v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/01-87/001
April 1987
Superfund
Study of Joint Use of
Vehicles for Transportation
of Hazardous and
Nonhazardous Materials
Report to Congress
-------
EPA 540/01-87-001
April 1987
STUDY OF JOINT USE OF VEHICLES
FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS AND
NONHAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A Report to Congress
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
IF.S.
'V ;icTi
-------
Ill
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 118(j) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct a
study and report to Congress on the problems associated with the joint use of
vehicles for transportation of both hazardous and nonhazardous substances.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Agency identified only a small number of joint-use contamination
incidents reported over a 30-year period in the United States, and determined
that the existing regulatory and nonregulatory incentives to minimize or avoid
contamination were sufficient so that it appears inappropriate at this time to
recommend further prohibition of the joint use of vehicles. Existing
Department of Transportation (DOT), EPA, and Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) regulations provide certain safeguards that reduce the risk of joint-use
contamination and the threat to public health and the environment. The Agency
also is not recommending at this time any further study of the joint-use
issue. EPA and DOT do not believe any special safeguards need to be
implemented. Although further research may uncover additional incidents of
joint-use contamination, the Agency believes that further study will not alter
the fundamental conclusion of this report that joint use of vehicles to
transport hazardous and nonhazardous materials is not a significant problem.
If Congress believes, however, that because of the short time frame available
for this study, potential areas may have been overlooked, the Agency has
identified the following data sources where additional transportation
incidents may be documented:
• EPA Regional and State data pertaining to sludge
transportation; and
• Contamination incidents identified by State health and
agricultural organizations, as well as other Federal
agencies.
Insufficient information exists at this time to recommend that "special
safeguards should be taken to minimize threats to public health and the
environment" caused by joint-use contamination incidents (SARA Section
H8(j)(1)(B)). While the Agency does not recommend any additional studies at
this time, the Agency recognizes that the scope of this study was limited.
However, in the course of conducting this study, the Agency has identified the
following potential areas that could be considered as part of any subsequent
review of this issue:
• Examine requiring carriers to inform shippers of
nonhazardous materials that the previous shipment
-------
IV
contained hazardous materials, and whether and how the
nondedicated vehicle was cleaned.
• Examine the extent to which generic decontamination
standards and/or substance-specific decontamination
standards may be needed for substances of greatest
concern that might pose a high risk, such as pesticides
contaminating food and fiber products.
• Examine the extension of marking regulations
applicable currently to tank cars and cargo tanks to
other bulk vehicles, particularly dump trucks and
chassis-mounted roll-off refuse containers. (DOT is
presently considering such a regulation.)
• Examine the need for requiring additional protection
or prohibit the simultaneous transportation of
foodstuffs and nonpoisonous hazardous materials that
exhibit harmful characteristics (e.g., potential
carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity). Such an approach
would be similar to the existing DOT regulations for
poisons in trucks and rail cars.
• Examine the need for requiring liners for certain
vehicles such as dump trucks when transporting hazardous
materials.
• Examine the need for prohibiting inadequate or
insufficient cleaning procedures that may contribute to
improper disposal of hazardous contaminants or may pose
a threat to a subsequent shipment of nonhazardous goods.
• Encourage the growth of the truck and rail car
cleaning industries to promote better cleaning practices
to reduce the likelihood of contamination, especially
during the back haul.
Finally, the following two areas were considered to be beyond the scope of
this study: joint use of vessels (i.e., watercraft) to transport hazardous
and nonhazardous materials, and the effectiveness of compliance with and
enforcement of existing regulations.
SCOPE AND STUDY APPROACH
In defining the scope of the study, EPA had to establish the appropriate
class of transport vehicles and the universe of hazardous substances of
concern. The Agency determined that the appropriate class of vehicles to
study includes both trucks and rail cars. DOT regulations cover both rail and
-------
motor vehicle transportation and these two modes of transportation share some
of the same problems. In addition, a review of the regulatory requirements of
one mode may suggest solutions to any gaps in the regulatory framework of the
other. So as not to limit in any way the investigation of the joint-use
issue, EPA sought to define the universe of hazardous contaminants covered by
this study as broadly as possible to include hazardous materials and hazardous
substances, as defined in DOT regulations (49 CFR §171); hazardous substances,
as defined by CERCLA Section 101(14); extremely hazardous substances as
defined by SARA Section 302; hazardous chemicals and toxic chemicals
identified in SARA Sections 311 and 313; and other substances that may pose a
threat to public health and the environment when released, misused, or
otherwise mishandled.
The Agency's approach to the study consisted of first determining whether
or not, and to what extent, a problem exists. This assessment was composed of
four elements: (1) a determination of the quantity of hazardous contaminants
transported annually in the United States, and how these quantities are
divided among the various modes of transportation; (2) an investigation of the
history of joint-use incidents, to the extent available, to place the problem
in perspective; (3) a determination of the potential problem, including a
categorization of hazardous contaminants; and (4) a development of scenarios
that illustrate the potential for harm to human health and the environment.
Second, the Agency reviewed existing Federal and State regulations to
assess the extent to which existing regulations provide ample protection
against joint-use contamination and to identify potential regulatory gaps, if
any.
Finally, the Agency conducted interviews to assess industry practices and
the incentives that lead to those practices. Representatives from industry
and carrier categories, trade associations, Federal, State, and local
governments, and others involved in hazardous materials transportation were
identified and contacted.
ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
In assessing the extent of the problem, three situations were analyzed
that could cause contamination of nonhazardous goods during transportation:
(1) residue remaining after a bulk shipment of a hazardous material causing
contamination of a subsequent shipment of a nonhazardous good in the same
vehicle; (2) a spill during a package shipment of a hazardous material causing
contamination of a subsequent package shipment of a nonhazardous good in the
same vehicle; and (3) a spill during a simultaneous shipment of packages of a
hazardous material and packages of a nonhazardous good. In spite of a broad
and careful search for incidents, over a 30-year period only 18 documented
cases of transportation-related contamination of nonhazardous goods by
hazardous materials were identified. Of these 18 cases, only 6 incidents
occurred in the United States. Five additional undocumented incidents were
-------
VI
described by people contacted during the study. The small number of incidents
identified in this study suggest that joint-use contamination may not be a
significant problem.
There are reasons to believe, however, that not all joint-use contamination
incidents have been discovered due to the difficulty in identifying the source
of contamination or because the consequences of contamination are not evident
immediately. In addition, the investigation of the extent of the potential
problem was hindered somewhat by the lack of a comprehensive data base related
to joint-use incidents. Consequently, while the evidence evaluated to date
indicates that the problem of joint-use contamination is minor, such evidence
is not conclusive.
REGULATORY COVERAGE AND POTENTIAL GAPS
Federal regulations provide some protection from contamination resulting
from bulk as well as from package shipments of hazardous material. DOT and
EPA regulations require reporting to the Federal government of releases from
packaged hazardous materials and hazardous substances. In addition, certain
Federal regulations expressly require cleaning of transport vehicles if a
spill from a packaged hazardous material occurs. For example, DOT regulations
provide that any spill of a hazardous material in a rail car must be removed.
DOT regulations also prohibit simultaneous transportation in the same rail car
of any package labeled as a poison and any foodstuff. FDA regulations
requiring inspection and cleaning of foodstuffs and drugs to remove surface
contaminants may reveal or remedy contamination. It therefore appears that
regulatory coverage exists to protect some products from contamination caused
by spills of packaged hazardous contaminants.
Despite the existing Federal regulations requiring notification,
placarding, marking, and labeling for hazardous materials in general, and the
cleaning and dedication regulations that exist for poisons in rail cars, the
regulatory coverage for bulk shipments is not as complete as it is for
packaged shipments. Placarding and marking requirements may provide the
shipper with an indication of what was carried previously in the vehicle but
these regulations were instituted to protect against other dangers and may not
be a consistent, reliable method of informing shippers of the potential danger
involved in loading the bulk vehicles with nonhazardous goods. In addition,
the placarding, marking, and labeling requirements are not universal; for
example, vehicles such as dump trucks carrying certain hazardous materials do
not have to be placarded or marked. Moreover, FDA inspection regulations may
not be sufficiently stringent to uncover all forms of contamination.
A review also was conducted of selected State regulations in this area.
These regulations also provide some protection from joint-use contamination.
-------
Vll
INDUSTRY PRACTICES
The gaps identified in the existing regulatory coverage, however, could be
at least partially filled by nonregulatory incentives for shippers, carriers,
and receivers to clean a vehicle or to take other precautions to prevent
contamination of nonhazardous materials. For example, shippers of Grade A
milk products have voluntarily established certain cleanliness standards for
transportation of their products so that the value of these products will be
preserved. In addition, the threat of statutory and common law liability may
influence shippers, carriers, and receivers to observe safety practices beyond
those required by regulation. Finally, the desire to maintain a positive
corporate image may be an incentive for precautionary industry practices, as
one contamination incident can gravely damage a corporate reputation and thus
jeopardize future business.
Although these incentives for observing safety precautions exist, other
market forces may lead to an increased likelihood of contamination resulting
from joint use. For example, competitive pressures on the trucking industry
encourage back hauling of dissimilar materials and discourage expensive
cleaning procedures. In addition, marginally viable carriers operating in
rate-sensitive markets may present a problem because such carriers have little
to lose financially and may not be affected by the pressure from potential
liability should contamination occur. The Agency believes, however, that
further study or regulatory action at this time is not warranted and
recommends, therefore, that no further action be taken.
-------
IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
LIST OF EXHIBITS xiii
CHAPTER 1 -- INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Purpose 1-1
1.2 Scope of the Study 1-2
1. 3 Study Approach 1-3
1.4 Report Organization 1-3
1.5 Acknowledgment 1-4
CHAPTER 2 -- ANALYSIS OF THE JOINT USE OF VEHICLES PROBLEM
2.1 Hazardous Materials Transportation 2-1
2.1.1 Transportation by Truck 2-3
2.1.2 Transportation by Rail 2-8
2.1.3 Summary 2-8
2.2 Illustrative Historical Incidents of Joint-Use Contamination .... 2-8
2.2.1 Documented Incidents of Joint-Use Contamination 2-13
2.2.2 Anecdotal Incidents of Joint-Use Contamination 2-18
2.3 Determination of the Potential Problem 2-19
2.3.1 Categorization of Hazardous Contaminants 2-19
2.3.2 Categorization of Nonhazardous Goods 2-22
2.3.3 Comparison of Hazardous Contaminants with
Nonhazardous Goods 2-23
2.4 Potential Contamination Scenarios 2-23
2.4.1 Contamination Scenarios with Potentially Serious
Consequences 2-23
2.4.2 Contamination Scenarios with Potentially Less
Serious Consequences 2-27
2.5 Conclusion Regarding Joint-Use Problems 2-28
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER 3 -- SELECTED REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE SIMULTANEOUS
AND SEQUENTIAL TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS AND
NONHAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.1 Regulation of Shippers, Carriers, and Receivers 3-4
3.1.1 Regulation of Shippers 3-4
3.1.2 Regulation of Carriers 3-10
3.1.3 Regulation of Receivers 3-14
3.1.4 Summary of Regulatory Coverage 3-14
3.2 Sequential Transportation of Hazardous Waste and
Sewage Sludge 3-16
3.3 Effective Regulatory Coverage and Potential Gaps 3-17
3.3.1 Sequential Bulk Shipments 3-18
3.3.2 Sequential Package Shipments 3-20
3.3.3 Simultaneous Package Shipments 3-22
CHAPTER 4 -- CURRENT TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND PRACTICES
4.1 Trucking Industry Practices 4-1
4.1.1 Hazardous Waste Transporters 4-2
4.1.2 Sewage Sludge Transporters 4-4
4.1.3 Chemical Transporters 4-6
4.1.4 Petroleum Transporters 4-6
4.1.5 Raw Agricultural Commodity Transporters 4-7
4.2 Railroad Industry Practices 4-10
4.2.1 Freight Car Service Rules 4-10
4.2.2 The National Car Grade System 4-11
4.3 Vehicle Cleaning and Dedication 4-11
4.4 Liability Issues 4-14
4.4.1 Statutory Liability 4-15
4.4.2 Common Law Liability 4-16
4.4.3 Distribution of Damages 4-19
4.5 Summary of Current Standards and Practices 4-21
-------
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER 5 -- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Extent of the Joint-Use Problem 5-1
5.2 Current Regulations and Industry Practices 5-1
5.3 Recommendations 5-3
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
APPENDIX A -- Regulations Relevant to the Joint Use of Trucks
APPENDIX B -- Persons Contacted
APPENDIX C -- Examples of Trucks and Rail Cars
-------
Xlll
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1
Exhibit 2-2
Exhibit 2-3
Exhibit 2-4
Exhibit 2-5
Exhibit 2-6
Exhibit 2-7
Exhibit 2-8
Exhibit 2-9
Exhibit 2-10
Exhibit 3-1
Exhibit 3-2
Exhibit 3-3
Exhibit 3-4
Exhibit 3-5
Exhibit 4-1
Hazardous Materials Transportation by Mode 2-2
Number of Trucks Carrying Hazardous and Nonhazardous
Materials 2-4
Percentage of Time Trucks are in Hazardous Materials
Service
2-5
Types of Trucks in Hazardous Materials Service 2-6
Trucks in Hazardous Materials Service Segregated by
Principal Product Carried 2-7
Hazardous Materials Transported by Rail by Hazard Class .... 2-9
Rail Transport of Hazardous Materials Segregated by
Car Type 2-10
Hazardous Materials Transported by Rail, by Commodity 2-11
Additional Documented Cases of Contamination Occurring
During Transport or Storage 2-17
Matrix Used for Assessing the Relative Hazards Resulting
from Contamination of Nonhazardous Goods by Hazardous
Contaminants 2-24
Summary of Selected U.S. Department of Transportation
Hazardous Materials Regulations in Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations 3-2
Department of Transportation/Hazard Classes 3-5
Examples of Labels and Placards for Hazardous Materials
Transportation 3-8
Summary of Regulatory Coverage in Joint Use of Vehicles .... 3-15
Summary of Potential Regulatory Gaps in Joint Use of
Vehicles 3-24
Number of Trucks Carrying Hazardous Materials by Industry
and Carrier Categories 4-3
Exhibit 4-2 Tank Trailer Cleaning Costs 4-13
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This Report to Congress documents the results of a study of the joint use
of vehicles for transportation of both hazardous and nonhazardous materials.
The study and this report are mandated by Section 118(j) of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), P.L. 99-499. Specifically,
Section 118(j) states:
(j) Study of Joint Use of Trucks. --
(1) Study. -- The Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, shall conduct a study of
problems associated with the use of any vehicle for
purposes other than the transportation of hazardous
substances when that vehicle is used at other times for the
transportation of hazardous substances. At a minimum, the
Administrator shall consider. --
(A) whether such joint use of vehicles should be
. prohibited, and
(B) whether, if such joint use is permitted, special
safeguards should be taken to minimize threats to
public health and the environment.
(2) Report. -- The Administrator shall submit a
report, along with recommendations, to Congress on the
results of the study conducted under paragraph (1) not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
The legislative history of Section 118(j) is limited. In offering this
amendment on the House floor, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey
indicated that
... this amendment requires the Administrator in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation to
conduct a study of the problems inherent in ... using the
same trucks or other vehicle[s] for the transportation of
hazardous materials and other substances such as sludge.
The amendment requires the Administrator to consider
whether joint use of the vehicles should be proscribed or,
if it is to be permitted, what safeguards should be
-------
1-2
promulgated to minimize risks to health and the
environment. 131 Congressional Record H11193 (Daily ed.
December 5, 1985).
In proposing Section 118(j), Congressional concern was voiced over truck
operators using the same trucks to haul hazardous wastes and sludge. The
specific issue of joint transportation of hazardous wastes and sludge is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 of this report.
1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The language of SARA and its legislative history raise two important
issues regarding the scope of this study:
(1) Is the study to be limited to the joint use of trucks
or should a broader class of transport vehicles be
considered; and
(2) What is the universe of hazardous contaminants of
concern?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the
appropriate class of vehicles to study includes both truck and rail
transporters. Although the title of Section 118(j) uses the term "trucks,"
the text of Section 118(j) refers to "any other vehicle[s] ...". In addition,
EPA believes that joint use involving rail transportation could occur and that
the risks associated with joint use of rail cars may be comparable to those of
motor vehicles. Finally, Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations cover
rail and motor vehicle transportation in a similar, although not identical,
manner. Clearly, rail and motor vehicle transportation could share some of
the same problems, and review of the regulatory requirements of one mode may
suggest solutions to any gaps in the regulatory framework of the other.
Watercraft (i.e., vessels) are excluded from this study because they are
defined separately from motor vehicles and rolling stock in Section 101 of
CERCLA, and the more narrow focus of the study seemed to better reflect
Congressional intent. Because hazardous materials transported by vessel
represent a significant portion of all hazardous materials transportation,
however, the potential for joint-use contamination aboard vessels could be the
subject of a future study, as noted in Chapter 5 of this report.
Regarding the universe of hazardous contaminants covered by this study,
SARA Section 118(j) refers to "hazardous substances" while the legislative
history refers to both "hazardous materials" and "hazardous wastes." With
this minimal and inconclusive guidance, EPA sought to define the universe of
hazardous contaminants as broadly as possible so as not to limit in any way
the investigation of the joint-use issue. Household hazardous waste
transportation is not included in this report, however, because this is a
subject of separate study by the Agency.1 As a result, the universe of
*For further information, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "A
Survey of Household Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs," October
1986.
-------
1-3
hazardous contaminants includes hazardous materials and hazardous substances
as defined in DOT regulations (49 CFR §171); hazardous substances as defined
by CERCLA Section 101(14) (including RCRA hazardous wastes); extremely
hazardous substances as defined by SARA Section 302; hazardous chemicals and
toxic chemicals identified in SARA Sections 311 and 313; and other substances
which may pose a threat to the public health and the environment when
released, misused, or otherwise mishandled.2 This definition proved useful
in defining the nature and scope of the joint-use problem, but does not
correspond strictly to, and is more expansive than, current DOT regulatory
requirements for transportation of hazardous contaminants. Those requirements
are generally limited to a universe of DOT "hazardous materials," which
includes both "hazardous wastes" and "hazardous substances." The regulatory
review portion of the study, then, was generally limited to the existing
regulatory requirements for the hazardous materials subset of hazardous
contaminants.
1.3 STUDY APPROACH
The study sought to assess whether a problem existed with respect to the
joint use of vehicles for hazardous and nonhazardous materials transportation
and the extent to which the public is protected from any health and
environmental risks resulting from such practices. Because the initial
concern with the issue of joint use arose over the transport of sewage sludge,
particular attention in the problem assessment phase of this study was focused
on uncovering incidents of joint use involving sludge. Assessment of the
existence of a joint-use problem, however, was hindered somewhat by a lack of
comprehensive data for this unique subset of transportation incidents.
The basic approach for assessing the scope of available protection and any
gaps that may exist was to review current regulatory requirements and industry
practices. The study did not attempt to assess the extent of any
noncompliance with current statutory and regulatory requirements regarding
transportation of hazardous materials. In evaluating the level of protection
provided, the study focused on three scenarios that are most likely to result
in contamination of nonhazardous goods during transportation: (1) residue
remaining after a bulk shipment of a hazardous material causing contamination
of a subsequent bulk shipment of a nonhazardous good in the same vehicle; (2)
a spill during packaged (i.e., containerized) shipment of a hazardous material
causing contamination of a subsequent packaged shipment of a nonhazardous
material; and (3) a spill during simultaneous shipment of packages of a
hazardous material and packages of a nonhazardous material.
1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
• Chapter 2 provides available information on the nature
and scope of the joint use problem.
Definitions of terms used in this report are included in a glossary
appended to this report.
-------
1-4
• Chapter 3 reviews and summarizes the regulatory
requirements for shippers, carriers, and receivers of
hazardous materials and identifies regulatory gaps. It
also provides an analysis of sequential bulk shipment of
hazardous waste and sewage sludge.
• Chapter 4 analyzes current industry standards and
practices.
• Chapter 5 summarizes the results of the study and
provides appropriate conclusions and recommendations to
Congress.
1.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This EPA Report to Congress was prepared in full consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation and with DOT's Office of Hazardous Materials
Transportation. EPA gratefully acknowledges the close cooperation and
substantial contribution made by the Transportation Systems Center throughout
the study and during preparation of this report.
-------
CHAPTER 2
ANALYSIS OF THE JOINT USE OF VEHICLES PROBLEM
An accurate analysis of the problems that may arise as a result of the
joint use of vehicles requires that the basic constituents of the problem be
identified and defined. The joint use of vehicles, for purposes of this
study, refers to the simultaneous or sequential use of a motor vehicle, such
as a truck or rail car, to transport: (1) hazardous contaminants; and (2)
nonhazardous goods, such as food or fibers. The specific problem targeted for
study is the incidence of contamination of a nonhazardous good by a hazardous
contaminant.
The analysis of the joint use of vehicles problem requires the examination
of four elements. The analysis begins with a determination of the quantity of
hazardous contaminants transported annually in the United States, and how
these quantities are divided among the various modes of transportation.
Secondly, the history, to the extent available, of joint-use incidents is
investigated in order to place the problem in perspective. The third element
in the analysis is an illustration of the potential problem, which includes a
categorization of hazardous contaminants and the nonhazardous goods they may
contaminate. The fourth element of the analysis is the development of
scenarios that illustrate the potential for harm to human health and the
environment. These scenarios were extrapolated, in part, from information
provided in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of this chapter. The scenarios are for
illustrative and for discussion purposes only and do not address the
probability of an actual occurrence.
2.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
National statistics on hazardous materials1 transportation are presented
in Exhibit 2-1. Approximately 1.5 billion tons of hazardous materials were
transported by aircraft, watercraft, truck, and rail car in 1982, the most
recent year for which statistics are available.
Because the number of shipments, and not the length of the haul,
determines the opportunity for joint-use contamination, each transportation
mode's share of tons, rather than the product of tons and miles transported,
is presented in Exhibit 2-1. Possibilities for joint-use contamination exist
1The statistics presented in this section were prepared by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Office of
Technology Assessment, and the Federal Railroad Administration, and reflect
transportation of hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR §171. Hazardous
materials also include CERCLA hazardous substances (which include
radionuclides and RCRA hazardous wastes), but not all conceivable hazardous
contaminants. The Agency believes, however, that these statistics fairly
describe the overall situation.
-------
2-2
Exhibit 2-1
Hazardous Materials Transportation
in the United States by Mode (1982)
35%
Truck - 927 million tons
Watercraft - 549 million tons
Rail Car - 73 million tons
60%
Note: Aircraft transported 0.3 million tons of hazardous material in 1982. This ac-
counts for less than 0.02% of the total.
Source: George List and Mark Abkowitz, "Estimates of Hazardous Material Flow Patterns"
Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 4 (October 1986) 483-502.
-------
2-3
for every mode of transportation, including aircraft, watercraft, truck, and
rail car. SARA Section 118(j), however, requires a "study of problems
associated with the use of any vehicle for purposes other than the
transportation of hazardous substances when that vehicle is used at other
times for the transportation of hazardous substances" [emphasis added].
Additionally, CERCLA defines "vessel" as any watercraft and distinguishes
these from "facility," which includes vehicles such as trucks and rail cars
(40 CFR §302.3). For these reasons, only transportation by truck and rail car
are addressed here (air transportation of hazardous materials accounts for
only a small fraction, less than 0.02 percent, of the total, and is not
considered in this study).
2.1.1 Transportation by Truck
Exhibit 2-2 illustrates that only a small proportion of the truck
population (3 percent) was used for the transportation of hazardous materials
in 1982. Many of the trucks used in hazardous materials transportation are
not used exclusively for this purpose. Exhibit 2-3 relates the number of
trucks used for hazardous materials transportation to the percentage of time
they were used for this purpose. Because these statistics reflect the use of
a tractor in combination vehicles, they tend to understate, to an unknown
degree, the proportion of the time an accompanying trailer is involved in
hazardous materials transportation. The statistics shown in Exhibit 2-3 are
important to the joint-use study because they illustrate the large proportion
of trucks used for hazardous materials transportation and, at other times, for
nonhazardous goods transportation.
The types of trucks involved in hazardous materials transportation are
identified in Exhibit 2-4.2 The most common truck type used for this
purpose is the enclosed van. These vehicles generally are not used for bulk
shipments, but rather in shipment of packaged hazardous materials. Because
approximately 70 percent of all trucks hauling hazardous materials carry
package shipments, DOT regulations that require cleaning of spills from
packages cover most hazardous materials shipments. The only truck types
commonly used for bulk shipments of hazardous materials are tank trucks (dry
and liquid), dump trucks, grain body trucks, and cargo container chassis
trucks.
Exhibit 2-5 segregates trucks that carry hazardous materials according to
the major products carried. The exhibit indicates that the largest percentage
of trucks in hazardous materials service carry petroleum products, mixed
cargo, and chemicals. These trucks account for two-thirds of all trucks in
hazardous materials service. Vehicles used by craftsmen and trucks used to
haul mixed cargo, processed foods, machinery, and fabricated metal products
would not be expected to haul bulk cargo. The majority of trucks hauling
petroleum products are dedicated tank trucks, and would not be expected to
contribute to a joint-use problem. Those remaining, however, represent about
one-third of the fleet subject to the possibility of joint-use contamination.
2See the Glossary for descriptions and Appendix C for illustrations of
the trucks listed in Exhibit 2-4.
-------
2-4
Exhibit 2-2
Number of Trucks Carrying Hazardous
and Nonhazardous Materials (1982)
97%
Trucks Never Carrying
Hazardous Materials -
14,600,000
Trucks Carrying Hazardous
Materials - 460,000
3%
Source: 1982 Census of Transportation, Truck Inventory and Use Survey, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, September, 1985.
-------
2-5
Thousands
of
Trucks
Exhibit 2-3
Percentage of Time Trucks are in
Hazardous Materials Service
Less than 25%
25% to 49%
50% to 74%
75% to 100%
Proportion of Time Carrying Hazardous Materials
Source: 1982 Census of Transportation, Truck Inventory and Use Survey, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, September, 1985.
-------
EXHIBIT 2-4
Types of Trucks in Hazardous Materials Service (1982)
Truck Type*
Basic Enclosed Van
Tank Truck
Pick-up
Platform Type
Insulated Nonref r igerated Van
Pa ne 1 o r Va n
Oi 1 fie Id Truck
Dump Truck
Mu 1 t i stop/Wa 1 k in
Insulated Refrigerated Van
Tank Truck (Dry Bulk)
Service Truck
Publ ic Ut i 1 ity
Grain Body
Low Boy/Depressed Center
Drop-frame Van
Open-top Van
Cargo Container Chassis
Winch/Crane
Beverage
Other
TOTAL
No. of Trucks
(thousands)
140.6
129.9
88.9
45.4
9.8
7.8
7.8
4.0
4.1
3.7
2.8
2.8
1.6
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.3
6.5
461.4
% of
Trucks
30.47
28.15
19.27
9.84
2.12
1.69
1.69
0.87
0.89
0.80
0.61
0.61
0.35
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.17
0.17
0. 11
0.07
1.41
100.00
Cumulative %
30.47
58.63
77.89
87.73
89.86
91.55
93.24
94.10
94.99
95.80
96.40
97.01
97.36
97.64
97.88
98.07
98.24
98.42
98.53
98.59
100.00
Bulk 'B1
Package 'P'
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
*See the Glossary for descriptions and Appendix C for illustrations of representative truck types.
SOURCE: 1982 Census of Transportation, Truck Inventory and Survey, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, September, 1985.
10
i
-------
2-7
EXHIBIT 2-5
Trucks in Hazardous Materials Service Segregated
by Principal Product Carried (1982)
Product Type
Petroleum
Mixed Cargo
Chemical
Processed Foods
Machinery
Craftsmens1 Vehicles
Agriculture
Fabricated Metal
Scrap/Refuse
Other
TOTAL
No. of Trucks
(thousands)
136.7
113.6
60.1
12.1
8.4
32.2
14.0
6.9
6.9
70.5
461.4
% of
Trucks
29.63
24.62
13.03
2.62
1.82
6.98
3.03
1.50
1.50
15.28
100.00
SOURCE: 1982 Census of Transportation, Truck Inventory and Use Survey, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, September, 1985.
-------
2-8
2.1.2 Transportation By Rail
Significant quantities (73 million tons in 1983) of hazardous materials
are transported by rail. As shown in Exhibit 2-6, the largest quantities
transported are flammable liquids (e.g., petroleum products) and corrosive
materials (e.g., sulfuric acid). Smaller amounts of liquified nonflammable
gases and flammable compressed gases are also carried. Only a very small
fraction of the total transported was represented by Poison B (3 percent),
Poison A (0.1 percent), and radioactive material (0.01 percent).3
Considering the total tonnage, however, this represents a significant amount
in terms of quantity and number of shipments.
The majority of hazardous materials transported by rail in 1983 was
carried by tank car. Other types of cars, including box cars, refrigerator
cars, hoppers and gondolas, together haul only 10 percent of hazardous
materials carried by rail, as shown in Exhibit 2-7. Exhibit 2-8 illustrates
that chemicals and petroleum products make up the vast majority of hazardous
materials transported by rail, comprising 68 percent and 23 percent,
respectively, of the total.
2.1.3 Summary
Huge quantities of hazardous materials are transported in the United
States every year. Although the statistics presented here do not address the
joint-use problem, it is clear that the potential for joint-use contamination
exists. This potential will be examined further in the remaining sections of
this chapter, while regulations addressing the transport of hazardous
materials will be discussed in Chapter 3.
2.2 ILLUSTRATIVE HISTORICAL INCIDENTS OF JOINT-USE CONTAMINATION
An examination of historical information concerning joint-use
contamination incidents will identify, and place in perspective, some of the
problems likely to arise when vehicles are used to transport both hazardous
contaminants and nonhazardous goods. To this end, an effort was made to
compile historical incidents that document, to varying degrees, contamination
of nonhazardous goods which occurred as a result of joint use of a
transportation vehicle. Generally, contamination of nonhazardous goods in a
vehicle that has been used to transport hazardous contaminants may arise in
three particular ways: (1) residue remaining after a bulk shipment of a
hazardous contaminant causing contamination of a subsequent bulk shipment of a
hazardous or nonhazardous good in the same vehicle; (2) a spill during package
(i.e., containerized) shipment of a hazardous contaminant causing
contamination of a subsequent package shipment of a hazardous or nonhazardous
good; and (3) a spill during a simultaneous shipment of packages of a
hazardous contaminant and packages of a nonhazardous good.
3See Exhibit 3-2 for definitions of Poison B, Poison A, and radioactive
material.
-------
2-9
Exhibit 2-6
Hazardous Material Transported
by Rail by Hazard Class (1983)
22%
12%
12%
26%
Flammable Liquid
Corrosive Material
Flammable Compressed
Gas
Combustible Liquid/
Nonflammable
Compressed Gas
Poison/Nuclear
Other
25%
Source: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Transportation of Hazardous Materials,
OTA-SET-304 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, July, 1986).
-------
2-10
EXHIBIT 2-7
Rail Transport of Hazardous Material Segregated
by Car Type
Car Type
Tank
Hopper and Gondola
Flat
Box and Refrigerator
Other
TOTAL
Tons Carried
45,853,875
2,961,792
1,311,842
650,061
304,505
51,082,075*
Percent
89
5
2
1
0
100
of Total
.8
.7
,6
.3
.6
.0
*This total was developed under the Standard Transportation Commodity
Code-49 (STCC). This method differs from the methods of List and Abkowitz
(Exhibit 2-1) and the Office of Technology Assessment (Exhibit 2-6) and leads
to a somewhat smaller total.
SOURCE: 1983 Carload Waybill Statistics, Report TD-1. Federal Railroad
Administration, Washington, B.C. April, 1986.
-------
2-11
Exhibit 2-8
Hazardous Material Transported
by Rail, by Commodity (1983)
3.2%
[ I Chemical - 38.3 million tons
Petroleum - 11.1 million tons
Other - 1.6 million tons
75.1%
Source: 1983 Carload Waybill Statistics, Report TD-1. Federal Railroad Administration, Wash-
ington, D.C. April, 1986.
-------
2-12
Specifically, this section includes 18 documented incidents and five
anecdotal incidents of joint-use contamination. Section 2.2.1 abstracts four
cases that are well documented, and Exhibit 2-9 presents 14 other documented
cases in tabular form. Section 2.2.2 discusses five cases that have not been
thoroughly documented; however, the source or sources of this information
serve as grounds for a reasonable inference that these reports represent
actual occurrences of contamination. These documented and anecdotal incidents
of joint-use contamination are primarily for illustrative purposes, and do not
necessarily reflect all contamination incidents, documented or undocumented,
within the time period in which the incidents presented in this section have
occurred. The historical incidents discussed in this section, however, are
representative of the manner in which contamination could occur, the types of
nonhazardous goods that could be contaminated, and the nature and type of the
hazardous contaminants themselves.
Significant limitations to gathering data on the history of joint-use
contamination have become evident. One limitation is the absence of
comprehensive data to identify joint-use incidents. EPA, DOT, and other
agencies have information on hazardous contaminant transportation incidents
because certain releases of hazardous materials and hazardous substances must
be reported to various authorities. For example, DOT regulations require the
submission of a carrier report, in writing, if during transportation, a
hazardous material is unintentionally released from a packaging or any
quantity of hazardous waste is discharged (49 CFR §171.16(a)). A carrier is
also required to notify DOT by telephone if, as a result of the release of a
hazardous material (including a hazardous waste), a person is killed or
hospitalized, property damage exceeds $50,000, spillage or suspected
contamination occurs involving shipments of radioactive material or etiologic
agents, or an incident occurs comparable in seriousness to those mentioned
above (49 CFR §171.15)." However, this incident data base is neither
designed nor organized to be accessible in a manner conducive to the data
needs of this joint-use study. Particularly, in most cases, it appears that
the release is what will trigger a reporting requirement; the regulations do
not initially focus on the contamination, if any, that may have resulted.
Moreover, usually only those contamination incidents that produced a very
significant result, such as death, serious injury, or extreme property damage,
will be documented such that the data can be readily accessed at a later time.
The methodology used to ascertain the historical data discussed in
Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of this chapter involved the use of a survey
approach. Contact was initiated with personnel at Federal and State agencies
and in private industry who were believed to be in a position to possess, or
know of potential sources for information on incidents of joint-use
contamination. Federal agency contacts included personnel at DOT, EPA, the
Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Office
''DOT and EPA regulations relating to reporting and other requirements
involved in the transportation of hazardous materials and wastes are discussed
in greater detail in Chapter 3.
-------
2-13
of Technology Assessment. State environmental, health, transportation, and
diagnostic toxicology personnel were also resources for the data discussed in
this chapter. Private industry contacts, such as personnel at trucking
companies, associations, and chemical manufacturers provided some assistance
in the research effort. The aforementioned personal and telephone contacts
produced both documented and anecdotal incidents for use in this chapter.
Appendix B contains a list of those organizations and people contacted to
obtain information for this study.
2.2.1 Documented Incidents of Joint-Use Contamination
Case I.5 On August 19, 1968, several individuals in the Houston, Texas
area experienced an outbreak of intestinal upset with associated salivation,
perspiration, cough, and coma. The first victim, a 53-year-old man, became
ill four hours after eating his usual dinner at home. He was admitted to the
county hospital in a semicomatose state. Later that same evening his
10-year-old daughter and 27-year-old son were admitted to the hospital with
similar symptoms. An aunt and uncle, who came from a nearby city to render
assistance, also became ill after eating at the family home. All leftover
food was thrown into a chicken coop behind the house and eight chickens, a
dog, and a cat died the following day.
The patients, on recovery, denied having any contact with pesticides.
Clinical interpretation of signs and symptoms, however, suggested acute
organic phosphate poisoning. Although no pesticide was positively
demonstrated to be present in the blood of the hospitalized patients, clinical
diagnosis was confirmed by other laboratory tests as acute organic phosphate
poisoning.
The source of the human illness and animal deaths was traced to
consumption of homemade tortillas, which contained flour, baking powder, lard,
and salt; only the flour had not been used in the preparation of other meals.
The family had recently purchased the flour in a torn 100-pound paper sack.
Samples of the flour were shown by gas liquid partition chromatography to
contain more than 300 parts per million of carbophenothion, a hazardous
material and organophosphorus pesticide.
After the flour was packaged by the miller, it was stored in a warehouse
and then shipped by railroad car before reaching the retail outlet. A second
sack from this same outlet showed evidence of a stain on the bag, which was
also determined to be carbophenothion. Although no conclusive evidence of a
spill or contamination could be found in the warehouse or railroad car, one of
these two locations was suspected as the place where the contamination event
occurred.
501der, J.J., and Hatcher, R.L. "Food Poisoning Caused by Carbophenothion,'
J.A.M.A., 209:1328-1330 (1969).
-------
2-14
Case 2.6 On March 29, 1964, a 5-year-old boy was admitted to Lions Gate
Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, semicomatose and in respiratory
distress. The history indicated that on March 27 he did not feel well and
vomited two or three times. On the morning of admission he complained of sore
eyes and blurred vision and appeared somewhat confused. The child
subsequently became deeply comatose and respiration was maintained
artificially. That evening the patient's condition suddenly and inexplicably
began to improve. The child's condition continued to improve and he was
discharged from the hospital on April 9.
On April 7, a 12-year-old boy, who was a neighbor of the 5-year-old, was
admitted to the hospital with practically identical symptoms. His illness
followed the same course as that of the 5-year-old, becoming worse, then,
inexplicably, improving. The 12-year-old boy was discharged on April 18.
On April 11, the 5-year-old boy was readmitted to the hospital with the
same symptoms as had been observed on March 29. His illness followed the same
course as the last onset of the symptoms, leading to a deep coma and severe
respiratory difficulty. These symptoms seemed typical of anticholinesterase
poisoning produced by organophosphorus pesticides, but no history of exposure
was evident.
On April 13, an older brother of the 5-year-old, who was in bed,
complained that he had a headache. A brown stain was observed on a
flannelette sheet; flannelette sheets had been used by several members of both
families. The onset of symptoms appeared to be in the morning, after
awakening, and disappeared once contact with the sheets was discontinued;
therefore, the flannelette sheets were suspected as the source of the
illness. The brown stain on the sheet was ultimately analyzed as parathion,
an organophosphorus pesticide. Fortunately, efforts to recover other
contaminated sheets to prevent additional human reactions to the contaminant
were successful.
Investigation indicated that the sheets had been loaded at Antwerp,
Belgium, on a German freighter and off-loaded in Vancouver on February 5,
1964. Further investigation revealed that the German freighter had also
carried 72 55-galIon drums of parathion in the same hold as the flannelette
sheets. The drums of parathion had been unloaded in California before the
ship reached Vancouver. A thorough investigation was initiated in British
Columbia and California in order to determine if any other goods had been
contaminated. As a result of this investigation, some silk and a number of
contaminated baby blankets were found and destroyed.
The contamination in this case probably occurred in the hold of the German
vessel. Although the scope of this joint-use study does not extend to
6Anderson, L.S., Warner, D.L., Parker, J.E., Bluman, N., and Page, B.D.,
"Parathion Poisoning From Flannelette Sheets," Can. Med. Assoc. J., 92:809-813
(1965).
-------
2-15
vessels, this incident is significant by analogy. Further, the insidious
nature of the contamination that resulted from the mixed load in the hold of
the German freighter is likely to be observed in any joint-use contamination
incident regardless of the mode of transportation involved.
Case 3.7 An 8-year-old Fresno, California, boy was diagnosed on October
4, 1961, as suffering from organic phosphate poisoning. His illness, which
had developed at school, was evidenced by rapid pulse and respiration, pallor,
and a "glassy stare." He later developed muscle twitches, diarrhea, abdominal
pain, and vomiting. The public health department was unable to find the
source of the poisoning. Several days after discharge from the hospital, +-v>«
boy's symptoms returned while he was riding in the family car. As a
consequence, the search for a cause was limited to the contents of the car and
the clothing common to the two episodes. A stain on the boy's blue jeans, and
the symptoms and diagnosis, indicated that the jeans should be tested for a
pesticide contaminant. Testing demonstrated that exposure of adult mosquitoes
to the jeans resulted in the death of the mosquito colonies.
A few days later, another boy was admitted to the hospital in a comatose
state. This boy also had been wearing unwashed new blue jeans. Testing of
his clothes revealed that adult mosquito colonies were killed when exposed to
the blue jeans.
Both pairs of blue jeans were traced to a damaged goods outlet of a local
trucking firm. A warning was issued to alert the public to the blue jean
contamination, and in response, all the contaminated clothes were recovered.
An investigation by the health department revealed that approximately
eight months prior to the aforementioned incidents, these pants had been
shipped 225 miles on a truck that also carried 120 gallons of phosdrin, an
organophosphate pesticide. Apparently, phosdrin had spilled in the truck and
contaminated the pants: the recipients of the goods had filed claims, one for
the loss of one and one-eighth gallons of phosdrin, and the other for stain
damage to 16 pairs of blue jeans.
Case 4.* During the afternoon of May 2, 1956, 10 men working in a
factory northeast of Swansea in Wales fell violently ill. Emissions from the
factory were at first suspected as the cause of the illness, but were later
eliminated from suspicion due to the widespread incidence of the disease. The
following day 47 additional cases with similar symptoms were identified. In
all, 59 people sought medical treatment, and it was estimated that an
additional 100 individuals were affected but did not seek medical help.
7Warren, M.C., Conrad, J.C., Bocian, J.J., and Hayes, M., "Clothing Borne
Epidemic. Organic Phosphate Poisoning in Children," J.A.M.A., 184:266-268
(1963).
"Davies, G.M., and Lewis, I., "Outbreak of Food Poisoning from Bread
Made of Chemically Contaminated Flour," Br. Med. J., 2:393-398 (1956).
-------
2-16
Research indicated that all of the victims had consumed a bread product
produced at a local bakery.
Further investigation revealed that the baker had returned two sacks of
flour to his supplier because the flour had an unusual odor. Apparently,
however, additional sacks had been contaminated and used in the preparation of
bread. An announcement was made on the radio advising the local population to
destroy any bread purchased from the suspect bakery. In at least one case,
however, the bread was fed to 12 chickens, all of whom died.
The two sacks of flour the baker had returned to his supplier were traced
to a warehouse in Swansea and were found to have an aromatic odor at the
bottom of the sack. Analysis of the sacking and the immediately adjacent
flour indicated contamination by endrin, a halogenated insecticide, which is a
central nervous system stimulant. Shipping invoices were used to trace the
history of the shipment containing these two sacks of flour. It was found
that they were loaded on a rail car in Cardiff, Wales, on April 21, unloaded
at Swansea on the 25th of April, and immediately delivered to the baker along
with other sacks.
Further inquiry involving several parties indicated that endrin had been
transported and spilled in the rail car on February 20th of the year in which
the incident was reported. The spill involved an unspecified quantity of
endrin as a concentrated (800 to 1600 times more concentrated than used for
spraying) solution in xylene. Scrapings from the floor of the car showed a
concentration of 116,000 parts per million of endrin.
Summary of Cases
The four cases discussed above exemplify the means by which a hazardous
contaminant may contact a nonhazardous good, the types of nonhazardous goods
that are vulnerable to contamination, and the hazardous contaminants that may
be responsible for the contamination and the resultant harm. Specifically,
Case 1 shows that a nonhazardous good (flour) in a sack, in either a railcar
or warehouse, could be contaminated by a hazardous contaminant
(carbophenothion) and cause serious illness in humans as well as deaths of
animals. Case 2 demonstrates that sheets stored in the same compartment as
parathion on a transport vessel could be subject to contamination and cause
serious illness. Case 3 illustrates that an article of clothing when shipped
on a truck carrying a hazardous contaminant (phosdrin) is susceptible to
contamination that can cause significant health effects. Case 4 emphasizes
the seriousness and widespread health effects, including severe human illness
and animal deaths, of contamination of an edible good (flour) that had been
contaminated by a halogenated insecticide (endrin), which had been spilled in
the same railcar that was used to transport the flour.
For the sake of brevity, Exhibit 2-9 presents in tabular form 14
additional cases of joint-use contamination.
-------
2-17
EXHIBIT 2-9
Additional Documented Cases of Contamination Occurring
During Transport or Storage
Contaminant
Involved
PCBs
Freon
Lead Oxide
Endrin
Endrin
Endrin
Dieldrin
Diazinon
Parathion
Parathion
Parathion
Parathion
Parathion
Parathion
Sources :
Material
Contaminated
Oats
Propane
Corn Gluten
Flour
Flour
Flour
Food
Doughnut Mix
Wheat
Barley
Flour
Flour
Flour
Flour and Sugar
No. of No. of
Injuries Deaths
0
76
24
3
691
183
21
20
360
38
200
26
600
559
0
0
(dogs) 24 (dogs)
0
24
2
0
0
102
9
8
0
88
16
Location
USA
USA
USA
Egypt
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Shipboard
USA
India
Malaya
Egypt
Yugoslavia
Columbia
Mexico
Year
1982
1986
1974
1967
1967
1967
1962
1965
1958
1960
1958
1961
1967
1968
PCBs: Neil Ross, Environmental Conservation Officer, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Arresting Officer on November 4,
1982 in Gasport, New York.
Freon: EPA
Lead Oxide:
International,
Region IX file dated
February 10, 1986.
United States vs . Penn
Inc. , No. 78-10008 (S
.D.
Central Transportation Co. and CPC
111 1978).
Endrin, Dieldrin, Diazinon, and Parathion: Hayes, W.J., "Toxicology of
Pesticides," The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1975.
-------
2-18
2.2.2 Anecdotal Incidents of Joint Use Contamination
In the course of the Agency's investigation of joint-use contamination
incidents, individuals in Federal and State government and private concerns
related joint-use contamination incidents that they knew of although they did
not have any documentation on them. Five of these incidents are reported
below.
Case I.9 This source indicates that sometime in 1984 or 1985, a truck
in the State of Idaho was carrying both meat and a pesticide. A leak in a
container of pesticide allowed the pesticide to contaminate the meat. The
source had no knowledge of whether or not deaths or injuries occurred in this
case.
Case 2.l° This source relates a 1974 incident involving a liquid tank
truck used to haul a liquid fertilizer (possibly a solution of ammonium
nitrate) and subsequently used to haul potable water. The water was placed in
field tanks for cattle, several of which died from drinking this water.
Case 3.11 This source indicates that propane is occasionally
contaminated with anhydrous ammonia. Both substances are gases at standard
temperature and pressure and are usually stored and transported as liquids
under pressure. In rural areas propane is used as a fuel for space heating,
water heating, and cooking while ammonia is used as a fertilizer. The
greatest demand for propane is in the winter, while ammonia is in most demand
in the summer. The vessels needed to transport these liquids are identical.
Because seasonal use for propane and ammonia is complementary, the same trucks
are often used for hauling both commodities at different times. If a truck
used for hauling ammonia is not properly cleaned before returning it to
propane service, contamination will occur.
Case 4. 12 This source identified a contamination incident that occurred
in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in the fall of 1986. Thousands of yards of cloth
destined for the manufacture of baby clothes were contaminated with Dinoseb, a
nitrophenol insecticide. A yellow stain caused by the Dinoseb was
sufficiently noticeable that the yard goods were rejected by the receiver.
The carrier was found to have transported Dinoseb in the same truck on an
earlier date and failed to clean the truck properly.
9Edith Page, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.
Telephone interview, January 20, 1987.
10Dr. Frank Ross, National Veterinary Services Laboratory, Food and Drug
Administration, Ames, IA. Telephone interview, January 29, 1987.
llRon DeNoville, Crawford and Co. (a private risk management service).
Telephone interview, January 28, 1987.
12Bob Mesecher, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Pesticide and Plant
Pest Management Division, Lansing, MI. Telephone interview, February 4, 1987.
-------
2-19
Case 5.13 This source reported an incident that occurred recently at a
bubble gum factory in Hastings, Michigan (date unavailable). While unloading
molten wax used in bubble gum preparation from a tank truck, the manager noted
an unusual odor. Because of this odor, the wax was not used in the
manufacture of the bubble gum. Subsequent investigation revealed that the
trucker's previous shipment was dichloroaniline. Analysis indicated
significant levels of dichloroaniline in the wax.
2.3 ILLUSTRATION OF THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM
In addition to the examination of the extent of hazardous material
transportation and the history of joint-use contamination, the third element
that is necessary in an analysis of the joint-use problem is an evaluation of
the potential hazards involved in joint use of vehicles. One method for
illustrating potential hazard to the public health and the environment
resulting from joint use of vehicles is to estimate the extent of hazard for
each hazardous contaminant combined with each transported nonhazardous good.
The set of the hazards estimated in this way indicates the possible levels of
hazard for each situation. If this level of hazard coupled with the estimated
frequency of occurrence is determined to be unreasonable, then regulation or
some other mechanism to reduce the hazard to an acceptable level may be
warranted.
The possible combinations of hazardous contaminants and nonhazardous goods
are far too numerous to deal with effectively. In order to permit meaningful
discussion and some appreciation of the potential hazard associated with the
joint use of vehicles, some manageable aggregation of the possible
combinations must be developed. Hazardous contaminants and the nonhazardous
goods they could feasibly contaminate must be categorized into manageable
groups. This section is divided into four major parts. The first, Section
2.3.1, describes the method used in this report for categorizing hazardous
contaminants into manageable groups that might be used for hazard assessment.
Section 2.3.2 describes the method chosen for categorizing nonhazardous goods
into groups that might be affected by hazardous contaminants concurrently or
previously hauled in a truck or rail car. In Section 2.3.3, a matrix is
developed as a general guide for illustrating the relative hazards resulting
from contamination of nonhazardous goods by hazardous contaminants. In
Section 2.3.4, various contamination scenarios are analyzed and their
potential to affect public health and the environment is discussed.
2.3.1 Categorization of Hazardous Contaminants
The number and variety of potential hazardous contaminants is very
large.14 Potential hazardous contaminants can, among other things, be acute
13Dr. Brazelton, Chief, Analytic Toxicology Laboratory, Michigan State
University, Lansing, MI. Telephone interview, January 30, 1987.
1"There are 717 CERCLA hazardous substances alone. This study
contemplates the entire universe of hazardous contaminants, which is probably
several times larger.
-------
2-20
or chronic toxicants, potential carcinogens, mutagens, or flammable
materials. They can be solids, liquids, or gases, or found in solution. The
Agency, for the purposes of this report, categorizes hazardous contaminants
according to a variety of their properties.
Each hazardous contaminant may be ranked and classified relative to other
contaminants; that is, as being less hazardous, approximately equally
hazardous, or more hazardous than another hazardous contaminant. If, for
example, in comparing two hazardous contaminants, the measure of hazard is
ignitability, the hazardous contaminant with the lower flash point might be
considered the more hazardous contaminant. This comparison becomes much more
difficult when more than one property of a group of hazardous contaminants
must be used to produce a list of relative hazards. One of several possible
approaches to this problem is exemplified in the determination of reportable
quantities (RQs) for the current list of 717 CERCLA hazardous substances.
Sections 103(a) and 103(b) of CERCLA require that persons in charge of
vessels or facilities from which hazardous substances have been released in
quantities that are equal to or greater than the RQ immediately notify the
National Response Center15 of the release. Notification based on RQs serves
as a trigger for informing the government of a release so that the need for a
response can be evaluated. The RQs do not reflect nor imply a determination
that a release of a hazardous substance will be hazardous at or above the RQ
level and not hazardous below that level. EPA has not attempted to make such
a determination, because the actual hazard will depend on the particular
circumstances of each release (50 FR 13465). Federal personnel will evaluate
all reported releases of an RQ or more, although the government will not
necessarily respond to all these releases with a CERCLA-funded removal or
remedial action.
The RQ adjustment methodology is based upon six primary criteria: (1)
aquatic toxicity; (2) mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal, and inhalation); (3)
ignitability; (4) reactivity; (5) chronic toxicity; and (6) potential
carcinogenicity. The Agency ranks each intrinsic property on a five-tier
scale (50 FR 13467-8) (with the exception of potential carcinogens for which
the Agency has proposed to use a three-tier scale and radionuclides, for which
a 7-tier scale has been proposed), associating a specified range of values on
each scale with a particular RQ value and RQ category. Thus, each hazardous
substance receives several tentative RQ values based on its particular
properties. The primary criteria RQ for each hazardous substance is the
lowest value from the applicable primary criteria. A five-tier rating scale
has been set up corresponding with RQ values of 1, 10, 100, 1000, and 5000
pounds (also known as RQ categories X, A, B, C, and D, respectively).
The methodology used to assign RQs is neither a risk assessment nor an
absolute measure of potential harm. It is simply a method for sorting a list
of hazardous substances into levels of relative hazard, which may be equated
15The toll-free telephone number of the National Response Center is
1-800/424-8802; in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area the number is
1-202/426-2675.
-------
2-21
to RQ levels for notification purposes. These RQ categories, with or without
modification, can also be used to categorize hazardous contaminants for
purposes of the joint-use study. Of the current list of 717 CERCLA hazardous
substances, 442 have final adjusted RQs and 273 have proposed adjusted RQs.
The two remaining substances (lead and methyl isocyanate) retain their
statutory one-pound RQ until completion of analysis.
The five RQ categories X, A, B, C, and D are used, with certain
modifications, to categorize hazardous contaminants in this study. First,
hazardous substances falling into RQ Category X will be placed in hazardous
contaminant Category 1, those in RQ Category A in Category 2, those in RQ
Category B in Category 3, and those in RQ Categories C and D in Category 4.
Those hazardous substances in RQ Categories C and D have been placed together
in hazardous contaminant Category 4 because the Agency believes that, for the
purposes of this study, the hazard associated with hazardous substances having
RQs of 1000 and 5000 pounds is relatively low and nearly identical. In
addition, DOT hazardous materials that do not exhibit a toxic or carcinogenic
effect (e.g., nonflammable compressed gases) will also be placed in hazardous
contaminant Category 4.
Second, for purposes of placing any hazardous substance into hazardous
contaminant category 1, 2, 3, or 4, only those RQ criteria that result in some
toxic effect (i.e., aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity, chronic toxicity,
and potential carcinogenicity) will be used. Even though many RQs are based
on ignitability or reactivity, a primary criteria RQ for at least one of the
toxic effect criteria is available for the 715 hazardous substances whose RQs
have been adjusted or proposed to be adjusted, and will be used for assignment
to hazardous contaminant categories.
Third, those hazardous contaminants that are neither hazardous substances,
hazardous materials, nor hazardous wastes will be assigned to a hazardous
contaminant category based on the results of tests for aquatic toxicity,
mammalian toxicity, chronic toxicity and potential carcinogenicity, performed
in the manner found useful for determination of their RQ category.16
Fourth, those hazardous materials classified by DOT as Poison A or Poison
B and which do not appear on the CERCLA hazardous substance list, are placed
in Hazardous Contaminant Category 1.
For purposes of the joint-use study, therefore, there are four categories
of hazardous contaminants:
(1) Category 1, which contains all CERCLA hazardous
substances and hazardous contaminants whose toxic effect
primary criteria RQs result in, or if evaluated, would
16Although only CERCLA hazardous substances are assigned RQs (see CERCLA
Section 102(a)), the methodology, for purposes of this study, can also be
applied to hazardous contaminants that are not CERCLA hazardous substances.
-------
2-22
result in an RQ of one pound, and all those hazardous
materials that are not CERCLA hazardous substances and
are classified by DOT as Poison A or Poison B;
(2) Category 2, which contains all CERCLA hazardous
substances and hazardous contaminants whose toxic effect
primary criteria RQs are, or would be, 10 pounds;
(3) Category 3, which contains all those CERCLA hazardous
substances and hazardous contaminants whose toxic effect
primary criteria RQs are, or would be, 100 pounds; and
(4) Category 4, which contains all those CERCLA hazardous
substances and hazardous contaminants whose toxic effect
primary criteria RQs are, or would be, 1000 or 5000
pounds. This category also contains all those DOT
hazardous materials that do not exhibit a toxic or
carcinogenic effect but are considered hazardous for
other reasons.
2.3.2 Categorization of Nonhazardous Goods
The general category of nonhazardous goods includes anything that is not a
hazardous contaminant. Goods are generally defined to be personal property
having an intrinsic commercial value, which would exclude waste, which has no
intrinsic value. Section 118(j) of SARA does not appear to make this
distinction, however, and therefore nonhazardous wastes will be included here
as nonhazardous goods.
For the purposes of this study, the Agency has chosen to segregate
nonhazardous goods into four categories based on use:
(1) foodstuff (before and after processing and including
potable water);
(2) fibers (including raw materials such as cotton, nylon,
and finished goods);
(3) materials for agricultural application (including
fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fill dirt, sludge,
etc);17
17The Agency is aware that many materials, such as fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides, are themselves hazardous. It is possible,
however, that some hazardous substance or product intended for a beneficial
agricultural purpose (and, therefore, not a contaminant) could itself, if
improperly handled, become contaminated with some hazardous contaminant and
become detrimental to the environment, a crop, or some member of the food
chain. Similarly, some fuels (considered hazardous materials by DOT) could
also become adulterated with a hazardous contaminant, or, conceivably, a
nonhazardous product, and produce some deleterious effect. For this reason,
contamination of certain hazardous substances or materials by hazardous
contaminants is also considered.
-------
2-23
(4) other nonhazardous goods (including furniture,
appliances, building materials, fuels, monomers, raw
plastics, chemicals, waste, scrap, etc.).
EPA realizes that these categories are very broad and that some commodities,
depending on their intended use, may fall into more than one category at
different times. It is believed, however, that these categories will suffice
for the development and characterization of some scenarios illustrative of the
potential contamination problem referenced in SARA Section 118(j).
2.3.3 Comparison of Hazardous Contaminants With Nonhazardous Goods'
Comparison of four hazardous contaminant categories with four categories
of nonhazardous goods leads to 16 combinations of hazardous contaminants with
nonhazardous goods, as illustrated by the matrix in Exhibit 2-10. Each of the
16 cells in Exhibit 2-10 represents a relative ranking of contamination
incident. Each incident within a class can be more or less serious, but each
class has, in general, a very high, high, medium, or lower potential for
serious consequences to public health or the environment. The Agency's
judgment of the relative hazard for each class of contamination incident has
been shown in the Exhibit.
The category containing "other nonhazardous goods" potentially contains a
wide variety of commodities. None, however, would be intended for human or
animal consumption and few, if any, would remain in prolonged human contact
(such as clothing or bedding). For this reason, the Agency believes that, for
illustrative purposes in this study, contamination incidents involving "other
nonhazardous goods" are likely to have less serious consequences as compared
to the consequences of many other contamination incidents.
In the next section, a few contamination scenarios are developed and the
potential for each to cause harm to the public health and the environment is
analyzed.
2.4 POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SCENARIOS
Section 2.2 of this chapter described some historical examples of
contamination that occurred during transportation of nonhazardous goods. Many
of these problems resulted from leaking packages of hazardous contaminants.
Current regulations address the problem of leaking packages of hazardous
contaminants (see Chapter 3 of this report), but these incidents illustrate
the potential consequences of such contamination. Section 2.3 of this chapter
develops methods for categorization of hazardous contaminants and nonhazardous
goods and applies them to a matrix for comparison of the various categories.
Section 2.4 examines some of the matrix intersections in light of the history
presented in Section 2.2 and draws conclusions concerning the potential
seriousness of various contamination scenarios.
2.4.1 Contamination Scenarios With Potentially Serious Consequences
The Agency believes that the most serious consequences to public health
and the environment are likely to occur when foodstuffs or fibers become
-------
2-24
Exhibit 2-10
Illustration of the Relative Hazards
from Contamination of Nonhazardous
Goods by Hazardous Contaminants
Hazardous Contaminants
Nonhazardous
Goods
Food
Fibers
Agriapp'
Other
Very
High
High
Med
Lower
High
Med
Lower
Lower
Med
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
t Materials for Agricultural Application
-------
2-25
contaminated with highly toxic materials falling into hazardous contaminant
Categories 1 or 2. This conclusion is based upon examination of the
historical data presented in Section 2.2 of this report which reveal that all
but one of the documented incidents involved Category 1 or Category 2
hazardous contaminants affecting food or fiber nonhazardous goods.
Scenario 1. Exhibit 2-9 in Section 2.2.1 of this report documents nearly
1800 injuries due to parathion poisoning and more than 200 deaths occurring
overseas in a period of 11 years resulting from contamination during transport
or storage. Case 2 in Section 2.2.2 suggests that joint use of liquid tank
trucks hauling hazardous contaminants and potable water does occur. The
potential consequences are serious if, for example, a truck used for servicing
parathion spray rigs in an agricultural area were to be pressed into service
to haul water for disaster relief. A possible locale for such a scenario is
the San Joaquin Valley of California. This heavily agricultural area is also
threatened with earthquakes from a variety of faults in the valley and that
run along the base of the mountains to the northeast. In an earthquake
emergency, disaster relief officials might unknowingly hire such a truck and
trailer from a local agricultural supplier to haul water to an affected area.
As exemplified in Case 2 of Section 2.2.1 involving the contaminated
flannelette sheets, exposure to minute concentrations of parathion, a Category
1 hazardous contaminant, can have serious adverse consequences.
Scenario 2. Contamination of foodstuffs with less hazardous, contaminants
would, in general, present a less serious problem than contamination with more
hazardous contaminants. The potential for harm, however, is still high.
Several mercury compounds, for example, have 10-pound RQs (40 CFR §302.4) and
fall into hazardous contaminant Category 2. Mercury is an insidious poison
which, after absorption, circulates in the blood and is stored in the liver,
kidneys, spleen, and bone. The chief toxic effect of mercury poisoning occurs
to the central nervous system and produces tremors, psychic disturbances, coma
and, in high enough concentrations, death.18 Mercury compounds are widely
used in manufacturing, industry, and research. As a consequence, they are
regularly shipped throughout the United States. If a mercury compound were to
be hauled in a railroad hopper car that was subsequently loaded with grain (as
occurred in the lead oxide-grain contamination case listed in Exhibit 2-9)
before being properly cleaned, death or serious illness could result.
Scenario 3. In recent years, deregulation of the trucking industry and
significant increases in the price of fuel have both increased competition and
reduced the profit margin in many segments of the industry. These factors
have increased the economic incentive for truckers to haul loads on both an
outbound trip and the return trip (known as the "back haul"). A possible
contamination scenario begins with the operator of a dump truck hauling
hazardous waste (e.g., PCBs, a Category 1 hazardous contaminant, as in the
case shown in Exhibit 2-9) to a distant hazardous waste disposal site. While
18Sax, N. Irving, Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 5th
Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York (1979), page 798.
-------
2-26
purchasing fuel at a local truck stop, the dump truck operator notices a
bulletin board listing opportunities for a back haul. Although truck
decontamination facilities are not readily available at this local truck stop,
a load of grain destined for a mill near home is ready to be transported. The
trucker is unaware that many hazardous contaminants are not water-soluble and
for complete removal require a solvent rinse. Therefore, the trucker merely
hoses out his truck, removes any placards, and proceeds to the local grain
silo. Most truckers hauling hazardous materials are trained to recognize the
hazards associated with their loads, and, even though the probability of such
a scenario occurring may be low, the consequences could be serious.
Scenario 4. The legislative history19 concerning SARA and the joint use
of trucks suggests that sludge haulers who also carry hazardous waste present
a joint-use concern. Sludge is the solid or semisolid residue which settles
to the bottom of treatment ponds or settling basins in sewage treatment
plants. This material must be removed and disposed of on a regular basis.
Sludge from treatment plants that handle domestic sewage is rich in nutrients,
therefore, it is often used as a material for agricultural application. If
contaminated with a Category 1 hazardous contaminant, an adverse effect on
public health and the environment may result.
A contamination event might begin with a sludge hauler participating in
the cleanup of a hazardous waste site. These sites typically contain a wide
variety of hazardous contaminants, many of which could belong in Category 1.
In the worst case, a truck that had been used to haul a bioaccumulative
hazardous contaminant (e.g., DDT and kepone are known to accumulate and
concentrate in the food chain20 and are Category 1 hazardous contaminants)
present at the hazardous waste site might be used to haul sludge that is to be
used as a fertilizer. Due to insufficient or no cleaning, the truckload of
sludge becomes contaminated. Although the concentration of hazardous
contaminant in the sludge is low, it may be accumulated and concentrated in
the food crop and, therefore, may present a significant hazard to those in the
food chain who consume it.
Scenario 5. A high or medium potential for harm also exists if natural or
synthetic fibers or finished goods are contaminated with a Category 1 or 2
hazardous contaminant. Section 2.2.1 of this report clearly demonstrates the
potential for harm through contamination of finished goods such as sheets and
clothing. The potential for harm is substantial if cotton were to be
accidentally contaminated with a concentrated organophosphorus-based pesticide.
Cotton, after harvesting, is usually pressed into large bales, at a
location near the fields, for shipment to processing facilities. Pesticides
are commonly used on cotton crops for control of a variety of insects. Cotton
19131 Congressional Record H11193 (Daily Ed. December 5, 1985).
20See Casarett, L.J. and Doull, J., The Basic Science of Poisons,
Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1975, Page 411.
-------
2-27
bales, therefore, are often found in the vicinity of pesticides stored in
concentrated form. Trucks or rail cars used for the transport of pesticides
might be pressed into service for the transport of cotton bales and such joint
use presents an opportunity for contamination of the cotton. Cotton is
thoroughly washed and inspected before being spun into thread for use in
making clothing and fabrics and, therefore, it is not likely that contaminated
cotton would carry significant amounts of contamination to finished goods.
Employees at ginning and milling facilities, however, are at risk and could be
exposed to significant concentrations of pesticide through the route described
above. In addition, discarded "stained" cotton might provide a hazard to the
environment or individuals who come into contact with it.
2.4.2 Contamination Scenarios With Potentially Less Serious Consequences
The consequences resulting from the consumption of contaminated foodstuffs
can range from death through illness to mild discomfort or no noticeable
effect. Equal concentrations of progressively less hazardous contaminants
would be likely to produce effects in this order. Conversely, higher
concentrations of less hazardous contaminants are necessary to produce more
serious consequences. As a result of this analysis, the Agency believes that,
as the hazardous contaminant categories proceed from 1 through 4, the
potential hazard goes from "very high" and "high" through "medium" to "lower."
There will be exceptions to this generalization due to the wide variety of
individual materials, substances, and wastes found in various hazardous
contaminant categories. It is inevitable that a hazardous contaminant found
in a "lower" group will be found to have caused some serious problem. The
strength of the analysis, however, is in its ability to generalize; individual
exceptions, therefore, do not diminish its validity.
Similarly, the Agency believes that as one proceeds down the ordinate in
Exhibit 2-10 from foodstuffs through other nonhazardous goods, the potential
for harm due to contamination decreases. Exceptions will most likely be found
to this generalization as well.
A contamination incident involving Freon 12 and propane reported to the
Agency and included in Exhibit 2-9 exemplifies the uncertainties involved in
determining where to place a contaminant in Exhibit 2-10. In addition, the
contaminated "nonhazardous good" in this case is a fuel (propane) and falls
into the other nonhazardous goods category, low on the ordinate of Exhibit
2-10. This incident involved the contamination of propane by Freon 12 and
qualifies as a joint-use incident because a truck normally used to transport
propane was used temporarily for storage of Freon 12. When the truck returned
to propane service, some Freon 12 remained in the tank. Freon 12 is a
hazardous material under DOT regulations because it is a compressed gas and,
in itself, is not toxic when properly handled. This places it in the
hazardous contaminant Category 4. The contaminated propane was widely
distributed to homes for use as a cooking and space heating fuel. When Freon
12 is burned, as in a flame, several toxic gases are produced including
hydrogen fluoride, a member of hazardous contaminant Category 2. In this
case, 76 persons were known to be injured, and many homes were rendered
uninhabitable for an extended period of time.
-------
2-28
2.5 CONCLUSION REGARDING JOINT USE CONTAMINATION
Reference to Exhibit 2-10 shows that EPA considers 6 of the 16 generalized
joint-use contamination scenarios to have a very high, high, or medium
potential for harm to the public health or the environment even though the
probability for the occurrence of a contamination incident may be low. The
remainder, with exceptions, will be less likely to cause human or
environmental harm if an incident should occur. Some of the examples that
were found reveal serious consequences, while others had no lasting effect.
Regardless of the number of incidents of joint-use contamination uncovered in
the search, the potential for harm to the public health and the environment
exists even if the probability that such harm may occur is low. Because
chemical poisoning is relatively rare in the general population and many
physicians are not trained to recognize the various symptoms, it is possible
that some cases of joint-use contamination in which the result of the
poisoning was death or illness may not have been recognized as such. Other
examples in which an effect did not occur immediately following exposure l
will probably never be recognized. Furthermore, a number of joint-use
contamination incidents may exist in which no discernable effect on an
individual is obvious, but in which an effect on a population might be found
if studied under proper conditions.22 The number of documented cases of
joint-use contamination found by the Agency is low (only six were identified
in the United States) and this may indicate that the problem is small;
however, among the documented cases, pesticides are the most frequently
identified contaminants.
2 Carcinogens, for example, may induce a tumor onset years or decades
after exposure.
2ZAn example of such a population effect is subacute lead toxicity in
children, which has been correlated with behavioral and cognitive defects
(see, Hodgson and Guthrie, Introduction to Biochemical Toxicology, Elsevier,
New York, 1980, page 240).
-------
CHAPTER 3
SELECTED REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE
SIMULTANEOUS AND SEQUENTIAL TRANSPORTATION OF
HAZARDOUS AND NONHAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is the primary Federal agency
with responsibility for establishing and enforcing regulations regarding the
transportation of hazardous materials. The Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act (HMTA) gives DOT broad authority to promulgate regulations governing the
transportation of hazardous materials by all transportation modes (rail, air
craft, vessel, and public highway). The DOT Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA) is the lead DOT administration that issues the majority
of hazardous materials transportation regulations,1 but other DOT modal
administrations, such as the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Railroad Administration, also have rulemaking and enforcement authority.
Relevant RSPA regulations, summarized in Exhibit 3-1, are contained in Title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Hazardous Materials Table,
in 49 CFR §172.101, and the Appendix to §172.101, list many common hazardous
materials and substances, respectively, subject to the regulations.
Hazardous substances, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), are listed and regulated as DOT hazardous
materials.2 Those hazardous materials that do not fit within an existing
DOT hazard class are considered "Other Regulated Materials" (ORM) Class E.3
Shippers must determine the appropriate hazard class (see Exhibit 3-2 for a
description of the hazard classes) for such materials based on definitions in
the regulations. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, some DOT regulatory
provisions do not apply to ORM-E materials. In addition, a CERCLA hazardous
substance (other than an ORM-E substance) present in a packaging in an amount
less than the reportable quantity (RQ) established for the substance by EPA is
not considered a DOT hazardous substance, nor a DOT hazardous material.
U.S. Coast Guard, however, has authority to regulate bullc marine
shipments of hazardous materials (see 46 CFR Parts D, I, N, and 0).
Additional requirements for certain ships and barges that carry bulk oil
shipments are prescribed in 33 CFR Part 157.
2Section 202 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) amended CERCLA to require that DOT list and regulate as hazardous
materials all CERCLA hazardous substances.
3ORM-E represents a wide variety of materials, some of which do not
present a particular threat of contamination (i.e., food additives or
products).
-------
3-2
EXHIBIT 3-1
SUMMARY OF SELECTED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGULATIONS IN TITLE 49
OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Part 171 is a general introduction to the hazardous materials regulations.
Special requirements for hazardous wastes are included, as well as
definitions of terms and a list of technical documents incorporated by
reference into the regulations. Reporting requirements for hazardous
materials incidents also are specified.
Part 172 contains the Hazardous Materials Table. The table lists the
hazardous materials and hazard classes subject to regulation; appropriate
requirements for labels, packaging, and air and water shipments are
referenced. In addition, Part 172 includes detailed regulations for
shipping papers, markings, labels, and placards.
Part 173 indicates the types of packagings that may be used by shippers of
hazardous materials. General shipment and packaging regulations are
followed by more specific requirements for certain hazard classes. Hazard
class definitions as well as provisions for reuse of packagings and
handling of empty packagings also are contained in Part 173.
Part 174 prescribes regulations for rail transport of hazardous materials.
General operating, handling, and loading requirements are specified, as
well as detailed requirements for certain hazard classes.
Part 177 contains regulations for the highway transport of hazardous
materials; they apply to common, contract, and private carriers. In
addition to regulations for handling, loading, and stowage, routing rules
for high-level radioactive materials and other in transit requirements are
specified.
Part 178 presents detailed specifications for the fabrication and testing
of packagings described in Part 173.
Part 179 prescribes detailed specifications for rail tank cars. Procedures
for obtaining Association of American Railroads approval of new tank car
designs or changes to existing ones are provided.
SOURCE: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "Transportation of
Hazardous Materials," OTA-SET-304 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, July 1986).
-------
3-3
Although DOT hazardous materials regulations most comprehensively regulate
the transportation of hazardous materials, other Federal agencies have
regulatory responsibilities that also may affect joint use and the
contamination of vehicles. In addition to its program for designation of
hazardous substances and notification under CERCLA and the Clean Water Act,
EPA has promulgated regulatory provisions related to hazardous substances
under other statutes, such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, also known as the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Under RCRA, EPA has established requirements, such as the hazardous
waste manifest system, for generators and transporters of hazardous wastes,
and for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Regulations promulgated pursuant to TSCA address containers and vehicles
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and FIFRA regulations concern
shipments of pesticides. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates
the receipt, possession, use, and transfer of nuclear materials. The NRC
regulatory provisions include standards for the design and performance of
packages to carry radioactive materials and a manifest tracking system for
waste disposal. The NRC regulations also require transporters of NRC-licensed
material to comply with all applicable DOT regulations. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulations contain several provisions designed to
prevent or detect contamination of food and drug products that may occur
during transportation. All of these regulations are discussed in more detail
in Section 3.1 of this chapter.
The DOT regulations apply generally to all interstate motor vehicle and
all rail transportation of hazardous materials. In addition, the regulations
cover intrastate motor vehicle shipments of hazardous wastes and substances,
flammable cryogenic liquids, and licensed radioactive materials. Other
hazardous materials in intrastate motor vehicle shipments are not covered by
the Federal regulations. States, however, must adopt and enforce DOT's
hazardous materials regulations or compatible State rules to be eligible to
receive funds for motor vehicle safety programs. Thus, nearly all States have
adopted the DOT regulations at least in part,* and some, such as New York,
have additional requirements for hazardous wastes.
This chapter reviews the Federal and State regulations relating to joint
use of vehicles for transportation of hazardous and nonhazardous materials and
identifies the areas where regulatory requirements may not be sufficient to
prevent contamination of nonhazardous goods. Section 3.1 describes existing
regulations as they apply to the shipper, carrier, and receiver. Each of
these segments of the transportation industry is required to some extent to
take precautions against contamination of nonhazardous goods. Section 3.2
addresses the specific concerns raised by Congressman Smith of New Jersey who
proposed the amendment that mandated this study by analyzing existing and
UU.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "Transportation of
Hazardous Materials," OTA-SET-304 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, July 1986).
-------
3-4
emerging regulatory provisions that control the sequential transportation of
hazardous wastes and sewage sludge. Section 3.3 examines the three
transportation scenarios that can cause contamination of nonhazardous goods by
hazardous materials. Each scenario is analyzed to determine the existing
regulatory coverage that could prevent the contamination incident or the
realization of significant harm resulting from the contamination and apparent
gaps in the regulatory coverage. Considering that DOT and other federal
regulations were drafted for purposes other than protecting against joint-use
problems, the coverage is surprisingly comprehensive.
3.1 REGULATION OF SHIPPERS, CARRIERS, AND RECEIVERS
Several existing regulations relating to the transportation of hazardous
materials could protect the public from exposure to goods contaminated as a
result of the shipping of such goods in a vehicle used previously or
simultaneously to transport hazardous materials. In each subsection below, a
summary and analysis of the regulations as they apply to shippers, carriers,
and receivers, respectively, is provided.
3.1.1 Regulation of Shippers
Shippers are responsible for identifying hazardous materials (including
hazardous substances and hazardous wastes) offered for transportation and for
describing the materials on shipping papers that must accompany the shipment
(49 CFR §172.200). Shipping papers include information on the quantity of
material transported and its hazard class. Some hazardous materials and their
appropriate hazard classes are listed in the Hazardous Materials Table in 49
CFR §172.101 and the Appendix to §172.101. Exhibit 3-2 presents the hazard
classes prescribed by that regulation. As mentioned above, for materials not
listed specifically, .shippers must determine the appropriate hazard class
based on definitions in the regulations.
Marking, Labeling, and Placarding
Shippers also must comply with requirements for marking, labeling, and
placarding. Marking, labeling, and placarding are all methods of
communicating the hazards represented by the material contained in a package
or vehicle. Markings simply show the name and identification number of a
hazardous material. Labels and placards (placards are somewhat larger than
labels), by contrast, are symbols representing the types of hazards associated
with a particular material (see Exhibit 3-3). Generally, markings and labels
are affixed to packages, while placards are affixed to transport vehicles
(i.e., motor vehicles and rail cars). Marking is required, however, for some
vehicles that are considered "packagings," such as cargo tanks and tank cars
(49 CFR §§172.328, 172.330).
Portable tanks, cargo tanks, and tank cars must remain marked when empty
unless reloaded with nonhazardous material or "sufficiently cleaned of residue
and purged of vapor to remove any potential hazard." (49 CFR §§172.326,
172.328, 172.330). Such a marked cargo or portable tank or tank car may not
be used to transport any other material unless the marking is removed or
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAZARD CLASSES
Hazard class
Defini tion
Examples
Flammable Iiquid
Combust ible Iiquid
Flammable so I id
Ox i d i ze r
Organic peroxide
Corros ive
Flammable gas
Nonflammable gas
I rri tat i ng ma ten'a I
Po i son A
Any liquid having a flash point below 100°F
as determined by tests listed in 49 CFR §173.115(d).
Exceptions are listed in 49 CFR §173.115(a).
Any liquid having a flash point at or above 100°F
below 200°F as determined by tests listed in 49
§173.115(d). Exceptions are listed in 49 CFR
§173.115(b).
and
CFR
Any solid material, other than an explosive, that can
cause fires through friction or retained heat from
manufacturing or processing, or which can be ignited
readily, creating a serous transportation hazard
because it burns vigorously and persistently
(49 CFR §173.150).
A substance such as chlorate, permanganate, inorganic
perodide, or a nitrate, that yields oxygen readily to
stimulate the combustion of organic matter (49 CFR
§173.151).
An organic compound containing the bivalent -0-0-
structure and which may be considered a derivative
of hydrogen peroxide where one or more of the hydrogen
atoms have been replaced by organic radicals.
Exceptions are listed in 49 CFR §173.151(a).
Liquid or solid that causes visible destruction or
irreversible alterations in human skin tissue at the
site of contact. Liquids that severely corrode steel
are included (49 CFR §173.240(a )).
A compressed gas, as defined in 49 CFR §173.300(a), that
meets certain flammability requirements (49 CFR
§173.300(b)).
A compressed gas other than a flammable gas.
which on contact with fire or
off dangerous or intensely
A materials excluded
A liquid or solid substance
when exposed to air gives
irritating fumes. Poison
(49 CFR §173.381).
Extremely dangerous poison gases or liquids belong to this
class. Very small amounts of these gases or vapors of
these liquids, mixed with air, are dangerous to human
and animal life (49 CFR §173.326).
Ethyl alcohol, gasoline,
acetone, benzene, dimethyl
sulfide.
Ink, methyl amyl ketone, fuel
oil.
Nitrocellulose (film),
phosphorus, charcoal.
Potassium bromate, hydrogen
peroxide solution, chromic
acid.
Urea peroxide, benzoyl peroxide.
Bromine, soda Iime,
hydrochloric acid, sodium
hydroxide solution.
Butadiene, engine starting
fluid, hydrogen, liquefied
petroIeum gas.
Chlorine, xenon, neon, an-
hydrous ammonia.
Tear gas, monochloroacetone.
Hydrocyanic acid, bromoacetone,
nitric oxide, phosgene.
CO
i
tn
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2 (continued)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAZARD CLASSES
Hazard class
Definition
Examples
Poison B
Etiologic agents
Radioactive material
Explos ive
Blasting agent
Substances, liquids, or solids (including pastes and semi-
solids), other than Poison A or irritating materials,
that are known to be toxic to humans. In the absence
of adequate data on human toxicity, materials are pre-
sumed to be toxic to humans if they exhibit oral, dermal,
or inhalation toxicity in laboratory animals exposed
under specific conditions.
A viable micro-organism, or its toxin, which causes or may
cause human disease. These materials are limited to
agents listed by the Department of Health and Human
Services (49 CFR §173.386; 42 CFR §72.3).
A material that spontaneously emits ionizing radiation
having a specific activity greater than 0.002 micro-
curies per gram. Further classifications are made
within this category according to levels of radio-
activity (49 CFR §173, subpart I).
Any chemical compound, mixture, or device, the primary or
common purpose of which is to function by explosion,
unless such compound, mixture, or device is otherwise
classified (49 CFR §173.50).
Explosives are divided into three subclasses:
Class A exposives are detonating explosives (49 CFR
§173.53);
Class B explosives generally function by rapid combustion
rather than detonation (49 CFR §173.88); and
Class C explosives are manufactured articles, such as
small arms ammunition, that contain restricted quantities
of Class A and/or Class B explosives, and certain
types of fireworks (49 CFR §173.100).
A material designed for blasting, but so insensitive
that there is very little probability of ignition
during transport (49 CFR §173.1l4a).
Phenol, nitroaniIine,
parathion, cyanide, mercury-
based pesticides, disinfec-
tants.
Vibrio cholerae; Clostridium
botulinum; polio virus;
salmonella, all seretypes.
Thorium nitrate, uranium
hexafIuoride.
ON
Jet thrust unit, explosive
booster.
Torpedo, propellant explosive.
Toy caps, trick matches, signal
flares, fireworks.
Ammonium nitrate -- fuel oil
mixture.
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2 (continued)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAZARD CLASSES
Hazard class
Defini t ion
Examples
ORM (Other Regulated
MateriaIs
Any material that does not meet the definition of the
other hazard classes. ORMs are divided into five
substances:
ORM-A is a material which has an anesthetic, irritating,
noxious, toxic, or other similar property and can cause
extreme annoyance or discomfort to passengers and crew
in the event of leakage during transportation (49 CFR
§173.500(b)(1).
ORM-B is a material capable of causing significant
damage to a transport vehicle or vessel if leaked.
This class includes materials that may be corrosive to
aluminum (49 CFR §173.500(b)(2 ) ).
ORM-C is a material which has other inherent character-
istics not described as an ORM-A or ORM-B, but which
make it unsuitable for shipment unless properly identi-
fied and prepared for transportation. Each ORM-C
material is specifically named in the Hazardous
Materials Table in 49 CFR §172.101 (49 CFR
§173.500(b)(3)).
ORM-D is a material such as a consumer commodity which,
although otherwise subject to regulation, presents a
limited hazard during transportation due to its form,
quantity, and packaging (49 CFR §173.500(b)(4)).
ORM-E is a material that is not included in any other
hazard class, but is subject to the requirements of this
subchapter. Materials in this class include hazardous
wastes and hazardous substances (49 CFR §173.500(b)(5)).
Trichloroethylene, carbon tetra-
chloride, ethylene dibromide,
chIoreform.
Calcium oxide, ferric chloride,
potassium fluoride.
Castor beans, cotton, inflatable
I ife rafts.
Consumer commodity not otherwise
specified, such as nail polish;
small arms ammunition.
Kepone, lead iodide, heptachlor,
polychlorinated biphenyls.
CO
Source: Office of Technology Assessment,
pp. 154-155.
"Transportation of Hazardous Materials," U.S. Congress, July 1986,
-------
3-8
Exhibit 3-3
Examples of Labels and Placards for
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Placards
ADIOACTIV
Source: 49 CFR §§ 172.411-172.558
-------
3-9
changed (49 CFR §§172.326(b), 172.328(e), 172.330(d)). For highway
transportation, the DOT regulations require that the shipper provide placards
to motor carriers, who then must affix them to the motor vehicle (49 CFR
§172.506(a)). For all rail cars and for cargo tanks and portable tanks
offered for transportation, the placard must be affixed by the shipper (49 CFR
§§172.508, 172.514(a)).
In general, the same requirements for classification of hazardous
materials, preparation of shipping papers, marking, labeling, and placarding
that apply to bulk shippers also apply to shippers of nonbulk packagings.
Because packaging is defined to include all containers, the term encompasses
reused or reconditioned steel drums (49 CFR §171.8). All packagings
containing hazardous materials and having a capacity of 110 gallons or less
must be marked.5 Requirements for small packagings that previously
contained hazardous materials are analogous to those for bulk shipments, i.e.,
the packagings must be offered for transportation in the same manner as
required when the packagings contained the hazardous materials, unless they
are cleaned and purged of all residue or filled with a nonhazardous material
(49 CFR §173.29). When hazardous and nonhazardous materials are described on
the same shipping paper, the hazardous materials must either be entered first,
highlighted, or otherwise clearly identified, as specified in 49 CFR
§172.201(a)(1). DOT regulations specify detailed packaging requirements for
hazardous materials (49 CFR Part 173) and provide charts indicating hazardous
materials that must not be loaded or stored together (49 CFR §§174.81(f),
177.848(f)).
Regulatory Exemptions
Certain packagings are exempt from DOT regulations. For example, nontank
motor vehicles, rail cars, and freight containers containing less than 1000
pounds of specified types of hazardous materials do not have to be placarded
(49 CFR §172.504(c)). However, if such vehicles are carrying even small
packages of the most dangerous classes (i.e., class A and B explosives, poison
A, certain flammable solids, and radioactive materials), the vehicles must be
placarded (49 CFR §172.504(c)). Because a package containing less than an RQ
of a CERCLA hazardous substance classified as an ORM-E material does not
contain a DOT hazardous substance or hazardous material, these packages are
exempt from DOT regulatory requirements. In addition, some hazardous
materials, including ORM materials, are exempt from the labeling and
placarding provisions of DOT regulations (49 CFR §§172.400(b)(8),
172.500(b)). DOT also exempts from placarding requirements hazardous
materials authorized to be offered for transportation as "limited quantities"
(49 CFR §172.500(b)(3)), and exempts from marking, labeling, and placarding
5DOT has proposed to extend this marking requirement to bulk packagings
and nontank bulk transport vehicles. This regulation would require a shipper
to affix to the bulk packaging the name or identification number of the
hazardous material being transported. In addition, the residue marking and
cleaning requirements for tank vehicles (discussed above) would extend to
nontank bulk packagings (see 49 FR 38164, September 27, 1984).
-------
3-10
requirements any shipment of "small quantities" of flammable liquids and
solids, oxidizers, organic peroxides, corrosive materials, poison B, ORM-A,
ORM-B, ORM-C, and radioactive materials (49 CFR §173.4(a)).6
Material-Specific Requirements
Specific requirements apply to certain hazardous materials. Hazardous
wastes regulated under RCRA, for example, require preparation of a manifest by
the shipper and associated recordkeeping requirements (40 CFR §§262.20,
263.22). Regulations promulgated under TSCA require special markings for PCS
containers and transport vehicles (40 CFR §761.40(b)). FIFRA regulations
provide i^commendations for handling pesticides, such as treatment of
contaminated vehicles and movable equipment prior to their departure or
removal from the site (40 CFR §165.10). DOT regulations provide that arsenic
dust, certain other dusts, and arsenical compounds may be shipped in specific
types of rail cars only if those transport vehicles are assigned exclusively
to arsenical service and are marked as such (49 CFR §173.368).
3.1.2 Regulation of Carriers
Carriers accept hazardous materials from shippers, transport these
materials in vehicles (e.g., motor vehicles or rail cars), and deliver the
materials either to another carrier or to the receiver. In general, hazardous
materials need not be shipped in dedicated packagings or transport vehicles.
A transport vehicle usually can be used to transport both hazardous and
nonhazardous materials, either sequentially or simultaneously.
General Requirements
The regulations reviewed contain very few generic requirements applicable
to carriers concerning possible shipments of hazardous and nonhazardous
materials. One RCRA regulation states that the equipment used in the
transportation of solid waste shall be operated and maintained so as to
minimize health and safety hazards to the public (40 CFR §243.202-1(c)). Two
FDA regulatory provisions offer overall guidance for the transportation of
food products. One requires that all operations related to the transportation
of food be conducted in a manner consistent with adequate sanitation
principles (21 CFR §110.80), while the other mandates that finished food
products be transported under conditions that will prevent contamination (21
CFR §110.80(j)).
Material-Specific Requirements
In addition to these general provisions designed to minimize health and
safety risks, there are some regulations that seek to protect certain
materials through segregation from other cargo, or by other means. For
6The definition of "limited quantities" and "small quantities" varies by
material.
-------
3-11
example, carriers may not transport any foodstuffs in the same rail car with
any package bearing a poison label (49 CFR §§174.280, 174.380, 174.480,
174.680). Carriers are subject to the same regulatory prohibition with
respect to motor vehicles, unless the package bearing a poison label is
overpacked by an additional liquid-tight and dust-proof container (49 CFR
§§173.25(c), 177.841(e)). Finally, DOT prohibits carriers from accepting for
transportation any leaking or damaged packages of explosives (49 CFR
§§174.103(c)(l), 177.821).
Cleaning Requirements for Sequential Shipments
A variety of regulations require the cleaning of transport vehicles either
after they are used to transport hazardous materials or before they are used
to carry nonhazardous materials. For example, regulations in the State of New
York prohibit the transportation of items intended for human or animal
consumption in a vehicle or container used to transport hazardous waste,
unless the waste or residue is completely removed (6 NYAC 27.0909.1). There
are no analogous Federal regulations. FDA regulations, however, require
cleaning (e.g., vacuuming, sweeping, washing) of any equipment used in the
distribution of finished medicated feed when necessary to prevent
contamination (21 CFR §225.65). The FDA also provides cleaning procedures for
bulk shipment equipment coming in contact with the drug components of certain
medicated articles to avoid contamination (21 CFR §226.40(f)).
Other regulations requiring the cleaning of transport vehicles focus on
the presence of hazardous materials. DOT regulations mandate that cargo tanks
that carry certain flammable liquids must be cleaned before any changes in
lading are allowed (49 CFR §173.119). After rail cars carrying either
potassium permanganate or poisonous materials in general are unloaded, they
must be cleaned thoroughly unless they are used exclusively to carry those
materials (49 CFR §§174.515, 174.615(b)). After unloading phosphorous packed
in water from a tank car, the party who unloaded the car must fill it
completely with an inert gas or to a certain level with water (49 CFR
§173.190(b)(3)). Motor vehicles that contained arsenical materials must be
flushed with water until all detectable traces of the substances are removed
before the vehicle may be used to transport any other materials (49 CFR
§177.841(a)(2)). Additionally, DOT requires carriers to inspect their
vehicles for contamination after they have been used to transport material
marked as or known to be poison A or B. A vehicle which has been found to be
contaminated must be decontaminated before it is returned to service, unless
the vehicle is used solely for transporting such poisons (49 CFR §177.860).
Under FIFRA regulations, delivery trucks that contained pesticides must be
decontaminated (40 CFR §165.10(c)(4)). Finally, vehicles in which radioactive
materials are spilled cannot be returned to service until the level of
radioactivity within the vehicle reaches a specified acceptable level (49 CFR
§177.861(a)).
Moreover, if certain hazardous materials are shipped in a container (e.g.,
a steel drum), reuse of the container is limited or prohibited. For example,
steel drums marked "single-trip container" or "nonreusuable container" from
which the contents have been removed following use for transportation of any
-------
3-12
material may not be reused to transport most hazardous materials unless
specified cleaning and reconditioning procedures are followed (49 CFR
§173.28(h)). Such steel drums may be reused to transport corrosive solids and
ORM-A, B, C, and E materials without cleaning or reconditioning (49 CFR
§173.28(n)). If reused to transport flammable solids or liquids, organic
peroxides, oxidizers, poisons, radioactive materials, or corrosive liquids,
however, the drums must be thoroughly cleaned to remove all residues,
inspected for deterioration, and returned to their original shape. If a drum
shows evidence of deterioration from rust, corrosion, or cleaning processes or
cannot be returned to its original shape, the drum may not be reused (49 CFR
§173.28(m)(1)). Polyethylene packagings used to ship poisonous materials may
not be reused, except for subsequent shipments of poisons or hazardous wastes
(49 CFR §173.28(i)).
Notification and Cleanup Requirements
DOT regulations also address carrier spills and cleanup requirements.
Placarded rail cars and any adjacent rail cars must be inspected when loaded
(49 CFR §174.8(b)). A rail car containing packages of hazardous materials
(other than explosives) may not be offered in interchange if the packages are
leaking (49 CFR §174.10(d)). Packages of hazardous materials that are damaged
or found to be leaking during rail or highway transportation, and hazardous
materials that have spilled or leaked, may be forwarded to their destination
or returned to the shipper in a salvage drum (49 CFR §§174.48(b),
177.854(c)(2)) . If a leaking package is not placed in a drum, the repair of
the package must be adequate to prevent contamination of other materials
transported in the same motor vehicle (49 CFR §177.854(d)(2)). When transport
vehicles containing certain hazardous materials (explosives, flammable
liquids, flammable solids, oxidizing materials, compressed gases, poisons, and
radioactive materials) are involved in accidents, DOT regulations prescribe
what actions carriers must take to deal with leaking or damaged packagings (49
CFR §§177.855, 177.856, 177.857, 177.859, 177.860, 177.861). These
requirements focus primarily on minimizing the hazards to public health as a
result of direct exposure to hazardous materials, rather than preventing
contamination of any nonhazardous goods in the transport vehicle. In
addition, transporters of radioactive materials must notify the shipper
immediately of spills of radioactive materials or suspected radioactive
contamination (49 CFR §177.861(a)). Finally, railroads must remove all
hazardous materials that have leaked from any package in a rail car (49 CFR
§174.57). In particular, a rail car that contains packages of poisonous
materials that show any evidence of leakage must be cleaned thoroughly after
unloading, and inspected before the car is returned to service (49 CFR
§174.615).
EPA and DOT regulations also require carriers to provide notification of
most incidents relating to the release of hazardous materials during
transportation. Under the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR §300.63), a
release into the environment of a CERCLA hazardous substance in an amount
equal to or greater than its reportable quantity (RQ) must be reported
immediately by telephone to the National Response Center. Regulations
promulgated under SARA require that releases be reported to State and local
-------
3-13
authorities. If, during transportation, any quantity of a hazardous material
or a hazardous waste has been unintentionally released from a packaging, a
carrier must report this incident in writing to DOT within 15 days of
discovering the event (49 CFR §171.16(a)). Additionally, if the hazardous
material spill causes a person's death or hospitalization or property damage
exceeding $50,000, the carrier must notify DOT by telephone at the earliest
practicable moment (49 CFR §171.15). This notification must then be followed
by a written report, as required for other releases of hazardous materials (49
CFR §171.16(a)).
Disclosure Provisions
In addition to the regulations requiring carriers of hazardous or
nonhazardous materials to follow certain protective measures, other DOT
provisions require shippers and carriers to inform other parties of the
hazardous contents of a transport vehicle. These disclosure requirements
begin with the shipping papers accompanying the shipment of hazardous
materials. If a motor carrier offers or delivers to a rail carrier for
further transportation a freight container or transport vehicle containing a
hazardous material requiring a placard, the kind of placard must be identified
in the shipping paper (49 CFR §177.817(c)). For any packagings, including
tank cars that contain the residue of a hazardous substance, the shipping
papers must include the phrase "RESIDUE: Last Contained * * * " and the
letters "RQ" in addition to the basic description of the hazardous substance
last contained in the packaging (49 CFR §§172.203(e)(3), 174.25(c)). This
requirement also applies to a tank car that contains the residue of a
hazardous material other than a hazardous substance, except that no "RQ"
notation is required on the shipping papers (49 CFR §174.25(c)). Finally, for
any packagings other than tank cars that contain the residue of a hazardous
material, the words "RESIDUE: Last Contained * * *" may be included on the
shipping paper, but the shipper is not required to include this information
(49 CFR §172.203(e)(l)).
DOT disclosure provisions also extend to the marking and placarding of
transport vehicles. DOT requires that any carrier of hazardous materials
comply with applicable placarding requirements (49 CFR §172.500(a)). Any
cargo tank, portable tank, or tank car that is marked as containing a
hazardous material (except combustible liquids) must remain marked when empty,
unless it is reloaded with a nonhazardous material or is cleaned sufficiently
of residue and purged of vapor to remove any potential hazard (49 CFR
§§172.326(e), 172.328(f), 172.330(g)). Each tank car containing the residue
of a hazardous material must be placarded by the party who unloaded the
material with the residue placards in the tank car, unless the tank car is
reloaded with a material requiring no placards or different placards, or is
sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapor to remove any potential
hazard (49 CFR §§172.510(c), 174.69). Each cargo tank and portable tank that
is placarded as containing a hazardous material must remain placarded when it
is empty, unless it is reloaded with a nonhazardous material or sufficiently
cleaned and purged of vapors to remove any potential hazard (49 CFR
§172.514(b)).
-------
3-14
Additional disclosure requirements apply only to transportation of
hazardous waste. There are manifest requirements under both DOT and RCRA,
with RCRA regulations requiring that carriers of hazardous wastes sign a
manifest acknowledging acceptance of the waste and provide a copy of the
manifest to any subsequent carrier or to the receiver (40 CFR §263.20). The
manifest must indicate the amount of the hazardous waste shipped and
received. RCRA and DOT regulations require the carrier to deliver to the
recipient the entire quantity of hazardous waste designated on the manifest
(40 CFR §263.21(a), 49 CFR §171.3(b)).
3.1.3 Regulation of Receivers
Federal regulations apply equally to the receivers of bulk and package
shipments. General requirements relating to the receivers of hazardous
materials include requirements that shipments be accompanied by either
shipping papers, manifests, or other appropriate documents, and that
interstate shipments must have Interstate Commerce Commission bills of
lading. Such documents normally contain descriptions of the goods shipped and
may include the quantity of goods, terms of payment, and other conditions of
delivery.
Some specific requirements govern the receipt of particular items or types
of items. Under RCRA, receivers of hazardous waste must verify, on the RCRA
manifest accompanying the shipment, that the quantity of hazardous waste
received corresponds to the quantity shipped, and must return the manifest to
the generator that initiated the shipment (40 CFR §264.71). If there is a
significant discrepancy between the quantity of hazardous waste listed on the
manifest, and the quantity received (for bulk shipments, a variation greater
than 10 percent in weight), the facility receiving the waste must reconcile
the discrepancy with the carrier within, 15 days or notify the EPA Regional
Administrator (40 CFR §264.72). Under FDA regulations, receivers of raw
materials and ingredients for food must inspect these items to ensure that
they are clean, wholesome, and fit for processing into human food. Raw
materials must be washed and cleaned to remove any soil or other contamination
(21 CFR §110.80(a)). Additionally, any containers and carriers of raw
materials should be inspected on receipt to ensure that their condition did
not contribute to the contamination or deterioration of the products (21 CFR
§110.80(h)).
In addition to these requirements for food products, FDA also regulates
receipt of drug products. Any incoming shipment of drugs to be used in
medicated animal feed must be examined visually for damage that may have
adversely affected its identity, strength, quality, or purity (21 CFR
§225.42(b)(1)). If any such damage is found, the drugs may not be accepted
for use. Additionally, upon receipt and before acceptance, drug product
containers must be examined visually for any contamination (21 CFR §221.82(a))
3.1.4 Summary of Regulatory Coverage
Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the regulatory responsibilities as they pertain to
actions by shippers, carriers, and receivers.
-------
3-15
EXHIBIT 3-4
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY COVERAGE IN JOINT USE OF VEHICLES
Regulatory Areas Shipper Carrier Carrier Check* Receiver
Material identification and X
classification
Packaging X X
Segregation and protection X
of cargo
Labeling X X
Marking X X
Placarding XXX
Shipping papers X X
Accident and spill reporting X
Cleaning of transport vehicle X
Inspection of incoming shipments X
of nonhazardous goods for
contamination
Mode-specific requirements X
"The carrier is required to verify the shipper's compliance with these
regulatory responsibilities.
Source: ICF analysis of Hoxie and Woodman, "Risks of Hazardous Substance
Spills from Unmarked Packages or Containers," U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1982, p. 19.
-------
3-16
3.2 SEQUENTIAL TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SEWAGE
SLUDGE
Congressional concern, resulting in the enactment of Section 118(j) of
SARA, was based on information about a sludge hauler who was transporting
sludge for land application at a sod farm using trucks that previously had
hauled hazardous wastes. The legislative history of Section 118(j) notes that
most States have few, if any, regulations relevant to sludge, and that sludge
is being used increasingly by farmers as fertilizer for a variety of crops.
Two forthcoming EPA regulations are relevant to this scenario. Technical
criteria for sludge disposal currently are under development by EPA and may be
incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits under the Clean Water Act. The proposed criteria, in the form of
maximum concentration levels for heavy metals, PCBs, and other pollutants
found in sludge, generally vary by disposal method. EPA data indicate that 41
percent of all sludge is disposed of by landfilling, 20 percent by
incineration, 25 percent by land application (including distribution and
marketing), and 7 percent by ocean dumping. The remaining 7 percent is
disposed of by other means including pits, ponds, and lagoons.7 The lowest
concentration limits may be set for incineration because of the human health
and environmental risks from airborne pollutants. One key issue with regard
to joint use of vehicles is whether the sludge pollutant levels will be
measured before or after transportation to the disposal site. If the criteria
are applied after transportation, possible contamination of the sludge from a
previous load of hazardous waste could be taken into account.
Another regulatory action that could affect sewage sludge is the "toxic
characteristics leaching procedure" (TCLP) proposed by EPA in June 1986 (51 FR
21648) as a test for determining whether wastes are hazardous under RCRA.
Several municipal wastewater treatment agencies have expressed concern that
the proposed test may result in sewage sludge being classified as a hazardous
waste. If this were the case, the effect on joint use of vehicles to
transport hazardous waste and sludge sequentially might be that DOT regulatory
provisions addressing transportation of one hazardous material followed by
transportation of a different hazardous material would apply. Of 18 municipal
sludge samples recently tested by EPA, none failed the TCLP test.8 Because
these results are preliminary in that they represent only a small percentage
of the over 15,000 municipal sludges, they should not be interpreted to mean
that no municipal sludges would fail the TCLP test.
In addition, in many circumstances, existing DOT regulations provide for
communication of the potential hazard to the shipper of the sludge. If the
hazardous material that was hauled previously had been assigned a hazard class
other than ORM, the truck should be placarded. If a cargo tank or portable
7U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Draft Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Assessment of Sludge Disposal Criteria," December 1986.
8U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Preliminary Analysis.
-------
3-17
tank is used, markings on the tank would identify any hazardous material
transported immediately prior to loading of the sludge, unless the tank had
been cleaned. A potential problem could arise, however, if the vehicle in
question is a dump truck (or some other nontank vehicle). If such a vehicle
hauls a hazardous substance that is classified as ORM, DOT regulations do not
require placarding or marking of the vehicle.9 In addition, if less than
1000 pounds of certain other types of hazardous materials are transported in a
motor vehicle or freight container (other than portable tanks, cargo tanks,
and tank cars), that vehicle also does not have to be placarded. Therefore,
because a placard or marking is not always required, the sludge shipper may
not always be informed of the identity of the previous shipment, and
contamination potentially could occur.
To summarize, the concern expressed by Congressman Smith may reflect a
serious potential problem in certain circumstances. There is no general
regulatory prohibition of joint use of trucks for hauling hazardous materials
and sewage sludge and no requirement for truck cleaning. If the hazardous
materials do not meet any DOT hazard class definition other than ORM-E, and if
the materials are hauled in a dump truck, there are no markings, labeling, or
placarding requirements that could warn a subsequent sludge shipper of
possible contamination. Forthcoming technical criteria for sludge would
provide a safeguard only if the criteria were required to be met after the
sludge had been transported.
3.3 EFFECTIVE REGULATORY COVERAGE AND POTENTIAL GAPS
A review and analysis of the existing regulations that govern the
shipping, carrying, and receiving of hazardous and nonhazardous materials
indicates that although there are regulations that could prevent contamination
and resulting harm with respect to particular hazardous materials, there is no
comprehensive program to ensure that shipments of nonhazardous goods will not
be contaminated by previous or simultaneous shipments of hazardous materials.
Furthermore, shippers of hazardous materials are not required to alert
subsequent shippers of nonhazardous goods that such goods are subject to
contamination when they are transported by a carrier who had previously
transported hazardous materials. Under DOT regulations, the shipper has the
responsibility to ensure that a vehicle is appropriate for a particular
shipment of hazardous materials. Thus, shippers of hazardous materials must
always be aware of the condition of the carrier's vehicle (i.e., whether the
vehicle is contaminated with an incompatible material). For shippers of
nonhazardous goods such as foodstuffs, however, there is no analogous
regulatory requirement. Shippers of nonhazardous materials, therefore, are
unlikely to focus on whether a vehicle has been contaminated by a previous
shipment of hazardous materials and consequently may fail to observe
appropriate safety precautions. Few hazardous materials are required to be
shipped in dedicated vehicles and there is no universal requirement to clean a
vehicle after it is used to transport hazardous materials.
9DOT has proposed to require marking for such nontank bulk transport
vehicles (see note 4 above).
-------
3-18
Regulations do exist that can provide protection from potential
contamination. However, for the most part, these regulations were drafted for
two specific purposes: (1) to minimize the potential for mixing different
types of hazardous materials that could result in immediate health dangers;
and (2) to protect emergency response personnel at the scene of an
accident.10 The DOT regulations generally provide for the disclosure of
information regarding the contents of the motor vehicle or rail car, but
except in the few special cases, even strict adherence to the regulations
would not protect against contamination that could result from insufficient
cleaning of a bulk or nonbulk container. Other regulations that cover the
joint-use problem to a lesser degree are designed to ensure the integrity of
drugs and foodstuffs. Because none of these regulations were drafted to
address the problem of joint use, certain regulatory gaps exist.
There are three basic scenarios that could cause contamination of
nonhazardous goods during transportation: (1) residue remaining after a bulk
shipment of a hazardous material causing contamination of a subsequent
shipment of a nonhazardous good in the same vehicle;11 (2) a spill during
shipment of packages of a hazardous material causing contamination of a
subsequent shipment of packages of a nonhazardous good in the same vehicle;
and (3) a spill during simultaneous shipment of packages of a hazardous
material and packages of a nonhazardous material. The regulatory coverage and
potential regulatory gaps related to each of these three scenarios are
discussed below. A summary of regulatory gaps is provided at the end of this
chapter.
3.3.1 Sequential Bulk Shipments
There are several regulatory provisions (discussed below) that apply to
sequential bulk shipments of hazardous and nonhazardous materials. Some
regulations require notice to a subsequent shipper that a previous shipment
involved hazardous material. Other regulations require cleaning of the
hazardous material transport vehicle after unloading, or require other
precautionary measures. Some of these regulations apply to all hazardous
materials and modes of transportation, and some apply only to specific
materials or modes of transportation (i.e., only motor vehicle or only rail).
Compliance with shipping paper, marking, labeling, and placarding requirements
could provide notice to subsequent shippers.
10DOT has noted, however, that marking and labeling of poisons also can
be helpful in preventing simultaneous shipments with foodstuffs. See 41 FR
40625, September 20, 1976; 41 FR 15973, April 15, 1976.
11Residue of a hazardous material remaining in a drum subsequently
reconditioned or reused to transport a nonhazardous material presents a
similar threat of contamination. Thus, this chapter treats reuse of drums as
a subset of scenario (1).
-------
3-19
Marking, Labeling, and Placarding
The DOT regulations require that a cargo tank or portable tank must remain
marked and placarded after the hazardous material is unloaded, unless it is
reloaded with a nonhazardous good or cleaned sufficiently to eliminate
potential hazards. Similarly, a tank car containing the residue of a
hazardous material must remain marked and must be affixed with a residue
placard unless it is cleaned sufficiently to remove hazards or reloaded with a
material requiring different placards or no placards. The shipping paper for
such a tank car must note the presence of this placard. If carriers and
shippers comply with these marking, residue placarding, and cleaning
requirements, either a subsequent shipper of a nonhazardous good would be on
notice that the cargo tank, portable tank, or tank car previously contained a
hazardous material or the tank will have been cleaned sufficiently to remove
potential hazards.
Transportation of ORM hazardous materials in vehicles other than cargo
tanks or tank cars appears to be a significant gap in the regulatory
coverage. As mentioned above, there are shipping paper, placarding, and
cleaning requirements that apply to bulk shipments of hazardous materials.
ORM hazardous materials, however, are exempt from general labeling and
placarding requirements. Therefore, no vehicles containing ORM materials are
required to be placarded or labeled. In addition, the only vehicles required
to be marked are cargo tanks and tank cars. Thus, a nontank transport
vehicle, such as a dump truck, that contains ORM materials is not required to
be placarded, labeled, or marked to identify its contents, and a subsequent
shipper of nonhazardous materials using such a nontank vehicle probably would
be unaware of the identity of its previous load of hazardous material.
Cleaning and Dedication Requirements
Cleaning and dedication requirements are significant despite their narrow
scope (i.e., they apply only to specific hazardous materials) because they
contain provisions that would be most likely to prevent contamination of a
nonhazardous material in a joint-use situation. For example, DOT regulations
prohibit subsequent shipment of nonhazardous goods in any motor vehicle used
to ship arsenic dust in bulk. The regulations also provide that a rail car
carrying potassium permanganate or other poisonous materials must be cleaned
thoroughly after unloading, unless the rail car is used exclusively to carry
such materials. Thus, for certain hazardous materials, such as poisonous
materials transported in rail cars, DOT regulations require dedication or
cleaning before a change of lading.
However, regulatory coverage is not complete. Because of the lack of
specific cleaning standards in the hazardous materials regulations, those
standards may not fully protect public health and the environment from
contamination resulting from joint use. For example, the placard may be
removed when a cargo tank or portable tank is cleaned sufficiently "to remove
any potential hazard." However, in light of the purposes of the DOT
regulations and because the phrase "any potential hazard" is not defined more
specifically, a carrier might consider a potential hazard to be one that
-------
3-20
results from the chemical or physical reaction between two or more hazardous
materials or from the danger to personnel in the event of an accident. Thus,
the hazard resulting from possible contamination of a nonhazardous good might
not be considered and, consequently, placards may be removed although a threat
of contamination might remain.
To some extent, dedication and associated cleaning requirements for many
of the most toxic materials do protect against contamination of nonhazardous
materials. These regulations, however, apply only to a few specific hazard
classes. Most hazardous materials other than poisons transported by rail have
no general cleaning or dedication requirement. For example, benzene is
classified as a flammable liquid rather than as a poison and therefore no
dedication or associated cleaning requirements apply to vehicles carrying
benzene. In a recent proposed rulemaking, however, EPA has identified benzene
as a potential carcinogen (52 FR 8140, March 16, 1987). Thus, vehicles used
to transport certain potential carcinogens (e.g., benzene) need not be
assigned exclusively to that service. This gap, along with the uncertainty
regarding general cleanup standards for residues, could result in
contamination of subsequent shipments of nonhazardous goods.
3.3.2 Sequential Package Shipments
When leakage occurs during the shipment of a packaged hazardous material,
contamination of the transport vehicle could result. This could lead to the
contamination of nonhazardous materials transported subsequently in the same
vehicle and to potential harm when people, animals, or the environment are
exposed to the tainted nonhazardous materials. Regulatory requirements that
could prevent this sequence of events may be divided into the following
categories: (1) notice to authorities when a transportation spill (whether or
not wholly contained within the vehicle) occurs; (2) cleanup of released
hazardous materials; (3) dedication of vehicles to carriage of hazardous
materials only;.and (4) inspection of incoming shipments of nonhazardous
materials.
Notification Requirements
A first step in attempting to prevent any eventual contamination of
nonhazardous materials is for the appropriate government officials to be
notified of a spill of hazardous materials during transportation so that
effective action can be taken to resolve the problem. Carriers must submit a
written "incident report" to DOT within 15 days after discovering that a
hazardous material was unintentionally released, or that any amount of
hazardous waste was discharged, during transportation. As mentioned in
Section 3.1.2, DOT regulations also require carriers to notify DOT by
telephone as soon as practicable if, as a direct result of transportation of
hazardous materials, a serious incident occurs, such as the spillage of or
suspected contamination by radioactive material or etiologic agents. This
telephone report must be followed within 15 days by a written report from the
carrier to DOT. If a CERCLA hazardous substance is released into the
environment in an amount that equals or exceeds the reportable quantity for
the substance, CERCLA regulations require immediate notification to the
-------
3-21
National Response Center. SARA provisions require State and local
notification for certain releases of CERCLA hazardous substances and for SARA
extremely hazardous substances. These notification provisions enable
govenment authorities to become aware of releases that might cause
contamination and to pursue efforts to ensure that tainted transport vehicles
are cleaned and/or restricted in subsequent use for transporting nonhazardous
materials.
Cleaning and Dedication Requirements
Other regulations provide expressly for the cleaning of transport
vehicles, or of the contaminated nonhazardous materials, when leakage of
hazardous materials has occurred. DOT requirements relating to accidents
involving transport of certain hazardous materials require carriers to take
action to remedy leaking or damaged packagings. DOT regulations also require
that all hazardous materials spilled in rail cars must be removed. EPA
regulations require the decontamination of transport vehicles contaminated
with pesticides or PCBs. Compliance with requirements for cleaning or
dedication of transport vehicles to only the transport of certain hazardous
materials may reduce the possibility of contamination of nonhazardous goods.
The cleaning and dedication provisions for poisons transported by rail
apply to sequential package shipments as well as to sequential bulk
shipments. Many hazardous materials shipments are not covered by these
provisions, however, because they are not poisons transported by rail.
As discussed above, DOT regulations require cleanup of accidental spills
of packaged hazardous materials. These regulations do not require, however,
that the carrier notify the receiver or a subsequent shipper that a hazardous
material has been spilled and cleaned up. Because there are no specific
decontamination standards, residue of a spill sufficient to contaminate a
subsequent package shipment of a nonhazardous material could remain even after
cleanup.
There is an additional regulatory gap related to CERCLA hazardous
substances: if a hazardous material is a CERCLA hazardous substance
classified as ORM-E packaged in a quantity less than its RQ, and a spill
occurs, the DOT notification or cleaning requirements do not apply because the
spillage would not be a DOT hazardous substance, and therefore not a hazardous
material. Technically, therefore, under DOT regulations, a carrier would not
be required to clean up the spill, and contamination of the vehicle could
occur. Further, because the package originally contained less than an RQ, the
carrier may not have knowledge that a CERCLA hazardous substance has been
released into the vehicle because no marking is required on the package. The
probability of these types of spills occurring is unknown because little data
exist due to the lack of reporting requirements.
Inspection Requirements
If all of the regulatory protections fail to prevent packaged nonhazardous
materials from being tainted by hazardous materials, inspections of
-------
3-22
nonhazardous goods for contamination could still prevent ultimate harm to the
public or the environment. Aside from a DOT requirement for the inspection of
unplacarded rail cars adjacent to placarded ones to detect contamination, all
inspection provisions for nonhazardous materials appear to be contained in the
FDA regulations. These inspections to identify tainted items are required for
the ingredients, raw materials, and raw material containers for food products
and for incoming shipments of components, drug product containers, and
closures for pharmaceutical products and drugs for medicated animal feed. FDA
regulations also require proper procedures for human or animal foodstuffs and
drugs, should contamination occur. Because the term "proper procedures" is
vague, however, this regulation may not provide adequate protection of public
health. In addition, FDA regulations that require visual inspection of drugs
for contamination might not reveal the presence of hazardous materials.
Finally, because FDA regulations do not cover shipments of fibers or clothing,
contamination of these nonhazardous materials may not be detected.
3.3.3 Simultaneous Package Shipments
The simultaneous shipment of packaged hazardous materials and nonhazardous
goods present an obvious potential for contamination. If there is a leak of
the hazardous material, the nonhazardous good may be contaminated. In
contrast with sequential shipments, there is no opportunity for cleaning the
vehicle between hazardous and nonhazardous shipments to avoid contamination.
Simultaneous shipment of certain materials is addressed directly in the
DOT regulations. The regulations prohibit the simultaneous transportation of
any package labeled as a poison and any foodstuff in the same motor vehicle
(except if the packaging meets certain standards) or in the same rail car.
Such regulations are important because they greatly reduce the possibility of
contamination of a foodstuff by a material labeled as a poison during a
simultaneous shipment. For other types of hazardous materials, compliance
with FDA regulations related to inspection of foodstuffs and drugs may reveal
any contamination (especially if it is apparent upon visual inspection) that
may have occurred as a result of simultaneous shipment of hazardous and
nonhazardous materials.
Although there are DOT regulations that require hazardous material spills
to be reported, and that the contamination be contained to prevent damage to
other lading, an undetected or improperly contained spill could cause
significant damage. The DOT regulations, however, address a serious
simultaneous transportation threat; hazardous materials bearing a poison label
may not be transported in the same rail car with foodstuff, feed, or other
edible material, and may only be transported in a motor vehicle with such
items if the inside package is enclosed in a leaktight and dustproof overpack
or metal drum. However, most hazardous materials other than poisons can be
transported simultaneously with human or animal foodstuff, and poisons can be
transported with nonhazardous goods other than foodstuffs that may become
contaminated in the event of an accidental release.
Any leak of a packaged hazardous material that occurs during such a
simultaneous shipment could result in some degree of contamination of the
nonhazardous good, depending on the type of packaging used for the
-------
3-23
nonhazardous good. If the packaging were paper or other sacks (as in the case
of flour), for example, a high degree of contamination would be likely. If
the packaging were glass containers (as in the case of bottled drinking water)
or other impervious material such as metal, contamination would be much less
likely and if contamination did occur, it probably would be less extensive.
In the case of motor vehicle shipments of packages containing poisons together
with foodstuffs, the poison packaging must be an overpacked liquid-tight and
dust-proof container (49 CFR §177.841(e)). Thus, the potential for
contamination would be greatly reduced if the packaged material were a
poisonous material rather than another class of hazardous material contained
in a less secure packaging. Even if contamination did occur, compliance with
FDA regulations could result in detection of the contamination prior to human
or animal consumption.
Exhibit 3-5 summarizes the potential regulatory gaps relevant to the joint
use of vehicles.
-------
3-24
EXHIBIT 3-5
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL REGULATORY
GAPS IN JOINT USE OF VEHICLES
Sequential bulk shipments of hazardous and nonhazardous
materials generally are not prohibited.
Shippers of hazardous materials are not required to notify
subsequent shippers (other than indirectly through placards,
labels, and markings) using the same vehicle to transport
nonhazardous materials of the contents of the previous load.
The regulations generally do not prohibit simultaneous
transportation of hazardous materials with foodstuffs,
except in the case of poisons.
Vehicles other than tank cars or cargo tanks carrying ORM
materials are not required to be placarded, labeled, or
marked.
The regulations that require cleaning after transportation
of bulk hazardous materials or after leaks from packaged
hazardous materials do not contain specific decontamination
standards.
A package containing a CERCLA hazardous substance packaged
in an amount less than its RQ and not meeting the
requirements for a DOT hazard class is not required to be
marked or labeled, because it is not a hazardous material
for purposes of the DOT regulations.
-------
CHAPTER 4
CURRENT TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND PRACTICES
The purpose of this chapter is to characterize the transportation industry
and to describe the economic factors that might induce a shipper or carrier to
observe precautions against contamination. Much of the information on
industry practices was obtained through an informal survey. Representatives
from industry and carrier categories, trade associations, Federal, State, and
local governments, and others involved in hazardous materials transportation
were identified and contacted. Persons contacted for information on industry
practices are included in Appendix B.
Trucking and railroading are very different and are treated separately
within this chapter. For example, the size of firms varies greatly in the
trucking industry, while large firms dominate the railroad industry. Further,
there exists a wide range of relationships between shippers, carriers, and
receivers in the trucking industry, while shippers, carriers, and receivers in
the railroad industry tend to be separate and distinct entities. The railroad
shipper rarely owns the track over which the shipment travels, and rail cars
may be owned by a different railroad, a car leasing company, a shipper, or a
receiver. In addition, industry standards for railroad shipments are more
formalized than trucking industry practices.
Section 4.1 includes a description of trucking industry practices,
focusing on five industrial sectors: transportation of hazardous waste,
sewage sluge, chemicals, petroleum, and agricultural commodities. These
transportation sectors are the focal point of this section for three reasons:
(1) hazardous wastes and sewage sludge have received particular Congressional
and regulatory attention; (2) petroleum and chemical truck carriers represent
a significant portion of the hazardous materials transportation industry; and
(3) transportation of hazardous materials poses a potential threat of
contamination to agricultural commodities. Section 4.2 includes a description
of railroad industry practices, and discusses formal standards that have been
developed to reduce the likelihood of contamination of nonhazardous
shipments. Section 4.3 includes a discussion of the economic factors that
influence a carrier's decision to clean a vehicle or to dedicate a vehicle to
the transportation of a particular hazardous material or class of hazardous
materials. Both cleaning and dedication of a vehicle would reduce the
potential for contamination of nonhazardous materials during transportation.
Section 4.4 reviews statutory and common law liability and the potential
effect of such liability on the behavior of different sectors of the
transportation industry. Section 4.5 summarizes the findings of the chapter.
4.1 TRUCKING INDUSTRY PRACTICES
The trucking industry transports almost one billion tons of hazardous
materials annually, involving almost a half million trucks. Types of carriers
include private interstate carriers; large interstate common and contract
-------
4-2
carriers; and small common, contract, and private intrastate carriers.
Exhibit 4-1 distinguishes between for-hire and not-for-hire carriers in
summarizing the number of trucks used in hazardous materials transportation.
The remainder of this section describes industry practices in sectors most
closely related to the issue of joint use of trucks for transporting both
hazardous and nonhazardous materials: hazardous waste transporters; sewage
sludge transporters; chemical product transporters; petroleum transporters;
and agricultural commodity transporters.
4.1.1 Hazardous Waste Transporters
Hazardous waste transporters must comply with EPA and State regulations,
including manifesting requirements, and often must obtain State permits. The
requirements for formal permits, certificates, and extra liability insurance
often required of carriers of hazardous waste serve to limit entry of
irresponsible carriers in the waste hauling business.
The hazardous waste transportation business has two components that appear
to operate differently: (1) the hauling of waste from industrial processes;
and (2) the hauling of contaminated soil generated during site clean-up
projects. Each component is discussed briefly below.
Industrial waste transporters:
Tank trucks and roll-off boxes or roll-off tanks (similar to a dumpster),
and the tractor picking up these containers, are all involved in the
industrial waste transporting business. Industrial waste generators are
concerned about potential liability from mishandling of the waste, and tend to
select transporters carefully. The major transporters project an image of
being careful, clean, and dependable. The rates charged for transporting
hazardous industrial waste include the cost of an empty back haul. The
potential liability for the transporter and for the generator of hazardous
industrial waste provide the public with a measure of protection against
contamination.
Hazardous waste cleanup:
Hazardous waste cleanup involves moving contaminated earth in dump
trucks. In much of the country this business is seasonal because it is not
performed when the ground is frozen. A particular company's business also
fluctuates because different companies win contracts to perform site
cleanups. Because contracts are competitive, hazardous waste transportation
from a clean-up site is sensitive to price.
Dump trucks hauling contaminated earth are generally lined with a plastic
liner that is delivered with the contaminated earth to the disposal site. The
liner makes it easier to deliver the full load, and protects the truck from
retaining large amounts of contaminated earth. Liner prices range from $15 to
$30. Also, dump trucks usually are swept out at the disposal site because
trucks must be empty or must have a manifest to leave the disposal facility.
-------
4-3
EXHIBIT 4-1
NUMBER OF TRUCKS CARRYING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
BY INDUSTRY AND CARRIER CATEGORIES
Industry
Category
Scrap
Chemical
Petroleum
Agriculture
Other1
TOTAL
Private
Business Use
(not-for-hire)
2,820
29,550
97,637
3,379
41,872
175,258
Motor
Carrier
Owner
Operator2
(for-hire)
710
11,205
12,537
1,970
124,364
150,786
156
1,926
2,685
1,002
14,258
20,027
Not
Classified
0
324
397
142
2,362
3,225
Total
3,686
43,005
113,256
6,493
182,856
349,296
"This chart includes data for trucks with a gross vehicle weight greater
than or equal to 10,000 pounds.
1"0ther" includes trucks used to haul packaged goods. Its major industry
components are:
Mixed Cargo 110,765 trucks
Processed Foods 12,379 trucks
Machinery 8,220 trucks
Craftsman's Vehicles 6,779 trucks
20wner/operators are generally small operations where the owner is the
truck operator. In contrast, motor carriers operate fleets of trucks.
Source: 1982 Census of Transportation, "Truck Inventory and Use Survey."
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, September 1985.
-------
4-4
Dump trucks involved in site cleanups are reported to be used commonly to
transport scrap for recycling products made of steel, aluminum, or glass;
coal; coke; lime; and, occasionally, grain. There are at least two potential
ways a shipment of nonhazardous materials can become contaminated: (1) a
hazardous waste transporter frequently could transport nonhazardous material;
and (2) a hazardous waste transporter could transport the nonhazardous good on
a seasonal basis. Of these two potential methods, the former presents the
more serious problem because the frequency of occurrence is higher, and
because cleaning of the truck may be less likely to occur since the cost of
cleaning must be supported by the revenues from one or a few loads rather than
the revenues of an entire season. The more frequent cleaning is necessary,
the greater is the financial burden placed on the carrier, and the greater the
probability that adequate cleaning will not occur.
Many hazardous waste transporters contacted during the course of this
study felt that to transport a material such as grain in a vehicle used
previously to transport hazardous wastes would present an unreasonable risk,
unless the truck had been thoroughly cleaned and decontaminated. These
carriers did acknowledge there is pressure to reduce rates, however, and
carrying nonhazardous goods on the back haul is one way to generate additional
income and keep the rates down. If the dump truck has a liner and is properly
swept or cleaned after delivering the hazardous waste, the carriers stated
that grain transport would probably be safe.
4.1.2 Sewage Sludge Transporters
Municipal sewage sludge disposal generally is by incineration, land
application, ocean dumping, or landfilling. Landfilling is presently the
dominant method of disposal, accounting for approximately 41 percent of sludge
disposal.1 Land application, defined as the spreading of sludge on or just
below the surface of the land, is being promoted by many States as the sludge
use/disposal option of choice. For example, Pennsylvania now requires the
application of wastewater sludge to be considered as one alternative in any
disturbed land reclamation plan, and New Jersey is promoting the reduction of
toxic organic chemical and metal concentrations in all municipal sludges, so
that they can be recycled by land application.2 Federal regulations require
stabilization of sludge prior to land application to reduce odors and lower
pathogen levels (40 CFR §§257, 761).
Municipal sewage treatment sludge is transported principally'from the
plant to its ultimate destination in dump trucks, most frequently the large 20
to 40 cubic yard, multi-axle size, although tank trucks are used to carry
1V.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Draft Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Assessment of Sludge Disposal Criteria," December 1986.
2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Environmental Regulations and
Technology: Use and Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge," September 1984,
EPA 625/10-84-003, p.10.
-------
4-5
sludge with a high water content. Dump trucks carrying sludge with a
substantial water content usually have sealed tailgates to prevent leakage and
are covered or partially covered to prevent spillage. Many municipalities
have their own trucks that carry the sludge to disposal facilities; others
contract for this service. Sludge for land application is carried most
frequently by a contract hauler. Although sophisticated equipment using the
same vehicle is available to transport and apply the sludge, the cost of this
specialized equipment is sufficiently high to limit its use. The normal
sludge disposal procedure is to haul the sludge to the land application site
and either dump it for later application by other equipment or transfer the
sludge directly to the other equipment for application.
Sludge transportation and/or disposal is regulated closely by most
States. Some States require permits to transport sludge and also require
permits for land application of the sludge. The States usually must approve
the land application site, as well as the rate of application of the sludge.
EPA has published guidelines on the use and disposal of municipal
wastewater sludge. Under EPA guidelines, sludge from a sewage treatment plant
normally would not be acceptable, without further processing, for direct food
chain applications. Food chain crops are: tobacco, crops grown for human
consumption, and feed for animals whose products are consumed by humans. Land
application of sludge for growth of food-chain crops is subject to additional
requirements, and to restraints imposed by good practices and State
regulations.' For example, to prevent nitrate contamination of ground water,
the usual practice is to apply sludge at a rate that just satisfies the
nitrogen requirement of the crop to be grown on a site. Similarly, some
States protect surface waters against phosphorus contamination by limiting
application rates to the phosphorus needs of the crops. Key Federal
regulations affecting land application to food-chain crops focus on pathogen
reduction, cadmium limitations, and PCB content.3 Sewage sludge generally
can be used directly in applications such as forestry, sod farming, and
growing cotton. EPA guidelines do not address the joint-use issue, however.
Testing of sludge for contaminants normally would occur at the sewage
treatment plant prior to transportation, and would not identify joint-use
contamination.
Even though joint-use contamination of sewage treatment sludge can occur,
sludge treatment plant operators, and Federal officials contacted stated that
it probably is not a significant problem. The majority of vehicles used to
transport sludge are dedicated for this purpose, minimizing the potential for
contamination. In addition, for instances in which contamination does occur,
the amount of hazardous residue from a previous load would be diluted by the
large quantity of sludge, thereby reducing the potential danger. Finally, any
contamination of sludge normally would be several steps removed from human
consumption.
3Ibid., pp. 21-22.
-------
4-6
4.1.3 Chemical Transporters
The review of transportation practices in the chemical industry
concentrated on the transportation of chemical products from manufacturing or
processing plants to customers. This activity can be a direct shipment, or
can involve a transfer of cargo at a distribution center or transfer terminal
for local delivery.
Chemical products can be hazardous or nonhazardous, and can be transported
in bulk or packaged form. Bulk products can be solids, liquids, or gases, and
are shipped most often in dry or liquid tank trucks. They also may be shipped
in vans or hopper trucks. Packaged products are shipped most often in
enclosed vans, but are sometimes shipped on platform or flatbed trucks. It is
unlikely manufactured chemical products would be transported in dump trucks,
except by customers transporting their own goods.
Most chemical firms hire trucking companies to transport their products,
although some firms have their own fleets of trucks. Even those firms with
dedicated fleets often augment their fleets by hiring common motor carriers
during peak periods or to transport special products. Small owner/operators
usually are not employed in these situations unless they work under exclusive
contract to that firm.
A significant number of tank trucks are dedicated to carrying specific
chemical products because of the cost of cleaning and the need for particular
tank specifications. Tank trailers meeting the minimum specifications for
carrying foodstuffs often are inadequate for carrying many chemical products.
Industry representatives stated that chemical manufacturers generally
select carriers very carefully because they could suffer both damage to their
corporate reputation and potentially large liability judgments should a
contamination incident occur. Consequently, whether using one of their own
vehicles or the vehicle of a common carrier, chemical manufacturers are
careful to ensure trucks carrying their products are not likely to cause a
contamination incident. In general, trucks are inspected to ascertain that
the vehicle is clean. Some firms take samples after the truck has been loaded
to ensure no contamination has occurred.
Although foodstuffs produced by chemical companies frequently are shipped
in trucks used to haul hazardous chemicals, firms contacted either ensure the
truck is cleaned thoroughly, or, if necessary, ban its use for certain
combinations of products to eliminate any possibility of contamination.
4.1.4 Petroleum Transporters
The petroleum trucking industry is dominated by dedicated carriers. The
petroleum distributor generally owns his own fleet of tractors/tank trucks and
transports only petroleum products. Distributors may be large, multinational
oil corporations transporting gasoline seven days a week, or local/regional
firms supplying fuel oil and gasoline to homes and businesses.
-------
4-7
Common and contract carriers often supplement the trucking fleets of the
distributors. Small, independent owner/operators often provide dedicated
service to the larger oil companies and supplement the company's fleet.
Larger, common carriers also are used by the national, regional, and local
distributors, but these carriers are more likely to sell their services to
many distributors. In addition, these common carriers often are used to haul
several different types of petroleum products, and to provide transportation
services to industry sectors other than the petroleum industry.
Discussions with industry representatives revealed three primary reasons
joint-use contamination is not a problem in the petroleum hauling industry.
First, petroleum tanks are made of aluminum and are less expensive than the
higher grade, corrosion-resistant, stainless steel, food and chemical tank
trucks. As a result, tank trucks engaged in transporting petroleum products
essentially are dedicated to that industry and would not be used to haul
foodstuffs or chemicals.
Second, because of the use of ocean tankers and pipelines to deliver
products to regional and local distribution terminals, the average truck
delivery distance for petroleum products is less than 30 miles. This distance
does not differ markedly by geographic region. Because of the small
geographic scope of the market, trucks can reload quickly and there is little
economic pressure on carriers to risk incompatible back hauls.
Finally, the quality control pressure on gasoline and jet fuel producers
and distributors is sufficiently intense to prevent these carriers from
risking a loss of reputation through the contamination of a shipment. This
fear of contamination, in conjunction with the additional cleaning costs
required to switch product lines, limits joint use.
4.1.5 Raw Agricultural Commodity Transporters
Possible joint-use contamination of fruits, vegetables, timber, plants,
animals, grains, milk, and a variety of products made from these raw materials
is a serious concern due to direct contact or consumption by humans and
animals. Shippers, carriers, and receivers all have a stake in preventing or
deterring transportation contamination, but one industry representative stated
the prime responsibility for ensuring purity rests with the receiver of the
shipment. The industry practices for transportation of certain agricultural
commodities are presented below.
Fruits and Vegetables
Raw fruits and vegetables usually are transported from the farm to
processing or packing plants in refrigerated vans. Except for a few loose
products such as watermelons, they are carried in some form of container such
as crates, plastic wrapping, or cardboard boxes. From the packing plants to
the consumer outlets, refrigerated vans also are the normal transport vehicle.
Refrigerated trucks traveling long distances are used to carry
agricultural products and can be used to transport non-agricultural goods, and
-------
4-8
sometimes hazardous materials, on the back haul. These hazardous materials
are contained most frequently in drums or other packages. Any spills or
hazardous material package ruptures are required under DOT regulations to be
cleaned up, minimizing the likelihood of contamination of fruits and
vegetables transported subsequently in the vehicle.
Meat and Poultry
Animals most often are transported live to the packing plant where they
are slaughtered and processed for meat or poultry products. When leaving the
packing plant, these products are either frozen or packed with ice and
packaged in cardboard boxes. Eggs also are transported in cardboard boxes in
refrigerated vans. In some instances, animal parts may be shipped to other
processing plants to make specialized products. Refrigerated trucks are
always used to haul these products. According to the American Meat Institute,
"hanging meat" is no longer transported.
Grains and Seeds
Grains are hauled from farms to country grain elevators in a variety of
vehicles including, most frequently, the farmer's own small truck or trailer.
Because the grain is frequently adulterated with foreign material, it is
screened and graded upon arrival at the country grain elevators based upon the
amount of damage, moisture, and foreign material content. Because of this
screening procedure, trucks hauling raw grains to country elevators often are
not inspected carefully.
The large hopper semi-trailer is the most common type of truck used to
transport grain from the country elevator to the processing plant. At
processing plants, the grain is screened and graded again, as well as visually
checked for mercury or toxic contamination. Trucks picking up grains at
elevators and processing plants also are visually inspected for cleanliness.
Seeds are handled in a similar manner. Grains and seeds processed into
liquids, such as corn syrups and sunflower oils, are then shipped in tank
trucks which are typically in dedicated service.
The contamination of grain and seed products destined for animal or human
consumption is possible, but does not appear to be a major concern in the
industry. One grain processor representative claimed that if grain were to be
mixed with any hazardous, dry substance, most likely it would be fertilizers.
These fertilizers then would be separated along with other foreign substances
in the screening process, or would be diluted sufficiently in processing so as
to render the resulting product harmless. The veracity of this claim may
depend on the toxicity of the contaminating fertilizer.
The potential for contamination of grain in trucks is somewhat limited
because the majority of grain is transported in rail cars and barges,
particularly for long distances. The potential for contamination is further
limited by the highly seasonal nature of the industry. Fertilizers generally
are not transported when grain is harvested. Fertilizers are applied in the
spring and summer; the prime harvest and transport period for grain is in the
-------
4-9
fall, although winter wheat may be harvested at times when fertilizers also
are transported. Contamination also is possible during the transitional
period from one season to another.
Milk and Dairy Products
Milk is transported from farms to pasteurizing or processing plants in
food grade, liquid tank trucks. The milk is pasteurized and packaged in
plastic or wax containers, or further processed into a number of dairy
products before being packaged. Milk and other dairy products then are
shipped to consumer outlets in refrigerated trucks.
Grade A milk is one of the most closely scrutinized commodities because of
the Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, a voluntary participatory program
established by the National Conference of Interstate Milk Shippers. All 50
States administer the program which requires:
• Interstate shippers to be approved and continuously
evaluated by the States;
• Carriers to be licensed by the States;
• .Tank trucks to be cleaned and sanitized to certain
specifications after every load, unless reused to carry
the same product within 24 hours;
• Cleaning tags that only can be removed by the next
shipper;
• Testing of the pasteurized product on a random basis;
and
• Retention of shipping and cleaning records for State
inspectors.
Dry milk, cottage cheese, creams, and yogurt are milk products covered
under the Ordinance. Ice creams and hard cheeses are not covered unless
processed at a Grade A processing plant. Grade B milk is handled under a
similar program.
Under the Ordinance, only a food grade (stainless steel lined) tank
trailer may be used to carry milk. These trailers also are used for other
liquid food products such as corn syrup and orange juice. It is possible that
these tanks also could be used for carrying liquid fertilizers or pesticides
so long as these chemicals do not require tanks of a higher specification.
The potential for this joint use is limited, however, because of the more
stringent tank specifications required for the transportation of many
fertilizers, and because of the Ordinance cleaning requirements that must be
met before the trailer can be reused to carry milk. Therefore, contamination
of milk products is unlikely.
-------
4-10
Conclusion
With the exception of milk, trucks used to transport agricultural products
do not receive intense scrutiny. They normally are inspected visually for
residues of previous loads. Even USDA inspectors have no formal procedures
for inspecting trucks used to carry meat. This does not appear to be a major
concern, however, because agricultural products such as fruits, vegetables,
meats, and poultry are shipped in some form of container that keeps the cargo
from coming in contact with the floor or walls of the truck. Furthermore,
most agricultural products are transported in refrigerated trucks that are
rarely, if ever, used to haul bulk hazardous materials.
While contamination of grain or animal feed in trucks used to haul
agricultural chemicals might appear on the surface to represent a potential
problem, few persons contacted could relate even one instance of contamination
due to such joint use of trucks. The toxicology hotline staff at the
University of Illinois, which received 23,000 calls on animal poisonings from
all over the country last year, could not recall any incidents traced to
hazardous material contamination by a transportation vehicle. However, it
does not necessarily follow that this type of contamination rarely occurs.
Instances of pesticide contamination may not be reported because no illness or
death occurred or because of an inability to trace the cause.
4.2 RAILROAD INDUSTRY PRACTICES
A railroad uses rail cars owned by shippers, receivers, and other
railroads and, therefore, often has little direct control over rail car
conditions. Many railroad practices, therefore, have been formalized in the
Code of Car Service Rules so that a railroad can be assured that certain
standards are maintained. Relevant rules pertaining to joint use of vehicles
are described below, followed by a brief description of the National Car Grade
System that automatically tracks information on box cars and refrigerator cars.
4.2.T Freight Car Service Rules
The railroad industry has created a Code of Car Service Rules to address
many concerns related to the interchange of cars between carriers. In
particular, two of these rules relate to car cleanliness. Car Service Rule 12
pertains to all types of rail cars, and requires that "cars containing refuse
may be rejected by the receiving road when offered in interchange as empty."
Car Service Rule 14 pertains exclusively to box cars and refrigerator cars,
and requires that any box car or refrigerator car requiring a level of
cleanliness "suitable for grain loading or better" must not be loaded with
certain "contaminating commodities," or the railroad furnishing the car will
be responsible for renewing the contaminated sections of the car's interior.
Contaminating commodities are listed as following: animal products (hides,
manure, etc.); copra (dry coconut); fish products; asphalt; creosote; lamp
black, carbon black, etc.; and poisonous chemicals.
Car Service Rule 14 also lists certain other contaminating commodities
that only can be loaded in such cars when authorization has been given by the
car owner. These commodities include:
-------
4-11
battery parts insecticides
charcoal peat or peat moss
coal and coke tar products
acids contaminated empty containers
grease cottonseeds (oily or dyed)
crushed glass molasses
graphite oils
greasy metal products petroleum products
4.2.2 The National Car Grade System
In 1982 the Association of American Railroads instituted the National Car
Grade System, a scheme for avoiding commodity contamination by inspecting box
cars and refrigerator cars used to ship the commodities listed in Car Service
Rule 14. The cars carrying the contaminating commodities are identified from
the waybills reported to the industry's TRAIN II central computer system, and
the inspections are performed when the cars are on the repair or clean-out
tracks. According to the system, cars are graded on a six-level scale with A
as the best, K as the most contaminated, and U as "unfit" for any loading and
in need of repair. The grade of a car depends on the last three commodities
it has carried, with a distinction made between bulk and packaged shipments.
Car grades can be adjusted up or down as a result of the physical inspections.
A commodity code table is used to determine what grade of empty car is needed
to avoid contaminating the load to be shipped.
Approximately three-fourths of the nation's box car originations in 1985
were represented in the National Car Grade System. Physical inspections were
performed primarily on cars intended to be used to transport paper, bagged
goods, furniture, wood pulp, peanuts, newsprint and processed food products.
Approximately 5 minutes per car on the average is required for an inspection,
at a cost of $4.83 per inspection. The primary benefit of the system to the
railroads has been to reduce the rejection rate for empty cars delivered to
shippers and found to be unfit for loading because of the risk of
contamination. The Car Grade System helps to assure that nonhazardous
materials are shipped in appropriate rail cars.
4.3 VEHICLE CLEANING AND DEDICATION
Two obvious means of minimizing the potential for contamination of
nonhazardous materials during transportation are (1) for vehicles to be
cleaned after delivering a shipment of hazardous materials, and (2)-for
vehicles that are used to transport hazardous materials to be dedicated to
that service until the vehicle is sufficiently cleaned and purged of any
contamination. The costs and economic factors that influence the industry
practice of cleaning and dedicating vehicles are described below.
There are only a few regulatory requirements that relate to cleaning of
vehicles after they are used to transport specific hazardous materials (e.g.,
poisons transported in rail cars). Many other hazardous materials, however,
are transported in dedicated trucks or tank cars, effectively eliminating the
potential for contamination of nonhazardous goods. To the extent that
-------
4-12
vehicles are cleaned and dedicated, the potential for contamination of
nonhazardous materials is reduced.
The costs of cleaning a vehicle such as a cargo tank include both the
out-of-pocket costs of the actual cleaning process and a shorter lifespan for
the vehicle, plus the opportunity cost of an idle vehicle. The price charged
by a vehicle-cleaning operation varies, depending upon the type of contaminant
and the type of subsequent load. Some contaminants are easier to remove than
others; for example, products that permeate or stick to the walls of the tank
are the most expensive to clean. In addition, some contaminant-cleaning
operations generate a hazardous waste that requires proper disposal.'1
The subsequent load to be carried by a vehicle affects the price of
cleaning, because the subsequent load determines the standard of cleanliness.
For example, if the subsequent load is to be food, a higher standard of
cleanliness, involving different cleaning methods, may be required relative to
the standard and methods required if the subsequent load will be another
chemical product. Some cleaning facilities refuse to clean vehicles that are
to be used to transport certain combinations of materials. Recent price
estimates are presented in Exhibit 4-2, illustrating the wide range of prices
charged for different types of tank cleaning. Tank cars are generally larger
vehicles and cleaning costs are higher.
Tank cleaning also is costly because it shortens the lifespan of a
vehicle. Cleaning tends to increase pitting and corrosion that can
significantly reduce the useful life of a tank.
Finally, the opportunity cost of an idle vehicle also is an important
economic factor to be considered in the cost of cleaning. A cleaning
operation typically requires two to six hours, depending on the cleaning
process and the number of other vehicles waiting to be cleaned. In addition,
a truck cleaning facility may not be located in close proximity to the
delivery or pick-up point for a particular truck, resulting in additional idle
time for the vehicle. During this time, the owner or operator is unable to
generate income and, unless the cleaning process is correlated closely with
the truck driver's resting time, the opportunity cost could be significant.
Opportunity costs for idle rail cars also may be significant.
The decision by a carrier to clean or not to clean a vehicle after
delivering a load is & function of the characteristics of the residue that are
present in the tank and the characteristics and value of the subsequent load.
If the loads are compatible such that contamination and loss of value is not
possible, then cleaning of the vehicle can be deferred.5 The carrier's
bEPA currently is studying truck cleaning facilities and the
characteristics of the wastewater generated at those facilities. The Agency
is considering the development of effluent guideline limitations to address
water pollution problems at truck cleaning facilities.
SA potential problem exists when carriers are not able to judge whether
or not a subsequent load is compatible with a previous load.
-------
4-13
EXHIBIT 4-2
TANK TRAILER CLEANING COSTS
Hazardous Contaminant"'/ Cost Per Cleaning
Subsequent Load (1986 dollars)
Chemical/Chemical $125 to $150
(e.g., acrylonitrile [flammable liquid,
poison] contaminant with subsequent load
of denatured alcohol [flammable liquid]
Chemical/Food $250 to $500
(e.g., anti-freeze [flammable liquid]
contaminant with subsequent load of
corn syrup)
"'If the contaminant is not hazardous, the costs of cleaning are
reduced significantly. For example, if a corn syrup residue must be removed
to prepare the truck for molasses, the cleaning costs are about $85.
Source: Informal Industry Survey: Discussions with truck cleaners.
-------
4-14
willingness to accept a load that requires cleaning of the vehicle after
delivery is dependent, therefore, on whether the price that can be charged for
the transport is sufficient to cover cleaning and opportunity costs, or
whether the carrier can arrange to subsequently transport compatible loads.
The likelihood of the latter depends upon the type of material being
transported, the length of the trip, and the size of the market. Products
that are transported in high volume, with small seasonal shifts, are most
conducive to the use of dedicated vehicles. One example is gasoline and other
petroleum products that are produced and transported in very high volumes in
local markets; they use a dedicated fleet of tanks for such transport.
Because these tanks are designed to transport only petroleum, they may be
constructed of aluminum, which is less expensive than the stainless steel'
tanks required for other chemical and food transportation.
Use of dedicated vehicles, even temporarily, reduces the likelihood of
contamination of nonhazardous materials during transportation. Because of the
compatibility of subsequent loads, even for a short period of time, the
cleaning costs appear to be less important to a carrier because the carrier
can spread those costs over more than one trip.
One problem faced by a carrier with a dedicated vehicle is the potential
for an empty back haul. A carrier is most successful when utilization of the
vehicle is high. If the carrier services a small geographic market, the cost
associated with any empty back haul is lower than if the carrier travels long
distances between pick-ups and deliveries and thereby risks the possibility of
losing several days' income between hauls. Hence, the costs of cleaning
(i.e., out-of-pocket costs, shorter lifespan costs, and opportunity costs),
plus the economic costs associated with empty back hauls, influence the
transportation industry and increase the potential for contamination of
nonhazardous materials as a result of the joint use of vehicles.
4.4 LIABILITY ISSUES
In addition to regulatory controls and formalized industry practices that
are designed to decrease the risks associated with the joint transportation of
hazardous and nonhazardous materials, shippers, carriers, and receivers
potentially could be subject to large judgments in actions for personal injury
or property damage resulting from contamination of nonhazardous goods.6
This section discusses certain liability issues associated with joint use.
These issues are addressed as follows: the basis of liability, either
6This study did not identify any cases in which third parties sued and
recovered damages for personal injuries arising from contamination of a
shipment of nonhazardous goods by hazardous materials during transportation.
In Town of East Troy v. Soo Line Railroad Co., 653 F.2d 1123 (7th Cir. 1980),
however, a municipality recovered $500,000 from a rail carrier for cleanup
costs and personal injury when phenol spilled from the carrier's rail car and
contaminated municipal drinking water supplies. Thus, a widespread
contamination incident could lead to substantial liability judgments.
-------
4-15
statutory or common law; and the distribution of damages among multiple
defendants, either apportionment or joint and several liability. The common
law liability discussion includes a brief explanation of the standards of care
that courts have imposed on defendants in liability actions, including
negligence and strict liability. Regardless of the basis, standards of care,
or division of damages among defendants, liability is an increasingly serious
issue because of the recent liability insurance crisis. Virtually all
insurance companies have refused to issue environmental impairment liability
(EIL) policies to protect against activities associated with environmental
contamination.7
4.4.1 Statutory Liability
Several Federal statutes impose civil and/or criminal penalties for
violation of statutory provisions. Under Section 110(a) of the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), a party who has knowingly committed an
act violating a provision of HMTA or any regulations promulgated under it is
subject to a civil penalty. Maximum civil penalties are $10,000 for each
violation. Each day of a continuing violation related to the shipment or
transportation of a hazardous material constitutes a separate offense.
Willful violations, as distinguished from knowing violations, may lead to
criminal sanctions. Maximum fines for each criminal offense are $25,000
and/or imprisonment for five years under Section 110(b) of the Act. In
addition, actions for equitable relief to redress a violation are provided in
Section 111 of the Act. The type of violation is not specified in Section 111
and thus presumably could include unknowing violations. The basis of
liability under HMTA is noncompliance with the regulations, as distinguished
from any contamination that may occur as a result of noncompliance. Thus, if
a shipper knowingly fails to placard or provide information on the shipping
papers in violation of a DOT regulation, the shipper would be subject to a
civil penalty, regardless of whether contamination occurs (as mentioned,
criminal sanctions could be imposed for willful violations). In addition,
under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), a civil action for property damage
can be brought by an injured party against a carrier in a U.S. district court
or a State court (49 U.S.C. §11707).
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), criminal
penalties apply to persons who knowingly transport or cause to be transported
any hazardous wastes without a manifest, make a false statement or misrepre-
sentation on a manifest, or destroy or conceal required records. In addition,
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) imposes liability on carriers and persons who arrange with carriers
for transport or disposal of hazardous substances. Liability can be imposed
for response costs and natural resource damages resulting from release of a
7Carol Cain, "Liability Capacity Growing," Business Insurance, September
22, 1986, p. 3.
-------
4-16
hazardous substance (Section 107).8 Section 103 of CERCLA requires that the
"person in charge" of a "facility" (defined to include motor vehicles and
rolling stock) immediately notify the National Response Center when there is a
release to the environment of a hazardous substance in an amount equal to or
greater than its reportable quantity. Section 109 of the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) imposes criminal penalties for a
knowing violation of Section 103 of CERCLA including fines of up to $250,000
or $500,000 (depending on whether the violator is an individual or
organization) and imprisonment for up to three years. Section 109 of SARA
also provides for civil penalties of up to $25,000 for a violation of CERCLA
Section 103 reporting requirements. The RCRA, CERCLA, HMTA, and ICA civil and
criminal penalty provisions provide incentives for shippers, carriers, and
receivers to comply with placarding, manifest, reporting, and other regulatory
requirements that could prevent harm resulting from contamination of
nonhazardous goods by hazardous materials.
4.4.2 Common Law Liability
In addition to these statutory and regulatory incentives, there are
various common law liability theories that could influence shippers, carriers,
and receivers to take proper precautions (whether statutorily-required or not)
to avoid contamination resulting from joint use. For example, if a shipper or
carrier fails to exercise care and injury results, either to persons or
property, he or she may be liable for the damages associated with the injury
under the theory of negligence. Generally, the standard of care required is
that of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar
circumstances.
Shippers and carriers could be held liable for a contamination incident
under a number of possible scenarios. A carrier might be liable if a
plaintiff could show that other carriers conducted their businesses in a safer
manner than did the defendant. On the other hand, if industry practice is
itself careless or dangerous, adherence to such standards may not relieve the
carrier of liability. In addition, a shipper might be liable for injury
resulting from contamination caused by the carrier if he negligently selected
or instructed the carrier or otherwise failed to minimize foreseeable risks.
For example, in State v. Schenectady Chemicals, Inc., 459 N.Y.S.2d 971 (1983),
the court ruled that a generator who negligently hired an incompetent
transporter could be held liable for the acts of the transporter. In the
context of joint use, a shipper who offers for transportation leaking
canisters of hazardous waste to a carrier whose truck is also carrying sacks
* In United States v. Ward, 618 F.Supp. 884 (E.D.N.C. 1985), the court
held that the defendant generators were liable for response costs incurred by
EPA in cleaning up roadsides where a transporter hired by the defendants had
sprayed polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from moving tank trucks. The court
ruled that the corporate president who was personally involved in selecting
the transporter was individually liable for cleanup costs under CERCLA Section
107(a)(3).
-------
4-17
of flour may be liable for resulting injury under the theory of negligence.
In this situation, the carrier might also be liable if he failed to exercise
the proper degree of care to prevent the harm. This determination would be
made on a case-by-case basis, considering the facts in light of common
industry practice.
The basic law of negligence has been modified and extended by the courts
in various States. For example, in some States violation of a safety statute
(e.g., a hazardous materials transportation law) constitutes negligence as a
matter of law, and in others, the violation is treated only as evidence of
negligence. In addition, industry practice is affected, to a certain extent
by the need to comply with the regulations governing hazardous materials
transportation. As a result, the standard of care against which negligence is
measured may be higher than it would be without regulation.
In a negligence action where the plaintiff as well as the defendant is
negligent to some degree, the defenses of contributory or comparative fault
may be raised. In the context of a joint-use problem, where the receiver sues
the carrier and/or shipper to recover the economic loss of the contaminated
goods (assuming no third-party personal injury action),9 the shipper and/or
carrier could claim contributory or comparative fault as a defense. In a
State that recognizes contributory fault, the receiver would not be able to
recover any amount from the shipper or carrier if the receiver were at fault
to any degree. In a State that recognizes comparative fault, however, the
receiver could recover damages from the shipper and carrier, reduced by the
percentage that the receiver was found to be at fault. For example, if the
court determined that the shipper was 60 percent at fault, the carrier was 30
percent at fault, and the receiver was 10 percent at fault for contamination
of grain, the receiver could recover 90 percent of the decrease in value of
the grain due to contamination. Contributory and comparative fault apply only
to negligence actions, however, and may not be used as a defense in an action
based on strict liability, which is discussed below.
Some courts have developed and applied a doctrine of strict liability for
certain activities; that is, a party engaging in an "abnormally dangerous"
activity may be liable for damages resulting from that activity even if the
90ne example of a suit for property damage as opposed to a personal
injury action is International Barges, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 579 F.2d 1204
(10th Cir. 1978). In that case, the shipper sued the carrier for the loss in
market value of a bulk shipment of anhydrous ammonia that was contaminated by
the residue of a previous bulk shipment of butylene. The receiver tested and
refused to accept the ammonia on the basis of the butylene contamination (117
parts per million). The court awarded $29,000 to the shipper for economic
loss when it could not sell the contaminated ammonia. Another example is Loan
Star Cement Corp. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 356 F.2d 901 (7th Cir. 1966),
in which the court held that the shipper and rail carrier were each 50 percent
liable for $30,000 in property damage sustained by third parties as a result
of construction with cement that was contaminated in bulk transit by fragments
of a previous bulk shipment of dolomite.
-------
4-18
activity was performed in a non-negligent manner. In a strict liability
action (in contrast to a negligence action) the precautions taken (e.g.,
placarding, manifesting, or rinsing of tanks) would not be relevant to the
issues of liability and damages if, despite the precautions, a third party was
injured. Thus, the threat of strict liability probably encourages more
stringent safety practices than does a negligence standard because the
shipper, carrier, or receiver would be subject to absolute liability if harm
occurs.10
Certain activities related to hazardous waste disposal are considered
abnormallv dangerous in some States. In Branch v. Western Petroleum Inc., 657
P.2d 267 (.Utah 1982), for example, the court held that ponding of water
contaminated with waste oil and other chemicals on land adjacent to drinking
water wells constitutes an abnormally dangerous and inappropriate use of
land. In Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Miller Purchasing Co., 678 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir.
1982), the court held that injection of corrosive hazardous wastes into a
crude oil pipeline is an abnormally dangerous activity. Although the court
held the chemical waste disposal company that arranged for such injection
strictly liable, the court applied a negligence standard to the carrier, who
did not know of the hazardous character of the substance his trucks were
transporting. Highway transport of gasoline was found to be abnormally
dangerous in Siegler v. Kuhlman, 502 P.2d 1181 (Wash. 1972), and New Jersey
courts have imposed strict liability on those who store ultrahazardous or
pollutant substances: (e.g., oil in the case of City of Bridgeton v. B.P. Oil,
Inc., 369 A.2d 49 (N.J. Super. 1976)).
Similarly, a court might rule that joint use of trucks for transportation
of hazardous materials and foodstuffs or other consumer products (either
simultaneously or sequentially) is an abnormally dangerous activity that could
subject shippers and carriers to strict liability regardless of the degree of
care exercised by the parties involved. There is, however, a common law
exception to strict liability for common carriers. Under this exception, a
common carrier would be liable only for losses resulting from some negligence
on the part of the carrier. The exemption is based on the "public duty" of
carriers to carry goods offered for transport.11 Federal and State courts
have varied in their approaches to this issue. Most courts have found that a
carrier is not strictly liable for injuries or damages resulting from the
transportation of hazardous materials.12 Some courts, however, have
10For this reason, some legal authorities recommend a strict liability
standard for hazardous materials transportation. See Roberts, "Common Carriers
and Risk Distribution: Absolute Liability for Transporting Hazardous
Materials," 67 Ky. L.J. 441 (1978); Marten, "Regulation of the Transportation
of Hazardous Materials: A Critique and a Proposal," 5 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev.
345 (1981).
11See Restatement (Second) of Torts §521.
12See, e.g., East Troy v. Soo Line R. Co., 409 F.Supp. 326 (E.D. Wis.
1976).
-------
4-19
rejected application of the "public duty" exception to transportation of
hazardous materials, reasoning that those who benefit from a dangerous
activity should also bear the costs associated with the activity and that
carriers can pass on liability costs to the public.13
A shipper who cannot be reached directly under negligence or strict
liability may be responsible for the acts of others (e.g., carriers) under the
doctrine of vicarious liability. In general, employers are liable for acts of
employees but not for those of independent contractors. Whether a person is
an employee or an independent contractor depends upon the power of control
that the employer is entitled to exercise over the person in question,
regardless of the existence of written contracts. To a large extent, whether
the person acting under the direction of a shipper is an employee or an
independent contractor is immaterial when the nature of the work being
performed is abnormally dangerous. The general rule of law prevents an
employer from avoiding liability by asserting that the harm was caused by the
acts of an independent contractor. Injuries resulting from abnormally
dangerous activities such as excavation, blasting, and demolition work are
frequently handled in this manner. The same principles could conceivably be
extended to the joint transportation of hazardous and nonhazardous materials.
If the injury that occurs might have been anticipated as a probable
consequence of the execution of work assigned to an independent contractor,
the employer, as well as the contractor, may be held liable.11*
Finally, if a government unit participates in some way as a shipper or
carrier, the defense of governmental immunity from liability may be raised.
Many States have completely abolished the doctrine of immunity for
municipalities or counties. Other States distinguish between the performance
of "governmental" functions, which are immune from suit, and "proprietary"
functions, which resemble those of a private entity and are not granted
immunity. This distinction might be difficult to establish if, for example, a
municipality involved in solid waste collection also transported hazardous
materials for a fee. Thus, the immunity of State and local governments from
liability for contamination resulting from joint use is uncertain and would
depend substantially on the facts of the particular case.
4.4.3 Distribution of Damages
In common law and statutory actions involving more than one defendant
(e.g., a suit by an injured third party against multiple shippers of hazardous
materials), a critical issue to resolve concerns the distribution of liability
13See, e.g., Chavez v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 413 F.Supp.
1203 (E.D. Gal. 1976).
luPaul E. Bailey, "Liability and Insurance Aspects of Clean-Up of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites," in Proceedings of the Third National
Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, November 29,
1982.
-------
4-20
and damages among defendants. If the degree to which each defendant caused
the plaintiff's injury can be readily divided among defendants, courts will
assess damages accordingly. In some cases, however, it is not possible to
apportion liability and damages among defendants. For example, in the classic
case of Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948), the plaintiff was struck by a
single bullet when two hunters fired in his direction, but was unable to prove
which defendant had caused the injury. The court held that in this situation,
the burden was on the defendants to show that they did not cause the injury;
if they cannot meet this burden, the defendants must share liability "jointly
and severally." Thus, application of joint and several liability can result
in imposition of liability for the full amount of the plaintiff's injuries on
a single defendant, even though there may be any number of defendants
involved. In CERCLA injunctive and cost recovery actions, courts have
consistently held that joint and several liability applies where the harm
cannot be divided among the defendants.15
In City of Perth Amboy v. Madison Industries, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. 20554
(N.J. Super. 1983), one defendant discharged heavy metals and the other
discharged organic compounds into a city drinking water supply. The court
imposed joint and several liability on the two defendants, holding that the
harm was indivisible because the acts of either defendant alone would have
been sufficient to contaminate the watershed as a source of drinking water.
Thus, joint and several liability could apply where shipper A and shipper B
each contribute an unknown quantity of different liquid wastes to a tank truck
that is subsequently used to transport nonhazardous goods. Even if shipper A
claims to have contributed only a small amount16 of a 20,000 gallon
shipment, the court may nevertheless hold shipper A liable for the full amount
of the damages because either shipper's waste alone could have caused the
contamination and resulting injury.17 Shipper A could then bring a separate
action for "contribution" against shipper B. Under the theory of
contribution, a defendant against whom a judgment is rendered for the full
amount of the plaintiff's injury may recover portions of the judgment from
others who were jointly responsible for the injury. Approximately 80 percent
15See, e.g., United States v. Conservation Chemical Co., 619 F.Supp. 162
(W.D. Mo. 1985).
16Courts may apply a "de minimis" rule, however, to avoid grossly unjust
results. Thus, if shipper A contributed only one gallon of the waste, the
court probably would not impose all liability on shipper A.
17Because of the potential for such results, some States have begun to
eliminate or restrict joint and several liability as part of an effort to
reform tort law. For example, Colorado has eliminated the joint and several
liability doctrine entirely and California has eliminated the doctrine in
suits for noneconomic damages. See "Selected State Legislative Action Re:
Affordability and Availability of Liability Insurance," National Conference of
State Legislatures, March 10, 1986.
-------
4-21
of the States have recognized a right of contribution where joint and several
liability exists. 1S
In sum, potential statutory liability may enhance shippers', carriers',
and receivers' compliance with regulations related to joint use of vehicles
for transportation of hazardous materials and nonhazardous goods. In
addition, the threat of common law liability may cause shippers, carriers, and
receivers to take further precautions, not required by statutes or regulations.
4.5 SUMMARY OF CURRENT STANDARDS AND PRACTICES
Transportation of chemicals and hazardous wastes occurs in the same type
of vehicles as transportation of certain types of agricultural commodities.
It is possible, therefore, that contamination of nonhazardous materials can
occur during transportation. That joint use of vehicles occurs, however, is
not a sufficient basis for concluding that contamination of nonhazardous
materials is likely to occur. Shippers, carriers, and receivers are motivated
to take precautions against the possibility of contamination to preserve the
value of nonhazardous shipments and to reduce the potential for liability
claims. Precautions such as vehicle cleaning after delivery of hazardous
materials can be costly, however, and carriers may try to spread those costs
over several, similar shipments, while attempting at the same time to minimize
the number of empty back hauls.
In times of economic downturn, there is an increased likelihood that
carriers may attempt to reduce costs by reducing the number of vehicle
cleanings or by risking a subsequent haul of materials that are not optimally
compatible with the previous load. There is no evidence, however, indicating
whether this has or has not occurred. Shippers, carriers, and receivers,
generally, are concerned about contamination of shipments as evidenced by
certain formalized industry practices that have been established to ensure
cleanliness and prevent contamination of nonhazardous materials.
18See United States v. Conservation Chemical Co., 619 F.Supp. 162 (W.D.
Mo. 1985).
-------
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This Report to Congress is the result of a study on the joint use of
vehicles for transportation of both hazardous and nonhazardous materials.
During the study, the Agency attempted to assess the extent of such joint use
and to evaluate the protection offered the public by current regulatory
requirements and industry practices. A summary of these evaluations is
presented below, and is followed by the Agency's recommendations, which are
based on the conclusions drawn from this study.
5.1 EXTENT OF THE JOINT-USE PROBLEM
Little data exist on the extent to which vehicles are used to transport
both hazardous and nonhazardous materials. General statistics collected by
the Bureau of the Census and the Department of Transportation indicate that in
the United States almost a billion tons of hazardous materials are transported
annually by truck and 73 million tons by rail. Although most of the 460
thousand trucks used to transport hazardous materials also are used to
transport nonhazardous goods, about 97 percent of all commercial trucks never
carry hazardous materials. Further, about 70 percent of the trucks that do
carry hazardous materials carry only packaged hazardous materials, where
existing regulations provide substantial protection. Ninety percent of the
hazardous material tonnage transported by rail is carried in tank cars where
dedication or cleaning is common.
In spite of a broad search for incidents, over a 30-year period only 18
documented cases of transportation-related contamination of nonhazardous goods
by hazardous materials were identified. Of these 18 cases, only 6 incidents
occurred in the United States. Five additional undocumented incidents were
described by people contacted during the study. The small number of incidents
identified in this study suggest that joint-use contamination is not a
significant problem.
There are reasons to believe, however, that not all joint-use
contamination incidents are discovered due to the difficulty in identifying
the source of contamination or because the consequences of contamination are
not evident immediately. Consequently, while the evidence evaluated to date
indicates that the problem of joint-use contamination is minor, such evidence
is not conclusive.
5.2 CURRENT REGULATIONS AND INDUSTRY PRACTICES
DOT regulations requiring spills of hazardous materials to be reported and
contained offer substantial protection from contamination of goods resulting
from spills of packaged hazardous materials. The DOT regulations that
prohibit the simultaneous shipment of poisons and food in rail cars increase
-------
5-2
this protection in an area where the consequences of joint-use contamination
could be most severe. DOT regulations allow trucks to carry poisons and food
simultaneously only if the poisons are packaged more securely than is required
for other materials, thereby providing extra protection against food
contamination by poisons in trucks as well. Together with the CERCLA
hazardous substance release reporting requirements and the FDA requirements
for inspection of foodstuffs and drugs, existing regulations appear to
substantially protect against the consequences of contamination of goods
(especially foodstuffs) by spills of packaged hazardous contaminants.
Existing regulations do not offer complete protection from contamination
for goods hauled in bulk. Rail cars carrying poisons must be cleaned after
such use. Trucks and rail cars carrying radioactive materials must be
decontaminated. Trucks carrying arsenical compounds must be cleaned. For the
wide range of remaining hazardous materials transported in bulk, however, no
cleaning regulations exist and joint-use contamination could result.
Placarding and marking requirements may provide the shipper with an indication
of what was carried previously in the vehicle but these regulations were
instituted to protect against other dangers and may not be a consistent,
reliable method of informing shippers of the potential danger involved in
loading the bulk vehicles with nonhazardous goods.
In addition to Federal and State regulations, however, there are economic
and legal incentives that encourage shippers, carriers, and receivers to take
precautions to prevent contamination. First, the value of most goods is
greatly reduced by contamination. This possibility encourages the shipper to
be very particular about the cleanliness of the vehicle into which the product
is loaded and encourages the receiver to check the purity of goods received.
Shippers often establish cleanliness standards, either formally or informally,
to ensure the integrity of their product. For example, shippers of Grade A
pasteurized milk and milk products established the Grade A Pasteurized Milk
Ordinance to maintain cleanliness and purity standards, and the Association of
American Railroads instituted the National Car Grade System to formally rate
rail cars for suitability to carry different types of nonhazardous lading.
Cleanliness is an important part of the carrier's service quality, because
shippers and receivers are concerned about the purity of their products.
Second, the threat of liability claims may lead the shipper, carrier, and
receiver to exercise safety precautions beyond those required by regulation to
avoid such claims. Statutory liability provisions under HMTA, RCRA, and
CERCLA further increase the threat of liability to businesses dealing with
hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and hazardous substances. Liability
claims also may result in increased insurance premiums or an inability to
obtain insurance in the future.
Finally, the desire to maintain a positive corporate image is an incentive
for good industry practices, as one contamination incident can gravely damage
a corporate reputation and jeopardize future business.
In spite of these important deterrents to contamination, industry sources
emphasized there is a wide range of practices related to the level of care
-------
5-3
exercised to avoid contamination by shippers, carriers, and receivers. Many
sources mentioned the competitive pressures within the trucking industry as a
factor that might contribute to joint-use contamination. Because avoiding
empty back hauls and expensive cleaning procedures are obvious ways to reduce
costs, these pressures may increase the potential for contamination incidents.
The other concern mentioned by industry sources was the great diversity in
size among companies in the carrier industry and the relative stake each
company has in continued operation. A large trucking company may have assets
of hundreds of millions of dollars while an owner-operator may not have the
money for fuel on the back haul. These companies probably view the
consequences of contamination quite differently. Although the likelihood of
contamination appears quite small, according to industry representatives,
circumstances that are most likely to result in contamination would involve
marginally viable carriers hauling low-value goods in rate-sensitive markets.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Because of the small number of joint-use contamination incidents reported
in the United States and the existing regulatory and nonregulatory incentives
to minimize or avoid contamination, it is difficult at this time to recommend
a complete prohibition of the joint use of vehicles. DOT, EPA, and FDA
regulations provide safeguards that reduce the risk of joint-use contamination
and the threat to public health and the environment. The Agency also is not
recommending at this time further study of the joint-use issue. Although
further research may uncover additional incidents of joint-use contamination,
the Agency believes that further study will not alter the fundamental
conclusion of this report that joint use of vehicles to transport hazardous
and nonhazardous materials is not a significant problem.
Any revisiting of the joint-use issue in the future should begin with
additional study in the following areas:
• Research in greater detail the joint-use problem with
respect to the transportation of sewage sludge to
determine its nature and scope. Such an effort, if
undertaken, could include an examination of EPA Regional
and State data pertaining to sludge transportation.
• Determine with greater precision the frequency of
transportation-related contamination relative to all
contamination incidents. This effort could involve
follow-up investigations of contamination incidents
identified by State health and agricultural
organizations, as well as other Federal data sources.
Insufficient information exists at this time to recommend that "special
safeguards should be taken to minimize threats to public health and the
environment" caused by joint-use contamination incidents (SARA Section
118(j)(1)(B)). While the Agency does not recommend any additional studies at
this time, the Agency recognizes that the scope of this study was limited.
-------
5-4
However, in the course of conducting this study, the Agency identified the
following potential areas that could be considered as part of any subsequent
review of this issue:
• Examine the need for requiring carriers to inform
shippers that the previous shipment contained hazardous
materials, and whether and how the nondedicated vehicle
was cleaned.
• Examine the extent to which generic decontamination
standards and/or substance-specific decontamination
standards may be needed for substances of greatest
concern that might pose a high risk, such as pesticides
contaminating food and fiber products.
• Examine the extension of marking regulations
applicable currently to tank cars and cargo tanks to
other bulk vehicles, particularly dump trucks. (DOT is
presently considering such a regulation.)
• Examine the need for requiring additional protection
or prohibit the simultaneous transportation of
foodstuffs and nonpoisonous, hazardous materials that
exhibit harmful characteristics (e.g., potential
carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity). Such an approach
would be similar to the existing DOT regulations for
poisons in trucks and rail cars.
• Examine the need for requiring liners for certain
vehicles such as dump trucks when transporting hazardous
materials.
• Examine the need for prohibiting inadequate or
insufficient cleaning procedures that may contribute to
improper disposal of hazardous contaminants or may pose
a threat to a subsequent shipment of nonhazardous goods.
• Encourage the growth of the truck and rail car
cleaning industries to promote better cleaning practices
to reduce the likelihood of contamination, especially
during the back haul.
Finally, the following two areas were considered to be beyond the scope of
this study: joint use of vessels (i.e., watercraft) to transport hazardous
and nonhazardous materials, and the effectiveness of compliance with and
enforcement of existing regulations.
The study focused on the joint use of motor vehicles and rail cars and did
not examine potential problems associated with transportation of hazardous and
nonhazardous materials in vessels. The more narrow focus of the study seemed
to better reflect Congressional intent. However, 35 percent of hazardous
-------
5-5
materials is transported on water, and several of the contamination incidents
identified in this study involved simultaneous transportation of hazardous and
nonhazardous materials on ships.
The study also did not focus on compliance with or enforcement of existing
regulations; it examined the joint-use issue assuming full compliance.
Several of the incidents identified in the study, however, involve improperly
cleaned spills. It may be appropriate, therefore, to address whether
increased compliance and enforcement would be more fruitful in eliminating
potential joint-use incidents, rather than additional regulation.
-------
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
Bulk packaging -- a reusable bulk container. In general, the dividing
line between small (nonbulk) and bulk packagings is 110 gallons or 1000
pounds. Bulk packagings include cargo tanks and tank cars.
Carrier --a person engaged in the transportation of passengers or
property. See 49 CFR §171.8. Private carriers transport commodities that
they own and the transport is integral to their business. Common carriers are
transporters of freight for compensation; common carriers must accept all
traffic tendered to them that is within their operating authority (to the
extent that they have equipment and drivers to do so). Contract carriers are
transporters of freight by motor vehicle for compensation in the exclusive
service to one or more specific shipper(s) as authorized by duly constituted
Federal or State authority. This classification includes owner-operators
under long-term lease to certified carriers.
Cargo tank -- any tank permanently attached to or forming a part of any
motor vehicle or any bulk liquid or compressed gas packaging not permanently
attached to any motor vehicle which by reason of its size, construction, or
attachment to a motor vehicle, is loaded or unloaded without being removed
from the motor vehicle. See 49 CFR §171.8. Such tank trucks are the main
carriers of bulk hazardous materials over roads.
CERCLA -- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 USC §9601 et seq.).
CFR -- Code of Federal Regulations, a document containing all finalized
regulations.
Chassis container trailer -- a semitrailer chassis designed especially
to transport one or two containers over the highway.
DOT -- Department of Transportation.
Dropframe van -- a van design employing one offset or drop in the cargo
deck immediately behind the supports.
Dump truck --a truck that can be tilted to discharge its load by
gravity.
EPA -- Environmental Protection Agency.
FDA -- Food and Drug Administration.
FHWA -- Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
-------
-2-
F1FRA -- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 136
et seq.).
Flatbed truck -- see platform truck.
FRA -- Federal Railroad Administration of the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Freight container -- a reusable container having a volume of 64 cubic
feet or more, designed and constructed to permit being lifted with its
contents intact and intended primarily for containment of packages (in unit
form) during transportation. See 49 CFR §171.8.
Grain truck -- a low-side, open-top truck designed primarily to
transport dry, fluid commodities.
Hazardous material -- a substance or material, including a hazardous
substance, which has been determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be
capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when
transported in commerce, and which has been so designated. See 49 CFR
§171.8. Some hazardous materials are listed in the Table and Appendix to 49
CFR §172.101; other materials must be evaluated against the criteria for DOT
hazard classes (see Exhibit 3-2).
Hazardous substance (DOT regulations) -- a material, including its
mixtures and solutions, that:
(1) Is listed in the Appendix to 49 CFR §172.101;
(2) Is in a quantity, in one package, which equals or exceeds the
reportable quantity (RQ) listed in the Appendix to §172.101; and
(3) When in a mixture or solution, is in a concentration by weight
which equals or exceeds the concentration corresponding to the RQ
of the material, as shown in the following table:
RQ Pounds Concentration by Weight
(kilograms) Percent PPM
5000 (2270) 10 100,000
1000 (454) 2 '20,000
100 (45.4) 0.2 2,000
10 (4.54) 0.02 200
1 (0.454) 0.002 20
See 40 CFR §171.8. The Appendix to 49 CFR §172.101 lists
materials listed or designated as hazardous substances under
CERCLA
Hazardous substance (CERCLA) -- (A) any substance designated pursuant to
section 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (B) any
element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to
-------
-3-
section 102 of CERCLA, (G) any hazardous waste having the characteristics
identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (but not including any waste the regulation of which under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act has been suspended by Act of Congress), (D) any toxic
pollutant listed under section 307(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, (E) any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act» and (F) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with
respect to which the Administrator has taken action pursuant to section 7 of
the Toxic Substances Control Act. The term does not include petroleum,
including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise
specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs
(A) through (F) of this paragraph, and the term does not include natural gas,
natural gas liquids, liquified natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel
(or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas). See CERCLA Section
101(14).
Hazardous waste (DOT regulations) -- any material that is subject to the
Hazardous Waste Manifest Requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency specified in 40 CFR Part 262. See 49 CFR §171.8.
Hazardous waste (RCRA) -- a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes,
which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or
infectious characteristics, may:
(A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or
an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible,
illness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or
the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or
disposed of, or otherwise managed.
See RCRA Section 1004(5).
HMTA -- Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (49 USC §1801 et
seq.).
Insulated refrigerated van -- a van designed to possess specific thermal
properties and using a self-contained refrigeration system.
Joint and several liability -- civil liability for an act or omission
where each liable party is liable for the full amount of damages.
Manifest system -- under RCRA, the system used for identifying the
quantity, composition, origin, routing, destination, and ultimate disposition
of hazardous waste during its transportation from generation to disposal,
treatment, or storage.
Marking -- applying the descriptive name, instructions, cautions,
weight, or specification marks or combination thereof required by DOT
regulations to be placed upon outside containers of hazardous materials
offered for transport. See 49 CFR §171.8.
-------
-4-
Mixture --a material composed of more than one chemical compound or
element. See 49 CFR §171.8.
Mode -- any of the following transportation methods: rail, highway,
air, or water. See 49 CFR §171.8.
Motor vehicle -- a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer,
or any combination thereof, propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used
upon the highways in the transportation of passengers or property. It does
not include a vehicle, locomotive, or car operated exclusively on a rail or
rails, or a trolley bus operated by electric power derived from a fixed
overhead wire, furnishing local passenger transportation similar to street-
railway service. See 49 CFR §171.8.
Multi-stop delivery truck -- a truck with the driver's compartment and
controls located at the extreme front of the vehicle and designed with an
integral driver and cargo compartment.
NRC -- National Response Center
NRC -- Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Oilfield truck --a flatbed equipped with a pick-up loop at the front to
allow the nose of the trailer to be lowered to the ground for loading or
unloading.
Open top van -- a truck with closed sides and ends.
ORM -- Other regulated materials. Materials that do not meet the
definition of the other hazard classes. See Exhibit 3-2.
Package delivery truck -- a motor truck designed with an integral driver
and cargo compartment.
Packaging -- the assembly of one or more containers and any other
components necessary to assure compliance with the minimum packaging
requirements of DOT regulations; includes containers (other than freight
containers or overpacks), portable tanks, cargo tanks, tank cars, and
multi-unit tank car tanks. See 49 CFR §171.8.
Pick-up truck -- a small, open truck.
Platform truck --a truck with a floor but no sides or roof.
Poisonous materials -- according to the degree of hazard in
transportation, materials classified as Poison A, Poison B, and Irritating
Material. See the DOT hazard classes in Exhibit 3-2.
Portable tank -- any packaging (except a cylinder having a 1000-pound or
less water capacity) over 110 U.S. gallons capacity and designed primarily to
be loaded into, loaded on, or temporarily attached to a transport vehicle or
-------
-5-
ship, and equipped with skids, mounting, or accessories to facilitate handling
of the tank by mechanical means. It does not include any cargo tank, tank car
tank, tank of the DOT-106A or 110A type, or trailers carrying SAX, 3AAX, or 3T
cylinders. See 49 CFR §171.8.
Rail freight car -- a car designed to carry freight or non-passenger
personnel by rail, and includes a box car, flat car, gondola car, hopper car,
tank car, and occupied caboose. See 49 CFR §171.8.
RCRA -- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (41 USC §6901 et
seq.).
Reportable quantity (RQ) -- the amount of a CERCLA hazardous substance
that, if released into the environment, must be reported immediately to the
National Response Center. See 40 CFR §302.4.
Residue -- the hazardous material remaining in a packaging, including a
tank car, after its contents have been unloaded to the maximum extent
practicable and before the packaging is either refilled or cleaned of
hazardous material and purged to remove any potential hazardous vapors. See
49 CFR §171.8.
RSPA -- Research and Special Programs Administration of the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
SARA -- Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (P.L. No.
99-499).
Shipping paper -- a shipping order, bill of lading, manifest or other
shipping document serving a similar purpose and containing the information
required by 49 CFR §§172.202, 172.203, and 172.204. See 49 CFR §171.8.
Sludge -- solid, semi-solid, or liquid waste generated from a wastewater
treatment plant, exclusive of the treated effluent from the plant.
Solid waste -- garbage, refuse, sludges, and other discarded solid
materials resulting from industrial and commercial operations and from
community activities. It does not include solids or dissolved material in
domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in water resources, such as
silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial wastewater effluents,
dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or other common water
pollutants. See 40 CFR §241.101(v).
Strict liability -- civil liability for an act or omission in which
fault is irrelevant; if the defendant's conduct resulted in harm, he is liable
regardless of whether he was negligent.
Tank car -- a type of rail car used to transport liquids or gases.
About 80 percent of annual rail shipments of hazardous materials involve tank
cars.
-------
-6-
Tank truck (cargo tank) -- a truck used to transport liquids or gases.
TOFC -- trailer on flatcar (piggyback).
Transport vehicle -- a cargo-carrying vehicle such as an automobile,
van, tractor, truck, semitrailer, tank car or rail car used for the
transportation of cargo by any mode. Each cargo-carrying body (trailer, rail
car, etc.) is a separate transport vehicle. See 49 CFR §171.8.
TSCA -- Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC §2601 et seq.).
Van --a type of closed truck for carrying freight; often operated by
for-hire carriers transporting hazardous materials only part of the time.
-------
APPENDIX A
REGULATIONS RELEVANT TO THE JOINT USE OF TRUCKS
DOT Regulations
49 CFR §17l.1(a)(3)
The DOT hazardous materials regulations, including those referenced in the
remainder of this appendix, do not govern the intrastate transportation of
hazardous materials by motor vehicles, unless the materials are hazardous
wastes, hazardous substances, or flammable cryogenic liquids in portable
tanks and cargo tanks.
49 CFR §171.3(b)
"No person may accept for transportation, transport, or deliver a
hazardous waste for which a manifest is required unless the person ...
[djelivers, as designated on the manifest by the generator, the entire
quantity of the waste ..." to the designated recipient.
49 CFR §171.8
A "hazardous substance," as defined by section 101(14) of CERCLA, is not
defined as a "hazardous substance" by DOT, and therefore is exempt from
DOT's hazardous materials regulations, unless it "[i]s in a quantity, in
one package, which equals or exceeds the reportable quantity (RQ) listed
in the ..." regulations.
49 CFR §171.15
"At the earliest practicable moment, each carrier who transports hazardous
materials (including hazardous wastes) ... [must give notice by telephone
to DOT] after each incident that occurs during the course of
transportation (including loading, unloading and temporary storage) in
which as a direct result of hazardous materials:
(1) A person is killed;
(2) A person receives injuries requiring his hospitalization;
(3) Estimated carrier or other property damage exceeds $50,000;
(4) Fire, breakage, spillage, or suspected radioactive contamination
occurs involving shipment of radioactive material ...;
(5) Fire, breakage, spillage, or suspected contamination occurs
involving shipment of etiologic agents; or
(6) A situation exists of such a nature that, in the judgment of the
carrier, it should be reported ..., e.g., a continuing danger to
life exists at the scene of the incident."
49 CFR §171.15
"Each carrier who transports hazardous materials shall report in writing
... [to DOT] within 15 days of the date of discovery, each incident that
occurs during the course of transportation (including loading, unloading,
or temporary storage) in which, as a result of the hazardous materials,
-------
A-2
any of the circumstances set forth in §171.15(a) occurs or there has been
an unintentional release of hazardous materials from a package (including
a tank) or any quantity of hazardous waste has been discharged during
transportation ...."
49 CFR §172.101
"The Hazardous Materials Table (Table) in this section designates the
materials listed therein as hazardous materials for the purpose of
transportation of those materials in commerce. The Table identifies the
class of each listed material, and specifies or references requirements
... pertaining to its packaging, labeling, and transportation. However,
those references do not include other requirements having general
applicability such as those specified in Parts 171 and 172, and Subparts A
and B of Part 173 "
49 CFR §172.200(a)
With certain exceptions, all persons offering hazardous material for
transportation must describe the hazardous material on the shipping paper.
49 CFR §172.201(a)(1)
When a hazardous material and a material not regulated as a hazardous
material are described on the same shipping paper, the presence of the
hazardous material must be clearly noted.
49 CFR §172.203(e)(1)
"The description on the shipping paper for a packaging containing the
residue of a hazardous material may include the words 'RESIDUE: Last
Contained * * *' and the letters !RQ' must be entered on the shipping
paper either before or after the basic description."
49 CFR §172.203(g)(1)
"The shipping paper for a rail car containing a hazardous material must
contain the notation 'Placarded' followed by the name of the placard
required for the rail car."
49 CFR §172.300(a)
"Each person who offers a hazardous material for transportation shall mark
each ... [packaging or container] containing the hazardous materials in
the manner required ... [in the marking requirements]."
49 CFR §§172.326Ce), 172.328(f), and 172.330(g)
"[Each cargo tank, portable tank, multi-unit tank car tank and tank car
(except when it contains a combustible liquid)] must remain marked ... [as
containing a hazardous material when empty] unless ... [it is (1)
reloaded] with a material not subject to ... [hazardous materials
regulations], or (2) [s]ufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapor
to remove any potential hazard."
49 CFR §§172.326(b), 172.328(e), and 172.330(d)
"A ... [cargo tank, tank car, or multi-unit tank car tank] marked with the
... [name or identification number] of a hazardous material may not be
-------
A-3
used to transport any other material unless the marking is removed, or
changed to identify the hazardous material in the [tank] ...."
49 CFR §172.400
With certain exceptions, any person offering a package or container
containing a hazardous material for transportation shall label it, when
required, with labels prescribed for the material. A label is not
required on packages containing ORM materials.
49 CFR §172.500(a)
"Each person who offers for transportation or transports any hazardous
material shall comply with the applicable placarding requirements ...."
Placarding is not required for etiological agents, ORM materials, and
materials authorized to be offered as limited quantities.
49 CFR §172.504(c)
"When the gross weight of ... [certain hazardous materials] is less than
1000 pounds, no placard is required on a motor vehicle, rail car, or
freight container .... This paragraph does not apply to portable tanks,
cargo tanks, tank cars, ...."
49 CFR §172.506(a)
"Each person offering a motor carrier a hazardous material for
transportation by highway shall provide to the motor carrier the required
placards for the material being offered prior to or at the same time the
material is offered for transportation ...."
49 CFR §172.508
Each person offering a hazardous material for transportation by rail must
affix to the rail car containing the hazardous material an appropriate
placard.
49 CFR §172.510(c)
"Each tank car containing the residue of a hazardous material must be
placarded with the appropriate RESIDUE placards ... that correspond to the
placard that was required for the material the tank car last contained
when loaded unless the tank car -- (1) Is reloaded with a material
requiring no placards or different placards or (2) Is sufficiently cleaned
of residue and purged of vapor to remove any potential hazard."
49 CFR §172.514(a)
"Each cargo tank and portable tank that is required to be placarded when
it contains a hazardous material must remain placarded when it is emptied
unless it is: (1) [r]eloaded with a material not subject to ...
[hazardous material regulations] or (2) [s]ufficiently cleaned and purged
of vapors to remove any potential hazard."
49 CFR §173.4(a)
"Small quantities of Flammable liquids, Flammable solids, Oxidizers,
Organic peroxides, Corrosive materials, Poison B, and ORM A, B, C and
Radioactive materials that alos meet the definition of one or more of
-------
A-4
these hazard classes are not subject to any other requirements of ... [the
hazardous materials regulations under certain conditions]."
49 CFR §§173.25(c) and 174.841(e)
"A carrier may not transport a package bearing a poison label in the same
motor vehicle with material that is marked as or known to be foodstuff,
feed, or any edible material intended for consumption by human or
animals," unless the packaging meets certain standards.
49 CFR §§173.28(h), (m), (n)
"Except [when used to carry corrosive solids, ORM-A, B, C, or E materials
or when used to carry corrosive liquids, flammable liquids, flammable
solids, organic peroxides, oxidizers, poisons, or radioactive materials
and thoroughly inspected to remove all residues, inspected for
deterioration, and returned to its original shape] ... single trip
containers ... and nonreusable containers ... from which contents have
been removed following use for transportation of any material, may not be
used thereafter for the transportation of hazardous materials."
49 CFR §173.28(i)
"Polyethylene packagings previously used for poisonous materials should
not be reused for any materials other than poisonous materials or
hazardous wastes."
49 CFR §§173.29(a) and 173.29(c)
Unless it has been cleaned and purged of all residue, or unless it is
filled with a material that is not subject to DOT hazardous materials
regulations, a packaging having a capacity of 110 gallons or less or a
tank that -previously contained a hazardous material may not be offered for
transportation unless offered in the same manner as required when it
previously contained a greater quantity of hazardous material.
49 CFR §§173.119(a)(17)(iii) and 173.119(e)(3)(v)
"Necessary interior cleaning of cargo tanks must be performed between
changes in lading ..." when the cargo tanks are carriers of a flammable
liquid with a flash point of 20 degrees Fahrenheit or below and with a
vapor pressure not over 27 pounds per square inch, absolute, at 100
degrees Fahrenheit.
49 CFR §173.190(b)(3)
After unloading from a tank car white or yelloe phosphorus packed in
water, the person who unloaded it must fill it completely with an inert
gas or more than halfway to its dome's capacity with water or no more than
140 degrees Fahrenheit. "Before the car is offered for return movement,
it must be placarded with FLAMMABLE SOLID RESIDUE placards ...."
49 CFR §173.368
"Arsenic dust, arsenical flue dust, and other poisonous noncombustible
byproduct dusts from metal recovery operations not subject to dangerous
spontaneous heating, and arsenic trioxide, calcium arsenate, or sodium
arsenate ... [may] be shipped in bulk in ... [certain] transport vehicles,
-------
A-5
if those transport vehicles are assigned exclusively to this type of
service ...." "Transport vehicles assigned exclusively to this service
must be marked 'ARSENICAL SERVICE ONLY', "
49 CFR §174.8(b)
"At any point where a train is required to be inspected, each loaded
placarded rail car and each rail immediately adjacent thereto must be
inspected. The cars may continue in transit only when the inspection
indicates that the cars are in a safe condition for transportation ....
The inspection of a rail car other than a tank car or a rail car
containing Class A explosives must include a visual inspection for obvious
defects of the running gear and any leakage of contents from the car and
to determine whether all required placards are in place ...."
49 CFR §174.10(d)
"A car containing packages of hazardous materials other than explosives
may not be offered in interchange if the packages are in a leaking
condition."
49 CFR §174.25(c)
"The shipping paper for a tank car that contains only the residue of a
hazardous material must contain the words 'RESIDUE: Last Contained * * *',
followed by the basic description of the hazardous material last contained
in the tank car and the ... [appropriate placard notation] followed by the
word 'RESIDUE'." "For a tank car that contains a residue that is a
hazardous substance, the letters 'RQf must also be entered on the shipping
paper either before or after the basic description."
49 CFR §174.48(b)
See 49 CFR §117.854(c)(2).
49 CFR §174.57
"All hazardous material which has leaked from a package in any rail car or
on other railroad property must be carefully removed."
49 CFR §174.69
"When lading requiring placards or car certificates is removed from a rail
car other than a tank car, each placard and car certificate must be
removed by the person unloading the car. For a tank car which contained a
hazardous material, the person responsible for removing the lading must
assure ... that the tank car is properly placarded for any residue which
remains in the tank car."
49 CFR §§174.81(f), 177.848(f)
Describe hazardous materials that may not be loaded, transported, or
stored together.
49 CFR §174.103(c)(1)
Packages of explosives showing evidence of leakage of liquid ingredients
must be "refused if leakage is discovered before acceptance."
-------
A-6
49 CFR §§174.280, 174.380, 174.480, and 174.680
"A carrier may not transport any package of ... [flammable liquid, or
gaseous, oxidizer, or flammable solid material or any other material]
bearing a poison label in the same [rail] car with material which is
marked as or known to be ... [foodstuff], feed, or any other edible
material intended for consumption by humans or animals."
49 CFR §174.515
"After potassium permanganate is unloaded from a rail car, the car must be
thoroughly cleaned unless the car is used exclusively in the carriage of
potassium permanganate."
49 CFR §174.615
"A rail car which has contained ... [poisonous materials] which show any
evidence of leakage from packages, must be thoroughly cleaned after
unloading before the car is returned to service." "After poisonous
materials are unloaded from a rail car, that car must be thoroughly
cleaned unless the car is used exclusively in the carriage of poisonous
materials."
49 CFR §177.817(c)
"A motor carrier shall mark on the shipping paper ..., if it offers or
delivers a freight container or transport vehicle to a rail carrier for
further transportation; (1) A description of the freight container or
transport vehicle; and (2) The kind of placard affixed to the freight
container or transport vehicle."
49 CFR §177.821
"Any individual container used for the transportation of liquid
nitroglycerin, desensitized liquid nitroglycerin or diethylene glycol
dinitrate, or any boot oused therewith, found in suh a condition as to
permit leakage, shall be discarded and shall not thereafter be repaired
for further use .... Should any package of high explosive when offered
for shipment show excessive dampness or be moldy or show outward signs of
any oily stain or other indication that absorption of the liquid part of
the explosive is not perfect, or that the amount of the liquid part is
greater than the absorbent can carry, the package must be refused in every
instance. The shipper must substantiate any claim that a stain is due to
contact with material other than the liquid explosive ingredient of the
explosive. In case of doubt, the package must be rejected ...."
49 CFR §177.841(a)(2)
Before any motor vehicle may be used for transporting any other articles,
all detectable traces of arsenical materials must be removed therefrom by
flushing with water, or by other appropriate method ...."
49 CFR §841 (e)
See 49 CFR §173.25(c).
-------
A-7
49 CFR §§177.854(c)(2); (d)(2); 174.48(b)
"The repair of the package must be adequate to prevent contamination of or
hazardous admixture with other lading transported on the same motor
vehicle therewith." "Packages of hazardous materials that are damaged or
found leaking during transportation, and hazardous materials that have
spilled or leaked during transportation, may be forwarded to destination
or returned to the shipper in a salvage drum ...."
49 CFR §177.855
Provisions for accidents involving explosives.
49 CFR §177.856
Provisions for accidents involving flammable liquids.
49 CFR §177.857
Provisions for accidents involving solids or oxidizing materials.
49 CFR §177.859
Provisions for accidents involving compressed gas.
49 CFR §177.860
Provisions for accidents involving poisons. "A vehicle which has been
used to transport material marked as or known to be poison (Class A or B)
must be inspected for contamination before reuse. A vehicle which has
been contaminated must not be returned to service until such contamination
has been removed. This paragraph does not apply to vehicles used solely
for transporting such poisons so long as they are used in that service...."
49 CFR §177.861
Provisions for accidents involving radioactive materials.
EPA Regulations
40 CFR §165.10(c)(3)
"All items of movable equipment used for handling pesticides at the
storage site which might be used for other purposes should be labeled
'contaminated with pesticides' and should not be removed from the site
unless thoroughly decontaminated."
40 CFR §165.10(c)(4)
"Provision should be made for decontamination of personnel and equipment
such as delivery trucks."
40 CFR §165.10(e)(l)(iv) and (v)
"in addition to precautions specified on the label and in the labeling,
rules for personnel safety and accident prevention similar to those listed
below should be available in areas where personnel congregate: Do not
store pesticides next to food or feed or other articles intended for
consumption by humans or animals. Inspect all vehicles prior to
departure, and treat those found to be contaminated."
-------
A-8
40 CFR §243.202-1(c)
"The equipment used in the transportation of solid waste shall be
constructed, operated, and maintained in such a manner as to minimize
health and safety hazards to the public."
40 CFR §263.20
"A transaporter may not accept hazardous waste from a generator unless it
is accompanied by a manifest .... The transporter must deliver the entire
quantity of hazardous waste which he has accepted from a generator or a
transporter ... [to the designated facility] ...."
40 CFR §263.22
"A transporter of hazardous waste must keep a copy of the manifest ... for
a period of three years from the date the hazardous waste was accepted by
the initial transporter."
40 CFR §264.72
"(a) Manifest discrepancies are differences between the quantity or type
of hazardous waste designated on the manifest or shipping paper, and the
quantity or type of hazardous waste a facility actually receives.
Significant discrepancies in quantity are: (1) For bulk waste, variations
greater than 10 percent in weight, and (2) for batch waste, any variation
in piece count, such as a discrepancy of one drum in a truckload.
Significant discrepancies in type are obvious differences which can be
discovered by inspection or waste analysis, such as waste solvent
substituted for waste acid, or toxic constituents not reported on the
manifest or shipping paper.
(b) Upon discovering a significant discrepancy, the owner or operator
must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with the waste generator or
transporter (e.g., with telephone conversations). If the discrepancy is
not resolved within 15 days after receiving the waste, the owner or
operator must immediately submit to the Regional Administrator a letter
describing the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it, and a copy of the
manifest or shipping paper at issue.
40 CFR §300.63
"... a release should be promptly reported to the NEC. Section 103(a) of
CERCLA requires any person in charge of a vessel or facility to
immediately notify the [National Response Center] NRG as soon as he has
knowledge of a release (other than a federally permitted release) of a
hazardous substance from such vessel or facility in an amount equal to or
greater than the reportable quantity determined pursuant to section 102(b)
of CERCLA "
40 CFR §761.40
Provisions for marking vehicles transporting PCBs.
Food and Drug Administration Regulations
21 CFR §110.80
"All operations in the receiving, inspecting, transporting ... [and
segregation] of food shall be conducted in accord with adequate sanitation
principles."
-------
A-9
21 CFR §110.80(a)
"Raw materials and ingredients shall be inspected and segregated as
necessary to assure that they are clean, wholesome, and fit for processing
into human food .... Raw materials shall be washed or cleaned as required
to remove soil or other contamination.
21 CFR §110.80(b)
"Containers and carriers of raw materials should be inspected on receipt
to assure that their condition has not contributed to the contamination or
deterioration of the products."
21 CFR §110.80(h)
"Packaging processes and materials shall not transmit contaminants or
objectionable substances to the product ...."
21 CFR §110.80(j)
"Storage and transportation of finished products should be under such
conditions as will prevent contamination ...."
21 CFR §211.82(a)
"Upon receipt and before acceptance, each container ... of components,
drug product containers, and closures shall be examined visually for ...
contamination."
21 CFR §225.42(b)(l)
"incoming shipments of drugs [to be used in medicated animal feed] shall
be visually examined for ... damage. Drugs which have been subjected to
conditions which may have adversely affected their identity, strength,
quality, or purity shall not be accepted for use."
21 CFR §225.65(a)
"Adequate cleanout procedures for all equipment used in the manufacture
and distribution of medicated feeds are essential to maintain proper drug
potency and avoid unsafe contamination of feeds with drugs. Such
procedures may consist of cleaning by physical means, e.g., vacuuming,
sweeping, washing, etc."
21 CFR §225.65(b)
"All equipment, including that used for storage, processing, mixing,
conveying, and distribution that comes in contact with the active drug
component, feeds in process, or finished medicated feed shall be subject
to all reasonable and effective procedures to prevent unsafe contamination
of manufactured feed. The steps used to prevent unsafe contamination of
feeds shall include one or more of the following, or other equally
effective procedures: (1) Such procedures shall, where appropriate,
consist of physical means (vacuuming, sweeping, or washing), flushing,
and/or sequential prodiiction of feeds."
21 CFR §226.40(b)
"All containers to be used for undiluted drugs, drug components,
intermediate mixtures thereof, and Type A medicated article(s) shall be
received ... in a manner adequate to avoid ... contamination."
-------
A-10
21 CFR §226.40(f)
"All adequate procedures for cleaning ... equipment coming in contact with
the drug component of the Type A medicated article(s) shall be used to
avoid contamination of Type A medicated article(s)."
21 CFR §226.42(a)
"Drug components, including undiluted drugs and any intermediate mixes
containing drugs used in the manufacturing and processing of Type A
medicated article(s), shall be received ... in a manner to maintain the
integrity ... of such articles."
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations
10 CFR §20.311(c)
Disposal of licensed wastes is regulated in 10 CFR Part 20.301 through
20.311. In particular, no licensee shall dispose of licensed material
except by transfer to an authorized recipient [10 CFR 20.301], and a
manifest tracking system is required to ensure proper tracking and
control. (10 CFR 20.311) The manifest must certify that "... the
transported materials are properly classified, described, packaged,
marked, and labeled and are in proper condition for transportation
according to the applicable regulations of DOT and NRG."
10 CFR §71.5(a)(2)
Each licensee who transports licensed material outside of the confines of
its plant or other place of use, or who delivers licensed material to a
carrier for transport, shall comply with the applicable requirements of
the regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of DOT in 49 CFR
Parts 170 through 198." 10 CFR 71.5(a). The section specifically notes
DOT regulations on packaging, marking, and labeling, placarding,
monitoring, accident reporting, and shipping papers 10 CFR 71.5(a)(l), and
DOT regulations pertaining to the various modes of transportation.
10 CFR §71.5(b)
In addition, if DOT regulations are not applicable because the shipment or
transportation is not in interstate or foreign commerce, "... the licensee
shall conform to the standards and requirements of DOT specified in 10 CFR
71.5(a) to the same extent as if the shipment or transportation were in
interstate or foreign commerce or civil aircraft."
-------
Ronald Anderson
Daniel Bannister
Robert Bastian
Dr. Val Beasley
Claude Beaudoin
William Blanchette
James Boland
Dr. Emmett Braselton
Timothy Burbrink
Brian Burns
Freeman Buxton
Dr. William Colvin
Kevin Connors
Gerry Cox
John Currie
Dennis Deering
Ron DeNoville
David Dorth
Richard Doyle
Steve Dreisen
Thomas Ducey
John Elliot
Robert S. Faron
Norris Freeman
Commander Larry Gibson
Dr. Glass
David Goodman
Kent Grey
Paul Grossman
Steve Guveyan
Clifford Harvison
David Hansen
Dr. Wayland J. Hayes, Jr.
Rolf Hill
Cynthia Hilton
Roy Holden
Alan Housh
August lacovitti
Steven James
Paul Jansen
Dr. Roger Kasperson
Kevin Kiley
Dr. Renata Kimbrough
Paul Kromberg
APPENDIX B
PERSONS CONTACTED
USDA
Transport Resources
EPA
University of Illinois College of Veterinary
Medicine
Milestone (Cleaning)
Bio Gro Systems (Sludge Hauler)
EPA
State University of Michigan (Analytical Toxicology
Laboratory)
Consolidated Freightways
CECOS (Waste Cleanup)
USDA
Diagnostic Laboratory, Georgia
Chemical Waste Management (Waste Cleanup)
Chemical Manufacturers Association
American Trucking Associations
CENEX (Cooperative)
Crawford and Company
EPA
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Massachusetts Division of Environmental Quality and
Engineering
American International Group (Insurance)
Liberty Mutual (Insurance)
Barnett and Alagia
DOT
U.S. Coast Guard
FDA
DOT
Center for Disease Control
Interstate Commerce Commission
Better Home Heating Council
National Tank Truck Carriers
Cargil
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
EPA
Chemical Waste Transporters Council
Association of American Railroads
Cargil
Buffalo Fuel Corporation
FDA
Monsanto
Clark University
Massachusetts Motor Transport Association
Center for Disease Control
Association of American Railroads
-------
B-2
Genevieve Laffly
Thomas Lang
George Lehman
Jack Leonard
Ken Leonard
Lt. Robert Long
John Mailing
Dr. Dan McGrew
Eugene Meenan
John Mehling
Paul Nelander
Robert Mesecher
Fred Millar
Dr. James P. Minard
Randall Monteith
Kathy Morrisat
Ralph Nappi
Debbie Nicoll
William Niggel
Richard 0'Boyle
Michael O'Connell
Edith Page
Robert Pepperman
Susan Peres
Dr. Robert Pojasek
Frank Punt
Capt. Pete Rickheit
Commander Kenneth Rock
James Roof
Albert Rosenbaum
Frank Ross
Officer Neil Ross
Caroline Russ
Robert Sanders
Fred Schloffler
Lee Schonfeld
Devin Scott
Peter Shandruk
Henry Seiff
Harry Silverstrum
Robert Southworth
Robert Spencer
Todd Spencer
Bruce Swonger
Mary Synder
Dr. Alicen Tepper
John Tisler
Steven VanRenssellaer
American Petroleum Institute
Dad's Dog Food
Shell Chemical Company
Indianapolis Center for Advanced Research
American Petroleum Institute
New Jersey State Police Hazardous Materials
Transportation Unit
United Coverage Consultants (Insurance)
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute
Mat lack (Trucking)
United Coverage Consultants, Inc.
Tennessee Public Service Commission
Michigan Department of Agriculture
Environmental Policy Institute
State Chemical Office (Mississippi)
City of Akron (Sewage Treatment Plant)
Shell Oil Company
Transport Resources (Cleaning)
EPA
Mobay Chemical Corporation
Quality Carriers, Inc.
Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott
Office of Technology Assessment
Enviro Gro Technology (Sludge Hauler)
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Chemcycle Corporation
DOT
Massachusetts State Police
U.S. Coast Guard
Summerdale Laboratory, Pennsylvania
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
National Veterinary Services Laboratory, FDA
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Clean Harbors, Inc.
FDA
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission
Association of American Railroads
American Meat Institute
FDA
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
Albin Pump
EPA
FDA
Independent Truckers Association
Metropolitan Environmental (Waste Cleanup)
FDA
New Jersey Department of Health
FDA
Rohm & Haas Chemical Company
-------
B-3
Timothy Vendinski EPA
Richard Webber USDA
John Wessel FDA
Gerry Wilkins Chemical Lehman (Trucking)
Bruce Williams Dow Chemical Company
David Williams EPA
-------
Appendix C
Examples of Trucks and Rail Cars
Beverage
Cargo Container Chassis
Dump Truck
Grain Body
Low Boy
Multistop/Walk In Oilfield Truck
Pick-Up Platform Type Public Utility
Service Truck
Tank Truck
Tank Truck (Dry Bulk)
Winch/Crane
Basic Enclosed Van
Drop-Frame Van
Insulated Nonrefrigerated Van Insulated Refrigerated Van
Open Top Van
Panel or Van
\yf II
*»-
^m
Flat Car
Hopper Car
Refrigerator Car
Tank Car
Government Printing Office 1987—720-191
------- |