Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 84
APPENDIX C HMCFS Case Studies Seven case studies are provided to describe how HMCFS have been conducted for local juris- dictions. The case studies cover a range of jurisdiction sizes (very small to very large) and regions (East Coast to West Coast) and are listed by year conducted (oldest to newest). These case studies were selected based on a review of HMCFS conducted by LEPCs from across the United States. The selected case studies include those that were most comprehensive and reflect principles out- lined in this guidebook. HMCFS recommendations based on analysis of the case studies are included in Chapter 8. C.1 Case Study 1: LEPC in the Midwestern United States This LEPC is located in southern Indiana on the banks of the Ohio River. It has a population of less than 100,000 people and is traversed by an Interstate highway and several U.S. and state routes. Several railroads, including Class I railroads, pass through the study area. The LEPC worked jointly with another LEPC in 2000 as part of a continuing effort to update and improve emergency plans, as well as develop a relative risk assessment for major highways in the area. Resources for the study consisted of U.S. EPA grant money through the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. A consultant was hired to help conduct the project. The HMCFS was based on similar prior studies conducted in five neighboring Indiana counties. Their results, along with the results of the CFS conducted in 1994 in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, were included and presented in the same format in the project report in order to compare find- ings. The Tulsa County CFS had compared findings with prior HMCFS from Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Florida. It also had utilized TRANSCAER®'s guide and the U.S.DOT's Guidance for conducting HMCFS. Hazmat trucks were counted by consultant staff at 11 sites on major highways in the county, one of which was at a weigh station because high traffic volume inhibited clear view and reading of placards from the roadside. Data collection was conducted by one person, in two periods of 2-hour shifts over 2 days and in both traffic directions, except at the weigh station where two 8-hour shifts took place, one at the northbound and one at the southbound scale. The process was similar to that followed by the five neighboring counties and Tulsa County. All of their results were included in the same format for purposes of clear comparison. Collected data included the number of total and hazmat trucks, placard numbers, and UN/NA numbers. A listing of railroad hazmat data was requested and supplied by CSXT and other railroad companies. Marine data consisted of commodity tonnage, number of barges, and description through the two Ohio River locks in the area by direction. C-1
OCR for page 85
C-2 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies It was found that roughly 5 percent of all commercial truck traffic carried hazardous materials. Almost 60 percent of the placards involved Class 3 Flammable Liquids, and almost 13 percent were Class 8 Corrosives, with the remaining classes complementing the total. The results are dis- played in tables and bar graphs showing the total number of trucks and placarded trucks by site, the percentage of placarded trucks, and numbers and percentages of hazmat placards observed by class and UN/NA placard IDs. The Tulsa HMCFS is included in the HMCFS report, apparently in its entirety, to the point that trends are likely to be similar between the two. A sophisticated risk assessment was per- formed in the Tulsa HMCFS. Census tract maps were overlaid on highway maps and the at- risk population within a 1-mile radius from each highway (i.e., people per square mile) were estimated--"hotspots analysis". PHMSA's HMIS incident data were examined and enabled cal- culation of the probability of an incident per million miles. The two were multiplied and a rela- tive risk index for each highway segment was calculated. Additional data consisted of hazardous materials and extremely hazardous substances (EHS) rail shipments, as well as PHMSA HMIS incidents for rail. C.2 Case Study 2: Peninsula LEPC, Virginia The Peninsula LEPC region comprises a largely urban area (York County and Cities of James City, Hampton, Newport News, and Poquoson), with a population of nearly 400,000 people. It has two major highway routes traversing it (I-64 and US 17) and one main rail line, owned by CSXT. The purpose for conducting the HMCFS (2002) was to identify which hazardous materials (focusing on EHSs) were frequently shipped in large quantities to, through, and within the juris- dictions by air, rail, road, waterway, and pipeline, and the main routes used, where applicable. The objective was to facilitate emergency planning by the local governments. Funding for the HMCFS was provided by a U.S.DOT Research and Special Programs Admin- istration (RSPA) grant, coordinated by the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, and managed by the Peninsula LEPC. A university was hired to help conduct the project. A questionnaire was developed in an attempt to collect data on the amounts and frequency of hazardous materials shipped, as well as the routes used, and sent to authorities (e.g., Virginia DOT, Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ]), and fixed facilities/hazmat shippers. This method worked for obtaining information from pipeline companies, but not for other modes because of data unavailability (inexistence) or inaccessibility (proprietary). New data were not physically collected; rather, already existing data were obtained, compiled, and analyzed. Hazmat truck inspection data for four inspection stations located at two tunnels (two for each tunnel by direction) were obtained from VDOT. Distributions were developed to show trans- port of hazardous materials by class for each site, by week and weekday. For railroads, hazmat information was requested from CSXT, but it only consisted of hazmat names, and no quanti- ties, frequencies, or originsdestinations. The potential risks associated with each hazardous material transported by rail are elaborated upon in the text. For marine, the only available data were a list of hazardous materials stored in the terminal on a single day, provided by terminal management, as hazmat data were deemed either proprietary or unavailable by the Virginia Port Authority and Coast Guard. Distributions were developed for the terminal hazardous materials showing percentages of materials by characteristic (e.g., flammability, toxicity, gaseous, etc.). For pipelines, it was assumed that incidents only occur if pipelines are ruptured by excavation. Pipeline companies identified the hazardous materials flowing through their pipelines and the ranges of flows and pressures. It was found that there was no hazmat cargo transported through the local airport.
OCR for page 86
HMCFS Case Studies C-3 The project report included a discussion on the data limitations (proprietary or unavailable) associated with military installations, railroad, and marine, as well as the limited time period for which highway data were available. Recommendations included better overall tracking of haz- mat movement data through logistical or technological means, and subsequent data entry into corresponding databases, in order to facilitate future analyses. The appendix to the project report includes a sample questionnaire, and maps of the area showing the main hazmat routes by mode, as well as the bridges, tunnels, etc. used in the study. C.3 Case Study 3: LEPC #3, Vermont Vermont's LEPC #3 (Southern Windsor County/Southern Windsor County Regional Plan- ning Commission) comprises 478 square miles and 13 towns with a total population of around 40,000 people. The region is largely undeveloped or sparsely developed. Major highway routes in the area include I-91, I-89, and several state routes. Three rail lines traverse the area as well. The LEPC was concerned about traffic disruptions and threats to public safety due to highway HazMat vehicle accidents and spills, as well as contamination of the local watershed--the source of drinking water. This concern was due to a train derailment in 2001, which dumped thousands of gallons of diesel fuel into the Connecticut River. The LEPC's objective for conducting the HMCFS (2006) was to verify their beliefs--that most of the hazardous materials transported through their area were motor vehicle fuels (diesel and gas) and heating fuels (oil and gas)--or to alert them to those hazardous materials being trans- ported of which they were not aware in order to identify major concerns for emergency responders and planners. Resources consisted of grant money through the SERC from the HMEP Grants Program, along with in-kind matching through community volunteer labor hours and costs for travel to and from the data collection sites. The LEPC did not include fixed Tier II facilities in the HMCFS, although it possessed the information. It instead focused on hazardous materials on highways and railways. The HMCFS was conducted from AprilMay 2006 and included over 167 total hours by 10 vol- unteers. The volunteers included members of the LEPC and a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). Rail traffic and motor vehicle (truck) traffic were observed on selected railways, highways, and intersections within the region. Points of observation were chosen carefully in an effort to optimize data collection with regard to personal safety. Rail observation points consisted of rail yards, depots, and track sidings. Highway observation points consisted of interstate rest areas, truck stops, parking areas, and highway intersections. Pertinent information recorded included rail car or trailer body type and placard number. Data collectors were trained beforehand to use the Emergency Response Guidebook for identi- fying hazmat placards, rail car types, and truck body types, and to note the corresponding plac- ard IDs on the data collection forms. U.S. EPA's Hazard Analysis on the Move was used for guidance. The BTS 2002 CFS data for Vermont was used after the study was completed to verify that the local data were consistent with the state data. In addition, high crash location data for the region were obtained from readily available state DOT reports, and 4 years of hazmat inci- dent history listings were supplied by Vermont Emergency Management. The LEPC had a good understanding of their effort's constraints and limitations. They made a point to evaluate and list the primary and secondary impacts due to a hazmat incident with respect to people, property/environment, and the economy. Once the flow study was completed, it was distributed to all of the emergency management personnel in the various towns that are
OCR for page 87
C-4 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies covered by the LEPC. The commodity flow study also was used as a reference in drafting emer- gency plans. The HMCFS report included several relevant appendices (i.e., the BTS 2002 CFS data for Ver- mont, typed data sheets, ERG figures showing hazmat placards, railcar and truck body types and codes, and an area map with rail and highway routes). The report also included conclusions and recommendations on several possible/future uses of findings, including local disaster mitigation planning (especially for worst-case scenarios, around schools and other high-risk areas), evacu- ation plans, shelters, public building and infrastructure planning, and hazmat incident contain- ment. The latter specifically called for a refresher of ERG-recommended procedures for the identified hazardous material, and emergency response training, planning, exercising, equip- ment, and personnel. C.4 Case Study 4: Lewis/Upshur Counties LEPC, West Virginia The Lewis/Upshur Counties LEPC, located in north central West Virginia, covers two coun- ties with a total land area of 737 square miles and a population of 40,911. The region is charac- terized by steep topography in a rural setting. Two major highway routes traverse the area, I-79 in a northsouth direction, and US 33 in an eastwest direction. The HMCFS (2006) was conducted in the context of various hazard analyses and risk assess- ments, which are part of comprehensive emergency response plans established by the West Vir- ginia Code in implementation of the EPCRA. The study findings were intended for use in hazmat incident prevention and mitigation efforts. Resources consisted of grant money through the SERC from the HMEP Grants Program along with community volunteer labor hours; volunteers were members of both counties' CERTs. A consultant was hired to help conduct the project. Prior to the HMCFS, a uniform questionnaire was developed to solicit information on haz- ardous materials at fixed facilities in both counties. Despite the low response rate, responses were comparable to those received during the previous HMCFS conducted by the LEPC in 1999. Each responding facility in the 2006 HMCFS also was described in the project report. The LEPC consulted their 1999 HMCFS, which made clear that local railroad freight consisted of practically 100 percent coal; hence the railroad mode was excluded from the 2006 HMCFS, as were waterways (there are no navigable waterways in the area). The area does contain natural gas pipelines that were considered outside the scope of the HMCFS. The steep topography of the area was recognized as a factor that inhibited heavy truck movements. National data on hazmat incidents readily available from PHMSA were examined by mode, cause, hazmat class, and con- sequence. The national incident data were compared with state hazmat truck incident data posted by WVDOT and the two were found to be largely in agreement. State crash data previ- ously prepared by WVDOT were analyzed by route and county, as well as for deaths, injuries, and damages. The national 2002 Commodity Flow Survey for commodity shipments originat- ing in West Virginia was reviewed to validate information about modal split and was found to largely agree with local experience. Data collection was methodical. Five sites were chosen on the two major routes in both direc- tions and ranged from exits to rest stops to intersections. Five daytime and nighttime shifts were scheduled (each daynight shift took place on the same day) along I-79 and US 33. Each shift consisted of multiple continuous hours of data collection and was manned by two-person crews (an observer and a recorder).
OCR for page 88
HMCFS Case Studies C-5 Recorded data included UN/NA placard ID, truck body type, and total traffic volume. The lat- ter was recorded in order to compare it to total hazmat traffic and determine the probability of crashes with the aid of the state crash data. Special attention was paid to reporting the observed Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) and the percentages of EHS trucks versus non-EHS trucks. The discussion of findings included confirmation and/or deviation of study findings with respect to national trends. Similarities/differences between hazardous materials transported on a highway and hazardous materials in fixed facilities were noted in the conclusions. Recommen- dations for the future were thoughtful, valuable, and detailed (i.e., what to do better or different next time around, how to use the results of the study further). They included updating the study on a regular basis, comparing it to studies conducted by neighboring counties, expanding the number of data collection sites, including rail and pipeline modes, conducting in-depth vulner- ability and risk assessment, enhancing emergency response, developing a database of fixed facil- ities, standardizing data collection methods, and expanding the number of industries surveyed. In fact, subsequent to the effort, the LEPC used information from the study to develop a risk and vulnerability analysis for their transportation routes and fixed facilities. The data collected by the volunteers were provided to the consultant for final analysis and assim- ilation into a report. Appendices included lists of hazardous materials and EHSs observed in trans- portation and present in fixed facilities, reportable and threshold planning quantities for EHSs, photos of the data collection sites, and typed data sheets from site observations and facility surveys. C.5 Case Study 5: Arizona SERC and Five Arizona LEPCs The study area included portions of five counties (Apache, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and Navaho) in central/eastern Arizona, a largely rural area with a population of less than 100,000 people. A large percentage of the total land area considered is Indian Reservation land. The study focused on the US 60 and US 70 corridors, along which several large communities were located, and the rail lines that run parallel or across them. US 60 is the major corridor between the Phoenix met- ropolitan area and New Mexico, carrying a significant volume of commercial trucks, especially those related to mining activity in the LEPC's area. US 70 also leads to New Mexico and serves private vehicles enroute to state parks. This HMCFS (2008) was conducted to provide accurate information to federal, state, and local officials, to make informed decisions about resource allocation, and better manage the flow of hazardous materials in the study area. The HMCFS also was conducted to provide insight to appropriate entities (e.g., fire departments) in order to enhance emergency response and disas- ter preparedness for incidents. The study was completed in two phases and covered hazmat transportation by truck and rail--the two primary modes of goods movement in the area. The study focused on the US 60 and US 70 corridors (including arterial highways) and rail lines running parallel or across them (i.e., Arizona Eastern Railway and Union Pacific Railroad). Resources consisted of grants from the PHMSA's HMEP Grants Program and the U.S. DHS to the Arizona SERC. A consultant was hired to help conduct the project. The LEPCs considered the involvement of all stakeholders in all stages of the study crucial to ensure the study's goals were met and assure quality control of the contractor's work. As a result, a kick-off meeting was held prior to commencing the study to obtain feedback from stakeholders, including SERC, County Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety (DPS), EPA, fire department, and industry. An interim stakeholder meeting also was held to discuss the status of the placarded truck surveys (e.g., revise data collection sites and proposed modeling methodologies).
OCR for page 89
C-6 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies Tier II information previously requested by AZSERC from fixed facilities was reviewed. It con- sisted of the facility name and description, hazmat name and chemical description, physical/health hazards, number of days on-site, maximum and average material quantities stored on-site, etc. The highway hazmat truck analysis reviewed AZDOT traffic counts and automatic traffic recorder data for all traffic and truck traffic levels along the corridors over various durations. Incident data from the National Response Center and the state DEQ were reviewed. The railroad analysis reviewed the FRA Office of Safety Analysis' accident databases for railroad accidents that resulted in a hazmat release. Between 1999 and 2007 there were 13 highway incidents and 2 rail incidents that resulted in a hazmat release. Data collection on highways consisted of hazmat placarded truck surveys in March 2008, at a total of 13 sites, for 12 days per site, over 12-hour shifts, including 3 night shifts. Data were recorded in 30-minute intervals and included the total number of trucks passing the survey points, number of placarded trucks, placard type and number, and placarded truck type. Two railroads parallel and/or cross the US 60/70 study corridors: the Arizona Eastern Railway (AZER) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). They provided hazmat type, quantity, and fre- quency information on hazardous materials transported along the corridors. The results were illustrated in the project report in the form of bar graphs and pie charts show- ing number and percent by direction of total trucks versus placarded trucks, class and division of placards, and placarded truck type. It was found that percentages of placarded trucks varied greatly by corridor. Also, 13 different hazardous materials were recorded with variations by cor- ridor. Almost all trucks in both surveyed corridors were 5-axle tank tractor-trailers. Computer modeling using EPA's Area Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA) Model, along with the 2004 Emergency Response Guidebook, was used to determine impact radii (evacu- ation distances) in the event of a spill or release of any of the typical hazardous materials observed along the corridors. The results were used to delineate areas of concern along the corridors and overlay them with identified high-risk areas. The risks and consequences of a hazmat spill in the proximity of high-risk areas (e.g., schools, hospitals, environmentally sensitive areas, waterways, and habitats of endangered species) were evaluated and described in the report. Maps based on the Census 2000 Tiger/Line files identified high risk/environmentally sensitive areas and transportation networks ("hotspots"). Future development/industries in the area that had the potential to increase hazmat flows were briefly discussed. Recommendations on areas of improvement for conducting future HMCFS included more attention to statistical significance through increasing consecutive data collection periods and durations, number of sites, and seasonal repetition. A recommendation to improve the general understanding of hazardous materials moving along the transportation corridors in the area was periodic and comprehensive inspections of trucks to include paperwork and loads at various locations and of adequate duration in order to yield a statistically significant sample of hazardous materials moving through the area. Several appendices contained detailed data and results stemming from all sources examined (e.g., site maps, Tier II facilities and information list, number and percent of all-trucks and plac- arded trucks by site and direction, placarded truck types by site, etc.). C.6 Case Study 6: Cambria County, Pennsylvania Cambria County has a population of more than 100,000, is located in the southwestcentral section of Pennsylvania and is approximately equally rural and urban. It consists of 703 square miles and 63 municipalities and is of semi-mountainous terrain. Major highway routes include
OCR for page 90
HMCFS Case Studies C-7 U.S. and state routes, running eastwest and northsouth. The major rail route belongs to Nor- folk Southern (NS). The area's waterways do not support commercial marine transportation. This LEPC has been conducting an HMCFS on an annual basis for the last 12 years (most recently in 2008). The purpose stated in the most recent HMCFS document was the emergency preparedness plan annual update for the 12th consecutive year (i.e., identify response needs and concerns, and enhance education and awareness). Resources consisted of an HMEP grant and community volunteers, whose labor and other related expenses constituted the local match value. The LEPC received a small amount of funding reimbursement from the grant. Historic data for all of the LEPC's previous HMCFS are included in the 2008 HMCFS report. For example, the top five hazardous materials transported by highway and the top 15 hazardous materials transported by rail are listed. A good county profile is presented, describing demo- graphics, economics, special populations, parks, etc. For highway counts, the LEPC performs truck counts on highways around 40 times per year. Local emergency management employees also record hazmat observations when they are "out and about." Although the LEPC recognizes that this method is not as consistent to obtaining specific counts per hour, they feel that this method helps them get a good idea of what is going up and down the roads in their jurisdiction. The participation it promotes has positive benefits as well. For rail data, the local emergency management office is located near train tracks, and since the trains have to slow down there, it is an easy place to conduct counts. Emergency management staff perform railcar counts 3 to 4 hours per day approximately eight times a month during the busy season of JuneAugust and 3 to 4 times per month in AprilMay and SeptOctober. In 2008, they counted 144 trains. The staff take laptop computers and other work they can do in a vehicle and locate the vehicle at the railroad locations for these field operations. When a train comes, they perform the count. The LEPC also surveys the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) facili- ties in conjunction with annual emergency plan updates. By talking with plant managers, the LEPC verifies shipment types that are coming and going to and from facilities, as well as hazmat vehicle/placard counts made during previous years. The most common hazardous materials stored by facilities also were identified in the HMCFS. All SARA facilities in the county receive hazmat shipments via highway. Pipelines and the hazardous materials flowing through them also were listed by a pipeline company. The highest volume commodity was natural gas, and the number one cause of pipeline incidents was excavation. No particular hotspot analysis or map overlay was indicated in the HMCFS document. At-risk populations (e.g., schools, prisons, hospitals) are described in the county profile. The HMCFS are used to make sure training is relevant and to verify that proper equipment is purchased (in some instances, the HMCFS is used as justification). The HMCFS also is distributed to county police and fire departments so they have an idea of what is being transported on roads and rail within their jurisdiction. In the most recent year, the LEPC added a chemical profile sheet for the "top" hazardous materials in their jurisdiction by combining information for rail, highway, and fixed facilities. C.7 Case Study 7: Victoria County, Texas Victoria County is located in the south-central portion of Texas and is approximately equally rural and urban. It consists of nearly 900 square miles and 20 communities. The topography is gently sloping plains. Major highway routes include U.S. and state highway routes, running eastwest and northsouth. The primary community of 60,000 people is in the middle of the county and is the intersection for three U.S. highways, two of which (US 59 and US 77) serve as
OCR for page 91
C-8 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies major coastal corridors between Houston, Texas, and the TexasMexico border area. The major rail route belongs to Union Pacific (UP), with the BNSF Railway and Kansas City & Southern Railway Company (KCS) operating by trackage rights over UP lines. The community has numer- ous pipelines and a waterway that supports commercial marine transportation. Victoria County LEPC conducted an HMCFS in 2009. The purpose of conducting the study was to develop a better understanding of hazmat transport in the county, identify changes to transport patterns since the LEPC's previous HMCFS (1996), and consider hazmat routing des- ignations. A university-based state agency was contracted to help conduct the project. Funding sources included an HMEP grant, in-kind match by the university-based state agency which assisted with the project, and in-kind match provided by the LEPC through volunteer hours. The Texas Division of Emergency Management administered the HMEP grant funds and monitored project performance. A county profile is presented in the project report, describing demographics, transportation and critical facility infrastructures, climate and weather, soil and terrain, and water resources. Transportation network maps for all surface modes and pipelines are included. Most of the volunteer effort was for collecting information about roadway hazmat transport. The project focused on the two major U.S. highways that transect the county and also included major arterials. Overall, over 330 hours of truck traffic observations were recorded for over 24,000 trucks at 16 different locations in the county (travel time and mileage to and from count locations were additional). The volunteer effort was coordinated by local (city and county) emer- gency management. The LEPC was able to obtain a high level of involvement from community members, including staff from a regional hospital, industry, and emergency response agencies. The LEPC facilitated volunteer participation by providing data collection facilities (including a mobile command unit) for protection from summer heat, and scheduling volunteer participa- tion for different times and locations to ensure a broad coverage of data sampling. The data were collected using representative sampling for some roadways, and cluster sampling for priority roadways. Traffic count periods ranged between 15 minutes and several hours. Trucks were counted by configuration (straight and tractor-trailer) and type (box van, refrigerated van, bulk aggregate tank, liquid tank, utility, flatbed, etc.). Placards were identified by the most spe- cific information identifiable by data recorders, up to specific UN/NA placard IDs. The traffic data were evaluated by the university-based state agency and presented to the LEPC in a project report. The percentage of placarded trucks was summarized for different roadways, by truck type and configuration, hazmat class/division, the most frequent placards observed, and higher hazard materials placards observed including toxic inhalation hazard (TIH), violent poly- merization, and water reactive placards. In addition, the percentage of corresponding 2008 ERG numbers based on observed placards also was presented. Initial response guidelines from the ERG were summarized for higher hazard UN/NA placard IDs that were observed. The most frequent UN/NA placard IDs observed in the county were identified. Overall, over 2,250 placards were observed; there were 180 different 4-digit UN/NA placard IDs observed, along with other placards with less-specific information (e.g., "Flammable," etc.) In addition, daily truck traffic patterns were identified for major roadways where data sup- ported development of that information. The project results were validated by comparison with hazardous material and truck traffic observations from an adjacent LEPC's HMCFS, and with TxDOT truck traffic survey estimates. Because of different sampling locations and procedures, information that could be compared directly with the LEPC's 1996 study and the TxDOT data were limited (the 1996 study counted only placarded trucks, not all trucks, and at different loca- tions; the TxDOT study classified vehicles by weight and number of axles, not truck configuration
OCR for page 92
HMCFS Case Studies C-9 or hazardous materials content). However, comparisons for some commodities were able to be made, and it also was determined that overall placarded truck traffic increased substantially. Truck incidents locations resulting in hazmat releases were identified and mapped based on information contained in a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality incident database and PHMSA's HMIS database. Data for transport of hazardous materials by rail were provided by the Class I rail carriers oper- ating over UP trackage in the county and rail summarized by hazmat class and division for major trackage segments, by annual number of carloads. Information also was summarized for TIH, violent polymerization, and water reactive hazardous materials, including number of carloads per segment and initial response guidelines. Waterborne transport of hazardous materials were estimated from the USACE Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 2007, Part 2--Waterways and Harbors, Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System and Antilles report. Materials transportation quantities are limited com- pared with those transported along coastal counties in the state. Pipeline maps were developed using PHMSA NPMS data for different commodity types, and pipelines were assumed to be full and operating (throughput was not evaluated). Project results were distributed to emergency response and emergency management agencies, and the local metropolitan planning organization. The project results raised attention about vehicle placarding requirements relative to license and weight enforcement activities. The infor- mation will be used to identify whether modifications to local hazmat route designations may be needed. The project results also will be used to identify and document equipment and training needs for emergency response agencies, particularly those of smaller communities in the area.