Pi.zpubLLc.ati.on -u>iue (Jo* EPA ti
State. SoLid Woi-te Ma.nagmG.nt
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINERS AND LABELING:
APPLICABILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS
(SW-I66C) d&6c/u.be4 woife
the. fl^jj-tce OjJ 5otoi Wcwte iuideA conxttaot no. 68-01-467S
and -6s fLe.pfiodac.zd CLS ^ececu^d jjA-om i/ie
ciciigi 4/iau£d 6e attu6ateci -to
and not to the. 0-ice O Sotld
Copies will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1978
-------
This report was prepared by Moshman Associates, Inc. under
contract no. 68-01-4678.
Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of commercial products
constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-166C) in "the
solid waste management series.
-------
ABSTRACT
Under Subtitle C of Public Law 94-580, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency is required to develop
a comprehensive approach to and promulgate standards for hazardous waste gener-
ators, transporters, and receivers; further the Act requires that regulations
be consistent with those of the Department of Transportation for hazard materials.
This study examines existing DOT regulations, the opportunity to expand them to
include hazardous commodities proposed to be regulated but not now included in
DOT regulations and analyzes the packing, labeling, marking, and shipping paper
requirements for different classes of hazardous wastes.
Specific recommendations include amendments to title 49 CFR to add authori-
ties requisite for the regulation of EPA defined wastes, to permit resource and
energy conservation through reuse of containers, to exempt small quantity ship-
ments, and various other requirements. DOT prescribed labeling and marking were
found suitable for most acutely hazardous wastes; for less hazardous commodities
an "E" warning label and a correlated container-shipping paper identifying sys-
tem is recommended.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to numerous persons and organizations for their
assistance in providing essential information and valuable guidance. In addi-
tion to the persons and organizations mentioned in Appendix F, special thanks
are due to EPA Project Officer Harry Trask, Arnold M. Edelman and Mark Morris
of the Hazardous Waste Management Division.
David G. Abraham, Vice President of Moshman Associates, Inc., was the con-
tractor's Project Director, and James Winchester, Jr. served as principal research
assistant. Lawrence W. Bierlein, Esq., assisted by his special assistant Gordon
Rousseau, performed all legal and regulatory research and analyses.
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I. Introduction and Scope of Study 1
A. Background 1
B. Scope of Study 4
1. Task I 5
2. Task II 5
3. Task III 6
II. Summary of Findings and Recommendations 7
III. Hazardous Waste Specification Packaging 12
A. Transportation, Storage, and Handling
Conditions Underlying DOT Packaging
Standards 12
1. Present Standards 12
2. Differences in Transportation
Characteristics, Hazardous Materials,
and Hazardous Wastes 21
B. Evaluation of DOT Packaging Requirements
and EPA Hazardous Waste Definitions 23
1. Reactive Wastes 24
2. Corrosive Wastes 34
3. Flammable Wastes 49
4. Infectious Wastes 62
5. Toxic Wastes 68
6. Survivability of DOT Packaging 74
7. Price-and Energy Considerations for
DOT Specificajtion Packaging 77
C. Container Recommendations 82
1. Scope of Hazardous Waste Transportation 82
2. DOT Regulated Materials 84
3. Non-DOT Regulated Hazardous Wastes and
Certain DOT Regulated Materials 86
4. EPA Recommendations to DOT for Revisions
to DOT Packaging Regulations 91
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
IV. Hazardous Waste Labeling and Marking 94
A. DOT Labeling and Marking Requirements 94
1. DOT Labeling Specifications 96
2. DOT Package Alarking Specifications 104
3. DOT Labeling Performance Specifications 106
B. EPA Hazardous Waste Labeling and Marking
Recommendations 109
1. General Discussion 109
2. Performance Standards 110
3. Recommendations 111
4. Marking 117
APPENDIX A - ABSTRACTS OF A CROSS SECTION OF TECHNICAL
STUDIES DEALING WITH DOT PACKAGING PER-
FORMANCE STANDARDS 121
APPENDIX B - SOURCES OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS DATA FOR
STEEL, ALUMINUM, PAPERBOARD, AND GLASS 124
APPENDIX C - SOURCES OF DOT SPECIFICATION CONTAINER
PRICES 125
APPENDIX D - CURRENT DOT SPECIFICATION WARNING LABELS 127
APPENDIX E - OLD DOT LABELS, COPIES FROM 1971 EDITION
OF 49 CFR " 129
APPENDIX F - PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND BUSINESSES
CONTACTED 130
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Page No,
TABLE 1. Unit Prices for DOT Specification
Shipping Containers 79
FIGURE 1. Proposed Hazardous Waste Warning Label 114
VI
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINERS AND LABELING:
APPLICABILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS
I. Introduction and Scope of Study
A. Background. In July of 1977 the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, through its Office of Solid Waste Management,
engaged Moshman Associates. Inc., in association with the law
offices of Lawrence W. Bierlein, to prepare an analysis of the ap-
plicability of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) regulations
for the transportation, marking, and labeling of hazardous materials
to hazardous wastes.
This study was motivated by the provisions of Subtitle C -Hazard-
ous Waste Management of Public Law 94-580, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), signed into law on October 21, 1976.
RCRA mandates a comprehensive Federal-State-local approach to
all aspects of waste management, including resource conservation and
recovery, land disposal of municipal and industrial.wastes and author-
izes a new regulatory program for hazardous wastes. Under Subtitle
C, EPA is required to develop and promulgate standards for hazardous
waste generators, shippers, transporters, and receivers. In addi-
tion EPA is required to develop criteria and a list to define what
are hazardous wastes.
Current DOT regulations under the Hazardous Materials Transpor-
tation Act of 1974 (HMTA) may have the potential to be expanded to
fully or partially meet the mandate of RCRA.
-------
In particular, the Act requires that regulations developed
under Subtitle C of RCRA be consistent with the requirements of
HMTA and the regulations thereunder. In addition, RCRA authorizes
EPA to make recommendations to DOT respecting regulations for
hazardous wastes under HMTA and for the addition of materials to
be covered by that Act.
Authority for the regulation of hazardous waste transportation
is contained in both HMTA and RCRA. The basic distinction in these
two laws is embedded in their respective focii on what is to be
protected. HMTA is concerned with the protection of public safety,
health, and property during the loading, unloading, transportation,
and storage incident to transportation of hazardous materials. This
Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to designate materials
as hazardous upon finding that the transportation of a particular
quantity and form of material in commerce may pose an unreasonable
risk to health and safety or property. The materials designated
as hazardous may include, but are not limited to: explosives,
radioactive materials, etiologic agents, flammable liquids or solids,
combustible liquids or solids, poisons, oxidizing or corrosive
materials, and compressed gases.
Under Subtitle C, RCRA is concerned with the protection of pub-
lic health and the environment from improper hazardous waste manage-
ment during transportation, treatment, storage or disposal.
Hazardous waste as defined by RCRA is a solid waste, or combination
of solid wastes which, because of its quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may cause, or
significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase
-------
in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness, or
pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or
the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or
disposed of. RCRA defines "solid" waste to include solid, liquid,
semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, community activities, and, with some exception,
agricultural operations. The Act directs EPA to take into account
when designating hazardous wastes, toxicity, persistence and de-
gradability in nature, potential for accumulation in tissue, and
other related factors such as flammability, corrosiveness, and
other hazardous characteristics.
For the transportation of hazardous wastes under RCRA, Section
3002 requires the Administrator to develop standards for generators,
i.e., the shippers of hazardous wastes, concerning labeling prac-
tices for any containers used for storage, transport, or disposal
that will identify accurately such wastes, use of appropriate con-
tainers, and use of a manifest system to assure that all hazardous
waste generated is consigned for treatment, storage or disposal to
a permitted hazardous-waste management facility.
Under Section 3003, EPA is directed to develop standards .for
transporters of hazardous waste concerning recordkeeping, transpor-
tation of hazardous wastes only if properly labeled, compliance
with the manifest system and transportation._of all the hazardous
wastes to the designated permitted facility. In addition, the
Administrator is considering the development of standards for the
acceptance of hazardous waste for transport, loading and stowage
-------
of hazardous wastes, notification in the event of a spill and spill
reporting, marking and placarding of vehicles, and notification of
the transportation of hazardous wastes.
Preliminary EPA analyses of the requirements under Sections
3002 and 3003 of Subtitle C indicated that the requirements of HMTA
are overlapping with RCRA, specifically, in definition of hazardous
material (waste), labeling, placarding, packaging, manifest (shipping
paper), spill notification and reporting, and loading and stowage.
In addition, HMTA has provisions for the development of standards
concerning recordkeeping and registration. It thus became obvious
that prior to the promulgation of standards and regulations by EPA,
due consideration must be given to the applicability of currently
existing standards under HMTA. This need is further emphasized by
the beforementioned RCRA mandated requirement in subsection (b) of
Section 3003, Coordination With Regulations of Secretary of Trans-
portation. Referring to the regulations to be promulgated by EPA
for transporters of hazardous wastes, and applying to such materials
as are subject to HMTA, this subsection states:
"the regulations promulgated by the Administrator. . .shal-1
be consistent with the requirements of such Act (HMTA) and
the regulations thereunder."
Further, EPA is authorized to recommend to DOT additional materials
•to be included in DOT'S regulations and for_changes or additions to
that agency's regulations under HMTA.
B. Scope of Study. The study's scope, as defined in the referenced
contract, consisted of three tasks as briefly summarized below.
-------
1. Task I. Focus was on the durability of specification con-
tainers, especially after their exposure to hazardous materials.
The contractor was required to review prior study reports and
to conduct interviews with knowledgeable persons respecting
this study focus. The purpose of this task, in the main, was
to collect, summarize and present in a cohesive document the
accumulated knowledge of the "shelf life" of specification pack-
aging or, put differently, the deterioration over time of DOT
authorized packaging as induced by their exposure to the hazard-
ous materials contained in such packaging.
Excluded from this research endeavor was the influence of
external or environmental factors on the durability of speci-
fication containers. It might be noted here parenthetically
that a dearth of empirical data and knowledge were found to
exist on the general topic of container longevity or durability
over time.
2. Task II. In this portion of the research, the applicability
and inapplicability of existing DOT hazardous materials regula-
tions and standards to hazardous "wastes were to-be determined.
While EPA has not developed final definitions for what are
hazardous wastes, required under Section 3001, Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste, preliminary definitions for the
following types of wastes were furnished to us: reactive, cor-
rosive, flammable, infectious, and toxic.
Accordingly, the research undertaken pursuant to this task
considered the applicability of DOT regulations in context with
the preliminary definitions provided, with emphasis on criteria
-------
including (1) the degree of long-term containment, identifica-
tion, and visibility afforded by the DOT regulations, and (2)
the various ways in which hazardous waste containers are likely
to be used. These were anticipated to include:
• transportation of waste to a treatment site;
• transportation of waste to and containment at a storage
site;
e transportation of waste to a disposal site.
It should be noted that containment after disposal, first
believed to be an essential consideration, was not considered
in this study. It was determined by EPA officials that dis-
posal was to be interpreted as analagous to zero containment
within the shipping container. Contrarily, consideration was
given to long-term containment prior to disposal or other dis-
position of the hazardous wastes then stored in shipping con-
tainers.
3. Task III. In this last task, the contractor was required
to examine existing and proposed marking and labeling systems
for hazardous materials. Further a marking or labeling "format
for wastes was to be proposed with the guidelines that such
format be supplementary to existing DOT label requirements.
Again, consideration was given to the different logistical
functions inherent in the removal of hazardous wastes from
generator's premises,, as detailed under Task II, above.
6
-------
II. Summary of Findings and Recommendations
The research, analyses and assessments performed by the Con-
tractor have resulted in the major findings and recommendations
as summarized below.
• EPA's tentative definitions for hazardous wastes, subject
to regulation under Section 3003 of RCRA, are broader than
DOT'S hazardous materials definitions under HMTA. Thus EPA
contemplates including materials in its scope of regulated
commodities that may be less acutely hazardous, but that may
pose the threat of environmental damage.
• DOT'S current regulations for specification packaging are
believed to be adequate for transportation of wastes regu-
lated by DOT.
• DOT'S regulations are designed to cover a wide spectrum of
transportation characteristics including transportation by
air. Wastes are not likely to be transported by air nor
will they normally be subjected"to movements over long
distances and by multiple modes. While DOT'S standards
for packaging must necessarily encompass the full range of
conditions likely-to be encountered by hazardous materials
in transit, e.g., thermal "stresses, pressure changes, etc.,
packaging standards for all but the most acutely hazardous
wastes could be less rigid. This would be consistent with
RCRA objectives to conserve valuable material and energy
resources.
• Except for explosives, shippers are responsible for classify-
ing the materials shipped. The Bureau of Explosives, as an
agent of the U.S. Government, classifies a commercial or
nongovernmental material as an explosive. ERDA and the
-------
Army Materiel Command have comparable authority for certain
special and military explosives.
DOT regulations grant exemptions from packaging, labeling,
and marking requirements for small quantity shipments.
DOT and HEW-regulate certain infectious materials, essentially
certain etiological agents. DOT does not prescribe specific
packaging except for some performance criteria; HEW's pack-
aging specifications deal mainly with quantity limitations
rather than the container itself. The majority of materials
preliminarily defined by EPA as infectious wastes are not
currently covered by DOT'S etiologic agents regulations.
DOT docket HM-142 is a rulemaking proceeding which seeks to
establish the adequacy of current packaging, labeling, and
marking regulations.
It was determined that existing data and knowledge
are lacking in the area of long-term container sur-
vivability. This topic is of concern to EPA, for it
is feasible that waste-containing packaging will have
to be stored at zero discharge conditions for extended
time periods.
DOT prescribed container labeling and marking are appro-
priate for most high hazard DOT regulated wastes, but
certain less hazardous DOT regulated wastes- may not
require strict compliance with current DOT shipping
name marking requirements.
The DOT placarding system aims at communicating the fact that
a hazardous material is being transported which can be an
acute and immediate hazard to people in_the immediate vicinity
of the vehicle. Placarding for transportation of EPA regu-
lated wastes not also regulated by DOT was found not to be
required.
DOT label specifications do not particularly reflect the long-
term survivability and legibility of the label and its
8
-------
inscriptions; the objectives of DOT'S standards reflect con-
ditions and duration of normal transportation. EPA's objec-
tives include longer time periods and storage conditions which
can affect labels' integrity.
Recommendations respecting packaging specifications reflect
three transportation purposes applicable to regulated wastes.
These are from the generators' facilities to (1) treatment
plants, (2) storage facilities, and (3) disposal sites.
Recommendations also reflect four levels of hazards, namely,
(1) most acutely hazardous to people, (2) less acutely hazard-
ous to people, (3) still less acutely hazardous to people
but representing hazards to the environment, and (4) health
hazard not presently regulated by DOT. The thrust of the
contractor's detailed recommendations is along these lines:
For the most hazardous wastes, DOT packaging is appro-
priate.
For the less acutely hazardous wastes, DOT packaging
could be relaxed to permit reuse of specification con-
tainers for which such reuse is now prohibited or
refurbishing and testing is-required. This would also
apply to wastes in the third group; for both, perfor-
mance oriented standards are preferable to specification
packaging requirements.
For wastes not now regulated under DOT'S definitions,
in particular etiologic agents, carcinogens, mutagens,
and genetically active materials, DOT regulations for
comparable hazards should be applied.
Actions recommended to be taken to insure compatibility with
DOT regulations and enforcement, to attain the conservation
objectives and avoid"confusion inhibiting voluntary compliance,
include petitioning DOT to:
Require all wastes in the most hazardous group to be
packaged in conformance with Part 173 and 178 of 49 CFR;
9
-------
Revise current regulations to permit new or used
(not 'reconditioned) including non-reusable and
single trip specification containers for the trans-
portation over distances of less than 500 miles by
one motor carrier for flammable liquids and solids,
corrosive liquids, Class B explosives, oxidizers,
and Class B poisons;
Revise Part 173.24 to permit utilization of speci-
fication and non-specification packaging suitable
for the transportation of less acutely hazardous
wastes;
Revise DOT regulations to encompass etiologic agents.
Establish a general rule in EPA regulations to adopt DOT'S
regulations, as proposed to be revised, for all RCRA de-
fined wastes which also meet DOT'S hazard definitions.
Establish a general rule in EPA regulations to adopt DOT'S
general performance packaging requirements as contained
in 49 CFR 173.24 subsequent to the revisions proposed.
Recommendations for labeling and marking regulations reflect
EPA's mandate, as distinct from DOT'S, authorizing the
regulation of recipients of hazardous wastes. Further,
these recommendations are mindful of DOT'S regulations
applying to wastes posing the greatest threat-of bodily
harm and property destruction. For these, DOT'S "alert"
signals should continue to apply, and to that end, it is
recommended that EPA adopt the Title 49 labeling require-
ments by reference to wastes which pose hazards of flam-
mability, corrosion, etc. during transportation.
For non-DOT regulated wastes, in general the less acutely
hazardous materials, it is recommended that a single
version warning label be prescribed. A format for such
label, dubbed as the 'E' label has been developed. A
10
-------
limited quantity exception is recommended for application to
containers otherwise required to bear the 'E' marking or
label.
aote: circle and diagonal
lices to be colored
r«d
Where DOT regulations do not require name of contents marking,
it is recommended EPA not require it either. Further, that
EPA petition DOT to remove the requirement for name marking
on DOT labeled containers bearing wastes in less hazardous
categories.
Adopt regulations requiring the removal or obliteration of
markings on previously used containers which have not been
refurbished.
Development of a system to pair containers and their shipping
documents is recommended by one or several methods of common
identifiers, most likely numeric or alpha-numeric. Such sys-
tems need not be detailed in regulations; rather, its particu-
lars should be the responsibility of licensed disposal site
operators. Regulations would require the implementation of a
system(s) and that it meet, at minimum, the requirements of
49 CFR 172.304 in respect of the durability and legibility of
the container marking.
11
-------
III. Hazardous Waste Specification Packaging
A. Transportation. Storage, and Handling Conditions Underlying
DOT Packaging Standards
1. Present Standards. DOT packaging specifications have been
designed to protect hazardous materials from hazards normally
encountered during transportation, storage, and handling. The
regulations set forth a basic requirement that the package must
withstand the normal environmental transportation conditions to
which it will be subjected. (See 49 CFR 173.24.) The DOT regu-
lations contain many tests designed to evaluate the durability
of packaging with respect to its ability to reliably protect
its contents during this transportation.
Although transportation is normally understood to be that
phase in which the package is in place within a vehicle whose
intended purpose is to transport, the DOT regulations encompass
a much broader connotation of "conditions normally incident to
transportation," including storage and handling as well'as
actual movement.
Many different physical loads are imposed on packaging during
transportation. DOT generally summarizes these into vibration,
shock, acceleration, stacking, environmental temperature and
pressure changes. Vibration is found in all modes of transpor-
tation but is most severe in ground vehicles and air transport
vehicles. The most severe shocks are those encountered in rail
car bumping operations. The only acceleration loadings which
12
-------
are significant enough to consider occur mainly in aircraft
maneuvers, particularly in emergency maneuvers. Stacking con-
siderations are particularly important in warehousing phases
and in ocean transportation. Thermal stresses can arise in
all modes of transportation, but in air transport the changes
can be rapid enough to subject a package to thermal shock.
Finally, pressure changes that occur from altitude variations
in air transport can severely strain the adequacy of gaskets
and sealants used in packaging. The problems of pressure changes
are specifically addressed in the DOT regulations with respect
to air transportation.
Since wastes are generally not transported by air, the con-
siderations of acceleration and thermal stress (dynamic) and
pressure change are not developed any further for the purpose
of this study. It is important to note, however, that all these
considerations enter into the DOT standards for design of pack-
aging. A package is expected to withstand the normal conditions
of transportation that may be encountered in surface, air, and
water transportation, including storage and handling. These
include rough handling (vibration and stacking), dropping, and
internal pressure.
The Department of Transportation has studied the strict
transportation phase extensively. In a__contract let to the
General American Transportation Corporation in 1971, two surveys
were conducted. The first was a survey of environmental condi-
tions incident to the transportation of materials, the second
a survey of test methods currently used for simulating the
13
-------
transportation environment. Although the studies included some
testing which is not generally used or referenced in the DOT
regulations, it is important to note that DOT has been taking
the environmental conditions that packaging is expected to en-
counter into account, and has done studies of the relationship
of the packaging prescribed to these conditions of transporta-
tion. The General American Transportation Corporation study in
this respect may be referred to generally as a quantification
of some of the DOT guidelines in terms of developing their bases
and adequacy with relation to currently authorized packaging.
("A Survey of Environmental Conditions Incident to the Trans-
portation of Materials", F.E. Ostrem, et al., General American
Transportation Corporation, October 1971, NTIS PB-204 442.)
At this point it is important to note that the DOT Hazard-
ous Materials Regulations have been developed on a combination
of empirical test results and experience during actual trans-
portation. Although this practice has generally proven adequate
and has provided specification containers that are successful,
it makes quantitative evaluation-of the quality, of DOT packag-
ing very difficult. It further makes it extremely difficult to
talk in terms of modifying this packaging on the basis of known
quantitative elements.
Studies that have been conducted under DOT contracts have
been designed to give the DOT a base from which to develop per-
formance packaging. ("Development of Performance Oriented Spe-
cification for Drums and Pails Used for Packaging of Hazardous
Materials for Transportation", C.E. Fridinger, et.al., Naval
14
-------
Surface Weapons Center, December 1974, NTIS PB-240 647.) This
base has been developed in conjunction with review of existing
government standards, DOT specification requirements, and mili-
tary specifications. ("A Survey of Test Methods Currently Used
for Simulating the Transportation Environment", Phase II, A.N.
Henzi, General American Transportation Corporation, April 1971,
NTIS PB-202 728.) There is no direct or intended relationship
between these various standards. Each standard "borrows" a few
requirements and specifications from others. This adds to the
difficulty in scientifically assessing DOT packaging require-
ments. The DOT testing requirements are stated so generally
that variations that may be introduced during the testing can
significantly alter the results. It must be said, however,
that industry's incentive to get the product to destination has
prevented these variations from resulting in unsatisfactory
transportation experience. This also explains the great varia-
tion one may find,between two identically marked DOT specifica-
tion containers, and the experience that one obtains during
transportation of-materials in two such containers.
It would be erroneous to assume that a DOT specification
is a rigid enough standard to guarantee similarity in experience
between containers. Similarity is limited to a few tightly
specified, detailed requirements of the_DOT specifications.
Beyond this point, implementation of quality control measures
is left to the container producer. The frequency with which
the DOT tests are required to be conducted can hardly be con-
sidered a quality control program in itself. They take the form
15
-------
of a monitoring system that generally oversees the adequacy of
the packaging. There is no doubt, therefore, that the real in-
tegrity of the packaging in many respects is left to the de-
signer. The designer's ingenuity may go beyond the design of
the package.and may include the manner by which the tests are
run. DOT packaging specifications are, in fact, general guide-
lines that enable a package manufacturer to develop an adequate
package for transportation, but the specifications are not the
final measure of the qualities of the packaging.
The final measure is the capability of the packaging to
deliver the goods safely to destination. That measure is a
combination of the quality of the packaging that is sold to the
purchaser and the reasonable controls that must be exercised in
the handling and transportation of packaging. A DOT package
is not designed to take all the punishment that may be meted
out to it. It is designed to withstand what the normal trans-
portation environment presents to it. This environment supposes
that certain care will be taken in the handling of the package.
Consequently, human error often can lead to paokage failure.
For example, the fork lift operator who drives the fork lift
into the side of a drum causes a rupture. Drums are not. de-
signed to withstand this impact. Safe transportation of hazard-
ous materials requires a combination of_adequate packaging and
controlled handling. The DOT philosophy in packaging or, indeed,
any philosophy in packaging of goods other than high level radio-
active materials, has not been to design a package that will
withstand a maximum credible accident.
16
-------
The result of all this, therefore, is that any study de-
signed to assess DOT packaging criteria must draw on a combina-
tion of historical knowledge, experience, and the specifications
as they are written. From a scientific standpoint, it is the
reason why the General American Transportation Corporation sur-
vey of test methods currently used for simulating the transpor-
tation environment did not include DOT specification test
requirements by name. The DOT test requirements are not given
in sufficient detail to constitute a scientific or technical
standard. Many of the specifications, for example, prescribe
a drop test requirement, but the equipment used to lift the test
container to its drop elevation, the environmental conditions
of the test, the specific angle of drop, etc., are not prescribed
by DOT. Most scientific and technical standards would prescribe
such details to minimize variations in test results from test
to test, test location to test location, tester to tester, and
container to container. On the basis of the DOT general Lest
requirements, and the need for standardization, industry and
the military agencies have, developed standards for testing pack-
aging which are very adequately covered in the General American
Report. With the report then, it is possible to evaluate what
the typical DOT packaging is expected to withstand. It is on
this basis that the following statements with regard to a quanti-
fied transportation environment are made:
Vibration. The DOT vibration tests, although not always
expressed very clearly (the best expression is in new DOT Spe-
cification 35, 49 CFR 178.16), intend that packaging will be
17
-------
placed on a platform that has a vertical, double amplitude
(peak-to-peak displacement) of 1 inch. The tests must be per-
formed for one hour at a frequency that causes the package to
be raised from the vibrating platform to such a degree that a
sheet approximately l/16th inch thick can pass between the
bottom of the package and the platform. In the packaging in-
dustry, this type of test is often referred to as a "bounce"
test, in contrast to other types of vibration tests referred to
as cycling and resonance tests.
It is interesting to note that the cycling test is the
clearest attempt to simulate the transportation environment as
it relates to vibration. This is because the test requires a
vibration source that allows adjustment of amplitude as well as
frequency, whereas the source required for the bounce test is
of fixed amplitude. A resonance test is an entirely different
type of test of much greater sophistication and has not yet
been recognized by the DOT regulations. The resonance test
consists of a single frequency sweep to identify the frequencies
at which the test-item exhibits resonance. A package generally
is fitted with one or more accelerometers and resonance is in-
dicated by a peaking of the ratio of package acceleration to
table acceleration, as the frequency is slowly swept.
Since the DOT vibration test (bouncje test) generally is run
in only one axis, the packaging community understands that a
one-hour test is equivalent to 4,000 miles of surface transpor-
tation for the package in that orientation. One should keep
in mind that this guideline is extremely general. The DOT rules,
18
-------
for example, do not take humidity into account for packages
that might be affected by such conditions, or the vibrations
experienced in overloads which would be representative of stack-
ing in vehicles. The equation of testing conditions and time
length of transportation is at best a marriage of experience
and general scientific bases, but it would be erroneous to
assume that the testing is directly relatable to time in trans-
portation. It is a reliable indicator and has been used as
such by the DOT and, one must add, successfully. Scientists
generally consider the bounce test to be a very crude test, but
it nevertheless has received wide acceptance. Packaging en-
gineers readily admit that bounce tests have proved entirely
acceptable in estimating the endurance of a package subject to
transportation vibrations. One military study, in fact, found
that there was remarkably good correlation between results in
bounce tests and performance in vehicle tests on the Belgian
Block Course in Aberdeen Proving Ground. The bounce test is
truly a damage equivalency test and, although it is difficult
to quantify, it nevertheless reve'als much about the durability
of the packaging.
Drop Testing. The most frequent test referenced in the DOT
regulations is the drop test. The drop test cannot be directly
related to time in transportation, since under any circumstance
of distribution, a four foot drop is a distinct possibility.
The height of 4 feet was chosen on the basis of height of handl-
ing equipment, rail cars, vehicle tailgates, lift of boxes by
19
-------
personnel, etc. It has served well as a general guide to the
rough handling and shock that a packa'ge can withstand during
transportation.
It is a test that should not be required in the hazardous
waste context, since it is a destructive test and, presumably,
packaging that would be exposed to such testing could not again
be used. Considering packaging available to a generator of
waste, and recognizing that a certain proportion of the packag-
ing that could be used may come from many different sources, it
would be difficult to use drop criteria to evaluate waste con-
tainers. However, noting that packaging used for initial trans-
portation of hazardous materials generally is required to be
capable of withstanding a 4-foot drop, it would seem reasonable
to authorize reuse of DOT specification packaging for disposal
of wastes that are DOT-regulated, or use of nonspecification
packaging that can be shown to have been built to a standard
requiring a 4-foot drop evaluation. For wastes that currently
are not regulated by DOT, it is this contractor's opinion that
the drop test is not a necessary -criterion to evaluate the suit-
ability and adequacy of a "packaging for transportation purposes.
Hydrostatic Testing. This is another test found in the DOT
regulations that is very common. Like the drop test, it also
can be a destructive test. It is not attest that we believe
need be conducted on packaging to be used for EPA-aefined
hazardous wastes not currently regulated by DOT. As in the
drop test, waste that is presently regulated under the DOT
Hazardous Materials Regulations would need to be packaged in
20
-------
DOT packaging that has withstood hydrostatic testing, at least
initially, as a type test.
Lej.k Testing. The DOT regulations regularly require leak
testing for packages that are intended to contain hazardous
materials, particularly liquids. A few of the packages designed
for solids are also required to be leak tested. Leak testing
normally is done at a pressure rate substantially lower than
hydrostatic testing. Typically, such tests are run in the range
of 5 psig to 15 psig. DOT generally does not specify the time
over which the container must be leak proof during the test.
This test is intended to be a production line test and, under
some circumstances, is done quite quickly. This test is simply
to evaluate the integrity of the packaging when it is ready for
use.
2. Differences in Transportation Characteristics, Hazardous
Materials, and Hazardous Wastes. The preceding section contains
a detailed discussion of the transportation characteristics un-
derlying DOT'S packaging regulations. It was pointed out that
these assumed characteristics, as'manifested in- the required
types of tests and standards, encompass the possible spectrum
of transportation modes and the exposures incidental to each of
them. We must now consider to what extent these maximum trans-
portation characteristics might be different for hazardous wastes.
First, as noted in reference to acceleration, thermal stress,
and pressure change tests, it is quite unlikely that substantial
volumes of waste would be transported by air. Hence, the rigors
of that mode need not be considered for waste packaging specifica-
tions .
21
-------
Second, it is likely that two other conditions will not
apply to wastes, except possibly for some bulk movements. These
conditions are intermodal shipment, i.e., the transfer of pack-
aged wastes from one mode of transport to another, and transpor-
tation over-extended distances. Though we have not conducted
any specific research to identify typical transportation charac-
teristics for different categories of hazardous wastes—such
research we understand was undertaken by another contractor—
we are aware of the validity of the aforementioned exclusions.
Further, it is reasonable to project that, in general, pack-
aged waste will move only over the least possible distances.
This ascertainment stems from purely economic considerations. Any
commodity without a minimal commercial value will always be dis-
posed of at the authorized place nearest that commodity's gener-
ator. Likewise, if the waste packages are consigned to private
or common carrier trucking, it is most unlikely they would then
be reconsigned or transferred to rail or water transportation.
Since transportation by rail for short distances, generally less
than 250 km to 300 km, is uneconomical compared*with truck trans-
portation, it is also unlikely that rail transportation would
be a frequent mode for waste shipments.
An exception to these foregoing statements is the transpor-
tation of wastes in bulk, as would be the case for sewer sludge
or large quantities of flammable solid lubricants, acids used
in etching or tanning processes, or the like. These types of
wastes could, and some do now, move over considerable distances
in tank cars, trucks and barges. For some of these movements,
22
-------
intermodal transfers such as from tank car or truck to tank
barge occur. In these cases, single mode and intermodal trans-
portation in bulk, the rigors of transportation can be quite
comparable to those underlying the DOT specifications. It
would therefore be reasonable to suggest that DOT standards be
applied to hazardous wastes transported in bulk.
For wastes transported in smaller packages, however, the
greatly reduced exposure to perils of vibration, shock, accelera-
tion, and stacking suggests the appropriateness of somewhat
lesser quality containers as compared with those DOT has found
suitable for intermodal and international transportation of
hazardous materials.
The desire to utilize containers conforming to less rigid
standards should be remembered as an important RCRA objective.
Section 1003 of the Act, "Objectives" states: "The objectives
of this Act are to promote...and to conserve valuable material
and energy resources...." Clearly, if this objective were to
be applied in respect of the waste materials only and not also
the packaging prescribed for them, this would 1Tend to negate
or at least severely reduce the conservation 'objectives of this
legislation. In sum, the differences in transportation charac-
teristics here discussed provide an opportunity to consider and
eventually specify containers which are-less costly for the user
and which take less material and energy to manufacture.
B. Evaluation of DOT Packaging Requirements and EPA Hazardous Waste
Definitions. In order to adequately evaluate the adequacy and
23
-------
propriety of DOT packaging requirements as they would apply to EPA
defined hazardous wastes, one must first understand the relationship
between EPA's categories and the existing DOT hazard classifications.
Following is such an analysis including the DOT specification pack-
agings required -for the DOT regulated hazardous materials which would
fall within each of the five EPA categories (as they appeared in
preliminary definitions received from EPA in August 1977) of reac-
tive, corrosive, flammable, infectious, and toxic wastes.
1. Reactive Wastes. The draft definition of reactivity made .
available to us includes any waste having the following proper-
ties:
(a) Wastes which in themselves are normally unstable and
readily undergo violent chemical change but do not
detonate. Also wastes which may react violently with
water, which may form potentially explosive mixtures
with water, or which generate toxic fumes when mixed
with water.
(b) Wastes which in themselves are capable of detonation
or explosive reaction but require a strong initiating
source or which must be heated under confinement be-
fore initiation or. which 'react explosively with water.
(c) Wastes which in themselves are readily capable of
detonation or of explosive decomposition or reaction
at normal temperatures and pressures.
The EPA draft definition of reactive waste covers some
materials that would appear to be regulated by the Department
of Transportation as explosives, as well as certain materials
that DOT would classify as flammable solids. The DOT regula-
tions in 49 CFR Parts 100-189 define regulated classes of
24
-------
materials and, in addition, prescribe the classifications of
certain materials by name. In other words, the DOT regulations
with regard to classification are both generic and specific.
For DOT purposes an explosive is defined as "any chemical
compound, mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of
which is to function by explosion, i.e., with substantially
instantaneous release of gas and heat," unless the compound
mixture or device is otherwise specifically classified in Parts
170 through 189 of the DOT regulations. In reviewing this defi-
nition it is important to concentrate on the words "the primary
or common purpose of which is to function by explosion." This
definition implies that although a material may explode it may
not be an explosive. In other words, the DOT regulations only
define and classify materials as explosives which commonly are
intended to serve as explosives. If a material explodes, it
may be intended to explode or that reaction may not be intended
at all. The matter of intent or determination of the primary
or common, purpose of the article is an integral part of the DOT
explosives classification.. This "is pertinent to the EPA des-
cription of reactivity which is linked more directly to the
properties of the material than its intended reaction. It would
appear that the draft EPA definition of reactive materials would
cover a substantially broader category -ef material than the DOT
explosives definition, if only on the basis of this delineating
criterion of intent or common purpose of the material. Thus,
if a waste generator has material that he intended or for which
the common purpose was to serve as an explosive and he is
25
-------
discarding that material, that explosive .waste should be classi-
fied as a DOT explosive and should be packed, marked, and
labeled as such in transportation. If, however, material is
not intended 'or does not bear the primary or common purpose of
functioning-by explosion but merely as a material that may ex-
plode,- it will be an EPA reactive waste but it will not be regu-
lated as an explosive by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
(DOT is well along in its procedure to alter and quantify the
definition of explosive materials but, as of this writing, the
definition remains generic, hinged to the intent of the maker
or the common purpose of that material.)
Before describing those materials DOT would regulate as ex-
plosives, it is essential to review the general sections of the
DOT regulations of explosives, particularly with regard to "for-
bidden" explosives. If a material is classified by the U.S.
Department of Transportation as an explosive it may not be en-
tered into transportation, or is "forbidden," if it is one of
the following:
(a) an explosive composition "that ignites spontaneously
or undergoes marketi decomposition when subjected for
48 consecutive hours to a temperature of 75°C. (167 F);
(b) an explosive containing an ammonium salt and 'a chlor-
ate;
(c) liquid nitroglycerine diethyletfS glycol di-nitrate, or
another liquid explosive not specifically authorized
by DOT;
(d) an explosive condemned by the Bureau of Explosives (of
the Association of American Railroads);
26
-------
(e) a leaking or damaged package of explosives;
(f) condemned or leaking dynamite unless repacked by a com-
petent person in the presence of or with the authority
of the Bureau of- Explosives;
(g) firecrackers, flashcrackers, salutes, or similar commer-
cial devices which produce or are intended to produce
an audible effect and contain in excess of 12 grains of
explosives each;
(h) pest control bombs, the explosive content of which ex-
ceeds 18 grains;
(i) any firecracker type device without respect to explosive
content which, on functioning, is liable to project or
disburse metal, glass, or brittle fragments;
(j) fireworks that combine an explosive and a detonator or
blasting cap;
(k) fireworks containing ammonium salt and a chlorate;
(1) fireworks containing yellow or white phosphorous;
(m) fireworks or firework compositions that ignite spon-
taneously or undergo marked decomposition when subjected
for 48 consecutive hours to a temperature of 75°C.
(n) fireworks -condemned by the Bureau of Explosives;
(o) toy torpedoes in excess of 7/8 inch outside dimension
or toy torpedoes containing a mixture of potassium chlor-
ate, black antimony, and sulfur with an average weight of
explosive composition in each torpedo exceeding 4 grains;
(p) toy torpedoes containing a cap composed of- a mixture of
red phosphorous and potassium chlorate exceeding an
average of £ grain per cap;
(q) fireworks containing copper sulfate and a chlorate;
(r) loaded firearms; and,
27
-------
(s) "new" explosives and explosive devices that are not yet
classified by the Bureau of Explosives.
Under 49 CFR 173.86, the Bureau of Explosives as an agent
of the U.S. Government is the only authorized agency for deter-
mining the classification of a commercial or non-governmental
material as an explosive. Every "new" explosive as that term
is defined in Section 173.86 must be classed and approved by
the Bureau of Explosives, or by ERDA or the Army Materiel De-
velopment and Readiness Command for certain ERDA and military
explosives. This is an exception to the general DOT rule that
the shipper of the material is the party responsible for its
classification.
In addition to forbidding the shipment of certain explosive
materials in 49 CFR 173.24, DOT prohibits the shipment of any
material in any packaging if, under conditions normally incident
to transportation, there would be a significant release of a
hazardous material to the environment; the effectiveness of the
packaging as a transportation container would be reduced; there
would be a mixture of gases or vapors in .the package whi-ch could,
through any credible spontaneous increase of heat or pressure
or through an explosion, significantly reduce the effectiveness
of the packaging; or the materials might react with packaging
to the end that there might be significant chemical or galvanic
reaction among any of the materials in the packaging.
DOT subgroups its explosives into Class A, B, and C explo-
sives. Class A explosives are those with a- detonating or other-
wise maximum hazard. Class B explosives are those that are
28
-------
considered deflagrating or of a flammability hazard, while Class
C explosives are those which pose a minimum hazard.
Class A explosives are defined according to type in 49 CFR
Section 173.53. In addition, that section describes certain
materials according to their functions, such as rocket ammuni-
tion or ammunition for cannon. The types of explosives described
in that section relate to the quantity of explosive, the form
of that material, and the drop or impact it takes to detonate
the material according to certain tests prescribed by the Bureau
of Explosives and the impact of certain blasting caps. Articles
which would be classified by the Department of Transportation
as Class A explosives are also likely to be regulated directly
as explosives by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division1of
the Department of the Treasury. Between the regulations of DOT
and the Treasury, which governs the sale, transportation, stor-
age and use of explosives, it is likely that any waste generator
with an article classified by DOT as a Class A explosive would
be licensed by the Treasury and would be under very strict limi-
tations on the mariner and location in which he "may dispose of
those explosive materials. Judging by the nature of DOT'-s
definition of Class A explosives, the controls imposed on those
explosives under the Organized Crime Control Act administered
by the Treasury, and the apparent aim o-f- EPA in drafting a defi-
nition of reactivityr it is unlikely that Explosive A waste
materials will be encountered and we do not believe it necessary
to consider the appropriate packaging of those materials for
disposal. Appendix A to the preliminary EPA reactivity definition,
29
-------
for example, citing 6 incidents of explosions leading to injur-
ies, includes ma materials that would be classed by the Depart-
ment of Transportation as Class A, B, or C explosives.
Class B explosives are defined as explosives (those chemical
compounds, mixtures or devices, the primary or common purpose
of which is to function by explosion) which in general function
by rapid combustion rather than detonation. This class includes
some explosive devices such as special fireworks, flash powders,
some pyrotechnic signal devices, and liquid or solid propellant
explosives and smokeless powders. These materials would also
be regulated by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of
the Department of Treasury and any person dealing with them in
terms of sale, transportation, use or storage would have to be
specifically licensed by the Department of Treasury for that
purpose. A review of DOT rules, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Division rules, and the concerns of EPA does not indicate that
any materials covered by the DOT Class B explosives definition
would be covered by the definition of reactive waste developed
by EPA.
The DOT defines Class C explosives as those manufactured
articles which contain Class A or Class B explosives or both as
components, but in restricted quantities. This definition also
includes certain types of fireworks. The most common example
of a Class C explosive would be small arms ammunition. Again,
because the classification depends upon the primary purpose or
function of the material being able to act as an explosive, it
is unlikely that many hazardous wastes as defined by EPA would
30
-------
fall under the DOT classification of Class C explosive. Federal,
State and local controls on the disposition of ammunition would
also serve to limit the degree of likelihood of this material
being profferred to a hazardous waste disposal site.
In 49 CFR 173.150, DOT defines the classification of flam-
mable solid as any solid material, other than one already classed
as an explosive, which may pose a flammability hazard, or which
is spontaneously combustible, and "water reactive materials."
Section 171.8 declares that "water reactive material (solid)
means any solid substance (including sludges and pastes) which,
by interaction with water, is likely to become spontaneously
flammable or to give off flammable or toxic gases in dangerous
quantities." That portion of the EPA definition which describes
wastes which may react violently with water or which generate
toxic fumes when mixed with water would appear to fit within
the water reactive material phase of DOT'S flammable solid clas-
sification.
Flammable solids must not be packed in the same outside con-
tainer with corrosive liquids unless the corros-ive liqui'ds are
in bottles cushioned by incombustible absorbent material.in
tightly closed metal containers. All containers must be.tightly
and securely closed and inside containers must be cushioned as
prescribed, or in any case when necessajcy to prevent leakage of
those containers.
"Limited quantities" of flammable solids are given excep-
tions from DOT labeling and DOT specification packaging require-
ments when packed in inside containers not over one pound net
31
-------
weight each, in outside containers not exceeding 25 pounds net
weight each. These limited quantity shipments also are not
subject to DOT placarding requirements or operational require-
ments imposed upon motor carriers and rail carriers other than
the requirement to have shipping documents accompanying the
freight. To the extent that a hazardous waste material is water
reactive it would be regulated as a flammable solid and would
fall within these limited quantity provisions in such small
quantities.
If shipped in larger quantities, this flammable solid waste
material must be packaged in accordance with 49 CFR 173.154 per-
taining to the shipping name "water reactive solid, n.o.s."
These packagings are as follows:
(a) Specification 6A, 6B, or 6C metal barrels or drums;
(b) Specification 17C, 17E, 17H, 37A or 37B metal drums
(single trip);
(c) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with inside con-
tainers that must be metal cans, sliding-lid wooden
boxes, or fibre cans or boxes;
(d) Specification ISA or 15B lined wooden b'oxes;
(e) Specification 15A, 15B, 15C, 16A or 19A wooden boxes
with inside containers;
(f) Specification 21C fibre drums;
(g) Specification 22A plywood drumsj.
(h) Specification 22B plywood drums with inside metal drums
meeting Specification 2F;
(i) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes of certain construction
containing tightly closed polyethylene or equally effi-
cient plastic bags with minimum thickness of .004 inch;
32
-------
(j) Specification 12A fibreboard boxes with inside glass
bottles; and
(k) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with inside poly-
ethylene bottles not over 1 gallon capacity each.
Limited quantity shipments of flammable solid, water re-
active materials are exempt from labeling and specification
packaging. Shipping papers would describe the material as
"water reactive solid, n.o.s." with the classification of a
flammable solid. For those packagings that would require label-
ing there would be dual labeling with both the "flammable solid"
label and the "dangerous when wet" label described in Sections
172.420 and 172.423, respectively. Unlike most other hazardous
materials, at least in highway transportation, any quantity of
a flammable solid bearing the "dangerous when wet" label must
be placarded on each side and each end of any motor vehicle,
rail car, or freight container containing that material. The
unusual placard to be used in tlie "Flamable Solid V^" placard
prescribed in 49 CFR Section 172.548. The unusual "\^" marking
indicates not only the flammability of the product, bufalso
the fact that it is dangerously reactive with water.
For EPA defined reactive waste materials not encompassed
by the Department of Transportation's current explosive classi-
fication or the "dangerous when wet" flammable solid classifica-
tion, there are no specific requirements currently prescribed
by DOT with regard to packing, marking, labeling or handling in•
commerce.
33
-------
2. Corrosive Wastes. A material would be defined by EPA as a
corrosive waste if a representative sample of the waste had
either of the following properties:
(a) A pH less than 2 or greater than 12 as determined by
a specified procedure.
(b) A corrosion rate greater than 0.250 inches per year on
steel (SAE 1020) at a test temperature of 130°F. as de-
termined by a specified procedure.
The first criterion of the preliminary EPA definition of
corrosiveness relates to the pH of material and does not relate
directly by specific tests to the visible destruction or irrever-
sible alteration of human skin tissue as the DOT definition does.
In 49 CFR 173.240(a)(l) DOT declares that a material is considered
to be destructive or to cause irreversible alteration in human
skin tissue if, when tested on the intact skin of the albino
rabbit by a prescribed technique, the structure of the tissue at
the site of contact is destroyed or is changed irreversibly after
an exposure period of 4 hours or less. The second criterion of
the preliminary EPA corrosive definition is identical to the
second criterion used by DOT.
The Department of Transportation adopted this quantified
definition of corrosive material in a lengthy rule making in
their Docket No. HM-57. In the early stages of that rule making,
for the same reasons described by EPA, -the regulators at DOT
explored using the concept of pH as a defining criteria. Simply
stated, the pH criterion was not adopted by DOT because, of the
dramatic over-inclusion of materials in the class which, in fact,
34 .
-------
would not be destructive to tissue. It is strongly suggested,
that if EPA wishes to regulate the effect of the differential
between the pH of a waste and the pH of the soil, waters, dis-
posal site, etc., the term "corrosive" not be used to de-
fine this category of regulated material. A name that would
cause less confusion should be chosen.
Many materials with pHs of less than 2 and'more.than 12 are
not, in fact, corrosive, and undue and harmful confusion would
be caused by the discrepancy between this use of the term corro-
sive and its more common use in the DOT, OSHA, FDA, CPSC context.
In its current regulatory context at other agencies, the word
"corrosive" is given its dictionary meaning, such as that shown
in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged
Edition): "Having the quality of corroding, eating away, or con-
suming." Many of the cited incidents in the background papers
for the preliminary EPA definition indicate a concern with the
adverse environmental and biological reaction to differentials
in pH, but these reactions are not properly characterized as an
"eating away or consumption" of one material by. another.- Accord-
ingly, it is again stressed that use of the word corrosive in
this regulatory context would inject an element of unwarranted
confusion into the Federal safety regulatory process.
Among the reasons DOT found the pH measure to be overly in-
clusive was the fact that, although a material might have a low
pH, the amount of reaction or damage that would take place with
a contacted substance would vary because the pH does not in
itself reveal the quantity of harmful product involved in a
35
-------
solution. For example, if a small amount of destructive acid
that has a pH of 2 is involved, it will be expended readily in
any reaction thereby having very little effect overall if the
reactant surface is proportionately large. There is also a
problem with buffered solutions because such solutions resist
change in hydrogen/ion concentration and pH can be a deceiving
measurement. For example, a 20% sulphuric acid solution with
a pH to be regulated by EPA can completely dissolve 18/8 chromium
nickel steel at 90°C., but the addition of 1% mercuric sulphate
stops all attack on the metal. The addition of the mercuric
sulphate, however, would not affect the pH although it totally
inhibits the corrosive properties of the solution.
In the event EPA concludes that certain materials, with a
differential in pH that would be environmentally harmful at the
disposal site, should not be accepted at that disposal site, the
agency should give serious consideration to whether there is any
need to regulate si'ch materials or their packaging in transpor-
tation to any such disposal site. The trade-off of easy measure-
ment and determination of the applicability regulation, with
resultant coverage of an unduly wide range of materials by a
corrosive definition, would not seem to be economically justi-
fiable in terms of actual corrosion and threat to persons, prop-
erty and the transportation environment... In this regard it is
interesting to note that Appendix A to the background papers for
the preliminary EPA definition of corrosiveness includes 14
damage incidents, only three of which involve packaging. All
36
-------
other incidents involved bulk quantities of materials in sludge
ponds and other disposal sites or holding lagoons.
In addition to the albino rabbit test and the NACE steel
corrosion test prescribed by DOT, the DOT definition declares
that if human experience or other data indicate that the hazard
of a material is greater or less than indicated by the results
of the specified tests, DOT may revise its classification or
make the material subject to the requirements of the regulations.
With regard to DOT regulation of corrosive materials it is
also pertinent to note the creation of a new class of articles
called "Other Regulated Materials (ORM) - Group B." In 49 CFR
173.500, ORM-B materials are defined as materials (including
solids when wet with water) capable of causing significant
damage to a transport vehicle or vessel from leakage during
transportation. In addition to materials specified by name as
ORM-B materials, this class includes any liquid substance that
has a corrosion rate exceeding 0.250 inches per year on aluminum
(non-clad 7075-T6) at a test temperature of 130°F. An accept-
able test for DOT .purposes is described in NACE. Standard! TM-01-69,
ORM-B materials that fall Within that classification by the
aluminum corrosive test would bear the proper DOT shipping name
of "ORM-B, n.o.s." As such, these materials would be regulated
only when shipped by air. In this mode, packages would have to
be marked "ORM-B, n.o.s.", and would have to meet the general
packaging criteria of the regulations for all materials, such as
requirements on compatibility of the packaging with its lading.
For packagings of 110 gallon capacity or less, sufficient outage
37
-------
must be provided so the packaging will not be liquid full at
130°F. (55°C.)- When a liquid or solid ORM-B material has an
absolute vapor pressure exceeding 16 psi at 100 F. (38 C.), the
primary packaging must be capable of withstanding the inside
vapor pressure at 130°F. without leakage. Any material classed
as an OEM material which may cause a hazard in transportation
due to its reaction with water must be packaged with either an
inner or outer waterproof packaging. In air transportation
these packagings would have to be accompanied by properly pre-
pared DOT shipping papers describing the material and the qu'an-
tity in the shipment.
Bottles containing DOT regulated corrosive liquids may not
be packed in the same outside container with any other article,
except in certain very narrowly prescribed instances. (DOT'S
Docket No. HM-121 is about to change this regulation by declar-
ing that one may not mix corrosive liquid bottles in the same
packaging with any other DOT-regulated hazardous material.) All
containers of corrosive liquids must be tightly and securely
closed and inside "containers must "be cushioned a^ prescribed, or
in any case when necessary to prevent breakage or leakage.
Corrosive liquids in small packagings are given a limited
quantity exception from DOT specification packaging and labeling
(except when offered for transportation-by air), and are re-
lieved from operational requirements imposed on highway and rail
carriers other than shipping papers, when packaged as follows:
(a) In bottles having a rated capacity not over 16 ounces
by volume, each enclosed in a metal can packed in a
strong outside packaging.
38
-------
(b) In metal or plastic containers having a rated capacity
not over 16 ounces by volume in strong outside packag-
ing.
Corrosive solids are given a limited quantity exemption in
the following packaging:
(a) In earthenware, glass, plastic or paper containers not
exceeding 5 pounds capacity each, packed in metal, wooden
or fibreboard outside packaging not exceeding 25 pounds
net weight each.
(b) In metal, rigid fibre or composition cans or cartons,
or rigid plastic containers of not more than 10 pounds
capacity each, overpacked in metal, wooden or fibreboard
outside containers not exceeding 25 pounds net weight
each.
Corrosive liquid wastes that are not listed by a specific
chemical name in the DOT regulations may be shipped under several
generic shipping names, including "corrosive liquid, n.o.s.,"
"acid, sludge; sludge acid; spent sulphuric acid; or, spent
mixed acid;" "alkaline corrosive liquids, n.o.s.; alkaline liquids,
n.o.s.; alkaline corrosive battery fluid; boiler compound liquid
solution;" "cleaning compound, liquid; coal tar.dye, liquid; dye,
intermediate liquid; mining reagent, liquid; and, textile treat-
ing compound mixture, liquid;" "compounds cleaning, liquid (con-
taining no more than 60% hydrofluoric acid);" "electrolyte (acid)
and alkaline corrosive battery fluid;" and, "cleaning compound,
liquid containing hydrochloric (muriatic) acid."
Materials shipped under the DOT shipping name "corrosive
liquid, n.o.s.", in quantities in excess of the limited quantity
packaging exceptions, would have to be transported in DOT speci-
fication packaging as follows:
39
-------
(a) Specification 1A, IB, 1C or IE glass carboys in boxes,
kegs or plywood drums.
(b) Specification ID boxed glass carboys of not over 6.5
gallons nominal capacity and equipped with vented
closures.
(c) Specification 5A, 5B, 5C or 5M metal barrels or drums.
(d) Specification ISA, 15B, 15C, 16A or 19A wooden boxes
with inside containers of glass, earthenware, poly-
ethylene or other non-fragile plastic material not over
one gallon each.
(e) Specification 28 metal-jacketed lead carboys.
(f) Specification 5D rubber-lined metal barrels or drums.
(g) Specification 5H lead-lined metal barrels or drums.
(h) Specification 43A rubber drums.
(i) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with inside poly-
ethylene containers or containers of other non-fragile
plastic material resistant to the lading, having threaded
closures or other equally efficient closures, not over
1-gallon capacity each, •suitably cushioned to prevent
movement within the box.
(j) Specification 15P or 22C glued plywood or wooden boxes
or plywood drums as prescribed with Specification 2T
polyethylene inside containers.
(k) Specification 17C, 17E or 17F single trip metal drums
with openings not exceeding 2.3 inches in diameter.
(1) Specification 17H single trip metal drums, authorized
only for viscous cleaning compounds, liquid.
(m) Specification 6D or 37M non-reusable cylindrical steel
overpacks with inside Specification 2S, 2SL or 2U poly-
ethylene packaging.
40
-------
(n) Specification 17H, 37A or 37B single trip metal drums
with welded side seams, not over 5-gallons capacity,
lined throughout with a pliable plastic material im-
pervious to the lading.
(o) Specification 12A fibreboard boxes with inside glass,
polyethylene or other non-fragile plastic bottles not
over 1-gallon capacity each.
(p) Specification 37P steel drums with polyethylene non-
reusable liners.
(q) Specification 16D wire-bound wooden overwrap with inside
Specification 2T, 2TL, 2S or 2SL polyethylene containers.
(r) Specification 12P fibreboard boxes with inside Specifica-
tion 2U polyethylene containers not over 5-gallons capa-
city each.
(s) Specification 16A wire-bound wooden boxes with inside
Specification 2U polyethylene containers.
(t) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with-inside poly-
ethylene bottles not over 5-gallons capacity each, and
not more than 1 bottle in each outside box.
(u) Specification 21P fibre drum overpack with inside Speci-
fication 2S, 2SL or 2U polyethylene containers..
(v) Specification 12A or 12B fibreboard boxes with inside
aluminum containers not over 5-pounds capacity each
(approved by the Bureau of Explosives).
(w) Specification 34 polyethylene drums not over 30-gallons
capacity.
(x) Specification 33A non-reusable jjolystyrene case having
1 inside glass bottle not over 16-ounces capacity.
(y) Cylinders for any compressed gas, except acetylene, with
valves protected.
(z) Specification MC303, 304, 307, 306, 310, 311 or 312
tank trucks.
41
-------
(aa) Specification 103, 111, 104, 115 or certain AAR tank
cars.
(bb) Specification 42B aluminum drums.
Shipments of corrosive wastes that would be covered by the
DOT shipping names "acid, sludge; sludge acid; spent sulphuric
acid; or, spent mixed acid" would have to be in DOT specifica-
tion packagings as follows:
(a) Specification 1A, ID or IE carboys in boxes or plywood
drums (for spent sulphuric only).
(b) Specification ISA, 15B, 15C, ISA or 19A wooden boxes
with inside containers of glass or earthenware not over
one gallon each.
(c) Specification 103 and 111 tank cars.
(d) Specification MC310, 311 or 312 tank trucks.
(e) Specification 60 portable tanks.
Waste corrosive liquids that would be covered by the shipping
names "alkaline corrosive, n.o.s.; alkaline liquids, n.o.s.;
alkaline corrosive battery fluid; and, boiler compound, liquid
solution" may be packed in containers authorized for the ship-
ment of "corrosive liquids, n.o.s-.," and may also be packed in
the following specification containers:
(a) Specification ISA, 15B, 15C, 16A or 19A wooden boxes
with glass or earthenware inside containers not over
2 gallons each, or with metal inside containers not over
5 gallons each.
(b) Specification 5 metal drums with openings not exceeding
2.3 inches.
(c) Specification 17H single trip metal drums (for liquid
boiler compounds or liquid water treatment compounds only).
42
-------
(d) Specification 103, 104, 105 and 111 tank cars.
(e) Specification MC310, 311 or 312 tank trucks.
(f) Specification 60 portable tanks.
(g) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with inside glass
containers not over 16-ounces capacity each.
(h) Specification 29 mailing tubes with no more than one
inside polyethylene bottle not over 1-quart capacity.
(i) Specification 1H metal crates with inside polyethylene
container meeting Specification 2T.
Corrosive liquid wastes that would be described by the DOT
shipping names "cleaning compound, liquid; coal tar dye, liquid;
dye, intermediate liquid; mining reagent, liquid; and textile
treating compound, mixture, liquid" may be packaged in the same
packagings as prescribed for "corrosive liquids, n.o.s.," but
may also be placed in packagings similar to those mentioned for
corrosive liquids, n.o.s., but not meeting the detailed speci-
fication requirements of 49 CFR "Part 178. In other words, a
liquid cleaning compound that is authorized in 49 CFR 173.245
for shipment in a 17H open-head drum may be shipped in a~ non-
DOT specification open-hea-d steel drum. This packaging relief
is predicated upon the assumption that materials in the.cleaning
compound and textile treating compound categories are less cor-
rosive than many of the materials that otherwise may be described
by the "corrosive liquid, n.o.s." description.
Cleaning compounds containing not more than 60% hydrofluoric
acid may be packed as if they were straight hydrofluoric acid,
or may be packed in the following DOT specification packagings:
43
-------
(a) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with inside con-
tainers of natural rubber, ceresine, lead or other
material of equal strength and not subject to destruc-
tion by the lading.
(b) Specification 22B plywood drums equipped with molded
liners approved by the Bureau of Explosives.
(c) Specification 16A wire-bound wooden boxes with inside
Specification 2U polyethylene containers.
(d) Specification 6D or 21P cylindrical steel overpack or
fibre drum overpack with inside Specification 2U poly-
ethylene containers not over 15-gallons capacity.
Liquid wastes that properly would be described by the DOT
shipping name "electrolyte (acid) and alkaline corrosive battery
fluid" would be packaged in DOT specification containers as
follows:
(a) Specification 43A rubber drums.
(b) Specification MC310, 311 or 312 tank trucks, except that
unlined tanks may not be used.
(c) Specification 60 portable tanks, except that unlined
tanks may not be used.
(d) Specification 12B or 12C .iibreboard boxjes with inside
containers of polyethylene or other electrolyte acid
resistant non-fragile materials; unless the inside con-
tainers are rigid or semi-rigid in nature, they must be
contained in other strong inside containers. (This is
the so-called bag-in-a-box specification package.)
(e) Specification ISA, 15B, 15C, 16A or 19A wooden boxes
with inside containers of polyethylene or other electroT
lyte acid resistant plastic, not over one gallon each.
(f) Specification 1EX carboys in plywood drums.
44
-------
(g) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes of at least 275
pound test, double-wall corrugated fibreboard, or
325 pound test, double-faced corrugated fibreboard,
with no more than 12 inside glass bottles of not over
1 quart-capacity each.
(h) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes having not more
than 1 inside glass bottle not over 1-gallon capacity.
(i) Specification 12A fibreboard boxes with inside glass
bottles not over-l gallon, and no more than 4 inside
containers exceeding 5 pints each packed in the same
outside box.
(j) Specification 37P non-reusable steel drums with
polyethylene liners.
(k) Specification 6D or 37M non-reusable cylindrical steel
overpacks with inside Specification 2S polyethylene
containers.
(1) Specification 12B corrugated fibreboard boxes with
plastic bags described in 49 CFR 178.205-37.
Liquid waste corrosives that would be described by the DOT
shipping name "cleaning compound, liquid, containing hydro-
chloric (muriatic) acid" and that did not meet the limited
quantity exception criteria would- have to be shipped in the
following DOT specification packaging:
(a) Specification 15A, 15B, 15C, 16A or 19A wooden boxes
with inside containers of glass, earthenware, poly-
ethylene or other non-fragile material resistant to
the lading, not over 1 gallon each.
(b) Specification 5D rubber-lined metal barrels or drums.
(c) Specification 43A rubber drums.
(d) Specification 1A, 1C or IK carboys in boxes or kegs.
45
-------
(e) Specification ID, IE or 1EX single trip glass carboys
in boxes or plywood drums of not over 6.5 gallon
nominal capacity and equipped with vented closures.
(f) Specification 103 or 111 tank cars equipped with
certain specified safety relief devices.
(g) Specification MC310, 311 or 312 tank trucks lined with
rubber or equally acid resistant material of equival-
ent strength and durability.
(h) Specification 60 rubber-lined portable tanks.
(i) Specification 1H, 15P or 22C metal crates with inside
polyethylene carboys, or glued plywood or wooden boxes
or plywood drums with inside Specification 2T or 2TL
polyethylene containers.
(j) Specification 17H, 37A or 37B single trip metal drums
not over 5-gallons capacity each, authorized only for
15% or less inhibited hydrochloric (muriatic) acid
solution.
(k) Specification 12A or 12B fibreboard boxes with inside
polyethylene containers or other non-fragile plastic
material resistant to the lading of not more than
3-gallons capacity, suitably cushioned to prevent
movement in the box.
(1) Specification 12A fibreboard boxes with inside glass
bottles not over 5"-pints capacity each.
(m) Specification 6D or 37M non-reusable cylindrical steel
overpacks with inside Specification 2S, 2SL,'2T, 2TL
or 211 polyethylene containers.
(n) Specification 37P steel drums with non-reusable
polyethylene, liners.
(o) Specification 16D wire bound wooden overwrap with in-
side Specification 2T, 2TL, 2S or 2SL polyethylene
containers.
46
-------
(p) Specification 12C fibreboard boxes with inside
5-gallon nominal capac-ity polyethylene bottles.
(q) Specification 21P fibre drum overpack with inside
Specification 2T, 2S, 2SL, or 2U polyethylene
containers.
(r) Specification 12P fibreboard boxes with inside Speci-
fication 2U polyethylene containers not over 5-gallons
capacity each.
(s) Specification 16A wire-bound wooden boxes with inside
Specification 2U polyethylene containers.
(t) Specification 22C polywood drums with inside Specifi-
cation 2TL polyethylene containers not over 5-gallons
nominal capacity.
(u) Specification 33A polystyrene non-reusable cases with
non-reusable inside glass bottles not over 5-pints
capacity each.
(v) Specification 12R paper-faced, expanded polystyrene
board box with not more than four Specification 2E
inside polyethylene bottles not over 1-gallon capacity
each.
Cleaning compounds containing hydrochloric (muriatic) acid
that do not contain over 28% such acid, in addition to the
preceding list of containers, may be shipped in the following
DOT specification packaging:
(a) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes constructed of at
least 275-pound test double-wall corrugated fibre-
board, or 325-pound test double-faced corrugated
fibreboard, with no more than 12 inside glass bottles
of not over 1-quart capacity each.
(b) Specification 12A fibreboard boxes with inside glass
bottles not over 1-gallon capacity each, and no more
than 4 inside bottles exceeding 5-pints capacity each
in the same outside container.
47
-------
Wastes meeting the DOT corrosive solid definition may be
shipped under the chemical name of the material if listed by
DOT in 49 CFR 172.101, or under the name "corrosive solid,
.n.o.s." Corrosive solids, n.o.s., that do not meet the limit-
ed quantity exception may be shipped in the following non-
specification packagings that meet the general quality require-
ments for all hazardous materials containers:
(a) Metal, wooden or fibreboard boxes with inside earthen-
ware, glass, metal, plastic, or fibre or composition
board containers of no more- than 10 pounds net weight
capacity each.
(b) Fibreboard boxes with inside paper bags not over
50 pounds total net capacity.
(c) Fibreboard boxes with one inside plastic bag not over
120 pounds net weight capacity.
(d) Metal drums.
(e) Fibre drums not exceeding 550 pounds net weight and
not over 55-gallons capacity.
(f) Plastic drums or pails not exceeding 80 pounds net
weight' and not over 6-gallons capacity.
(g) In bags that will .withstand 4 drops from a height of
4 feet, with the authorized net weight of the bags not
to exceed 110 pounds.
(h) Metal portable tanks or closed bins of not over
660-gallons capacity and 7,000 pounds gross weight.
(i) Fibreglass or rubber tanks or closed bins-of not over
74 cubic feet capacity.
(j) Sift-proof metal cargo tanks or tank cars or hopper
type or pneumatic bulk vehicles.
48
-------
In addition to the packaging requirements for DOT regulat-
ed corrosive liquids and solids, it is important also to note
the general prohibitions against co-loading corrosive liquids
in the same package (Section 173.242) with other materials, or
in the same overpack (Section 173.25) with other hazardous
materials, except under very carefully prescribed packaging
conditions.
In conclusion, a wide range of DOT specification packag-
ing is authorized for the shipment of corrosive liquids and
an even wider range of non-specification packaging is author-
ized for the shipment of DOT regulated corrosive solids. By
the pH criterion of EPA's preliminary definition of corrosive-
ness, however, a far greater population of materials will be
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
and one must presume that a much wider range of non-specifi-
cation packaging is in use today for such materials.
3. Flammable Wastes. The preliminary draft EPA definition
of flammable waste reads as follows:
"A waste is a flammable waste if a representative
sample of that waste Has either of the following
properties:
(1) Any liquid waste which has a flash point
greater than 140°F. as determined by a Taglia-
bue Closed Cup Tester.
(2) Any non-fluid waste which may cause fire
through friction" or which may be ignited readi-
ly and when ignited burns so vigorously and
persistently as to create a hazard to persons
and the environment."
49
-------
The first'portion of EPA's preliminary definition of flam-
mable waste is keyed to the flash point of liquid wastes as
determined by the closed-cup tester. This mechanism for
measuring flammability is comparable to that used by the U.S.
Department of Transportation and OSHA. The Food and Drug
Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission are still
linked to an open cup tester and their definition is comparable
to what was the DOT definition before 1972, but legislation
now before Congress would adjust this restriction found in the
Hazardous Substances Labeling Act. The DOT regulations do not
define "liquid," but it is generally understood that if a
material at a temperature of 100°F. will pour readily from its
container it is considered a liquid. The concern here is the
flow of materials that might result from a punctured container
in transportation and the spreading of fire or the potential
for fire from the immediate site of the puncture or other
parts of the transportation vehicle.
There are several substantive differences between the DOT
definition of the. flammable liquid class and that proposed to
be adopted by EPA. While-the EPA definition would extend to
140°F., the DOT definition of flammable liquid has a flash
point cut-off at 100°F., as determined by the closed-cup
tester. In addition to this flat cut-off point in the de-
finition, there are several exceptions and variations on the
definition, to accommodate specific circumstances where the
test method is inaccurate, or where the known properties of
materials are different from those indicated through the various
50
-------
test methods. Thus, for example, in 49 CFR 173.115(b) DOT
indicates that "an aqueous solution containing 24% or less
alcohol by volume is considered to have a flash point no less
than 100°F. (37.8°C.) if the remainder of the solution does
not meet the definition of a hazardous material." This par-
ticular exception was adopted to recognize the fact that alco-
hol/water mixtures tend to give lower flash point readings in
the closed-cup tester than accurately reflect the fire charac-
teristics of these materials. In addition, in the DOT flammable
liquid classification there is a distinction drawn between
materials with a flash point below 73°F. "and materials with
a flash point of 73° to 100°F. The lack of such specific excep-
tions to the definition in the EPA document will impact the
packaging for some of the flammable liquid wastes that will be
regulated by EPA.
As noted above with regard to the term "corrosive," in-
discriminate use of the term "flammable" in the transportation
context, meaning a liquid other than one so termed by the ex-
isting transportation system, will-inject what the contractor
believes to be a totally unwarranted element of confusion into
the transportation community. It is recommended that if the
preliminary flash point cut-off of 140°F. is retained by EPA
(and there is nothing in the underlying_literature to indicate
the advisability of its retention for transportation purposes),
that the term "flammable" not be used. If controls were
deemed necessary at the disposal site based on the flash point
of the material, a statement on the manifest indicating the
51
-------
approximate flash point of the waste would be sufficient with-
out having to call the material a flammable, thereby confusing
the existing transportation safety system.
The preliminary EPA definition of a non-fluid flammable
waste is similar to DOT'S definition of a flammable solid.
Certain materials would be included in the DOT definition,
however, that would not be included in the EPA classification.
For example, DOT regulates the transportation of materials
that are hot with retained heat from manufacturing or process-
ing but EPA would not cover such materials, presumably on the
theory that in disposal sites that retained heat from manufac-
turing or processing would be dissipated. One might question
whether this rationale should be controlling, since the focus
of other definitions and other requirements seems to be on the
transportation segment of disposal and the immediate receipt
of materials at the disposal site, as well as the longer term
storage. Other materials not considered for inclusion in the
EPA non-fluid waste definition are materials that are spontan-
eously combustible. Materials that are water reactive,"which
DOT would class as flammaEle solids, probably would fit with-
in the reactive classification proposed by EPA.
DOT defines a "combustible liquid" as that liquid that
does not meet the definition of any other hazard class and
that has a flash point at or above 100°F. and below 200°F.
With this definition there also are specific exceptions and
variations having to do with the inaccuracies of test methods
or properties of specific materials when tested by these
methods.
52
-------
Liquids that will ignite spontaneously in dry or moist air,
or below 130°F. (54.5°C.), are called pyroforic liquids and
are classed as flammable liquids, subjected to the regulatory
requirements for flammable liquids.
Combustible liquids, in other words, those with flash points
ranging from 100° to 200°F., are not subject to any DOT speci-
fication packaging requirements. There is no regulation what-
soever of these liquids in packagings of less than 100 gallons
each, and for unit quantities in excess of 110 gallons, the
requirements focus on communication of the presence of the
material as opposed to requirements upon containment of that
material. Thus, regulation of combustible liquids by DOT only
applies to bulk transportation and only pertains to placarding
and shipping papers for those liquids.
As with every classification of hazardous material regulat-
ed by DOT, there is certain regulatory relief granted to limit-
red quantities of flammable liquids. Among the relief granted
is that from the use of DOT specification packaging when
flammable liquids.of flash points- up to 100°F. .are (a) in metal
containers not over 1-quaft capacity each, packed in strong
outside containers, (b) in containers having a capacity not
over 1 pint or 16 ounces by weight each, packed in strong out-
side containers, or (c), for flammable J.iquids with flash
points of 73° to 100°F., in inside containers having a rated
capacity of 1 gallon or less when packed in strong containers.
(For these higher flash point materials given relief on pack-
aging, the flash point of the material must be marked on the
53
-------
outside of the packaging.) Liquids in these limited quantities
are relieved from requirements for DOT specification packaging
and from labeling requirements (except when offered for trans-
portation by air), but they must be accompanied by shipping
papers. They do not have to meet the placarding or other
operational requirements imposed on motor carriers and rail
carriers.
DOT continues its recognition of the lower hazard of
materials with flash points from 73° to 100°F. in granting re-
lief from specification packaging only for liquids in that
flash point range when in units of 110 gallons or less. (Again
the greater relief offered here is predicated upon a marking
of the flash point on the outside of the packaging.) This re-
lief from use of more expensive specification packaging is not
accompanied by relief from labeling requirements, and material
in this category in these larger quantities does not fit DOT'S
definition of the term "limited quantity."
Other than waste straight chemicals, which would be ship-
ped under their prescribed chemical shipping name, mixed flam-
mable liquid wastes would"be shipped under the proper DOT
shipping name of "flammable liquid, n.o.s." If the material
were not in small packages that would fit the limited quantity
exceptions, it would be shipped in DOT specification packaging
prescribed in 49 CFR 173.119. Each package would have to be
marked with the name of contents, i.e., "flammable liquid,
n.o.s.," and would have to bear the red, diamond-shaped,
flammable liquid label showing the international flame symbol
and the signal words "Flammable Liquid."
54
-------
Section 173.119 prescribes packaging based upon the char-
acteristics of the material including flash point, vapor pres-
sure, viscosity, and potential secondary properties of the
material. For flammable liquids having flash points of 20 F.
or below, the following specification packagings are
prescribed:
(a) Specification 1A, 1C, ID glass carboys, boxed or in
barrels or kegs with a capacity not over 5 gallons.
(b) Specification 5, 5A, 5B, 5C or 5M metal barrels or
drums with openings not exceeding 2.3 inches.
(c) Specification 17E metal drums with openings not exceed-
ing 2.3 inches (gauge of metal is prescribed).
(d) Specification 17C metal drums with openings not exceed-
ing 2.3 inches.
(e) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with inside glass
or earthenware containers not over 1 quart each, or
metal cans not over 1 gallon each.
(f) Specification ISA, 15B,_15C, 16A, 19A or 19B wooden
i
boxes with inside containers which must be metal pails,
kits or cans not over 10 gallons each, or inside glass
or earthenware containers not over 1 gallon each.
(g) Specification 2lCf 22A or 22B fibre drums and plywood
drums with a single inside glass, earthenware or'metal
container not over 1 gallon capacity in each drum
(the inside container must be cushioned to prevent
breakage or leakage).
(h) Specification 42B, 42C or 42H aluminum barrels or drums.
(i) Cylinders as prescribed for any compressed gas except
acetylene.
(j) Specification 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112,
114, 115 and certain ARA tank cars.
55
-------
(k) Specification MC-300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306,
330 or 331 tank trucks.
(1) Specification 12D fibreboard boxes with inside glass
or earthenware containers not over 1 gallon each.
(m) Specification 17H or 37A metal drums with inside glass
packagings not over 9 pints capacity each.
(n) Specification 12A fibreboard boxes with inside glass
bottles not over 1 gallon capacity each.
(o) Specification 6D cylindrical steel overpack with an
inside Specification 2S polyethylene container.
(p) Specification 51 or 57 portable tanks.
Flammable liquids with flash points above 20°F. to 73°F.,
that do not meet limited quantity exceptions, must be packaged
in the following DOT specification packaging:
(a) Containers that would be prescribed for flammable
liquids with flash points below 20°F. except that open-
ings greater than 2.3 inches in diameter in barrels
and drums are authorized when permitted by the packag-
ing specification itselt.
(b) Specification 17E or 17H single trip metal drums.
(c) Specification 10B wooden barrels or kegs for alcohol
and alcohol/water_mixtures.
(d) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with inside con-
tainers of glass, earthenware, polyethylene or metal
not over 1 gallon each.
(e) Specification 12E fibreboard boxes with one or two
rectangular metal inside containers not over 5 gallons
each.
(f) Specification 6K metal barrels or drums of Type 304
stainless steel.
56
-------
(g) Specification 37P steel drums with polyethylene liners.
(h) Specification 6D or 37M non-reusable cylindrical steel
overpack with an inside Specification 2S or 2SL poly-
ethylene container.
(i) Specification 21P fibredrum overpack with inside
Specification 2S or 2SL polyethylene container.
(j) Specification 37D non-reusable steel drums for any
commodity not exceeding 10 pounds per gallon.
The vapor pressure of the flammable liquid at certain speci-
fied temperatures is essential to the determination of author-
ized packaging for the flammable liquid. When the vapor pres-
sure of the liquid does not exceed 16 pounds per square inch
absolute (p.s.i.a.) at 100°F., the flammable liquids may be
packed as prescribed above. When the vapor pressure exceeds
16 p.s.i.a. at 100°F. but does not exceed 27 p.s.i.a., the
liquids must be packed in the following DOT specification
containers:
(a) Specification packagings authorized for liquids for
flash points below 20°F. described in the paragraphs
above and listed above as items (a) through (i) (except
Specification 17E drums).
(b) Specification 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111,.112,
114, 115, and certain ARA tank cars.
(c) Specification MC-304, 307, 330 or 331 tank trucks.
(d) Specification 51 portable tanks.
When the vapor pressure of the liquid waste exceeds
27 p.s.i.a. at 100°F. but does not exceed 40 p.s.i.a., the
liquids must be packed in the following DOT specification
containers:
57
-------
(a) Specification 5A or 5P metal barrels or drums with
openings not exceeding 2.3 inches.
(b) Cylinders prescribed for any compressed gas except
acetylene.
(c) Specification 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114 and
.certain ARA tank cars.
-------
(a) Specification 1A, ID, or 1EX single trip glass carboys
boxed or in plywood drums.
(b) Specification ISA, 15B, 15C, 16A or 19A wooden boxes
with inside containers of glass or earthenware not
over 1 gallon each, combined with incombustible pack-
ing material to absorb the contents of the inner con-
tainer in the event of breakage.
'(•^•^Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with inside gTa-ss
or earthenware containers not over 1 quart each and
cushioned with incombustible packing material.
(d) Specification 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5P and 17C or 17E single-
trip metal barrels or drums.
(e) Specification 37P steel drums not over 15 gallons ca-
pacity with non-reusable polyethylene liners.
(f) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with Specification
2E inside polyethylene bottles not over 1 gallon each.
(g) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with 1 inside poly-
ethylene bottle not over 5 gallons capacity.
(h) Specification 12P fibreboard boxes with inside speci-
fication polyethylene containers not over 5 gallons
each.
(i) Cylinders prescribed for any compressed gas except
acetalene.
(j) Specification MC-304, 307, 310, 311 or 312 tank trucks.
(k) Specification 103, 111, 112 and 115 tank cars.
(1) Specification 6D or 37M non-reusable cylindrical steel
overpacks with an inside Specification 2S or 2SL poly-
ethylene container, or with an inside Specification
2U polyethelene container not over 5 gallons capacity.
Any wastes that meet the pyroforic liquid definition in the
flammable liquid class must be packed in DOT specification
59
-------
containers or in devices or apparatus approved by the Bureau
of Explosives of the Association of American Railroads, as
follows:
(a) Cylinders prescribed for any compressed gas except
acetalene and having a minimum design pressure of 170
pounds per square inch; cylinders must have certain
.valv,e j)rotec>tion,'0r.:.mu,s:t,..be packed .in strong wooden
boxes and secured to protect the valves.
(b) Specification ISA, 15B or 15C wooden boxes or Specifi-
cation 12B fibreboard boxes, with not more than four
Specification 2A metal cans holding inside glass or
metal containers not over 1 quart capacity each, hav-
ing positive screw cap closures adequately gasketed;
inside containers must be cushioned on all sides with
dry absorbent incombustible material in a quantity
sufficient to absorb the entire contents.
(c) Specification 17C or 37A single trip metal drums with
inside metal cans not over 1 gallon each; inside con-
tainers shall have no opening exceeding 1 inch dia-
meter and must be surrounded on all sides with incom-
bustible cushioning material.
(d) Specification 105 tank cars.
(e) Specification 51 portable tanks with a'minimum design
pressure of 175 pounds per square inch.
(f) Specification MC-330 or 331 tank trucks having a
minimum design pressure of 175 psi.
No material classed by DOT as a flammable solid may be
packed in the same outside container with corrosive liquids
unless those corrosive liquids are in bottles cushioned by in-
combustible absorbent material and are packed in tightly
closed metal containers.
60
-------
The limited quantity exceptions for the flammable solid
classification are prescribed in 49 CFR 173.153. Relief from
specification packaging and labeling is offered as well as re-
lief from placarding and operational requirements in rail and
highway transportation, but for the preparation and carriage
of shipping documents describing the freight. This relief is
available for flammable solids in inside containers not over
1 pound net weight each, in outside containers not exceeding
25 pounds net weight each.
Unless appearing specifically by chemical name in the DOT
Hazardous Materials list in 49 CFR 172.101, flammable solid
wastes would be shipped under the DOT shipping name "flammable
solid, n.o.s." Those packagings which did not qualify for
limited quantity exceptions must be packaged as prescribed in
Section 173.154. Like all other hazardous materials, flam-
mable solids must be packed in specification containers of a
design and construction of materials that will not react
dangerously with or be decomposed by the chemical packed in
them. The prescribed packaging for flammable solids, n'io.s.,
is listed earlier in this"report for water reactive materials
classed as flammable solids that probably would fall within
the preliminary EPA definition of reactive materials.
In conclusion, waste defined by EPA as a flammable liquid
or a flammable non-fluid hazard will be in DOT specification
packaging unless one of the following conditions occurs:
(a) The material fits the limited quantity paragraphs pre-
scribed by DOT for both flammable liquids and flammable
solids.
61
-------
(b) The material has a closed-cup flash point of 73° to
100°F. and is
capacity each.
100 F. and is in units not exceeding 110 gallons
(c) The liquid has a flash point of 100° to 140°F.
(d) The liquid is given a specific exception from DOT regu-
lation, such as that provided to alcoholic beverages,
when no such exception exists in the EPA definition.
4. Infectious Wastes. As is accurately noted in the background
papers for the preliminary EPA definition of infectious waste,
the Department of Transportation has only, limited coverage of
such materials. The extent of DOT coverage, based on a 1960
amendment to the enabling statute, is to authorize regulation
of "etiologic agents." History does not contain any indication
that DOT, or its predecessor agency the Interstate Commerce
Commission, sought the authority to regulate these materials
and there has been a noticeable reluctance at DOT to enter the
arena of biologic or infectious material regulation.
Such regulations as DOT has 'are published in 49 CFR Sections
173.386 through 173.388. The DOT regulations involve substan-
tial cross-reference to regulations of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare in 42 CFR 72.25. For DOT purposes, an
etiologic agent is a viable microorganism or its toxin which
causes or may cause human disease and is limited to agents
listed by HEW in its regulations. The background papers for
the EPA preliminary definition include a lengthy list of these
HEW agents, at pages 14 through 18 of the draft papers.
62
-------
For volumes of etiologic agents less than 50 milliliters
(ml), HEW requires the material to be placed in a securely
closed, water tight container which shall be enclosed in a
second durable water tight container. Several primary con-
tainers may be enclosed in a single secondary container if the
total volume of all primary containers does not exceed 50 ml.
The space at the top, bottom and sides between the primary
and secondary containers shall contain sufficient non-particu-
late absorbent material to absorb the entire contents of the
primary containers in case of breakage or leakage. Each set
of primary and secondary containers must then be enclosed in
an outer shipping container constructed of corrugated fibre-
board, cardboard, wood or other material of equivalent
strength.
The Department of Transportation, in Section 173.386(d),
specifically excludes the following materials from any DOT
regulation, unless those materials happen to be otherwise re-
gulated as flammable, corrosive, etc.:
(a) Diagnostic specimens.
(b) Biological product's.
(c) Cultures of etiologic agents of 50 ml. (1.666 fluid
ounces) or less in one outside package.
Under HEW regulation volumes of 50 ml. of etiologic agents
or more must be packaged in units that include a shock absorb-
ent material. This shock absorbent material must be at least
equal in volume to that of the absorbent material between the
primary and secondary containers at the top, bottom, and sides,
63
-------
between the secondary container and the outer shipping con-
tainer. Single primary containers must not contain more than
500 ml. of material. Two or more primary containers whose
combined volumes do not exceed 500 ml., however, may be placed
in a single secondary container. No more than 8 secondary
shipping containers may be enclosed in a single outer shipping
container. 'The maximum amount of etiologic agent which may be
enclosed within a single outer shipping container must not
exceed 4,000 ml.
In addition to the minimum packaging requirements prescrib-
ed by HEW, DOT declares that no one may ship any package con-
taining over 4 litres gross volume of an etiologic agent.
DOT further says that, in addition to the HEW requirements,
any package containing an etiologic agent must be designed
and constructed so that, if it were subject to prescribed en-
vironment and test conditions, there would be no release of
the contents to the environment and the effectiveness of the
packaging as a container would not be significantly reduced.
The environmental, and test conditions prescribed are the
following:
(a) Direct sunlight in an ambient temperature of 130°F. in
still air.
(b) An ambient temperature of -40°F. in still air and shade.
(c) Ambient atmospheric pressure of 0.50 atmosphere
(7.3 p.s.i.a*.).
(d) Vibration normally incident in the mode of transpor-
tation in which the package will be shipped.
64
-------
(e) A water spray heavy enough to keep the entire exposed
surface of the package (except the bottom) continuous-
ly wet during a period of 30 minutes.
(f) A free drop through a distance of 30 feet onto a flat,
essentially unyielding horizontal target surface
striking the surface in a position for which maximum
damage is expected.
(g) .Impact of the hemispheric end of -a steel cylinder
1.25 inches in diameter and weighing 15 pounds, dropped
from a height of 40 inches onto the exposed surface of
the package expected to be the most vulnerable to
puncture. The long axis of the cylinder must be per-
pendicular to the impacted surface.
(h) As an alternative to the preceding penetration test,
a free drop of the package through a distance of 40
inches, striking the top end of a vertical cylindrical
mild steel solid bar on an essentially unyielding sur-
face in a position for which maximum damage is expected.
The bar must be 1.5 inches in diameter. The top of
the bar must be horizontal with its edge rounded to a
radius not exceeding 1/4 inch. The bar must be at
least 8 inches long and must be of such length as to
cause maximum damage to the package. The long axis of
the bar must be vertical .to the unyielding horizontal
impact surface oflthe package being dropped.
(i) Except for packages made of metal, wood, ceramic,
plastic, or combinations of these materials, at least
one sample of each type of package of a maximum size
and gross weight must be filled with water and sub-
jected to the water spray test described above. This
sample package after the water spray test must then be
given the free drop test and one of the penetration
tests. If the outer layer of the packaging is metal,
wood, ceramic, plastic, or a combination of these
65
-------
materials, it is exempt from the water spray test, but
it must be filled with water and subjected to con-
secutive free drop and penetration tests as described
above.
All DOT-regulated etiologic agents and HEW-regulated eti-
ologic agent/biomedical materials must be labeled with the
rectangular HEW label, indicating the .nature of the material
and the international symbol for such agents.
The Department of Transportation has issued an advance
notice of proposed rule making in their Docket No. HM-142,
with a comment period that closed on January 21, 1977
(41FR 52086, Nov. 26, 1976). This advance notice is exploring
the limitation currently appearing in the DOT regulations in-
sofar as coverage of etiologic agents is concerned. The ad-
vance notice asked for specific comment on the following
questions:
(a) Is the definition of etiologic agent given in
49 CFR 173.386 adequate?
(b) Should the definition be expanded to include agents
which are harmful to plants and animals?
(c) Should the definition be expanded to include biu-
logical materials (such as recombinant DNA) used-in
or derived from genetic studies?
(d) Should etiologic agents in quantities of 50 milli-
liters or less (per outside packaging) be further
regulated by the MTB as to packaging, marking, and
labeling?
(e) Should the MTB, when determining the quantity of
etiologic agent below which regulation is unnecessary,
use a system which takes into account the potency,
66
-------
i.e., the toxlgenicity or-vi'rility of the agent
(similar to the system used for poisons)?
(f) Should the MTB establish more specific regulatory
requirements for diagnostic specimens and what should
these be?
(g) Should a small size label, consistent with the general
label format for other hazardous materials, be adopt-
ed '"to -ac'commodate "use of' small packages "for -elriologic
agents?
(h) Alternately, should a minimum package or overpack size
be established to enhance safety by making it less
likely for the package to become lost during shipment?
(i) To what extent do prevailing practices regarding trans-
portation of imported shipments of etiologic agents
or suspected etiologic agents, particularly diagnostic
specimens, pose a health or safety risk?
(j) What kind of monitoring or clearance procedures, if
any, are necessary to adequately control perceived
risks attributable to transportation of imported ship-
ments of etiologic agents?
In conclusion, the Department of Transportation, in
conjunction with the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, does regulate certain materials that would be cover-
ed by the EPA preliminary definition of infectious waste"!
There is no DOT specification packaging prescribed, but the
packagings do have to meet certain basic HEW requirements and
certain performance criteria prescribed"by DOT in-49 CFR
173.387. It is most' likely, however, that the majority of
material that would be covered by the EPA preliminary defin-
ition of infectious waste is not covered by the current DOT
regulations applicable to etiologic agents.
67
-------
5. Toxic Wastes. The preliminary EPA definition of toxic
materials was provided late in this study period. Absent
specific definitions of that, it was assumed that the scope of
the eventual EPA definition would be at least as broad as the
definitions DOT has adopted for their Poison A and Poison B
classifications. .The..-preliminary, definition that has been
provided supports this assumption.
For DOT purposes, materials in the Poison A classification
are poisonous gases or liquids of such nature that a very
small amount of the gas or vapor of the liquid mixed with air
is dangerous to life. This class includes the following
materials.:
(a) Bromacetone.
(b) Cyanogen.
(c) Cyanogen chloride containing less than 0.9 percent water.
(d) Diphosgene.
(e) Ethyldichlorarsine.
(f) Hydrocyanic acid.
(g) Methyldichlorarsine.
(h) Nitrogen peroxide (tetroxide).
(i) Phosgene (diphosgene).
(j) Nitrogen tetroxide-nitric oxide mixtures containing
up to 33.2 percent weight nitric oxide.
Class B poisons are those substances, liquid or solid,
other than Class A poisons, that are known to be so toxic to
man as to afford a hazard to health during, transportation or
68
-------
that, in the absence of adequate data on human toxicity, are
presumed to be toxic to man because they fall within any one
of the following categories when tested on laboratory animals:
(a) Oral toxicity. Those liquids and solids (including
pastes and semisolids) which produce death within
48 hours in half or more of a group of 10 or more
white .laboratory :crats ..weighing .200 'to 300 .grams at a
single dose of 50 milligrams or less per kilogram of
body weight, when administered orally.
(b) Toxicity on inhalation. Those liquids and solids (in-
cluding pastes and semisolids) which produce death
within 48 hours in half or more of a group of 10 or
more white laboratory rats weighing 200 to 300 grams.
when inhaled continuously for a period of one hour or
less at a concentration of 2 milligrams or less per
liter of vapor, mist, or dust, provided such concen-
tration is likely to be encountered by man when the
chemical product is used in any reasonable foreseeable
manner.
(c) Toxicity by skin absorption. Those liquids and solids
(including pastes and semisolids) which produce death
within 48 hours in half or more of a group of 10 or
more rabbits tested at a.dosage of 200 milligrams or
less per kilogram_body weight, when administered by
continuous contact with the bare skin for 24 hours or
less.
(d) Human experience. The foregoing categories shall not
apply if the physical characteristics or the probable
hazards to humans as shown by experience indicate that
the substances will not cause serious sickness or
death.
There is no limited quantity packaging relief given in the
DOT regulations for materials classed as Poison A.
69
-------
Cylinders for Poison A materials must be maintained, in
terms of periodic tests and inspection requirements, in accord-
ance with 49 CFR 173.34. Valves must be capable of with-
standing the test pressure of the cylinder and must have taper-
threaded connections directly to the cylinders. The outlet
caps and plugs, luting, and gaskets must be compatible with
each other, the valve assembly, and the lading. The pressure
of any poison gas at 130°F. must not exceed the service pres-
sure of the cylinder, and no containers may be liquid full at
130°F. Cylinders of Poison A materials must be packed in boxes
or otherwise must have adequate protection for valves. Valve
protection afforded by a box must be of sufficient strength
to protect all parts of the cylinders and valves from deforma-
tion or breakage resulting from a drop of at least 6 feet on-
to a concrete floor, impacting at the weakest point. Any
cylinder not overpacked in a box must be equipped with a pro-
tective cap or other valve protection capable of preventing
damage to or distortion of the valve if it were allowed to
fall from an upright position, with the side of the cap?or
other valve protection striking a solid steel object project-
ing no more than 6 inches above the floor level. All con-
tainers for Class A poisons must be tightly and securely
closed and inside containers must be cushioned. No Class A
poisons may be carried or loaded in any bulk highway cargo
tank.
Class A poisons other than those listed specifically by
chemical name in the DOT regulations would be shipped as
70
-------
"Poison A, n.o.s.," and would have to be packaged for ship-
ment in the following specification packaging:
(a) Specification 33 or 3D metal cylinders of not over
125 pounds water capacity (nominal. —'
(b) Specification 3A1800, 3AA1800 or 3E1800 cylinders.
(Specification 3E1800 cylinders must be packed in
'•strong -..wooden uor ^mE±al"^boxes..iand. 3A-~a3rd.3M-<:c,yliTideT.s
must have valve protection or be packed in wooden or
metal boxes.)
Materials classed as Poison B are granted a limited quan-
tity exception from specification packaging but not from poison
labeling. Limited quantities of Poison B liquids which are
permitted the limited quantity exception (noted by a reference
in 49 CFR 172.101) are granted relief from specification pack-
aging and from operational requirements in highway and rail
carriage other than shipping papers, when in tightly closed
inside containers securely cushioned when necessary to pre-
vent breakage, and meeting the following criteria:
(a) In glass packagings not over 1-quart capacity each or
in metal containers or polyethylene bottles not-over
1-gallon capacity -each, packed in strong outside
wooden boxes or barrels.
.(b) In glass packagings not over 1-pint capacity each, or
in metal or polyethylene packagings (other than bags)
not over 1-quart capacity each, packed in strong
outside fibreboard boxes.
—'Use of existing Specification 33 cylinders authorized, but new
construction not authorized.
71
-------
A material that is not listed specifically by chemical
name in the DOT regulations and that meets the Poison B defin-
ition would be shipped as a "Poison B, n.o.s.," and would
have to be shipped in specification packaging as follows:
(a) Specification 5, 5A, 5B or 5C metal barrels or drums
with openings not exceeding 2.3 inches in diameter.
ttei
openings not exceeding 2.3 inches in diameter.
(c) Specification 37B single trip metal drums with welded
side seams, openings not over 2.3 inches in diameter,
and a capacity not over 10 gallons.
(d) Specification 37A or 37B single trip metal drums with
welded side seams, not over 5 gallons (authorized for
pastes only).
(e) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes with glass or earth-
enware inside containers not over 1-quart capacity each,-
or with nietal inside containers not over 1-gallon
capacity each.
(f) Specification ISA, 15B,-15C, 16A or 19A wooden boxes
with glass or earthenware inside containers not over
1-gallon capacity each, or with metal inside contain-
ers not over 10-gallons capacity each.
(g) Specification 103,- 104, 105, 111, 115 and certain ARA
specification tank cars.
(h) Cylinders for any compressed gas except acetylene.
(i) Specification MC-300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306,
307, 310, 311, 312 tank trucks.-
(j) Specification 1A, ID or IE glass carboys in wooden
boxes or plywood drums.
(k) Specification 12B fibreboard boxes 'with no more than
one inside glass container of not over 1-gallon
72
-------
capacity, securely cushioned. This completed packaging
with glass container filled with water must be capable
of withstanding six 4-foot drops onto solid concrete
on the bottom, four sides and top without breakage.
(1) Specification 21C fibre drums with inside glass con-
tainers not over 1-gallon capacity each.
(m) Specification 42B, 42C or 42D aluminum drums, or
•Specrfreatlonf '42E single trip- 'alumi'mmrdrums.
(n) Specification 15P or 22C glued plywood or wooden box,
or plywood drum with inside Specification 2T polyethy-
lene container.
(o) Specification 37P steel drums not over 5-gallons capa-
city with non-reusable inside polyethylene liner.
(p) Specification 6D cylindrical steel overpack with inside
Specification 2S polyethylene container.
(q) Specification 12A fibreboard boxes with no more than
one inside glass bottle not over 1-gallon capacity.
(r) Specification 29 mailing tubes with polyethylene
bottles not over 2 quarts capacity each.
(s) Specification 42G aluminum drums.
(t) Specification 12P fibreboard boxes with inside specifi-
cation 2U polyethylene containers not pver 5-gallons
capacity each.
(u) Specification 16A wire bound wooden boxes with inside
Specification 2U polyethylene containers.
(v) Specification 12A or 12B fibreboard boxes with inside
polyethylene bottles having a minimum wall thickness
of 0.015 inches and provided with screw cap closures,
not over 1-gallon capacity each.
(w) Specification 51 portable tanks.
73
-------
The preliminary EPA definition of toxic materials includes
materials that are toxic to the environment, and the materials
to be regulated under such a definition will exceed the range
of materials currently regulated by DOT. To the extent that
DOT does not regulate such materials, DOT packaging would not
be required. It is presumed that a range of non-specification
packaging is used for the transportation of these materials
today.
6. Survivability of DOT Packaging. EPA has expressed a concern
that in addition to being able to survive the period and condi-
tions incident to normal transportation, waste containers should
be capable of surviving long periods of storage at a zero dis-
charge level of the contained waste. Further, disposal containers
will be expected to survive prolonged periods under a variety of
conditions, though it is important to note that some level of
discharge after burial is expected. In context with this study,
as noted in the irtroductory chapter, no containment required
past disposal was assumed to be required.
The contractor has reviewed a number of technical reports
and has consistently found that, although some reports purport
to deal with long-term survival of the packaging, such is not
really the case. These studies, abstracts from a cross section
of which are included in Appendix A, more often address the
test procedures for the short-term durability of the packaging
rather than the survivability over long periods of time under
varying environmental conditions. This is not altogether
74
-------
surprising since DOT, and"its predecessor agency the I.C.C.,
have focused attention on the containers' suitability for
transportation rather than on questions of long term contain-
ment of hazardous substances. Since transportation even under
the most adverse circumstances, using the slowest mode of
transport, does not take extensive time, it stands to reason
that the long term containment problem has not been investigat-
ed in any depth in the context of hazardous materials transpor-
tation, storage, and disposal.
A notable exclusion pertains to bulk specification contain-
ers, such as tank cars and tank trucks. This exclusion comes
about by virtue of the fact that these types of "containers"
are used for extended periods of time in order to permit
economic amortization of the inherent capital investments.
With respect to railroad tank cars, some useful insights are
gained from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Inter-
change Rules as published by the AAR's Mechanical Division.
Rule 88 of the Interchange Rules specifies required tank and
safety valve testing, while Rule..90 specifies that no tank car
older than 40 years may be interchanged in railroad service
after January 1, 1981. Specific inquiry with AAR's Mechanical
Division has indicated that the limit was specified on the
basis of tests and experience which had shown these cars' long-
term safe usefulness not to extend beyond a 40-year time period.
While no similar rules exist for tank trucks, the con-
tractor's inquiries with manufacturers of tanks and tank lin-
ings have indicated that these are designed to meet at least
75
-------
the estimated useful life of the truck itself, and which is
generally in the seven to ten year range. This information,
however, is not readily generalized due to the great differ-
ences in tank construction and internal as well as external
liners designed to meet the specific uses of the various types
of tank trucks.
One potential source of information pertaining to the long
term survivability of specification packaging is the U.S.
Department of the Army. The Army periodically inspects the
packaging of materials stored at a number of its depots,
though the results of the inspections have never been compiled
and specific information is not available in a machine-readable
form or even in a single location. It appears that container
failures are dealt with on a "local" level at each depot and
that there have been no attempts to critically and systematical-
ly analyze causes of failures and, in particular, to determine
whether the suitability of the specification is borne out
over time.
Still another, source of some-in format ion is the compilation
of Hazardous Materials Incident Reports which must be submitted
by the carrier to the Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
(O.H.M.O.) of DOT in the event of any unintended release of
hazardous material from its packaging. (See 49 CFR 171.15 and
171.16.) In these reports, the carrier is required to indicate
the contents of the container, the type of container, and the
cause of the failure, but has not been required to indicate
the age of the container. An analysis of the reports indicates
76
-------
that almost all of the failures resulted from factors unrelated
to the contents of the containers, such as loose closures,
external punctures, improper handling, or manufacturing defects.
It may be concluded from the extensive inquiries on the
part of the contractor, as well as from the little useful
empirical shelf-life information now available, that overall
specification packaging has withstood the "tests of time."
It is evident, though, that in order to develop an adequate
information base, long-term technical studies would have to be
udnertaken that would incorporate tests designed to simulate
the unique conditions likely to be encountered in waste stor-
age and disposal sites.
7. Price and Energy Considerations for DOT Specification Pack-
aging. DOT specification packagings, because of special testing
designed to insure safe transportation of hazardous materials
under a variety of conditions, as well as other factors, are
generally higher in price than similar non-specification pack-
aging. Similarly, the material and energy resources required
to produce specification packaging are generally greater- than
for the non-specification "packaging. Higher costs and consump-
tion of greater resources are unavoidable for the most part,
if the public is to be properly protected. Consistent with
(a) the objective of RCRA, (b) the transportation character-
istics applying to the movement of packaged hazardous wastes,
as discussed in Section 2 of this chapter, and (c) the real-
istic need to rely on voluntary compliance by the regulated
77
-------
parties, it is essential to highlight the opportunities to
minimize these undesirable characteristics of specification
packaging.
Placing an undue financial burden on the waste generator by
requiring a more expensive packaging where a less expensive
packaging would serve equally well, particularly when the
package is-to be transported directly, by a single mode of
transportation, over a short distance from the generator to a
disposal site, would undermine the voluntary compliance effort.
The data presented in Table 1 serve to demonstrate not only
the expense of specification packaging, but also the wide
range of prices for various containers.
As an example, it should be emphasized that a very popular
type container, the 17E and 17H 55-gallon drum, can be obtain-
ed as a reconditioned drum at an approximate saving of 35%.
Compared with prices of $13.95 and $17.90 respectively for new
drums, reconditioned 17E and 17H drums cost about $9. and
$11.50, or about 65% of the new container.
As important as reducing the-financial burden on the gener-
ator, and ultimately on tfie public, is conserving the energy
and material resources required to manufacture the containers.
The significance of the energy input in the manufacture of con-
tainer materials is brought home by the following data. It
takes, for instance, 4.624 million kcal. to make a metric ton
of steel from virgin materials using the basic oxygen process
78
-------
TABLE 1
UNIT PRICES FOR DOT SPECIFICATION SHIPPING CONTAINERS -
I/
DOT
Spec.
3A
3AA
3AA
3A480X
3HT
.4AA480
4B
4BA
4BA
4E
5
5A
5B
5C
6A
6B
6D
6K
6K
8
SAL
17C
17E
17E
17F
17H
17X
21C
37A
37A
37B
37B
Container
Capacity
80 cu. ft.
250 cu. ft.
40 cu. ft.
150 Ib. .Chlorine
265 cu. ft.
'•ISO .*h...»;Aiimirmi-a
260 Ib. H20
123 Ib. H20
48 Ib. H20
48 Ib. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
.55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
30 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
140 cu. ft.
255 cu. ft.
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. H20
55 gal. HZ0
Unit
Price -'
$ 64.30
86.75
38.45
96.70
86.80
"147.40
100.00
52.50
11.25
30.00
38.00
133.00
20.45
195.00
133.00
19.00
38.60
500.00
1,200.00
61.95
97.50
18.10
15.50"
13.95
22.00
17.90
15.55
16.25
12.70
11.25
12.70
11.25
3/
Comments —
in orders of 1,000 or more
in orders of 500 or more
in orders of 250 or more
12 gauge
stainless steel
12 gauge
reconditioned, nickel barrel
new, nickel barrel
18 gauge
20-18 gauge
in orders of 200 or more
22 gauge
24 gauge
22 gauge
24 gauge
79
-------
TABLE 1. UNIT PRICES FOR DOT SPECIFICATION SHIPPING CONTAINERS (Cont.)
DOT
Spec.
37C
37D
37M
39
39
42B
Container
Capacity
5
55
55
30.
55
55
gal
gal
gal
,.1-b-
Ib.
gal
. H20
. H20
. H20
"•H2°
H20
. H,0
Unit
Price
1.
12.
31.
3v
8.
100.
Comments
64
80
90
DO
00
00 reconditioned
— Sources of prices may be found in Appendix C.
2/
—Except where otherwise noted, prices are based on purchases of 100 or
more containers.
3/
— It is important to note that many of the less common and generally more
expensive DOT specification packagings are only available on a very
limited basis. In fact, there are no known manufacturers of certain of
the DOT specification containers.
80
-------
furnace.—' To make a metric ton of aluminum from virgin
materials requires 59.2 million kcal. The energy required to
make a metric ton of paperboard from virgin fiber is between
10.3 and 10.9 million kcal., and for a net ton of glass con-
tainers, also from virgin materials, the requirement is 4.385
million kcal. Clearly, a small reduction in the amount of
steel, aluminum, -paperboard, or glass required for a hazardous
waste container would result in tremendous industry-wide energy
savings. Allowing limited reuse of DOT single trip containers
and unreconditioned non-reusable containers, as recommended
elsewhere in this report, would likewise result in a signifi-
cant reduction in both the energy and cost components of dis-
posing or recovering the waste.
It is beyond the scope of our research to determine which
DOT specifications could be substituted for by less costly
and less resource consuming packaging. Inevitably, this deter-
mination must be preceded by tests to assure the integrity of
the principal aim of the required regulations, namely the
protection of human life, property, and the environment. We
do, however, express the considered viewpoint that significant
cost and resource savings opportunities exisj:.
—'Sources of energy requirements for steel, Aluminum, paperboard, and
glass are contained in Appendix B.
81
-------
C. Container Recommendations
1. Scope of Hazardous Waste Transportation. At the outset of
this section, it is imperative to recognize and deal with the
multi-dimensional aspects of hazardous waste transportation and
the different categories of waste. Addressing the first aspect,
as already .noted in .this report's \f.irs.t chapter, EPA.'.s -concerns
encompass three distinct transportation purposes. These are
transportation from generator to:
(a) treatment facility,
(b) storage facility,
(c) disposal site.
In both (a) and (c), storage prior to treatment and dis-
posal, respectively, may be involved. If that were to be the
case, however, such storage would occur in a "controlled
environment." That is to say, as distinct from a public ware-
house where all types of products, including hazardous wastes,
might be stored, the treatment plant and the disposal facility
are operations to be regulated under Section 3004 of the Act
and as such would be controlled. "The implication is that for
storage of wastes at such controlled facilities, the burden of
achieving adequate protection is not the generators' or the
transporters'. Further, it follows that if different packag-
ing (and labeling) standards were to be-applied to each of the
three transportation purposes, the fact that storage may take
place subsequent to transportation to a treatment plant or a
disposal site, can be ignored.
82
-------
The second dimension involves the different types or cate-
gories of wastes. Basically, there are those to which DOT
regulations apply and those which are not now covered by those
regulations. Within both, there are wastes with varying degrees
of hazards. As will be seen later in this chapter, we have
endeavored to group these into four categories consisting of
-wastes"•which are:
(a) most acutely hazardous to people, e.g., explosives
Class A and B, etc.;
(b) less acutely hazardous to people than (a), e.g.,
Class B poisons, corrosive liquids, etc.;
(c) less acutely hazardous to people than (b), e.g.,
explosives Class C, corrosive solids, currently non-
DOT regulated articles including articles hazardous
only to the environment, etc.; and,
(d) health hazards not yet regulated by DOT, e.g.,
carcinogens, mutagens, etc. —'
For wastes in category (a) transported to a storage site,
where these hazardous substances might be stored for an in-
definite period, the most durable and protective packaging is
required. At the other end of the spectrum, items in cate-
gory (c), moving over a relatively short distance by a single
carrier to a disposal site, only require packaging with the
durability and protective qualities necessary to assure safe
containment during the transportation, ""handling, and short-
term storage incident to disposal.
—'Materials in this category are not regulated by DOT unless they
are also flammable, explosive, etc.
83
-------
We have structured our recommendations in two main cate-
gories, viz., the packaging of wastes which are regulated today
under the DOT definitions for hazardous materials, and the
packaging of wastes that do not meet current DOT definitions.
This approach also aims specifically at assuring consistency
with JIMTA, ..as ..required by Section.,3003:(1>-) oJLtEGRA..
2. DOT Regulated Materials. The contractor is not aware that
there are problems relating to the transportation of wastes
classed by DOT as explosives, flammable or nonflammable gases,
pyroforic liquids, organic peroxides, Class A poisons, or radio-
active materials. It is this contractor's opinion that, when
these acute hazard materials are transported as wastes, they
should be transported in the packaging now required by DOT for
such hazardous materials that are not wastes. These materials
all possess inherent extreme hazard characteristics independent
of their, packaging, and whether transportation is short-term or
long-term, the acute hazards posed to people are ever present
and immediate, should an accident occur. In other words, time
of exposure is nor as great a factor in the safety concern for
these materials as it is with some of the others, because-of
inherent instability characteristics or pressure.
Class C explosive waste, however, could be handled like
flammable solids. DOT flammable and combustible liquids,
flammable solids, oxi.dizers, Class B poisons, and corrosive
liquids, all could be handled with some degree of relaxation,
84
-------
since waste transportation of these articles is essentially
different from the transportation of valuable chemicals. Waste
transportation is of limited duration and typically does not
involve the multiple modes of commerce that international
freight would involve. The contractor believes that packaging
originally built to DOT specifications could be used for such
waste materials with some leeway given for the reuse of non-
reusable or single-trip packaging (without reconditioning),
after suitable inspection by the waste generator. The recom-
mendations following this section depict how the packaging
criteria would be applied. It is suggested that criteria be
developed to permit the generator to evaluate used DOT packag-
ing for these categories of materials, to assess their adequacy
with respect to short—term transportation. This evaluation of
adequacy could encompass such tests as visual inspection and
leakage, but should not include destructive vibration, drop
or hydrostatic testing. Visual inspection should be required
for all types of containers for all categories of materials,
but leakage testing should be limited to unreconditioned
single-trip, non-reusable DOT specification and non-specifi-
cation packaging.
Where DOT regulations do not require DOT specification
packaging for hazardous materials, EPA_regulations for those
materials as wastes,should be no more stringent, and use of
non-specification packaging should be authorized.
For any hazardous wastes that meet the DOT definitions,
and that are DOT-labeled flammable liquids (flash point below
85
-------
73°F.), "Dangerous When Wet" (water-reactive) flammable solids,
oxidizers, Class B poisons, and corrosive liquids, relaxation
from the DOT specification packaging rules suggested above
only should be authorized for highway transportation that
would not exceed 500 miles. The identity of these materials
is readily ascertainable from the documentation that will be
required to be used, so there should be no difficulty in deter-
mining compliance. Where trailer-on-flat-car (TOFC) or rail
car operations or water transportation is involved, the current
DOT regulations should apply in their entirety without relaxa-
tion.
3. Non-DOT Regulated Hazardous Wastes and Certain DOT Regulated
Materials. Obviously all of the packaging authorized by DOT
could be authorized but need not be required for the shipment
of hazardous wastes that are not regulated by DOT. In this
category one could also include DOT regulated flammable solids
(except "Dangerous Wh"n Wet" materials), Class C explosives,
corrosive solids, combustible liquids, and flammable liquids
with flash points above 73°F., for which there are no current
DOT specification packaging requirements.
An alternative to use of DOT packaging that the contractor
has carefully examined for these materials is use of the
National Motor Freight Classification an_d Uniform Freight
Classification Tariffs. These tariffs are used extensively in
the United States by common carriers to describe the type of
packaging that they will accept for goods which are offered to
86
-------
them in transportation. Compliance with the tarrifs assures
that the shipper has properly prepared the packaging for trans-
portation, and subsequent losses will not be ascribed prima
facie to the packaging. The two tariff classifications are
very similar and, for the purposes of this contract, may be
considered identical.
It was thought initially that, for hazardous wastes not
regulated by DOT, the tariff classifications would provide a
source of reasonable packaging guidelines for industry to
follow in shipping waste. Closer examination of the classi-
fications, however, reveals that the reliance on these-classi-
fications for the adequacy of the packaging could provide a
false sense of security. There are numerous packaging rules
in the tariffs describing various combinations and categories
of packaging. Item 200, for example, is an extensive explana-
tion and description of specifications for bags. Extensive
detail is given with respect to the design and structure of
the bags. Item 222 provides specifications for fibreboard
boxes. Item 257 .provides specifications for molded polyethy-
lene drums followed by Item 258, specifications for molded
plastic pails. Item 260 offers specifications for aluminum
and steel drums. Item 291 includes specifications for fibre
drums for dry materials, while Item 296 contains the descrip-
tions and requirements for fibre drums for liquid articles.
The verbiage in these specifications is extensive, but
when one examines these specifications recognizing that a number
of the requirements do not have any test conditions, that there
87
-------
is no enforcement staff policing compliance with these require-
ments, and that the requirements are totally unrelated to
the hazardous nature of the product, one must conclude that
reliance on these standards may not be totally justified.
Item 260, one main topic covering specifications for steel
barrels, gives extensive detail as to the gauge thickness of
tops ^anxl ^bot-toms -~o¥- 'drums, tout "in"tlxscxissTng'-^heaxls -=aiicl "tops til
containers, the classification says no more than that they
"must be securely fastened and filled packages must be proof"
against leakage or sifting. There is no leakage test require-
ment for these drums, no drop test requirement or vibration
requirement and, consequently, the control over the quality
of the package is not necessarily as stringent as it might
first appear. If on looks at Item 200 specifications for paper
bags, one finds extensive detail on the number of plies and
the weight of paper that must be used, but there are no criter-
ia with regard to the environmental conditions which the
package must withstand. Carrying this investigation further
and looking at subgroupings of the bags, Items 201 and 202
which cover polyethylene bags state that filled bags must be
capable of withstanding six drops from a height of four feet
onto a solid surface, one drop on each end, one on each face,
and one drop on each side without rupture or leakage. This
appears to be a fine performance standard, but there is no
agency or organization enforcing these standards, and there are
no criteria as to what the material within the bag must be or
the weight of it during testing, which all tends to undermine
our knowledge of the effectiveness of NMFC and UFC packaging.
88
-------
The intent here is to show that, although the tariff
classifications constitute pages upon pages of specifications,
one could very well be led astray by adopting such specifica-
tions as standards for adequacy of packaging of wastes that
are environmentally hazardous. Rather, it would be better to
adopt performance-oriented standards that place the onus on
the generator to meet basic packaging criteria for the trans-
portation of hazardous waste.
In this respect we refer to Section 173.24 of Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, containing standard require-
ments for all packages used in hazardous materials
transportation. There is nothing in this section contrary to
the interests of the EPA in administering the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act. Rather, the section offers a
practical guideline to sensible packaging for waste materials.
There are some terms in this section that are undefined, such
as "normally incident to transportation," "significant release,"
and "effectiveness of the packaging will not be substantially
reduced," that could stand clari-fication. These terms should
be clarified by EPA in conjunction with DOT, in light of the
products to be packaged, defining with respect to those pro-
ducts what constitutes non-significant release, normal con-
ditions of transportation, etc.
It is the contractor's belief and observation that use of
the tariff classification rules for hazardous waste packag-
ing would lead to many administrative problems, but would not
enhance safety in transportation or disposal. Packaging that
89
-------
the generator will use to ship waste is often packaging that
he will have on hand. It is our belief that generators neither
should nor will go outside their facility to purchase large
amounts of new packaging to transport wastes. A realistic
approach consistent with conservation will allow the generator
to use packaging that he has available at his facility. The
•fuct -that
-------
the type of packaging prescribed, or prescribed packaging
is not available. These difficulties are much of the source
of DOT's exemptions program, which has created many problems
for the agency and industry alike. Using performance standards
places the onus for adequate packaging completely on the gen-
erator, but in turn gives him the flexibility of solving his
•proikLemsyJor-waste disposal in -the-most efficient -and Tesource-
conserving manner.
4. EPA Recommendations to DOT for Revisions to DOT Packaging
Regulations. The contractor's investigations into current
DOT packaging needs, as discussed in the preceding sections,
have led to the conclusion that EPA should petition DOT to
make the following revisions to DOT packaging regulations.
(a) Require that all waste materials regulated by DOT
in the following classifications continue to be pack-
aged in DOT specification containers now provided in
49 CFR Parts 173 and 178:
• Explosives, Classes A and B.
• Compressed gasses, flammable and nonflammable.
• Organic peroxides.
• Poisons, Class .A.
• Radioactive materials.
• Spontaneously combustible liquids (pyroforics).
(b) Revise current title 49 CFR regulations to add author-
ization to employ new or used (and not reconditioned)
DOT-specification NRG (non-reusable containers) or
STC (single-trip containers), for transportation of
the following DOT classifications of hazardous material,
91
-------
when that transportation would be by one motor carrier
for a distance of less than 500 miles:
• Flammable liquids (flash point less than 73°F.).
• Flammable solids (bearing the "Dangerous When Wet"
label).
• Oxidizers.
,;»• .iBr&sans, sCILass .38.
• Corrosive liquids.
The generator would have to subject all used (and not
reconditioned) packaging to a detailed visual examin-
ation. In addition, he would have to subject each
used (and not reconditioned) packaging for liquid wastes
to a 5 psig pressure test. No containers observed to
be defective or leaking would be authorized for use.
(c) Revise current title 49 CFR regulations as necessary
to authorize any suitable DOT-specification packaging
or non-specification packaging, meeting the general
requirements of 49 CFR 173.24, for the shipment and
disposal of wastes meeting the following DOT
classifications:
• Flammable liquids (flash point of 73°F. or higher).
• Flammable solids (except those bearing "Dangerous
When Wet" label).
• Explosives, Class C.
• Corrosive solids.
• Combustible liquids.
(d) Revise DOT hazardous materials regulations to institute
necessary transportation and packaging requirements
for carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, genetically
active materials and biologically reactive materials
such as those that would induce convulsions, labor or
92
-------
other human physical reaction upon brief exposure to
transportation through inhalation or skin contact).
In addition, the contractors would make the following
recommendations for EPA adopted packaging regulations:
(a) Promulgate a general rule in EPA regulations, adopting,
by reference, the DOT regulations (as revised according
t.o .the-JSEA recoinmenda,tioiis.i'iiO;tfiid:iabo,v.ej^or^'appJ.icabili±y
to -those "hazardous waste materials defined under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that also meet
the DOT hazard definitions. This will facilitate EPA
enforcement actions against hazardous waste generators
who should use DOT specification packaging but do not,
and removes the necessity for complete reliance on DOT
enforcement. Of course, a provision or understanding
between the agencies should bar the possibility of both
agencies instituting enforcement action against the
same generator or transporter for the same shipment.
(b) For all materials regulated by EPA as hazardous wastes
that do not also meet the criteria of DOT hazardous mater-
ials definitions, adopt as EPA regulations the general
performance packaging requirements set forth in current
49 CFR 173.24.
93
-------
IV. Hazardous Waste Labeling and Marking
A. DOT Labeling and Marking Requirements. DOT, in addition to
specifying the packaging which must be used for the transportation
otEjifea^a^orusonafce^a^ y «a^
and warning labels to be placed on the packages. Also, DOT
shipping paper requirements under the HMTA encompass the shipping
manifest. DOT regulations also require placarding of certain
vehicles used to transport certain DOT-regulated hazardous mate-
rials, including those hazardous wastes that meet the definitions
in the DOT rules. Placards, or alerting signboards appearing on
four sides of certain transport vehicles under the DOT regulations,
are devices to communicate brief but vital information to emer-
gency response personnel and the public during the first moments
of a transportation emergency. Placarding is not recommended for
hazardous wastes that would not currently be placarded under DOT
regulations, for the nature of the communication itself is .
essentially different. The DOT placarding communication is a
carefully designed system to communicate abbreviated warning in-
formation regarding acute and immediate hazards that could directly
impact the people near the vehicle. Any justification for broad
identification of an EPA-regulated material"would relate more to
the proper handling and disposal of the vehicle contents during
the more prolonged and controlled period of containment and
clean-up of a spill. This communication, however, would necessarily
94
-------
be in such detail that it would either call for lengthy and varied
placards, or a hazardous waste manifest. We believe that the
advisory information on the character of the material on the
vehicle is best communicated by the manifest, without injecting
complexity and perhaps confusion into the emergency alert placard-
ing system developed by DOT to warn people of acute hazards present
in "the first few moments of a transportation emergency.
There is perhaps some concern as well for potential separation
of the shipment from its descriptive manifest, thus risking loss
of the identity of the contents of a particular hazardous waste
shipment. As described below, every package of hazardous waste
would have a descriptive identifier that pairs it with the appro-
priate manifest description, so that papers and packages that might
be separated can be put together again. In the event of bulk
shipments, the likelihood of storage or spotting of tanks separate
from the tractor in which papers are kept is smaller than the like-
lihood of packages being separated from their trailer, In any
event, other tank markings, tag numbers, and identifiers will en-
able the hazardous waste transporter-to match the tight paper with
the right tank, without necessitating the placement of all the
manifest information on a placard on the tank. Although one
might contemplate a requirement that the manifest be physically
attached to the tank in an envelope or pouch, it is believed
that this would enhance the possibility of papers being lost,
stolen, or removed by vandals, and therefore this requirement is
not recommended. If any requirement is believed necessary, it is
recommended that EPA adopt a simple general regulation calling
95
-------
for the positive control of documents by the transporter when the
tank is in his possession, and the pairing of the documents by
any means chosen by the transporter such as tank numbers or
license tag numbers.
In sum, it is believed that placarding of EPA-defined hazardous
wastes that would not require DOT placarding today would be counter
•productive, -rmposrng 'an-'tmnecessary^and xjas't'ly'1 requirement -oir't'he
generator that bears a strong potential for diluting and confusing
the existing and developing DOT placarding program.
In accordance with task I and III requirements, current DOT
marking and labeling requirements have been investigated, in terms
of their suitability for the marking and labeling of packaged
hazardo.us wastes. Our analyses and recommendations follow.
1. DOT Labeling Specifications. For many years, DOT and
its predecessor agency the Interstate Commerce Commission,
have prescribed specific labeling requirements for packages
containing hazardous materials. The applicability of the DOT
regulations in. 49 CFR is determined on the basis of the
hazard of the materials and the ±act that the carrier of those
materials is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. As
such, waste materials meeting the hazard criteria of regulat-
ed articles and carried aboard vehicles operated by carriers
engaged in interstate or foreign commerce have been subject
to these same labeling requirements. In addition, DOT ship-
ping paper requirements have been applied to common, contract,
and private carriers engaged in such commerce for many years.
Thus, hazardous wastes meeting the DOT classification
96
-------
definitions and hauled by regulated carriers have had to be
accompanied by DOT shipping papers.
There are seventeen hazard classes or groupings used by
DOT to identify the primary hazard of the material. These
classes are the following:
1. Explosive.
.2.. r.iJBardsro^ccttnve wnafogri -^"1 _
3. Poison.
4. Flammable liquid.
5. Flammable solid.
6. Organic peroxide.
7. Oxidizer.
8. Flammable gas.
9. Nonflammable gas.
10. Corrosive material.
11. Irritating material.
12. Combustible liquid.
13. Etiologic agent.
14. Other Regulated Material, ORM-A.
15. Other Regulated Material, ORM-B.
16. Other Regulated Material, ORM-C.
17. Other Regulated Material, ORM-D.
The determination of the appropriate classification-is
made by reference to the hazardous materials table in 49 CFR
172.101 and by simultaneous review of all DOT hazard defini-
tions to determine if one or more apply to the material.
If the class for the material is prescribed by Section 172.101,
or if the material is an explosive classed by the Bureau of
Explosives of the Association of American Railroads, or if it
is an etiologic agent identified by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare in 42 CFR 72.25(c), or if it is
97
-------
declared by the regulations to be an organic peroxide, then
the prescribed class must be used. It often happens, however,
that a material will not have its classification prescribed
according to one of these mechanisms and, upon matching its
characteristics with the various classification definitions,
it is found that the material meets more than one definition.
Omrffchxsi-sinstamce; ijjoire -lobks'-rto 39. ^CTR 173 £2 to< flel-eimiire -;by
a sliding scale which hazard DOT considers to be primary and
consequently, which classification will apply to that
material. It is worthwhile to note that the sliding scale
shown in Section 173.2 is not a continuum of hazard ranking,
but rather, is on a continuum of the quality of packaging
and other controls applied to the material in the DOT re-
gulations. Thus, while one might consider Class B poisons
to be more dangerous than corrosive liquids, th'e corrosive
liquid class takes precedence, because the packaging for
corrosive materials is generally of a higher caliber than
that prescribed for Class B poisons.
The class of the material determines which label must be
applied to packages containing that material. Multiple label-
ing would be required in certain instances described more
fully below. Generally speaking, only one label must be
applied to each package and that label is the one correspond-
ing to the class of the material.
The following specific materials and circumstances are
not subject to DOT labeling:
98
-------
(a) Materials and package sizes specifically granted
certain regulatory relief due to the "limited
quantity" of material in each inside unit in the
packaging. The authorized limited quantity will
vary with the hazard of material, the nature of the
packaging, and the quantity of material in the
package. One should review the limited quantity
-.paragT--ajhg.? precedlngAveaeh--tSiibpaTt .of- -4,9^.dER P.art
173 for details. It should be noted that there is
a limited quantity section for most classes, and
relief from DOT labeling is granted to all such
materials except poisons.
(b) Certain compressed gas cylinders shipped in private
carriage and bearing the smaller DOT decal label
developed by the compressed gas industry.
(c) Military ammunition shipped by or to the military in
carload or truckload lots.
(d) Other hazardous materials shipped and carried by the
military.
(e) Permanently mounted gas cylinders on vehicles, such
as tube trailers.
(f) Portable tanks that are'placarded.
(g) Freight containers larger than 640 cubic feet.
(h) Any materials in the OEM classifications.
(i) Packages -containing combustible liquids, which are
not DOT-regulated-in unit quantities"of less than 110
gallons, and would have to be placarded (not lab'eled)
in quantities above 110 gallons.
(j) Certain low specific activity radioactive materials.
(k) Cargo tanks and tank cars that would be subject to
placarding, not labeling, requirements.
Each package requiring a radioactive material label must
bear two such labels, affixed to opposite sides of the package.
Certain hazardous materials are considered to be of such a
99
-------
nature as to require labeling for more than one classification,
Every Explosive A, Poison A, or labeled radioactive material
that also meets the definition of another class must be
labeled for each class. These labels should be displayed
next to each other. Dual class labels are also required for
many poisons that also would meet certain other class
Certain larger containers, although not sufficiently large
to require placarding, are subject to a two-label requirement
because of their size. These are shown in 49 CFR 172.406(e).
The current DOT labels are shown in Appendix D. In
addition to the labels for each hazard class are certain
additional visual requirements that loosely could be called
labels and have unique uses, namely the Cargo Aircraft Only,
Magnetized Material, Etiologic, Bung, and Empty labels.
Generally speaking, however, and in this report, the word
"label" under the DOT regulations is defined to mean the
diamond-shaped, color-coded labels having a dimension of at
least 4" x 4".
The DOT labels have five principle ingredients: color,
size, shape, international symbology, and key word or legend.
These labels are compatible with the UN recommendations on
hazard labeling, although the legend may vary from nation
to nation due to language differences.
Any label is a communicating device. Any effective
communication must have a recipient and the recipient of the
communication should have his behavior affected accordingly.
100
-------
In examining the issue of labeling for hazardous waste, it is
important first to identify the recipient of the communication,
and then identify the actions the communication should cause
him to take.
As noted earlier, the DOT hazardous materials regulations
are designed to control acute hazards in the transportation
environment. "The population of those intended to "be "protected
by these regulations includes the general public, but especially
when one is discussing labeling of packaged freight, the
people to be protected by these regulations are industrial
employees: employees of the shipper, forwarder, carrier,
and consignee. Indeed, since the labels applied under the
DOT regulations are on the industrial packaging used in
transportation, few members of the general public ever see
them. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that the
audience for the message communicated by the DOT labels are
those in the transportation work force.
The people intended to react to the labels are those who
pack the material-, who handle the packages in loading, unload-
ing, and storage, and who operate conveyances carrying the
packages. To a very limited extent, the labels are communi-
cation to emergency response personnel in the transportation
environment, but primary communications^ to such personnel are
conveyed by shipping documents (the manifest) and placards.
The message of these labels is brief, providing a warning
of the presence of hazard and a general signal of the nature
101
-------
of the primary hazard. Before adoption of labels correspond-
ing to the UN recommendations and developed over a period
of many years in the international forum, DOT had labels
conveying much more detailed information on the hazard and
handling requirements relating to it.
.Appendix E is copied from the 1971 edition of 49 CFR and
illustrates labels that "had"been in use v"f or many -years.
Reference to this Appendix will confirm that, although much
more detail appeared on the labels, the communication itself
is much less effective due to the clutter. The new labels
were adopted by DOT after a long rule making in their Docket
No. HM-8. In that rule making, it was proposed that the top
half of the labels conform to the standard UN format, and
that the bottom half of those labels convey all the detail
of the old labels plus certain additional advisory messages,
such as "Wash hands thoroughly after handling."
Publication of amendments in Docket No. HM-8 took place
in the Federal Register of February 27, 1973. DOT dropped
that portion of the proposal that would have p.laced the."
words "Danger", "Warning"" or "Caution" on the labels, noting
that these advisory messages would actually conflict with
similar warning words prescribed by the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration. DOT concluded that information was needed with
regard to handling and emergencies involving hazardous
materials, but expressed "doubt whether this detailed in-
formation should be included in the primary warning label."
102
-------
None of the suggested and proposed advisory language was
adopted by DOT. They declared: "The (Hazardous Materials
Regulations) Board recognizes the limitations on placing
detailed handling and emergency procedure information on
labels and has decided that the information should not be
included on the labels .due to space limitations ..precluding
the use of such information in a beneficial manner."
The DOT labels, therefore, are not devices to communicate
an encyclopedia of information regarding the product, but
rather, communicate "'alert' words or short phrases. Long,
'small print1 statements are likely to go unread." (Docket
No. HM-8, Notice No. 70-13, July 22, 1970, F.R. 11742, re-
published at page 458 of Bierlein's Red Book on Transportation
of Hazardous Materials.)
These alert words trigger an awareness of the presence
of the hazard in transportation. They also play a key role
in triggering certain operational requirements under the DOT
regulations. For example, placarding requirements for Class
C explosives only apply to products bearing such a label
(49 CFR 172.504 Table 2); placarding does not apply to
"limited quantities," defined in 49 CFR 171.8 as "the
maximum amount of a hazardous material for which there is a
specific labeling and packaging exception" (49 CFR 172.500(a)
(3)); "a carrier may. not transport a package bearing a
poison label in the same vehicle with material that is marked
as or known to be foodstuff, feed or any other edible
103
-------
material intended for consumption by humans or animals"
(43 CFR 177.841(e)); materials granted relief from labeling
in the various limited quantity exception paragraphs in the
DOT regulations are also exempted from all of Part 177
except shipping paper requirements, so unlabeled articles
need not be stowed or handled in highway transportation in
any special manner, although their presence and quantity
must be noted on shipping documents kept accessible to the
driver in the cab of the vehicle.
In sum, the DOT label advises of the primary hazard of
the material and signals the carrier to implement placarding
and other operational requirements vital to maintaining
safety in commerce. It is extremely important to note that
any EPA mandate to use DOT labels in circumstances where
DOT does not call for their use would inject extreme con-
fusion into the transportation safety regulatory system.
2. DOT Package Marking Specifications. The majority of
the Department of Transportation's hazardous materials
package marking requirements are-published in 49 CFR Part 172.
In general, the shipper of such packages must mark the "proper
shipping name" of the material on each package. The proper
shipping name is that entry in the alphabetical commodity
list in 49 CFR 172.101 that most accurately and specifically
describes that material. There are no current entries for
materials specifically identifying them as wastes, except
for certain goods retaining some commercial value that are
104
-------
transported for recovery of ingredient products, e.g.,
"waste paper, wet," or "waste wool, wet."
In addition to the requirement to mark the name of con-
tents on the packaging, certain advisory markings such as
"This End Up" are prescribed in Part 172. If the container
is a DOT specification packaging', the numbers and letters
abdicatingttha±?speiri.f rcation -also~must'frbe'Tira.Tkea--on—the
package, these are normally marked or imprinted by the manu-
facturer of the container. These specification container
markings are a certification by the maker of that container
that he has met the detailed requirements of Part 178 of the
DOT regulations.
As indicated in the portion of this report dealing with
DOT specification packaging that would be prescribed for
certain materials covered by draft EPA definitions of hazardous
waste, the proper shipping names would be the broadest generic
description provided by the list in 49 CFR 172.101, namely,
the description of the hazard followed by the initials in-
dicating a more specific name is "not otherwise specified,1.'
e.g., "Flammable liquid, H.O.S.," or "Corrosive liquid, n.o.s."
Marking, as that term is used in the DOT regulations, is
distinct from labeling. The label is the 4" x 4" color-coded
diamond that shows the class of the material by international
symbol and English descriptive word. For waste materials
that meet the DOT hazard definitions, therefore, the marking
of the shipping name and the descriptive word of the class
on the label are somewhat redundant. Thus, a material under
105
-------
the shipping name "Flammable liquid, n.o.s." will also
bear the "Flammable liquid" label bearing the international
flame symbol. It is recommended that this redundancy be
eliminated by EPA petitioning DOT to remove the requirement
to mark the name of contents on containers of wastes in the
following DOT regulated categories: Class C explosives,
"flammable "liquids with flash points ol 73°F. or higher,
flammable solids (other than those bearing the "Dangerous
When Wet" label), and corrosive solids.
3. DOT Labeling Performance Specifications. As important
as the markings on the labels, in terms of effectively
communicating a warning to individuals coming into contact
with the container, are the performance standards which the
label is expected to" meet. If a label is separated from a
container, or if the symbols and markings fade, the message
is lost. Accordingly, we have investigated certain aspects
of the current DOT ha :ardous warning label manufacturing
process in order to ascertain an approximation of the
length of time that such a label-might be expegted to survive.
The Department of Transportation, in 49 CFR 172.407,
specifies that the diamond label is to be at least four inches
on each side, with each side having a black solid line border
1/4 inch from the edge. The label may be either affixed to
or printed on the package, must be durable and weather re-
sistant, and must have wording and symbols conforming to
the specifications of 49 CFR 172.411 to 172.444. Colors are
106
-------
specified in 49 CFR, Part 172, Appendix A and B, and must
be capable of withstanding a 72-hour fadeometer test as well
as withstanding open weather exposure for at least 30 days
without a substantial reduction in effectiveness. The method
of manufacturing the label, the type and weight of label
stock, and the type of adhesive are not specified.
Paper and vinyl are two of the more commonly used label
stocks. A standard paper label stock is 60 lb.. clay cast
coated paper with a 40 lb;. peel off liner to protect the
pressure sensitive adhesive. For greater durability an
acrylic film of .005 cm to .007 cm thickness is used rather
than the 60 lb. paper.
The most durable and commonly used pressure sensitive
adhesives are the acrylic and urethane compounds. The con-
tractor found no empirical data indicating the length of
time that the adhesive might be expected to hold the label
in place, and estimates by the manufacturers ranged from six
months to ten years depending on the environment the container
is exposed to, an-d the type of adhesive used.
As important as the adhesive is the type of ink used in
printing the markings on the label. Generally either an
alcohol base ink or an acrylic paint will be used, depending
on whether the printing process is by roll press or silk
screen. In order to increase the durability of the label it
may be laminated with certain protective compounds. One
such material, "Tedlar," is estimated to increase the life
107
-------
of a label from five years unlaminated to twenty years
laminated, though the cost of the label would increase from
$0.03 for an unlaminated vinyl label to $0.08 for the
laminated version. Another material, "Mylar," was estimated
to protect a paper label for about ten years, but would also
add between two and three cents to the cost of each label.
It is important to keep in mind that the manufacturers'
estimates of the useful life of the label assume conditions
likely to be found during normal transportation. No com-
parable estimates were available for the peculiar conditions
likely to be encountered during prolonged, exposed storage
or burial in a waste disposal site. It is known, however,
that extremes of either cold or heat will result in adhesive
failure over time and long periods of exposure to direct
sunlight will cause the inks to fade. As was s'uggested
in the discussion of container longevity, long term tech-
nical studies would have to be Undertaken to determine the
effects that the conditions of prolonged storage and disposal
will have on the labels, if that information is determined
to be necessary.
108
-------
B. EPA Hazardous Waste Labeling and Marking Recommendations.
1. General Discussion. Regulations to be adopted by EPA
pursuant to its mandate under RCRA may apply package labeling
to materials, i.e., wastes defined by EPA as hazardous. Such
wastes, as noted before, may or may not be regulated by DOT
today. Definitions developed to date by EPA appear to include
most materials regulated by DOT but also include a wide range
of materials not so regulated.
A careful review of the rationale and background papers
and incidents leading to broader definitions of various waste
classifications reveals a predominant concern with the hazard
at the disposal site, rather than in transportation. Thus,
in the definition of flammability, the flash point limit of
140°F. is supported by examples of temperatures achieved at
disposal sites either from heat of operating equipment,
chemical reactions of adjacent waste materials, or prolonged
atmospheric heating at the site. The corrosive materials
definition developed by EPA expresses a concern with acute
impact that is regulated by DOT but, in addition, raises
concerns with disparities oetween the pH of waste materials
and land fills and water sources at the disposal site.
In prescribing EPA hazardous waste labeling and marking
specifications, as well as performance_standards, it is
important to keep in mind the inherent distinctions between
the conditions likely to be encountered by waste containers
transported to a treatment facility, a storage site, or a
disposal site.
109
-------
In the sections following, we shall deal with these various
situations after first addressing the broader subject of per-
formance standards.
2. Performance Standards. The conditions and length of
time that a.label would be expected to survive on a container
being transported from a generator to a treatment facility
would probably be very similar to those encountered during
the normal distribution of hazardous materials. Even if the
container were subject to a period of temporary storage at
the treatment site, whether in a- sheltered or an open weather
environment, the length of time would still probably not be
so great as to result in a significant reduction in the label's
effectiveness. As has been noted in a preceding section, DOT
warning labels are already required to withstand a 72-hour
fadeometer test and 30 days of open weather exposure and this
performance requirement should be adequate for labels used
on containers for transportation per se.
The time and environmental considerations for a labeled
container transported to a disposal site are different and', to
a large extent, unknown. "As has been noted previously, there
has been no empirical research into the destructive effects
that prolonged burial would have on a container label, nor is
there a clear understanding o± the length of time that label
information would be expected to survive. Certainly the
label would be expected to survive the period of waste con-
tainment but, as was mentioned' in the discussion of container
110
-------
shelf-life, even this factor is presently largely unknown.
In order to specify meaningful performance standards for
disposal container labels, long term technical studies would
have to be undertaken to determine the destructive effects
that prolonged burial will have on container labels. In
the meantime, it is not unreasonable to assume that higher
performance standards than those currently required by DOT
would be necessary if it became desirable to assure that the
package can be properly identified some years after it has
been buried. An alternative to this, applicable to metal
containers, might be to require that the warning be embossed
on the outside of the container.
Transportation to an intermediate storage facility poses
still another set of time and environmental considerations.
If the stored waste is intended for later recovery, then it is
unlikely that the period of storage would be so great as to
preclude the use of labels meeting the current DOT performance
standards. On-the other hand, if the waste is ultimately
to be disposed of, particularly -if the storage, is at a -dis-
posal site, and if intact "container retrieval were considered
necessary, then it would "be appropriate to use a label which
would meet the higher performance standards necessary for
labeling disposal containers.
3. Recommendations.
3.1 General Approach. Unnecessary redundancy in regulatory
requirements provides a disincentive to compliance. Also,
111
-------
EPA has a unique additional jurisdictional authority that
is lacking at DOT, i.e., direct regulatory control over the
recipient of waste. DOT does not have authority over the
recipient of hazardous materials unless that recipient has
participated in or in some real way has caused the trans-
portation of the hazardous materials. Through this direct
EPA regulatory control, it is assumed that operators of
waste disposal sites under permits will have certain record
keeping responsibilities, including a log of materials
received and where those materials are stored or have been
buried. Given the concern with hazardous wastes at the dis-
posal site, this element of control will allow for the
maintenance of records in sufficient detail to identify not
only the location of waste materials, but the characteristics
of those materials as identified by the manifests accompanying
the materials to the disposal site. This control over the
site operator will enable EPA to prescribe that materials
of certain incompatible natures not be buried together, or
materials with certain pH values.,not be buried at all in
that location.
It is established fact that products which, in the event
of container failure, pose an immediate threat of bodily harm
and property destruction are regulated by DOT. For these
types of wastes, the DOT labeling and marking regulations
apply. Regardless of the purpose for waste transportation,
it can be reasoned that the "alert" signals now prescribed
by DOT should continue to apply to such highly hazardous wastes,
112
-------
This can be accomplished by EPA's adoption of title 49
labeling requirements by reference to waste products which
possess DOT defined hazards of flammability, corrosion, etc.,
during transportation. Thus, the DOT hazard label will per-
form the function for which it was designed, namely, to
communicate to persons engaged in transportation and handling
of such materials the existence of a potential peril to them-
selves, the property in their custody, and that surrounding
their transit route.
Thus, regardless of the purpose for which an acutely
hazardous waste is being transported, it is concluded that
the DOT prescribed warning label should continue to be re-
quired, for its alert message is deemed to be an imperative
"notification" irrespective of the mode of transport employed
and the distance of transportation.
3.2 Non-DOT Regulated Wastes. As noted earlier in this
report, hazardous wastes not now regulated by DOT do not pose
the same immediate peril to human health and property. Their
principal adverse- effect is upon-the environment and it-is
for that reason that their transportation, disposal, storage,
and treatment shall be regulated.
The need for an alert label for attachment to the con-
tainer bearing these less acutely hazardous wastes is be-
lieved to exist. This need should be met by a single version
warning label or marking, such as the "E" label shown in
Figure 1 following. Similar to the DOT prescribed hazardous
materials warning labels, this label or marking fulfills the
113
-------
Figure 1
PROPOSED HAZARDOUS WASTE WARNING LABEL
114
-------
function of alerting all persons involved in handling and
transporting the waste containing package that it contains
a potentially hazardous material. It further conveys the
message that for the "£" labeled package, shipping papers
(manifest) fully identifying the contents have been prepared
and, in the event of spills, leakage or any other problems
encountered with the packaging, those shipping papers must
be consulted.
The considerations weighed in developing the "E" label
or marking include the following:
(a) A round configuration was selected to conclusively
avoid prohibited confusion with existing diamond
and rectangular shaped DOT labels. In addition,
it is likely that a round shape will be distinct
from brand name labels that more frequently are
rectangular.
(b) The "E" is in lower case and is representative of
the environment; it is surrounded by the inter-
nationally-recognized red border and bar, indicating
that open disposal of this material in the environ-
ment is prohibited.
(c) In addition to the lower case "E" beiag commonl-y
associated with the environment, it has the benefit
of looking like the letter "E" even though the label
may be applied upside down. Upside down capital E's
could be confused with the numeral "3".
(d) It is recommended that while a minimum size may be
prescribed to assure visibility, no maximum size of
this label or marking should be prescribed, thereby
allowing the user to adopt the size best suited to
covering existing markings, adapting to other
materials printed on the container, container size,
and the like.
115
-------
(e) The border and prohibitive bar across the label
or marking should be red, for the sake of inter-
national recognition. It is not necessary to
describe the color in great specificity, and any
attempt to do so will result in added effort without
commensurate benefit for those who may print the
"E" label on surfaces that will affect the color,
such as kraft paper. The "E" itself may be any
color, but if it is the same red as the surrounding
border, then black lines should be used to demark
the points of intersection of the bar with the
letter.
It is further recommended that, in applying the new "E"
labeling or marking system, EPA incorporates a limited quantity
exception, comparable to DOT's limited quantity labeling
exceptions in 49 CFR 173.118, 173.244, etc. Thus, small
package units would not bear the "E" label or marking, pre-
serving the impact that signal should have by avoiding the
appearance of it when the package quantity does not justify
regulatory concern.
Finally, it is recommended that for the "E" label or
marking a simple performance standard for duraBility be in-
corporated in the regulation. EPA also should require
storage site operators to replace deteriorated labels or
markings on products in long term storage (not disposal).
The DOT warning label and the "E" iabel or marking are
intended to be communications to the hazardous waste transpor-
ter and the treatment, storage, or disposal site operator.
As such, there is no need for use of such communications on
116
-------
hazardous waste containers kept or disposed of on the
generator's premises. If there is any need for a warning
system at this juncture, it is more appropriately a concern
for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the
Department of Labor. If the generator desires to warn present
or future employees of the hazards of the contents of waste
containers in long=-term storage, the American National
Standard for the Precautionary Labeling of Hazardous In-
dustrial Chemicals set forth in ANSI-Z 129.1-1976 is recommen-
ded, in lieu of using either a DOT or EPA developed labeling
or marking system.
4. Marking. Consistent with our recommendation to authorize
the reuse of packaging on hand for the disposal of many DOT
regulated commodities, as well as those regulated by EPA
but not DOT, and since the proper shipping name" of the waste
material will not already appear on such packaging but would
have to be applied, it is recommended:
(a) that EPA not require the marking of the name of
contents on any articles that are not DOT regulated;
and,
(b) that EPA petition DOT to remove the requirement to
mark the shipping name on DOT labeled containers
or waste meeting the following DOT classifications:
« Flammable liquids (flash point 73°F. or higher).
• Explosives, Class C.
• Flammable solids (except those bearing the
"Dangerous When Wet" label).
• Corrosive solids.
To avoid confusion that might result from allowing the
117
-------
marking of the previous contents of a used (but not recon-
ditioned) container, when that marking does not correspond
to the hazardous waste put into the used container for dis-
posal purposes, it is recommended that generators remove,
obliterate or cover the misleading marking. The "E" label
or marking could be used for the purpose of covering the
misleading name of the previous contents of the container.
An additional recommendation is development of a mechanism
to allow the proper pairing of waste containers with their
shipping papers. As noted before, considerable reliance must
be placed on the detailed product descriptions contained in
the manifest for the particular characteristics of the
hazardous commodities. This "pairing" of container and mani-
fest may be needed subsequent to transportation for any of
the ultimate purposes and in particular when long term storage
and disposal occur.
It is recommended that this correlation be'ween packagings
and manifests be accomplished through common markings on each.
Such common markings should be expressed in a numeric or
alphanumeric identifier affixed to or inscribed on the
container.
The generator of the waste material who prepares the
manifest and also prepares the material, for transport, clearly
is the person best s.uited to apply the package markings and
to so note the manifest. A proliferation of identifiers will
result, however, if each generator invents his own system
118
-------
of letters, numbers, and alphatiume'rics to identify each con-
tainer. This proliferation will wreak havoc on the inventory
control system administered by the disposal site operator.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the disposal site
operator devise his own system of identification, using a
limited number of letters, numbers, or both. Before a
waste material would be consigned to its disposal site, a
contact from the generator would be made, and the site
operator would assign a range of identifiers to that shipment.
The generator then would mark these identifiers on each
package and on the appropriate description of the contents
of that package shown on the shipping paper. This pairing
would minimize the danger of mixing packages from one
generator with those of another, and would permit ready dis-
tinction between various containers in a mixed shipment from
the same generator.
If a generator common]y used the same disposal site and
made frequent use of the services of that site, a block of
identifiers could be assigned to-that generator for his-use,
eliminating the need for telephone contact before each ship-
ment, but also eliminating the possibility that two generators
would apply the same identifiers to their packages.
It is not believed to be necessary that specific
instructions be expressed in EPA regulations regarding the
details of the marking of the identifier on the packages.
It is recommended that the general requirements of 49 CFR
119
-------
172.304 be paraphrased:
The marking must be durable and printed on or
affixed to the surface of a package or on a label,
tag, or sign. It must be displayed on a back-
ground of sharply contrasting color. The marking
may not be obscured by labels or attachments to
the package.
120
-------
APPENDIX A. ABSTRACTS OF A CROSS SECTION OF
TECHNICAL STUDIES DEALING WITH DOT PACKAGING
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Report No.:
Report Title:
Authors:
Date:
Abstract:
TES-20-74-7
"Development of Performance Oriented Specifications
for Drums and Pails Used for Packaging of Hazardous
Materials for Transportation"
C.E. Fridinger, C.V. Vickers, Jr./J.S. Gott
December 2, 1974
A study was carried out to develop performance re-
quirements and tests for drums and pails used to
ship hazardous materials. The current requirements
and tests were obtained by studying DOT regulations
and other standards and specifications on drums and
pails. Reports of the hazards of shipping and the
tests used in the packaging industry were also stud-
ied. Hazard classifications, performance require-
ments and tests, and a container rating system were
developed. The rationale behind the development is
presented in the report. Test plans for Qualifica-
tion and Periodic testing and detailed test proce-
dures were prepared.' Tests included were Leak,
Distortion, Pressure-Proof, Repetitive Shock (Vi-
bration), Wet Strength-Stacking, Drop, and Puncture
Tests and a Temperature Cycle. Tests are recom-
mended for loaded containers over the temperature
range of -20° E. to 130° F. The temperature "cycle
on empty containers covers the range of -20° F. to
160° F. A representative sample of drums and-pails
now regulated by DOT was subjected to the test
program. Details of the test results are included
in this report.
This report does not relate to container shelf-life.
121
-------
Report No.:
Report Date:
Title:
Authors:
Abstract:
DOT/MTB/OHMO-76/4
October, 1976
"Performance of Plastic Packaging for Hazardous
Materials Transportation: Part I Mechanical
Properties"
John M. Crissman
Charles M. Guttman
Louis J. Zapas
This report, prepared for the U.S. Department of
Transportation, contains background information
useful in evaluating the performance of plastic
packagings for hazardous materials transportation,
insofar as mechanical properties are concerned.
Current DOT regulations and test methods are
reviewed, as well as testing procedures from
other organizations to modify current DOT regu-
lations to make test methods more quantitative.
Finally, experimental data are presented which
represent the initial stage of a study it is hoped
will ultimately lead to the establishment of
criteria upon which the long range behavior of
plastic containers can be predicted based on
short range tests.
122
-------
Report No. :
Report Date:
Title:
Authors:
Abstract:
DOT/MTB/OHMO-76/5
October, 1976
"Performance of Plastic Packagings for Hazardous
Materials Transportation: Part II - Permeation"
John D. Barnes
Gordon M. Martin
Permeation as a mode of failure for plastics
packagings is discussed. The materials properties
which determine permeation performance are defined.
Measurement methods aimed at determining values
for the materials properties are surveyed.
A "matrix" scheme is introduced for evaluating the
risks associated with the permeation failure of a
package containing a hazardous mater-ials lading.
Permeation factors influencing reuse of plastic
containers are described. Laboratory data from
an evaluation of a simple method of test for
estimating the intrinsic property of a lading
to permeate polyethylene is presented.
123
-------
APPENDIX B. SOURCES OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS DATA FOR
STEEL, ALUMINUM, PAPERBOARD, AND GLASS
1. Steel. Yaksich et al., Environmental Impacts of Virgin and
Recycled Steel and Aluminum, Calspan Corporation, for
OSWMP-EPA, 1974.
2. Aluminum. Yaksich et al.. Environmental Impacts of Virgin
and Recycled Steel and Aluminum, Calspan Corporation, for
OSWMP-EPA, 1974.
3. Paperboard. Arthur Purcell and Fred L. Smith, Jr., Assessment
of Impacts from Materials Production and Use of Resources and
the Environment! A Review of Reports, EPA, edited drafts,
1976.
4. Glass. Energy Use Patterns in Metallurgical and Nonmetallic
Mineral Processing, Phase 4—Energy Data and Flow Sheets,
High Priority Commodities, by Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Bureau of Mines, 1975.
124
-------
APPENDIX C. SOURCES OF DOT SPECIFICATION CONTAINER PRICES
DOT Specification
Price Source
3A
3AA (250 cu.ft.)
3AA (40 cu.ft.)
3A480X
3HT
4AA480
4B
4BA (123 Ib. H20)
4BA (48 Ib. H20)
4E
5
5A
5B
5C
6A
6B
6D
6K (reconditioned)
6K (new)
8
8AL
17C
17E (18 gauge)
17E (20-18 gauge)
17F
17H
17X
21C
Taylor Wharton Cylinders
Taylor Wharton Cylinders
Pressed Steel Tanks
Pressed Steel Tanks
Pressed Steel Tanks
Pressed Steel Tanks
Pressed Steel Tanks
Pressed Steel Tanks
Worthington Cylinders
Worthington Cylinders
U.S. Steel
General Container Corporation
Inland Steel
Inland Steel
General Container Corporation
General Container Corporation
General Container Corporation
General Container Corporation
General Container Corporation
Norris Industries
Coyne Cylinders
Rheem Steel
Inland Steel
Rheem Stee]
General Container Corporation
Inland Steel
Rheem Steel
Allied Chemical
125
-------
DOT Specification
Price Source
37A (22 gauge)
37A (24 gauge)
37B (22 gauge)
37B (24 gauge)
37C
37D
37M
39 (30 Ib. H20)
39 (55 Ib. H20)
42B
Inland Steel
Inland Steel
Inland Steel
Inland Steel
Inland Steel
Inland Steel
General Container Corporation
Worthington Cylinders
Worthington Cylinders
Allied Chemical
126
-------
APPENDIX D - CURRENT DOT SPECIFICATION
WARNING LABELS
40-420
40-430
40-435
40-475
40-425
4Q-46C
4/2
1/2 a **^ A a\w
1 FLAMMABLE SQL1Q 4
^ 'XPI| •« «• -T« <*f' /
TN
40--55
/THESETWQtiABELSAREREQUIREO FOR
CERTAIMDQMESnCANDrtNTEHNATIQNALAIR
•SHIPMENTS.*
MAGNETIZED
MATERIAL
eiVIAUf^ c I I
MATERU
THESETWO LABELS IN ADDITION TO THE
DANGEROUS WHEN WET LABEL ARE OFTEN
REQUIRED ON EXPORT SHIPMENTS.
40-510
127
-------
4Q-440
40-470
40-485
40-490
40-445
40*-465
40-515
EMPTY
40-495 ;
40-450
40-480
128
-------
APPENDIX E - .OLD -DOT LABELS, COPIED
" FROM 19/71 EDITION OF 49 CFR
KEEP COOL
CAUTION
WARNINGI X \
BEWARE OF FUMES \ \
//POISON GAS\>
ONTUMCASnOOUCIMOMATtniAU X \
NOT~ DROP >/
flAMMADLE-COMPREJSED GAS
*-r —r v-1 n*T "-it -11
DO NOT DROP
CAUTION
RADIOACTIVE
CAUTION—DO NOT DROP
Do mi ted with bploilm or nnr ntlda
boorin* YF.LLOW tlbtU
CAUTIONV
CAUTION
Alkaline Caustic Liqui
Non fUmmable—Compmud Go
DO NOT DROP
Da am totf with EI«JO>J>M or ntu nlda
txtiiat YELLOW UMa
129
-------
APPENDIX F- PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND BUSINESSES CONTACTED
Allied Chemical, Morristown, NJ
Mr. S. Kuzma
Aluminum Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. S. Epstein
Mr. B. Pritsky
Aluminum Recycling Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. R. Cooperman
American Animate, Wayne, NJ
Mr. D. Kelly
American Paper Institute, New York, NY
Dr. R. Calkins
Mr. J. Duke
Mr. R. Olson
Arnold Factory Supplies, Inc., Bladensburg, MD
Mr. E. Daniels
Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C.
Mr. R. M. Graziano
Automotive Trade Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. W. Johns
Mr. D. Doyle
Can Manufacturers Institute, Washington, D.C.
Mr. K. Helsing
Continental Can Corp., New York, NY
Mr. G. Reed
The Council for Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, New
York, NY
Mr. M. Smith
Coyne Cylinders, Huntsville, AL
E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, DE
Mr. R. E. Lunn
Mr. J. Stevens
130
-------
Essex Chemical, Monmouth Junction, NJ
Mr. D. Cunningham
The Fertilizer Institute, Washington, D.C.
Mr. K. Johnson
Fibre Box Association, Chicago, IL
Mr. A. W. Hoffman
Mr. T. Muldoon
Mr. D. Rouleau
Fisher Scientific Co., Silver Spring, MD
Mr. J. Curtis
Mr. W. Learn
General Container Corp., Hillside, NJ
Mr. Kapp
Glass Packaging Institute, Washington, D.C.
Mr. J. McGowan
Mr. G. Teitelbaum
Mr. J. Turk
Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee, Washington, D.C.
Mr. G. Wilson
Hollinger Corp., Arlington, VA
Mr. T. Hollinger
Hughes Box and Container Co., Baltimore, MD
Inland Steel, Container Division,, Chicago, IL
Mr. F. Liebaur
Institute of Makers of Explosives, New York, NY
Mr. H. Hampton
J. T. Baker Co., Phillipsburg, NJ
Mr. B. Mcllroy
Jacobs Gardner Paper and Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.
Mr. C. Erts
Label Master, Chicago, IL
Mr. H. Fund
Lee Cylinders Division of Golay and Co.
Mr. R. Kinnamin
Legible Signs, Rockville, IL
Linde Division of Union Carbide, Speedway, IN
Ms. G. Henderson
131
-------
Manufacturing Chemists Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. M. Hoover
Mobay Chemical Corp., Pittsburgh, PA
Mr. J. Bracco
National Barrel and Drum Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. M. Hershson
National LP Gas"Association, Oak Brook, IL
Mr. W. Johnson
National Motor Freight Carriers Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. J. Stone
National Safe Transit Association, Chicago, IL
Mr. L. Oppriecht
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Mr. C. Harvison
Mr. A. Rosenbaum
Norris Industries, Los Angeles, CA
Owens-Illinois, Toledo, OH
Mr. M. Brown
Mr. B. Kellow
Mr. S. Parker
Plastic Products Manufacturing Institute, Edelman, NY
Mr. Nash
Pressed Steel Tank Co., Milwaukee, WI
Mr. S. Griggs
Mr. B. Herst
R. S. Willard Co., Gaithersburg, MD
Reynolds Aluminum, Washington,- D.C.
Ms. J. Kabernagel
Rheem Manufacturing Co., Linden, NJ
Riley-Beaird, Inc., Shreveport, LA
Mr. D. Carpenter
Southeastern Label and Tape, Inc., Chamblee, GA
Mr. D. Ahern
Steel Shipping Container Institute, Union, NJ
Mr. H. Shappell
132
-------
Tag and Label Manufacturers Institute, Stamford, CT
Ms. P. Dalziel
Mr. G. Osman
Taylor-Wharton, Inc., Easton, PA
Trinity Industries, Dallas, TX
Mr. H. Lee
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. D. Vierimaa
U.S. Steel, Products Division, Pittsburgh, PA
Mr. D. Bedell
Mr. F. Conforti
Mr. N. Schnaitter
Unz and Company, Jersey City, NJ
Mr. F. Newman
Virginia Packaging Supply Co., McLean, VA
Worthington Cylinders, Columbus, OH
Mr. B. Berman
U.S. Dept. of the Army, Storage and Transportation Division
Mr. Varner
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Materials Transportation Bureau,
Office of Hazardous Materials Operations
Mr. E. Harton
Mr. G. Sononburg
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration
Mr. B. Brobst
Mr. T. Dunckel
Mr. J. Melaney
Mr. R. Ng
U.S. General Services Administration
Mr. R. Carroll
U.S. Marine Corps, Ammunition/Missile Branch
Mr. Myers
U.S. National Bureau of Standards, Divi.siorTof Polymers
Mr. J. Barnes
U.S. National Bureau of Standards, Division of Information Tech-
nology
Dr. Taylor
133
-------
U.S. Dept. of the Navy, Naval Surface Weapons Center
Mr. C. Fridinger
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mr. Bartlett
Mr. G. McCorkle
Mr. D. Mathews
Mr. Odegaarden
uol708
SW-166c
134
------- |