data and information systems for hazardous materials transportation

Chapter 2

Data and Information Systems forHazardous Materials Transportation

. .#’ ,

.

. . . . . . . Source: National Safety Board

Contents

Page

Part 1: Hazardous Materials Flow Databases . . . . . 44National Data Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Data Analysis Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Truck Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Water Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Air Transport. . . . . . . . . . ........+ . . . . . . . . . . . 55State and Local Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +.. 58Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Part II: Accident and Spill InformationSystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Spill Report Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Modal Accident Data Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Carrier Release Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Completeness and Accuracy of HMIS. . . . . . . . . 76HMIS Uses..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

List of Tables

Table No. Page

2-1.2-2.

2-3.

2-4.

2-5.

2-6.

2.7.

2-8.

2-9.

Commodity Flow Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Estimated Transportation of HazardousMaterials by Mode in 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461982 Truck inventory and Use SurveyBreakdown of the Hazardous MaterialsFleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Hazardous Commodity Flows by TruckAccording to the 1977 Five-DigitCommodity Transportation SurveyDatabase . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Gallons byproduct Type Based on theAmerican Petroleum institute Survey ofProducers With Large Proprietary Fleets. . . . 52Fifteen Largest Junction Volumes,1977 and 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Hazardous Commodity Flows by RailAccording to the 1983 Waybill Statistics . . . 54Hazardous Commodity Flows by WaterAccording to the 1982 WaterborneCommerce Statistics Center Database.. . . . . 56Hazardous Commodity Flows by AirAccording to the 1977 Five-DigitCommodity Transportation SurveyDatabase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

2-10. Incident/Accident Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732-n. Waterborne Incidents Reported to the

Commercial Vessel Casualty File by PrimaryCause, 1976-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table No, Page

2-12. Waterborne Incidents Reported to theCommercial Vessel Casualty File by GeneralLocation, 1976-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

2-13. Commercial Vessel Casualty FileComparison With the Hazardous MaterialsInformation System Database, 1976-80 . . . . . 77

2-14. Truck Accidents by General Location Usingthe Truck Accident File, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

2-15. Truck Accident File Reported Injuries andDeaths, 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

2-16. Truck Accident File Comparison WithHazardous Materials Information SystemDatabase, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

2+17. Hazardous Materials Information SystemMisreporting Consequences Using the TruckAccident File Databases, 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

2-18. Hazardous Materials Information SystemMisreporting Consequences Using theNational Response Center Database, 1983.. 78

2-19. Hazardous Materials Information SystemNonreporting Consequences Using theNational Response Center Database, 1983.. 78

2-20. Hazardous Materials Information SystemNonreporting Analysis Using the NationalTransportation Safety Board Database,1976-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

2021. Hazardous Materials Information SystemNonreporting Consequences Using NationalTransportation Safety Board Database,1976-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 79

2-22. Hazardous Materials Information System

2-23

2-24

Misreporting Consequences Using theNational Transportation Safety BoardDatabase, 1976-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Number of Incidents by Location andMode, 1976-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Cause of Failure by Mode, 1976-84 . . . . . . . . 84

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

2-I. Regions Used in This Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472-2. DOT Incident Report Form F5800.1 . . . . . . . . 682-3. HMIS Incidents by Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812-4. General Causes of Spills by Mode According

to the HMIS... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832-5. General Causes for All Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

,,

Chapter 2

Data and Information Systems forHazardous Materials Transportation

Government agencies responsible for the trans-portation of hazardous materials need data aboutmanufacturers, shippers, carriers, commodity flow,and accidents to help them set regulations, plan foraccident prevention and emergency response, andtarget enforcement efforts. The U.S. Departmentof Transportation (DOT) has lead Federal respon-sibility for the transportation of hazardous materi-als, and many related databases are kept by the vari-ous administrations within DOT.

Over the last 10 to 15 years the public has be-come increasingly aware of the special environ-mental and public health damage that hazardousmaterials transportation accidents can cause. Withthis awareness has come an understanding by Stateand local officials that, while they have responsi-bility for public safety in their jurisdictions, they donot fully understand the local risk from the trans-portation of hazardous materials. Moreover, thereis a pervasive feeling that Federal regulations andprograms do not take special local circumstancesinto account and, in any case, may not provide anappropriate and acceptable level of safety. Thesejurisdictions require data about hazardous materi-als transportation in their areas to help them estab-lish regulatory, enforcement, and emergency re-sponse programs that meet their needs.

The level of public knowledge about the amountand destinations of hazardous materials travelingin or near a jurisdiction is generally low, so it isdifficult for policymakers to assess risks for theirarea. * Once officials realize this, often after a severehazardous materials emergency for which the juris-diction found itself ill-prepared, they begin to lookfor information. For example, a 1979 chemical plantfire in downtown Memphis prompted the mayor toinitiate a planning and data-collection effort.

*For example, hazardous wastes and radioactive materials representonly about 1 and 2 percent respectively of the hazardous materialsshipped annually. The health and environmental risks they presentmay be matched or exceeded by those of many other commoditiesshipped routinely, yet these two substances are most frequently thesubject of State and local restrictions.

Photo credit: National Transportation Safety Board

Information gathered by State and local officials aboutcommodity movements has been helpful in assessing

risks and developing routing requirements.

However, acquiring necessary data is not easy.Such data as exist about facilities housing hazard-ous materials usually reside in fire departments orbuilding permit files and are local in nature. For in-formation on through shipments, the first step takenby a State or local jurisdiction is usually to seek assis-tance from Federal data sources. Yet, data and in-formation pertaining to different aspects of haz-ardous materials transportation are kept by eightFederal agencies (see tables 2-1 and 2-10). The datasystems are not interactive and do not use commoncommodity codes to identify the different hazard-ous materials. Furthermore, no Federal agency hasa mandate to compare all the data or to analyzethem for a comprehensive look at hazardous mate-rials transportation patterns, although such infor-mation would be useful to Federal agencies in estab-lishing program priorities.

Once they have determined that Federal resourcesare not helpful, some States and local jurisdictionshave undertaken their own studies. After decidingwhat types of information will be most useful, theycan tailor their efforts to meet specific needs. Inmany cases, demands for better Federal data havebeen voiced.1 The increasing interest in better in-—— --—

]The National League of Cities requested formulation of a Federaldatabase on hazardous materials commodity flow as part of its 1985transportation policy position.

41

Table 2=1.—Commodity Flow Databases

Commodity ConversionDatabases Kept by Years Modes codes table Strengths Weakness/drawbacks

Federal:Commodity Bureau of the 1977 All 5-digit STCC Y e s ● M u l t i m o d a l ● Only 5-digit level of commoditiesTransportation Census . Consistent selection procedure for ● No hazardous materials flagsSurvey (CTS) all sample data points for all modes ● Only shipments from manufac.

● Cross-checked against the cen- turing sites to first destinationssus of manufacturers ● Only “principal” mode is reported

Truck Inventory Bureau of the 1977, Highway Simple N o ● Covers all trucks used in the ● No f low dataand Use Survey Census 1982 classes United States Only rudimentary commodity

. Contains hazardous materials- informationrelated data items . Tractor database, not a trailer

. Sample biased toward heavy database—reflects tractor use,trucks not trailer use

Motor Carrier Bureau of Motor Most Highway Hazard No ● Comprehensive listing of carriers . No flow dataCensus Carrier Safety, recent classes and truck fleet operators . Mileage and fleet size data are

F H W A 5 years sparse

Radioactive Office of 1982 to Highway N o t ● Almost complete flow data for ● Data is often not recorded forMaterials Routing Hazardous 3 present applicable highway route controlled quanti- months after shipmentReport Materials ties of radioactive materials ● Material description not always

Transportation ● Gives highway route data complete

Waybill File Interstate At least Rail, TOFC/ 7-digit STCC Yes ● Well-organized sample (1 ‘/0) of all ● Not all hazardous material flowsCommerce past 12 COFC rail flows use the special hazardousCommission years . Database is consistent enough materials STCC

to allow trend analyses● Contains some routing information

Waterborne Com- Army Corps of At least Water, 4-digit WCSC Only to a ● ** "100%" sample of all vessel Only 163 commodity codes inmodity Statistics Engineers 12 years domestic and code limited movements all, so level of detail is weak

international extent ● Complete routing information . Conversion table has some in-correct cross-references

States: States, for the Varies Primarily Either EPA No ● “100%” sample of all hazardous Many States do not computer-Hazardous Waste EPA highway codes or waste shipments ize the dataShipment Data OHMT . Actual flow data ● No consistency to commodity

code usage● No routing information

Private:TRANSEARCH, Consulting firms Varies All Varies, up to Yes . Cross-checked against other ● Truck flows predominantlyFREIGHTSCAN, 7-digit for rail production/consumption data based on the CTS dataetc. . Melding of the best available for (see above)

each mode

TRAIN II Association Current Rail, 7-digit STCC Yes ● “100°/0” data on all movements Not specifically designed toof American TOFC/COFC for participating railroads record car movement historiesRailroads . Routing information Not in the public domain

National Motor Consulting 1977 to Highway Varies, up to Yes, where ● Focuses on long-distance high- . Purposely excludes short-haulTruck Data Base firms present 7-digit STCC commodity way flows truck movements, especially in

code is ● True flow data the Northeastprovided . Describes the vehicle used to ● Not in the public domain

carry the commodityACRONYMS: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; FHWA = Federal Highway Administration; OHMT = Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration; STCC

= Standard Transportation Commodity Code; TOFC/COFC = trailer on flatcar (piggy back)/container on flatcar; WCSC = Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center (Army Corps of Engineers).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Ch. 2—Data and Information Systems for Hazardous Materials ● 4 3

formation on movements of hazardous materials andmore complete and reliable data on accidents andreleases led Congress to identify an analysis of avail-able Federal data and information resources as a spe-cific focus for this Office of Technology Assessment(OTA) report.

By law, DOT is required to report annually onthe safety of hazardous materials transportation, in-cluding:

1. a thorough statistical compilation of any acci-dents and casualties involving the transporta-tion of hazardous materials, and

2. an evaluation of the effectiveness of enforce-ment activities and the degree of voluntarycompliance with applicable regulations.2

To be responsive to this requirement and preparean accurate report, DOT would need a comprehen-sive record of accidents and spills related to hazard-ous materials and some idea of how much hazard-ous material is transported annually by each mode.OTA research shows that, in fact, DOT has an in-complete record of accidents and spills and has nodocumentable idea of how much hazardous mate-rial is transported. Moreover, Research and SpecialPrograms Administration (RSPA) officials told OTAthat data collection was a secondary function, de-spite its importance to safety and risk analysis.

Furthermore, because DOT has made no ongo-ing effort to study hazardous commodity flow, it can-not reliably determine accident rates for variouscommodities or the containers in which they arecarried, or pinpoint high-accident locations or spe-cial circumstances. Without sufficient data and ac-cident analysis, DOT cannot plan adequately or setpriorities for changing container and vehicle regu-lations to address risks and problems or evaluatetechnology advances. For a general discussion of thenature of risk assessment, see box 2A.

With OTA assistance, a contractor collected andstudied relevant databases and other informationcurrently kept by a number of Federal agencies. Tocheck the Federal sources for accuracy and complete-ness, OTA looked for outside resources; States, 1o-cal jurisdictions, and industries provided helpfuldata.

This chapter includes the findings of the OTAcontractor’s exhaustive investigation of the current

249 U.S.C. 1808(e) and 33 U.S.C. 173(C) (173.51-59).

Box 2A.—Risk Assessment

Risk assessment involves estimating the frequen-cies and consequences of undesirable events, thenevaluating the associated risk in quantitative terms.‘The process of risk assessment serves to organizethinking about risks, permitting the judgments ofinterdisciplinary teams of experts to be integratedin a systematic way. It also helps identify risks thatmight not have been thought of otherwise and itmotivates improvements in data collection bypointing out database deficiencies. The results ofrisk assessment provide knowledge essential to in-formed decisionmaking.

Public concern is greatest about risks that areinvoluntary, uncontrolled, unfamiliar, immediatemanmade, and catastrophic.{ Hazardous materialstransportation possesses many and sometimes allof these attributes. Risk assessments can help to ad-dress two fundamental questions, one quantitativeand objective and one qualitative and subjective:What is the level of risk? and What levels of riskare acceptable to the parties concerned? The firstquestion is relatively readily addressed with ade-quate data and proper methodology, whereas thesecond question involves numerous judgments andoften a great deal of discussion and negotiation,especially when large numbers of people and sev-eral governmental jurisdictions are involved.Professional risk assessment places heavy empha-sis on quantitative results. Where policy issues areinvolved, however, and involuntary risks exist,such as those associated with the transportationof hazardous materials, qualitative judgments areimportant.

The question of risk acceptability is complicatedfurther by the fact that some of the concerned par-ties may have risk perceptions that differ substan-tially from the actual risks. Risk equity, the appro-priate distribution of risks among differentmembers of society, is another complicating factor.

NC. Rasmussen, “The Application of Probabilistic Risk AssessmentTechniques to Energy Technologies,” Annual Review of Energy, vol.6, 1981, pp. 123-138.

Federal collection and analysis of information oncommodity flows, accidents, and spills associatedwith the transportation of hazardous materials. ] Inaddition, State and local data-collection efforts were

%fark Abkowltz and George List, “Ha:ardous Materials Transpor-tation: Commodity Flow and Information System s,” OTA contra~-tor report, Januar}. 1986. This report is oia]lable from OTA on request.

44 ● Transportation of Hazardous Materials

reviewed to determine what information was deemeduseful and whether Federal data could provide a re-source. An OTA workshop and numerous personalinterviews also provided information. Part I of thechapter deals with commodity flow data and Part11 with incidents or releases.* Part I focuses on thequantity and quality of commodity flow (movement)data currently available to:

. identify existing Federal hazardous materials-related databases that provide information onhazardous materials movements, and investi-gate their potential use to develop geographicflow trends and to understand the relative im-

—.. —.- —.-—Vhe Research and Special Programs Administration refers to a re-

lease of a hazardous material during transportation as an incident. Thereis no agreement on the definition of an incident among the other groupscollecting data. OTA will hereafter refer to releases rather than in-cidents.

portance of all modes of transport for differentregions; and

. identify State and local data-collection effortsand evaluate the need for a standardized data-base on hazardous materials transportationmovement.

Part II explores hazardous materials transport re-lease and accident reporting requirements, informa-tion systems, and release and accident trends.Among the issues addressed are:

●

●

●

the institutional background of release report-ing and data collection;the completeness and adequacy of the presentreporting systems, and ways to make them moreuseful; andstatistical analyses of the frequency of releasesand related causes and consequences.

PART 1: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FLOW DATABASES

Identifying hazardous material flow-related data-bases is a complex task. Flow, vehicle and vesselfleets, and travel network data must be consideredfor all four major freight modes–truck, rail, marine,and air.** Moreover, many diverse organizationsmaintain different pieces of relevant information;these organizations include Federal agencies, Stateand local governments, trade associations, carriers,shippers, and consulting firms.

National Data Resources

Several databases are needed to describe the flowsfor the hazardous materials transportation network.Table 2-1 shows the major sources of hazardous ma-terials flow data and indicates the commodities andmodes covered by each one. For example, the 1977Commodity Transportation Survey (CTS), collectedby the U.S. Bureau of the Census, provides waysto estimate market shares and shipment trends.However, it lacks shipment data on major hazard-ous cargoes—waste materials, agricultural products,and raw materials, such as crude petroleum and nat-ural fertilizers. Moreover, it reflects only shipmentsfrom the point of manufacture to the first destina-

**Thl~ ~ep{)rt does not consider pipelines which transport somewhatmore than half of all hazardous materials.

tion, often a warehouse, missing all subsequentmovements in the distribution chain. There is nospecific focus on hazardous materials, meaning anal-ysis is limited by the data contained in the com-modity flows themselves, and it is not always possi-ble to determine what percentage of the shipmentsare hazardous. Data submission is voluntary, cre-ating unknown biases due to nonreporting. Thescope of the survey is heavily dependent on Fed-eral budget priorities, and the questions asked arenot consistent, making trend analyses difficult.Moreover, the Bureau collects data at 5-year inter-vals and typically takes 2 years to release the data.Recently, budget constraints have made heavy in-roads on many of the Bureau’s activities. Data fromthe 1983 CTS was scheduled to be released late in1985; however, the Bureau decided not to releasethe results, because the data was faulty and inade-quate for analysis. Because the transportation in-dustries have changed dramatically since 1977, nothaving more recent data is a severe handicap.

Despite these problems, the CTS is the only na-tional multimodal database available. Other orga-nizations, such as State and local governments, donot collect similar information. They rely either onthe CTS directly or on its interpretation and en-hancement by consulting firms for their multimodal

— —

Ch. 2—Data and Information Systems for Hazardous Materials . 45

flow information.* Consulting firms use the CTS,supplemented heavily with other modal sources, toimprove the quality of the data.4

Separate, relatively complete databases are avail-able for rail and marine transport. Because thesample waybill data collected by the Interstate Com-merce Commission (ICC) has recently been in-creased to include about 6 percent of all shipments,it is adequate for determining rail flows. Addition-ally, although costly and difficult to obtain, the pro-prietary TRAIN II data, kept by the Association ofAmerican Railroads (AAR), provides much morecomplete information representing 100 percent dataon at least 80 percent of the rail shipments.

The data for marine vessel movements are essen-tially complete, although the marine commodityclassifications are very broad, making it difficult todetermine what specific commodities are being trans-ported. Only 163 identifying codes are provided, ofwhich only 30 pertain to hazardous materials. Ad-ditionally, no computer indicator is provided toshow that a specific flow involved a hazardous ma-terial.

The available data for truck and air shipments aremuch less helpful. The absence of better truck datais an enormous gap, since trucks carry the most haz-ardous materials tonnage in the largest number ofvehicles, giving the highway mode the most wide-spread public impact. The CTS is helpful for truckmovements, but in addition to the shortcomingsmentioned earlier, it misses some major flows. Datafrom the Truck Inventory and Use Survey (TI&U),which is also collected by the Bureau of the Census;and the Motor Carrier Census, which is collectedby the Federal Highway Administration’s Bureauof Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS), provide some use-ful information. However, these sources give onlytruck and truck-mile data for hazardous materialsmovements, not graphic flow information. The onlyother independent resource is the National MotorTruck Database, a private sector initiative, whichis limited by an intentional bias toward long-haulshipments and does not cover the Northeast.

*TWO examples are FREIGHTSCAN, marketed by Data Resources,Inc., Lexington, MA, and TRANSEARCH, marketed by Reebie Asso-ciates, Greenwich, CT.

4Data Resources, Inc., “FREIGHTSCAN Technical Documenta-tion,” prepared by the Transportation and Logistics Service, Lexing-ton, MA, no date.

The CTS is the only public database for air ship-ments, and its air flow data is incomplete, as OTAlearned from checking other data, Using a hybriddeveloped from all data available, OTA estimatedaggregate modal commodity flows as shown intable 2-2.

Specialized Databases

Hazardous Wastes.—U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) regulations require every haz-ardous waste shipment to have a manifest,; copiesof which are submitted to the State and eventually

to the EPA regional office. Thus, in theory, a com-plete hazardous waste flow database exists. In prac-tice, however, the extent of computerization varieswidely from one EPA region to another, and OTAdid not find any complete flow records. Neverthe-less, an outgrowth of the manifest requirement isthat States generally have good information onwaste movements and carriers. In some cases, theStates are collecting and computerizing the data forEPA. Carriers also have fairly complete data, eventhough they are not actually responsible for prepar-ing the manifests.

Radioactive Materials.–The data on radioactiveshipments are also relatively complete. The U.S. De-partment of Energy (DOE) maintains a list of allhigh-level radioactive shipments, and it conductssurveys of the low-level radioactive shipments. Onesuch survey was conducted in 1975,6 and a secondwas recently completed. ? DOT compiles data oncompleted highway shipments of radioactive mate-rials. More than 1,000 shipments have beenrecorded since January 1982 in the Radioactive Ma-terials Routing Report (RAMRT) from DOE, theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), andNRC-licensed shippers. However, the RAMRT datamay not be recorded for as long as 1 year after ashipment is made, because regulations do not allowrelease of routing information until after the entire

>U s Environmental Protection Agency,. . “Identificat]~>n and List-ing of Hazardous Waste,” 40 CFR, Part 261, ~otcmhcr ]~)s+, PP.

345.378.‘J.L. Simmons, et al., Bartelle Pacific Norch\\est Laboratories, SLIr--

vey of Radioactive Marerials Shipments in the U. S., NUREG-0073(Richland, WA: Sandia National Laboratories, 19~6).

‘Harold S. ]avits, et al., Transport of Radioactit’e Materia) in theUnited States, SAND 84-7174 (Albuquerque, NM: Sandia NationalLaboratories, April 1985).


Table 2-2.–Estimated Transportation of Hazardous Materials by Mode in 1982

Number of vehicles/vesselsMode used for hazardous materials Tons transported Ton-miles

Truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337,000 dry freight or 927 million 93.6 billionflat bed

130,000 cargo tanksRail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,600 tank cars 73 million 53 b i l l iona

Waterborne. . . . . . . . . . 4,909 tanker barges 549 million 636.5 biliionAir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,772 commercial planes 285 thousand 459 million

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 billion 784 billionaTechnic.ally 1953 data; 1982 data had too many tYrOrS to aiiow Calculations.

SOURCE: OTA calculations based on Federal data augmented by other resources.

shipment is completed. Thus the data are useful pri-marily from a historical viewpoints

Data Analysis Issues

To derive useful information on flows for all com-modities, OTA contractors had to address three is-sues before beginning data analysis:

1. What geographical regions should be used inreporting hazardous material flows?

2. What lists of codes should be used in selectinghazardous commodities from the databases?

3. What process should be used in assigning DOThazard classes to the various commodity codes?

National data resources may not provide State orlocal flow data at the level of detail that is desiredfor planning or response. However, regional andState-to-State flow patterns can be obtained and pro-vide helpful information. Figure 2-1 shows the nineregional areas used for this study. The regions cor-respond closely to those used by the Bureau of Eco-nomic Analysis in the U.S. Department of Com-merce and to the economic regions of the Nation.They reflect the concentrations of chemical and pe-troleum production in the West South Central re-gion and manufacturing in the South and MiddleAtlantic regions.

Hazardous commodities are defined for this anal-ysis as all commodities listed in 49 CFR, Section 172,including everything from virgin materials to radio-active materials and hazardous wastes. At least 11hazardous materials commodity codes are used bythe different Federal agencies. These include: the—— . .

‘Charles E. Sell and Bradford W. Welles, Sandia National Labora-tories, An Assessment of the U.S. Department of TransportationRadioactive Materials Routing Report (Washington, DC: InternationalEnergy Associates Ltd., January 1Q86), pp. 22-23.

RSPA codes (used in DOT’s Hazardous MaterialsInformation System (HMIS) spill database); theEPA codes;9 the United Nations/North American(UN/NA) codes;10 the Standard TransportationCommodity Codes (STCC),ll of which there aretwo versions, the standard codes and the “49” ser-ies codes specifically established for hazardous ma-terials; the National Motor Freight Classifications(NMFC); 12 the Army Corps of Engineers codes(AE);13 and several Bureau of the Census codes,the Transportation Commodity Codes for domes-tic shipments (1977 Census),14 the Standard Indus-trial Classification (SIC) codes for the 1983 Census(technically speaking, the SIC codes are developedand maintained by the Bureau of Economic Anal-ysis, Department of Commerce),15 the Schedule Acodes for imports, and the Schedule E codes for ex-ports.

No two databases use the same identifying codenumbers. For example:

the railroad waybill file uses seven-digit STCCs,both 49-series and regular codes;

‘U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit.IOU.S. Department of Transportation, Materiais Transportation Bu-

reau, “Hazardous Materials Tables and Hazardous Materials Commu-nications Regulations, ” 49 CFR 172, pp. 69-336, November 1984.

‘[Interstate Commerce Commission, Standard Transportation Com-modity Code Tariff, STCC 6001-M (Chicago, IL: Western Trunk LineCommittee, Jan. 1, 1985).

IJlnterstate Commerce Commission, Nationa~ )vforor Freight Clas-sification (Washington, DC: American Trucking Association, May 18,1985).

‘]U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of theUnited States (New Orleans, LA: Waterborne Commerce Statistics Cen-ter, 1984).

“U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Instruc-tions for Completing the Commodity Transportation Survey, 1977Census of Transportation, Form TC-402 (Washington, DC: Sept. 20,1977),

15U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,Survey of Current Business (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, monthly).

Ch. 2—Data and Information Systems for Hazardous Materials ● 4 7—

Figure 2-1 .—Regions Used in This Analysis

Alaska and HawaiiA & H “ v Unknown

U N K


●

●

the CTS uses five-digit STCCs; andthe waterborne commerce database uses four-digit Schedule A and Schedule E codes for im-ports and exports, respectively. See table 2-1 fora summary.

The codes are all used simultaneously, yet very fewcross-reference tables have been developed. OTAcontractors identified only five:

1.

2.

3.

a conversion file between 49-Series STCCs,regular STCCs, and UN/NA codes maintainedby AAR;16

a STCC to SIC conversion table at the four-digit SIC level maintained by AAR, which isin hard copy only;17

an NMFC to STCC conversion table main-tained by the American Trucking Association(ATA);18

of American Railroads, Price of Publications DC: September

‘; Ibid. Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc.,

(Washington, DC: June 14, 1971).

4. an Army Corps of Engineers’ conversion file

5.

between AE commodity codes for water andthe Bureau of the Census’ Schedules A and Ecodes for imports and exports; anda SIC, Schedule A, Tariff Schedules of theUnited States Annotated, and Schedule Etranslation file maintained by the Bureau of theCensus.

The UN/NA numbers appear only once. RSPAand EPA numbers do not appear on any conver-sion table, a serious omission, as they are the twoagencies charged most directly with responsibilityfor hazardous materials information.

Finally, hazardous commodity lists cannot be gen-erated through computerized selection, making con-siderable preparatory analysis necessary to developcomparable data. For example, in the case of theSchedules A and E codes, a computer process gen-erated a long list of nonhazardous commodities andmissed two major hazardous commodities. For thisstudy, as the database-specific commodity lists weredeveloped, each commodity was given a hazard class

48 . Transportation of Hazardous Materials

distinction, so that spill rate statistics could be com-pleted. RSPA has not identified hazard classes forany commodity list except its own, so suitable meth-ods had to be developed to link hazard classes andcommodities. This process was complex, and exceptfor the 49-series STCCs, the hazard class assign-ments were not readily definable and required con-siderable judgment.

Truck Transport

Truck transport is the sector with the poorestdata, yet it presents the most widespread public risk.Consequently, available data resources for this modewill be described in detail. Three principal nationaldatabases are available publicly to help analyzetrucking flows: the 1977 CTS and the 1977 and 1982TI&U. However, none presents a complete picture,nor were any designed to do so. The CTS providesorigin-to-destination flow data on shipments frommanufacturing plants to first destinations only, miss-ing the rest of the distribution chain and all non-manufactured goods.

TI&U provides a global picture of truck use, butlacks any origin to destination flow information orprecise definition of commodities. The 1977 and1982 TI&U surveys were both used for this report.

The 1977 TI&U contains information on eachvehicle’s registration and vehicle identification num-ber; physical characteristics such as size, type ofbody, engine size, transmission type, and brakingsystem; operator class (private, for-hire, owner-operator, etc.); range of operation (e.g., 50 to 200miles); annual mileage; percentage of mileage in thehome State; commodities carried (by percent ofmiles); and percentage of miles carrying hazardousmaterials. It is based on voluntary responses fromthe owners of the vehicles selected. It has no cross-checks except the State registration files from whichthe survey vehicles were selected. The 1982 TI&Ucontains data on the character and use of slightlyover 90,000 trucks, a State-to-State sample drawnfrom an estimated universe of 35 million.

Supplementary information is available in the Mo-tor Carrier Census, maintained by BMCS, whichcontains profiles of approximately 250,000 motorcarriers. The database is used primarily to monitorcarrier safety, and contains each carrier’s State baseof operations, the States served, the type of com-

modities carried and, for hazardous materials, thekind of container and tank or package used to carrycommodities in each of the hazard classes designatedby RSPA. Also, it contains information on the car-rier’s classification, such as: ICC common; ICC ex-empt; private; miles operated; number of drivers;and number of trucks, truck tractors, and trailers,segmented by type of ownership—owned, leased, ortrip-leased.

The ICC Waybill Sample contains data on truckshipments that make use of rail for some portionof the move, such as piggyback or container on flat-car/truck on flatcar shipments.

Trade organizations generally do not keep flowdata. ATA, for example, keeps only aggregate sta-tistics on tons and ton-miles. Moreover, the firmssubmitting data are principally less-than-truckloadcarriers, so information about bulk shipments islacking. Shipper organizations, like the AmericanPetroleum Institute (API), the Chemical Manufac-turers Association, the Petroleum Marketers Asso-ciation, and the National Association of ChemicalDistributors, are in much the same position as ATA.

Individual firms, however, do keep data on theirown movements. Trucking firms generally keep com-puterized traffic databases that include origin, des-tination, commodity (by a variety of codes), ship-ment weight, and shipment date. Major shippers,like the large chemical and petroleum companies,also keep computerized data on their truck ship-ments. They record origin, destination, commodity(often on the basis of some marketing codingscheme), shipment weight, and shipment date.

Other types of data are kept by consulting firms,such as Transportation Research and Marketing,which has developed a National Motor Truck Database (NMTDB).19 Established to develop market-ing information by AAR in 1977, NMTDB containsinformation on approximately 36,000 movementsper year, some 4,000 of which involve hazardousmaterials. The data is collected at 18 selected truckstops, typically in the West and Midwest, to samplelong-haul moves. The database includes origin cityand State, destination city and State, commodity,vehicle characteristics, operator characteristics, andan operator profile. It is cross-checked to a limited

l~F~~~C~~ M ~~~kin and K. EriC Wolfe, “Rail-Competitive TruckCharacteristics, 1977 -1982,” unpublished typescript, 1983.


extent against fuel sales at the truck stops and vol-ume counts on selected Interstates.

The TI&U shows that in 1982, 467,000 truckswere involved in carrying hazardous materials andcollectively generated 1.6 billion truck-miles. Thiscompares to 327,000 trucks and 1.3 billion truck-miles in the 1977 TI&U. The data show a 43 per-cent growth in the fleet size and a 23 percent growthin truck-miles compared to 1977 data, or 6 and 4percent per year, respectively. The vehicles were pre-dominantly either large, private tank trucks carry-ing petroleum and chemicals most of the time, orvans operated by for-hire carriers carrying hazard-ous materials less than 25 percent of the time. Mixedshipments were carried by 24 percent of the trucksand represented 35 percent of the truck-miles.

Trucks and Truck-Miles Based on the1977 and 1982 Tl&U Surveys

Table 2-3 shows the truck fleet breakdown for1982. The comparable data for 1977 may be sum-marized as follows. Liquid tank trucks accountedfor 30 percent of the fleet and 57 percent of thetruck-miles. About 65 percent of the trucks had anoperating range under 200 miles and accounted for56 percent of the truck-miles. The trucks that oper-ated over 200 miles accounted for 21 percent of thefleet and generated 40 percent of the truck-miles.Private carriers operated 78 percent of the trucksand generated 52 percent of the truck-miles. ICCcommon carriers were the second largest in size, at12 percent of the fleet, and they generated 26 per-cent of the truck-miles. The common carrier trucks

Table 2-3.-1982 Truck Inventory and Use Sunrey Breakdown of the HazardousMaterials Fleet (467,000 trucks; 16,236 million truck-miles)

Trucks Truck-MitesStatistic (thousands) (millions)

Percent of miles Involved incarrying hazardous materials:Below 25°/0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25-490/o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50-74%0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75-1000/0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Not reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

243.8117.020.580.3

5.0

10,2822,971

7762,191

15

B o d y t y p e

Van . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tank (liquid) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .All other (28 categories). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Principal product:Mixed cargoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .All other (24 categories). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gross weight (lbs):10,000 or less (2 categories) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19,501-33,000 (2 categories). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40,001-50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . .50,001-60,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60,001-80,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .All other (8 categories). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Range of operation:Within 50 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50-200 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Over 200 miles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Off-road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Not reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Operator class:Business use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Motor carrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Owner/operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .All other (5 categories). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

140.8130.3195.5

113.5136.660.3

156.2

122.590.836.134.4

110.971.9

269.790.973.132.3

0.6

275.8153.321.116.4

7,0164,3174,903

5,7163,4912,0694,960

1,8181,5781,4791,9838,0831,295

4,8884,0756,749

525—

6,2008,3911,423

222SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

50 Transportation of Hazardous Materials

were driven 76,000 miles per truck per year, andthe private trucks 22,000 miles.

The smaller trucks were used for local movements,while the larger ones dominated for operations over200 miles. In fact, more than 85 percent of the “over200 mile” truck-miles were in vehicles weighing60,001 to 80,000 pounds. In addition, detectablepopulations of large trucks contributed to both fleetsize and truck-miles in the under- and over-200 milecategories. The States with the largest fleets werePennsylvania, California, and Ohio; those that hadthe most truck-miles were Ohio, Texas, and Penn-sylvania.

Tons and Ton-Miles by Hazard Class

The two largest hazard classes transported bytruck are flammable liquids and Poison B, regard-less of whether measured by tons or ton-miles. Poi-son A, flammable compressed gas, and flammablesolid are the next most important classes by ton-nage; flammable solid, combustible liquid, and cor-rosive material are most important according toton-miles.

The 1977 TI&U showed the truck-mile break-down among commodities as 47 percent petroleum,17 percent chemicals, and 36 percent “all other.”In contrast, the CTS reported the ton-mile break-down as 36 percent petroleum, 53 percent chemi-cals, and 11 percent “all other,” thus clearly miss-ing much of the petroleum flow. Furthermore, theCTS shows 65 million tons of petroleum beingshipped by truck in 1977, whereas data supplied byAPI for 1984 indicates at least 105 million tons weredelivered by truck. Petroleum consumption declinedduring the 7-year period. Moreover, the CTS showsno petroleum flow in the Southeast, one of the threelargest flows in the API data.

Partial compensation for the missing petroleumflows can be made by assuming that all of the ma-rine and pipeline shipments of gasoline, distillates,and kerosene are eventually made by truck. Thisassumption boosts the CTS tonnage estimate from133 million tons to 566 million tons, or more thana fourfold increase. Region-to-region flow patternsbased on this hybrid database are shown in table2-4. Seventy-two percent of the flows are intra-regional, led by shipments in the West South Cen-tral, East North Central, and Pacific Southwest re-

●

gions. Classified by hazard class, the CTS data showflammable liquid is the largest class, whether meas-ured in tons or ton-miles. The next largest categoryis Poison B, reflecting the chemical shipments. Thesestatistics must be viewed as best estimates, however,because the completeness of the commodity flowdata is questionable, and the specificity of the com-modity definitions is limited.

Petroleum and gasoline shipments account foralmost half of all truck transport of hazardous ma-terials. To offset the lack of petroleum truck ship-ment data in the CTS, OTA requested assistancefrom the API Transportation Committee. API con-ducted a survey of oil companies that operate pri-vate truck fleets and received responses from nineof the largest companies. Each provided a profileof the distribution patterns at its terminals, brokendown by type of product and type of delivery–whether by proprietary fleet or jobber. * Moreover,for the proprietary deliveries, they provided mini-mum, average, and maximum delivery distances.

The API survey covers 519 terminals, located in45 of the 50 States, including Hawaii and the Dis-trict of Columbia. The States with the most termi-nals are California with 31, Pennsylvania with 30,and Texas with 28. The survey showed shipmentsof 27 billion gallons of gasoline (over 25 percent ofthe national total); 1.0 billion gallons of diesel fuel(2 percent); 1.3 billion gallons of distillates (5 per-cent); and 0.8 billion gallons of other products, prin-cipally aviation gasoline, Jet A, and turbine fuel.

Among these, 44 percent of the gallons are deliv-ered by jobbers. In fact, jobbers deliver 78 percentof petroleum products other than gasoline and 39percent of the gasoline (see table 2-5). Hence, oilcompanies have only partial responsibility for high-way movements of petroleum. The average deliv-ery distance is short, at 28 miles, and distances donot differ markedly by geographic region—the max-imum delivery distances are all less than 250 miles.

Chemicals represent the second largest categoryof hazardous materials transported by truck. TheTI&U data show that 13 percent of the trucks car-rying hazardous materials 75 to 100 percent of theirmiles were hauling chemicals and generated 17 per-

*A jobber is an independent petroleum marketer, who buys a truck-load of product from the petroleum company at the terminal and de-livers it as a private marketer to his own customers.

Table 2-4.—Hazardous Commodity Flows by Truck According to the 1977 Five. Digit Commodity Transportation Survey Databasea

All flows in thousands of tons: Middle East North East South West North West South Pacific Pacific Alaska &From !/To - New England Atlantic South Atlantic Central Central Central Central Northwest Southwest Hawaii Unknownb All

New England . . . . . 13,863 136 36 202 26 20 28 7 35 0 0 14,353Middle Atlantic . . . . 1,077 63,020 3,056 2,022 269 265 475 34 246 1 20 70,485South Atlantic. . . . . 238 949 43,482 766 474 226 167 3 114 1 342 46,772East North

Central. . . . . . . . . 257 1,009 953 110,434 790 2,696 522 53 316 3 25 117,058East South

Central. . . . . . . . . 132 341 787 587 9,251 282 352 11 158 0 7 11,908West North

Central. . . . . . . . . 7 57 75 520 74 22,152 229 1,572 2,518 0 3 27,207West South

Central. . . . . . . . . 58 729 803 1,006 3,651 573 171,379 63 840 0 1,222 180,324Pacific Northwest . . 0 1 3 1 0 285 1 18,846 70 1 0 19,208Alaska and

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . – — — — — — — — — 3,146 — 3,146Pacific Southwest . . 9 415 17 132 43 110 66 656 73,244 2 1,005 75,699

All . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,641 66,657 49,212 115,680 14,578 26,609 173,219 21,245 77,541 3,154 2,624 566,160alt Was assumed that all shipments Of gamine, distillates, and kerosene by marine and pipeline utilized t~ck for final delivew.bljnknown Includes pIJSIrfO Rico, Virgin Islands, other U.S. tWt’ifOrieS, and for~gn.Note: Boldface indicates top five flows, for example, 171,379

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment

g)(n

s3Cn

Cn


Table 2-5.—Gallons by Product Type Based on the American Petroleum instituteSurvey of Producers With Large Proprietary Fleets (519 Terminals)

Proprietary delivery Jobber delivery

Number of Gallons Average Number of GallonsProduct terminals (mil l ions) distance (miles) terminals (mil l ions)

Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 16,544 28 424 10,588Diesel fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 251 39 81 830Other distillates. . . . . . . . . . 88 486 32 160 959Propane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 — 71 469Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Turbine fuel . . . . . . . . . . . 2 75 — 5 37Jet fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 17 — 19Aviation gasoline. . . . . . . 0 1

All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349a 17,373 28 497a 13,604aTh{s i9 not a total of this column. Of the 519 terminals, 349 had proprietary delivev, and 497 h~ jobber delivery.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment,

cent of the truck-miles. A State-to-State analysis ofthe CTS indicates 59.7 million tons of chemicalswere moved by truck. About 60 percent of thechemical flow was intraregional led by the WestSouth Central, South Atlantic, and Middle Atlanticregions with an average length of haul of 253 miles.

At OTA’s request, several major chemical com-panies provided flow data on their 1983 and 1984shipments of hazardous materials. Each of the data-bases included origin State, destination State, com-modity, tons, and number of shipments. Combined,the firms encompass 5 percent of the tons for theflows shown in the State-to-State the CTS data. Theprivate flow data agreed with the CTS on 8 of the10 largest movements, although their rankings dif-fer, indicating that the CTS may be a reasonablereflection of the major flows, although the actualvolumes are questionable.

Railroads

Commodity flow analysis is the easiest for rail-roads. The ICC waybill database, while encompass-ing a 1 to 6 percent sample of all railcars, providesinformation on every movement of these cars, withthe exception of detailed routing information. It isnot possible to tell which of two or more possibletracks a car has traveled between origin and desti-nation. The waybill shows origin and destinationcity and State, commodity (seven-digit STCC),number of cars, shipment weight, shipment cost railrevenue, and the railroad junctions traversed. It isbased on carloads terminated by all the Class I car-riers and some of the Class IIs and Class IIIs. Since

AAR took responsibility for collecting the waybillsand preparing the samples in 1983, numerous editsand cross-checks have been introduced, and thequality of the sample has improved.

AAR, the major rail trade organization, maintainsa comprehensive database, TRAIN II, on the move-ments of about 80 percent of all railcars. Each rail-road participating in TRAIN II submits location andstatus information on all the cars on its lines. Ship-pers, many of whom own their own railcars, andother railroads can determine daily where their carsare and their respective status. For each car, thedatabase includes present location at an origin, des-tination, or intermediate point; empty/loaded sta-tus; and the commodity being carried (seven-digitSTCC). AAR presently uses TRAIN II to developsummaries of hazardous material flows; it has pre-pared tables of carload originations and termina-tions by STCC for each State, as well as tablesshowing U.S. flows for all hazardous commodities,ranked by total carloadings.

Most railroads, and certainly the major ones,maintain traffic flow databases. A few keep timesand locations for all events in the car movementcycle,2o while most keep waybill data, such as ship-per, consignee, online and offline origins and des-tinations, cars, tons, and revenue.

This analysis of hazardous materials transportedby rail was based on the waybill files for the years1972 to 1983, and examination of the 1977 CTS.

20GeOrge Fe List, et al., Evaluation of MoPac’s Freight Car Sch~Ul-

ing Sysrem, FRA-ORRP-8 1-3 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofTransportation, 1981).


Between 1972 and 1983, the total number of haz-ardous records in the waybill file grew from 11,388to 15,687, a compounded increase of 3 percent ayear. For 1983, the waybill file indicates 73 milliontons of hazardous commodities were transported byrail, generating 53 billion ton-miles. Chemicals arethe largest commodity group, constituting 68 per-cent of the tons and 66 percent of the ton-miles.Petroleum ranks second at 23 percent of tons and20 percent of the ton-miles, followed by commodi-ties in the “all other” category.

The largest hazard class was flammable liquidswith 26 percent of the tonnage, followed by corro-sive materials with 25 percent and flammable com-pressed gases with 12 percent. In conjunction withcombustible liquids and nonflammable compressedgases, these five hazard classes account for 85 per-cent of the 1983 tonnage. Poisons and radioactivematerials are small portions of the flows; radioactivematerials are less than 0.03 percent, Poison B is lessthan 3 percent, and Poison A is less than 0.1percent.

Origins and destinations are concentrated and thelevel of concentration is increasing. The waybill fileshows a drop from 1,472 origin and 3,210 destina-tion Standard Point Location Codes in 1972 to 1,129and 2,410 in 1983, respectively. The 15 largest junc-tion volumes are shown in table 2-6. Region-to-region flows appear in table 2-7. More than 25 per-cent of the flows originate in the West South Cen-tral region; more than 20 percent of them terminatethere as well. The three largest flows are West South

Central to West South Central, South Atlantic toSouth Atlantic, and West South Central to SouthAtlantic. The private chemical manufacturers dataconfirm these flow patterns, although there are somedifferences due to market share.

The primary car type is the tank car, accountingfor 85 percent of the tons, 79 percent of the ton-miles, and 81 percent of the car loadings. At theend of 1984, the active tank car fleet numbered183,000, of which 115,600 were used for hazardousmaterials. The majority of these were 111I As, 112s,103s, and 105 As. Covered hopper cars ranked sec-ond in tonnage, carrying 6 percent; but intermo-dal flatcars ranked second in loadings and ton-miles,due to the large quantities of alcohol being shippedin trailers and intermodal portable tanks.

A breakdown of the hazardous tonnage by lengthof haul shows that the most tonnage travels betweenO to 250 miles, but the distribution extends beyond4,000 miles, with an average length of haul at 728miles.

Water Transport

Commodity flow analysis for the marine trans-port is straightforward but difficult. The U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineer’s Waterborne Commerce Statis-tics Center (WCSC) database includes 100 percentof all commodity movements, both domestic andinternational, missing only military cargo moved inDepartment of Defense vessels. Information pro-vided on each movement includes: origin district,

Table 2-6.–Fifteen Largest Junction Volumes, 1977 and 1983

1977

Junction Tons (000)

New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,198Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,008East St. Louis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,509Kansas City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,768Shreveport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,695Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,183Chattahoochee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,918Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,716Montgomery. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,603St. Louis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,474Birmingham ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,414Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,379Potomac Yard (Arlington, VA). . . . 1,057Effingham (GA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757El Paso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724

1983

Junction Tons (000)

New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,149East St. Louis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,429Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,038Shreveport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,331Kansas City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,508Memphis ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,355Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,491Richmond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,092Potomac Yard (Arlington, VA). . . . 1,049Effingham (GA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830St. Louis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773Corsicana (TX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770Mobile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663


Icsl

Table 2-7.—Hazardous Commodity Flows by Rail According to the 1983 Waybill Statistics

All flows in thousands of tons: Middle East North East South West North West South Pacific PacificFrom l/To - New England Atlantic South Atlantic Central Central Central Central Northwest Southwest All

New England . . . . . . . . . . . . 985 53 37 28 6 1 7 2 3 1,112Middle Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . 681 1,710 542 827 110 103 495 10 54 4,532South Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . 91 732 5,842 1,215 716 510 364 11 117 9,598East North Central. . . . . . . . 319 1,470 820 2,527 610 735 629 83 220 7,413East South Central . . . . . . . 17 400 2,933 901 2,401 125 1,028 8 191 8,004West North Central . . . . . . . 23 95 110 991 349 1,739 642 102 245 4,296West South Central . . . . . . . 281 1,582 4,266 3,370 3,577 1,889 10,626 283 2,038 27,912Pacific Northwest . . . . . . . . – 66 16 174 11 423 106 1,551 488 2,835Pacific Southwest . . . . . . . . 39 144 366 624 130 146 919 551 3,331 6,250

All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,436 6,252 14,932 10,557 7,910 5,671 14,816 2,601 6,687 71,962Note: Boldface mdlcates lop five flows, for example, 10,626

SOURCE. Office of Technology Assessment


port, dock, and date; destination district, port, dock,and date; commodity (four-digit code); shipmentweight (short tons); operator; vessel description; andthe waterways traversed, including entry and exitmileposts. It is based on data submitted by carriers,shippers, and vessel owners in response to compre-hensive reporting requirements. However, two ma-jor information shortcomings create difficulties.First, the commodity definitions are very broad; only30 out of a possible 163 codes pertain to hazardousmaterials. Second, while complete routing informa-tion exists, no mileage data are provided in the basicflow records, which means the mileage informationfor every flow must be computed and added to thedatabase if ton-mile statistics are to be developed.Because of cost constraints, the OTA analysis didnot develop ton-mile statistics.

Analysis of the WCSC data shows that a billiontons of cargo were shipped by marine transport in1982. Hazardous commodity shipments constituted55 percent of the total or 549 million tons. The flowsare concentrated, as noted in table 2-8, with the 10top region-to-region flows accounting for 65 percentof the total tonnage. Intraregional shipments in theWest South Central region alone account for about25 percent of the total tonnage. The pattern of flowsfollows the distribution of petroleum, since 85 per-cent of the hazardous tonnage is crude or processedpetroleum.

From 1977 to 1982, the tonnage increased lessthan 4 percent; however, the commodity mixchanged significantly. Chemical shipments dropped13 percent and petroleum products dropped 22 per-cent, while the “all other” category doubled in size.More importantly, the mix of chemical productschanged. Fertilizers rose to the second- and third-ranked positions displacing second-ranked sodiumhydroxide and third-ranked benzene and toluene.Furthermore, this trend toward declining large bulkshipments of high hazard chemicals is likely to con-tinue. Manufacturers are substantially reducing theirinventories of raw materials in a variety of ways forboth economic and safety reasons.21

~lMonsanto Co., One Year Later: Report of the Monsanto Prod-uct and Plane Safet}’ Task Force (Saint Louis, MO: December 1985);and Ron Jacobsen, Distribution Manager, Rohm & Haas, personalcommunication, ]anuarv 1986.

Tankers and tanker barges are the principal ves-sels (91 percent); the other major vessel type is thedry cargo barge with 8 percent of the total. The five-digit CTS database captures only 40 percent of theflows and has a vastly different breakout of com-modities. It misses the two major waterborne flows,crude oil and fertilizer, because they are not manu-factured products.

Air Transport

Air transport has the weakest data for analyzinghazardous materials commodity flow. The onlyavailable database is the CTS, which, as previouslynoted, includes shipments from point of manu-facture to first destination only. Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) inspectors sometimes per-form 90-day records checks, but the only informa-tion they keep is the number of hazardous class ship-ments, not the overall percentage or the totalvolume.

The CTS indicates that 52,700 tons of hazardousmaterials were transported by air, or 8 percent ofall air cargo tonnage. Chemicals account for 80 per-cent of this total, consisting of cosmetics, drugs, *and agricultural chemicals including fungicides andherbicides. As maybe calculated from table 2-9, 79percent of the tonnage, including the largest flow,is interregional, unlike the other transport modes.The average length of haul is over 1,000 miles. Whenthe CTS data were compared with a private air car-rier’s records of its hazardous material flows, the in-adequacy of the CTS information became appar-ent. The air carrier reported substantial hazardousmaterials shipment volumes for eight of the ninePacific Northwest originating flows where the CTSshowed no movement at all. One of these was the12th largest region-to-region flow. Of the 72 remain-ing flows for other originating regions, there were11 flows where the carrier’s tonnage exceeded thatshown in the CTS, and 3 more where the carrier’stonnage was nearly equal to the total shown by theCTS. Although the CTS data were for 1977 andthe carrier’s data for 1983 and 1984, they nonethe-less demonstrate that the CTS data are not a use-ful reflection of hazardous material flows by air.

*Because they contain small amounts of hazardous chemicals, cos-

metics and drugs are regulated as hazardous materials.


O’JC6

I

I

I

I

00&

ao

*F

r-4

I

.0

I

Table 2-9.—Hazardous Commodity Flows by Air According to the 1977 Five-Digit Commodity Transportation Survey Database

All flows in thousands of tons: Middle East North East South West North West South Pacific Pacific Alaska &From l/To - New England Atlantic South Atlantic Central Central Central Central Northwest Southwest Hawaii All

New England . . . . . . . – 0.2 — 0.5 0.1 — — — 0.1 — 0.9Middle Atlantic ... , . . 0.2 2.1 0.9 1.9 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.2 3.9 10.6South Atlantic. . . . . . . 0.1

—

0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 1.8East North Central . . . 0.2

— —

0.8 0.3 0.1 — 1.2 0.1 2.2 4.9East South Central . . . –

— —— 0.1 — — — 3.8 — 0.3 — 4.2

West North Central . . – 0.1 0.1 0.1 — — 0.3 — 0.1 — 0.7West South Central . . – — — — — 0.1 4.3 — 0.1 — 4.5Pacific Southwest. . . . 0.8 0.1 — 18.1 — 0.6 0,4 4.4 0.4 24.8

All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3—

3.3 1.7 20.8 0.7 2.8 9.8 0.2 11.4 0.4 52.4Note, Boldface Indicates top five flows, for example, 18.1.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment.


State and Local Studies

OTA reviewed numerous State and local infor-mation-collection projects to determine whether aFederal data system would provide useful additionalinformation. The research uncovered a variety ofapproaches to State and local data collection. Whena State undertakes a study, a lead agency is usuallydesignated, often the department of transportationor State Police, with assistance provided by an officeof emergency preparedness or comparable agency.For cities, municipal planning staffs, fire depart-ments, private consulting firms, or university-basedresearch groups do most of the data gathering andanalysis.

Techniques and results vary according to the par-ticular interests, resources, and experience of theagencies involved. Nonetheless, OTA has identifiedtypes of useful data, effective methods, and com-monly encountered problems. The following kindsof studies can provide the background informationnecessary for planning and emergency preparedness:

●

●

Inventory of hazardous materials stored atfixed facilities. Records the quantity and typeof hazardous commodities stored in manufac-turing, wholesaling, distribution, or storage fa-cilities within the jurisdiction. Data are obtainedby means of questionnaires, interviews, and in-spections; and from public records, such as fireinspection records and business tax records.Hazardous materials transportation analysis.Identifies the quantity and type of hazardousmaterials transported through the jurisdictionby each transportation mode and the most fre-quently used routes. Data are gathered by ques-tionnaires, roadside inspections, and review ofcompany records.Hazard assessment or identification of haz-ards and high-risk locations. Analyzes factorssuch as population density, transportation sys-tem characteristics, and past incidents to de-termine where the risk of a hazardous materi-als incident is greatest or where the impactwould be the most severe.

An inventory of fixed facilities is often the firststep in the data-gathering process. Any second stepis usually a transportation analysis. A hazard assess-ment is frequently last, since it draws on data col-lected in the first two studies.

Fixed Facilities Inventories

Knowledge of the extent and nature of hazard-ous materials manufacture and storage in the com-munity is essential for prevention and response plan-ning. A facilities inventory can guide the purchaseof equipment, choice of training, location of re-sponse facilities, and assignment of personnel, andcan provide a good indication of the hazardous ma-terials transported in the jurisdiction.

One of the first decisions necessary in undertak-ing a hazardous materials inventory is what shouldbe inventoried and in what detail. Some jurisdic-tions studied by OTA chose to locate all hazard-ous materials, including paint thinner stored inretail stores, but most concentrated on chemicalsmanufactured or stored in bulk. Memphis, for ex-ample, limited its inventory to 255 manufacturingsites.22 At the other extreme, the cities of SantaClara County, California, inventoried all materi-als identified by DOT as hazardous and stored inany quantity at commercial facilities, including drugstores; the inventory is kept current by thecounty. The majority of communities, however,have limited their surveys to selected commoditiesidentified by the staff and advisory committees andto major facilities, measured by employmentlevels. 24

The methods used for collecting data vary. InMemphis and Indianapolis, the initial data-col-lection method was a questionnaire. Questionnairessent under the auspices of the Memphis Fire De-partment asked for data on storage of material in19 DOT hazard classes. Although followup to thequestionnaire was a lengthy process, the city cur-rently has information on the type, quantity, andlocation of stored hazardous materials, including siteplans and names, addresses, and phone numbersof emergency contactso

25 In Indianapolis, only 20to 25 percent of the 1,200 local industries surveyedsubmitted responses to the questionnaire and ex-

zzNationa] Conference of State Legislatures, Hazardous MaterialsTransportation Regional Workshops (Denver, CO: 1983), p. 65.

zJCambridge Systematic, inc., Community Teamwork–WorkingTogether To l%omote Hazar&us Materials Transportation Safety(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983), p. 6,

24us Con&as, office of Technology Assessment, Transportationof Haz&ous Materials: State and Local Activities, OTA-SET-301(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1986),ch. 4,

zjNationa] Conference of State Legislatures, op. cit.

Ch. 2—Data and information Systems for Hazardous Materials ● 5 9

tensive followup was necessary to collect sufficientdata. The Association of Bay Area Governments,around San Francisco, identified target commodi-ties but did not have the budget or personnel toadminister questionnaires. Instead, Bay Area plan-ners produced a series of small maps, showing thelocations of manufacturing firms that frequentlyused the selected group of hazardous materials, an-ticipating that each county would eventually sur-vey individual firms.26

Santa Clara County collects information bymeans of a regulatory procedure, which also financesthe hazardous materials control program. To ob-tain a business license, all firms selling, using, or pro-ducing hazardous materials must provide local offi-cials with an inventory and pay a fee based on theamount of materials stored. The fees help supportthe county’s emergency response team and hazard-ous materials inspections. Local manufacturers andmerchants are advised on the proper storage andhandling of hazardous materials during these in-spections.

Inventories can provide information for many pur-poses in addition to planning. In Oregon, the Mult-nomah County Fire Department collects informa-tion on hazardous materials storage at fixed facil-ities as part of routine fire inspections. The county’sOffice of Emergency Management stores the infor-mation in a computer along with data on chemicalcharacteristics of the commodities, transportationroutes frequently used, and performance profiles ofmajor carriers. The county’s specialized hazardousmaterials team has access to this database througha computer terminal located in the response vehi-cle. The computer system can provide informationon where a specified product can be found at thesite, how it is stored, and other chemicals that maybe present. The system also provides informationon the characteristics of all the chemicals knownto be in the county, based on DOT and other stand-ard classifications, and the names of organizationsto call for additional product information.27

~bAssociation of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco, CA, Haz-ardous Spill Prevention and Response Plan, 2 vols, (Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special ProgramsAdministration, 1983).

‘;Puget Sound Council of Governments, Seattle, WA, Central PugetSound Region Risk Analysis Report: Regional Hazardous Materials ln -venrory, interim report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Trans-portation, 1980).

State Inventory Studies

Massachusetts is one of the few States that hascompleted a fixed facilities inventory. For each ofthe State’s 14 fire districts, State analysts used man-ufacturing directories to locate the firms with morethan 100 employees that used or produced hazard-ous materials.28

In March 1983, the State of New Jersey passeda law requiring every firm manufacturing or han-dling hazardous substances to file a completed sur-vey form with the State Department of Health andthe county or local health, fire, and police depart-ments. This information effectively provides a fa-cilities inventory.

The State of Maryland has created a computer-ized registry of all toxic and carcinogenic substancesstored at fixed sites. The State Department of Healthand Mental Hygiene began gathering the data in1979 with funds from an EPA grant. Currently, theregistry contains inventories of more than 400 in-dustrial users of toxic or carcinogenic substances.Updated annually, the data comprise detailed in-formation on 54 target chemicals selected by the de-partment, including the maximum quantities storedand how they are transported. The staff estimatesthat the development of the computerized registry

system cost over $400,000, not counting softwaredevelopment funded by the EPA grant, and annualoperating costs. 29

Community Support

The success of inventory efforts depends on thecooperation of public agencies, such as the fire andpolice departments, and private groups, such aschemical manufacturers, shippers, and carriers.Advisory committees can be instrumental in obtain-ing such cooperation. Often appointed by electedofficials, such committees are usually multidiscipli-nary and composed of representatives from first re-sponse agencies, local industry, local and interstatecarriers, public officials, educators, experts in haz-ardous materials, and environmentalists.

‘“Energy Resources, Inc., Phase 1: Determine the Nature and Scopeof Hazardous Materials Transportation in the Massachusetts Region,Volume Z (Cambridge, MA: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1982),pp. 4-36.

%Iax Eisenberg, Environmental Program, Maryland Department ofHealth and Mental Hygiene, personal communication, March 1985.


Although private sector support has at times beenproblematical, in April 1985, CMA announced anindustrywide program designed to make chemicalindustry expertise available to local agencies, includ-ing furnishing planning groups with material safetydata sheets on commodities manufactured andstored in the community .30 However, concernsabout protecting trade secrets or other informationconsidered to be proprietary (e.g., health or exposuredata) have made some manufacturers unwilling to

comply with requests for information. In response,many States and municipalities have enacted “right-to-know” laws requiring the release of informationon the hazards associated with chemicals producedor used in a given facility. Such laws are useful toolsfor data-collection activities.

Transportation Studies

In addition to fixed facility inventories, State andlocal governments have tapped a variety of publicand private sources to collect data on truck, rail,air, and water transportation. Small towns and ru-ral counties are particularly interested in transpor-tation data because they see their greatest risk as

a hazardous materials accident on an Interstate high-way or railroad line passing through their jurisdic-tion. The type and quantity of hazardous materi-als carried by each mode and the principal routesused comprise the information most frequently col-lected for planning, risk analyses, routing decisions,and emergency response preparation, Because thedata-gathering problems are different for each mode,highway, rail, air, and water transport are discussedseparately.

Truck Studies

State and local data-collection projects reviewedby OTA put the highest priority on informationabout highway transport of hazardous materials be-cause trucks far outnumber other types of hazard-ous materials carriers, carry the largest share of thehazardous materials shipments, and are involved inthe greatest number of accidents and spills.

Several State databases are currently being devel-oped. New York, for example, is computerizing thedata collected by its State Police during their rov-

JOChe~iCal Manufacturers Association, press release, Washington)DC, April 1985.

ing truck inspections. Other States with similar in-formation include Virginia,31 New Mexico,32 Wash-ington, 33 and Colorado.34

State and local planners have devised specialmeans to collect data on highway transport of haz-ardous materials. The primary methods are ques-tionnaires, visual surveys, and inspections. Severaljurisdictions have sent out questionnaires to ship-pers, carriers, and manufacturers requesting infor-mation about hazardous materials shipments andthe routes most frequently used.

Analysts in the Puget Sound Region of Washing-ton State, using questionnaire responses, truck routelocations, and other information provided by localgovernmental departments, mapped the routes bywhich 85 target commodities moved within andthrough the region. Memphis used a questionnaireto gather data from local shippers and manufac-turers,35 although State Highway Department taxrecords showed that truckers substantially under-reported the flammables category on the question-naire. In a survey conducted recently of manufac-turers and transporters of hazardous materials in theNew York City and New Jersey area, only 20 per-cent of those solicited returned completed question-

36naires.

Other jurisdictions have resorted to visual surveysof trucks along major highways. Checkpoints, usu-ally at weigh stations, are set up, and governmentemployees or students count the placarded truckspassing through, recording the commodity class ofeach shipment. Moreover, several States have con-ducted surveys of the volume and types of hazard-ous materials carried by truck. In many cases, theStates have had the resources and the authority to

1 Multi-Modal Hazardous Materials Trans-llDennis L, Price, et a “~

portation in Virginia, VDOTS/SPO-16 (Richmond, VA: Virginia De-partment of Transportation Safety, 1981).

‘zJames D. Brogan, “Routing Models for the Transportation of Haz-ardous Materials—State Level Enhancements and Modifications,” pre-pared for presentation at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Transporta-tion Research Board, unpublished typescript, 1985.

~JNationa[ Conference of State Legislatures, Hazardous Materials

Transportation: A Lq@ator’s Guide (Washington, DC: Febmary 1984).‘+Ibid.~scity of Memphis, Division of Fire Services, Hazardous Materials

Task Force Final Report (Memphis, TN: 1981), p. 24.JbRaymond ScanIon, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,

“A Regional Study on Hazardous Materials Transportation,” HowardS. Cullman Fellowship 1982-83 Report, unpublished typescript, p. 15.

Ch. 2—Data and Information Systems for Hazardous Materials ● 61

combine a visual survey with an inspection anddriver interview.

A full-scale study was carried out in 1977 to 1978by the Virginia Department of TransportationSafety as part of a multimodal analysis of hazard-ous materials transportation. During July and Au-gust 1977, all trucks passing 38 survey points on In-terstate and primary roads were stopped by Stateor local police. Shipping papers were inspected, andthe drivers were interviewed on the types of mate-rials carried, origin and destination of the trip, andthe sequence of routes taken. Officers also checkedto see if the placarding was correct and classifiedthe carrier as company-owned, independent, com-mon carrier, or personal vehicle. The study find-ings provided Virginia officials with a current data-base on commodity flow and a good measure of thelevel of compliance with existing Federal and Stateregulations. The survey found that 13 percent of thetrucks carried hazardous materials, of which 76 per-cent were flammable, combustible, or corrosive liq-uids. Petroleum products were the most commoncargoes. The heaviest hazardous materials traffic wason Interstate highways in and around cities, becauseurban areas are the principal origins and destina-tions of petroleum products. The number of placard-ing violations found by inspectors increased from34 percent in 1977 to 55 percent in 1978.37

Over a l-year period from October 1981 to Sep-tember 1982, Washington State surveyed theamounts of hazardous materials moving through theState and the type of carrier used. The Washing-ton State methodology was similar to that of theVirginia study. The State Utilities and Transpor-tation Commission set up checkpoints at 11 loca-tions on major highways. All trucks were stoppedand checked for 4-hour periods twice a month. Thechecks included an inspection of shipping papers andan interview with the driver about cargo, quantitycarried, origin, destination, and type of carrier. Thedata were tabulated and sorted using the AutomatedHazardous Materials Surveillance Program, a com-puter program designed for the study that can sortsurvey data according to date, location, commodity,and truck type and cross-check it with accident andviolation data. Researchers found that although in-

~TPrice, et al., op. cit., p. XIII.

dependent truckers carry 50 percent of the cargo,they are involved in 75 percent of the accidents.38

In 1982 and 1983, the South Dakota Departmentof Public Safety surveyed drivers and inspected ap-proximately 340,000 trucks at highway checkpoints.Fewer than 1 percent of the trucks carried hazard-ous materials. The most common hazardous mate-rials cargos were flammable liquids, explosives, cor-rosives, and flammable gases. The survey found that55 percent of the hazardous materials shipped wasintrastate, primarily flammable liquids and gases.Most intrastate shipments were local deliveries of25 miles or less, usually originating in one of thelarger cities. Although most deliveries were local,carriers indicated that their trucks spent as muchas 40 percent of their time on Interstate high-ways.39

OTA research indicates that even when a com-prehensive State transportation data-collection ef-fort has been undertaken, cities within the State areoften unaware of the resource and consequently donot make use of it.

Rail Studies

Data collection on bulk rail shipments of hazard-ous materials is extremely important to rail distri-bution centers such as Memphis and Indianapolis,where data are needed for emergency planning andresponse purposes. Information on commoditiestransported, measured by rail carloads, is generallyavailable on request from the major railroads. In-formation indicating the location of hazardous ma-terials cars in the train and instructions on emer-gency response procedures are available on the trainas well as through railroad offices. However, theavailability and detail of the data depend on the ex-tent to which the line is computerized. AAR hascompiled a list of the 138 chemicals most frequentlycarried by the railroads. It has developed detailedfact sheets for these commodities that are incorpo-rated into computerized train information andwaybills. 40

—..‘aU.S. Department of Transportation, Materials Transportation Bu-

reau, SHMED Program Workshop Proceedings, Sak Lake City, Utah,1983 (Washington, DC: 1983), p. 206.

~91bid., p. 186.q~patrlck ]. Student (cd.), Emergency Handling of Hazardous Mare-

rials in Surface Transportation (Washington, DC: Bureau of Explo-sives, Association of American Railroads, 1981).


Most State and local governments do not collectrail data, although Oregon requests some data fromthe railroads annually on shipments within itsboundaries. Two States with strong rail divisions,New York and New Jersey, do have databases, butthese are derived from ICC data. In a few instances,localized data have been collected; the State ofWashington 41 and Indianapolis, Indiana,42 are ex-amples.

Massachusetts, as part of a 1981 planning project,inventoried all the major rail lines in the State andobtained information on the types and quantities—in carloads—of hazardous materials shipped by threeof the four largest railroads. Furthermore, Virginia,as part of its multimodal study, collected data fromthe 10 railroads serving the State. The railroads pro-vided waybill samples for subsections of each line.With this information, analysts estimated the num-ber of cars per day carrying hazardous materials, thetons of hazardous materials carried per day, and thenumber of trains containing hazardous materialscars. Corrosives accounted for almost half the vol-ume of hazardous materials transported by rail, fol-lowed by flammable liquids, and nonflammablecompressed gas. The heaviest rail flow of hazard-ous cargo was in and around cities, a reflection ofthe demand for petroleum products in urban areas.43

Finally, the State of Oregon requires annual sum-maries by milepost segment of all rail shipments ofClass A explosives and poisons. These data are usedfor emergency response planning.

Air Transportation Studies

The transportation of hazardous materials by airis controlled by the FAA’s Civil Security Division.Since hazardous shipments account for less than 3percent of total hazardous materials tonnage movednationally and since shipments, though numerous,are generally small, State and local governmentshave not been particularly concerned about airtransport. Only Virginia has collected any primarydata, 44 consisting of information on hazardous ma-

+lNatiOnal Conference of .S~te Legislatures, Hazardous MateriakTransportation: A Legislator’s Guide, op. cit.

+Zcity of Indimapo]is, ~emommarion Project TO Develop a ~azar~-

ous Materials Accident Prevena’on and Emergency Response Program:Fina) Reports, Phases Z-IV (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofTransportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, 1983).

+Jprice, et al., op. cit., PP. 113”1 15”

441bid.

terials passing through many of its major airports.However, FAA conducted surveys of the types andquantities of hazardous materials shipments at theNew Orleans, Memphis, and Boston airports, andprovided local planners with the data. Data on ship-ment characteristics for air freight carriers can beobtained to augment FAA data. Local planners donot have access to information on hazardous ma-terials carried by military aircraft.

Water Transportation Studies

Ports play an important role in hazardous mate-rials commerce. For example, 4.5 million tons of haz-ardous materials pass through the Port of Seattleeach year—about 27 percent of the total cargo han-dled. Over half of the Nation’s chemicals movethrough the Port of Houston annually. State andlocal planners rely on data from the Army Corpsof Engineers as their primary data source. The Corpsprovided Massachusetts researchers with the annualtonnage by commodity group for 1978 for both Bos-ton Harbor and the nearby New Bedford Harbor.However, the data classification system used by theCorps does not always identify specific commodi-ties—for example, the “Basic Chemicals” categorycontains some nonhazardous materials. This leadsto overestimates of the actual amounts of hazard-ous materials, but none of the States or cities con-tacted by OTA found this a sufficient reason to con-duct an additional study. Two port cities, Seattleand Boston, supplemented the Corps’ data with in-formation on tonnage of commodities available fromlocal regulatory agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard.

Shipments of Radioactive Materialsand Wastes

In 1973 to 1975 and 1977 to 1981, two series ofstudies involving a number of States were conductedjointly by NRC and DOT for the purpose of col-lecting information on the transportation of low-level radioactive materials. Data were gathered onlow-level radioactive waste sites; shipments by high-way, air, and water; and the history of accidentsand incidents. Findings were used to determine gapsin Federal regulatory programs and in Federal andState enforcement efforts.45

‘jStephen N. Salomon, State Surveillance of Radioactive MaterialsTransportation, NUREG-1OI5 (Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission, Office of State Programs, 1984), p. 5,


Data on movement for high-level radioactive ma-terials and wastes, including spent fuel, are treateddifferently from other hazardous materials data–both legally and institutionally. DOT has primaryresponsibility for monitoring low-level radioactivematerials and wastes, while DOT and NRC shareregulatory and enforcement authority for high-levelradioactive materials and wastes. NRC requireslicensees to provide advance notice for certain nu-clear shipments; to provide physical protection ofspecial nuclear materials including spent nuclear fuelto prevent theft, diversion, or sabotage; and to notifyNRC regional offices of impending special shipmentsof nuclear materials. A study conducted by the Bat-telle Memorial Institute for DOT analyzed States’use of the information on transport shipments ofspent nuclear fuel through their jurisdictions. Of theStates surveyed, 14 out of 15 maintain a file of notifi-cations. Five States pass the information on to otherState agencies; two make subsequent notificationsto other divisions of the same agencies; and six sub-sequently notify officials at both the State and lo-cal levels. Two States make no further notificationfor security reasons. The primary benefit of notifi-cation identified by almost all States surveyed wasthat awareness of impending shipments allowedthem to take precautions and alert emergency re-sponse agencies. 46

Registration Notification Requirements asTools for Data Gathering

OTA examined registration and notification re-quirements as potential data resources for hazard-ous materials planning. The most basic informationneeded is the identities and locations of suppliers,manufacturers, and carriers of hazardous materials.A governmental entity may acquire this informa-tion by requiring such firms to register. Althoughit has the authority to do so, RSPA does not havea registration program and thus has no completerecord of the firms it regulates or their locations.Because RSPA cannot provide this basic informa-tion, some State and local governments have im-posed their own registration requirements. Pennsyl-vania, California, and Denver, for example, requireregistration. However, the purpose of the Denver

%B~~t~ll~ M~~oria] Research Laboratories, Battelle Human AffairsResearch Center, Assessment of Stare and Local Notification Require-ments for Transportation of Radioactive and Other Hazardous Mate-rials (Seattle, WA: Jan. 11, 1985), pp. 88-112.

registration program, enacted in 1985, is not primar-ily to gather information, but rather to fund enforce-ment activities.47

State and local governments typically give two rea-sons for enacting notification requirements: to pro-vide data for planning (including better routing andsafety regulations), and to improve emergency re-sponse. The Battelle study, cited above, identified136 State and local notification laws pertaining tohazardous materials transportation. Over two-thirdsof the jurisdictions identified information needs forplanning as an important reason for their laws, cit-ing the need to know about the types and quanti-ties of materials shipped through their jurisdictions,trip scheduling, and routes frequently used. Manyalso indicated they require advance notification toalert response teams when a potentially hazardousshipment is due.

The study concluded that most of these regula-tions produce little usable data either because theyapply to a very narrow range of materials or becausethey are not enforced. For further discussion of regis-tration and notification issues, see chapter 4.

Hazard and Risk Assessments

Federal Risk Assessment.–During the last dec-ade, the Federal Government has sponsored a num-ber of efforts to formulate risk assessment modelsand apply them to hazardous materials transporta-tion safety. The Coast Guard, for example, usedmodels originally developed for emergency responsepurposes as the basis for its Population Vulnerabil-ity Model, which calculates the travel and chemi-cal reactions of marine cargo spills over time, andestimates their effects on the surrounding popula-tion and property. Sandia Laboratories quanti-fied the severities of hazardous materials transpor-tation accidents in the air, truck, and rail modes.49

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory used Sandia’sresults to develop a general risk assessment meth-odology, which was first applied to truck shipments

47 Cathy Reynolds, Denver City Council, in U.S. COngress, officeof Technology Assessment, “Transcript of proceedings-Trans~rtationof Hazardous Materials Advisory Panel,” unpublished typescript, June27, 1985, P. 230.

@Jational Materials Advisory Board, ~~e Application of@antita-

tive Risk Assessment Techniques in the U.S. Coast Guard RegulatoryProcess, NMAB-402 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982),

4%K. Clarke, et al., Severities of Transportation Accidents, SLA-74-0001 (Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, 1976).


of radioactive materials,50 and later extended toother modes of transportation and to other hazard-ous materials transportation by truck and rail in theCentral Puget Sound Region.51

DOT has sponsored several risk assessments con-cerning the rerouting of hazardous materials. Forexample, a computer-based network model of theU.S. rail system was used to study the effects on risklevels of a policy to reroute railroad shipments ofhazardous materials to avoid populated areas.52

The model was also used in conjunction with a studyof catastrophic derailment risks.53 Risk-based cri-teria have been developed to enable State and localauthorities to designate routes for truck shipmentsof hazardous materials. DOT has also sponsored thedevelopment of risk assessment worksheets andguidelines for large and small community routingand emergency planning.54

State and Local Hazard and Risk Assessment.–Public concerns about the risks of hazardous mate-rials transportation are likely to persist and inten-sify, accentuating the need for risk or hazard assess-ment at the regional level. This generally consistsof two stages: 1) the development of an inventoryof hazardous materials activity and exposure in theregion, and 2) the estimation and evaluation of risksbased on that information. OTA finds that the firststage can be performed very well at the State andlocal level. In fact, the data-collection process canbe beneficial in itself, because of the contacts andcommunication it fosters. It is the process of evalu-ating the risks and making decisions based on themthat has been the source of difficulty, especially in

5~.1. Sweeney, et al., An Assessment of the Risk of TransportingPlutonium Oxide and Liquid Plutonium Nitrate by Truck, Report No.1846 (Richland, WA: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1975).

51W.B. Andrews, Hazardous Materials Transportation Risks in thePuget Sound Region (Richland, WA: Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab-oratory, 1981),

5ZT s Glickman, “Rerouting Railroad Shipments of Hazardous Ma-. .terials To Avoid Populated Areas,” Accident Analysis and Prevention,VO]. 15, No. 5, 1983, pp. 329-335.

j~T s G]ickman and D.B. Rosenfield, “Risks of catastrophic De-, .railments involving the Release of Hazardous Materials,” ManagementScience, vol. 30, No. 4, 1984, pp. 503-511.

WE J Bar&r and LCK. Hildebrand, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell ~ co.}. .Guidelines for Applying Criteria To Designate Routes for Transport-ing Hazardous MateriaJs, FHWA-IP-80-20 Implementation Package(Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 1980); and E.R.Russell, et al., A Community Model for Handling Hazardous Materi-als Transportation Emergencies (Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration,1981).

the cities where disputes over routing decisions havereached the courts. The worksheet approaches de-veloped under DOT sponsorship for highway rout-ing55 and community planning56 are helpful, butinsufficient, because they reduce the results to a sin-gle number known as “expected risk.” A risk profileshowing frequency in comparison to consequenceis more helpful than a single number, which pro-vides no insight into whether the concern is aboutfrequent spills that may be of low consequence (gas-oline, for example) or infrequent spills of a more dan-gerous substance like chlorine, and does not usu-ally indicate the uncertainty of the risk estimate.

The importance of making regionally acceptablerisk-based decisions suggests that DOT could pro-vide State and local governments with better toolsfor risk assessment. The technical complexities of athorough risk assessment could be handled throughan assistance program similar to the one employedby the Urban Mass Transportation Administrationfor those using the Urban Transportation PlanningSystem (UTPS) computer software as a basis for re-gional transportation planning.57 A computer modelestimating population at risk along transportationcorridors has been developed at Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory. The model may be revised for micro-computers, and with a good user’s manual could bea useful risk assessment tool for State and local gov-ernments. 58 In addition, following the UTPS prece-dent, a program of training courses could be estab-lished and a staff organized for system maintenanceand assistance to the users. This type of programwould provide practical assistance for jurisdictionsconsidering routing alternatives.

OTA reviewed a number of State and local haz-ard and risk studies, because they are important forcontingency planning, for practical decisions aboutlocating response equipment and allocating man-power, and for developing routing plans. This lastarea, routing, has been the source of a great dealof interjurisdictional conflict; for further discussion,see chapter 4.

55Barber and Hildebrand, op. cit.56Ru55ell, et d . , oP. C i t”

57U.S. Department of Transportation, UserOriented Materials forUTPS-An Introduction to Urban Travel Demand Forecasting (Wash-ington, DC: 1977).

jaEdward L, Hi\lsman, Research Staff, Oak Ridge National LabO~a-tory, personal communication by letter, May 15, 1986.


Few jurisdictions have used sophisticated mathe-matical techniques of risk analysis to estimate theprobability of an incident and its severity. Most com-munities find it adequate to map the areas wherethe risk of a hazardous materials incident is high-est or where there would be the greatest public dan-ger or the most damage. Data for this type of studycan be assembled either from a fixed facility inven-tory or a transportation study. Much useful infor-mation is also available from public records routinelykept for other purposes by State and local publicworks, transportation, environmental, and planningdepartments. Normally, a hazard assessment re-quires the following kinds of information:

transportation network maps and descriptions;highways and streets used by hazardous mate-rials carriers;tunnels, bridges, and rail crossings;railroad yards and truck terminals;highway, rail, air, and water accident data;locations of past hazardous materials incidentsand materials involved;concentrations of hazardous materials manu-facturing or storage sites;areas of high population density and environ-mental sensitivity;location of schools, hospitals, and other espe-cially vulnerable sites; andwater supply and sewer facilities.

A risk assessment could also include special analysesof the types and quantities of hazardous materialstransported through the community and the loca-tion of emergency response teams and equipment.

Conclusions

OTA finds that Federal data-collection activi-ties provide modal transportation data of varyingcompleteness. OTA experience in analyzing manyFederal databases for this report establishes thatdata integration is not a technical problem; withcareful analysis, comparative data on commodityflow can be developed. However, the quality ofthe data is not outstanding, and the data are in-complete innumerous areas, particularly for truckand air transport. These shortcomings mean thatcurrent policy decisions must be based on inade-quate information, a separate concern that warrants

further study .59 OTA concludes that if RSPA wereto conduct analyses of existing data similar to thatundertaken for this study, it would benefit by hav-ing aggregate commodity flow information to useas a denominator in analyzing its spill and accidentrecords. Such data might not completely satisfy Stateor local needs for information about shipments, butthey can show State-to-State and regional transpor-tation patterns.

Furthermore, OTA concludes that State and lo-cal data collection has enormous value in and ofitself. The information gathered is only part of thatvalue; the communication, cooperation, and coordi-nation between the public and private sectors thatare an inevitable result of the effort are extremelyimportant. Community right-to-know laws are use-ful tools for State and local governments in obtain-ing data, and national right-to-know legislationwould bolster implementation of such laws, whereindustry resistance remains.

Some city officials and planning personnel havecontinued to express a need for a national com-modity flow data resource. An annual printedsummary provided by DOT is most frequently men-tioned, and OTA concludes that annual DOT sum-maries of shipments would provide useful national,regional, and State flow pattern information. Al-though some desire for real-time notification of espe-cially high-hazard shipments has been voiced, emer-gency response officials consulted by OTA generallyprefer to do local inventories and transportation sur-veys and to prepare their personnel for any eventu-ality. They point out that detailed real-time infor-mation would be overwhelming to track and uselessfor planning and preparedness.60

AS one fire chiefsaid: “What am I supposed to do? Follow the truckaround waiting for an accident to happen?”61

However, some local officials who want real-timetracking of hazardous materials, have called forDOT to develop a publicly accessible database to

%artin Crutsinger, “U.S. Statistical Problems Seen, ” ~ashjngtonPost, Mar. 18, 1986, p. El.

~.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Transportationof Hazardous Materials: State and Local Activities, op. cit., ch 4.

slThomaS HaWkjnS, Jr., Chief, Arlington County Fire Department)Arlington, VA, personal communication, January 1986.


provide information on shipments.62 Such real-time data are probably the only way to keep cur-rent on shipments if that is the goal, since manyhazardous materials orders are for truck deliverywithin 36 hours or less. Other shipments are sea-sonal, related to agricultural or manufacturing cy-cles. Finally, customers may suddenly change sup-ply sources for economic reasons, rendering periodicdata collection instantly obsolete. The technologi-cal groundwork for a real-time system to track haz-ardous waste shipments, which represent less than1 percent of hazardous materials shipments, has beendeveloped by a private firm, although the systemhas not been tested in operation.

However, even if the technical difficulties for im-plementing such a system for all hazardous materi-als could be resolved, the cost has been estimatedto be more than $100 million.63 OTA finds thatwhile development of a real-time database limitedto tracking only certain highly hazardous shipmentsis technically feasible, its utility for emergency re-sponse is questionable. Furthermore, developmentof online telephone access to real-time informa-tion on all hazardous materials shipments is notfeasible, nor would it be cost-effective.

If Congress chooses to provide support for datagathering, several options are available. DOT could

bZThe NationaI League of Cities (NLC) has retained in its transpor-tation position paper a request for a U.S. Department of Transporta-tion report on commodity flow. Barbara Harsha, NLC transportationstaff, personal communication, January 1986.

61 hn Mulho]land, source Data Network, personal COrnmuniCation,JoNovember 1985.

be required to exercise its authority under 49 U. S. C.,Section 1805(b) and develop a registration programfor hazardous materials shippers, transporters, andcontainer manufacturers. OTA finds that a regis-tration program would provide DOT with essen-tial information about the community it regulatesand with some commodity shipment informationthat could be made available to State and localjurisdictions. DOT could make use of the informa-tion for setting priorities for rulemaking, research,and for enforcement actions. A modest registrationfee could be imposed to cover costs of administer-ing the program.

In addition, Congress could require DOT to inte-grate, analyze, and report annually on trends fromrelevant Federal databases kept by the modal ad-ministrations and the Bureau of the Census. For thiseffort to be effective:

●

●

●

The collection of data on truck movementsmust be improved.Conversion or bridge tables for the commoditycodes used by different agencies and in 49 CFR,Section 172, must be created. Alternatively,each agency might be required to use a com-mon code for commodities.Sufficient funds must be allocated to supportthe effort. OTA estimates that the equivalentof one man-year of effort, between $45,000 and$75,000, would provide a modest start.

Finally OTA finds that a summary of commodity

flow data in comparison with DOT accident datain the required annual report to Congress wouldbe useful.

PART II: ACCIDENT AND SPILL INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Statistics generated by hazardous materials acci-dent and spill databases can be used within agen-cies and departments to measure program effective-ness, to improve accident and spill prevention byidentifying and analyzing causes and events, and forregulatory and enforcement analysis. A reliable in-cident/accident database can also be used to im-prove emergency response and disaster preparednessby identifying trouble spots. Knowledge of high ac-cident frequency locations and the flow of hazard-ous materials provides communities with an under-

standing of the probability of an accident or spilland the materials likely to be involved, tools for riskassessment.

Spill Report Systems

Each of the DOT modal administrations keepsseparate modal accident data, and several agencieskeep data specifically on releases of hazardous ma-terials. However, RSPA is the official DOT reposi-tory of hazardous materials release information. A


transportation-related incident or release is definedin DOT regulations as any unintentional release ofa hazardous material during transportation, or dur-ing loading/unloading or temporary storage relatedto transportation. Every release, except for thosefrom bulk water transporters and those motor car-rier firms doing solely intrastate business, must bereported to RSPA in writing as prescribed in 49CFR, Parts 171, 174.45 (rail), 175.45 (air), and 176.48(marine vessels). The only other exceptions are con-sumer commodities that present a limited hazardduring transportation, such as electric storage bat-teries and certain paints and materials. These ex-ceptions do not apply to hazardous waste releasesor those involving aircraft. A written response mustbe prepared by the carrier on a prescribed form,F5800.1 (see figure 2-2), and submitted to RSPAwithin 15 days of discovery of the release. While car-riers are required to report, any interested party mayreport. A RSPA contractor logs the written reportinformation into a computerized database.

This database, called HMIS, became the centralsystem for spill data in 1971. Prior to that time, haz-ardous materials regulatory authority had beendivided among DOT modal administrations, anda wide range of hazardous materials reporting sys-tems had evolved. Since collecting and maintain-ing this data became a RSPA responsibility, the onlymajor change in the incident reporting requirementsoccurred in 1981, when battery spills and spills ofless than 5 gallons of paint were eliminated fromrequired reporting, reducing the number of reportsprocessed by RSPA considerably. The HMIS data-base is the only one devoted exclusively to hazard-ous materials transportation spills, and consequentlyis the one most useful for examining packaging,labeling, accident cause, and safety issues.

Carriers are also required to make an immediatetelephone report to the National Response Center(NRC) when a spill has resulted in one or more ofthe following consequences as a direct result of thehazardous material:

●

●

●

●

a fatality;a serious injury requiring hospitalization;estimated carrier or other property damage ex-ceeding $50,000;fire, breakage, or suspected contamination in-volving the shipment of radioactive materialsor etiologic agents; and

❁ a situation such ❁ nature that the carrierjudges should be reported.64

NRC is staffed 24 hours a day by the Coast Guardand handles the reporting of all significant hazard-ous materials spills under agreements with DOT andEPA. Established in 1974, NRC has two 24-hourtoll-free telephone lines to receive notifications andseveral other lines to relay calls to emergency re-sponse agencies that may need to know of therelease. However, the NRC telephone numberdoes not appear in DOT’s Emergency ResponseGuidebook.*

Telephone reports received by NRC are loggedevery evening into a computer operated at the DOTTransportation Systems Center where the informa-tion is retained and managed by RSPA. RSPA usesthe NRC telephone reports occasionally, for seri-ous releases, but relies primarily on the writtenreports that it receives directly as the basis for itsdatabase on incidents, casualties, associated dam-ages, and a multitude of descriptors related to thematerial, container, cause, and location of therelease.

In many cases, carriers involved in a release havetelephoned CHEMTREC, a chemical transporta-tion emergency center established in 1971 by CMA.Since 1980, CHEMTREC has been required tonotify NRC of significant hazardous materials trans-portation releases—those which have or might causeconsiderable harm to the public or the environment.A call to CHEMTREC fulfills only the NRC tele-phone reporting requirements; it does not fulfillthe Federal written reporting requirements. TheCHEMTREC toll-free telephone number is givenin DOT’s Emergency Response Guidebook.

Although reporting releases is a regulatory require-ment, OTA found evidence that the compliance rateis low. One State official has estimated that 30 to40 percent of reportable hazardous materials inci-dents are never reported.65 EPA Region VII offi-cials have independently estimated that only about10 percent of all reportable releases under 100 gal-

’49 CFR 171.15.*U.S. Department of Transportation publishes and distributes the

Emergency Response Guidebook free of charge on request. It containsexamples of hazardous materials marking and shipping information andbasic guidance on appropriate first response actions.

65stephen w. Bal]ou, “Memo From Iowa Department of Water, ‘ir

and Waste Management,” unpublished typescript, May 6, 1985.


Figure 2=2.–DOT incident Report Form F5800.1

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Form Approved OM8 No. 04.S613

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT REPORTINSTRUCTIONS: Submit this report in duplicate to the Director, Office of Program Support, Materials Transportation Bureau,Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590, (ATTN: DMT-412). If space provided for any item is inadequate,complete that item under Section H, “Remarks”, keying to the entry number being completed. Copies of this form, in limitedquantities, may be obtained from the Director, Office of Program Support. Additional copies in this prescribed format maybereproduced and used, if on the same size and kind of paper.

INCIDENT!. TYPE OF OPERATION F R E I G H T

1 ~ Al R 2 i~ HIGt+WAY 3 D R A I L 4 ~ WATER S D FORwARt)Eff OTt+ER6 ~ (fden (I (y)

2. OA TE AN O 11 MC OF I Nc I OE N T (Month - Day - Year) 3. LOCATION OF INCIOENT

—-.p.m.

REPORTING CARRIER, COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL4. FU L L N A M E 5. ADORESS (Number, Street, CI ty, State and ZIP Code)

6. TYPE OF vEHI CLE OR FACI Ll TY

SHIPMENT INFORMATION

7. NAME AN O A OORESS OF SHIPPER (Ort@n address) 8. NAME AN O AOORESS OF CONSIGNEE ~Dest!nacton ● ddress)

1

9. SHIPPING PA PER I DEN 11 FI CA TION NO. ! O. SH I PPING PAPERS ISSUEO BY

I ~] CARRI ER :; SHI PP E R

_~ OTt+ ER(Iden tt fy)

DEATHS, INJURIES. LOSS AND DAMAGE

DUE TO H A Z AR DOUS MAT ERI AL S INVOLVED I 3. ES TIMA TEO AMOU U T OF LOSS A NO ‘OH1. NUMBER PERSONS I NJ UREO 12, NuMSE R PERSONS KI L LE O PROPERTY OAMAGE INC LUOt N G COST

O F OE CON T A Ml N A T 10N (Round off #n

I{

dollcrs)

4. ES TIM4TED TOTAL QUANT ITY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RE LEASED

s

IA ZARDOUS MATERIALS INVOLVED

15. HAZARD CLASS 16. SHIPPING NAME(*SOC. 172.101. Col. 3) (*SOC. 172.101, Cd. 2) I

17. TRADE NAME

,dATURE OF PACKAGING FAILURE

8. (Check all eppll cable bOJfes)

T

i 1) DROPPED I N HAN OL I NG (21 E X T E R N A L P U N C T U R E ( 3) OAM AG E BY OTHER FR El GHT

(4) wATER DAM AGE ( S) DAM AGE FROM OTHER LI QUI D (6) FREE 21 NG

(7) EX T E R N A L I+ E AT (8) INTERN AI_ PRESSURE ‘ (9 I CO RRO S(ON OR RUST

, ,., DE FECTI VE FI TTI NGS,v AL v ES. OR CLOSURES

( I I) Loos E FI TTI NGS, VALVES ORCLOSURE S

( 12) FA~Lu RE O F IN N E RR E C E P T A C L E S

( 13) 60 TTOM F A I L U R E ( t 4) BO OY O R S1 OE FAILURE ( 1S) WEL o FAIL u R E

( 17) OTHER CONOI TIONS (Idenft /y) 19. SPACE FOR DOT USE ONLYf 16) CH IME FAI L U RE

Form DOT F 5S00,1 (10-70) (9/1/76)*. Editorial change to incorporate redesignation per HM-1 12. I

.


Figure 2-2.—DOT Incident Report Form F5800.1—Continued

G PACK AGING INFORMATION . If more than one *I ze or type packagtna I a tnvol..d in IO. * of material ~OW pa=kaa,na ,“fOm~(,Onsmporately for ● ach. I I mom spin. a t w needed, uge Sectton H ‘ ‘Remarks”’ below keylnd to the I tam number.

I T EM I *1 I *2 I *3

[

20

21

22

23

24

TYPE OF PACKAGING INCLUDING INNERREC t5 PTA C LES cSteel dmma. woodon box. I I Icylinder, etc.]

CAPACITY OR WEIGHT PER UNIT(5S dbllons, 65 Ibe., etc.)

NUM8ER OF PACKAGES FROM WHICHMATERIAL ESCAPED

NUMSER OF PACKAGES OF SAME TYPEI N SUI PktEN T

DOT SPECIFICATION NUMBER(S) ONPACKAGES (21 F’, f 7&, 3AA, etc., or non ● )

SHOw ALL OTHER DOT PACK AG INGMARKINGS (Part 178) I I I

26 NAME, SYMEOL, OR REGISTRATION NUM-BER OF PACKAGING MANUFACTURER

SHOW SERIAL NUMBER OF CYLINDERS.27 CARGO TAN KS, TANK CARS, PORTABLE

TANKS28 TYPE DOT LA 8EL(S) APPLIED

REGISTRATIONI F RECONOI TIONEO A NO. OR SYMSOL

29OR DATE OF LAST

e TEST OF INSPEC.REQUA LI FIEO, SHOW Tt ON

I F SHI PMENT IS UN OER OOT OR USCG3Q SPECIAL PERMIT, ENTER PERMIT NO.

iM REMARKS . Describe essential facts of lncldent lncludmg but not limited to defects, damage, probable cause, stowage,

act Ion taken at the time discovered, and action taken to prevent future incidents. Include any recommendations to improvepackaging, handling, or transportation of hazardous materials. Photographs and diagrams should be submitted whennecessary for clarification.

31. NAME OF PERSON PREPARING RE PORT ( TYP. or Print) 32. S I G N A T U R E

33. TE LE PHONE NO. (Include Area Code) 34. DATE REPORT PREPAREO

.

Reverse of Form DOT F 5800.1 (10-70)

— ——.— - — — . —


ions are reported to EPA, the States, or NRC, al-though 90 percent of releases over 100 gallons arereported; and 20 percent of all polychlorinated bi-phenyl releases are reported.66 Transportation spillsconstitute 26 percent of the total number of inci-dent reports compiled by this EPA region.67

The hazardous materials regulated community isso large that inspection of every facility, manufac-turer, shipper, and carrier is not feasible. Enforce-ment agencies use a variety of criteria to determinehow best to deploy their inspection resources, andviolation and release records are frequently used toidentify areas on which to concentrate inspectionefforts. The Coast Guard, for example, has re-directed its inspection efforts to “high-priority” ves-sels, the definition of which includes a vessel witha reported previous hazardous materials incident.BMCS and the Federal Railroad Administrationalso use selection criteria to determine inspectionpriorities, based in part on release experience.68

However, since compliance with the release report-ing requirement is low, many firms go for years with-out seeing an inspector, and problems remain un-corrected.

The incentive for reporting, as required by theFederal enforcement program, is to avoid the pos-sibility of a civil or criminal penalty that can be im-posed if a person knowingly violates a HazardousMaterials Transportation Act regulation. Civilpenalties, more common than criminal penalties,can include a liability of up to $10,000 per viola-tion or 1 year imprisonment, or both. Criminalpenalties are subject to a fine of up to $25,000 or5 years imprisonment, or both. However, even whenviolators are penalized, the level of the penalty isoften insufficient to deter future violations, becausethe costs of compliance are greater than those ofpotential penalties. Thus, some operators considerpenalties to be an occasional cost of doing busi-

‘ICF, Inc., “Economic Analysis of Reportable Quantity Adjust-ments Under Sections 102 and 103 of the Comprehensive Environ-mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,” unpublished type-script, March 1985.

67 William J. Keffer, “Incident Activity Report,” periods coveringJune-August 1985, memo to distribution, U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency Region VII.

6SU.S, Depa~ment of Transportation, Research and special prO-grams Administration, A Gui& to the FederaJ Hazardous MaterialsTransportation Regulatory Program (Washington, DC: January 1983).

ness.69 For further discussion of penalty levels, seechapter 4.

Despite widespread mistrust in the reliability ofthe HMIS, its information is acknowledged to bethe best available, and frequent requests for Fed-eral accident and spill data come from the privatesector, including legal professionals, industryanalysts, private citizens, consultants, and univer-sity researchers. In most cases, DOT handles thesethrough distribution of a hard copy of the requestedmaterial, although a few databases are also accessi-ble through online queries via telephone access.

Modal Accident Data Systems

Independent of the RSPA release reporting sys-tem are several accident reporting systems main-tained by various modal administrations.* These sys-tems were designed to cover all transportationaccidents under the jurisdiction of the particularadministration, not just those involving hazardousmaterials. In many cases, however, special identi-fiers have been placed in the reporting format thatpermit the designation of an accident involving haz-ardous cargo. These databases are useful secondary

data, as the accident reports are usually based onreporting procedures independent of RSPA proce-dures, and thus are not subject to the same defi-ciencies. However, the different agencies use differ-ent location codes for accidents, ranging from pointcodes to relative location from a nearby town, mak-ing it difficult to identify routes where route char-acteristics may contribute. In addition, other sourcesof information exist that are useful for understand-ing releases and accidents related to the transpor-tation of hazardous materials.

The Coast Guard maintains two databases thatinclude recognition of accidents and spills involv-ing hazardous materials: 1) the Commercial VesselCasualty File (CVCF), and 2) the Pollution IncidentReporting System (PIRS). These databases could be

6~ational Conference of State Legislatures, Hazardous Materials Zn-

cidenr Reports (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation,Research and Special Programs Administration, February 1984).

*The term “accident” refers to a vehicular accident. Most hazard-ous materials transport releases are not caused by vehicular accidentsthemselves, but by other causes such as faulty valves or closures. Con-versely, most vehicular accidents do not involve vehicles that are trans-porting hazardous materials.


used to fill a gap in the HMIS, which is particularlyweak in the marine mode.

CVCF includes all vessel accidents, both domes-tic and foreign, occurring since 1963 in U.S. waters,subject to the following criteria:

●

●

●

●

●

actual physical damage to property in excess of$25,000;material damage affecting the seaworthiness,maneuverability, or efficiency of a vessel;stranding or grounding (with or without damage);loss of life; and/orinjury causing any person to remain incapaci-tated for a period in excess of 72 hours, exceptinjur y to harbor workers not resulting in deathand not resulting from vessel casualty or vesselequipment casualty.

The records include vessel characteristics, event,cause, fatalities/injuries, and monetary damage; spe-cific vessel codes indicate whether the vessel was car-

70rying hazardous cargo.

The PIRS database consists of reports generatedin response to requirements of the Federal WaterPollution Control Act and the Comprehensive En-vironmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-ity Act. It includes all polluting releases into U.S.waters and identifies transport-related releases byhazardous substance name. The database also in-cludes the quantity released, cause of the incident,and the date and location.71 According to CoastGuard officials, the PIRS database has unedited fileswhere major errors often appear, and only closedcases are available for analysis from the database.

The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has main-tained a database on accidents since 1973. It includesany motor carrier accident in which a fatality or in-jury occurred or for which at least $2,000 in prop-erty damage was incurred. Reports are filed on Form50-T, which requests carrier identification and ad-dress, location of the incident, characteristics of theevent, cause, information on the cargo, and conse-quences of the accident. The carrier identification,cargo description, and certain accident character-

“1.).S. Coast Guard, Coding lnscrucrions for the Automated File ofCommercial Vessel Casualties (Washington, DC: February 1984).

“’U.S. Coast Guard, Polluting Incidents In and Around U.S.Waters, Calendar Year 1981 and 1982 (Washington, DC: December1983).

istics are recorded, so that congruence between theHMIS database and BMCS database maybe achiev-able for releases caused by vehicular accidents.

The Federal Railroad Administration maintainsits own accident/incident database from informa-tion generated by railroads, inspectors, and RSPA.The database includes information similar to the ac-cident characteristics described in the Coast Guardand BMCS databases, although FRA has its owndefinition of incidents and accidents. FRA performsa number of internal consistency checks to strengthenthe validity of the database. These include the elim-ination of double-counting of events when morethan one railroad files a report, spot checks of sus-picious events, and occasional audits of railroad in-ternal records. Over the past 10 years, over 80,000records have been included in the FRA file. Approx-imately 1,000 of these have involved releases of haz-ardous materials. FRA also maintains an RSPA-enhanced database on hazardous materials spills,which includes accident location information, rail-road code, and STCC.

The Federal Aviation Administration maintainsa computerized accident/incident database at its Na-tional Field Office in Oklahoma City. This data-base consists of air accidents officially reported tothe National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)and reports filed by FAA field inspectors. FAAmakes a distinction between an accident and an in-cident based on the dollar damage incurred in thereported event. The FAA database includes the pi-lot involved, the carrier, time-of-day, and otherdescriptors such as contributing circumstances andaccident (incident) severity. It is apparently possi-ble to identify hazardous materials accidents/inci-dents in this database; according to FAA officials,11 accidents/incidents involving hazardous mate-rials have been reported in the past 5 years. Al-though OTA made several requests for additionalinformation, FAA did not respond.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-tration’s (NHTSA) National Center for Statisticsand Analysis maintains accident data on police-reported accidents, including those resulting in non-fatal injury and/or property damage. The file, theNational Accident Sampling System (NASS), wasdeveloped to provide an automated, comprehensivenational traffic accident database. The accidentsinvestigated in NASS are a probability sample of


all police-reported accidents in the United States.The data for a NASS-selected accident is collectedby each State under contractual agreement withNHTSA and includes characteristics of the accident,driver, occupants, and vehicle. Data relevant to thisstudy include the vehicle number, type of carrier,and whether BMCS regulated; characteristics of theroadway where the accident occurred, vehicle bodytype, body/trailer configuration, vehicle curb andcargo weight; and impact of the accident. Althoughthe specific commodity being carried is not de-scribed, sufficient information exists to track acci-dents likely to involve hazardous materials, and re-cently a hazardous materials “flag” was added to therecord description. Outside of the date and loca-tion of the accident, there is little congruence withthe data collected by RSPA; however, the charac-teristics of the driver, road, and traffic may be im-portant determinants of hazardous materials ac-cidents. 72

Those accidents resulting in loss of human life arealso classified separately in NHTSA’s Fatal Acci-dent Reporting System (FARS). The FARS file con-tains data on vehicles and persons involved in fa-tal accidents, defined as an accident in which anaccident-related death occurred within 30 days ofthe accident. FARS includes all fatal accidents thatoccur in the United States. Other than this distinc-tion, however, the information collected parallelsthe NASS data structure.73 Table 2-10 shows theincident/accident databases.

Other Relevant Databases

Environmental Protection Agency.–EPA re-gional offices receive notifications from many sourcesof releases of hazardous substances; the reports areintegrated into a regional release reporting system.Data recorded include the release date, company in-volved, spill location, nature of the emergency, ma-terial spilled and volume, source of the spill, respond-ing agency, nature of the response, and resolution.Several EPA regions maintain this information incomputerized files. EPA uses National Response

Center reports in addition to spills reported to EPAregional offices, States, and local governments toformulate regulatory policy.

National Response Center.–Although tele-phone reports to NRC are primarily to stimulatea response action, the information provided can beused for policy analysis. Data items include the loca-tion of the incident, mode of transportation in-volved, material involved, and quantity released.The material definitions are coded differently fromthose in HMIS, and causal factors are not consid-ered in any fashion. However, the NRC databaseprovides a more balanced picture of releases bydifferent modes, particularly marine transport.

National Transportation Safety Board.–NTSBinvestigates transportation accidents in any mode,based on the definition in 49 CFR of a major ve-hicular accident for each mode. NTSB may use theNRC telephone report information to help deter-mine whether to proceed with its own investigation.

An NTSB investigation includes a multiple-day

field investigation involving the shipper, carrier, gov-ernment agencies, associations, and other interestedparties. The investigations take place over severalmonths, so that the full impact of the accident canbe assessed. One consequence of this timeframe isthat the accident damages reported by NTSB aresubstantiall y greater than those reported by carriers

‘zNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Acci-dent Sampling System (NASS), Analytical User’s Manual (Washing-ton, DC: 1981).

7~National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatal Acciden,Reporting Systems (FARS), User’s Guide (Washington, DC: Augus1981).

Table 2“10.—lncident/Accident Databases

Exclusivehazardous Exclusivematerials transport

Database Kept by Years Modes Accidents Incidents focus focus. .Hazardous Materials Information DOT, Office of Hazardous Materials 1971 to present All Yes Yes Yes YesSystem Transportation, Research and Spe-

cial Programs Administration

Commercial Vessel Casualty File U.S. Coast Guard 1983 to present Marine Yes No No Yes

Pollution Incident Reporting U.S. Coast Guard 1971 to 1985 All Yes Yes Yes NoSystem

T r u c k A c c i d e n t F i l e D O T , B u r e a u o f M o t o r C a r r i e r 1 9 7 3 t o p r e s e n t H i g h w a y Y e s N o N o Y e sS a f e t y , F e d e r a l H i g h w a y A d m i n i s -tration

Railroad Accident File Association of American Railroads 1973 to present Rail Yes Yes No Yes

Air Accident File Federal Aviation Administration — Air Yes Yes No Yes

National Accident Sampling System National Highway Traffic Safety 1983 (Hazardous Highway Yes No No YesAdministration materials flags

added in 1983)

Fatal Accident Reporting System National Highway Traffic Safety 1983 (Hazardous Highway Yes No No YesAdministrate ion materials flags

added in 1983)

National Response Center U.S. Coast Guard — All Yes Yes Yes No

National Transportation Safety National Transportation Safety — All Yes No No YesBoard File Board

U.S. Department of Energy Data Sandia National Laboratories 1979 to present All Yes Yes Yes Yes

Washington State Accident File Washington State Utility and Trans- 1978 Highway Yes No No Yesportation Commission


I

I

I;


to RSPA.74 NTSB maintains a database on the vi-tal statistics of each investigated accident. Railroadand aviation accident data are stored in computerfiles. Highway and marine accident data are storedon coding sheets, but have not yet been logged intothe computer system.

Department of Energy. –At the Sandia Labora-tories, DOE maintains an online database on allradioactive incidents, based on the HMIS file andinformation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion on the loss of control of radioactive materials.The database consists of approximately 70 percentHMIS records and 30 percent NRC records. NRCis the lead agency in conducting investigations oftransport accidents involving radioactive materials.These investigations focus on mechanical analysesof the containers involved in the accident, for thepurpose of improving the safety of the containers.75

Table 2-2 presents a summary of these databases.

State and Local AgencyAccident Data Systems

Accident and spill databases maintained by Stateand local agencies vary considerably depending onthe authorities involved and the level of commit-ment the organization has made to managing haz-ardous materials transportation problems.

The most difficult data-gathering problem in Stateand local studies has been obtaining reliable infor-mation on past hazardous materials releases. Mostfire departments do not keep separate records of haz-ardous materials incidents, although fire depart-ments in some large metropolitan areas are begin-

‘qU.S. General Accounting Office, Programs for Ensuring the SafeTransporrarion of Hazardous Materials Need Improvement (Washing-ton, DC: November 1980).

‘fLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Mechanical Analysis ofa Transportation Accident Involving Empty Shipping Casks for Radio-active Materials Near Hilda, South Carolina in November 1982,NUREG/CR-3452 (Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, October 1983); Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Simulation of Loading Conditions for a Type A Package ContainingAmericium-241 Involved in an Airplane Crash at Detroit Metro Air-porr in January 1983, NUREG/CR-3536 (Washington, DC: U.S. Nu-clear Regulatory Commission, January 1984); L2 ,wence LivermoreNational Laboratory, A Highway Accidenr Involving Radiopharma.ceuticals Near Brookhaven, Mississippi, on December 3, 1983,NUREG/CR-4035 (Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, April 1985); SRI International, Mechanics ofa Highway Ac-cident at Wichita, Kansas, Involving Natural Uranium Concentrate,NUREG/CR-0992 (Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, August 1979).

ning to develop special hazardous materials reportforms for use in internal planning. State and localplanners usually must rely on outside sources, someof which may be unreliable or contradictory. Theexperience of San Francisco Bay Area planners il-lustrates the difficulty of collecting data on releases:of 16 Federal, State, regional, and local sources con-tacted, only 9 could provide data on past releaseswithin the timeframe requested for the study. More-over, these sources did not have a common format,and sources reporting the same incident often var-ied considerably. 76 The staff conducting a currentCalifornia study for the State legislature found itnecessary to consult three separate databases to de-velop a reliable release record for the State high-way system.

State and local agencies have concentrated on de-veloping accident reporting systems rather than re-lease reporting systems and focus much of their at-tention on the highway mode. This is due to therole of the State and local police in reporting traf-fic accidents, and a well established and coordinatednetwork of accident management. 78 There have,however, been several State and local attempts tofocus on hazardous materials releases, many of themfunded by DOT as demonstration projects.*

Other State and regional projects have explicitlyexamined hazardous materials releases, but have re-lied heavily or exclusively on HMIS for their data.These include an analysis of hazardous materialstransport by rail conducted by the State of NewJersey79 and a multimodal study of the transporta-tion of hazardous materials in the New York-NewJersey region.80

— — .76&oc1ation of Bay Area Governments, “issues and Recommenda-

tions,” San Francisco Bay Area: Hazardous Spill Prevention and Re-sponse Plan, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transpor-tation, Research and Special Programs Administration, February 1983).

‘TLinda Turnquist, Analyst, California Transit (CALTRANS), per-sonal communication, March 1986.

78Some States have mandatory reporting of hazardous substance re-leases similar to CERCLA requirements although many local agen-cies are unaware of these reporting requirements. See ICF, Inc., Eco-nomic Analysis of Reportable Quantity Adjustments Under Sections102 and 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-pensation, and Liability Act (Washington, DC: March 1985).

*An additional Federa] initiative has been the State Hazardous Ma-terials Enforcement Development (SHMED) program, The focus hasbeen on establishing uniform transportation safety standards for haz-ardous materials and the enforcement of these standards.

T~ew Jersey Department of Transportation, OffIce of Freight Serv-

ices, Movements and Incidents of Hazardous Materials in New Jersey(Trenton, NJ: The New Jersey State Legislature, December 1984).

~Scanlon, op. cit.

Ch. 2—Data and Information Systems for Hazardous Materials ● 75

More sophisticated State applications include theuse of computerized accident recordkeeping systemsused with flow data to determine highway accidentrates and high risk locations. The States of Utah,Washington, and New York, for example, maintaincomputerized accident recordkeeping databases thatcontain police accident investigation reports. Whena heavy truck is involved, the carrier name, vehi-cle type, contributing circumstances, accident sever-ity, and other information are required. In the caseof the State of Washington, the United Nationsnumber of the cargo is also included.

This type of database permits extracting informa-tion about heavy vehicle accidents where hazard-ous cargo was involved. The information can bechecked against movement data to determine acci-dent rates of vehicles transporting hazardous cargo.The accident rates can be used subsequently to com-pute transport risk profiles and identify safer routesfor hazardous materials. The capability to do thisexists in the States of Washington and New York,but has not been utilized by the States, partly be-cause of the fragmentation of State governmentresponsibilities. Accident and movement data re-side in different offices, and still other offices are re-sponsible for policy analysis. Both States are, how-ever, moving toward conducting better analyses ofthe data that is collected and maintained.

The State of Maryland has largely overcome theseproblems. Several years ago, Maryland began a sur-veillance system of hazardous cargo movements atmultiple check points and different times of the day.A State release reporting system was also institutedunder which any hazardous materials release is en-tered into the database. These two sources of in-formation are subsequently compared to determinethe level of hazardous materials transport safety inthe State. This information has been used to dem-onstrate a preferred nuclear materials routing sys-tem in Maryland. However, the accomplishmentsin Maryland have come only after IO years of activ-ity and significant coordination among State agen-cies, demonstrating how time-consuming and pains-taking such a process is.

State data-collection capabilities will be further en-hanced when an integrated Federal-State data net-work, known as SAFETYNET, is made operationalby BMCS. SAFETYNET will tie together the pres-

ent BMCS Motor Carrier Safety database withHMIS and various computer-based State systems.The Motor Carrier Safety database now containsinformation on more than 200,000 interstate car-riers and 30,000 hazardous materials shippers. It canreport all of the known carriers domiciled in a re-gion, rank them by the average number of driverand vehicle violations found per inspection, list thenumber of truck inspections each carrier has under-gone, and give the date of the most recent safetyaudit. Once SAFETYNET is operating, BMCS andparticipating States should be able to:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

input driver-vehicle inspection data,update and query inspection data,update and query carrier census data,query safety management audit summary data,query accident report summary data,query inspection workload data, andgenerate system reports.81

A demonstration program involving four States–North Carolina, Colorado, Oregon, and Michigan—is in progress. The eventual goal is to include allStates in SAFETYNET, but this may take 10 yearsor more to accomplish. Funding is to be providedthrough a variety of Federal and State programs.

Carrier Release Data

Virtually all carriers retain copies of reports onaccidents and releases that they have filed with theappropriate authorities. However, OTA contractorsfound, based on conversations with carriers, thatthe methods used for reporting information on FormF5800. 1 are arbitrary. There was a consensus amongcarriers that the primary purpose of the form is torecord a release, not to establish accurate details,and that the 15-day reporting requirement is tooshort. For example, relatively small damage is oftenreported as no damage; when the damage is meas-urable, the carriers usually report the out-of-pocketcost and include the loss of cargo only and not thecleanup cost. There is little evidence that carriersuse the release reports for any purpose beyond ful-filling the reporting requirement. Carriers also em-

‘[].A. Reyes Associates, inc., “SAFETYNET: The Motor CarrierSafety Information Network,” prepared for the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal High\~’ay Administration, Bureau of MotorCarrier Safet}, unpublished typescript, No\ember 1984.

— . — —


phasize that it is inappropriate for them to be re-quired to report releases that occur during loadingand unloading, since they often do not perform thisfunction and are unaware of a release havingoccurred or the details concerning it. *

The Association of American Railroads main-tains its own release database from inspector, rail-road, Form F5800. 1, CHEMTREC, and telephonereports. Information includes date, location, releasetype, source of data, deaths and injuries, and esti-mated damage. The damage estimates can be seg-mented by equipment, lading, fire, and other dam-age. The AAR database goes back to 1973.

Completeness and Accuracy of HMIS

The HMIS database is extremely important as thebasis for most studies of hazardous materials trans-port safety in the United States. To assess the ade-quacy of HMIS for this purpose OTA addressed twoconcerns:

1. nonreporting of spills as documented in otherdatabases that allow identification of hazard-ous materials releases, and

2. misreporting of spills as documented by infor-mation on the same incident in other releaseand accident databases.

To document the extent of nonreporting and mis-reporting, OTA contractors compared the HMISdatabase with relevant secondary databases on re-leases and accidents. However, in most cases, otherreporting systems cover a much broader spectrumof releases and accidents than simply hazardous ma-terials transport, and are thus not oriented for anal-yses of the industry at the level of detail theoreti-cally available in the HMIS database. Moreover,databases differ on the definition of a reportable re-lease. Despite these difficulties, OTA concludes thatanalysis of secondary data is essential to ensureadequate records.

At OTA’s request, contractors undertook addi-tional analysis to provide further documentationand develop estimates of nonreporting for HMISkeeping in mind that reports to HMIS of injuriesand deaths are required only if the release occurs

V_his point was emphasized by Cynthia Hilton, Manager, The Chem-ical Waste Transportation Council, personal communication by let-ter, May 20, 1986.

during interstate transportation and if damage is dueto the hazardous material. The methodology for thiseffort was to match accidents with possible releasesin secondary databases, such as NTSB and theBMCS Truck Accident File (TAF) with reportedincidents in the HMIS database. Those releases forwhich an HMIS report could not be identified wereincluded in the computation of nonreporting bias.

Misreporting estimates were developed by study-ing releases in the HMIS database for which the in-formation reported by the carrier is inconsistent withinformation available in other reports for the sameincident. The methodology used to address this is-sue is based on comparing reported consequencesfor matching releases.

The Coast Guard’s Commercial Vessel CasualtyFile reporting criteria are detailed earlier in this re-port. While CVCF criteria differ somewhat fromthose for HMIS, they reflect similar objectives, in-cluding release consequence. While CVCF does notexplicitly identify the vessel’s cargo, it does have adetailed vessel-type definition from which releaseslikely to involve hazardous materials can be identi-fied. For the purposes of this analysis, tanker shipsand tanker barges were considered. A direct com-parison between CVCF and HMIS was conductedfor the period 1976-80.

CVCF analysis shows that collisions and ground-ing constitute the bulk of reported incidents, withrelatively few releases caused by fire, explosion, ormaterial failure, The primary cause of failure is mostoften “fault of other vessel/personnel. ” Inclementweather has a relatively minor impact on the over-all number of reported incidents. (See table 2-1 1.)The most frequent general locations of marine haz-ardous materials releases were along the Gulf of

Table 2.11.–Waterborne Incidents Reportedto the Commercial Vessel Casualty File

by Primary Cause, 1976=80

Number of Percentageincidents of total

Poor weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 3Equipment failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 502 8Depth less than charted . . . . . . 138 2Fault of other vessel/

personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,240 69Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +%$ ‘7



Mexico, probably reflecting the major petroleum andchemical activities in that region. (See table 2-12.)This contrasts greatly with the HMIS analysis,which lists high frequency marine release locationsas Louisiana, California, New Jersey, Puerto Rico,and Maryland.

A comparison of CVCF release reports and con-sequences with marine releases contained in theHMIS database appears in table 2-13. The numberof reportable releases is off by a factor of 41; overfour times as many injuries have been reported toCVCF; 24 deaths have been reported to CVCF,with no fatalities listed in HMIS. However, becauseof the format of the CVCF report, it is impossibleto determine if the injury or death was due to thehazardous material or some other cause, such as col-lision forces. The average damage per release is fourtimes greater in CVCF, implying that the proceduresused in CVCF reporting acknowledge more substan-tial destruction than reported by carriers to RSPA.For the period 1976-80, damage apparently relatedto hazardous materials releases reported to CVCFexceeds $189 million, or over $50 million more thanthe damage total in HMIS for 1976 to 1984 on alltransport modes combined.

Truck Accident File.–The BMCS Truck Acci-dent File includes all reported vehicular accidentsinvolving hazardous and nonhazardous cargo. Threecommon descriptive fields exist for HMIS and TAF:year, month, and State of release. Thus, an HMISincident occurring at a different location in the Stateor on a different day during the same month mightbe erroneously matched; hence, the nonreportingestimate from this analysis should be considered alower bound. A data field within the database per-mits isolation of accidents involving vehicles carry-

Table 2-12.—Waterborne Incidents Reportedto the Commercial Vessel Casualty File

by General Location, 1976-80

Number of Percentagelnspection unit incidents of total

New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,065 17New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 8Galveston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 7Paducah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 6Memphis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 6Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 5Port Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 5Mobile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 5SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Table 2.13.–Commercial Vessel Casualty File (CVCF)Comparison With the Hazardous Materials Information

System (HMIS) Database, 1976.80

HMISCVCF database

Number of incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,154 150Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 13Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Average damage per incident ($) ... .. $30,817 $7,843SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment,

ing hazardous materials. Table 2-14 identifies theStates where data for 1983 showed that accidentsoccurred most frequently. The top five States fromthe RSPA database are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois,New York, and Texas, respectively. Although mostof the same States appear at the top of both the TAFand HMIS databases, the order is not the same. Ta-ble 2-15 displays the TAF-reported injuries anddeaths for 1983. The impact to the community–the number of other people killed and injured asa consequence of a hazardous materials accident—dwarfs the impact to the driver and other riders.

A comparison of TAF and HMIS statistics for1983 appears in table 2-16. The databases containinformation on 502 matching incidents, the conse-quences of which appear in tables 2-17 and 2-18.Carrier-reported incidents underestimate the deaths,injuries, and damages associated with hazardous ma-

Table 2-14.—Truck Accidents by General LocationUsing the Truck Accident File, 1983

State Number of incidents Percent of totalTexas . . . . . . . . . . . 152 9.5Pennsylvania. . . . . 107 6.7New York . . . . . . . 79 4.9California. . . . . . . . 79 4.9Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 4.1SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Table 2.15.—Truck Accident File Reported Injuriesand Deaths, 1983

Deaths Injuries

Driver . . . . . . . . . ... , ., ., . . . . . . . . . . . 28 474Relief driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 38Authorized rider. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62Unauthorized rider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 897

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 1,479SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.


Table 2-16.—Truck Accident File (TAF) Comparison With Hazardous MaterialsInformation System (HMIS) Database, 1983

TAF HMIS database

Number of vehicular accidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,602 approx. 211a

Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,479 max. 121 b

Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 max. 8 b

Average damage per accident . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .$16,800 approx. $l,534c

tiApp~~ximatiorr isbasedonthe total highway incidents for 1983 multiplied by the percentage of incidents which are result

of vehicular accidents (d.s~o)

bThesenumbers~e lg~totaisforaii accidents svrdincidents.cThiS IS the aVera@ reported damage per incident fOr 1~


Table 2-17.—Hazardous Materials Information System(HMIS) Misreporting Consequences Using

the Truck Accident File (TAF) Databases, 1983

Number ofmatchingincidents Deaths Injuries Damages

TAF . . . . . . 502 50 490 $10,077,004HMIS. . . . . 502 5 59 4,404,092SOURCE: Office of Tachnoiogy Assessment,

Table 2=18.—Hazardous Materials Information System(HMIS) Misreporting Consequences Using the National

Response Center (NRC) Database, 1983

Number of Deaths Injuries

Mode matching incidents NRC HMIS NRC HMIS

Air. . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0Rail . . . . . . . . 243 4 0 21 42Highway. . . . 449 16 6 117 23Water . . . . . . 1 0 0 0 0SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment,

terials transport incidents. Approximately 8 timesas many vehicular accidents involving hazardousmaterials were reported to TAF as to HMIS, result-ing in at least 12 times as many injuries and 19 timesas many deaths. Finally, the average damage per in-cident is considerably larger for the TAF database.This can be partially explained by the facts that theHMIS estimate includes other releases, which maybe less destructive, than those related to accidentsand that damages reported to HMIS are estimatedbased on the consequences of the hazardous mate-rial involved only.

Despite the loosely matching criteria, of the 1,602hazardous materials accidents appearing in TAF,only 502 or 31 percent could be found in theHMIS database. The missing accidents caused acombined impact of 104 deaths, 989 injuries, and

$16,867,056 in damages. Among the more notablenonreported accidents are the following: HighlandPark, Illinois, on March 22, 1983, killing one, injuringfour, and causing $120,000 in damages; Kemmerer,Wyoming, on April 7, 1983, killing five, injuringtwo, and causing $26,500 in damages; Georgetown,Kentucky, on May 1, 1983, killing three, injuringnine, and causing $75,000 in damages; and Hurri-cane, Utah, on November 21, 1983, killing three,injuring three, and causing $100,000 in damages.

National Response Center.–This database is notdesigned for policy analysis purposes; however, somelimited relevant analyses can be conducted. Reportsto NRC could include hazardous substance spills,which EPA requires be reported but RSPA does not,unless the substance is specifically listed in the Haz-ardous Materials Table.

The matching methodology consisted of search-ing on four common fields: year, month, day, andState of incident; the results are shown in table 2-19. Table 2-20 displays NRC and HMIS statisticsfor numbers of reported incidents, deaths, and in-juries in 1983. In total, NRC-reported injuries anddeaths are significantly larger than those reportedin the HMIS database, although there is consider-able fluctuation at the modal level. The data dem-

Table 2-19.—Hazardous Materials Information System(HMIS) Nonsporting Consequences Using the National

Response Center Database, 1983

Number notfound in Percentage

Mode HMIS database nonmatching Deaths Injuries

Rail . . . . . . 510 68 2 10Highway. . 431 49 12 72Air. . . . . . . 11 1 0Water . . . . 552 99 o 29SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

——

Ch. 2—Data and Information Systems for Hazardous Materials 79

Table 2-20.—Hazardous Materials Information System(HMIS) Nonreporting Analysis Using the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)Database, 1976.83

Number of Number notincidents in found in Percentage

Mode NTSB database HMIS database nonmatching

Rail . . . . . . . 258 165 64Highway. . . 6 3 50Water . . . . . 7 6 86SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

onstrate serious nonreporting problems for the airtransport industry. The NRC database has limitedusefulness in quantifying damage estimates, sincethis is not a reporting requirement. Table 2-19 showsthe results of comparisons between the databasesfor matching incidents; valid comparisons can bemade only for the rail and highway modes.

The National Transportation Safety Board ex-amines only hazardous materials incidents that haveserious consequences; thus theoretically, all NTSBincidents should also have been reported to RSPAand included in HMIS. NTSB incident reports in-clude information on injuries, deaths, and damages,and share five matching fields with HMIS: year,month, day, city, and State. HMIS files for 1976to early 1983 were studied to find informationmatching NTSB data; the results are shown intable 2-20. The analysis indicates that 50 percentor more of the most serious hazardous materialstransport incidents go unreported to RSPA. OTAdid not attempt to determine whether this percent-age changed over time. Most NTSB hazardous ma-terials reports for which sufficient information wasavailable were for rail incidents, and nearly two-thirds of NTSB incidents were not reported in HMIS.

Table 2-21 displays the consequences of the un-reported incidents. For rail alone, the injuries anddamages of unreported incidents appearing in theNTSB database exceed the total reported injuriesand damages for all HMIS rail incidents from 1976to 1984. Among the more notable omissions are anincident in Maryland, Oklahoma, on December 15,1976, which resulted in 3 deaths, 11 injuries, andan estimated $880,700 in damages; Crestview,Florida, on April 8, 1979, which injured 14 peopleand caused $1,258,500 in damages; Pisgah, Califor-nia, on May 11, 1980, which killed 1 person, injured3, and caused $2,889,000 in damages; and Benton,

Table 2-21.-Hazardous Materials Information System(HMIS) Nonreporting Consequences Using National

Transportation Safety Board Database, 1976-83

Number notMode found in HMIS Deaths Injuries Damages

Rail . . . . . . . . 165 37 92 $89,443,936Highway. . . . 3 12 41 125,000Water . . . . . . 6 13 18 16,360,000SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Iowa, on August 15, 1982, which injured 1 andcaused $2,140,000 in damages.

Although the sample size for highway and ma-rine is too small for good analysis, in two othermodes NTSB showed serious incidents that were notreported to HMIS. For example, a highway incidenton December 28, 1977, in Goldonna, Louisiana,which killed 2 people, injured 11, and caused$125,000 in damages, and a marine incident in GoodHope, Louisiana, on August 30, 1979, which killed12 and resulted in $10,500,000 in damages were notreported to HMIS. (See table 2-17.)

Examples of misreporting include a rail release inNewton Falls, Ohio, on May 9, 1979, that causedan estimated damage of $1,407,000 in the NTSB re-port; according to the HMIS database, no damagewas reported. In another case, NTSB reported$2,540,000 in damages caused by a rail release inHastings, Iowa, on July 10, 1980; the HMIS reportshows no damage.

NTSB reviews the incidents it investigates overan extended period of time and holds discussionswith a number of involved and affected parties. Incontrast, RSPA requires reports to be submitted bythe carrier within 15 days of the incident. Table 2-22 displays the consequence statistics of NTSB andHMIS for matching incidents. For the rail mode,RSPA estimates of death and injury are within rangeof NTSB reports. However, damage estimates areoff significantly, by a factor of 7 to 8.

The Association of American Railroads Data=base.–AAR maintains a hazardous materials inci-dent file that includes a data field identifying theprimary source of the report. AAR data corroboratethe results of the HMIS comparison with NTSBdata; over 60 percent of reportable rail releases arenot being reported to RSPA. Of 13,706 incidents


Table 2-22.–Hazardous Materials information System (HMIS) MisreportingConsequences Using the National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) Database, 1976-83

Number of Deaths Injuries DamagesMode matching incidents NTSB HMIS NTSB HMIS NTSB HMIS

Rail . . . . . . . . . 93 33 28 192 315 $62,589,360 $8,437,363Highway. . . . . 3 11 11 21 8 138,070 2,119,820Water . . . . . . . 1 9 0 0 0 0 0SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

examined in the file, the primary sources were re-ported as follows:

Inspector . . . . . . . . . . ..3,356 (24 percent)Railroad. . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 (3 percent)Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . 834 (6 percent)CHEMTREC . . . . . . .. 1,901 (14 percent)Unknown . . . . . . . . . . .1,978 (14 percent)Form F5800.1 . . . . . . ..5,272 (38 percent)

Washington State Accident File (WSAF).–WSAF is maintained by the Washington Utilitiesand Transportation Commission. OTA contractorsexamined this database because, while it includesall highway freight accidents, it also contains aunique identifier for accidents involving hazardousmaterials. Moreover, this database has useful in-formation not available in HMIS records, such aslocation type (urban/rural), type of accident, roadsurface, light conditions, type of road, truck con-tributing circumstances, truck driver/vehicle actions,truck vehicle condition, and truck driver sobriety.

Data from 1984 show the following: the locationsof hazardous materials accidents were split evenlybetween rural and urban sites. Two-thirds of theaccidents were property damage only, with very fewshowing major property damage. One-third of theaccidents occurred on roads that were wet, icy, orcovered with snow. Nearly three-quarters of the ac-cidents occurred in daylight. Roughly 85 percent ofthe accidents occurred on two-lane or four-laneroads, in contrast to 12 percent at intersections.Eighty percent of the accidents involved flamma-ble liquids. Of the 331 reported accidents, only 11.5percent resulted in a reported spill. Not including“no contributing circumstances, ” “driver inatten-tion” was cited as the most frequent contributingfactor. Roughly 70 percent of the accidents occurredwhile the vehicle was being driven along a straightpath, followed by right and left turns at 8 and 6 per-

cent, respectively. In over 80 percent of the acci-dents, the vehicle had no cited defect. Finally, driverdrinking causing impairment was cited only once.

Spills contained in WSAF were compared toHMIS to explore the issues of nonreporting and mis-reporting. Only 58 of 331 records, or 18 percent,were found in the HMIS database. For those recordsthat matched, HMIS reported no deaths, no inju-ries, and $438,894 in damages, in contrast to 2deaths, 22 injuries, and $956,370 reported in WSAF.

These findings raise serious questions about theintegrity of the RSPA reporting system both for un-reported incidents and inaccurately reported in-cidents.

The problem of underreporting in HMIS is mostserious for marine incidents, as indicated by NTSB,the National Response Center, and CVCF data;moreover, based on more limited NRC data, un-derreporting of air incidents is also high. The num-ber of reportable incidents maybe underestimatedby factors of at least 10 and 20, for air and water,respectively. For highway and rail transport, thenumber of reportable incidents may be underesti-mated by factors of at least 2 and 3, respectively.Furthermore, major events, resulting in deaths, in-juries, and significant damage, have gone unreportedto DOT. Misreporting creates underestimates ofdamages more than of deaths and injuries.

When the nonreporting and misreporting esti-mates for each mode are applied as multipliers toHMIS incident and damage estimates, HMIS reportsfor 1976 to 1984 of 79,257 incidents resulting in$144,751,240 in damage should be adjusted to178,683 incidents resulting in $1.47 billion in dam-age, according to OTA calculations. This analysisindicates a more serious safety problem than is pres-end y acknowledged by DOT and lends credence tothe concerns voiced by State and local officials.


HMIS Uses

The underreporting in HMIS makes it of ques-tionable value for some types of analysis. However,it provides the best data available on container prob-lems. When matched against rudimentary com-modity flow data, several conclusions useful for help-ing to make management decisions can be drawn.Conversely, many issues simply cannot be resolvedeven by the most painstaking analysis, because toomany questions remain unanswered. A review ofthe possible uses of HMIS follows.

For the 9-year period studied by OTA, the totalnumber of incidents by year reported to HMIS was79,253. As figure 2-3 shows, a general increase inreported incidents occurred through the late 1970s,even after changes in reporting requirements, fol-lowed by a significant decline beginning in 1980.However, because there is no similar annual com-modity flow data, it is impossible to establishwhether incident rates have dropped, perhaps in-dicating a safer system, or whether the number ofmovements has decreased, resulting in similar orworse incident rates. It is also possible that non-reporting has increased or that the loosening ofreporting requirements in 1981 led carriers to as-sume that they need not report any small spills.

Table 2-23 displays the results of a study of inci-dent location by mode. Heavy concentrations of in-cidents occur in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Texas,and California, probably due to major industrialactivity and significant truck and rail corridors oftravel for materials destined for other States. So fewmarine releases are reported to HMIS that no con-clusions can be drawn about water transport. Ten-nessee is the most frequent site for air incidents,probably because Memphis is a major air freighthub.

Human error is the primary cause of 62 percentof incidents, followed by package failure, and ve-hicular accidents. (See figures 2-4 and 2-5.) The morespecific reasons for incident occurrence appear intable 2-24. The predominant cause of failure variesconsiderably by mode, although external punctureand loose and defective fittings are often reported.These problems frequently occur during loading orunloading operations or when cargo shifts duringtransport, resulting in container bottom, body, or

15

14

13

10

Figure 2=3.—HMiS incidents by Year

1976

—

—178 1979 1960 1981 1982 1983 1964

Year


side failure, often caused by damage from otherfreight.

These conclusions point to issues that deserve rec-ognition and either further study or developmentof countermeasures. For example, public informa-tion programs to reduce the likelihood of hazard-ous materials being shipped by parcel post as bag-gage might be undertaken by the Postal Service andthe airlines. Thorough analysis of loading, unload-ing, blocking, and bracing operations and proce-dures is needed for all modes, but especially fortruck, rail, and air. Standard procedures and indus-try training programs could be developed.

The analyses also identified several other prob-lems in the industry deserving recognition and reso-lution. The use and integrity of MC-306 tank trucksand trailers for the highway mode, 11 1A tank carsfor the rail mode, and 17E containers* warrant fur-ther examination, especially those used to carry cor-rosives, which OTA’s analysis shows have the high-est incident rate of all commodities. Finally, thecondition of containers involved in incidents andthe frequent use of nonspecified or unauthorizedcontainers suggest the need for improved govern-mental inspection and enforcement activities. Onthe other hand, HMIS data show that vandalismand terrorism have not been serious problems.

*17Es are the most commonly used metal drum or pail containertypes.


Table 2-23.–Number of Incidentsa by Location and Mode, 1976-84

Mode

Highway Highway FreightState Air (for hire) (private) Rail Water forwarder Other Total

Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —District of Columbia . . . . . 3Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5lowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . 16Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . —Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . —New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 4New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 5North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . —Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Rhode Island.,.......,., —South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 4South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . –Tennessee ....,. . . . . . . . . 337Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 1Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1,26935

9341,1702,4701,119

383171

711,6762,331

6149

3,3402,1551,1101,167

7991,101

681,105

8322,2741,213

8232,518

20571910655

1,604717

3,1332,408

554,804

645355

6,4734

1071,351

842,4782,642

49434

1,671812471

1,975211

67

5925

4305253273889411228

125762744

1358411

13480

1144447

10127

711

910938

2105428

143

59245

313331673

212271667

121434951

410b

262251817

731668

2518334—60

828189

95166169372

444588

2549990

143725117

918094

211235

32846

165322—

3108

5203

1,265162

1241336556

—8——

15————221

——

—

—22—92

—

—1

————

14—71

————3

12—5—26——77———

5

——3——2—221

—85—2—3—257—

14—1

——

11—55—

141

—34

1—2

141

—451

—1

—122

222———13—131232

14

52513111

—

8—

1410—8——41

—3—

114—152

—12

- - - -1,75579

1,2651,4483,8331,280

456268114

2,3082,729

29238

4,3532,4311,2371,3821,1121,609

1241,3101,0252,6711,370

9642,782

306782137

741,937

8533,6362,718

1015,313

754583

7,10925

1231,506

1053,0974,191

53953

1,8811,093

5812,087

60 326alncidents refers tothe numberof huardousmateriats releases. For highway transport, areportls required only for releasesthat occur to acompany engaged inlnterstate transportation.

bBoldface numbers indicate five states with the highest number of incidents for each cate90W.

SOURCE: Officeof Technology Assessment.

Ch. 2–Data and Information Systems for Hazardous Materials ● 8 3

Figure 2-4.—General Causes of Spills by ModeAccording to the HMIS

35

30 “

25

20

15

10

5

0 —Human

error

mnPackage Vehicular Generalfailure accident cause

Other

Highway HighwayAir (for hire) (private) Rail Water

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment contractor report.

Figure 2-5.— General Causes for All Modes

Other (5.00/o)

Package failure(26.80/.)

(6.1 0/0)

Vehicular accidentHuman error (62.1 ‘/0)


Despite the fact that several years of data can beexamined, catastrophic events are rare enough thata single release in a given mode, hazard class, or con-tainer category, can distort the analysis of particu-lar segments of the industry. More complete datamight provide a more balanced picture, despite this

problem, and would permit using release reports asa management tool.

Conclusions

HMIS was the subject of considerable criticism in1980 from the U.S. General Accounting office(GAO) for the following reasons:82

1.

2.

3.

4.

.

6.

RSPA is not receiving reports on all spills be-cause it relies on voluntary reporting fromcarriers;companies involved only in the loading, un-loading, or storage of hazardous materials (e.g.,shippers and freight forwarders) are not re-quired to submit hazardous materials incidentreports;reports are not required by RSPA for spills in-volving hazardous materials shipped in bulk bywater;DOT has elected not to require firms involvedonly in intrastate transportation to submit haz-ardous materials spill reports;RSPA has no systematic procedure for refin-ing reported data that are incomplete or in-accurate; andthe total consequences of spills are understatedsignificantly due to the time limit on reportingand soliciting solely the carrier’s perspective.

Each of these factors works to understate the over-all impact of hazardous materials transportation re-leases. OTA finds that the database deficienciesnoted in the GAO report persist and that the totalvolume of hazardous materials releases is seriouslyunderestimated. Moreover, the value of HMIS forderiving distributions of events, causes, and con-sequences, and multimodal comparative analysesis questionable. OTA finds that improvements tothe RSPA incident reporting system are neededto ensure more accurate and comprehensive diag-nostic and evaluative studies of hazardous mate-rials transportion safety.

The major areas for improvement include:. initiatives to ensure complete reporting of haz-

ardous materials releases,● coordinated working agreements between RSPA

and other governmental agencies covering data

82u s Genera] Accounting office, oP. cit.. .


Table 2=24.-Cause of Failure by Mode, 1976-84

ModeHighway Highway Freight

Number Code Air (for hire) (private) Rail Water forwarder Other Total

3

45

6789

101112

131415161718192021222324252627

Dropped in handling. . .External puncture . . . . .Damaged by other

freight . . . . . . . . . . . .Water damage . . . . . . . .Damage from other

liquid . . . . . . . . . . . . .Freezing . . . . . . . . . . . . .External heat . . . . . . . . .Internal pressure. . . . . .Corrosion or rust . . . . .Defective fittings . . . . .Loose fittings . . . . . . . .Failure inner

receptacle . . . . . . . . .Bottom failure . . . . . . . .Body/side failure. . . . . .Weld failure . . . . . . . . . .Chime failure. . . . . . . . .Other conditions. . . . . .Hose burst . . . . . . . . . . .Load/unload spill . . . . .Cargo shifted/fell . . . . .Improper loading. . . . . .Vehicle accident . . . . . .Venting . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Release of fumes . . . . .Friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Static electricity . . . . . .Metal fatigue . . . . . . . . .

239a

814,334

12,05195

36230

4811639

1856

1135

4,74313,105

8,49884

77218194

1,259808

6,66612,282

7353,9603,006

872610

3,278

7,3536,6772,4924,130

159207131

10549

622

8,19262

532

14616

82

30—

7—

2—

357

660

257

69182116

6413,3757,851

12117

11336

321421

51253

399118

2,8833,684

—

:194

2722

—21112

18

——142

1829

35

6442

129—

23018

3—

31

——

6223,7802,517

728

2,492872

5,9856,1272,3812,145

1346

1018

531

1766

1055012

28283

1,283120

15972

2598

—4

60

27970

3287

72357

62994120147

172

12

1394

203971

12

;—

41413

122

214

53

—

—7

18325

——2210

1——

2—

1—

1——

aBoldfwe indicates top two causes of failure in each mode.


sharing and developing the capability to matchrelease reports,

● development of software to identify misreport-ing and nonreporting, and

. additional data-entry/data-validation clerks andstaff to ensure complete, accurate reports.

Moreover, the accuracy of DOT’s Hazardous Ma-terials Information System can be improved with-out large expenditures for technology improvements.For instance, Form F5800. 1 does not clearly specifythe data items RSPA attempts to collect from it. Thecarrier issuing the report is given considerable lati-tude in describing the incident; consequently, thedata-entry staff must make subjective judgments onhow the reports should conform to the HMIS rec-ord structure. RSPA is currently revising the form.In this process, questions on the form about cause,characteristics, and consequence should be struc-tured so that the respondent selects specific entries

from lists of potential choices, as in Part F (Natureof Packaging Failure) on the present form. Thiswould create a uniform basis of reporting and de-crease the redundant entries in the database, par-ticularly for container types. Furthermore, it wouldmake the data-entry process more efficient and pro-vide a more concise database.

RSPA has expressed interest in condensing theinformation required on Form F5800. 1, citing thecumbersome problem of managing a large histori-cal database.83 However, the amount of informa-tion now requested on Form F5800. 1 is not exces-sive when contrasted with that for other reportingsystems such as NASS, FARS, TAF, and CVCF.In comparison to other incident/accident databases,the volume and complexity of reports received an-nually by RSPA are relatively small.

83’’ Detailed Hazardous Materials Incident Reports,” Federal Regis-ter, vol. 49, No. 53, Mar. 16, 1984, pp. 10042-10047.


The data fields in the current HMIS databasecover most of the major elements of a hazardousmaterials transport incident. However, additionalinformation on the age and registration number ofthe vehicle, driver, weather conditions, cargo weight,type of event (e.g., in transit/loading/unloading),and package type (e.g., bulk/nonbulk) would be use-ful. Inclusion of the telephone number for the Na-tional Response Center on Form F5800. 1 could re-mind the carrier to provide a telephone report ifwarranted.

Revising the criteria for requiring a written reporthas been recently proposed by RSPA.84 Since mostsmall package incidents have minor consequences,RSPA is considering a new reporting criteria forForm F5800.1 requiring its completion only if anincident results in any of the circumstances set forthin 49 CFR 171.15 or involves:

●

●

●

●

●

●

bulk packaging,shipments aboard aircraft or in air terminals,property damage equal to or in excess of $1,000including cleanup,evacuation,packages or hazardous materials under an ex-emption, orany quantity of hazardous waste that has beendischarged during transportation.

Deleting the requirement for reporting smallerspills would deprive DOT of its primary source forevaluating small packages carried in less-than-loadlots. See chapter 3 for a discussion of the impactof such a change on small packaging requirements.

The issue of the carrier’s primary responsibilityfor notification of releases warrants examination.Possible changes include extending the reportingtime limit to 30 days to encourage more completeevaluation of incident characteristics and conse-quences. Furthermore, shippers and receivers couldbe held responsible for reporting loading/unload-ing incidents, if RSPA develops a system to indi-cate possible redundant reports. Immediate tele-phone followup to obtain information missing fromreports would permit complete data to be enteredinto the HMIS database. Finally, comparisons ofHMIS reports to reports filed with other systems,such as NRC, CVCF, TAF, and NTSB, could iden-

‘Ibid.

tify discrepancies and identify nonreported incidentsmeeting HMIS reporting criteria.

These changes would require the cooperation ofseveral agencies in furnishing data to RSPA and de-signing their reports with common data fields to per-mit direct comparisons. Although modifying report-ing and database formats can be costly and time-consuming, two alternatives could make expensivechanges unnecessary:

1.

2.

Conversion or bridge tables could be con-structed to transform other agency data itemsinto data items contained in the HMIS data-base so RSPA could conduct nonreportinganalyses.Data items required for matching could be addedto other agency report forms and databases.

OTA finds that HMIS misses numerous releasesrecorded in other Federal databases, in part be-cause bulk marine releases and those occurringduring solely intrastate commerce need not be re-ported, and because the reporting requirement isnot enforced. Furthermore, little effort is madeto include data other than that reported on FormF5800.1 in RSPA’s annual report, making the re-port an inadequate reflection of the safety of thetransportation of hazardous materials.

Moreover, OTA analyses of flow and accidentdata indicate that relatively few of the HMIS datacan be used as indicators. A major accident in any

single year or on any mode can skew the data sig-nificantly. However, when combined, current Fed-eral accident and spill databases can provide morecomplete information on the dimensions of hazard-ous materials transportation safety problems.

A California study, being conducted for the Statelegislature, compared three separate databases show-ing highway spills and determined that at least 500spills occur annually on the State highway systemalone, excluding the city streets. The study demon-strates that several databases must be used to gen-erate reasonably complete data, even for a singleState. These results show driver error as the singlelargest cause of spills and imply that concentrationon addressing truck-related issues such as drivertraining and qualifications is essential for safety im-provements.

8 6 Transportation of Hazardous Materials

The intent of the HMTA clearly indicates theneed for an adequate annual summary of the safetyof hazardous materials transportation, making im-provement to HMIS an urgent issue. OTA con-eludes that including bulk marine and intrastatereleases in the HMIS reporting requirement andenforcing the requirement are important priori-ties. Increased cooperation and information shar-ing among DOT agencies, EPA, and State enforce-ment officials are also essential. Congress couldrequire DOT to extend accident reporting require-ments to all hazardous materials spills whether theyoccur during interstate or intrastate transport andregardless of mode. A coordinated national spillreporting center, with reporting procedures andcommon data report fields that must be imple-mented by all Federal agencies, could be designated.Congress might wish to require display of a toll-freenumber for the national report center as the placeto call for reporting accidents. DOT, NRC, or HMISstaff provide natural homes for this coordinating

role. Moreover, if formats including common datafields were decided on, accident reports collected atthe State level could be submitted periodically tothe regional DOT or EPA office. The regional Fed-eral offices would provide annual updates to the na-tional center. Several regional EPA offices alreadywork with the States in their regions and have goodcomputerized reporting systems. Spill reports shouldbe checked at the regional level for accuracy andcompleteness, before being submitted to the nationaldata-collection center.

The annual DOT reports to Congress on thetransportation of hazardous materials could be re-quired to document accidents by State, containertypes, mode, and cause. Improvement of the RSPAspill report Form F5800. 1 and coordination withmodal administrations to develop common datafields that are less open to subjective interpretationcould make the form reflect more accurately thecauses and details of the spill.

data and information systems for hazardous materials transportation

Documents