Hubbry Logo
Dangerous goodsDangerous goodsMain
Open search
Dangerous goods
Community hub
Dangerous goods
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Dangerous goods
Dangerous goods
Dangerous goods
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
An emergency medical technician team training as rescue (grey suits) and decontamination (green suits) respondents to hazardous material and toxic contamination situations
The pictogram for poisonous substances of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals

Dangerous goods are substances that are a risk to health, safety, property or the environment during transport. Certain dangerous goods that pose risks even when not being transported are known as hazardous materials (syllabically abbreviated as HAZMAT or hazmat). An example of dangerous goods is hazardous waste which is waste that threatens public health or the environment.[1]

Hazardous materials are often subject to chemical regulations. Hazmat teams are personnel specially trained to handle dangerous goods, which include materials that are radioactive, flammable, explosive, corrosive, oxidizing, asphyxiating, biohazardous, toxic, poisonous, pathogenic, or allergenic. Also included are physical conditions such as compressed gases and liquids or hot materials, including all goods containing such materials or chemicals, or may have other characteristics that render them hazardous in specific circumstances.

Dangerous goods are often indicated by diamond-shaped signage on the item (see NFPA 704), its container, or the building where it is stored. The color of each diamond indicates its hazard, e.g., flammable is indicated with red, because fire and heat are generally of red color, and explosive is indicated with orange, because mixing red (flammable) with yellow (oxidizing agent) creates orange. A nonflammable and nontoxic gas is indicated with green, because all compressed air vessels were this color in France after World War II, and France was where the diamond system of hazmat identification originated.

Global regulations

[edit]
See also: Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals

The most widely applied regulatory scheme is that for the transportation of dangerous goods. The United Nations Economic and Social Council issues the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, which form the basis for most regional, national, and international regulatory schemes. For instance, the International Civil Aviation Organization has developed dangerous goods regulations for air transport of hazardous materials that are based upon the UN model but modified to accommodate unique aspects of air transport. Individual airline and governmental requirements are incorporated with this by the International Air Transport Association to produce the widely used IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR).[2] Similarly, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has developed the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code ("IMDG Code", part of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea) for transportation of dangerous goods by sea. IMO member countries have also developed the HNS Convention to provide compensation in case of dangerous goods spills in the sea.

The Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail has developed the regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail ("RID", part of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail). Many individual nations have also structured their dangerous goods transportation regulations to harmonize with the UN model in organization as well as in specific requirements.

The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) is an internationally agreed upon system set to replace the various classification and labeling standards used in different countries. The GHS uses consistent criteria for classification and labeling on a global level.

UN numbers and proper shipping names

[edit]
See also: List of UN Numbers

Dangerous goods are assigned to UN numbers and proper shipping names according to their hazard classification and their composition. Dangerous goods commonly carried are listed in the Dangerous Goods list.[3]

Examples for UN numbers and proper shipping names are:

Classification and labeling summary tables

[edit]
See also: GHS hazard pictograms

Dangerous goods are divided into nine classes (in addition to several subcategories) on the basis of the specific chemical characteristics producing the risk.[4]

Note: The graphics and text in this article representing the dangerous goods safety marks are derived from the United Nations-based system of identifying dangerous goods. Not all countries use precisely the same graphics (label, placard or text information) in their national regulations. Some use graphic symbols, but without English wording or with similar wording in their national language. Refer to the dangerous goods transportation regulations of the country of interest.

For example, see the TDG Bulletin: Dangerous Goods Safety Marks[5] based on the Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations.

The statement above applies equally to all the dangerous goods classes discussed in this article.

Class 1: Explosives
Information on this graphic changes depending on which, "Division" of explosive is shipped. Explosive Dangerous Goods have compatibility group letters assigned to facilitate segregation during transport. The letters used range from A to S excluding the letters I, M, O, P, Q and R. The example above shows an explosive with a compatibility group "A" (shown as 1.1A). The actual letter shown would depend on the specific properties of the substance being transported.

For example, the Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations provides a description of compatibility groups.

  • 1.1 Explosives with a mass explosion hazard
  • 1.2 Explosives with a severe projection hazard.
  • 1.3 Explosives with a fire, blast or projection hazard but not a mass explosion hazard.
  • 1.4 Minor fire or projection hazard (includes ammunition and most consumer fireworks).
  • 1.5 An insensitive substance with a mass explosion hazard (explosion similar to 1.1)
  • 1.6 Extremely insensitive articles.

The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates hazmat transportation within the territory of the US.

1.1 — Explosives with a mass explosion hazard. (nitroglycerin/dynamite, ANFO)
1.2 — Explosives with a blast/projection hazard.
1.3 — Explosives with a minor blast hazard. (rocket propellant, display fireworks)
1.4 — Explosives with a major fire hazard. (consumer fireworks, ammunition)
1.5 — Blasting agents.
1.6 — Extremely insensitive explosives.
Class 1: Explosives Hazardous Materials
Class 1: Explosives
Class 1.1: Explosives Hazardous Materials
Class 1.1: Explosives

Mass Explosion Hazard
Class 1.2: Explosives Hazardous Materials
Class 1.2: Explosives

Blast/Projection Hazard
Class 1.3: Explosives Hazardous Materials
Class 1.3: Explosives

Minor Blast Hazard
Class 1.4: Explosives Hazardous Materials
Class 1.4: Explosives

Major Fire Hazard
Class 1.5: Blasting Agents Hazardous Materials
Class 1.5: Blasting Agents

Blasting Agents
 
Class 1.6: Explosives Hazardous Materials
Class 1.6: Explosives

Extremely Insensitive Explosives 		 
Class 2: Gases
Gases which are compressed, liquefied or dissolved under pressure as detailed below. Some gases have subsidiary risk classes; poisonous or corrosive.
  • 2.1 Flammable Gas: Gases which ignite on contact with an ignition source, such as acetylene, hydrogen, and propane.
  • 2.2 Non-Flammable Gases: Gases which are neither flammable nor poisonous. Includes the cryogenic gases/liquids (temperatures of below -100 °C) used for cryopreservation and rocket fuels, such as nitrogen, neon, and carbon dioxide.
  • 2.3 Poisonous Gases: Gases liable to cause death or serious injury to human health if inhaled; examples are fluorine, chlorine, and hydrogen cyanide.
Class 2.1: Flammable Gas Hazardous Materials
Class 2.1: Flammable Gas
Class 2.2: Nonflammable Gas Hazardous Materials
Class 2.2: Nonflammable Gas
Class 2.3: Poisonous Gas Hazardous Materials
Class 2.3: Poisonous Gas
Class 2.2: Oxygen (Alternative Placard) Hazardous Materials
Class 2.2: Oxygen (Alternative Placard)
Class 2.3: Inhalation Hazard (Alternative Placard) Hazardous Materials
Class 2.3: Inhalation Hazard (Alternative Placard)
 
Class 3: Flammable Liquids
Flammable liquids included in Class 3 are included in one of the following packing groups:
  • Packing Group I, if they have an initial boiling point of 35°C or less at an absolute pressure of 101.3 kPa and any flash point, such as diethyl ether or carbon disulfide;
  • Packing Group II, if they have an initial boiling point greater than 35°C at an absolute pressure of 101.3 kPa and a flash point less than 23°C, such as gasoline (petrol) and acetone; or
  • Packing Group III, if the criteria for inclusion in Packing Group I or II are not met, such as kerosene and diesel.

Note: For further details, check the Dangerous Goods Transportation Regulations of the country of interest.

Class 3: Flammable Liquids Hazardous Materials
Class 3: Flammable Liquids
Class 3: Combustible (Alternate Placard) Hazardous Materials
Class 3: Combustible (Alternate Placard)
Class 3: Fuel Oil (Alternate Placard) Hazardous Materials
Class 3: Fuel Oil (Alternate Placard)
 
Class 3: Gasoline (Alternate Placard) Hazardous Materials
Class 3: Gasoline (Alternate Placard)
 
Class 4: Flammable Solids
Class 4.1: Flammable Solids Hazardous Materials
Class 4.1: Flammable Solids

4.1 Flammable Solids: Solid substances that are easily ignited and readily combustible (nitrocellulose, magnesium, safety or strike-anywhere matches).
Class 4.2: Spontaneously Combustible Solids Hazardous Materials
Class 4.2: Spontaneously Combustible Solids

4.2 Spontaneously Combustible: Solid substances that ignite spontaneously (aluminium alkyls, white phosphorus).
Class 4.3: Dangerous when Wet Hazardous Materials
Class 4.3: Dangerous when Wet

4.3 Dangerous when Wet: Solid substances that emit a flammable gas when wet or react violently with water (sodium, calcium, potassium, calcium carbide).
Class 5: Oxidizing Agents and Organic Peroxides
Class 5.1: Oxidizing Agent Hazardous Materials
Class 5.1: Oxidizing Agent

5.1 Oxidizing agents other than organic peroxides (calcium hypochlorite, ammonium nitrate, hydrogen peroxide, potassium permanganate).
Class 5.2: Organic Peroxide Oxidizing Agent Hazardous Materials
Class 5.2: Organic Peroxide Oxidizing Agent

5.2 Organic peroxides, either in liquid or solid form (benzoyl peroxides, cumene hydroperoxide). 		 
Class 6: Toxic and Infectious Substances
Class 6.1: Poison Hazardous Materials
Class 6.1: Poison
  • 6.1a Toxic substances which are liable to cause death or serious injury to human health if inhaled, swallowed or by skin absorption (potassium cyanide, mercuric chloride).
  • 6.1b (Now PGIII) Toxic substances which are harmful to human health (N.B this symbol is no longer authorized by the United Nations) (pesticides, methylene chloride).
Class 6.2: Biohazard Hazardous Materials
Class 6.2: Biohazard
  • 6.2 Biohazardous substances; the World Health Organization (WHO) divides this class into two categories: Category A: Infectious; and Category B: Samples (virus cultures, pathology specimens, used intravenous needles).
  
Class 7: Radioactive Substances Class 8: Corrosive Substances Class 9: Miscellaneous
Class 7: Radioactive Hazardous Materials
Class 7: Radioactive

Radioactive substances comprise substances or a combination of substances which emit ionizing radiation (uranium, plutonium).
Class 8: Corrosive Hazardous Materials
Class 8: Corrosive

Corrosive substances are substances that can dissolve organic tissue or severely corrode certain metals:
Class 9: Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials
Class 9: Miscellaneous

Hazardous substances that do not fall into the other categories (asbestos, air-bag inflators, self inflating life rafts, dry ice).

Handling and transportation

[edit]

Handling

[edit]
A reinforced, fireproof cabinet for dangerous chemicals

Mitigating the risks associated with hazardous materials may require the application of safety precautions during their transport, use, storage and disposal. Most countries regulate hazardous materials by law, and they are subject to several international treaties as well. Even so, different countries may use different class diamonds for the same product. For example, in Australia, anhydrous ammonia UN 1005 is classified as 2.3 (toxic gas) with subsidiary hazard 8 (corrosive), whereas in the U.S. it is only classified as 2.2 (non-flammable gas).[6]

People who handle dangerous goods will often wear protective equipment, and metropolitan fire departments often have a response team specifically trained to deal with accidents and spills. Persons who may come into contact with dangerous goods as part of their work are also often subject to monitoring or health surveillance to ensure that their exposure does not exceed occupational exposure limits.

Laws and regulations on the use and handling of hazardous materials may differ depending on the activity and status of the material. For example, one set of requirements may apply to their use in the workplace while a different set of requirements may apply to spill response, sale for consumer use, or transportation. Most countries regulate some aspect of hazardous materials.

Packing groups

[edit]
Doublewall corrugated fiberboard box with dividers for shipping four bottles of corrosive liquid, UN 4G, certified performance for Packing Group III

Packing groups are used for the purpose of determining the degree of protective packaging required for dangerous goods during transportation.

  • Group I: great danger, and most protective packaging required. Some combinations of different classes of dangerous goods on the same vehicle or in the same container are forbidden if one of the goods is Group I.[7]
  • Group II: medium danger
  • Group III: minor danger among regulated goods, and least protective packaging within the transportation requirement

Transport documents

[edit]

One of the transport regulations is that, as an assistance during emergency situations, written instructions how to deal in such need to be carried and easily accessible in the driver's cabin.[8]

Dangerous goods shipments also require a dangerous goods transport document prepared by the shipper. The information that is generally required includes the shipper's name and address; the consignee's name and address; descriptions of each of the dangerous goods, along with their quantity, classification, and packaging; and emergency contact information. Common formats include the one issued by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) for air shipments and the form by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for sea cargo.[9]

Training

[edit]

A license or permit card for hazmat training must be presented when requested by officials.[10]

Society and culture

[edit]

Global goals

[edit]

The international community has defined the responsible management of hazardous waste and chemicals as an important part of sustainable development with Sustainable Development Goal 3. Target 3.9 has this target with respect to hazardous chemicals: "By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination."[11] Furthermore, Sustainable Development Goal 6 also mentions hazardous materials in Target 6.3: "By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials [...]."[12]

By country or region

[edit]

Australia

[edit]

The Australian Dangerous Goods Code[13] complies with international standards of importation and exportation of dangerous goods in line with the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Australia uses the standard international UN numbers with a few slightly different signs on the back, front and sides of vehicles carrying hazardous substances. The country uses the same "Hazchem" code system as the UK to provide advisory information to emergency services personnel in the event of an emergency.

Canada

[edit]

Transportation of dangerous goods (hazardous materials) in Canada by road is normally a provincial jurisdiction.[14] The federal government has jurisdiction over air, most marine, and most rail transport. The federal government acting centrally created the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and regulations, which provinces adopted in whole or in part via provincial transportation of dangerous goods legislation. The result is that all provinces use the federal regulations as their standard within their province; some small variances can exist because of provincial legislation. Creation of the federal regulations was coordinated by Transport Canada. Hazard classifications are based upon the UN model.

Outside of federal facilities, labour standards are generally under the jurisdiction of individual provinces and territories. However, communication about hazardous materials in the workplace has been standardized across the country through Health Canada's Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS).

Europe

[edit]

The European Union has passed numerous directives and regulations to avoid the dissemination and restrict the usage of hazardous substances, important ones being the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) and the REACH regulation. There are also long-standing European treaties such as ADR,[15] ADN and RID that regulate the transportation of hazardous materials by road, rail, river and inland waterways, following the guide of the UN model regulations.

European Union law distinguishes clearly between the law of dangerous goods and the law of hazardous materials.[citation needed] The first refers primarily to the transport of the respective goods including the interim storage, if caused by the transport. The latter describes the requirements of storage (including warehousing) and usage of hazardous materials. This distinction is important because different directives and orders of European law are applied.

United Kingdom

[edit]

The United Kingdom (and also Australia, Malaysia, and New Zealand) use the Hazchem warning plate system which carries information on how an emergency service should deal with an incident. The Dangerous Goods Emergency Action Code List (EAC) lists dangerous goods; it is reviewed every two years and is an essential compliance document for all emergency services, local government and for those who may control the planning for, and prevention of, emergencies involving dangerous goods. The latest 2015 version is available from the National Chemical Emergency Centre (NCEC) website.[16] Guidance is available from the Health and Safety Executive.[17]

New Zealand

[edit]

New Zealand's Land Transport Rule: Dangerous Goods 2005 and the Dangerous Goods Amendment 2010 describe the rules applied to the transportation of hazardous and dangerous goods in New Zealand. The system closely follows the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods[18] and uses placards with Hazchem codes and UN numbers on packaging and the transporting vehicle's exterior to convey information to emergency services personnel.

Drivers that carry dangerous goods commercially, or carry quantities in excess of the rule's guidelines must obtain a D (dangerous goods) endorsement on their driver's licence. Drivers carrying quantities of goods under the rule's guidelines and for recreational or domestic purposes do not need any special endorsements.[19]

United States

[edit]
A picture of the U.S. DOT classes in use

Due to the increase in fear of terrorism in the early 21st century after the September 11, 2001 attacks, funding for greater hazmat-handling capabilities was increased throughout the United States, recognizing that flammable, poisonous, explosive, or radioactive substances in particular could be used for terrorist attacks.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulates hazmat transportation within the territory of the US by Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates the handling of hazardous materials in the workplace as well as response to hazardous-materials-related incidents, most notably through Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER).[20] regulations found at 29 CFR 1910.120.

In 1984 the agencies OSHA, EPA, USCG, and NIOSH jointly published the first Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Guidance Manual[20] which is available for download.[21]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates hazardous materials as they may impact the community and environment, including specific regulations for environmental cleanup and for handling and disposal of waste hazardous materials. For instance, transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and analogous state laws were also passed to further protect human and environmental health.[22]

The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulates hazardous materials that may be used in products sold for household and other consumer uses.

Hazard classes for materials in transport

[edit]

Following the UN model, the DOT divides regulated hazardous materials into nine classes, some of which are further subdivided. Hazardous materials in transportation must be placarded and have specified packaging and labelling. Some materials must always be placarded, others may only require placarding in certain circumstances.[23]

Trailers of goods in transport are usually marked with a four digit UN number. This number, along with standardized logs of hazmat information, can be referenced by first responders (firefighters, police officers, and ambulance personnel) who can find information about the material in the Emergency Response Guidebook.[24]

Fixed facilities

[edit]

Different standards usually apply for handling and marking hazmats at fixed facilities, including NFPA 704 diamond markings (a consensus standard often adopted by local governmental jurisdictions), OSHA regulations requiring chemical safety information for employees, and CPSC requirements requiring informative labeling for the public, as well as wearing hazmat suits when handling hazardous materials.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dangerous goods

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Dangerous goods, also known as hazardous materials or hazmat, are substances or materials capable of posing risks to , , property, or the environment when transported, stored, handled, or used. These include a wide range of items such as explosives, flammable liquids, toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and corrosive substances, which are essential to industries like , , , and but require strict controls to mitigate hazards. The United Nations classifies dangerous goods into nine primary classes based on their inherent properties and potential dangers, including Class 1 for explosives, Class 3 for flammable liquids, Class 6 for toxic and infectious substances, and Class 8 for corrosives, with each class further subdivided for precise risk assessment. This classification system, outlined in the UN Model Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, provides a globally harmonized framework adopted or adapted by international bodies like the International Maritime Organization (IMO), International Air Transport Association (IATA), and national regulators to standardize packaging, labeling, documentation, and emergency response protocols across road, rail, sea, and air transport modes. Effective regulation of dangerous goods has prevented countless accidents since the mid-20th century, when the UN Committee of Experts began developing uniform rules in response to growing volumes and historical incidents involving fires, explosions, and spills that caused fatalities, environmental damage, and economic losses. Compliance involves mandatory , specialized tested for durability under stress, and real-time tracking to enable rapid intervention, underscoring the causal link between rigorous and reduced incident rates in high-volume shipping corridors. Despite advancements, challenges persist in like batteries and biofuels, which introduce novel risks demanding ongoing updates to classifications and handling procedures.

Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

Dangerous goods, also referred to as hazardous materials in some jurisdictions, are defined as articles or substances capable of posing risks to human health, safety, property, or the environment due to their chemical, physical, or biological properties during transportation, handling, or storage incidental to transport. These risks arise from potential hazards such as explosiveness, flammability, toxicity, corrosivity, reactivity, or environmental harm, which could lead to fires, explosions, spills, or exposures if not properly managed. The definition is operationalized through classification systems that identify specific materials based on empirical testing of their properties, rather than subjective assessments, ensuring consistency across global supply chains. The scope of dangerous goods regulations primarily encompasses all phases of transportation, including preparation, , labeling, , loading, unloading, and emergency response, across modes such as , rail, inland waterways, , and air. This broad application stems from the need to mitigate real-world incidents, such as chemical spills or aircraft fires, which have historically demonstrated the causal links between inadequate handling and severe consequences like fatalities or ecological damage. Regulations extend to incidental storage during transit but exclude fixed-site manufacturing or long-term warehousing unless tied to transport activities. Internationally harmonized under the United Nations Model Regulations (latest revision 23 adopted in 2023), the framework influences over 100 countries' laws, promoting standardized practices to reduce accident rates, which data shows have declined with compliance. Exclusions within the scope typically cover small quantities, certain radioactive materials under specialized regimes, or non-commercial personal effects deemed low-risk after , reflecting a risk-based approach grounded in quantitative assessments rather than blanket prohibitions. Domestic variations may adjust thresholds, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation's exemptions for limited quantities under 49 CFR, but core principles prioritize evidence of negligible risk. Overall, the regulations target materials listed in nine classes, from explosives (Class 1) to miscellaneous substances (Class 9), ensuring comprehensive coverage without overreach into non-transport contexts.

Historical Development

The regulation of dangerous goods originated in the amid the industrial revolution's expansion of rail and , which increased accidents involving explosives, flammables, and chemicals. In the United States, the first addressing hazardous materials transport was passed on July 28, 1866, prohibiting the shipment of by common carriers after a series of deadly explosions, such as the 1866 disaster that killed 50 people; this evolved to cover explosives and flammable liquids more broadly by rail and vessel. Similar national measures emerged elsewhere, driven by causal risks like and leaks, with railroads self-organizing through bodies like the 1907 Bureau of Explosives to standardize handling of high-risk cargoes. International coordination began in the early , prompted by cross-border trade's amplification of hazards. At the Eighth International Congress of Applied Chemistry, Dr. Julius Abby advocated for unified global rules on chemical transport to mitigate inconsistent national standards. The 1929 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) formally acknowledged the necessity of sea transport regulations for dangerous goods, following maritime incidents that underscored segregation and documentation needs. By 1948, the SOLAS conference established preliminary hazard classifications—such as explosives, gases, and corrosives—and general provisions for and stowage, laying groundwork for multimodal applicability. Post-World War II, the formalized harmonization through its Economic and Social Council, creating the Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods in 1957; their inaugural Recommendations, published that year (with roots in 1956 drafts), introduced a systematic framework of nine hazard classes, UN numbers, and packing requirements, applicable across road, rail, sea, and air while remaining non-binding models for national adoption. These evolved via biennial revisions, influencing modal codes like the 1965 International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code and the 1957 European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR). Subsequent updates, such as IMDG's mandatory enforcement under SOLAS in 2004, reflected empirical lessons from accidents like the 1987 spill, prioritizing evidence-based risk mitigation over fragmented rules.

Classification and Identification

Hazard Classes

The hazard classes for dangerous goods are established by the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations (latest revision 23, adopted December 2022), which categorize substances, materials, and articles based on their potential to cause harm through physical, chemical, , or environmental effects during . These classes, numbering nine in total, derive from empirical test criteria outlined in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, prioritizing the dominant hazard while allowing for subsidiary risks. ensures consistent global application across transport modes, with divisions and packing groups further refining risk levels based on sensitivity, , or reactivity data.
ClassDivisionsPrimary Hazard Characteristics
11.1–1.6Explosives with or projection risks
22.1–2.3Gases under pressure (flammable, non-flammable, toxic)
3NoneFlammable liquids ( ≤60°C)
44.1–4.3Flammable solids, self-reactive, or
55.1–5.2Oxidizers and enhancing combustion
66.1–6.2Toxic or infectious substances
7NoneRadioactive materials
8NoneCorrosives to metals or skin
9NoneMiscellaneous (e.g., environmentally hazardous, batteries)
Class 1: Explosives includes articles and substances prone to explosive decomposition, producing gas, heat, noise, and shock waves at rates causing structural damage. Divisions are assigned via UN test series (e.g., BAM 50/30 for sensitivity): 1.1 for mass explosion hazards like TNT; 1.2 for violent projection without overall detonation, as in certain rocket propellants; 1.3 for fire with radiant heat and minor blast; 1.4 for minor hazards like ; 1.5 for very insensitive blasting agents with mass explosion but low initiation sensitivity; and 1.6 for extremely insensitive articles with negligible risk. Class 2: Gases covers compressed, liquefied, refrigerated liquefied, or dissolved gases that pose asphyxiation, flammability, or toxicity risks due to pressure release or inhalation. Division 2.1 includes flammable gases igniting on contact with ignition source, such as (flammable range 4–75% in air); 2.2 non-flammable, non-toxic gases like oxygen or , which may support combustion or displace air; and 2.3 poisonous gases with LC50 ≤5000 ml/m³ for toxicity, like . Class 3: Flammable Liquids comprises liquids, mixtures, or solidified emulsions with closed-cup flash points at or below 60°C (140°F), excluding certain suspensions, capable of sustaining fire upon ignition. Examples include gasoline (flash point -43°C) and acetone; packing groups I–III are based on flash point and initial boiling point, with Group I for highest risk (flash point <23°C, boiling point ≤35°C). Class 4: Flammable Solids; Substances Liable to Spontaneous Combustion; Substances Which, in Contact with Water Emit Flammable Gases addresses solids that ignite easily or react exothermically. Division 4.1 covers flammable solids burning at >60°C or self-reactive substances decomposing violently, like matches or sodium picramate; 4.2 spontaneously combustible materials igniting in air at or below 55°C (pyrophoric solids) or 75°C (liquids), such as white phosphorus; 4.3 water-reactive substances emitting flammable gases on contact, like alkali metals (e.g., sodium reacting to produce ). Class 5: Oxidizing Substances and includes substances providing oxygen to accelerate combustion or unstable peroxides prone to exothermic decomposition. Division 5.1 oxidizers like , which yield oxygen via , enhancing fire intensity beyond the substance itself; 5.2 , such as benzoyl peroxide, classified by control temperature and self-accelerating decomposition temperature (SADT) to prevent runaway reactions. Class 6: Toxic and Infectious Substances groups materials harmful via , , or contact, or biological agents causing disease. Division 6.1 toxic substances with acute oral LD50 ≤200 mg/kg, dermal LD50 ≤2000 mg/kg, or LC50 ≤10,000 ml/m³ (e.g., pesticides like ); 6.2 infectious substances in Category A (capable of causing permanent or life-threatening disease, e.g., virus cultures) or B (other risk, e.g., diagnostic specimens). Class 7: Radioactive Material encompasses substances with activity concentration exceeding 70 /g for solids/liquids or specific for gases, or unpackaged articles with total activity > specified limits, posing hazards via alpha, beta, gamma, or neutron emission. Classification relies on activity levels, type, and transport index, aligned with IAEA regulations for shielding and . Class 8: Corrosive Substances includes acids, bases, or other materials causing irreversible skin damage or corroding steel/aluminum at rates >6.35 mm/year at 55°C, such as or solutions. Criteria involve patch testing on skin models or metal corrosion tests, excluding Class 6.1 substances primarily toxic rather than corrosive. Class 9: Miscellaneous Dangerous Substances and Articles, Including Environmentally Hazardous Substances catches goods presenting hazards not covered by Classes 1–8, such as lithium batteries (thermal runaway risk), dry ice (asphyxiation), or substances acutely toxic to aquatic life with LC50/EC50 ≤1 mg/L. This catch-all class requires case-by-case assessment, often without packing groups, to address emerging risks like magnetized materials interfering with aircraft.

UN Numbers and Proper Shipping Names

UN numbers are four-digit identifiers, ranging from UN 0004 to UN 3535, assigned by the Committee of Experts on the of Dangerous Goods to standardize the identification of hazardous substances and articles for international transport across all modes. These numbers are specified in the UN Model Regulations on the of Dangerous Goods, which form the basis for national and international regulations, ensuring consistent communication regardless of regional variations. Assignment occurs through evaluation of a substance's properties against defined criteria for classes, such as flammability or , with numbers allocated sequentially as new entries are approved by the during biennial revisions. Proper shipping names (PSNs) are the standardized technical descriptions listed in the UN Dangerous Goods List (in Part 3 of the Model Regulations), appearing in bold uppercase letters to precisely denote the material's composition and primary hazards, such as "ACETONE" (UN 1090) or "HYDROGEN PEROXIDE, AQUEOUS SOLUTION" (UN 2014). Shippers must select the most specific PSN matching the goods; generic entries like "FLAMMABLE LIQUID, N.O.S." (UN 1993) require addition of technical names for mixtures or unlisted substances to ensure accurate . PSNs, combined with UN numbers, hazard classes, and packing groups, form the core of shipping descriptions on documents, packages, and vehicles, enabling responders and regulators to identify risks without ambiguity. The interplay between UN numbers and PSNs ensures traceability: each list entry pairs a unique number with one or more PSNs, sometimes with qualifiers like concentration limits (e.g., "with more than 30% "), and special provisions for exemptions or additional requirements. North American regulations use NA numbers (e.g., NA1993) for domestic substances not harmonized internationally, but UN numbers predominate in global shipments to align with treaties like the IMDG Code for sea or ICAO Technical Instructions for air. Updates to the list, such as the 21st revised edition effective from January 1, 2023, reflect empirical testing and incident data to refine assignments, prioritizing causal factors like reactivity over outdated classifications.

Packing Groups and Labeling

Packing groups in the UN Recommendations on the of Dangerous Goods classify substances and articles based on the degree of danger they pose during , guiding the selection of appropriate performance levels. Substances are assigned to Packing Group I (high danger), Packing Group II (medium danger), or Packing Group III (low danger), though not all hazard classes use packing groups; for instance, gases (Class 2), explosives (Class 1), and radioactive materials (Class 7) typically lack this designation. Assignment criteria are class-specific and rely on empirical tests or properties, such as for Class 8 corrosive substances where Packing Group I applies to materials causing full thickness destruction of in under 60 minutes exposure, escalating to Packing Group III for effects after 60 minutes but under 4 hours. For Class 3 flammable liquids, Packing Group I covers those with closed-cup flash points below 23°C and s above 35°C, while Packing Group III includes liquids with flash points between 23°C and 60°C regardless of . These groups determine packaging robustness under the UN Model Regulations: Packing Group I demands the highest drop, stack, and hydrostatic pressure test standards to withstand severe transport conditions, whereas Group III permits less stringent criteria suitable for lower-risk goods. UN-certified packagings, including drums, boxes, and intermediate bulk containers, are marked with a UN specification code followed by capability indicators—X for Packing Group I (and II), Y for II (and III), or Z for III only—ensuring compatibility between the goods' assigned group and the container's tested limits. This marking, typically stamped durably on the packaging, also includes the country of approval and manufacturer's details, verifiable against UN performance standards updated as of the 21st revised edition in 2021. Labeling for dangerous goods transport requires affixing self-adhesive or silk-screened diamond-shaped labels (100 mm x 100 mm for packages under 500 kg, larger for bulk) to at least two opposite sides, displaying the relevant hazard class pictogram in black on a background color specific to the class (e.g., red for flammables), the class numeral, and division symbol if applicable. Subsidiary hazard labels, indicated by a slashed line through the primary label edge, must be added for secondary risks, with Packing Group I toxic substances (Class 6.1) often requiring an additional "Inhalation Hazard" label for zone A gases or PG I solids/liquids posing acute inhalation risks. Labels exclude explicit packing group notation except where subsidiary hazards demand it, prioritizing hazard communication over packaging details; however, for air transport under IATA rules aligned with UN standards, elevated temperature labels may apply to Packing Group II/III self-reactive substances. Durability requirements mandate labels withstand environmental stresses like moisture and abrasion, with text in the official language of the dispatching country plus English for international shipments. Placards, scaled-up versions of labels (at least 250 mm square), are required on transport units like trucks or freight containers for quantities exceeding thresholds, such as 1,000 kg for Packing Group III solids in road transport.

Regulatory Frameworks

International Standards

The Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, commonly referred to as the UN Model Regulations, establish the foundational international framework for classifying, , labeling, and documenting hazardous materials during by , rail, air, and , excluding bulk carriers. Developed by the UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and managed through the UN Economic Commission for (UNECE), these non-binding recommendations promote global harmonization to minimize risks of accidents, environmental damage, and public harm. The regulations define nine classes based on intrinsic properties such as flammability, , and reactivity, assign unique UN numbers to over 3,000 substances, and specify packing groups (I, II, III) reflecting degrees of danger. The 23rd revised edition, published in 2023, incorporates amendments adopted on December 9, 2022, including updates to provisions for electric storage systems, portable tanks, and certain chemical listings to address emerging risks from technological advancements. Biennial revisions ensure alignment with scientific data on material hazards and incident analyses, with testing criteria outlined in a companion Manual of Tests and Criteria for verifying classifications empirically. While not enforceable directly, over 100 countries incorporate the Model Regulations into national laws, facilitating cross-border trade; deviations occur where local conditions, such as limitations, necessitate adaptations, though these must maintain equivalent levels. International modal bodies adapt the UN Model for specific transport environments. The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code governs sea transport of packaged goods, mandating compliance under the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and MARPOL conventions to prevent and crew exposure; Amendment 42-24, effective January 1, 2026 (voluntary from January 1, 2025), refines segregation rules and stowage provisions based on vessel stability data and historical spill incidents. For air transport, the (ICAO) Technical Instructions form the basis, implemented via the International Air Transport Association's (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR), with the 66th edition effective January 1, 2025, introducing expanded entries for sodium-ion batteries and revised packing instructions derived from crash test simulations and fire suppression efficacy studies. Inland waterway (ADN) and rail (RID, COTIF Appendix C) regulations similarly derive from the UN Model, ensuring interoperability in multimodal shipments. These standards emphasize performance-based criteria over prescriptive rules, allowing flexibility while requiring verifiable testing for packaging integrity under drop, stack, and vibration conditions to reflect real-world causal factors like impact forces and . Compliance training and oversight, as per UN guidelines, reduce error rates, with data from global incident reports informing iterative improvements; for instance, post-2010 lithium battery fire analyses prompted stricter state-of-charge limits in air shipments.

Regional and National Variations

In the United States, hazardous materials transportation is regulated under Title 49 of the (49 CFR), administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) within the (DOT). While 49 CFR is substantially harmonized with the UN Model Regulations to facilitate international commerce, notable differences persist, including unique U.S. designations such as "hazardous substances" that impose additional reporting and spill response requirements not found in the UN framework. For air transport, U.S. variations to ICAO Technical Instructions require prior approval for certain items like specific explosives or require compliance with either 49 CFR or the Technical Instructions, with restrictions on substances such as certain desensitized explosives. These deviations can complicate multimodal shipments crossing borders. The implements UN recommendations through Directive 2008/68/EC, which coordinates inland transport regulations including the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), by Rail (RID), and by Inland Waterway (ADN). These are closely aligned with the UN Model Regulations, with updates such as ADR 2025 incorporating amendments for new entries like sodium-ion batteries and revised packaging for , but introducing EU-specific provisions for vehicle construction and tank approvals to enhance regional safety. Post-Brexit, the retains ADR alignment but has introduced national variations, such as updated state provisions in IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations for lithium batteries. Australia's Dangerous Goods Code (ADG) for road and adopts the structure, classifications, and packaging standards of the UN Model Regulations (21st revised edition as of its latest alignment), ensuring compatibility for exports, but includes national supplements like additional guidance on manifest quantities and state-level enforcement variations. For instance, the ADG mandates enhanced classification details for certain chemicals not explicitly required in the UN text, reflecting local environmental and infrastructure considerations. Other nations exhibit similar patterns of adaptation; Canada's Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDG) mirror U.S. 49 CFR for cross-border but add provisions for bilingual documentation. Globally, air sees extensive state variations—over 1,200 documented in the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations—affecting prohibitions on specific goods like certain radioactive materials in countries such as or the UAE. These national overlays address jurisdiction-specific risks, such as or , while striving for under UN baselines.

Operational Handling and Transport

Packaging and Segregation

Packaging for dangerous goods must conform to performance-based standards outlined in the Model Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, which specify requirements for containment, durability, and resistance to transport stresses such as drops, vibrations, and changes. These standards mandate the use of UN-approved packaging, marked with a four-digit code indicating the type, material, and test criteria, ensuring packages can withstand specific hazards like leakage or risks without failure. For instance, inner packagings hold the goods directly, while outer packagings provide additional protection; both must be compatible with the substance's chemical properties and assigned to Packing Groups I (great danger, e.g., requiring stringent drop and stack tests), II (medium danger), or III (low danger) based on empirical criteria like liquid flash point or solid ignition . Reusable packaging requires re-testing every five years or after repairs, with documentation verifying compliance to mitigate risks of containment breach during multimodal transport. In the United States, the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 173 and 178) align closely with UN standards but include additional specifications for non-bulk packagings, such as maximum capacities (e.g., 30 liters for most Packing Group I liquids in metal drums) and compatibility prohibitions against mixing hazardous materials that could react adversely within the same package. For air transport, the (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulations detail packing instructions (e.g., PI 650 for solids) that limit quantities, require cushioning materials, and prohibit overpacking incompatible substances, with exemptions for small quantities under excepted provisions to balance safety and efficiency. These measures stem from causal analyses of past incidents, where inadequate packaging contributed to 15-20% of hazmat releases in U.S. ground transport from 2010-2020, underscoring the need for rigorous testing like the UN's 1.2-meter for Packing Group II solids. Segregation rules prevent dangerous interactions between incompatible goods, such as acids with bases or flammables with oxidizers, by enforcing spatial separation during stowage and transport, as codified in modal regulations harmonized with UN recommendations. The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, in Chapter 7.2, uses a matrix-based table for 18 segregation groups (e.g., acids segregated from alkalis via "away from" provisions allowing same-compartment storage if non-reactive) and specifies four levels: "away from" (no direct contact), "separated from" (different holds or bays), "separated by complete compartment," or "separated longitudinally" for high-risk pairs like Class 1 explosives and Class 5.1 oxidizers. For example, under IMDG, Class 3 flammable liquids must be segregated from Class 5.1 oxidizers to avoid ignition propagation, with empirical data from maritime incidents showing non-compliance doubles reaction risks. In air , IATA's Table 9.3A employs an "X" notation for incompatibilities, prohibiting mixed loading of certain classes (e.g., no Class 2.3 toxic gases with Class 4.2 spontaneous combustibles in the same ), while U.S. 49 CFR §176.83 mandates separate units for any required segregation, extending to vessel holds or compartments. These protocols, updated biennially (e.g., IMDG Amendment 41-22 effective 2022), reflect first-principles prioritizing physical separation to interrupt causal chains of secondary hazards, with violations linked to over 10% of reported global hazmat incidents per data from 2015-2020.
Segregation LevelDescriptionExample Application
Away fromGoods may be in same compartment if no interaction riskClass 6.1 poisons away from Class 8 corrosives unless segregated group compatible
Separated fromDifferent holds/bays or 3m separationFlammables (Class 3) from oxidizers (Class 5.1)
Complete compartmentFull barrier requiredExplosives (Class 1) from toxic gases (Class 2.3)
Longitudinally separated6m along vessel lengthSpontaneous combustibles (Class 4.2) from water-reactives (Class 4.3)

Modes of Transportation

The transportation of dangerous goods occurs primarily by , rail, air, and , with each mode subject to mode-specific regulations harmonized with the Model Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods to address unique hazards such as , extremes, and potential for mass releases. These frameworks mandate integrity, labeling, segregation, and response protocols tailored to the transport environment, with and rail handling bulk volumes of flammable liquids and gases, while air and sea prioritize restricted quantities due to higher consequence risks. Road transport, the most common mode for dangerous goods in terms of shipment volume, is regulated internationally by the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), established in 1957 and updated biennially; the 2025 edition entered force on January 1, 2025, with a six-month transition period. In the United States, the (FMCSA) enforces requirements under 49 CFR Parts 170-177, including vehicle placarding, driver certification, and route restrictions to mitigate spill risks from collisions, which account for approximately 93% of hazmat incidents nationwide. Key measures include tank truck specifications for pressure resistance and real-time monitoring, though empirical data indicate higher per-shipment accident rates compared to rail due to traffic density and . Rail transport facilitates large-scale movement of hazardous materials like chemicals and explosives over long distances, governed by the Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID), Appendix C to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF), with the 2025 edition effective from January 1, 2025. In the U.S., the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and oversee compliance via 49 CFR Parts 171-174, emphasizing designs with pressure relief valves and trackside detection systems. Freight rail demonstrates superior safety, with over 99.99% of hazmat shipments arriving without accidental release, attributed to dedicated tracks and lower exposure to public areas, though derailments can result in concentrated releases affecting waterways. Air transport imposes the strictest controls due to the confined cabin environment and crash dynamics, relying on the (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR), updated annually and aligned with ICAO Technical Instructions; the 2025 edition incorporates lithium battery restrictions and enhanced documentation. Certain substances, such as certain explosives or infectious agents, are prohibited or limited to small quantities, with mandatory shipper declarations and operator acceptance checks under 14 CFR in the U.S., reducing risks of in-flight reactions but elevating costs through specialized handling. Incidents remain rare, but potential for widespread dispersal in crashes underscores the mode's emphasis on pre-flight verification over volume throughput. Maritime transport, critical for global bulk shipments of petroleum and chemicals, follows the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code administered by the (IMO), mandatory under the ; the 2024 edition (Amendment 42-24) applies voluntarily from January 1, 2025, and mandatorily from January 1, 2026. Provisions cover stowage segregation to prevent reactions, container ventilation, and pollution prevention via double-hull requirements, protecting against marine ecosystems from spills—evident in reduced incident severity post-IMO implementation, though container ship fires highlight ongoing challenges with misdeclared cargoes. Intermodal shipments often combine modes, necessitating compatibility checks under overarching frameworks like the U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations to ensure unbroken compliance chains.

Documentation and Training Requirements

Documentation for the transport of dangerous goods consists of shipping papers that identify the substances, their hazards, quantities, and emergency response procedures, enabling carriers, emergency responders, and regulators to manage risks effectively. These documents must accompany shipments and include details such as UN numbers, proper shipping names, classes, packing groups, and special provisions derived from the UN Model Regulations. Internationally, Chapter 5.4 of the UN Recommendations outlines standardized documentation requirements, including the Dangerous Goods Declaration, which certifies compliance with classification, packaging, marking, and labeling standards. For , the IMDG Code mandates a Dangerous Goods Manifest or Stowage detailing cargo locations and compatibility, while air shipments under IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations require a Shipper's Declaration for Dangerous Goods alongside the . The IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) do not require Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) or Safety Data Sheets (SDS) as transport documents for shipping dangerous goods by air; they are not mandatory for transport purposes or for articles (e.g., lithium batteries). MSDS/SDS may assist in classification but are often inaccurate for transport purposes; shippers should verify with manufacturers or testing. Specific operator variations may require them, such as SDS/MSDS for most dangerous goods with Malaysia Airlines (MH-13, with exceptions). For road and rail under ADR or DOT regulations similarly demands transport documents with consignor and consignee details, net quantity, and emergency contact information, updated to reflect biennial revisions in UN standards. Training requirements apply to all personnel involved in the preparation, handling, loading, unloading, or response for dangerous goods shipments, ensuring competency in recognition and . The UN Recommendations emphasize on , , , and incident response, serving as the foundation for modal-specific programs. Under IATA and ICAO Technical Instructions, is competency-based, covering general awareness, function-specific tasks, and safety measures, with recurrent required every 24 months and certification documented for auditing. IMDG provisions extend to shoreside workers, focusing on maritime-specific segregation and stowage, while DOT regulations (49 CFR 172.704) mandate general awareness, function-specific, and safety for hazmat employees, refreshed every three years with testing to verify proficiency. Non-compliance, such as operating without valid certificates, can result in shipment refusals or penalties, as enforced by carriers adhering to these harmonized standards.

Risks, Incidents, and Mitigation

Statistical Overview of Incidents

In the United States, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) records approximately 24,000 to 25,000 hazardous materials incidents annually across all transport modes, with 24,265 reported in 2023, reflecting a 3.6% decline from 2022 levels. transport accounts for the majority, comprising over 90% of incidents due to the volume of road shipments, while rail, air, and water modes contribute smaller shares, with rail incidents often involving larger releases but fewer occurrences. Fatalities remain low relative to incident volume, totaling 9 deaths and 631 injuries in a recent reporting period, underscoring that most events involve minor releases or packaging failures rather than catastrophic failures.
YearTotal IncidentsFatalitiesInjuriesProperty Damage (millions USD)
2021~25,000Low single digits~600Varied, often under 100
2022~25,1759631Not specified in aggregate
202324,265Low single digits~600Not specified in aggregate
Data derived from PHMSA reports indicate a downward trend in incidents per shipment volume, attributable to regulatory and standards, though underreporting of minor events may affect precision. Internationally, comprehensive global aggregates are limited due to varying reporting thresholds, but rail data from shows 38 to 56 accidents involving dangerous goods annually from 2017 to 2023, primarily derailments or collisions with minimal widespread releases. In aviation, the (IATA) notes over 1.25 million dangerous goods shipments by air yearly, with incidents predominantly undeclared lithium batteries or minor leaks, and no fatal accidents directly linked to compliant shipments in 2023. Maritime incidents involving hazardous cargoes, tracked via the , number in the low hundreds globally per decade for significant events, often tied to containerized bulk rather than routine transport. These patterns highlight that while incidents occur, severe outcomes are rare, driven by modal differences in volume and containment efficacy.

Notable Case Studies

The Texas City disaster occurred on April 16, 1947, when a fire aboard the SS Grandcamp, a Liberty ship docked at Texas City, Texas, ignited approximately 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in its hold, leading to a massive explosion equivalent to 2.1 kilotons of TNT. The blast killed at least 581 people, injured over 5,000, and caused property damage exceeding $100 million (equivalent to about $1.3 billion in 2023 dollars), destroying much of the town's industrial facilities, including refineries and chemical plants, while propelling debris up to 2,000 feet into the air and generating a tidal wave that damaged nearby vessels. Investigations by the U.S. Coast Guard attributed the ignition to smoking materials or a discarded cigarette near bagged fertilizer, exacerbated by improper loading practices that confined heat and smoke, and the decision to use steam to suppress the fire, which likely accelerated decomposition of the nitrate. This incident prompted the development of the first U.S. federal hazardous materials transportation regulations and influenced international standards for classifying and handling oxidizers like ammonium nitrate. In the on July 6, 2013, an unattended 73-car freight train carrying crude oil from the derailed in the town of , , after its engineer left it on a mainline track without proper handbrakes or air brakes fully secured, causing it to roll downhill and reach speeds of 65 km/h before exploding. The rupture of 36 DOT-111 tank cars released about 6 million liters of flammable light crude, igniting multiple fireballs that destroyed the town center, killing 47 people, forcing evacuation of 2,000 residents, and contaminating soil and waterways with oil and firefighting foam. The identified causal factors including inadequate single-person crew operations, insufficient track maintenance, and the use of older, puncture-prone tank cars for high-risk cargoes, with the crude oil's volatility underestimated despite lab tests showing higher vapor pressure than conventional heavy oil. Economic losses exceeded CAD $1 billion, including cleanup and rebuilding, and the event spurred North American regulatory changes such as enhanced tank car standards (e.g., CPC-1232 to DOT-117) and restrictions on unattended hazardous trains. The Beirut port explosion on August 4, 2020, resulted from the detonation of roughly 2,750 tons of stored unsegregated in Warehouse 12 at the since 2013, ignited by a possibly started by welding sparks or nearby fireworks storage, producing a blast with a seismic magnitude of 3.3 and overpressure damaging structures up to 10 km away. It caused 218 confirmed deaths, over 7,000 injuries, and displaced 300,000 people, with damages estimated at $10-15 billion, including the destruction of two hospitals, grain silos, and much of the city's waterfront . Lebanese judicial inquiries and international analyses highlighted systemic failures: the nitrate, confiscated from a stateless vessel, was stored without proper ventilation, suppression, or separation from combustibles, despite repeated ignored warnings from and security officials about its risks as a Class 5.1 oxidizer under UN classifications. The incident underscored vulnerabilities in port storage of seized hazardous cargoes and led to global reviews of handling protocols, though Lebanon's institutional opacity delayed accountability.

Effectiveness of Safety Measures

Safety measures for dangerous goods transport, encompassing , , labeling, segregation, and mandatory , have substantially mitigated risks by standardizing practices and preventing unintended releases. The Model Regulations, revised biennially and integrated into national frameworks, promote harmonized global standards that reduce errors from disparate rules, thereby enhancing overall safety through consistent hazard communication and handling protocols. In the sector, adoption of these regulations alongside digital tools for documentation has improved compliance and accessibility of safety data, contributing to fewer handling errors. Empirical from regulatory bodies underscore this effectiveness: in the United States, the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations, aligned with UN standards, correlate with low incident rates relative to the billions of tons shipped annually, where most events involve minor releases rather than catastrophic failures. integrity, tested to withstand specified conditions, averts releases in the majority of potential failure scenarios, with studies attributing remaining breaches primarily to external damage or procedural lapses rather than design flaws. programs further amplify efficacy; a comparative analysis found that hazmat-educated workers exhibit higher confidence and success in implementing site-specific modifications, directly lowering exposure risks. Nevertheless, limitations persist, as and non-compliance account for a significant portion of incidents, indicating that while structural measures like segregation and documentation reduce baseline hazards, vigilant enforcement and recurrent training are essential for sustained performance. International efforts continue to address gaps, such as in emerging supply chains, where inconsistent adoption can undermine global gains. Overall, these measures have rendered dangerous goods statistically safe, with infrequent accidents despite high volumes, though causal analyses reveal opportunities for refinement in high-risk modes like and rail.

Economic and Societal Impacts

Compliance Costs and Industry Burdens

Compliance with dangerous goods regulations imposes multifaceted costs on industries, including mandatory employee , specialized , , and carrier surcharges. In the United States, under 49 CFR, hazmat employees require initial and recurrent every two to three years, with course fees ranging from $250 for general awareness to $575-$750 for road or multimodal certifications covering , , and emergency response. Small businesses and not-for-profits must pay annual registration fees of $375 to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Specialized packaging compliant with UN standards, such as rated drums, boxes, and absorbents, elevates material and handling expenses beyond standard shipments, often necessitating pressure testing and segregation protocols that reduce load efficiency. demands, including shipper's declarations and information, contribute to administrative burdens and potential delays, while carriers apply hazmat surcharges to cover oversight, driver training, and response readiness. premiums rise due to heightened liability, with hazmat transporters facing requirements for $5 million coverage and quarterly increases of 7-8% in 2024 amid operational risks. These requirements disproportionately burden smaller operators by limiting carrier options, inflating per-unit transport costs, and exposing firms to penalties up to $17,062 per violation in 2025, potentially deterring market entry or expansion in hazardous materials handling. Non-compliance risks compound these with fines in tens or hundreds of thousands, shipment rejections, and loss of shipping privileges, amplifying economic pressures across , and logistics sectors. In the , analogous demands under ADR and IMDG codes yield similar cost structures, though harmonization efforts aim to mitigate divergent regulatory expenses.

Benefits to Trade and Public Safety

Standardized international regulations on dangerous goods, exemplified by the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UN Model Regulations), facilitate global trade by establishing uniform criteria for classification, packaging, labeling, and documentation. This harmonization minimizes border delays and compliance discrepancies, enabling shippers to transport essential materials like chemicals, fuels, and pharmaceuticals across jurisdictions without prohibitive adaptations. Adopted by over 100 countries in various modal regulations (e.g., IMDG Code for sea, IATA DGR for air), the framework supports the annual maritime shipment of 3.3 billion tons of hazardous materials valued at $1.9 trillion, underpinning supply chains critical to manufacturing and energy sectors. By reducing the economic friction of fragmented national rules, these regulations lower overall transport costs and enhance for exporters and importers. For example, U.S. harmonization efforts with UN standards, as updated in 2022, streamline shipments of batteries and medical supplies while cutting redundant testing and expenses, thereby boosting efficiency without compromising baseline protections. Such integration promotes economic growth in hazardous goods-dependent industries, where inconsistent standards could otherwise inflate expenses by requiring multiple variants or specialized handling per destination. On public safety, the regulations prioritize risk mitigation through mandatory , segregation protocols, and emergency preparedness, yielding a prevention-oriented system that curtails potential accidents despite vast shipment volumes. U.S. PHMSA data tracking incidents since the demonstrates regulatory evolution in response to events, with ongoing amendments addressing emerging hazards like batteries to forestall releases, fires, or exposures. While absolute incident counts have risen with transport volumes—e.g., a 155% increase in U.S. hazmat accidents from 2013 to 2022—the per-shipment risk remains low, attributable to enforced measures that avert widespread casualties; for instance, proper placarding and response have limited fatalities in most recorded events to single digits annually. These safeguards extend to infrastructure protection, as evidenced by modal-specific rules (e.g., rail and air) that integrate UN provisions to minimize derailments or in-flight hazards, fostering public confidence in routine commerce. International alignment further amplifies safety gains by disseminating best practices globally, such as updated stowage guidelines that prevent reactive incompatibilities, ultimately reducing societal costs from hypothetical unchecked transports.

Environmental Considerations and Trade-offs

Transportation of dangerous goods carries significant environmental risks, primarily from accidental releases during road, rail, sea, or air incidents, which can result in soil, water, and air contamination with persistent effects on ecosystems, wildlife, and human health via bioaccumulation. Statistical analyses of hazardous material accidents reveal that 53% lead to soil contamination, 41% to water contamination, and an average of 85% of released substances remain unrecovered, exacerbating long-term pollution. In the United States alone, over 65,000 hazmat transportation accidents occurred from 2020 to 2022, with many involving releases of flammable liquids, toxic substances, or corrosives that degrade habitats and groundwater. Rail transport saw 337 hazardous material leaks or spills in 2022, often contributing to localized ecological damage such as fish kills and vegetation die-off. Regulatory frameworks, including the Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and modal conventions like the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, mandate environmental safeguards such as spill-containment packaging, route restrictions near sensitive areas, and mandatory emergency preparedness to curb release volumes and facilitate rapid . These measures have empirically lowered incident severities; for instance, enhanced vessel designs post-major spills have reduced large-scale maritime releases, though varies by and compliance relies on carrier adherence. Trade-offs arise in balancing these protections against economic realities, as stricter environmental requirements elevate compliance costs—including specialized , monitoring, and diversionary routing—which can increase transport expenses and delay shipments, potentially raising consumer prices for essential like fuels and chemicals. Cost-benefit evaluations of such regulations often show net societal gains from averted damages, where a single major spill's cleanup and restoration can exceed hundreds of millions in direct costs plus indirect losses from fishery closures and habitat rehabilitation, outweighing incremental regulatory burdens. However, overemphasis on precautionary measures may hinder without proportional reductions, particularly for low-hazard classifications, prompting critiques that marginal environmental gains diminish relative to escalating administrative and innovation-stifling expenses. Empirical risk-cost models underscore the need for targeted interventions prioritizing high-impact scenarios over blanket rules to optimize environmental integrity alongside economic viability.

Controversies and Criticisms

Overregulation and Bureaucratic Excess

Critics contend that regulations governing dangerous goods, such as those under the U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) enforced by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), engender excessive administrative burdens that elevate compliance costs without proportional enhancements to safety outcomes. For example, PHMSA's processes for approving explosive classifications have been criticized by the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General for lacking systematic evaluation protocols, resulting in protracted reviews and inconsistent oversight that delay shipments and inflate operational expenses for shippers and carriers. Similarly, mandatory registration fees for hazmat activities, which increased for small businesses from $250 to $375 in fiscal year 2025, exemplify paperwork demands that disproportionately strain smaller entities handling limited volumes of dangerous goods. These bureaucratic layers contribute to broader economic frictions, including hazmat-specific premiums that average $19,189 annually per truck—15-30% higher than for non-hazmat operations—driven by mandates on , , and routing. PHMSA's own 2025 advance notice of proposed rulemaking signals recognition of potential overreach, soliciting input on repealing or amending HMR provisions to align with cost-justified safety imperatives, amid assertions that some rules hinder energy transport and efficiency. 14294, issued May 9, 2025, further underscores federal overregulation concerns by targeting criminalization in rules affecting hazmat liability, arguing that such measures expand at the expense of practical industry operations. Streamlining initiatives reveal the scope of excess; a 2024 PHMSA rule revision, for instance, curtailed redundant documentation to yield $50-130 million in annual shipping cost reductions, implying prior requirements imposed unnecessary hurdles on stakeholders from chemical manufacturers to freight haulers. Industry analyses highlight how these cumulative demands—encompassing recurrent certifications and intricate labeling protocols—can eclipse direct investments, fostering debates on whether empirical incident warrants the regulatory density, particularly for low-risk consignments like certain flammable liquids or solids. PHMSA Acting Administrator Ben Supple underscored this tension in June 2025, stating that regulations must demonstrably outweigh compliance expenditures to avoid impeding commerce.

Debates on Risk Prioritization

Critics of dangerous goods regulation contend that prevailing classification systems, such as the ' hazard-based model, prioritize intrinsic material properties like toxicity or explosivity over comprehensive risk assessments incorporating probability of release and exposure consequences. This approach, embedded in frameworks like the UN Recommendations on the of Dangerous Goods, categorizes substances into nine classes based on potential hazards without differentiating by shipment , route , or historical incident data, leading to uniform stringent controls that may not align with empirical risks. Proponents of risk-based advocate integrating quantitative metrics—such as incident multiplied by severity—to allocate regulatory resources more efficiently, arguing that hazard-only focus inflates burdens on low-exposure scenarios while potentially neglecting high- commodities responsible for the bulk of occurrences. Empirical data from U.S. transportation incidents underscores this tension: between 2012 and 2021, approximately 70% of fatal crashes involving hazardous materials featured Class 2 gases or Class 3 flammable liquids, which dominate shipment volumes and minor releases but trigger fewer catastrophic events than rarer Class 1 explosives or Class 6 poisons. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) records indicate thousands of annual incidents, predominantly non-fatal leaks or spills from flammables, contrasting with the near-zero frequency of explosive detonations in transit, yet regulatory protocols impose comparable documentation and packaging demands across classes. Industry analyses criticize this as fostering inefficiency, where resources spent mitigating theoretical worst-case scenarios for low-probability toxins—such as specialized routing for radiological materials—divert from proven interventions like enhanced tank integrity for flammables, which empirical models show yield higher risk reductions per dollar invested. Further contention arises in international harmonization efforts, where hazard-based standards facilitate global trade but resist adaptation to locale-specific risks; for instance, densely populated European corridors debate easing restrictions on bulk (Class 3) relative to trace corrosives (Class 8), given data revealing disproportionate regulatory costs without commensurate safety gains. Reform advocates, including transportation economists, propose tiered prioritization using probabilistic modeling—factoring carrier history, modal differences (e.g., rail vs. ), and consequence modeling—to reallocate focus toward frequent, moderate-impact events over sensationalized rarities, though opponents warn that diluting primacy could erode public confidence amid media amplification of outliers like toxic spills. This debate persists in policy reviews, with calls for hybrid frameworks that retain hazard screening but layer risk quantification, as evidenced in questioning uniform acceptance criteria for diverse material profiles.

References

  1. https://unece.org/info/Transport/Transport-Trends-and-Economics/events/359185
  2. https://unece.org/transport/dangerous-goods
  3. https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/what_is_hazmat
  4. https://unece.org/DAM/trans/danger/publi/unrec/rev17/English/02EREv17_Part2.pdf
  5. https://unece.org/transport/dangerous-goods/historical-background
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8305933/
  7. https://www.airseadg.com/en-us/packaging-guidance/the-difference-between-dangerous-goods-and-hazardous-substances/
  8. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/transport/dangerous-goods/defined
  9. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/international-program/un-recommendations
  10. https://www.iata.org/en/publications/newsletters/iata-knowledge-hub/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-transport-of-dangerous-goods-by-air/
  11. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/unrec/rev19/Rev19e_Vol_I.pdf
  12. https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/resources/regulations
  13. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hazardous-materials/how-comply-federal-hazardous-materials-regulations
  14. https://unece.org/transport/dangerous-goods/un-model-regulations-rev-23
  15. https://www.iata.org/en/publications/dgr/
  16. https://www.airseadg.com/en-us/general-news/what-are-dangerous-goods-regulations-and-how-to-keep-abreast-of-changes/
  17. https://www.thecompliancecenter.com/the-accident-that-began-150-years-of-hazmat-regulation/
  18. https://www.hazmatnation.com/the-history-of-hazmat/
  19. https://shashikallada.com/2011/12/29/history-of-dangerous-goods-regulations/
  20. https://www.hazmatschool.com/blog/the-history-of-the-imdg/
  21. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-173/subpart-C
  22. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/unrec/rev21/ST-SG-AC10-1r21e_Vol1_WEB.pdf
  23. https://www.epa.govt.nz/hazardous-substances/classification/un-numbers/
  24. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/unrec/English/part3.pdf
  25. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/training/hazmat/69186/hazmat-transportation-reqmts-web-final.pdf
  26. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-172/subpart-B
  27. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/unrec/English/part3.pdf
  28. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Performance%2520Packaging%2520Codes.pdf
  29. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-173/subpart-D
  30. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-173/subpart-D/section-173.121
  31. https://www.labelmaster.com/un-markings
  32. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/unrec/rev21/ST-SG-AC10-1r21e_Vol1_WEB.pdf
  33. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-172/subpart-E
  34. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Hazardous_Materials_Markings_Labeling_and_Placarding_Guide_508CLN.pdf
  35. https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/periodicals/24120820
  36. https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/dangerousgoods-default.aspx
  37. https://www.imo.org/en/publications/Pages/IMDG%2520Code.aspx
  38. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/international-program/united-nations-sub-committee-experts-transport-dangerous-goods
  39. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/cargo/dgr/
  40. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2023-03/US-Variations-to-2023-2024-Technical-Instructions_0.pdf
  41. https://www.thecompliancecenter.com/how-do-the-u-s-hazardous-materials-regulations-protect-the-environment/
  42. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/international-program/international-list-competent-authorities-andor-contacts-transport-dangerous-goods
  43. https://www.addsecure.com/blog/what-are-the-regulations-for-the-transport-of-dangerous-goods-in-eu/
  44. https://www.eqgest.com/en/blog/adr-transportation-of-dangerous-goods
  45. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/b08040a138dc4442a4f066e6fb99fe2a/dgr-66-addendum-1---en.pdf
  46. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicles/transport-strategy-policy/transport-australia/transport-dangerous-goods/australian-dangerous-goods-code
  47. https://www.ntc.gov.au/codes-and-guidelines/australian-dangerous-goods-code
  48. https://chemical.chemlinked.com/news/chemical-news/australia-to-provide-additional-classification-information-for-dangerous-goods-transport
  49. https://www.thecompliancecenter.com/ca/changes-to-state-and-operator-variations/
  50. https://www.icao.int/Dangerous-Goods/State-Variations
  51. https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/safecargo/how_to_ship/package_for_shipping
  52. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-178
  53. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-173/subpart-A/section-173.3
  54. https://www.thecompliancecenter.com/segregating-dangerous-goods-under-the-imdg-code/
  55. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-176/subpart-D/section-176.83
  56. https://www.chemsafetypro.com/Topics/TDG/Dangerous_goods_segregation_hazardous_chemicals_segregation.html
  57. https://www.transpordiamet.ee/media/1648/download
  58. https://www.unece.org/transport/dangerous-goods
  59. https://www.airseadg.com/en-us/insights/dangerous-goods-regulations/
  60. https://unece.org/transport/standards/transport/dangerous-goods/adr-2023-agreement-concerning-international-carriage
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957582024010358
  62. https://qualitycarriers.com/chemical-transportation/risk-management-in-hazmat-transportation/
  63. https://otif.org/fileadmin/docs/LegalTexts/COTIF/DangerousGoodsRID/RID/RID_2025_e_1_January_2025.pdf
  64. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/international-program/adr-and-rid
  65. https://www.aar.org/issue/freight-rail-hazmat-safety/
  66. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/international-program/international-maritime-organization
  67. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat-program-management-data-and-statistics/data-operations/incident-statistics
  68. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/254137?ln=en
  69. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/cargo/dgr/faq/
  70. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/10/2024-06956/hazardous-materials-harmonization-with-international-standards
  71. https://www.biosecuritycentral.org/resource/core-guidance-and-recommendations/transport-of-dangerous-goods/
  72. https://www.iata.org/en/publications/newsletters/iata-knowledge-hub/how-to-get-trained-and-certified-on-dangerous-goods-transported-by-air/
  73. https://www.icao.int/dangerous-goods
  74. https://www.currieassociates.com/dg-hazmat-training/regulatory-requirements-who-needs-training/
  75. https://dgitraining.com/training-law/
  76. https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Freight-Transportation-Safety/vu39-vtqh/
  77. https://www.bts.gov/content/hazardous-materials-fatalities-injuries-accidents-and-property-damage-data
  78. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tran_sf_raildg/default/table?lang=en
  79. https://www.iata.org/globalassets/iata/pressroom/gmd/dangerous-goods-2023-trends.pdf
  80. https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/IIIS/Pages/Statistics.aspx
  81. https://w3.unece.org/sdg2023/story-9.html
  82. https://www.iafc.org/docs/default-source/1haz/hazmat_history_texas_city_disaster.pdf
  83. https://www.bst.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/communiques/rail/2013/r13d0054-20130911.html
  84. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/08/07/2013-19211/lac-mgantic-railroad-accident-discussion-and-dot-safety-recommendations
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7985624/
  86. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/08/03/they-killed-us-inside/investigation-august-4-beirut-blast
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266644962500060X
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4119294/
  89. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/new-international-harmonization-rule-will-help-speed-movement-goods-reduce-costs
  90. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/4954
  91. https://www.dgm-us.com/general-awareness-training-dangerous-goods/
  92. https://www.labelmaster.com/shop/training/multimodal-dangerous-goods-training/shipping-dg-by-international-air-and-domestic-grou-shpiata49
  93. https://dgm-usa.com/dgm-training-courses/
  94. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/24/2024-11391/hazardous-materials-adjusting-registration-and-fee-assessment-program
  95. https://www.hazmatuniversity.com/news/true-cost-of-hazmat-compliance-why-transporting-hazmat-costs-more/
  96. https://www.strongtieinsurance.com/commercial-truck-insurance-for-hazardous-materials/
  97. https://renegadeinsurance.com/blog/truck-insurance/hazmat-truck-insurance-cost/
  98. https://www.thecompliancecenter.com/phmsa-increases-penalties-for-2025/
  99. https://www.unece.org/transport/dangerous-goods/un-model-regulations-rev-23
  100. https://www.compliancetrainingonline.com/blogs/blog-imdg-training-benefits
  101. https://www.regulations.gov/document/PHMSA-2019-0030-0022
  102. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/05/2023-13903/hazardous-materials-modernizing-regulations-to-improve-safety-and-efficiency
  103. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hazardous-materials-trucks/
  104. https://uic.org/freight/dangerous-goods/
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6226826/
  106. https://frontiergroup.org/resources/accidents-waiting-to-happen-hazardous-materials-by-rail/
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920917306958
  108. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1985/1020/1020-003.pdf
  109. https://www.niskanencenter.org/evaluating-the-costs-and-benefits-of-environmental-regulations/
  110. https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/pages/publication7726_en.pdf
  111. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248515880_Risk-cost_trade-offs_in_environmental_risk_management_decision-making
  112. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ea7dc2f4-796e-4df7-a8cc-db3dde044833
  113. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/06/04/2025-10091/hazardous-materials-mandatory-regulatory-reviews-to-unleash-american-energy-and-improve-government
  114. https://www.dragun.com/executive-order-addresses-overregulation-of-us-companies/
  115. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/department-transportation-updates-regulations-improve-safety-and-supply-chains
  116. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/usdot-seeks-comment-pipeline-and-hazmat-regulatory-relief
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8492552/
  118. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3844.pdf
  119. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/8E63FE9953EE01B37620062464CDCD1A/S1867299X00001033a.pdf/risk-versus-hazard-how-to-regulate-in-the-21st-century.pdf
  120. https://www.morrisbart.com/analysis-hazardous-material-crash-statistics/
  121. https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-02/Evaluation%2520of%2520Risk%2520Acceptance%2520Criteria.pdf
  122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950423024001414
  123. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr197/sr197B-011.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.