transportation of hazardous materials: state and local

Transportation of Hazardous Materials:State and Local Activities

March 1986

NTIS order #PB86-181971

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Transportation of Hazardous Materials: Stateand Local Activities, OTA-SET-301 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,March 1986).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-600624

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

Foreword

First passed in 1974 and largely unchanged for the past decade, the Hazardous Materi-als Transportation Act must be reauthorized by Congress in 1986. During the past dozenyears, the transportation industries have been deregulated, the U.S. economy has weathereda major recession and recovered in a new and different form, and public awareness of possi-ble damage from hazardous materials has been heightened by such events as the San Fran-cisco Caldecott Tunnel fire and the thousands of deaths and injuries in Bhopal, India.

At present, no one knows for certain the total quantities and types of hazardous materialsthat are transported, confusion exists over how safe the transportation process is or oughtto be, the public needs better information, and emergency response personnel need train-ing. In light of these and other factors, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation requested the Office of Technology Assessment to undertake a study ofthe transportation of hazardous materials. The study results will be presented in two docu-ments. This special report, Transportation of Hazardous Materials: State and Local Activi-ties, is the first of the two. It summarizes Federal programs and identifies three major areasof State and local government concern: prevention and enforcement activities, emergencyresponse and training, and planning and data gathering. The report outlines related issues,describes methods by which jurisdictions are responding to them, and documents the con-cerns that the Federal Government could address. The second document will be submittedto Congress in mid-1986.

Director

Ill

Assessment of Transportation of Hazardous Materials Advisory Panel

John W. Barnum, Panel ChairmanWhite & Case, Washington, DC

Garnet BernhardtColerain TownshipCincinnati, OH

Keith J. BuntingManagerDistribution, Government, and Public AffairsDow Chemical Co.Midland, MI

Robert A. ChristmanDirectorCustomer and Distribution ServiceMobay Chemical Corp.Pittsburgh, PA

John CooperManager of Waste and TransportationIllinois Department of Nuclear SafetySpringfield, IL

Richard E. Cunningham*DirectorFuel Cycle and Material Safety DivisionNuclear Regulatory CommissionSilver Spring, MD

Ed Dietz**Manager of Barge TransportationUnion Carbide Corp.Charleston, WV

Edward S. FordSenatorGeneral AssemblyCommonwealth of KentuckyLexington, KY

Roger KaspersonCenter for Technology,

Environment and DevelopmentClark UniversityWorcester, MA

Kevin KenzenkovicCity ManagerSlater, MO

*pro forma.**Retired December 1995.

iv

Charles N. LovinskiCorporate Manager for Restricted ArticlesFederal ExpressMemphis, TN

Charles H. MayerVice PresidentNuclear and Hazardous Materials DivisionTri-State Motor Transit Co.Joplin, MO

Warren OwenExecutive Vice PresidentDuke Power Co.Charlotte, NC

Paul Remick, Jr.Distribution AdvisorExxon USAHouston, TX

Cathy ReynoldsCouncilwoman-at-LargeCity CouncilDenver, CO

Alan I. Roberts*DirectorOffice of HazardousU.S. Department ofWashington, DC

Materials TransportationTransportation

Raymond D. ScanlonEconomic Development DepartmentThe Port Authority of New York and

New JerseyNew York, NY

William R. TeerVice PresidentTransnuclear, Inc.White Plains, NY

A.D. WilliamsDirector of Energy and Environmental

Programs PlanningUnion Pacific RailroadOmaha, NE

Transportation of Hazardous Materials: State and Local ActivitiesOTA Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTAScience, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Nancy Carson Naismith, Science, Education, and Transportation Program Manager

Edith B. Page, Project Director

R. James Arenz, Senior Analyst

Eric Butler, Analyst

Ann Carroll, Research Assistant

Francine Rudoff, Analyst

Lucia Turnbull, Analyst

Marsha Fenn, Administrative Assistant

Gala Adams, Clerical Assistant

Christopher Clary, Secretary

Betty Jo Tatum, Secretary

Contractors

Julia Connally Nina Graybill

State and Local Workshop: May 30, 1985

Robert Robison, Workshop ChairmanRadioactive Materials Emergency Coordinator

State of Oregon, Salem, OR

John C. AllenPrincipal Laboratory ScientistBattelle Columbus LaboratoriesColumbus, OH

Peter E. BakerHazardous Materials Transportation UnitNew Jersey State PoliceWest Trenton, NJ

Stanley BrandManager of Hazardous Materials and Operator

for Emergency ResponseMonsanto Co.St. Louis, MO

Juanita CrabbMayorBinghamton, NY

L. Joe DealActing DirectorRadiological Assistance Controls DivisionOffice of Nuclear SafetyU.S. Department ofGermantown, MD

Warren E. IsmanChiefFairfax County FireFairfax, VA

William Keffer

Energy

and Rescue Department

Chief, Emergency Planning and ResponseBranch

Region VII Environmental Protection AgencyKansas City, KS

George KramerHazardous Materials InstructorTennessee Emergency Management AgencyNashville, TN

Richard P. LandisAssociate Administrator for Motor CarriersFederal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of TransportationWashington, DC

Donald LewisRail and Motor Carrier Training OfficerWashington Utilities and Transportation

CommissionOlympia, WA

Paul Melander, Jr.Manager of Transportation InvestigationTennessee Public Service CommissionNashville, TN

Fred MillarDirectorNuclear and Hazardous Materials

Transportation ProjectEnvironmental Policy InstituteWashington, DC

William H. NalleyChiefFederal, State and Private Sector InitiativesResearch and Special Programs AdministrationOffice of Hazardous Materials TransportationU.S. Department of TransportationWashington, DC

Richard O’BoyleSafety DirectorQuality Carriers, Inc.Bristol, Wisconsin OfficePleasant Prairie, WI

Susan PeresEmergency Management SpecialistTechnology Hazards DivisionFederal Emergency Management AdministrationWashington, DC

Robert PhilpotTransportation Program Branch ChiefU.S. Department of EnergyWashington, DC

Kenneth L. PiersonDirectorBureau of Motor Carrier SafetyFederal Highway AdministrationWashington, DC

vi

Dennis L. PriceDirectorSafety Projects OfficeVirginia Polytechnic InstituteBlacksburg, VA

Vallary SandstromActing ChiefPrograms Liaison BranchResearch and Special Programs AdministrationOffice of Hazardous Materials TransportationU.S. Department of TransportationWashington, DC

Bruce SmithAssistant ChiefColerain Township Fire DepartmentCincinnati, OH

Charles WrightTraining OfficerUnion Pacific RailroadOmaha, NE

Contributors

Paula Alford, National Association of Towns and TownshipsFrederic E. Allen, Allen Enterprises, Inc.Louis J. Amabili, Delaware State Fire SchoolNancy J. Brown, Kansas House of RepresentativesThomas S. Carter, Jr., The Kansas City Southern Railway Co.Sherwood Chu, U.S. Department of TransportationJames M. Davis, Jr., Carolina Power & Light Co.Richard M. Doyle, Chemical Manufacturers AssociationMax Eisenberg, Maryland Department of HealthJoseph Fulnecky, Federal Highway AdministrationJohn F. Grimm, Quality Carriers, Inc.Clifford J. Harvison, National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.Mary Sherwood Holt, Newport News, VAWarren E. Isman, Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department, Fairfax, VAWill Johns, American Trucking Associations, Inc.William Keffer, Region VII, Environmental Protection AgencyGenevieve Laffly, American Petroleum InstituteClark Martin, American Trucking Associations, Inc.Terry Novak, City of Spokane, WAEdward D. Olmo, Shell Oil Co.Barbara Sonnonberg, Memphis City CouncilRobert D. Vessey, American Red CrossGene T. West, Consolidated Freightways, Inc.

vii

ContentsChapter Page1.

2.

3.

Introduction and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Hazardous Materials Transportation . . . . . . . . . . 3Government and Industry Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Federal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Organization and Scope of Report . . . . . . . . . . . 8General Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Prevention and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Planning and Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Prevention and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . 1 3Federal Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13State Enforcement and Inspection

Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Evolution of State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16State Hazardous Materials

Enforcement Development Program . . . . . . . 17Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program . . . 17Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance . . . . . . . . 20

Current State Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Adopting Legislation and Regulations . . . . . . 20Data and Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . 21Inspection and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Training Inspectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Case Studies: State Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

State and Local Accident PreventionActivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Preemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Licensing, Registration, and Permits . . . . . . . . 28Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Emergency Response and Training . . . . . 3 9Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Federal Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40State and Local Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Industry Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Existing Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Training Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Training Content and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Planning and Organizing forEmergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Operational Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Public Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Protective Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Chapter Page4. Information Gathering for State and

Local Hazardous Materials Planning . . . 5 5Data Collection Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Federal Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56State and Local Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Fixed Facilities Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Local and Regional Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Coordinated Use of Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . 58State Inventory Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Community Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Right-to-Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Transportation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Truck Studies–Local/Regional . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Truck Studies—State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Rail Studies-Local/Regional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Rail Studies–State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Air Transportation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Water Transportation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Federal Data on Shipment of Radioactive

Materials and Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Notification Laws as Tools for Data Gathering 66

Hazards Assessment Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 68Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Appendix A—State Authority for HazardousMaterials Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Appendix B—Hazardous MaterialsTraining Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Appendix C—Information Resources . . . . . 85

Appendix D—Acronyms andAbbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...87

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Tables

Table No. Page1-1.

1-2.

2-1.

2-2.

2-3.

3-1<

3-2.4-1.4-2.

Incidents Involving Transport ofHazardous Materials, 1973-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Hazardous Materials Assistance CommonlyAvailable From State and Local Agencies . . . 7Federal Activities in HazardousMaterials Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Hazardous Materials TransportationInspectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15States With Proposed or Existing HazardousWastes Transportation Fee or RegistrationRequirements, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Jurisdictional Analysis of AgencyResponsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Frequently Used Training Sources, 1985. . . . . 46State Right-to-Know Laws, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Commodities Covered byNotification Requirements, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

ix

Figures

Figure No. Page2-1. States Participating in the State Hazardous 2-3. States With Hazardous Materials Notification

Materials Enforcement Development Program 18 Requirements by Type of Material, 1985 . . . . 322-2. States Participating in the Motor Carrier

Safety Assistance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 1

Introduction and Findings

Chapter 1

Introduction and Findings

Each year, more than 4 billion tons of hazardousproducts and waste are transported throughout theUnited States.* The safe handling and carriage ofthese materials—which include explosives, flam-mables, corrosive or toxic chemicals, poisons, spentreactor fuel and low-level waste, and disease-causingbiological agents–are of major concern to Federal,State, and local agencies charged with public safetyand to the industries that produce, ship, and usehazardous materials.**

The safe and efficient transport of hazardous ma-terials depends on three principal activities: accidentprevention (including regulation and enforcement),emergency response when accidents occur, and re-search and planning. While emergency response ac-tivities arouse the most intense public interest, allthree activities are interdependent and necessary.Maintaining transport safety and efficiency is tech-nologically demanding—a task made complex by thevariety and volume of materials transported and bythe interlocking responsibilities of Federal, State, and

*This estimate includes hazardous materials carried in pipelines.**Hazardous materials are substances or matter transported in

commerce that pose risks to human safety, property, and the environ-ment if accidentally released. Hazardous materials transported by pipe-line or generated or used in military or other defense-related activitiesare similar in nature and pose similar risks but are excluded from thisdiscussion.

local governments and the multitude of private firmsinvolved.***

Historically, the Federal Government has takena lead role in regulation of hazardous materials trans-portation and safety enforcement. State and localgovernments, however, are assuming greater respon-sibilities in this area, prompted by a growing aware-ness of the dangers posed by hazardous materialstransportation and recognition that emergency re-sponse—at least initially—almost always falls toState and local agencies. The Senate Committee onCommerce, Science, and Transportation, mindfulof heightened public concern about chemical spillsand accidents involving radioactive materials andtoxic substances, requested that the Office of Tech-nology Assessment (OTA) undertake a study of haz-ardous materials transportation. The study, directedspecifically at the issues of container technology, ac-cident data collection and recordkeeping, and train-ing programs for personnel involved in hazardousmaterials transportation or in emergency responseto hazardous materials accidents, will be completedin early 1986. This review of State and local activi-ties provides background information for analysisof the issues to be addressed in the larger study.

***This document summarizes Federal programs and identifies Stateand local concerns. The OTA Final Report will examine in detail Fed-eral regulations and technical programs and assess the extent to whichthey meet the needs identified in this report.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION

Statistics gathered by the Office of Hazardous Ma-terials Transportation (OHMT)* of the U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation (DOT) indicate that thereare more than 180 million shipments of hazardousmaterials in the United States each year. The vari-ety of these substances is enormous and growing.Currently, more than 2,400 substances are listed inthe Federal Code of Regulations as hazardous com-modities; many of the more than 70,000 chemical

*Until Nov. 1, 1985, OHMT was called the Materials Transporta-tion Bureau (MTB); OHMT is a part of the DOT’s Research and Spe-cial Programs Administration.

products on the market today have not been re-viewed for inclusion. 1

Chemical products are but one kind of hazard-ous material. There are also biological products,fuels, petroleum products, explosives, acids, fer-tilizers, gaseous substances, and various forms of in-dustrial waste. Radioactive substances are anothermajor form of hazardous materials. More than20,000 medical and academic institutions, labora-tories, government agencies, industrial enterprises,

‘See 49 CFR 172.101.

3

4

and utilities operating nuclear powerplants gener-ate low-level radioactive waste, amounting to an an-nual volume of 77,000 cubic meters and contain-ing 500,000 curies of radioactive material.2 A recentstudy by the Department of Energy (DOE) projectsthat this volume could double by 1990.3 These fig-ures do not include the high-level radioactive wastenow shipped by utilities, the Department of Defense(DOD), and DOE. They also do not include the in-creased high-level radioactive commercial waste thatwill be shipped in the late 1990s once Federal stor-age facilities have been established or the low-levelwaste that will be generated as present nuclear re-actors are decommissioned and dismantled. Accord-ing to a recent estimate, the remains from decom-missioning a single large reactor would fill well over1,000 trucks, equaling one-quarter of all the low-level nuclear waste now generated yearly in theUnited States.4

All of these hazardous materials move by land,sea, and air modes of transportation at a rate ofabout 500,000 shipments per day. Truck transportaccounts for about half of all hazardous materialsshipments. The types of vehicles carrying hazard-ous materials on the Nation’s highways range fromtank trucks, bulk cargo carriers, and other speciallydesigned mobile containers to conventional tractor-trailers and flat beds that carry packages, cylinders,drums, and other small containers. Rail shipments(equaling about 80 million tons a year) are com-monly bulk commodities, such as liquid or gaseouschemicals and fuels, carried in tank cars. Most haz-ardous materials transported by barge on inlandwaterways are also bulk cargo. The Corps of Engi-neers estimates that the total inland waterborne vol-ume is approximately 60 million tons a year. Coastaland inland waterborne volumes, combined, reach550 million tons annually. DOT estimates that

‘Under the present classification system, low-level waste includes drytrash; used equipment; and solidified and absorbed liquids, gases, andsludges. Items range from spent resins from ion-exchange processes,filter materials, lubricating oils, and contaminated tools, clothing, andpackaging (all of which have relatively low levels of radioactivity); tosealed sources such as Cobalt 60 for radiation treatments; to irradi-ated reactor components such as in-core instrumentation and controlrods (which typically have higher levels of radioactivity). Taylor Moore,“The Great State of Uncertainty in Low-Level Waste Disposal,” TheElectric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Journal, March 1985, p. 24.

~U.S. Department of Energy, Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste: in-ventories, f’ro~ecrions and Characteristics, DOE/RW-0006 (Washing-ton, DC: September 1984).

+Steve Olson, “Nuclear Undertakers,” Science 84, VO1. 5, No. 7, Sep-

tember 1984, p. 57.

about 600,000 vehicles and vessels are regularly usedto transport hazardous materials in bulk, and700,000 carry portable containers. The transport ofhazardous materials by air (either in all-cargo air-craft or in belly compartments of passenger aircraft)is insignificant in tonnage—an estimated 175,000tons annually—but constitutes a high number ofshipments, A 1980 Federal Aviation Administrationstudy found that roughly 5 percent of air cargo at39 major airports (amounting to 300,000 packages)contained hazardous materials, typically rather smallparcels of high-value or time-critical material.

The safety record of hazardous materials carriers,as reported to the Office of Hazardous MaterialsTransportation, is summarized in table 1--1. For theperiod 1973-83, there was an annual average of11,462 reported incidents—a rate of 1.25 incidentsper 10,000 shipments.* Most of these were accidentalreleases during handling and loading and not vehi-cle accidents en route. The reported deaths and in-juries caused by exposure to hazardous materials aresimilarly low, equaling about two fatalities per 1,000incidents, a result both of the regulations govern-ing hazardous materials transportation and the de-gree of care exercised by shippers, carriers, and othersinvolved in accident prevention and response.** The

*These figures are for Incidents reported to OHMT. Some expertsestimate there may be as many as three to four times as many inci-dents that are unreported.

* * In recent \,ears, there has been an annual average of 24 deathsand 663 Injuries in hazardous materials accidents reported to DOT,Even taking into account evidence of incomplete data, to be addressedin OTA’S Final Report, the death and injurv toll in automobile acci-dents in the same period was 2,000 times greater.

Table 1-1 .—Incidents Involving Transport of HazardousMaterials, 1973-83 (as reported to DOT)

Annual average

Damagesa

Mode Incidents Deaths Injuries (millions of dollars)

Highway 10,289 19.3 419.2 $8.15R a i lb 975 4,0 221,8 4,67Water ... . . 26 0 3.3 0.07A i r 150 0.4 9.0 0.43Freight forwarder 2 0 1.9

0.01Other 20 0 7.8

Total. ,.. 11,462 23.7 663.0 $13.33aprope~y damage estimates reported to MTB within 15 days after an accident.%he rail safety record improved during the period because of an increase in the

number of Federal rail inspectors and equipment Improvements during the early19BOS.

CLe8S than $().()1 milllon.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation Bureau,Annual Report on Hazardous Materials Transportation, Calendar Year1983

5

true costs of hazardous materials accidents are dif-ficult to determine. A large number of incidents arenot reported to OHMT, and the costs of those thatare appear to be greatly underestimated. Interstatecarriers are required to report any spill except thoseof certain consumer goods and paints and batteriesto DOT within 15 days, usually long before full costsare known. Typically, carriers report only their di-rect costs. The annual damage cost for incidents re-ported to OHMT from 1973 to 1983 was $13 mil-lion. This figure is undoubtedly too low, perhapsby a factor of as much as 10,5 if all costs associatedwith hazardous materials accidents are considered,including long-term cleanup costs.

5An OTA contractor studying accident report data has found thatDOT damage reports are consistently low. For example, the NationalTransportation Safety Board (NTSB) hsted damages of $597,000 fora February 1978 rail accident; the DOT report of the accident listeddamages of $11,000. For a May 1983 rail hazardous materials accident,

Still, it is the risk of death and injury that causesthe deepest concern. Hazardous materials accidentsare often spectacular, although loss of life is rela-tively rare. No State or local official can erase thememory of an overturned load of explosives ortanker of chemicals in an area for which he or sheis responsible. These experiences and the almostweekly news reports of a hazardous materials spillsomewhere in the Nation, more than the official sta-tistical record, drive the demand for strong enforce-ment of safety rules and improved emergency re-sponse capabilities.

NTSB records showed $570,000 damages; DOT records did not showthe accident at all.

Mark Abkowitz and George F. List, “Hazardous Materials Trans-portation: Commodity Flow and Information Systems,” report preparedfor U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, December 1985.

Photo credit: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT

The remains of a truck that had been carrying chemicals, after an accident.

6

GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY ROLES

Federal

The Federal Government has four roles with re-gard to hazardous materials transportation: regula-tion, enforcement, emergency response and plan-ning, and data collection. Responsibility for thesefunctions is distributed among numerous depart-ments and agencies. The departments and agenciesoperate under a complex set of agreements and co-ordination procedures, with no single agency hav-ing sole responsibility or authority over all aspectsof hazardous materials production, shipment prep-aration, and transportation. In some instances, juris-dictions overlap. In others, responsibility is assigneddepending on the type of material involved, themode of transport, or the nature of Federal regu-lation.

DOT is the designated lead agency for establish-ment and enforcement of regulations regarding safetransportation of hazardous materials. The DOT Re-search and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)has authority to issue regulations on most aspectsof hazardous materials transportation containers.It must coordinate with the modal administrations,the Federal Highway Administration, the FederalRailroad Administration, the Federal AviationAdministration, the National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard,which have authority over the vehicles or vesselsthemselves. This intra-agency fragmentation not-withstanding, DOT as an agency is responsible foridentification of hazardous materials, regulation ofhazardous materials containers, handling and ship-ments, development of standards and testing pro-cedures, inspection and enforcement, and data col-lection.

Another group of agencies–DOE, DOD, the Nu-clear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the En-vironmental Protection Agency (EPA)—has juris-diction over other aspects of hazardous materialstransportation. DOE is largely concerned with fuels;DOD, with materials used for military purposes.NRC has jurisdiction over high-level radioactivesubstances in the civil sector, while EPA has respon-sibilities for chemicals and hazardous nonnuclearwastes. These agencies also undertake training activ-ities and safety awareness programs, and providetechnical support for State and local governments.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency isresponsible for coordinating Federal assistance, plan-ning, and training activities for emergency responsewith State and local governments. The Departmentsof Justice and Labor also have designated responsi-bilities and areas of interest.

The data collection function similarly is spreadamong several Federal agencies. The various data-bases maintained by those agencies record accidentsand spills and monitor compliance and sometimescarrier performance. OHMT is the principal agencycollecting data on hazardous materials transporta-tion spills, but every other Federal entity keeps rec-ords pertaining to its area of interest. There is nocentral clearinghouse to collect and analyze hazard-ous materials transportation information.

State

The States mirror Federal functions and respon-sibilities to a degree, but the structure is by no meansuniform or even comparable from State to State.Some States have extensive programs of regulation,enforcement, emergency planning, and training. Inothers, programs are still in a formative stage. Thefunctions and activities listed in table 1-2 indicatethe range and nature of State involvement, not thesituation in every State. State programs, like theirFederal counterparts, are characterized by a multi-plicity and diversity of activities and areas of juris-diction, complicated in many instances by differ-ences between Federal and State agencies as todefinitions of hazardous materials, regulatory re-quirements, transportation restrictions, and strin-gency of enforcement.

Regulatory activities are a major feature of manyState programs. State regulations may require licens-ing or registration of hazardous materials trans-porters, imposition of fees and taxes (often as an ex-tension of the licensing function), prenotification,and routing restrictions. States also maintain inspec-tion and enforcement programs and may requirespecial safety procedures.

Other important State functions are planning andtraining for emergency preparedness and response.Training is conducted in cooperation with local

7

Table 1.2.—Hazardous Materials AssistanceCommonly Available From State and Local Agencies

State:Civil Defense: Communications, coordination, evacuation,

radiological monitoring.State Police: Traffic control, communications, evacuation.Environmental: Chemists, environmental scientist meteorol-

ogists, lab services, some equipment, knowledge of con-tractors.

Public Work Construction equipment and operators.Public Health: Health specialists.Agriculture: Pesticide and/or fertilizer experts.Fire Marsha/ or Fire Academy: Fire suppression advice.

Local:Fire Department: Trained firefighters and specialized equip-

ment for: 1) suppressing fires, 2) rescuing injured or trappedpersons and 3) dealing with select hazardous materials.

Public Works: Equipment and personnel to contain spills bydigging trenches or constructing dikes. Can usually pro-vide sand—an excellent sorbent for spilled hazardousmaterials.

Police: Communications equipment and traffic/crime controlat scene of spill.

Civil Defense: Equipment for monitoring radioactivity. Willusually coordinate the response of various agencies.

Public Health Agency.’ Advice on the chemical properties ofthe materials and human health effects.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special ProgramsAdministrator, Community Teamwork: Working Together to PromoteHazardous Materials Transportation Safety.’ A Guide for Local Officials,May 1983, p. 58.

agencies and often with some technical assistanceand financial support from the Federal Governmentand industry. Since States are also responsible foremergency programs, civil defense, police, fire, envi-ronmental, and public works agencies may all playroles in State hazardous materials activities, mak-ing program coordination difficult. In rural areas andsmall towns, State agencies may constitute the firstresponse team. * In metropolitan areas, local gov-ernments usually assume this function.

Local

Diversity of function and concern also exists atthe regional and local levels of government. Somemajor cities and metropolitan areas exercise regu-latory, inspection, enforcement, and licensing func-tions akin to those of Federal and State agencies.Many have undertaken emergency planning andtraining activities, either on their own or with assis-tance from Federal and State hazardous materialsoffices. The most important and most nearly uni-

*First responders are those agencies, such as pollee or fire, that arecalled initially when an accident involving hazardous materials occurs.They may be followed by State and local health authorities and envi-ronmental cleanup crews.

versal local function, however, is emergency re-sponse.

Almost 75 percent of the U.S. population livesin metropolitan areas, where the majority of haz-ardous materials are produced, transported, andused. Local fire and police departments constitutethe first line of response in the event of a hazard-ous materials accident, and local hospitals andhealth officials bear the brunt of treating accidentvictims. Local resources are also the first used to pre-vent the spread of contamination or to evacuate thearea around an accident site.

The diversity of local functions is equaled by awide range of capabilities. Some locales have well-developed emergency plans, adequately trained andequipped response teams, and sufficient resourcesfor hazardous materials containment and cleanup.Others, particularly small urban and rural jurisdic-tions, must rely on local fire and police departmentsthat most often have little or no training or experi-ence in dealing with hazardous materials.

Industry

An important adjunct to Federal, State, and lo-cal government resources are the safety-related pro-grams and capabilities of the industries that produceand transport hazardous materials. Some of themore than 50 national industry associations aremade up of hazardous materials producers and users—e.g., the Chemical Manufacturers Association, theNational Agricultural Chemicals Association, andthe American Petroleum Institute. Others are trans-portation associations such as the American Truck-ing Associations, the American Waterways Opera-tors, the Association of American Railroads, andthe Air Transport Association.

Industr y programs provide employee, client, andcontractor training in the handling and transportof hazardous materials and in emergency response.Some industries maintain special response teams toaid State and local authorities at an accident site;others offer funding for training and equipping Stateand local first response teams. Industry associationsand individual firms also contribute to State andlocal planning, prevention, and education efforts,either by underwriting part of the cost of such pro-grams or by providing technical support, Voluntarystandard setting in support of hazardous materialssafety varies widely from company to company.

8

ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF REPORT

This special report, which documents findings per-taining to State and local activities, is the outgrowthof an OTA workshop held on May 30, 1985, anda series of meetings between OTA and government,industry, and academic experts on hazardous ma-terials. The workshop examined the results of OTA’sinitial research and literature review of State andlocal capabilities and activities in the areas of acci-dent prevention and emergency response. The com-ments of workshop participants, supplemented byfollow-up interviews and analysis of key points byOTA staff and an extensive review process, formthe basis for the material and findings presentedhere.

Concerns of State and local governments aboutthe transportation of hazardous materials focus onaccident prevention and enforcement, emergencyresponse, and collection of information to supportplanning for emergency preparedness. OTA foundthat while a hazardous materials accident in anymode of transportation will involve State and localpublic safety officers, highway and rail hazardousmaterials accidents tend to concern public officialsthe most. No other public organization, such as aport authority or the Coast Guard, is likely to beavailable to provide immediate assistance to Stateand local public safety personnel for either truck orrail accidents.

GENERAL

Financial assistance for enforcement and re-sponse training and planning activities is neededby many localities. Potential sources of funds in-clude Federal, State, or local assistance, cooperativeprograms with industry, and registration or user fees.

Movements of gasoline and petroleum products,by far the most frequently transported hazardousmaterials, * account for more hazardous materialstransportation accidents, injuries, and damagethan transport of any of the other classified com-modities. State and local enforcement, emergencyresponse, and planning personnel should focus onthis problem in cooperation with industry repre-sentatives. Attention should be given to develop-ing additional safety measures and programs to pro-

*According to data provided by the American Petroleum Associa-tion and OTA calculations, these products comprise about 50 percentof total hazardous materials movements.

This report will emphasize truck transportationbecause it is of greatest concern to State and localofficials. Trucks carry more hazardous materials thanany other mode of transportation, and there aremany more trucks than other vehicles or vessels car-rying hazardous materials. Finally, trucks travel onpublic rights of way through every jurisdiction, min-gling with other traffic and thus increasing spill andaccident risks.

Three subjects are addressed in the chapters thatfollow:

● State prevention and enforcement programs;. emergency response training, planning, and im-

plementation; and. information collection for State and local

planning.

General findings are presented below. Detailedfindings and supporting material are contained ineach chapter. It should be noted that the findingspresented in this special report will be consideredin the context of Federal programs and other re-sources in a second OTA report to Congress, Trans-portation of Hazardousport will include policyby Congress in 1986.

Materials. The second re-options for consideration

FINDINGS

mote better awareness. . and training of drivers,handlers, and enforcement personnel. Generally,emergency response personnel are already trainedto handle gasoline incidents.

State and local enforcement and emergencyresponse personnel are dissatisfied with the in-formation accompanying hazardous materialsshipments. Placarding requirements should moreaccurately reflect the degree of hazard of the ma-terial, and shipping papers should include moreinformation on the nature of the hazard posed andaccident mitigation techniques.

Prevention and Enforcement

National standards establishing uniform Statehazardous materials requirements and regulationswould simplify and improve compliance by ship-pers, carriers, and State and local enforcement

9

activities. State, regional, and local agency con-cerns as well as those of industry should be con-sidered in formulating standards. The areas whereuniformity is most needed are:

Licensing to ensure that drivers and othershandling hazardous materials are qualified andhave been properly trained. Some form of a na-tional truck driver’s license is favored by many

State, local, and industry officials.Permit or registration requirements to obtaininformation and collect fees in a coordinatedmanner that does not unduly burden trans-porters and ensures that money collected is usedto meet related needs.Shipment notification systems that provideuseful information for localities without undulyburdening carriers.

Penalties for regulatory violations, includingfailure to report hazardous materials incidents,should be consistent across governmental andjurisdictional levels and sufficiently large to dis-courage future infractions. An effective enforce-ment program requires that legislatures, enforcementagencies, and courts be aware of the death, injury,property damage, and environmental harm thatcould result from accidental release of hazardous ma-terials and set penalties accordingly.

State and local enforcement personnel needadditional training and current information onhazardous materials regulations for all modes oftransportation. Methods used by the Federal Gov-ernment to deliver this information to State and lo-cal officials need to be improved and strengthened.Programs to educate shippers and carriers on safety

measures and regulatory compliance need strength-ening as well.

Emergency Response

An effective way to deliver hazardous materi-als training to first responders is the most press-ing national need in emergency response. M a n ydifferent and successful training programs exist, butthey are not reaching sufficient numbers of firstresponders, especially in the smaller urban and ru-ral areas. Moreover, some training programs are sim-ply inadequate.

Main t a in ing ex i s t i ng r e sponse p rog ramsthrough refresher training and training of newpersonnel to fill vacancies created by turnoversin response teams is financially difficult for mostjurisdictions.

National guidelines for different levels of train-ing and national certification standards for re-spenders are needed. Advanced hazardous mate-rials training is appropriate for personnel in largejurisdictions, along major transportation corridors,or in States with heavy concentrations of hazard-ous materials industries. The numerous existingtraining programs need to be systematically exam-ined and evaluated.

National equipment guidelines for emergencyresponse are needed to assist response organiza-tions in equipment selection.

When formulating hazardous materials emer-gency response plans, communities should con-sider formal, written mutual aid agreements withregional and adjacent local jurisdictions and GoodSamaritan laws to protect first responders fromliability when they respond to incidents for whichthey are not responsible.

Planning and Data Collection

Improved data on hazardous materials storageand commodity flow is needed by State and localgovernments for analyzing accident preventiontechniques such as routing and planning for emer-gency response. Federal databases pertaining tocommodity flow are kept by a wide variety of Fed-eral agencies, but the agencies do not use the samecommodity identification codes, and the databasesare not interactive. The data are not useful to Stateand local governments, some of which have under-taken data collection on their own. Data collectionefforts would be improved by coordinating existing

Federal data resources and providing State and lo-cal access to them. National guidelines on hazardassessment data collection for local governmentwould also be valuable, In the absence of nationallegislation, right-to-know laws should be consideredby jurisdictions. Such laws are an important aid ingathering information on the identities and associ-ated hazards of the chemicals most likely to be en-countered.

10

A reliable, comprehensive Federal accident rec-ord system is essential. Current Federal efforts aretoo fragmented to be useful to State and local agen-cies, or to carriers, which could use the findings todevelop or modify their own safety programs. Ex-isting Federal databases that record data on acci-dents, violations, and shippers and carriers that donot comply with regulations would be more usefulif they were interactive and were made accessibleto State enforcement personnel. The SAFETYNETProgram, being developed by the Federal HighwayAdministration, and the National Driver’s LicenseRegistry, being developed by the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration, should help, but theirfull implementation is at least a decade away.

A more clearly defined and smoothly function-ing Federal authority for hazardous materialstransportation is needed. The current designationof DOT as lead agency and RSPA as lead groupwithin DOT has not resulted in clear lines of au-thority or intermodal coordination for transport-ing hazardous and radioactive commodities andwastes. While a number of federally sponsored activ-

ities have made important contributions to the de-velopment of municipal and State programs, the ab-sence of effective Federal program coordinationmeans that jurisdictions have difficulty gaining ac-cess to available information, planning, and finan-cial resources.

The lack of interagency coordination at the Fed-eral level is often replicated at the State level,compounding the difficulties of regional and lo-cal jurisdictions.

Up-to-date technical information is needed forplanning emergency response. Current toxicolog-ical, chemical, and health data should be compiled,updated regularly, and made accessible to plannersand responders.

State and local officials are concerned aboutshipments of chemical weapons and explosives orradioactive materials by DOD and DOE. Whilethese officials understand the need for secrecy aboutsuch shipments, they seek guarantees that Federalenforcement will be stronger and when an accidentoccurs, emergency response efforts will be adequate.

Chapter 2


Chapter 2


Federal, State, and local governments share re-sponsibilit y for the safe transport of hazardous ma-terials and the prevention and control of accidentsinvolving hazardous materials. The preeminent au-thority is the Federal Government, which issues reg-ulations and sets standards governing identificationand classification of hazardous materials, the designand performance of containers and equipment, andprocedures for handling and transporting hazard-ous materials. Federal regulations also prescribedocumentation of hazardous materials shipmentsand specify requirements for labels and placards.State prevention programs concentrate on inspec-tion and enforcement within the framework of Fed-eral regulations, although some States also issue reg-ulations intended to supplement or strengthenFederal requirements, principally with respect totruck routing and notification of hazardous mate-rials shipments. Local agencies are primarily con-cerned with emergency response, but they also playa role in prevention and enforcement by placing re-strictions on routes and hours of hazardous mate-rials transport and by requiring registration and per-mits for hazardous materials shippers and carriersoperating within their jurisdictions.

In recent years, largely as a result of programs ini-tiated and funded by the Department of Transpor-tation (DOT), many States and local agencies haveadded to their regulatory authority and strength-ened administrative, enforcement, and inspectionprocedures. They have also established or improvedprograms to train highway enforcement officers andto educate shippers and carriers about compliancewith hazardous materials regulations.


An accident waiting to happen—inadequate brakerepair discovered during truck inspection.

This chapter reviews State and local preventionand enforcement programs that have evolved overthe past 15 years and examines current State andlocal activities. It also discusses Federal agencies andpolicies affecting the capability and performance ofState and local agencies. The principal sources ofinformation for this chapter are reports filed by

States participating in federally funded preventionand enforcement activities, proceedings of recentState and regional conferences on hazardous mate-rials transportation, interviews with officials of Fed-eral and State agencies, and an OTA workshop.

FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIESThe Federal Government has broad and diverse forcement (see table 2-l). The activities of DOT and

authorit y over hazardous materials transportation. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are ofThis authority is distributed among 12 different Fed- chief interest here since, to a large extent, they de-eral agencies with regulatory or administrative re- termine the context in which State and local agen-sponsibility for some aspect of prevention and en- cies operate.

13

14

Table 2-1 .-Federal Activities in Hazardous Materials Transportation

Regulation of:

Hazardous Vehicles Emergency

materials Containers and vessels Drivers Planning Recordkeeping Inspection Enforcement Training response

DOT . . . . . ~ xO H M T . . x x . . . . x x xFHWA.

Xa x . x x x .’”’” : :BMCS . . X x“ ” ~

N H T S A x . . ,F R A . , . . Xa x ”. .“.. x x x F A A , . . . Xa x x x x .USCG x Xa x x x x x x

FEMA. . , x x xEPA : X x x’” x x X b

N R C x x x x xc

D O E X d

x : x“ ‘x x x xc

D O D X d . . x x x x tThlscategory includes hazardous substances, hazardous wasteland radioactive materials, and the tools for communication of thasehazards suchas shipping papers, placarding, andmarklngaPackage/container design.bEPAresponds loaccidents inv~fving there~a~of products regu~fed under the c~pr8h~~veEn~ronm8ntal R~pon~,coinpert~flon, and Liabflify Act(WfCLA) and oil sptilsincoast aland OCean WaIer

c~pends on the typeof radioactive material< severify of the accident, and the adequacy Of State and local r~Ponse Pr09ramsdlnwW$ofna~onal ~cu~ty, DrJDand DoEarenotrequired tocomplyw~fl DOTregulations provided they foffow standards affordng r3rJUalf3rOkCfiOII

KEY: DOT–Oeparfment of Transporfafion, OHMT–Office of Hazardous Materials Transporfafion, FHWA–Federal Highway Admmistraton, BMCS–Bureau ofMotor Caroler Safety, NHTSA-Nahonal H!gh-way Traffic Safety Administration; FRA–Federal Railroad Admimstration; FAA-Federal Awation Admmistration, USCG–United States Coast Guard; EPA–Environmental ProtectIon Agency. NRC–Nuciear Regulatory Commission DOE–Department of Energy; DOD–Department of Oefense

SOURCE’ Office of Technology Assessment

Regulation of hazardous materials transportationby DOT is vested in five agencies: the Office of Haz-ardous Materials Transportation (OHMT), of theResearch and Special Programs Administration,which is responsible for promulgating and enforc-ing regulations and coordinating the hazardousmaterials activities of DOT, and the four modal ad-ministrations charged with inspection and enforce-ment of hazardous materials transport by highway,rail, air, and water.

OHMT has general authority over all hazardousmaterials transportation regulation, except bulkshipment by ship or barge, which has been delegatedto the U.S. Coast Guard. OHMT issues regulationsdesignating and classifying hazardous materials,prescribing safety standards for containers, estab-lishing requirements for labels and placards, andspecifying handling, stowing, and other in-transitrequirements for hazardous materials.1 Another ma-jor OHMT activity has been administration of theState Hazardous Materials Enforcement Develop-ment Program, a cooperative program to strengthenState regulatory enforcement capabilities.

IR%u]a(ionS covering classification, shipping, packaging, and Placard-

ing of hazardous materials are contained in 49 CFR 171-177. Specialrouting requirements for hazardous materials, pursuant to the Hazard-ous Materials Transportation Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1811) havealso been issued. OHMT also acts as DOT’s liaison with the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA regulations for transporters ofhazardous waste, issued under the authorit y of the Resource Conser-vation and Recovery Act, have been adopted by OHMT.

The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) with-in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) isresponsible for inspection and enforcement activi-ties in highway transportation of hazardous mate-rials and at depots and transshipment points. z

BMCS, under its general authority to set motor car-rier safety standards, also regulates vehicles used intransporting hazardous materials.3 In addition, BMCSadministers the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Pro-gram, which provides some financial assistance toStates for enforcement of regulations governing haz-ardous materials transportation on public roads. *

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) en-forces regulations pertaining to hazardous materi-als carried by rail or held in depots and freightyards. 4 The Federal Aviation Administration hasauthority over shipments of hazardous materials ondomestic and foreign carriers operating at U.S. air-ports and in airport cargo-handling areas.5 TheCoast Guard carries out inspection and enforcementactivities in port areas and on domestic and foreignships and barges operating in the navigable watersof the United States. b Responsibility for inspection

249 CFR 177 and 49 CFR 1.48.349 CFR 350-399.*MCSAP was created under the 1982 Surface Transportation Assis-

tance Act (Public Law 97-424).4 49 CFR 174 a n d 4 9 C F R 1.46.549 CFR 175,649 CFR 176 and 49 CFR 1.46.

15

and enforcement of regulations pertaining to haz-ardous materials shipments that move by more thanone mode of transportation is retained by OHMT.

Regulatory authority over transportation of radio-active materials is divided between DOT and NRCunder a 1979 Memorandum of Understanding.7

Under this agreement, NRC sets standards for thedesign and performance of packages to carry fissilematerials and radioactive materials that exceed TypeA limits.* Currently NRC certifies all such pack-ages and carries out the necessary inspections. NRCregulations also require that States be given advancenotification of the transport of certain types of radio-active materials (including spent fuel)8 and providefor physical security measures to prevent deliberateacts to seize or damage shipments of strategic nu-clear materials and spent fuel.9 Enforcement of theseregulations is carried out by NRC regional offices.

DOT has regulatory authority over the design andperformance of packages carrying nonfissile radio-

744 F.R. 38690, july 2, 1979.*Fissile material is that containing one or more fissile radionuclides—

Plutonium 238, Plutonium 239, Plutonium 241, Uranium 233, and Ura-nium 235. Neither natural nor depleted Uranium is fissile material.Type A quantity limits are defined m 10 CFR 71.4 and table A-1 thereto.

810 CFR 71.97 and 73.37.910 CFR 73.

active materials and small quantities of fissile ma-terials that do not exceed Type A limits. In addition,DOT governs the routing of radioactive materialsdesignated as “Highway Route Controlled” for safetypurposes. 10

While OHMT exercises general regulatory respon-sibility for hazardous materials transportation, mostday-to-day inspections and enforcement are carriedout by the DOT modal administrations. These activ-ities are often part of their overall programs to mon-itor compliance with other types of transportationand vehicle safety regulations.

The number of inspections and enforcement ac-tions taken by DOT is small compared with thenumber of shippers, carriers, and container manu-facturers throughout the country. In 1983, for in-stance, only 109 of the more than 20,000 containermanufacturers were inspected by OHMT and FRA.The 1983 figures for shipping facilities are similarlylow–5,000 of an estimated 104,000 were inspected.

The principal reason for the low number of in-spections is the shortage of DOT personnel, espe-cially those with training in hazardous materials en-forcement. Table 2-2 shows the number of full- and

1049 CFR 177.825, Docket No. HM-164.

Table 2-2.— Hazardous Materials Transportation Inspectors

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

Inspectors (full-time):USCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0FAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12 10 0 10FHWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 9 0 8FRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 24 25 23 33OHMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 7 6 6

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 55 51 29 57Inspectors (part-time):

USCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 770 1,298 403 570FAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 176 155 138 102FHWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 161 153 149 144FRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 64 129 129 158OHMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1 1 1

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....1,606 1,171 1,736 820 975Total work years

USCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115.5 115.50 155.76 50.00 40.00FAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.9 19.04 17,75 8.20 14.08FHWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.0 49.25 47.25 40.20 25.28FRA ., ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 33.60 34.65 33.00 46.40OHMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 10.00 7.50 6.75 6.75

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236.6 227.39 262.91 138.15 132.51KEY: USCG—United States Coast Guard; FAA—Federal Aviation Administration; FHWA—Federal Highway Administration;

FRA—Federal Railroad Administration; OH MT—Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation; and work year—equivalentto a full year of work by a single inspector.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment; based on DOT Annual Reports.

16

tions over the 5-year period. The total work-yearsof inspection and enforcement for all DOT agen-cies combined has also dropped-237 years in 1979to 133 in 1983, a decline of almost half.

The number and frequency of hazardous materi-als shipments; the vast extent of roadways, water-ways, and rail lines to be covered; and the varietyof materials involved all dictate an inspection andenforcement program of much greater scope thanFederal agencies presently offer. Based on the min-imal number of inspections that have been carriedout, the rate of noncompliance and safety violationsis high. The Federal Government in recent yearshas begun helping the States to strengthen their in-spection and enforcement capabilities, particularlyfor truck transport, since the number of trucks car-rying hazardous materials constitutes the largest haz-ardous materials fleet in any mode. Truck safety in-spections have also been a traditional function ofState enforcement officers. In the early 1980s, theFederal rail inspection force was increased, and therehas been a commensurate improvement in the railsafety record.

STATE ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION CAPABILITIES

The entry of State governments into the field ofhazardous materials transportation safety began inearnest in the early 1970s. A series of episodes in-volving radioactive materials prompted States to callfor more vigorous efforts to monitor and control theshipment of hazardous materials. Since it was appar-ent that the resources committed by the FederalGovernment to police shipments of radioactive ma-terial—much less other, more common, forms of haz-ardous materials—were inadequate, the States them-selves began to seek ways to develop inspection andenforcement capabilities. The task was formidablesince States then had virtually no organizationalstructure, legal authority, or personnel with special-ized competence in the area of hazardous materialscontrol.

Evolution of State Programs

In 1973, DOT and NRC’s predecessor, the AtomicEnergy Commission, undertook a program in co-operation with nine States to collect data on theamount and type of radioactive material originat-ing in or passing through selected locations. Thiseffort, known as the State Surveillance of Radio-active Materials Transportation Program (SSRMT),was directed at determining the magnitude of theproblem posed by radioactive materials and the de-gree of regulatory noncompliance by shippers andcarriers.

As expected, the SSRMT study found several in-adequacies in data collection and recordkeeping; it

17

also pointed to important needs in the area of en-forcement:

●

●

●

●

●

Imposition of civil penalties and suspension ofpermits to use radioactive waste burial sites wereneeded to reduce violations in the disposal ofradioactive material.Increased education of handlers and drivers wasneeded to heighten their safety awareness andto lessen their exposure to radiation.Enforcement by police cars equipped with ra-diation detectors (a program undertaken in Il-linois) was found to be especially useful in iden-tifying improperly placarded vehicles.Remote surveillance (for example, a geiger-counter mounted on a parked patrol car candetect gamma rays emitted by passing trucksor vehicles) could provide valuable data on ship-ping patterns and assist in determining the ex-tent of compliance by shippers and carriers.Requiring appropriate placarding and shippingdocuments would provide emergency responsepersonnel with better information in the eventof a transportation accident.

In addition, SSRMT pointed out the need tostrengthen State-level prevention and enforcementmechanisms for all types of hazardous materials.SSRMT findings thus helped form the basis for amuch more substantial Federal program to aid inthe development of State hazardous materials safetyprograms.

State Hazardous MaterialsEnforcement Development Program

Shortly after the SSRMT study was completed,responsibility for administering Federal-State coop-erative programs was transferred to OHMT. Un-der OHMT, the programs were broadened to in-clude all classes of hazardous materials, and emphasisshifted from data collection to regulatory enforce-ment, especially development of State organizationsthat could assume a greater share of inspection andenforcement functions. 11

In 1981, OHMT initiated a wide-ranging effort toincrease State and local capabilities in managing the

1 Isteve N. Solomon, stare Survej]/ance of Radioactive ~ateriakTransportation: Final Report, NUREG-1OI5 (Washington, DC: U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of State Programs, 1984).

transportation of hazardous materials. The StateHazardous Materials Enforcement DevelopmentProgram (SHMED), designed to assist States in theenforcement of hazardous materials safety standardsand regulations, primarily those pertaining to high-way transportation, was a major component. SHMEDhad two objectives: decreasing the number ofhazardous materials transportation accidents bystrengthening State enforcement capabilities andpromoting uniformity in State hazardous materialssafety regulations and enforcement procedures.SHMED offered participating States contracts toconduct a three-phase program. The first phase,funded at a maximum of $20,000 per State, con-centrated on data gathering, passage of enabling leg-islation, and adoption of Federal regulations. Thesecond phase had a funding limit of $40,000 andrequired States to develop and implement an inspec-tion program. In the third phase, with funding ofup to $60,000, States had to establish enforcementprocedures.

In all, 25 States have participated in SHMED (seefigure 2-l). Compared to most Federal-State coop-erative programs, SHMED is small. The 1984 budgetwas $1.1 million, and overall expenditures through1986, when the program expires, will amount to justover $3 million. Nonetheless, it has had a signifi-cant influence in shaping State enforcement pro-grams and in defining what constitutes an effectiveprogram. While some States, such as New Jersey,have established enforcement programs withoutSHMED support, the majority of existing State pro-grams have had SHMED funding.

Motor Carrier SafetyAssistance Program

When the SHMED program ends this year, Fed-eral support of State multimodal hazardous mate-rials enforcement capabilities will diminish, andthere will be no programs specifically targeted to haz-ardous materials transportation by rail, water, andair. However, Federal funds for State inspection andregulatory enforcement on the highways will beavailable through the Motor Carrier Safety Assis-tance Program (MCSAP). Authorized under theSurface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Pub-lic Law 97-424), MCSAP makes grants to States for“the development and implementation of programsfor enforcement of Federal rules, regulations, stand-

18

Figure 2-1.—States Participating in the State Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development Program

● ✃

Key:States participating in the State Hazardous MaterialsEnforcement Development (SHMED) Program.

States not participating intestate Hazardous MaterialsEnforcement Development (SHMED) Program.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

ards, and orders applicable to commercial motor ve-hicle safety and compatible State rules, regulations,standards, and orders. ” MCSAP covers all aspectsof truck safety, and the act specifically indicates thatit may apply to enforcement of rules pertaining tovehicles used to transport hazardous commodities.

MCSAP is financed through the Highway TrustFund under a 5-year authorization: $10 million wasauthorized for fiscal year 1984, and $10 million wasto be added each year up to a maximum of $50 mil-lion by fiscal year 1988. The Federal grants were tobe matched by States on an 80:20 basis. To date,actual appropriations have been significantly lower.

Under MCSAP, States may apply for two typesof grants. Development grants, available for a max-imum of 3 years, provide finding for States needing

to establish or substantially modify an enforcementprogram. Implementation grants provide funding forStates ready to initiate or continue established en-forcement programs. To qualify for an implementa-tion grant, a State must:

. agree to adopt and enforce the Federal Motor‘ Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR Parts 390-

●

●

399, including highway-related portions of theFederal Hazardous Materials Regulations) orcompatible State rules;submit an enforcement and safety program planand designate a lead agency for administeringthe plan;agree to devote adequate resources to adminis-tration of the program and enforcement of rules,regulations, standards, and orders; and

19

● have established statutory authority for rightof entry into vehicles and facilities.

The MCSAP grant program, administered by theBureau of Motor Carrier Safety or FHWA, is de-signed to improve State capabilities to enforce mo-tor carrier safety regulations and to enable Statesto increase safety inspections of intrastate and in-terstate commercial vehicles. The development ofan accurate database on compliance with safety reg-ulations is a secondary goal of MCSAP, and fundsmay be used for data collection, storage, and anal-ysis. The legislation also authorizes inspections (in-cluding hazardous materials inspections) of commer-cial vehicles in terminals and along highways. Theprojected total amount of development and imple-

mentation grants under MCSAP is more than $14.6million for 1985. Figure 2-2 shows the States par-ticipating in MCSAP.

State officials committed to expanding hazardousmaterials enforcement have expressed concern thatMCSAP may give priority to general motor carriersafety programs and that hazardous materials en-forcement activities--especially those for nonhigh-way modes—will be slighted. The State lead agen-cies for MCSAP are generally highway-oriented andoften are not the lead agencies designated by theState for the SHMED program. However, at leastone State, Indiana, which did not completely adopt49 CFR until January 1985 and did not participatein the SHMED program, has used MCSAP funds

Figure 2-2.–States Participating in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, August 1985

Key:States participating in the Motor Carrier Safety AssistanceProgram (MCSAP).

States not participating in the Motor Carrier Safety AssistanceProgram (MCSAP). ❑


20

to train and put into operation hazardous materi-als inspection teams. Since MCSAP funds are re-stricted to highway safety purposes, the broaderquestion arises of how States are to develop or im-prove inspection, regulation, and enforcement forother modes of transportation, because no similarFederal programs exist for water, rail, or air. Al-though some State inspectors have been trained inrail safety regulations and enforcement procedures,they are not trained to carry out hazardous materi-als inspections. Particular concern has been ex-pressed by States with high concentrations of non-highway hazardous materials shipments.

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

In an initiative independent of the Federal Gov-ernment, 26 States and the Canadian Provinces ofAlberta and British Columbia formed the Commer-cial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) in 1980. Cre-ated under the leadership of California, Idaho,Oregon, and Washington, CVSA seeks to foster in-terstate cooperation in establishing uniform safety

inspection standards for trucks. Under the termsof the Alliance, members agree to use identical in-spection standards and out-of-service criteria andto honor the inspections of other jurisdictions. Inthis way, CVSA hopes to secure greater acceptanceof motor carrier inspection programs by the truck-ing industry and to reduce delays caused by duplica-tive inspections of interstate truck shipments.

CVSA inspection standards and procedures havebeen developed in cooperation with BMCS andOHMT. The inspection process concentrates on thecritical items (brakes, steering, tires, wheels, couplers,and suspension) most frequently identified as causesof truck accidents. In addition, the driver’s qualifi-cations and log book are checked. CVSA has re-cently added hazardous materials inspection stand-ards and out-of-service criteria to its procedures. Onpassing inspection by a CVSA jurisdiction, the ve-hicle receives a decal valid for 3 months allowingit to travel through member States without furtherinspection unless a readily visible defect is detected.Reciprocity, uniformity, and consistency are the keyconcepts of the Alliance.

A CVSA associate membership program has re-cently been formed through which industry mem-bers serve in an advisory and nonvoting capacityto contribute their views, experience, and concerns.Since many of the States participating in CVSA areinvolved in SHMED and MCSAP as well, Stateagencies and personnel are developing a nationwideprogram of State-level hazardous materials transpor-tation inspection and enforcement capability. Thethree organizations now hold joint national and re-gional meetings. CVSA sees its role as providinga link between Federal and State agencies respon-sible for motor carrier and hazardous materials in-spection and enforcement.

CURRENT STATE ACTIVITIES

Building an effective inspection and enforcementcapability at the State level has been a slow proc-ess. Ten years ago, few States had the requisite le-gal authority, organization, or personnel for con-ducting inspections of hazardous materials shippersand carriers, and enforcing safety rules and regula-tions. The Federal and State programs describedabove have helped to develop this capability, andmost States now have organizations and programsin various stages of formation or operation. Gener-ally, the process has involved the following steps:

● adopting enabling legislation and regulations}

● developing data collection mechanisms and in-formation networks,

. establishing inspection and enforcement forces,and

● training inspectors.

Adopting Legislation and Regulations

A condition of State participation in MCSAP isthat States wishing to participate must first pass leg-islation adopting Federal motor carrier safety regu-lations (49 CFR Parts 390-399) and those portionsof Federal hazardous materials regulations pertain-ing to shipments on public highways (49 CFR Parts171-173 and 177-178). As of August 1985, and some-times only after lengthy legislative proceedings, all

21

but two States had adopted 49 CFR wholly or inpart.

However, despite this strong Federal encourage-ment for uniform regulations and enforcement pol-icies across all States, great variation from State toState remains, making familiarity with numerousState laws a burdensome necessity for interstate car-riers, and development of nationally standardizedtraining difficult. Some States exempt specific com-modities, such as agricultural fertilizers; others ex-clude private carriers from regulation. In Illinois, haz-ardous materials regulations apply only to quantitiesthat require placarding by Federal law; in SouthDakota, shipments of flammable and combustibleliquids are exempt.12

Data and Information Collection

An important first step for many States has beencollecting data on hazardous materials shipmentsby truck and rail and on the degree of compliancewith regulations. These data are used to clarify thenature and extent of the enforcement problem andto support legislative or regulatory actions that maybe needed. (Because of the special importance of datacollection, this aspect of State programs and theproblems that States have encountered with it aretreated in detail in chapter 4 of this report.)

Some States gather data on hazardous materialscommodity flow by surveying drivers and inspect-ing trucks at weighing stations or checkpoints alongmajor routes. Such surveys can be expensive andtime-consuming, but can provide valuable data toguide enforcement efforts.

However, most States have concentrated onrecording data on violations of hazardous materi-als regulations and do not yet have extensive datacollection programs, relying instead on spot checksand reports of violations generated by enforcementagencies. For example, prior to expanding their en-forcement programs, Texas and Illinois officials re-ported that they had no statistics on compliance,but that their experience indicated significant non-compliance by intrastate motor carriers. Massachu-setts found that when data collection began under

Izu.s. Department of Transportation, Materials Trans~rtatton Bu-

reau, “State Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development (SHMED)Program Worksho p Proceedings,” unpublished typescript, 1983, pp.121 and 183.

the SHMED program, it was not uncommon to findat least one violation for every truck inspected. ] 3

States with more advanced enforcement programsare now using computerized data management sys- .terns to monitor the effectiveness of their efforts.Utah, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho have estab-lished management information systems that makeuse of data on truck accidents and truck traffic vio-lations collected by the State and BMCS.

California has put in place a hazardous materialsregistration program and is currently establishinga computerized statewide database and informationsystem, scheduled to be operational in mid-1986.The system consists of a profile of all carriers thatcurrently carry hazardous materials or are likely tobecome involved in hazardous materials transpor-tation in the State. The profile includes data onlicensing, inspection records, citations, and spills.Monthly reports will list all carriers with a hazard-ous materials license due to expire in 90 days. Thereports will be sent to the carrier and to the Cali-fornia Highway Patrol (CHP) along with a copy ofeach carrier’s current profile. The database will alsoinclude a record of all highway hazardous materialsincidents reported throughout the State. Monthlyincident summaries will be issued by highway pa-trol subarea. The California system will have accessto the information systems of BMCS and OHMT.14

State data collection capabilities will be furtherenhanced when an integrated Federal-State data net-work, known as SAFETYNET, is made operationalby BMCS. SAFETYNET will tie together the pres-ent BMCS Motor Carrier Safety database with theOHMT Hazardous Material Information Systemand various computer-based State systems. The Mo-tor Carrier Safety database now contains informa-tion on more than 200,000 interstate carriers and25,000 hazardous materials shippers. It can reportall of the known carriers domiciled in a region, rankthem by the average number of driver and vehicleviolations found per inspection, list the number oftruck inspections each carrier has undergone, andgive the date of the most recent safety audit. OnceSAFETYNET is operating, BMCS and participat-ing States should be able to:

. input driver-vehicle inspection data,

131 bid., p. 146.14 California H lgh way patrol, “SHMED Program Svstem Objectives

and Scope, ” unpublished typescript, 1984, p 3.

22

. update and query inspection data,

. update and query carrier census data,● query safety management audit summary data,● query accident report summary data,● query inspection workload data, and● generate system reports.l5

A demonstration program involving four States–North Carolina, Colorado, Oregon, and Michigan—is in progress. The eventual goal is to include allStates in SAFETYNET, but this may take 10 yearsor more to accomplish. Funding is to be providedin a variety of ways—through SHMED, MCSAP,other BMCS grants, and State-appropriated monies.

Inspection and Enforcement

In many States, hazardous materials inspectionauthority is divided among several agencies. Usu-ally, the State highway patrol is charged with road-side inspections, and another agency, such as theDepartment of Transportation, has authority toconduct inspections of terminals. In addition, a spe-cialized agency may be empowered to inspect car-riers of radioactive materials. In an effort to cen-tralize hazardous materials inspections, Marylandhas designated the State Police as the only inspec-tion force, with broad powers to stop and inspectvehicles carrying all classes of hazardous materials.Other States, Michigan and Massachusetts, for ex-ample, took a similar approach and established spe-cialized units of the State highway patrol that aretrained in and solely responsible for hazardous ma-terials inspections.

Systematic, thorough, and consistent inspectionprocedures are important if the safety of hazardousmaterials transportation is to be improved. State in-spectors who have received training connected withfederall y sponsored programs generally employ pro-cedures that conform to Federal practice. OHMThas issued a series of inspection guidebooks that con-tain simplified, standard procedures. Developed withassistance from BMCS and CVSA, the guidebookscover roadside procedures (stopping vehicles, ex-terior and interior inspection, putting a vehicle outof service, etc. ) and terminal inspection procedures(warrantless entry, review and copying of docu-ments, and seizure of a vehicle or its contents).

151bid., p. 2,


Inadequate blocking and bracing of containers forrail transportation can cause damage and spills.

A 1983 informal survey of States participating inSHMED 16 identified the following as the most com-mon violations found during roadside inspections:

● failure to display the correct placard,● failure to block or brace hazardous materials

containers,● leaking discharge valves on cargo tanks,● improperly described hazardous wastes,. inaccurate or missing shipping papers, and. excessive radiation levels in the cab of the truck.

Accurate placards and shipping papers are par-ticularly important for the safety of first respondersto hazardous materials emergencies, as they provideessential, basic information on the nature of theproblems the responders face. State enforcement offi-cials estimate that one-quarter to one-half of all haz-ardous materials vehicles have improper placards. *

16U.S. Depa~ment of Transwrtation, Research and Special programs

Administration, “Quarterly State Hazardous Materials EnforcementDevelopment (SHMED) Program Progress Reports: 1984 -85,” unpub-lished reports.

*E~timates received during the course of OTA research. State offi-

cials familiar with roadside truck inspections in at least 10 States wereasked how many trucks had been found to be incorrectly placarded.

23

A Virginia Department of Transportation studyfound the rate to be at least one-third.l7 Improperplacarding means that the immediate source of in-formation for first responders will frequently befaulty.

Enforcement policies affect violation rates, andviolations are often treated differently from Stateto State and among different agencies in the sameState. In about half of the States, inspectors haveenforcement powers and can issue citations for vio-lations. In the other half, inspectors can only re-port violations to a separate agency empowered toenforce regulations and assess penalties. Some Statesprovide only for civil penalties; others give the en-forcing agency the option of civil or criminal penal-ties depending on the severity of the violation andthe violator’s record. In some States, the policy isto issue written warnings to first offenders. OtherStates use more stringent measures; in Texas andVermont, for instance, any violation of a hazard-ous materials regulation is automatically a criminalmisdemeanor.

Fines for similar violations differ among the States.In South Dakota, where no penalties were specifiedby the State legislature when Federal regulationswere adopted, all violations are automatically treatedas petty misdemeanors. Texas has a $200 limit onfines, while Illinois may impose fines of up to $10,000per day, per violation. Illinois has tried to ensurethat similar offenses receive similar fines and has de-veloped a rating system based on a matrix assign-ing a numerical value from one to five to such fac-tors as the gravity of the violation, the degree ofculpability, the history of prior offenses, and the abil-ity to pay. A violator can be assessed up to 40 points,each representing a $250 fine. The accused viola-tor may appeal the fine before an administrativehearing officer who may reduce the penalty or setit aside.l8

The need for a consistent State enforcement pol-icy is apparent when violations are prosecuted bylocal city or county attorneys. Local prosecutors and

IT].W. Schmidt and D.L. Price of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, ~aZ-

ardous Materials Transportation in Virginia (Richmond, VA: VirginiaDepartment of Transportation Safety, 1980), p. XIII.

ISU.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation Bu-

reau, Annual Report on Hazardous Materials Transportation, Calen-dar Year 1983 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1983), p. 126.

judges often are unfamiliar with hazardous materi-als regulations and may underestimate the serious-ness of the offense or misunderstand the regulations.To improve local prosecution of violators, enforce-ment officers in some States provide local judges andprosecutors with regularly updated information onthe regulations.

Enforcement officers report four problems com-monly encountered in prosecuting hazardous ma-terials violators. First, due to a lack of training orexperience, officers often do not provide adequatedocumentation in the inspection report or have notfollowed correct procedures. As a result, many casesmust be set aside or the charges reduced. Second,enforcement officers find that many judges and lo-cal prosecutors have difficulty understanding haz-ardous materials regulations and respond by dismiss-ing cases or lowering penalties without cause. Athird problem is in obtaining assistance from otheragencies in preparing evidence for court proceed-ings. State agencies are sometimes unwilling to co-operate in testing hazardous materials or in provid-ing other technical assistance. In some instances,State facilities may be willing to help, but they can-not provide certain kinds of tests or technical anal-ysis, or they cannot do so in a timely manner.19

Fourth, State enforcement agencies complain thatfines are too low to serve as a deterrent to noncom-pliance. Many carriers and shippers treat fines asa cost of doing business.20

Training Inspectors

Training programs sponsored by the Federal Gov-ernment have increased the number of State inspec-tors trained in hazardous materials, but there arestill great disparities among the sizes of State inspec-tion forces. California has a large, well-trained forceas part of CHP. In 1983, the hazardous materialsinspection unit consisted of 93 civilian commercialvehicle inspectors, 132 traffic officers who operated40 platform scales and 9 other inspection facilities,67 traffic officers trained and equipped for mobileroad inspections, and 130 civilian motor carrier

IgCaptain Richard Lan&, in U.S. Congress, Office of TechnologyAssessment, “Transcript of Proceedings–OTA Workshop on State andLocal Activities in Transportation of Hazardous Materials,” unpub-lished typescript, Washington, DC, May 30, 1985.

ZOU.S. Department of Transportation, Annual ~eporf, OP. Cit., pp.71-72.

52-648 0 - 86 - 2 : QL 3

24

specialists who performed off-highway and terminalinspections.

21 Few other States have such extensivesystems. Vermont, for example, has only part-timeinspectors, and some States have no inspection forceat all.

Inspecting vehicles for compliance with Federaland State hazardous materials regulations requiresspecialized training, knowledge, skill, and experi-ence. Most States do not have the resources for anindependent training program and send inspectorsto the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI), a multi-modal training establishment supported by the De-partment of Transportation.

TSI offers instruction at its facility in OklahomaCity and at State-operated sites if requested; itscourses are open to Federal, State, and local gov-ernment employees and to private industry. Priorityfor enforcement courses has been given to traineesfrom States participating in SHMED.

In addition to courses on radioactive materials,TSI offers two inspection courses: one in hazardousmaterials compliance and enforcement and one incargo tank compliance and enforcement. Both areorganized into three phases: a self-study introduc-tion that the student completes before attendingclass, a week of classroom instruction based on casestudies, and a field exercise to be completed indepen-dently by the student once back on the job. In 1984,TSI trained more than 2,500 enforcement officersin courses offered at 29 locations.

A few States, notably California and Illinois, oper-ate extensive training programs, staffed either withtheir own personnel or by instructors provided by

TSI. CHP conducts a comprehensive State train-ing program, during which uniformed CHP inspec-tion officers attend a 20-week basic law enforcementtraining course on hazardous materials inspectionprocedures at the CHP Academy. Officers are thenassigned to field commands where they receive 30days of training from veteran CHP inspectors. Inaddition, officers receive periodic refresher training

throughout the year at their field headquarters andreturn to the Academy every 3 years for in-servicetraining. CHP officers assigned exclusively to com-mercial enforcement duties at inspection and scalefacilities and on mobile units are selected from vet-eran inspection officers. They attend an 80-hourcommercial enforcement class at the Academy, withretraining every 2 years. Civilian inspectors assignedto CHP inspection duties must have at least 1 yearof experience in the maintenance of heavy-dutycommercial vehicles. They attend the 80-hour en-forcement class at the Academy and receive addi-tional in-service training every 2 or 3 years. CHPalso provides training for other State agency per-sonnel involved in hazardous materials managementand for employees of the regulated industries. Two-day hazardous materials seminars are conducted asneeded for these groups.22

Private firms also offer hazardous materials train-ing, and courses on inspection and enforcement areavailable from a wide variety of organizations. Stateofficials indicate that the courses vary in contentand suggest that the Federal Government or a na-tional, professional group should develop a stand-ardized curriculum and uniform training guidelines.

In recognition of the complexity of hazardous ma-terials regulations, several States have set up pro-grams to educate industry about compliance and en-forcement procedures, Maryland, California, andIllinois work closely with the trucking industry

through State and local industry associations to pro-mote voluntary compliance. Enforcement officialsin Maryland hold informational meetings regularlywith industry groups and ensure that new regula-tions or procedures are covered by the press. CHPconducts training for industry personnel to acquaintthem with inspection requirements. Illinois post-poned implementation of its enforcement programfor 2 years to allow industry time to assimilate theregulations and move toward voluntary compliance.

zlNationa] Conference of state Legislators, Hazardous ~areriafsTransportation: A Legislator’s Guide (Denver, CO: 1984), p. 36.

ZZU, S. Department of Transportation, “SHMED Program Workshop

Proceedings,” op. cit., p. 126.

25

CASE STUDIES:

No two State enforcement programs are alike.Some are large and well-financed; others havesmaller resources and are tightly focused. The fol-lowing short profiles of the programs in Illinois,Washington, and Maryland highlight some of theinteresting accomplishments of State programs.

Illinois

Before 1977, Illinois had no central regulatoryagency responsible for hazardous materials transpor-tation and no State enforcement program. Once astudy identified these deficiencies, the legislature au-thorized the Illinois Department of Transportation(IDOT) to regulate the transportation of hazardousmaterials on the highways and gave the State Po-lice enforcement power. In 1979, the Illinois legis-lature adopted regulations that included 49 CFRParts 171, 172, 173, 177, and 178 and Part 379 ofthe Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. TheIllinois regulations differed from their Federal coun-terparts in some important respects: Illinois set ahigher threshold of applicability, exempting fromregulation all hazardous materials that, under Fed-eral regulations, do not require placarding. It alsoexcluded certain agricultural products shipped be-tween farms. By narrowing applicability, Illinois tar-geted bulk shipments—deemed the most importantsafety problem—for enforcement efforts.

Training of State Police officers was a key com-ponent in the enforcement program. Initially, 32officers were trained in basic hazardous materialsinspection and cargo tank inspection at TSI in Okla-homa City. As the State program developed, IDOTset up its own 3-week basic training program, sup-plemented by regularly scheduled refresher courses.Both the basic training and refresher courses focuson the regulations, procedures for conducting in-spections, and methods of preparing a case for prose-cution. During training, case studies are presentedto demonstrate successful and unsuccessful tech-niques. Training also emphasizes use of standardequipment issued by on-the-road inspectors for de-

STATE PROFILES

tection and recording of violations and for personalsafety—items such as cameras; binoculars; vehicular-mounted detection and surveillance apparatus; ex-plosive meters; and protective footgear, coveralls,and masks. IDOT attorneys and industry represent-atives participate in the training program to ensurethat as many affected parties as possible are well in-formed.

In order to promote industry compliance, IDOTintroduced the enforcement program slowly and de-liberately. The first fines were levied 2½ years afterregulations were adopted. This gave the regulatedindustries time to become familiar with the regula-tions and afforded inspectors a protracted trainingperiod. From 1979 to 1981, the Hazardous Materi-als Department of IDOT sent copies of the regula-tions with explanations to all State industries thatwere potential users or producers of hazardous ma-terials. (The mailing list is kept current and usedto inform industry of changes in regulations and en-forcement.) The Department set up seminars andwork sessions to discuss the regulations and proce-dures with such industry groups as the IllinoisTrucking Association, the National Tank TruckCarriers, and the Tank Truck Manufacturers Asso-ciation. In the meantime, State Police inspectors is-sued Notices of Apparent Violation to drivers andsent copies to the Hazardous Materials Departmentof IDOT. The Department notified the offendingcompanies, explaining the regulations and appar-ent violation. After this period of education andtraining, the Department began sending frequentoffenders letters warning that continued violationswould mean fines up to $10,000. The letter explainedthe fine system and appeal process.

During the first 3 years of inspection, the num-ber of violations found by inspectors remained atapproximately 2,400 annually, but the mix of vio-lations changed. Minor violations, such as mistakesin paperwork or a torn placard, decreased, while ma-jor violations rose. IDOT attributes the decline inminor violations to the educational program for in-dustry conducted by the State. IDOT concludes that

26

the rise in major violations found by inspectors wasdue to the in-service training the inspectors receivedand to the experience they gained on the job.23

In a 1983 study, IDOT performed a Critical SafetyAnalysis of truck survey data to quantify the effectsof its accident prevention program. It found thatthe chief problem was private, intrastate hazardousmaterials carriers. The analysis showed that, whileprivate carriers accounted for one-third of the mile-age traveled by all common carriers, they were in-volved in three-quarters of the hazardous materi-als accidents recorded throughout the State.24

Washington

Washington’s enforcement program exemplifies aState program that has been improved by a man-agement information system. Officials of the Wash-ington Utilities and Transportation Commission re-port that the most useful component of this systemis the Critical Safety Management Breakdown Anal-ysis. It utilizes two existing databases, the Computer-ized Accident System and the Carrier Profile Sys-tem, to track carriers frequently involved inaccidents or found to be in violation of regulations.

The Computerized Accident System includes alltruck accident reports filed by enforcement agen-cies in the State. Hazardous materials involvementis noted on the field report, which is analyzed be-fore it is entered into the computerized informationsystem. Analysts make followup calls to carrierswhen the validity of the field report seems question-able. The followup checks have helped provide anaccurate count of accidents involving hazardous ma-terials. Based on their experience with the Com-puterized Accident System since 1975, State officialsconclude that investigating officers do not alwayshave sufficient training to evaluate accurately a sit-uation that may involve hazardous materials. Whileinvestigators generally recognize blatant violations,they frequently miss less obvious incidents or makemistaken identifications. Between January and June1983, statistical analysis identified 38 accidents in-volving hazardous materials, of which only 14 wererecognized as such by the investigating officers. Theremainder were identified through followup inves-

231 bid., p. 126.241 bid., p. 204.

tigations. Washington State officials suspect thatmany hazardous materials spills are never reported,particularly those in which quantities are belowplacarding requirements. They suggest that obtain-ing an accurate picture of hazardous materials inci-dents requires careful analysis and followup of ac-cident data from field reports.

The second database, the Carrier Profile System,is a computerized record of all violations, assembledby carrier. The system records the violation by elate,time, and location and describes the action takenby State enforcement agencies. The database in-cludes both hazardous materials violations and otherforms of motor carrier safety violations.

The Critical Safety Management BreakdownAnalysis integrates the two databases and identi-fies and keeps records on hazardous materials car-riers that have frequent accidents or violations. Stateofficials report that the system provides the quan-tifiable data necessary to evaluate the effectivenessof the hazardous materials enforcement and preven-tion programs.

Maryland

Maryland’s hazardous materials enforcement pro-gram began in the early 1970s with a survey of thetransportation of radioactive materials. The Stateexpanded the program to cover all classes of haz-ardous materials in 1981. Inspections are conductedby speciall y trained State Police officers posted atpoints throughout the State, including several. onInterstate routes. Inspections are performed daily ona random basis.

Maryland has developed a well-trained inspectionforce. The State has fully utilized TSI’s outreachactivities, sponsoring three courses with about 50students enrolled in each. The first group of officersto be trained was drawn from select units of the StatePolice Truck Enforcement Division that patrols ma-jor interstate highways. After the officers had com-pleted the course conducted by TSI on-site in Mary-land and were ready for field work, they received2 months of on-the-job training under the supervi-sion of Federal hazardous materials inspectors fromBMCS and OHMT. During this time, roadside in-spections were performed, but only warnings, notcitations, were issued. State officials used this graceperiod to contact the Maryland Motor Truck Asso-

27

ciation and major independent truckers to informthem of Maryland’s hazardous materials regulationsand enforcement program and to solicit voluntarycompliance. Maryland officials feel the grace periodenabled novice inspectors to gain experience andallowed hazardous materials carriers time to adjustto the new regulatory requirements.

As a matter of policy, Maryland regularly informsthe trucking industry about regulations and enforce-ment practices. The State Police have developed atraining program for commercial carriers, and of-ficers hold frequent meetings with industry groups.Whenever an inspector cites a truck for a violation,the State Police department sends a copy of the traf-fic safety report to the Maryland Truck Associationfor forwarding to the truck company. In this way,the company is notified of the violation in time totake whatever corrective action may be needed onother trucks in their fleet.

Even though the number of violations has not de-clined appreciably, Maryland officials believe the en-

forcement program has been effective. During thesecond quarter of 1984, the State Police made 1,106roadside inspections and issued 88 citations and 263warnings. Officials note that the incidence of de-tected violations, about one for every three vehi-cles inspected, has remained essentially constantsince enforcement began in 1982. They attribute thelack of decline, despite vigorous enforcement, to sev-eral factors. First, the inspection officers are increas-ingly skilled and sophisticated in their ability todetect violations. Second, fines assessed by theMaryland courts are low, and enforcement officialsbelieve they have a minimal preventive value. Third,much of the hazardous materials traffic on Mary-land highways is passing through and thus not eas-ily influenced by State enforcement activities.25

zsMary]and Department of Mental Health and Hygiene, SH’~4ED

Quarterly Report, April-)une 198-?, unpublished report filed with U.S.Department of Transportation, 1984.

STATE AND LOCAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION ACTIVITIES

While State agencies undertake most enforcementand inspection tasks for hazardous materials, localgovernment agencies are concerned primarily withemergency response and public safety in the eventof transportation accidents and spills. Both Stateand local governments have authority over accidentprevention measures and protection of public safety,including: restriction of the routes that hazardousmaterials shippers may use or hours when shipmentsare permitted; requirements for licensing, registra-tion, or permits; advance notification or other spe-cial procedures; and escorts for hazardous materialsmovements. Because compliance with these require-ments involves expenditures of time and money byindustry, considerable controversy often arises whensuch requirements are imposed.

Two factors limit the nature and extent of Stateand local government involvement in hazardous ma-terials accident prevention. First is a general lackof the expertise and resources, especially among lo-cal agencies, necessary to carry out effective inspec-tion and enforcement. Second, the Federal Govern-ment is authorized to preempt certain State and local

laws and ordinances. While these factors tend tonarrow the available range of State and local ac-tions, they do not preclude the enactment of a va-riety of requirements. The following discussionpresents an overview of Federal preemption powersfor hazardous materials transportation and the typesof requirements that have been instituted by Stateand local jurisdictions.

Preempt ion

Section 112 (a) of the Hazardous Materials Trans-portation Act (HMTA) states that, “any require-ment of a state or political subdivision thereof, whichis inconsistent with any requirement set forth in thistitle, or in a regulation issued under this tide, is pre-empted. “26 DOT has established procedures allow-ing States, localities, affected parties, and DOT it-self to seek administrative rulings as to whether aState or local requirement is inconsistent.27 DOT’sadministrative process is meant to serve as an alter-

2649 U.S. C, 181 I (a).2749 CFR 107.203 to 107.211.

28

native to litigation; however, the process is onlyadvisory in nature and does not preclude judicialinterpretations of a State or local requirement. In-dependent of DOT procedures, a Federal court maybe asked to decide whether a State or local require-ment is inconsistent and therefore preempted un-der the HMTA or invalid under the CommerceClause of the U.S. Constitution.

HMTA also allows DOT to waive preemption ofinconsistent State or local requirements where theyafford equal or greater levels of protection to thepublic than do the Federal requirements and do notunreasonably burden commerce.28 Procedures re-garding the submission and review of waiver appli-cations have also been promulgated.29

Sixteen inconsistency rulings have been issued byDOT.30 Generally, the types of requirements foundto be inconsistent are those pertaining to areas al-ready subject to Federal regulation, such as defini-tions of hazardous materials, vehicle placarding,packaging or container requirements, insurance re-quirements, and shipping papers. Consistent re-quirements are those falling within the scope of lo-cal traffic regulations, such as separation distancesbetween vehicles, use of headlights, vehicle inspec-tions at loading/unloading areas, and requirementsfor immediate notification of accidents.

Licensing, Registration, and Permits

Licensing, registration, and permit requirementsvary widely at the State and local level, causingdifficulties for enforcement officers and industry. Forexample, 26 States require that transport companiescarrying hazardous wastes register with the State andpay a fee. Fees imposed range from $25 up to $500and may be good for only one trip or for as longas a year. Four States require special training or cer-tification for drivers of hazardous waste vehicles. (Seetable 2-3 for a summary of varying State requirements.)

ZsSeCtiO~ 1 Iz(b) of the Hazardous Materials Transportation ACt(HMTA), 49 USC 1811(b). The Senate Committee Report (No. 93-1192, 93d Cong., 2d sess., Sept. 30, 1974) that accompanied the Sen-ate HMTA bill indicated that this provision should be used in certainexceptional circumstances necessitating immediate action at the Stateor local level.

z949 CFR 107.215 to 107.225.JOSee 43 FOR. 16954; 44 F.R. 75565; 45 F.R. 71881; 46 F.R. 18917;

47 F.R. 18457; 47 F.R. 1231; 47 F.R. 51991; 48 F.R. 760; 49 F,R. 46632;and 50 F.R. 20871.

In other States, an ordinary driver’s license is allthat is required for drivers of any truck. In addi-tion, local jurisdictions may require hazardous ma-terials carriers operating within their boundaries topurchase separate permits or registrations. Somecommunities use this income to finance emergencyresponse activities; others treat it as general revenue.

These State and local requirements typically apply

to trucks. Many trucking company officials believethat continued adoption of special requirements bydifferent States impedes interstate commerce andhave taken legal action. For example, a 1983 NewHampshire law imposing license fee requirementson vehicles transporting hazardous materials waschallenged in court by State and national represent-atives of the trucking industry. Although the dis-trict court found that the law violated the Com-merce Clause and was preempted by the HazardousMaterials Transportation Act, the law was upheldwhen the decision was reversed on appeal.31 Prolifer-ation of State requirements can pose hardships forinterstate carriers. One transporter noted that, inorder to ensure that his driver was completely pre-pared to transport a load of hazardous waste fromGeorgia to Wisconsin, he had to telephone everyState along the route, sometimes calling as many

as four or five agencies within a State, before he wasfully apprised of all the requirements.32

DOT has issued a number of inconsistency rul-ings regarding State and local permit requirements.Even though there are no explicit Federal permitor registration requirements, DOT found the re-quirements to be inconsistent with HMTA as theycaused delays, resulted in diversions of shipments,or required transporters to provide information thatdiffered from Federal shipping paper requirements.33

With respect to fees, DOT decided in one case thata Vermont requirement that imposed a $1,000 feeper shipment of certain radioactive materials wasinconsistent because it was applied in a discrimina-tory manner (e.g., only to certain radioactive materi-als), diverted shipments into other jurisdictions, and

31New Hampshire Motor TranSPrr Association, et al. V. ~Ynn, etaL, Opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Dec.26, 1984.

JZReported at the May 1985 OTA workshop.Ijsw, for example, Inconsistency Rulings 8, 10, 11, 12> 13, 14! and

15, 49 F.R. 46637-46667, Nov. 27, 1984.

29

8

:

. .. .. .. .. .. . . .

30

.-

Table 2·3.-States With Proposed or Existing Hazardous Wastes Transportation Fee or Registration Requirements, 1985 (Continued)

M

Nebraska

Nevada ..

State

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota,

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island ,

South Carolina

South Dakota,

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

W

District of Columbia ....... .

Company reaistration

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yesk

No

No

-r-or r-VOS only. bState requires notification before entering or leaving State. cFor liquid industrial waste only. dlncludes registration of one vehicle. eHazardous materials. fFile monthly report on hazardous waste movement.

Company fee

$5,oooJ

No

$25

No

No

$200 annually

No

No

$285 annually

$25

No

No

No

Years covered

10 yrs

MBOUlremRnTS

Vehicle reaistratlon

Yesh

Yes

Yes

Yesl ractor and

trailer

Vehicle fee

$50 $501

$3 each

$25

$10 each

Vehicle insoection

Yes

Driver trainingl certlficationl reai!;trAtion

gThe words "Hazardous Waste Hauling Vehicle," cOlly name, city and State, and seal indicating month and year of license expiration shall be on waste-hauling vehicle. hAnnual report required. 1$50 for first 20 vehicles, $5 each there after.

i$5,OOQ to purchase exempt letter. kRequires names and EPA number of disposal sites.

SOURCE: American Trucking Association survey provided by Charles Mayer, Tri-State Motor Transit Co.

Industry spill equipment and hnnd!; rAnllirAn

Yes $60,000 collateral bond

or letter of credit

31

the response team funded by the fee requirementreplicated Federal emergency response programs.34

The trucking industry has made Congress awareof its concerns, and BMCS has begun, at congres-sional request, a 5-year program that will lead togreater uniformity in some areas. BMCS is survey-ing State motor carrier laws to determine those thatare more or less stringent than Federal requirementsin the areas of driver qualifications and training,hours of service, and equipment maintenance.When completed, the survey will be reviewed by apanel convened by the Secretary of Transportation,and if warranted, DOT will consider rulemaking topreempt State laws that do not ensure greater safetythan their Federal counterparts.

However, many State and local enforcement of-ficers as well as industry representatives feel stronglythat national, uniform standards should be estab-lished in areas related to hazardous materials as well.Carrier associations and insurance industry repre-sentatives have voiced strong support for a nationalhazardous materials driver’s license requiring spe-cial training.

In addition, this Federal review will leave un-touched problems of varying State and local spe-cial permits and registration fees. The transport in-dustry views these requirements primarily as Stateand local funding devices for enforcement or emer-gency response activities. Carriers find them annoy-ingly inconsistent and financially burdensome.Preemption by the Federal Government may notbe the only appropriate way to achieve uniformityof requirements—a goal that many see as the mostimportant need in hazardous materials regulation.National guidelines for permits and registrationscould provide uniformity, and consensus buildingwould ensure at least some measure of agreementbetween concerned public and private sector groups.

Notification

Notification requirements are used by State andlocal governments, and by transportation facilities(e.g., bridge and tunnel authorities) to obtain in-formation on shipments of hazardous materials intoor through their jurisdictions. The data are used for

“Department of Transportation Inconsistency Rulin g 15, 49 F.R.46660, Nov. 27, 1984.

inventory purposes, to arrange escorts, for emer-gency response planning, and in support of enforce-ment activities. Figure 2-3 indicates which Stateshave enacted notification laws and the types of haz-ardous materials covered.

Knowing which hazardous materials are presentor pass through a community is important to manyState and local agencies. However, the use of notifi-cation provisions may not be the most efficient oreffective method of data collection available (chap-ter 4 discusses data collection in more detail). Re-cent studies conducted for DOT indicate that notifi-cation requirements targeted at a limited numberof extremely hazardous substances (e.g., high-levelnuclear waste) have provided useful information.However, most local governments do not have theresources or the expertise to implement and enforcerequirements that encompass a broader range ofhazardous materials.35 In addition, transporters areconcerned that a multiplicity of State and localnotification regulations would create scheduling dif-ficulties and substantial increases in paperwork.

At the Federal level, the U.S. Coast Guard andNRC have established notification requirements.The Coast Guard requires all vessels carrying cer-tain dangerous cargo to notify appropriate port au-thorities up to 24 hours in advance before enteringor leaving U.S. ports and waterways.36 Dangerouscargo includes Class A explosives, oxidizing mate-rials or blasting agents, large quantities of radioactivematerial or certain fissile radioactive material, andbulk shipments of other specified materials.37 TheNRC regulation requires licensees to notify Statesin advance regarding shipments of certain radio-active materials.38 Recognizing the difficulties facedby carriers confronted with varying State notifica-tion rules, DOT has taken the position that this isan area warranting uniform national requirements.DOT has not issued Federal guidelines. It has, how-ever, preempted a number of non-Federal require-ments, either because they differed from the NRC

Jssee Batte]]e Memorial Research Laboratories, Battelle Human Af-

fairs Research Center, Assessment of State and Local Notifi’cation Re-quirements for Transportation of Radioactive and Other HazardousA4aterials (Columbus, OH: Jan. 11, 1985).

3633 CFR 160,211 and 160.213. Additional requirements for vessels

on voyages of 24 hours or more and vessels bound for the Great Lakesare specified in 33 CFR 160.20 and 160.209.

3733 CFR 160.203 and 46 CFR 153 (table).3810 CFR 71.97.

32

Figure 2-3.–States With Hazardous Materials Notification Requirements by Type of Material, 1985

Spent fuel

.

1 Other radioactive materials


Hazardous wastes

Hazardous materials

regulation or had the potential to cause transpor-tation delays or traffic diversions.39

Routing

Routing is an important tool for local governmentsto use in preventing or reducing the consequencesof hazardous materials accidents, and increasingnumbers of cities, counties, and townships are adopt-ing ordinances requiring hazardous materials car-riers to use designated routes. Careful routing deci-sions mean that hazardous materials shipments arerestricted to the safest routes, often interstate high-ways and beltways, thus reducing the overall riskof an accident as well as risks on local streets andhighways. In addition, routing is a low-cost preven-

Jgsee for example IR-16, so F.R. 2 0 8 7 1 , May 20, 1985. MT h a s

adopted the NRC notification requirements.

All of the above

tion measure that local police can enforce withoutadditional equipment or training. On the otherhand, routing requirements may lengthen and com-plicate trips for truckers, and sometimes bring lo-cal governments into conflict with each other orwith Federal regulations protecting interstatecommerce.

The only Federal requirement pertaining to rout-ing of nonradioactive hazardous materials is gen-eral: 40

Unless there is no practicable alternative, a mo-tor vehicle which contains hazardous materialsmust be operated over routes which do not gothrough or near heavily populated areas, placeswhere crowds are assembled, tunnels, narrowstreets, or alleys.

4049 CFR 397.9(a).

33

This provision is contained in the Federal MotorCarrier Safety Regulations. DOT has publishedguidelines to assist communities in designating routesfor transporting hazardous materials.41 The guide-lines include procedures for analyzing risks associ-ated with the transportation of hazardous materi-als on alternative routes within a jurisdiction, andemphasize the importance of involving a broad spec-trum of community and industry members in thedecisionmaking process. (A 1983 demonstration pro-gram in Portland, Oregon, described on pp. 34-35,successfully tested the guidelines.)

A number of localities, including Columbus, Den-ver, and Boston, have established routing restric-tions based on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety pro-vision.42 The types of regulations enacted by thesejurisdictions include restricting the use of certainroads, prohibiting transportation and delivery dur-ing rush hours, and specifying operating require-ments. However, reaching a regional consensus isfrequently difficult, even when a broad spectrum ofthe community is consulted. Often, for example, af-ter a community routing risk assessment has beencompleted, hazardous materials carriers are divertedfrom central city routes onto surrounding road-ways—usually Interstate highways—that traverse lesspopulated areas. However, since many suburbancommunities do not have the specialized hazardousmaterials response teams of their urban neighbors,they feel particularly vulnerable to increased haz-ardous materials traffic and resist agreeing to suchrouting requirements. In 1985, in the Cincinnati re-gion, suburban townships opposed the city’s at-tempts to divert through shipments from city roadsonto outlying highways.

41E.]. Barber and I-K. Hildebrand, et al., Guidelines for ApplyingCriceria to Designare Routes for Transporting Hazardous Materials–fmplemenration Package, FHWA-I-80-20 (Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Transportation, 1980).

+zSee for example, Columbus Codes, 1959, chapter 2551; article IV

of chapter 22 of the Denver Municipal Code; and 46 F.R. 18921, Mar.26, 1981, for a description of Boston’s regulations.

The trucking industry has also opposed some lo-cal routing ordinances, claiming that they interferewith interstate commerce and are inconsistent withHMTA. Boston’s regulations restricting the use ofcity streets for hazardous materials transportationwere challenged by the American Trucking Asso-ciations, both in Federal court and through DOT’sinconsistency ruling process.43 After a lengthy ad-ministrative review process, DOT decided that itcould not reach a conclusion, because even thoughthe routing restrictions enhanced public safety, con-sultation with affected jurisdictions had been limitedas the requirements were developed.44 A final deci-sion by the court had not been reached by late1985.45

Highway routing of radioactive materials is ad-dressed specifically in a 1981 DOT rulemaking,docket HM-164.46 The DOT regulations were estab-lished in response to severe restrictions that hadbeen placed on the transportation of radioactive ma-terials by local jurisdictions, most notably New YorkCity, making some through shipments impossible.HM-164 requires carriers to follow “preferred routes”(routes designated by States or Interstate highwayswhere State alternates have not been named), pre-pare and file route plans, provide specialized train-ing related to radioactive materials and emergencyresponse, and comply with appropriate NRC secu-rity requirements. DOT has also developed guide-lines for route selection for shipments of radioactivematerials .47

4jSee 46 F-. R. 18918, Mar. 26, 1981.44F R 18457, Apr. 29, 1982. DOT also cited some concern about. .

the validity of the data used for Boston’s risk determination but con-cluded that further refinement of the data would not have had a sub-stantial effect on the outcome.

4512 Environmental Law Reporter 20,789 (D. Mass. 1981).4646 F.R. 5298, Jan, 19, 1981.4TU.S. Depa~ment of Transportation, Research and Special programs

Administration, Materials Transportation Bureau, Guidelines for Se-lecting Preferred Highway Routes for Highway Route Controlled Quan-riry Shipments of Radioactive Materia)s, DOT/RSPA/MTB-84/22(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1984 (origi-nally published in June 1981)).

FINDINGS

Continued support is needed for State multi. a significant influence in shaping State enforcementmodal hazardous materials enforcement activities. programs despite relatively low funding levels. Al-The SHMED program, which ends in 1986, has had though MCSAP will continue to fund State enforce-

35

the staff and the advisory committee. Consensus onthe safest route was reached in all but one case, areroute around a tunnel. The final decision in thatcase was made by the fire marshal of the emergencyresponse jurisdiction, subject to acceptance by otherfire departments along the alternate route. In general,the alternate route analysis indicated that interstatefreeways were preferable because they had the lowestaccident rates and probabilities of all the routes con-sidered.

As a result of the demonstration, the Portland CityCouncil, in cooperation with the State Highway De-partment and Oregon Transportation Commission,enacted ordinances banning hazardous materials ship-ments from one tunnel and two grade-level rail cross-

ment programs, States are concerned that prioritywill be given to general motor carrier safety programsand that hazardous materials enforcement—espe-cially for nonhighway modes—will be slighted.

Penalties for regulatory violations, includingfailure to report hazardous materials incidents,should be consistent across governmental andjurisdictional levels and sufficiently large to disccourage future infractions. An effective enforce-ment program requires that legislatures, enforcementagencies, and courts be aware of the death, injury,property damage, and environmental harm thatcould result from accidental release of hazardous ma-terials and set penalties accordingly.

State and local enforcement personnel needadditional training and current information onhazardous materials regulations for all modes oftransportation. Methods used by the Federal Gov-ernment to deliver this information to State andlocal officials need to be improved and strengthened.Programs to educate shippers and carriers on safetymeasures and regulatory compliance need strength-ening as well.

National standards establishing uniform Statehazardous materials requirements and regulationswould simplify and improve compliance by ship-pers and carriers, and State and local enforcement

ings. The tunnel had been used frequently by truckscarrying petroleum products from the principal dis-tribution center in the Portland area to the north-western parts of the State, and fire officials determinedthat the tunnel posed an unacceptably high risk. Tocompensate for any additional risks posed by the re-routing decisions, the City of Portland and three ad-joining counties revised their mutual-aid agreementsto assure that the affected counties would have ac-cess to the city’s specialized fire-fighting equipment.POEM officials notified local industries, shippers, andcarriers about the restrictions and the recommendedalternate routes. It is expected that most truckers willcomply; additional liability will accompany an acci-dent off the recommended routes.

activities. State, regional, and local agency con-cerns as well as those of industry should be consid-ered in formulating standards. The areas where uni-formity is most needed are:

●

●

●

Licensing to ensure that drivers and othershandling hazardous materials are qualified andhave been properly trained. Some form of na-tional truck driver’s license is favored by manyState, local, and industry officials.Permit or registration requirements to obtaininformation and collect fees in a coordinatedmanner that does not unduly burden trans-porters.Shipment notification systems that provideuseful information for localities without-undulyburdening carriers.

Development of local rout ing restr ic t ionsshould be based on interjurisdictional consulta-tion and the use of explicit safety criteria. A l -though it is likely that the development of a rout-ing scheme that enhances overall safety will be adifficult process for some regions, the Portland ex-perience demonstrates that it is possible. In thoseinstances where hazardous materials shipments arerouted around cities through suburban communi-ties, it may be necessary to establish a regional emer-gency response system.

Chapter 3

Emergency Response andTraining

Chapter 3

Emergency Response and Training

State and local governments must be able to re-spond effectively to hazardous materials transpor-tation emergencies as part of their obligation to pro-tect the health and safety of the public. Local policeofficers are usually first at the scene of an accidentand have primary responsibility for public safety.Their skill in handling the accident determines inpart the impact that accident will have on those inthe immediate vicinity and on the community atlarge.

Two responses to hazardous materials transporta-tion accidents occurring 3 years apart illustrate therange of problems associated with hazardous mate-rials emergency response activities and the improve-ments developed with time and experience in re-sponse procedures.

On October 15, 1982, an accident in Odessa, Dela-ware, between a pickup truck and a tank truck re-sulted in a rollover of the tank truck and the releaseof about 150 gallons of the product from the tanktruck’s dome cover. The tank truck contained di-vinyl benzene (DVB), a moderately toxic materialwhen inhaled, and carried a “combustible” placard.

Arriving police officers reviewed the shippingpapers, moving freely about the accident site. Ap-proximately 100 emergency response personnel even-


Unprotected emergency response personnelin action—a dangerous situation.

tually responded to the accident; only some had pre-vious experience or training in handling a hazardousmaterials transportation accident.

One hour after the crash, 48 emergency responsepersonnel, complaining of respiratory and skin prob-lems, were taken to the hospital, as was the tanktruck driver who was still carrying the shipping man-ifest and bill of lading.

Emergency responders who remembered the nameof the product consulted the U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Emer-gency Response Guidebook to identify the material.DVB is not listed by name in the guidebook, so theyfollowed the instructions for divinyl ether, the only“divinyl” entry. 1 Although trained safety person-nel from the tank truck company involved in theaccident had arrived to clean up, they were not al-lowed to participate for almost 12 hours.2 Problemsassociated with this hazardous materials accidentincluded lack of coordination among respondingorganizations, inadequate information provided tohospital personnel treating emergency responders,failure to establish and maintain control over theaccident site, and the participation of untrained in-dividuals in response activities.

In contrast, on August 12, 1985, a tank truck car-rying hazardous waste from the Norfolk, Virginia,Naval shipyard to New Jersey began to leak andstopped on the Capital Beltway in Northern Vir-ginia during the evening rush hour. The waste con-sisted of hydrazine, thiourea, ethylene diamine,ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid, ammonium hy-droxide, and sulfate compounds, which had beenused to clean ships and submarines at the shipyard.

The Fairfax County, Virginia, Fire DepartmentHazardous Materials Team was on the scene within10 minutes of notification. Concerned that the con-tents of the truck would corrode the container andcause it to burst, team members attempted unsuc-

‘C. H. Batten, In\’estigator, N’atlonal Transportation Safety BoardAccident Investigation Report, Oct. 15, 1982; and National Transpor-tation Safety Board Safety Recommendations, I-83- 1 and 1-83-2, issuedNov. 29, 1983.

‘Gene Meehnan, Safety Director, Matlack Co., personal communi-cation to OTA staff, Mav 28, 1985.

39

40

cessfully to stem the leak and then requested anothervehicle to off-load the truck. Authorities, recogniz-ing the danger posed by corrosive fumes, orderedthe evacuation of residents in the area just southof the accident scene. Railroad tracks near the sitewere shut down, and traffic in the area was reroutedaround the scene of the accident. No one was in-jured, although hundreds were inconvenienced forseveral hours.

Cleanup of the contaminated site involved dig-ging up and disposing of 18 inches of asphalt andsoil and an estimated 21 tons of sand spread to re-strict the flow of spilled material. Some of the clean-up costs reportedly will be paid by the shipping com-pany. 34 Fairfax County costs for overtime pay forpersonnel from 10 county agencies and use of ahelicopter may reach $100,000.

The contrast between the responses to the twoincidents is marked, and demonstrates the differ-ence coordination, cooperation, and training canmake in ensuring an appropriate response. The Fair-fax County hazardous materials incident involved

‘Mary Jordon and Martin Weil, “Chemical Spill Snarls Beltway,”Washington Post, Aug. 13, 1985.

+Chemical & Engineering News, “Rash of Chemical Spills Occurson Single Day,” vol. 63, No. 33, Aug. 19, 1985, p. 6.

the coordinated efforts of 10 county agencies to suc-cessfully handle a potentially dangerous incident.By comparison, the dangers inherent in the OdessaDVB spill were increased by the varying levels oftraining and coordination of the emergency responsepersonnel, and much greater risks were posed to par-ticipating emergency service personnel and neigh-boring communities.

Without appropriate organization, training, andequipment for emergency response personnel, thepublic is at greater risk than necessary as hazard-ous materials move around the country.

This chapter explores emergency response froma State and local perspective. A literature review,findings of an OTA workshop with State and localofficials, supplementary interviews, and surveys re-cently commissioned by the Federal Governmentand professional associations provide the basis forthe

●

●

●

●

information. Four topics are addressed:

the institutional and legal framework for emer-gency response;training requirements and programs;planning for emergency response, includingidentification of problems and organization ofresources; andequipment.

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Federal Responsibilities

Federal assistance for State and local emergencyresponse activities for hazardous materials accidentsis provided by many different Federal agencies.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) is the lead agency for the development andcoordination of Federal emergency response plansto support State and local emergency response activ-ities and to provide appropriate training. In this role,FEMA provides planning support and guidanceprior to hazardous materials accidents and coordi-nates Federal response after the fact.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and the U.S. Coast Guard share responsibility forproviding technical information and advice to firstresponders and State and local governments. If State

and local governments cannot handle a severe ac-cident or request Federal intervention, EPA and theCoast Guard will assume control and direct Fed-eral emergency response activities. The Coast Guardoperates the National Response Center for DOTas the point of contact for transportation accidentsinvolving hazardous materials. In addition, theCoast Guard operates and maintains strike forceson the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts for emer-gency response activities.

In the case of radiological accidents, Federal re-sponsibility is shared by FEMA, the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission, and the U.S. Department ofEnergy. NRC and DOE maintain authority for plan-ning and program development for emergency re-sponse, notification, technical assistance and advice,and involvement in response activities for radiolog-

41

ical spills. In addition, DOE maintains 30 regionalemergency response teams for radiological incidents.

All of these Federal agencies conduct emergencyresponse training, although the subject matter maydiffer. FEMA provides training in emergency re-sponse procedures at regional centers and at the na-tional center, the National Fire Academy in Emmits-burg, Maryland. Training covers basic and advancedhazardous materials management classes.

EPA training is offered at two regional sites, Edi-son, New Jersey, and Cincinnati, Ohio, as well asnationally. Training covers response operations,equipment, and response decisionmaking. The U.S.Coast Guard offers training in basic hazardous ma-terials emergency response to its employees andState, local, and industry participants at Yorktown,Virginia.

NRC training, offered at the Technical TrainingCenter in Chattanooga, Tennessee, focuses on in-spection and enforcement rather than on emergencyresponse. Training previously conducted by DOEfor Federal contractors and employees has been ex-panded to allow commercial carriers; enforcementagencies; and State, county, and local police andfire officers to participate. Courses cover basic emer-gency response and compliance with transportationregulations.

Federal emergency response activities are intendedas supplements to, not as substitutes for, State andlocal emergency response to hazardous materialstransportation accidents. Federal agencies generallyoffer technical advice and information, rather thanphysical assistance. However, active Federal partici-pation is likely if radioactive hazardous materials,particularly spent fuel, is involved in a transporta-tion incident.

Table 3-1 identifies the different Federal agenciesthat regulate hazardous materials transportation andtheir jurisdictional authority. This diversified Fed-eral authority is a major reason that developing ef-fective, coordinated Federal emergency response ca-pabilities has proven difficult.

State and Local Authority

State authority for hazardous materials transpor-tation and emergency response is equally fragmentedand may rest with a State Fire Marshal’s office or

State departments of health, transportation, envi-ronment, radiological affairs, or civil defense—ormore likely a combination of some or all of these.A State-by-State listing of the agencies responsiblefor hazardous materials regulation, enforcement, andemergency response is provided in appendix A.

Just as the statutory authority for emergency re-sponse varies from State to State, so does the inter-est emergency response generates within the Stategovernment. States that are highly industrialized,heavily traveled, confronted with exceptional haz-ards (such as a large number of waste disposal ornuclear facilities, or a heavy concentration of chem-ical industries), or have experienced a serious haz-ardous materials incident are more likely to supportand encourage the development of emergency re-sponse planning and training and attempt statewidecoordination. Believing that State assistance maybe the best or even the only way of protecting ru-ral areas in hazardous materials accidents, someStates, including North Dakota, Delaware, Indiana,and Oregon, are developing statewide emergencyresponse plans.

Tennessee has undertaken a unique program toimprove its statewide emergency response capabil-ity. The Tennessee Emergency Management Agency(TEMA), in an effort to assure rural areas of ade-quate hazardous materials emergency response,divided the State into six districts, each with a dis-trict coordinator and equipped with a special re-sponse van. The district coordinators are trainedby the TEMA training institute and must be recer-tified for hazardous materials response every 2 years.Their multiple responsibilities include training re-sponders in their districts. As a result, Tennesseehas more than 2,000 State-certified hazardous ma-terials responders. * In addition, the district coordi-nators are covered by State liability laws and thuscan provide assistance in other districts without fearof lawsuits.

Communities of all sizes are becoming more awareof the dangers associated with hazardous commodity

transportation and are looking for ways to lowertheir risks. The same factors that influence Stateemergency response development also operate at thelocal level, with communities that have experienced

*George Kramer, Hazardous Materials Instructor, Tennessee Emer-gency Management Administration, personal communication to OTAstaff, Nov. 26, 1985.

4 2

Table 3-1.— Jurisdictional Analysis of Agency Responsibility

Federal:Federal Highway Administration (U.S.

Department of Transportation). . . . . . . . . . . .Federal Railroad Administration (U.S.

Department of Transportation). . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Federal Aviation Administration (U.S.

Department of Transportation) . . . . . . . . . . . .Office of Pipeline Safety

(US. Department of Transportation) . . . . . . .National Transportation Safety Board (U.S.

Department of Transportation) . . . . . . . . . . . .Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . XFederal Emergency Management Agency . . . .Department of Health and Human Services . .Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . .Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

(U.S. Treasury). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Department of Defense, Explosives Safety

Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Department of the Army. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

State:Department of Emergency Services . . . . . . . . .Labor and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Department of Social and Health Services . .Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Department of Ecology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington Utilities and Transportation

Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington State Patrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local:City fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City building department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .County fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .County police.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City/county Department of Emergency

Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .City/county health department . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x

xx

x

o0

x

ox

xx

x

x

xx

x

00x*

x

x

x

x

x

00X*

x

0

x

xx

x

x

00x*

xx

0

x

xx

x

x

0

x

xx

x

x

xx

0

xx

x

x

xx

0

0x

x

x

xxxx

0x

0

0

x0

0x

0

0

x

x

o*

X X O

O O X

X X O

x

xx

x

x

xxx

x“

X X O

X X O

0 0x —

x

xx

“Denotes that scope of authority will depend on type of substance, location of spill, or identity of carrier or discharger,X—Denotes major authority in the area of regulatory administration of enforcement.O—Denotes limited authority in the area of regulatory administration of enforcement,

SOURCE: Hazardous Materials Demonstration Project Report-Puget Sound Region.

4 3

serious hazardous materials accidents or have largechemical plants more likely to be concerned aboutdeveloping emergency response capabilities.

Communities with emergency response capabil-ities have set up various response systems. In ruralcommunities, hazardous materials emergency re-sponse usually is an additional duty assigned to thefire or police department. Large metropolitan areasare more likely to train and equip specialized units.Large cities and urban areas with major transpor-tation corridors or heavy concentrations of businessand industry requiring hazardous materials may useresponse teams supplemented with formal mutualaid agreements with nearby jurisdictions. In fact,the emergency response capabilities in a few sub--urban communities may surpass the capabilities ofState emergency response organizations, through theorganization of mutual aid networks, consolidationof resources, and widespread community support.

However, local governments often find it difficultto justify the cost of specialized equipment, train-ing, and manpower for events that occur rarely. De-veloping and maintaining a regional hazardous ma-terials response team is a cost-effective possibility forsmaller jurisdictions.

Coalitions of several communities or of industryand local government may be able to provide spe-cialized equipment and response capabilities evenfor areas with severe financial restraints. Industry

participation may lessen the cost to local commu-nities and provide a level of technical expertise inhazardous materials handling, chemical knowledge,and personnel protective equipment often beyondlocal capabilities. Industry resources would be espe-cially valuable in the event of an accident involv-ing complex combinations of chemicals or unusualcircumstances.

One example of a regional emergency responseteam augmented by public and private sector co-operation is the Gateway Response Network, orga-nized by area governments, public services, and busi-ness and industry in the greater St. Louis region.Under the auspices of the the East-West Gateway

Coordinating Council, a regional organization, theNetwork was formed specifically for response to haz-ardous materials transportation accidents. Networkactivities have included identifying the hazardousmaterials stored and transported through the region;identifying existing local and industry emergency re-

sponse teams; developing a coordinated response tohazardous materials transportation accidents; andproviding equipment, including a special van. TheSpokane, Washington, Fire Department has a sim-ilar arrangement with the rest of Spokane Countyand Northern Idaho.

Industry Response

Over the past decade, hazardous materials man-ufacturers have evaluated their safety programs andoften taken steps to address their own and the pub-lic’s concerns. Industry’s involvement in hazardousmaterials emergency response ranges from technicalassistance to specialized response teams. The bestknown effort is the Chemical Transportation Emer-gency Center (CHEMTREC), established in 1970by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA),CHEMTREC maintains an on-line database on thechemical, physical, and toxicological properties andhealth effects of the thousands of products of themember companies.

Personnel at the scene of an accident callCHEMTREC with information on the accident andthe material involved. CHEMTREC staff providechemical information for use in onsite decisionmak-ing and notify the manufacturer of an accident in-volving their product.

CMA has also developed CHEMNET, a mutualaid network of chemical shippers and for-hire con-tractors to advise and assist at chemical spills dur-ing transportation. CHEMNET is used to identifymembers of CMA with particular chemical exper-tise to assist in emergency response efforts.

Many large petrochemical and chemical manu-facturers train and maintain company emergencyresponse teams for both their fixed facilities andtransportation accidents. A team may respond it-self to a report of an accident involving a company

product or, under formal agreements, may requestanother participating company closer to the inci-dent to respond. Industry teams are instructed todefer to the local on-scene commander at an acci-dent so that the emergency response effort remainscoordinated.5

SEE. Eig e n s ch e nk, Mid-continent Distribution Manager, Shell Oil

Co., personal communication with OTA staff, June 4, 1985. The Amer-ican Petroleum Institute recommends that a particular procedure, knownas practice 111.2, be part of emergency response plans.

4 4

The Channel industries, the Pesticide Safety TeamNetwork, and Chlorep are other examples of emer-gency response capabilities provided by industry.The Channel industries in Houston have extensivemutual aid agreements with each other. By pool-ing resources, this concentration of chemical indus-tries along the Texas Channel can assemble 500 fire-men and other trained personnel, some 60 waterpumpers, 45 chemical retardant fire trucks, and 12truck-mounted powerplants.

The Pesticide Safety Team Network (PSTN) andChlorep, specialized information and emergency re-sponse units, were formed by manufacturers to re-spond to accidents involving pesticides and chlo-rine. PSTN, a voluntary effort established in 1970,consists of 50 to 60 response teams. When a pesti-cide accident occurs, someone at the site notifiesCHEMTREC, which in turn notifies one of 10 PSTNregional coordinators. The coordinator then con-tacts personnel at the accident site to determinewhat response is needed. If telephone advice is not

sufficient, the manufacturer is notified and respondsaccordingly. Approximately 90 percent of pesticidemanufacturers respond to accidents involving theirproduct. 6 If a manufacturer is unable to respond,the closest safety team will be dispatched to respondto the incident and handle cleanup. Cleanup costsare absorbed by the participating team.

Chlorep, a response network of chlorine manu-facturers and packagers, responds to emergencies in-volving chlorine products. Founded in 1972 by theChlorine Institute, Chlorep currently includes 37manufacturing and 31 packaging companies amongtheir response network members.

With its specialized resources, detailed knowledgeof hazardous materials, and extensive product infor-mation, industry can provide a logical adjunct topublic safety capabilities for fixed facility and haz-ardous materials transportation emergency response.

s~wrence No~on, National Agricultural Chemical Association, per-

sonal communication with OTA staff, Aug. 30, 1985.

TRAINING

Widespread and improved emergency responsetraining at the State and local levels using uniformstandards is the major need identified in-all DOTdemonstration projects, in OTA’s research, and bycongressional concern.

The effectiveness of current training programs isuneven because:

●

●

●

a wide range of response personnel need train-ing, and only some currently receive it;numerous separate organizations offer differingcourses; andthe content and quality of training courses isdiverse.

Existing Training Programs

Under the 1984 Hazardous Materials Transpor-tation Act reauthorization, Congress required DOTand FEMA to survey training programs offered forhazardous materials emergency response and en-forcement activities. Final-results of these surveysare anticipated in January 1986. To date, some 700agencies, public and private, have been identified

as offering some form of hazardous materials trainingor planning. Of these, 574 offer training in planningand response; 297 provide training in enforcementand compliance. T However, public expenditures fortraining are directed primarily at compliance andenforcement activities rather than at emergency re-sponse. (The OTA final report, Transportation ofHazardous Materials, will provide further details.)

At the Federal level, a myriad of training programsrelated to different aspects of hazardous materialsemergency response are conducted by FEMA, DOT,EPA, DOE, NRC, the Department of Defense (DOD),and the National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health (NIOSH), at both national and regionallocations. Although representatives of many of theseagencies meet regularly as members of the NationalResponse Team, a single, strong Federal strategicapproach to emergency response training has notbeen achieved.

TDoug]as Stance]l, Transportation Programs, Science Applicationsinternational Corp., Oak Ridge, TN, draft study, Department of Trans-portation/Federal Emergency Management Agency.

4 5

There are few formal training programs for emer-gency responders at the local level and those thatdo exist may involve courses at a neighboring com-munity college or informal in-house training.

Industry training, offered by individual shippers,manufacturers, and associated professional organi-zations, typically covers hazardous materials emer-gency resp-onse for both fixed facilities and trans-portation accidents. While intended primarily forcompany employees, these courses may include pro-visions for training local public response personnel.For example, major companies may donate equip-ment and invite local first responders to observetheir training sessions; Shell Oil and Amoco areamong the companies that have such programs.Training offered by national professional and indus-try associations includes programs by the NationalFire Protection Association, the American Petro-leum Institute, the National Agricultural ChemicalAssociation, and the Chemical Manufacturers Asso-ciation. State associations may also have trainingprograms. For example, the Pennsylvania MotorTruck Association provides training for every Penn-sylvania State patrolman.


Many industry resources are availableto assist emergency response personnel.

For example, training courses offered by execu-tive branch regulatory agencies, such as DOT andNRC, concentrate on enforcement aspects of haz-ardous materials transportation regulations. Agen-cies such as DOE, EPA, and NIOSH offer trainingin the aspects of hazardous materials directly relatedto their own areas of responsibility.

FEMA, the lead agency for Federal emergencymanagement, offers specific hazardous materialsemergency response training programs at the Na-tional Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland; atFEMA regional headquarters; and around the Na-tion through its “Train the Trainer” courses.

Hazardous materials emergency response trainingprograms offered at the State level are generally theresponsibility of the State fire marshal’s office, theState fire training agency, or the major emergencypreparedness agency. The courses differ from Stateto State, although if the State trainers have beentrained by FEMA, greater course uniformity can beexpected.

4 6

Training that covers rail hazardous materials emer-gencies is usually offered by railroad companies toemployees, shippers, and invited local emergency re-sponders. Emergency response training for highwayhazardous materials accidents is offered by shippersand carriers as well as State and local governments.

OTA tallied results of a survey conducted by theInternational Association of Fire Chiefs in June 1985on hazardous materials team response capabilitiesacross the Nation. Table 3-2 shows the trainingsources most frequently used by State and localemergency responders.

No systematic way exists to ensure that existingemergency response training courses reach thosewho need the training. In telephone interviews withOTA staff, State training officers voiced frustrationat the lack of information they receive on the qual-ity of available training resources and the lack ofcommunication with their counterparts in otherStates. Moreover, some local officials are concernedthat planned State programs are inadequate to meetthe needs of local jurisdictions. A national networkof hazardous materials emergency response trainersand a national clearinghouse for training informa-tion are two relatively low-cost means of address-ing these concerns.

Training Needs

The population needing hazardous materials re-sponse training is numerous and diverse. Local fireor police department personnel are usually the first

Table 3-2.–Frequently Used Training Sources, 1985

Number of State and local hazardousTraining course materials team attendees

National Fire Academy. . . . . . . .Industry (unspecified) . . . . .State training programs. . . . . . .Colleges or universities . . . . . .Safety Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . .Texas A&M ., . . . . . . .In-house training . . . . . . . . .Colorado Training Institute ...R a d i o l o g i c a l M o n i t o r i n gNational Fire Protection Association . . . .EPA . . .,U.S. Coast Guard . . .Union Pacific/EPA Region Vll . . . .Other . . . . . . . . .

796865595325211818171713

733

SOURCE: International Association of Fire Chiefs survey, June 1985; and theOffice of Technology Assessment.

to respond to a hazardous materials transportationaccident, and their training is of primary impor-tance. However, personnel from other groups oftenparticipate in response activities and require train-ing as well.

The National Fire Academy reports there are ap-proximately 1,200,000 firefighters nationwide, 85percent of whom are volunteers, and the remain-ing 15 percent paid employees of municipal, county,or local governments. 8 According to the NationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police, there are between480,000 and 500,000 local sheriffs and police per-sonnel employed by State and local governments.9

Civil defense volunteers and health professionalsalso may respond to hazardous materials transpor-tation accidents. Approximately 223,600 emergencymedical technicians are registered nationally.l0 Theseindividuals need some training in assisting victimsof hazardous materials accidents.

State and local government officials and emer-gency service agencies say that it is the inappropri-ate responses of untrained or poorly trained firstresponders of a predominantly volunteer force thatare most likely to harm the first responders them-selves and the surrounding community. Accordingto reports of professional associations involved withemergency services, many first responders do nothave access to training. In addition, the 25 percentannual turnover rate within fire departments in-creases the difficulty of maintaining a trained emer-gency response force.11

Coordinated efforts to train potential first re-sponders in rural and small urban areas are neces-sary, The training should emphasize the differencesbetween hazardous materials response and firefight-ing. While firefighters rush to the scene, hazardousmaterials responders must identify the product andthe potential damage, and the appropriate response,before approaching the accident. Training in the

8Ray Donovan, National Fire Academy, Federal Emergency Man-agement Agency, Emmittsburg, MD, personal communication withOTA staff, 1985.

9Gera1d Arenberg, Executive Director, National Association of Chiefsof Police, personal communication with OTA staff, 1985.

IONatlona] R%istry of Emergency Medical Technicians, Registry: TheNewsletter of the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians,vol. 17, No. 1, winter 1985, p. 7.

I lchlef Warren ]sman, Fairfax County Fire Department, l:airfax

County, VA, personal communication with OTA staff, 198!.

4 7

application and use of protective equipment is alsoimportant.

In addition, police departments and emergencymedical personnel, as well as public health depart-ments, public works departments, and environ-mental health departments need to know how tohandle hazardous materials emergencies. Hazardousmaterials training, protective equipment, and decon-tamination procedures should be added to trainingfor ambulance drivers, hospital personnel, emer-gency room physicians, nurses, and orderlies. AS

part of a DOT demonstration project, Memphis or-ganized a full-scale accident simulation to evaluateemergency medical capabilities. It became apparentthat emergency medical services and hospital per-sonnel were not familiar with treatment of chemi-cal injuries or the need for decontamination afterchemical exposure. It is likely that many hospitalsand hospital emergency rooms suffer from this samelack of knowledge.

Training Content and Quality

Defining the needs of first responders and exam-ining how these needs are being met has not yetbeen systematically undertaken. Development of auniform comprehensive training program for emer-gency response activities hinges on unified nationalor Federal attention, rather than on piecemeal ef-forts at the State or local level.

State and local officials have suggested that a sys-tematic approach to training first responders shouldinclude: 12

●

●

●

●

a curriculum based on a clearly defined job anal-ysis that identifies what personnel should knowregarding hazardous materials management;cross-training for each of the groups needingtraining (fire, police, industry, Federal, andState personnel) in the vital areas of responseenforcement and compliance;well-qualified and expert hazardous materialstrainers; anda clearinghouse or coordinator for hazardousmaterials training to identify useful trainingcourses for particular needs.

———.] ‘U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Transcript of

Proceedings-OTA Workshop on State and Local Activities in Trans-portation of Hazardous Materials, ” Washington, DC, May 30, 1985.

The identification of available training programs,such as the surveys undertaken by DOT and FEMA,is a preliminary step in the development of a com-prehensive emergency response training program.Interim survey results document a spectrum of train-ing programs offered by Federal, State, and localagencies; private companies; and industry.

Training for emergency response to hazardous ma-terials incidents must cover the regulatory require-ments of hazardous materials transportation, includ-ing proper substance identification, shipping papers,placarding, and emergency notification procedures.Training in these requirements is offered by DOT,DOE, DOD, and NRC.

Most DOT training programs stress enforcementof regulations, including placarding recognition anduse of the DOT Emergency Guidebook, rather thandirect emergency response procedures. The U.S.Coast Guard offers classes in hazardous materialsregulatory compliance to shippers and carriers, andemergency response training to Coast Guard per-sonnel and other emergency responders for water-related hazardous materials transportation problems.

EPA offers training on hazardous materials emer-gency response at regional headquarters. The train-ing focuses on hazardous materials chemical andphysical properties, advanced emergency responsetechniques, and cleanup activities.

In the past, FEMA training programs focused pri-marily on training for emergency response to radio-logical accidents; new emphasis is now being placedon emergency response to hazardous materials ac-cidents. A six-part monthly teleconference seriessponsored by FEMA and the National Fire Acad-emy, being held between September 1985 andMarch 1986, covers a variety of emergency responseissues, including planning for and responding to haz-ardous materials emergencies.

State officials, in conversations with OTA staff,indicated that the basic first responder trainingcourses offered by most States include recognitionand identification of hazardous materials. ManyState training officers contend, however, that exist-ing first responder training courses are too superficialto prepare first responders adequately for hazard-ous materials transportation accidents.13 They urge

IJpersonal communication of OTA staff with training ol%cia]s in 3 j

State fire academies, June 25-July 20, 1985.

48

the establishment of national guidelines for differ-ent levels of emergency response training, for train-ing course content, and personnel requirements.

Local training for emergency responders varieswidely, reflecting the importance placed on hazard-ous materials emergency response by the State gov-ernment and the financial resources available. Thespectrum of local hazardous materials trainingcourses ranges from well organized and funded haz-ardous materials courses offered by highly trainedindividuals to little or nothing.14 15

Because of the large volumes transported, petro-leum products are the most likely hazardous mate-rials to be involved in accidents. Most first respond-ers already have extensive experience in dealing withpetroleum product accidents, regarding them as anextension of firefighting duties. Therefore, State andlocal training programs may need to concentrate onthose hazardous materials first responders have notpreviously encountered, particularly corrosives andother commodities. An inappropriate response toan accident involving unfamiliar chemical productscould endanger individuals, the entire team, or thesurrounding community.

One example of a public-private agency coopera-tive training program is that between EPA and theUnion Pacific Railroad in EPA Region VII. A 2-daytraining course in hazard identification and ap-proach is offered free of charge to multidisciplinarygroups with emergency response duties. The courseemphasizes that emergency response to hazardousmaterials incidents is unlike routine fire suppressionin several ways; for example, response personnelmust identify the types of hazards facing them be-fore approaching the accident or attempting rescue

14Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), National ~jreC-tory of Hazardous Materials Training Courses (San Francisco, CA:March 1985), p. 8.

1 sData Supp]led by t he International Association of Fire Chiefs to

OTA.

missions.16 The course is offered throughout Region

VII to maximize involvement by first responders.Although other EPA regions have expressed inter-est in the course, this program is unique to RegionVII.

Other successful training courses around the coun-try concentrate on training individuals, organizingthe individuals into teams, staging simulation haz-ardous materials accidents, and involving otheragencies in simulated emergency response. Thesesimulations provide an opportunity to test emer-gency response plans and discover organizationalproblems prior to an actual hazardous materials ac-cident.

Recent innovations in the presentation of emer-gency response training include the National FireProtection Association’s television broadcasts ofemergency response training and the six FEMA tele-conferences. Such programs, available free to appro-priate groups across the country, can deliver train-ing at low cost to large numbers of first responderswherever television satellite reception can be ar-ranged. *

Another innovative emergency personnel train-ing program is offered through the National High-way Traffic Safety Administration. If requestedunder the State and Community Highway SafetyGrant Program, receipt of Federal highway fundsis linked to meeting emergency medical service train-ing requirements. A similar program could be in-stituted for hazardous materials first responder train-ing. 17

IsCharles Wright, lecture at Hazardous Materials First Responder

Course presented by Union Pacific Railroad and U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency Region VII.

*For further information call Mary Ellis at FEMA at (.202) 64 fP2692.17Hal Butz, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traf-

fic Safety Administration, Enforcement and Emergency Response Di-vision, personal communication with OTA staff, June 25, 1985.

PLANNING AND ORGANIZING FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Emergency response plans, if properly imple-mented, can organize and coordinate the responseactivities of a variety of agencies. Communities con-cerned about hazardous materials transportation ac-cidents are developing hazardous materials emergen-cy response plans that utilize community resources.

Although hazardous materials truck movementsprobably dominate State and local planning andtraining, well-prepared State and local emergency

response plans will address hazardous materialstransportation by all relevant transport modes.According to 1983 rail waybill statistics, railroad

4 9

shipments of hazardous materials, bulk shipmentsof petroleum products, chemicals, pesticides and her-bicides, and occasionally spent fuel elements, reached73.1 million tons, or 5.4 percent of all rail tonnage.18

Barge movements of hazardous materials includebulk loads of petroleum and petroleum products,coals, and chemicals and chemical products. In 1981to 1982, 66 percent of total water freight movementswere hazardous materials.l9 Airborne shipments, thesmallest percentage of hazardous materials move-ments, are generally radioisotopes, valuable com-modities, and sensitive materials requiring rapid de-livery.

Radioactive materials constitute only a small per-centage of hazardous materials; in the past they havebeen the focus of many federally funded State emer-gency response planning programs. DOT statisticsshow, however, that the transportation of gasoline,fuel oil, and other petroleum products is far morelikely to cause damage to public property and theenvironment than radioactive materials. This sug-gests that hazardous materials planning activitiesshould encompass these familiar materials.

Planning for emergency response is recognized byState and local governments as indispensable in de-veloping more coordinated and effective responseactivities. As identified by State and local govern-ments, the primary areas needing attention duringplanning include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

improved coordination among Federal, State,and local agencies at every level;coordination with industry response programs;advance agreement about who is in charge;adequate communication between the accidentsite and off-site command posts;other operational concerns; andpublic information.

Coordination

Development of better coordination among Fed-eral and State emergency response agencies wouldease many planning-related problems facing State

IBMark AbkOWitZ and George List, “Hazardous Materials Transpor-tation: Commodity Flow and Incident/Accident Information Systems,”OTA contractor report, October 1985.

lgThe American Waterways Operators, Inc., American waterwayOperators Annual Report: 1981-1982 (Arlington, VA: 1983).

and local emergency responders. Issues needing a

coordinated approach include: funding for emer-gency response training and planning; informationdissemination on appropriate hazardous materialsemergency response procedures; and a clear deline-ation of Federal, State, and local hazardous mate-rials emergency response capabilities and responsi-bilities.

At the State, regional, or local level, plans thatoutline specific responsibilities, coordinate on-siteactivities, and appoint a response leader can reducethe confusion at the accident site and provide a clearchain of authority for response activities. Fire, po-lice, and other organizations that may participatein emergency response should be part of the plan-ning process to establish the lead agency in emer-gency response situations. Any governmental mu-tual aid agreement should determine the on-scenecoordinator in advance.

Industry has contributed to many local emergencyresponse activities, but questions remain regardingemergency response on private property, such as acompany facility or a railroad right-of-way. Advancearrangements between special industry responseteams and existing public emergency response net-works as to these issues will enhance response ef-forts. Formal mutual aid agreements between inde-pendent industry response teams and communitiesare a means of achieving coordinated and compre-hensive response capabilities at reduced expense.They allow neighboring communities to share equip-ment, fire and police department manpower, emer-gency medical services, and private sector resources.A recent effort, the CMA’s Community Awarenessand Emergency Response Program, encourages in-dustry to cooperate in the development of commu-nity emergency response plans.

Operational Concerns

Communication and liability issues should alsobe covered during the planning process. Commu-nication is vital in any emergency and involves bothhardware and organization. At the planning stage,participating response agencies should identifyequipment requirements and procedures to ensureadequate communication, both on and off site,equipment compatibility, and isolation of frequen-cies for emergency use.

50

In addition, some currently available resources donot correspond to the needs of State and localresponders. Additional information on the degreeof hazard for hazardous commodities, especiallyidentification of the chemicals most dangerous tofirst responders and the community at large, wouldenable planners and responders to assess risks morereadily. Hazardous commodities are immediatelyidentifiable to emergency responders if correctlyplacarded as radioactive materials, poisons, etiologicagents, flammables, combustibles, oxidizers, corro-sives, caustics, explosives, and pyrophoric materi-als. Within these categories, some substances aremuch more dangerous than others. Additional in-dication of the relative degree of hazard has beenof concern to State and local government officialsand emergency responders since 1970. Adoption ofthe United Nations numbering system, a classifica-tion and identification system developed for inter-national commerce, does not address the problemsthe current system poses to hazardous materialsemergency responders, although it provides a uni-form numerical identification when it is used.

One example of the need for gradations of haz-ard is the categorization of methyl isocyanate (MIC),responsible for more than 2,000 deaths and thou-sands of injuries to residents of Bhopal, India. Foryears, MIC has been classified only as a flammablematerial by the Department of Transportation. Onlyrecently has DOT changed its designation and pla-carding and handling requirements to indicate thedangers of inhalation.20

The DOT Guidebook, the most widely availableresponse information resource, may provide incom-plete information about a substance, as it did in theOdessa, Delaware, spill. Moreover, the componentsof hazardous waste, a combination of materials thatform a volatile mixture or pose multiple hazards,are not fully identified.

The high violation rate found among hazardousmaterials transporters of placarding, shipping papers,and marking regulations also concerns emergencyresponse personnel. First responders must often as-sess the risks of the hazardous materials and make

20 Washington Post, “Chemical Shipping Rule Issued,” Oct. 10, 1985.

decisions on response procedures based on incor-rect or incomplete information, potentially endan-gering themselves and neighboring commumties.

Another growing concern of hazardous materi-als teams and local governments is disposal of haz-ardous materials and contaminated soil, etc., fol-lowing cleanup. An emergency response team leftin possession of removed materials becomes a gener-ator, storer, and transporter of hazardous waste sub-ject to Federal hazardous waste requirements.

Liability issues are a concern for governmental en-tities, which may be held responsible for emergencyresponse activities that result in damages. Carefullycrafted Good Samaritan laws can relieve the bur-den of potential liability for qualified emergencyresponders who assist during a hazardous materi-als transportation accident. Industry liability afterresponse to hazardous materials accidents remainsa major industry concern.

Public Information

Providing accurate reports to the press and pub-lic is another necessary part of coordinated emer-gency response activities. At many accidents, par-ticularly severe ones, the media becomes a part ofthe response process and is an important public in-formation resource. Although most communitiesrecognize the importance of public information inthe emergency response process, media representa-tives are not typically included on planning taskforces.

A training course for press personnel on dealingwith bad news* stresses the need for careful advanceplanning and a clear strategy for providing an ac-curate information flow to the media and to the pub-lic. Emergency response plans should include des-ignating spokespersons skilled in giving print andelectronic media interviews. The first media contactcan determine how the incident is perceived by thepublic and can help maintain public calm and co-operation.

*For example, Lehigh University Journalism Department and Of-

fice of Continuing Education in Pittsburgh, PA, offers a training coursein press management of emergency situations.

51

PROTECTIVE

Emergency equipment is the primary protectionand defense for first responders handling hazard-ous materials. The equipment must be adapted toa particular hazard in that it must be made of ma-terials that are resistant to the hazardous chemical;and it must protect those areas and functions of thehuman body susceptible to the hazard.21

The lack of useful information on the appropri-ate type of personal protective equipment and proce-dures for its use is a major concern for local gov-ernments and emergency service personnel. Theappropriate choice among the varieties of equipmentoffered and the numerous operating proceduresavailable depends on the hazardous materials be-ing handled, and those responsible for equipmentpurchase are faced with difficult and expensiveoptions.

The cost of protective suits ranges from less than$100 for a disposable Tyvek coverall to approxi-mately $2,000 for a chemical splash suit with innerand outer suit protection. Self-contained breathingapparatus, important for incidents involving un-known chemicals or known highly hazardous chemi-cals, may cost $1,400 each. In combination, thesetypes of equipment, used properly, produce a highlevel of protection for emergency responders. How-ever, the cost of such equipment is far beyond thebudgets of many small communities.

Moreover, no existing protective clothing is resis-tant to all classes of hazardous materials. Thus, theselection of chemical protective equipment requiresassembling equipment components—gloves, head-gear, coveralls—that offer similar ranges of chemi-cal protection. Firefighters and hazardous materi-als response teams currently rely on fire serviceliterature, manufacturer information, and accumu-lated personal expertise when selecting chemical pro-tective gear. Firefighter gear is only now being testedfor chemical resistance, however. To provide effec-tive protection, equipment must fit properly, be usedcorrectly, and be maintained appropriately. In thecourse of their activities firefighters and other emer-

J IA. D. Llttlc Cc>., “Protectl\e Clothing and Equipment,” Chemjco/Hasmnt RcLsp(Inw In fi)rmation S},stc>m (CHRIS) Response ,\lcrll(dsHnndkmk (N’a\hlngton, DC: L’.S. C(Ja\t Guard l-1. S. Department ofTransportation, Decemhcr 197 S), p. 7-1.

EQUIPMENT

gency responders will be exerting themselves, alter-ing the fit and possibly reducing the effectivenessof clothing and respirators. For these reasons, emer-gency responders must be provided with trainingand explicit guidelines on the purchase, use, andmaintenance of respiratory protective equipment.

The development of equipment standards, pur-chase recommendations, and equipment training

programs by a national body, either the FederalGovernment or professional associations, would pro-vide local emergency responders with a body ofknowledge from which to make accurate and in-formed decisions.

5 2

●

●

●

●

●

FINDINGS

Additional training for public safety personnelin hazardous materials emergency response isurgently needed. No comprehensive frameworkfor emergency response training activities existstoday at the Federal, State, or local level, result-ing in insufficient attention to and funding fortraining activities.

Movements of gasoline and petroleum products(which constitute 50 percent of the hazardousmaterials transported) account for more hazard-ous materials transportation accidents, injuries,and damages than other classified commodities.Most emergency response personnel are adequate-ly trained to fight petroleum fires. Nonetheless,given the magnitude of the problem, planners,enforcement officers, and industry representativesshould develop additional safety measures andawareness and training programs for drivers andhandlers to reduce the incidence of such ac-cidents.

Movement of corrosives and other hazardousmaterials that pose special hazards are of con-cern to State and local officials. Emergency re-sponse personnel and planners should include in-dustry in the development of appropriate responseprocedures and training programs that reflect theinherent dangers of these substances.

The most pressing nationwide training need isfor intensified training for first responders. Firstresponders have initial responsibility in the miti-gation of an incident or accident and need to betrained accordingly. Course offerings are currentlyweighted in favor of advanced instruction, leav-ing first responders inadequately informed. A mul-tidisciplinary approach that includes all the agen-cies involved in first response is an importantaspect of this training.

Additional and advanced training is appropri-ate for public safety personnel in large jurisdic-

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

tions, along major transportation corridors, orin States with heavy concentrations of hazard-ous materials industries. Funding assistance fortraining will be necessary for many jurisdictions,either from Federal or State programs or from useror registration fees.

Safety information accompanying hazardousmaterials often is not sufficient to enable emer-gency responders to protect themselves or thesurrounding public in the case of an accident.

Determining in advance who is to be in chargeat an incident and the role(s) of each partici-pating agency is imperative for an effective re-sponse.

Good communication during emergencies re-quires adequate hardware and advance plan-ning and coordination.

National guidelines for appropriate protectiveclothing for specific hazardous materials emer-gencies are needed, as hundreds of types of per-sonal protective equipment are available for a va-riety of hazardous materials.

National guidelines for equipment standardsand for training in equipment use would pro-vide emergency response teams and public safe-ty personnel with adequate skills and tools fora safe response. Instruction in the maintenance,inspection, testing, and decontamination of per-sonal protective equipment should be includedin training programs.

Development of performance objectives foremergency response personnel would helpstandardize training and response.

Hazardous materials emergency response train-ing should include all transportation modes.

Chapter 4

Information Gathering for Stateand Local Hazardous Materials

Planning

Chapter 4

Information Gathering for State and LocalHazardous Materials Planning

Planning to prevent accidents and to improveemergency response requires information on the na-ture of hazardous materials accidents that might oc-cur, the areas of highest risk, and the types of ma-terials most likely to be involved. Until recently,State and local officials had scant information ofthis sort, but many have now initiated studies docu-menting the amount and types of hazardous mate-rials stored within or moving through their jurisdic-tions to help develop plans for accident preventionand emergency response. This chapter describesState and local efforts to gather and analyze haz-ardous materials data for planning purposes andidentifies related issues.

The impetus for gathering information and plan-ning is often a hazardous materials incident forwhich a jurisdiction found itself ill-prepared. A 1979chemical plant fire in downtown Memphis promptedthe mayor to initiate a planning and data collec-tion program. When Memphis became a part of aU.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) demon-stration program, the city used DOT funds to ex-


Information on the type of hazardous materials storedfor distribution in a community is important for

planning and emergency preparedness.

pand and refine the effort. Release of phosphoroustrichloride from an overturned railroad car in Somer-ville, Massachusetts, caused 400 people to seek med-ical attention and was the catalyst for the Common-wealth to undertake a planning study with the goalof improving emergency response procedures. Otherjurisdictions have become sensitive to the dangerof hazardous materials accidents because they aretransportation centers or major corridors of hazard-ous materials traffic.

Starting in 1981, the Office of Hazardous Mate-rials Transportation within DOT sponsored studiesin seven jurisdictions on a wide range of issues re-lated to hazardous materials transportation; thesestudies were to lead to development of comprehen-sive management plans to serve as models for otherlocalities. The seven jurisdictions were: the CentralPuget Sound Region; the San Francisco Bay Area;Indianapolis; Memphis; New Orleans; NiagaraCounty, New York; and the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts. The sites represented a range of pop-ulation sizes, locations, types of political units, andlevels of existing planning. All plans covered fourgeneral topics: hazard identification, assessment oflocal capabilities, prevention, and response. Eachplan reflects local economic conditions, perceivedneeds, and other demographic characteristics.

To collect information for this chapter, OTA ex-amined a variety of sources. The seven DOT dem-onstration projects and the studies carried out byStates under the State Hazardous Materials Enforce-ment Development (SHMED) Program were particu-larly valuable. So, too, was a multimodal study pre-pared for Virginia, which represents an early attemptby a State to collect comprehensive information onhazardous materials movements by all modes oftransportation, At the municipal and regional level,OTA reviewed a hazardous materials transportationstudy recently completed for the New York City areaand the preliminary results of studies now in progressin Houston and Denver. In addition, federallyfunded studies of monitoring and enforcement ef-

55

52-648 0 - 86 - 3 : QL 3

5 6

forts for transport of radioactive materials were ex-amined.

States that have undertaken hazardous materialsdata collection and planning studies have used a va-riety of Federal funding sources, including SHMEDprogram monies and Federal Highway Administra-tion (FHWA) planning funds, as well as their ownresources. However, aside from the DOT demon-stration sites, local governments have found fund-ing such studies difficult. No Federal program cur-rently exists specifically for local planning studies,and State planning efforts remain concentrated atthe State level.1 State responsibility for planning is

often scattered among several departments, compli-cating local officials’ efforts to obtain funds. Plan-ning officials complain that they cannot get localfunds for accident prevention and emergency re-sponse planning until an accident occurs. All localplanning studies and data collection efforts have de-pended primarily on outside financial support. Typi-cally, little or no information is gathered prior toreceiving a funding grant, and once the grant ex-pires, sustaining staff efforts becomes difficult. OTAfound that acquiring data for planning remains asignificant problem for many local jurisdictions.

IThomas White, City Council member, Greenbelt, MD, in U.S. Con-

gress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Transcript of Proceedings–OTA Workshop on State and Local Activities in Transportation ofHazardous Materials,” Washington, DC, May 30, 1985, p. 155.

DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

Federal Data Collection

Numerous Federal offices have responsibility forhazardous materials data collection, although onlythose relevant to State and local needs are discussedhere. DOT information-gathering efforts include:

●

●

●

●

•

Research and Special Programs Administration,Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation:collects data on incidents (spills) by all modesexcept bulk water.U.S. Coast Guard: collects accident and spilldata for waterborne commerce.Federal Railroad Administration: collects railaccident data.Federal Aviation Administration: collects dataon aviation accidents and spills.FHWA, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety: col-lects accident and incident data on highwaytransportation.

The Bureau of the Census and the InterstateCommerce Commission collect commodity flowdata. The Census Bureau’s Commodity Transpor-tation Survey contains useful multimodal informa-tion on all commodity shipments, but, as it is con-ducted only once every 5 years, its information isnot current. Furthermore, it is difficult to extractinformation on hazardous materials shipments. In

addition, the information requested of the respond-ers varies with each survey, so trend analysis is dif-ficult. The Interstate Commerce Commission col-lects railroad waybill data, which can be analyzedto yield commodity flow data about hazardous ma-terials shipped by rail.

The format of each of these commodity flow data-bases makes them so difficult to compare that theyare not useful to State and local governments. Forexample, hazardous materials information is not dis-tinct from other commodities; identification of thecommodities is often too imprecise to determinewhether hazardous materials is involved; there is noinformation on routing; the codes used to identifythe hazardous materials commodities are not thesame in each database; and no officially recognizedcross-reference table exists to permit integration ofdata from different databases.

State and Local Studies

No single best approach to State and local datacollection emerged from OTA’s research. When aState undertakes a study, a lead agency is usuallydesignated, often the Department of Transportationor State Police, with assistance provided by an officeof emergency preparedness or comparable agency.

5 7

For cities, municipal planning staffs, private con-sulting firms, or university-based research groups domost of the data gathering and analysis. For exam-ple, a New Orleans planning study was conductedby a member of the mayor’s staff hired with grantfunds, and the knowledge accumulated during thestudy continues to be a major asset for the city. Firedepartments are the other local public agency mostfrequently involved in data gathering.

Techniques and results vary according to the lo-cal situation and experience and the particular in-terests and resources of the agencies involved. None-theless, it has been possible to identify the types ofdata that have been found useful, effective meth-ods, and commonly encountered problems. The fol-lowing kinds of studies have been found to providethe background information necessary for planningand emergency preparedness:

● Inventory of hazardous materials stored atfixed facilities: Records the quantity and typeof hazardous commodities stored in manufactur-ing, wholesaling, distribution, or storage facil-ities within the jurisdiction. Data are obtained

●

●

by means of questionnaires, interviews, and in-spections, and from public records, such as fireinspection records and business tax records.Hazardous materials transportation analysis:Identifies the quantities and types of hazardousmaterials transported through the jurisdictionby each transportation mode and the most fre-quently used routes. Data are gathered by ques-tionnaires, roadside inspections, and review ofcompany records.Hazards assessment or identification of haz-ards and high-risk locations: Analyzes factorssuch as population density, transportation sys-tem characteristics, and past incidents to de-termine where the risk of a hazardous materi-als incident is greatest or where the impactwould be the most severe.

An inventory of fixed facilities is usually the firststep in the data-gathering process. Any second stepis usually a transportation analysis. Hazards assess-ment is usually last sincein the first two studies.

it draws on data collected

FIXED FACILITIES INVENTORIES

Knowledge of the extent and nature of hazard-ous materials manufacture and storage in the com-munity is essential for prevention and response plan-ning. Local governments have found that a facilitiesinventory can guide the purchase of equipment, con-duct of training, location of response facilities, andassignment of personnel; and it provides a good in-dication of the type of hazardous material trans-ported in the jurisdiction. Despite the importanceof data on fixed storage sites, however, none of theseven jurisdictions taking part in the DOT demon-strations had previously compiled this information,although some had partial data as a result of regu-latory requirements pertaining to nuclear materials,hazardous wastes, air pollution, or routine fire in-spection procedures.

Local and Regional Inventories

One of the first decisions necessary in undertak-ing a hazardous materials inventory is what shouldbe inventoried and in what detail. Some jurisdic-

tions studied by OTA chose to locate all hazard-ous materials, including paint thinner stored in re-tail stores, but concentrated most on chemicalsmanufactured or stored in bulk. Memphis, for ex-ample, limited its inventory to 255 manufacturingsites.2 At the other extreme, the cities of Santa ClaraCounty, California, inventoried all materials iden-tified by DOT as hazardous and stored in any quan-tity at commercial facilities, including drug stores.3

The inventory is now kept current by the county.The majority of communities studied, however, havelimited their surveys to selected commodities iden-tified by the staff and advisory committees and tomajor facilities, measured by employment levels.

The Association of Bay Area Governments,around San Francisco, identified target commodi-

2Nat10~a] CO~erence of State Legislatures, October 1983 -D~ember

1983, Hazardous Materials Transportation Regional Workshops (Den-ver, CO: 1983), p. 65.

jcambridge Systematic, Inc., Communiry Teamwork— Working To-

gether to Promote Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983), p. 6.

5 8

ties but did not have the budget or manpower to

administer the manufacturer and shipper question-naire. Instead, Bay Area planners produced a ser-ies of small maps, showing the locations of manu-facturing firms that frequently used the selectedgroup of hazardous materials, anticipating that eachcounty would eventually survey individual firms.5

In Memphis and Indianapolis, the initial data col-lection method was a questionnaire. Memphis iden-tified 900 firms as potential hazardous materials stor-

5A~~Wi~tiOn of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco, CA, ~aZ-ardous Spill Prevention and Response Plan (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Transpcn-tation, Research and Special Programs Admin-istration, 1983).

age sites. By eliminating the smallest firms on theadvice of the local advisory committee and the firedepartment, the staff narrowed the list to 255 firms.Questionnaires sent under the auspices of the Mem-phis Fire Department asked for data on storage ofmaterial in 19 DOT hazard classes. Although fol-lowup to the questionnaire was a lengthy process,the city currently has information on the type, quan-tity, and location of stored hazardous materials, in-cluding site plans and names, addresses, and phonenumbers of emergency contacts.6 In Indianapolis,only 20 to 25 percent of the 1,200 local industriessurveyed submitted responses to the questionnaire.The majority of manufacturers declined to partici-pate because of their concern that the data mightdivulge proprietary information or that the time nec-essary to compile the data would be excessive. Morerecently, Indianapolis planners, in cooperation withthe city and suburban fire departments, have pre-pared a simplified hazardous materials informationform that they will ask manufacturers and distrib-utors to complete. City staff pointed out to OTAthat the fire departments now collect such detailedinformation as part of their fire prevention dutiesand that, as a result, they have established a goodrelationship with industry in the Indianapolis area.

Santa Clara County collects information bymeans of a regulatory procedure, which also financesthe hazardous materials control program. To ob-tain a business license, all firms selling, using, or pro-ducing hazardous materials must provide local offi-cials with an inventory and pay a fee based on theamount of materials stored. The fees help supportthe county’s emergency response team and hazard-ous materials inspections. Local manufacturers andmerchants are advised on the proper storage andhandling of hazardous materials during these in-spections.

Coordinated Use of Inventories

Inventories can provide information for many pur-poses in addition to planning. The MultnomahCounty Fire Department in Oregon collects infor-mation on hazardous materials storage at fixed fa-cilities as part of routine fire inspections. Thecounty’s Office of Emergency Management storesthe information in a computer along with data on

6National conference of state Legislatures, op. cit.

59

chemical characteristics of the commodities, trans-portation routes frequently used, and performanceprofiles of major carriers. The county’s specializedhazardous materials team has access to this data-base through a computer terminal located in the re-sponse vehicle. The computer system can provideinformation on where a specified product can befound at the site, how it is stored, and other chem-icals that may be present. The system also providesinformation on the characteristics of all the chemi-cals known to be in the county, based on DOT andother standard classifications, and the names oforganizations to call for additional product infor-mation. 7

Not all communities give first priority to inven-tory of hazardous materials at fixed facilities. Forexample, Niagara County, New York, a rural countytraversed by an Interstate highway, centered atten-tion first on a survey of commodities transportedthrough the county. New Orleans initially concen-trated on coordinating and improving existing pro-cedures for emergency responses However, the cityhas now turned attention to creating an inventorythat will eventually be computerized by census tractand include all fixed storage facilities. In every city,gasoline is the most commonly stored hazardous ma-terial, and the New Orleans planning staff beganby mapping underground tanks, on the assumptionthat this relatively limited inventory effort wouldease the task of locating all gasoline stations. How-ever, a number of substances other than gasolineare stored underground, making this effort a muchmore extensive and complicated task than antic-ipated,

State Inventory Studies

Massachusetts, also a DOT demonstration projectparticipant, is one of the few States that has com-pleted a fixed facilities inventory. For each of theState’s 14 fire districts, State analysts used manu-facturing directories to locate the firms with morethan 100 employees that used or produced hazard-ous materials.9

‘Puget Sound Council of Governments, op. cit.8City of New, Orleans, Hazardous Materiak Accident Pretrention and

Emergency Response Program (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofTransportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, 1983),p. 10.

9Energy Resources, Inc., Phase I: Determine the Nature and Scopeof Hazardous Materials Transportation in the Massachusetts Region,Vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1982),p. 4-36.


Some common hazardous materials are typicallytransported in compressed gas cylinders.

In March 1983, the State of New Jersey passeda law requiring every firm manufacturing or handl-ing hazardous substances to file a completed surveyform with the State Department of Health and thecounty or local health, fire, and police departments.This information effectively provides a facilities in-ventory.

The State of Maryland has created a computer-ized registry of all toxic and carcinogenic substancesstored at fixed sites. The State Department of Healthand Mental Hygiene began gathering the data in1979 with funds from a U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) grant. Currently, the regis-try contains inventories of more than 400 industrialusers of toxic or carcinogenic substances. The datagathered comprise detailed information on 54 tar-get chemicals selected by the department, includ-ing the maximum quantities stored and how they

are transported. In the first data collection effort,the survey questionnaires returned were too incom-plete to be useful. To obtain reliable data, staff mem-bers visited companies, spending as long as 2 daysat each to assist them in completing the form. Dataare updated annually, and personal visits are nowusually necessary only for new firms. The staff esti-mates that the development of the computerizedregistry system cost over $400,000, not counting soft-ware development, which was paid for by the EPAgrant, and annual operating costs. In addition tomonitoring the quantities and types of chemicalsbeing manufactured, stored, and transported in theState, the registry is also used to cross-reference

60

health and environmental information with chem-ical sites and activity.l0

Community Support

The success of inventory efforts depends on thecooperation of public agencies, such as the fire andpolice departments, and private groups, such aschemical manufacturers, shippers, and carriers. Lo-cal advisory committees can be instrumental in ob-taining such cooperation. Committees, appointedby elected officials, are usually multidisciplinary andcomposed of representatives from first response agen-cies, local industry, local and interstate carriers, andof public officials, educators, experts in hazardousmaterials, and environmentalists. Manufacturingand carrier representatives on a committee can ad-vise researchers on how to approach local industry,recommend the project to their associates, and helpassess the validity of data collected.

Although private sector support has at times beenproblematical, recent actions by the Chemical Man-ufacturers Association (CMA) indicate an increasedinterest by the chemical industry in cooperating withState and local planning efforts. In April 1985, CMAannounced an industry-wide program designed tomake chemical industry expertise available to localagencies, including furnishing planning groups withcompany safety data sheets on commodities manu-factured and stored in the community.11

Right-To-Know

Inventories and surveys of facilities are effectiveways to obtain data on the types and amount ofhazardous materials present in a community or re-gion. However, concerns about protecting tradesecrets or other information considered to be pro-prietary (e.g., health or exposure data) have madesome manufacturers unwilling to comply with re-quests for information. In response, many States andmunicipalities have enacted legislation, commonlyreferred to as “right-to-know” laws, that requires therelease of information on the hazards associated withchemicals produced or used in a given facility. Themajority of State right-to-know laws address both

IOM= Eisenberg, Environmental Program, Maryland Department

of Health and Mental Hygiene, personal communication with OTAstaff, March 1985.

I I chemical Manufa~urers Association, press release, Washington,

DC, April 1985.

Table 4.1.—State Right-to-Know Laws, 1985

Community WorkerState provisions provisions

Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xAlaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xArizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xCalifornia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . . x xDelaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xFlorida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xGeorgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xIndiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xMaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xMaryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . x xMichigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xMinnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xMississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xNebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . x xNew Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Yorka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xNorth Carolina . . . . . . . . . . x xNorth Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . x xOhio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xPennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . x xRhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . x xSouth Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xTexas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xUtah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xVirginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xWest Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . x xWisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xWyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .aAlthOUgh New York h= riot passed community right-to-know regulations, in De-

cember 1983, Governor Cuomo issued an executive order requiring the Depart-ment of Environmental Conservation to inventory all toxic chemicals used,stored, or disposed of in the State.

SOURCES: National Ccaference of State Legislatures, “State Hazardous Materi-als Policy: Issues Raised by the Bhopal Incident, ” State Legis/aflveReport, vol. 10, No. 1, January 1985; personal communication withJanis Adkins (cd.), Ffight.To-Know News (Washington, DC: Thc)mpsonPublishing Group, Oct. 22, 1985); and Department of OccupationalSafety, Health, and Social Security of AFL-CIO, list of State right-to-know laws.

61

community and employee access to informationabout workplace hazards. Table 4-1 lists the Statesthat have passed such laws. Increasing numbers oflocal governments are also enacting their own right-to-know statutes.

The provisions of these laws are not uniform, ei-ther in terms of the obligations placed on industryor in terms of the types of hazardous materials cov-ered. States have also taken different approaches toexemptions according to business size or quantitiesof material involved and the extent to which firmsmay protect trade secrets.

The requirements of right-to-know laws most rele-vant to hazardous materials planning and emergencyresponse include providing public access to infor-mation on hazardous materials present in a Stateor locality, conducting inventories or surveys, estab-lishing recordkeeping and exposure reporting sys-tems, and complying with container labeling regu-lations for workplaces. Other requirements do notpertain directly to hazardous materials planning oremergency response but to worker protection (e.g.,training and certification programs, posting of warn-ing signs and notices, provision of protective equip-ment, and employee rights to refuse to work undercertain conditions).

In 1983, the Occupational Safety and Health Ad-ministration (OSHA) established a national hazardcommunication standard for employees in the man-ufacturing sector.

12 One part of this standard re-quires chemical manufacturers and importers to pre-pare a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for allhazardous chemicals produced or imported. Employ-ers covered by the OSHA standard must have anMSDS for each hazardous chemical they use. More-over, some States require that copies of the MSDSalso be submitted to a State agency or local fire chiefas part of their community right-to-know programs.

The OSHA standard is intended to preempt Stateright-to-know laws for workers, but it does not ap-ply to right-to-know laws pertaining to disclosureof information to State and local planning agenciesconcerned with emergency preparedness and re-sponse. Pending judicial and congressional actionson the scope of the OSHA standard may have aneffect on existing State and local provisions and onthe establishment of national community right-to-know requirements.

‘Z29 CFR 1910.

TRANSPORTATION STUDIES

In addition to fixed facility inventories, State andlocal governments have tapped a variety of publicand private sources to collect data on truck, rail,air, and water transportation. Small towns and ru-ral counties are particularly interested in transpor-tation data because they see their greatest risk asa hazardous materials accident on an Interstate high-way or railroad line passing through their jurisdic-tion. The type and quantity of hazardous materi-als carried by each mode and the principal routesused comprise the information most frequently col-lected for planning, risk analyses, routing decisions,and emergency response preparation. Because thedata-gathering problems are different for each mode,highway, rail, air, and water transport are discussedseparately and divided into local/regional and Statestudies.

Truck Studies—Local/Regional

DOT demonstrations and other projects reviewedby OTA put high priority on information abouthighwy transport of hazardous materials becausetrucks far outnumber other types of hazardous ma-terials carriers, carry the largest share of the haz-ardous materials shipments, and are involved in thegreatest number of incidents. At the national level,however, little detailed information is availableabout hazardous materials movement by truck. Eventhe U.S. Census of Transportation, the most com-monly used source of statistical information abouthighway transportation, does not contain enoughdetail to isolate hazardous commodities from othermaterials carried by truck.

62

Because of the lack of a central database on com-modity flow, State and local planners have had todevise special means to collect data on highwaytransport of hazardous materials. The primary meth-ods are questionnaires, visual surveys, and inspec-tions. Several jurisdictions have sent out question-naires to shippers, carriers, and manufacturersrequesting information about hazardous materialsshipments and the routes most frequently used.

Analysts in the Puget Sound Region, using ques-tionnaire responses, truck route locations, and otherinformation provided by local governmental depart-ments, mapped the routes by which 85 target com-modities moved within and through the region. Theresults of the research were useful, but the processwas time-consuming and complex. Many firms didnot answer the parts of the questionnaire concern-ing routes most frequently used, and planners hadto make assumptions and later verify them by avisual check of truck movements. This involvedrecording placarded trucks according to commoditytype at several strategic locations over a 17-dayperiod.

Memphis used a questionnaire to gather data fromlocal shippers and manufacturers, but only 28 outof 68 firms responded to the initial request for com-

13 City officials believe thatmodity flow information.some respondents reported low volumes of hazard-ous materials, especially petroleum products, andState Highway Department tax records showed thatthe truckers had substantially underreported theflammables category on the questionnaire. In a sur-vey conducted recently of manufacturers and trans-porters of hazardous materials in the New York City

and New Jersey area, only 20 percent of thosesolicited returned completed questionnaires. Thisresponse, however, was considered high, sincegathering and supplying the requested informationwas time-consuming, and most firms do not nor-mally record production and shipping informationaccording to hazard class or routing patterns.14

Other localities, without the time or resources forquestionnaires, have resorted to visual surveys oftrucks along major highways. Checkpoints, usually

IJCltY of Memphis Division of Fire Services, Hazardous MaterialsTask Force Fiml Report (Memphis, TN: 1981), p. 24.

lqRaymond .scan]on, “A Regional Stud y on Hazardous MaterialsTransportation,” draft report, Port Authority of New York, 1983, p. 15.

at weigh stations, are set up, and government em-ployees or students count the placarded trucks pass-ing through, recording the commodity class of eachshipment. This type of survey was done in the SanFrancisco Bay area and in Indianapolis.

Truck Studies—State

Several States have successfully conducted surveysof the volume and types of hazardous materials car-ried by truck. In many cases, the States have hadthe resources and the authority to combine a visualsurvey with an inspection and driver interview. Theearliest full-scale study was carried out in 1977 to1978 by the Virginia Department of TransportationSafety as part of a multimodal analysis of hazard-ous materials transportation. During July and Au-gust 1977, all trucks passing 38 survey points on In-terstate and primary roads were stopped by Stateor local police. Shipping papers were inspected, andthe drivers were interviewed on the types of mate-rials carried, origin and destination of the trip, andthe sequence of routes taken. Officers also checkedto see if the placarding was correct and classifiedthe carrier as company-owned, independent, com-mon carrier, or personal vehicle. The study find-ings provided Virginia officials with a current data-base on commodity flow and a good measure of thelevel of compliance with existing Federal and Stateregulations. The survey found that 13 percent of thetrucks carried hazardous materials, of which 76 per-cent was flammable, combustible, or corrosive liq-uid. Petroleum products were the most common car-goes. l5

Virginia conducted a followup survey betweenApril and December 1978, using nine survey pointslocated at weigh stations along Interstate routes. Re-searchers found that, by reducing the number of sur-vey points, the costs of the study were substantiallyreduced, and the data yield per man-hour increased.

The findings of the survey showed a drop in thepercentage of trucks carrying hazardous materials,from 13 percent in 1977 to 7 percent in 1978. It isnot clear whether this drop was related to the de-crease in checkpoints. The total quantity of hazard-ous cargoes did not decrease similarly. The average

IJ].W. Schmidt and D.L. Price, Virginia Pol~echnic Institute, Haz-ardous Materiak Transportation in Virginia (Richmond, VA: VirginiaDepartment of Transportation Safety, 1980), p. XII.

63

load per truck increased from 8.6 tons in 1977 to12.9 tons in 1978. The researchers could not explainthe variation between 1977 and 1978 in volume andload per vehicle. The study has not been updated,so the question remains unanswered. The heaviesthazardous materials traffic was on Interstate high-ways in and around cities, because urban areas arethe principal origins and destinations of petroleumproducts. The number of placarding violationsfound by inspectors increased from 34 percent in1977 to 55 percent in 1978.

According to one Virginia official, the State hopesto develop trained response teams for high-riskareas. 16 In the meantime a number of localities inVirginia have developed their own emergency re-sponse training plans. For example, Newport News,Virginia, has instituted hazardous materials LevelI, II, and III certification programs.17

Several States, including Maryland, Illinois, SouthDakota, and Arizona, have analyzed hazardous ma-terials transportation as part of the SHMED pro-gram, which allowed assessments of the volume andnature of hazardous materials traffic. Over a l-yearperiod from October 1981 to September 1982, Wash-ington State conducted a truck study, surveying theamounts of hazardous materials moving through theState and the type of carrier used. The study foundthat approximately 400 million tons, 175 million gal-lons, and 17 million cubic feet of hazardous mate-rials moved annually through the State.

The Washington State methodology was similarto that of the Virginia study. The State Utilities andTransportation Commission set up checkpoints at11 locations on major highways. All trucks werestopped and checked for 4-hour periods twice amonth. The checks included an inspection of ship-ping papers and an interview with the driver aboutcargo, quantity carried, origin, destination, and typeof carrier. The data were tabulated and sorted usingthe Automated Hazardous Materials SurveillanceProgram, a computer program designed for the studythat can sort survey data according to date, loca-tion, commodity, and truck type and cross-checkit with accident and violation data. Researchers

Ibsteve GalnOr, Virginia State Emergency Management Agency, per-sonal interview with OTA staff, July 1985.

I TT.S. Walls, Fire chief, Newport News, VA, personal communica-

tion, Nov. 1, 1985.

found that although independent truckers carry 50percent of the cargo, they are involved in 75 per-cent of the accidents.l8

In 1982 and 1983, the South Dakota Departmentof Public Safety surveyed drivers and inspected ap-proximately 340,000 trucks at highway checkpoints.Less than 1 percent of the trucks carried hazardousmaterials. The most common hazardous materialscargos were flammable liquids, explosives, corrosives,and flammable gases. The two Interstate highwayspassing through South Dakota were used for at leastpart of the trip by 90 percent of all hazardous ma-terials shipments. The survey found that 55 percentof the hazardous materials shipped were intrastate,primarily flammable liquids and gases. These find-ings are consistent with the results of other studies.In addition, questionnaires were sent to a 10-percentsample of all carriers and to all shippers located inSouth Dakota. Approximately one-half responded.The results generally substantiated the highway in-spection findings concerning route used, load size,and predominant type of cargo. Most intrastate ship-ments were local deliveries of 25 miles or less, usu-ally originating in one of the larger cities. Althoughmost deliveries were local, carriers indicated thattheir trucks spent as much as 40 percent of theirtime on Interstate highways.19

OTA research indicates that even when Statetransportation data collection programs are in place,cities within the State are not aware of this data re-source and consequently do not make use of it.

Rail Studies—Local/Regional

Data collection on bulk rail shipments of hazard-ous materials can be extremely important to manycities, particularly rail distribution centers such asMemphis and Indianapolis, where data are neededfor emergency planning and response purposes. In-formation on commodities transported, measuredby rail carloads, is generally available on requestfrom the major railroads, most of which have com-puterized cargo records. Computer information in-dicating the location of hazardous materials cars inthe train and instructions on emergency response

IBU.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation Bu-

reau, SHMED Program Workshop Proceedings, Salt Lake City, Utah,1983 (Washington, DC: 1983), p. 206.

191bid., p. 186.

52-648 0 - 86 - 4 : Q L 3

6 4

procedures is available on the train as well asthrough railroad offices. Conrail can providedetailed print-outs listing the type and quantitiesof hazardous materials carried on each section ofthe line. For example, in Indianapolis, Conrail pro-vided planners with the number of rail cars carry-ing specific types of hazardous materials that origi-nated and terminated in the city’s three major railyards.20 In communities served by other railroads,the availability and detail of the data depend on theextent to which the line is computerized. In addi-tion, the Association of American Railroads hascompiled a list of the 138 chemicals most frequentlycarried by the railroads. It has developed detailedfact sheets for the commodities that are incorporatedinto computerized train information and waybills.21

Memphis has produced a detailed profile of haz-ardous materials flows from data provided by thesix railroads serving the city. Even though local plan-ners were aware that a large volume of hazardousmaterials was handled by railroads in Memphis, thedaily average of 150 rail cars carrying a total of10,000 tons surprised them.22 In the Indianapolisand Memphis studies, the mix of commodities shippedby rail from local firms was found to be the sameas the national mix carried by all railroads, prob-ably because both cities are major rail transfer pointsor chemical distribution centers.

Rail Studies—State

Only a few statewide studies of rail transporta-tion of hazardous materials have been conducted.Massachusetts, as part of the research phase of a1981 planning project, inventoried all the major raillines in the State and obtained information on thetypes and quantities—in carloads—of hazardous ma-terials shipped by three of the four largest railroads.Researchers concluded that relatively small amountsof hazardous materials were moved by rail in Mas-sachusetts. In 1980, for instance, Conrail transportedless than 1,700 carloads of hazardous materials inthe Commonwealth. The study pointed out that

zociw ~~~dl~na~]is, IN, ~ernOr3Stracic3n Projecr tO Develop a ~~z-

ardous Materials Accident Prevention and Emergency Response Plan(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983), p. 36.

Zlpatrick J, Smdent (cd.), Emergency Handling of Hazardous Mate-rials in Surface Transportation (Washington, DC: Bureau of Explo-sives, Association of American Railroads, 1981).

zjNatlonal ~nference of State Legislatures, op. cit.

most of the interstate and intrastate point-to-pointrail line distances in Massachusetts are relativelyshort, making truck service very competitive.

Virginia, as part of a multimodal study in 1977to 1978, collected data from the 10 railroads serv-ing the State. The railroads provided waybill sam-ples for subsections of each line. With this infor-mation, analysts estimated the number of cars perday carrying hazardous materials, the tons of haz-ardous materials carried per day, and the numberof trains containing hazardous materials cars. Inmost cases, the class of the hazardous material wasidentified, and the data tabulated by DOT hazardclass. When waybill information was not available,researchers had great difficulty gathering reliabledata. 23 The study findings showed that corrosivesaccounted for almost half the volume of hazardousmaterials transported by rail (or approximately 195tons per day), followed by flammable liquids with51 tons per day, and nonflammable compressed gaswith 43 tons per day. Corrosive materials and flam-mable liquids, primarily petroleum products, ac-counted for 58 percent of the total hazardous ma-terials shipped by rail and 52 percent of all hazardousmaterials shipped by truck. The heaviest rail flowof hazardous cargo was in and around cities, a reflec-tion of the demand for petroleum products in urbanareas.

The State of Oregon requires annual summariesby milepost segment of all rail shipments of ClassA explosives and poisons. These data are used foremergency response planning.

Air Transportation Studies

The transportation of hazardous materials by airis controlled by the Federal Aviation Administra-tion’s (FAA) Civil Security Division. Since hazard-ous shipments account for less than 3 percent of to-tal hazardous materials tonnage moved nationallyand since shipments are generally small, State andlocal governments do not appear to be particularlyconcerned about air transport. At the New Orleans,Memphis, and Boston airports, for example, FAAconducted surveys of the types and quantities ofhazardous materials shipments and provided localplanners with the data. To augment FAA data, re-

23schmidt and price, op. cit., pp. 113-115.

65

searchers in at least two DOT demonstration studiesobtained data on shipment characteristics for theair freight carriers. Local planners do not have ac-cess to information on hazardous materials carriedby military aircraft.

Water Transportation Studies

Ports play an important role in hazardous mate-rials commerce. For example, 4.5 million tons of haz-ardous materials pass through the Port of Seattleeach year—about 27 percent of the total cargo han-dled. Over half of the Nation’s chemicals movethrough the Port of Houston. Local planners relyon studies by the U.S. Corps of Engineers as theirprimary data source. The corps compiles the typeand quantities of commodities transported into andthrough all major navigable waterways and harborsin the United States. The corps provided Massa-chusetts researchers with the annual tonnage bycommodity group for 1978 for both the main Bos-ton Harbor and the nearby New Bedford Harbor,However, the data classification system used by thecorps does not always identify specific commodities.For instance, the “basic chemicals” category con-tains some nonhazardous materials; this leads tooverestimates of the actual amounts of hazardousmaterials. However, none of the States or cities re-viewed by OTA found this problem sufficient rea-son to conduct a separate or additional study. Twoport cities, Seattle and Boston, supplemented thecorps data with information on tonnage of com-modities available from local regulatory agencies andthe U.S. Coast Guard.

Federal Data on Shipment ofRadioactive Materials and Wastes

In 1973 to 1975 and 1977 to 1981, two series ofstudies involving a number of States were conductedjointly by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) and DOT for the purpose of collecting in-formation on the transportation of low-level radio-active materials. These studies were the foundationfor what became the SHMED program to help de-velop State prevention and enforcement capability,Data were gathered on low-level radioactive wastesites; shipments by highway, air, and water, and thehistory of accidents and incidents. Findings wereused to determine gaps in Federal regulatory pro-


Marking for radioactive materials,required by Federal regulations.

grams and in Federal and State enforcement efforts.These studies, stimulated by State and local con-cerns over lack of adequate surveillance of shipmentsof low-level radioactive materials and wastes, effec-tively proved the advantages of and need for con-tinued inspection and enforcement training and im-plementation at Federal and State levels.24 Interestin enforcement of regulations governing radioactivematerials led to broader Federal and State cooper-ative efforts on the general problem of preventionand emergency response planning for all types ofhazardous materials.

Data on movement for high-level radioactive ma-terials and wastes, including spent fuel, are treateddifferentl y from other hazardous materials data–both legally and institutionally. DOT has primaryresponsibility for surveillance and monitoring of low-level radioactive materials and wastes, while DOTand NRC share regulatory and enforcement author-ity for high-level radioactive materials and wastes.

NRC requires licensees to provide advance no-tice for certain nuclear shipments to provide physi-

z4Steve ~, so~mon, Srate Su~,ejl/anC-e of Ra&acri\v Material Trans-portation, NUREG-1015 (Vrashington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory!Commission, Office of State Programs, 1984), p. 5.

66

cal protection of special nuclear materials to preventtheft, diversion, or sabotage, and to notify NRC re-gional offices of impending special shipments of nu-clear materials. These requirements, in effect since1975, were expanded in 1979 to include spent nu-clear fuel. In the NRC Reauthorization Act of 1980,Congress directed NRC to expand its shipmentnotification procedures to include State govern-ments. In its rulemaking, NRC indicated that:

. . . the purpose of the rule is to provide States withinformation not otherwise available to them, whichwill enable them to contribute to the safety, secu-rity and ease of transport of shipments.25

While there is no central database available onthe number of licensees, information can be ex-tracted from two Federal databases to obtain an ap-proximation of shipping activity for high-level com-mercial wastes and materials (excluding Departmentof Energy shipments). A study conducted by theBattelle Memorial Institute for DOT analyzed States’use of the information on transport shipments ofspent nuclear fuel through their jurisdictions. Of theStates surveyed, 14 out of 15 maintain a file of notifi-cations. Five States pass the information on to otherState agencies, two make subsequent notificationsto other elements of the same agencies, and six sub-sequently notify officials at both the State and lo-cal levels. Two States make no further notificationfor security reasons.

The primary benefit of notification identified byalmost all States surveyed was that awareness of im-pending shipments allowed them to take precautionsand alert emergency response agencies. The Battellereport concluded that the notification system wasworking well under current NRC regulatory pro-cedures; however, some caution was indicated aboutthe adequacy of the notification systems if shipmentlevels increase as expected in the 1990s.

Notification Laws as Toolsfor Data Gathering

As part of the search for available and reliable datafor hazardous materials planning, OTA examinedState and local notification requirements as a poten-

ZsBattel]e Memoria] Research Laboratories, Battelle Human Affairs

Research Center, Assessment of State and Local Notification Require-ments for Transportation of Radioactive and Other Hazardous Mate-rials (Columbus, OH: Jan. 11, 1985), pp. 88-112.

tial source of information. The Battelle study, citedabove, identified 136 State and local notificationlaws pertaining to hazardous materials transporta-tion. The vast majority of these apply to trucks; afew apply to rail. Of the 136 regulations and ordi-nances, 62 apply statewide, 42 are local, and 32 applyto transportation facilities such as bridges, tunnels,turnpikes, and airports.

26 Notification requirements!as defined by the study, include prenotification byshippers and carriers, periodic summaries, and re-ports on individual shipments filed after a trip.Prenotification is required by 100 State and localregulations, 14 call for periodic reporting, and 22concern individual trip reports. Local governmentregulations applying to transportation facilitiesalmost universally require prenotification. Table 4-2 lists State and local notification laws and the typesof hazardous materials covered.

The Battelle study found that State and local gov-ernments typically give two reasons for enactingnotification requirements: to provide data for plan-ning (including better routing and safety regula-tions), and to improve emergency response. Overtwo-thirds of the jurisdictions identified planningas an important objective of their laws, citing theneed to gather information about the types andquantities of materials shipped through their juris-dictions and information on trip scheduling androutes frequently used. Many also indicated theyrequire advance notification to alert response teamswhen a potentially hazardous shipment is due.

Although these regulations could be valuablemeans of gathering data, most produce little usabledata because they apply to a very narrow range ofmaterials or because they are not enforced. Stateand municipal governments have tended to regu-late only one high-risk commodity, usually spent fuelor high-level radioactive wastes, although some alsoinclude other radioactive materials and low-levelwastes. Only four States have laws requiring preno-tification for other classes of hazardous materials.While data on radioactive materials are important,such shipments constitute such a small percentageof all hazardous materials traffic that prenotificationfor this one class provides only partial satisfactionof local needs. Recently, some communities haveacted to broaden notification requirements to in-clude other types of hazardous materials.

*cIbid.

67

Table 4-2.—Commodities Covered by Notification Requirements, 1985

Spent fuel Other Otherand/or high- radioactive Hazardous hazardouslevel waste materials wastes materials

State:Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x xCalifornia. . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . .Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x xIllinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . .Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . .Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . .Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . .Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xNew Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xRhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x . . . . . . . .South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Local:Chickaswa, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tempe, AZ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tucson, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Morro Bay, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New London, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Garden City, GA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lawrence, KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Covington, KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenner, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kent County, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Prince George’s County, MD . . . . . . . . . . . .Newton, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ypsilanti, Ml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Missouli, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Binghamton, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Geneva, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ithaca, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jefferson County, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New York, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rockland County, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .St. Lawrence County, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Syracuse, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tompkins County, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vestal, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yates County, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Facilities:Golden Gate Bridge, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Delaware Memorial Bridge, DE . . . . . . . . . .Francis Scott Key Bridge, MD . . . . . . . . . . .Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge, MD . . . . .John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway, MD.Susquehanna River Bridge, MD. . . . . . . . . .

17 14 9 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .B x . . . . . . . . .B x . . . . . . . . .x x x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x x . . . . . . . . .x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .xx

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .xx

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .x

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x x x xx x . . . . . . . . . xx x . . . . . . . . . xx x . . . . . . . . . xx x . . . . . . . . . x

68

Table 4=2.—Commodities Covered by Notification Requirements-Continued

Spent fuel Other Otherand/or high- radioactive Hazardous hazardouslevel waste materials wastes materials

William Preston Lane, Jr.Memorial Bridge, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, MA. . .Blue Water Bridge, Ml. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mackinac Bridge, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Garden State Parkway, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Newark International Airport, NJ . . . . . . . .New Jersey Turnpike, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bayonne Bridge, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .George Washington Bridge:

Expressway, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lower Level, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upper Level, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geothals Bridge, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Holland Tunnel, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kennedy International Airport, NY . . . . . . .La Guardia Airport, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lincoln Tunnel, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NOTE: X= existing; B= bans on transportation.

SOURCE: Battelle Human Affairs Research Center.

Lack of enforcement of notification regulationsmeans that there is little reason for shippers and car-riers to comply, and as result, little information isgathered. Several local agencies were found to beunaware of the notification laws they were supposedto enforce. Some community officials reported thatthey have never received a notification even thoughit is required by local ordinance. The Battelle studyobserved that, while there are instances of conscien-tious enforcement and data collection, many localagencies charged with enforcing regulations on pre-notification give the task relatively low priority.Often when information is collected, it is simply filedand not used for planning purposes.

Florida and Massachusetts are among the excep-tions to these conclusions. Florida checks with dis-posal facilities to identify carriers failing to complywith radioactive waste notification requirements.Letters are sent to shippers summarizing violations,

xxBxxxxx

BBxxBxxB

xxBxxxxx

xxxxxxxx

. . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and monthly reports are sent to the nuclear utili-ties in Florida summarizing recent shipments. Ac-cording to State officials, the radioactive waste data-base is useful in long-range planning, and they planto identify different types of waste streams and usethe information to improve transportation, treat-ment, and disposal policies. Massachusetts has sixnotification regulations governing shipments of haz-ardous wastes: three require individual trip reports,two require periodic reports, and one requires pre-notification. The information gathered is used ina variety of ways, including verifying delivery of thewaste and alerting local health agencies and emer-gency response teams. Carriers’ monthly reports arestored in a computerized file and could be referredto during compliance investigations or matched withmanifests submitted by shippers, although this pro-cedure has not yet been put into practice.

HAZARDS ASSESSMENT STUDIES

State and local planning and emergency prepared- A few jurisdictions have used sophisticated math-ness can be improved by studies assessing the ematical techniques of risk analysis to estimate thechances of an accident occurring and identifying the probability of an incident and its severity. Most com-most likely locations. Such assessments are impor- munities, however, find it adequate to map the areastant for contingency planning, for practical decisions where the risk of a hazardous materials incident isabout locating equipment and allocating manpower, highest or where there would be the greatest pub-and for developing routing plans. lic danger or the most damage. Data for this type

69

of study can be assembled either from a fixed facil-ity inventory or a transportation study. Much use-ful information is also available from public recordsroutinely kept for other purposes by State and lo-cal public works, transportation, environmental,and planning departments. Normally a hazard as-sessment requires the following kinds of information:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

transportation network maps and descriptions;highways and streets used by hazardous mate-rials carriers;tunnels, bridges, and rail crossings;railroad yards and truck terminals;highway accident data;locations of past hazardous materials incidentsand materials involved;concentrations of hazardous materials manu-facturing or storage sites;areas of high population density;location of schools, hospitals, and other espe-cially vulnerable groups; andwater supply and sewer facilities.

More advanced assessments might also include spe-cial analyses of the types and quantities of hazard-ous materials transported through the communityand the location of emergency response teams andequipment.

The San Francisco Bay area study drew on infor-mation of this sort to determine the risks in eachof the nine participating counties. The analysis in-cluded a narrative description, supplemented bymaps of each county. In rural Niagara County, plan-ners found it adequate to use just three factors toassess the probability and impact of highway haz-ardous materials accidents. Analysts obtained ac-cident data for trucks from the State Police and in-formation on environmentally sensitive areas fromthe county and combined those with data on thevolume of hazardous materials flow on the majorhighways obtained from a special transportation sur-vey conducted as part of the study. The analysisshowed that areas along the Interstate highway hadthe highest risk.27

Some localities have used more complex mathe-matical-risk models. As part of the Puget Sound

Plan, consultants combined data from transporta-tion inventories and data on geographic character-istics, population density, and environmental con-ditions in the region with a mathematical model ofhazardous materials behavior in order to predict theincidence and impacts of hazardous materials spills.The analysts also used a fault-tree technique for vari-ous types of transportation equipment to estimateprobabilities of releases actually occurring as the re-sult of an accident. The results of the Puget Soundstudy were used in making routing recommenda-tions for trucks carrying liquefied petroleum gas.28

There have also been some notable State hazardassessments. Massachusetts and Virginia used dataobtained in the inventory studies described earlierto evaluate risk areas in their States. Massachusettsranked the risks as high, medium, or low for eachof the 14 fire districts in the State. Among the fac-tors considered were employment in firms produc-ing or storing hazardous materials, proximity to aport facility, and the volume of truck traffic on themajor highways. Virginia identified the locationswhere the risk was highest for both train and truckincidents. For rail, the risks were calculated for anincident on the main track, at highway crossings,and in yards. The analysis indicated that the varia-bles with the highest correlation to accidents werethe volume of hazardous materials being trans-ported, the curve of the track, the speed limit forfreight trains, and the grade of the track.

The most difficult data-gathering problem in Stateand local studies has been obtaining reliable infor-mation on past hazardous materials incidents. Mostfire departments do not keep separate records of haz-ardous materials incidents, although fire depart-ments in some large metropolitan areas are begin-ning to develop special hazardous materials reportforms for use in internal planning. State and localplanners usually must rely on outside sources, someof which may be unreliable or contradictory. Theexperience of the Bay Area planners illustrates thedifficulty of collecting data on spills: of 16 Federal,State, regional, and local sources contacted, only9 could provide data on past incidents within thetimeframe of the demonstration study. Moreover,

jTWaste ReWurce AsWiates for the Niagara County Legislature, Dem-

onstration Pro]ect to lkvelop a Hazardous Materials Accident Pre\’en-tion and Emergency Response Plan (Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation, 1983), pp. 3-4.

zBBattel]e Memorial Research Laboratories, Hazardous MaterialsTransportar~on Risks in rhe Puget Sound Region (Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Transportation, 1981), p. 1-1.

70

these sources did not have a common standardizedformat, and sources reporting the same incidentoften varied considerably. The U.S. Coast GuardPollution Incident Reporting System for spills onnavigable water was found to be particularly usefulsince it contained detailed and comprehensive re-porting of date, time, location, material, quantity,source, cause, and anticipated cleanup costs.

The DOT Office of Hazardous Materials Trans-portation (OHMT) maintains a file of all reportedincidents involving spills of hazardous materials ininterstate commerce, and State and local agencieshave access to this information. Because OHMT’sreporting rules do not, in most cases, require reportson spills in intrastate commerce, many truck acci-dents of considerable local significance do not showup in OHMT’s file. It is the responsibility of eachtransportation company involved in an incident in-volving a spill of hazardous materials, as defined by

Federal regulations, to report it to OHMT. Cur-rently no effective enforcement exists for this Fed-eral regulation, so, in effect, accident reporting isvoluntary. In addition to the OHMT incident file,the FHWA Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety main-

●

●

●

tains a truck registry list and monitors the accidentrecord of trucking companies as part of its inspec-tion program, It also uses this registry to report tothe Interstate Commerce Commission on the safetyrecord of carriers applying for an additional license.

State and local researchers trying to analyze ac-cident records for their area studies report that theOHMT incident file is not useful to them, however.A New York City study found that when 30 majorspills widely reported in the press were trackedthrough the OHMT records, only 12 were found.The 18 unreported incidents, according to pressreports, had resulted in 18 deaths, 9 persons miss-ing, and 187 injured.29 Even if a State keeps com-plete accident records, local staffs are usually unawareof this resource, and many communities find theirown accident data incomplete. Niagara County, forexample, had too few recorded hazardous materi-als transportation accidents to draw significant in-ferences. On the other hand, Memphis plannersfound a wealth of information in the 972 incidentsrecorded by the city fire department in a single year.

Zgscan]on, op. c i t . , P. 48.

FINDINGS

Financial assistance for data collection andplanning activities is needed by many localities.Potential sources of funds include Federal, State,and local government cooperative programs withindustry, and registration or user fees.

Hazardous materials storage facility inventoriesprovide important background for hazardousmaterials transportation planning, as well asdata for response and prevention planning.Data may be developed from questionnaire sur-veys, public records, and industrial directories.Questionnaires often require followup and aremost effective when sent out under the auspicesof public agencies such as fire departments.

Local advisory committees can be very helpfulin identifying the hazardous substances to be in-ventoried and in soliciting the cooperation ofthe private business sector.

●

●

Data on commodity flow is needed by State andlocal governments for hazard assessments andplanning. Databases pertaining to commodityflow are kept by various Federal agencies, but theagencies do not use the same commodity iden-tification codes, and the databases are not inter-active. Consequently, the data are not useful toState and local governments.

Because of the absence of a reliable nationalhazardous materials transportation database,State and local governments have undertakentheir own studies to determine what is trans-ported near, within, and through their commu-nities.–Successful State surveys combine truck and

cargo inspection with driver interviews. Visualcounts of placarded trucks have several draw-backs, because many trucks are placarded in-correctly or not at all.

71

–Rail commodity flow data are increasingly avail- . Department of Defense and Department ofable as the industry computerizes. Energy shipments of explosives or radioactive

–Data on types and quantities of hazardous ma- materials are of concern to State and local gov-terials transported by air and water do not ap- ernments, which understand the need for se-pear to be major concerns for States and local crecy about such shipments, but want guaran-communities. tees that Federal enforcement and emergency

● A reliable, comprehensive Federal accident rec-response efforts

ord system is needed. Current Federal effortscident occurs.

will be adequate when an ac-

are too fragmented to be useful to State and lo-cal agencies.

Appendixes

Appendix A

State Authority for HazardousMaterials Transportation

Hazardous Materials Transportation:Regulatory, Enforcement, and

Emergency Response*

AlabamaR — P u b l i c S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n

E — P u b l i c S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n

E R — C i v i l D e f e n s e D e p a r t m e n t

AlaskaR — P u b l i c S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n

E – N o t s p e c i f i e d

ER–Divis ion of Emergency S e r v i c e s

ArizonaR—Industrial CommissionE–Not specifiedER—Division of Emergency Services

ArkansasR—Transportation CommissionE—Transportation Commission, State Police, State

Highway DepartmentER—Office of Emergency Services

CaliforniaR–Department of the California Highway PatrolE–Highway PatrolER—Office of Emergency Services

ColoradoR—Public Service CommissionE–Not specifiedER–Office of Civil Defense

ConnecticutR—Public Safety CommissionE–Local fire marshal of each town, city, or boroughER—Office of Civil Preparedness

Radioactive Materials Transportation:Regulatory, Enforcement, and

Emergency Response

AlabamaR–State Board of HealthE—InspectorsER—Civil Defense Department

AlaskaR—Department of Health and Social ServicesE–Not specifiedER—Division of Emergency Services

ArizonaR—Corporation Commission, Motor Transport

DivisionE–Not specifiedER—Division of Emergency Services

ArkansasR—Transportation CommissionE—State Police, State Highway DepartmentER–Office of Emergency Services

CaliforniaR—Department of Health Services, Radiological

Health Section, Department of Transportation,California Highway Patrol, Motor CarrierDivision, California Energy Commission

E–Health Department officers, Division of IndustrialSafety, Public Service Commission, any trafficofficer

ER–Office of Emergency Services

ColoradoR–Department of Public Health, Public Utilities

CommissionE–Inspectors, State Patrol officersER–Office of Civil DefenseConnecticutR–Department of Transportation; Environmental

Protection, Radiation Control; Public SafetyE—Inspection procedure developed by Commissioner

of Public Safety, Radiation Control, State Police,Public Safety

ER—Office of Civil Preparedness1 Natlor)al Conference of State Lqyslatures, ‘ ( Hazar&ws hi:iterrals Transportation, A Lcgrdator’S Gulcle, ” 1 W3, p 95, ad Assoc)atrorr o f Amcrlcan Rallroacls,

“INu~ [ear Emergency Re\ponx Planning for Railroads, ” ?dc)~, emher I ~84, p. F- 3.

*R = Regulator,, E = Enfor~ement, ER = Emergenc p Response.

75

.

76

DelawareR—Commission on Transportation of Hazardous

MaterialsE–Not specifiedER—Division of Emergency Planning and Operations

FloridaR—Department of InsuranceE–State Fire MarshalER—Bureau of Disaster Preparedness

GeorgiaR–Department of TransportationE–Department of Transportation, any law

enforcement officerER—Department of Civil DefenseHawaiiR–Not specifiedE–Not specifiedER–Office of Civil DefenseIdahoR–Department of TransportationE–Department of Transportation, police officers

authorized in writingER–Military Division, INGIllinoisR—Department of TransportationE–Department of Transportation, law enforcement

officersER–Emergency Services and Disaster AgencyIndianaR–Public Service CommissionE–Not specifiedER—Department of Civil Defense and Emergency

Management

‘IowaR–Department of Environmental Quality, State Fire

Marshal, city governments, Commission on PublicSafety

E–Department of Environmental Safety, State FireMarshal

ER—Department of Public DefenseKansasR–Department of TransportationE–Not specifiedER–Division of Emergency Preparedness

DelawareR—Commission on Transportation of Hazardous

MaterialsE—Departments represented on Commission, State

PoliceER—Division of Emergency Planning and Operations

FloridaR–Public Service Commission, Department of

Health and Rehabilitative ServicesE–Uniformed officers, Department of Health and

Rehabilitative ServicesER–Bureau of Disaster Preparedness

GeorgiaR–Department of TransportationE–Department of Transportation, any law

enforcement officerER–Department of Civil DefenseHawaiiR–Not specifiedE–Not specifiedER—Office of Civil Defense

IdahoR–Public Utilities Commission, Department of

Environmental and Community ServicesE–Department of Transportation, State PoliceER–Military Division, ING

IllinoisR–Department of Transportation, Public Service

Commissioner, Department of Nuclear SafetyE–State Police, weigh station officersER–Emergency Service and Disaster Agency

IndianaR–Public Service Commission, Indiana Fall Bridge

Commission, Board of Health, RadiologicalHealth Section

E–State Police, weigh station officersER–Department of Civil Defense and Emergency

ManagementIowaR–Department of Environmental Quality,

Department of TransportationE–Uniformed enforcement personnel at weigh

stationsER–Department of Public Defense

KansasR–Department of Health and EnvironmentE—According to Nuclear Regulatory Commission

agreementER—Division of Emergency Preparedness

77

Kentucky KentuckyR–Not specified R–Department of Human Resources, RadiationE–Not specified Control BranchER–Office of Disaster and Emergency Services E–Not specified

LouisianaR—Department of TransportationE–Department of TransportationER–Department of Public Safety

MaineR–Not specifiedE–Not specifiedER—Bureau of Civil Emergency Preparedness

MarylandR–Department ofE–Not specifiedER–Civil Defense

Transportation Authority

and Disaster Preparedness

MassachusettsR–Department of Public UtilitiesE–Not specifiedER–Division of Public Safety

MichiganR–Fire Safety BoardE–State Fire MarshalER–Emergency Services Division

MinnesotaR—Department of TransportationE–Not specifiedER—Division of Emergency Services

MississippiR–Department of Public SafetyE–Not specifiedER–Emergency Management Agency

MissouriR—Public Service CommissionE–Not specifiedER—Office of Civil Defense

ER—Office of Disaster and Emergency Services

LouisianaR–Department of Natural Resources, Nuclear

Energy Division, Department of Public SafetyE–State PoliceER–Department of Public Safety

MaineR–Department of Human Resources, Radiological

HealthE–Not specifiedER—Bureau of Civil Emergency Preparedness

MarylandR–Department of Transportation, Vehicle

Administration; Department of Health andAgency Mental Hygiene

E–Toxic Substance Control Inspector–personnelaccompany State Police

ER–Civil Defense and Disaster Preparedness AgencyMassachusettsR–Department of Public WorksE–Can issue violation citationsER–Division of Public Safety

MichiganR–State Police; Fire Marshal Division; Department

of Public Health, Radiation DivisionE–State Patrol, contract with U.S. Department of

Transportation and Nuclear RegulatoryCommission to identify and report violations

ER–Emergency Services Division

MinnesotaR–Department of Transportation, Office of Rate

and Regulation; Department of Health, RadiationControl Section

E–Motor transportation representatives, U.S.Department of Transportation

ER–Division of Emergency Services

MississippiR–Public Service Commission; State Board of

Health, Division of Radiation ProtectionE—U.S. Department of TransportationER–Emergency Management Agency

MissouriR—Public Service CommissionE–Inspectors–no enforcement capabilityER—Office of Civil Defense

78

NebraskaR—Public Service CommissionE–Not specifiedER–Civil Defense Agency

NevadaR—Public Service CommissionE—Public Service CommissionER—Division of Civil Defense and Disaster

Preparedness

New HampshireR–Not specifiedE–Not specifiedER–Civil Defense Agency

New JerseyR–Department of Labor and IndustryE–Not specifiedER–State Police

Montana MontanaR–Division of Motor Vehicles R–Department of Health and EnvironmentalE–Not specified Sciences, Public Service CommissionER–Department of Military Affairs E–Inspectors who respond to accidents and report

noncompliance to U.S. Department ofTransportation, Highway Patrol, Gross VehicleWeight Division inspectors

ER—Department of Military Affairs

NebraskaR—Public Service Commission, Motor

Transportation Department; Department ofRoads; Department of Health, Division ofRadiological Health

E–Inspectors, weigh station enforcement, emergencyresponse only

ER–Civil Defense Agency

NevadaR—Public Service Commission, Transportation

Division, State Department of Human ResourcesE—Inspectors, Beatty site inspectorsER—Division of Civil Defense and Disaster

Preparedness

New HampshireR–Department of Health and Welfare, Bureau of

Environmental HealthE–State PoliceER–Civil Defense Agency

New JerseyR–Department of Labor and Industry, Division of

Workplace Standards; Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Bureau of RadiationProtection

E–State PoliceER–State Police

New MexicoR–Corporation Commission, Transportation

Division, Department of Health and EnvironmentE—Weigh stationsER—Office of Civil Defense

New YorkR–Department of Environmental Conservation,

Bureau of Hazardous Waste; Department ofTransportation, Traffic and Safety Division

E–Department of Transportation, State Police,Federal Highway Authority

New MexicoR–Transportation DepartmentE–Not specifiedER–Office of Civil Defense

New YorkR—Department of TransportationE–Department of TransportationER–Not specified

79

North Carolina North CarolinaR–Public Utilities Commission R–North Carolina Utilities Commission,E–Public Utilities Commission Department of Human Resources, Division ofER–Not specified Facility Services, mobile inspectors and

cooperation with Highway Patrol, Public ServiceMotor Carrier Division of Motor Vehicles

E–Commission officers, often accompanied bypersonnel from the Highway Patrol, License andTheft Section and from Radiation Health, mobileinspectors and cooperation with Public ServiceMotor Carrier Division of Motor Vehicles

ER–Not specified

North DakotaR—Public Service CommissionE–Not specifiedER–Disaster Emergency Services

OhioR–Department of TransportationE–Not specifiedER–Disaster Services Agency

OklahomaR–Department of Public SafetyE–Not specifiedER–Civil Defense Agency

OregonR—Public Utilities CommissionE–Not specifiedER—Emergency Services Division

PennsylvaniaR–Hazardous Substances Transportation BoardE—VariousER–Emergency Management Agency

Rhode IslandR–Consumer Council–hazardous materials

packaged for consumer consumptionE–Not specifiedER–Defense Civil Preparedness Agency

North DakotaR–Public Service Commission, Department of

Health, Motor Vehicle DepartmentE–Highway Department and Patrol, emergency

responseER—Disaster Emergency Services

OhioR–Department of Health, Public Utilities

CommissionE—Field officersER–Disaster Services Agency

OklahomaR–Department of HealthE—Emergency response organizationsER–Civil Defense Agency

OregonR–Public Utilities Commission; Department of

Human Resources, Radiation Control Section;Department of Energy

E–Inspectors; emergency response, backup for PublicService Commission

ER—Emergency Services Division

PennsylvaniaR—Department of Transportation, Hazardous

Substances Transportation BoardE–State Police, Department of Revenue, Bureau of

Motor Vehicles, Members of the HazardousSubstances Transportation Board

ER–Emergency Management Agency

Rhode IslandR–Department of Health, Division of Public

Utilities, carriersE—Coordinated with Division of Public Utilities,

Radiation Control, Civil Defense, Transportationand Police

ER–Defense Civil Preparedness Agency

80

South DakotaR–Department of Public SafetyE–Department of Public SafetyER—Office of Civil Defense

South Carolina South CarolinaR–Not available R–Department of Health and EnvironmentalE–Not available Control, Public Service Commission,ER–Not specified Transportation Division available

E–Barnwell site inspection, checkpoints, andrandom stops

ER–Not specified

South DakotaR–Department of Health, Sanitation and Safety

Program, Office of the GovernorE–Department of Public Safety, accompany U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission personnel oninspections

ER—Office of Civil Defense

TennesseeR—Public Service CommissionE—Public Service CommissionER–Not specified

TexasR–Department of Public SafetyE–Not specifiedER—Division of Disaster Emergency Services

UtahR–Department of TransportationE–Not specifiedER–Division of Comprehensive Emergency

Management

VermontR–Department of TransportationE—Department of TransportationER—Civil Defense Division

VirginiaR–State Board of HealthE–State PoliceER—Office of Emergency and Energy Services

WashingtonR–State PatrolE–State PatrolER–Department of Emergency Services

TennesseeR–Department of Public Health, Division of

Radiological Health; Public Service Commission,Motor Carrier Division

E–Weigh station inspectors, inspectorsER–Not specifiedTexasR–Department of Health; Department of Public

Safety, Division of Disaster and EmergencyServices

E–Radiation specialists on compliance staff, highwaytroopers

ER–Division of Disaster Emergency Services

UtahR–Department of Transportation, Division of SafetyE–Highway and rail inspectorsER—Division of Comprehensive Emergency

Management

VermontR–Department of HealthE—State Police at weigh stationsER–Civil Defense DivisionVirginiaR–Department of Health, Bureau of Radiological

HealthE–Shared responsibility of personnel from

Emergency Services Office and Bureau ofRadiological Health

ER—Office of Emergency and Energy ServicesWashingtonR–State Patrol, Department of Social and Health

Services, Utilities and Transportation CommissionE–InspectorsER–Department of Emergency Services

81

West VirginiaR—Public Service CommissionE–Not specifiedER—Office of Emergency Services

WisconsinR—Public Service CommissionE–Not specifiedER—Division of Emergency Government

WyomingR–State Highway CommissionE–Not specifiedER–Disaster and Civil Defense Agency

West VirginiaR–Department of Health, Industrial Hygiene

DivisionE–Not specifiedER—Office of Emergency Services

WisconsinR—Transportation Commission, Tariff DivisionE–Investigators, enforcement by Department of

Transportation State Patrol TroopersER—Division of Emergency GovernmentWyomingR—Public Service CommissionE–Highway PatrolER–Disaster and Civil Defense Agency

Appendix B

Hazardous Materials Training Programs

This is not intended as a complete listing of all haz-ardous materials training offered by industry, professionalassociations, private firms, and universities; but rathera partial compilation of available training taken fromthree sources:

●

●

●

National Directory of Hazardous Materials Train-ing Courses, Association of Bay Area Governments,March 1985;John R. Cashman, Hazardous Materials Emergen-cies: Response and Control (Lancaster, PA: TECH-NOMIC Publishing Co., 1983); andDoug Stancell, interim results of a U.S. Departmentof Transportation/Federal Emergency ManagementAgency survey on existing training courses on haz-ardous materials.

Industry

Ansel Fire Protection, One Stanton Street, Marinette,WI 54143 (715) 735-7411

Ashland Chemical Co., Jack Sweet, 5200 BlazerMemorial Highway, Dublin, OH 43017 (614) 889-3333

Burlington Northern Railroad, Safety and Rules Depart-ment, John Ogard, 9401 Indian Creek Parkway, P.O. Box29136, Overland Park, KS 66201 (913) 661-4110

Celanese Fire Training Center, Dean of Extension Serv-ices, York Technical College, Rock Hill, SC 29730 (803)327-3200

Conrail, M.C. Mitchell, 1528 Walnut St., 19th Floor,Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 893-6505

E.I. du Pent de Nemours & Co., Fabrics and FinishersDepartment, Applied Technology Division, MarshallMill Building, Wilmington, DE 19898 (302) 992-3620

Federal Express, Department 373-012, George Truesdale,P.O. Box 727, Memphis, TN 38194 (800) 797-7752

Flying Tigers, P.O. Box 92935, T-257, Los Angeles In-ternational Airport, Los Angeles, CA 90009 (213)646-7496

Illinois Central & Gulf Railroad Co., Carl D. Bossard,233 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60601 (3 12)565-1600

International Mineral & Chemical, Rick Rose, 421 E.Hawley Street, Mundelein, IL 60060 (312) 566-2600J.T. Baker Chemical Co., Office of Safety Training, 222Red School Lane, Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 (201) 454-2500Mobay Chemical Corp., Agricultural Chemical Division,John E. Bash, P.O. Box 4913, Kansas City, MO 64120(816) 242-2000

82

National Draeger, Inc., 101 Technology Drive, P.O. Box120, Pittsburgh, PA 15230 (412) 787-8383

Norfolk & Western Railway Co., Hazardous Materials,Ronald M. Sharp, 8 N. Jefferson Street, Roanoke, VA24042 (703) 981-5353Seaboard Coast Line Industries, Hazardous MaterialsTraining, Larry Taliaferro, 500 Water Street, Jackson-ville, FL 32202 (904) 359-1529

Shell Oil Co., Transportation, Safety and Regulation,W.H. Owen, Jr., P.O. Box 2099, Houston, TX 77001(713) 241-5546Southern Railway System, J.J. O’Driscoll, 185 SpringStreet, Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 529-1917

Southern Pacific Transportation Co., One Market Plaza,San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 541-1182

Stauffer Chemical Co., Adrian Casey, Nyala Farm Road,Westport, CT 06881 (203) 222-3000

Union Pacific Railroad, Environmental Control, C.J.wright, 1416 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE 68179 (402)

271--3313

Associations

Academy of Advanced Traffic,211 S. Broad Street, Phil-adelphia, PA 19107 (215) 981-9790

Air Freight Association, Steven Alterman, 1050 17thStreet, N. W., Washington, DC 20036 (202) 293-1030

American Industrial Hygiene Association, 475 WolfledgesParkway, Akron, OH 44311 (216) 762-7294

American Trucking Associations, Maintenance Coun-cil, Brent Grimes, 2200 Mill Road, Alexandria, VA22314 (703) 838-1700

Association of American Railroads, Charles Keller, Haz-ardous Materials Systems, 50 F Street, N. W., Washing-ton, DC 20001 (202) 639-2100

Association of Bay Area Governments, P.O. Box 2050,101 8th Street, Oakland, CA 94604 (415) 464-7900

Chemical Manufacturers Association, Alma Howard,2501 M Street, N. W., Washington, DC 20036 (202)887-1100

Chlorine Institute, Michael E. Lyden, 70 W, 40th Street,New York, NY 10018 (212) 819-1677

Hazardous Materials Advisory Council, 1100 17th Street,N. W., Suite 908, Washington, DC, 20036 (202) 223-1271

Hazardous Risk Advisory Committee, Metro Civil De-fense, Floor 7-M, Metro Courthouse, Nashville, TN37201 (615) 259-6145

83

International Association of Fire Service Instructors, 20Main Street, Ashland, MA 01721 (617) 881-5800

International Fire Service Training Association, Fire Pro-tection Publications, Oklahoma State University, Still-water, OK 74078 (405) 624-5723

National Agricultural Chemical Association, Tom Guild-ing, 1155 15th Street, N. W., Washington, DC 20005(202) 296-1585

National Fire Protection Association Educational Tech-nology Unit, Battery march Park, Quincy, MA 02269(617) 770-3000

Private Training Firms

ALM Enterprises, P.O. Box 20912, ElCajon,CA92021(714) 447-2828

Center for Professional Advancement, P.O. Box H, EastBrunswick, NJ 08816 (201) 238-1600

Darell Bevis Associates, Inc., Route 2, Box 311, Sterling,VA 22170 (703) 430-7100

Ecology and Environment, Inc., 120 Howard Street,

Suite 640, San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 777-2811

Emergency Action Inc., P.O. Box 10661, Charleston, SC29411 (803) 767-0585 or (803) 553-2672

ENSAFE, P.O. Box 34207, 5705 Stage Road, Suite 224,Memphis, TN 38134 (901) 372-7962

Environmental Hazards Management Institute, P.O. Box283, Portsmouth, NH 03901 (603) 436-3950

Fire and Safety Specialists, P.O. Box 9713, College Sta-tion, TX 77840 (409) 693-7105

Fire Rescue Consultants, 9601 Little Cobbler Court,Burke, VA 22015 (703) 451-5495

David Frank Associates, 416 S. Rolling Road, Catons-ville, MD 21228 (301) 455-4510

Government Institutes, Inc., 965 Hungerford Drive, No.24, Rockville, MD 20850 (301) 251-9250

Government Services Institute, P.O. Box 5212, SpringHill, FL 33526 (904) 683-8553

Jerry Grey & Associates, 3554 Jefferson Avenue, Red-wood City, CA 94062 (415) 864-4664

IT Corp., 312 Directors Drive, Knoxville, TN 37923 (615)690-3211

J.J. Keller & Associates, Inc., 145 W. Wisconsin Ave-nue, Neenah, WI 54956 (800) 558-5011

Lion Technology, Inc., P.O. Drawer 700, Lafayette, NJ07848 (201) 383-0800

Natural Hazards Control Institute, P.O. Box 1085, Al-pha, NJ 08865 (215) 758-7045

NUS Corp., 910 Clopper Road, Gaithersburg, MD20878 (301) 258--8763

Riedel Environmental Services, Inc., P.O. Box 5007, Port-land, OR 97208 (503) 285-9111

Roberts Environmental Services, Inc., P.O. Box 10093,Eugene, OR 97440 (503) 688-4531

D.W. Ryckman & Associates, Inc., 2208 Welsch Indus-trial Court, P.O. Box 27310, St. Louis, MO 63141 (800)325-1398

Safety System Inc., P.O. Box 8463, Jacksonville, FL 32219(904) 725-3044

Safety Specialists, Inc., P.O. Box 4420, Santa Clara, CA95054 (400) 988-1111

Transportation Skills Programs, 320 W. Main Street,Kutztown, PA 19530 (215) 683-5098

UNZ & Co., P.O. Box 308, 190 Baldwin Avenue, Jer-sey City, NJ 07703 (800) 631-3098

Keith Walsh & Associates, 1671 Melrose Drive, Corona,CA 91720 (714) 371-1180

University or GovernmentTraining Programs

Arizona Division of Fire Training, Office of EmergencyServices, 5636 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85008(602) 244-0504

California Fire Chiefs Association, Monterey PeninsulaCollege; California Fire Academy, 836 Asilomar Boule-vard, Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (408) 646-4240

California Highway Patrol, Operational Planning, 25551st Avenue, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804 (916)445-1626

Colorado Training Institute, 1001 E. 62nd Avenue, Den-ver, CO 80126 (303) 289-4891

Delaware State Fire School, Route 2, P.O. Box 166,Dover, DE 19901 (302) 736-47 ’/3

Florida State Fire College, Florida Bureau of Fire Stand-ards and Training, 1501 S.W. Broadway, Ocala, FL32670 (904) 732-0526

Iowa State University, Fire Service Extension, Ames, IA50011 (515) 294-6817

Massachusetts Firefighting Academy, 59 Horse PondRoad, Sudbury, MA 01776 (617) 443-8926

Montana Department of Military Affairs, Disaster andEmergenc y Services Division, P.O. Box 4789, Helena,MT 59604 (406) 444-6911

National Emergency Training Center, National FireAcademy, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Em-mitsburg, MD 21727 (301) 447-6771

84

National Spill Control School, Corpus Christi StateUniversity, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78412(512) 991-8692

Nebraska Fire Service, 3721 W. Cuming, Lincoln, NE68524 (402) 471-2803

New Mexico State Fire Marshall’s Office, P.O. Drawer1269, Santa Fe, NM 87501 (505) 827-4561

Ohio State Fire Marshall, Hazardous Materials Bureau,Ohio Fire Academy, 8895 E. Main Street, Reynoldsburg,OH 43068 (614) 864-5510

Oregon State Fire Marshall, 3000 Market Street, Salem,OR 97310 (503) 378-5210

Rutgers State University, Department of EnvironmentalScience, Cook College, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)932-9571

State of California Military Department, California Spe-cialized Training Institute, Camp San Luis Obispo, CA93406 (805) 544-7101State of North Carolina, Department of Insurance, Fireand Rescue Services Division, P.O. Box 26387, Raleigh,NC 27611 (919) 733-2142

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, P.O. Box41502, 3041 Sidro Drive, Nashville, TN 37204 (615)741-5181

Texas Engineering Extension Service, Texas A&MUniversity System, College Station, TX 77483-8000 (409)845-3418

University of Kansas, Division of Continuing Education,Fire Service Training, 645 New Hampshire Avenue,Lawrence, KS 60045 (913) 864-4467

Appendix C

Information Resources

Numerous resources are available to those interestedin more information about the programs described in thisreport. Individuals have been listed under the headingsof prevention, enforcement, emergency response, train-ing, data collection, and planning. For more general in-formation, contact the professional associations.


1.

2.

3.

Ed KynastonCommercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)8751 Sapphire CourtElk Grove, CA 95624(916) 686-5008

Heinz MuellerHazardous Materials SectionIllinois State Police301 Armory BuildingSpringfield, IL 62706(217) 785-1334

Paul MelanderManager of Transportation InvestigationTennessee Public Service CommissionCordell-Hull BuildingNashville, TN 79896(615) 741-2974

Emergency Response

1$

2.

3.

International Association1750 New York Avenue,Washington, DC 20006(202) 872-8484

George Kramer

of Fire FightersN.W.

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency3041 Sidco DriveP.O. Box 41502Nashville, TN 37204-1502(615) 252-3300Max McRaeDistrict ChiefHouston Fire Department410 Bagby StreetHouston, TX 77002(713) 222-7791

4. Bruce SmithAssistant ChiefColerain Township Fire Department3251 Springdale RoadCincinnati, OH 45239(513) 825-6143

Training

1.

2.

3.

4.

Gregory NellAmerican Petroleum Institute1220 L Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20005(202) 682-8135Charles WrightUnion Pacific Railroad1416 Dodge StreetOmaha, NE 68179(402) 271-3313National Fire Academy16825 S. Seton AvenueEmmitsburg, MD 21727-8995(301) 447-6771(800) 638-9600International Association of Fire

Service Instructors20 Main StreetAshland, MA 01761(617) 881-5800

Data Collection

1. Mark AbkowitzDepartment of Civil EngineeringRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy, NY 12180(518) 266-6932

2. Donald LewisWashington Utilities and

Transportation Commission7th Floor, Highways License BuildingOlympia, WA 98504(206) 753-3950

85

86

Planning 3. Paula Alford

I.

2.

National Association of Towns and TownshipsRobert Robison 1522 K Street, N.W.Radioactive Materials Emergency Coordinator Washington, DC 20005Labor and Industries Building, Room 102Salem, OR 97310

(202) 737-5200

(503) 378-4040Terry L. NovakMunicipal Building, Fifth FloorW. 808 Spokane Falls BoulevardSpokane, WA 99201-3303(509) 456-2612

Appendix D

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAR –Association of American RailroadsABAG –Association of Bay Area

Governments AdministrationATA –American Trucking Associations, Inc.BMCS –Bureau of Motor Carrier SafetyCAER –Community Awareness and

Emergency ResponseCHEMTREC–Chemical Transportation Emergency

CHPCMACSMBA

C T SC V S ADODDOED O TDVBEPAFAAFEMA

FHWAFRAHMTA

IAFC

ICCIDOTMCSAP

MICMSDS

Management Center–California Highway Patrol–Chemical Manufacturers Association–Critical Safety Management

Breakdown Analysis–Commodity Transportation Survey–Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance–Department of Defense–Department of Energy–Department of Transportation—divinyl benzene—Environmental Protection Agency—Federal Aviation Administration–Federal Emergency Management

Agency—Federal Highway Administration–Federal Railroad Administration—Hazardous Materials Transportation

Act–International Association of Fire

Chiefs—Interstate Commerce Commission–Illinois Department of Transportation—Motor Carrier Safety Assistance

Program—methyl isocyanate—material safety data sheets

MSHA

NFPANHTSA

NIOSH

NRCNRCNRTNTSBOHMT

OSHA

POEM

PPEPSTNRSPA

SHMED

SICSSRMT

STAA

TEMA

T S CTSIUSCGUP

–Mine Safety and HealthAdministration

–National Fire Protection Association—National Highway Transportation

Safety Administration–National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health–National Response Center—Nuclear Regulatory Commission—National Response Team–National Transportation Safety Board–Office of Hazardous Materials

Transportation–Occupational Safety and Health

Administration–Portland Office of Emergency

Management—personal protective equipment–Pesticide Safety Team Network—Research and Special Programs

Administration–State Hazardous Materials

Enforcement Development—standardized industrial classification—State Surveillance of Radioactive

Materials Transportation—Surface Transportation Assistance

Act—Tennessee Emergency Management

Agency—Transportation Systems Center—Transportation Safety Institute–U.S. Coast Guard–Union Pacific

87

Bibliography

Bibliography

A.D. Little Co., “Protective Clothing and Equipment,”Chemical Hazmat Response Information System(CHRIS) Response Methods Handbook (Washington,DC: U.S. Coast Guard/U.S. Department of Trans-portation, December 1978).

Abkowitz, Mark, and List, George, “Hazardous Materi-als Transportation: Commodity Flow and Inci-dent/Accident Information Systems,” OTA contrac-tor report, October 1985,

Abkowitz, Mark, and List, George, “Hazardous Materi-als Transportation: Commodity Flow and InformationSystems,” OTA contractor report, December 1985,

The American Waterways Operators, Inc., AmericanWaterway Operators Annual Report: 1981-1982(Arlington, VA: 1983).

Association of American Railroads, Nuclear EmergencyResponse Planning for Railroads (Washington, DC:November 1984).

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Nation-al Directory of Hazardous Materials Training Courses(San Francisco, CA: March 1985).

Baldwin, David M., Regulation of the Movement of Haz-ardous Cargoes (Washington, DC: National Cooper-ative Highway Research Program, Transportation Re-search Board/National Research Council, May 1980).

Barber, E.J., and Hildebrand, L, K., Guidelines for Ap-plying Criteria to Designate Routes for TransportingHazardous Materials–Implementation Package, FHWA-1-80-20 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Trans-portation, 1980).

Battelle Memorial Research Laboratories, Battelle Hu-man Affairs Research Center, Assessment of State andLocal Notification Requirements for Transportationof Radioactive and Other Hazardous Materials (Co-lumbus, OH: Jan. 11, 1985).

Byroade, Jon D., et al., Environmental Emergency Con-trol Handbook for Hazardous Substances (Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Of-fice of Research and Development, Nov. 30, 1982),

California Highway Patrol, “SHMED Program SystemObjectives and Scope,” unpublished typescript, 1984.

Chemical & Engineering News, “Rash of Chemical SpillsOccurs on Single Day,” vol. 63, No. 33, Aug. 19, 1985.

City of Portland, Oregon, Office of Emergency Manage-ment, Hazardous Materials Highway Routing Study(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transporta-tion, 1984).

Economies, Elaine, “Regulating Transportation Safety:The View From the Department of Transportation,”before the Conference on Solutions to Nuclear Trans-portation Issues, Monterey, CA, June 16-19, 1985.

“Environmental Protection Agency: National Oil andHazardous Substances Contingency Plan,” FederalRegister: Part V, vol. 47, No. 137, July 16, 1982.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, PlanningGuide and Checklist for Hazardous Materials Con-tingency Plans, FEMA-10 (Washington, DC: July1981).

Gough, Michael, and Kronebusch, Karl, Office of Tech-nology Assessment staff, testimony before the U.S.Congress, House Committee on Science and Technol-ogy, Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, Oct.9, 1985.

Grella, Alfred W., Update on the NRC Inspection/En-forcement Program for Radioactive MaterialsTransportation, before second Department of Trans-portation—State Hazardous Materials EnforcementDevelopment Program Workshop (Salt Lake City, UT:Aug. 17, 1983).

Hagash, Samuel P., Assistant Fire Chief of ShenangoTownship and Coordinator of Hazardous MaterialsResponse Team, testimony before the U.S. Congress,House Military and Veterans’ Affairs Commission,Dec. 2, 1983.

Hoxie, Paul, and Woodman, Donna, Risks of Hazard-ous Substance Spills From L. Unmarked Packages orContainers (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofTransportation, Transportation Systems Center, Sep-tember 1982).

Jordan, Mary, and Weil, Martin, “Chemical Spill SnarlsBeltway,” Washington Post, Aug. 13, 1985.

Kindt, John Warren, “Radioactive Wastes, ” Natural Re-sources journal, vol. 24, October 1984.

Labadie, John R., “Problems in Local Emergency Man-agement, ” Environmental Management, vol. 8, No.6, 1984, pp. 489-494.

Ludwigson, John (cd.), 1984 Hazardous Materials SpillConference: Prevention, Behavior, Control andCleanup of Spills and Waste Sires, sponsored by Asso-ciation of American Railroads/Bureau of Explosives,et. al., held in Nashville, TN (Rockville, MD: Gov-ernment Institutes, Inc., Apr. 9-12, 1984).

MacFadyen, J. Tevere, “Routine Shipments of EssentialGoods Are Freighted With Special Risks,” Smith-sonian, vol. 15, No. 1, April 1984.

Maio, Domenic J., Truck Transportation of HazardousMaterials–A National Overview (Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Transportation, Research andSpecial Programs Administration, Transportation Sys-tems Center, November 1983).

Meier, Gerry E., “The AAR Chemical Spill ResponseInformation System,” Transportation of Hazardous

91

92

Materials: Planning and Accident Analysis, Transpor-tation Research Record 977 (Washington, DC: Trans-portation Research Board, National Research Coun-cil, 1984).

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Hazard-ous Materials, “Conference Proceedings on BulkTransportation of Hazardous Materials by Water inthe Future: A Long Range Forecast, ” College Park,MD, July 9-10, 1973, unpublished typescript.

National Conference of State Legislators, Hazardous Ma-terials Transportation: A Legislator’s Guide (Denver,CO: 1984).

National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians,Columbus, OH, Registry: The Newsletter of the Na-tional Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians, vol.17, No. 1, winter 1985.

New Hampshire Motor Transport Association et al. v.Flynn et al., Opinion of the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the First Circuit, Dec. 26, 1984.

Paullin, Robert L., “The Continuing Enforcement of theHazardous Materials Regulations,” before the StateHazardous Materials Enforcement Development Meet-ing, Charleston, WV, May 21, 1985.

Pritchard, John H., A Guide to Industrial RespiratoryProtection (Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Oc-cupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare, June 1976).

Rabben, Elizabeth P. (cd.), Hazardous Materials Regu-lations Excerpted for Railroad Employees (Washing-ton, DC: American Association of Railroads, Bureauof Explosives, 1981).

Rhoads, R. E., et al., An Assessment of the Risk of Trans-porting Gasoline by Truck (Richland, WA: BattellePacific Northwest Laboratory, November 1978).

Rothberg, Paul, Nuclear Materials Transportation: SafetyConcerns, Governmental Regulations (Washington,DC: Congressional Research Service, Mar. 15, 1984).

Transportation Research Circular, “The Ten Most Crit-ical Issues in Hazardous Materials Transportation, ”No. 219, July 1980.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Tran-script of Proceedings—OTA Workshop on State andLocal Activities in Transportation of Hazardous Ma-terials, ” unpublished typescript, Washington, DC,May 30, 1985.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Guidelines for Se-lecting Preferred High way Routes for High way RouteControlled Quantity Shipments of Radioactive Ma-terials, DOT/RSPA/MTB-84/22 (Washington, DC:June 1984 (originally published in June 1981)).

U.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transpor-tation Bureau, Annual Report on Hazardous Materi-als Transportation, Calendar Year 1983 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).

U.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transpor-tation Bureau, “State Hazardous Materials Enforce-ment Development (SHMED) Program Workshop Pro-ceedings,” unpublished typescript, Washington, DC,1983.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Spe-cial Programs Administration, Community Team-work: Working Together To Promote Hazardous Ma-terials Transportation Safety, A Guide for LocalOfficials (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, May 1983).

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Spe-cial Programs Administration, Illinois Spent NuclearFuel Transportation (Washington, DC: ND).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response, Assessing the Re-leases and Costs Associated With Truck Transport ofHazardous Wastes (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, June 1984).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waterand Waste Management, Characterization of Hazard-ous Waste Transportation and Economic Impact As-sessment of Hazardous Waste Transportation Regula-tions (Washington, DC: March 1979).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waterand Waste Management, Development of an Emer-gency Response Program for Transportation of Haz-ardous Waste (Washington, DC: March 1979).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waterand Waste Management, Financial Responsibility forTransporters of Hazardous Waste (Washington, DC:September 1979).

U.S. General Accounting Office, Programs for Ensur-ing the Safe Transportation of Hazardous MaterialsNeed Improvement, CED-81-5 (Washington, DC:Nov. 4, 1980).

U.S. General Accounting Office, The U.S. Nuclear Ma-terials Information System Can Improve Service to ItsUser Agencies, report to the Secretary of Energy(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,Jan. 14, 1985).

University of Richmond Law Review, “The Role of Lo-calities in the Transportation and Disposal of NuclearWastes,” vol. 18, No. 3, spring 1984.

Washington Post, “Chemical Shipping Rule Issued,” Oct.10, 1985.

0