Hazardous Waste Expert Witness Opines On Tanker Truck Cleaning Procedures

Case Overview

This case study involves a hazardous waste/an environmental engineering expert’s assessment of the transportation of chemical supplies such as liquid propane (LP gas and anhydrous ammonia to farms in the Midwest. The plaintiff in this case – a business owner that distributes LP gas -owns large storage tanks and distributes to more than 150 small farms. The plaintiff’s company purchases the fuel from large corporations such as Conoco Phillips, then hires a third party OTR logistics company to transport the fuel from the supplier to his distribution facility. The defendant’s company transports a number of liquefied substances to farms, including anhydrous ammonia, which is typically used as a pesticide/herbicide on farms. When the plaintiff purchased 18,000 gallons of LP, the defendant was called to transport it. The defendant used two 9,000-gallon tanker trailers that had been previously used to transport anhydrous ammonia. The defendant admits that he did not properly clean out the vessels prior to transporting the LP. 18,000 gallons of fuel were then delivered to the plaintiff’s distribution facility and later dispersed to numerous farms. The fuel has been proven to be tainted with anhydrous ammonia, and it has been introduced to hundreds of farms where it has caused tens of millions of dollars in damage. As a result of this damage, the plaintiff’s business went bankrupt.

Questions to the Engineering expert and their responses

Is it unreasonable for a logistics company to use the same trucks to transport anhydrous ammonia as they use to transport propane gas?

Given the findings noted in the referenced document, it is unreasonable to allow NH3 to be transported in same tanks with any reactive chemical without a thorough and documented remediation. The issue of requiring separate tanks for each chemical has to be addressed based on the reactivity of the chemicals in question. In this case, NH3 and LPG while not mixing represent a high likelihood of tank explosion.

If you believe it is OK to use the same containers for transport, does the logistics provider have an obligation to ensure that these tanks are properly cleaned to ensure there is no risk of contamination?

The tanks should have been thoroughly cleaned prior to re-use, and there are various regulations and tests that I am familiar with that speak to this process.

Would the logistics provider be required to test the materials to confirm no contamination exists, to confirm suitability for his/her customer?

However, this could release NH3 into the environment, which is contrary to federal rules published under the RCRA. Should the economics still favor the proper environmental disposal of the NH3 rather than a separate tank fleet, it is possible that a test for residual alkalinity (evidence of NH3 contamination) after washing/drying the tanks could be used to demonstrate the tanks to be free of NH3 residue.

Please explain your experience with the two listed materials.

I spent almost 20 years with the DOT's hazardous waste office, so I am intimately familiar with the logistics processes for transporting propane and anhydrous ammonia. I have experience with packaging, transporting, compatibility, cleaning and shipping hazardous materials.

Please explain your experience as an expert witness.

I have reviewed a similar case in the past and feel confident I could be of assistance on this case.

About the expert

This highly qualified hazardous materials transportation expert earned his BS in Industrial Engineering, his MS in Engineering Management, and his PhD from Kennedy Western University. This expert has been involved in the development and implementation of hazardous materials safety regulations for more than 25 years and has been responsible for a broad range of domestic and international hazardous materials safety efforts. He has served as the chairman of the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, and as the chairman and vice chairman of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel. This expert spent 18 years in the Department of Transportation/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, and currently serves as the VP of Government Affairs/Consultant for a private hazardous materials shipping solutions firm.

E-009353

Specialties:

Engineering

Kristin Casler is a seasoned legal writer and journalist with an extensive background in litigation news coverage. For 17 years, she served as the editor for LexisNexis Mealey’s litigation news monitor, a role that positioned her at the forefront of reporting on pivotal legal developments. Her expertise includes covering cases related to the Supreme Court's expert admissibility ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., a critical area in both civil and criminal litigation concerning the challenges of 'junk science' testimony.

Kristin's work primarily involves reporting on a diverse range of legal subjects, with particular emphasis on cases in asbestos litigation, insurance, personal injury, antitrust, mortgage lending, and testimony issues in conviction cases. Her contributions as a journalist have been instrumental in providing in-depth, informed analysis on the evolving landscape of these complex legal areas. Her ability to dissect and communicate intricate legal proceedings and rulings makes her a valuable resource in the legal journalism field.