Despite the strong public policy to manage the safety of transporting hazardous waste using large trucks, there are actually federal rules that exempt certain types of cargo from hazardous waste labeling. For example, ‘drilling waste’ which can include water or soil from shale oil ‘fracking’ does not have to be labeled at all. This is a clear danger to anyone who may encounter a truck accident and not be aware that the cargo contains both environmental and health hazards.
Hazardous Material Labeling Is Not Required For Oil Drilling Waste
This type of ‘residual waste’ is exempt from standard federal regulations that require clear labeling of hazardous material cargo. Even if the water or soil contains oil, chemicals or other by-products it can travel the roadways undetected. In states such as Pennsylvania and Texas where drilling activities are on the increase, there is a substantial amount of truck traffic that is carrying these materials and exposing motorists to unknown dangers.
There was a recent accident in Pennsylvania where a truck cargo that was labeled “fresh water” was actually leaking oil-blackened liquid onto the highway. This is not an isolated incident, as that state’s drilling industry generated 32 million barrels of liquid waste product last year. It is conceivable that the majority of that hazardous liquid is being transported without labels of the true content, and often across state lines.
What is the Effect of a Lack of Regulations?
Because there is an exception to the federal rules for drilling waste, failure to label cargo could be defended as meeting a defined standard of care for trucking and oil companies. For example, if injuries or death were to result from unlabeled cargo, and a lawsuit were filed for compensation, the company could state that it was operating within federal guidelines and met its responsibility. Failure to warn motorists or others who encounter the drilling waste is not a clear violation of the company’s duty, at least as defined by federal law.
Simply following lax federal guidelines is not a sure barrier to corporate liability, but it does very little to protect the safety of motorists when oil companies are allowed to transport hazardous waste without informing the public. It is still another example of how certain modes of interstate trucking and transportation are given favorable treatment over the safety of other motorists or residents near a highway. Any measures to make these rules more stringent are often met by an outcry from the affected industry that they will be driven out of business under stricter regulations.
In any case, oil and trucking companies continue to have a responsibility to carry out their activities with a reasonable standard of safety, and any disregard for innocent life should carry some degree of fault. Without this, corporations can act solely from a standpoint of profit and earnings and will not alter their practices if there is an associated expense. Only the threat of liability remains to encourage more care in transporting hazardous materials, and those cases should be pursued vigorously where injuries or death are the result.