOR TYPE OF SURROUNDING FI <£;
OIRTERIRL ITSELF DOES NOT BURN OR BURNS WITH DIFFICUTLV. >._
NOT ON FIRE:
BUILD DIKES TO CONTflIN FLOW
KEEP MRTERIRL OUT OF STREflMS flND SEWERS.
PERSONNEL PROTECTION:
DO NOT HflNDLE BROKEN PflCKRGES WITHOUT PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT.
. RVOID BREflTHING VRPORS.
WEflR PROTECTIVE GLOVES flND SftFETV GLOSSES.
WEflR SELF-CONTRINED BREflTHING EQUIPMENT.
MflSH flWflV flNY MflTERIfiL WHICH MflV HflVE COHTflCTED BODY UITH LflRGF
flMOUNTS OF WRTER OR SOflP FIND WflTER.
-------
^ . .
.-;. Subvert C—Locdlng a«d Sjoraga Chart o? Haxerfoua Motarfaia
Ipwit «aii si tsS's
Tm -
-------
tab's s^o-wa ?b»
haiardcio mat.-r'.alj trMch cunt
not b« to^ia«i or 3tor»i UvsOy.
aa !aUnect!oa o?
TTsrt'.caS CO!LCOBJ
bertxonta]
tot B» Jcaaai or
tor »nmpl»: Dstanstas laws
<3as4 Av vitii or without ratHo*
acUT* coo2^ocaota g boduxitaNl
column cnii* not bi loaded cr
b rartlc*) odnmn.
:icQ*a Mga^mnunitioa, or ortrirlgo,
Prtsen tat aaa«i or SQsIl seen,
empty cir&ldj* b»o—blaci pow>
ijx Issllm. eapSr carirldg*
cr
?arran«lao r
tracer faze* or
2SS|
S-§13
*£Sf
B"»aS
SSal
•5-3-: 5
IK!
=114
—— a a
oas<=
SSoS
fill
a »,
r priming o
tniu-Qury.tu
, bad uyp
briuiot/fral
"2-4
"'
|I
*a
¥
••
o>
3
::-3 e^a"3 o—
S'-l'a i
3 -A
-
i
•£•3 =
So-**
~
-|?L
a a-21,2;
322 ["a
l"Stl2a
SJ25-
XJ-. --*! *»
lislf
°Pj=~
** S,2<-* w
O «—| ^ O
§ff|5~'
..j rt =»; ~
liSH
3i2}l3
!?rM-
5°|-a^3
rt **" 51 ra^
Isa
Sit
s. - =;
= r;
3S:
-
• i S
•> S3
— ^
II
3 -
; Jo
3 S 3 S
{•3
I —
E s
? a
a -ofti --
^ ' »i
i S
^dz 8|3
9 i JO
=) I
0" !
-;£. 3
:»
tSi», conji'JlaUjn or d-tooslln?
I3CTH. c;*i> C .
'.Tn'fna. d«tacaat Iu3» >. f'U* ilihttrti fitw ienll*f».
•; ^57 «r»-clnr lsoll*a. plect.-ff
n^illv*. imunuweoiL* fu» or \x
etttf cent
'^•-"^rtx eomnuw.. ..
.TTHX* i>»HOH^ocr.'« iaTicti» .
•saabir liquid? or "aaim.ib^e
• ^f, 5TanimAhl*> Unuid or 8301-
»o-« j3« lab«L___-. ..__.__
. - aa^lii solliL- of f>i:diiin« at-
' 'ji« FbramabI* jotid, oxl!»
.=J ."-•. ,,r.,JU - ,
« .;» zwet or ilquldj in tsok far
'• -.':" cyiiaCers. pmj>ctltw nr
•-:?- -_• 'v— m»r*Tl«l«.__ •_„..
• !i:3»i •? opior el«rtHe blsatlnic
^ f
J
. 8
»
It-
n
\i
13
14
'i»
iO»J
._
X
s
X
s
V
X
^F
>qu
s .
X
X
•X
*
X
X
^F
»n:;t
.X
V
X
X
X
X
X
'x
«x
d DOC 8I«
_^
•X
-X
-X
-X
•X
X
'X
-<1!"
•• -.. •
• "•• ••."-•'.
\
X
• x " -
X
, 'x
•-;'x -:
»x
' -•-
X
X
X
X
X
»x
X
X
X
X
X
X
'X
>x
3
-
•X
X
X
....
-
-
z
:
-'
_..
-
1
.-
,
X
— 1
....
x*-
**""
.
-T
,
I
*x
-
X
— ^ --—
x
F
— :—
.. .v.
•
— " ••
..;
, -
'
.*""*
— •••
.^J^:.-{
MO.
. Ji ;=;
!o. ^aaceaC to flaon-ibl* st
"" - "C^riali, nra:r.uai:icri tor ennnan «i:h or without project!:?*, or pr
;'«. c:ceol ihs: shippers ioiuling truciUwl shipiients oi own
j naa!d soiicJs or otidzin^ rmceriaij psciMis and who haw
i-v app«>r.-U from th« D-pat;c!ent aay tosrt sue.-/ mivu.-iiU tojfcthef
• T»wr. that th«i obuurt o( contents would not causa a jgJ3 e:ak«l'M or w;:li
a, »nd tbortuci rrjljj [n joV.c
iVjj;.: s
. », bv c, d. a. f. and ;.
" With etpiojiv?!, C;.iiS A.
. f jrp!.«l»r>.
N'OTJH: N':wcnc!rl
«ft?r corrrsivs Ij-i-UL
by S HcS pii>Jx . ^103 *•'.».
ioa ^»j 0*
!:.~3 c.
. toor for:h» IJrptrSz
Govfinra^R: nj^y o=»
ccl-jrr.iuc.d,3,3,10.1 i.it.:^ ;^ami u
NOTE S: 3
:- 2. ;
r=n !n qc.v.r;i::i3 u.i:
-------
e Histories
Violen t Reaction_,_J?res "ur e Generation in Tank T^-uck
In Richmond, California, a hazardous waste hauler mixed, in
his 30-barrel tank truck, a liquid waste containing butyl
acitata in xylene with an etching waste containing sulfuric
acid, nitric acid, and hydrofluoric acid. A hydrolysis reaction
took place. Pressure was generated in the tank and the safety
relief valve was blown off while the truck was traveling through
a residential area. A private residence was sprayed with, the
hazardous mixture. No one was injured, but considerable ''clear-uo
and repainting of the house were required.
Heat Generation and Explosion f^oagon.taminated Drums
An employee transferred two five-gallon cans of waste vinyl
cyanide and water from a still to a supposedly empty waste drum.
As the employee rolled the drum to a storage area across the read,
it exploded. An employee was sprayed by the waste material. He
believed that he saw a flash at the time of the explosion. The
drum was thrown approximately 48 feet, wrapping around a steel
guard post. The employee received thermal and possible chemical
burns to both feet. The waste drums contained still bo t touts
from the stripping of. i: vinylation mixture. The exothermic
'reaction, causing the drum to rupture, was probably a combination
•Of cyanoethylation and polymerization.
'Fpnaation of Toxic Gas _and Explc^i.o_n__i_n__Wa_ste j^ank .
: Sulfide waste was added to soluble oil waste in a tanker and
Subsecuer.tly added to other oily wastes in a tank. Later, treat-
lent of the oil with acid to break the emulsified oil resulted in
-------
the evolution of hydrogen sulfide. Two operators v;ere briefly
affected, and there was an exposive in the tank.
Fire, Dispersal of Toxic Dusts from Leaky Containers
At a dump in Contra Costa County, California, a large nu~u
of drums containing solvents were deposited in a landfill. Ir.
the immediate area were leaky containers of concentrated riiner
acids and several bags containing beryHiiurn wastes in dust fcrr.
The operators failed to cover the waste at the end of the cay.
The acids reacted with the solvents during the night, ignited
them, and started a large chemical fire. There was possible
dispersion of berylliura dust into the environment. Inhalation,
ingestion, or contact with beryllium dust by personnel could
have led to serious health consequences.
Violent Eruption in Waste Drum
At an engineering work, hot chromic acid waste was ir.ac.v-.:.
ently added to a drum containing methylene chloride waste fro-
degreasing operations. There was a violent eruption resulting
in chemicals being sprayed locally in the workshop. >;c one wj.:,
harmed.
131-2-
-------
' -
, , .
,'-"" *'-'•«'.--., .-7 - • ^f-i,.—*•-_"•>• - , , *"?*.>^,"i'V"
• T^^^—^••'^'^"IM^'" •'' '- •-~<»"^^'^---J^"»g"--^x--^.^^>:-J vT*J.£-\"-.:^,V.:
'rS
-
-------
PREFACS
In 1971 a nationwide interrnodal system for the reporting of hazardous, aatari.
incidents was established to provide the Department of Transportation with cl
factual data necessary to comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportat_Lca
Control Act of 1970. Analysis of the reports is expected to reveal proble.a ;
and say result in changes in the regulations where necessary to aliavlats a*v.
threat to public safety.
The regulations requiring reporting of hazardous materials, incidents- art
contained in the Cade of Federal Regulations, vizi.
Title 49, Parts 100 to 199 (Governing the transport of hazardous siatsr
fay highway and rail)'
171.15 lasnediate notice of certain hazardous materials incidents
171.16 Detailed hazardous materials incident reports
Title 14, Part 103 (Governing the transport of hazardous materials by :-
103.23 Reporting certain dangerous article incidents
Title 45, Parts 1 to 65 (Covering the transport of hazardous uiatarials
vater)
2.20-65 Imaediata notice of certain hazardous materials incidents
2.20-70 Detailed hazardous materials incident reports
This system is two-fold in that an immediate telephone notice is requ?.
under certain conditions and a detailed written report is required whenever
is any unintentional release of a hazardous material during trar.sporcation
temporary storage related to transportation.
Any time- there is aa unintentional release of hazardous materials, the c.
must submit a report on Form F 5800.1 within 15 days frcjn the date of the inc
While carriers are required to report, any interested party may report. In 01
include all pertinent information, cither reporting parties are encouraged to .
utilize this form. . .
The success of this program depends greatly on the quality of th~ info-- ; c-
submitted on the report. Generally, most of this required information ±3 av .-.nle
at the time of the incident, bat since leaking and damaged containers are de_ : vsd
and spills are cleaned up, some investigation is often necessary in order to ,
all of the facts. Much of this information is also required by carrier- for
purposes: insurance records, damage claims, etc. In view of this., carriers .
find it to their advantage to incorporate reporting requirements into nt^d-••-
company procedures, thereby making the needed details for the reaort 310re rl>
available and enabling the company to'more easily comply with the reporting ;
tions.
This guide is intended to assist carriers in. completing the recort form '
providing examples of the information needed. However many of 25,000 reports
received in the past 4 1/2 years are incomplete, particularly as tc container
information. Additional information relating to containers, container aarkir..
labels, definitions, etc. is available at no cost from the address shown belc
A liaitad supply of the report form is available upon request in writ'ia
the Office of Hazardous Materials Operations. Larger quantities- may be obta-7-
rrora several industry sources who have reproduced the fora for this'pursos-, .
may reproduce the fora yourself. (A blank report fora is provided on the las-
pages of this guide for this purpose). Two caste a of the report must be subr. .ted
to the Department. Typewritten reports are preferred.
tain
*****
Incident reports 'should now be addressed to; U. S. Deoa-tCTen*- of -"—-ns —
',nfte;;la.ls Tra"sPortation Bureau, Office of Hazardous Materials Operatic-
30), Masnington, 0. C. 20590. When Form DGT F 5300.1 is revised at a 1,
date, this change will be included.
~"2~ Rev. Sept.
-------
'ill in all blanks. Use N/A when not applicable.
:ontainer," "No label applied," "No symbols," "No
If there are none, "state ""No marking" "on
serial r.uabers," etc. as tha casa m&y b«
ration «: • . ".'..:'' -;—.--
If items 1.1 through 1.5 do not apply, insert at 6 your operational area: Manufacturer,
irehouse, etc. For iteins A2 and A3, if the actual data and location are not. known, give t^a
_ ite and location of discovery. Do not include terms such, as "on trailer 3:76" or "bet-^aen
lew York and Philadelphia".
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS: Submit thio report i.-i duplicate to the Secretary. Hazardous Materials
Transportation, Washington, D.C. ""-"" '• • ------ • - - -'
item under Section H, "Remarks'
nay be obtained from the Secretary, _ _._=
may be reproduced and used, if on the sain* size and kind oTpaper.
SMSPK-J^M
Board, Department of
INCIDENT ^' 5Q
rt - dJf - Yoa')
lit 3.0 a.m.
FRE1GHT
FORWARDER S
3. LOCATiOM OP
Exit 3 en I-
d
OTHER
ff(/e.i(i/yj
INCIDENT
•495 near
Alexandria, Va.
action B
Item B4 should indicate the complete company name. Do not use abbreviations I>" "'he
.ecort is submitted by scneona other than the carrier involved in tha incident, please ind--
:ate_your connection wj.th the incident such as "J'S J Chemicals—Consignee" and identify the
:amer. I ten B5 should be the main office addrass of the company, not tha teraiina-l pre-
ri l^C^r^f^T'*^ Tf~rarn Tit c-Vi^^i-*1!^ ,-^-,^,-e.^-ft,. A.L>m i..._. _ _C LJ_^ . ^- -T-. • . . . *
jaring tha report. Item 55 should spacify the typa of vehicle" or facility in which, the'unin-
?: tank car, van trailer, trailer on flat car (Tore), storage
:entional release took placd1:
tarehouse, etc.
KSPORTIN_C CA3HI53, COMPANY OR iNDi
*•
FUL!- MAMS
ABC Trucking Company, Inc.
6. TYPE Or VEHICLE OR FACILITY
:ractor _- Vaa Trailer^
Zip Codi.)
Post: Avenue
«.(S^ I Faverceville,Norch Carolina 23301
_ _ _
X-3
-------
I tarns C7 and CS should include tha complete
by itself, identify the shipper Of
.
Item C9 jhoula clearly identify the _ ..._. _
fication is-not very meaningful. An exaaple of
the shipper on an import shipment.
cl
nusibers witih^mt sn-^
ba the broker c:
SHIPMENT
7. NAME AND ADDRESS OP SM1PPSR
«
XYZ Chemical Company
1101 South Peachsree Street
Atlanta, Ga. 30303
8. NAME AMD ADDRESS Of CQNS'GMi
J & J Chemicals
1506 Wayne Street
Alexandria, Va. 22301
9. SHIPPING PAPER IDENTIFICATION HO.
Shipper's B/L: INC 12345
Carrier's Pro: 9876
10. SHIPPING PAP!
_? CARRIES
!72.5)
^ ^Sraic Acid
17. TRACE M
Kor.e
Section P:
In iteai F13
Puncture" nay have
ar.v mark in it era 19.
check all spaces which aay have contributed to the packace *^; lir:
e been caused by "Other Conditions" such as a traffic collision.
NATURE Or PACXACiNG FAILURE
f li DROPPED IN HANDLING
(4) WATER DAMAGE
17) EXTERNAL HEAT
(10)
DEFECTIVE FITTINGS,
VALVES. OR CLOSURES
( 13) BOTTOM FAILURE
MSI CHIME FAILURE
(2J EXTERNAL'
PROM OTHER LIOUiD
18) INTERNAL PRESSURE
Ml) LOOSE FITTINGS. VALVES CR
CLOSURES
9OOY OR SOE FAILURE
(17) OTHER CONDITIONS f:u»n«i/x.>
TV a
x-y
(3» D A?* ACS BY OTHET<
I (6! FRE£"
CORROSIOH OR
,,2, FAILURE O ~ INNE
RECEPTACL.cS
! 15) WEL.O FAILURE
!?. I?AC£
COT U5£
-------
G:
f»Coluar.s 1,. 2, i=d 3 zmy I,A «.>* cc ccnyay ^ variety o2 ir-f oraAti^rs, You may raoorfc sgta.Us
Bcre« di£:Jari.at "--/-.as o- ccr.'.ii.-v.MTs -'i: ..:;.-, ••••hi.--',; ha-arc'cv.s •-atoriaXa esea^sd, or tlsie* cs^LaLv-—
;ae type* and si,^.--
;8B*-. =.iTvar /•.3,nu;;.o;,-,:rii-:3, In t_ha eyar.nla b-t'.cw,. CclvMns' 1, and 3.
i been us-id ts sapar-itg ihs •;5-:i?m.-3 '_; iruiar i,~.d outar ccncjiir.ers. _.- colo/uns 1, Z'r and 2'
iflBt ad&quata, i separate s :-.<.: 'it r.^y ';„•;? a.:;--,cr.&d to :"va r-;rx:.r;:, or vc\s jiay ufiilisa tha> sp^-crt
the " " " ~
tiojval e.-iar-.?l3s f=r G"0 ar3 "C^ri-fly-- a^^Fi^erbo -s v-2 Box" a/.i :cr G2I, >ha cs;x.c:icy
I tank trailar or ta.iX car, C-2^ an-J. G'.;3--lr, tCie ;~xj--\pli b«Ic •••.«, the reco.ft clearly i^dic.-jtaa
t hazJLirisuj r~iHari,i*a e-JscA^ed frc-.-: 1 cx".:n ar.d 3. lir.es ov. t of 72 iine4 d.5--i^3 x:\ tha ship.-.ient-
A th« iar.er a«5 cut-u-T ccrxtainsra ax-i or 3 dif fsrer.t capacity cr ucisenclat-.Jr&, taa jreeoct
Kid clearly stata. Tor e-xfiiipla: 2 glass botslag out of 4 glass bottJas In a cactrcirL were : -
k«n. li ti;ara v*r* 1C such --artio.-.a in the ship.-rsant, th..in ti?.a re-v'-s.ct should sca£a that
irdoua
and fr-.,a 1 c.-art:cr>_
,_
tof 10 carrc::j. Thai'ti shauli. ,V-«. -ic doabi th.iw the 40 i:ottlaj wars tiie ir;:ia*f
Outer coriiaj-rijara ia c-r^a sh.s.p.-trfin.
. la G24 show all of tha r-.-it xir.r;.; ralac-s-A to tha contiinsr . "123" is not the couplets
Jting for a fiieshoi-d ^c-x. Is shc^Xd ha "1^3,0", or "1:350", et~. IS tiie contair^ bt
tK3T specif ica^ior, T.arkii--v* entar "K0;i:r;a in -he spacs. no MC7 laava G24 bianX.
w C25- - Tha hasardo-i
"
,-i:.!rx:-rigs: in sc.v.o-
In G2S antar tha n-:;->i of ihes .tc-talrijr i.'.anvif r.^t'i-sr . "esp in Rir.d that seine :naii^£j:Ctv.r scss
ticna, sroo.ls a::d ccr!i>is.iL-:.on3 of. Isciera a;:d
For G27 rh» sarial r.-jnb^r o* .=. Gvl
-------
Section H:
In addition to tha information requested following "Remarks" on tha fora, this section
should be used to include any information which the reporter feels is pertirse.it. For i^uvia: .•>,.
if there was a spill o£ a flaanaable liquid and the driver was huraed, and you did riot ir.dlc :J-
"fire" ia F17 (Other Conditions), then Section H should clearly explaia that thar«. vas a 11
involving tha flaasaable cargo, the origin of tha fire, etc. In instances of contatrir^.-ior. ,-
a vehicle or freight, the method of decontamination and disposition of the contasiraited sire.'., nc
should be explained. • •
H REMARKS. Descnb* easantial facta of incident including but not limited to delects, damage, pjjbiblc cause, ato*-
action Uken at the time discovered, aad action taken to prevent futur» incidents. I,-.cl'ade any reco.-nrnenc?.tioi>3 t-i-:
packaging, handling, or transportation of hazardous materials. Photographs and diagrs.Tii should b» suhmit;ed '.^he--
necessary for clarification.
Our vehicle was involved in a minor traffic accident which caused >h-
load to shift aad puncture one of the drums. The leaking drutn, was-
removed by the consignee to. their disposal area and buried. The
vehicle was taken to our Alexandria terminal and cleaned (washed down
and steamed). A Highway Patrolman on the scene had some of the
spilled liquid splash on his hand. He was taken to a local hospital
where he was treated and released.
31. MAME Of PERSON PREPARING WEPOHT (T/p» or print) .
Ira Jeopard
33. TELEPHONE MO. (Includ* Ar*» Cod*}'
(202) 143-0510
32. SIGN A TunE ft .
^LtJ ' JL^^^^^L^^
J4. DATE REPORT PB^/AHeD *
March 15, 1972
NOTE: This report cancels the report formerly required by Section 177.814. It DOSS M; '
REPLACE other required reports such as the accident report MCS-50 required fcv the Fede- .1
Highway Adninistration. Thia aaterial nay he reproduced without special permission £ - t
this office.
-------
_'V,5N,L9F TRAMSPGR7ATIGN
HAZARDOUS MAlHRiALS INCIDENT REPORT
Form Aporavad PM2 Nal 04-5.51!
DAIS 2r~] HIGHWAY 3f IRAR. A| - iwAT~R Si
'-.-^ I -- 1 ^* L., __ j T ^ ' *- • * J !_
R!GKT
ITS AND TiM£ Or I.MCIOEN r i',
CARRIER, COMPANY
3, LOCATiOrt Or iNCIOEMT
3. ADOSSjiL ('.Vusriixr, Sfi-e«f, City, Ssale- and Zip Cao'ej
fPE OP V£K,C-,£ OR PAC;i.!TY
IAM£ AMD AOO«£S5 OP
S3 IO£NT;?ICATIG:4 HO.
3. MAMS AND ADDRESS OF CONSIGN EE
isssjEQ s
CARRIER
OTHER
(Idsntily)
PHs. IMJUR;=S. LOSS AND
DUE TO HAZA^CC'JS MAT5T~!AL.3 'NVCL.V?
F\SwN5 i,^> w Hil O j 12, NLiM3£K P 'C ,:;:5C ^5 ,*>
J.-
| 13. E.5T1MATSO AMOUNT OF [.OSS AN
-i PROPERTY DAMAGE INCUJOI.^G COS
j O-F OECON-T AVIIMATiOW f.-Tocnd o« J«
I dollars)
STIMATED TOTAL OUA.ITITY OF HAT Abacus
IS. CLASSIFICATION
(Src. 172.4)
IS. SHI
(Si-.;
1 ?. TRADE MA.«S
JRE OF PACSACiNO rAILU.^2
applicable i CORROSION OR RUST
,12) FAILURE OF
RECEPTACLES
J6J CHIME
(17) CTMEH CONDITIONS ,'"-i''-i--f''>
(?s> WELD
;?. iPACJ: FOR DOT 'JSS QHL'f
IT F 5SOO. 2 (10-70)
-------
1 TYPE OF PACKAGING INCLUDING INNER
20 j RECEPTACLES (Steal draa-.i, *nod*« box.
ITEM
OR WEIGHT PES UNIT
22
23
ZS
Or
G£S FROM WHtCH
NUMBER OF PACKAGES OF SAME TYPE
IS SHIPMENT
OOT SPECIFICATION NUM3ESCSJ ON .
PACKAGES (IIP, J7E, 3AA, »lc.. ar nant)
SHOW ALL OTH£a DOT PACKAGING.
MARKINGS (Part ITS)
! NAME. SYMBOL. OR REGISTRATION MUM-
~° i 9E« OF PACKAGING MANUFACTURES
27
SHOW SERIAL. SOM8EH Or C
CASGO TASKS, TANK CARS,
TA^4KS
23 TYPE OOT LABELIS! APPLIED
IP RECONDITIONED
OR
BEOUALIFISD, SHOW
REGISTRATION
NO. OH SYMBOL
DATE OF LAST
TEST OF INSPEC-
TION
| I f SHI PMENT IS UNDER OO' OS USC3
30 [SPECIAL PERMIT. ENTER PERNMT NO.
el
= 2
H REMARKS- Describe essential facts of incident including bat not limited to defec:s, danigs. prcb ;^
action taken at the time discovered, and action taken to prevent future incidents. Include any rec-_•-..
packaging, handling, or Transportation of hazardous materials. Photographs and diagrams should be
tjscessary fo? clarifica.tiaru
31. NAME OF PERSON PREPARING REPORT (Typa or print)
33. TELEPHONE NO. (Include Ar*f Cade)
32. SIGNATURE
34. DATE REPORT
Reverse of Forra DOT F 5300 1 (10-'-'
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU
WASHINGTON. O.C. 2QiSO
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT REPORTS
REPORTING CARRIERS AND REPORTS SUBMITTED
The following tables list by mode of transport the- number &f reporting
carriers and the number of HHI reports submitted by each mode. .. - .
MODE
Hwy Carriers (For-hire).
Hwy Carriers (Private)..
Wateir Carri e* s .........
TOTAL
1971
3
233
54
28
•10
328
1972
11
323
53
35
8
435
teporti n<
1973
15
353
73
35
7
483
g Carrie
1974
32
380
82
40
17
551
rs
1975
31
392
116
44
23
606
1975*
40
600
200
50
40
930
Total* P
50
700
250
75
50-
1,125**
P ercer
of Tot
4
• 62
22
* • 7
"•••^-4
— * ..'r^*^
Se»- Nc
*Estimated
**--Total rt.mber of different reporting earners during the 5 year period - NOT the.
•additioV-of numbers for each year. (For example - Carrier XYZ submitted reports
in EACH year but as the "total" reporting carriers, XY7. is only one reoortino
carrier - not six..)
NOTE - About 10 freight forwarders and 14 other reporters (such as stevedoring firms..
Port Authorities, Police, etc.) submitted about 100 HHI reports during this
6.year period.
Hooe
hWy. Carriers (For-Hire)
Hwy. Carriers (Private).
Total
1971
5
1,633
258
346
13
2,255
1972
32
3,613
352
337
10
4,344
Reports
1973
48
5,092
450
412
12
6,014
Subnn tl
1974 I
155
7,254
361
617
26
8,413
:ed
1975
152
8,988
903
675
32
10,750
1976
150*
?,900*
950*
1 ,COO*
50*
11,898
Total*
550-
36500
3300
3400
150
44,000
Percen
of Tot
"t-i
83 . -
71
7 1.
1.
See No
-------
§32lOOOjMAZARDOUS'MATERIALS iNCIUENI HtPUKU.KhOhiVtU ^KU1,•y/l
AiLUtte CAUSES Ai FOLLOWS! ' ''
,p,l. 'I..:" .-.;• •". • •••
,,, Actual figure! used for first 4 1/2 years and estimated figures used for list 6 months of 1975)
••'• ' ' ' •""
!\..f, . i •
t. |HAtiHU x.
(If OAMAOtt OY OTHER FREIGHT
III PREEZINO
It) CORROSION OR RUST
(IJU MlLDRE OC INNER
RECtRTACLE*
(It) WELD FAILURE
Ho failure shown
ABOVE CONTAINER FAILURE CAUSES LISTED BY RANKING!
Other Conditions?! 8500 HMI reports
External puncture ....,.•... 6800 "
Damage by other freight?5*?:.... 4900 "
Dropped in handling .,,,,. 4000 "
Loose fittings, valves.closfflj-f. 3800
Defective " : " M *** 2400
Bottom failure 1700
Body or side failure.,.* 1050
failure of Inner receptacles.. 1000
Meld failure 550 WI reports
Internal pressure 550
Corrosion or rust 500
Chime failure 400
No failure shown 200
External heat... 130
Water damage.,......*..,.........,... 110
Damage front other liquid 100
Freeing 100
* - Reporting carriers often check "other conditions" and insert
"traffic accident", "derailment", "fire" , etc, which they
may or may not explain In the "Remarks" section'of tho report.
36,790 failures causes
reported since many IMI
reports cited more than
one cause.
** - Analysis of the incident reports which show "damage by other freight" generally reveals improper
blocking, bracing or stowage. "Imprpper loading" is often shown in "other conditions".
1 * i
*** - Many Incident reports cite both "loose f1tt1ngs» Valves or closures" and "defective fittings,
valvos or closures", apparently Indicating that tha reporter In unable to determine if the
fitting, valve or closure was merely "loose" or was In fact "defective".
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^~-:
MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU
- '
WASHINGION. o.c
.*. l.»_l
COMMODITIES NAMED- .MOST OFTEN IN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT REPORTS^
Title 49, CFR 172.5 contains approximately .1,100- line entr 1 es"(entrfeV-_.
having one or more shipping names in Roman type and showing reference to
Part 173 for packing). Approximately 425 of those 1,100 line entries^-,.*
were utilized in the 32,000 Hazardous Materials Incident Reports received
from January 1, 1971 through December 31, 1975. However, 21 of the 425
commodities accounted for about 77 percent (24,633) of the 32,000 reports
Paint related compounds were combined with paint, and electrolyte fluid..
was combined with batteries, to make the following list of the top 21
comnoditles reported most often.
Section 172.5 Commodity
1. Paint and paint related compounds
2. Gasoline
3. Batteries and electrolyte fluid
4. Compounds, cleaning, liquid (Cor.)
5. Sulfuric acid
6. Cement, liquid, n.o.s.
7. Flammable liquids, n.o.s.
8. Hydrochloric acid
•- - ~. y-'; .•;.•." ' •-*'&'
>3. -Corrosive liquids,, n.o.s. -..
KJ.: Insecticides,- liquid (Poison B)
iu L.p.G- ;•'.
12. Poisonous liquids, n.o.s. (Poison B)
13.
|4.
15.
16.
T7.
18.
19.
».
H.
Number of Approx. %
Reports ' of all 32,000
(1971-1975) reports rec'd
Alcohol, n.a.s. -
Acids +~ liquids, it.o.s.
Caustic soda liquid
Nitric acid
Resin solution
Anhydrous ammonia ,, /„ . B\
Compounds, tree or weed kill (Poison B]
Compounds, cleaning, liquid (FL)
TOTAL
TOTAL of all reports received
6,590
4,243
3,593
.2,194
1,081
903
844
825
714
.422
395
364
-."-355"
"337
316
304
265
240
222
215
211
24,633
3'2,000-
20 1/2
13 IfZ
IT
•" -^ --.; "-
'TV£"'•>•"
2..T/Z
r"*»*^™r '" ' - "
^i/i
^ V4.
03/4
0'3/4
0 3/4
77 '%
100 I
Ms list is merely a tabulation and does not imply that ranking of risk or
fczard to the public. For example, most of the paint spills were less than
.
*llon amounts and most of the battery acid spills were less than one
Sounts, but many of the gasoline spills were of 100 gallons or more. Quantity
teased is onl/one of the factors to be considered in any evaluation. This
1st is intended to show nothing more than which commodities were reported
Ist often* XJ I I - i
-------
MATBHAIS TRANSPORTAtldN BUREAU "
»MO . ATTACH MEvT"
TALLY OF "CLASSIFICATIONS" OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT REPORTS RECEIVE5 if nit*
' i&
Classification
Class A explosives
Class B explosives
j Class C explosives
»
i r i OIIHMU i s conipresseQ gas
\ Nonflanroablfr conprd. gas
Flammable liquid-
Combustible liquid
Flammable solfd
Oxidizing material
Poison gas or liq. CT A
Poison liq. or solioVCI ft
Irritating material
Etiologicr agent
Radioactive- materials
Corrosive* material:
Bl anfc,. Unknownv or later -
determined to be not
subject- to- these
regulations?^; ^v- -
™
1971
13
5
6
49
36
1,'Olff
• 29
83.
3
' 16-T
1
9"
555;,
. • -~-
286:
•"•—««— ««i™.
1972
5
2
7
102
61
2,322
28
117
3
244
1>
6ff-
..- .1973
11
.' ' 4
119
96
3,195
27
136
11
337
1
.- . .
HO
J°*
1974^
— .^ 7
:; 3
12
198
142
* 19
49
•158
5
'•524-
1
3;-16^
- •** ^"~-».«-
.
•••> 0
.#&
797?'
21
•~"^~ £•
•-•?'- 6-
223
T88
5,267
. 7S
43
1:35
- S12
IV Qr
r; '0-
4Vlff
JO"
••"— -«— i
• -*~t •' «i-i
• -C"
-Cjj
«j
522
16>07;
OS
- 3*
.181
63C
91
- -t«
*JC
ff,22|
- _ .;.
^464
fl
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
A.V
MAIUNG ADDRESS:
U.S. COAST GUARD (G-WEP-4/73)
WASHlNGTOiN. D.C. 2O5SO
PHONE: (202) 426-9568
16490/4
1 D APR 1378
Mr. Stephen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste (WH-562)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Plehn:
This is to confirm the agreement that was reached at our 24 March 1978
meeting concerning the use of the National Response Center 800 number
for reporting any spill of hazardous waste that occurs during trans-
portation. Accordingly, we have no objection and in fact encourage
that you use the toll free pollution incident reporting number
800-424-8802 for this purpose. We therefore recommend that section
250.37 of the proposed 40 CFR Part 250 Standards Applicable to
transporters of Hazardous Wastes be changed to reflect this.
Sincerely
Pro^c-^! Divisfan
By olrasiian of the Command-rat
SPEED
LIMIT
55
t*s a law we
:an live with.
-------
XVI °~
DOT PLACARDS
TZT-l
-------
v
DOT PLACARDS
221-2-
-------
NOV 9
Attachment.' X7IT
. '571
C3MM2RCS
-Mio( OpcfQlierr *
D. C. 20^3
MOTOR CA3&ISR AUTOMOBILE BODILY INJURY
SJAiJiLJTY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY
CSaTI?ICAT£ O? 1M5URAHC2
fi!«d with
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CQ.M.MJSSICM
Sursox ot Operation i
WasWnafo... D. C. 30-.23
(Exscot«( ii
'nrsrsfcte- Corrwnsrc*
CommiSBon Dockar Nat.
MC'....
arncz toe^css Of co
MOTOll CA»i(li»>
. .. r»;«wst«d-by
•afivrro.-..
!K> CimmfsMan. th» Coun 21S.
MTT
Data --
Ift)
-------
rv j...
January 28. 1977
The Honorable Carol S. Vance
District Attorney
Barris County Courthouse
Houston, Texas 77002
Opinion No. H-933
Re: Whether persons
performing solid waste
disposal • services are -
motor carriers under
article 911br *V,T»C,S^
Dear Mr. Vance:
You have requested our opinion, regarding whether-a per so;
who performs solid waste disposal services may be regulated
by ijie Railroad Commission as a "motor carriers* /Article '
9 lib, V.T.C.S., authorizes the Commission "to prescribe all
rules and regulations necessary for the government of motor -
carriers." Sec. 4 (a). "Motor carrier* is defined .to. include^
-*• 7. » . ' ' " "
any person, firm, corporation, company,
copartnership, association or joirtt stock
association . . . controlling, managing, —
operating, or causing to be operated any - •„ .
motor-propelled vehicle used in transpprtincr •
property for compensation or hire over any.>. '
public highway zn this state/ where in the .
course of such transportation a highway ..J- .
between two or more incorporated cities, townk
or villages is traversed. Sec. 'l(g). '
(Emphasis added}.
Since 1972, the Railroad Commission has been "issuing '
cates of convenience and necessity to persons who perform. _
solid waste disposal services. You ask whether such operation
may properly be deemed to employ "motor-propelled vehicles
used in transporting property for compensation or hire," so
as to authorize the Commission to require them to obtain
certificates of convenience and necessity.
-1
-------
You state that a solid waste disposal company charges
a fee for its services to each customer based upon such
factors as the number and size of the containers, frequency
of pickup and corapactability of the waste. Although ther-
is in most instances no separately stated charge for the
transportation of the waste, there is no dispute that
transportation .costs are included within the charge w* ich
the customer pays for the disposal service. So long as
transportation costs are included in the contract price>
ve believe that the Railroad Commission is permitted no
conclude that the operation embraces transportation
"for compensation or hire" within the meaning of article Sl^
New Way Lumber Co. v^ Smith, 96 S.W.2d" 282, 286-87 (Tex. Suit
1936); Attorney General Opinion S-218 (1956). See also
Attorney General Opinion C-126 (1963). Cf. Attorney Genera^
Opinion M-247 (1968). ;;
In order to fall within the jurisdiction of»the Railrc
Commission, however, a solid waste disposal company must al
be deemed to transport property. No Texas court has ever
determined whether garbage is "property," and the courts of
other jurisdictions have not reached a consensus on the iss
* *n Mssg** Y_L Public Service Commission of .Pennsylvania
188 A. 599, 600-01 (Pa. 1936), the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court held that garbage, and other refuse had "certain
valuable uses under varied circumstances," even though i*e
owner regarded it as being of no value. The Supreme Cotu
Washington has also concluded that "ashes, cinders, broken j
household furniture and vegetable matter" have a property
value. State v. Diamond Tank Transport, 97 P.2d 145, 147
(Wash. 1939). On the other hand, the Supreme Court of
Arizona has determined that garbage loses its character as
•property* when discarded by its owner. Vicso y_£ State,
388 P.2d 155, 163 (Ariz. 1963). And the Supreme Court
of New Mexico, in Fairchild v. United Service Corp., 197
P.M 875r 883 (N.M. 1948), held .that,* although garbage
may at times include objects of value, it is worthies ; to ii
owner and is hence not embraced within the meaning of
•property.*
-------
In 1965, the Interstate Commerce Commission ruled that
"debris, including rock," has a negative value to the person
who discards it and thus loses its character as "property"
when it is loaded and removed-from his premises. Joray
Trucking Corp., 99 M.C.C. 109 (1965). More recently, however
with the advent of recycling techniquesr the Commission has
reevaluated its position. In a 1971 decision, Transportation
of "Waste* Products for Reuse and Recycling, 114 M.C.C.
92 (1971), the Commission ruled that waste materials which
are recycled "assume all of the characteristics of 'property.
Id. at 104-05.
• •
The apparent, acquiescence of the Legislature- in the
regulation of solid waste disposal activities by the Railroad
Commission must be taken into account. As we have noted
previously, the Commission has since 1972 issued certificates
of convenience and necessity for disposal operations. The
two- sessions of the Legislature which have convened since
that time could easily have signaled their concern over such
regulation by expressly removing solid waste disposal service:
from the Commission's jurisdiction.. As the Supreme Court of
New Hampshire observed in Waste Control Systems, Inc. v>
State, 314 A.2d 659, 662 (N.H. 1974), the exercise of
3urisdiction by the Public Utility Commission over disposal
operations "was proper .in the. absence of a definite expression
of legislative intent that rubbish and garbage is not. 'proper!
See also Schlagel v. Hoelsken, 425 P.2d 39, 42 (Colo. 1967) .
In our opinion, the Railroad Commission's assumption of
jurisdiction over"solid waste disposal operations, even though
of recent origin, is sufficient, in the face of legislative
acquiescence, to authorize its regulation thereof, particular!
in view of the numerous conflicting decisions regarding whethe
waste may be deemed "property." We conclude therefore that,
at the present time and absent specific legislation on the
subject, one who performs solid waste disposal services may
be regulated by the Railroad Commission as a "motor carrier.1*
SUMMARY
A person who performs solid waste
disposal services may be regulated by
the Railroad Commission .as a "motor
-------
carrier," provided such person is other-
wise subject to Commission jurisdiction
under article 911b, V.T.C.S.
'ery truly yours.
JOHN L.
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
C. ROBERT HEATH,
Opinion Committee
-------
3002/3003
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM
TYPE II MEETINGS
CONCERNING
TRANSPORTATION
-------
CITIES INVOLVED IN TYPE II MEETINGS
San Francisco, California
Washington, D.C.
Cleveland, Ohio
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Hartford, Connecticut
Atlanta, Georgia
Houston, Texas
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Seattle, Washington
Denver, Colorado
-------
Summary of Comments
Manifest System
The type of information on the manifest and the degree
»•• ?•*
of detail «*?* eaaaented tjtpon by those in attendance at the
meeting. Opinions differed greatly as to what should
|be included in the description. Some of the data
••yqM' ... •» L^ iw^y:
Lsted a* important information was: emergency response ' _
-
>rocedures, generic name of waste, hazard class, quantity,
meral type of waste, phone numberSof the generator and
ransport company, physical state of the waste, chemical
Composition, the process from which the waste was derived,
is well as other pertinent information. Some groups complained
lat the chemical composition was of little value since most
-
rivers would not be able to understand it in an emergency.
?rade names were also to be avoided for the same reasons.
-
:The proposed format of the manifest drew varied responses.
y suggested that the manifest be incorporated into the
bill of lading. This could be done with modifications
such as allowing additional room at the bottom so information
be included that would satisfy ICC/DOT requirements.
'#-3
-------
Severed, in attendance recommended that a set of data reguir
ments rather than a format be developed, allowing the use o
existing shipping papers.' Most groups believed that the us
of a separate uniform-format would be more desirable and
would facilitate computerization of the manifest. This
• •
uniformity would be important in. interstate transport.,and i*
was deemed necessary to make sure all^States used the same
manifest format. The State of Kansas suggested using Tts
manifest as the model for the proposed manifest.
Most groups in attendance felt that the manifest was a
tracking tool and should not be used in reporting procedure
, -
Instead, summary reports should be issued to the designated
.agency""or authority.
The circulation of the manifest was also the subject of
discussion. The majority opinion was that the manifest shoold
follow the waste delivery from generator to transporter to
waste management facility. The waste management facility
the* sends a copy of the manifest to the generator, and the
generator then reports to th&itate. Differences arose ove
p
whether it was necessary for the disposer to report back tc
the generator.
:
-------
Questions were raised over what to do in the event that
a manifest, for one reason or another, does not accompany a
waste shipment. Several groups felt that allowances should
be made, such as permitting a second party (transporter or
disposer) to have the option of filling out the manifest as
V
long as the generator has certified the waste shipment. Waste
• -
disposers had questions about using transfer points where
wastes with the same manifest number may be designated for
different destinations. They argued that it could be neces-
•
.
sary for a manifest to originate from the transfer point ifc
-
order to legally ship the waste material.
A plan for developing manifest numbers was proposed. The
numbers could be derived by using the prefix of the company's
phone number and the area code. A national data bank would
be established with code numbers assigned to generators,
transporters, and disposers.
-------
Recordkeeping
There were a number of recommendations made concerning
the recordkeeping system. The majority of those present
believed that the record should be a copy of the manifest
plus any analytical data available on the waste. Other groups
felt that certain data should be required, rather than a
specific form for recordkeeping. The length of retention of
records was the subject of controversy. It was noted that
pesticide producers were required to keep records for 20 years;
although* no one suggested a retention period this long.
* v
Several waste disposer facilities felt that six months was
long enough, but most groups recommended retention of from one
to three years. Another suggestion made was that length of
retention should coincide with the statute of limitations.
-------
Containers, Placards, and Labels
A number of suggestions were made concerning the informa-
tion to be placed on the label and the format that should be
followed. Most groups felt that DOT requirements should be
followed, with some modifications pertaining, directly to
hazardous wastes. DOT regulations require the generator's
•*.
name, the type of wastet and the chemical composition of the
waste on the label. The manifest number and the environmental
or occupational hazards should also be required. Others felt
-
that the labels should be color coded and represent the
highest level of hazard-
Many of those in attendance at the meeting felt that
.
placards should follow DOT requirements'/with added regulations
*
.
where necessary. It was suggested that the word, "waste/1 be
included somewhere on the placard. UN code numbers could
also be used with DOT placards to handle the problem of
multiple hazards. Sone persons felt that additional informa-
tion should be placed on the placard,' since in the event of
-------
an accident,, the manifest could be lost and the placard
would be.the"only source of information. One group believe
•
that no additional placarding requirements were needed, for
ha2ardous waste transport. Another felt that a limit shoule
be ioposed on the number pf placards allowed on a vehicle.
v .,..._. • : ;._ _.
Several persons suggested that labeling and placarding
systems other than DOT should be used for hazardous wastes.
The NFPA system was the most commonly recommended alternative.
An advantage to the NFPA system is that it exhibits the
multiple hazard of the material as well as its health effects.
A disadvantage is that these labels are not recognized by all
fire and emergency response personnel. Another alternative s
to develop a classification system based on color or alphabet ical
designation where each letter or number corresponds to a
particular hazard or degree of hazard. Other suggested labeling
systeas are the ANSI and the Material Safety Data Sheets.
She
pertaining to container regulati is
was to utilize DOT container requirements as long as the var-tea
being stored met DOT criteria. For those which do not,
1
-------
performance standards must be developed which are adequate
to insure proper waste storage. One group felt that con-
i
tainer regulations were already too stringent and should not
be added to. Several groups also recommended that DOT con-
tainer reuse standards be modified €o allow for more recycling
"
of containers. Another group believed that no containers
V
should be reused under any conditions.
>
(g||| ,,l.,.^.: '" - •'- -'- inni-i-.Jill--'''-' •ninn. i- iiin,Br!'i ,,.r-—"-^:--'"^-:——•'• ••- • •-
Those participating in the meeting made it clear that
they expected regulations to be written that would insure
that all vehicles carrying hazardous wastes would be clearly
marked as such. Transport trucks should have "Hazardous
Waste" or some other descriptaon stenciled on the side to warm
the public of its contents. Placards should be placed on
all waste transport vehicles, whether it is on or off-site.
Several groups felt that hazardous waste destined for
on-site disposal should not be subject to any special labeling
•
or placarding requirements.
-------
Other Comments
The status of recyclable materials was a subject of
discussion. Most groups felt that these materials should be
exempted from the regulations. Less restriction would have
•
:he effect of promoting the reuse of these wastes.
The State of Kansas suggested that before a waste>is
transported, the generator must fill out a detailed waste
disposal request. The information is then used by both the
transporter and disposerrand parts of it appear on the manif st
Several groups recommended that emergency response
personnel and response manuals be upgraded. Truck drivers,
police, and fire departments should be educated in .spill
- ^t
'PiftSJS- ^t*1055- Th« emergency response manuals
use are too difficult to be understood by first-line
emergency units and should be rewritten.
One group wanted to know what the liability would be
of the generator who declares a waste non-hazardous based on
tests but later events prove it to be hazardous.
-------
> HARTFORD, CONN.
DATE - April 6, 1977
MANIFEST SYSTEM
1. Do not require manifest to be submitted to an authority.
summary reports to be submitted.
2. The manifest should list emergency response procedures
to transporters and emergency response personnel. The
generator is required to furnish this information.
; -. . •
A form similar tc NIOSH Material Data Safety Shee^ should
be filled out by the generator.
Manifest should be suitable for ICC/DOT requirements.
ing drums of\ dilute material rather than bulk/
should each drum have a different identification if only
pie concentrations differ and not the type of waste?
The 'generic name and hazard class of the material should
be listed.
- //
-------
PLACE - King of Prussia, PA.
DATE - May 11, 1977
MANIFEST SYSTEM
1. The manifest is a tracking tool and is not the sole
source of information for the waste management facility.
Waste facilities will not accept waste unless they
know in advance the chemical composition. (Rollins does
not depend on the manifest for information).
2. Information is supplied by the generator to the waste
disposer by contract. A sample is furnished to the
waste disposer or analyzed by the generator. Often the
waste disposer analyzes the waste sample also.
3. Quantities and general type of waste (flammable, corrosive,
etc.} should go on the manifest. Otherwise, it should be
kept as simple as possible.
4. For off-site transporting, the manifest should be the
record for the transporter.
5. The Manifest format should allow additional information to
be included at the bottom of the form so that 'it can be
used to satisfy ICC/DOT regulations.
-------
PLACE - Seattle, Washington
DATE - May 25. 1977
MANIFEST SYSTEM
A set of data requirements should be developed rather
than a set form. This would allow the use of existing
shipping papers.
2. Allowances should be made for emergency situations
where no manifest is present with the waste shipment.
A second party (i.e.,transporter^ disposer) should have
.'
the option to fill out the manifest as long as the
generator has certified the waste shipment,
4. Use the NFPA labeling system.
The manifest should be used in the channels of commerce.
It should follow the waste from generator to transporter
to waste management facility.
-------
PLACE - Oklahoma State Department of Health
DATE - April 22, 1977
MANIFEST SYSTEM
The manifest should be used only in tracking the
. waste material*
2, The information on -manifest should be similar to the
Kansas manifest model.
V
-------
PLACE - Atlanta, GA.
DATE - April 8, 1977
MANIFEST SYSTEM
U The manifest form should be uniform and easily com-
puterized.
I. The State should not have any option to modify the
manifest for interstate movement of wastes. This is
necessary since interstate transport regulations are
the same. In intrastate transport, the regulations
may be different.
J. Information on the manifest should include chemical
composition, principal hazard, emergency response, and
the phone numbers of the generator and the trucking company.
4. A copy of the manifest should be returned to the generator,
and the generator should report to the State.
5. DOT requirements should be the basis of the manifest,
and transporters should have some part in the development
of the manifest form.
-------
2.
3.
PLACE - Houston, Texas
DATE - April .13, 1977
MANIFEST SYSTEH
1. The Manifest should be part of the presently used bil
of lading.
DOT regulations should be followed as much as possible
The manifest should include an identification of the
waste. This includes the name of the chemical, the
state (solid, liquid, gaseous), the broad chemical
classification, and the process from which it is
derived. Other information may also be included.
-------
PLACE - Cleveland, Ohio
DATE - March 14, 1977
MANIFEST SYSTEM
1. The manifest should be a simple form for tracking the
hazardous wastes.
2. The manifest should be a uniform and basic format.
3. NO trade names should be on the manifest.
4. The manifest should include the hazards of the waste,
how to deal with it,, and a safety data sheet.
""»•
5. The bill of lading should be the basis of the manifest.
6. The manifest should contain emergency response instructions,
-------
PLACE - Minneapolis, Minn,
DATE - March 10, 1977
MANIFEST SYSTEM
1. Transport companies indicated that they would like more
information about what steps they should take to avoid
health and environmental problems in the event of a
spill. Chemical composition was of little value to
most drivers since they would not know what to do with it,
2. If a waste disposer uses a facility as a transfer point,
problems can arise since a waste generator only supplies
one manifest even though the waste will go to several
locations.
3. The maxiipvro number of copies that can be produced from
the manifest is five. Others would be illegible.
4. The manifest should accompany the waste from generator
to transporter to waste management facility. A copy
should be sent back to the generator.
5. If a company operates a transfer point, a manifest may
have to originate from there for wastes shipped from
that point.
-------
PLACE - San Francisco, Calif,
DATE - February 1, 1977
MANIFEST SYSTEM
1. The manifest must be consistent with DOT requirements.
2. The manifest numbers could be derived by using the prefix
of the company' s phone number and the area zip code.
A national data bank should be establisht4with code
numbers assigned to generators, transporters, and disposers.
3. The description on the manifest often is not sufficient
to know what is being carried. A more detailed des-
cription along with emergency response and handling
information is needed.
4. The manifest must be completely filled out giving an
accurate description, handling, and emergency response
procedures.
-------
PLACE - Denver, Colo.
DATE -
MANIFEST SYSTEM
1. The EPA should designate a manifest number for each
generator. Each manifest bears that number plus
the generator's own numbers. Each State then checks
the generator's number against those of the waste
disposers, and then sends the others to the EPA or to
the appropriate State agency.
-------
Place: Hartford, Connecticut
Containers, Placards, and Labels
1. DOT label, placard, and container requirements should
be met when applicable.
2. NFPA labels should be used when a substance which is
hazardous to health is in transport.
3. Do label and container requirements need to be met
when the waste is not transported off-site?
4. Trucks should be marked when carrying hazardous material.
--2
-------
Place: King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
Containers, Placards, and Labels
1. Labels should state the contents of the containers.
These should contain those called for by DOT regulations
and a description of the material.
2. Placards should be consistent with DOT requirements.
The word* "waste"should be included on the placards.
3. An alternative to the above would be to have separate
placards labeled Waste A, Waste B... etc. The alpha-
betical designation would reflect the degree of hazard,
4. A recommendation should be made to DOT to allow the reuse
of containers if they do not leak. This may be contrary
to DOT regulations, however.
-------
Seattle, Washington
Containers, Placards, and Labels
1. The DOT label with the manifest number should be attached
to the waste containers. It is also necessary to include
in the label the environmental and occupational hazards
of the waste.
2. DOT requirements for containers should be used where
they apply. Those not covered by DOT need to have per-
formance standards developed.
3. It is necessary to develop placards that designate a
cargo as a hazardous waste.
4. A transporter cannot accept wastes without a label
attached. The transporter should not be required to
relable wastes.
5. The manifest number should be on the container to protect
against removal of the label.
6. Do not reuse old drums.
-------
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Containers, Label, and Placards
1. DOT containers should be required where applicable.
2. If waste material does not meet DOT criteria, then per-
formance standards must be developed.
3. Containers should be adequate and proper for handling,
transporting, and storing of hazardous wastes.
4. DOT labels should be used with a manifest number included
The manifest number would be the key to what is in the
container. For multiple contained wastes being addressed
on a manifest, each drum would need to be numbered,
5. DOT placards with UN code numbers should be used to
handle the problem of multiple hazards.
6. NFPA labels are not recognized by all fire personnel and
should not be used.
-------
Atlanta, Georgia
Containers, Placards, and Labels
1. Labels are necessary on 11 drums.
2. The labels should represent the highest possible hazard.
•?-
3. The NFPA system should be used, modified to reflect
environmental hazards.
4. Labels should be detailed with characteristic markings
and coding.
-------
Houston, Texas
Containers, Placards, and Labels
1. No special placards should be utilized for waste transport.
2. Transport trucks should have "Hazardous Waste" stenciled
on the side of the truck so that the public will "know
what is in them.
3. Containers should meet the DOT requirements and performance
standards.
-------
Cleveland, Ohio
Containers, Placards, and Labels
1. Hazardous waste destined for on-site disposal should
not be subject to any special labeling requirements.
***
2. Vehicles which carry hazardous waste should be placarded
with the hazard type and the word, "waste."
3. ANSI labels should be used along with spill and leak
statements.
-------
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Containers/ Placards, and Labels
1. EPA should adopt DOT labeling and container standards.
2. A marking should be made on the drum pertaining to the
class of waste contained within it. These labels should
be color-coded and be related to the dangers.
3. Material Safety Data sheets should accompany all wastes
being transported and should follow NFPA/MCA suggested
procedures.
-------
San Francisco
Containers, Placards, and Labels
1. The DOT placarding requirements are insufficient concern-
ing vehicles carrying hazardous wastes. There should be
a limit on the number of placards placed on a vehicle.
2. If the manifest cannot be found in case of an accident,
the placard would have to supply the emergency information.
Additional information should be placed on the placard.
3. No new placards should be required but additional informa-
tion should be placed on existing placards.
4. NFPA labels that exhibit the multiple hazard of the
material should be used. These labels should be on the
container and visible from a distance.
5. Waste materials do not need to be placarded. The vehicles
carrying the waste must be marked, however.
6. Placards should be placed on all waste transport vehicles,
regardless of whether it is on or off-site.
7. Container and vehicle specifications should be modified
to be less stringent for the transportation of hazardous
waste.
-------
Denver, Colorado
Containers, Placards, and Labels
1. Labels can be keyed to shipping papers. DOT regulations
require the. generator's name, the type of waste, and
the chemical composition of the waste on the label.
2. Containers should be reusable.
3. DOT should be asked to lower reuse standards.
-------
Seattle, Washington
Other Comments
1. A generator should not be required to do additional
testing once a waste has been identified as hazardous.
Information kept on file should show why the substance
was classified as hazardous.
2. A data system should be set up so that a generator can
determine from this data whether a waste is hazardous
without doing elaborate testing.
3. Recycled materials should not be exempt from the regulations.
-------
Atlanta, 6A.
Other Comments
1. Truck drivers, police, fire department and others
should be educated in spill response and clean-up
methods•
4-32
-------
San Francisco, California
Other Comments
1. The emergency response manuals currently in use are
too difficult to be understood by first-line emergency
units (first to arrive). A less complex manual should
be prepared.
-------
Minneapolis, Minn.
Other Comments
1. it is often necessary to seggregate incompatible wastes.
A system should be developed to be sure such wastes are
not stored together.
2. Wastes destined to be recycled should be exempted from the
manifest requirements in order to promote such reuse.
-------
Oklahoma State Dept. of Health
Other Comments
1. Before a waste can be transported, the State of Kansas
requires^that a detailed waste disposal request form be filled
out by the generator. This information is used by the
transporter and waste management facility. Information
on the manifest comes from this document.
2. What should be done about waste generated on-site/off-site
and disposed of at a different location owned by tfte
generator? Should they be exempt from the manifest system?
A - .
3. Common carriers did not recommend putting the phone number
'on the vehicle - but felt that it should be on the manifest.
-------
Cleveland, Ohio
Other Comments
1. Transporters involved in spills could be considered
generators of wastes. They should not, however; have
the same regulations imposed upon them as upon the
originating generators, as this may hinder the clean-
up effort.
2. It would be difficult to enforce transporter liability
insurance standards without a permit system for transporters
-------
Denver, Colo.
Other Comments
1. What is the liability of the generator who declares
a waste non-hazardous based on tests, but later events
prove it to be hazardous?
2. EPA should operate a quality control program to watch
over labs which test wastes for generators?
-3 7
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
ON
SECTIONS 3003
ANPR MAY 2, 1977
-------
Applicability of Standards to all Hazardous Waste Transporters
1. Are there reasons to develop separate standards applicable
to each mode of transportation (motor carriers, tank vessels,
barges, rail, pipeline, air, etc.)
State Agencies
Most State agencies felt that separate standards are
necessary for each mode of transport. Some indicated that
DOT and ICC regulations already differentiate and are suffi-
cient to regulate the industry. Washington, Virginia, and
Hennepin County, Minnesota, held this viewpoint. The State
of Washington Highway Commission recommended that separate
standards be developed for hazardous waste transport. Texas
Water Control Board stated that standards should be proposed
that emphasize the motor carrier mode of transport. The
Department of Environmental Quality and the Dayton Regional
Air Pollution Control Agency proposed that uniform standards
be developed for all modes of transport.
Waste Generators
Waste generators all agreed that separate standards are
necessary. Union Carbide and Mobay Chemical Co. felt that
the present DOT regulations differentiated enough and were
adequate. Your Seattle Light felt that separate standards
need to be developed. While the Malone Company indicated
that more stringent standards are necessary for water vessels.
Waste Management Facilities
Most waste processors indicated that standards should
be broad and applicable to all modes of transportation.
This view was held by Rollins and Chemical-Nuclear Systems.
Chemical Processors felt that ICC and DOT regulations were
adequate for now but that a review should be made at a later
date.
8-*
-------
Associations
The Southern Agricultural Chemical Association and the
Compressed Gas Association felt that DOT regulations were
sufficient in their coverage and already differentiate
between modes. The New Jersey/Business and Industrial Associ-
ation believed that hazardous waste should be regulated the
same way hazardous materials are.
Transporters
The Association of American Railroads indicated the
need for separate standards and felt that these standards
should follow DOT requirements which recognize "natural
differences" between the modes.
2. What kinds and length of storage of records
State Agencies
The Texas Water Quality Board and the Regional Air
Pollution Agency of Dayton recommended that the manifest
copy should be retained by the transporter for three years.
The Texas Department of Health Resources felt that records
should be retained by the transporter the same amount of
time as required of generators and disposers. Commonwealth
of Virginia indicated the length of retention should depend
on the statute of limitations proposed under RCRA. The
Department of Interior suggested that recordkeeping length
should be tailored to the pertinent characteristics of the
hazardous waste. The Washington Highway Commission recommended
that the retention period be decided upon at a later date.
Waste Generators
Both the Mobay Chemical Co. and the Tom River Corporation
indicated that the manifest be maintained for three years.
The record should consist of the bill of lading with the
generator identification numbers on it.
-------
Waste Management Facilities
There was no consensus of opinion among waste disposers,
Chemical Processors, Incorporated recommended that records
be retained up to the statute of limitations. Chemical-
Nuclear Systems felt that each State should determine retent-
ion length. Rollins recommended that the manifest system be
applied to all modes of transport and that record retention
should be three years.
Associations
The American Iron and Steel Association suggested that
the manifest and recordkeeping system should be required only
for shipments outside the plant area. Southern Agricultural
Chemical Asso. felt that two years would be sufficient for
recordkeeping length of retention.
Transporters
The Association of American Railroads believed that the
DOT recordkeeping system should be utilized. National Tank
Truck Carriers thought that State and ICC regulations differed
and should be uniform and that microfilming of records be
allowed.
3. What special handling procedures, if any, may be necessary
to assure the delivery of the manifest to the designated
facility.
State Agencies
State agencies proposed several different measures to ensure
the delivery of the manifest. The Washington State Highway
Commission suggested that a second copy of the manifest be sent
by registered mail from the generator to the disposer.
Washington State Department of Ecology recommended the arrest
of a transporter for failing to deliver s shipment of waste
to the designated facility. The Dayton Regional Air Pollution
Agency felt that the transporter should provide the cosignee
with a manifest. It might also be advisable to require
generators and shippers to send copies of the manifest to the
designated facility.
-------
Waste Generators
All generators were in agreement that some method of
certifying that a waste reached the proper destination be
developed. Both the Malone Co. and Union Carbide recommended
that the disposer send a copy of the completed manifest or
invoice to the generator certifying proper disposal of the
waste. Proctor and Gamble suggested that the hauler send a
note of certification to the generator with penalties imposed
for failure to do so.
Waste Management Facilities
Both Chemical-Nuclear Systems and Rollins believed that
the manifest should stay with the shipment and that the
transporter should be fired if he does not deliver a manifest
with the waste to the waste management facility. Chemical
Processors felt that no additional regulations are needed to
ensure delivery of the manifest.
Associations
There was unanimous agreement that a completed manifest
should accompany every shipment of hazardous waste. Both the
Southern Agricultural Chemical Association and the New
Jersey Business and Industrial Association adhered to this
viewpoint.
Transporters
The National Tank Truck Carriers proposed that the
current practice of requiring a bill of lading, signed by
the then returned to the shipper be continued. The Association
of American Railroads felt that no requirements were needed
for the railroads since the presently used pedigree assures
safe delivery.
-------
4. Sufficiency of existing Federal regulations to protect
ppublic health, and environment during transportation of
hazardous wastes. Should additional placards be developed
to identify hazardous wastes? Is the classification of
hazardous wastes, for example, as "flammable not otherwise
specified" sufficient for environmental emergency response?
Are special safety rules needed for hazardous wastes in
addition to existing rules? Should the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety regulations be adopted for motor carriers of hazardous
waste?
State Agencies
Most of the agencies responding indicated that the DOT
regulations for placarding and labeling with some additions
would be sufficient to cover hazardous waste transport. The
Texas Water Quality Board suggested that a color coding
system be included where each color is representative of a
hazard class. Washington Highway Commission, Hennepin
County, Minn., and the Department of Environmental Quality
believed that the DOT requirements were sufficient and that
EPA and DOT should work together when developing new ones.
The Dayton Regional Air Pollution Agency thought that existing
DOT regulations were acceptable except that a new class of
hazardous materials should be developed. In their opinion,
there was no need for any placarding regulations. They
also suggested the FMCS regulations be enforced upon all
motor carriers. The San Francisco Fire Department recommended
using placards which conform with NEPA standards and contain
emergency response information.
Waste Generators
All those who responded to this issue were in agreement
that the DOT regulations were sufficient in most cases. Some
felt that additions would be necessary in a few areas. The
Diamond Slummock Co. felt that substances which were a
special threat to health and welfare need more stringent
regulation. The Malone Co. suggested that in addition to
the DOT regulations, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety system
be adopted. Shell Oil Co. believed that DOT regulations were
adequate but wanted to avoid distinguishing between hazardous
materials and wastes. Both Phillips and Tom River Chemical
Corp. wanted to avoid the use of additional placards. Most
generators indicated that changes in the regulations should be
coordinated with DOT.
-------
Waste Management Facilities
The consensus opinion was that existing regulations
should be adopted and studied for a length of time to see if
they are sufficient. Those with this opinion included
Chemical-Nuclear, Rollins,and Chemical Processors.
Associations
All those who responded were in agreement that the DOT
regulations for placarding and labeling would insure environ-
mental safeguarding. No need was felt for additional regu-
lations. This opinion was expressed by the Compressed Gas
Association, New Jersey Business and Industrial Assoc.,
Southern Agricultural Chemical Assoc., and the National
Agricultural Chemical Assoc.
Transporters
Opinion was divided, pertaining to the sufficiency of
DOT regulations. The National Tank Truck Carriers suggested
that additional placards could be needed if the waste was
especially hazardous. The Association of American Railroads
believed no additional placards would be necessary. Both
companies wanted additional information on the placards,
including exact identification of the waste and emergency
response procedures.
5. What additional, if any, vehicle inspection or certification
rules are needed for transport of hazardous waste.
State Agencies
Both agencies responding, The Washington Highway Commission
trackers register with a regulatory agency and that
certification may be desirable.
£-7
-------
Waste Generators
Most agreed that DOT and State regulations which pertain
to hazardous chemicals should be adopted for hazardous wastes.
Union Carbide, Stauffer Chemical, and American Cyanid upheld
this view. Tom River Chemical Co. felt no additional regu-
lations were necessary.
Waste Management Facilities
Chemical-Nuclear and Chemical Processors both felt
there was no need for additional rules. Rollins recommended
licensing and insurance regulations plus additional generator
and disposer safeguards and not more transporter regulations.
Associations
The Southern Agricultural Chemical Assoc. and New Jersey
Business and Industry Assoc. recommended that DOT regulations
be adopted in full for hazardous waste.
Transporters
The Association of American Railroads felt that no
additional regulations were needed for the railroads. The
National Tank Truck Carriers believed that a shipper should
be required to certify that he has tested the hazardous
material and has identified the hazard classification.
6. Is there a need for contingency spill clean-up plans in
addition to those established under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, sfor hazardous waste spills.
State Agencies
Nearly all agencies felt there was a need for additional
contingency spill plans. The San Francisco Fire Department
thought it was important to provide for training and equipping
of emergency response personnel. The Commonwealth of Virginia
-------
believed that the clean-up of spills should be a responsibility
delegated to the State but with the backing of the EPA. The
Interior Department suggested using spill contingency plans
that depend on the mode of transportation as well as the
quantity of spilled waste. In their opinion, FWPCA regulations
covering such emergencies should be reviewed. The Washington
State Highway Commission and the Texas Water Quality Board
felt that no additional rules are required.
Waste Generators
Most generators thought that present contingency plans
were enough. Stauffer, Chevron, and Tom River Chemical were
of this opinion. Chevron felt that the generator should be
responsible for the cleanup Union Carbide recommended
that the contingency plan not accompany the shipment in
order to lessen the paperwork. Your Seattle Light Co.
suggested that additional waste cleanup plans different
from those of the FWPCA Act be set up.
Waste Management Facilities
All disposers felt that additional plans were necessary.
Rollins suggested that the contingency plans be keyed to the
type of waste and the area where the spill could occur.
Chemical Processors recommended that plans like those drawn
up for oil spills be applied to hazardous chemicals and
wastes.
Associations
The Southern Agricultural Chemical Assoc. and the New
Jersey Business and Industry Assoc. both felt that existing
plans are adequate.
Transporters
Both transporters responding to this question indicated
that additional spill contingency plans would be unnecessary.
The Nationar?ankPTruck Carriers maintained that the filing
of contingency clean-up plans is unnecessary since each
spill is unique.
-------
7. Is there need to establish minimum insurance coverage
requirements for hazardous waste transporters to cover the
cost of spill clean-up and possible environmental damage?
State Agencies
All agencies agreed that minimum insurance requirements
should be set up. The Washington State Highway Commission,
Department of Environmental Quality, and Commonwealth of
Virginia responded with this opinion. Virginia also expressed
concern that small companies could be driven out of business
because of the high cost of insurance and that a permit
system could be set up to regulate hazardous waste transporters
Waste Generators
There was general agreement that insurance requirements
should be set up. Your Seattle Light Co. and Tom River
Chemical Corp. recommended that carriers be insured to cover
the clean-up oosts. The Malone Co. suggested minimum insurance
plus a $5,000,000 umbrella policy to cover all
accidental spills. Mobay supported the insurance regulations
but felt that the transporter should be held responsible for
any spills occurring during transport. Union Carbide suggested
that insurance be paid for through public funding. Stauffer
Chemical Corp. felt that no regulations concerning insurance
were necessary while Shell Oil thought that damage and cost
liabilities should be born by the party responsible for the
spill.
Waste Management Facilities
The consensus among waste disposers was that a minimum
insurance requirement was needed. Chemical-Nuclear Systems
recommended that the Federal government provide the necessary
insurance coverage. Chemical Processors suggested that the
EPA determine if the insurance industry was willing to insure
transport of hazardous wastes. Rollins agreed that insurance
regulations were needed.
-------
Transporters
Neither of the transport companies supported minimum
or additional insurance requirements. The Association of
American Railroads felt that no insurance regulations were
needed other than to cover unique hazards or extensions of the
Price-Anderson Act. The National Tank Truck Carriers thought
that insurance presently carried by most transporters was
adequate and that additional insurance would be expensive and
hard to find. They suggested regulating and insuring private
carriers and the "midnight dumper ."
£-//
-------
Other Comments and Opinions
State Agencies
A number of agencies were concerned about duplication
between DOT and EPA regulations. Most felt that DOT regulations
were sufficient and that few additional rules would be neces-
sary. The Texas Department of Health Resources and the Regional
Air Pollution Agency of Dayton held this view. The Georgia
Game and Fish Division wanted extra precautions to prevent
disposal of wastes in streams, lakes, etc. and to keep
contaminated runnoff out of water resources. The San Francisco
Fire Department suggested that transporters carry one. waste
at a time to avoid mixing. Hennephin County, Minnesota, proposed thai
certain sections of the "Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ,(
Rules and Regulations" be adopted. The Wayne County, Michigan,
Department of Health called for comprehensive regulations that
controlled a waste from "cradle to grave." The Washington
Department of Ecology recommended that hazardous wastes be
treated the same as other hazardous comodities. The State of
North Carolina suggested that State regulations be uniform and
that the Federal government provide minimum standards in order
to assure a degree of uniformity. The Interior Department felt
that these regulations could also cover pesticide transport ,
and the DOT regulations should be reviewed for adequacy.
Waste Generators
Generators also called for the use of DOT requirements as
a basis for transportation regulation. Some companies felt
that DOT/ICC regulations were sufficient. Companies in this
category included American Cyanid, Kraft Inc., Chevron, Systems
Technology Corp., and the Tom River Chemical Co. Other
businesses believed that additions were needed to the DOT
regulations and that these additions should be coordinated with
DOT. Companies in this category were Diamond Shamrock, Florida
Phosphate Council, and Velsicol Chemical Co.
Several companies suggested that transporters accept most
of the responsibility if an accident should occur. Proctor
and Gamble stated that regulations should emphasize the
responsibility of the hauler and not the generator. Olin-Brass
believed that the generator should not be liable for a regulation
violation by a second party.
-------
The Alabama Power Co. felt the need for a definition of
a hazardous waste transporter. They also believed that intra-
company transport should occur without being registered by
a manifest system. The Cad Nickel Plating Co. wanted to exempt
industries which produce sludge due to EPA effluent regulations.
Celanese recommended the use of a manifest which includes a
safety warning but not a description of waste characteristics
and a phone number for hauler and State emergency response
teams. Mobay Chemical Co. felt that Federal regulations should
be uniform and should not conflict with one another.
Waste Management Facilities
Chemical-Nuclear Systems suggested that the transport
industry should provide regulations for itself through the
ICC and DOT. These regulations apply only to off-site
transport.
Associations
The American Iron and Steel Institute felt that transporters
should be liable for safe and proper handling during transport
as well as for the condition of the transport vehicle and
personnel. The National Agricultural Chemical Association
endorses the comments of the Southern Agricultural Chemical
Association particularly with regard to avoiding conflicts
with other regulations.
Transporters
The National Tank Truck Carriers emphasized the need to
properly package a waste shipment. They also wanted to
avoid regulation duplication and preferred to have all
regulations governed by DOT.
-------
APPENDIX C
Joint Notice of Public Meetings
42 FR 51625, September 29, 1977
C-l
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU
OFFICE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OPERATIONS
JOINT NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA) was signed into law on October 21, 1976. It mandates
a comprehensive Federal-State-local approach to all aspects
of waste management, including resource conservation and
recovery, land disposal of municipal and industrial wastes,
and authorizes a new regulatory program for hazardous wastes
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Sub-
title C—Hazardous Waste Management—is required to write
standards for generators, shippers, transporters, and
receivers of hazardous waste. In addition EPA is required
to develop criteria and a list to define what are hazardous
wastes.
During the analysis of the RCRA requirements, it
became apparent that current Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulations under the Hazardous Materials Transporta-
tion Act of 1974 (HMTA) may have the potential to be expandet
to partially meet the mandate of RCRA. EPA would like to
maximize the coordination of the RCRA regulatory require-
ments with existing DOT rules for the benefit of all parties.
'977)
C-2
-------
The Act requires that regulations developed under 3u]
title C of RCRA be consistent with the requirements of «•
and the regulations thereunder. In addition, it authorj.z.
the EPA to make recommendations to DOT respecting regula-
tions for hazardous wastes under HMTA and for the additio:
of materials to be covered by that Act.
Authority for the regulation of hazardous waste tran
portation is contained in both HMTA and RCRA. The HMTA i,
concerned with the protection of public safety, health, a:
property during the loading, transportation, storage inci<
to transportation, and unloading of hazardous materials.
HMTA requires the Secretary of Transportation to desigrat.
materials as hazardous upon finding that the transportatii
of a particular quantity and form of material in coromer*
may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or
property. The materials designated as hazardous may incl
but are not limited to: explosives, radioactive materia
etiologic agents, flammable liquids or solids, combustibl<
liquids or solids, poisons, oxidizing or corrosive matari
als, and compressed gases.
Under Subtitle C, RCRA is concerned with the protect
of the public health and the environment from improper
hazardous waste management during transportation, treatrae
storage or disposal. Hazardous waste as defined by RCPA
is a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes which
because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, cr<
ical, or infectious characteristics may cause, or signi fi
-------
cantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increas
in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible,
illness or pose a substantial present or potential hazard t
human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of. in turn, RCRA defines
"solid" waste to include solid, liquid, semisolid, or con-
tained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commer-
cial, mining, and, with some-exception, agricultural opera-
tions, and from community activities. The Administrator
shall taJce into account, when designating hazardous wastes,
toxicity, persistence and degradability in nature, potential
for accumulation in tissue, and other related factors such
as flammability, corrosiveness and other hazardous charac-
teristics.
For the transportation of hazardous wastes under RCRAf
Section 3002 requires the Administrator to develop standards
for generators/shippers of hazardous wastes concerning
labeling practices for any containers used for storage,
transport, or disposal that will identify accurately such
wastes; use of appropriate containers, and use of a manifest
system to assure that all hazardous waste generated is
designated for treatment, storage or disposal to a permitted
hazardous waste management facility. The manifest as de-
fined by the Act means the form used for identifying the
quantity, composition, and the origin, routing, and desti-
nation of hazardous waste during its transportation from the
c-y
-------
point of generation to the point of disposal, treatment,
storage* Section 3003 requires the Administrator to d4
standards for transporters of hazardous waste concerning
recordkeeping, transportation of hazardous washes only if
properly labeled, compliance with the manifest system and
transportation of all the hazardous wastes to the designa
permitted facility.. In addition, the Administrator is
considering the development of standards for the acceptan
of hazardous waste for transport, loading and stowage of
hazardous wastes, notification in the event of a spill an
spill reporting, marking and placarding of vehicles, and
notification of the transportation of hazardous wastes.
Many of the standards being considered under RCRA £QJ
transportation are currently required under HMTA. Specif
ally, definition of a hazardous material (waste) , labelin<
placarding, packaging, manifest {shipping document) , spil
notification and reporting, and loading and stowage. In
addition, HMTA. has provisions for the development of stan<
ards concerning recordkeeping and registration.
In December of 1976 the Department of Transportation
evidenced concern for the development of regulations for
hazardous waste transporters. HM-145, Environmental an 1
Health Effects Materials Advance Notice of Proposed Rul i-
making, published December 9, 1976, in the Federal Registe
C-5
-------
presented several questions concerning hazardous wastes:
"with regard to hazardous wastes, what classification syste:
may be used to clearly identify mixtures as opposed to
single compound materials; what packaging may be appropriate
for transportation; and how e:_-.sting transportation docu-
mentation can be used to cover transport of hazardous wastes
from the generator (sjtiipper) to the disposer (consignee) ."
Several comments were received expressing concern for the
development of hazardous waste transportation regulations b}
both EPA and DOT.
A one-day public meeting will be held on October 26,
1977, to solicit public, industry, State and local govern-
ment comment on the regulation of hazardous waste transpor-
tation by the Department of Transportation and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The public meeting.will begin at
9:30 a.m. at the Ramada O'Hare Inn, Mannheim and Higgins
Road, Des Plaines, Illinois (312/827-5131), Interested
members of the public; representatives of industry that ship
as well as transport hazardous materials (waste) ; entities,
both public and private, that respond to transportation
emergencies; State and local governments; and firms fhat
receive hazardous wastes for storage, treatment, ~~and dis-
posal are urged to attend and respond to any or all of the
discussion topics listed below, as well as any other issues
concerning the regulation of hazardous waste transportation.
-------
The meeting is open to the public and will be conducte
f
by a panel from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency an
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The following procedural rules will apply. The Chair-
man of the panel is empowered to conduct the meeting in a
manner that in his judgment will facilitate the orderly
conduct of business, to schedule presentations .by partici-
pants, and to exclude material which is irrelevant, ex-
traneous, or repetitious, The time allotment for oral
statements shall be at the discretion of the Chairman, but
shall not ordinarily exceed 15 minutes. With the permissio:
of any person offering a statement, questions may be asked
by members of the panel. At the discretion of the Chairman
a procedure may be made available for presentation of per-
tinent, questions from other persons to participants.
Individuals with prepared statements are requested to bring
at least one copy for the record. Persons unable to attend,
but wishing to comment on the Discussion Topics, are invitee
to send written comments to the address below by November 9,
1977.
A transcript of the meetings will be made and acopy of
the transcript, together with copies of all documents pre-
sented at the meeting, and all written submissions will
constitute the record of the meeting. A copy of the record
of the meeting will be available for public inspection by
December 16, 1977, at the U.S. Environmental Protection
-------
Agency, Office {of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management
Division v-Docket Section, Room 2111, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460 and at the Department of Transpc
tation, Room 6500, Trans Point Building, 2100 Second Stree
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Anyone desiring additional information on the meetinc
or wishing to be placed on the program to present a state-
ment is requested to contact: Mrs. Geraldine Wyer, Public
«
Participation Officer, Office of Solid Waste, WH-462, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460
(Phone: 202/755-9157) before October 21, 1977.
-------
DISCUSSION TOPICS
1. Regulations being developed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and existing regulations of the Department
of Transportation impact the transportation of hazardous
wastes. Which Agency should take the lead in developing
the regulations for hazardous waste transportation? What
approach should be taken? Should DOT modify its definition
of hazardous materials to include all hazardous wastes?
(Wastes which are bioaccumulative, toxic above current DOT
definition levels, infectious, carcinogens, or having poten-
tial for genetic change are likely to be identified under
RCRA as hazardous wastes and are not currently covered by
the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations.) Should EPA then
incorporate DOT regulations by reference~or should EPA con-
sider a separate set of regulations to supplement the gaps
in DOT regulatory coverage, in that EPA regulations would
cover only wastes which are hazardous, not all hazardous
materials?
\
2 . If DOT does modify its—definition of hazardous
materials to include all hazardous wastes, should DOT regu-
lations specifically address the transportation of hazardous
wastes or treat them the same as hazardous materials that
are bioac^umiilafciyeL,.. toxic, infectious, carcinogenic, etc.?
3. Section 3002 of RCRA requires the development of a
manifest (shipping paper) to assure that the hazardous waste
-------
is designated to a permitted hazardous waste management
facility and that all the hazardous waste is delivered to
that facility. Should DOT modify its shipping paper re &i
ments to fulfill the needs of the RCRA manifest or should
EPA develop requirements to supplement existing shipping
paper requirements (including the possibility of a separa-
document)?
4. Are the current DOT requirements for labeling,
marking and placarding sufficient for handling of hazardox
waste in transportation? For those hazardous wastes whici
will not fall under DOT purview, should EPA develop
labels and placards of separate design or should DOT
develop the labels and placards for these hazardous wastes
that are compatible with current DOT design?
5. HMTA authorizes the registration of anyone tra!
porting hazardous materials; RCRA requires notification of
the transportation of hazardous wastes. Should registrati
requirements be developed for transporters of hazardous
wastes?
6. .In the event of an accident or a spill of a hazar
ous material during~loading, transportation, or unloading,
DOT requires notification of the incident and the filing o
a report. For the spill of hazardous waste, EPA is also
considering similar requirements. Should notification of
spills be directed to EPA, DOT (Office of Hazardous Materi
Operations), or the U.S. Coast Guard National Emergency
-------
Response Center? Should EPA and DOT receive incident
reports (DOT for hazardous materials and EPA for hazardous
wastes) , or should all reports be filed with DOT (even when
spilled hazardous wastes are not covered by DOT regulation)
7. In the event of a spill, the material cleaned up
may become a hazardous waste. Should DOT or EPA develop the
regulations for handling the spilled hazardous material?
8. HMTA authorizes DOT to require training to be con-
ducted by shippers and transporters of hazardous materials.
Are training programs necessary relative to emergency
response and cleanup of hazardous wastes specifically? If
so, to what extent should they be required?
9. Since hazardous wastes are mixtures or may be mixed
during collection for transportation, is it necessary for
DOT to modify its loading and stowage requirement to address
the mixing and stowage of incompatible wastes?
10. Any other comments relevant to the development of
regulations for transportation of hazardous wastes by the
Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency are welcome.
I .
lomas C. Jorj:.ing
Assistant Administrator \
for Water and Hazardous Materials
Alan I. Roberts, Director
Office of Hazardous Material Operatior
Date:
C- //
-------
APPENDIX D
External Review Comments/Actions
D-l
-------
U.S. Coast Guard
National Response Center
(NRC) phone number can
only be used for 311
Regulations list appropriate EPA
regional 24-hour telephone
emergency line.
The Aluminum Assn.
Am. Petroleum Institute
National Tank Truck Carriers
Assn. of Am. Railroads
Manufacturing Chemists Assn.
Urges continued close
cooperation with DOT.
Regulations are being coordinated
with DOT.
Oscar E. Erickson, Inc.
All required repotts
should be sent to DOT
for relay to EPA.
Regulations modified to require tha
reports be sent to DOT.
California Dept. of Health
Oscar E. Erickson, Inc.
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
State of Washington,
Dept. of Ecology
Manifest should be the
only shipping document
required
No action taken; regulations reflec
multi-model handling and existing
paper handling procedures.
Manufacturing Chemists
Assn.
Spills not covered by DOT
classification should be
reported directly to EPA
using DOT form.
Current thinking is to require that
all spills be reported to DOT; thos
not covered by DOT classification
would be sent to EPA by DOT.
-------
Manufacturing Chemists
Assn.
American Petroleum
Institute
Manufacturing Chemists
Assn.
National Tank Truck
Carriers
"Premises" should be de-
fined and be consistent
with definition of "site."
Since ICC already requires
that vehicles be marked with
appropriate number, redun-
dant for EPA to require
additional number.
"Premises" replaced by "site. '
Definition of "site" made
consistent with other sections,
Current thinking is to use
existing ICC or PUC requirements,
National Tank Truck
Carriers
Unnecessary to number trail-
ers since they will be
attached to a numbered power
unit.
Agr"ee and regulations modified,
.' Oscar E. Erickson,
*» Inc.
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Don't overemphasize hazard
of waste in placarding/
i.e., toxic.
Only DOT placarding will be re-
quired.
Chem Nuclear
Transporters should be allow-
ed to accept small quantities
of hazardous waste which are
not properly labeled, follow-
ed by repackaging.
Hazardous Waste should not be
delivered to an unattended
disposal or treatment
facility.
Transporters can accept hazardous
waste but must properly container:!
label, and load prior to transport
No action taken. Should be arranc
between transporter and disposer.
-------
Association of
American Railroads
Assn. of Am. Railroads
American Petroleum Inst.
Monsanto
Supports modiixcation of
DOT Hazardous Materials
Incident Report to accommo-
date EPA's specific require-
ments.
Two classifications should
be required on shipping
document for those hazardous
wastes and materials which
meet both EPA and DOT re-
quirements .
Definition of "Common
carrier" should be changed
to include all modes.
No action taken.
No action taken
Definition modified to reflect
comments.
Assn. of Am. Railroads
Exempts transporters from
inspecting vehicles which
are loaded and sealed by
generators to determine if
properly labeled.
Require shipper to comply
with appropriate compati-
bility and stowage chart
when shipper loads.
Discussed in Preamble.
Not authorized under 3002
and 3003. DOT regs. may apply.
California Dept. of Health
Oscar E. Erickson, Inc.
Nottingham Co., Inc.
State of Idaho
Ohio Liquid Disposal
Support permitting system
for transporters.
Will not require permits at this
time, since ICC requires permits
for all interstate transporters
and most intrastate carriers are
are permitted by State PUC's.
-------
National Solid Waste
Management Assn.
Rollins Environmental
Services
California Dept,
of Health
Region VII
Dept. of Environmental
Quality
& State of Vermont
,' Illinois EPA
The Standard Oil
Company
Requirement to maintain
records for three years
is excessive.
Regulations should clarify
circumstances when a de*
livery document is more
appropriate than a manifest.
State accident response
system number (if design-
nated) should be listed.
Regulations' should outline < •'«
specific emergency situations
which require reporting.
(DOT does this.)
Consistent with. ICC and most Stat<
which require retention of
records for three years.
Clarification made in regulation!
to require delivery document only
when no original manifest.
Regs.concerned with Federal, not
State standards. Mentioned in
Preamble.
Discussed in Preamble
State of Idaho
National Solid
Waste Management Assn,
Information pertaining to
emergencies should be for-
warded to the Regions.
Regions will be notified.
Acceptance of waste - mean-
ing of "Improper" is too
vague.
Deleted from regs,
-------
National Solid Waste
Management Assn.
Illinois EPA
National Tank Truck
Carriers
Procedures foi loading and
stowage of hazardous waste
not covered by DOT should
be included. Unclear as
to how incompatibility is
determined.
Removed from regulations
DOT regulations referenced.
y
\
National Solid
Waste Management Assn.
Transporter should be re-
quired to notify generator
of intent to mix loads.
Procedures for later certi-
fication of manifest when
certification is not requir-
ed upon delivery should be
clarified.
Procedure for transporter to
modify manifest to change
destination should be
established.
According to available data, mixing
is rare.
No Action.
Certification on manifest or other
delivery document is required upon
delivery.
Addressed in Working Group
mtg. Will be worked out between
generator and transporter. 3002
modified manifest to provide for
alternate destination.
Ohio Liquid Disposal
National Solid
Waste Management Assn,
Both EPA and DOT should be
notified of emergencies.
EPA will be notified by telephone.
Upon notification, EPA will notify
DOT.
Ohio Liquid Disposal
Notification of cessation
of service should be requir'-
ed within 30 days or less.
Regulations modified,
-------
Ohio Liquid Disposal
The Aluminum Assn.
Interex Corp.
Emergency Situations-
volume limitation should
be included.
Regulations are consistent with
DOT's which require notification
of any quantity.
Ohio Liquid Disposal
Manufacturing Chemists
Assn.
American Iron and
Steel Institute
EPA Region X
Reference to notifying
fire department should
be deleted.
Regulations modified to delete
reference.
Transporter should be
liable for hazardous waste
during transport.
Regulations cannot assign liabili<
Emergency Situations-
include list of on-scene
coordinators.
Include procedures for
handling manifest after
emergency situation is
over.
Reference to on-scene coordinators
deleted.
Generator topic
U.S. Coast Guard
Loading and Stowage-add
reference to bulk vessels.
Regulations modified to add referc
to CPR 176 Subpart C through O an*
46 CFR.
American Petroleum
Institute
Region VII
General Requirements-include
private carriers
Regulations modified to include
all carriers.
-------
American Petroleum
Institute
Manufacturing Chemists
Assn.
ft)
Unnecessary t^ record notifi-
cation number on manifest.
Notification number
ll facilitate data reporting by
jenerator and waste facility.
No additional marking should
be required for hazardous
waste which don't fall with-
in DOT classification.
^gree
------- |