Skip to main content

Full text of "Control of explosives : administration and execution of the laws pertaining to the control of explosives : hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session, April 8 and 9, 1976"

See other formats


Administration and Execution of the Laws Pertaining to 

the Control of Explosives 












JUNE 8, 1976 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 


For bale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 40 cents 

^^A There is a mlDimum charge of $1.00 for each mail order 


Library j concord. New Hampshire 03301 

ON DEPOSIT "£C6-,976 


Administration and Execution of the Laws Pertaining to 

the Control of Explosives 












JUNE 8, 1976 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 










For hale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 . Price 40 cents 

^ ■ I There is a minimum charge of $1.00 for each mail order 

Research ^.r^nklin pierce law center 

_ Llbrar^^ concord, New Hampshire 03301 

ON DEPOSIT - - 1976 


JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska 

PHILIP A. HART, Micliigan HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania 

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 


ROBERT C.BYRD, West Virginia WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia 
JOHN V. TUNNEY, California 

Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security 
Act AND Other Internal Security Laws 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 


RiCHAED L. ScHULTZ, Chief Counsel 

Caroline M. Courbois, Assistant to the Chief Counsel 

Alfonso L. Tarabochu, Chief Investigator 

Robert J. Short, Senior Investigator 

JVL^RT E. DooLEY, Research Diredor 

David Martin, Senior Analyst 


Resolved, by the Internal Security Suhcommittee of the Senate Com- 
mittee on the Judiciary, That the testimony of Mr. Robert M. Graziano, 
Bureau of Explosives, Association of American Railroads, taken in 
executive session on June 8, 1976, be printed and made pubhc. 

James O. Eastland, 

Approved November 5, 1976. 



Administration and Execution of the Laws Pertaining to the 

Control of Explosives 


U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the 
Administration of the Internal Security Act 

AND Other Internal Security Laws 

of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington.^ D.O. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 :08 a.m., in room 357, 
Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Strom Thurmond presiding. 

Also present: Eichard L. Schultz, chief counsel; Robert J. Short, 
senior investigator. 

Senator Thurmond. Mr. Graziano, do you S'^ear that the testimony 
you are about to give this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Graziano. I do. 

Senator Thurmond. Thank you. 


Mr. Schultz. Would you state your full name, please ? 

Mr. Grazl^no. Robert M. Graziano, Association of American Rail- 
roads, Bureau of Explosives, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Schultz. How long have you been so employed, INIr. Graziano ? 

Mr. Graziano. I have been the director of the Bureau of Explosives 
for 6 years. 

Mr. Schultz. And prior to that, did you have experience working 
with explosives ? 

Mr. Graziano. Prior to that I was a special representative in the 
Bureau of Explosives, and prior to that I was an inspector for the 
Bureau of Explosives starting in 1968. 

Mr. Schultz. Would you tell us, please, what your bureau does in 
connection with explosives ? 

ZnIf. Graziano. The primary responsibility of the Bureau of Explo- 
sives as it relates to explosives is twofold : First is what is known as the 
classification of explosives, which encompasses the field testing, labora- 



torv tefeting, packaging recommendations, labeling requirements. The 
second operation principally is to insure that proper and adequate 
meaiis concerning the blocking and bracing for transportation of ex- 
plosives has taken place. To that extent we work with the military and 
the manufacturers to develop appropriate blocking and bracing 

Mr. ScHULTz. Before we get into the details of your responsibilities, 
describe for us, if you will, the organizational structure of your bureau. 

Mr. Graziaxo. The bureau of explosives is divided into essentially 
three functions — a laboratory function whose purpose is to test, classify 
and analyze hazardous materials, a field inspection function carried 
out throughout the United States and Canada to assure that shippers 
and carriers and manufacturers are complying with the hazardous 
materials regulations of the DOT and with what is known as the 
dangerous goods transportation for the Canadian Transport Commis- 

The headquarters staff is composed of technically oriented people, 
as well as other staff functions such as the publication of tariffs and 
pamphlets and other information. It is concerned with a liaison with 
the appropriate industry committees within the Department of Trans- 
portation and other sources. 

]Mr. SciiULTZ. Well, I take it then that the function of the Bureau 
of Explosives is principally educational and advisory, as opposed to 
the enforcement of laws — the imposition of criminal and civil sanc- 
tions for violation of the regulations on explosives. Is that basically 
correct ? 

Mr. Graziano. Yes; that is correct. We are not — as stated in the 
statute because we are not part of the Federal Government, we are 
forbidden from enforcing, in the terms in which you used it, the regu- 
lations. We cannot fine someone or impose a fine. 

!Mr. ScHULTz. How may inspectors do you have ? 

ISIr. Graziano. We have three inspectors located in Canada — at 
Vancouver. Winnipeg, and Montreal. We have 14 inspectors located in 
the United States : Portland, San Francisco, Houston, Omaha, Chicago, 
St. Louis. Xew Orleans, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, 
Washington. D.C., Salt Lake City, and Kansas City. 

That should be 14. 

Mr. ScH"crr.Tz. Tell us, if you will, how your inspectors are brought 
into play. 

INIr. Graziano. In terms of what ? 

^Ir. SciiiTLTz. Well, the title of inspector indicates that they conduct 
inspections, and my inquiry is, what do they inspect and when do they 
do it? Are they requested to be brought in by your membership, or do 
they have direction from your office as to what matters they inspect and 
when they inspect? 

ISlr. GiL:iziAN0. There are several ways that this can take place, and 
A^ou've mentioned many of them. We can come in at the request of a 
member railroad or plant. I suppose I should define that for you. 

By member plant, the Bureau of Explosives offers affiliate member- 
ship to shippers, container manufacturers, non-railroad-oriented, if 
you Avill, industiy people. We will inspect their plant once a year for 
a fee. This fee is paid by that member plant or by the corporate head- 


AVe have at present some 500 member plants of the Bureau of Explo- 
sives. That's another way in which we can inspect. 

We may inspect if we discover an incident or a violation occurring 
in the transportation of hazardous material. We may inspect at the 
request of a Government agency. We may inspect at the request of 
some State or local government agency. 

So there are several ways in which an inspector can be brought to 
play in the inspection area. 

Mr. SciiULTz. Do your 14 inspectors at some time during the year 
conduct an inspection of all of your membership, whether or not they 
are directly connected with the rail business ? 

Mr. Graziano. Yes. 

Mv. ScHULTZ. What is the nature of the annual inspection of your 


Mr. Graziano. Essentially, the inspection is to insure that the 
hazardous materials regulations as they relate to transportation are 
being complied with. 

Mr. ScHULTz. So, in effect, it is an in-house check for the benefit 
of your membership to preclude them from having problems which 
might result in criminal sanctions being imposed. Is that basically 

correct ? 

Mr. Graziano. I think that is a fair statement, Mr. Schultz, and I 
think that the success of the program is directly related to the fact 
that when the Bureau of Explosives' inspector, who is a nongovern- 
mental inspector and whom these plants choose to have take out a 
membership with the Bureau of Explosives, can rely on their tech- 
nical expertise in this area, for as you know, the original regulations 
were written by us. In fact, these regulations, almost as they exist 
today, were written by the bureau of explosives with the help of 

The fact that we can educate and instruct the employees of the 
shipper in the proper application of regulations is of tremendous 
benefit to these people. 

Mr. Schultz. If your inspectors find a deviation or a situation that 
is not in compliance with the existing regulations, do you have a re- 
quirement to either go back and insure that they have corrected the 
situation, or do you have a requirement that you report your findings 
to either the Department of Transportation or the ATF or some 
other agency involved in explosives ? 

Mr. Graziano. Essentially, when a bureau inspector completes his 
investigation, he discusses that report with the responsible party from 
that plant, advises him of the deviations that he has found, and pre- 
pares a report. 

That report goes to the plant manager with whom he discussed the 
report orally at the time that he made the inspection, and also it goes 
to the headquarters of the organization. 

In addition, that inspector's report comes in to the headquarters 
staff. The headquarters staff reviews the report and forwards a copy to 
either the headquarters of that organization or back to the highest 
responsible officer within that plant, to advise him that our inspector 
has found these errors and that the report is being given to him for his 
guidance and correction. 


INIr. ScHiiLTZ. Do yon, as director of the Biiroau of Explosives, p:ot 
any report, and do yon follow np to insnre that the deviation noted by 
the inspector has been in fact corrected ? 

Mr. Graziano. Yes. 

IVIr, ScHTJLTz. And do you keep a statistical record of these reports ? 

Mr. Graziano. No. The inspections, yes; the corrections, no. No 
statistical records exist. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Conld yon give us some idea of the number of — I hate 
to use the word "violations" — deviations from the existing regulations 
that the inspectors find each year? 

^Ir. Graziano. The word "violations" doesn't cause me any discom- 
fort and is the proper term to use. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Well, I was thinking since you really lack enforcement 
power, "violations" may be a bit strong, but if you're happy with it, 
we will use the term. 

Mr. Graziano. No; it is indeed a violation, and — would you come 
back to that point ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Yes. My question is, could you give us a, figure of the 
number of -sdolations determined by your inspectors over the last year ? 

Mr. Graziano. No ; that would be impossible. I couldn't even hazard 
a guess. 

Mr. ScHijLTz. In addition to the yearly inspections performed for 
your members, what other inspections do your 14 inspectors handle ? 

Mr. Graziano. We inspect other shipper facilities which are not 
members. We would inspect carrier facilities. For example, rail car- 
riers, terminals, stations. 

iSIr. ScHULTZ. When woidd you do this ? At their request ? 

Mr. Graziano. No. 

Mr. ScHULTz. What authority do you have to go in and conduct 
these inspections ? 

Mr. Graziano. Well, there are three authorities laid down in these 
regidations. One is contained in the law, section 834(e) of Public Law 

The other is contained in section 173.1 and section 173.3 of title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, as well as 174.500. And what that essen- 
tially says IS that the Bui'eau of Explosives is given the right and has 
the authority to inspect manufacturing, shipper facilities, and other 
locations with a view in mind to determining what regulations will, 
within the best practical limit, be applicable or recommended. 

It also says that we will inspect these facilities to assure that they're 
in compliance with the hazardous materials regulations. 

]Mr. SciiuLTz. Do you provide advance notice to these groups that 
your inspectors are about to come in and inspect their facilities ? 

]Mr. Graziano. On some occasions it's beneficial to arrange to have 
our ins]^ectors make an appointment with these people. On some occa- 
sions, this is not done. 

Mr. ScHTJLTz. Can you tell the subcommittee how many of these 
groups there are that you inspect periodically and the nature of tlie 
facilities ? 

Mr. Graziano. Well, we have obviously rail carriers, shippers, and 
shippers are essentially manufacturers of hazardous materials of all 

INIr. ScHULTZ. "Wliat's the total number, what's the magnitude of 
this inspection ? 


Mr. Graziano. The magnitude of the inspection job ? 

INIr. ScHULTz. Are you talking about 500 installations? 

INIr. Graziano. Oh, no, substantially more than that. I think that 
in kind of a round term, perhaps ballpark figure, it would run several 

If you consider all of the carrier modes — air, water, rail, highway — 
if you consider the shipper manufacturing plants, warehouse plants, 
distribution facilities, it's a pretty substantial number of places. 

]Mr. ScHiJLTz. Are these inspections conducted periodically and on 
a scheduled basis or just as needed ? 

It would seem to me that for 14 inspectors, you have a lot of work 
to do. 

]Mr. Gr^vziano. The member plants, obviously, as we've said earlier, 
receive an inspection once a year. Beyond that, inspections are normally 
conducted where a violation is discovered in transportation and the 
way that's discovered is by visiting one of the carrier facilities. A viola- 
tion may be as small as an abbreviation of a material by a shipper, 
which is not permitted. We bring that to his attention. Or it may be 
discovery of a leak in transportation. 

Mr. ScnuLTz. TVliat is the focus of the inspection? Is it primarily 

Mr. Graziano. Yes. These are our safety regulations [indicating]. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Is there any direct focus on the control of explosives, 
which is really tlie focus of our inquiry ? 

]Mr. Graziano. Would you please elaborate on that ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. I will define control. Control from the standpoint of 
our inquiry is programs, procedures which would serve to keep explo- 
sives from the hands of those who, number one, are not entitled to 
have them and who, secondly, once they get them, are disposed toward 
using explosives for illicit purposes. 

]Mr. Graziano. Well, in that context, I don't think that our organiza- 
tion, the Bureau of Explosives, specifically has anything to offer with 
respect to the control measure as you've defined it. 

Our focus is safety and the compliance with these regulations 

These regulations, to my knowledge, don't speak to the kind of issue 
that you've addressed. 

Mr. Phemister. Peripherally, if I can interrupt a minute, it seems 
to me that a properly blocked and braced shipment, one that would 
tend to make its transit securely, or you know, without falling out of 
the car, would be peripherally involved in control. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Well, I agree. I think that the compliance with the 
safety regulations inure to the benefit of the control of explosives. 
Tangentially, you achieve several things by handling explosives cor- 
rectly and safely ; in other words, the packaging and preparation and 
safe transportation, are types of control. 

Mr. Graziano. I don't think that was the focus of your question. 

Mr. Phemister. But the other area in which control may be involved 
is that by insuring correct identification of the commodity on the 
shipment paper, if a derailment happens, whatever local enforcement 
authorities there are can learn what's on that train, what's in the truck, 
and take whatever security measures are called for because of the 
presence of that commodity. And that, other than assigning rates to 


commodities, the identification of tliem is very important, the proper 
identification in the event you do have a deraihnent or a crash with a 

highway truck. . r- t 

Mr. Graziano. Now there is, of course, in these re^ilations [mdicat- 
ing] , the section 174.590, which deals with the change of seals on cars 
of explosives which have been opened by an investigator— might be 
FBI, it might be railroad police— when a problem is suspected. 

'\^7lien I say that, I mean the car has come off, the wheels have come 
off its rail or the car is involved in an overspeed impact, or the car 
seal or hasp may be cut. 

There is a provision in here which says that if the seals are changed 
and the car is inspected and then the person doing that must note on 
the shipping document what changes have been made and who made it 

and what date. 

Mr. ScHULTz. And w^ould this information be reported to the Bureau 

of Explosives ? 

Mr. Graziano. No ; it would not. It has— I should clarify by saying 
that on occasion we receive reports like that but it's not a requirement 
of the regulations that they notify the Bureau of Explosives of that. 

Mr. Phemister. It travels with the shipping paper, doesn't it? 

Mr. Graziano. Yes. to the destination. 

Mr. ScHiTLTZ. Would a part of your inspection be the re\aew of these 
documents to insure that such notations have been properly recorded ? 

Mr. Graziano. "Wlien they are found that way, yes. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Are thefts of explosives from interstate shipment re- 
ported to the Bureau of Explosives ? 

Mr. Graziano. I'm not familiar with that terminology, notice of 
thefts. The Department of Defense 

I^Ir. ScHULTz. Well, if the seal is broken on a truck or train and if m 
fact some explosives are taken, are you notified of this theft or loss? 

IVIr. Graziano. No, no. 

Mr. ScHTJLTz. So your inquiry or interest would extend only to the 
proper recording of the fact of a seal being broken, that is, the pro- 
cedural aspects of this fact being recorded on the shipping documents? 

:Mr. Graziano. Right, right. 

Mr. ScHULTz. What recourse would the Bureau of Explosives have 
if one of your inspectors was denied access to a terminal or shipping 
facility where he intended to conduct an inspection ? 

Mr. 'Graziano. I think that would depend on the type of facility or 

shipment. -i /« • 

For example, if we were inspecting that facility because of a serious 
violation of the regulations which might be overloading of a tank car 
or overloading of drums or mishandling by the shipper, we could 
report to the carrier that the shipper is not complying with the regula- 
tions and therefore the carrier should not accept the shipment. 

That's one recourse. 

Another recourse would be to point out to the shipper that the regu- 
lations require that he open his facility to the Bureau of Explosives 
and that we do have this permission granted in the regulations to 
investigate or inspect his facility for such violations. 

I'm iust trying to recall if we've ever been denied access, and I can't 
recall any time. I think one of the basic reasons that we're not denied 
access is that people to whom we would direct the focus of our activity 


realize that our activity is not going to end up in a punitive, criminal, 
or civil penalty. 

Mr. ScHULTz. You really have no direct or indirect guidance or con- 
trol from a governmental agency, do you ? 

Mr. Graziano. Would you clarify that a little bit ? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Is the guidance and control that you receive from the 
American Association of Eailroads? 

Mr. Graziano. Guidance and control, as I interpret it and under- 
stand it, would come from the compliance with these regulations. 
These are our guidance in terms of dealing with the hazardous mate- 
rials regulations and safety and transportation relating to those regu- 
lations. The control is placed on by the DOT. However, there is no 
official or even unofficial control exercised by the DOT over the Bureau 
of Explosives. 

Mr. ScHULTz. There is no assessment made to see whether or not the 

bureau of explosives is properly discharging its responsibilities bv the 
DOT? ^ fe <= i J 

Mr. Graziano. That's correct 

]Mr. ScHULTZ. Do you furnish any reports to the Department of 
Transportation ? 

Mr. Graziano. No. 

i\[r. ScHULTz. Does the Bureau of Explosives prepare and dissemi- 
nate an annual report of their activities ? 

Mr. Gr^^ziano. Prior to 1970, yes. We have not since 1970. 

Mr. ScHTjLTz. To whom was the annual report disseminated? 

Mr. Graziano. It was sent to the Interstate Commerce Commission 
at the time. If you recall, prior to the Transportation Act of 1967, the 
Office of Hazardous Materials Operations of the Department of Trans- 
portation was founded in the Interstate Commerce Commission. The 
Interstate Commerce Commission had a very small staff group who 
prepared the regulations at the request of the Bureau of Explosives. 

So prior to 1967, essentially the only organization functioning in the 
area of hazardous materials was the Bureau of Explosives. With the 
creation of the Office of Hazardous JNIaterials Operations, they have 
begun to exercise their legislative mandate and thereby take over those 
functions which were being performed by the Bureau of Explosives. 
The annual report was sent to anyone who requested it. All members of 
the Bureau of Explosives including shipping members would receive 
an annual report. The Interstate Commerce Commission also received 
an annual report. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Do your constituent members receive any kind of re- 
ports from the Bureau of Explosives on a regular basis? 

^Ir. Graziano. On a regular basis ? No, not on a regular basis. 

Mr. ScHULTz. They do, however, receive a written report concerning 
the inspections ? 

^Ir. Graziano. Yes, they do. 

Mr. SciiuLTZ. Does the Bureau of Explosives conduct any inspection 
in connection with the trucking industry ? 

ISIr. Graziano. Only to the extent that the trucking industry inter- 
faces with the railroad industry in the transportation by trailer on a 

Mr. ScHULTz. So I take it then that once the explosive has been 
transferred to the truck itself, your jurisdiction, if you will, or respon- 
sibility ends ? 

73-911—76 2 


INIr. Graziano. Now when you say transferred to the truck, do you 
mean that the shipper loads the truck and then the trucker moves it to 
tlie destination ? Is that what you're referring to ? 

Mv. ScHULTz. Yes. Once the explosive is physically located on a 
semitruck, at that point you have no jurisdiction or responsibility in 
connection with the shipment of the explosive ? 

Mr. Graziano. Right. As I said, only insofar as the trucking industry 
interfaces with the railroad industry in the transportation of explo- 
sives where a motor vehicle is shipped on a TOFC — if you're familiar 
with a trailer on a flatcar — it's essentially a truck body loaded by a 
shipper at a plant, hauled by a motor carrier or a contract carrier to 
the railroad to a terminal facility where it is loaded on a flatcar, trans- 
ported by the railroad on that flatcar to another intermediate destina- 
tion and then hauled, taken off the flatcar and hauled to the destination 
by a motor carrier or contractor for the railroad. 

And when that situation happens, we are very much concerned and 
very much aware. In the situation, as I understood it, where a shipper 
Avould load a motor vehicle and a motor carrier would transport that 
to destination, we would have no interest, we would have no juris- 

Mr. Scirm.TZ. Is the piggyback method the primary method for 
explosives being transported by the trucking industry ? 

Mr. Gr.\ziano. I would say not. I would say that there are a goodly 
number of motor carriers who are registered with the Commission to 
transport explosives solely by motor carrier and do so. 

Mr. ScHTJLTZ. And would these carriers pick up the explosives di- 
rectly from the manufacturer and take them to a terminal or a 
destination ? 

Mr. Graziano. To a destination. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. And that's wholly outside of your jurisdictional 

Mr. Graziano. Correct. 

Mr. ScHULTz. In the course of your inspections, have you ever found 
it necessary to refer or are you allowed to refer a violation to the FBI, 
tlie Department of Transportation or any other agency ? 

The question is twofold: Are you allowed to make this referral, 
No. 1 ; and have you found it necessary to do so, is the second part ? 

Mr. Graziano. I know of nothing that would prohibit us from mak- 
ing that referral. The second question, have we found it necessary — on 
one occasion I can recall when a car blew up in California 

Mr. ScHULTz. When you say car, you're referring to a railroad car? 

Mr. Graziano. Right, and it was improperly — everything. The 
shipper did not load it right. There wasn't anything about that ship- 
ment that was proper. The DOT was involved in it and I had several 
conversations with the DOT suggesting that they should look at that 
shipper's facility because he had not in any way complied with DOT 

I believe they have done so. I don't know whether it's an ongoing 
investigation or whether the investigation has been terminated, but 
certainly we would cooperate with them. 

Mr. Scnui.Tz. So if you do come across a flagrant violation, you 
would have no hesitancy to call this to the attention of someone who 
does have the 


]\rr. Graziano. The regulatory authority to act where we felt that we 
could not effect correction and the violation was so serious as to impair 
transportation or injure, impair the safe movement of materials, and 
perhaps provide injury or death, absolutely. 

Mr. ScuuLTz. Does your Bureau of Explosives keep any statistics 
relating to the number of injuries or property damage which result 
from the faulty or incorrect handling of explosives while in transit? 

Mr. Graziano. A statistical summary or analysis is not maintained 
for that purpose or in that regard. Each case is handled on a case-by- 
case basis. 

However, there is one record that we've been following for over 50 
years. As you may know, the whole reason for the creation of the 
Bureau of Explosives in 1905 was due to several serious and disastrous 
explosions of explosives in rail transportation in the early 1900's. The 
Senate under Senator Elkins at that time sponsored a bill which would 
allow for the creation of a private organization within the railroad in- 
dustiy to deal with the problem of explosives by rail. 

That was the creation and formation of the Bureau of Explosives. 
The Bureau of Explosives worked with the manufacturers of explo- 
sives and the packagers of explosives, and to my knowledge, it has been 
over 55 years since there has been a death due to the transportation of 
explosives by rail. 

Prior to that, the record would so indicate there were many deaths, 
injuries, loss of dollars due to the transportation of explosives. 

Mr. ScHULTz. That's a very impressive statistic. I would conclude 
that you relate, this directly to the work of the Bureau of Explosives. 

IMr. Graziano. I can draw no other conclusion. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Well, that's interesting because I was just going to 
ask you whether or not you thought the concept of the Bureau of 
Explosives is perhaps antiquated and that you needed some regulatory 
power to enforce the regulations that you inspect. 

ISIr. Graziano. We have been, without that regulatory power, I think 
historically successful with respect to gaining compliance with hazard- 
ous materials regulations. 

Now when you talk about compliance, you must talk in many focuses. 
If a shipper mislabels or uses an old label on a package instead of a 
new label which is required, that's a violation, but none so serious that 
you can't easily correct. 

If a shipper applies four placards to a car and one of the placards 
is a little faded, that's a violation. But again, it's not so serious that it 
can't be easily corrected. 

Most people that we come in contact with in the hazardous materials 
area are abundantly aware of the need to have, to comply with the 
regulations, to have good regulations that will insure safety. 

Some shippers, as some people, are stubborn and don't want to, you 
know, do it their own way. They won't listen. In those cases it makes it 
very difficult for us to carry out our chore in the manner in which we 
are used to doing it. However, those cases are, to the best of our knowl- 
edge, few and far between. Most people are willing to comply and 
will, when you explain it to them that these are safety regulations, 
make an attempt and an effort. 

There are several companies, as you may know, who are, because of 
several things that have happened in the past few years overly — more 
concerned about hazardous materials transportation. 


And in fact, if you look at the history of the transportation of haz- 
ardous materials, in the early 1900's, the only materials that we were 
able to identify were explosives, black powder, dynamite, TNT, sul- 
furic acid, nitric acid, and we have grown to the extent that there are 
thousands of hazardous materials both in the transportation environ- 
ment and manufacturino- enviromiient. The water that you drink, the 
clothes that you wear, all are generated by hazardous materials. 

So it is pervasive in our industry 

Mr. ScHTJLTz. The great change in the fertilizer industry is probably 

My. Graziano. Look at chlorine. Until 1920, it was unheard of. 
Today there are roughly 50,000 carloads of chlorine shipped on the 
Nation's railways and in the 50 years that we've been transporting 
chlorine there have been a few accidents, which is what we expected. 
There has been one death related to the transportation of chlorine in 
55 years. That death was unfortunate but it was due to the fact that 
the person could not get out of the way. It happened in a small rural 
town in Louisiana, and a man, his wife, and about 11 kids, and they 

That is the only death in the transportation of chlorine. In 1920 
when they were first identified, whole industries have grown up, the 
vinylchloride industry, the LP gas industry, as you mentioned, the 
fertilizer industry, and you can go on and on. 

Mr. ScpiuLTZ. With these items coming into being, the fertilizers, 
the chlorine gas, who made the determination that these materials were 
in fact hazardous ? 

Was this detennination made by the Bureau of Explosives ? 

Mr. Graziaisto. Essentially, yes. 

Mr. ScHTjLTz. And how was this determination made? 

Mr. GiLiziANO. It's done in a variety of ways. Firstly, a shipper, as he 
manufacturers the new material, has some awareness of the ingredients 
which he puts into the material or after he has prepared laboratory 
samples of the material, decides that some of the materials can fall 
within a range of being hazardous. Either they're toxic or they're 
flammable or explosive or whatever. 

He then, after that determination is made, may run some laboratory 
tests on his own ; that is, in his laboratory or a reputable laboratory 
suitable for that purpose, and then he would communicate — previous 
to 1967, he would communicate with tJie Bureau of Explosives and say, 
I have a material which has the following characteristics. At that point 
the Bureau of Explosives would say to him, send us a sample so that we 
can determine at our laboratory what we think the hazards of the 
product are, whether they're explosive, flammable, oxidizing, poison- 
ous, or what have you. We would then make a determination of the 
type of hazard involved and recommend a classification to the manu- 

These regulations contain a section in which the shipper is required 
to properly classify his material with one exception, and that exception 
is explosives. Explosives must be classified by the Bureau of Explosives. 

There has been a recent change which took place in May of this year 
which allows EIlDx\. — Energy Research and Development — to classify 
explosives. It also permits the Department of Defense to classify its 


But prior to 1967, and subsequent intervening amendments to these 
regulations, the Bureau of Explosives was the only organization in the 
United States that could classify explosives. ■■ 1' ' • 

Mr. ScHTJLTz, How were these changes made ? By regulation or by 
statute ? 

Mr. Graziano. Yes ; regulation. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Are ERDA and DOD now doing something you 
previously did or has the state of the art changed and they're now 
doing something that relates to a new development not contemplated 
in your assigned responsibilities ? 

Mr. Graziano. I'm not quite sure 

Mr. ScHULTz. Well, was something taken away from the Bureau of 
Explosives by this grant of authority for ERDA and DOD to classify 
explosives ? 

Mr. Graziano. Xot that I'm aware of. It permitted DOD- — the De- 
partment of Defense — to classify explosives which were highly sensi- 
tive without coming to the Bureau of Explosives. 

To that extent they have taken away that option. 

Mr. ScHULTz. So it's not a duplicated procedure. They mei-ely iso- 
lated a segment of their interest, whether it's ERDA or DOD for 
which they would be responsible ? 

INIr. Graziano. To some extent, yes, because we still have the situation 
where on occasion the Department of Defense and the manufacturer 
of the product may disagree on what is the proper classification or seg- 
ments within the Department of Defense disagree as to what the classi- 
fication of a product may be and they would turn to us for our opinion. 

Mr. ScHTJLTZ. Is the determination of the Bureau of Explosives 

INIr. Graziano. We have been overturned recently by the Department 
of Transportation. The Department of Transportation's Office of Haz- 
ardous Materials Operations has seen fit to change, I believe, one classi- 
fication on us. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Relating to what ? 

Mr. Graziano. Relating to explosives. 

Mr. ScHULTz. So the final appeal then is to the Department of 
Transportation ? 

Mr. Graziano. It's unclear to me, Mr. Schultz. as to exactly how that 
works. The shipper or manufacturer of an explosive item is required 
to come to us for classification and proper identification of the mate- 
rial, as well as the packaging requirements. We offer him the said items 
and he is then required to file that report with the Department of 

Exactly what the operation of the Department of Transportation, 
OHMO, is at that point I am not sure. 

Mr. ScHTJLTz. In the instance that you just mentioned you stated 
that your classification was overturned by the Department of Trans- 

"When that occurs, do you then adopt their classification for educa- 
tion and advice to your membership ? 

Mr. Graziano. No, sir. 

Mr. Schultz. You do not ? 

Mr. Graziano. If they make a determination contrary to the deter- 
mination that we have made, they obviously, as the final regulatory 
authority, have the final say. 


That does not mean that we concur. 

Mr. SciiTJLTz. But whether or not you concur, if your mission is to 
assist in the carrying out or the compliance of these regulations, are 
you not then required to revise your standards consistent with the 
findings of DOT and so advise your inspectors and your membership ? 

Mr. Graziano. I think our obligation is to advise our client, the 
shipper or manufacturer, of the ruling of the Department of Trans- 

Mr. ScHULTz. But then you would not incorporate this difference into 
your inspection procedures to insure that they are not in violation of 
regulations ? 

Mr. Gr^vziano. We would not in any way be in conflict with what 
the DOT regulations or their interpretations state. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Maybe this is the key. Are your classifications in tliis 
particular case more stringent than that classification decided by the 
Department of Transportation ? 

Mr. Graziano. In that particular case, I'm only recollecting, I don't 
know whether we were more stringent or not. 

I can't answer that question. 

iNIr. SciiULTz. I have just a little bit of a problem here because — as 
I mideretand your responsibility — the responsibility of the Bureau of 
Explosives to determine and classify what materials are in fact ex- 
plosives — ^there is an added requirement that a manufacturer seek such 
a classification when he's in the area of manufacturing and transport- 
ing sucli products. And it would appear from your testimony that, if 
not satisfied witli the classification of the Bureau of Explosives, 
there is an appeal procedure which the manufacturer can exercise 
leading him to the Department of Transportation. And this is where 
I get lost. Who controls and what obligation does the Bureau of Ex- 
plosives have to insure that this aspect of the regulation is complied 

]Mr. Graziano. Well, I don't think it's such a great mystery and I'll 
try and unravel it. 

The obligation, as stated in these regulations, is for the Bureau of 
Explosives, not the Federal Government, to classify the material. It 
specifically states that. The requirement also states that the Depart- 
ment of Transportation must be furnished a copy of the laboratorj'^ 
re]x>rt and the classification. 

It does not state in here that the Depai-tment of Transportation wiJl 
review that laboratory report and classification and then offer advice 
on it. It merely says we will receive the report. You are required to file 
it with us. 

Now if the Department of Transportation reverses our classifica- 
Hon, I would suggest that they have to do that on some stated basis. 
Either they've tested the material or they've got factual proof that the 
material does not meet our classification or there is some good, sound 
technical reason, not merely because they believe that the material 
should be reclassified to something else. And for the DOT then to oft'er 
a classification to the shipper or manufacturer, they should be in a 
position to substantiate that classification either bv test, as we have, 
or by analvsis. And whatever the DOT puts out with respect to a legal 
inerpretation or a legal classification of a material, we are obligated 
to abide by it just as everyone else is. 


Mr. ScHULTz. So there is no inconsistency. Yon would abide b}' the 
classification and findings? 

Mr. Graziano. We must. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Oh, I see. I thought you said, no, you would not. 

Mr. Graziano. Well, we must abide by it. We may not necessarily 
agree with it or we may not concur. 

Mr. SCHTJI.TZ. I thought that you said that you would not abide by 
it. That's all. 

Is there a governmental agency which has the jurisdiction of deter- 
mining what materials are hazardous and/or explosive materials ? 

Mr. Graziano. Well, my answer to that is, I think that there are 
several agencies on the scene. As to exactly what their responsibility 
is, I'm not sure. I'm thinking of the group at OSHA. I'm thinking of 
the group at EPA, ERDA, with respect to radioactive materials. I 
just don't know what their role is, and therefore, I don't think I can 
successfully respond to your question as to what Government agency 
has jurisdiction over the classification. I'm not aware of any. 

Mr. ScHULTz. You're not aware of any Government agency that 
has the responsibility and the jurisdiction to determine what materials 
are hazardous or explosive? 

Mr. Graziano. No. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Do you think that there is a need for such a govern- 
mental responsibility ? 

Mr. Graziano. I've got mixed emotions about that answer. 

Mr. ScHULTz. The Bureau of Explosives' responsibilities and inter- 
ests are quite broad, surprisingly broad, to me, just reading some of 
the materials. The focus of your responsibility is primarily the 

So I ask the question whether or not there should be legislation 
to make the determination of what materials are hazardous and 

Mr. Graziano. I look at it as presenting this kind of a problem. 
If you look at OSHA and its determination of what material is flam- 
mable, they say a flammable material is any material that has a flash 
point in a closed cup of 140° F. That's their determination for pur- 
poses in the work area and storage. The Consumer Products Safety 
Commission by law was given the definition of a flammable liquid as 
any material which has a temperature of. a flashpoint whose tem- 
perature is 80° F. or more, open cup. The Coast Guard, a segment of 
the Department of Transportation, by law had the definition of a 
flammable liquid as a material with an 80° F. open cup test method. 
The DOT, Federal Kail, Federal Highway, and Air, prior to the 
advent of a procedural rulemakimr called H^M-102, used flammable 
liquid, 80° F. open cup flashpoint. The OSHA adopted an NFPA, 
National Fire Protection Association, standard which was 140° F. 
closed cup. 

There was at one time, I should say. one group with a "national 
regulation" or determination of a flashpoint. As a consequence, the 
Coast Guard in Public Law 9633 had its jurisdiction revoked, and they 
consequently have 100° flashpoint closed cup. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. How did they arrive at that finding? 
Mr. Graziano. That's the great mystery. The DOT Office of Haz- 
ardous Materials Operations, in one of its early rulemaking proce- 


diires, HM-3, decided that the flashpoint of materials should be raised 
because the ambient temperature at any given time in the United 
States was about 100°. Industry proceeded to say, you sfuys just don't 
know what you're talking about. They decided in their infinite wisdom 
that they would go back and review it. They did. They came up with 
a rulemaking called H]\I-42. HM-42 not only said, look, we need a 
flashpoint of 100°, but we need to create a new category called com- 
bustible materials who have a flashpoint of 100° to 200°. 

Again, the great mystery is. I don't know where that came from. 
After that rulemaking they decided in HM-67 that they needed to 
change the flashpoint test method from open cup to closed cup. Open 
cup test method most closely approximates the conditions that you will 
find in transportation, and after all, that's what the Department of 
Transportation is about. 

They proceeded to define the material as 100° closed cup. They got 
into such a soup on that one because of the types of methods that they 
were using, unclear, unsoimd, and quite frankly, unfounded, that they 
decided that HM-102 was their salvation. And that rulemaking said, 
well, we've got seve]i different methods of determining a flashpoint of 
a material. Any one of these methods is acceptable for a particular 
type of material, whether it's viscous or not viscous. But if you're going 
to use the closed cup method and you're going to raise the flashpoint 
from 80° to 100°, you're going to create a new category of combustible 

Despite the protests and objections of industry, it became a fact of 

So here you have a manufacturer saying, look, OSHA, CPSC, 
Coast Guard, DOT. and now somebody else is on the scene — we've got 
this variety of confusion, but let's look at it very, very carefully. 

DOT regulates for transportation purposes and, if you're asking 
should there be somebody to regulate or to suggest what an explosive 
is or what a hazardous rnaterial is for transportation, very definitely. 
Should somebody be looking at this same kind of a thing, what an 
explosive is or what a hazardous material is, or CPSC, which is home 
use, or OSHA, which is working and storage place. They can't seem to 
get their act together because they're addressing different functions. 
They're addressing different conditions. 

So to try and establish a central core agency that would define it 
' for everyone mav on the face of it be a panacea and it may be the 
thing to' do. But" I can't help but think that if you're going to define 
it in terms of OSHA or in terms of the CPSC, this segment here, 
DOT or somebody else is going to be shunted aside and not receive 
its fair due because there are differing conditions for transportation 
than there are for manufacturers and than there are for end use. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. In the example you just gave, what input did the 
Bureau of Explosives have in relation to these various findings? 

Mr. Graziano. We recommended very strongly that they not adopt 
the 100° flashpoint and that they not adopt the category called com- 
bustible materials. We gave tliem very sound reasons why. They 
couldn't come up with a good reason to go to that. That was one of 
the most significant rulemakings ever undertaken by the Office of 
Hazardous Materials, HM-3, and I suggest that if j^ouVe interested 
in pursuing how the regulatory process works, that that is a beautiful 


Mr. ScHULTz. Is it your testimony that the varying and differing 
flashpoint findings which were promulgated were arbitrary and capri- 
cious findings, that there was no laboratory testing done? 

Mr. Graziano. Simply because you test a material in the laboratory 
doesn't give it credence in terms of deciding whether the flashpoint 
of the material should be 140° F. There are flashpoints of materials 
that are -140°, +580°. But what is the problem you are trying to 
address — safety of the people in transportation? If that's so, then 
what are the transportation conditions that require you to identify 
particular materials that are hazardous in transportation? 

Mr. ScHUi^Tz. Well, of course, they apparently all agree that it 
was a hazardous material. The difference then was the manner in which 
it should be handled, based on their flashpoint findings. So I'm back 
to my original question, should there be a governmental agency which 
determines whether or not materials are hazardous or explosive? Let's 
leave aside for a minute the question of how they would be transported. 

INIr. Graziano. According to what criteria — end use, manufacture, 
or transportation? 

Mr. ScHULTz. Well, essential use — it's got to be handled, doesn't it? 

INIr. Graziano. Transportation or the manufacture of the material ? 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Manufacture and handling of the material. 

Mr. Gr.\ziano. I would like to think about that a little bit. I have 
some problems with that. They relate to this. 

As you may know, Occupational Safety and Health Administra- 
tion addresses materials which are hazardous to the workmen, worker 
or employee, at the time of their manufacture. And that exposure, if I 
can use that term, is a chronic exposure. It's not an acute exposure. 
In transportation, the expasure is acute. We like to think that we get 
our products from point A to point B in less than 3 years, 5 years, 
20 years, whatever the exposure might be. Therefore, what's hazardous 
to a worker at the time of manufacture may not be hazardous to a 
transportation environment. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. We're, perhaps, a little bit afield of the focus of our 
subcommittee inquiry. 

But in looking into the administration and execution of the laws 
pertaining to the control of explosives, it is relevant to know what 
an explosive is. 

And I guess I was probably the most surprised to find out that 
though the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has the prin- 
cipal responsibility for the control of explosives, they apparently do 
not make a finding as to what constitutes an explosive. I say "appar- 
ently" because it's not entirely clear in my mind at this point but that's 
what led us to the Bureau of Explosives, and the reason we solicited 
your help with our inquiry. 

Again, wc do recognize that you are primarily concerned about the 
safety of explosives. 

Mr. Graziano. That's right. 

Mr. ScHTjLTz. And your activities relate to the voluntary compli- 
ance, if you will, of the regulations. 

Is there an overlap by the Department of Transportation or the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms by their inspectors or in- 
vestigators to the work that's conducted by your inspectors? Is there 
any overlap, duplicitous inspections conducted? 


Mr. Graziano. The only thing I know about AFT is that it's the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. 

Mr. Phemister. It's ATF. 

Mr. Graziano. You see — don't confuse me. 

I really don't know what the inspectors do, how they operate, what 
their function is. I know nothing about that, 

Mr. SciiULTz. So your bureau has no day-to-day contact in the field 
or at any level with Bx^TF? 

My. Gr/\ziano. Not that I'm aware of. I may find that we have more 
in common. Apparently we do. I really don't know what their func- 
tion is. 

jNIr. SciiuLTz. Do yon know or are you aware that a representative 
of your organization attended any meetings relating to the tagging 
of explosives? 

INIr. Graziano. It's entirely possible. With 35 people in the organi- 
zation, I don't keep tabs on each and every one of them. It's possible. 

]Mr. SciiULTz. The tagging of explosives, of course, is concerned 
with being able to identif}' the presence of an explosive in a room, an 

Mr. Graziano. We don't transport explosives by air. 

INIr. SciiTJLTz. A car or this type of thing. I'm talking about the haz- 
ard aspect, or the other end of it, the second part of it, is the ability to 
identify it once an explosion has occurred, and I was just wondering 
whether you have participated or your laboratory people have partici- 
pated in the study of this possibility. 

Mr. Graziano. It's entirely possible that our laboratory people have 
participated in conferences or discussions with the Alcohol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms people, excluding my knowledge. 

The manner in which these regulations require explosives to be 
identified are the use of labels, which I'm sure you're aware that there 
are labels which identify material as an explosive either class A, B, or 
C. There are also markings on boxes that are required to be placed 
there by the shipper, explosives, high explosives, propellant explosives, 
handle cai-efuUy, keep fire away. 

Mr. ScHULTz. And these are universal regulations for all transporta- 
tion ? 

^Ir. Graziano. That's correct. 

My. Schttltz. Whether or not they're within your responsibility ? 

Mr. Graziano. That's correct. 

I\Ir. ScHULTz. Is there another organization similar to yours that 
handles the, or assists the, trucking membership to see that they're 
in compliance with the regulations? 

Mr. Graziano. I'm glad you asked that question. There is not. 

The railroad industry is the only carrier mode that enjoys the 
services and abilities of an organization like the Bureau of Explosives. 
The trucking industiy, to my knowledge, has committees. The Domestic 
and International Air Transport Association uses the services of the 
Bureau of Explosives as their technical experts in the carriage of 
liazardous materials. I'm not aware of any organization operated by 
the waterway carriers that deal with these materials. The railroad 
industry is the only one. 


Mr. ScHULTz. Who then has responsibility and fills the void for the 
airlines and the trucking industry for the service that you perform 
for the rail industry, if you know ? 

Mr. Graziano. They don't have anything. The DOT inspectors, 
the Federal highway inspectors, do visit shippers and carriers, the 
trucking carriers, to assure that they're complying with the various 
regulations. But there is no functional group that I am aware of that 
acts as does the Bureau of Explosives for any other mode. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Mr. Graziano, describe for us, if you will, the tech- 
nical facilities that you have in your laboratory. Where is the labora- 
tory located? 

Mr. Graziano. The laboratory is located in building 817, the Raritan 
River Center in Edison, N.J. It is staffed by four people, a chief 
chemist, a chemist, a laboratory technician, and a maintenance man. 
The laboratory is a functional working laboratory. It is not a clean- 
room type of laboratory. It is housed in a building on the old Raritan 
River Center in which we have test ovens, we have chemical analysis 
materials which enable us to test the materials. We also have a 2i/2-acre 
test site in which we physically set off explosives, small samples, to 
determine the types of classifications that should be ascribed to certain 

We have an approved magazine for the storage of small samples 
of explosives. 

]Mr. ScHULTZ. To whom do you make your services available? 

Mr. Graziano. To anyone who asks. 

Mr. ScHULTz. And are your services provided on a fee basis? 

Mr. Graziano. Yes, they are. The fee is arranged so that it covers 
the expenses of operating the laboratory. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Does the Federal Government take advantage of using 
your laboratory facilities? 

Mr. Graziano. On occasion. 

Mr. ScHUL,Tz. To your knowledge does the Department of Trans- 
portation have their own laboratory facility for the purpose of examin- 
ing explosives? 

Mr. Graziano. They do not. 

Mr. SciinLTz. Does the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 
have a laboratory that they 

Mr. Graziano. I have no idea. 

Mr. ScHTiLTz. Up until INIay of this year had you conducted labora- 
tory examinations for the Department of Defense? 

Mr. Graziano. Yes, we had. We would either conduct an examina- 
tion at our facility or we would go to a depot and as you know, 
military depots have test sites. We would witness conducting of tests 
at their test sites. 

It could go either way. We have done both. 

Mr. ScHTjLTz. I suppose the reason for going to the military site 
would be they would have an extremelj'^ secure facility of which to 
protect the nature of their armaments. 

Mr. Graziano. Sometimes it's that and obviously, we don't have 
the kind of a test site in which you could set off a 500-pound bomb. 

Mr. ScHTjLTz. It would be a bit disruptive to New Jersey. 


Well, let me ask you this. Do you have any recommendations for 
the subcommittee pertaining to either the examination of explosives 
or the enforcement of regulations which would pertain to the control 
of explosives? That's the focus of our inquiry, keeping explosives out 
of tlie hands of terrorists and/or other criminal activists. 

Mv. Graziano. Well, since that's not really my area of expertise, 
I think I'd be a bit foolish in trying to make a recommendation in 
that area. 

]Mr. SciiuLTz. I understand. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot 
but I thought perhaps from your years of experience relating to the 
safety aspects which, in effect, is a type of control, you might have 
some' judgment or recommendation that would be beneficial to the 
subcommittee in its inquiry. 

INIr. Graziano. I can't think of anything at the moment. 

I should say that the transportation of explosives generally is pretty 
well watclied after by people that are concerned and are aware of it. 
I think they take a good deal of precaution in preparing the ship- 
ments and assuring that they have done everything they reasonably 
cnn to get the shipment there. 

I\Ir. ScHiTLTz. There is, of course, a certain amount of self-interest 
in staying alive while handling explosives. 

Mr. GsAziANO. You know that makes the people who handle hazard- 
ous materials some of the safest people in the world. 

Mr. ScHULTz. I'm sure it does. 

jMr. Short. You stated the DOT had no lab for classifying and 
testing explosives. Now the one time when they reversed your decision 
on classification, do you know how they made that determination ? 

]\[r. Gra'::iaxo. No; I don't. I do know that they did not test the 
material. It was a decision made on advice that they had received — 
from what source T don't know, but on advice and it was not done by 
testing the material. 

INIr. Short. Do you recall wliat the material was in question? 

IMr. Graziaxo. I don't. I'm sure that they would have a record of 
it, though. 

Mv. Short. You also stated that at your lab in New Jersey that you 
had an approved magazine, explosive storage magazine. 

Who inspects that magazine? 

]Mr. Graziano. I don't know. 

]Mr. Short. Is it inspected? 

IMr. Graziano. I can't even answer that, I assume that if it meets 
the requirements of protecting explosives for storage — I really can't 
answer that with any degree of reliability. 

Mr. ScHULTz. I wonder if you would be willing to provide to the 
subcommittee a response to that question after reviewing that matter 
vrith the person in charge. In fact, let's make the question more specific. 

How many times has that magazine been inspected in the last 2 
years and by whom was the inspection conducted? If you could just 
provide that to us in a letter, it would be appreciated. 

]\Ir. Graziano. Sure. 


[]Mr. Graziano subsequently supplied the information that the 
facilities and magazine were last inspected by Mr. Bobinyec, a New 
Jersey State inspector, and ATF district inspector, ;Mr. R. Peters, 
about February 25, 1976, and November 26. 1975, respectively. He also 
supplied the following data pertinent to the magazine.] 


Maximum quantity 
of explosives to be Expiration 

Permit No. stored date 

"^'^Clss^s'l 7425 100# Feb. 28,1977 

Class 4'""I.'"JI"r"".r... 7426 400 EBC Do. 

Permit to use explosives— user: ,„, ^ ^ ^, ,„. 

W. S. Chang - 4723 Sept. 31, 1976 

Carl C. T. Chen 4723 Feb. 28, 1977 

Department of Treasury/ATF— permit for use of explosives: high 143000147 Sept. 9, 1976 


]\Ir. Short. Now CFR regulation, No. 49, states that, in case of a 
rail wreclv in whicli nitrogl3^cerin is involved 

Mr. Gr^vziano. It's a forbidden explosive. 

Mr. Short. Right, a forbidden explosiA'e, in other words it calls for 
you to supervise the cleaning of that material. If it's a member rail- 
road, fine. If it's a nonmember, do you still go in and supervise ? 

Mr. Graziano. The regulations don't say whether it's a nonmember 
or not. 

Mr. Short. If the regulations don't specify between member and 

Mr. Graziano. As a matter of fact, we have that responsibility with 
respect to everything that's in these regulations which says that the 
Bureau of Explosives will do thus and so. There are some 215 of those 
type statements in these regulations and irrespective of whether they're 
a member or a nonmember, we do that. 

INIr. Short. So you're not reimbursed then for nonmembers ? That's 
a gratis operation. 

^Ir. Graziano. Yes. 

Mr. ScHULTz. As a practical matter, though, I shouldn't say all but 
in most, in some of those provisions, it is "or the Bureau of Explo- 

Mr. Short. "Carrier or." 

Mr. ScHULTz. The principal carrier or- 

INIr. Graziano. That's only found in one section, in 174.500. 

Mr. ScHULTz. I stand corrected, 

^Ir. GuiVziANO. It says the manufacturer or the shipper, the methods 
of packaging and storing and so forth must be open to the initial — 
inspection of the initial carrier or the Bureau of Explosives. 

Mr. Short. Supervised by the chief of the bureau. I don't know who 
the chief is. 

]Mr. GiLvziANO. And neither do I. 


ISIr. ScuuLTZ. But also the specific example that jNIr. Short brought 
up, the superintending of 

Mr. Graziaxo. The superintending of the mopping up and cleaning 

JNIr. SciiULTZ. Doesn't that also say mopping up or cleaning up ? 

INIr. Graziaxo. I don't believe so. I believe that's the Bureau of 
Explosives' responsibility. 

Also, that regulation was written with the thought in mind many 
years ago, as you know, that TNT or dynamite were the type of explo- 
sives manufactured and shipped. If you were to allow those materials 
to sit around for any length of time, the nitroglycerin would begin to 
seep out. 

I don't think there are two manufacturers in the United States still 
making TNT or dynamite today. 

Mr. Short. Right. I think that was written specifically because as 
I recall ; it said to wash down with sodium carbonate, which would 
neutralize nitroglycerin. 

One of the inspectional services that you offer is to military installa- 
tions. Now do you arbitrarily go to a military installation to inspect ? 

Mr. Graziaxo. Yes. 

Mv. Short. How do you determine what areas are to be inspected? 

Mr. Graziaxo. Only' those areas in which hazardous materials are 
beino; loaded into transport vehicles for transportation by rail. 

We're not interested in secret formulations. We're not interested in 
whether they've got 500 or 400 people on the line manufacturing 

"Wliat we're interested in is how is that device packaged for trans- 
portation, how is it marked and labeled? Is it properly classified and 
shipped and is it properly loaded into the transport vehicle to assure 
safe transportation? 

That's the extent of the tvpe of investigation or inspection. _ 

Mr. Short. Are you notified prior to loading by a military installa- 
tion that a certain" shipment is to be made? If not, how do you Imow 
that a shipment will take place? 

Mr. Graziaxo. On occasion, where a shipment might be, or for 
example, there's one moving very shortly that we've been in on for 
some time now. It's a rocket motor that they're moving out of Bacchus, 
Utah, down to Cape Kennedy and it's an oversized load and it's an 
overweight load. 

They have come to us to assure that everything is A-OK before 
they move that rocket motor from Bacchus to Cape Kennedy. It'll 
move by a special train service because of the size of the load and 
the weight of the load. 

So in that instance, in that context, we were notified. But for exam- 
ple, we know that atomic weapons move, but we're not notified that 
atomic weapons move. 

This is handled mostly between the military and the Atomic Energ>' 
Commission and the carrier involved under special transport. 

Mr. ScHiTLTz. And the carrier is not required to notify the Bureau 
of Explosives? 


Mr. Graziaxo. Xot required to notify the bureau, no. 

Mr. Short. That's all. 

Mr. SciiuLTz. I don't know how much your 14 inspectors are paid, 
but it would appear from your testimony that they are earning their 

INIr. Grazia>70. You may be assured we're all earning our money — 
at no cost to the Government, I might add. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. That's probably the brightest thing we've heard. 

]Mr. Short. I don't think that anyone that's come before us has made 
that comment anyway. 

Senator Thxjr3I0nd. Mr. Graziano, we appreciate your appearance 
before the subcommittee today and iDelieve that your testimonj' will 
be very helpfid. Thank you. 

At this time I would like to accept, for the record, the material that 
Mr. Graziano will mail to us, subject to review. 

If there is no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned, 
subject to call from the chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject 
to the call of the Chair.] 


Note. — The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee attaches no significance 
to the mere fact of the appearance of the name of an individual or an organization 
in this index. 


ATF. {See Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.) P^se 

Atlanta 124 

Atomic Energj' Commission (AEC) 142 


Bacchus, Utah 142 

Bobinyec 141 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) 125, 137, 138, 141 


California 130 

Canada 124 

Cape Kennedy 142 

Chang, W. S 141 

Chen, Carl C. T 141 

Chicago 124 

Cincinnati 124 

Coast Guard 135, 136 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 126,141 

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 135, 136 

CFSC. {See Consumer Product Safet}^ Commission.) 


Department of Defense (DOD) 128, 133, 134, 139 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 124, 125, 129, 133, 135-137, 139, 140 

Domestic and International Air Transport Association 138 

DOT. {See Department of Transportation.) 


Edison, N.J 139 

Elkins, Senator 131 

Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) 132, 135 

Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) 135 

EPA. {See Environmental Protection Agency.) 

ERDA. (See Energy Research and Development Administration.) 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 128, 130 

Graziano, Robert M., testimony of 123-143 

Houston 124 

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) 129 



K Page 

Kansas City 124 

Louisiana 132 

Montreal 124 


National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 135 

New Jersey 139, 140 

New Orleans 124 


Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 135-137 

Office of Hazardous Materials Operation (OH MO) 129, 133, 135, 136 

OH MO. (See Office of Hazardous Materials Operation.) 

Omaha 124 

OSHA. {See Occupational Safety and Health Administration.) 


Peters, R 141 

Phemister, Thomas A 123, 127, 128 

Philadelphia 124 

Pittsburgh, Pa 124 

Portland 124 

Raritan River Center 139 


St. Louis 124 

Salt Lake City 124 

San Francisco 124 

Schultz, Richard L 123-143 

Short, Robert J 123 


Thurmond, Senator Strom 123-143 

Transportation Act of 1967 129 

United States 124, 142 


Vancouver 124 


Washington, D.C 124 

Winnipeg 124 



3 9999 05995 193 7