National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Summary
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

10 1.1 Need for Document A hazardous materials (hazmat) commodity flow study (CFS) is a special kind of transporta- tion analysis project. It is intended to identify the types and amounts of hazardous materials transported through a specified geographic area—such as a single community, a large urban area, a region, or a state—and the routes used for transporting these commodities. It is a methodical way to identify and quantify the unique hazmat transportation hazards that may be present in a community. This guidebook was developed to update the U.S.DOT’s 1995 Guidance for Conducting Hazardous Materials Flow Surveys (1), using funds from U.S.DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), administered through TRB’s Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program (HMCRP). Its intended users are local government entities—including local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) and tribal emergency response commissions (TERCs), counties, municipalities, councils of government, tribal councils, rural communities, and other similar authorities. It also can be used at the state and federal levels. The guidebook • Can be used by LEPCs and other local, state, tribal, and federal emergency planners and stake- holders for evaluating hazmat flows, as well as by metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or department of transportation (DOT) staff for hazmat-specific or similar commodity flow studies; • Provides guidance for planning, conducting, and implementing a local-level hazmat com- modity flow study (HMCFS, used to denote either the singular or plural in this guidebook); • Covers road, rail, pipeline, water, and air modes of transportation; • Focuses specifically on the objectives, resources, data, analysis, and applications that are com- monly found or are actionable at local levels across the United States; • Does not cover every possible type of commodity flow data source or analysis method but rather provides a “toolbox” of different data sources and ways of evaluating information; and • Was developed based on a comprehensive review of literature, local practice, and available data resources. 1.1.1 Role of the HMCFS in Emergency Planning An HMCFS is not a plan of itself, but it provides a knowledge basis for critical aspects of the emergency planning process. LEPCs have responsibility for local emergency planning under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). LEPCs develop emergency response plans for dealing with chemical hazards, either as stand-alone plans or often as part of a community’s comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP), or emergency operations plan (EOP). Users of this guidebook who are involved in comprehensive emergency planning may be familiar with the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101: Developing and Maintaining C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local Government Emergency Plans (2), developed by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), which is a part of DHS. CPG 101 lays out guidelines for developing emergency plans at local, state, and federal levels. An HMCFS informs on the following three key elements of the emergency planning process identified in CPG 101: 1. Understanding the situation, 2. Determining goals and objectives, and 3. Plan development. An HMCFS can inform an emergency plan’s hazard-specific annexes that are focused on haz- ardous material, and also the basic plan and emergency support functions/functional annexes. Figure 1-1 illustrates how an HMCFS can inform and be informed by the emergency planning process identified in CPG 101. An HMCFS can be used for multiple purposes in emergency management and response, as well as in broader community planning and risk assessment. It provides information that can be used to help “anticipate conditions and systematically identify potential problems and workable solutions” (2, p 1-2) to hazmat incidents. In the absence of information that can be obtained through an HMCFS, emergency planners may need to make a great number of assumptions about hazmat transportation in their community. CPG 101 urges planners “to use assumptions sparingly and to put greater effort into performing research and acquiring facts” (2, p 3-13). Infor- mation obtained through an HMCFS can • Reduce uncertainty about which hazmat transport hazards are locally present; • Help identify hazmat transportation risks that may present in a community; and • Be validated by the experiences and knowledge of local responders, carriers, and other stake- holders when HMCFS results are communicated, reviewed, and implemented in the broader emergency and community planning context. Information from an HMCFS helps inform the science of planning by providing quantifiable, measurable information about the types and levels of hazardous materials that may be expected to be transported through a community. Application of HMCFS information affects the art of Introduction 11 Figure 1-1. The HMCFS as part of the emergency planning process. Source: Adapted from CPG 101, Figure 3.2

planning by informing about the potential conditions, complexity, and evolution of hazmat transportation incidents that may occur through scenarios development. Conducting an HMCFS can help planners raise awareness about hazmat transport in a com- munity, provide information for pre-incident operational response training, or assess needs for emergency response equipment or hazmat incident response teams. Some of these activities also are eligible for grant funding under federal programs. An HMCFS can provide a key component of needs justification for associated funding requests, although the HMCFS should not be con- ducted as a reason to justify new equipment. In addition, formal designation of hazmat transport routes requires analysis of risks, for which an HMCFS is an important part. 1.1.2 HMCFS Funding PHMSA oversees a grants program that provides funding for local hazmat planning and train- ing. The Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grants Program uses funds from hazmat transportation carrier registration fees under federal hazardous material transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.). Funds are administered in each state by the state emergency response commissions (SERCs), and by individual TERCs. LEPCs can apply for HMEP grant funding through their respective SERCs (eligibility also applies to TERCs). More information about the program is available from the HMEP grants manager at (202) 366–0001, on the HMEP Web site at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/grants, or by e-mail at hmep.grants@dot.gov. Other grant funds may be available from local, state, or federal agencies, and an HMCFS may be funded fully by a local government or other entity without any additional grant funds. 1.2 Hazmat Transportation Overview Transportation of hazardous materials, by one mode or another, is present in nearly every community. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)/U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 Commodity Flow Survey (3), referred to as the CFS, 2.2 billion tons, corresponding to 323 bil- lion ton-miles of hazardous materials, are shipped in the United States annually. Roadways (trucks) transport the majority—roughly 1.2 billion tons (about 54 percent of total tonnage) and 104 billion ton-miles (about 32 percent of total ton-miles) shipped. Railways are associated with 6 percent, waterways with 7 percent, and pipelines with 28 percent of total hazmat shipment ton- nage. Although 2007 statistics for hazmat transport by air were not published in the 2007 CFS, it comprised 0.02 percent of total hazmat shipment tonnage in 2002. The majority of shipment tonnage represents a subset of the nine hazardous materials classes. Flammable-Combustible Liquids (Class 3) represent 78 percent of the total tons, over 56 percent of the total ton-miles, and almost 81 percent of the total value. Gases (Class 2) represent over 11 percent of the tons, 17 percent of the ton-miles, and 9 percent of the value. The remaining seven hazmat classes total around 11 percent of total tons, 27 percent of total ton-miles, and 10 per- cent of total shipment value. The U.S.DOT sets requirements for hazmat transportation in hazardous materials regulations (HMR) under 49 CFR. Under 49 CFR, Part 173 (4), hazardous materials are grouped into nine major classes, several of which are further subclassified into divisions, as shown in Table 1-1. The HMR requires that hazmat shipments be designated by United Nations/North American (UN/NA) placards or labels when shipment quantities meet certain threshold criteria. Each class/division is characterized by a distinct graphic and numbering scheme. The UN/NA placards and labels and shipping manifests are important warning indicators by which first responders can identify initial isolation and response procedures when an incident involving hazmat trans- portation occurs. Examples of UN/NA placards from the 2008 Emergency Response Guidebook (5), 12 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies

or ERG, are shown in Appendix A. Hazardous materials also must be identified in papers that doc- ument specific information about the shipment. These documents are called shipping manifests. Shipping document (manifest) information and an illustration of placard numbering from the 2008 ERG are shown in Appendix B. The vast majority of hazardous materials shipments move safely and securely along the nation’s transportation system. However, the threat of a hazmat transportation incident remains significant, with at least two incidents per hour on average, or more than 50 per day, nationally. Incidents Introduction 13 The HMCFS and National Emergency Management Frameworks HMCFS information can be used under the National Incident Management System (NIMS) framework, the Incident Command System (ICS), and the National Response Framework (NRF). “NIMS provides a consistent framework for incident management at all jurisdictional levels, regardless of the cause, size, or complexity of the incident” (2, p 4-2). It builds on the ICS to provide first responders and authorities with the same foun- dation for emergency incident management. The HMCFS informs the NIMS and ICS frameworks at multiple levels, including the three that follow. 1. Command and management • The HMCFS can be used to help identify key risk and response areas that are impacted by ICS operations. • The HMCFS can be used to help identify response needs, personnel, equipment, and other resources that are affected by multiagency coordination systems (such as mutual aid agreements), regional hazmat teams, etc. • The HMCFS can be used to help identify information that may need to be communicated to the public during emergency situations in a timely, accurate, and accessible manner. 2. Preparedness • HMCFS information can be used to help identify training needs, response sce- narios for exercises, technical certification needs for hazmat responders, and equipment needs. 3. Resource management • The HMCFS can be used to help identify specific needs for resource inventory, mobilization, tracking, and recovery for hazmat incidents. The NRF builds on NIMS and “guides governments at all levels, the private sector and NGOs, and individual citizens toward a shared and effective response” (2, p 4-6) to incidents. Under the NRF, state, territorial, tribal, and local jurisdictions are responsible for developing all-hazards emergency operations plans, including identifying specific technological hazards that may be present in a community. This, in turn, affects required leadership and responsibility roles for different threats as well as evacuation strategies for potentially impacted populations. Jurisdictions may need to determine the level of multi-agency integration likely to be required for hazmat incident response, develop public information systems, identify and characterize resources, and provide training. An HMCFS also can be used to inform about resources, support, and assistance needed to augment local response at state and federal levels.

can occur in almost any jurisdiction at almost any time. Human behavior and technological fail- ure cause many system failures or casualties. Some well-publicized events in the last decade include the following: • In January 2004, a gasoline tanker truck left the I-895 roadway on the I-95 overpass in Elkridge, MD, went over the bridge rail, and into the northbound I-95 lanes. The tanker exploded and four vehicles on I-95 were driven into the resulting fire, killing the drivers of three vehicles. NTSB concluded that the likely cause was failure of the tanker truck driver to maintain control of his vehicle (6). • In January 2005, a Norfolk Southern train collided with another train parked on a siding at Avondale Mills, Inc. in Greenville, SC, after a train crew failed to realign a track switch. A chlo- rine tank railcar ruptured in the collision, releasing an extensive vapor cloud. The accident caused 9 deaths, 75 hospital admissions, and evacuation of 5,400 people (7). The total cost of the incident was estimated at $126 million by FRA (8). • In November 2007, a 12-inch-diameter liquid propane pipeline ruptured near Carmichael, MS. The gas cloud resulting from the breach enveloped nearby homes and ignited, killing two and injuring seven people. Property damages alone were estimated over $3 million. The NTSB determined the cause of the incident was due to pipeline weld failures (9). • In July 2008, a barge tow on the Mississippi River (which was improperly piloted) turned into the path of an oil tanker. The collision split the barge in two, resulting in spillage of nearly 300,000 gallons of fuel oil, closing the river for nearly 100 miles from New Orleans to Louisiana 14 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies Class/Division Number Name of Class or Division None Forbidden materials None Forbidden explosives 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Explosives Explosives (with a mass explosion hazard) Explosives (with a projection hazard) Explosives (with predominantly a fire hazard) Explosives (with no significant blast hazard) Very insensitive explosives; blasting agents Extremely insensitive detonating substances 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 Gases Flammable gas Non-flammable compressed gas Poisonous Gas 3 Flammable and combustible liquids 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 Flammable solids Flammable solid Spontaneously combustible material Dangerous-when-wet material 5 5.1 5.2 Oxidizers Oxidizer Organic peroxide 6 6.1 6.2 Poisons Poisonous materials Infectious substance (etiologic agent) 7 Radioactive materials 8 Corrosive materials 9 Miscellaneous hazardous materials None Other regulated material: ORM-D* *Note: ORM-D stands for other regulated materials—domestic. Table 1-1. The hazardous materials classification system.

and the Gulf of Mexico, and shutting it down for six days (10). The spill caused concerns about environmental damage and drinking water quality (11). • In July 2009, a passenger vehicle collided with a gasoline tanker truck on I-75 in Hazel Park, MI, causing the tractor and trailer to separate. The trailer struck an overpass bridge support and exploded. Although no one was killed, the recently completed overpass was destroyed. Reconstruction took several months and cost nearly $12 million (12), not including costs due to roadway user delays. As these examples show, the consequences of hazmat incidents are potentially catastrophic to public safety, life and well-being, the environment, and infrastructure. This raises concern over transportation of hazardous materials through populated or environmentally sensitive areas. Upon completing an HMCFS, local planners, emergency managers, and emergency responders can have a better understanding of hazmat transportation patterns and can use the data to estimate the risks facing their jurisdiction. The information can help users better prevent hazmat incidents from occurring, and more effectively protect, respond, and recover from them when they do. 1.3 Organization of this Report This report covers the HMCFS process in six major steps, shown in Figure 1-2. Each step is cov- ered in a separate chapter. The six HMCFS process steps follow procedures identified in previous HMCFS guidance, and integrate concepts from emergency planning. They include the following: • Select HMCFS leadership, set objectives, and define data requirements—This step is dis- cussed in Chapter 2. LEPCs and other local entities select the HMCFS leadership. This includes core team members who provide oversight of the project, set project objectives, and implement project results. HMCFS project objective categories include hazmat awareness, scenarios defi- nition, emergency and community planning, equipment needs, resource scheduling, hazmat route designation, and legal takings. LEPC leadership also includes a project team that will coordinate and manage the project. HMCFS data requirements are determined by the project team based on the project’s objectives. • Collect and review baseline information and scope HMCFS project—This step is discussed in Chapter 3. The project team collects and reviews readily available local information about hazmat transportation, including previous studies, transport modes and routes, incidents and accidents, and population locations. The project team scopes the HMCFS project by identi- fying the extent of additional information required for the HMCFS and the resources needed to obtain them. • Collect and review existing HMCFS data—This step is discussed in Chapter 4. The project team collects and reviews existing data. They search prior HMCFS documents; local, state, and federal agency data; trade, environmental, social advocacy, and academic sources; other printed sources of information about hazmat transport; and electronic databases and reports. The project team confirms that collection of new data for the HMCFS is based on gaps in existing data. • Collect and validate new HMCFS data—This step is discussed in Chapter 5. The project team collects and validates new HMCFS data. This step may be conducted concurrently with exist- ing data collection. The team gathers information from key stakeholders through interviews and collects field data, as needed. Field data may include vehicle, placard, or shipping mani- fest surveys along various transportation routes and route segments. • Analyze and document HMCFS data—This step is discussed in Chapter 6. The project team analyzes existing and/or new HMCFS data to estimate hazmat flows. Spatial and/or temporal analysis may be conducted. The outcome of this step is an evaluation report that documents the results of the project. Introduction 15

• Implement HMCFS information—This step is discussed in Chapter 7. The core team uses the HMCFS project evaluation to understand limitations of the results, disseminate and com- municate information, apply results toward objectives, and plan for future activities. Chapter 8 provides conclusions and HMCFS recommendations. Additional guidance and in- formation that may be applied to an HMCFS by some users is provided in the appendices. Case studies, presented in Appendix C, illustrate how and why HMCFS were conducted by seven LEPCs from across the United States. The appendices also include reference materials and charts, a discussion of promising practices used by LEPCs from across the country, descriptions of data sources, and examples of HMCFS data analysis and applications. 16 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies Figure 1-2. The hazardous materials commodity flow study (HMCFS) process.

Next: Chapter 2 - Select Leadership, Set Objectives, and Define Data Requirements »
Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program (HMCRP) Report 3: Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies is designed to support risk assessment, emergency response preparedness, resource allocation, and analyses of hazardous commodity flows across jurisdictions.

The guidebook updates the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Guidance for Conducting Hazardous Materials Flow Surveys. All modes of transportation, all classes and divisions of hazardous materials, and the effects of seasonality on hazardous materials movements are discussed in the guidebook.

The contractor’s final report and appendices (unedited by TRB), which documents the research supporting the development of the guidebook, are available online.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!