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: State

and 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 Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Foreword

First passed in 1974 and largely unchanged for the past decade, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act must be reauthorized by Congress in 1986. During the past dozen

years, the transportation industries have been deregulated, the U.S. economy has weathered

a major recession and recovered in a new and different form, and public awareness of possible damage from hazardous materials has been heightened by such events as the San Francisco 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 materials

that are transported, confusion exists over how safe the transportation process is or ought

to be, the public needs better information, and emergency response personnel need training. In light of these and other factors, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation requested the Office of Technology Assessment to undertake a study of

the transportation of hazardous materials. The study results will be presented in two documents. This special report, Transportation of Hazardous Materials: State and Local Activities, is the first of the two. It summarizes Federal programs and identifies three major areas

of State and local government concern: prevention and enforcement activities, emergency

response and training, and planning and data gathering. The report outlines related issues,

describes methods by which jurisdictions are responding to them, and documents the concerns that the Federal Government could address. The second document will be submitted

to Congress in mid-1986.

Director

Ill
Assessment of Transportation of Hazardous Materials Advisory Panel

John W. Barnum, Panel Chairman

White & Case, Washington, DC

Garnet Bernhardt

Colerain Township

Cincinnati, OH

Keith J. Bunting

Manager

Distribution, Government, and Public Affairs

Dow Chemical Co.

Midland, MI

Robert A. Christman

Director

Customer and Distribution Service

Mobay Chemical Corp.

Pittsburgh, PA

John Cooper

Manager of Waste and Transportation

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

Springfield, IL

Richard E. Cunningham*

Director

Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Division

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Silver Spring, MD

Ed Dietz**

Manager of Barge Transportation

Union Carbide Corp.

Charleston, WV

Edward S. Ford

Senator

General Assembly

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Lexington, KY

Roger Kasperson

Center for Technology,

Environment and Development

Clark University

Worcester, MA

Kevin Kenzenkovic

City Manager

Slater, MO

*pro forma.

**Retired December 1995.

iv

Charles N. Lovinski

Corporate Manager for Restricted Articles

Federal Express

Memphis, TN

Charles H. Mayer

Vice President

Nuclear and Hazardous Materials Division

Tri-State Motor Transit Co.

Joplin, MO

Warren Owen

Executive Vice President

Duke Power Co.

Charlotte, NC

Paul Remick, Jr.

Distribution Advisor

Exxon USA

Houston, TX

Cathy Reynolds

Councilwoman-at-Large

City Council

Denver, CO

Alan I. Roberts*

Director

Office of Hazardous

U.S. Department of

Washington, DC

Materials Transportation

Transportation

Raymond D. Scanlon

Economic Development Department

The Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey

New York, NY

William R. Teer

Vice President

Transnuclear, Inc.

White Plains, NY

A.D. Williams

Director of Energy and Environmental

Programs Planning

Union Pacific Railroad

Omaha, NE
Transportation of Hazardous Materials: State and Local Activities

OTA Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, 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 Chairman

Radioactive Materials Emergency Coordinator

State of Oregon, Salem, OR

John C. Allen

Principal Laboratory Scientist

Battelle Columbus Laboratories

Columbus, OH

Peter E. Baker

Hazardous Materials Transportation Unit

New Jersey State Police

West Trenton, NJ

Stanley Brand

Manager of Hazardous Materials and Operator

for Emergency Response

Monsanto Co.

St. Louis, MO

Juanita Crabb

Mayor

Binghamton, NY

L. Joe Deal

Acting Director

Radiological Assistance Controls Division

Office of Nuclear Safety

U.S. Department of

Germantown, MD

Warren E. Isman

Chief

Fairfax County Fire

Fairfax, VA

William Keffer

Energy

and Rescue Department

Chief, Emergency Planning and Response

Branch

Region VII Environmental Protection Agency

Kansas City, KS

George Kramer

Hazardous Materials Instructor

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency

Nashville, TN

Richard P. Landis

Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, DC

Donald Lewis

Rail and Motor Carrier Training Officer

Washington Utilities and Transportation

Commission

Olympia, WA

Paul Melander, Jr.

Manager of Transportation Investigation

Tennessee Public Service Commission

Nashville, TN

Fred Millar

Director

Nuclear and Hazardous Materials

Transportation Project

Environmental Policy Institute

Washington, DC

William H. Nalley

Chief

Federal, State and Private Sector Initiatives

Research and Special Programs Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, DC

Richard O’Boyle

Safety Director

Quality Carriers, Inc.

Bristol, Wisconsin Office

Pleasant Prairie, WI

Susan Peres

Emergency Management Specialist

Technology Hazards Division

Federal Emergency Management Administration

Washington, DC

Robert Philpot

Transportation Program Branch Chief

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC

Kenneth L. Pierson

Director

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety

Federal Highway Administration

Washington, DC

vi
Dennis L. Price

Director

Safety Projects Office

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Blacksburg, VA

Vallary Sandstrom

Acting Chief

Programs Liaison Branch

Research and Special Programs Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, DC

Bruce Smith

Assistant Chief

Colerain Township Fire Department

Cincinnati, OH

Charles Wright

Training Officer

Union Pacific Railroad

Omaha, NE

Contributors

Paula Alford, National Association of Towns and Townships

Frederic E. Allen, Allen Enterprises, Inc.

Louis J. Amabili, Delaware State Fire School

Nancy J. Brown, Kansas House of Representatives

Thomas S. Carter, Jr., The Kansas City Southern Railway Co.

Sherwood Chu, U.S. Department of Transportation

James M. Davis, Jr., Carolina Power & Light Co.

Richard M. Doyle, Chemical Manufacturers Association

Max Eisenberg, Maryland Department of Health

Joseph Fulnecky, Federal Highway Administration

John F. Grimm, Quality Carriers, Inc.

Clifford J. Harvison, National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.

Mary Sherwood Holt, Newport News, VA

Warren E. Isman, Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department, Fairfax, VA

Will Johns, American Trucking Associations, Inc.

William Keffer, Region VII, Environmental Protection Agency

Genevieve Laffly, American Petroleum Institute

Clark Martin, American Trucking Associations, Inc.

Terry Novak, City of Spokane, WA

Edward D. Olmo, Shell Oil Co.

Barbara Sonnonberg, Memphis City Council

Robert D. Vessey, American Red Cross

Gene T. West, Consolidated Freightways, Inc.

vii
Contents

Chapter Page

1.

2.

3.

Introduction and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Hazardous Materials Transportation . . . . . . . . . . 3

Government and Industry Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Federal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Organization and Scope of Report . . . . . . . . . . . 8

General Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Prevention and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Planning and Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Prevention and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . 1 3

Federal Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

State Enforcement and Inspection

Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Evolution of State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

State Hazardous Materials

Enforcement Development Program . . . . . . . 17

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program . . . 17

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance . . . . . . . . 20

 Current State Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Adopting Legislation and Regulations . . . . . . 20

Data and Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Inspection and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Training Inspectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Case Studies: State Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

State and Local Accident Prevention

Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Preemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Licensing, Registration, and Permits . . . . . . . . 28

Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

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

Emergency Response and Training . . . . . 3 9

Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Federal Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

State and Local Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Industry Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Existing Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Training Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Training Content and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Planning and Organizing for

Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Operational Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Public Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Protective Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Chapter Page

4. Information Gathering for State and

Local Hazardous Materials Planning . . . 5 5

Data Collection Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Federal Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

State and Local Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Fixed Facilities Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Local and Regional Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Coordinated Use of Inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

State Inventory Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Community Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Right-to-Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Transportation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Truck Studies–Local/Regional . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Truck Studies—State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Rail Studies-Local/Regional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Rail Studies–State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Air Transportation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Water Transportation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Federal Data on Shipment of Radioactive

Materials and Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Notification Laws as Tools for Data Gathering 66

Hazards Assessment Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Appendix A—State Authority for Hazardous

Materials Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Appendix B—Hazardous Materials

Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Appendix C—Information Resources . . . . . 85

Appendix D—Acronyms and

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...87

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

Tables

Table No. Page

1-1.

1-2.

2-1.

2-2.

2-3.

3-1<

3-2.

4-1.

4-2.

Incidents Involving Transport of

Hazardous Materials, 1973-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Hazardous Materials Assistance Commonly

Available From State and Local Agencies . . . 7

Federal Activities in Hazardous

Materials Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Hazardous Materials Transportation

Inspectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

States With Proposed or Existing Hazardous

Wastes Transportation Fee or Registration

Requirements, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Jurisdictional Analysis of Agency

Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Frequently Used Training Sources, 1985. . . . . 46

State Right-to-Know Laws, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Commodities Covered by

Notification Requirements, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

ix
Figures

Figure No. Page

2-1. States Participating in the State Hazardous 2-3. States With Hazardous Materials Notification

Materials Enforcement Development Program 18 Requirements by Type of Material, 1985 . . . . 32

2-2. 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 hazardous

products and waste are transported throughout the

United States.* The safe handling and carriage of

these materials—which include explosives, flammables, corrosive or toxic chemicals, poisons, spent

reactor fuel and low-level waste, and disease-causing

biological agents–are of major concern to Federal,

State, and local agencies charged with public safety

and to the industries that produce, ship, and use

hazardous materials.**

The safe and efficient transport of hazardous materials depends on three principal activities: accident

prevention (including regulation and enforcement),

emergency response when accidents occur, and research and planning. While emergency response activities arouse the most intense public interest, all

three activities are interdependent and necessary.

Maintaining transport safety and efficiency is technologically demanding—a task made complex by the

variety and volume of materials transported and by

the 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 environment if accidentally released. Hazardous materials transported by pipeline or generated or used in military or other defense-related activities

are similar in nature and pose similar risks but are excluded from this

discussion.

local governments and the multitude of private firms

involved.***

Historically, the Federal Government has taken

a lead role in regulation of hazardous materials transportation and safety enforcement. State and local

governments, however, are assuming greater responsibilities in this area, prompted by a growing awareness of the dangers posed by hazardous materials

transportation and recognition that emergency response—at least initially—almost always falls to

State and local agencies. The Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, mindful

of heightened public concern about chemical spills

and accidents involving radioactive materials and

toxic substances, requested that the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) undertake a study of hazardous materials transportation. The study, directed

specifically at the issues of container technology, accident data collection and recordkeeping, and training programs for personnel involved in hazardous

materials transportation or in emergency response

to hazardous materials accidents, will be completed

in early 1986. This review of State and local activities provides background information for analysis

of the issues to be addressed in the larger study.

***This document summarizes Federal programs and identifies State

and local concerns. The OTA Final Report will examine in detail Federal regulations and technical programs and assess the extent to which

they meet the needs identified in this report.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION

Statistics gathered by the Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation (OHMT)* of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) indicate that there

are more than 180 million shipments of hazardous

materials in the United States each year. The variety of these substances is enormous and growing.

Currently, more than 2,400 substances are listed in

the Federal Code of Regulations as hazardous commodities; many of the more than 70,000 chemical

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

products on the market today have not been reviewed for inclusion. 1

Chemical products are but one kind of hazardous material. There are also biological products,

fuels, petroleum products, explosives, acids, fertilizers, gaseous substances, and various forms of industrial waste. Radioactive substances are another

major form of hazardous materials. More than

20,000 medical and academic institutions, laboratories, government agencies, industrial enterprises,

‘See 49 CFR 172.101.

3
4

and utilities operating nuclear powerplants generate low-level radioactive waste, amounting to an annual volume of 77,000 cubic meters and containing 500,000 curies of radioactive material.2 A recent

study by the Department of Energy (DOE) projects

that this volume could double by 1990.3 These figures do not include the high-level radioactive waste

now shipped by utilities, the Department of Defense

(DOD), and DOE. They also do not include the increased high-level radioactive commercial waste that

will be shipped in the late 1990s once Federal storage facilities have been established or the low-level

waste that will be generated as present nuclear reactors are decommissioned and dismantled. According to a recent estimate, the remains from decommissioning a single large reactor would fill well over

1,000 trucks, equaling one-quarter of all the lowlevel nuclear waste now generated yearly in the

United States.4

All of these hazardous materials move by land,

sea, and air modes of transportation at a rate of

about 500,000 shipments per day. Truck transport

accounts for about half of all hazardous materials

shipments. The types of vehicles carrying hazardous materials on the Nation’s highways range from

tank trucks, bulk cargo carriers, and other specially

designed mobile containers to conventional tractortrailers and flat beds that carry packages, cylinders,

drums, and other small containers. Rail shipments

(equaling about 80 million tons a year) are commonly bulk commodities, such as liquid or gaseous

chemicals and fuels, carried in tank cars. Most hazardous materials transported by barge on inland

waterways are also bulk cargo. The Corps of Engineers estimates that the total inland waterborne volume is approximately 60 million tons a year. Coastal

and inland waterborne volumes, combined, reach

550 million tons annually. DOT estimates that

‘Under the present classification system, low-level waste includes dry

trash; used equipment; and solidified and absorbed liquids, gases, and

sludges. Items range from spent resins from ion-exchange processes,

filter materials, lubricating oils, and contaminated tools, clothing, and

packaging (all of which have relatively low levels of radioactivity); to

sealed sources such as Cobalt 60 for radiation treatments; to irradiated reactor components such as in-core instrumentation and control

rods (which typically have higher levels of radioactivity). Taylor Moore,

“The Great State of Uncertainty in Low-Level Waste Disposal,” The

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Journal, March 1985, p. 24.

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

+Steve Olson, “Nuclear Undertakers,” Science 84, VO1. 5, No. 7, September 1984, p. 57.

about 600,000 vehicles and vessels are regularly used

to transport hazardous materials in bulk, and

700,000 carry portable containers. The transport of

hazardous materials by air (either in all-cargo aircraft or in belly compartments of passenger aircraft)

is insignificant in tonnage—an estimated 175,000

tons annually—but constitutes a high number of

shipments, A 1980 Federal Aviation Administration

study found that roughly 5 percent of air cargo at

39 major airports (amounting to 300,000 packages)

contained hazardous materials, typically rather small

parcels of high-value or time-critical material.

The safety record of hazardous materials carriers,

as reported to the Office of Hazardous Materials

Transportation, is summarized in table 1--1. For the

period 1973-83, there was an annual average of

11,462 reported incidents—a rate of 1.25 incidents

per 10,000 shipments.* Most of these were accidental

releases during handling and loading and not vehicle accidents en route. The reported deaths and injuries caused by exposure to hazardous materials are

similarly low, equaling about two fatalities per 1,000

incidents, a result both of the regulations governing hazardous materials transportation and the degree of care exercised by shippers, carriers, and others

involved in accident prevention and response.** The

*These figures are for Incidents reported to OHMT. Some experts

estimate there may be as many as three to four times as many incidents that are unreported.

* * In recent \,ears, there has been an annual average of 24 deaths

and 663 Injuries in hazardous materials accidents reported to DOT,

Even taking into account evidence of incomplete data, to be addressed

in OTA’S Final Report, the death and injurv toll in automobile accidents in the same period was 2,000 times greater.

Table 1-1 .—Incidents Involving Transport of Hazardous

Materials, 1973-83 (as reported to DOT)

Annual average

Damagesa

Mode Incidents Deaths Injuries (millions of dollars)

Highway 10,289 19.3 419.2 $8.15

Rai l

b

975 4,0 221,8 4,67

Water ... . . 26 0 3.3 0.07

A i r 150 0.4 9.0 0.43

Freight forwarder 2 0 1.9

Other 20 0 7.8 0.01

Total. ,.. 11,462 23.7 663.0 $13.33

aprope~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 early

19BOS.

CLe8S than $().()1 milllon.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation Bureau,

Annual Report on Hazardous Materials Transportation, Calendar Year

1983
5

true costs of hazardous materials accidents are difficult to determine. A large number of incidents are

not reported to OHMT, and the costs of those that

are appear to be greatly underestimated. Interstate

carriers are required to report any spill except those

of certain consumer goods and paints and batteries

to DOT within 15 days, usually long before full costs

are known. Typically, carriers report only their direct costs. The annual damage cost for incidents reported to OHMT from 1973 to 1983 was $13 million. This figure is undoubtedly too low, perhaps

by a factor of as much as 10,5 if all costs associated

with hazardous materials accidents are considered,

including long-term cleanup costs.

5An OTA contractor studying accident report data has found that

DOT damage reports are consistently low. For example, the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hsted damages of $597,000 for

a February 1978 rail accident; the DOT report of the accident listed

damages of $11,000. For a May 1983 rail hazardous materials accident,

Still, it is the risk of death and injury that causes

the deepest concern. Hazardous materials accidents

are often spectacular, although loss of life is relatively rare. No State or local official can erase the

memory of an overturned load of explosives or

tanker of chemicals in an area for which he or she

is responsible. These experiences and the almost

weekly news reports of a hazardous materials spill

somewhere in the Nation, more than the official statistical record, drive the demand for strong enforcement of safety rules and improved emergency response capabilities.

NTSB records showed $570,000 damages; DOT records did not show

the accident at all.

Mark Abkowitz and George F. List, “Hazardous Materials Transportation: Commodity Flow and Information Systems,” report prepared

for 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 regard to hazardous materials transportation: regulation, enforcement, emergency response and planning, and data collection. Responsibility for these

functions is distributed among numerous departments and agencies. The departments and agencies

operate under a complex set of agreements and coordination procedures, with no single agency having sole responsibility or authority over all aspects

of hazardous materials production, shipment preparation, and transportation. In some instances, jurisdictions overlap. In others, responsibility is assigned

depending on the type of material involved, the

mode of transport, or the nature of Federal regulation.

DOT is the designated lead agency for establishment and enforcement of regulations regarding safe

transportation of hazardous materials. The DOT Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)

has authority to issue regulations on most aspects

of hazardous materials transportation containers.

It must coordinate with the modal administrations,

the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal

Railroad Administration, the Federal Aviation

Administration, the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard,

which have authority over the vehicles or vessels

themselves. This intra-agency fragmentation notwithstanding, DOT as an agency is responsible for

identification of hazardous materials, regulation of

hazardous materials containers, handling and shipments, development of standards and testing procedures, inspection and enforcement, and data collection.

Another group of agencies–DOE, DOD, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—has jurisdiction over other aspects of hazardous materials

transportation. DOE is largely concerned with fuels;

DOD, with materials used for military purposes.

NRC has jurisdiction over high-level radioactive

substances in the civil sector, while EPA has responsibilities for chemicals and hazardous nonnuclear

wastes. These agencies also undertake training activities and safety awareness programs, and provide

technical support for State and local governments.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is

responsible for coordinating Federal assistance, planning, and training activities for emergency response

with State and local governments. The Departments

of Justice and Labor also have designated responsibilities and areas of interest.

The data collection function similarly is spread

among several Federal agencies. The various databases maintained by those agencies record accidents

and spills and monitor compliance and sometimes

carrier performance. OHMT is the principal agency

collecting data on hazardous materials transportation spills, but every other Federal entity keeps records pertaining to its area of interest. There is no

central clearinghouse to collect and analyze hazardous materials transportation information.

State

The States mirror Federal functions and responsibilities to a degree, but the structure is by no means

uniform or even comparable from State to State.

Some States have extensive programs of regulation,

enforcement, emergency planning, and training. In

others, programs are still in a formative stage. The

functions and activities listed in table 1-2 indicate

the range and nature of State involvement, not the

situation in every State. State programs, like their

Federal counterparts, are characterized by a multiplicity and diversity of activities and areas of jurisdiction, complicated in many instances by differences between Federal and State agencies as to

definitions of hazardous materials, regulatory requirements, transportation restrictions, and stringency of enforcement.

Regulatory activities are a major feature of many

State programs. State regulations may require licensing or registration of hazardous materials transporters, imposition of fees and taxes (often as an extension of the licensing function), prenotification,

and routing restrictions. States also maintain inspection and enforcement programs and may require

special safety procedures.

Other important State functions are planning and

training for emergency preparedness and response.

Training is conducted in cooperation with local
7

Table 1.2.—Hazardous Materials Assistance

Commonly Available From State and Local Agencies

State:

Civil Defense: Communications, coordination, evacuation,

radiological monitoring.

State Police: Traffic control, communications, evacuation.

Environmental: Chemists, environmental scientist meteorologists, lab services, some equipment, knowledge of contractors.

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 equipment for: 1) suppressing fires, 2) rescuing injured or trapped

persons and 3) dealing with select hazardous materials.

Public Works: Equipment and personnel to contain spills by

digging trenches or constructing dikes. Can usually provide sand—an excellent sorbent for spilled hazardous

materials.

Police: Communications equipment and traffic/crime control

at scene of spill.

Civil Defense: Equipment for monitoring radioactivity. Will

usually coordinate the response of various agencies.

Public Health Agency.’ Advice on the chemical properties of

the materials and human health effects.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs

Administrator, Community Teamwork: Working Together to Promote

Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety.’ A Guide for Local Officials,

May 1983, p. 58.

agencies and often with some technical assistance

and financial support from the Federal Government

and industry. Since States are also responsible for

emergency programs, civil defense, police, fire, environmental, and public works agencies may all play

roles in State hazardous materials activities, making program coordination difficult. In rural areas and

small towns, State agencies may constitute the first

response team. * In metropolitan areas, local governments usually assume this function.

Local

Diversity of function and concern also exists at

the regional and local levels of government. Some

major cities and metropolitan areas exercise regulatory, inspection, enforcement, and licensing functions akin to those of Federal and State agencies.

Many have undertaken emergency planning and

training activities, either on their own or with assistance from Federal and State hazardous materials

offices. The most important and most nearly uni-

*First responders are those agencies, such as pollee or fire, that are

called initially when an accident involving hazardous materials occurs.

They may be followed by State and local health authorities and environmental cleanup crews.

versal local function, however, is emergency response.

Almost 75 percent of the U.S. population lives

in metropolitan areas, where the majority of hazardous materials are produced, transported, and

used. Local fire and police departments constitute

the first line of response in the event of a hazardous materials accident, and local hospitals and

health officials bear the brunt of treating accident

victims. Local resources are also the first used to prevent the spread of contamination or to evacuate the

area around an accident site.

The diversity of local functions is equaled by a

wide range of capabilities. Some locales have welldeveloped emergency plans, adequately trained and

equipped response teams, and sufficient resources

for hazardous materials containment and cleanup.

Others, particularly small urban and rural jurisdictions, must rely on local fire and police departments

that most often have little or no training or experience in dealing with hazardous materials.

Industry

An important adjunct to Federal, State, and local government resources are the safety-related programs and capabilities of the industries that produce

and transport hazardous materials. Some of the

more than 50 national industry associations are

made up of hazardous materials producers and users

—e.g., the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the

National Agricultural Chemicals Association, and

the American Petroleum Institute. Others are transportation associations such as the American Trucking Associations, the American Waterways Operators, the Association of American Railroads, and

the Air Transport Association.

Industr y programs provide employee, client, and

contractor training in the handling and transport

of hazardous materials and in emergency response.

Some industries maintain special response teams to

aid State and local authorities at an accident site;

others offer funding for training and equipping State

and local first response teams. Industry associations

and individual firms also contribute to State and

local planning, prevention, and education efforts,

either by underwriting part of the cost of such programs or by providing technical support, Voluntary

standard setting in support of hazardous materials

safety varies widely from company to company.
8

ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF REPORT

This special report, which documents findings pertaining to State and local activities, is the outgrowth

of an OTA workshop held on May 30, 1985, and

a series of meetings between OTA and government,

industry, and academic experts on hazardous materials. The workshop examined the results of OTA’s

initial research and literature review of State and

local capabilities and activities in the areas of accident prevention and emergency response. The comments of workshop participants, supplemented by

follow-up interviews and analysis of key points by

OTA staff and an extensive review process, form

the basis for the material and findings presented

here.

Concerns of State and local governments about

the transportation of hazardous materials focus on

accident prevention and enforcement, emergency

response, and collection of information to support

planning for emergency preparedness. OTA found

that while a hazardous materials accident in any

mode of transportation will involve State and local

public safety officers, highway and rail hazardous

materials accidents tend to concern public officials

the most. No other public organization, such as a

port authority or the Coast Guard, is likely to be

available to provide immediate assistance to State

and local public safety personnel for either truck or

rail accidents.

GENERAL

Financial assistance for enforcement and response training and planning activities is needed

by many localities. Potential sources of funds include Federal, State, or local assistance, cooperative

programs with industry, and registration or user fees.

Movements of gasoline and petroleum products,

by far the most frequently transported hazardous

materials, * account for more hazardous materials

transportation accidents, injuries, and damage

than transport of any of the other classified commodities. State and local enforcement, emergency

response, and planning personnel should focus on

this problem in cooperation with industry representatives. Attention should be given to developing additional safety measures and programs to pro-

*According to data provided by the American Petroleum Association and OTA calculations, these products comprise about 50 percent

of total hazardous materials movements.

This report will emphasize truck transportation

because it is of greatest concern to State and local

officials. Trucks carry more hazardous materials than

any other mode of transportation, and there are

many more trucks than other vehicles or vessels carrying hazardous materials. Finally, trucks travel on

public rights of way through every jurisdiction, mingling with other traffic and thus increasing spill and

accident risks.

Three subjects are addressed in the chapters that

follow:

● State prevention and enforcement programs;

. emergency response training, planning, and implementation; and

. information collection for State and local

planning.

General findings are presented below. Detailed

findings and supporting material are contained in

each chapter. It should be noted that the findings

presented in this special report will be considered

in the context of Federal programs and other resources in a second OTA report to Congress, Transportation of Hazardous

port will include policy

by Congress in 1986.

Materials. The second reoptions for consideration

FINDINGS

mote better awareness

. . 

and training of drivers,

handlers, and enforcement personnel. Generally,

emergency response personnel are already trained

to handle gasoline incidents.

State and local enforcement and emergency

response personnel are dissatisfied with the information accompanying hazardous materials

shipments. Placarding requirements should more

accurately reflect the degree of hazard of the material, and shipping papers should include more

information on the nature of the hazard posed and

accident mitigation techniques.

Prevention and Enforcement

National standards establishing uniform State

hazardous materials requirements and regulations

would simplify and improve compliance by shippers, carriers, and State and local enforcement
9

activities. State, regional, and local agency concerns as well as those of industry should be considered in formulating standards. The areas where

uniformity is most needed are:

Licensing to ensure that drivers and others

handling hazardous materials are qualified and

have been properly trained. Some form of a national truck driver’s license is favored by many

State, local, and industry officials.

Permit or registration requirements to obtain

information and collect fees in a coordinated

manner that does not unduly burden transporters and ensures that money collected is used

to meet related needs.

Shipment notification systems that provide

useful information for localities without unduly

burdening carriers.

Penalties for regulatory violations, including

failure to report hazardous materials incidents,

should be consistent across governmental and

jurisdictional levels and sufficiently large to discourage future infractions. An effective enforcement program requires that legislatures, enforcement

agencies, and courts be aware of the death, injury,

property damage, and environmental harm that

could result from accidental release of hazardous materials and set penalties accordingly.

State and local enforcement personnel need

additional training and current information on

hazardous materials regulations for all modes of

transportation. Methods used by the Federal Government to deliver this information to State and local officials need to be improved and strengthened.

Programs to educate shippers and carriers on safety

measures and regulatory compliance need strengthening as well.

Emergency Response

An effective way to deliver hazardous materials training to first responders is the most pressing national need in emergency response. Man y

different and successful training programs exist, but

they are not reaching sufficient numbers of first

responders, especially in the smaller urban and rural areas. Moreover, some training programs are simply inadequate.

Maintaining existing response programs

through refresher training and training of new

personnel to fill vacancies created by turnovers

in response teams is financially difficult for most

jurisdictions.

National guidelines for different levels of training and national certification standards for respenders are needed. Advanced hazardous materials training is appropriate for personnel in large

jurisdictions, along major transportation corridors,

or in States with heavy concentrations of hazardous materials industries. The numerous existing

training programs need to be systematically examined and evaluated.

National equipment guidelines for emergency

response are needed to assist response organizations in equipment selection.

When formulating hazardous materials emergency response plans, communities should consider formal, written mutual aid agreements with

regional and adjacent local jurisdictions and Good

Samaritan laws to protect first responders from

liability when they respond to incidents for which

they are not responsible.

Planning and Data Collection

Improved data on hazardous materials storage

and commodity flow is needed by State and local

governments for analyzing accident prevention

techniques such as routing and planning for emergency response. Federal databases pertaining to

commodity flow are kept by a wide variety of Federal agencies, but the agencies do not use the same

commodity identification codes, and the databases

are not interactive. The data are not useful to State

and local governments, some of which have undertaken data collection on their own. Data collection

efforts would be improved by coordinating existing

Federal data resources and providing State and local access to them. National guidelines on hazard

assessment data collection for local government

would also be valuable, In the absence of national

legislation, right-to-know laws should be considered

by jurisdictions. Such laws are an important aid in

gathering information on the identities and associated hazards of the chemicals most likely to be encountered.
10

A reliable, comprehensive Federal accident record system is essential. Current Federal efforts are

too fragmented to be useful to State and local agencies, or to carriers, which could use the findings to

develop or modify their own safety programs. Existing Federal databases that record data on accidents, violations, and shippers and carriers that do

not comply with regulations would be more useful

if they were interactive and were made accessible

to State enforcement personnel. The SAFETYNET

Program, being developed by the Federal Highway

Administration, and the National Driver’s License

Registry, being developed by the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, should help, but their

full implementation is at least a decade away.

A more clearly defined and smoothly functioning Federal authority for hazardous materials

transportation is needed. The current designation

of DOT as lead agency and RSPA as lead group

within DOT has not resulted in clear lines of authority or intermodal coordination for transporting hazardous and radioactive commodities and

wastes. While a number of federally sponsored activities have made important contributions to the development of municipal and State programs, the absence of effective Federal program coordination

means that jurisdictions have difficulty gaining access to available information, planning, and financial resources.

The lack of interagency coordination at the Federal level is often replicated at the State level,

compounding the difficulties of regional and local jurisdictions.

Up-to-date technical information is needed for

planning emergency response. Current toxicological, chemical, and health data should be compiled,

updated regularly, and made accessible to planners

and responders.

State and local officials are concerned about

shipments of chemical weapons and explosives or

radioactive materials by DOD and DOE. While

these officials understand the need for secrecy about

such shipments, they seek guarantees that Federal

enforcement will be stronger and when an accident

occurs, emergency response efforts will be adequate.
Chapter 2

Prevention and Enforcement
Chapter 2

Prevention and Enforcement

Federal, State, and local governments share responsibilit y for the safe transport of hazardous materials and the prevention and control of accidents

involving hazardous materials. The preeminent authority is the Federal Government, which issues regulations and sets standards governing identification

and classification of hazardous materials, the design

and performance of containers and equipment, and

procedures for handling and transporting hazardous materials. Federal regulations also prescribe

documentation of hazardous materials shipments

and specify requirements for labels and placards.

State prevention programs concentrate on inspection and enforcement within the framework of Federal regulations, although some States also issue regulations intended to supplement or strengthen

Federal requirements, principally with respect to

truck routing and notification of hazardous materials shipments. Local agencies are primarily concerned with emergency response, but they also play

a role in prevention and enforcement by placing restrictions on routes and hours of hazardous materials transport and by requiring registration and permits for hazardous materials shippers and carriers

operating within their jurisdictions.

In recent years, largely as a result of programs initiated and funded by the Department of Transportation (DOT), many States and local agencies have

added to their regulatory authority and strengthened administrative, enforcement, and inspection

procedures. They have also established or improved

programs to train highway enforcement officers and

to educate shippers and carriers about compliance

with hazardous materials regulations.

Photo credit: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT

An accident waiting to happen—inadequate brake

repair discovered during truck inspection.

This chapter reviews State and local prevention

and enforcement programs that have evolved over

the past 15 years and examines current State and

local activities. It also discusses Federal agencies and

policies affecting the capability and performance of

State and local agencies. The principal sources of

information for this chapter are reports filed by

States participating in federally funded prevention

and enforcement activities, proceedings of recent

State and regional conferences on hazardous materials transportation, interviews with officials of Federal and State agencies, and an OTA workshop.

FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES

The 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 of

This authority is distributed among 12 different Fed- chief interest here since, to a large extent, they deeral agencies with regulatory or administrative re- termine the context in which State and local agensponsibility 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 . . . . . ~ x

OHMT. . x x . . . . x x x

FHWA. X

a

x . x x x .’”’” : :

BMCS . . X x“ ” ~

NHTSA x . . ,

FRA .,.. X

a

x ”. .“.. x x x 

FAA,.. . X

a x x x x .

USCG x X

a x x x x x x

 FEMA. . , x x x

EPA : X x x’” x x

X

b

NRC x x x x x

c

DOE X

d

x : x“ ‘x x x x

c

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, andmarklng

aPackage/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 Pr09rams

dlnwW$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!ghway 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 transportation

by DOT is vested in five agencies: the Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation (OHMT), of the

Research and Special Programs Administration,

which is responsible for promulgating and enforcing regulations and coordinating the hazardous

materials activities of DOT, and the four modal administrations charged with inspection and enforcement of hazardous materials transport by highway,

rail, air, and water.

OHMT has general authority over all hazardous

materials transportation regulation, except bulk

shipment by ship or barge, which has been delegated

to the U.S. Coast Guard. OHMT issues regulations

designating and classifying hazardous materials,

prescribing safety standards for containers, establishing requirements for labels and placards, and

specifying handling, stowing, and other in-transit

requirements for hazardous materials.1 Another major OHMT activity has been administration of the

State Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development Program, a cooperative program to strengthen

State regulatory enforcement capabilities.

IR%u]a(ionS covering classification, shipping, packaging,and Placarding of hazardous materials are contained in 49 CFR 171-177. Special

routing requirements for hazardous materials, pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1811) have

also been issued. OHMT also acts as DOT’s liaison with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA regulations for transporters of

hazardous waste, issued under the authorit y of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, have been adopted by OHMT.

The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is

responsible for inspection and enforcement activities in highway transportation of hazardous materials and at depots and transshipment points. z

BMCS, under its general authority to set motor carrier safety standards, also regulates vehicles used in

transporting hazardous materials.3 In addition, BMCS

administers the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, which provides some financial assistance to

States for enforcement of regulations governing hazardous materials transportation on public roads. *

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) enforces regulations pertaining to hazardous materials carried by rail or held in depots and freight

yards. 4 The Federal Aviation Administration has

authority over shipments of hazardous materials on

domestic and foreign carriers operating at U.S. airports and in airport cargo-handling areas.5 The

Coast Guard carries out inspection and enforcement

activities in port areas and on domestic and foreign

ships and barges operating in the navigable waters

of the United States. b Responsibility for inspection

2

49 CFR 177 and 49 CFR 1.48.

3

49 CFR 350-399.

*MCSAP was created under the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act (Public Law 97-424).

4 49 CFR 174 and 49 CFR 1.46.

5

49 CFR 175,

649 CFR 176 and 49 CFR 1.46.
15

and enforcement of regulations pertaining to hazardous materials shipments that move by more than

one mode of transportation is retained by OHMT.

Regulatory authority over transportation of radioactive materials is divided between DOT and NRC

under a 1979 Memorandum of Understanding.7

Under this agreement, NRC sets standards for the

design and performance of packages to carry fissile

materials and radioactive materials that exceed Type

A limits.* Currently NRC certifies all such packages and carries out the necessary inspections. NRC

regulations also require that States be given advance

notification of the transport of certain types of radioactive materials (including spent fuel)8 and provide

for physical security measures to prevent deliberate

acts to seize or damage shipments of strategic nuclear materials and spent fuel.9 Enforcement of these

regulations is carried out by NRC regional offices.

DOT has regulatory authority over the design and

performance of packages carrying nonfissile radio744 F.R. 38690, july2, 1979.

*Fissile material is that containing one or more fissile radionuclides—

Plutonium 238, Plutonium 239, Plutonium 241, Uranium 233, and Uranium 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.

9

10 CFR 73.

active materials and small quantities of fissile materials that do not exceed Type A limits. In addition,

DOT governs the routing of radioactive materials

designated as “Highway Route Controlled” for safety

purposes. 10

While OHMT exercises general regulatory responsibility for hazardous materials transportation, most

day-to-day inspections and enforcement are carried

out by the DOT modal administrations. These activities are often part of their overall programs to monitor compliance with other types of transportation

and vehicle safety regulations.

The number of inspections and enforcement actions taken by DOT is small compared with the

number of shippers, carriers, and container manufacturers throughout the country. In 1983, for instance, only 109 of the more than 20,000 container

manufacturers were inspected by OHMT and FRA.

The 1983 figures for shipping facilities are similarly

low–5,000 of an estimated 104,000 were inspected.

The principal reason for the low number of inspections is the shortage of DOT personnel, especially those with training in hazardous materials enforcement. 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 0

FAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12 10 0 10

FHWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 9 0 8

FRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 24 25 23 33

OHMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 7 6 6

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 55 51 29 57

Inspectors (part-time):

USCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 770 1,298 403 570

FAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 176 155 138 102

FHWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 161 153 149 144

FRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 64 129 129 158

OHMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1 1 1

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....1,606 1,171 1,736 820 975

Total work years

USCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115.5 115.50 155.76 50.00 40.00

FAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.9 19.04 17,75 8.20 14.08

FHWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.0 49.25 47.25 40.20 25.28

FRA ., ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 33.60 34.65 33.00 46.40

OHMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 10.00 7.50 6.75 6.75

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236.6 227.39 262.91 138.15 132.51

KEY: 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—equivalent

to 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-years

of inspection and enforcement for all DOT agencies combined has also dropped-237 years in 1979

to 133 in 1983, a decline of almost half.

The number and frequency of hazardous materials shipments; the vast extent of roadways, waterways, and rail lines to be covered; and the variety

of materials involved all dictate an inspection and

enforcement program of much greater scope than

Federal agencies presently offer. Based on the minimal number of inspections that have been carried

out, the rate of noncompliance and safety violations

is high. The Federal Government in recent years

has begun helping the States to strengthen their inspection and enforcement capabilities, particularly

for truck transport, since the number of trucks carrying hazardous materials constitutes the largest hazardous materials fleet in any mode. Truck safety inspections have also been a traditional function of

State enforcement officers. In the early 1980s, the

Federal rail inspection force was increased, and there

has been a commensurate improvement in the rail

safety record.

STATE ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION CAPABILITIES

The entry of State governments into the field of

hazardous materials transportation safety began in

earnest in the early 1970s. A series of episodes involving radioactive materials prompted States to call

for more vigorous efforts to monitor and control the

shipment of hazardous materials. Since it was apparent that the resources committed by the Federal

Government to police shipments of radioactive material—much less other, more common, forms of hazardous materials—were inadequate, the States themselves began to seek ways to develop inspection and

enforcement capabilities. The task was formidable

since States then had virtually no organizational

structure, legal authority, or personnel with specialized competence in the area of hazardous materials

control.

Evolution of State Programs

In 1973, DOT and NRC’s predecessor, the Atomic

Energy Commission, undertook a program in cooperation with nine States to collect data on the

amount and type of radioactive material originating in or passing through selected locations. This

effort, known as the State Surveillance of Radioactive Materials Transportation Program (SSRMT),

was directed at determining the magnitude of the

problem posed by radioactive materials and the degree of regulatory noncompliance by shippers and

carriers.

As expected, the SSRMT study found several inadequacies in data collection and recordkeeping; it
17

also pointed to important needs in the area of enforcement:

●

●

●

●

●

Imposition of civil penalties and suspension of

permits to use radioactive waste burial sites were

needed to reduce violations in the disposal of

radioactive material.

Increased education of handlers and drivers was

needed to heighten their safety awareness and

to lessen their exposure to radiation.

Enforcement by police cars equipped with radiation detectors (a program undertaken in Illinois) was found to be especially useful in identifying improperly placarded vehicles.

Remote surveillance (for example, a geigercounter mounted on a parked patrol car can

detect gamma rays emitted by passing trucks

or vehicles) could provide valuable data on shipping patterns and assist in determining the extent of compliance by shippers and carriers.

Requiring appropriate placarding and shipping

documents would provide emergency response

personnel with better information in the event

of a transportation accident.

In addition, SSRMT pointed out the need to

strengthen State-level prevention and enforcement

mechanisms for all types of hazardous materials.

SSRMT findings thus helped form the basis for a

much more substantial Federal program to aid in

the development of State hazardous materials safety

programs.

State Hazardous Materials

Enforcement Development Program

Shortly after the SSRMT study was completed,

responsibility for administering Federal-State cooperative programs was transferred to OHMT. Under OHMT, the programs were broadened to include all classes of hazardous materials, and emphasis

shifted from data collection to regulatory enforcement, especially development of State organizations

that could assume a greater share of inspection and

enforcement functions. 11

In 1981, OHMT initiated a wide-ranging effort to

increase State and local capabilities in managing the

1 Isteve N. Solomon, stare Survej]/ance of Radioactive ~ateriak

Transportation: Final Report, NUREG-1OI5 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of State Programs, 1984).

transportation of hazardous materials. The State

Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development

Program (SHMED), designed to assist States in the

enforcement of hazardous materials safety standards

and regulations, primarily those pertaining to highway transportation, was a major component. SHMED

had two objectives: decreasing the number of

hazardous materials transportation accidents by

strengthening State enforcement capabilities and

promoting uniformity in State hazardous materials

safety regulations and enforcement procedures.

SHMED offered participating States contracts to

conduct a three-phase program. The first phase,

funded at a maximum of $20,000 per State, concentrated on data gathering, passage of enabling legislation, and adoption of Federal regulations. The

second phase had a funding limit of $40,000 and

required States to develop and implement an inspection program. In the third phase, with funding of

up to $60,000, States had to establish enforcement

procedures.

In all, 25 States have participated in SHMED (see

figure 2-l). Compared to most Federal-State cooperative programs, SHMED is small. The 1984 budget

was $1.1 million, and overall expenditures through

1986, when the program expires, will amount to just

over $3 million. Nonetheless, it has had a significant influence in shaping State enforcement programs and in defining what constitutes an effective

program. While some States, such as New Jersey,

have established enforcement programs without

SHMED support, the majority of existing State programs have had SHMED funding.

Motor Carrier Safety

Assistance Program

When the SHMED program ends this year, Federal support of State multimodal hazardous materials enforcement capabilities will diminish, and

there will be no programs specifically targeted to hazardous materials transportation by rail, water, and

air. However, Federal funds for State inspection and

regulatory enforcement on the highways will be

available through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). Authorized under the

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-424), MCSAP makes grants to States for

“the development and implementation of programs

for 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 Materials

Enforcement Development (SHMED) Program.

States not participating intestate Hazardous Materials

Enforcement Development (SHMED) Program.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

ards, and orders applicable to commercial motor vehicle safety and compatible State rules, regulations,

standards, and orders. ” MCSAP covers all aspects

of truck safety, and the act specifically indicates that

it may apply to enforcement of rules pertaining to

vehicles used to transport hazardous commodities.

MCSAP is financed through the Highway Trust

Fund under a 5-year authorization: $10 million was

authorized for fiscal year 1984, and $10 million was

to be added each year up to a maximum of $50 million by fiscal year 1988. The Federal grants were to

be matched by States on an 80:20 basis. To date,

actual appropriations have been significantly lower.

Under MCSAP, States may apply for two types

of grants. Development grants, available for a maximum of 3 years, provide finding for States needing

to establish or substantially modify an enforcement

program. Implementation grants provide funding for

States ready to initiate or continue established enforcement programs. To qualify for an implementation 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 the

Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations) or

compatible State rules;

submit an enforcement and safety program plan

and designate a lead agency for administering

the plan;

agree to devote adequate resources to administration of the program and enforcement of rules,

regulations, standards, and orders; and
19

● have established statutory authority for right

of entry into vehicles and facilities.

The MCSAP grant program, administered by the

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety or FHWA, is designed to improve State capabilities to enforce motor carrier safety regulations and to enable States

to increase safety inspections of intrastate and interstate commercial vehicles. The development of

an accurate database on compliance with safety regulations is a secondary goal of MCSAP, and funds

may be used for data collection, storage, and analysis. The legislation also authorizes inspections (including hazardous materials inspections) of commercial vehicles in terminals and along highways. The

projected total amount of development and implementation grants under MCSAP is more than $14.6

million for 1985. Figure 2-2 shows the States participating in MCSAP.

State officials committed to expanding hazardous

materials enforcement have expressed concern that

MCSAP may give priority to general motor carrier

safety programs and that hazardous materials enforcement activities--especially those for nonhighway modes—will be slighted. The State lead agencies for MCSAP are generally highway-oriented and

often are not the lead agencies designated by the

State for the SHMED program. However, at least

one State, Indiana, which did not completely adopt

49 CFR until January 1985 and did not participate

in 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 Assistance

Program (MCSAP).

States not participating in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Program (MCSAP). ❑
20

to train and put into operation hazardous materials inspection teams. Since MCSAP funds are restricted to highway safety purposes, the broader

question arises of how States are to develop or improve inspection, regulation, and enforcement for

other modes of transportation, because no similar

Federal programs exist for water, rail, or air. Although some State inspectors have been trained in

rail safety regulations and enforcement procedures,

they are not trained to carry out hazardous materials inspections. Particular concern has been expressed by States with high concentrations of nonhighway hazardous materials shipments.

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

In an initiative independent of the Federal Government, 26 States and the Canadian Provinces of

Alberta and British Columbia formed the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) in 1980. Created under the leadership of California, Idaho,

Oregon, and Washington, CVSA seeks to foster interstate cooperation in establishing uniform safety

inspection standards for trucks. Under the terms

of the Alliance, members agree to use identical inspection standards and out-of-service criteria and

to honor the inspections of other jurisdictions. In

this way, CVSA hopes to secure greater acceptance

of motor carrier inspection programs by the trucking industry and to reduce delays caused by duplicative inspections of interstate truck shipments.

CVSA inspection standards and procedures have

been developed in cooperation with BMCS and

OHMT. The inspection process concentrates on the

critical items (brakes, steering, tires, wheels, couplers,

and suspension) most frequently identified as causes

of truck accidents. In addition, the driver’s qualifications and log book are checked. CVSA has recently added hazardous materials inspection standards and out-of-service criteria to its procedures. On

passing inspection by a CVSA jurisdiction, the vehicle receives a decal valid for 3 months allowing

it to travel through member States without further

inspection unless a readily visible defect is detected.

Reciprocity, uniformity, and consistency are the key

concepts of the Alliance.

A CVSA associate membership program has recently been formed through which industry members serve in an advisory and nonvoting capacity

to contribute their views, experience, and concerns.

Since many of the States participating in CVSA are

involved in SHMED and MCSAP as well, State

agencies and personnel are developing a nationwide

program of State-level hazardous materials transportation inspection and enforcement capability. The

three organizations now hold joint national and regional meetings. CVSA sees its role as providing

a link between Federal and State agencies responsible for motor carrier and hazardous materials inspection and enforcement.

CURRENT STATE ACTIVITIES

Building an effective inspection and enforcement

capability at the State level has been a slow process. Ten years ago, few States had the requisite legal authority, organization, or personnel for conducting inspections of hazardous materials shippers

and carriers, and enforcing safety rules and regulations. The Federal and State programs described

above have helped to develop this capability, and

most States now have organizations and programs

in various stages of formation or operation. Generally, the process has involved the following steps:

● adopting enabling legislation and regulations}

● developing data collection mechanisms and information networks,

. establishing inspection and enforcement forces,

and

● training inspectors.

Adopting Legislation and Regulations

A condition of State participation in MCSAP is

that States wishing to participate must first pass legislation adopting Federal motor carrier safety regulations (49 CFR Parts 390-399) and those portions

of Federal hazardous materials regulations pertaining to shipments on public highways (49 CFR Parts

171-173 and 177-178). As of August 1985, and sometimes only after lengthy legislative proceedings, all
21

but two States had adopted 49 CFR wholly or in

part.

However, despite this strong Federal encouragement for uniform regulations and enforcement policies across all States, great variation from State to

State remains, making familiarity with numerous

State laws a burdensome necessity for interstate carriers, and development of nationally standardized

training difficult. Some States exempt specific commodities, such as agricultural fertilizers; others exclude private carriers from regulation. In Illinois, hazardous materials regulations apply only to quantities

that require placarding by Federal law; in South

Dakota, shipments of flammable and combustible

liquids are exempt.12

Data and Information Collection

An important first step for many States has been

collecting data on hazardous materials shipments

by truck and rail and on the degree of compliance

with regulations. These data are used to clarify the

nature and extent of the enforcement problem and

to support legislative or regulatory actions that may

be needed. (Because of the special importance of data

collection, this aspect of State programs and the

problems that States have encountered with it are

treated in detail in chapter 4 of this report.)

Some States gather data on hazardous materials

commodity flow by surveying drivers and inspecting trucks at weighing stations or checkpoints along

major routes. Such surveys can be expensive and

time-consuming, but can provide valuable data to

guide enforcement efforts.

However, most States have concentrated on

recording data on violations of hazardous materials regulations and do not yet have extensive data

collection programs, relying instead on spot checks

and reports of violations generated by enforcement

agencies. For example, prior to expanding their enforcement programs, Texas and Illinois officials reported that they had no statistics on compliance,

but that their experience indicated significant noncompliance by intrastate motor carriers. Massachusetts found that when data collection began under

Izu.s. Department of Transportation, Materials Trans~rtatton Bureau, “State Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development (SHMED)

Program Workshop Proceedings,” unpublished typescript, 1983, pp.

121 and 183.

the SHMED program, it was not uncommon to find

at least one violation for every truck inspected. ] 3

States with more advanced enforcement programs

are now using computerized data management sys- .

terns to monitor the effectiveness of their efforts.

Utah, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho have established management information systems that make

use of data on truck accidents and truck traffic violations collected by the State and BMCS.

California has put in place a hazardous materials

registration program and is currently establishing

a computerized statewide database and information

system, scheduled to be operational in mid-1986.

The system consists of a profile of all carriers that

currently carry hazardous materials or are likely to

become involved in hazardous materials transportation in the State. The profile includes data on

licensing, inspection records, citations, and spills.

Monthly reports will list all carriers with a hazardous materials license due to expire in 90 days. The

reports will be sent to the carrier and to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) along with a copy of

each carrier’s current profile. The database will also

include a record of all highway hazardous materials

incidents reported throughout the State. Monthly

incident summaries will be issued by highway patrol subarea. The California system will have access

to the information systems of BMCS and OHMT.14

State data collection capabilities will be further

enhanced when an integrated Federal-State data network, known as SAFETYNET, is made operational

by BMCS. SAFETYNET will tie together the present BMCS Motor Carrier Safety database with the

OHMT Hazardous Material Information System

and various computer-based State systems. The Motor Carrier Safety database now contains information on more than 200,000 interstate carriers and

25,000 hazardous materials shippers. It can report

all of the known carriers domiciled in a region, rank

them by the average number of driver and vehicle

violations found per inspection, list the number of

truck inspections each carrier has undergone, and

give the date of the most recent safety audit. Once

SAFETYNET is operating, BMCS and participating States should be able to:

. input driver-vehicle inspection data,

131 bid., p. 146.

14 California Hlgh 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 all

States in SAFETYNET, but this may take 10 years

or more to accomplish. Funding is to be provided

in a variety of ways—through SHMED, MCSAP,

other BMCS grants, and State-appropriated monies.

Inspection and Enforcement

In many States, hazardous materials inspection

authority is divided among several agencies. Usually, the State highway patrol is charged with roadside inspections, and another agency, such as the

Department of Transportation, has authority to

conduct inspections of terminals. In addition, a specialized agency may be empowered to inspect carriers of radioactive materials. In an effort to centralize hazardous materials inspections, Maryland

has designated the State Police as the only inspection force, with broad powers to stop and inspect

vehicles carrying all classes of hazardous materials.

Other States, Michigan and Massachusetts, for example, took a similar approach and established specialized units of the State highway patrol that are

trained in and solely responsible for hazardous materials inspections.

Systematic, thorough, and consistent inspection

procedures are important if the safety of hazardous

materials transportation is to be improved. State inspectors who have received training connected with

federall y sponsored programs generally employ procedures that conform to Federal practice. OHMT

has issued a series of inspection guidebooks that contain simplified, standard procedures. Developed with

assistance from BMCS and CVSA, the guidebooks

cover roadside procedures (stopping vehicles, exterior and interior inspection, putting a vehicle out

of service, etc. ) and terminal inspection procedures

(warrantless entry, review and copying of documents, and seizure of a vehicle or its contents).

151bid., p. 2,

Photo credit: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT

Inadequate blocking and bracing of containers for

rail transportation can cause damage and spills.

A 1983 informal survey of States participating in

SHMED16 identified the following as the most common 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 particularly important for the safety of first responders

to hazardous materials emergencies, as they provide

essential, basic information on the nature of the

problems the responders face. State enforcement officials estimate that one-quarter to one-half of all hazardous materials vehicles have improper placards. *

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

Administration, “Quarterly State Hazardous Materials Enforcement

Development (SHMED) Program Progress Reports: 1984 -85,” unpublished reports.

*E~timates received during the course of OTA research. State officials familiar with roadside truck inspections in at least 10 States were

asked how many trucks had been found to be incorrectly placarded.
23

A Virginia Department of Transportation study

found the rate to be at least one-third.l7 Improper

placarding means that the immediate source of information for first responders will frequently be

faulty.

Enforcement policies affect violation rates, and

violations are often treated differently from State

to State and among different agencies in the same

State. In about half of the States, inspectors have

enforcement powers and can issue citations for violations. In the other half, inspectors can only report violations to a separate agency empowered to

enforce regulations and assess penalties. Some States

provide only for civil penalties; others give the enforcing agency the option of civil or criminal penalties depending on the severity of the violation and

the violator’s record. In some States, the policy is

to issue written warnings to first offenders. Other

States use more stringent measures; in Texas and

Vermont, for instance, any violation of a hazardous materials regulation is automatically a criminal

misdemeanor.

Fines for similar violations differ among the States.

In South Dakota, where no penalties were specified

by the State legislature when Federal regulations

were adopted, all violations are automatically treated

as petty misdemeanors. Texas has a $200 limit on

fines, while Illinois may impose fines of up to $10,000

per day, per violation. Illinois has tried to ensure

that similar offenses receive similar fines and has developed a rating system based on a matrix assigning a numerical value from one to five to such factors as the gravity of the violation, the degree of

culpability, the history of prior offenses, and the ability to pay. A violator can be assessed up to 40 points,

each representing a $250 fine. The accused violator may appeal the fine before an administrative

hearing officer who may reduce the penalty or set

it aside.l8

The need for a consistent State enforcement policy is apparent when violations are prosecuted by

local city or county attorneys. Local prosecutors and

IT].W. Schmidt and D.L. Price of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, ~aZardous Materials Transportation in Virginia (Richmond, VA: Virginia

Department of Transportation Safety, 1980), p. XIII.

ISU.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation Bureau, Annual Report on Hazardous Materials Transportation, Calendar Year 1983 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1983), p. 126.

judges often are unfamiliar with hazardous materials regulations and may underestimate the seriousness of the offense or misunderstand the regulations.

To improve local prosecution of violators, enforcement officers in some States provide local judges and

prosecutors with regularly updated information on

the regulations.

Enforcement officers report four problems commonly encountered in prosecuting hazardous materials violators. First, due to a lack of training or

experience, officers often do not provide adequate

documentation in the inspection report or have not

followed correct procedures. As a result, many cases

must be set aside or the charges reduced. Second,

enforcement officers find that many judges and local prosecutors have difficulty understanding hazardous materials regulations and respond by dismissing cases or lowering penalties without cause. A

third problem is in obtaining assistance from other

agencies in preparing evidence for court proceedings. State agencies are sometimes unwilling to cooperate in testing hazardous materials or in providing other technical assistance. In some instances,

State facilities may be willing to help, but they cannot provide certain kinds of tests or technical analysis, or they cannot do so in a timely manner.19

Fourth, State enforcement agencies complain that

fines are too low to serve as a deterrent to noncompliance. Many carriers and shippers treat fines as

a cost of doing business.20

Training Inspectors

Training programs sponsored by the Federal Government have increased the number of State inspectors trained in hazardous materials, but there are

still great disparities among the sizes of State inspection forces. California has a large, well-trained force

as part of CHP. In 1983, the hazardous materials

inspection unit consisted of 93 civilian commercial

vehicle inspectors, 132 traffic officers who operated

40 platform scales and 9 other inspection facilities,

67 traffic officers trained and equipped for mobile

road inspections, and 130 civilian motor carrier

IgCaptain Richard Lan&, in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment, “Transcript of Proceedings–OTA Workshop on State and

Local Activities in Transportation of Hazardous Materials,” unpublished 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 terminal

inspections.

21 Few other States have such extensive

systems. Vermont, for example, has only part-time

inspectors, and some States have no inspection force

at all.

Inspecting vehicles for compliance with Federal

and State hazardous materials regulations requires

specialized training, knowledge, skill, and experience. Most States do not have the resources for an

independent training program and send inspectors

to the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI), a multimodal training establishment supported by the Department of Transportation.

TSI offers instruction at its facility in Oklahoma

City and at State-operated sites if requested; its

courses are open to Federal, State, and local government employees and to private industry. Priority

for enforcement courses has been given to trainees

from States participating in SHMED.

In addition to courses on radioactive materials,

TSI offers two inspection courses: one in hazardous

materials compliance and enforcement and one in

cargo tank compliance and enforcement. Both are

organized into three phases: a self-study introduction that the student completes before attending

class, a week of classroom instruction based on case

studies, and a field exercise to be completed independently by the student once back on the job. In 1984,

TSI trained more than 2,500 enforcement officers

in courses offered at 29 locations.

A few States, notably California and Illinois, operate extensive training programs, staffed either with

their own personnel or by instructors provided by

TSI. CHP conducts a comprehensive State training program, during which uniformed CHP inspection officers attend a 20-week basic law enforcement

training course on hazardous materials inspection

procedures at the CHP Academy. Officers are then

assigned to field commands where they receive 30

days of training from veteran CHP inspectors. In

addition, officers receive periodic refresher training

throughout the year at their field headquarters and

return to the Academy every 3 years for in-service

training. CHP officers assigned exclusively to commercial enforcement duties at inspection and scale

facilities and on mobile units are selected from veteran inspection officers. They attend an 80-hour

commercial enforcement class at the Academy, with

retraining every 2 years. Civilian inspectors assigned

to CHP inspection duties must have at least 1 year

of experience in the maintenance of heavy-duty

commercial vehicles. They attend the 80-hour enforcement class at the Academy and receive additional in-service training every 2 or 3 years. CHP

also provides training for other State agency personnel involved in hazardous materials management

and for employees of the regulated industries. Twoday hazardous materials seminars are conducted as

needed for these groups.22

Private firms also offer hazardous materials training, and courses on inspection and enforcement are

available from a wide variety of organizations. State

officials indicate that the courses vary in content

and suggest that the Federal Government or a national, professional group should develop a standardized curriculum and uniform training guidelines.

In recognition of the complexity of hazardous materials regulations, several States have set up programs to educate industry about compliance and enforcement procedures, Maryland, California, and

Illinois work closely with the trucking industry

through State and local industry associations to promote voluntary compliance. Enforcement officials

in Maryland hold informational meetings regularly

with industry groups and ensure that new regulations or procedures are covered by the press. CHP

conducts training for industry personnel to acquaint

them with inspection requirements. Illinois postponed implementation of its enforcement program

for 2 years to allow industry time to assimilate the

regulations and move toward voluntary compliance.

zlNationa] Conference of state Legislators, Hazardous ~areriafs

Transportation: 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 have

smaller resources and are tightly focused. The following short profiles of the programs in Illinois,

Washington, and Maryland highlight some of the

interesting accomplishments of State programs.

Illinois

Before 1977, Illinois had no central regulatory

agency responsible for hazardous materials transportation and no State enforcement program. Once a

study identified these deficiencies, the legislature authorized the Illinois Department of Transportation

(IDOT) to regulate the transportation of hazardous

materials on the highways and gave the State Police enforcement power. In 1979, the Illinois legislature adopted regulations that included 49 CFR

Parts 171, 172, 173, 177, and 178 and Part 379 of

the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The

Illinois regulations differed from their Federal counterparts in some important respects: Illinois set a

higher threshold of applicability, exempting from

regulation all hazardous materials that, under Federal regulations, do not require placarding. It also

excluded certain agricultural products shipped between farms. By narrowing applicability, Illinois targeted bulk shipments—deemed the most important

safety problem—for enforcement efforts.

Training of State Police officers was a key component in the enforcement program. Initially, 32

officers were trained in basic hazardous materials

inspection and cargo tank inspection at TSI in Oklahoma City. As the State program developed, IDOT

set up its own 3-week basic training program, supplemented by regularly scheduled refresher courses.

Both the basic training and refresher courses focus

on the regulations, procedures for conducting inspections, and methods of preparing a case for prosecution. During training, case studies are presented

to demonstrate successful and unsuccessful techniques. Training also emphasizes use of standard

equipment issued by on-the-road inspectors for deSTATE PROFILES

tection and recording of violations and for personal

safety—items such as cameras; binoculars; vehicularmounted detection and surveillance apparatus; explosive meters; and protective footgear, coveralls,

and masks. IDOT attorneys and industry representatives participate in the training program to ensure

that as many affected parties as possible are well informed.

In order to promote industry compliance, IDOT

introduced the enforcement program slowly and deliberately. The first fines were levied 21⁄2 years after

regulations were adopted. This gave the regulated

industries time to become familiar with the regulations and afforded inspectors a protracted training

period. From 1979 to 1981, the Hazardous Materials Department of IDOT sent copies of the regulations with explanations to all State industries that

were potential users or producers of hazardous materials. (The mailing list is kept current and used

to inform industry of changes in regulations and enforcement.) The Department set up seminars and

work sessions to discuss the regulations and procedures with such industry groups as the Illinois

Trucking Association, the National Tank Truck

Carriers, and the Tank Truck Manufacturers Association. In the meantime, State Police inspectors issued Notices of Apparent Violation to drivers and

sent copies to the Hazardous Materials Department

of IDOT. The Department notified the offending

companies, explaining the regulations and apparent violation. After this period of education and

training, the Department began sending frequent

offenders letters warning that continued violations

would mean fines up to $10,000. The letter explained

the fine system and appeal process.

During the first 3 years of inspection, the number of violations found by inspectors remained at

approximately 2,400 annually, but the mix of violations changed. Minor violations, such as mistakes

in paperwork or a torn placard, decreased, while major violations rose. IDOT attributes the decline in

minor violations to the educational program for industry conducted by the State. IDOT concludes that
26

the rise in major violations found by inspectors was

due to the in-service training the inspectors received

and to the experience they gained on the job.23

In a 1983 study, IDOT performed a Critical Safety

Analysis of truck survey data to quantify the effects

of its accident prevention program. It found that

the chief problem was private, intrastate hazardous

materials carriers. The analysis showed that, while

private carriers accounted for one-third of the mileage traveled by all common carriers, they were involved in three-quarters of the hazardous materials accidents recorded throughout the State.24

Washington

Washington’s enforcement program exemplifies a

State program that has been improved by a management information system. Officials of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission report that the most useful component of this system

is the Critical Safety Management Breakdown Analysis. It utilizes two existing databases, the Computerized Accident System and the Carrier Profile System, to track carriers frequently involved in

accidents or found to be in violation of regulations.

The Computerized Accident System includes all

truck accident reports filed by enforcement agencies in the State. Hazardous materials involvement

is noted on the field report, which is analyzed before it is entered into the computerized information

system. Analysts make followup calls to carriers

when the validity of the field report seems questionable. The followup checks have helped provide an

accurate count of accidents involving hazardous materials. Based on their experience with the Computerized Accident System since 1975, State officials

conclude that investigating officers do not always

have sufficient training to evaluate accurately a situation that may involve hazardous materials. While

investigators generally recognize blatant violations,

they frequently miss less obvious incidents or make

mistaken identifications. Between January and June

1983, statistical analysis identified 38 accidents involving hazardous materials, of which only 14 were

recognized as such by the investigating officers. The

remainder were identified through followup inves231 bid., p. 126.

241 bid., p. 204.

tigations. Washington State officials suspect that

many hazardous materials spills are never reported,

particularly those in which quantities are below

placarding requirements. They suggest that obtaining an accurate picture of hazardous materials incidents requires careful analysis and followup of accident data from field reports.

The second database, the Carrier Profile System,

is a computerized record of all violations, assembled

by carrier. The system records the violation by elate,

time, and location and describes the action taken

by State enforcement agencies. The database includes both hazardous materials violations and other

forms of motor carrier safety violations.

The Critical Safety Management Breakdown

Analysis integrates the two databases and identifies and keeps records on hazardous materials carriers that have frequent accidents or violations. State

officials report that the system provides the quantifiable data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness

of the hazardous materials enforcement and prevention programs.

Maryland

Maryland’s hazardous materials enforcement program began in the early 1970s with a survey of the

transportation of radioactive materials. The State

expanded the program to cover all classes of hazardous materials in 1981. Inspections are conducted

by speciall y trained State Police officers posted at

points throughout the State, including several. on

Interstate routes. Inspections are performed daily on

a random basis.

Maryland has developed a well-trained inspection

force. The State has fully utilized TSI’s outreach

activities, sponsoring three courses with about 50

students enrolled in each. The first group of officers

to be trained was drawn from select units of the State

Police Truck Enforcement Division that patrols major interstate highways. After the officers had completed the course conducted by TSI on-site in Maryland and were ready for field work, they received

2 months of on-the-job training under the supervision of Federal hazardous materials inspectors from

BMCS and OHMT. During this time, roadside inspections were performed, but only warnings, not

citations, were issued. State officials used this grace

period to contact the Maryland Motor Truck Asso-
27

ciation and major independent truckers to inform

them of Maryland’s hazardous materials regulations

and enforcement program and to solicit voluntary

compliance. Maryland officials feel the grace period

enabled novice inspectors to gain experience and

allowed hazardous materials carriers time to adjust

to the new regulatory requirements.

As a matter of policy, Maryland regularly informs

the trucking industry about regulations and enforcement practices. The State Police have developed a

training program for commercial carriers, and officers hold frequent meetings with industry groups.

Whenever an inspector cites a truck for a violation,

the State Police department sends a copy of the traffic safety report to the Maryland Truck Association

for forwarding to the truck company. In this way,

the company is notified of the violation in time to

take whatever corrective action may be needed on

other trucks in their fleet.

Even though the number of violations has not declined appreciably, Maryland officials believe the enforcement program has been effective. During the

second quarter of 1984, the State Police made 1,106

roadside inspections and issued 88 citations and 263

warnings. Officials note that the incidence of detected violations, about one for every three vehicles inspected, has remained essentially constant

since enforcement began in 1982. They attribute the

lack of decline, despite vigorous enforcement, to several factors. First, the inspection officers are increasingly skilled and sophisticated in their ability to

detect violations. Second, fines assessed by the

Maryland courts are low, and enforcement officials

believe they have a minimal preventive value. Third,

much of the hazardous materials traffic on Maryland highways is passing through and thus not easily 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 enforcement

and inspection tasks for hazardous materials, local

government agencies are concerned primarily with

emergency response and public safety in the event

of transportation accidents and spills. Both State

and local governments have authority over accident

prevention measures and protection of public safety,

including: restriction of the routes that hazardous

materials shippers may use or hours when shipments

are permitted; requirements for licensing, registration, or permits; advance notification or other special procedures; and escorts for hazardous materials

movements. Because compliance with these requirements involves expenditures of time and money by

industry, considerable controversy often arises when

such requirements are imposed.

Two factors limit the nature and extent of State

and local government involvement in hazardous materials accident prevention. First is a general lack

of the expertise and resources, especially among local agencies, necessary to carry out effective inspection and enforcement. Second, the Federal Government is authorized to preempt certain State and local

laws and ordinances. While these factors tend to

narrow the available range of State and local actions, they do not preclude the enactment of a variety of requirements. The following discussion

presents an overview of Federal preemption powers

for hazardous materials transportation and the types

of requirements that have been instituted by State

and local jurisdictions.

Preempt ion

Section 112 (a) of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) states that, “any requirement of a state or political subdivision thereof, which

is inconsistent with any requirement set forth in this

title, or in a regulation issued under this tide, is preempted. “26 DOT has established procedures allowing States, localities, affected parties, and DOT itself to seek administrative rulings as to whether a

State or local requirement is inconsistent.27 DOT’s

administrative process is meant to serve as an alter2649 U.S. C, 181 I (a).

2749 CFR 107.203 to 107.211.
28

native to litigation; however, the process is only

advisory in nature and does not preclude judicial

interpretations of a State or local requirement. Independent of DOT procedures, a Federal court may

be asked to decide whether a State or local requirement is inconsistent and therefore preempted under the HMTA or invalid under the Commerce

Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

HMTA also allows DOT to waive preemption of

inconsistent State or local requirements where they

afford equal or greater levels of protection to the

public than do the Federal requirements and do not

unreasonably burden commerce.28 Procedures regarding the submission and review of waiver applications have also been promulgated.29

Sixteen inconsistency rulings have been issued by

DOT.30 Generally, the types of requirements found

to be inconsistent are those pertaining to areas already subject to Federal regulation, such as definitions of hazardous materials, vehicle placarding,

packaging or container requirements, insurance requirements, and shipping papers. Consistent requirements are those falling within the scope of local traffic regulations, such as separation distances

between vehicles, use of headlights, vehicle inspections at loading/unloading areas, and requirements

for immediate notification of accidents.

Licensing, Registration, and Permits

Licensing, registration, and permit requirements

vary widely at the State and local level, causing

difficulties for enforcement officers and industry. For

example, 26 States require that transport companies

carrying hazardous wastes register with the State and

pay a fee. Fees imposed range from $25 up to $500

and may be good for only one trip or for as long

as a year. Four States require special training or certification for drivers of hazardous waste vehicles. (See

table 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 Senate HMTA bill indicated that this provision should be used in certain

exceptional circumstances necessitating immediate action at the State

or 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 all

that is required for drivers of any truck. In addition, local jurisdictions may require hazardous materials carriers operating within their boundaries to

purchase separate permits or registrations. Some

communities use this income to finance emergency

response activities; others treat it as general revenue.

These State and local requirements typically apply

to trucks. Many trucking company officials believe

that continued adoption of special requirements by

different States impedes interstate commerce and

have taken legal action. For example, a 1983 New

Hampshire law imposing license fee requirements

on vehicles transporting hazardous materials was

challenged in court by State and national representatives of the trucking industry. Although the district court found that the law violated the Commerce Clause and was preempted by the Hazardous

Materials Transportation Act, the law was upheld

when the decision was reversed on appeal.31 Proliferation of State requirements can pose hardships for

interstate carriers. One transporter noted that, in

order to ensure that his driver was completely prepared to transport a load of hazardous waste from

Georgia to Wisconsin, he had to telephone every

State along the route, sometimes calling as many

as four or five agencies within a State, before he was

fully apprised of all the requirements.32

DOT has issued a number of inconsistency rulings regarding State and local permit requirements.

Even though there are no explicit Federal permit

or registration requirements, DOT found the requirements to be inconsistent with HMTA as they

caused delays, resulted in diversions of shipments,

or required transporters to provide information that

differed from Federal shipping paper requirements.33

With respect to fees, DOT decided in one case that

a Vermont requirement that imposed a $1,000 fee

per shipment of certain radioactive materials was

inconsistent because it was applied in a discriminatory manner (e.g., only to certain radioactive materials), diverted shipments into other jurisdictions, and

31New Hampshire Motor TranSPrr Association, et al. V. ~Ynn, et

aL, 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

.-
31

the response team funded by the fee requirement

replicated Federal emergency response programs.34

The trucking industry has made Congress aware

of its concerns, and BMCS has begun, at congressional request, a 5-year program that will lead to

greater uniformity in some areas. BMCS is surveying State motor carrier laws to determine those that

are more or less stringent than Federal requirements

in the areas of driver qualifications and training,

hours of service, and equipment maintenance.

When completed, the survey will be reviewed by a

panel convened by the Secretary of Transportation,

and if warranted, DOT will consider rulemaking to

preempt State laws that do not ensure greater safety

than their Federal counterparts.

However, many State and local enforcement officers as well as industry representatives feel strongly

that national, uniform standards should be established in areas related to hazardous materials as well.

Carrier associations and insurance industry representatives have voiced strong support for a national

hazardous materials driver’s license requiring special training.

In addition, this Federal review will leave untouched problems of varying State and local special permits and registration fees. The transport industry views these requirements primarily as State

and local funding devices for enforcement or emergency response activities. Carriers find them annoyingly inconsistent and financially burdensome.

Preemption by the Federal Government may not

be the only appropriate way to achieve uniformity

of requirements—a goal that many see as the most

important need in hazardous materials regulation.

National guidelines for permits and registrations

could provide uniformity, and consensus building

would ensure at least some measure of agreement

between concerned public and private sector groups.

Notification

Notification requirements are used by State and

local governments, and by transportation facilities

(e.g., bridge and tunnel authorities) to obtain information on shipments of hazardous materials into

or through their jurisdictions. The data are used for

“Department of Transportation Inconsistency Ruling 15, 49 F.R.

46660, Nov. 27, 1984.

inventory purposes, to arrange escorts, for emergency response planning, and in support of enforcement activities. Figure 2-3 indicates which States

have enacted notification laws and the types of hazardous materials covered.

Knowing which hazardous materials are present

or pass through a community is important to many

State and local agencies. However, the use of notification provisions may not be the most efficient or

effective method of data collection available (chapter 4 discusses data collection in more detail). Recent studies conducted for DOT indicate that notification requirements targeted at a limited number

of extremely hazardous substances (e.g., high-level

nuclear waste) have provided useful information.

However, most local governments do not have the

resources or the expertise to implement and enforce

requirements that encompass a broader range of

hazardous materials.35 In addition, transporters are

concerned that a multiplicity of State and local

notification regulations would create scheduling difficulties and substantial increases in paperwork.

At the Federal level, the U.S. Coast Guard and

NRC have established notification requirements.

The Coast Guard requires all vessels carrying certain dangerous cargo to notify appropriate port authorities up to 24 hours in advance before entering

or leaving U.S. ports and waterways.36 Dangerous

cargo includes Class A explosives, oxidizing materials or blasting agents, large quantities of radioactive

material or certain fissile radioactive material, and

bulk shipments of other specified materials.37 The

NRC regulation requires licensees to notify States

in advance regarding shipments of certain radioactive materials.38 Recognizing the difficulties faced

by carriers confronted with varying State notification rules, DOT has taken the position that this is

an area warranting uniform national requirements.

DOT has not issued Federal guidelines. It has, however, preempted a number of non-Federal requirements, either because they differed from the NRC

Jssee Batte]]e Memorial Research Laboratories, Battelle Human Affairs Research Center, Assessment of State and Local Notifi’cation Requirements for Transportation of Radioactive and Other Hazardous

A4aterials (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 Lakes

are 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

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Hazardous wastes

Hazardous materials

regulation or had the potential to cause transportation delays or traffic diversions.39

Routing

Routing is an important tool for local governments

to use in preventing or reducing the consequences

of hazardous materials accidents, and increasing

numbers of cities, counties, and townships are adopting ordinances requiring hazardous materials carriers to use designated routes. Careful routing decisions mean that hazardous materials shipments are

restricted to the safest routes, often interstate highways and beltways, thus reducing the overall risk

of an accident as well as risks on local streets and

highways. In addition, routing is a low-cost prevenJgsee for example IR-16, so F.R. 20871, May 20, 1985. MT ha s

adopted the NRC notification requirements.

All of the above

tion measure that local police can enforce without

additional equipment or training. On the other

hand, routing requirements may lengthen and complicate trips for truckers, and sometimes bring local governments into conflict with each other or

with Federal regulations protecting interstate

commerce.

The only Federal requirement pertaining to routing of nonradioactive hazardous materials is general: 40

Unless there is no practicable alternative, a motor vehicle which contains hazardous materials

must be operated over routes which do not go

through or near heavily populated areas, places

where crowds are assembled, tunnels, narrow

streets, or alleys.

4049 CFR 397.9(a).
33

This provision is contained in the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Regulations. DOT has published

guidelines to assist communities in designating routes

for transporting hazardous materials.41 The guidelines include procedures for analyzing risks associated with the transportation of hazardous materials on alternative routes within a jurisdiction, and

emphasize the importance of involving a broad spectrum of community and industry members in the

decisionmaking process. (A 1983 demonstration program in Portland, Oregon, described on pp. 34-35,

successfully tested the guidelines.)

A number of localities, including Columbus, Denver, and Boston, have established routing restrictions based on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety provision.42 The types of regulations enacted by these

jurisdictions include restricting the use of certain

roads, prohibiting transportation and delivery during rush hours, and specifying operating requirements. However, reaching a regional consensus is

frequently difficult, even when a broad spectrum of

the community is consulted. Often, for example, after a community routing risk assessment has been

completed, hazardous materials carriers are diverted

from central city routes onto surrounding roadways—usually Interstate highways—that traverse less

populated areas. However, since many suburban

communities do not have the specialized hazardous

materials response teams of their urban neighbors,

they feel particularly vulnerable to increased hazardous materials traffic and resist agreeing to such

routing requirements. In 1985, in the Cincinnati region, suburban townships opposed the city’s attempts to divert through shipments from city roads

onto outlying highways.

41E.]. Barber and I-K. Hildebrand, et al., Guidelines for Applying

Criceria to Designare Routes for Transporting Hazardous Materials–

fmplemenration Package, FHWA-I-80-20 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department 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 local routing ordinances, claiming that they interfere

with interstate commerce and are inconsistent with

HMTA. Boston’s regulations restricting the use of

city streets for hazardous materials transportation

were challenged by the American Trucking Associations, both in Federal court and through DOT’s

inconsistency ruling process.43 After a lengthy administrative review process, DOT decided that it

could not reach a conclusion, because even though

the routing restrictions enhanced public safety, consultation with affected jurisdictions had been limited

as the requirements were developed.44 A final decision by the court had not been reached by late

1985.45

Highway routing of radioactive materials is addressed specifically in a 1981 DOT rulemaking,

docket HM-164.46 The DOT regulations were established in response to severe restrictions that had

been placed on the transportation of radioactive materials by local jurisdictions, most notably New York

City, making some through shipments impossible.

HM-164 requires carriers to follow “preferred routes”

(routes designated by States or Interstate highways

where State alternates have not been named), prepare and file route plans, provide specialized training related to radioactive materials and emergency

response, and comply with appropriate NRC security requirements. DOT has also developed guidelines for route selection for shipments of radioactive

materials .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 concluded that further refinement of the data would not have had a substantial 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 Selecting Preferred Highway Routes for Highway Route Controlled Quanriry Shipments of Radioactive Materia)s, DOT/RSPA/MTB-84/22

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1984 (originally published in June 1981)).

FINDINGS

Continued support is needed for State multi. a significant influence in shaping State enforcement

modal hazardous materials enforcement activities. programs despite relatively low funding levels. AlThe SHMED program, which ends in 1986, has had though MCSAP will continue to fund State enforce-
34
35

the staff and the advisory committee. Consensus on

the safest route was reached in all but one case, a

reroute around a tunnel. The final decision in that

case was made by the fire marshal of the emergency

response jurisdiction, subject to acceptance by other

fire departments along the alternate route. In general,

the alternate route analysis indicated that interstate

freeways were preferable because they had the lowest

accident rates and probabilities of all the routes considered.

As a result of the demonstration, the Portland City

Council, in cooperation with the State Highway Department and Oregon Transportation Commission,

enacted ordinances banning hazardous materials shipments from one tunnel and two grade-level rail crossment programs, States are concerned that priority

will be given to general motor carrier safety programs

and that hazardous materials enforcement—especially for nonhighway modes—will be slighted.

Penalties for regulatory violations, including

failure to report hazardous materials incidents,

should be consistent across governmental and

jurisdictional levels and sufficiently large to disc

courage future infractions. An effective enforcement program requires that legislatures, enforcement

agencies, and courts be aware of the death, injury,

property damage, and environmental harm that

could result from accidental release of hazardous materials and set penalties accordingly.

State and local enforcement personnel need

additional training and current information on

hazardous materials regulations for all modes of

transportation. Methods used by the Federal Government to deliver this information to State and

local officials need to be improved and strengthened.

Programs to educate shippers and carriers on safety

measures and regulatory compliance need strengthening as well.

National standards establishing uniform State

hazardous materials requirements and regulations

would simplify and improve compliance by shippers and carriers, and State and local enforcement

ings. The tunnel had been used frequently by trucks

carrying petroleum products from the principal distribution center in the Portland area to the northwestern parts of the State, and fire officials determined

that the tunnel posed an unacceptably high risk. To

compensate for any additional risks posed by the rerouting decisions, the City of Portland and three adjoining counties revised their mutual-aid agreements

to assure that the affected counties would have access to the city’s specialized fire-fighting equipment.

POEM officials notified local industries, shippers, and

carriers about the restrictions and the recommended

alternate routes. It is expected that most truckers will

comply; additional liability will accompany an accident off the recommended routes.

activities. State, regional, and local agency concerns as well as those of industry should be considered in formulating standards. The areas where uniformity is most needed are:

●

●

●

Licensing to ensure that drivers and others

handling hazardous materials are qualified and

have been properly trained. Some form of national truck driver’s license is favored by many

State, local, and industry officials.

Permit or registration requirements to obtain

information and collect fees in a coordinated

manner that does not unduly burden transporters.

Shipment notification systems that provide

useful information for localities without-unduly

burdening carriers.

Development of local routing restrictions

should be based on interjurisdictional consultation and the use of explicit safety criteria. A l -

though it is likely that the development of a routing scheme that enhances overall safety will be a

difficult process for some regions, the Portland experience demonstrates that it is possible. In those

instances where hazardous materials shipments are

routed around cities through suburban communities, it may be necessary to establish a regional emergency response system.
Chapter 3

Emergency Response and

Training
Chapter 3

Emergency Response and Training

State and local governments must be able to respond effectively to hazardous materials transportation emergencies as part of their obligation to protect the health and safety of the public. Local police

officers are usually first at the scene of an accident

and have primary responsibility for public safety.

Their skill in handling the accident determines in

part the impact that accident will have on those in

the immediate vicinity and on the community at

large.

Two responses to hazardous materials transportation accidents occurring 3 years apart illustrate the

range of problems associated with hazardous materials emergency response activities and the improvements developed with time and experience in response procedures.

On October 15, 1982, an accident in Odessa, Delaware, between a pickup truck and a tank truck resulted in a rollover of the tank truck and the release

of about 150 gallons of the product from the tank

truck’s dome cover. The tank truck contained divinyl benzene (DVB), a moderately toxic material

when inhaled, and carried a “combustible” placard.

Arriving police officers reviewed the shipping

papers, moving freely about the accident site. Approximately 100 emergency response personnel evenPhoto credit: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT

Unprotected emergency response personnel

in action—a dangerous situation.

tually responded to the accident; only some had previous experience or training in handling a hazardous

materials transportation accident.

One hour after the crash, 48 emergency response

personnel, complaining of respiratory and skin problems, were taken to the hospital, as was the tank

truck driver who was still carrying the shipping manifest and bill of lading.

Emergency responders who remembered the name

of the product consulted the U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Guidebook to identify the material.

DVB is not listed by name in the guidebook, so they

followed the instructions for divinyl ether, the only

“divinyl” entry. 1 Although trained safety personnel from the tank truck company involved in the

accident had arrived to clean up, they were not allowed to participate for almost 12 hours.2 Problems

associated with this hazardous materials accident

included lack of coordination among responding

organizations, inadequate information provided to

hospital personnel treating emergency responders,

failure to establish and maintain control over the

accident site, and the participation of untrained individuals in response activities.

In contrast, on August 12, 1985, a tank truck carrying hazardous waste from the Norfolk, Virginia,

Naval shipyard to New Jersey began to leak and

stopped on the Capital Beltway in Northern Virginia during the evening rush hour. The waste consisted of hydrazine, thiourea, ethylene diamine,

ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid, ammonium hy

-

droxide, and sulfate compounds, which had been

used to clean ships and submarines at the shipyard.

The Fairfax County, Virginia, Fire Department

Hazardous Materials Team was on the scene within

10 minutes of notification. Concerned that the contents of the truck would corrode the container and

cause it to burst, team members attempted unsuc-

‘C. H. Batten, In\’estigator, N’atlonal Transportation Safety Board

Accident Investigation Report, Oct. 15, 1982; and National Transportation Safety Board Safety Recommendations, I-83- 1 and 1-83-2, issued

Nov. 29, 1983.

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

39
40

cessfully to stem the leak and then requested another

vehicle to off-load the truck. Authorities, recognizing the danger posed by corrosive fumes, ordered

the evacuation of residents in the area just south

of the accident scene. Railroad tracks near the site

were shut down, and traffic in the area was rerouted

around the scene of the accident. No one was injured, although hundreds were inconvenienced for

several hours.

Cleanup of the contaminated site involved digging up and disposing of 18 inches of asphalt and

soil and an estimated 21 tons of sand spread to restrict the flow of spilled material. Some of the cleanup costs reportedly will be paid by the shipping company. 34 Fairfax County costs for overtime pay for

personnel from 10 county agencies and use of a

helicopter may reach $100,000.

The contrast between the responses to the two

incidents is marked, and demonstrates the difference coordination, cooperation, and training can

make in ensuring an appropriate response. The Fairfax 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 Occurs

on Single Day,” vol. 63, No. 33, Aug. 19, 1985, p. 6.

the coordinated efforts of 10 county agencies to successfully handle a potentially dangerous incident.

By comparison, the dangers inherent in the Odessa

DVB spill were increased by the varying levels of

training and coordination of the emergency response

personnel, and much greater risks were posed to participating emergency service personnel and neighboring communities.

Without appropriate organization, training, and

equipment for emergency response personnel, the

public is at greater risk than necessary as hazardous materials move around the country.

This chapter explores emergency response from

a State and local perspective. A literature review,

findings of an OTA workshop with State and local

officials, supplementary interviews, and surveys recently commissioned by the Federal Government

and professional associations provide the basis for

the

●

●

●

●

information. Four topics are addressed:

the institutional and legal framework for emergency response;

training requirements and programs;

planning for emergency response, including

identification of problems and organization of

resources; and

equipment.

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Federal Responsibilities

Federal assistance for State and local emergency

response activities for hazardous materials accidents

is provided by many different Federal agencies.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) is the lead agency for the development and

coordination of Federal emergency response plans

to support State and local emergency response activities and to provide appropriate training. In this role,

FEMA provides planning support and guidance

prior to hazardous materials accidents and coordinates Federal response after the fact.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and the U.S. Coast Guard share responsibility for

providing technical information and advice to first

responders and State and local governments. If State

and local governments cannot handle a severe accident or request Federal intervention, EPA and the

Coast Guard will assume control and direct Federal emergency response activities. The Coast Guard

operates the National Response Center for DOT

as the point of contact for transportation accidents

involving hazardous materials. In addition, the

Coast Guard operates and maintains strike forces

on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts for emergency response activities.

In the case of radiological accidents, Federal responsibility is shared by FEMA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Department of

Energy. NRC and DOE maintain authority for planning and program development for emergency response, notification, technical assistance and advice,

and involvement in response activities for radiolog-
41

ical spills. In addition, DOE maintains 30 regional

emergency response teams for radiological incidents.

All of these Federal agencies conduct emergency

response training, although the subject matter may

differ. FEMA provides training in emergency response procedures at regional centers and at the national center, the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Training covers basic and advanced

hazardous materials management classes.

EPA training is offered at two regional sites, Edison, New Jersey, and Cincinnati, Ohio, as well as

nationally. Training covers response operations,

equipment, and response decisionmaking. The U.S.

Coast Guard offers training in basic hazardous materials emergency response to its employees and

State, local, and industry participants at Yorktown,

Virginia.

NRC training, offered at the Technical Training

Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, focuses on inspection and enforcement rather than on emergency

response. Training previously conducted by DOE

for Federal contractors and employees has been expanded to allow commercial carriers; enforcement

agencies; and State, county, and local police and

fire officers to participate. Courses cover basic emergency response and compliance with transportation

regulations.

Federal emergency response activities are intended

as supplements to, not as substitutes for, State and

local emergency response to hazardous materials

transportation accidents. Federal agencies generally

offer technical advice and information, rather than

physical assistance. However, active Federal participation is likely if radioactive hazardous materials,

particularly spent fuel, is involved in a transportation incident.

Table 3-1 identifies the different Federal agencies

that regulate hazardous materials transportation and

their jurisdictional authority. This diversified Federal authority is a major reason that developing effective, coordinated Federal emergency response capabilities has proven difficult.

State and Local Authority

State authority for hazardous materials transportation and emergency response is equally fragmented

and may rest with a State Fire Marshal’s office or

State departments of health, transportation, environment, radiological affairs, or civil defense—or

more likely a combination of some or all of these.

A State-by-State listing of the agencies responsible

for hazardous materials regulation, enforcement, and

emergency response is provided in appendix A.

Just as the statutory authority for emergency response varies from State to State, so does the interest emergency response generates within the State

government. States that are highly industrialized,

heavily traveled, confronted with exceptional hazards (such as a large number of waste disposal or

nuclear facilities, or a heavy concentration of chemical industries), or have experienced a serious hazardous materials incident are more likely to support

and encourage the development of emergency response planning and training and attempt statewide

coordination. Believing that State assistance may

be the best or even the only way of protecting rural areas in hazardous materials accidents, some

States, including North Dakota, Delaware, Indiana,

and Oregon, are developing statewide emergency

response plans.

Tennessee has undertaken a unique program to

improve its statewide emergency response capability. The Tennessee Emergency Management Agency

(TEMA), in an effort to assure rural areas of adequate hazardous materials emergency response,

divided the State into six districts, each with a district coordinator and equipped with a special response van. The district coordinators are trained

by the TEMA training institute and must be recertified for hazardous materials response every 2 years.

Their multiple responsibilities include training responders in their districts. As a result, Tennessee

has more than 2,000 State-certified hazardous materials responders. * In addition, the district coordinators are covered by State liability laws and thus

can provide assistance in other districts without fear

of lawsuits.

Communities of all sizes are becoming more aware

of the dangers associated with hazardous commodity

transportation and are looking for ways to lower

their risks. The same factors that influence State

emergency response development also operate at the

local level, with communities that have experienced

*George Kramer, Hazardous Materials Instructor, Tennessee Emergency Management Administration, personal communication to OTA

staff, 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 . . . . . . . . . . X

Federal 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

x

x

x

o

0

x

o

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

0

x*

x

x

x

x

x

0

0

X*

x

0

x

x

x

x

x

0

0

x*

x

x

0

x

x

x

x

x

0

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

0

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

x

0

0

x

0

0

x

0

0

x

x

o*

X X O

O O X

X X O

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x“

X X O

X X O

0 0

x —

x

x

x

“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 large

chemical plants more likely to be concerned about

developing emergency response capabilities.

Communities with emergency response capabilities have set up various response systems. In rural

communities, hazardous materials emergency response usually is an additional duty assigned to the

fire or police department. Large metropolitan areas

are more likely to train and equip specialized units.

Large cities and urban areas with major transportation corridors or heavy concentrations of business

and industry requiring hazardous materials may use

response teams supplemented with formal mutual

aid agreements with nearby jurisdictions. In fact,

the emergency response capabilities in a few sub--

urban communities may surpass the capabilities of

State emergency response organizations, through the

organization of mutual aid networks, consolidation

of resources, and widespread community support.

However, local governments often find it difficult

to justify the cost of specialized equipment, training, and manpower for events that occur rarely. Developing and maintaining a regional hazardous materials response team is a cost-effective possibility for

smaller jurisdictions.

Coalitions of several communities or of industry

and local government may be able to provide specialized equipment and response capabilities even

for areas with severe financial restraints. Industry

participation may lessen the cost to local communities and provide a level of technical expertise in

hazardous materials handling, chemical knowledge,

and personnel protective equipment often beyond

local capabilities. Industry resources would be especially valuable in the event of an accident involving complex combinations of chemicals or unusual

circumstances.

One example of a regional emergency response

team augmented by public and private sector cooperation is the Gateway Response Network, organized by area governments, public services, and business and industry in the greater St. Louis region.

Under the auspices of the the East-West Gateway

Coordinating Council, a regional organization, the

Network was formed specifically for response to hazardous materials transportation accidents. Network

activities have included identifying the hazardous

materials stored and transported through the region;

identifying existing local and industry emergency response teams; developing a coordinated response to

hazardous materials transportation accidents; and

providing equipment, including a special van. The

Spokane, Washington, Fire Department has a similar arrangement with the rest of Spokane County

and Northern Idaho.

Industry Response

Over the past decade, hazardous materials manufacturers have evaluated their safety programs and

often taken steps to address their own and the public’s concerns. Industry’s involvement in hazardous

materials emergency response ranges from technical

assistance to specialized response teams. The best

known effort is the Chemical Transportation Emergency Center (CHEMTREC), established in 1970

by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA),

CHEMTREC maintains an on-line database on the

chemical, physical, and toxicological properties and

health effects of the thousands of products of the

member companies.

Personnel at the scene of an accident call

CHEMTREC with information on the accident and

the material involved. CHEMTREC staff provide

chemical information for use in onsite decisionmaking and notify the manufacturer of an accident involving their product.

CMA has also developed CHEMNET, a mutual

aid network of chemical shippers and for-hire contractors to advise and assist at chemical spills during transportation. CHEMNET is used to identify

members of CMA with particular chemical expertise to assist in emergency response efforts.

Many large petrochemical and chemical manufacturers train and maintain company emergency

response teams for both their fixed facilities and

transportation accidents. A team may respond itself to a report of an accident involving a company

product or, under formal agreements, may request

another participating company closer to the incident to respond. Industry teams are instructed to

defer to the local on-scene commander at an accident so that the emergency response effort remains

coordinated.5

SEE. Eigen s ch e n k, Mid-continent Distribution Manager, Shell Oil

Co., personal communication with OTA staff, June 4, 1985. The American Petroleum Institute recommends that a particular procedure, known

as practice 111.2, be part of emergency response plans.
4 4

The Channel industries, the Pesticide Safety Team

Network, and Chlorep are other examples of emergency response capabilities provided by industry.

The Channel industries in Houston have extensive

mutual aid agreements with each other. By pooling resources, this concentration of chemical industries along the Texas Channel can assemble 500 firemen and other trained personnel, some 60 water

pumpers, 45 chemical retardant fire trucks, and 12

truck-mounted powerplants.

The Pesticide Safety Team Network (PSTN) and

Chlorep, specialized information and emergency response units, were formed by manufacturers to respond to accidents involving pesticides and chlorine. PSTN, a voluntary effort established in 1970,

consists of 50 to 60 response teams. When a pesticide accident occurs, someone at the site notifies

CHEMTREC, which in turn notifies one of 10 PSTN

regional coordinators. The coordinator then contacts personnel at the accident site to determine

what response is needed. If telephone advice is not

sufficient, the manufacturer is notified and responds

accordingly. Approximately 90 percent of pesticide

manufacturers respond to accidents involving their

product. 6 If a manufacturer is unable to respond,

the closest safety team will be dispatched to respond

to the incident and handle cleanup. Cleanup costs

are absorbed by the participating team.

Chlorep, a response network of chlorine manufacturers and packagers, responds to emergencies involving chlorine products. Founded in 1972 by the

Chlorine Institute, Chlorep currently includes 37

manufacturing and 31 packaging companies among

their response network members.

With its specialized resources, detailed knowledge

of hazardous materials, and extensive product information, industry can provide a logical adjunct to

public safety capabilities for fixed facility and hazardous materials transportation emergency response.

s~wrence No~on, National Agricultural Chemical Association, personal communication with OTA staff, Aug. 30, 1985.

TRAINING

Widespread and improved emergency response

training at the State and local levels using uniform

standards is the major need identified in-all DOT

demonstration projects, in OTA’s research, and by

congressional concern.

The effectiveness of current training programs is

uneven because:

●

●

●

a wide range of response personnel need training, and only some currently receive it;

numerous separate organizations offer differing

courses; and

the content and quality of training courses is

diverse.

Existing Training Programs

Under the 1984 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act reauthorization, Congress required DOT

and FEMA to survey training programs offered for

hazardous materials emergency response and enforcement activities. Final-results of these surveys

are anticipated in January 1986. To date, some 700

agencies, public and private, have been identified

as offering some form of hazardous materials training

or planning. Of these, 574 offer training in planning

and response; 297 provide training in enforcement

and compliance. T However, public expenditures for

training are directed primarily at compliance and

enforcement activities rather than at emergency response. (The OTA final report, Transportation of

Hazardous Materials, will provide further details.)

At the Federal level, a myriad of training programs

related to different aspects of hazardous materials

emergency response are conducted by FEMA, DOT,

EPA, DOE, NRC, the Department of Defense (DOD),

and the National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health (NIOSH), at both national and regional

locations. Although representatives of many of these

agencies meet regularly as members of the National

Response Team, a single, strong Federal strategic

approach to emergency response training has not

been achieved.

TDoug]as Stance]l, Transportation Programs, Science Applications

international Corp., Oak Ridge, TN, draft study, Department of Transportation/Federal Emergency Management Agency.
4 5

There are few formal training programs for emergency responders at the local level and those that

do exist may involve courses at a neighboring community college or informal in-house training.

Industry training, offered by individual shippers,

manufacturers, and associated professional organizations, typically covers hazardous materials emergency resp-onse for both fixed facilities and transportation accidents. While intended primarily for

company employees, these courses may include provisions for training local public response personnel.

For example, major companies may donate equipment and invite local first responders to observe

their training sessions; Shell Oil and Amoco are

among the companies that have such programs.

Training offered by national professional and industry associations includes programs by the National

Fire Protection Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Agricultural Chemical

Association, and the Chemical Manufacturers Association. State associations may also have training

programs. For example, the Pennsylvania Motor

Truck Association provides training for every Pennsylvania State patrolman.

Photo credit: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT

Many industry resources are available

to assist emergency response personnel.

For example, training courses offered by executive branch regulatory agencies, such as DOT and

NRC, concentrate on enforcement aspects of hazardous materials transportation regulations. Agencies such as DOE, EPA, and NIOSH offer training

in the aspects of hazardous materials directly related

to their own areas of responsibility.

FEMA, the lead agency for Federal emergency

management, offers specific hazardous materials

emergency response training programs at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland; at

FEMA regional headquarters; and around the Nation through its “Train the Trainer” courses.

Hazardous materials emergency response training

programs offered at the State level are generally the

responsibility of the State fire marshal’s office, the

State fire training agency, or the major emergency

preparedness agency. The courses differ from State

to State, although if the State trainers have been

trained by FEMA, greater course uniformity can be

expected.
4 6

Training that covers rail hazardous materials emergencies is usually offered by railroad companies to

employees, shippers, and invited local emergency responders. Emergency response training for highway

hazardous materials accidents is offered by shippers

and carriers as well as State and local governments.

OTA tallied results of a survey conducted by the

International Association of Fire Chiefs in June 1985

on hazardous materials team response capabilities

across the Nation. Table 3-2 shows the training

sources most frequently used by State and local

emergency responders.

No systematic way exists to ensure that existing

emergency response training courses reach those

who need the training. In telephone interviews with

OTA staff, State training officers voiced frustration

at the lack of information they receive on the quality of available training resources and the lack of

communication with their counterparts in other

States. Moreover, some local officials are concerned

that planned State programs are inadequate to meet

the needs of local jurisdictions. A national network

of hazardous materials emergency response trainers

and a national clearinghouse for training information are two relatively low-cost means of addressing these concerns.

Training Needs

The population needing hazardous materials response training is numerous and diverse. Local fire

or police department personnel are usually the first

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

Number of State and local hazardous

Training 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 ...

Radiological Monitorin g

National Fire Protection Association . . . .

EPA . . .,

U.S. Coast Guard . . .

Union Pacific/EPA Region Vll . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . .

79

68

65

59

53

25

21

18

18

17

17

13

7

33

SOURCE: International Association of Fire Chiefs survey, June 1985; and the

Office of Technology Assessment.

to respond to a hazardous materials transportation

accident, and their training is of primary importance. However, personnel from other groups often

participate in response activities and require training as well.

The National Fire Academy reports there are approximately 1,200,000 firefighters nationwide, 85

percent of whom are volunteers, and the remaining 15 percent paid employees of municipal, county,

or local governments. 8 According to the National

Association of Chiefs of Police, there are between

480,000 and 500,000 local sheriffs and police personnel employed by State and local governments.9

Civil defense volunteers and health professionals

also may respond to hazardous materials transportation accidents. Approximately 223,600 emergency

medical technicians are registered nationally.l0 These

individuals need some training in assisting victims

of hazardous materials accidents.

State and local government officials and emergency service agencies say that it is the inappropriate responses of untrained or poorly trained first

responders of a predominantly volunteer force that

are most likely to harm the first responders themselves and the surrounding community. According

to reports of professional associations involved with

emergency services, many first responders do not

have access to training. In addition, the 25 percent

annual turnover rate within fire departments increases the difficulty of maintaining a trained emergency response force.11

Coordinated efforts to train potential first responders in rural and small urban areas are necessary, The training should emphasize the differences

between hazardous materials response and firefighting. While firefighters rush to the scene, hazardous

materials responders must identify the product and

the potential damage, and the appropriate response,

before approaching the accident. Training in the

8Ray Donovan, National Fire Academy, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emmittsburg, MD, personal communication with

OTA staff, 1985.

9Gera1d Arenberg, Executive Director, National Association of Chiefs

of Police, personal communication with OTA staff, 1985.

IONatlona] R%istry of Emergency Medical Technicians, Registry: The

Newsletter 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 also

important.

In addition, police departments and emergency

medical personnel, as well as public health departments, public works departments, and environmental health departments need to know how to

handle hazardous materials emergencies. Hazardous

materials training, protective equipment, and decontamination procedures should be added to training

for ambulance drivers, hospital personnel, emergency room physicians, nurses, and orderlies. AS

part of a DOT demonstration project, Memphis organized a full-scale accident simulation to evaluate

emergency medical capabilities. It became apparent

that emergency medical services and hospital personnel were not familiar with treatment of chemical injuries or the need for decontamination after

chemical exposure. It is likely that many hospitals

and hospital emergency rooms suffer from this same

lack of knowledge.

Training Content and Quality

Defining the needs of first responders and examining how these needs are being met has not yet

been systematically undertaken. Development of a

uniform comprehensive training program for emergency response activities hinges on unified national

or Federal attention, rather than on piecemeal efforts at the State or local level.

State and local officials have suggested that a systematic approach to training first responders should

include: 12

●

●

●

●

a curriculum based on a clearly defined job analysis that identifies what personnel should know

regarding hazardous materials management;

cross-training for each of the groups needing

training (fire, police, industry, Federal, and

State personnel) in the vital areas of response

enforcement and compliance;

well-qualified and expert hazardous materials

trainers; and

a clearinghouse or coordinator for hazardous

materials training to identify useful training

courses for particular needs.

———.

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

Proceedings-OTA Workshop on State and Local Activities in Transportation 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 comprehensive emergency response training program.

Interim survey results document a spectrum of training programs offered by Federal, State, and local

agencies; private companies; and industry.

Training for emergency response to hazardous materials incidents must cover the regulatory requirements of hazardous materials transportation, including 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 enforcement

of regulations, including placarding recognition and

use of the DOT Emergency Guidebook, rather than

direct emergency response procedures. The U.S.

Coast Guard offers classes in hazardous materials

regulatory compliance to shippers and carriers, and

emergency response training to Coast Guard personnel and other emergency responders for waterrelated hazardous materials transportation problems.

EPA offers training on hazardous materials emergency response at regional headquarters. The training focuses on hazardous materials chemical and

physical properties, advanced emergency response

techniques, and cleanup activities.

In the past, FEMA training programs focused primarily on training for emergency response to radiological accidents; new emphasis is now being placed

on emergency response to hazardous materials accidents. A six-part monthly teleconference series

sponsored by FEMA and the National Fire Academy, being held between September 1985 and

March 1986, covers a variety of emergency response

issues, including planning for and responding to hazardous materials emergencies.

State officials, in conversations with OTA staff,

indicated that the basic first responder training

courses offered by most States include recognition

and identification of hazardous materials. Many

State training officers contend, however, that existing first responder training courses are too superficial

to prepare first responders adequately for hazardous 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 different levels of emergency response training, for training course content, and personnel requirements.

Local training for emergency responders varies

widely, reflecting the importance placed on hazardous materials emergency response by the State government and the financial resources available. The

spectrum of local hazardous materials training

courses ranges from well organized and funded hazardous materials courses offered by highly trained

individuals to little or nothing.14 15

Because of the large volumes transported, petroleum products are the most likely hazardous materials to be involved in accidents. Most first responders already have extensive experience in dealing with

petroleum product accidents, regarding them as an

extension of firefighting duties. Therefore, State and

local training programs may need to concentrate on

those hazardous materials first responders have not

previously encountered, particularly corrosives and

other commodities. An inappropriate response to

an accident involving unfamiliar chemical products

could endanger individuals, the entire team, or the

surrounding community.

One example of a public-private agency cooperative training program is that between EPA and the

Union Pacific Railroad in EPA Region VII. A 2-day

training course in hazard identification and approach is offered free of charge to multidisciplinary

groups with emergency response duties. The course

emphasizes that emergency response to hazardous

materials incidents is unlike routine fire suppression

in several ways; for example, response personnel

must identify the types of hazards facing them before approaching the accident or attempting rescue

14Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), National ~jreCtory 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 interest in the course, this program is unique to Region

VII.

Other successful training courses around the country concentrate on training individuals, organizing

the individuals into teams, staging simulation hazardous materials accidents, and involving other

agencies in simulated emergency response. These

simulations provide an opportunity to test emergency response plans and discover organizational

problems prior to an actual hazardous materials accident.

Recent innovations in the presentation of emergency response training include the National Fire

Protection Association’s television broadcasts of

emergency response training and the six FEMA teleconferences. Such programs, available free to appropriate groups across the country, can deliver training at low cost to large numbers of first responders

wherever television satellite reception can be arranged. *

Another innovative emergency personnel training program is offered through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If requested

under the State and Community Highway Safety

Grant Program, receipt of Federal highway funds

is linked to meeting emergency medical service training requirements. A similar program could be instituted for hazardous materials first responder training. 17

IsCharles Wright, lecture at Hazardous Materials First Responder

Course presented by Union Pacific Railroad and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Region VII.

*For further information call Mary Ellis at FEMA at (.202) 64 fP2692.

17Hal Butz, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Enforcement and Emergency Response Division, personal communication with OTA staff, June 25, 1985.

PLANNING AND ORGANIZING FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Emergency response plans, if properly implemented, can organize and coordinate the response

activities of a variety of agencies. Communities concerned about hazardous materials transportation accidents are developing hazardous materials emergency response plans that utilize community resources.

Although hazardous materials truck movements

probably dominate State and local planning and

training, well-prepared State and local emergency

response plans will address hazardous materials

transportation by all relevant transport modes.

According to 1983 rail waybill statistics, railroad
4 9

shipments of hazardous materials, bulk shipments

of petroleum products, chemicals, pesticides and herbicides, and occasionally spent fuel elements, reached

73.1 million tons, or 5.4 percent of all rail tonnage.18

Barge movements of hazardous materials include

bulk loads of petroleum and petroleum products,

coals, and chemicals and chemical products. In 1981

to 1982, 66 percent of total water freight movements

were hazardous materials.l9 Airborne shipments, the

smallest percentage of hazardous materials movements, are generally radioisotopes, valuable commodities, and sensitive materials requiring rapid delivery.

Radioactive materials constitute only a small percentage of hazardous materials; in the past they have

been the focus of many federally funded State emergency response planning programs. DOT statistics

show, however, that the transportation of gasoline,

fuel oil, and other petroleum products is far more

likely to cause damage to public property and the

environment than radioactive materials. This suggests that hazardous materials planning activities

should encompass these familiar materials.

Planning for emergency response is recognized by

State and local governments as indispensable in developing more coordinated and effective response

activities. As identified by State and local governments, the primary areas needing attention during

planning 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 accident

site and off-site command posts;

other operational concerns; and

public information.

Coordination

Development of better coordination among Federal and State emergency response agencies would

ease many planning-related problems facing State

IBMark AbkOWitZ and George List, “Hazardous Materials Transportation: Commodity Flow and Incident/Accident Information Systems,”

OTA contractor report, October 1985.

lgThe American Waterways Operators, Inc., American waterway

Operators Annual Report: 1981-1982 (Arlington, VA: 1983).

and local emergency responders. Issues needing a

coordinated approach include: funding for emergency response training and planning; information

dissemination on appropriate hazardous materials

emergency response procedures; and a clear delineation of Federal, State, and local hazardous materials emergency response capabilities and responsibilities.

At the State, regional, or local level, plans that

outline specific responsibilities, coordinate on-site

activities, and appoint a response leader can reduce

the confusion at the accident site and provide a clear

chain of authority for response activities. Fire, police, and other organizations that may participate

in emergency response should be part of the planning process to establish the lead agency in emergency response situations. Any governmental mutual aid agreement should determine the on-scene

coordinator in advance.

Industry has contributed to many local emergency

response activities, but questions remain regarding

emergency response on private property, such as a

company facility or a railroad right-of-way. Advance

arrangements between special industry response

teams and existing public emergency response networks as to these issues will enhance response efforts. Formal mutual aid agreements between independent industry response teams and communities

are a means of achieving coordinated and comprehensive response capabilities at reduced expense.

They allow neighboring communities to share equipment, fire and police department manpower, emergency medical services, and private sector resources.

A recent effort, the CMA’s Community Awareness

and Emergency Response Program, encourages industry to cooperate in the development of community emergency response plans.

Operational Concerns

Communication and liability issues should also

be covered during the planning process. Communication is vital in any emergency and involves both

hardware and organization. At the planning stage,

participating response agencies should identify

equipment requirements and procedures to ensure

adequate communication, both on and off site,

equipment compatibility, and isolation of frequencies for emergency use.
50

In addition, some currently available resources do

not correspond to the needs of State and local

responders. Additional information on the degree

of hazard for hazardous commodities, especially

identification of the chemicals most dangerous to

first responders and the community at large, would

enable planners and responders to assess risks more

readily. Hazardous commodities are immediately

identifiable to emergency responders if correctly

placarded as radioactive materials, poisons, etiologic

agents, flammables, combustibles, oxidizers, corrosives, caustics, explosives, and pyrophoric materials. Within these categories, some substances are

much more dangerous than others. Additional indication of the relative degree of hazard has been

of concern to State and local government officials

and emergency responders since 1970. Adoption of

the United Nations numbering system, a classification and identification system developed for international commerce, does not address the problems

the current system poses to hazardous materials

emergency responders, although it provides a uniform numerical identification when it is used.

One example of the need for gradations of hazard is the categorization of methyl isocyanate (MIC),

responsible for more than 2,000 deaths and thousands of injuries to residents of Bhopal, India. For

years, MIC has been classified only as a flammable

material by the Department of Transportation. Only

recently has DOT changed its designation and placarding and handling requirements to indicate the

dangers of inhalation.20

The DOT Guidebook, the most widely available

response information resource, may provide incomplete information about a substance, as it did in the

Odessa, Delaware, spill. Moreover, the components

of hazardous waste, a combination of materials that

form a volatile mixture or pose multiple hazards,

are not fully identified.

The high violation rate found among hazardous

materials transporters of placarding, shipping papers,

and marking regulations also concerns emergency

response personnel. First responders must often assess the risks of the hazardous materials and make

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

decisions on response procedures based on incorrect or incomplete information, potentially endangering themselves and neighboring commumties.

Another growing concern of hazardous materials teams and local governments is disposal of hazardous materials and contaminated soil, etc., following cleanup. An emergency response team left

in possession of removed materials becomes a generator, storer, and transporter of hazardous waste subject to Federal hazardous waste requirements.

Liability issues are a concern for governmental entities, which may be held responsible for emergency

response activities that result in damages. Carefully

crafted Good Samaritan laws can relieve the burden of potential liability for qualified emergency

responders who assist during a hazardous materials transportation accident. Industry liability after

response to hazardous materials accidents remains

a major industry concern.

Public Information

Providing accurate reports to the press and public is another necessary part of coordinated emergency response activities. At many accidents, particularly severe ones, the media becomes a part of

the response process and is an important public information resource. Although most communities

recognize the importance of public information in

the emergency response process, media representatives are not typically included on planning task

forces.

A training course for press personnel on dealing

with bad news* stresses the need for careful advance

planning and a clear strategy for providing an accurate information flow to the media and to the public. Emergency response plans should include designating spokespersons skilled in giving print and

electronic media interviews. The first media contact

can determine how the incident is perceived by the

public and can help maintain public calm and cooperation.

*For example, Lehigh University Journalism Department and Office of Continuing Education in Pittsburgh, PA, offers a training course

in press management of emergency situations.
51

PROTECTIVE

Emergency equipment is the primary protection

and defense for first responders handling hazardous materials. The equipment must be adapted to

a particular hazard in that it must be made of materials that are resistant to the hazardous chemical;

and it must protect those areas and functions of the

human body susceptible to the hazard.21

The lack of useful information on the appropriate type of personal protective equipment and procedures for its use is a major concern for local governments and emergency service personnel. The

appropriate choice among the varieties of equipment

offered and the numerous operating procedures

available depends on the hazardous materials being handled, and those responsible for equipment

purchase are faced with difficult and expensive

options.

The cost of protective suits ranges from less than

$100 for a disposable Tyvek coverall to approximately $2,000 for a chemical splash suit with inner

and outer suit protection. Self-contained breathing

apparatus, important for incidents involving unknown chemicals or known highly hazardous chemicals, may cost $1,400 each. In combination, these

types of equipment, used properly, produce a high

level of protection for emergency responders. However, the cost of such equipment is far beyond the

budgets of many small communities.

Moreover, no existing protective clothing is resistant to all classes of hazardous materials. Thus, the

selection of chemical protective equipment requires

assembling equipment components—gloves, headgear, coveralls—that offer similar ranges of chemical protection. Firefighters and hazardous materials response teams currently rely on fire service

literature, manufacturer information, and accumulated personal expertise when selecting chemical protective gear. Firefighter gear is only now being tested

for chemical resistance, however. To provide effective protection, equipment must fit properly, be used

correctly, and be maintained appropriately. In the

course of their activities firefighters and other emerJ IA. D. Llttlc Cc>., “Protectl\e Clothing and Equipment,” Chemjco/

Hasmnt RcLsp(Inw In fi)rmation S},stc>m (CHRIS) Response ,\lcrll(ds

Hnndkmk (N’a\hlngton, DC: L’.S. C(Ja\t Guard l-1. S. Department of

Transportation, Decemhcr 197 S), p. 7-1.

EQUIPMENT

gency responders will be exerting themselves, altering the fit and possibly reducing the effectiveness

of clothing and respirators. For these reasons, emergency responders must be provided with training

and explicit guidelines on the purchase, use, and

maintenance of respiratory protective equipment.

The development of equipment standards, purchase recommendations, and equipment training

programs by a national body, either the Federal

Government or professional associations, would provide local emergency responders with a body of

knowledge from which to make accurate and informed decisions.
5 2

●

●

●

●

●

FINDINGS

Additional training for public safety personnel

in hazardous materials emergency response is

urgently needed. No comprehensive framework

for emergency response training activities exists

today at the Federal, State, or local level, resulting in insufficient attention to and funding for

training activities.

Movements of gasoline and petroleum products

(which constitute 50 percent of the hazardous

materials transported) account for more hazardous materials transportation accidents, injuries,

and damages than other classified commodities.

Most emergency response personnel are adequately trained to fight petroleum fires. Nonetheless,

given the magnitude of the problem, planners,

enforcement officers, and industry representatives

should develop additional safety measures and

awareness and training programs for drivers and

handlers to reduce the incidence of such accidents.

Movement of corrosives and other hazardous

materials that pose special hazards are of concern to State and local officials. Emergency response personnel and planners should include industry in the development of appropriate response

procedures and training programs that reflect the

inherent dangers of these substances.

The most pressing nationwide training need is

for intensified training for first responders. First

responders have initial responsibility in the mitigation of an incident or accident and need to be

trained accordingly. Course offerings are currently

weighted in favor of advanced instruction, leaving first responders inadequately informed. A multidisciplinary approach that includes all the agencies involved in first response is an important

aspect of this training.

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

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

tions, along major transportation corridors, or

in States with heavy concentrations of hazardous materials industries. Funding assistance for

training will be necessary for many jurisdictions,

either from Federal or State programs or from user

or registration fees.

Safety information accompanying hazardous

materials often is not sufficient to enable emergency responders to protect themselves or the

surrounding public in the case of an accident.

Determining in advance who is to be in charge

at an incident and the role(s) of each participating agency is imperative for an effective response.

Good communication during emergencies requires adequate hardware and advance planning and coordination.

National guidelines for appropriate protective

clothing for specific hazardous materials emergencies are needed, as hundreds of types of personal protective equipment are available for a variety of hazardous materials.

National guidelines for equipment standards

and for training in equipment use would provide emergency response teams and public safety personnel with adequate skills and tools for

a safe response. Instruction in the maintenance,

inspection, testing, and decontamination of personal protective equipment should be included

in training programs.

Development of performance objectives for

emergency response personnel would help

standardize training and response.

Hazardous materials emergency response training should include all transportation modes.
Chapter 4

Information Gathering for State

and Local Hazardous Materials

Planning
Chapter 4

Information Gathering for State and Local

Hazardous Materials Planning

Planning to prevent accidents and to improve

emergency response requires information on the nature of hazardous materials accidents that might occur, the areas of highest risk, and the types of materials most likely to be involved. Until recently,

State and local officials had scant information of

this sort, but many have now initiated studies documenting the amount and types of hazardous materials stored within or moving through their jurisdictions to help develop plans for accident prevention

and emergency response. This chapter describes

State and local efforts to gather and analyze hazardous materials data for planning purposes and

identifies related issues.

The impetus for gathering information and planning is often a hazardous materials incident for

which a jurisdiction found itself ill-prepared. A 1979

chemical plant fire in downtown Memphis prompted

the mayor to initiate a planning and data collection program. When Memphis became a part of a

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) demonstration program, the city used DOT funds to exPhoto credit: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT

Information on the type of hazardous materials stored

for distribution in a community is important for

planning and emergency preparedness.

pand and refine the effort. Release of phosphorous

trichloride from an overturned railroad car in Somerville, Massachusetts, caused 400 people to seek medical attention and was the catalyst for the Commonwealth to undertake a planning study with the goal

of improving emergency response procedures. Other

jurisdictions have become sensitive to the danger

of hazardous materials accidents because they are

transportation centers or major corridors of hazardous materials traffic.

Starting in 1981, the Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation within DOT sponsored studies

in seven jurisdictions on a wide range of issues related to hazardous materials transportation; these

studies were to lead to development of comprehensive management plans to serve as models for other

localities. The seven jurisdictions were: the Central

Puget Sound Region; the San Francisco Bay Area;

Indianapolis; Memphis; New Orleans; Niagara

County, New York; and the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. The sites represented a range of population sizes, locations, types of political units, and

levels of existing planning. All plans covered four

general topics: hazard identification, assessment of

local capabilities, prevention, and response. Each

plan reflects local economic conditions, perceived

needs, and other demographic characteristics.

To collect information for this chapter, OTA examined a variety of sources. The seven DOT demonstration projects and the studies carried out by

States under the State Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development (SHMED) Program were particularly valuable. So, too, was a multimodal study prepared for Virginia, which represents an early attempt

by a State to collect comprehensive information on

hazardous materials movements by all modes of

transportation, At the municipal and regional level,

OTA reviewed a hazardous materials transportation

study recently completed for the New York City area

and the preliminary results of studies now in progress

in Houston and Denver. In addition, federally

funded studies of monitoring and enforcement ef55

52-648 0 - 86 - 3 : QL 3
5 6

forts for transport of radioactive materials were examined.

States that have undertaken hazardous materials

data collection and planning studies have used a variety of Federal funding sources, including SHMED

program monies and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) planning funds, as well as their own

resources. However, aside from the DOT demonstration sites, local governments have found funding such studies difficult. No Federal program currently exists specifically for local planning studies,

and State planning efforts remain concentrated at

the State level.1 State responsibility for planning is

often scattered among several departments, complicating local officials’ efforts to obtain funds. Planning officials complain that they cannot get local

funds for accident prevention and emergency response planning until an accident occurs. All local

planning studies and data collection efforts have depended primarily on outside financial support. Typically, little or no information is gathered prior to

receiving a funding grant, and once the grant expires, sustaining staff efforts becomes difficult. OTA

found that acquiring data for planning remains a

significant problem for many local jurisdictions.

IThomas White, City Council member, Greenbelt, MD, in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Transcript of Proceedings–

OTA Workshop on State and Local Activities in Transportation of

Hazardous Materials,” Washington, DC, May 30, 1985, p. 155.

DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

Federal Data Collection

Numerous Federal offices have responsibility for

hazardous materials data collection, although only

those relevant to State and local needs are discussed

here. DOT information-gathering efforts include:

●

●

●

●

•

Research and Special Programs Administration,

Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation:

collects data on incidents (spills) by all modes

except bulk water.

U.S. Coast Guard: collects accident and spill

data for waterborne commerce.

Federal Railroad Administration: collects rail

accident data.

Federal Aviation Administration: collects data

on aviation accidents and spills.

FHWA, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety: collects accident and incident data on highway

transportation.

The Bureau of the Census and the Interstate

Commerce Commission collect commodity flow

data. The Census Bureau’s Commodity Transportation Survey contains useful multimodal information on all commodity shipments, but, as it is conducted only once every 5 years, its information is

not current. Furthermore, it is difficult to extract

information on hazardous materials shipments. In

addition, the information requested of the responders varies with each survey, so trend analysis is difficult. The Interstate Commerce Commission collects railroad waybill data, which can be analyzed

to yield commodity flow data about hazardous materials shipped by rail.

The format of each of these commodity flow databases makes them so difficult to compare that they

are not useful to State and local governments. For

example, hazardous materials information is not distinct from other commodities; identification of the

commodities is often too imprecise to determine

whether hazardous materials is involved; there is no

information on routing; the codes used to identify

the hazardous materials commodities are not the

same in each database; and no officially recognized

cross-reference table exists to permit integration of

data from different databases.

State and Local Studies

No single best approach to State and local data

collection emerged from OTA’s research. When a

State undertakes a study, a lead agency is usually

designated, often the Department of Transportation

or State Police, with assistance provided by an office

of emergency preparedness or comparable agency.
5 7

For cities, municipal planning staffs, private consulting firms, or university-based research groups do

most of the data gathering and analysis. For example, a New Orleans planning study was conducted

by a member of the mayor’s staff hired with grant

funds, and the knowledge accumulated during the

study continues to be a major asset for the city. Fire

departments are the other local public agency most

frequently involved in data gathering.

Techniques and results vary according to the local situation and experience and the particular interests and resources of the agencies involved. Nonetheless, it has been possible to identify the types of

data that have been found useful, effective methods, and commonly encountered problems. The following kinds of studies have been found to provide

the background information necessary for planning

and emergency preparedness:

● Inventory of hazardous materials stored at

fixed facilities: Records the quantity and type

of hazardous commodities stored in manufacturing, wholesaling, distribution, or storage facilities within the jurisdiction. Data are obtained

●

●

by means of questionnaires, interviews, and inspections, and from public records, such as fire

inspection records and business tax records.

Hazardous materials transportation analysis:

Identifies the quantities and types of hazardous

materials transported through the jurisdiction

by each transportation mode and the most frequently used routes. Data are gathered by questionnaires, roadside inspections, and review of

company records.

Hazards assessment or identification of hazards and high-risk locations: Analyzes factors

such as population density, transportation system characteristics, and past incidents to determine where the risk of a hazardous materials incident is greatest or where the impact

would be the most severe.

An inventory of fixed facilities is usually the first

step in the data-gathering process. Any second step

is usually a transportation analysis. Hazards assessment is usually last since

in the first two studies.

it draws on data collected

FIXED FACILITIES INVENTORIES

Knowledge of the extent and nature of hazardous materials manufacture and storage in the community is essential for prevention and response planning. Local governments have found that a facilities

inventory can guide the purchase of equipment, conduct of training, location of response facilities, and

assignment of personnel; and it provides a good indication of the type of hazardous material transported in the jurisdiction. Despite the importance

of data on fixed storage sites, however, none of the

seven jurisdictions taking part in the DOT demonstrations had previously compiled this information,

although some had partial data as a result of regulatory requirements pertaining to nuclear materials,

hazardous wastes, air pollution, or routine fire inspection procedures.

Local and Regional Inventories

One of the first decisions necessary in undertaking a hazardous materials inventory is what should

be inventoried and in what detail. Some jurisdictions studied by OTA chose to locate all hazardous materials, including paint thinner stored in retail stores, but concentrated most on chemicals

manufactured or stored in bulk. Memphis, for example, limited its inventory to 255 manufacturing

sites.2 At the other extreme, the cities of Santa Clara

County, California, inventoried all materials identified by DOT as hazardous and stored in any quantity at commercial facilities, including drug stores.3

The inventory is now kept current by the county.

The majority of communities studied, however, have

limited their surveys to selected commodities identified by the staff and advisory committees and to

major facilities, measured by employment levels.

The Association of Bay Area Governments,

around San Francisco, identified target commodi2Nat10~a] CO~erence of State Legislatures, October 1983 -D~ember

1983, Hazardous Materials Transportation Regional Workshops (Denver, CO: 1983), p. 65.

jcambridge Systematic, Inc., Communiry Teamwork— Working Together to Promote Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety (Washington, 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 questionnaire. Instead, Bay Area planners produced a series of small maps, showing the locations of manufacturing firms that frequently used the selected

group of hazardous materials, anticipating that each

county would eventually survey individual firms.5

In Memphis and Indianapolis, the initial data collection method was a questionnaire. Memphis identified 900 firms as potential hazardous materials stor5A~~Wi~tiOn of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco, CA, ~aZardous Spill Prevention and Response Plan (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Transpcn-tation, Research and Special Programs Administration, 1983).

age sites. By eliminating the smallest firms on the

advice of the local advisory committee and the fire

department, the staff narrowed the list to 255 firms.

Questionnaires sent under the auspices of the Memphis Fire Department asked for data on storage of

material in 19 DOT hazard classes. Although followup to the questionnaire was a lengthy process,

the city currently has information on the type, quantity, and location of stored hazardous materials, including site plans and names, addresses, and phone

numbers of emergency contacts.6 In Indianapolis,

only 20 to 25 percent of the 1,200 local industries

surveyed submitted responses to the questionnaire.

The majority of manufacturers declined to participate because of their concern that the data might

divulge proprietary information or that the time necessary to compile the data would be excessive. More

recently, Indianapolis planners, in cooperation with

the city and suburban fire departments, have prepared a simplified hazardous materials information

form that they will ask manufacturers and distributors to complete. City staff pointed out to OTA

that the fire departments now collect such detailed

information as part of their fire prevention duties

and that, as a result, they have established a good

relationship with industry in the Indianapolis area.

Santa Clara County collects information by

means of a regulatory procedure, which also finances

the hazardous materials control program. To obtain a business license, all firms selling, using, or producing hazardous materials must provide local officials with an inventory and pay a fee based on the

amount of materials stored. The fees help support

the county’s emergency response team and hazardous materials inspections. Local manufacturers and

merchants are advised on the proper storage and

handling of hazardous materials during these inspections.

Coordinated Use of Inventories

Inventories can provide information for many purposes in addition to planning. The Multnomah

County Fire Department in Oregon collects information on hazardous materials storage at fixed facilities as part of routine fire inspections. The

county’s Office of Emergency Management stores

the information in a computer along with data on

6National conference of state Legislatures, op. cit.
59

chemical characteristics of the commodities, transportation routes frequently used, and performance

profiles of major carriers. The county’s specialized

hazardous materials team has access to this database through a computer terminal located in the response vehicle. The computer system can provide

information on where a specified product can be

found at the site, how it is stored, and other chemicals that may be present. The system also provides

information on the characteristics of all the chemicals known to be in the county, based on DOT and

other standard classifications, and the names of

organizations to call for additional product information. 7

Not all communities give first priority to inventory of hazardous materials at fixed facilities. For

example, Niagara County, New York, a rural county

traversed by an Interstate highway, centered attention first on a survey of commodities transported

through the county. New Orleans initially concentrated on coordinating and improving existing procedures for emergency responses However, the city

has now turned attention to creating an inventory

that will eventually be computerized by census tract

and include all fixed storage facilities. In every city,

gasoline is the most commonly stored hazardous material, and the New Orleans planning staff began

by mapping underground tanks, on the assumption

that this relatively limited inventory effort would

ease the task of locating all gasoline stations. However, a number of substances other than gasoline

are stored underground, making this effort a much

more extensive and complicated task than anticipated,

State Inventory Studies

Massachusetts, also a DOT demonstration project

participant, is one of the few States that has completed a fixed facilities inventory. For each of the

State’s 14 fire districts, State analysts used manufacturing directories to locate the firms with more

than 100 employees that used or produced hazardous 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 of

Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, 1983),

p. 10.

9Energy Resources, Inc., Phase I: Determine the Nature and Scope

of Hazardous Materials Transportation in the Massachusetts Region,

Vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1982),

p. 4-36.

Photo credit: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT

Some common hazardous materials are typically

transported in compressed gas cylinders.

In March 1983, the State of New Jersey passed

a law requiring every firm manufacturing or handling hazardous substances to file a completed survey

form with the State Department of Health and the

county or local health, fire, and police departments.

This information effectively provides a facilities inventory.

The State of Maryland has created a computerized registry of all toxic and carcinogenic substances

stored at fixed sites. The State Department of Health

and Mental Hygiene began gathering the data in

1979 with funds from a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant. Currently, the registry contains inventories of more than 400 industrial

users of toxic or carcinogenic substances. The data

gathered comprise detailed information on 54 target chemicals selected by the department, including the maximum quantities stored and how they

are transported. In the first data collection effort,

the survey questionnaires returned were too incomplete to be useful. To obtain reliable data, staff members visited companies, spending as long as 2 days

at each to assist them in completing the form. Data

are updated annually, and personal visits are now

usually necessary only for new firms. The staff estimates that the development of the computerized

registry system cost over $400,000, not counting software development, which was paid for by the EPA

grant, and annual operating costs. In addition to

monitoring the quantities and types of chemicals

being manufactured, stored, and transported in the

State, the registry is also used to cross-reference
60

health and environmental information with chemical sites and activity.l0

Community Support

The success of inventory efforts depends on the

cooperation of public agencies, such as the fire and

police departments, and private groups, such as

chemical manufacturers, shippers, and carriers. Local advisory committees can be instrumental in obtaining such cooperation. Committees, appointed

by elected officials, are usually multidisciplinary and

composed of representatives from first response agencies, local industry, local and interstate carriers, and

of public officials, educators, experts in hazardous

materials, and environmentalists. Manufacturing

and carrier representatives on a committee can advise researchers on how to approach local industry,

recommend the project to their associates, and help

assess the validity of data collected.

Although private sector support has at times been

problematical, recent actions by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) indicate an increased

interest by the chemical industry in cooperating with

State and local planning efforts. In April 1985, CMA

announced an industry-wide program designed to

make chemical industry expertise available to local

agencies, including furnishing planning groups with

company safety data sheets on commodities manufactured and stored in the community.11

Right-To-Know

Inventories and surveys of facilities are effective

ways to obtain data on the types and amount of

hazardous materials present in a community or region. However, concerns about protecting trade

secrets or other information considered to be proprietary (e.g., health or exposure data) have made

some manufacturers unwilling to comply with requests for information. In response, many States and

municipalities have enacted legislation, commonly

referred to as “right-to-know” laws, that requires the

release of information on the hazards associated with

chemicals produced or used in a given facility. The

majority of State right-to-know laws address both

IOM= Eisenberg, Environmental Program, Maryland Department

of Health and Mental Hygiene, personal communication with OTA

staff, March 1985.

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

DC, April 1985.

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

Community Worker

State provisions provisions

Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . x x

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . x x

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Yorka 

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

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . x x

North Dakota. . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . x x

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aAlthOUgh New York h= riot passed community right-to-know regulations, in December 1983, Governor Cuomo issued an executive order requiring the Department of Environmental Conservation to inventory all toxic chemicals used,

stored, or disposed of in the State.

SOURCES: National Ccaference of State Legislatures, “State Hazardous Materials Policy: Issues Raised by the Bhopal Incident, ” State Legis/aflve

Report, vol. 10, No. 1, January 1985; personal communication with

Janis Adkins (cd.), Ffight.To-Know News (Washington, DC: Thc)mpson

Publishing Group, Oct. 22, 1985); and Department of Occupational

Safety, Health, and Social Security of AFL-CIO, list of State right-toknow laws.
61

community and employee access to information

about workplace hazards. Table 4-1 lists the States

that have passed such laws. Increasing numbers of

local governments are also enacting their own rightto-know statutes.

The provisions of these laws are not uniform, either in terms of the obligations placed on industry

or in terms of the types of hazardous materials covered. States have also taken different approaches to

exemptions according to business size or quantities

of material involved and the extent to which firms

may protect trade secrets.

The requirements of right-to-know laws most relevant to hazardous materials planning and emergency

response include providing public access to information on hazardous materials present in a State

or locality, conducting inventories or surveys, establishing recordkeeping and exposure reporting systems, and complying with container labeling regulations for workplaces. Other requirements do not

pertain directly to hazardous materials planning or

emergency response but to worker protection (e.g.,

training and certification programs, posting of warning signs and notices, provision of protective equipment, and employee rights to refuse to work under

certain conditions).

In 1983, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) established a national hazard

communication standard for employees in the manufacturing sector. 12 One part of this standard requires chemical manufacturers and importers to prepare a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for all

hazardous chemicals produced or imported. Employers covered by the OSHA standard must have an

MSDS for each hazardous chemical they use. Moreover, some States require that copies of the MSDS

also be submitted to a State agency or local fire chief

as part of their community right-to-know programs.

The OSHA standard is intended to preempt State

right-to-know laws for workers, but it does not apply to right-to-know laws pertaining to disclosure

of information to State and local planning agencies

concerned with emergency preparedness and response. Pending judicial and congressional actions

on the scope of the OSHA standard may have an

effect on existing State and local provisions and on

the establishment of national community right-toknow requirements.

‘Z29 CFR 1910.

TRANSPORTATION STUDIES

In addition to fixed facility inventories, State and

local governments have tapped a variety of public

and private sources to collect data on truck, rail,

air, and water transportation. Small towns and rural counties are particularly interested in transportation data because they see their greatest risk as

a hazardous materials accident on an Interstate highway or railroad line passing through their jurisdiction. The type and quantity of hazardous materials carried by each mode and the principal routes

used comprise the information most frequently collected for planning, risk analyses, routing decisions,

and emergency response preparation. Because the

data-gathering problems are different for each mode,

highway, rail, air, and water transport are discussed

separately and divided into local/regional and State

studies.

Truck Studies—Local/Regional

DOT demonstrations and other projects reviewed

by OTA put high priority on information about

highwy transport of hazardous materials because

trucks far outnumber other types of hazardous materials carriers, carry the largest share of the hazardous materials shipments, and are involved in the

greatest number of incidents. At the national level,

however, little detailed information is available

about hazardous materials movement by truck. Even

the U.S. Census of Transportation, the most commonly used source of statistical information about

highway transportation, does not contain enough

detail to isolate hazardous commodities from other

materials carried by truck.
62

Because of the lack of a central database on commodity flow, State and local planners have had to

devise special means to collect data on highway

transport of hazardous materials. The primary methods are questionnaires, visual surveys, and inspections. Several jurisdictions have sent out questionnaires to shippers, carriers, and manufacturers

requesting information about hazardous materials

shipments and the routes most frequently used.

Analysts in the Puget Sound Region, using questionnaire responses, truck route locations, and other

information provided by local governmental departments, mapped the routes by which 85 target commodities moved within and through the region. The

results of the research were useful, but the process

was time-consuming and complex. Many firms did

not answer the parts of the questionnaire concerning routes most frequently used, and planners had

to make assumptions and later verify them by a

visual check of truck movements. This involved

recording placarded trucks according to commodity

type at several strategic locations over a 17-day

period.

Memphis used a questionnaire to gather data from

local shippers and manufacturers, but only 28 out

of 68 firms responded to the initial request for com13 modity flow information. City officials believe that

some respondents reported low volumes of hazardous materials, especially petroleum products, and

State Highway Department tax records showed that

the truckers had substantially underreported the

flammables category on the questionnaire. In a survey conducted recently of manufacturers and transporters of hazardous materials in the New York City

and New Jersey area, only 20 percent of those

solicited returned completed questionnaires. This

response, however, was considered high, since

gathering and supplying the requested information

was time-consuming, and most firms do not normally record production and shipping information

according to hazard class or routing patterns.14

Other localities, without the time or resources for

questionnaires, have resorted to visual surveys of

trucks along major highways. Checkpoints, usually

IJCltY of Memphis Division of Fire Services, Hazardous Materials

Task Force Fiml Report (Memphis, TN: 1981), p. 24.

lqRaymond .scan]on, “A Regional Study on Hazardous Materials

Transportation,” draft report, Port Authority of New York, 1983, p. 15.

at weigh stations, are set up, and government employees or students count the placarded trucks passing through, recording the commodity class of each

shipment. This type of survey was done in the San

Francisco Bay area and in Indianapolis.

Truck Studies—State

Several States have successfully conducted surveys

of the volume and types of hazardous materials carried by truck. In many cases, the States have had

the resources and the authority to combine a visual

survey with an inspection and driver interview. The

earliest full-scale study was carried out in 1977 to

1978 by the Virginia Department of Transportation

Safety as part of a multimodal analysis of hazardous materials transportation. During July and August 1977, all trucks passing 38 survey points on Interstate and primary roads were stopped by State

or local police. Shipping papers were inspected, and

the drivers were interviewed on the types of materials carried, origin and destination of the trip, and

the sequence of routes taken. Officers also checked

to see if the placarding was correct and classified

the carrier as company-owned, independent, common carrier, or personal vehicle. The study findings provided Virginia officials with a current database on commodity flow and a good measure of the

level of compliance with existing Federal and State

regulations. The survey found that 13 percent of the

trucks carried hazardous materials, of which 76 percent was flammable, combustible, or corrosive liquid. Petroleum products were the most common cargoes. l5

Virginia conducted a followup survey between

April and December 1978, using nine survey points

located at weigh stations along Interstate routes. Researchers found that, by reducing the number of survey points, the costs of the study were substantially

reduced, and the data yield per man-hour increased.

The findings of the survey showed a drop in the

percentage of trucks carrying hazardous materials,

from 13 percent in 1977 to 7 percent in 1978. It is

not clear whether this drop was related to the decrease in checkpoints. The total quantity of hazardous cargoes did not decrease similarly. The average

IJ].W. Schmidt and D.L. Price, Virginia Pol~echnic Institute, Hazardous Materiak Transportation in Virginia (Richmond, VA: Virginia

Department of Transportation Safety, 1980), p. XII.
63

load per truck increased from 8.6 tons in 1977 to

12.9 tons in 1978. The researchers could not explain

the variation between 1977 and 1978 in volume and

load per vehicle. The study has not been updated,

so the question remains unanswered. The heaviest

hazardous materials traffic was on Interstate highways in and around cities, because urban areas are

the principal origins and destinations of petroleum

products. The number of placarding violations

found by inspectors increased from 34 percent in

1977 to 55 percent in 1978.

According to one Virginia official, the State hopes

to develop trained response teams for high-risk

areas. 16 In the meantime a number of localities in

Virginia have developed their own emergency response training plans. For example, Newport News,

Virginia, has instituted hazardous materials Level

I, II, and III certification programs.17

Several States, including Maryland, Illinois, South

Dakota, and Arizona, have analyzed hazardous materials transportation as part of the SHMED program, which allowed assessments of the volume and

nature of hazardous materials traffic. Over a l-year

period from October 1981 to September 1982, Washington State conducted a truck study, surveying the

amounts of hazardous materials moving through the

State and the type of carrier used. The study found

that approximately 400 million tons, 175 million gallons, and 17 million cubic feet of hazardous materials moved annually through the State.

The Washington State methodology was similar

to that of the Virginia study. The State Utilities and

Transportation Commission set up checkpoints at

11 locations on major highways. All trucks were

stopped and checked for 4-hour periods twice a

month. The checks included an inspection of shipping papers and an interview with the driver about

cargo, quantity carried, origin, destination, and type

of carrier. The data were tabulated and sorted using

the Automated Hazardous Materials Surveillance

Program, a computer program designed for the study

that can sort survey data according to date, location, commodity, and truck type and cross-check

it with accident and violation data. Researchers

Ibsteve GalnOr, Virginia State Emergency Management Agency, personal interview with OTA staff, July 1985.

I TT.S. Walls, Fire chief, Newport News, VA, personal communication, Nov. 1, 1985.

found that although independent truckers carry 50

percent of the cargo, they are involved in 75 percent of the accidents.l8

In 1982 and 1983, the South Dakota Department

of Public Safety surveyed drivers and inspected approximately 340,000 trucks at highway checkpoints.

Less than 1 percent of the trucks carried hazardous

materials. The most common hazardous materials

cargos were flammable liquids, explosives, corrosives,

and flammable gases. The two Interstate highways

passing through South Dakota were used for at least

part of the trip by 90 percent of all hazardous materials shipments. The survey found that 55 percent

of the hazardous materials shipped were intrastate,

primarily flammable liquids and gases. These findings are consistent with the results of other studies.

In addition, questionnaires were sent to a 10-percent

sample of all carriers and to all shippers located in

South Dakota. Approximately one-half responded.

The results generally substantiated the highway inspection findings concerning route used, load size,

and predominant type of cargo. Most intrastate shipments were local deliveries of 25 miles or less, usually originating in one of the larger cities. Although

most deliveries were local, carriers indicated that

their trucks spent as much as 40 percent of their

time on Interstate highways.19

OTA research indicates that even when State

transportation data collection programs are in place,

cities within the State are not aware of this data resource and consequently do not make use of it.

Rail Studies—Local/Regional

Data collection on bulk rail shipments of hazardous materials can be extremely important to many

cities, particularly rail distribution centers such as

Memphis and Indianapolis, where data are needed

for emergency planning and response purposes. Information on commodities transported, measured

by rail carloads, is generally available on request

from the major railroads, most of which have computerized cargo records. Computer information indicating the location of hazardous materials cars in

the train and instructions on emergency response

IBU.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation Bureau, SHMED Program Workshop Proceedings, Salt Lake City, Utah,

1983 (Washington, DC: 1983), p. 206.

191bid., p. 186.

52-648 0 - 86 - 4 : QL 3
6 4

procedures is available on the train as well as

through railroad offices. Conrail can provide

detailed print-outs listing the type and quantities

of hazardous materials carried on each section of

the line. For example, in Indianapolis, Conrail provided planners with the number of rail cars carrying specific types of hazardous materials that originated and terminated in the city’s three major rail

yards.20 In communities served by other railroads,

the availability and detail of the data depend on the

extent to which the line is computerized. In addition, the Association of American Railroads has

compiled a list of the 138 chemicals most frequently

carried by the railroads. It has developed detailed

fact sheets for the commodities that are incorporated

into computerized train information and waybills.21

Memphis has produced a detailed profile of hazardous materials flows from data provided by the

six railroads serving the city. Even though local planners were aware that a large volume of hazardous

materials was handled by railroads in Memphis, the

daily average of 150 rail cars carrying a total of

10,000 tons surprised them.22 In the Indianapolis

and Memphis studies, the mix of commodities shipped

by rail from local firms was found to be the same

as the national mix carried by all railroads, probably because both cities are major rail transfer points

or chemical distribution centers.

Rail Studies—State

Only a few statewide studies of rail transportation of hazardous materials have been conducted.

Massachusetts, as part of the research phase of a

1981 planning project, inventoried all the major rail

lines in the State and obtained information on the

types and quantities—in carloads—of hazardous materials shipped by three of the four largest railroads.

Researchers concluded that relatively small amounts

of hazardous materials were moved by rail in Massachusetts. In 1980, for instance, Conrail transported

less than 1,700 carloads of hazardous materials in

the Commonwealth. The study pointed out that

zociw ~~~dl~na~]is, IN, ~ernOr3Stracic3n Projecr tO Develop a ~~zardous 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 Materials in Surface Transportation (Washington, DC: Bureau of Explosives, Association of American Railroads, 1981).

zjNatlonal ~nference of State Legislatures, op. cit.

most of the interstate and intrastate point-to-point

rail line distances in Massachusetts are relatively

short, making truck service very competitive.

Virginia, as part of a multimodal study in 1977

to 1978, collected data from the 10 railroads serving the State. The railroads provided waybill samples for subsections of each line. With this information, analysts estimated the number of cars per

day carrying hazardous materials, the tons of hazardous materials carried per day, and the number

of trains containing hazardous materials cars. In

most cases, the class of the hazardous material was

identified, and the data tabulated by DOT hazard

class. When waybill information was not available,

researchers had great difficulty gathering reliable

data. 23 The study findings showed that corrosives

accounted for almost half the volume of hazardous

materials transported by rail (or approximately 195

tons per day), followed by flammable liquids with

51 tons per day, and nonflammable compressed gas

with 43 tons per day. Corrosive materials and flammable liquids, primarily petroleum products, accounted for 58 percent of the total hazardous materials shipped by rail and 52 percent of all hazardous

materials shipped by truck. The heaviest rail flow

of hazardous cargo was in and around cities, a reflection of the demand for petroleum products in urban

areas.

The State of Oregon requires annual summaries

by milepost segment of all rail shipments of Class

A explosives and poisons. These data are used for

emergency response planning.

Air Transportation Studies

The transportation of hazardous materials by air

is controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Civil Security Division. Since hazardous shipments account for less than 3 percent of total hazardous materials tonnage moved nationally

and since shipments are generally small, State and

local governments do not appear to be particularly

concerned about air transport. At the New Orleans,

Memphis, and Boston airports, for example, FAA

conducted surveys of the types and quantities of

hazardous materials shipments and provided local

planners with the data. To augment FAA data, re23schmidt and price, op. cit., pp. 113-115.
65

searchers in at least two DOT demonstration studies

obtained data on shipment characteristics for the

air freight carriers. Local planners do not have access to information on hazardous materials carried

by military aircraft.

Water Transportation Studies

Ports play an important role in hazardous materials commerce. For example, 4.5 million tons of hazardous materials pass through the Port of Seattle

each year—about 27 percent of the total cargo handled. Over half of the Nation’s chemicals move

through the Port of Houston. Local planners rely

on studies by the U.S. Corps of Engineers as their

primary data source. The corps compiles the type

and quantities of commodities transported into and

through all major navigable waterways and harbors

in the United States. The corps provided Massachusetts researchers with the annual tonnage by

commodity group for 1978 for both the main Boston Harbor and the nearby New Bedford Harbor,

However, the data classification system used by the

corps does not always identify specific commodities.

For instance, the “basic chemicals” category contains some nonhazardous materials; this leads to

overestimates of the actual amounts of hazardous

materials. However, none of the States or cities reviewed by OTA found this problem sufficient reason to conduct a separate or additional study. Two

port cities, Seattle and Boston, supplemented the

corps data with information on tonnage of commodities available from local regulatory agencies and

the U.S. Coast Guard.

Federal Data on Shipment of

Radioactive Materials and Wastes

In 1973 to 1975 and 1977 to 1981, two series of

studies involving a number of States were conducted

jointly by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) and DOT for the purpose of collecting information on the transportation of low-level radioactive materials. These studies were the foundation

for what became the SHMED program to help develop State prevention and enforcement capability,

Data were gathered on low-level radioactive waste

sites; shipments by highway, air, and water, and the

history of accidents and incidents. Findings were

used to determine gaps in Federal regulatory proPhoto credit: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT

Marking for radioactive materials,

required by Federal regulations.

grams and in Federal and State enforcement efforts.

These studies, stimulated by State and local concerns over lack of adequate surveillance of shipments

of low-level radioactive materials and wastes, effectively proved the advantages of and need for continued inspection and enforcement training and implementation at Federal and State levels.24 Interest

in enforcement of regulations governing radioactive

materials led to broader Federal and State cooperative efforts on the general problem of prevention

and emergency response planning for all types of

hazardous materials.

Data on movement for high-level radioactive materials and wastes, including spent fuel, are treated

differentl y from other hazardous materials data–

both legally and institutionally. DOT has primary

responsibility for surveillance and monitoring of lowlevel radioactive materials and wastes, while DOT

and NRC share regulatory and enforcement authority for high-level radioactive materials and wastes.

NRC requires licensees to provide advance notice for certain nuclear shipments to provide physiz4Steve ~, so~mon, Srate Su~,ejl/anC-e of Ra&acri\v Material Transportation, NUREG-1015 (Vrashington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory!

Commission, Office of State Programs, 1984), p. 5.
66

cal protection of special nuclear materials to prevent

theft, diversion, or sabotage, and to notify NRC regional offices of impending special shipments of nuclear materials. These requirements, in effect since

1975, were expanded in 1979 to include spent nuclear fuel. In the NRC Reauthorization Act of 1980,

Congress directed NRC to expand its shipment

notification procedures to include State governments. In its rulemaking, NRC indicated that:

. . . the purpose of the rule is to provide States with

information not otherwise available to them, which

will enable them to contribute to the safety, security and ease of transport of shipments.25

While there is no central database available on

the number of licensees, information can be extracted from two Federal databases to obtain an approximation of shipping activity for high-level commercial wastes and materials (excluding Department

of Energy shipments). A study conducted by the

Battelle Memorial Institute for DOT analyzed States’

use of the information on transport shipments of

spent nuclear fuel through their jurisdictions. Of the

States surveyed, 14 out of 15 maintain a file of notifications. Five States pass the information on to other

State agencies, two make subsequent notifications

to other elements of the same agencies, and six subsequently notify officials at both the State and local levels. Two States make no further notification

for security reasons.

The primary benefit of notification identified by

almost all States surveyed was that awareness of impending shipments allowed them to take precautions

and alert emergency response agencies. The Battelle

report concluded that the notification system was

working well under current NRC regulatory procedures; however, some caution was indicated about

the adequacy of the notification systems if shipment

levels increase as expected in the 1990s.

Notification Laws as Tools

for Data Gathering

As part of the search for available and reliable data

for hazardous materials planning, OTA examined

State and local notification requirements as a potenZsBattel]e Memoria] Research Laboratories, Battelle Human Affairs

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

tial source of information. The Battelle study, cited

above, identified 136 State and local notification

laws pertaining to hazardous materials transportation. The vast majority of these apply to trucks; a

few apply to rail. Of the 136 regulations and ordinances, 62 apply statewide, 42 are local, and 32 apply

to transportation facilities such as bridges, tunnels,

turnpikes, and airports. 26 Notification requirements!

as defined by the study, include prenotification by

shippers and carriers, periodic summaries, and reports on individual shipments filed after a trip.

Prenotification is required by 100 State and local

regulations, 14 call for periodic reporting, and 22

concern individual trip reports. Local government

regulations applying to transportation facilities

almost universally require prenotification. Table 4-

2 lists State and local notification laws and the types

of hazardous materials covered.

The Battelle study found that State and local governments typically give two reasons for enacting

notification requirements: to provide data for planning (including better routing and safety regulations), and to improve emergency response. Over

two-thirds of the jurisdictions identified planning

as an important objective of their laws, citing the

need to gather information about the types and

quantities of materials shipped through their jurisdictions and information on trip scheduling and

routes frequently used. Many also indicated they

require advance notification to alert response teams

when a potentially hazardous shipment is due.

Although these regulations could be valuable

means of gathering data, most produce little usable

data because they apply to a very narrow range of

materials or because they are not enforced. State

and municipal governments have tended to regulate only one high-risk commodity, usually spent fuel

or high-level radioactive wastes, although some also

include other radioactive materials and low-level

wastes. Only four States have laws requiring prenotification for other classes of hazardous materials.

While data on radioactive materials are important,

such shipments constitute such a small percentage

of all hazardous materials traffic that prenotification

for this one class provides only partial satisfaction

of local needs. Recently, some communities have

acted to broaden notification requirements to include other types of hazardous materials.

*cIbid.
67

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

Spent fuel Other Other

and/or high- radioactive Hazardous hazardous

level waste materials wastes materials

State:

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x

California. . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x x

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Rhode 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

x

x

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

x

x

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

x

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

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

x x x x

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

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

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

x x . . . . . . . . . x
68

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

Spent fuel Other Other

and/or high- radioactive Hazardous hazardous

level 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 regulations

means that there is little reason for shippers and carriers to comply, and as result, little information is

gathered. Several local agencies were found to be

unaware of the notification laws they were supposed

to enforce. Some community officials reported that

they have never received a notification even though

it is required by local ordinance. The Battelle study

observed that, while there are instances of conscientious enforcement and data collection, many local

agencies charged with enforcing regulations on prenotification give the task relatively low priority.

Often when information is collected, it is simply filed

and not used for planning purposes.

Florida and Massachusetts are among the exceptions to these conclusions. Florida checks with disposal facilities to identify carriers failing to comply

with radioactive waste notification requirements.

Letters are sent to shippers summarizing violations,

x

x

B

x

x

x

x

x

B

B

x

x

B

x

x

B

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

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

and monthly reports are sent to the nuclear utilities in Florida summarizing recent shipments. According to State officials, the radioactive waste database is useful in long-range planning, and they plan

to identify different types of waste streams and use

the information to improve transportation, treatment, and disposal policies. Massachusetts has six

notification regulations governing shipments of hazardous wastes: three require individual trip reports,

two require periodic reports, and one requires prenotification. The information gathered is used in

a variety of ways, including verifying delivery of the

waste and alerting local health agencies and emergency response teams. Carriers’ monthly reports are

stored in a computerized file and could be referred

to during compliance investigations or matched with

manifests submitted by shippers, although this procedure has not yet been put into practice.

HAZARDS ASSESSMENT STUDIES

State and local planning and emergency prepared- A few jurisdictions have used sophisticated mathness can be improved by studies assessing the ematical techniques of risk analysis to estimate the

chances of an accident occurring and identifying the probability of an incident and its severity. Most commost likely locations. Such assessments are impor- munities, however, find it adequate to map the areas

tant for contingency planning, for practical decisions where the risk of a hazardous materials incident is

about locating equipment and allocating manpower, highest or where there would be the greatest puband for developing routing plans. lic danger or the most damage. Data for this type
69

of study can be assembled either from a fixed facility inventory or a transportation study. Much useful information is also available from public records

routinely kept for other purposes by State and local public works, transportation, environmental,

and planning departments. Normally a hazard assessment requires the following kinds of information:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

transportation network maps and descriptions;

highways and streets used by hazardous materials carriers;

tunnels, bridges, and rail crossings;

railroad yards and truck terminals;

highway accident data;

locations of past hazardous materials incidents

and materials involved;

concentrations of hazardous materials manufacturing or storage sites;

areas of high population density;

location of schools, hospitals, and other especially vulnerable groups; and

water supply and sewer facilities.

More advanced assessments might also include special analyses of the types and quantities of hazardous materials transported through the community

and the location of emergency response teams and

equipment.

The San Francisco Bay area study drew on information of this sort to determine the risks in each

of the nine participating counties. The analysis included a narrative description, supplemented by

maps of each county. In rural Niagara County, planners found it adequate to use just three factors to

assess the probability and impact of highway hazardous materials accidents. Analysts obtained accident data for trucks from the State Police and information on environmentally sensitive areas from

the county and combined those with data on the

volume of hazardous materials flow on the major

highways obtained from a special transportation survey conducted as part of the study. The analysis

showed that areas along the Interstate highway had

the highest risk.27

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

Plan, consultants combined data from transportation inventories and data on geographic characteristics, population density, and environmental conditions in the region with a mathematical model of

hazardous materials behavior in order to predict the

incidence and impacts of hazardous materials spills.

The analysts also used a fault-tree technique for various types of transportation equipment to estimate

probabilities of releases actually occurring as the result of an accident. The results of the Puget Sound

study were used in making routing recommendations for trucks carrying liquefied petroleum gas.28

There have also been some notable State hazard

assessments. Massachusetts and Virginia used data

obtained in the inventory studies described earlier

to evaluate risk areas in their States. Massachusetts

ranked the risks as high, medium, or low for each

of the 14 fire districts in the State. Among the factors considered were employment in firms producing or storing hazardous materials, proximity to a

port facility, and the volume of truck traffic on the

major highways. Virginia identified the locations

where the risk was highest for both train and truck

incidents. For rail, the risks were calculated for an

incident on the main track, at highway crossings,

and in yards. The analysis indicated that the variables with the highest correlation to accidents were

the volume of hazardous materials being transported, the curve of the track, the speed limit for

freight trains, and the grade of the track.

The most difficult data-gathering problem in State

and local studies has been obtaining reliable information on past hazardous materials incidents. Most

fire departments do not keep separate records of hazardous materials incidents, although fire departments in some large metropolitan areas are beginning to develop special hazardous materials report

forms for use in internal planning. State and local

planners usually must rely on outside sources, some

of which may be unreliable or contradictory. The

experience of the Bay Area planners illustrates the

difficulty of collecting data on spills: of 16 Federal,

State, regional, and local sources contacted, only

9 could provide data on past incidents within the

timeframe of the demonstration study. Moreover,

jTWaste ReWurce AsWiates for the Niagara County Legislature, Demonstration Pro]ect to lkvelop a Hazardous Materials Accident Pre\’ention and Emergency Response Plan (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983), pp. 3-4.

zBBattel]e Memorial Research Laboratories, Hazardous Materials

Transportar~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 standardized

format, and sources reporting the same incident

often varied considerably. The U.S. Coast Guard

Pollution Incident Reporting System for spills on

navigable water was found to be particularly useful

since it contained detailed and comprehensive reporting of date, time, location, material, quantity,

source, cause, and anticipated cleanup costs.

The DOT Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation (OHMT) maintains a file of all reported

incidents involving spills of hazardous materials in

interstate commerce, and State and local agencies

have access to this information. Because OHMT’s

reporting rules do not, in most cases, require reports

on spills in intrastate commerce, many truck accidents of considerable local significance do not show

up in OHMT’s file. It is the responsibility of each

transportation company involved in an incident involving a spill of hazardous materials, as defined by

Federal regulations, to report it to OHMT. Currently no effective enforcement exists for this Federal regulation, so, in effect, accident reporting is

voluntary. In addition to the OHMT incident file,

the FHWA Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety main-

●

●

●

tains a truck registry list and monitors the accident

record of trucking companies as part of its inspection program, It also uses this registry to report to

the Interstate Commerce Commission on the safety

record of carriers applying for an additional license.

State and local researchers trying to analyze accident records for their area studies report that the

OHMT incident file is not useful to them, however.

A New York City study found that when 30 major

spills widely reported in the press were tracked

through the OHMT records, only 12 were found.

The 18 unreported incidents, according to press

reports, had resulted in 18 deaths, 9 persons missing, and 187 injured.29 Even if a State keeps complete accident records, local staffs are usually unaware

of this resource, and many communities find their

own accident data incomplete. Niagara County, for

example, had too few recorded hazardous materials transportation accidents to draw significant inferences. On the other hand, Memphis planners

found a wealth of information in the 972 incidents

recorded by the city fire department in a single year.

Zgscan]on, op. cit., P. 48.

FINDINGS

Financial assistance for data collection and

planning activities is needed by many localities.

Potential sources of funds include Federal, State,

and local government cooperative programs with

industry, and registration or user fees.

Hazardous materials storage facility inventories

provide important background for hazardous

materials transportation planning, as well as

data for response and prevention planning.

Data may be developed from questionnaire surveys, public records, and industrial directories.

Questionnaires often require followup and are

most effective when sent out under the auspices

of public agencies such as fire departments.

Local advisory committees can be very helpful

in identifying the hazardous substances to be inventoried and in soliciting the cooperation of

the private business sector.

●

●

Data on commodity flow is needed by State and

local governments for hazard assessments and

planning. Databases pertaining to commodity

flow are kept by various Federal agencies, but the

agencies do not use the same commodity identification codes, and the databases are not interactive. Consequently, the data are not useful to

State and local governments.

Because of the absence of a reliable national

hazardous materials transportation database,

State and local governments have undertaken

their own studies to determine what is transported near, within, and through their communities.

–Successful State surveys combine truck and

cargo inspection with driver interviews. Visual

counts of placarded trucks have several drawbacks, because many trucks are placarded incorrectly or not at all.
71

–Rail commodity flow data are increasingly avail- . Department of Defense and Department of

able 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 govterials transported by air and water do not ap- ernments, which understand the need for sepear to be major concerns for States and local crecy about such shipments, but want guarancommunities. tees that Federal enforcement and emergency

● A reliable, comprehensive Federal accident rec- response efforts

ord system is needed. Current Federal efforts cident occurs.

will be adequate when an acare too fragmented to be useful to State and local agencies.
Appendixes
Appendix A

State Authority for Hazardous

Materials Transportation

Hazardous Materials Transportation:

Regulatory, Enforcement, and

Emergency Response*

Alabama

R—Public Service Commissio n

E—Public Service Commissio n

ER—Civil Defense Departmen t

Alaska

R—Public Service Commissio n

E–Not specifie d

ER–Division of Emergency Service s

Arizona

R—Industrial Commission

E–Not specified

ER—Division of Emergency Services

Arkansas

R—Transportation Commission

E—Transportation Commission, State Police, State

Highway Department

ER—Office of Emergency Services

California

R–Department of the California Highway Patrol

E–Highway Patrol

ER—Office of Emergency Services

Colorado

R—Public Service Commission

E–Not specified

ER–Office of Civil Defense

Connecticut

R—Public Safety Commission

E–Local fire marshal of each town, city, or borough

ER—Office of Civil Preparedness

Radioactive Materials Transportation:

Regulatory, Enforcement, and

Emergency Response

Alabama

R–State Board of Health

E—Inspectors

ER—Civil Defense Department

Alaska

R—Department of Health and Social Services

E–Not specified

ER—Division of Emergency Services

Arizona

R—Corporation Commission, Motor Transport

Division

E–Not specified

ER—Division of Emergency Services

Arkansas

R—Transportation Commission

E—State Police, State Highway Department

ER–Office of Emergency Services

California

R—Department of Health Services, Radiological

Health Section, Department of Transportation,

California Highway Patrol, Motor Carrier

Division, California Energy Commission

E–Health Department officers, Division of Industrial

Safety, Public Service Commission, any traffic

officer

ER–Office of Emergency Services

Colorado

R–Department of Public Health, Public Utilities

Commission

E–Inspectors, State Patrol officers

ER–Office of Civil Defense

Connecticut

R–Department of Transportation; Environmental

Protection, Radiation Control; Public Safety

E—Inspection procedure developed by Commissioner

of Public Safety, Radiation Control, State Police,

Public Safety

ER—Office of Civil Preparedness

1 Natlor)al Conference of State Lqyslatures, ‘

( Hazar&ws hi:iterrals Transportation, A Lcgrdator’S Gulcle, ” 1 W3, p 95, ad Assoc)atrorr of 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

Delaware

R—Commission on Transportation of Hazardous

Materials

E–Not specified

ER—Division of Emergency Planning and Operations

Florida

R—Department of Insurance

E–State Fire Marshal

ER—Bureau of Disaster Preparedness

Georgia

R–Department of Transportation

E–Department of Transportation, any law

enforcement officer

ER—Department of Civil Defense

Hawaii

R–Not specified

E–Not specified

ER–Office of Civil Defense

Idaho

R–Department of Transportation

E–Department of Transportation, police officers

authorized in writing

ER–Military Division, ING

Illinois

R—Department of Transportation

E–Department of Transportation, law enforcement

officers

ER–Emergency Services and Disaster Agency

Indiana

R–Public Service Commission

E–Not specified

ER—Department of Civil Defense and Emergency

Management

‘Iowa

R–Department of Environmental Quality, State Fire

Marshal, city governments, Commission on Public

Safety

E–Department of Environmental Safety, State Fire

Marshal

ER—Department of Public Defense

Kansas

R–Department of Transportation

E–Not specified

ER–Division of Emergency Preparedness

Delaware

R—Commission on Transportation of Hazardous

Materials

E—Departments represented on Commission, State

Police

ER—Division of Emergency Planning and Operations

Florida

R–Public Service Commission, Department of

Health and Rehabilitative Services

E–Uniformed officers, Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

ER–Bureau of Disaster Preparedness

Georgia

R–Department of Transportation

E–Department of Transportation, any law

enforcement officer

ER–Department of Civil Defense

Hawaii

R–Not specified

E–Not specified

ER—Office of Civil Defense

Idaho

R–Public Utilities Commission, Department of

Environmental and Community Services

E–Department of Transportation, State Police

ER–Military Division, ING

Illinois

R–Department of Transportation, Public Service

Commissioner, Department of Nuclear Safety

E–State Police, weigh station officers

ER–Emergency Service and Disaster Agency

Indiana

R–Public Service Commission, Indiana Fall Bridge

Commission, Board of Health, Radiological

Health Section

E–State Police, weigh station officers

ER–Department of Civil Defense and Emergency

Management

Iowa

R–Department of Environmental Quality,

Department of Transportation

E–Uniformed enforcement personnel at weigh

stations

ER–Department of Public Defense

Kansas

R–Department of Health and Environment

E—According to Nuclear Regulatory Commission

agreement

ER—Division of Emergency Preparedness
77

Kentucky Kentucky

R–Not specified R–Department of Human Resources, Radiation

E–Not specified Control Branch

ER–Office of Disaster and Emergency Services E–Not specified

Louisiana

R—Department of Transportation

E–Department of Transportation

ER–Department of Public Safety

Maine

R–Not specified

E–Not specified

ER—Bureau of Civil Emergency Preparedness

Maryland

R–Department of

E–Not specified

ER–Civil Defense

Transportation Authority

and Disaster Preparedness

Massachusetts

R–Department of Public Utilities

E–Not specified

ER–Division of Public Safety

Michigan

R–Fire Safety Board

E–State Fire Marshal

ER–Emergency Services Division

Minnesota

R—Department of Transportation

E–Not specified

ER—Division of Emergency Services

Mississippi

R–Department of Public Safety

E–Not specified

ER–Emergency Management Agency

Missouri

R—Public Service Commission

E–Not specified

ER—Office of Civil Defense

ER—Office of Disaster and Emergency Services

Louisiana

R–Department of Natural Resources, Nuclear

Energy Division, Department of Public Safety

E–State Police

ER–Department of Public Safety

Maine

R–Department of Human Resources, Radiological

Health

E–Not specified

ER—Bureau of Civil Emergency Preparedness

Maryland

R–Department of Transportation, Vehicle

Administration; Department of Health and

Agency Mental Hygiene

E–Toxic Substance Control Inspector–personnel

accompany State Police

ER–Civil Defense and Disaster Preparedness Agency

Massachusetts

R–Department of Public Works

E–Can issue violation citations

ER–Division of Public Safety

Michigan

R–State Police; Fire Marshal Division; Department

of Public Health, Radiation Division

E–State Patrol, contract with U.S. Department of

Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory

Commission to identify and report violations

ER–Emergency Services Division

Minnesota

R–Department of Transportation, Office of Rate

and Regulation; Department of Health, Radiation

Control Section

E–Motor transportation representatives, U.S.

Department of Transportation

ER–Division of Emergency Services

Mississippi

R–Public Service Commission; State Board of

Health, Division of Radiation Protection

E—U.S. Department of Transportation

ER–Emergency Management Agency

Missouri

R—Public Service Commission

E–Inspectors–no enforcement capability

ER—Office of Civil Defense
78

Nebraska

R—Public Service Commission

E–Not specified

ER–Civil Defense Agency

Nevada

R—Public Service Commission

E—Public Service Commission

ER—Division of Civil Defense and Disaster

Preparedness

New Hampshire

R–Not specified

E–Not specified

ER–Civil Defense Agency

New Jersey

R–Department of Labor and Industry

E–Not specified

ER–State Police

Montana Montana

R–Division of Motor Vehicles R–Department of Health and Environmental

E–Not specified Sciences, Public Service Commission

ER–Department of Military Affairs E–Inspectors who respond to accidents and report

noncompliance to U.S. Department of

Transportation, Highway Patrol, Gross Vehicle

Weight Division inspectors

ER—Department of Military Affairs

Nebraska

R—Public Service Commission, Motor

Transportation Department; Department of

Roads; Department of Health, Division of

Radiological Health

E–Inspectors, weigh station enforcement, emergency

response only

ER–Civil Defense Agency

Nevada

R—Public Service Commission, Transportation

Division, State Department of Human Resources

E—Inspectors, Beatty site inspectors

ER—Division of Civil Defense and Disaster

Preparedness

New Hampshire

R–Department of Health and Welfare, Bureau of

Environmental Health

E–State Police

ER–Civil Defense Agency

New Jersey

R–Department of Labor and Industry, Division of

Workplace Standards; Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation

Protection

E–State Police

ER–State Police

New Mexico

R–Corporation Commission, Transportation

Division, Department of Health and Environment

E—Weigh stations

ER—Office of Civil Defense

New York

R–Department of Environmental Conservation,

Bureau of Hazardous Waste; Department of

Transportation, Traffic and Safety Division

E–Department of Transportation, State Police,

Federal Highway Authority

New Mexico

R–Transportation Department

E–Not specified

ER–Office of Civil Defense

New York

R—Department of Transportation

E–Department of Transportation

ER–Not specified
79

North Carolina North Carolina

R–Public Utilities Commission R–North Carolina Utilities Commission,

E–Public Utilities Commission Department of Human Resources, Division of

ER–Not specified Facility Services, mobile inspectors and

cooperation with Highway Patrol, Public Service

Motor Carrier Division of Motor Vehicles

E–Commission officers, often accompanied by

personnel from the Highway Patrol, License and

Theft Section and from Radiation Health, mobile

inspectors and cooperation with Public Service

Motor Carrier Division of Motor Vehicles

ER–Not specified

North Dakota

R—Public Service Commission

E–Not specified

ER–Disaster Emergency Services

Ohio

R–Department of Transportation

E–Not specified

ER–Disaster Services Agency

Oklahoma

R–Department of Public Safety

E–Not specified

ER–Civil Defense Agency

Oregon

R—Public Utilities Commission

E–Not specified

ER—Emergency Services Division

Pennsylvania

R–Hazardous Substances Transportation Board

E—Various

ER–Emergency Management Agency

Rhode Island

R–Consumer Council–hazardous materials

packaged for consumer consumption

E–Not specified

ER–Defense Civil Preparedness Agency

North Dakota

R–Public Service Commission, Department of

Health, Motor Vehicle Department

E–Highway Department and Patrol, emergency

response

ER—Disaster Emergency Services

Ohio

R–Department of Health, Public Utilities

Commission

E—Field officers

ER–Disaster Services Agency

Oklahoma

R–Department of Health

E—Emergency response organizations

ER–Civil Defense Agency

Oregon

R–Public Utilities Commission; Department of

Human Resources, Radiation Control Section;

Department of Energy

E–Inspectors; emergency response, backup for Public

Service Commission

ER—Emergency Services Division

Pennsylvania

R—Department of Transportation, Hazardous

Substances Transportation Board

E–State Police, Department of Revenue, Bureau of

Motor Vehicles, Members of the Hazardous

Substances Transportation Board

ER–Emergency Management Agency

Rhode Island

R–Department of Health, Division of Public

Utilities, carriers

E—Coordinated with Division of Public Utilities,

Radiation Control, Civil Defense, Transportation

and Police

ER–Defense Civil Preparedness Agency
80

South Dakota

R–Department of Public Safety

E–Department of Public Safety

ER—Office of Civil Defense

South Carolina South Carolina

R–Not available R–Department of Health and Environmental

E–Not available Control, Public Service Commission,

ER–Not specified Transportation Division available

E–Barnwell site inspection, checkpoints, and

random stops

ER–Not specified

South Dakota

R–Department of Health, Sanitation and Safety

Program, Office of the Governor

E–Department of Public Safety, accompany U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission personnel on

inspections

ER—Office of Civil Defense

Tennessee

R—Public Service Commission

E—Public Service Commission

ER–Not specified

Texas

R–Department of Public Safety

E–Not specified

ER—Division of Disaster Emergency Services

Utah

R–Department of Transportation

E–Not specified

ER–Division of Comprehensive Emergency

Management

Vermont

R–Department of Transportation

E—Department of Transportation

ER—Civil Defense Division

Virginia

R–State Board of Health

E–State Police

ER—Office of Emergency and Energy Services

Washington

R–State Patrol

E–State Patrol

ER–Department of Emergency Services

Tennessee

R–Department of Public Health, Division of

Radiological Health; Public Service Commission,

Motor Carrier Division

E–Weigh station inspectors, inspectors

ER–Not specified

Texas

R–Department of Health; Department of Public

Safety, Division of Disaster and Emergency

Services

E–Radiation specialists on compliance staff, highway

troopers

ER–Division of Disaster Emergency Services

Utah

R–Department of Transportation, Division of Safety

E–Highway and rail inspectors

ER—Division of Comprehensive Emergency

Management

Vermont

R–Department of Health

E—State Police at weigh stations

ER–Civil Defense Division

Virginia

R–Department of Health, Bureau of Radiological

Health

E–Shared responsibility of personnel from

Emergency Services Office and Bureau of

Radiological Health

ER—Office of Emergency and Energy Services

Washington

R–State Patrol, Department of Social and Health

Services, Utilities and Transportation Commission

E–Inspectors

ER–Department of Emergency Services
81

West Virginia

R—Public Service Commission

E–Not specified

ER—Office of Emergency Services

Wisconsin

R—Public Service Commission

E–Not specified

ER—Division of Emergency Government

Wyoming

R–State Highway Commission

E–Not specified

ER–Disaster and Civil Defense Agency

West Virginia

R–Department of Health, Industrial Hygiene

Division

E–Not specified

ER—Office of Emergency Services

Wisconsin

R—Transportation Commission, Tariff Division

E–Investigators, enforcement by Department of

Transportation State Patrol Troopers

ER—Division of Emergency Government

Wyoming

R—Public Service Commission

E–Highway Patrol

ER–Disaster and Civil Defense Agency
Appendix B

Hazardous Materials Training Programs

This is not intended as a complete listing of all hazardous materials training offered by industry, professional

associations, private firms, and universities; but rather

a partial compilation of available training taken from

three sources:

●

●

●

National Directory of Hazardous Materials Training Courses, Association of Bay Area Governments,

March 1985;

John R. Cashman, Hazardous Materials Emergencies: Response and Control (Lancaster, PA: TECHNOMIC Publishing Co., 1983); and

Doug Stancell, interim results of a U.S. Department

of Transportation/Federal Emergency Management

Agency survey on existing training courses on hazardous materials.

Industry

Ansel Fire Protection, One Stanton Street, Marinette,

WI 54143 (715) 735-7411

Ashland Chemical Co., Jack Sweet, 5200 Blazer

Memorial Highway, Dublin, OH 43017 (614) 889-3333

Burlington Northern Railroad, Safety and Rules Department, John Ogard, 9401 Indian Creek Parkway, P.O. Box

29136, Overland Park, KS 66201 (913) 661-4110

Celanese Fire Training Center, Dean of Extension Services, 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 Finishers

Department, Applied Technology Division, Marshall

Mill 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 International 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) 566-2600

J.T. Baker Chemical Co., Office of Safety Training, 222

Red School Lane, Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 (201) 454-2500

Mobay 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. Box

120, Pittsburgh, PA 15230 (412) 787-8383

Norfolk & Western Railway Co., Hazardous Materials,

Ronald M. Sharp, 8 N. Jefferson Street, Roanoke, VA

24042 (703) 981-5353

Seaboard Coast Line Industries, Hazardous Materials

Training, Larry Taliaferro, 500 Water Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202 (904) 359-1529

Shell Oil Co., Transportation, Safety and Regulation,

W.H. Owen, Jr., P.O. Box 2099, Houston, TX 77001

(713) 241-5546

Southern Railway System, J.J. O’Driscoll, 185 Spring

Street, 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 681 79 (402 )

271--3313

Associations

Academy of Advanced Traffic,211 S. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 981-9790

Air Freight Association, Steven Alterman, 1050 17th

Street, N. W., Washington, DC 20036 (202) 293-1030

American Industrial Hygiene Association, 475 Wolfledges

Parkway, Akron, OH 44311 (216) 762-7294

American Trucking Associations, Maintenance Council, Brent Grimes, 2200 Mill Road, Alexandria, VA

22314 (703) 838-1700

Association of American Railroads, Charles Keller, Hazardous Materials Systems, 50 F Street, N. W., Washington, 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 Defense, Floor 7-M, Metro Courthouse, Nashville, TN

37201 (615) 259-6145
83

International Association of Fire Service Instructors, 20

Main Street, Ashland, MA 01721 (617) 881-5800

International Fire Service Training Association, Fire Protection Publications, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 (405) 624-5723

National Agricultural Chemical Association, Tom Guilding, 1155 15th Street, N. W., Washington, DC 20005

(202) 296-1585

National Fire Protection Association Educational Technology 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, East

Brunswick, 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, SC

29411 (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. Box

283, Portsmouth, NH 03901 (603) 436-3950

Fire and Safety Specialists, P.O. Box 9713, College Station, 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, Catonsville, 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, Spring

Hill, FL 33526 (904) 683-8553

Jerry Grey & Associates, 3554 Jefferson Avenue, Redwood 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 Avenue, Neenah, WI 54956 (800) 558-5011

Lion Technology, Inc., P.O. Drawer 700, Lafayette, NJ

07848 (201) 383-0800

Natural Hazards Control Institute, P.O. Box 1085, Alpha, NJ 08865 (215) 758-7045

NUS Corp., 910 Clopper Road, Gaithersburg, MD

20878 (301) 258--8763

Riedel Environmental Services, Inc., P.O. Box 5007, Portland, 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 Industrial 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, CA

95054 (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, Jersey City, NJ 07703 (800) 631-3098

Keith Walsh & Associates, 1671 Melrose Drive, Corona,

CA 91720 (714) 371-1180

University or Government

Training Programs

Arizona Division of Fire Training, Office of Emergency

Services, 5636 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85008

(602) 244-0504

California Fire Chiefs Association, Monterey Peninsula

College; California Fire Academy, 836 Asilomar Boulevard, Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (408) 646-4240

California Highway Patrol, Operational Planning, 2555

1st Avenue, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804 (916)

445-1626

Colorado Training Institute, 1001 E. 62nd Avenue, Denver, 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 Standards and Training, 1501 S.W. Broadway, Ocala, FL

32670 (904) 732-0526

Iowa State University, Fire Service Extension, Ames, IA

50011 (515) 294-6817

Massachusetts Firefighting Academy, 59 Horse Pond

Road, Sudbury, MA 01776 (617) 443-8926

Montana Department of Military Affairs, Disaster and

Emergenc y Services Division, P.O. Box 4789, Helena,

MT 59604 (406) 444-6911

National Emergency Training Center, National Fire

Academy, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emmitsburg, MD 21727 (301) 447-6771
84

National Spill Control School, Corpus Christi State

University, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78412

(512) 991-8692

Nebraska Fire Service, 3721 W. Cuming, Lincoln, NE

68524 (402) 471-2803

New Mexico State Fire Marshall’s Office, P.O. Drawer

1269, 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 Environmental

Science, Cook College, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (201)

932-9571

State of California Military Department, California Specialized Training Institute, Camp San Luis Obispo, CA

93406 (805) 544-7101

State of North Carolina, Department of Insurance, Fire

and Rescue Services Division, P.O. Box 26387, Raleigh,

NC 27611 (919) 733-2142

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, P.O. Box

41502, 3041 Sidro Drive, Nashville, TN 37204 (615)

741-5181

Texas Engineering Extension Service, Texas A&M

University 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 interested

in more information about the programs described in this

report. Individuals have been listed under the headings

of prevention, enforcement, emergency response, training, data collection, and planning. For more general information, contact the professional associations.

Prevention and Enforcement

1.

2.

3.

Ed Kynaston

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)

8751 Sapphire Court

Elk Grove, CA 95624

(916) 686-5008

Heinz Mueller

Hazardous Materials Section

Illinois State Police

301 Armory Building

Springfield, IL 62706

(217) 785-1334

Paul Melander

Manager of Transportation Investigation

Tennessee Public Service Commission

Cordell-Hull Building

Nashville, TN 79896

(615) 741-2974

Emergency Response

1$

2.

3.

International Association

1750 New York Avenue,

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 872-8484

George Kramer

of Fire Fighters

N.W.

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency

3041 Sidco Drive

P.O. Box 41502

Nashville, TN 37204-1502

(615) 252-3300

Max McRae

District Chief

Houston Fire Department

410 Bagby Street

Houston, TX 77002

(713) 222-7791

4. Bruce Smith

Assistant Chief

Colerain Township Fire Department

3251 Springdale Road

Cincinnati, OH 45239

(513) 825-6143

Training

1.

2.

3.

4.

Gregory Nell

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 682-8135

Charles Wright

Union Pacific Railroad

1416 Dodge Street

Omaha, NE 68179

(402) 271-3313

National Fire Academy

16825 S. Seton Avenue

Emmitsburg, MD 21727-8995

(301) 447-6771

(800) 638-9600

International Association of Fire

Service Instructors

20 Main Street

Ashland, MA 01761

(617) 881-5800

Data Collection

1. Mark Abkowitz

Department of Civil Engineering

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Troy, NY 12180

(518) 266-6932

2. Donald Lewis

Washington Utilities and

Transportation Commission

7th Floor, Highways License Building

Olympia, WA 98504

(206) 753-3950

85
86

Planning 3. Paula Alford

I.

2.

National Association of Towns and Townships

Robert Robison 1522 K Street, N.W.

Radioactive Materials Emergency Coordinator Washington, DC 20005

Labor and Industries Building, Room 102

Salem, OR 97310

(202) 737-5200

(503) 378-4040

Terry L. Novak

Municipal Building, Fifth Floor

W. 808 Spokane Falls Boulevard

Spokane, WA 99201-3303

(509) 456-2612
Appendix D

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAR –Association of American Railroads

ABAG –Association of Bay Area

Governments Administration

ATA –American Trucking Associations, Inc.

BMCS –Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety

CAER –Community Awareness and

Emergency Response

CHEMTREC–Chemical Transportation Emergency

CHP

CMA

CSMBA

C TS

CVSA

DOD

DOE

D OT

DVB

EPA

FAA

FEMA

FHWA

FRA

HMTA

IAFC

ICC

IDOT

MCSAP

MIC

MSDS

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

NFPA

NHTSA

NIOSH

NRC

NRC

NRT

NTSB

OHMT

OSHA

POEM

PPE

PSTN

RSPA

SHMED

SIC

SSRMT

STAA

TEMA

T SC

TSI

USCG

UP

–Mine Safety and Health

Administration

–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 Transportation, December 1978).

Abkowitz, Mark, and List, George, “Hazardous Materials Transportation: Commodity Flow and Incident/Accident Information Systems,” OTA contractor report, October 1985,

Abkowitz, Mark, and List, George, “Hazardous Materials Transportation: Commodity Flow and Information

Systems,” OTA contractor report, December 1985,

The American Waterways Operators, Inc., American

Waterway Operators Annual Report: 1981-1982

(Arlington, VA: 1983).

Association of American Railroads, Nuclear Emergency

Response Planning for Railroads (Washington, DC:

November 1984).

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), National Directory of Hazardous Materials Training Courses

(San Francisco, CA: March 1985).

Baldwin, David M., Regulation of the Movement of Hazardous Cargoes (Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board/National Research Council, May 1980).

Barber, E.J., and Hildebrand, L, K., Guidelines for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes for Transporting

Hazardous Materials–Implementation Package, FHWA1-80-20 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1980).

Battelle Memorial Research Laboratories, Battelle Human Affairs Research Center, Assessment of State and

Local Notification Requirements for Transportation

of Radioactive and Other Hazardous Materials (Columbus, OH: Jan. 11, 1985).

Byroade, Jon D., et al., Environmental Emergency Control Handbook for Hazardous Substances (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Nov. 30, 1982),

California Highway Patrol, “SHMED Program System

Objectives and Scope,” unpublished typescript, 1984.

Chemical & Engineering News, “Rash of Chemical Spills

Occurs on Single Day,” vol. 63, No. 33, Aug. 19, 1985.

City of Portland, Oregon, Office of Emergency Management, Hazardous Materials Highway Routing Study

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1984).

Economies, Elaine, “Regulating Transportation Safety:

The View From the Department of Transportation,”

before the Conference on Solutions to Nuclear Transportation Issues, Monterey, CA, June 16-19, 1985.

“Environmental Protection Agency: National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan,” Federal

Register: Part V, vol. 47, No. 137, July 16, 1982.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Planning

Guide and Checklist for Hazardous Materials Contingency Plans, FEMA-10 (Washington, DC: July

1981).

Gough, Michael, and Kronebusch, Karl, Office of Technology Assessment staff, testimony before the U.S.

Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, Oct.

9, 1985.

Grella, Alfred W., Update on the NRC Inspection/Enforcement Program for Radioactive Materials

Transportation, before second Department of Transportation—State Hazardous Materials Enforcement

Development Program Workshop (Salt Lake City, UT:

Aug. 17, 1983).

Hagash, Samuel P., Assistant Fire Chief of Shenango

Township and Coordinator of Hazardous Materials

Response Team, testimony before the U.S. Congress,

House Military and Veterans’ Affairs Commission,

Dec. 2, 1983.

Hoxie, Paul, and Woodman, Donna, Risks of Hazardous Substance Spills From L. Unmarked Packages or

Containers (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Transportation, Transportation Systems Center, September 1982).

Jordan, Mary, and Weil, Martin, “Chemical Spill Snarls

Beltway,” Washington Post, Aug. 13, 1985.

Kindt, John Warren, “Radioactive Wastes, ” Natural Resources journal, vol. 24, October 1984.

Labadie, John R., “Problems in Local Emergency Management, ” Environmental Management, vol. 8, No.

6, 1984, pp. 489-494.

Ludwigson, John (cd.), 1984 Hazardous Materials Spill

Conference: Prevention, Behavior, Control and

Cleanup of Spills and Waste Sires, sponsored by Association of American Railroads/Bureau of Explosives,

et. al., held in Nashville, TN (Rockville, MD: Government Institutes, Inc., Apr. 9-12, 1984).

MacFadyen, J. Tevere, “Routine Shipments of Essential

Goods Are Freighted With Special Risks,” Smithsonian, vol. 15, No. 1, April 1984.

Maio, Domenic J., Truck Transportation of Hazardous

Materials–A National Overview (Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and

Special Programs Administration, Transportation Systems Center, November 1983).

Meier, Gerry E., “The AAR Chemical Spill Response

Information System,” Transportation of Hazardous

91
92

Materials: Planning and Accident Analysis, Transportation Research Record 977 (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1984).

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Hazardous Materials, “Conference Proceedings on Bulk

Transportation of Hazardous Materials by Water in

the Future: A Long Range Forecast, ” College Park,

MD, July 9-10, 1973, unpublished typescript.

National Conference of State Legislators, Hazardous Materials Transportation: A Legislator’s Guide (Denver,

CO: 1984).

National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians,

Columbus, OH, Registry: The Newsletter of the National 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 Appeals

for the First Circuit, Dec. 26, 1984.

Paullin, Robert L., “The Continuing Enforcement of the

Hazardous Materials Regulations,” before the State

Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development Meeting, Charleston, WV, May 21, 1985.

Pritchard, John H., A Guide to Industrial Respiratory

Protection (Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, June 1976).

Rabben, Elizabeth P. (cd.), Hazardous Materials Regulations Excerpted for Railroad Employees (Washington, DC: American Association of Railroads, Bureau

of Explosives, 1981).

Rhoads, R. E., et al., An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting Gasoline by Truck (Richland, WA: Battelle

Pacific Northwest Laboratory, November 1978).

Rothberg, Paul, Nuclear Materials Transportation: Safety

Concerns, Governmental Regulations (Washington,

DC: Congressional Research Service, Mar. 15, 1984).

Transportation Research Circular, “The Ten Most Critical Issues in Hazardous Materials Transportation, ”

No. 219, July 1980.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Transcript of Proceedings—OTA Workshop on State and

Local Activities in Transportation of Hazardous Materials, ” unpublished typescript, Washington, DC,

May 30, 1985.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Guidelines for Selecting Preferred High way Routes for High way Route

Controlled Quantity Shipments of Radioactive Materials, DOT/RSPA/MTB-84/22 (Washington, DC:

June 1984 (originally published in June 1981)).

U.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation Bureau, Annual Report on Hazardous Materials Transportation, Calendar Year 1983 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).

U.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation Bureau, “State Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development (SHMED) Program Workshop Proceedings,” unpublished typescript, Washington, DC,

1983.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Community Teamwork: Working Together To Promote Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety, A Guide for Local

Officials (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1983).

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Illinois Spent Nuclear

Fuel Transportation (Washington, DC: ND).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response, Assessing the Releases and Costs Associated With Truck Transport of

Hazardous Wastes (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1984).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

and Waste Management, Characterization of Hazardous Waste Transportation and Economic Impact Assessment of Hazardous Waste Transportation Regulations (Washington, DC: March 1979).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

and Waste Management, Development of an Emergency Response Program for Transportation of Hazardous Waste (Washington, DC: March 1979).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

and Waste Management, Financial Responsibility for

Transporters of Hazardous Waste (Washington, DC:

September 1979).

U.S. General Accounting Office, Programs for Ensuring the Safe Transportation of Hazardous Materials

Need Improvement, CED-81-5 (Washington, DC:

Nov. 4, 1980).

U.S. General Accounting Office, The U.S. Nuclear Materials Information System Can Improve Service to Its

User 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 Localities in the Transportation and Disposal of Nuclear

Wastes,” vol. 18, No. 3, spring 1984.

Washington Post, “Chemical Shipping Rule Issued,” Oct.

10, 1985.

0