Hazardous materials transport bills draw fire Attempts to ensure safer transportation of hazardous materials have worked to some extent—but not well enough to satisfy everyone. Several bills now pending in Congress are proposing to alter the current system. But as the Senate Subcommittee on Surface Transportation learned at a recent hearing, hardly anyone agrees on how best to do that. Opinions on issues regarding the transport of hazardous materials, whether gasoline, crude oil, or industrial chemicals, are becoming increasingly polarized. The railroad industry, trucking industry, and chemical and petroleum manufacturers believe changes are needed, but do not view the problem as serious. Transportation union leaders, fire fighters, and members of Congress believe that significant change is needed to protect the public. The legislation under consideration is S. 2318, introduced by Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D.-Ohio), and H.R. 2584, introduced by Rep. Douglas Applegate (D.-Ohio). Both would reauthorize the 1974 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Although these bills have several provisions, the ones causing the most contention deal with inspection of vehicles, enforcement of regulations, and identification of hazardous materials at the scene of an accident. This last item seems to carry the most emotional impact. The chemical industry, as represented by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, agrees some modification of the old law is needed. CMA says it wants the federal government to define the proper role of states and localities in enforcing or imposing new regulations on shippers or transportation companies. There is a lot of concern among these groups that widely varying laws will make shipping chemicals extremely difficult. Lana R. Batts, senior vice president of the American Trucking Association, told the panel, for instance, that New York City has passed a law requiring the use of a special valve on pressurized cargo tankers making the vehicles legal only in New York City and illegal everywhere else.
Many accidents described at the hearing were the result of faulty equipment or understaffed or inadequately trained inspectors. There is apparently some discrepancy as to how many railroad inspectors the government employs, for example. Numbers from six to 34 were mentioned, but however many there are, their numbers are considered to be insufficient. Many train crews now inspect their own trains, a task most are not specifically trained to perform, according to railroad union spokesmen. The legislation proposes mandatory training for railroad workers in the inspection of trains and the handling of hazardous material spills. One issue any such regulations would have to face is conflict or preemption of existing requirements of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration. The most comprehensive proposal being put forward, detailed in Applegate's bill, is establishment of a central computer identification system to monitor all shipments of hazardous materials and waste. The cost of this system would be borne by the manufacturers and generators of the materials through a fee for each shipment. Applegate says the computer system should allow emergency response personnel to retrieve all the information they need to handle an incident, including data on evacuation needs, protective clothing, and methods for extinguishing fires, by simply entering a vehicle identification number into the system. The Department of Transportation, the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and CMA oppose the formation of such a system. CMA spokesman at the hearing, David D. Morgans of Occidental Chemical and head of the CMA Hazardous Materials Transportation Task Group, says industry doubts such a system would provide emergency responders with useful information about the contents of vehicles involved in accidents and would impose excessive costs on industry. Some estimates of the cost of the proposed computer system were given. DOT estimates the number of shipments of hazardous materials each day could be as high as 500,000.
Keyboarding information about that many shipments into a computer would require about 280 million keystrokes daily and could cost industry as much as $33 million each day. The federal government alone would lose $3.7 billion in tax revenues and would be charged $30 million to register its own shipments. The new computerized system is needed because the present system is not adequate, others say. Currently, trucks and railroad cars carrying hazardous materials are supposed to be identified with placards that can give relevant information to emergency responders. "The problem with placards is simply that they are missing or incorrect with such frequency that fire fighters learn early to disregard them," says Frederick H. Nesbitt of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Shipping manifests are also inadequate because they are often inaccessible at the time of an accident. The present system for providing data to emergency personnel is CHEMTREC, operated by CMA. But fire fighters dismiss the database as providing too little information, especially if the exact chemical in the accident is unknown. Applegate, in his criticisms of CHEMTREC, says it is not sufficient because "it does not report to any federal agency." For its part, CMA says its system would work better with improved federal requirements for trains and trucks. Money woes were cited several times. Fire fighters need more money for training and equipment. States need funds to monitor and inspect hazardous materials shipments and comply with federal regulations. Railroads want funds to train employees, and truckers don't want to spend more money on equipment. The chemical industry would prefer not to spend more money on shipping fees or user fees than are already imposed by states and the federal government. Conflicting stories and inaccurate information all seem a part of this transportation quagmire. With the budget deficit and final action on amendments to the Clean Air Act still pending, it is doubtful if any of these bills will make it to the House or Senate floor this session. David Hanson August 6, 1990 C&EN
21
