Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies (2011)

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.

Purpose Project HM-01, Hazardous Materials Flow Data and Analysis, was conducted for the Haz- ardous Materials Cooperative Research Program (HMCRP) of the National Academy of Sci- ences Transportation Research Board (TRB). The project was sponsored by the U.S.DOT’s PHMSA. The research for this project included a review of freight and hazardous materials (hazmat) transport literature, a national survey of U.S. local emergency planning commit- tees (LEPCs) and tribal emergency response commissions (TERCs), case studies, and con- tractor experiences with conducting hazardous materials commodity flow studies (HMCFS, which is used to denote either the singular and plural in this document). The results of the project were twofold: • A comprehensive report that documents the scope of the project research and • This guidebook, which updates U.S.DOT’s 1995 Guidance for Conducting Hazardous Materials Flow Surveys (1). Transportation of hazardous materials, by one mode or another, is present in nearly every community. The vast majority of hazmat shipments move safely and securely along the nation’s transportation system. However, the threat of a hazmat transportation incident remains significant, with an average of at least two incidents per hour, or more than 50 per day, nationally. Incidents can occur in any jurisdiction at almost any time. Human behav- ior and technological failure cause many system failures or casualties. The consequences of hazmat incidents are potentially catastrophic to public safety, life and wellbeing, the envi- ronment, and infrastructure. This raises concern regarding the transportation of hazardous materials through populated or environmentally sensitive areas. LEPCs are responsible 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 commu- nity’s comprehensive emergency management plan (or emergency operations plan). An HMCFS provides critical information to the emergency planning process—specifically, understanding the situation, determining goals and objectives, and plan development as described in Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101: Developing and Maintaining State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local Government Emergency Plans (2) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is a part of DHS. An HMCFS applies to hazard-specific plan annexes focused on hazmat, and also to the basic plan and emergency support functions/functional annexes. HMCFS information can be used under the Na- tional Incident Management System (NIMS) framework, the Incident Command System (ICS), and the National Response Framework (NRF). Also, under 49 CFR Part 110 (25), LEPCs and TERCs that conduct an HMCFS are eligible for hazmat risk assessment grant 1 S U M M A R Y Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies

funding, administered through PHMSA’s Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grants Program. This guidebook: • Provides guidance for planning, conducting, and implementing a local-level HMCFS; • Covers road, rail, pipeline, water, and air modes of transportation; • Specifically focuses on the objectives, resources, data, analysis, and applications that are commonly found or 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 informa- tion; and • Was developed based on a comprehensive review of the literature, local practice, and available data resources. The intended users of this guidebook are local government entities—including LEPCs, TERCs, counties, municipalities, councils of government, tribal councils, rural communities, and other similar authorities—but it also can be used at the state and federal levels. Upon com- pleting an HMCFS, local planners, emergency managers, and emergency responders 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. The HMCFS Process Figure S-1 illustrates the HMCFS process, which includes the following six major steps: 1. Select HMCFS leadership, set objectives, and define data requirements—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. These objectives include hazmat awareness, scenarios definition, emergency and com- munity planning, identification of equipment needs, resource scheduling, hazmat route designation, and legal takings. LEPC leadership also includes project team members who will coordinate and manage the project. HMCFS data requirements are determined by the project team based on the project’s objectives. 2. Collect and review baseline information and scope HMCFS project—The project team collects and reviews readily available local information about hazmat transportation, includ- ing previous studies, transport modes and routes, incidents and accidents, and population locations. The project team scopes the HMCFS project by identifying the extent of additional information required for the HMCFS and the resources needed to obtain this information. 3. Collect and review existing HMCFS data—The project team collects and reviews exist- ing data. They search prior HMCFS documents; local, state, and federal agency data; elec- tronic databases and reports; trade, environmental, social advocacy, and academic sources; and other print sources of information about hazmat transport. The project team confirms that any new HMCFS data collection is based on gaps in existing data. 4. Collect and validate new HMCFS data—The project team collects and validates new HMCFS data. This step may be conducted concurrently with existing data collection. The team gathers information from key stakeholders and collects field data, as needed. Field data may include vehicle, placard, or shipping manifest surveys along various transporta- tion routes and route segments. 5. Analyze and document HMCFS data—The project team analyzes existing and/or new HMCFS data to estimate hazmat flows. Spatial and/or temporal analysis may be con- 2 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies

ducted. The most important outcome of this step is an evaluation report that documents the results of the project. 6. Implement HMCFS information—The core team uses the HMCFS project evaluation report to understand the limitations of the results, disseminate and communicate infor- mation, apply results toward objectives, and plan for future activities. Select HMCFS Leadership, Set Objectives, and Define Data Requirements LEPCs or other local entities select the HMCFS leadership. HMCFS leadership includes a core team and a project team. The core team is responsible for oversight of the project, setting objectives, and implementing results. Setting objectives by the core team is one of the most Summary 3 Figure S-1. The Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Study (HMCFS) process.

important steps of conducting an HMCFS and helps to answer the question of why to conduct an HMCFS. The following nine categories of HMCFS objectives are identified and discussed: 1. Awareness, 2. Minimum scenarios definition, 3. Maximum scenarios definition, 4. Emergency planning, 5. Comprehensive planning, 6. Equipment needs, 7. Resource scheduling, 8. Hazmat route designation, and 9. Legal takings. Each category of objectives has different levels of complexity and data and resource require- ments. The project team is responsible for coordinating and managing the project. The proj- ect team also determines how specific the HMCFS data should be based on the objectives set by the core team. Collect and Review Baseline Information and Scope HMCFS Project The project team reviews “baseline” information about hazmat transport in the area to identify data needs and guide further data collection efforts. Information review focuses on current “in-house” knowledge about hazmat transport and includes (but is not limited to) the following: • Modes by which hazmat is transported and the relevant transportation network for each mode; • Prior HMCFS developed for the jurisdiction or jurisdictions on connecting corridors; • Information about fixed facilities, shippers, receivers, and carriers that produce, store, use, or transport hazardous materials; • Information about population centers, critical infrastructures, and future developments relative to hazmat transport corridors; and • Information from local and state agencies about the transportation network, commodity movements, traffic levels, incidents, etc. Based on this review, the project team assesses their current state of knowledge about haz- mat transport and identifies any information gaps. The preliminary inventory of hazmat flows, resulting from the baseline review, allows the project team to scope additional efforts for collection of data from all relevant external existing and new data sources, and focus on routes where • There is reason to believe risks are high, • Knowledge is limited or undocumented, • Potential exposures are extreme, or • Some combination of these elements is present. Collect and Review Existing HMCFS Data After reviewing the baseline information and scoping the data collection effort, the project team collects and reviews relevant existing data from all applicable sources. This effort may be conducted concurrently with collection of new HMCFS data. Existing data are information 4 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies

that have been previously collected and assembled. Collecting and validating existing data re- quires effort to obtain, compile, and evaluate the data, as well as to determine whether the data are sufficient to meet HMCFS objectives. Existing data represent a considerable resource- saving supply of information. However, the disadvantage of existing data is that they were not collected directly for the purpose of the local HMCFS, and the extent to which they are appli- cable to current community needs may be limited and depends on the source. Review of exist- ing data includes a more in-depth evaluation of information covered in the baseline assessment. These data include (but are not limited to) other existing electronic databases and reports about: • Transportation networks; • Commodity movements; • System performance (traffic levels); • Population, environmentally sensitive areas, and critical facility locations; • Historical incident and accident occurrences and locations; and • Contact information. During and after collecting existing data, the project team compiles and reviews the data to confirm that any new data collection efforts are needed and appropriately focused due to gaps in the existing data. Collect and Validate New HMCFS Data The project team may collect new data specifically for the HMCFS. These data have a dis- advantage in that they require more effort and resources to collect than most existing data sources, but new data are directly applicable and require less manipulation. They also may be used for other local applications. New data collection includes interviews with key inform- ants (hazmat shippers, receivers, and carriers, and emergency responders), traffic surveys, and examining shipping manifests to identify local patterns. Collection of field data is driven by the level of precision required to meet HMCFS objec- tives. Traffic survey information can include the number of vehicles, type of vehicles, and— sometimes—the packages in a shipment. The content of the shipment can be observed for the presence of hazardous material, the class or division of hazardous material, the UN/NA placard ID, or the specific material. Origin–destination data are among the most compre- hensive information about hazmat transport and can be obtained with a review of shipping manifest information. Unfortunately, these are also the most labor-intensive data to collect with enough precision to estimate hazmat traffic flows over a network. Also, they can be the most mathematically intensive to interpret. The validation of new data is an important step in the data collection process. Quality data allow for appropriate interpretation and imple- mentation of the HMCFS results. Analyze and Document HMCFS Data The project team uses all compiled existing and new HMCFS data to describe hazmat flows. The ability to describe these flows depends on the relevance, sampling, and precision of the collected data. Analyzing HMCFS information for railways, pipelines, and waterways is generally straightforward because the existing flow information is based on a census of all hazmat transport or generally represents the extent of available information. Hence, sam- pling limitations are rarely associated with these data. Conversely, analysis of HMCFS com- modity flow data for trucks/roadways (including roadways serving airport terminals) can range from simple to potentially complex. Summary 5

The HMCFS data are summarized by the project team and presented to the core team in a report using lists, tables, charts, maps, and narrative description. Existing and new data can be collected at various levels, allowing alternative approaches for analysis that evaluate each type of source individually or combine information from different sources to generate estimates. The simplest analyses of HMCFS commodity flow data involve reviewing existing estimates for commodity flows and applying those estimates to hazmat flows in a commu- nity. The most complex analyses use locally relevant data to identify differences in commod- ity flows spatially, temporally, or both spatially and temporally. Increasing knowledge of risks involves quantifying the frequency and magnitude of risk along a given route segment, route, or corridor. When detailed hazmat commodity flow data are available, they can be used to characterize commodity movements on a spatial and temporal basis. Procedures for conducting the risk assessment calculations are well established and can depend on specific characteristics of the local setting, commodities that are transported, modes of transport, and information about the likelihood of inci- dents and accidents. Implement HMCFS Information The core team is responsible for using the HMCFS to implement desired emergency plan- ning outcomes. This step of the process is critical to making the effort worthwhile. It is impor- tant that the core team recognizes and appreciates the limitations of the study, informs decision makers about how actions required to implement study are affected by data limitations, and understands what additional information would be needed to make higher-level decisions. Disseminating the HMCFS is a one-way communication of the results of the study to var- ious audiences. Dissemination involves deciding what critical results to deliver, to whom they should be delivered, and then delivering the results. Communicating the HMCFS in- volves two-way communication of the study results with selected audiences through discussion and interpretation of results, sharing of more subtle information and higher-order interpre- tations, and receiving feedback about the results that draw on collective experience and expert- ise as well as direct observations. As part of the implementation process, the core team is responsible for both disseminating and communicating HMCFS results. The HMCFS can contribute to several types of ongoing emergency and community plan- ning processes. Merely putting the document on the shelf fails to stimulate discussion, de- cision making, or proactive response to impending situations. Implementation involves actively engaging various groups of interested parties, stakeholders, community leaders, in- dustry, and other end users. It is important for the HMCFS documents and supporting data to be archived in a variety of locations at the local level to assure continuity. An HMCFS is a static picture of an ongoing process. Hence, there is a need to consider when it should be revised or updated. Communities with complex flows may find it necessary to re- vise the HMCFS frequently, while those with less complex flows may find that a well-done HMCFS can last for years. Case Studies Seven case studies are included in this guidebook to illustrate how HMCFS have been con- ducted in local jurisdictions. These case studies represent a range of U.S. regions, geographic coverage, community population sizes, community types (rural and urban), transportation 6 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies

modes, transportation network components, traffic levels, data sources, project participants, and practices used. Appendices Guidebook appendices provide reference materials and further information about as- pects of the HMCFS process. Appendices include examples of UN/NA placards, shipping manifest information, and types of vehicles that may be included in an HMCFS. Promis- ing practices that can be used by LEPCs cover HMCFS planning, data sources, project re- sources, data requirements, data analysis, and implementation. Descriptions and analysis of existing HMCFS data sources, and collection sheet templates for different types of new data, are provided along with completed data sheet examples. A detailed description of dif- ferent data analysis procedures also is provided and includes examples of calculations and interpretations. Conclusions The research conducted to support the development of this guidebook documents a wide variety of HMCFS objectives, existing and new data sources, methods for evaluating data, and ways of implementing outcomes and communicating results to a range of project participants and stakeholders. The research suggests that there is no clear-cut way of describing what an HMCFS project requires based on community size, economic base, or transportation network characteristics. However, it shows that the complexity of conducting an HMCFS project gen- erally increases as • Size of community increases, resulting in more diverse goods consumption; • Proximity to major hazmat producers, processors, and consumers increases; • Complexity of the local and regional economy increases, resulting in greater seasonal vari- ations in hazmat transport for different sectors; • Precision required to support HMCFS objectives increases, increasing the need for locally relevant, specific hazmat transport data; • Number of different modes included in the HMCFS increases; • Number of major roadway transport corridors or segments included in the HMCFS increases; or • Availability of locally relevant existing data decreases, increasing the requirement for the collection of new data. The following two general HMCFS practices can be recommended for all LEPCs: 1. Follow the HMCFS process. The HMCFS process identified in this guidebook is based on the previous U.S.DOT Guidance, incorporates contemporary literature, and builds upon practices reported by LEPCs that have been validated through experience. 2. Use the promising practices. The promising practices are based on feedback from LEPCs and direct experience conducting HMCFS about what works and does not work for an HMCFS project. Many of these practices are keys to successfully planning, conducting, evaluating, and implementing an HMCFS project. Finally, 20 recommendations were identified from the case studies and project research for conducting an HMCFS. Project recommendations are summarized for HMCFS project funding and staffing, project planning and execution, use of existing data sources, new data Summary 7

collection, data validation, data presentation, and project implementation. Recommenda- tions include the following: • Funding and staffing the HMCFS project – Utilize available funding resources for conducting the study, such as HMEP or EPA grants. Be sure to understand grant requirements including tracking and reporting of volunteer effort. – Consider multi-jurisdictional efforts to help distribute the workload and increase the relevance of project outcomes to multiple communities. – Consider the use of contractors for data analysis and reporting. If contractors are used, involve the LEPC in major aspects of the project. – Utilize volunteer participation from community stakeholders, including emergency response, industry, and health professionals; as well as military personnel, business groups, and volunteer groups such as Community Emergency Response Teams or Cit- izen Corps Councils. Often, volunteers who participate in collecting HMCFS data will develop an understanding of how hazmat transport affects their professions in ways of which they were not previously aware. – Maximize volunteer participation through training, scheduling, and providing data count supplies, facilities, or equipment. • Planning the HMCFS project – Identify desired outcomes of the study in advance, for example, confirming types of hazardous material transported, evaluating hazmat transport in specific risk areas, etc. – Be realistic—an HMCFS requires time and planning, which makes conducting one in a short timeframe less likely to be successful. Coordinating the project—especially vol- unteer data collection—requires advance planning and may involve delays due to weather, conflicting schedules, etc. • Using existing data sources – Use existing local, state, and national information sources as much as possible. Al- though CFS from jurisdictions that do not share common corridors may provide ex- amples of how to conduct a study, those project results may have little relevance to hazmat transport in your community. • Collecting data – Begin data collection as early in the project as possible, and do it often, especially when volunteer effort is being used as in-kind grant matching funds. LEPCs that wait too long to begin data collection can easily find themselves “behind the 8-ball” for com- pleting the project within given time limits or having a good set of reliable data. – Use multi-person teams for data collection on busy traffic corridors. Volunteer person- nel time availability and attention for data collection may be limited. – Collect data at locations where traffic is either slowed or stopped, such as truck stops, rest areas, license and weight facilities, or signaled intersections. – Use the data collection effort as an opportunity to enhance emergency response train- ing, such as responders’ familiarity with the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) (5). • Validating data – Validate results across different data sources, including regional/state traffic data, inci- dent reports, and prior CFS conducted for the jurisdiction or surrounding areas. – Consider CFS information in terms of how reliable the data are and how they were col- lected (sampling and precision). Recognize limitations of the CFS. – Be aware that information is typically a snapshot of hazmat transportation for specific times and locations. Transport patterns may vary widely by time of day, day of week, and season of year. 8 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies

• Presenting HMCFS results – Present project results using various formats, including tables, charts, graphs, and maps. Cross-referencing of hazmat transport information with spatial and temporal data of sensitive areas can be used to identify risk hotspots. • Implementing the HMCFS – Distribute the CFS to appropriate community stakeholders. – Use it. CFS information does little good if it just “sits on the shelf.” CFS information may be applicable to a wide range of applications. Consider potential applications for CFS information in addition to the project’s original goals and for groups other than emergency management and response agencies. – Conduct an after-action analysis to identify lessons learned and potential modifications to future efforts. – Plan for follow-on efforts to evaluate hazmat transportation in the community. Juris- dictions are able to identify changes in hazmat transportation patterns by referencing previous studies. Do not wait too long to conduct subsequent studies. Summary 9