See note about TIH in the 2009 notes below.
***Q. I do not completely agree with the whole responsibility charged upon a generator of hazardous waste. I see the logic that otherwise generators might neglect some safety aspects. But still it seems very unfair even if transportation companies are insured and the compensation issues are then easily solved. I think the responsibility for the transportation accidents should be at least somehow distributed between generators and transporters.
A.
True. But think about the Sopranos story. (The Sopranos was a mobster TV show that ran for several years). In the old days a generator that was a big business would hire a small contractor to transport the waste and, at that time, legally, the generator would shift all the liability to the transporter. This lead to many cases of pollution. By centring the liability on the generator, the generator has a powerful incentive to only use competent responsible transporters.
***Q.What was a little foggy on was question 1 from the quiz, through what I found I thought that proper PPE was the best way method for overcoming any chemical hazards when exposed to large amounts of mineral spirits. I was hoping you could explain what method would be best please.
A.
PPE is always the worst way to handle a hazard. The best way is always engineering controls – eliminate the hazard. The second best way is administrative controls – keep people away from the hazard. Only when these two don’t work do you go to PPE. Almost all PPE is itself a hazard. Regular (non-emergency) use of respirators requires a full “respiratory protection program” that includes medical exams. Breathing is impaired and heat stress is induced. Respirators and zoot suits interfered with vision, communications, and movement and increase tripping and fall hazards.
**Q All told although there was fault on the transporters in all three cases, this is where the accident occurred, the generator is responsible. However, immediate action is usually taken by the transporter, since they are the one at this point on the front lines, if you will. In this case they are working, if not injured, on notification, initial spill response per their training and utilizing the skills they should have to be a transporter.
A.
Yes, that is almost always the case. The liability to the government is always with the generator, however the generator will sue the transporter. Almost always the generator will use a transporter who has insurance that names the generator as an additional insured. Of course if someone is injured, their attorneys will sue everyone.
New 2009
TIH means Toxicity Inhalation Hazard. It is a key issue in PPE for responders and evacuation plans for the public. The responders in a spill will either know the chemical name or the placard number. They then identify the chemical from the ERG guide by either the name or placard number. That gives them a guide number. There may be dozens of chemicals that come under that guide number, but for each guide number, the basic response actions are the same. So what about TIH? Starting with either the placard number or chemical name, some of the chemicals are highlighted. In the fine print, it tells you that the highlighted chemicals are also listed in the table that has the initial isolation and protective distances – green pages in my version of the book. These are all TIH chemicals, including war gasses and chemicals that react with water to release toxic gases. You can take the pdf versions of the ERG and use the “find” to look for “TIH.” However this was more obscure that it should have been. So this blurb will go into the Closure Module and next year’s diligent students can find it.
** Q. If the generators are responsible for their hazardous waste (cradle to grave), then do they have to initiate the search for paperwork completed by the TSDF if they fail to send it? You said it may not always come back to the generator…who would be at fault in an audit? Both? Equally?
A.
The generator would need to initiate a search and find the paper – demand it. Often it’s a complex matter when several types of waste are shipped at the same time by the same carrier, then later transferred to differents carrier to go to different TSDS. But the generator is responsible. If the right paperwork is not available, the situation might be rectified with appropriate memos in the files, etc., but it is a serious issue nonetheless. The audit would be paid for by a party and to that party the auditor sends the audit report. The past actions of outside vendors cannot be affected by the audit, although the auditor might recommend that that vendor not be used in the future. If the auditor asks the vendor for records and the vendor does not supply them, that should trigger a negative audit report.
**Q. Although you adequately explained the problem with unknown chemical mixtures and how to properly label them (“unknown waste”) until lab tests definitively ID them, it still seems like having barrels of unknown stuff could be a ticking time bomb. How does one know the proper way to store them (correct temperatures, pressures, etc.) if one doesn’t know what’s in them?
A.
I would start by the old axiom, “Do no harm.” Unless you must move it, leave it alone until you know what it is. Sometimes things must be moved, for example if they are blocking traffic.
What the hell is isopropyl palmitate?
It is an emollient, used in cosmetics. It is a heavy soap-like substance and not considered dangerous. Here is some more. It's tradename here is CRISTOL-IPP
ISOPROPYL PALMITATE CAS # 142-91-6
CRISTOL-IPP is an ester of palmitic acid and isopropyl alcohol. It is used as a thickening agent and emollient in personal care products where it imparts silkiness to the skin and hair. It has similar properties and applications of CRISTOL-IPM. The only significant difference is that it has a higher setting point. It is extensively used in moisturizing creams where it forms a thin layer and easily penetrates the skin.
**Q. I found the generator liability a little fuzzy. It seems to me that they shoulder unreasonable responsibility for the transportation and TSDF. Logically generators should not be responsible once the product leaves their hands, if they have done all in their power to promote a safe situation.
A. The last clause is telling. If the generator’s liability stops at his fence, he has no incentive to make sure the Haz Mat gets properly transported and disposed. Remember Junior in the second module. Besides, in general, the generators have more assets than transporters.
* Q. In reading the articles related to the homework assignment it seems that most of the spills are due to containers leaking after some sort of collision, whether it be train or barge. Aren’t the containers used for transporting hazardous waste built to be nearly indestructible so that they can handle such a disaster?
A.
Excellent point. The DOT has rules for the minimums on transportation, but that will not get it if the collision is violent enough.