![](media/image1.png){width="2.5229166666666667in"
height="0.7840277777777778in"}

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Environmental Costs of Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Crashes**

**Phase II -- Part 2: Estimation Report**

March 2007

*Prepared by*

Theresa Flieger, Adam Klauber, José Mantilla, and Paul Zebe

Environmental Engineering Division

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)

U.S. Department of Transportation

*Prepared for*

Michael Johnsen

Regulatory Evaluation Team

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

U.S. Department of Transportation

#### **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Section]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF FIGURES iii

1.  INTRODUCTION 1-1

    1.  Purpose 1-1

    2.  Focus 1-1

    3.  What Is a CMV Crash 1-2

    4.  Resource Categories 1-3

    5.  Limitations 1-3

        1.  Congestion 1-3

        2.  Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 1-3

        3.  Hazardous Materials 1-4

        4.  Solid Waste 1-4

    6.  Overview of the Report 1-4

2.  CONGESTION 2-1

    1.  Introduction 2-1

        1.  Congestion and Delay 2-1

        2.  Chapter Overview 2-2

    2.  Background 2-2

    3.  Congestion Delay Impact Methodology 2-3

    4.  Results 2-8

        1.  Overall CMV Crash Related Delay 2-8

        2.  Hazardous Materials (HM) CMV Crash Delay 2-11

        3.  Significant Regional Incidents 2-11

    5.  Congestion Delay Validation 2-12

    6.  Recommendations for Future Study 2-14

3.  AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES 3-1

    1.  Introduction 3-1

    2.  Background 3-3

    3.  Air Quality Emissions Methodology 3-6

    4.  Human Health Damages 3-18

4.  HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4-1

    1.  Introduction 4-1

    2.  Background 4-2

    3.  Methodologies 4-4

        1.  Data Sources 4-4

        2.  Data Query Descriptions 4-5

    4.  Estimates 4-10

        1.  Table 4-1 -- CMV Crashes and HM 4-10

        2.  Table 4-2 -- Releases of HM per Crash by CMV Category 4-13

        3.  Table 4-3 -- CMV HM Incidents and Releases of HM 4-18

    5.  Environmental Impact Summaries for Hazardous Materials 4-23

        1.  Hazardous Materials Overall 4-23

        2.  Hazardous Materials by Class 4-24

    6.  Conclusion 4-30

5.  SOLID WASTES 5-1

    1.  Introduction 5-1

    2.  Background 5-1

    3.  Solid Waste Impact Methodology and Results 5-2

        1.  Automobiles 5-3

        2.  CMV Power Units 5-5

        3.  Buses 5-7

    4.  CMV Trailers 5-10

    5.  CMV Cargoes 5-10

    6.  Conclusions 5-11

    7.  Recommendations for Further Study 5-12

6.  BIBLIOGRAPHY 6-1

####  

#### **LIST OF TABLES**

[Table]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

2-1 Comparison of CMV Crash Road Delay by Severity Level 2-5

2-2 Total Number of Rural and Urban Crashes by Roadway Type 2-8

3.  CMV Crash Congestion Delay and Costs by Crash Severity

> And Roadway Type 2-9

2-4 HM and Non-HM Crash Vehicle Day Hours 2-11

3-1 Emission Rates (Grams/Mile) by Roadway Type 3-6

3-2 Total Tailpipe Emissions 3-12

3-3 Total Emissions 3-16

3-4 Total Per Crash Emissions 3-16

3-5 Carbon and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Per CMV Crash from

Wasted Fuel and Upstream Emissions from Fuel Refining and

Distribution by Congestion Scenario 3-18

3-6 Total Damage Costs and Damage Costs Per CMV Crash for

All Pollutants 3-20

1.  CMV Crashes and HM 4-11

2.  Releases of HM per Crash by CMV Category 4-14

3.  CMV HM Incidents and Releases of HM 4-19

4.  Summary: Fuel Tank Spills Due to CMV Crashes 4-30

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Quantity of ASR Sent to Landfill for Each Automobile Involved

in a CMV Crash 5-4

2.  Percentage of Automobiles "Totaled," 2003-2005 5-4

3.  List of Materials for a Hypothetical CMV Truck Tractor 5-6

4.  Quantity of ASR Sent to Landfill for Each Truck Tractor Involved

in a CMV Crash 5-7

5.  List of Materials for a Hypothetical Intercity Bus 5-8

6.  Quantity of ASR Sent to Landfill for Each Intercity Bus Involved

> in a CMV Crash 5-9

#### **LIST OF FIGURES**

[Figure]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

2-1 Time Flowchart of a CMV Crash 2-3

2-2 CMV Type by Roadway Facility (Rural and Urban) 2-7

2-3 Comparing Rural and Urban CMV Crashes and Delay 2-10

2-4 Volpe vs. Zaloshnja and Miller 2006 (Rural and Urban) 2-13

3-1 Carbon Monoxide Emissions vs. Velocity 3-10

3-2 VOC and NO~X~ Emissions vs. Velocity 3-10

3-3 Carbon Dioxide Emissions vs. Velocity 3-11

3-4 Carbon Dioxide vs. Speed 3-11

3-5 Tailpipe Criteria Pollutant Emissions per Crash 3-12

3-6 Fuel Consumption per CMV Crash 3-15

3-7 CO~2~ Emissions per CMV Crash 3-15

3-8 Criteria Pollutant Emissions Per Crash 3-17

9.  Total Criteria Pollutant and Carbon Damage Per CMV Crash

> And Congestion Scenario 3-20

1.  **INTRODUCTION**

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is generally
charged with preparing economic and environmental impact analyses to
support proposed amendments and additions to the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).

Economic analyses are performed in support of amendments and additions
to the FMCSRs as a consequence of Executive Order 12866 and Department
of Transportation (DOT) Policies and Procedures. For those economic
analyses, FMCSA currently uses "Revised Costs of Large Truck- and
Bus-Involved Crashes" (2002) by Eduard Zaloshnja and Ted Miller of the
Pacific Institute.[^1] That report, commissioned by FMCSA, provides
regulators and analysts at the agency (and elsewhere) with estimates of
the economic costs associated with commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
crashes.

Environmental compliance analyses are performed in support of amendments
and additions to the FMCSRs as a consequence of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FMCSA's Order 5610.1. Up to now,
FMCSA has not had a source comparable to Zaloshnja and Miller that could
be used when evaluating the environmental impacts of proposed
regulations. As a consequence, generalizations and qualitative
statements have been generally used when evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of FMCSRs, their effect on changing the frequency
and severity of CMV crashes and other safety related incidents, and
their associated environmental impacts and costs.

**1.1 PURPOSE**

The purpose of this report is to provide FMCSA with estimates for its
environmental analyses comparable to those currently being used by the
agency for its economic analyses. These environmental estimates, along
with the included descriptions of the methodologies upon which they are
based, will enable FMCSA to describe the inherent links between CMV
safety and environmental protection. The estimates presented in this
report are meant to be used primarily in the preparation of
Environmental Assessments (EAs) and related documents. For Environmental
Impact Statements (EISs), which look at potentially significant impacts
on the environment, the estimates and methodologies presented in this
report represent a starting point for analysts, who will probably want
to develop their own more detailed estimates.

**1.2 FOCUS**

Consistent with the primary safety focus of FMCSA, the focus of this
report is on environmental estimates for commercial trucks with a gross
weight rating of over 10,000 pounds and buses. In an effort to promote
consistency, to the extent practicable, the methodologies and estimates
presented in this report are for the same general vehicle categories
used by Zaloshnja and Miller for economic analyses:

-   Straight Trucks

-   Truck Tractors

-   Medium/Heavy Trucks

-   Buses

1.3 WHAT IS A CMV CRASH?

For the purposes of this analysis, a CMV involved in a crash is defined
as follows:

-   [Any]{.underline} truck having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
    of more than 10,000 pounds or a gross combination weight rating
    (GCWR) over 10,000 pounds used on public highways,

> OR

-   [Any]{.underline} motor vehicle designed to transport more than
    eight people, including the driver,

> OR

-   [Any]{.underline} vehicle displaying a hazardous materials placard
    (regardless of weight)

> \[NOTE: This criterion assumes that an officer at a crash site may not
> be familiar with the Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations
> (Specifically, 49 CFR Part 172). If an officer or associate is
> knowledgeable in those, any vehicle discovered to be transporting
> hazardous materials without a required placard should also be
> included.\]

AND

-   That vehicle is involved in a crash while operating on a roadway
    customarily open to the public, which results in:

    -   A fatality: [any]{.underline} person(s) killed in or outside of
        [any]{.underline} vehicle (truck, bus, car, etc.) involved in
        the crash or who dies within 30 days of the crash as a result of
        an injury sustained in the crash, OR

    -   An injury: [any]{.underline} person(s) injured as a result of
        the crash who immediately receives medical treatment away from
        the crash scene, OR

    -   A tow-away: [any]{.underline} motor vehicle (truck, bus, car,
        etc.) disabled as a result of the crash and transported away
        from the scene by a tow truck or other vehicle.

> EXCEPT

Crashes that involve:

-   A personally-owned truck or passenger vehicle meant for personal use
    only as the sole vehicle meeting the criteria above, OR

-   A driver with a disease condition (stroke, heart attack, diabetic
    coma or epileptic seizure) and no other injury or damage occurs,[^2]
    OR

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Deliberate intent (suicide, self-inflicted injury, homicide, etc.),
    with no unintentional injury or damage.[^3]

The foregoing description matches the conditions for reporting crashes
to FMCSA via Safetynet. The description differs slightly from the
definition of an "accident" found at 49 CFR 390.5, it should be noted.

1.4 RESOURCE CATEGORIES

Consistent with the requirements of NEPA and FMCSA implementing
regulations, estimates are presented in this report for the following
four resource categories:

-   Congestion

-   Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

-   Hazardous Materials

-   Solid Waste

Other resource categories, such as noise, ecological resources, and
water quality, which would appear to require significantly more
elaborate and involved analyses, may be addressed in future updates of
this report.

**1.5 LIMITATIONS**

To properly use the environmental estimates presented in this report,
analysts and policy-makers using this report must be aware of their
limitations. A summary of some of the more significant limitations by
resource category is presented below.

1.5.1 [Congestion]{.underline}

-   Crashes affect traffic flow beyond the vehicles delayed at the crash
    site. This report does not include CMV crash impacts attributable to
    re-scheduling, re-routing, reduced mobility, and reliability.

-   No estimate of the delay associated with evacuations due to
    hazardous materials spills from CMVs is included in this report.

-   The congestion impact of severe crashes (i.e., those involving the
    closure of major highway arteries for extended (crash related delay
    lasting more than 9 hours) periods) was not calculated. In the case
    of extended road closures, traffic will be diverted to alternative
    routes and the associate delays will be dispersed over multiple
    roadways.

-   Only limited real-world delay data could be obtained for the
    congestion analysis.

-   Breakdowns and other non-crash related delay is not considered in
    the report

1.5.2 [Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases]{.underline}

-   The air quality and greenhouse gases analysis does not consider
    idling time and instantaneous speed and acceleration throughout the
    duration of the congestion associated with the slow stop-and-go
    driving characteristics. This is a significant limitation, since
    fuel consumption and emissions are highly dependent on acceleration
    and are significantly higher during idle and stop-and-go driving
    (especially at very slow speeds) than those resulting from
    unrestricted free-flow driving conditions. Using average steady
    state speeds, as was done in this analysis, is expected to largely
    underestimate emissions and fuel consumption.

-   The air quality and greenhouse gases analysis uses time of delay
    rather than the total time in congestion. Time of delay is a portion
    of the total time in congestion. The accuracy of the estimates is
    limited by not estimating the difference betweeen the emissions and
    fuel consumption associated with the total time in congestion (at
    the congested driving conditions) and the emissions and fuel
    consumption associated with the time it would take to travel the
    distance affected by the CMV crash (at an average free-flow speed
    associated with the specific facility type affected in the
    incident).

-   The air quality analysis does not address impacts of air pollutants
    on visibility and the associated social costs. Air pollutant impacts
    on health and greenhouse gases and impacts on climate change are
    addressed in this document.

1.5.3 [Hazardous Materials]{.underline}

-   FMCSA data inexplicably reports more crashes involving hazardous
    materials releases than PHMSA data.

-   There was a possibility of double counting of certain non-crash
    incidents when quantities were categorized by hazardous materials
    class.

-   No information was readily available on spills from bus fuel tanks.

1.5.4 [Solid Waste]{.underline}

-   Only rough approximations are readily available for the solid waste
    generated by automobiles, truck tractors, and buses involved in CMV
    crashes.

-   No information is readily available for the solid waste generated by
    other types of CMVs involved in CMV crashes.

-   No information is readily available for the solid waste generated by
    truck trailers that are involved in CMV crashes.

-   No information is readily available for the solid waste generated by
    cargoes being carried by CMVs involved in crashes (or for cargoes
    being carried by other conveyances that might be involved in CMV
    crashes). This would appear to be counterintuitive, since the
    insurance industry is generally paying for cargoes lost due to CMV
    crashes. The insurance industry should have the desired information.
    The insurance industry, however, lumps cargoes for which they paid
    because of vehicular accidents with cargoes for which they paid
    because of cargo theft, which is a significantly bigger problem for
    insurers than cargo damage/loss due to vehicular accidents.

Because of the limitations to the environmental estimates presented in
this report, in some cases, analysts developing EAs may need to develop
their own estimates of the environmental impact of certain actions. For
instance, analysts working on a new safety rule for intermodal
containers might need to develop ad hoc estimates of the solid waste
typically generated in a CMV crash.

**1.6 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT**

The remainder of this report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 looks at
congestion. Congestion relief is one of the top U.S. DOT priorities.
Thus, having estimates of congestion impacts (traffic delay and
associated economic and environmental costs) from changes in the
frequency and severity of CMV crashes will allow FMCSA to support DOT in
this strategic goal. Additionally, congestion serves an important input
for the environmental impact of CMV crashes on air quality and
greenhouse gases.

Chapter 3 discusses air quality and greenhouse gases. With respect to
air quality, Section 2a of the Clean Air Act charges the U.S. DOT with
monitoring, evaluating, and controlling transportation activities (such
as motor vehicle operation) in order to protect and enhance the quality
of the environment. Thus, estimates of the air quality impacts of CMV
crashes will enable FMCSA to consider emissions impacts associated with
evaluating safety regulations and programs by capturing their associated
environmental and health costs. Given the relevance and increased focus
on the potential impacts of greenhouse gases (GHG) on global climate
change, the air quality chapter also addresses GHG estimates.

Chapter 4 addresses hazardous materials (HM) incidents. FMCSA seeks
accurate information on HM releases into the environment. The hazardous
materials chapter presents estimates of releases from CMV crashes on a
per unit basis, and also estimates of releases from transportation
incidents involving CMVs but not resulting from a CMV crash.

Chapter 5 considers the solid waste generated by CMV crashes.

Chapter 6 presents a bibliography containing all of references for the
report.

# 2. CONGESTION

1.  **INTRODUCTION**

Congestion from CMV crashes reduces U.S. productive efficiency by
delaying shipments of goods. Extra time spent stopped or traveling at
slower speeds could be spent in more economically productive and
enjoyable activities. Recurring congestion can eventually cause urban
development to spread out as businesses attempt to decentralize jobs and
housing to reduce travel time (Downs 2004). The longer distances between
workplaces and home in turn produce more demand for fossil fuels. For
CMVs, this means more deliveries of petroleum and more time on the road
transporting household goods, which in turn results in higher
consumption of fuel.

**2.1.1 [Congestion and Delay]{.underline}**

Traffic congestion is a daily visible challenge to economic efficiency
and quality of life. The National League of Cities (NLC) has found that
city officials believe alleviating traffic conditions is their one of
their most important goals (NLC 2006). In addition, traffic delay is at
the top of NLC's list (34 percent of respondents) of conditions that
have most deteriorated over the past five years. The Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI) estimates that the 85 largest
metropolitan areas experienced 3.7 billion vehicle hours of delay (TTI
2004). Traffic volumes are rising every year, so congestion is expected
to increase. More CMV's will have to travel on roadways to move a volume
of freight that is expected to nearly double by 2020 (FHWA 2006).
American businesses have realized huge productivity gains in part from
reducing inventory requirements and use of "just in time delivery."
Growing congestion threatens to reverse some of these efficiencies and
require businesses to carry larger inventories (US DOT 2006a). In 2006,
the U.S. DOT created an executive Congestion Working Group to prioritize
solutions to our nation's growing problems with traffic delay. Collision
related delays constitute a sizeable portion of total congestion in the
U.S. In 1999, as many as 1.7 billion vehicle hours were lost to delay
due to collisions (Chin et al. 2004). Vehicles involved in crashes often
block traffic, need emergency response, and cause curious drivers to
slow down to "rubberneck." Cambridge Systematics estimates that traffic
incidents (including crashes) constitute approximately 25 percent of
traffic congestion (Cambridge Systematics 2005). CMV crashes represent a
sizable number of the overall number of crashes, and, due to the large
size of trucks and buses, often result in longer delays than crashes
where just cars are involved (Ullman and Ogden 1995, Glickman et al.
1991).

CMV crash linked congestion also effects air quality and fuel use.
Increased idling, accelerating and decelerating, and longer engine run
times all result in increased emissions above steady road speeds. The
congestion delay estimation will assist the evaluation of the air
quality effects of CMV crashes, which is discussed in the next chapter
of the report. FMCSA regulations can have an indirect effect on
congestion related to CMV collisions. If regulations effectively reduce
the number of large truck and bus crashes, associated delay will also
decrease. This chapter proposes a method to quantify the congestion
impacts associated with CMV crashes.

For this report, economically productive and leisure activities are
valued equally. Both types of activities have an "opportunity cost." An
individual makes a decision, based partly on economics, that they will
forgo some action and its payoff in order to pursue a certain activity.
Congestion delay impedes both the selected action and the forgone
alternative.

**2.1.2 [Chapter Overview]{.underline}**

This chapter helps fulfill the U.S. DOT Congestion Working Group's
seven-point strategy for reducing congestion. The chapter provides
background information about congestion and how it occurs. Following
that background discussion, two possible methodologies are outlined for
calculating both congestion delay and its associated costs. The first
method builds on Zaloshnja and Miller's work using updated data. The
second method is an alternative slightly modifying a Battelle approach
previously developed for FMCSA. The preferred method is identified,
including the reasons for the choice. An approach to validate the
results of the methodology is proposed. The chapter then discusses
accounting for significant regional incidents -- large crashes that can
skew results due to the scale of their impact.

## 2.2 BACKGROUND

CMV crashes cause traffic delay in a number of ways. Crashes can cause
damage to the driver's own vehicle, other trucks, buses, or cars,
requiring removal of some or all of the vehicles involved from the
roadway. The damaged vehicles may block roadway lanes, necessitating tow
removal. The tow vehicles themselves may impede traffic flow as other
vehicles in the traffic bottleneck will stop and allow access. Drivers
and passengers may be injured or killed, requiring emergency medical
vehicles to respond, rescue, and evacuate. Cargo spills, especially
hazardous materials, may require specialized clean up procedures. Fires
from vehicles or cargo may have to be extinguished. In some cases,
bridges and other road infrastructure could be damaged, requiring
extended closure to assess and repair. In all cases, curious drivers
will likely slow down to view the incident causing even more congestion,
which is referred to as *rubbernecking* or *gaper's block*.

Any safety regulation that effectively reduces the number of CMV crashes
has the potential to reduce congestion impacts. Delay estimates can be
derived through studying a number of metropolitan regions that represent
large, medium, and small cities. Police departments record crash delay
times. That information can be used to estimate the total number of
hours of delay. Economic costs can be calculated by multiplying the
total delay by the value of time for all the individuals caught in the
traffic (Miller 2006). With this data, FMCSA can make a forecast of the
monetary impact of the crash and combine it with the medical, air
quality, and hazardous waste analyses to obtain a total social cost for
each crash, and thus quantify the monetary benefit of regulations that
reduce the number of incidents by a known or projected quantity.

One well-regarded study of U.S. congestion from the Texas Transportation
Institute estimates 3.7 billion hours of annual congestion delay valued
at \$63 billion in economic cost (Schrank and Lomax 2005). The Texas
Transportation Institute calculates congestion costs with productivity
losses due to time spent in delay and extra fuel expended from longer
travel times.

Compared to other social costs (not covered by the price of vehicle
operation and user fees), congestion may be the highest (Gomez-Ibanez
1997, K.T. Analytics 1997). The Texas Transportation Institute found
that incidents, including collisions, cause 52 percent of congestion in
85 urban areas it studied in 2003. Studies have found that trucks are
involved with 17 percent of crashes in the Washington D.C. capital
beltway area (Glickman et al. 1991) and approximately 11 percent of
incidents in the Houston area (Ullman and Ogden 1996). The percentage of
congestion caused by incidents varies greatly from region to region.
Ranges in one 1984 study found a low of 37 percent (San Diego) and a
high of 100 percent (Indianapolis) (Downs 2004). This impact is greater
when major incidents are analyzed. Ullman and Ogden found trucks were
involved in 90 percent of major incidents (major was defined as having a
median delay time of 2.5 hours).

## FIGURE 2-1. TIME FLOWCHART OF A CMV CRASH

*Note: Traffic diversions and repairs to roadway infrastructure are not
represented in this flowchart.*

Congestion delays also affect air quality. Vehicles idling, decelerating
and accelerating, and traveling over longer periods of time due to
traffic slow downs will produce more emissions. Congestion delay data
can be used along with other information to determine the how much
vehicle emissions increase when there is congestion, as compared to the
emissions when there is an unimpeded traffic flow.

## 2.3 CONGESTION DELAY IMPACT METHODOLOGY

The highest accuracy could be obtained by studying crashes immediately
after they occur and measuring the time traffic behavior and delay time
at the scene. Unfortunately, due to the stochastic nature of truck
crashes and the difficulty of obtaining field data. Crash delay models
are linked either to capacity reductions (estimates in traffic flow on
roadways with blocked lanes) or to broad estimates using traffic flow
calculations based on speed estimates and the length of traffic queues.
Zaloshnja and Miller addressed this lack of data by collecting CMV crash
delay duration information from local police departments (Zaloshnja and
Miller 2000). The same method was selected for use here.

All 68 cities in the Texas Transportation Institute's Urban Mobility
Report (Schrank and Lomax 2005) were contacted for data relating to CMV
crash delay. Both state departments of transportation and police
departments were contacted for each of the urban areas.

Only three states: Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Washington were able to
provide relevant delay data to the Volpe research team. Each of these
states provided CMV crash vehicle delays for 2003-2005. Kentucky
provided the total duration of delay for each level of CMV crash
severity. The CMV delay data from Pennsylvania and Washington was
provided in time ranges with crashes placed in the following time
categories:

-   0-30 minutes

-   30-60 minutes

-   1-3 hours

-   3-6 hours

-   6-9 hours

-   9+ hours

-   Unknown duration

The ranges were converted into values for use in this study by assigning
an average, maximum, and minimum time for each time period. For example,
0-30 minutes was calculated as 15, 30, and 1 minute, respectively; 9+
hours was calculated as 9.5, 12, and 9 hours, respectively. Crash delay
lasting more than 12 hours was not accounted for in the Pennsylvania and
Washington data. The unknown duration crashes were excluded from the
estimate.

All the CMV crash delay times were summed and then divided by the number
of crashes to yield the following ratios:

-   **Low:** 56 minutes- Property Damage Only (PDO): 64 minutes- Injury:
    192 minutes- Fatality

-   **Mid:** 72 minutes- PDO: 91 minutes- Injury: 261 minutes- Fatality

-   **High:** 89 minutes- PDO: 120 minutes- Injury: 336 minutes-
    Fatality

The mid-level calculation was selected, as the average duration is most
likely the most accurate conservative approximation of the delay times.

## 

##  TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF CMV CRASH ROAD DELAY BY SEVERITY LEVEL

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Type of Crash**       **Volpe 2007            **Zaloshnja and Miller
                          (mid-level)**           2006**

  Fatality                261 minutes             385 minutes

  Injury                  91 minutes              130 minutes

  Property Damage Only    72 minutes              40 minutes
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

The mid-level figures developed for this study can be compared to the
figures developed by Zaloshnja and Miller for comparable crashes: 40
minutes -- PDO; 130 minutes -- Injury; 385 minutes -- Fatality
(Zaloshnja and Miller 2000). Zaloshnja and Miller collected their police
reported crash delay information from police departments in the early
and mid 1990s.

It is interesting to note that, based on the updated information,
property damage crashes create more congestion, while both injury and
fatal crashes create less delay than Zaloshnja and Miller found.
Property damage only crashes may create more congestion due to the
increased volume of traffic on U.S. roadways. More severe crashes may
cause less traffic due to dramatic improvements in emergency response. A
recent National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report indicates
that states are adopting a growing number of quick clearance procedures
(TRB 2003). Traffic fatality certification laws allow responders to
remove the deceased from the roadway before medical examiners arrive to
facilitate traffic flow. Even though injuries and fatalities may create
less delay following CMV crashes than they did in Zaloshnja and Miller's
original findings, overall delay is greater, since the vast majority of
CMV crashes are limited to property damage only.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatal
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database was utilized for CMV crash
information. NHTSA's General Estimates System (GES) was used as a
supplement for injury and PDO crashes.

The steps below were followed to calculate the vehicle delay in hours
discussed above:

-   **Step 1**: CMV crash delay: Determine crash delay times associated
    with each type of crash based on field-collected data. Bus data was
    taken from MCMIS state reporting and normalized using 2004 truck
    ratios. Crash delay time is in vehicle minutes. Note actual hours
    for bus delay are likely greater as they are more likely to occur on
    urban roadways.

-   **Step 2**: Highway Lane Miles: Use FHWA 2004 Highway Statistics to
    determine the Lanes per Facility Type. Assumption 1 -- Delay only
    occurs to the traffic traveling in the same direction as the CMV
    crash.

-   **Step 3**: Combine roadway lane miles with facility type traffic
    flow to determine traffic volume. Lane volume was calculated based
    on traffic demand found in FHWA Highway Statistics. Traffic flow,
    traveling in the opposite direction to the crash, was assumed to
    move at unrestricted speeds or at the highest Level of Service (LOS)
    -- LOS A. See below for a more detailed explanation of LOS.

-   **Step 4**: Weight time of day according to peak travel times. Use
    FARS and GES data for crash times for CMVs. Assumption 2 -- 50
    percent of traffic flow occurs between 6-9am and 3-6pm (Schrank and
    Lomax 2005).

-   **Step 5**: Use CMV crash data with facility type location
    information and assign the crash numbers to the traffic volume
    calculations from previous steps. Assumption 3 -- Unknown roadway
    types for CMV crashes have been assigned to roadway types in the
    same proportion as the known location data.

-   **Step 6**: Traffic Volume has been multiplied by the delay ratios
    from Step 1 and summed to obtain total delay results. The minutes
    from the police department data were converted back into hours.

-   **Step 7**: Cost Calculation: Multiply total hours of delay by
    vehicle occupants using 1.25 per vehicle. The fleet mix (private vs.
    Commercial Motor Vehicle) is calculated according to the 2000
    Highway Capacity Manual. The hourly productivity delay cost was
    \$13.45 (cars) and \$71.05 (commercial vehicles) originally
    calculated in 1999 dollars (Zaloshnja and Miller 2002) multiplied by
    the 2005 US DOT guidance to obtain 2004 dollars (US DOT 2006b).

## FIGURE 2-2. CMV TYPE BY ROADWAY FACILITY (RURAL AND URBAN)

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.001388888888889in" height="3.0in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="2.9319444444444445in"}

CMV crash delay data is limited. Ideally, actual field data could be
collected at the exact time of a collision. Each vehicle's
classification and additional time spent idling or at reduced speeds
could be recorded. Lack of predictability and technical recording,
however, makes such field data only a theoretical possibility.

Crash delay measurement is complex and the related challenges are listed
in the methodology. Ideally, complete information on the congestion
delay from each large truck and bus crash could be assessed. Point
detection systems, with surveillance equipment spaced in short
intervals, could record data on vehicle volume and lane occupancy
following a crash (Cambridge Systematics, 2005). As a proxy for
recording every CMV crash event, at least one congestion delay event
could be recorded for each level of crash severity on each roadway
facility type. Video recorders could record vehicle fleet composition
and physical extent of the queue backup. Ideally, a responding police
officer could verify the accuracy of the electronically gathered
information.

## 

## 2.4 RESULTS

**2.4.1 [Overall CMV Crash Related Delay]{.underline}**

The report determined that there was an estimated 159,177,000 total
vehicle hours of delay from CMV collisions in 2004.[^4] The average
vehicle delay associated with a CMV crash was 386 hours. Table 2-1
provides the total rural and urban crashes for each roadway facility:

## TABLE 2-2. TOTAL NUMBER OF RURAL AND URBAN CRASHES BY ROADWAY TYPE

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Severity     **CMV crashes                                
  Level**        in 2004**                                    

                 **Trucks**                    **Buses**      

                 **Rural**      **Urban**      **Rural**      **Urban**

  Fatality       2,929          1,511          184            95

  Injury         54,750         28,250         3,427          1,769

  Property       205,806        106,194        2,404          1,241
  Damage Only\*                                               
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

*[Sources]{.underline}: FAR, MCMIS, and GES, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration*

*Note: Adjusted for Unknown Crashes. \*MCMIS supplied information for
bus crashes and non fatality/injury crashes are limited to "Towaway"
only (i.e. they are a smaller subset of all Property Damage Only
crashes).*

Associated costs for the delay are estimated to be approximately \$3.7
billion (thousand million) in 2004 dollars. The average vehicle delay
for CMV crashes resulting in a fatality was 1,780 hours for urban
roadways and 870 hours for rural roadways. Crashes that caused injuries
resulted in an average of 698 vehicles hours on urban roadways and 341
on rural roadways. Property damage only CMV crashes resulted in an
average of 539 vehicle hours of congestion delay on urban roads and 234
hours of delay on rural roads. In the next table, this delay is broken
down by crash severity (fatality, injury, or property damage only) and
roadway type:

TABLE 2-3. CMV CRASH CONGESTION DELAY AND COSTS BY CRASH SEVERITY AND
ROADWAY TYPE

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| *           |             |             |             |             |
| *Congestion |             |             |             |             |
| Delay from  |             |             |             |             |
| CMV crashes |             |             |             |             |
| involving   |             |             |             |             |
| Fatalities  |             |             |             |             |
| in          |             |             |             |             |
| 2           |             |             |             |             |
| 004(Vehicle |             |             |             |             |
| Hours in    |             |             |             |             |
| bold, Cost  |             |             |             |             |
| in smaller  |             |             |             |             |
| font)**     |             |             |             |             |
+=============+=============+=============+=============+=============+
| **Roadway   | **Rural**   |             | **Urban**   |             |
| Type**      |             |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
| ***(Urban   |             |             |             |             |
| Facility    |             |             |             |             |
| type in     |             |             |             |             |
| Italics)*** |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | **Facility  | **Per       | **Facility  | **Per       |
|             | Total**     | Crash**     | Total**     | Crash**     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Interstate/ | [           | [1,914]{    | [           | [3,107]{    |
| *           | 1,356,100]{ | .underline} | 1,534,128]{ | .underline} |
| Interstate* | .underline} |             | .underline} |             |
|             |             | \$53,698    |             | \$75,521    |
|             | \           |             | \           |             |
|             | $38,045,721 |             | $37,289,770 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Other       | [867,710]{  | [878]{      | [433,023]{  | [2,434]{    |
| Principal/  | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
| *Freeway    |             |             |             |             |
| Expressway* | \           | \$21,840    | \$9,959,766 | \$55,983    |
|             | $21,584,080 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Minor       | [372,759]{  | [543]{      | [613,592]{  | [1,368]{    |
| Arterial/   | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
| *Other      |             |             |             |             |
| Principal   | \$8,997,073 | \$13,106    | \           | \$32,242    |
| Arterial*   |             |             | $14,461,438 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Major       | [96,842]{   | [203]{      | [226,271]{  | [898]{      |
| Collector/  | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
| *Minor      |             |             |             |             |
| Arterial*   | \$2,337,421 | \$4,900     | \$5,217,208 | \$20,706    |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Minor       | [9,880]{    | [102]{      | [33,555]{   | [480]{      |
| Collector/  | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
| *Collector* |             |             |             |             |
|             | \$238,468   | \$2,462     | \$775,595   | \$11,095    |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Local Road/ | [4,556]{    | [29]{       | [18,197]{   | [111]{      |
| *Local      | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
| Road*       |             |             |             |             |
|             | \$109,966   | \$700       | \$413,374   | \$2,522     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Unknown\*   | *Numbers    |             |             |             |
|             | divided     |             |             |             |
|             | pro         |             |             |             |
|             | portionally |             |             |             |
|             | to known    |             |             |             |
|             | crash       |             |             |             |
|             | occurrence  |             |             |             |
|             | by facility |             |             |             |
|             | type.*      |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Total or    | [           | [870        | [           | [1780       |
| *Average*   | 2,707,848]{ | *average*]{ | 2,858,766]{ | *average*]{ |
|             | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | \           | \$42,406    | \           | \$16,632    |
|             | $71,313,000 |             | $68,117,000 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| *           |             |             |             |             |
| *Congestion |             |             |             |             |
| Delay from  |             |             |             |             |
| CMV crashes |             |             |             |             |
| involving   |             |             |             |             |
| Injuries in |             |             |             |             |
| 2           |             |             |             |             |
| 004(Vehicle |             |             |             |             |
| Hours in    |             |             |             |             |
| bold, Cost  |             |             |             |             |
| in smaller  |             |             |             |             |
| font)**     |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Facility  | **Rural**   |             | **Urban**   |             |
| Type**      |             |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
| ***(Urban   |             |             |             |             |
| Facility    |             |             |             |             |
| type in     |             |             |             |             |
| Italics)*** |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | **Facility  | **Per       | **Facility  | **Per       |
|             | Total**     | Crash**     | Total**     | Crash**     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Interstate/ | [           | [751]{      | [1          | [1,219]{    |
| *           | 9,939,145]{ | .underline} | 1,244,111]{ | .underline} |
| Interstate* | .underline} |             | .underline} |             |
|             |             | \$21,069    |             | \$29,630    |
|             | \$          |             | \           |             |
|             | 278,845,170 |             | $27,330,853 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Other       | [           | [344]{      | [           | [955]{      |
| Principal/  | 6,359,691]{ | .underline} | 3,173,632]{ | .underline} |
| *Freeway    | .underline} |             | .underline} |             |
| Expressway* |             | \$8,557     |             | \$21,966    |
|             | \$          |             | \           |             |
|             | 158,195,799 |             | $72,995,272 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Minor       | [           | [213]{      | [           | [536]{      |
| Arterial/   | 2,732,057]{ | .underline} | 4,497,130]{ | .underline} |
| *Other      | .underline} |             | .underline} |             |
| Principal   |             | \$5,141     |             | \$12,633    |
| Arterial*   | \           |             | \$          |             |
|             | $65,942,116 |             | 105,990,568 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Major       | [709,777]{  | [80]{       | [           | [352]{      |
| Collector/  | .underline} | .underline} | 1,658,354]{ | .underline} |
| *Minor      |             |             | .underline} |             |
| Arterial*   | \           | \$1,931     |             | \$8,116     |
|             | $17,131,486 |             | \           |             |
|             |             |             | $38,237,235 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Minor       | [72,409]{   | [40]{       | [245,925]{  | [188]{      |
| Collector/  | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
| *Collector* |             |             |             |             |
|             | \$1,747,695 | \$965       | \$5,684,344 | \$4,345     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Local Road/ | [33,393]{   | [11]{       | [133,366]{  | [43]{       |
| *Local      | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
| Road*       |             |             |             |             |
|             | \$805,988   | \$266       | \$3,029,618 | \$977       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Unknown\*   | *Numbers    |             |             |             |
|             | divided     |             |             |             |
|             | pro         |             |             |             |
|             | portionally |             |             |             |
|             | to known    |             |             |             |
|             | crash       |             |             |             |
|             | occurrence  |             |             |             |
|             | by facility |             |             |             |
|             | type.*      |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Total or    | [1          | [341        | [2          | [698        |
| *Average*   | 9,846,472]{ | *average*]{ | 0,952,518]{ | *average*]{ |
|             | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | \$          | \$8986      | \$          | \$16,632    |
|             | 522,668,000 |             | 253,268,000 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| *           |             |             |             |             |
| *Congestion |             |             |             |             |
| Delay from  |             |             |             |             |
| CMV crashes |             |             |             |             |
| involving   |             |             |             |             |
| Property    |             |             |             |             |
| Damage Only |             |             |             |             |
| in          |             |             |             |             |
| 2           |             |             |             |             |
| 004(Vehicle |             |             |             |             |
| Hours in    |             |             |             |             |
| bold, Cost  |             |             |             |             |
| in smaller  |             |             |             |             |
| font)**     |             |             |             |             |
+=============+=============+=============+=============+=============+
| **Facility  | **Rural**   |             | **Urban**   |             |
| Type**      |             |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
| ***(Urban   |             |             |             |             |
| Facility    |             |             |             |             |
| type in     |             |             |             |             |
| Italics)*** |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | **Facility  | **Per       | **Facility  | **Per       |
|             | Total**     | Crash**     | Total**     | Crash**     |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Interstate/ | [2          | [580]{      | [3          | [942]{      |
| *           | 7,482,375]{ | .underline} | 1,090,689]{ | .underline} |
| Interstate* | .underline} |             | .underline} |             |
|             |             | \$16,272    |             | \$22,897    |
|             | \$          |             | \$          |             |
|             | 771,024,825 |             | 755,715,717 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Other       | [1          | [266]{      | [           | [738]{      |
| Principal/  | 7,584,953]{ | .underline} | 8,775,297]{ | .underline} |
| *Freeway    | .underline} |             | .underline} |             |
| Expressway* |             | \$6,617     |             | \$16,974    |
|             | \$          |             | \$          |             |
|             | 435,421,517 |             | 201,836,632 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Minor       | [           | [165]{      | [1          | [414]{      |
| Arterial/   | 7,554,313]{ | .underline} | 2,434,852]{ | .underline} |
| *Other      | .underline} |             | .underline} |             |
| Principal   |             | \$3,983     |             | \$9,757     |
| Arterial*   | \$          |             | \$          |             |
|             | 182,334,183 |             | 293,070,697 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Major       | [           | [61]{       | [           | [272]{      |
| Collector/  | 1,962,578]{ | .underline} | 4,585,456]{ | .underline} |
| *Minor      | .underline} |             | .underline} |             |
| Arterial*   |             | \$1,472     |             | \$6,271     |
|             | \           |             | \$          |             |
|             | $47,490,318 |             | 105,728,425 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Minor       | [200,215]{  | [31]{       | [679,999]{  | [145]{      |
| Collector/  | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
| *Collector* |             |             |             |             |
|             | \$4,832,476 | \$748       | \           | \$3,351     |
|             |             |             | $15,717,589 |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Local Road/ | [92,334]{   | [9]{        | [368,764]{  | [34]{       |
| *Local      | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} | .underline} |
| Road*       |             |             |             |             |
|             | \$2,228,614 | \$217       | \$8,775,297 | \$772       |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Unknown\*   | *Numbers    |             |             |             |
|             | divided     |             |             |             |
|             | pro         |             |             |             |
|             | portionally |             |             |             |
|             | to known    |             |             |             |
|             | crash       |             |             |             |
|             | occurrence  |             |             |             |
|             | by facility |             |             |             |
|             | type.*      |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Total or    | 54,876,769  | 264         | 57,935,057  | 539         |
| *Average*   |             | *average*   |             | *average*   |
|             | \$1,        |             | 1,          |             |
|             | 445,332,000 | \$6,942     | 380,446,000 | \$12,850    |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

*\* Adjusted for Unknown Crashes*

Nearly twice as many CMV crashes occurred on rural roadways; however,
the total delay for urban verses rural is roughly similar: 52.4 percent
for urban vs. 48.6 percent for rural. Higher traffic density in urban
areas causes greater delay per crash incident than for rural areas.

## FIGURE 2-3. COMPARING RURAL AND URBAN CMV CRASHES AND DELAY

![](media/image4.wmf){width="2.847244094488189in"
height="1.9299212598425197in"}![](media/image5.wmf){width="2.969291338582677in"
height="1.9216535433070867in"}

**2.4.2 [Hazardous Materials (HM) CMV Crash Delay]{.underline}**

CMV crashes that involve HM are assumed to cause greater delay than
collisions without the presence of HM. No reliable information is
available detailing the recorded times for HM crashes vs. trucks
carrying non-hazardous cargo. For this report, the HM crash delay was
calculated strictly on a proportional basis of HM vs. non-HM crashes.
The data was obtained from the MCMIS and HMIS databases which provide
the number of crashes. Please note that the information likely
underestimates the delay associated with Hazardous Material CMV crashes
as the clean-up and added safety protocols most likely increases
congestion delay.

## TABLE 2-4. HM AND NON-HM CRASH VEHICLE DAY HOURS

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Roadway Type**      | **HM Adjusted\***     | **Non-HM Adjusted\*** |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ########  Interstate  | 111,874,000           | 4,617,805,000         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *freeway/expressway*  | 50,337,000            | 2,090,154,000         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *Other Principal      | 38,169,000            | 1,571,151,000         |
| Arterial*             |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *Minor Arterial*      | 12,510,000            | 513,748,000           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *Collector*           | 1,684,000             | 68,996,000            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *Local Road*          | 1,675,000             | 69,939,000            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *Unknown\**           | N/A                   | N/A                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *Grand Total Min.*    | 216,249,000           | 8,931,794,000         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *Grand Total Hours*   | 3,604,000             | 148,863,000           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

*\*Unknown Crashes were assigned to both HM and non-HM according to the
proportion of known crashes.*

The average duration for all crashes is less than the 2 hours for common
HM incidents and less than the 12 hours for the 5 percent of incidents
that could be classified as major (Battelle 2003). This report estimates
that 84 minutes is the average delay for all types of CMV crashes. One
study cites that evacuations were needed in 15 percent of hazardous
waste incidents (TRB 1993). No estimate of delay from HM evacuations is
included , since there are no readily available models or tools to
calculate the additional delays attributable to evacuations.

**2.4.3 [Significant Regional Incidents]{.underline}**

Severe crashes involving closure of major highway arteries can have a
large effect on overall delay, even if they are few in number. For
example, on April 13, 2006, a truck crash in Washington DC caused
traffic delays on Interstate 95 for over 5 hours and 10 miles of backup
during the Thursday evening commute home (Washington Post 2006). To keep
consistency with the rest of the congestion methodology, CMV
"mega-crashes" were analyzed for 2004. The HMIS database was searched
but proved to be of limited value for calculating delay beyond providing
the hours of road closure. There is no accurate method to calculate
delay associated with extended road closures. Traffic will be diverted
to alternative routes and the associate delays will be dispersed over
multiple roadways.

Although it is difficult to ascertain the frequency and total impact of
significant regional incidents, one example is provided to highlight the
possibilities. On March 27, 2004, a truck carrying 12,000 gallons of
heating oil skidded into an overpass on Interstate 95 near Bridgeport,
Connecticut. The truck and its cargo burst into flames and burned for
over 2 hours at 2000 degree Fahrenheit (NYT 2004). The fire caused
extensive damage to a bridge-span and necessitated closing a 2-mile
section of the interstate for over one week. An estimated 120,000
vehicles pass over the affected span on a daily basis. Fortunately, no
vehicle drivers or passengers were injured in the crash.

Using this report's methodology, a crash involving property damage, on
an urban interstate, results in an average of 942 hours of delay. The
Bridgeport I-95 crash caused at least 138,000 hours delay based on
conservative estimates from news reports.

The foregoing Bridgeport I-95 estimate is based on the following
assumptions:

-   [Lane closures]{.underline}: 5 days for southbound, 7 days for
    northbound

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Vehicle Fleet Composition]{.underline}: 95 percent passenger
    automobiles and 5 percent commercial trucks, which aligns with
    general congestion methodology.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Lane closures]{.underline}: 5 days for southbound, 7 days for
    northbound

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Diversion]{.underline}: 10 miles of extra mileage = 10 minutes
    delay for automobiles, and 40 miles of extra mileage = 40 minutes
    delay for trucks

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Actual Crash Event On Site Delay]{.underline}: Not included in the
    calculations due to lack of measurement of delay.

The delay from the Bridgeport I-95 CMV crash compares to an average of
942 hours predicted for an urban interstate PDO truck crash. The I-95
crash is over two orders of magnitude greater in severity and cost at
least \$2,800,000 in lost productivity.

Unfortunately, there is no standardized data collection for these huge
crashes. The delay resulting from the I-95 Bridgeport crash likely
exceeded 138,000 hours estimate. The delay from just this single
mega-crash was equal to 0.4 percent of the total delay calculated for
Urban Interstate Roadway. In addition, road diversions likely caused
additional delays due to extra travel time and traffic bottlenecks
created on smaller alternative facilities during interstate repairs.
Significant regional incidents have the potential to cause delays
exceeding the average CMV crashes and thus altering the overall
estimates.

## 2.5 CONGESTION DELAY VALIDATION

The total delay and associated productivity costs are a conservative
estimate based on comparisons to other national estimates. The Urban
Mobility Report estimates that non-recurring events, such as collisions,
create half of all congestion related delays. The 2005 Urban Mobility
Report estimates a total of 3.7 billion hours of vehicle delay in urban
areas (Shrank and Lomack 2005). Oak Ridge National Laboratories' (ORNL)
comprehensive estimate of national vehicle delay estimated a total of
2.3 billion hours of vehicle delay on U.S. freeways and principal
arterials for 1999 (Chin et al 2002). ORNL also estimated 772.6 million
hours of vehicle delay from all crashes. The ORNL report includes all
roadways and both rural and urban areas.

This chapter's delay estimate, approximately 159 million delay vehicle
hours from CMV collisions, almost 4.3 percent of the Urban Mobility
report total delay and about 20 percent of ORNL's 1999 total crash
(automobile and CMV) delay estimate.

## FIGURES 2-4. VOLPE VS. ZALOSHNJA AND MILLER 2006 (RURAL AND URBAN)

![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="3.0729166666666665in"}

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.991666666666666in"
height="2.729861111111111in"}

One potential factor causing the smaller Volpe estimates is that
Zaloshnja and Miller used another report to scale up their urban delay
numbers (Lan and Hu, 1999). Lan and Hu found in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
that crashes with heavy trucks involved caused an average of 5,057 hours
of delay. They also found that non-truck crashes caused 2,405 hours of
vehicle delay. This non-truck estimate is approximately 5 times greater
than ORNL found in their most recent report (ORNL 2004). Based on the
estimates of the Minneapolis study, Zaloshnja and Miller increased their
delay numbers. ORNL estimates that an average crash (truck and
non-truck) results in 506 hours of delay.

Regional variations may account for a larger or smaller impact in
specific locations. Actual CMV crashes in different cities will likely
result in varying hours of vehicle delay. For example, the interstate
roadways in the Los Angeles, California metropolitan region have many
more lanes and traffic volume than those in Beaumont, Texas. However,
both locations are designated as urban areas.

Crashes affect traffic flow beyond the vehicles delayed at the crash
site. This report does not include CMV crash impacts arising from
re-scheduling, re-routing, reduced mobility, or reduced reliability. No
reliable method was found for estimating these associated delay impacts.

## 2.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY 

The delay calculations provided in this report are conservative and are
lower than noted by ORNL and Zaloshnja and Miller. Estimates could be
improved by accounting for traffic delay in the opposite direction of
the crash (rubbernecking/gaper's block). In addition, using the location
in the roadway for each of the crashes can yield more precise results.
With a specific crash location, highway capacity can be estimated using
past research models. For example, a crash that occurs on the left
shoulder of the highway has an accepted value of 0.840 capacity for a
three lane highway (Giuliano 1989). That means that all three lanes
would only be able to accommodate 84 percent of the maximum traffic
volume while the crash is being cleared away. The FARS and GES databases
have recorded roadway locations for CMV crashes. Also, using queuing
theory from the TRB Highway Capacity Manual can provide a more precise
estimate of delay, driver behavior, and associated speeds. The speeds in
turn can create more accurate estimates for associated emissions.
Lastly, a validation of the calculations can be made for a few specific
cities using traffic volumes and crash data from that location. The
results can be compared with the TTI report.

In summary, the current recommendations with respect to congestion for
future drafts of this report include:

-   Account for Rubbernecking in non-crash lanes.

-   Account for Capacity Reductions depending on location of crash

-   Account for LOS adjustments for traffic flow using ORNL's approach

-   Make assumptions on length of the queue and traffic behavior to
    yield more precise delay results

-   Provide additional data on a truck type/configuration for fleet mix

-   Validation for specific cities

# 3. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES

**3.1 INTRODUCTION**

Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes cause air quality impacts.
Congestion resulting from the crashes results in higher motor vehicle
emissions than those associated with travel in free flowing conditions
(FHWA 2002, Daniel and Bekka 2000). In addition, motor vehicles delayed
in traffic will consume more fuel due to longer engine run times and
higher rates of fuel consumption in idling, stop-and-go traffic, and low
speed conditions (Schrank and Lomax 2005). This increase in vehicle
emissions can contribute to local and regional air pollution problems.
The emissions can damage human and ecological health and can also harm
agricultural crops and forests, damage buildings and cultural resources,
and impair visibility. In addition, some types of cargo released in
crashes, such as volatile materials, can impact air quality.

This chapter describes the methodology and analysis used to quantify the
criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the
congestion associated with CMV crashes. This chapter also presents the
main results of the analysis. Air quality impacts carry a cost that is
not contained within private transportation prices and thus are born by
the general public, known as social costs. This chapter also presents
the methodology and estimation results for the social costs associated
with air pollutant impacts on health and climate change (but not air
pollutant impacts on visibility, it should be noted). The methodology
for estimating air quality impacts will provide estimates of the
criteria pollutant and GHG emissions per CMV crash, and their associated
damage costs.

The methodology presented allows for the estimation of the fuel
consumption, emissions, and damage costs associated with congestion
resulting from CMV crashes. The estimates can be calculated on an
aggregate level for all CMV crashes and on a per crash basis. The
estimates can also be calculated by facility type and accident severity,
and the relevant combinations thereof. This allows FMCSA to estimate the
changes in emissions and damage costs resulting from regulations and
rulemakings that affect CMV accident rates as a whole or a subset of
accidents by severity or on particular facility types.

The ideal approach would use idling time and instantaneous speed and
acceleration throughout the duration of the congestion associated with a
CMV crash to simulate the real world driving conditions associated with
the slow stop-and-go driving characteristics. Fuel consumption and
emissions during idle and stop-and-go driving (especially at very slow
speeds) are significantly higher than those resulting from unrestricted
flow conditions. In addition, fuel consumption and emissions are highly
dependent on acceleration. Therefore, using average steady-state speeds,
as was done in this analysis, is expected to largely underestimate
emissions and fuel consumption and provide only a general approximation
to what actually would occur. However, there is extremely limited
information on the traffic conditions, idling time, travel speeds, and
acceleration after an incident.

In the absence of this data, work developed by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) analyzing fuel economy and emissions as functions of
speed and acceleration could be used. ORNL developed a model to simulate
emissions and fuel consumption for different driving schedules. Driving
schedules and drive cycles are synonymous terms for describing an
identified range of vehicle velocities and their resulting tailpipe
emissions. Thus, as an extension of the current analysis, a collection
of driving schedules considered representative of driving conditions
under congestion resulting from a CMV crash could be selected and used
in the model to estimate emissions and fuel consumption and their
associated damage costs. Since the model data has acceleration and
deceleration, once a cycle to be simulated is selected, the appropriate
values from the model lookup tables could be used to estimate emissions
and fuel consumption over the cycle. An even better approximation of
emissions and fuel consumption could be developed by selecting the
section of the driving schedule that more closely resembles driving
conditions under the congestion associated with a CMV crash. A
confidence interval based on the range of fuel consumption and emissions
calculated using the different driving schedules could be developed to
derive more accurate conclusions.

The main shortcoming of this approach is that the data collected by ORNL
is not a perfect representation of the vehicle fleet composition.
Additionally, there is no data that allows for accurately determining
the driving conditions (and hence which schedule to select) after an
incident. Therefore, a decision regarding the conditions representative
of driving after an incident needs to be made. This last shortcoming
also applies to the current analysis. However, it can certainly provide
a proper indication of changes among different congestion scenarios
(defined by driving schedules). Alternatively, assumptions regarding
driving conditions after an incident could be developed and used in the
ORNL model.

Another potential approach is to study the applicability of the EPA's
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model (US EPA 2007a). This
model estimates emissions for on-road and non-road sources, covers a
broad range of pollutants, and can provide both fine-scale analysis and
national inventory estimation. The main advantage is that the model will
estimate emissions for real world driving conditions. In addition, when
fully implemented, MOVES will serve as the replacement for MOBILE6.
Thus, studying how to use it for the current analysis would be helpful
for future FMCSA environmental compliance activities. The main
shortcoming is that data is very limited (only a small set of vehicles
have been tested for emissions and have not been selected to represent
fleet composition).

The analysis could also be extended by calculating the total time in
congestion instead of only using the time of delay, which is the unit of
delay used in this analysis. The time of delay is a portion of the total
time in congestion. The analysis would be more accurate by estimating
the difference between the emissions and fuel consumption associated
with the total time in congestion (at the congested driving conditions)
and the emissions and fuel consumption associated with the time it would
take to travel the distance affected by the CMV crash (at an average
free flow speed associated with the specific facility type affected by
the incident). This would provide an estimate of the delay emissions and
fuel consumption, which given the non-linearity of emissions and fuel
consumption, is not the same as calculating the emissions and fuel
consumption for the delay time, which is what was done in this analysis.
Free-flow speeds by facility type are available from the FHWA Highway
Performance Monitoring System. However, in order to accurately perform
the analysis in this proposed way, data on the queue length associated
with a CMV accident would be needed; this data is not available. If
free-flow emissions and fuel consumption are subtracted from the delay
emissions and fuel consumption, we would be systematically
underestimating things since we would be subtracting from the delay
portion and not the total congestion emissions and fuel consumption. In
the absence of data on queue length associated with a CMV accident, the
current analysis based on delay provides the most accurate
representation of congestion emissions and fuel consumption.

However, estimates of the distance traveled under congested conditions
following an incident could be developed. Queuing theory modeling could
be used to develop confidence intervals of the distance traveled under
congested conditions to determine the "real additional" emissions and
fuel consumption associated with a CMV crash. Data on arrival rates by
facility type (number of vehicles per unit of time) would be needed to
be collected. The service rate (smaller after an incident) by facility
type for different scenarios would then be estimated for different
scenarios: (1) no accident: service rate = capacity; (2) one lane
closure; (3) two lane closure; etc. Time of day flow and resulting
congestion delay could be included in the analysis. The main objective
of this approach would be to develop a confidence interval by facility
type of the queue length (number of vehicles), to then translate queue
length information into confidence intervals for distance by considering
fleet composition (car lengths) by facility type and car-following
assumptions (based on speed).

As explained, using steady-state speed does not provide very accurate
estimates of emissions and fuel consumption associated with congested
conditions. However, given the lack of data and in the absence of a much
more complex and time intensive approach, the three scenarios of travel
characterized by different average (steady-state) speeds selected for
the analysis provide useful information to quantify the emissions and
costs associated with congestion resulting from CMV crashes. Further
refinements to the analysis and the accuracy of the estimates could be
obtained with the use of the above-mentioned recommendations.

## 3.2 BACKGROUND {#background-1 .unnumbered}

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards
for the maximum concentration of known harmful air pollutants defined as
"criteria pollutants" (US EPA 1998). The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment
provides authority for the EPA to set limits on these pollutants to
protect the public and the environment. The EPA monitors emission that
impact air quality and helps to track emissions trends for each
pollutant. The agency also sets limits on quantity of allowable
pollution.

Air quality is measured by determining the concentration of air
pollutants present within the air mass of a region, in parts per million
(ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3). Air pollutants are a
significant cause of concern for both public health and welfare. In
response to both of these concerns, Federal regulations have been
developed for six criteria pollutants, under the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), that are considered harmful to public health
and the environment. The six criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide
(CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO~2~), ozone (O~3~), sulfur dioxide
(SO~2~), and particulate matter (PM). Nitrogen dioxide reacts in the
atmosphere over the course of several hours and is often referred to
simply as nitrogen oxides (NO~X~). Similarly, sulfur dioxide is often
referred to simply as sulfur oxides (SO~X~).

The ambient concentration of pollutants is compared with the EPA's NAAQS
in order to measure air quality. There are two types of standards --
primary and secondary. Primary standards protect against adverse health
effects; secondary standards protect against adverse welfare effects,
such as damage to farm crops and vegetation and damage to buildings.
Because different pollutants have different effects, the NAAQS for each
pollutant is different. Some pollutants have standards for both
long-term and short-term averaging times. The short-term standards were
designed to protect against acute, or short-term, health effects, while
the long-term standards were established to protect against chronic
health effects.

When a geographic area falls within the NAAQS established by the Clean
Air Act, it is called an attainment area; when concentrations of
criteria pollutants in the region exceed the standards, it is called a
non-attainment area. The EPA continuously monitors ambient air quality
within counties and air basins in the U.S. A description of the relevant
criteria pollutants is presented below (US EPA 2006a):

-   [Carbon Monoxide (CO)]{.underline}: colorless, odorless, and
    poisonous gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon in
    fuels. CO reduces the delivery of oxygen to the body's organs and
    tissues when it enters the bloodstream and is a serious health risk
    for people with cardiovascular disease.

-   [Nitrogen Dioxide (NO~2~) and NO~X~]{.underline}: brownish highly
    reactive gases that can irritate lungs, cause bronchitis and
    pneumonia, as well as lower resistance to respiratory infections.
    Nitrogen oxides are precursors to ozone (O~3~) and acid rain, which
    negatively impact aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

-   [Sulfur Dioxide (SO~2~) and SO~X~]{.underline}: high concentrations
    of these gases can affect breathing and aggravate existing
    respiratory and cardiac disease. People with asthma, bronchitis or
    emphysema, or children and elderly are sensitive to elevated SO~2~
    levels. SO~2~ is a primary component of acid rain, and SO~X~
    compounds reduce visibility.

-   [Particulate Matter (PM)]{.underline}: particulate matter pollutants
    include dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets emitted by
    sources such as automobiles. PM is a major concern for human health
    and possible effects are breathing and respiratory symptoms,
    aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
    alterations to immunological response, lung tissue damage,
    carcinogenesis, and premature death. In addition, PM damages soils
    and crops, and impairs visibility.

-   [Hydrocarbon (HC)]{.underline}: Hydrocarbons are a precursor to
    ground-level ozone - a key component of smog. Ground-level ozone
    causes health problems such as difficulty breathing, lung damage,
    and reduced cardiovascular functioning. A number of hydrocarbons can
    cause cancer or other health issues.

-   [Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)]{.underline}: A notable subset of
    hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds includes benzene, toluene,
    ethylbenzene, m-/p-/o-xylene, and formaldehyde (Chan et al. 1991).
    VOCs can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of
    coordination, nausea; damage to liver, kidney, and central nervous
    system. Some VOCs can cause cancer in animals; some are suspected or
    known to cause cancer in humans. Note: benzene may be independently
    analyzed, as the EPA is strengthening its hazardous air emissions
    control largely due to increased concern over the effects of this
    pollutant (EPA 2006b).

-   [Greenhouse gases (GHG)]{.underline}: Recent government and
    scientific studies strongly suggest that anthropogenic GHG emissions
    are contributing to a rise in surface and lower atmosphere
    temperatures beyond the naturally occurring greenhouse "effect"
    (CCSP 2006). Carbon dioxide (CO~2~) is the most prevalent GHG
    emission from vehicles. Methane (CH~4~) and nitrous oxide (N~2~O)
    are also formed from vehicle emissions and cause GHG impacts.

Transportation sources in the U.S. account for the highest or second
highest levels of emissions for several pollutants of concern for
environmental and public health reasons. The transportation sector
continues to be a substantial source of air pollutants at the national
level, and is responsible for most of the total carbon monoxide (CO) and
nitrogen oxide (NO~X~) emissions, close to half of the total volatile
organic compounds (VOC), and a quarter of total particulate matter (PM)
emissions. The contributions to lead (Pb) and sulfur oxide (SO~X~)
emissions from vehicles are relatively less, partly due to their reduced
presence in transportation fuels (lead has essentially been eliminated
from gasoline). However, SO~X~ is formed when fuel that contains sulfur,
such as coal and oil, is burned, and when gasoline is extracted from oil
in petroleum refineries. Thus, the analysis of criteria pollutant
emissions from CMV crashes will focus on the effects of on CO, NO~X~,
VOC, PM, and SO~X~ emissions.

The transportation sector -- specifically, motor-vehicle operation -- is
also a substantial contributor to GHG emissions, accounting for
approximately one third of all GHG emissions in the U.S. The operation
of motor vehicles accounts for the majority of these emissions. Thus,
this chapter examines the effects of CMV collision related congestion on
GHG emissions. GHG occur naturally, but also result from human
activities, such as fossil fuel combustion, industrial processes,
agricultural activities, deforestation, and waste treatment activities.
CO~2~ is one of the main products of motor vehicle exhaust and, although
it does not directly impair human health and is not regulated, in recent
years it has started to be viewed as an issue of concern for its global
climate change potential.

Vehicles stopped or running at slow speeds, as those associated with
congestion, can create more ambient air emissions than drivers traveling
without delays at higher speeds (Daniel and Bekka 2000). CMV crashes and
the related congestion delay induced emissions contribute more
greenhouse gases than free flowing traffic. Emissions carry a number of
social costs that are not directly paid for in either vehicle operation
or related transportation taxation and tolls. Our methodology includes
analysis of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter, hydrocarbons, and greenhouse emission from current
CMV crashes.

Emissions from motor vehicles occur from either fuel that is either not
fully combusted, or formed by chemical processes during combustion, and
others occur through chemical reactions in the atmosphere. The processes
are complex and are influenced by fuel and engine type, ambient
temperature, and natural background concentrations of the chemical
compounds (Harrington and McConnell 2003). Emissions profiles of
gasoline and diesel engines are different. Gasoline engines produce high
levels of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and N~2~O. Diesel
engines produce high levels of NO~X~ and particulate matter in
comparison to gasoline engines (Harrington and McConnell 2003). Both
engine types produce CO~2~ in fairly direct proportion to fuel
consumption.

Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture containing hundreds of organic and
inorganic materials, in gaseous and particulate forms, from diesel
engine combustion processes. Diesel engines include light- and
heavy-duty engines in trucks, buses, and some automobiles. Diesel
emissions include 40 hazardous air pollutants listed under the Clean Air
Act, 15 of which are known or probable carcinogens (U.S. EPA 2007).
Diesel exhaust includes both gases and particles (PM). The gaseous
fraction contains nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and
many toxic substances including aldehydes. The particles consist of an
elemental carbon core with volatile organic compounds, sulfates,
nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, trace elements, and irritants (such as
acrolein, ammonia and acids) adsorbed to the surface. Specific toxic
chemicals of concern include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
nitroarenes which are concentrated in the particle phase. The particle
size distribution and chemical composition of diesel exhaust emissions
can vary greatly depending on the engine type (light vs. heavy duty),
the speed and load at which it is run, the fuel composition, the
lubricating oil, and the emission control technology. The mass,
composition, and particle size distribution of diesel exhaust have also
changed over time as fuel and engine technology have improved (U.S. EPA
2007).

## 3.3 AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS METHODOLOGY {#air-quality-emissions-methodology .unnumbered}

Ideally, any analysis of total pollutant emissions would be based on
accurate knowledge of factors that determine emissions while vehicles
are slowed after a large truck and bus crash. For the purposes of this
paper, we propose analyzing CMV crash related health impacts in total
and on a per unit basis so that FMCSA can have a general assessment of
how regulatory changes may benefit air quality and health. The per unit
analysis will use the emissions estimates for and the damage cost
figures to calculate total air quality damages for an average large
truck and bus crash.

Based on a review of scientific literature, vehicle speeds and vehicle
fleet composition information are critical variables to estimate
emissions. One study found that congestion can increase fuel consumption
by 40 percent and emissions by 800 percent (De Vlieger et al. 2000). The
three groups of factors that influence air quality emissions are

-   [Vehicle Speeds]{.underline}: acceleration, idling, and total times
    for each vehicle caught in the crash congestion influence emissions
    (Kulkarni et al. 1996).

-   [Vehicle Fleet Composition:]{.underline} precise numbers of the
    vehicles involved in every traffic delay created from large truck
    and bus crashes along with each type of engine, fuel, and emissions
    profile (Romilly 1999).

-   [Vehicle Age and Maintenance:]{.underline} the age and maintenance
    history of vehicles are also factors that influence emissions
    (Romilly 1999).

Comprehensive and precise data sources for congestion conditions in
general, and specifically for those associated with CMV crashes, are
extremely limited. Therefore, an analytical methodology that allows for
the estimation of air quality impacts resulting from the delay
associated with CMV crashes was developed. The first step in the process
was the calculation of the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under the
congested conditions generated by CMV crashes in the United States (see
Chapter 2, which addresses congestion, for an explanation of the delay
estimation process). VMT under congested conditions is calculated by
multiplying the total hours of delay for each facility type and accident
severity type by the average speed during the congestion resulting from
CMV crashes.

Data on speed and acceleration under congested conditions is very
scarce. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) estimated average
speeds of approximately 36 mph for congested conditions (Schrank and
Lomax 2005). DeLucci (1998) estimated average speeds under congested
conditions at between 27.5 and 37 mph. Both estimates were developed for
congested conditions at full capacity for a variety of facility types.
Therefore, these estimates are high for the kind of driving conditions
that can be expected following a CMV crash. Even though drive cycles
used for estimating fuel economy and emissions are not designed to
represent driving conditions following a CMV crash, they are
representative of real world conditions associated with different
driving situations. Therefore, drive cycles were studied to determine
which ones could be more representative of conditions following a CMV
crash. Examining the drive schedules used by EPA and state agencies, the
EPA urban drive cycle and New York City driving schedule were selected
as the two that most closely represent conditions similar to the ones
experienced following a CMV crash. The EPA urban drive cycle is designed
to represent the slow speed and stop-and-go traffic conditions
associated with rush hour driving in urban areas. The average speed for
the urban drive cycle is 19.59 mph. The New York City driving schedule
is designed to represent very low speed stop-and-go traffic conditions.
The average speed for this schedule is 7.1 mph. Based on this
information, three scenarios of congestion represented by different
average speeds were selected: high-level congestion (5 mph), mid-level
congestion (10 mph), and low-level congestion (20 mph). These three
values were used to estimate the corresponding total VMT under congested
conditions for each facility, accident severity, and congestion
scenario.

The second step was the estimation of emission rates for criteria
pollutants. Emissions of the speed sensitive criteria pollutants (carbon
monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides) were
estimated by using the EPA Mobile 6.2 model (MOBILE6) to calculate
emission rates by speed and facility type. The Highway Vehicle
Particulate Emission Modeling Software - PART5 was used to estimate the
emission rates of PM2.5, PM10 and SOx. Calculations were made for 2008,
since the Low Sulfur Fuel Rule is being phased-in over 2006-07 and
affects some emission rates significantly, and combining the 2006 values
for the speed sensitive criteria pollutants with the 2008 values for
particulate emissions was considered inappropriate. It is important to
note that emission rates of the speed sensitive criteria pollutants
decline significantly between 2006 and 2008. Thus, using 2008 values
will understate today\'s (i.e., 2006-07) emissions. However, since the
analysis presented in this document is intended for future use, the use
of 2008 values was considered more appropriate and useful for FMCSA. In
summary, MOBILE6 and the PART5 model, along with a typical vehicle fleet
composition for each facility type, were used to estimate composite
emission rates for criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutant emission
rates used (for the roadway types and speeds, in miles per hour -- mph
--, of interest) in the analysis are presented in Table 3-1.

The vehicle fleet composition for each facility type is needed to
estimate the emission rates for criteria pollutants. The vehicle fleet
composition was derived using the Federal Highway Administration Highway
Economic Requirements System (HERS) computer model (FHWA 2002). The
HERS-ST model is a highway investment/performance model that considers
engineering and economic concepts and principles in reviewing the impact
of alternative highway investment levels and program structures on
highway condition, performance, and user impacts. Specifically, the
HERS-ST model simulates highway condition and performance levels and
identifies deficiencies through the use of engineering principles. As
stated above, it is important to consider the changes in CMV emission
rates associated with EPA diesel engine regulations being phased in over
the following years.

Volpe estimated the mix of MOBILE6 vehicle classes (MOBILE6 uses 28 of
them) typically operating on each type of roadway, using extremely
detailed data on vehicle classes and roadway types obtained from a
special 1999 FHWA study, which were supplied by the FHWA Office of
Policy.  The same data was used to estimate the mix of PART5 vehicle
classes operating on each type of roadway.  Then, MOBILE6 and PART5 were
used to estimate the emission rates for the characteristic mix of
vehicles operating on each roadway type defined by HERS at different
speeds.  These results are stored in the HERS model, and HERS uses the
rate appropriate to the roadway type and estimated speed before and
after improvements are made to the roadway.

TABLE 3-1. EMISSION RATES (GRAMS/MILE) BY ROADWAY TYPE

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>CO</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>VOC</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>NO<sub>X</sub></strong></td>
<td><strong>PM10</strong></td>
<td><strong>PM2.5</strong></td>
<td><strong>SO<sub>2</sub></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h6 id="roadway-type">ROADWAY TYPE</h6></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Speed (mph)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Speed (mph)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Speed (mph)</strong></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td><strong>10</strong></td>
<td><strong>20</strong></td>
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td><strong>10</strong></td>
<td><strong>20</strong></td>
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td><strong>10</strong></td>
<td><strong>20</strong></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Rural</strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><em>Interstate</em></td>
<td>28.030</td>
<td>19.292</td>
<td>15.517</td>
<td>2.685</td>
<td>1.518</td>
<td>1.008</td>
<td>4.057</td>
<td>3.347</td>
<td>2.734</td>
<td>0.160</td>
<td>0.123</td>
<td>0.162</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><em>Other Principal</em></td>
<td>30.931</td>
<td>21.733</td>
<td>17.097</td>
<td>2.999</td>
<td>1.665</td>
<td>1.074</td>
<td>2.569</td>
<td>2.127</td>
<td>1.677</td>
<td>0.098</td>
<td>0.080</td>
<td>0.126</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><em>Minor Arterial</em></td>
<td>31.493</td>
<td>22.139</td>
<td>17.467</td>
<td>3.047</td>
<td>1.681</td>
<td>1.084</td>
<td>2.214</td>
<td>1.829</td>
<td>1.445</td>
<td>0.075</td>
<td>0.067</td>
<td>0.115</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><em>Major Collector</em></td>
<td>31.942</td>
<td>22.445</td>
<td>17.734</td>
<td>3.079</td>
<td>1.694</td>
<td>1.093</td>
<td>1.988</td>
<td>1.640</td>
<td>1.300</td>
<td>0.078</td>
<td>0.062</td>
<td>0.110</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><em>Minor Collector</em></td>
<td>31.942</td>
<td>22.445</td>
<td>17.734</td>
<td>3.079</td>
<td>1.694</td>
<td>1.093</td>
<td>1.988</td>
<td>1.640</td>
<td>1.300</td>
<td>0.078</td>
<td>0.062</td>
<td>0.110</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><em>Local Road</em></td>
<td>31.942</td>
<td>22.445</td>
<td>17.734</td>
<td>3.079</td>
<td>1.694</td>
<td>1.093</td>
<td>1.988</td>
<td>1.640</td>
<td>1.300</td>
<td>0.078</td>
<td>0.062</td>
<td>0.110</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Urban</strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><em>Interstate</em></td>
<td>25.061</td>
<td>17.609</td>
<td>14.707</td>
<td>1.861</td>
<td>1.060</td>
<td>0.744</td>
<td>2.327</td>
<td>1.847</td>
<td>1.510</td>
<td>0.077</td>
<td>0.060</td>
<td>0.068</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><em>freeway/expressway</em></td>
<td>25.410</td>
<td>17.868</td>
<td>15.061</td>
<td>1.866</td>
<td>1.049</td>
<td>0.739</td>
<td>1.806</td>
<td>1.392</td>
<td>1.137</td>
<td>0.062</td>
<td>0.045</td>
<td>0.054</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><em>Other Principal Arterial</em></td>
<td>26.300</td>
<td>18.793</td>
<td>15.178</td>
<td>1.992</td>
<td>1.133</td>
<td>0.744</td>
<td>1.791</td>
<td>1.471</td>
<td>1.158</td>
<td>0.059</td>
<td>0.043</td>
<td>0.053</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><em>Minor Arterial</em></td>
<td>27.282</td>
<td>19.450</td>
<td>15.489</td>
<td>2.080</td>
<td>1.184</td>
<td>0.801</td>
<td>1.785</td>
<td>1.471</td>
<td>1.168</td>
<td>0.053</td>
<td>0.041</td>
<td>0.048</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><em>Collector</em></td>
<td>26.470</td>
<td>18.932</td>
<td>15.365</td>
<td>1.995</td>
<td>1.128</td>
<td>0.771</td>
<td>1.530</td>
<td>1.249</td>
<td>0.983</td>
<td>0.051</td>
<td>0.035</td>
<td>0.045</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><em>Local Road</em></td>
<td>26.470</td>
<td>18.932</td>
<td>15.365</td>
<td>1.995</td>
<td>1.128</td>
<td>0.771</td>
<td>1.530</td>
<td>1.249</td>
<td>0.983</td>
<td>0.051</td>
<td>0.035</td>
<td>0.045</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="13"><u>Source</u>: Calculated using MOBILE6 and PART5
vehicle emission factor models.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Figures 3-1 and 3-2 present the composite emission rates (for CO, VOC
and NO~X~) by speed for an urban interstate roadway as an example of the
highly speed sensitive (and distinct) nature of CO, VOC and NO~X~
emissions. For scaling purposes, CO data is presented in a separate
figure, while VOC and NO~X~ are presented together. Figures 3-3 and 3-4
present the relationship between speed and carbon dioxide emissions for
two roadway types.

Criteria pollutant tailpipe emissions associated with the congestion
conditions for each roadway type, accident severity, and congestion
scenario were calculated as the product of the total incident-delayed
VMT and the emission rates. Since emissions are estimated for each
accident severity and roadway type, depending on the projected results
of the rulemaking or regulatory action, the emissions associated with
the respective delay can easily be determined. The total tailpipe
emissions for each congestion scenario were calculated as the sum of the
tailpipe emissions for each facility and accident severity type. Table
3-2 presents the total tailpipe emissions for each criteria pollutant
and congestion scenario. Figure 3-5 presents the tailpipe emissions per
crash for each criteria pollutant by accident severity and congestion
scenario.

FIGURE 3-1. CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS VS. VELOCITY

![](media/image8.wmf)

FIGURE 3-2. VOC AND NOx EMISSIONS VS. VELOCITY

![](media/image9.wmf)

FIGURE 3-3. CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS VS. VELOCITY

![](media/image10.png){width="5.991666666666666in"
height="3.609027777777778in"}

## FIGURE 3-4. CARBON DIOXIDE VS. SPEED

![](media/image11.png){width="5.990972222222222in"
height="3.1798611111111112in"}

[Source]{.underline}: Dr. Lawrence Frank, Center for Clean Air Policy,
January 2004 TRB Presentation

TABLE 3-2. TOTAL TAILPIPE EMISSIONS

  ------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
                      **Emissions                         
                      (tons)**                            

  **Pollutant**       **High-level      **Mid-level       **Low-level
                      congestion**      congestion**      congestion**

  CO                  23399             32801             53162

  VOC                 2012              2266              3031

  NO~X~               2246              3659              5911

  PM10                82                163               326

  PM2.5               64                127               255

  SO~2~               85                170               340
  ------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

FIGURE 3-5. TAILPIPE CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS PER CRASH

  ----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image12.wmf){width="3.3270833333333334in"   ![](media/image13.wmf){width="3.3270833333333334in"
  height="2.120138888888889in"}                         height="2.120138888888889in"}

  ![](media/image14.wmf){width="3.30625in"              ![](media/image15.wmf){width="3.3118055555555554in"
  height="2.129166666666667in"}                         height="2.1347222222222224in"}

  ![](media/image16.wmf){width="3.310416666666667in"    
  height="2.1194444444444445in"}                        
  ----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------

In addition to the criteria pollutant emissions associated with the fuel
wasted in incident-related delays caused by CMV crashes, there are
emissions associated with the refining and distribution of that wasted
fuel. To calculate those emissions, it is necessary to determine the
fuel consumption for the incident-delayed VMT. The fuel consumption is
calculated simply by dividing the incident-delayed VMT for each accident
severity, roadway type, and congestion scenario by the fuel economy
associated with the average speed for each congestion scenario. However,
there is very little information available with respect to the
relationship between speed and fuel economy.

For the low-level congestion scenario (representative of the urban drive
cycle), the estimated fuel economy determined by EPA for 1975-2006
vehicles for the adjusted city driving schedule can be used (EPA 2006).
The report has values for the combined average fuel economy of new cars
and light trucks on the urban test cycle that range between
approximately 18-19 miles per gallon (mpg) for approximately the last 20
model years. It can be assumed that the fleet average in urban
driving is within this range, since the fleet is composed primarily of
vehicles from these model years.  The value for the 2006 vehicle models
(18.6 mpg), roughly the midpoint of this range, was selected for this
analysis. The test value has already been adjusted downward (by 10
percent) to reflect differences between laboratory test conditions and
real-world driving conditions.

For the mid-level and high-level congestion scenarios, the fuel economy
associated with the respective average speeds was estimated using the
results of a methodology developed by ORNL for FHWA to determine modal
vehicle emissions and fuel consumption models (SAE 1997 and FHWA 1999).
The models, in the form of look-up tables of fuel economy and emission
rates as a function of speed and acceleration, are designed to simulate
fuel consumption and emissions for different driving schedules.
Differences in emission rates as a result of more stringent EPA
regulations would have to be considered. The authors derived their
results from tests with a limited number of vehicles from different
model years, selected to be representative of the overall vehicle fleet.
Even though the number of vehicles tested and used in the model is
small, the weighted averages (based on their selected vehicle fleet
composition as represented by the tested vehicles) for curb weight,
engine displacement, and number of cylinders closely resembles the real
world vehicle fleet composition. In addition, the authors compared their
results to those of a test in Detroit with 30 vehicles, and obtained
very similar results.

The average speed for the mid-level and high-level congestion scenario
(10 and 5 miles per hour -- mph --, respectively) was matched with the
corresponding fuel economy figures from the ORNL study. The resulting
values are 15 and 9.5 mpg, respectively. These numbers seem somewhat
high for the driving conditions expected after a CMV crash.
Overestimation of fuel economy is expected since the fuel economy values
are for the respective average speeds and do not consider acceleration
and stop-and-go conditions. However, the values are reasonable in the
context of the fuel economy figure for the urban drive cycle. When
comparing the fuel economy values from the ORNL study (22.6 mpg) to the
urban drive cycle figure (18.6 mpg), it is seen that using the ORNL
steady-state speed of approximately overestimates fuel economy by 20
percent. However, in the absence of more detailed information, the ORNL
fuel economy figures (for the vehicle fleet) for steady-state 10 and 5
mph are used in the current analysis.

Since the high-level congestion (5 mph) scenario is representative of
conditions with significant idling, considering idling fuel consumption
will result in more realistic estimates of congestion related fuel
consumption. Information on idling fuel consumption is very limited.
However, a recent study motivated by the concern over idling emissions
from CMVs was prepared by ORNL (SAE 2003). The results can be used to
account for CMV idling emissions during congestion. Even though there is
no information on the idling time during congestion associated with
crashes, it was considered useful to include them in the analysis. A TTI
study estimates the fleet composition at 95 percent vehicles and light
trucks and 5 percent CMV. However, as this estimate seems very low, data
from the 2000 Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual was
selected as a better representation of the relative fleet composition by
facility type (TRB 2000). The actual values for the percentage of CMVs
by facility type are presented in the Congestion section. Thus, for this
scenario, it was assumed that the CMVs (represented by the corresponding
fleet contribution by facility type) were idling during the congestion
incident and the rest of the vehicles were traveling at a steady-state
speed of 5 mph. Using CMV idling emissions somewhat offsets the
underestimation of fuel consumption that results from using steady-state
conditions instead of acceleration and stop-and-go. The results show
that the high-level congestion scenario results in higher fuel
consumption and CO~2~ emissions than the mid-level congestion scenario.

The estimates of fuel consumption for each scenario were then used to
calculate the upstream emissions associated with the refining and
distribution of this wasted fuel. The energy content of gasoline and
emission rates for criteria pollutants associated with refining and
distribution were calculated from the GREET model (Argonne National
Laboratory 2006). The upstream emissions are calculated as the product
of the fuel consumption (gallons of wasted fuel) and the emission rates
(grams per gallon). These estimates are then added to the total tailpipe
emissions for the respective pollutants, to calculate the total criteria
pollutant emissions associated with congestion generated by CMV crashes.
The total emissions per crash are estimated by dividing the total
emissions by the number of CMV crashes. Figure 3-6 presents the carbon
(carbon dioxide) emissions per crash and by accident severity and
congestion scenario. Table 3-3 presents the total criteria pollutant
emissions (tailpipe and upstream) for each congestion scenario. Table
3-4 and Figure 3-7 present the total criteria pollutant emissions per
crash for each congestion scenario.

FIGURE 3-6. FUEL CONSUMPTION PER CMV CRASH

![](media/image17.wmf){width="5.604166666666667in"
height="3.8541666666666665in"}

FIGURE 3-7. CO~2~ EMISSIONS PER CMV CRASH

![](media/image18.wmf){width="4.916666666666667in"
height="3.1458333333333335in"}

TABLE 3-3. TOTAL EMISSIONS

  ------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
                      **Emissions                         
                      (tons)**                            

  **Pollutant**       **High-level      **Mid-level       **Low-level
                      congestion**      congestion**      congestion**

  CO                  23767             33155             53732

  VOC                 2267              2510              3426

  NO~X~               2800              4192              6770

  PM10                161               239               449

  PM2.5               120               181               341

  SO~2~               418               490               856
  ------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

TABLE 3-4. TOTAL PER CRASH EMISSIONS

+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|                   | **Emissions    |                |                |
|                   | (kil           |                |                |
|                   | ogram/crash)** |                |                |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| #####  Pollutant  | **High-level   | **Mid-level    | **Low-level    |
|                   | congestion**   | congestion**   | congestion**   |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| CO                | 54.06          | 75.41          | 122.22         |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| VOC               | 5.16           | 5.71           | 7.79           |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| NO~X~             | 6.37           | 9.53           | 15.40          |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| PM10              | 0.37           | 0.54           | 1.02           |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| PM2.5             | 0.27           | 0.41           | 0.78           |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| SO~2~             | 0.95           | 1.11           | 1.95           |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

FIGURE 3-8. CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS PER CRASH

![](media/image19.wmf)

The estimation of GHG focused on carbon dioxide (CO~2~), as it
represents 97-98 percent of total GHG from producing, distributing, and
consuming motor fuel. Carbon (C) emissions associated with the wasted
fuel resulting from CMV crash-induced congestion are estimated as the
product of the total fuel consumption, the mass density of fuel
(averages 2,364 grams per gallon for the current U.S. gasoline mix), and
the percentage of fuel mass represented by carbon (averages 84.7 percent
for current U.S. gasoline mix). CO~2~ emissions are estimated as the
product of the carbon emissions and the ratio of molecular weight of
CO~2~ to that of its carbon component. Since the atomic mass of carbon
is 12 g/mol and the atomic mass of oxygen is 16 g/mol, the ratio is
44:12.

In addition, as in the case of criteria pollutants, there are upstream
emissions associated with the refining and distribution of the wasted
fuel. From GREET, upstream emissions per gallon of fuel refined and
distributed average (for the current U.S. gasoline mix) 557 grams per
gallon for carbon, and 2,043 grams per gallon for CO~2~. The upstream
emissions are estimated as the product of fuel consumption and the
average upstream emissions per gallon of fuel refined and distributed.
GREET can also be used to determine the non-carbon dioxide GHG emissions
(CH~4~ and N~2~O) from refining and burning fuel, but they are much
smaller in magnitude and thus not considered here. Table 3-5 presents
carbon and CO~2~ emissions per CMV crash from wasted fuel and upstream
emissions from its refining and distribution.

TABLE 3-5. CARBON AND CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS PER CMV CRASH FROM WASTED
FUEL AND UPSTREAM EMISSIONS FROM FUEL REFINING AND DISTRIBUTION BY
CONGESTION SCENARIO

  --------------------- -------------------- ---------------- ----------------
                        **Emissions                           
                        (kilogram/crash)**                    

  **Pollutant**         **High-level         **Mid-level      **Low-level
                        congestion**         congestion**     congestion**

  Carbon                686.92               659.61           1063.88

  Carbon dioxide        2518.70              2418.56          3900.90
  --------------------- -------------------- ---------------- ----------------

## 3.4 HUMAN HEALTH DAMAGES {#human-health-damages .unnumbered}

Human exposure to the vehicle emissions from CMV crashes has health
impacts. Direct emissions from ozone and other emissions result in a
number of pathologies including impaired breathing, cardiac conditions,
and can be fatal (US EPA 2006d). If FMCSA regulations reduce emissions
from CMV crashes, they will also be reducing overall concentrations of
harmful air pollution.

The formation of ambient pollution from emissions is a non-linear
process and to some extent the effect of ambient pollution on people's
health is not linear (McCubbin and Delucchi 1996). A marginal and
discreet reduction of air emissions will not necessarily reduce air
pollution or health impacts on a corresponding per unit basis. Despite
these complexities, the Office of Management and Budget has accepted
damage cost values for each of the criteria pollutants (OMB draft 2006)
and based their numbers on two Regulatory Impact Analysis Reports from
the EPA (US EPA 2005a, US EPA 2005b). The OMB's estimates have been
thoroughly reviewed by analysts, and the executive branch recommends
policy-makers use them in benefit-cost analyses (OMB draft 2006, OMB
1992).

OMB's estimates are derived from the EPA's 2005 Regulatory Impact
Analysis for Final Clean Air Act Interstate Rule. The report analyzes
the economic impact of Clean Air Act regulations including only
estimates for values that can be monetized (US EPA 2005a). The EPA
developed the estimates based on detailed analysis of the health costs
associated with air pollution and includes both on-road and off-road
emissions.

Damage cost values were obtained from the OMB Draft 2006 Report to
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations (OMB 2006).
OMB does not provide a value for carbon monoxide since it estimates that
damage costs associated with this pollutant are very low. Damage cost
values are:

-   Hydrocarbon: \$600 to \$2,700 per ton

-   Nitrogen Oxide (mobile): \$1,100 to \$11,600 per ton

-   Particulate Matter: \$10,000 to \$100,000 per ton

-   Sulfur Dioxide: \$1,700 to \$18,000 per ton

A value for carbon monoxide was taken from the research literature. In
addition, a value for carbon (representative of carbon dioxide
emissions) was estimated by Volpe in a previous study and is used in
this analysis. Adjusting all values to 2008 dollars, the damage costs
are

-   Carbon Monoxide A value of \$20 is used (McCubbin and DeLucci)

-   Hydrocarbon: \$691 to \$3,110 per ton

-   Nitrogen Oxide (mobile): \$1,267 to \$13,359 per ton

-   Particulate Matter: \$11,517 to \$115,167 per ton

-   Sulfur Dioxide: \$1,958 to \$20,730 per ton

-   Carbon (carbon dioxide): \$20 (Volpe 2006)

Note that OMB damage estimates for particulate matter don't necessarily
break out PM10 and PM2.5, although MOBILE6 does have the capability to
measure each pollutant independently. There is near consensus among
researchers that PM2.5 is more dangerous than coarser particles, since
it can penetrate deeper in the lung (Dockery et al 1995, Marrack 1995,
Pope et al.1995). The OMB damage cost for particulate matter does not
currently differentiate between PM10 and PM2.5 for total emissions.
There may be future OMB guidance on the different impact costs of each
of these two particle sizes. For the purposes of this analysis, the
estimation of damage costs is done accounting only for the PM2.5
emissions. For the other criteria pollutants, the cost figure used is
the midpoint of the range provided.

The damage costs are estimated as the product of the total emissions and
the damage cost values. This estimation includes air quality impacts,
which are compared with human exposure, physical damage, and assesses
the cost associated with the health damage. OMB does not consider the
economic impact costs to ecological and agricultural resources, since
consensus has not been reached on methods to estimate those (US EPA
2005).

Table 3-6 presents the total damage costs and damage costs per CMV crash
for criteria pollutants and carbon (carbon dioxide). Figure 3-8 presents
the damage costs per crash for criteria pollutants and carbon (carbon
dioxide) for each congestion scenario.

TABLE 3-6. TOTAL DAMAGE COSTS AND DAMAGE COSTS PER CMV CRASH FOR ALL
POLLUTANTS

  --------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
                  **Total Damage                               **Per Crash                   
                  Costs (2008                                  Damage Costs                  
                  \$)**                                        (2008 \$)**                   

  **Pollutant**   **High-level   **Mid-level    **Low-level    **High-level   **Mid-level    **Low-level
                  congestion**   congestion**   congestion**   congestion**   congestion**   congestion**

  CO              \$475,336      \$663,096      \$1,074,633    \$1.2          \$1.7          \$2.7

  VOC             \$4,307,816    \$4,770,002    \$6,509,438    \$10.8         \$12.0         \$16.3

  NO~X~           \$20,477,503   \$30,653,222   \$49,508,481   \$51.3         \$76.9         \$124.1

  PM              \$7,578,042    \$11,470,325   \$21,623,018   \$19.0         \$28.8         \$54.2

  SO~2~           \$4,740,264    \$5,555,693    \$9,708,288    \$11.9         \$13.9         \$24.3

  Carbon (CO~2~)  \$6,039,883    \$5,799,740    \$9,354,420    \$15.1         \$14.5         \$23.5

  **Total Damage  **\$           **\$           **\$           **\$109**      **\$148**      **\$245**
  Costs**         43,618,845**   58,912,078**   97,778,279**                                 
  --------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

FIGURE 3-9. TOTAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND CARBON DAMAGE PER CMV CRASH AND
CONGESTION SCENARIO

![](media/image20.wmf){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="5.656944444444444in"}

Contrary to what would be expected, emissions, fuel consumption, and
costs for the low-level congestion scenario are the highest and those
for the high-level congestion scenario are the lowest. Given that a
high-level congestion scenario is intended to represent a situation with
very slow speeds and stop-and-go driving, the opposite results might be
expected. However, the results can be easily explained by the fact that
the ratio of average speeds for each congestion scenario (and thus the
estimated VMT under congested conditions) is much higher than the
corresponding ratios of emissions and fuel economy. For example, the
same vehicle delayed for one hour in congestion will create more
emissions traveling at 10 mph than it would at 5 mph because it travels
twice the distance. Longer distances result in more fuel consumption
along with all the related emissions. This result is driven by the fact
that the analysis uses average speeds verses actual time in congestion
and does not consider idling and stop-and-go acceleration.

To correct this, one alternative would be to consider a fourth scenario
(or change the high-level congestion scenario to a lower average speed).
MOBILE6 uses 2.5 mph as the speed representative of idling conditions.
In reality, what this means, is that 2.5 mph is the slowest speed at
which the model can reliably estimate emission rates (in grams/mile,
which is the unit used by the model). Idling emissions should be
estimated in emissions per unit of time. However, there is very little
data on idling emissions. Since the emission rates (for the speed
sensitive pollutants) at 2.5 mph are significantly higher than those at
5 mph, this alternative scenario might provide a more realistic
representation of emissions. As an extension of the current analysis, a
scenario considering emissions and fuel consumption at 2.5 mph could be
developed to provide a "conservative" scenario.

# HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

## 

## 

## 4.1 INTRODUCTION

CMV crashes can result in the release of hazardous materials (HM) into
the environment. Crashes occur in varying locations and with varying
amounts and types of HM being released from the CMV cargo. Environmental
impacts are dependent on these variables. In addition, HM from the CMV
cargo is also released into the environment from non-crash related
incidents that occur during in-transit movements, loading, unloading and
in-transit temporary storage. Similar to CMV crashes, the environmental
impacts are dependent on the location, quantity and type of HM being
released.

In general, HM are substances that may pose a threat to public safety or
the environment during transportation, because of their physical,
chemical, or radioactive properties. The potential for environmental
damage or contamination exists when packages of HM are involved in
crashes or en route incidents resulting from cargo shifts, valve
failures, package failures, or loading, unloading, or handling problems.
Accidental releases of HM can result in explosions or fires.
Radioactive, toxic, infectious, or corrosive HM can have short- or
long-term exposure effects on humans or the environment. Diesel fuel
released during a CMV crash from a fuel tank rupture, although not
classified as a HM under federal HM transportation law (see Section 4.2)
can also adversely impact the environment.

This chapter contains 1) a brief overview of HM transportation law, 2) a
description of the different classes of HM, 3) quantification tables for
use by the FMCSA responsible federal official to estimate the releases
of HM per commercial CMV crash (or non-crash related incident), 4)
general narrative summaries of environmental impacts by HM class, 5)
specific narrative summaries of HM releases into the environment based
on database research conducted for 2003, 2004 and 2005, and 5)
quantification and environmental impact summaries of diesel fuel
releases that occur during a CMV crash from a fuel tank rupture.

# This chapter can be used as an informational tool for FMCSA's responsible federal official when preparing a NEPA document and/or it can be inserted in whole or in part as an appendix to a NEPA document when a FMCSA action may affect the release of HM into the environment. For example, the narrative portion of the report (see Section 4.5) can be inserted as an appendix into certain NEPA documents to provide context and background information on HM in transportation; however, not all quantification tables may be applicable. Quantification tables can be used to estimate the reduction in the amount of HM released into the environment if the number of avoided CMV crashes or non-crash related incidents is known, but not necessarily included in the appendix of a NEPA document.

Note that this chapter focuses on the HM transportation law. There are
numerous other federal and state laws and regulations that apply to HM
and can also be referenced for use in FMCSA's HM analyses.

## 4.2 BACKGROUND

The federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. § 5101 et
seq., (formally the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 App.
U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.) is the basic statute regulating hazardous
materials transportation in the U.S. The purpose of the law is to
provide adequate protection against the risks to life and property
inherent in transporting HM in commerce by improving the regulatory and
enforcement authority of the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary).

The Secretary has the authority to designate a material or a group or
class of materials as hazardous when the Secretary decides that
transporting the material in commerce in a particular amount and form
may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property. The HM
regulations (HMR) can be found at Title 49 CFR Parts 171-180. The HMR
cover five areas as follows:

-   Hazardous materials definition/classification

> (Part 172, Subparts A-B, and Part 173);

-   Hazard communication (Part 172, Subparts C-G);

-   Packaging requirements (Parts 173, 178, 179 and 180);

-   Operational rules (Parts 171, 173, 174, 175, 176 and 177); and

-   Training (Part 172, Subpart H).

The U.S. DOT, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), has public responsibilities for the safe and secure movement of
HM to industry and consumers by all transportation modes, including the
nation\'s pipelines. PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS)
is the federal safety authority for the transportation of HM by air,
rail, highway and water.

The HMR (49 CFR Section 171.16) require that certain type of HM
incidents be reported to PHMSA on US DOT Form F 5800.1, Hazardous
Material Incident Report (HMIR). The information in the report is
fundamental to HM transportation risk analysis and risk management by
government and industry. Additional information on transportation and HM
can be found on the PHMSA website at
([www.phmsa.dot.gov](http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/)).

***Classes of Federal Hazardous Materials***

The DOT divides regulated HM into nine classes, some of which are
further divided into divisions (see also HMR at 49 CFR Part 173). HM in
transportation must be placarded. Some materials must always be
placarded; others may only require placarding in certain circumstances.
A listing of all HM classes and divisions is given below. Some examples
of the various classes and divisions are also given. Section 4.5 of this
chapter includes a general description of the potential environmental
impacts that can occur by HM class. In addition, specific quantities of
actual releases from 2003, 2004 and 2005 are given.

**Class 1**: [Explosives](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive) ---
Six subclasses.

> 1.1 --- Explosives with a mass explosion hazard.
> (*[nitroglycerin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin)/[dynamite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite)*)
>
> 1.2 --- Explosives with a blast/projection hazard.
>
> 1.3 --- Explosives with a minor blast hazard. (*rocket propellant,
> display fireworks*)
>
> 1.4 --- Explosives with a major fire hazard. (*consumer
> [fireworks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireworks), ammunition*)
>
> 1.5 --- Blasting agents.
>
> 1.6 --- Extremely insensitive explosives.

**Class 2**: [Compressed]{.underline}
[Gases](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas) --- Three subclasses.

> 2.1 --- Flammable gases.
> (*[propane](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane),
> [hydrogen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen)*)
>
> 2.2 --- Non-flammable gases.
> (*[helium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium),
> [nitrogen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen)*)
>
> 2.3 --- Poison gases.
> (*[chlorine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine),
> [phosgene](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosgene)*)

**Class 3**: [Flammable
Liquids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammable_liquid) --- Liquids with
a [flash point](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_point) at or below
140 °F (*[gasoline](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline), some
[alcoholic beverages](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage)*)

> Combustible Liquids --- Liquids with a flash point between 140 and 200
> °F

**Class 4**: [Flammables](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammables) ---
Three subclasses.

> 4.1 --- Flammable solids.
> (*[magnesium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium) powder, red
> [phosphorus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus), etc.*)
>
> 4.2 --- Spontaneously combustible materials. (*white
> [phosphorus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus)*)
>
> 4.3 --- [Water reactive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_reactive)
> materials. (*[sodium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium),
> [potassium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium)*)

**Class 5**: [Oxidizing
Materials](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizing_agent) --- Two
subclasses.

> 5.1 --- Oxidizers. (*[ammonium
> nitrate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate), [hydrogen
> peroxide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide)*)
>
> 5.2 --- Organic peroxides. ([*benzoyl
> peroxide*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzoyl_peroxide))

**Class 6**: [Toxic Materials](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity)
--- Three subclasses.

> 6.1 --- Poisonous liquids or solids. (*[potassium
> cyanide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_cyanide), [mercuric
> chloride](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercuric_chloride)*)
>
> 6.2 --- Infectious/biohazardous substances.
> (*[anthrax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax),
> [HIV](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV)*)
>
> 6.3 --- Liquids and solids with a lower toxicity than those in group
> 6.1.

**Class 7**: [Radioactive
Materials](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay) --- Three
subclasses.

> 7.1-7.3 --- Radioactive I, II, III.
> (*[uranium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium),
> [plutonium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium), [radioactive
> waste](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste)*)

**Class 8**: [Corrosive
Materials](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosive#Corrosive_substances)
--- [acids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid) and
[bases](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(chemistry)) (*[sodium
hydroxide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide), [sulfuric
acid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid)*)

**Class 9**: [Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods]{.underline} --- materials
that are hazardous during transportation but do not meet the definition
of any of the other hazard classes, for example [*dry
ice*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice) in an airplane or *hot
[asphalt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt)*).

## 4.3 METHODOLOGIES

4.3.1 [Data Sources]{.underline}

Three databases were used to estimate the release of HM from cargo and
diesel fuel from a CMV fuel tank: 1) the Hazardous Material Information
System (HMIS), 2) the Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS), and 3) The Spill Center, Acton, MA, Spill Database. Details
about these sources are presented below.

### *Hazardous Material Information System (HMIS)* 

The federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. Sec. 5101
et seq.) and implementing regulations (HMR 49 CFR Parts 171-180) apply
to persons who transport hazardous materials in commerce, which includes
intrastate motor carriers.

Carriers from any mode of transportation are required to complete a HMIR
when there is an unintentional release of a HM during transportation
(including loading, unloading, and temporary storage related to
transportation). The most current form used is Form DOT F 5800.1
(01-2004). The form is submitted to the US DOT, PHMSA, OHMS for database
entry.

The form contains key entries for use in the HM analysis, including but
not limited to 1) mode of transportation (e.g. highway, rail, etc.), 2)
transportation phase (in-transit, loading, unloading, etc.), 3)
hazardous class/division and quantity of the HM released, and 4) if the
HM vehicle was involved in a crash. The HM form does [not]{.underline}
contain a field for fuel spills from fuel tanks, only a field for cargo
spills.

### *Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)* 

MCMIS is a system managed by FMCSA. MCMIS contains CMV crash data
submitted by the states. The states collect state crash data from police
accident reports (PAR) for large trucks and buses (including HM
placarded vehicles) using the Safetynet system. Safetynet information is
subsequently forwarded to FMCSA's MCMIS. Each state has adopted the
National Governors' Association's (NGA) uniform accident data elements
for their PAR.

Reportable crashes include those that involve 1) any truck weighing more
than 10,000 pounds, 2) any motor vehicle designed to transport more than
eight people (including driver), or 3) any vehicle displaying a
hazardous material placard (regardless of weight). In addition, the
vehicle involved in the crash must be operating on a public road.
Finally, to be reportable, the crash must result in 1) a person being
killed or receiving bodily injury requiring immediate medical treatment
away from the scene of the accident, or 2) the vehicle being disabled as
a result of the crash and transported from the scene by a tow truck or
other vehicle. (Note: in theory, this would capture less info for HM
spills than the HMIS; however, it is assumed that most spills -
including those from fuel tanks - would result in a tow-away.) Reports
are not required for crashes caused by a driver with a disease
condition. Additionally, they are not required for crashes caused as
part of a suicide attempt.

It should be understood that MCMIS is not a complete collection of
crashes, and the quality of the reporting varies by state. The FMCSA's
Analysis and Information (A&I) Online
([http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov](http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/) ) presents State
Safety Data Quality (SSDQ) reports that rate each state on a quarterly
basis on the completeness, timeliness and accuracy of state reported
crash data in MCMIS.

### *The Spill Center, Acton, MA, Spill Database*

Neither the HMIS nor MCMIS include information specific to CMV crashes
and fuel spills from the CMV fuel tanks of trucks or buses. The Acton
Spill Center (ASC) tracks HM spill data at the national level. They are
able to query the data for CMV gas tank spill releases separate from HM
cargo releases.

Their database contains information on approximately 900 fleets
nationally and goes back 16 years. The Acton Spill Center Database has
information allowing the identification of spills from large trucks (\>
10,000 pounds) and small trucks (≤ 10,000 pounds). The Acton Spill
Center was not able to identify any bus data for this analysis.

4.3.2 [Data Query Descriptions]{.underline}

The following queries were run to estimate the releases of HM and diesel
fuel spills from the CMV fuel tank:

######### For CMV Crashes

[HMIS Query 1 Crashes]{.underline} - This query was run for years 2003,
2004 and 2005. Its purpose was to identify all CMV crashes that resulted
in a release of HM. Applicable query fields included the city, state and
date where the HM release from the CMV crash occurred, as well as the
land use type where the HM was released.

HMIS Query 1 was used to obtain data that could be used to estimate the
following:

-   The total number of unique CMV crashes with a HM release per year.

-   The percentages of HM releases in certain land use areas such as
    agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential and undeveloped.

The following were the primary HMIS Query 1 limitations and assumptions:

-   Since PHMSA does not have a minimum reportable HM spill quantity for
    crashes, all HM spills from CMV crashes (in theory) should be
    reported and captured in the HMIS database. MCMIS also contains a
    field for crashes that result in a release of HM. There are some
    discrepancies between the HMIS and MCMIS databases however. MCMIS
    includes a slightly higher number of CMV crashes with an HM release
    than HMIS as follows: 1) 2003 -- 263 for HMIS vs. 282 for MCMIS, 2)
    2004 -- 205 for HMIS vs. 325 for MCMIS, and 3) 2005 - 233 for HMIS
    vs. 300 for MCMIS. Although MCMIS includes information indicating
    that a HM spill occurred, the HM Class is sometimes missing (between
    22 and 27 percent of the time) and there is no information on the
    spill quantity. The accuracy of this data with respect to HM
    releases from CMV crashes is questionable, consequently.

-   Approximately 2 percent of the reported incidents did not include
    information on land use types. In addition, the land use fields were
    only available for the years 2003 and 2004, due to the changes in
    the HMIR form that occurred in January 2005. The land use
    percentages calculated from the HMIS were based on those reported.
    It is assumed that those reported are representative of the entire
    population.

[HMIS Query 2 Crashes]{.underline} - This query was run for years 2003,
2004 and 2005. It lists the CMV crashes by city, state and date and also
lists the HM Class, quantity and units of the HM released into the
environment. Land use type and CMV type (truck type or other vehicle
type) is also listed for 2003 and 2004.

HMIS Query 2 was used to obtain data that could be used to estimate the
following:

-   HM quantities overall and by HM Class per CMV type per year

-   Percentages of HM spills by HM Class in certain land use areas such
    as: agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential and
    undeveloped

The following were the primary HMIS Query 2 limitations and assumptions:

-   Since the release of more than one HM Class may result from a CMV
    crash, Query 2 may list some crashes more than once. As a result,
    the number of crashes identified in Query 2 is greater than Query 1
    as follows: 1) 2003 -- 263 for Query 1 vs.294 for Query 2, 2) 2004 -
    205 for Query 1 vs. 230 for Query 2, and 3) 2005 -- 233 for Query 1
    vs. 270 for Query 2. In order to keep the HM Class estimates
    consistent with each unique crash, a manual search was performed of
    the Query 2 data to identify the crashes listed more than once as a
    consequence of there being more than one HM Class released. The
    crash incident was then assigned to the HM Class that resulted in
    the largest release. Although not as accurate as the quantities per
    crash that can be calculated using the data from Query 1, this
    constitutes a reasonable approximation of the amount of HM released
    by Class based on the best available information.

-   Approximately 2 percent of the reported incidents did not include
    information on land use types. In addition, the land use fields were
    only available for the years 2003 and 2004, due to the changes in
    the HMIR form that occurred in January 2005. The land use
    percentages calculated from the HMIS were based on those reported.
    It is assumed that those reported are representative of the entire
    population.

-   The "other vehicle" category was relied on to determine the HM Class
    released per vehicle type. This field was only available for 2003,
    and 2004 due to changes in the HMIR form that occurred in
    January 2005. If the vehicle type did not match one of the CMV
    descriptions listed on the form, those submitting reports were
    required to list identify the "other vehicle type". There were only
    a few "other vehicle" types listed, including an auto, pickup truck
    and passenger vehicle. Assuming those submitting reports were
    accurate in identifying their vehicle type, it was concluded that
    the vast majority of HM releases are from large trucks (\> 10,000
    pounds), not buses or other CMVs.

[]{.mark}

[MCMIS Query Crashes]{.underline} - This query was run for years 2003,
2004 and 2005. It identified crashes by the following CMV types: 1)
trucks less than or equal to 10,000 pounds, 2) trucks between
10,001-26,000 pounds, 3) trucks more than 26,000 pounds, 4) buses with
seats for 9-15 people, and 5) buses with seats for \> 15 people.

The MCMIS Query was used to obtain data that could be used to estimate
the following:

-   The number of crashes by CMV type including; 1) trucks \> 10,000
    pounds, 2) trucks \< 10,000 pounds and 3) buses (seats for greater
    than 15 people including the driver).

-   The number of crashes with HM placards by CMV type.

The following were the primary MCMIS Query limitations and assumptions:

-   In order to obtain the desired estimates, certain MCMIS database
    fields needed to be combined. This was a basic addition exercise.
    Also, some of the MCMIS crash reports did not have information on
    the type of CMV. For this analysis, the unidentified CMVs were
    proportionately assigned to a CMV type based on the percentages of
    the known vehicle types. This was done for each year as follows 1)
    2003 - 32,553 of 127,725 (CMV type not reported for 25 percent of
    crashes); 2) 2004 - 39,486 of 84,593 (CMV type not reported for 25
    percent of crashes), and 3) 2005 - 38,019 of 145,259 (CMV type not
    reported for 26 percent of crashes). This exercise was also
    performed for the CMVs with HM placards for which the CMV type was
    not reported at the following percentages: 2003 - 17 percent, 2004
    -- 20 percent, 2005 - 21 percent.

[Acton Spill Center Query Crashes]{.underline} - This query was run for
years 2002 through 2006. The Acton Spill Center provided the estimates
for the percentage of CMV crashes based on a single 5,000 tractor fleet
[group]{.underline}.

The Acton Spill Center Query was used to obtain data that could be used
to estimate the following:

-   The percentage of truck crashes that result in release of diesel
    fuel from the fuel tank and the average amount of fuel per CMV truck
    type (e.g. trucks \> 10,000 pounds and trucks \< 10,000 pounds).

[]{.mark}

The following were the primary Acton Spill Center Query limitations and
assumptions:

-   The Acton Spill Center database included spills from one CMV truck
    fleet group, not the entire Nation's CMV truck fleet. It should be
    noted that this particular fleet group reports all fuel spills, no
    matter the quantity. In addition, the group should be highly
    representative of the U.S. trucking industry, because the Spill
    Center subscribers include all segments of the trucking industry
    such as LTL (less than truck load, TL (truck load), private fleets,
    tank and straight trucks. Based on five years of data from this
    group, the Acton Spill Center estimated that 12 percent of all CMV
    trucks experienced a crash that resulted in a release of diesel fuel
    from the vehicle's fuel tank. Quantities could also be estimated for
    trucks \> 10,000 pounds - 72 gallons per crash - and trucks \<
    10,000 pounds - 40 gallons per crash. The percentage and quantity
    per crash figures developed using the Acton Spill Center data were
    applied to the total number of truck crashes estimated using the
    MCMIS database. It was not possible to estimate diesel fuel releases
    for buses, it must be noted.

[]{.mark}

######### For CMV Incidents

[]{.mark}

[HMIS Query 1 Non-crash Incidents]{.underline} - This query was run for
years 2003, 2004 and 2005. It identifies the CMV non-crash incidents by
transportation phase (e.g. In-Transit, Loading, Unloading and In-Transit
Temporary Storage) during which the HM release occurred. Applicable
query fields used included the city, state and date for the HM release,
as well as the land use type where the HM was released.

HMIS Query 1 was used to obtain data that could be used to estimate the
following:

-   Total number of unique CMV non-crash incidents with a HM release per
    year

-   Total number of unique CMV non-crash incidents per year by
    transportation phase with a HM release

-   Percentages of HM releases in certain land use areas such as:
    agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential and undeveloped

The following were the primary HMIS Query 1 limitations and assumptions:

-   PHMSA does not require reporting for minimal amounts of HM released
    during loading or unloading incidents, so long as no property damage
    is caused. In addition, since MCMIS does not capture HM non-crash
    related incidents, it cannot be used to cross check the HMIS
    incident data.

-   Approximately 2 percent of the reported non-crash incidents did not
    include information on land use types. In addition, the land use
    fields were only available for the years 2003 and 2004, due to the
    changes in the HMIR form that occurred in January 2005. The land use
    percentages calculated from the HMIS were based on those reported.
    It is assumed that those reported are representative of the entire
    population.

[HMIS Query 2 Non-Crash Incidents]{.underline} - This query was run for
years 2003, 2004 and 2005. It identifies the CMV non-crash incidents by
city, state and date and also identifies the HM Class, quantity and
units of the HM released into the environment.

HMIS Query 2 was used to obtain data that could be used to estimate the
following:

-   HM quantities overall by transportation phase and by HM Class per
    CMV type per year

The following were the primary HMIS Query 2 limitations and assumptions:

-   Since the release of more than one HM Class may occur from each
    unique CMV non-crash incident, Query 2 may identify the same
    incident more than once. As a result, the number of non-crash
    incidents in Query 2 is greater than (approximately 1-2%) the unique
    non-crash incidents listed in Query 1, due to multiple incident
    counts when more than one type of HM Class is released. Unlike Query
    2 for crashes, the number of non-crash incidents was too large to
    manually identify those incidents listed multiple times. As a
    result, the number of non-crash incidents assigned to each HM Class
    within each transportation phase was based solely on the Query 2
    results. Although the HM Class estimates are not as accurate as the
    per incident quantity by transportation phase (e.g., total HM
    quantities/Query 1 unique incidents), it is believed that the HM
    quantities by HM Class in Query 2 is a reasonable representation for
    general NEPA analyses purposes as it represents the best available
    information at this time.

-   Since there were a statistically insignificant number of "other
    vehicle types" in the HMIS incident data, it was assumed that all
    releases occurred from large trucks.

## 4.4 RESULTS

The following tables summarize the information related to HM releases
for CMV crashes and non-crash incidents for all HM classes (1-9) and
fuel spills to be used by FMCSA in NEPA documents. Note that in the
following tables, the units of measurement are defined as follows: "gal"
= gallons, "lbs" = pounds, "cf" = cubic feet, and "ci" = curies.

### 4.4.1 Table 4-1 -- CMV Crashes and HM

Table 4-1 includes the following information:

-   The total number of CMV crashes per year (based on a 3-year average
    using 2003, 2004 and 2005 data) categorized by large trucks buses
    and other CMVs. [Source]{.underline}: MCMIS data.

[Purpose]{.underline}: Background information and for use in other
tables

-   The total number crashes per year (based on a 3-year average using
    2003, 2004 and 2005 data) involving either an HM vehicle (includes
    HM crashes with no release of material per FMCSA Order 5610.1 or any
    CMV crash with a release of HM cargo categorized by large trucks and
    buses).

[Source]{.underline}: Primarily MCMIS cross-checked using HMIS data

> [Purpose]{.underline}: Background information and for use in other
> tables

-   Total number of CMV crashes per year (based on a 3-year average)
    that resulted in a release of hazardous materials as cargo with a
    subset of HM Class type (1-9) with corresponding quantities broken
    out by trucks, with references to buses and other CMVs.

[Source]{.underline}: Primarily MCMIS cross-checked using HMIS data

> [Purpose]{.underline}: Background information and for use in other
> tables

-   Number of CMV truck crashes (based on that resulted in a fuel tank
    spill and the average number of gallons released per year (based on
    a 5-year average).

[Source]{.underline}: Acton Spill Center database

[Purpose]{.underline}: Background information and for use in other
tables

## TABLE 4-1. CMV CRASHES AND HM

+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Categories of CMV Crashes**    | **Annual        |                 |
|                                  | Averages**      |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **By CMV Type**                  | **Total         |                 |
|                                  | Number**        |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Large Trucks** *(\> 10,000     | **136,395**     |                 |
| pounds)*                         |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Buses** *(seats for \> 15      | **9,332**       |                 |
| people including driver)*        |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Other CMVs** (*Trucks \<       | **2,117**       |                 |
| 10,000 pounds & Other vehicles   |                 |                 |
| w/HM Placards Required)*         |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **All CMVs Combined**            | **147,844**     |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Involving a Hazardous          | **Total         |                 |
| Materials Vehicle** (with and    | Number**        |                 |
| without a Hazardous Material     |                 |                 |
| cargo release)                   |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Large Trucks** *(\> 10,000     | **1,998**       |                 |
| pounds)*                         |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Buses** *(includes \> 15       | **2.0**         |                 |
| passengers)*                     |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Other CMV's** (*Trucks \<      | **37**          |                 |
| 10,000 pounds & Other vehicles   |                 |                 |
| w/HM Placards Required)*         |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **All HM Vehicle Crashes         | **2,037**       |                 |
| Combined**                       |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Involving a Cargo Release by   | **Total         | **Total         |
| CMV Type and Hazardous Materials | Number**        | Quantity        |
| Class**                          |                 | Released**      |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Large Trucks** *(\> 10,000     | *(# HMIS        | *(HMIS          |
| pounds)*                         | database w/     | database)*      |
|                                  | MCMIS cross     |                 |
|                                  | check)*         |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Hazard Class 1                   | **3**           | **437.50 gal**  |
|                                  |                 |                 |
| *Explosives*                     |                 | **27,017 lbs**  |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Hazard Class 2                   | **30**          | **57,852.30     |
|                                  |                 | gal**           |
| *Gases (flammable, nonflammable, |                 |                 |
| toxic/non-toxic)*                |                 | **58.71 cf**    |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Hazard Class 3                   | **136**         | **391,117.69    |
|                                  |                 | gal**           |
| *Flammable and Combustible       |                 |                 |
| Liquids Hazard*                  |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Hazard Class 4                   | **3**           | **1,829.21      |
|                                  |                 | gal**           |
| *Flammable solids*               |                 |                 |
|                                  |                 | **8,971.75      |
|                                  |                 | lbs**           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Hazard Class 5                   | **10**          | **4,860.27      |
|                                  |                 | gal**           |
| *Oxidizing Substances and        |                 |                 |
| Organic Peroxides*               |                 | **47,270.63     |
|                                  |                 | lbs**           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Hazard Class 6                   | **4**           | **1,443.88      |
|                                  |                 | gal**           |
| *Toxic Substances and Infectious |                 |                 |
| Substances*                      |                 | **15,351.67     |
|                                  |                 | lbs**           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Hazard Class 7                   | **2**           | **18.88 gal**   |
|                                  |                 |                 |
| *Radioactive Materials*          |                 | **200.09 ci**   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Hazard Class 8                   | **33**          | **20,794.37     |
|                                  |                 | gal**           |
| *Corrosive Substances*           |                 |                 |
|                                  |                 | **2,791.33      |
|                                  |                 | lbs**           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Hazard Class 9                   | **12**          | **14,291.07     |
|                                  |                 | gal**           |
| *Miscellaneous Hazardous         |                 |                 |
| Materials*                       |                 | **57,628.73     |
|                                  |                 | lbs**           |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

## TABLE 4-1. CMV CRASHES AND HM

+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+
| **Categories of CMV          |   | **     |       |                 |
| Crashes**                    |   | Annual |       |                 |
|                              |   | Aver   |       |                 |
|                              |   | ages** |       |                 |
+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+
| **Involving a Cargo Release  |   | *      |       | **Total         |
| by CMV Type and Hazardous    |   | *Total |       | Quantity        |
| Materials Class**            |   | Number |       | Released**      |
|                              |   | (#)**  |       |                 |
|                              |   |        |       | *(HMIS          |
|                              |   | *(#    |       | database)*      |
|                              |   | HMIS   |       |                 |
|                              |   | da     |       |                 |
|                              |   | tabase |       |                 |
|                              |   | w/     |       |                 |
|                              |   | MCMIS  |       |                 |
|                              |   | cross  |       |                 |
|                              |   | c      |       |                 |
|                              |   | heck)* |       |                 |
+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+
| **Buses** *(seats for \> 15  |   |        |       |                 |
| people including driver)*    |   |        |       |                 |
|                              |   |        |       |                 |
| *Note, based on 2003 and     |   |        |       |                 |
| 2004 HMIS data and using the |   |        |       |                 |
| "other vehicle" category,    |   |        |       |                 |
| there were no HM releases    |   |        |       |                 |
| from buses. Data was not     |   |        |       |                 |
| available for 2005, as the   |   |        |       |                 |
| new HMIS database does not   |   |        |       |                 |
| include categories for       |   |        |       |                 |
| vehicle type.*               |   |        |       |                 |
+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+
|                              |   | *      |       | **Total         |
|                              |   | *Total |       | Quantity        |
|                              |   | Number |       | Released**      |
|                              |   | (#)**  |       |                 |
+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+
| **Other CMVs** (Trucks \<    |   | *(#    |       | *(HMIS          |
| 10,000 pounds and other      |   | HMIS   |       | database)*      |
| vehicles w/HM Placards)      |   | da     |       |                 |
|                              |   | tabase |       |                 |
|                              |   | w/     |       |                 |
|                              |   | MCMIS  |       |                 |
|                              |   | cross  |       |                 |
|                              |   | check  |       |                 |
|                              |   | **)*** |       |                 |
+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+
| *Note, based on 2003 and     |   |        |       |                 |
| 2004 HMIS data and using the |   |        |       |                 |
| "other vehicle" category the |   |        |       |                 |
| following releases           |   |        |       |                 |
| occurred:*                   |   |        |       |                 |
|                              |   |        |       |                 |
| [Pickup Truck]{.underline} - |   |        |       |                 |
| **113.63 cf** release of     |   |        |       |                 |
| Class 2 HM (based on one     |   |        |       |                 |
| event only)                  |   |        |       |                 |
|                              |   |        |       |                 |
| [Passenger                   |   |        |       |                 |
| Vehicles]{.underline} --     |   |        |       |                 |
| **4,020 gal** release of     |   |        |       |                 |
| Class 3 HM (based on two     |   |        |       |                 |
| events only)                 |   |        |       |                 |
|                              |   |        |       |                 |
| HM data from 2005 was not    |   |        |       |                 |
| available by vehicle type.   |   |        |       |                 |
| In summary, HM releases by   |   |        |       |                 |
| "Other CMVs" is              |   |        |       |                 |
| statistically insignificant  |   |        |       |                 |
| (with only three individual  |   |        |       |                 |
| events) and a separate table |   |        |       |                 |
| is not warranted.            |   |        |       |                 |
+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+
| **CMVs (Trucks) Involving    | \ |        | Avg.  | Est. Total      |
| Fuel Tank Spills from Fuel   | # |        | Re    | amount of fuel  |
| Tanks**                      | o |        | lease | released        |
|                              | f |        | per   | annually        |
| (Information from the Acton  | C |        | Crash |                 |
| Spill Center was             | r |        |       |                 |
| extrapolated and applied to  | a |        |       |                 |
| MCMIS data for all truck     | s |        |       |                 |
| crashes)                     | h |        |       |                 |
|                              | e |        |       |                 |
|                              | s |        |       |                 |
|                              | P |        |       |                 |
|                              | e |        |       |                 |
|                              | r |        |       |                 |
|                              | Y |        |       |                 |
|                              | e |        |       |                 |
|                              | a |        |       |                 |
|                              | r |        |       |                 |
|                              | w |        |       |                 |
|                              | i |        |       |                 |
|                              | t |        |       |                 |
|                              | h |        |       |                 |
|                              | F |        |       |                 |
|                              | u |        |       |                 |
|                              | e |        |       |                 |
|                              | l |        |       |                 |
|                              | T |        |       |                 |
|                              | a |        |       |                 |
|                              | n |        |       |                 |
|                              | k |        |       |                 |
|                              | S |        |       |                 |
|                              | p |        |       |                 |
|                              | i |        |       |                 |
|                              | l |        |       |                 |
|                              | l |        |       |                 |
|                              | s |        |       |                 |
|                              | ( |        |       |                 |
|                              | 1 |        |       |                 |
|                              | 2 |        |       |                 |
|                              | % |        |       |                 |
|                              | o |        |       |                 |
|                              | f |        |       |                 |
|                              | T |        |       |                 |
|                              | r |        |       |                 |
|                              | u |        |       |                 |
|                              | c |        |       |                 |
|                              | k |        |       |                 |
|                              | C |        |       |                 |
|                              | r |        |       |                 |
|                              | a |        |       |                 |
|                              | s |        |       |                 |
|                              | h |        |       |                 |
|                              | e |        |       |                 |
|                              | s |        |       |                 |
|                              | ' |        |       |                 |
|                              | ) |        |       |                 |
+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+
| **Large Trucks** *(\> 10,000 | * |        | **72  | **1,178,424**   |
| pounds)*                     | * |        | gal** | **gal**         |
|                              | 1 |        |       |                 |
|                              | 6 |        |       |                 |
|                              | , |        |       |                 |
|                              | 3 |        |       |                 |
|                              | 6 |        |       |                 |
|                              | 7 |        |       |                 |
|                              | * |        |       |                 |
|                              | * |        |       |                 |
+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+
| **Non-Large Trucks** *(\<    | * |        | **40  | **10,160 gal**  |
| 10,000 pounds)*              | * |        | gal** |                 |
|                              | 2 |        |       |                 |
|                              | 5 |        |       |                 |
|                              | 4 |        |       |                 |
|                              | * |        |       |                 |
|                              | * |        |       |                 |
+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+
| **Total Large and Non-Large  | * |        | []{.  | **1,188,584     |
| Trucks**                     | * |        | mark} | gal**           |
|                              | 1 |        |       |                 |
|                              | 6 |        |       |                 |
|                              | , |        |       |                 |
|                              | 6 |        |       |                 |
|                              | 2 |        |       |                 |
|                              | 1 |        |       |                 |
|                              | * |        |       |                 |
|                              | * |        |       |                 |
+------------------------------+---+--------+-------+-----------------+

### 4.4.2 Table 4-2 -- Releases of HM per Crash by CMV Category

Table 4-2 presents information for four FMCSA regulatory options and
includes the following information:

-   "Option I" - The amount overall of HM released and the average
    release of HM per CMV crash (including HM classes 1-9). All
    quantities of HM releases were added by class and divided by the
    total number of CMV crashes.

[Source]{.underline}: HMIS and MCMIS database

[Purpose]{.underline}: For use when FMCSA regulations apply to all CMVs

-   "Option II" -- The amount overall of HM released and the average
    release of HM per large truck crash (including HM classes 1-9). All
    quantities of large truck releases were added by class and divided
    by the total number of large truck crashes.

[Source]{.underline}: HMIS and MCMIS database.

[Purpose]{.underline}: For use when FMCSA regulations apply to all large
trucks.

-   "Option III" - The amount overall of HM released and the average
    release of HM per HM carrier type. All quantities of HM carrier
    releases were added by class and divided by the total number of HM
    carrier crashes.

[Source]{.underline}: MCMIS and HMIS database.

[Purpose]{.underline}: For use when FMCSA regulations apply to all HM
carriers only.

-   "Option IV" - The average release per HM carrier by HM carrier
    class. Quantities of each HM class are divided by the total number
    HM carriers for that particular class

[Source:]{.underline} HMIS only database.

[Purpose]{.underline}: For use when FMCSA regulations apply to a
particular HM class only.

## TABLE 4-2. RELEASES OF HM PER CRASH BY CMV CATEGORY

Note: Table 4-2 contains four NEPA analysis options

+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| **[Option I. - All               |                    |             |
| CMVs]{.underline}**              |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
| **Use the below information when |                    |             |
| FMCSA proposes new or modified   |                    |             |
| regulations that apply to all    |                    |             |
| CMVs**                           |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
| ***[Instructions for NEPA        |                    |             |
| Analysis]{.underline}: Multiply  |                    |             |
| the number of avoided CMV        |                    |             |
| crashes by the average release   |                    |             |
| per crash [overall]{.underline}  |                    |             |
| or by [each]{.underline} HM      |                    |             |
| class.*** For example, if FMCSA  |                    |             |
| regulations would result in 100  |                    |             |
| fewer CMV crashes per year, the  |                    |             |
| reduction in the overall HM      |                    |             |
| quantities released would be     |                    |             |
| (100 x 3.3322 gallons, 1.0757    |                    |             |
| pounds, 0.0004 cubic feet and    |                    |             |
| 0.0014 curries) = 333.22         |                    |             |
| gallons, 107.57 pounds, 0.04     |                    |             |
| cubic feet and 0.14 curries      |                    |             |
| respectively, and the reduction  |                    |             |
| for HM Class 2 would be (100 x   |                    |             |
| 0.3913 gallons and .0004 cubic   |                    |             |
| feet) = 39.13 gallons and 0.04   |                    |             |
| cubic feet, respectively.        |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|   -------                        |                    |             |
| ------- ----------- ------------ |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|  **Total HM     **Average   **HM |                    |             |
|   Quantit                        |                    |             |
| ies**   \# CMV      Quantity per |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|          Crashes**   CMV Crash** |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|   492                            |                    |             |
| ,645.17 gal 147,844     **3.3322 |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                            gal** |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|   159                            |                    |             |
| ,031 lbs    147,844     **1.0757 |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                            lbs** |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|   58.                            |                    |             |
| 71 cf       147,844     **0.0004 |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                             cf** |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|   200                            |                    |             |
| .09 ci      147,844     **0.0014 |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                             ci** |                    |             |
|   -------                        |                    |             |
| ------- ----------- ------------ |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| **Hazardous Material Class**     | **Quantities of    |             |
|                                  | Average Annual HM  |             |
|                                  | Releases**         |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                                  | *(average annual   |             |
|                                  | release HM         |             |
|                                  | class/average      |             |
|                                  | annual \# CMV      |             |
|                                  | crashes)*          |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 1                   | 437.50 gal/147,844 | **0.0030    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Explosives*                     | 27,017 lbs/147,844 |             |
|                                  |                    | **0.1827    |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 2                   | 57,852.30          | **0.3913    |
|                                  | gal/147,844        | gal**       |
| *Gases (flammable, nonflammable, |                    |             |
| toxic/non-toxic)*                | 58.71 cf/147,844   | **0.0004    |
|                                  |                    | cf**        |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 3                   | 391,117.69         | **2.6455    |
|                                  | gal/147,844        | gal**       |
| *Flammable and Combustible       |                    |             |
| Liquids Hazard*                  |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 4                   | 1,829.21           | **0.0124    |
|                                  | gal/147,844        | gal**       |
| *Flammable solids*               |                    |             |
|                                  | 8,971.75           | **0.0607    |
|                                  | lbs/147,844        | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 5                   | 4,860.27           | **0.0329    |
|                                  | gal/147,844        | gal**       |
| *Oxidizing Substances and        |                    |             |
| Organic Peroxides*               | 47,270.63          | **0.3197    |
|                                  | lbs/147,844        | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 6                   | 1,443.88           | **0.0098    |
|                                  | gal/147,844        | gal**       |
| *Toxic Substances and Infectious |                    |             |
| Substances*                      | 15,351.67          | **0.1038    |
|                                  | lbs/147,844        | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 7                   | 18.88 gal/147,844  | **0.0001    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Radioactive Materials*          | 200.09 ci/147,844  |             |
|                                  |                    | **0.0014    |
|                                  |                    | ci**        |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 8                   | 20,794.37          | **0.1407    |
|                                  | gal/147,844        | gal**       |
| *Corrosive Substances*           |                    |             |
|                                  | 2791.33            | **0.0189    |
|                                  | lbs/147,844        | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 9                   | 14,291.07          | **0.0967    |
|                                  | gal/147,844        | gal**       |
| *Miscellaneous Hazardous         |                    |             |
| Materials*                       | 57,628.73          | **0.3898    |
|                                  | lbs/147,844        | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+

## TABLE 4-2. RELEASES OF HM PER CRASH BY CMV CATEGORY

Note: Table 4-2 contains four NEPA analysis options

+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| **[Option II.- All Large         |                    |             |
| Trucks]{.underline}**            |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
| **Use the below information when |                    |             |
| FMCSA proposes new or modified   |                    |             |
| regulations that apply to Large  |                    |             |
| Trucks**                         |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
| ***[Instructions for NEPA        |                    |             |
| Analysis]{.underline}: Multiply  |                    |             |
| the number of avoided large      |                    |             |
| truck crashes by the average     |                    |             |
| release per crash                |                    |             |
| [overall]{.underline} or by      |                    |             |
| [each]{.underline} HM class.***  |                    |             |
| For example, if FMCSA            |                    |             |
| regulations result in 50 fewer   |                    |             |
| large truck crashes per year,    |                    |             |
| the reduction in the overall HM  |                    |             |
| quantities released would be (50 |                    |             |
| x 3.6120 gallons, 1.1660 pounds, |                    |             |
| 0.0004 cubic feet and 0.0015     |                    |             |
| curries) = 180.6 gallons, 58.3   |                    |             |
| pounds, 0.02 cubic feet and 0.75 |                    |             |
| curries respectively, and the    |                    |             |
| reduction for HM Class 3 would   |                    |             |
| be (50 x 2.865 gallons) = 143.25 |                    |             |
| gallons.                         |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|   -------                        |                    |             |
| ------- ----------- ------------ |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|  **Total HM     **Average   **HM |                    |             |
|   Quantit                        |                    |             |
| ies**   \# Lg.      Quantity per |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|          Truck       Large Truck |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|              Crashes**   Crash** |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|   492                            |                    |             |
| ,645.17 gal 136,395     **3.6120 |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                            gal** |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|   159                            |                    |             |
| ,031 lbs    136,395     **1.1660 |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                            lbs** |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|   58.                            |                    |             |
| 71 cf       136,395     **0.0004 |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                             cf** |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|   200                            |                    |             |
| .09 ci      136,395     **0.0015 |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                             ci** |                    |             |
|   -------                        |                    |             |
| ------- ----------- ------------ |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| **Hazardous Material Class**     | **Quantities of    |             |
|                                  | Average Annual HM  |             |
|                                  | Releases**         |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                                  | *(average annual   |             |
|                                  | release HM         |             |
|                                  | class/average      |             |
|                                  | annual \# large    |             |
|                                  | truck crashes)*    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 1                   | 437.50 gal/136,395 | **0.0032    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Explosives*                     | 27017 lbs/136,395  |             |
|                                  |                    | **0.1981    |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 2                   | 57,852.30          | **0.4242    |
|                                  | gal/136,395        | gal**       |
| *Gases (flammable, nonflammable, |                    |             |
| toxic/non-toxic)*                | 58.71 cf/136,395   | **0.0004    |
|                                  |                    | cf**        |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 3                   | 391,117.69         | **2.865     |
|                                  | gal/136,395        | gal**       |
| *Flammable and Combustible       |                    |             |
| Liquids Hazard*                  |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 4                   | 1,829.21           | **0.0134    |
|                                  | gal/136,395        | gal**       |
| *Flammable solids*               |                    |             |
|                                  | 8,971.75           | **0.0658    |
|                                  | lbs/136,395        | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 5                   | 4,860.27           | **0.0356    |
|                                  | gal/136,395        | gal**       |
| *Oxidizing Substances and        |                    |             |
| Organic Peroxides*               | 47,270.63          | **0.3446    |
|                                  | lbs/136,395        | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 6                   | 1,443.88           | **0.0106    |
|                                  | gal/136,395        | gal**       |
| *Toxic Substances and Infectious |                    |             |
| Substances*                      | 15,351.67          | **0.1126    |
|                                  | lbs/136,395        | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 7                   | 18.88 gal/136,395  | **0.0001    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Radioactive Materials*          | 200.09 ci/136,395  |             |
|                                  |                    | **0.0015    |
|                                  |                    | ci**        |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 8                   | 20,794.37          | **0.1525    |
|                                  | gal/136,395        | gal**       |
| *Corrosive Substances*           |                    |             |
|                                  | 2,791.33           | **0.0205    |
|                                  | lbs/136,395        | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 9                   | 14,291.07          | **0.1048    |
|                                  | gal/136,395        | gal**       |
| *Miscellaneous Hazardous         |                    |             |
| Materials*                       | 57,628.73          | **0.4225    |
|                                  | lbs/136,395        | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+

**TABLE 4-2. RELEASES OF HM PER CRASH BY CMV CATEGORY**

**Note: Table 4-2 contains four NEPA analysis options**

+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| **[Option III.- All HM           |                    |             |
| Carriers]{.underline}**          |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
| **Use the below information when |                    |             |
| FMCSA proposes new or modified   |                    |             |
| regulations that apply to all HM |                    |             |
| carriers.**                      |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
| ***[Instructions for NEPA        |                    |             |
| Analysis]{.underline}: Multiply  |                    |             |
| the number of avoided HM carrier |                    |             |
| crashes by the average release   |                    |             |
| per crash [overall]{.underline}  |                    |             |
| or by [each]{.underline} HM      |                    |             |
| class.*** For example, if FMCSA  |                    |             |
| regulations would result in 10   |                    |             |
| fewer HM carrier crashes per     |                    |             |
| year, the reduction in the       |                    |             |
| overall HM quantities released   |                    |             |
| would be (10 x 241.8484 gallons, |                    |             |
| 78.0712 pounds, 0.0288 cubic     |                    |             |
| feet and 0.0982 curries) = 2418  |                    |             |
| .48 gallons, 7807.12 pounds,     |                    |             |
| 2.88 cubic feet and 9.82 curries |                    |             |
| respectively, and the reduction  |                    |             |
| for HM Class 4 would be (10 x    |                    |             |
| 0.8980 gallons and 4.4043        |                    |             |
| pounds) = 8.980 gallons and      |                    |             |
| 44.043 pounds, respectively.     |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
| +---------+------+-----------+   |                    |             |
| | **Total | *    | **HM      |   |                    |             |
| | HM      | *Ave | Quantity  |   |                    |             |
| | Quant   | rage | per HM    |   |                    |             |
| | ities** | \#   | Carrier   |   |                    |             |
| |         | HM   | Crash**   |   |                    |             |
| |         | C    |           |   |                    |             |
| |         | arri |           |   |                    |             |
| |         | er** |           |   |                    |             |
| |         |      |           |   |                    |             |
| |         | **C  |           |   |                    |             |
| |         | rash |           |   |                    |             |
| |         | es** |           |   |                    |             |
| +---------+------+-----------+   |                    |             |
| | 492     | 2    | *         |   |                    |             |
| | ,645.17 | ,037 | *241.8484 |   |                    |             |
| | gal     |      | gal**     |   |                    |             |
| +---------+------+-----------+   |                    |             |
| | 159,031 | 2    | **78.0712 |   |                    |             |
| | lbs     | ,037 | lbs**     |   |                    |             |
| +---------+------+-----------+   |                    |             |
| | 58.71   | 2    | **0.0288  |   |                    |             |
| | cf      | ,037 | cf**      |   |                    |             |
| +---------+------+-----------+   |                    |             |
| | 200.09  | 2    | **0.0982  |   |                    |             |
| | ci      | ,037 | ci**      |   |                    |             |
| +---------+------+-----------+   |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| **Hazardous Material Class**     | **Quantities of    |             |
|                                  | Average Annual HM  |             |
|                                  | Releases**         |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                                  | *(average annual   |             |
|                                  | release HM         |             |
|                                  | class/average      |             |
|                                  | annual \# HM       |             |
|                                  | placarded          |             |
|                                  | crashes)*          |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 1                   | 437.50 gal/2,037   | **0.2147    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Explosives*                     | 27,017 lbs/2,037   |             |
|                                  |                    | **13.2631   |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 2                   | 57,852.30          | **28.4007   |
|                                  | gal/2,037          | gal**       |
| *Gases (flammable, nonflammable, |                    |             |
| toxic/non-toxic)*                | 58.71 cf/2,037     | **0.0288    |
|                                  |                    | cf**        |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 3                   | 391,117.69         | **192.0067  |
|                                  | gal/2,037          | gal**       |
| *Flammable and Combustible       |                    |             |
| Liquids Hazard*                  |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 4                   | 1,829.21 gal/2,037 | **0.8980    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Flammable solids*               | 8,971.75 lbs/2,037 |             |
|                                  |                    | **4.4043    |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 5                   | 4,860.27 gal/2,037 | **2.3860    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Oxidizing Substances and        | 47,270.63          |             |
| Organic Peroxides*               | lbs/2,037          | **23.2060   |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 6                   | 1,443.88 gal/2,037 | **0.7088    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Toxic Substances and Infectious | 15,351.67          |             |
| Substances*                      | lbs/2,037          | **7.5336    |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 7                   | 18.88 gal/2,037    | **0.0093    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Radioactive Materials*          | 200.09 ci/2,037    |             |
|                                  |                    | **0.0982    |
|                                  |                    | ci**        |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 8                   | 20,794.37          | **10.2083   |
|                                  | gal/2,037          | gal**       |
| *Corrosive Substances*           |                    |             |
|                                  | 2,791.33 lbs/2,037 | **1.3703    |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 9                   | 14,291.07          | **7.0157    |
|                                  | gal/2,037          | gal**       |
| *Miscellaneous Hazardous         |                    |             |
| Materials*                       | 57,628.73          | **28.2910   |
|                                  | lbs/2,037          | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+

**TABLE 4-2. RELEASES OF HM PER CRASH BY CMV CATEGORY**

Note: Table 4-2 contains four NEPA analysis options.

+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| **[Option IV. -- HM Carriers by  |                    |             |
| HM Class]{.underline}**          |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
| **Use the information below when |                    |             |
| FMCSA proposes new or modified   |                    |             |
| regulations that apply to HM     |                    |             |
| carriers of a specific HM        |                    |             |
| Class.**                         |                    |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
| **[Instructions for NEPA         |                    |             |
| Analysis]{.underline}: Multiply  |                    |             |
| the number of avoided crashes by |                    |             |
| the average per crash release of |                    |             |
| the applicable HM Class. *For    |                    |             |
| example, if FMCSA regulations    |                    |             |
| would result in 5 fewer Class 7  |                    |             |
| crashes per year, the reduction  |                    |             |
| in the quantity of Class 7       |                    |             |
| released into the environment    |                    |             |
| each year would be as follows:   |                    |             |
| (5 x 9.44 gallons and 100.5      |                    |             |
| curies) or 47.2 gallons and      |                    |             |
| 502.5 curies, respectively.***   |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| **Hazardous Material Class**     | **Quantities of    |             |
|                                  | Average Annual HM  |             |
|                                  | Releases**         |             |
|                                  |                    |             |
|                                  | *(average annual   |             |
|                                  | release HM         |             |
|                                  | class/average      |             |
|                                  | annual \# HM Class |             |
|                                  | crashes)*          |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 1                   | 437.50 gal/3       | **145.83    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Explosives*                     | 27,017 lbs/3       |             |
|                                  |                    | **9005.67   |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 2                   | 57,852.30 gal/30   | **1928.41   |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Gases (flammable, nonflammable, | 58.71 cf/30        |             |
| toxic/non-toxic)*                |                    | **1.96 cf** |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 3                   | 391,117.69 gal/136 | **2875.87   |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Flammable and Combustible       |                    |             |
| Liquids Hazard*                  |                    |             |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 4                   | 1,829.21 gal/3     | **609.74    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Flammable solids*               | 8,971.75 lbs/3     |             |
|                                  |                    | **2,990.58  |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 5                   | 4,860.27 gal/10    | **486.83    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Oxidizing Substances and        | 47,270.63 lbs/10   |             |
| Organic Peroxides*               |                    | **4,727.06  |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 6                   | 1,443.88 gal/4     | **360.97    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Toxic Substances and Infectious | 15,351.67 lbs/4    |             |
| Substances*                      |                    | **3,837.92  |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 7                   | 18.88 gal/2        | **9.44      |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Radioactive Materials*          | 200.09 ci/2        |             |
|                                  |                    | **100.05    |
|                                  |                    | ci**        |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 8                   | 20,794.37 gal/33   | **630.13    |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Corrosive Substances*           | 2,791.33 lbs/33    |             |
|                                  |                    | **84.59     |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+
| Hazard Class 9                   | 14,291.07 gal/12   | **1,190.92  |
|                                  |                    | gal**       |
| *Miscellaneous Hazardous         | 57,628.73 lbs/12   |             |
| Materials*                       |                    | **4,802.39  |
|                                  |                    | lbs**       |
+----------------------------------+--------------------+-------------+

### 4.4.3 Table 4-3 -- CMV HM Incidents and Releases of HM

Table 4-3 presents information for four regulatory options and includes
the following information:

-   "Option I" - The amount overall of HM released per in-transit
    incident and also by each HM class. Quantities of each HM class were
    divided by the total number of in transit incidents for that HM
    Class.

[Source]{.underline}: HMIS

[Purpose]{.underline}: For use when FMCSA regulations apply to all CMVs
In-transit.

-   "Option II" - The amount overall of HM released per loading incident
    and also by each HM class. Quantities of each HM Class were divided
    by the total number of loading incidents for that HM Class.

[Source]{.underline}: HMIS

[Purpose]{.underline}: For use when FMCSA regulations apply to all CMV
loading incidents

-   "Option III" - The amount overall of HM released per unloading
    incident and also by each HM class. Quantities of each HM Class were
    divided by the total number of unloading incidents for that HM
    Class.

[Source]{.underline}: HMIS

[Purpose]{.underline}: For use when FMCSA regulations apply to all CMV
unloading

incidents.

-   "Option IV" - The amount overall of HM released per in transit
    storage incident and also by each HM Class. Quantities of each HM
    Class were divided by the total number of in transit storage
    incidents for that HM Class.

[Source]{.underline}: HMIS

[Purpose]{.underline}: For use when FMCSA regulations apply to all CMV
in transit storage

incidents.

This table is for use as an informational resource for NEPA documents if
FMCSA regulations are modified and that modification is expected to
result in a decrease of HM releases due to both CMV crashes and
incidents.

**TABLE 4-3. CMV HM INCIDENTS AND RELEASES OF HM**

**Note: Table 4-3 contains four NEPA analysis options.**

+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **[Option 1 -- In-Transit HM     |           |           |           |
| Incidents]{.underline}**         |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| **Use the below information when |           |           |           |
| FMCSA proposes new or modified   |           |           |           |
| regulations that apply only to   |           |           |           |
| CMVs In-Transit**                |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| ***[Instructions for NEPA        |           |           |           |
| Analysis]{.underline}: Multiply  |           |           |           |
| the number of avoided CMV        |           |           |           |
| in-transit incidents by the      |           |           |           |
| average release per incident     |           |           |           |
| [overall]{.underline} or by      |           |           |           |
| [each]{.underline} HM class.***  |           |           |           |
| For example, if FMCSA            |           |           |           |
| regulations would result in 50   |           |           |           |
| fewer in-transit incidents, the  |           |           |           |
| reduction in overall HM          |           |           |           |
| quantities would be (50 x 36.39  |           |           |           |
| gallons, 11.76 pounds and 39.75  |           |           |           |
| cubic feet) = 1,819.5 gallons,   |           |           |           |
| 588 pounds and 1,987.5 cubic     |           |           |           |
| feet, respectively, and the      |           |           |           |
| reduction for HM Class 3 would   |           |           |           |
| be (50 x 50.93 gallons) =        |           |           |           |
| 2,546.5 gallons.                 |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
|   ----------                     |           |           |           |
| ---- -------------- ------------ |           |           |           |
|   **T                            |           |           |           |
| otal        **In-Transit   **Per |           |           |           |
|   In-Tra                         |           |           |           |
| nsit HM  Average \#     Incident |           |           |           |
|   Quantiti                       |           |           |           |
| es**   Incidents**    Quantity** |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
|   48,83                          |           |           |           |
| 2.31 gal  1,342          **36.39 |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
|                            gal** |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
|   15,77                          |           |           |           |
| 8.82 lbs  1,342          **11.76 |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
|                            lbs** |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
|   53,348.86                      |           |           |           |
| cf   1,342          **39.75 cf** |           |           |           |
|   ----------                     |           |           |           |
| ---- -------------- ------------ |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Incident Type**                | **Annual  |           |           |
|                                  | A         |           |           |
|                                  | verages** |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **In Transit (non crash          | \# of     | **Total   | **Release |
| related)**                       | I         | Units     | HM Class  |
|                                  | n-Transit | R         | per In    |
|                                  | Incidents | eleased** | Transit   |
|                                  |           |           | I         |
|                                  |           |           | ncident** |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 1                   | 3         | 8.05 gal  | **2.68    |
|                                  |           |           | gal**     |
| *Explosives*                     |           | 400.06    |           |
|                                  |           | lbs       | **133.35  |
|                                  |           |           | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 2                   | 53        | 4,309.87  | **81.32   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Gases (flammable, nonflammable, |           |           |           |
| toxic/non-toxic)*                |           | 59.5 lbs  | **1.12    |
|                                  |           | 53,348.86 | lbs**     |
|                                  |           | cf        |           |
|                                  |           |           | *         |
|                                  |           |           | *1,006.58 |
|                                  |           |           | cf**      |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 3                   | 625       | 31,828.35 | **50.93   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Flammable and Combustible       |           |           |           |
| Liquids Hazard*                  |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 4                   | 6         | 33.68 gal | **5.61    |
|                                  |           |           | gal**     |
| *Flammable solids*               |           | 678.48    |           |
|                                  |           | lbs       | **113.08  |
|                                  |           |           | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 5                   | 42        | 424.47    | **10.11   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Oxidizing Substances and        |           |           |           |
| Organic Peroxides*               |           | 1,051.73  | **25.04   |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 6                   | 210       | 379.95    | **1       |
|                                  |           | gal       | .81.gal** |
| *Toxic Substances and Infectious |           |           |           |
| Substances*                      |           | 75.33 lbs | **0.36    |
|                                  |           |           | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 7                   | 1         | 0 ci      | **0**     |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| *Radioactive Materials*          |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 8                   | 470       | 10,533.77 | **22.41   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Corrosive Substances*           |           |           |           |
|                                  |           | 1,706.84  | **3.63    |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Hazard Class 9**               | 48        | 1,314.17  | **27.38   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| ***Miscellaneous Hazardous       |           |           |           |
| Materials***                     |           | 11,806.88 | **245.98  |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

**TABLE 4-3. CMV HM INCIDENTS AND RELEASES OF HM**

**Note: Table 4-3 contains four NEPA analysis options.**

+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **[Option II -- Loading HM       |           |           |           |
| Incidents]{.underline}**         |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| **Use the below information when |           |           |           |
| FMCSA proposes new or modified   |           |           |           |
| regulations that apply only to   |           |           |           |
| CMV Loading HM incidents**       |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| **[Instructions for NEPA         |           |           |           |
| Analysis]{.underline}: Multiply  |           |           |           |
| the number of avoided CMV        |           |           |           |
| loading incidents by the average |           |           |           |
| release per incident             |           |           |           |
| [overall]{.underline} or by      |           |           |           |
| [each]{.underline} HM class.     |           |           |           |
| *For example, if FMCSA           |           |           |           |
| regulations would result in 200  |           |           |           |
| fewer loading incidents the      |           |           |           |
| reduction in the overall HM      |           |           |           |
| quantity released would be (200  |           |           |           |
| x 13.30 gallons, 8.97 pounds and |           |           |           |
| 0.08 cubic feet) = 2,660         |           |           |           |
| gallons, 1,794 pounds and 16     |           |           |           |
| cubic feet, and the reduction    |           |           |           |
| for HM Class 4 would be (200 x   |           |           |           |
| 2.67 gallons and 22.16 cubic     |           |           |           |
| feet) = 534 gallons and 4,432    |           |           |           |
| pounds.***                       |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| +-----------+------+---------+   |           |           |           |
| | **Total   | **L  | **Per   |   |           |           |           |
| | Loading   | oadi | I       |   |           |           |           |
| | HM        | ng** | ncident |   |           |           |           |
| | Qua       |      | Qua     |   |           |           |           |
| | ntities** | *    | ntity** |   |           |           |           |
| |           | *Ave |         |   |           |           |           |
| |           | rage |         |   |           |           |           |
| |           | \#   |         |   |           |           |           |
| |           | Inc  |         |   |           |           |           |
| |           | iden |         |   |           |           |           |
| |           | ts** |         |   |           |           |           |
| +-----------+------+---------+   |           |           |           |
| | 21,328.03 | 1    | **13.30 |   |           |           |           |
| | gal       | ,604 | gal**   |   |           |           |           |
| +-----------+------+---------+   |           |           |           |
| | 14,384.28 | 1    | **8.97  |   |           |           |           |
| | lbs       | ,604 | lbs**   |   |           |           |           |
| +-----------+------+---------+   |           |           |           |
| | 128.44 cf | 1    | **0.08  |   |           |           |           |
| |           | ,604 | cf**    |   |           |           |           |
| +-----------+------+---------+   |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Incident Type**                | #### *    |           |           |
|                                  | *Annual A |           |           |
|                                  | verages** |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Loading**                      | **\# of   | **Total   | **Release |
|                                  | Loading   | Units     | per       |
|                                  | In        | R         | Loading   |
|                                  | cidents** | eleased** | I         |
|                                  |           |           | ncident** |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 1                   | 1         | 0.02 gal  | **0.02    |
|                                  |           |           | gal**     |
| *Explosives*                     |           | 2.20 lbs  |           |
|                                  |           |           | **2.20    |
|                                  |           |           | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 2                   | 68        | 3,771.08  | **55.46   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Gases (flammable, nonflammable, |           |           |           |
| toxic/non-toxic)*                |           | 180.47    | **2.65    |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
|                                  |           |           |           |
|                                  |           | 128.44 cf | **1.89    |
|                                  |           |           | cf**      |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 3                   | 748       | 10,782.21 | **14.41   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Flammable and Combustible       |           |           |           |
| Liquids Hazard*                  |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 4                   | 10        | 26.7 gal  | **2.67    |
|                                  |           |           | gal**     |
| *Flammable solids*               |           | 221.60    |           |
|                                  |           | lbs       | **22.16   |
|                                  |           |           | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 5                   | 50        | 418.44    | **8.37    |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Oxidizing Substances and        |           |           |           |
| Organic Peroxides*               |           | 107.49    | **2.15    |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 6                   | 66        | 334.38    | **5       |
|                                  |           | gal       | .06.gal** |
| *Toxic Substances and Infectious |           |           |           |
| Substances*                      |           | 115.14    | **1.74    |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 7                   | 0         | 0         | **0**     |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| *Radioactive Materials*          |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 8                   | 614       | 4,298.79  | **7.00    |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Corrosive Substances*           |           |           |           |
|                                  |           | 145.77    | **0.24    |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 9                   | 44        | 1,696.41  | **38.55   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Miscellaneous Hazardous         |           |           |           |
| Materials*                       |           | 13,611.61 | **309.35  |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

**TABLE 4-3. CMV HM INCIDENTS AND RELEASES OF HM**

**Note: Table 4-3 contains four NEPA analysis options.**

+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **[Option III -- Unloading HM    |           |           |           |
| Incidents]{.underline}**         |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| **Use the below information when |           |           |           |
| FMCSA proposes new or modified   |           |           |           |
| regulations that apply only to   |           |           |           |
| CMV Unloading HM incidents**     |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| **[Instructions for NEPA         |           |           |           |
| Analysis]{.underline}: Multiply  |           |           |           |
| the number of avoided CMV        |           |           |           |
| unloading incidents by the       |           |           |           |
| average release per incident     |           |           |           |
| [overall]{.underline} or by      |           |           |           |
| [each]{.underline} HM class.     |           |           |           |
| *For example, if FMCSA           |           |           |           |
| regulations would result in 50   |           |           |           |
| fewer unloading incidents, the   |           |           |           |
| overall reduction of the HM      |           |           |           |
| quantity released would be (50 x |           |           |           |
| 12.82 gallons, 1.315 pounds and  |           |           |           |
| 0.18 cubic feet) = 641 gallons,  |           |           |           |
| 65.75 pounds and 9 cubic feet    |           |           |           |
| and the reduction for HM Class 5 |           |           |           |
| would be (50 x 3.41 gallons and  |           |           |           |
| 9.38 pounds) = 170.5 gallons and |           |           |           |
| 469 pounds.***                   |           |           |           |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| +-----------+------+---------+   |           |           |           |
| | **Total   | *    | **Per   |   |           |           |           |
| | Unloading | *Unl | I       |   |           |           |           |
| | HM        | oadi | ncident |   |           |           |           |
| | Qua       | ng** | Qua     |   |           |           |           |
| | ntities** |      | ntity** |   |           |           |           |
| |           | **T  |         |   |           |           |           |
| |           | otal |         |   |           |           |           |
| |           | \#** |         |   |           |           |           |
| +-----------+------+---------+   |           |           |           |
| | 1         | 9    | **12.82 |   |           |           |           |
| | 17,062.81 | ,129 | gal**   |   |           |           |           |
| | gal       |      |         |   |           |           |           |
| +-----------+------+---------+   |           |           |           |
| | 12,012.14 | 9    | **1.315 |   |           |           |           |
| | lbs       | ,129 | lbs**   |   |           |           |           |
| +-----------+------+---------+   |           |           |           |
| | 1,633.56  | 9    | **0.18  |   |           |           |           |
| | cf        | ,129 | cf**    |   |           |           |           |
| +-----------+------+---------+   |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Incident Type**                | #### *    |           |           |
|                                  | *Annual A |           |           |
|                                  | verages** |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Unloading**                    | **\#      | **Total   | **Release |
|                                  | Unloading | Unit      | per       |
|                                  | In        | R         | Unloading |
|                                  | cidents** | eleased** | I         |
|                                  |           |           | ncident** |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 1                   | 1         | 0.01 gal  | **0.01    |
|                                  |           |           | gal**     |
| *Explosives*                     |           | 0.79 lbs  |           |
|                                  |           |           | **0.79    |
|                                  |           |           | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 2                   | 387       | 6,645.70  | **17.17   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Gases (flammable, nonflammable, |           |           |           |
| toxic/non-toxic)*                |           | 1,109.26  | **2.87    |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
|                                  |           |           |           |
|                                  |           | 1,633.56  | **4.22    |
|                                  |           | cf        | cf**      |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 3                   | 4433      | 50,755.92 | **11.45   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Flammable and Combustible       |           |           |           |
| Liquids Hazard*                  |           | 0.17 lbs  |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 4                   | 64        | 9.76 gal  | **0.15    |
|                                  |           |           | gal**     |
| *Flammable solids*               |           | 726.49    |           |
|                                  |           | lbs       | **11.35   |
|                                  |           |           | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 5                   | 396       | 1,351.52  | **3.41    |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Oxidizing Substances and        |           |           |           |
| Organic Peroxides*               |           | 3,715.98  | **9.38    |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 6                   | 438       | 2,568.51  | **5.86    |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Toxic Substances and Infectious |           |           |           |
| Substances*                      |           | 1,478.56  | **3.38    |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 7                   | 0         | 0         | **0**     |
|                                  |           |           |           |
| *Radioactive Materials*          |           |           |           |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 8                   | 3218      | 40,614.68 | **12.62   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Corrosive Substances*           |           |           |           |
|                                  |           | 3,441.50  | **1.07    |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 9                   | 230       | 6,050.47  | **26.31   |
|                                  |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Miscellaneous Hazardous         |           |           |           |
| Materials*                       |           | 1,539.39  | **6.70    |
|                                  |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+----------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

**TABLE 4-3. CMV HM INCIDENTS AND RELEASES OF HM**

**Note: Table 4-3 contains four NEPA analysis options.**

+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **[Option IV -- In-Transit      |           |           |           |
| Storage]{.underline}**          |           |           |           |
|                                 |           |           |           |
| **Use the below information     |           |           |           |
| when FMCSA proposes new or      |           |           |           |
| modified regulations that apply |           |           |           |
| only to CMV In-Transit Storage  |           |           |           |
| incidents**                     |           |           |           |
|                                 |           |           |           |
| ***[Instructions for NEPA       |           |           |           |
| Analysis]{.underline}: Multiply |           |           |           |
| the number of avoided CMV       |           |           |           |
| in-transit storage incidents by |           |           |           |
| the average release per         |           |           |           |
| incident [overall]{.underline}  |           |           |           |
| or by [each]{.underline} HM     |           |           |           |
| class.*** For example, if FMCSA |           |           |           |
| regulations would result in 20  |           |           |           |
| fewer in-transit storage        |           |           |           |
| incidents, the reduction in the |           |           |           |
| overall HM quantity release     |           |           |           |
| would be (20 x 31.14 gallons,   |           |           |           |
| 16.58 pounds and 0.39 cubic     |           |           |           |
| feet) = 622.8 gallons, 331.6    |           |           |           |
| pounds and 7.8 cubic feet, and  |           |           |           |
| the reduction for HM Class 8    |           |           |           |
| would be (20 x 51.30 gallons    |           |           |           |
| and 1.72 pounds) = 1,026        |           |           |           |
| gallons and 34.4 pounds.        |           |           |           |
|                                 |           |           |           |
| +----------+------+--------+    |           |           |           |
| | **Total  | *    | **Per  |    |           |           |           |
| | In       | *Unl | In     |    |           |           |           |
| | -Transit | oadi | cident |    |           |           |           |
| | Storage  | ng** | Quan   |    |           |           |           |
| | HM       |      | tity** |    |           |           |           |
| | Quan     | **T  |        |    |           |           |           |
| | tities** | otal |        |    |           |           |           |
| |          | \#** |        |    |           |           |           |
| +----------+------+--------+    |           |           |           |
| | 1        | 584  | *      |    |           |           |           |
| | 8,183.78 |      | *31.14 |    |           |           |           |
| | gal      |      | gal**  |    |           |           |           |
| +----------+------+--------+    |           |           |           |
| | 9,680.04 | 584  | *      |    |           |           |           |
| | lbs      |      | *16.58 |    |           |           |           |
| |          |      | lbs**  |    |           |           |           |
| +----------+------+--------+    |           |           |           |
| | 225.25   | 584  | **0.39 |    |           |           |           |
| | cf       |      | cf**   |    |           |           |           |
| +----------+------+--------+    |           |           |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Incident Type**               | **Annual  |           |           |
|                                 | A         |           |           |
|                                 | verages** |           |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **In Transit Storage**          | **\#      | **Total   | **Average |
|                                 | I         | Unit      | Release   |
|                                 | n-Transit | R         | Per       |
|                                 | Storage   | eleased** | I         |
|                                 | In        |           | ncident** |
|                                 | cidents** |           |           |
|                                 |           |           | *(Qua     |
|                                 |           |           | ntity/#HM |
|                                 |           |           | In        |
|                                 |           |           | cidents)* |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 1                  | 0         | 0.13 gal  | **0 gal** |
|                                 |           |           |           |
| *Explosives*                    |           |           |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 2                  | 30        | 2,306.38  | **76.88   |
|                                 |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Gases (flammable,              |           |           |           |
| nonflammable, toxic/non-toxic)* |           | 13.01 lbs | **0.43    |
|                                 |           |           | lbs**     |
|                                 |           | 225.25 cf |           |
|                                 |           |           | **7.51    |
|                                 |           |           | cf**      |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 3                  | 233       | 5,264.69  | **22.60   |
|                                 |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Flammable and Combustible      |           |           |           |
| Liquids Hazard*                 |           |           |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 4                  | 3         | 0.01 gal  | **0.003   |
|                                 |           |           | gal**     |
| *Flammable solids*              |           | 5.54 lbs  |           |
|                                 |           |           | **1.85    |
|                                 |           |           | lbs**     |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 5                  | 20        | 78.92 gal | **3.95    |
|                                 |           |           | gal**     |
| *Oxidizing Substances and       |           | 9,062.66  |           |
| Organic Peroxides*              |           | lbs       | **453.13  |
|                                 |           |           | lbs**     |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 6                  | 59        | 103.87    | **1.76    |
|                                 |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Toxic Substances and           |           |           |           |
| Infectious Substances*          |           | 143.74    | **2.44    |
|                                 |           | lbs       | lbs**     |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 7                  | 0         | 0         | **0**     |
|                                 |           |           |           |
| *Radioactive Materials*         |           |           |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 8                  | 202       | 10,363.50 | **51.30   |
|                                 |           | gal       | gal**     |
| *Corrosive Substances*          |           |           |           |
|                                 |           | 347.0 lbs | **1.72    |
|                                 |           |           | lbs**     |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hazard Class 9                  | 34        | 66.29 gal | **1.95    |
|                                 |           |           | gal**     |
| *Miscellaneous Hazardous        |           | 251.83    |           |
| Materials*                      |           | lbs       | **7.41    |
|                                 |           |           | lbs**     |
|                                 |           |           |           |
|                                 |           |           | **6.70    |
|                                 |           |           | lbs**     |
+---------------------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

## 4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARIES FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

The adverse environmental impacts associated with releases of most HM in
highway transportation are usually short-term impacts that can be
greatly reduced or eliminated through prompt clean up of the accident
scene. Most HM transported by CMVs is not in quantities sufficient to
cause significant, large scale, long-term environmental damage if they
are released; however, environmental damage can occur depending on the
amount and location of the spill/release.

The natural resources that could be adversely affected by a HM release
include air, surface and ground water, soil, wetlands, and ecological
resources (for example, wildlife habitats or endangered species).
Historic properties protected under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and parklands or wildlife refuges protected under
Section 4(f) of the DOT Act can also be adversely impacted.

[]{.mark}

Impacts vary depending on the class and amount of the HM and the
location where it is released. Below is a general description of the
environmental impacts that can be expected from a release as well as a
more specific description of the quantities, types and locations where
the releases for each HM class have occurred. Specific information is
based on a three year analysis (2003, 2004 and 2005) of PHMSA's HMIS
database, which relies on the submission the HMIRs.

In addition, information on fuel released from fuel tanks was obtained
from the Acton Spill Center.

**4.5.1 [Hazardous Materials Overall]{.underline}**

There are 688,986 gallons, 211,030 pounds, 53, 925 cubic feet and 201
curies released into the environment on an average annual basis from
both CMV crashes and CMV non-crash related incidents combined.

*CMV Crashes* - On average, there are 234 CMV crashes a year that result
in the release of a hazardous material from the cargo. For all hazardous
material classes combined, there is an average of 492,645 gallons,
159,031 pounds, 59 cubic feet and 201 curies released into the
environment annually. Most hazardous material releases from CMV crashes
occur in undeveloped (38 percent) and commercial (32 percent) areas,
followed by agricultural (12 percent), residential (10 percent) and
industrial (8 percent) areas.

*CMV Non-Crash Incidents* **-** On average, there are 12,659 CMV
non-crash related incidents a year that result in the release of a
hazardous material. Most of these incidents occur during unloading
(9,129) followed by loading (1,604), in-transit (1,342) and in-transit
temporary storage (584). For all HM combined, there is an average of
196,341 gallons, 51,999 pounds, and 53, 866 cubic feet released into the
environment annually. Most HM releases from CMV non-crash related
incidents occur in commercial (53 percent) and industrial (44 percent)
areas, followed by residential (2 percent) and undeveloped (1 percent)
areas.

**4.5.2 [Hazardous Materials by Class]{.underline}**

### *Class 1 - Explosives*

*General* - The potential environmental impacts from a release of a
Class 1 material depend on the nature of the explosive. Spills or fires
related to explosive materials can cause destruction of the immediate
area and may require local evacuations up to a mile away. Explosives
have the potential to throw fragments over a mile. Besides their
immediate threat to public health (human injuries and fatalities), fires
related to an incident may produce irritating, corrosive, or toxic gases
and harm plants and wildlife as well. Additionally, fire control methods
may produce runoff pollutants into wetlands, waterways and contaminate
ground water.

In total, there are 445.71 gallons and 27,420.05 pounds of Class 1 HM
released into the environment on an average annual basis from both CMV
crashes and CMV non-crash related incidents combined.

*CMV Crashes* -- On average, there are approximately three (3) CMV
crashes a year that result in the average release of 437.50 gallons and
27,017 pounds of Class 1 HM into the environment. Most Class 1 releases
occurred in undeveloped (57 percent) and commercial (29 percent) areas.

*CMV Non-crash Incidents* -- On average, there is approximately one (1)
non-crash related incident a year that results in the release of 8.21
gallons and 403.05 pounds of Class 1 HM into the environment. The
release usually occur in-transit.

### *Class 2 - Compressed Gases*

*General* -- Releases of Class 2 materials can lead to injuries and
fatalities, as well as carrier damage and incident delay costs.
Depending on the actual material, there could be catastrophic impacts
and extensive cleanup costs. Flammable gases are extremely flammable and
can easily ignite by heat, sparks, or flames. They can also form
explosive mixtures with air and have environmental impacts similar to
Class 1 explosives. Containers may explode when heated and ruptured
cylinders may rocket. Vapors may travel to a source of ignition and
flash back; some vapors also are heavier than air and may spread along
the ground. Some corrosive gases may react violently with water.
Oxidizing gasses do not burn, but still support combustion, and may
react explosively with fuels. In incidents with compressed gases, vapors
may also travel to a source of ignition and flash back. Runoff from fire
control could subsequently cause pollution.

Potential health effects of compressed gases include asphyxiation,
dizziness, and irritation when inhaled. Contact with liquefied gas may
cause burns. Some flammable gases may also be fatal if inhaled or also
through absorption of the skin. Potential spills or leaks would need to
be isolated. Large spills require evacuations downwind up to a ½ mile,
while fires may require evacuations up to a mile radius from the
incident.

In total, there are 74,885.33 gallons, 1,362.24 pounds and 53,924.82
cubic feet of Class 2 HM released into the environment on an average
annual basis from both CMV crashes and CMV incidents combined.

*CMV Crashes* -- On average, there are approximately 30 CMV crashes a
year that result in the release of 57,852.30 gallons and 58.71 cubic
feet of Class 2 HM into the environment. Most Class 2 releases occurred
in commercial (42 percent) and undeveloped (27 percent) areas.

*CMV Non-crash Incidents* -- On average, there are approximately 135
non-crash related incidents a year that result in the release of
17,033.03 gallons 1,362.24 pounds and 53,866.11 cubic feet of Class 2 HM
into the environment. Releases are most likely to occur during
unloading.

### *Class 3 - Flammable Liquids*

*General* - Flammable liquids are extremely flammable and can easily
ignite by heat, sparks, or flames. Their vapors can also form explosive
mixtures with air. Containers containing flammable liquids can explode
when heated and ruptured cylinders can rocket. Vapors may travel to a
source of ignition and flash back; some vapors also are heavier than air
and may spread along the ground. Many liquids in this category are
lighter than water. Vapors may also travel to a source of ignition and
flash back. Runoff from fire control could subsequently cause pollution.

Public health and safety concerns include irritation or burns of the
skin and eyes via inhalation or contact with the material. Dizziness and
suffocation from vapors are more serious effects. Spills should be
isolated and larger spills may necessitate downwind evacuations up to
1000 feet. Fires may produce irritating, corrosive, or toxic gases, and
runoff from fire control also may cause pollution. Fires also
necessitate isolation and evacuation measures up to a ½ mile radius from
the incident.

In total, there are 489,748.86 gallons and 0.17 pounds of Class 3 HM
released into the environment on an average annual basis from both CMV
crashes and CMV non-crash related incidents combined.

*CMV Crashes* -- On average, there are approximately three 137 CMV
crashes a year that result in the average release of 391,117.69 gallons
of Class 3 HM into the environment. Most class 3 releases occurred in
undeveloped (42 percent) and commercial (30 percent) areas.

*CMV Non-crash Incidents* -- On average, there is approximately 1,510 of
non-crash related incidents a year that result in the release of
98,631.17 gallons and 0.17 pounds of Class 3 HM into the environment.
The release is most likely to occur during unloading.

### Class 4 - Flammables

*General* - Flammables are considered hazardous because they are easily
ignited and many burn rapidly if ignited. Flammables may be ignited by
friction, heat, sparks, or flames. Flammable powders, dusts, shavings,
borings, turnings, or cuttings can explode or burn with explosive
violence. Vapors from toxic or corrosive substances may form explosive
mixtures with air when heated. Toxic and corrosive flammable solids may
also produce flammable hydrogen gas when in contact with metals. Some
spontaneously combustibles react explosively on contact with water.
Containers carrying these substances can explode if heated.
Additionally, these substances have the capability to re-ignite after a
fire is extinguished. In the case of spontaneously combustible
materials, runoff may also create a fire or explosion hazard.

Impacts to human health can occur if fires produce irritating or toxic
gases. Additionally, contact with these materials or associated molten
substances may cause burns to the skin and eyes. Ingestion or inhalation
of a spontaneously combustible substance or its decomposition products
is toxic and can cause severe injuries and death. Fires can produce
toxic gases, and water-reactive substances may generate heat reacting
with water, which can also increase the concentration of fumes in the
air.

Spills should be isolated immediately at a radius of at least 75 feet.
Large spills may also required downwind evacuations up to 330 feet.
Fires associated with these materials may necessitate isolation and
evacuation up to a ½ mile in all directions. Fire control may also
subsequently cause runoff pollution.

In total, there are 1,899.36 gallons and 10,603.86 pounds of Class 4
hazardous materials released into the environment on an average annual
basis from both CMV crashes and CMV non-crash related incidents
combined.

*CMV Crashes* -- On average, there are approximately three (3) CMV
crashes a year that result in the average release of 1,829.21 gallons
and 8,971.75 pounds of Class 4 HM into the environment. Most class 4
releases occurred in commercial (71 percent) and undeveloped (29
percent) areas.

*CMV Non-crash Incidents* -- On average, there are approximately 21
non-crash related incidents a year that result in the release of 70.15
gallons and 1,632.11 pounds of Class 4 HM into the environment. The
release is most likely to occur during unloading.

### *Class 5 - Oxidizing Materials*

*General* - Oxidizing materials accelerate burning if they are involved
in a fire. They can explode from friction, heat, or contamination. Some
oxidizers can react explosively with fuels, water, or ignite other
combustibles. Some water-reactive oxidizers can produce flammable
hydrogen gas upon contact with metals. Containers holding organic
peroxides can explode if heated. Some organic peroxides can be
particularly sensitive to temperature rises, and can decompose violently
and catch fire if a give control temperature for a substance is
exceeded. Runoff from incidents with oxidizing materials can also pose a
fire or explosion hazard.

Oxidizing materials are toxic if ingested or if associated dusts are
inhaled. Contact with oxidizing substances can cause severe burns to the
skin or eyes. Toxic/flammable fumes may accumulate in confined areas.
Fires involving these materials can produce irritating, corrosive, and
toxic gases. Ingestion or inhalation of oxidizing materials or their
decomposition products is toxic and can cause severe injuries and death.

Spills of these materials may require isolation and evacuations from 75
to 800 feet. Fires involving these materials should be isolated up to a
half mile radius surrounding the incident. Fire control may also
subsequently cause runoff pollution.

In total, there are 7,133.62 gallons and 61,208.49 pounds of Class 5 HM
released into the environment on an average annual basis from both CMV
crashes and CMV non-crash related incidents combined.

*CMV Crashes* -- On average, there are approximately 10 CMV crashes a
year that result in the average release of 4,860.27 gallons and
47,270.63 pounds of Class 51 HM into the environment. Most Class 5
releases occurred in undeveloped (58 percent) and commercial (17
percent) areas.

*CMV Non-crash Incidents* -- On average, there are approximately 127
non-crash related incidents a year that result in the release of
2,273.35 gallons and 13,937.86 pounds of Class 5 HM into the
environment. The release is most likely to occur during unloading.

.

### *Class 6 - Toxic Materials*

*General* - Toxic substances may or may not be combustible. In the case
of non-combustible toxic substances, the substance itself does not burn
but may decompose upon heating to produce corrosive and toxic fumes.
Combustible toxic materials may burn but do not ignite readily.
Containers carrying toxic materials can explode if heated. Infectious
materials do not ignite readily but are sometimes transported in
flammable liquids. Runoff from an incident could also pollute waterways.

Toxic materials are by nature highly toxic, and can be fatal if inhaled,
swallowed, or absorbed through the skin. Contact with molten substances
may cause severe burns. []{.mark}Health effects from these substances
may be delayed. Contact with or inhalation of infectious substances may
cause infection, disease, or death. Fires involving these substances may
also produce corrosive and toxic gases. Runoff from fire control methods
could also cause pollution. Spills should be isolated up to 150 feet.
Fires should be isolated up to a ½ mile in all directions.

In total, there are 4,830.59 gallons and 17,164.44 pounds of Class 6 HM
released into the environment on an average annual basis from both CMV
crashes and CMV non-crash related incidents combined.

*CMV Crashes* -- On average, there are approximately four CMV crashes a
year that result in the average release of 1,443.88 gallons and
15,351.67 pounds of Class 6 HM into the environment. Most Class 6
releases occurred in undeveloped (36 percent) and commercial (36
percent) areas.

*CMV Non-crash Incidents* -- On average, there is approximately 193
non-crash related incidents a year that result in the release of
3,386.71 gallons and 1,812.77 pounds of Class 6 HM into the environment.
The release is most likely to during unloading.

### *Class 7 - Radioactive Materials*

*General* - Radioactive materials do not typically ignite readily but
may burn. Additionally, radioactivity does not change the flammability
or other properties of materials.

Radioactive material presents minimal risk to transport workers,
emergency response personnel, and the public during transportation
accidents. Packaging durability increases as the potential hazard of
radioactive content increases. Radioactive materials that are packaged
as Type A contain non-life endangering amounts. Type B and C packages
contain the most hazardous amounts of radioactive material. Life
threatening conditions may exist only if the contents are released or
the package shielding fails. Because of the design, evaluation, and
testing of the packages, these conditions would only be expected for
accidents of utmost severity. For spills and fires involving these
materials, isolation and evacuations may be necessary from 330-1000
feet.

In total, there are 18.88 gallons and 200.09 curies of Class 7 HM
released into the environment on an average annual basis.

*CMV Crashes* -- On average, there are approximately two CMV crashes a
year that result in the average release of 18.88 gallons and 200.09
curies of Class 7 HM into the environment. Most class 1 releases
occurred in undeveloped (50 percent) and commercial (20 percent) areas.

*CMV Non-crash Incidents* -- On average, no Class 7 releases occurred
from CMV non-crash related incidents.

### *Class 8 - Corrosive Materials*

*General* - Corrosive materials may or may not be combustible; some do
not ignite readily while others are highly flammable. When heated,
corrosive materials can release vapors with the potential to explode
upon contact with air. Corrosive materials may produce flammable
hydrogen gas upon contact with metals. Some substances react violently
with water, releasing flammable, toxic, or corrosive gases and runoff.
Runoff from incidents with corrosive materials may pollute waterways.

Corrosive materials are highly toxic. Inhalation, ingestion, or skin
contact with corrosive materials may cause severe burns, injuries, or
death. Effects of these materials may also be delayed. Reaction with
water or moist air can release toxic, corrosive, or flammable gases, and
can generate heat, which will increase the concentration of fumes in the
air. Most vapors are heavier than air and will collect in low or
confined areas. Fires involving these substances may also produce
corrosive and toxic gases. Runoff from fire control methods could also
cause pollution. Spills should be isolated up to 75-150 feet. Fires
should be isolated up to a ½ mile in all directions.

In total, there are 86,605.11 gallons and 8,432.44 pounds of Class 8 HM
released into the environment on an average annual basis from both CMV
crashes and CMV non-crash related incidents combined.

*CMV Crashes* -- On average, there are approximately 33 CMV crashes a
year that result in the average release of 20,794.37 gallons and
2,791.33 pounds of Class 8 HM into the environment. Most Class 8
releases occurred in undeveloped (43 percent) and commercial (41
percent) areas.

*CMV Non-crash Incidents* -- On average, there are approximately 1,126
non-crash related incidents a year that result in the release of
65,810.74 gallons and 5,641.11 pounds of Class 8 HM into the
environment. The release is most likely to occur during unloading.

### *Class 9 - Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods*

*General* - Mixed goods could contain any or many types of HM. As such,
the potential hazards and health impacts could be similar to any of the
categories listed above. Mixed goods could explode from heat, sparks,
shock, friction, or contamination. Mixed goods could react explosively
with air, water, or foam. Vapors may travel to the source of ignition
and flash back. Containers may explode if heated and ruptured cylinders
may rocket.

Health risks include severe injury, infection, disease, or death from
inhalation, ingestion, or contact with substances. Contact with mixed
materials may cause burns to the skin and eyes. High concentrations of
gas may cause asphyxiation without warning. Fire or contact with water
may produce irritation, toxic, and corrosive gases. Fire control methods
may subsequently produce polluted runoff.

In total, there are 23,418.41 gallons and 84,838.44 pounds of Class 9 HM
released into the environment on an average annual basis from both CMV
crashes and CMV non-crash related incidents combined.

*CMV Crashes* -- On average, there are approximately 12 CMV crashes a
year that result in the average release of 14,291.07 gallons and
57,628.73 pounds of Class 9 HM into the environment. Most Class 9
releases occurred in commercial (41 percent) and undeveloped (35
percent) areas.

*CMV Non-crash Incidents* -- On average, there are approximately 89
non-crash related incidents a year that result in the release of
9,127.34 gallons and 27,209.71 pounds of Class 9 HM into the
environment. The release is most likely to occur during unloading.

***Potential Environmental Impacts of Fuel Tank Spills***

*General* -- Petroleum is a mix of many chemicals, many of which
(especially in gasoline) evaporate quickly, which is why it is flammable
and why it evaporates quickly from warm pavement. If a petroleum spill
is not recovered, it can pose health threats in drinking water wells if
it percolates into the ground water. Petroleum can kill aquatic life and
wildlife if it reaches surface water directly or through a storm sewer.

*CMV Crashes* -- On average, each year approximately 1,188,584 gallons
of diesel fuel (petroleum) are released into the environment as a result
of CMV crashes. The majority of the fuel is released from large trucks
(\> 10,000 pounds) (see Table 4-4).

**TABLE 4-4. SUMMARY: FUEL TANK SPILLS DUE TO CMV CRASHES**

+---------------------------------+-------------+--------+------------+
| **CMVs (Trucks) Involving Fuel  | \# of       | Avg.   | Est. Total |
| Tank Spills from Fuel Tanks**   | Crashes Per | R      | amount of  |
|                                 | Year with   | elease | fuel       |
| (Information from the Acton     | Fuel Tank   | per    | released   |
| Spill Center was extrapolated   | Spills (12% | Crash  | annually   |
| and applied to MCMIS data for   | of Truck    |        |            |
| all truck crashes)              | Crashes')   |        |            |
+---------------------------------+-------------+--------+------------+
| **Large Trucks** *(\> 10,000    | **16,367**  | **72   | **1        |
| pounds)*                        |             | gal**  | ,178,424** |
|                                 |             |        | **gal**    |
+---------------------------------+-------------+--------+------------+
| **Non-Large Trucks** *(\<       | **254**     | **40   | **10,160   |
| 10,000 pounds)*                 |             | gal**  | gal**      |
+---------------------------------+-------------+--------+------------+
| **Total Large and Non-Large     | **16,621**  | []{    | *          |
| Trucks**                        |             | .mark} | *1,188,584 |
|                                 |             |        | gal**      |
+---------------------------------+-------------+--------+------------+

## 4.6 CONCLUSION

The estimates outlined in Tables 4-1 to 4-3 can be used to quantify the
environmental benefits from FMCSA regulatory changes reducing crashes
and/or non-crash related incidents. Estimates for crashes can be used in
concert with Zaloshnja's and Miller's report for FMCSA on the Revised
Cost of Large Truck -- and Bus Involved Crashes. Non-crash incidents
will be used independently, since Zaloshnja's and Miller's report only
considers CMV crashes. In addition, FMCSA Order 5610.1, Appendix 18, 3.
Hazardous Materials, requires FMCSA to document how a proposed action
will impact the use, transportation, and storage of HM or the number or
severity of HM crashes or non-crash related incidents. The above methods
and estimates address all of these regulatory requirements.

Order 5610.1 further states that the NEPA analysis must identify any
moderate to significant adverse impacts to public safety and health,
transportation, property damage, water resources, and biological
resources from releases of hazardous materials associated with
safety-related crashes and [incidents]{.underline}. The above methods
and estimates can be used to assess the potential adverse or beneficial
impacts. Most of the anticipated impacts will be beneficial. In cases
where there are adverse impacts, Tables 4-1 to 4-3 can be used to
calculate the increases in HM releases. Quantification of the HM
releases avoided can also be tracked and used by FMCSA as an optional
"mitigation banking" measure.

The HM environmental impact summary narrative contained in Section 4.5
describes (in general) the types of impacts that can occur to various
natural resources and public health as required in FMCSA Order 5610.1.
Section 4.5 also summarizes the quantities of HM released into the
environment by HM Class and in aggregate. The data is comprehensive for
the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. This narrative can be used in NEPA
analyses to supplement the HM quantities derived from Tables 4-1 to 4-3.

# 5. SOLID WASTES

# 5.1 INTRODUCTION

CMV crashes can generate solid wastes. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and related regulations establish the waste
management requirements that apply to CMV crash generated waste. The
chassis and engines, as well as associated fluids and components of
trucks, buses, and automobiles and the contents of the vehicle can all
be deemed waste. The waste can also include damage to the roadway
infrastructure including road surface, barriers, bridges, and signage.
The purpose of this report section is to quantify solid waste generated
from CMV crashes.

Waste material has one of three fates. First, the material can be
returned to the originally intended use: vehicles can be repaired, cargo
can be still be utilized. Second, damaged vehicles parts or cargo may be
recycled, depending on market demand and availability of recycling
technology and facilities. Third, material that cannot be repaired or
recycled must be abandoned. The term abandoned refers to material that
is either disposed in a landfill or burned in an incinerator (US EPA).

According to RCRA regulations the definition of a solid waste
encompasses the following materials: (1) materials that are abandoned;
(2) materials that are recycled, (3) materials that are inherently
waste-like, and (4) waste military munitions (40 CFR 261.2). Recycled
materials still fall under regulatory classification of solid waste
depending on the type of material and recycling method. For example, for
CMV crashes, scrap metal from automobiles is regulated as a solid waste
(40 CFR 261.1(c)(6)). All materials that are permanently disposed of due
to CMV crashes are technically solid waste (including liquids). These
materials can include components of vehicles that are discarded during
repair.

FMCSA's actions and proposed regulations to reduce the number and
severity of CMV crashes may impact the quantity and number of
occurrences of collisions producing solid waste generated in the U.S.
Less solid waste translates into cost savings from reductions in the
following areas: (1) transport of waste material, (2) energy required
for recycling efforts, and (3) landfill or incinerator fees.

The goal of this report is to provide data on both solid waste mass and
volume generated from CMV collisions. Unfortunately, accurate data on
waste from CMV crashes is extremely limited. Due to limitations of
available information, the report is only able to make estimations of
vehicle based solid waste with a known percentage of the car/truck/bus
impacted. No aggregated national level or average CMV crash solid waste
mass or volume is provided.

## 5.2 BACKGROUND

CMV crashes involve at least one CMV and may also involve

-   Other CMVs,

-   Non-CMV vehicles (e.g., one or more automobiles)

-   Roadway infrastructure (e.g., bridge abutments)

-   Roadside objects and structures (e.g., trees, boulders, telephone
    poles, or buildings),

-   Animals (wildlife, livestock, or pets), and

-   People.

A crash can also involve only a single CMV without damage to any other
vehicle, structure, or individual (e.g., if an axle breaks). Any CMV
involved in a crash may be carrying cargo or traveling empty. Some
non-CMV vehicles involved in CMV crashes may be carrying cargo, as well.

CMV crashes can generate solid waste in several ways. Debris dislodged
from vehicles as the result of crashes is solid waste. Likewise, any
cargo that is not removed from the crash site can be solid waste. Even
when removed from the crash site, some portion of a damaged CMV and/or
cargo may end up as solid waste. Damaged roadway infrastructure and
roadside objects and structures, as well as other vehicles damaged in a
CMV crash, are also solid waste. There are items carried by individuals
struck by CMVs, such as groceries, strollers, bicycles, walkers which
may end up as solid wastes. Pets, livestock, and wildlife killed in
crashes are also considered solid waste.

At the ends of their useful life, most CMVs and many of the products
that move by truck are "junked," meaning that they are removed from
operation. Some portion of CMVs and their cargoes eventually enter the
solid waste stream (or end up as roadside and similar trash). As a
consequence, FMCSA's regulations impacting CMV crashes affect the timing
of when solid waste is generated and not the ultimate generation of
solid waste. FMCSA's rules do not prevent trucks and cargoes from
becoming solid waste. The rules affect the circumstances and the rate at
which trucks and cargoes (as well as any other materials damaged in a
CMV crash) may become solid waste. The functional use and lifespan of
CMVs and their constituent materials is extended by a reduction in CMV
collisions.

## 5.3 SOLID WASTE IMPACT METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

Currently in the U.S., between 10 and 11 million vehicles of all types
reach the end of their useful lives each year. An estimated 94 percent
of those vehicles are reprocessed by the Nation's vehicle recycling
industry (Environmental Defense). Most of the remaining 6% is either
stored or abandoned (Staudinger and Keoleian; Gesing).

The Nation's vehicle recycling industry consists of the following:

-   Vehicle dismantlers (also known as salvage yards or salvagers),
    where useful parts are stripped from the vehicles,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Vehicle shredders, where vehicles obtained from dismantlers are
    shredded into fist-sized pieces and receive their initial sorting
    with steel being the primary material recovered at this stage of the
    process,

-   Sink-float plants, where more comprehensive metal separation is
    performed, and finally

-   Metal sorters, where final metal sorting can be performed
    (Staudinger and Keoleian; Gesing; "Auto Recycling Demonstration
    Project").

In total in North America, there are less than 6 thousand salvage yards,
approximately 200 vehicle shredders, approximately 10 sink-float plants,
and 1 metal sorter (Gesing).

Generally, the useful materials from vehicle recycling are usable parts
and bulk metals. Vehicle tires and batteries have their own recycling
networks and are generally removed from scrapped vehicles. All other
materials accumulated during the vehicle recycling process are
considered "auto shredder residue" (ASR or "fluff"), which is separated
from the useful materials and sent to landfills for disposal.

The focus of this chapter is on the CMV crash generated solid wastes
that are abandoned otherwise referred to as the ASR. The generation of
ASR diminishes available landfill capacity. Furthermore, unlike
recycling, the disposal of ASR in landfills results in potentially
useful materials being thrown away. The ASR generated by CMV crashes is
derived primarily from the automobiles, CMV power units, CMV trailers,
and CMV cargoes involved in those crashes. In the remainder of this
chapter, the ASR generated by CMV crashes from automobiles, CMV power
units, CMV trailers, and CMV cargoes are considered.

# 5.3.1 [Automobiles]{.underline}

Automobiles are frequently involved in CMV crashes. Damage to
automobiles in CMV crashes can run the gambit from minor dents to
complete destruction. It is not possible, a priori, to predict the
amount of damage that each automobile involved in a CMV crash will
receive. Assuming that (1) a typical automobile contains 1,050 kg of
metals and 350 kg of ASR (Environmental Defense\--Auto Shredder
Residue), (2) any metal scrap resulting from a CMV crash will be
recycled and any other scrap will be ASR that is sent to a landfill, and
(3) as mentioned above, 94% of all automobiles at the end of their lives
are recycled, it is possible to develop estimates for the amount of ASR
going to landfills as a result of an automobile being involved in a CMV
crash. These estimates are presented in Table 5-1.

TABLE 5-1. QUANTITY OF ASR SENT TO LANDFILL FOR EACH AUTOMOBILE INVOLVED
IN A CMV CRASH

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Percent of vehicle needing to be      **Kilograms of ASR sent to
  replaced**                              landfill**
  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------
  10                                      33

  20                                      66

  30                                      99

  40                                      132

  50                                      165

  60                                      197

  70                                      230

  80                                      263

  90                                      296

  100                                     329
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

To simplify the estimation, the calculations performed for Table 5-1
assume that metal and other material are uniformly distributed
throughout a vehicle. Furthermore, the estimates in Table 5-1 assume
that only metal parts are salvaged from automobiles prior to shredding.
A weighted average for damaged parts could potentially be determined
from insurance damage payments, provided that insurance companies were
willing to supply the data.

Table 5-2 presents estimates of the U.S. percentage of automobiles that
were "totaled" for all crashes (CMV and non-CMV) during the years 2003
through 2005. Definitive data is available quantifying just CMV totaled
vehicles. "Totaled," means that the cost of repairing a vehicle is
greater than the market value of that vehicle. It roughly corresponds to
the 100 percent row in Table 5-1 ("totaled" vehicles may still be
drivable, and some may continue to be used, with or without repairs).

## TABLE 5-2. PERCENTAGE OF ALL U.S. AUTOMOBILES "TOTALED," 2003-2005

+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| ## Year                      | **Percentage of Automobiles           |
|                              | "Totaled"**                           |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 2003                         | 12.1                                  |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 2004                         | 13.4                                  |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 2005                         | 13.0                                  |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------+

> [Note]{.underline}: The estimates in this table include only
> appraisals and do not include "...vehicles that were obvious totals
> where no appraisal was generated...."
>
> [Source]{.underline}: Susanna Gotsch, "Crash Course," CCCUpFront, Vol.
> III, Issue 2,
> <http://www.cccis.com/static/upfront/issue08/feature_01.htm>.

There are no public accident databases that include damage severity. An
analyst might use the information in Table 5-2 to develop a rough
estimate for the percentage of automobiles needing to be 100 percent
replaced; however, information that could be used for other levels of
replacement is not readily available. The well-known Principle (or
Criterion) of Insufficient Reason could be used by analysts to develop a
full set of estimates. The Principle of Insufficient Reason states that,
if there is no reason to believe that one alternative is more likely
than any other, then all can be assumed to have the same probability.
For this to be true, the set of alternatives under consideration must be
mutually exclusive and exhaustive. According to the Principle of
Insufficient Reason, the ten categories presented in Table 5-1 could
each be assumed to have a likelihood of 10%. Using this estimate, a
weighted average for the percentage of automobiles needing to be
replaced could be developed.

# 5.3.2 [CMV Power Units]{.underline}

The CMV power units that might be involved in a CMV crash include truck
tractors, straight trucks, medium/heavy trucks, and buses. Damage to any
of power units in a CMV crash is likely to result in the creation of
solid wastes. Conversely, if such damage can be prevented through
regulations or other actions, material will be delay from entering the
Nation's solid waste stream.

***Truck Tractors***

Truck tractors are frequently involved in CMV crashes. Damage impact to
truck tractors in those crashes can range from minor dents to complete
destruction. It is not possible to predict the amount of damage that
each truck tractor involved in a CMV crash will receive.

The average or typical amount of scrap metal and ASR that could be
obtained from a typical truck tractor as a result of a CMV crash is
unknown. Some crashes may destroy potentially reusable or recyclable
components due to fire or compression. As a consequence, a hypothetical
truck tractor is used for this analysis. This hypothetical truck tractor
is based on information available from Volvo on certain of its FM12 and
FH12 truck tractor models. Table 5-3 contains information on the
materials in the hypothetical truck tractor.

## TABLE 5-3. LIST OF MATERIALS FOR A HYPOTHETICAL CMV TRUCK TRACTOR

+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| **Material**                | **Weight (Kg)**   | **Potential        |
|                             |                   | End-of-Life        |
|                             |                   | Destination**      |
+=============================+===================+====================+
| # Iron                      |                   |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Wrought, tempered          | 1,196             | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Cast                       | 1,478             | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| # Steel                     |                   |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Rod                        | 198               | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Hot-rolled                 | 1,645             | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Cold-rolled                | 925               | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| # Other metals              |                   |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Aluminum                   | 201               | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Lead (battery)             | 95                | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Copper                     | 14                | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Brass, bronze              | 9                 | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Stainless steel            | 15                | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| # Plastics                  |                   |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Thermoplastics             | 339               | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Reinforced thermoplastics  | 74                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Thermosetting plastics     | 6                 | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| # Other materials           |                   |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Rubber                      | 459               | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Glass                       | 60                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Textile, other fibers       | 57                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Paint                       | 13                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Brake pads                  | 22                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Oil, grease                 | 62                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Electronics                 | 56                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Sulfuric acid (battery)     | 36                | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Bitumen                     | 6                 | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Wood                        | 11                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Cooling agent (R134a)       | 1                 | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Glycol                      | 17                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Ethanol                     | 4                 | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| # TOTAL                     | 7,000             |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+

[Source for columns 1 and 2]{.underline}: Volvo, "Environmental Product
Declaration, Volvo FH12 and Volvo

FM12, Euro 3," p.5; [source for column]{.underline} 3: various.

In total, the hypothetical truck tractor weighs 15,432.2 pounds (7,000
kilograms). Of this, metals, tires, and the battery accounts for
13,827.3 pounds (6,272 kilograms). If the truck tractor were to be
totaled in a CMV crash, this material would likely be recycled. The
remaining 1604.9 pounds (728 kilograms) would be ASR.

Assuming that (1) a truck tractor contains 13,827.3 pounds (6,272
kilograms) of recyclable material and 1604.9 pounds (728 kilograms) of
non-recyclable material, (2) any metal scrap resulting from a CMV crash
will be recycled and any other scrap will be ASR that is sent to a
landfill, and (3) 94 percent of all vehicles at the end of their lives
are recycled, it is possible to develop estimates for the amount of ASR
going to landfills as a result of a truck tractor being involved in a
CMV crash. These estimates are presented in Table 5-4.

TABLE 5-4. QUANTITY OF ASR SENT TO LANDFILL FOR EACH TRUCK TRACTOR
INVOLVED IN A CMV CRASH

  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------
  **Percent of vehicle needing to be      **Kilograms of ASR sent to
  replaced**                              landfill**

  10                                      68

  20                                      137

  30                                      205

  40                                      274

  50                                      342

  60                                      411

  70                                      479

  80                                      547

  90                                      616

  100                                     684
  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------

To simplify the estimation, the calculations performed for Table 5-4
assume that metal and other material are uniformly distributed
throughout a vehicle. The estimates in Table 5-4 assume that only metal
parts are salvaged from truck tractors prior to shredding.

***Straight Trucks***

Information on straight trucks that could be used to estimate the amount
ASR that would be sent to a landfill as a result of a CMV crash is not
readily available. No estimate of the ASR can be made at this time.

***Medium/Heavy Trucks***

Information on medium/heavy trucks that could be used to estimate the
amount ASR that would be sent to a landfill as a result of a CMV crash
is not readily available. No estimate of the ASR can be made at this
time.

## 5.3.3 [Buses]{.underline}

There are a variety of CMV buses that might be involved in a CMV crash,
including intercity buses, suburban commuter buses, transit buses,
school buses, tour buses, and entertainer buses.

### *Intercity Buses*

Intercity buses, which tend to be 40-45 feet in length, carry 46-55
passengers, and have restrooms and underfloor baggage compartments, are
sometimes involved in CMV crashes. The damage to these buses resulting
from those crashes can run the gambit from minor dents to complete
destruction. It is not possible to predict the amount of damage that
each bus involved in a crash will receive.

The amount of scrap metal and ASR that could be generated by a typical
or average intercity bus involved in a CMV crash is unknown. As a
consequence, a hypothetical intercity bus is used for this analysis.
This hypothetical bus is based on information available from Volvo on
one of its bus models. Table 5-5 contains information the materials in
the hypothetical bus.

## TABLE 5-5. LIST OF MATERIALS FOR A HYPOTHETICAL INTERCITY BUS

+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| **Material**                | **Weight (Kg)**   | **Potential        |
|                             |                   | End-of-Life        |
|                             |                   | Destination**      |
+=============================+===================+====================+
| # Iron                      |                   |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Wrought                    | 502               | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Cast                       | 1,029             | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| # Steel                     |                   |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Rod                        | 2,408             | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Hot-rolled                 | 1,590             | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Cold-rolled                | 568               | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| # Other metals              |                   |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Aluminum                   | 1,666             | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Lead (battery)             | 90                | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Copper                     | 109               | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Brass, bronze              | 3                 | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Stainless steel            | 690               | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| # Plastics                  |                   |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Thermoplastics             | 295               | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Reinforced thermoplastics  | 132               | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| -Thermosetting plastics     | 126               | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| # Other materials           |                   |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Rubber                      | 405               | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Glass                       | 490               | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Textile, other fibers       | 23                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Paint                       | 30                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Oil, grease                 | 78                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Electronics                 | 56                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Sulfuric acid (battery)     | 34                | Recycled           |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Bitumen                     | 54                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Wood                        | 396               | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Glycol                      | 26                | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Other                       | 182               | Solid waste stream |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| # TOTAL                     | 10,900            |                    |
+-----------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+

[Source for columns 1 and 2]{.underline}: Volvo, "Environmental Product
Declaration, Volvo 8500 Low Entry,"

p.5; [source for column]{.underline} 3: various.

In total, the hypothetical bus weighs 24,030.1 pounds (10,900
kilograms). The bus identified for the calculations can also be referred
to as a "10+ metric ton bus." Of the total mass, metals, tires, and the
battery account for 20,048.6 pounds (9,094 kilograms). If the bus were
to be totaled in a CMV crash, this material would likely be recycled.
The remaining 4,157.9 pounds (1,886 kilograms) would be ASR.

The report makes the following assumptions: (1) a CMV bus contains
kilograms of recyclable material and kilograms of non-recyclable
material, (2) any metal scrap resulting from a CMV crash will be
recycled and any other scrap will be ASR that is sent to a landfill, and
(3) 94 percent of all vehicles at the end of their lives are recycled.
The amount of ASR going to landfills as a result of a CMV bus involved
in a crash can be calculated using these assumptions. These estimates
are presented in Table 5-6.

TABLE 5-6. QUANTITY OF ASR SENT TO LANDFILL FOR EACH INTERCITY BUS
INVOLVED IN A CMV CRASH

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Percent of vehicle needing to be      **Kilograms of ASR sent to
  replaced**                              landfill**
  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------
  10                                      177

  20                                      355

  30                                      532

  40                                      709

  50                                      886

  60                                      1,064

  70                                      1,241

  80                                      1,418

  90                                      1,596

  100                                     1,773
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

To simplify the estimation, the calculations performed for Table 5-6
assume that metal and other material are uniformly distributed
throughout a vehicle. The estimates in Table 5-6 assume that only metal
parts are salvaged from intercity buses prior to shredding.

It should be noted that suburban commuter, long-distance airport, and
top-end tour and entertainer buses are all generally similar to
intercity buses.

### *Other Buses*

Solid waster information on other types of bus including transit and
school buses, as well as on mid-size buses (20-35 feet in length, 16-35
passengers, some with restrooms) is not readily available. The ASR
estimate is limited to the intercity 10+ metric ton bus.

**5.4 CMV TRAILERS**

When a CMV crash occurs, sometimes at least one of the CMVs involved is
a tractor-trailer in combination. If the trailer is damaged, some part
of it may end up in a landfill. It should be noted that a CMV crash will
not necessarily involve a CMV trailer. CMV crashes may involve bobtails,
tractors without trailers, or buses.

The trailers variations include

-   Box semi-trailers,

-   Liquid tank trailers,

-   Gas tank trailers,

-   Dry bulk trailers,

-   Flatbed trailers,

-   Automobile trailers,

-   Special trailers, and

-   Intermodal chassis.

Information on trailer material composition is not readily available.
Consequently, estimates of the amount of material from a trailer that
might be sent to a landfill after a CMV crash cannot be estimated.
Analysts interesting in pursuing this further might want to start their
effort by contacting the Truck Trailer Manufacturers' Association
(TTMA).[^5]

**5.5 CMV CARGOES**

Cargo is another key source of potential solid waste from CMV crashes.
Cargo damaged in a CMV incident may be sent to a landfill or be burned
in an incinerator. It should be noted that a CMV crash will not
necessarily involve a CMV carrying a cargo. The CMV crash may involve a
tractor without a trailer, a bus, or a CMV making an empty backhaul.

Thousands of different types of cargoes are carried by CMVs. Those
cargoes are so varied and diverse that it is not possible to empirically
determine the fate of the goods after a crash impact. Consider the
following possible CMV crash examples: a CMV crash involving a full
garbage truck, a truck hauling a full load of watermelons, and a truck
hauling a full load of anvils. The cargo of the garbage truck, already
destined for a landfill, will not be impacted by the crash. Some or all
of the watermelons will likely be too damaged to consume and will be
diverted from their original destination to a landfill. The anvils, on
the other hand, are likely to survive the crash unscathed. If some do
not, the metal that they contain can be recycled. For another example,
consider a tanker load of gasoline involved in a CMV crash with an
automobile. If no gasoline leaks from the tanker, the gasoline can be
transferred to another vehicle and sent on to a gasoline station.
Additionally, a portion of any gasoline that does leak from the tanker
may be retrieved during site cleanup, reprocessed, and sold.

**5.6 CONCLUSIONS**

The usefulness of the information on the solid wastes resulting from CMV
crashes is severely limited. Estimates can be derived for additions to
the solid waste stream due to automobiles involved in CMV crashes. Rough
estimates can be derived for solid waste stream additions due to truck
tractors and intercity buses involved in CMV crashes. Estimates are not
readily available for any other additions to the solid waste stream.

At least in theory, the manufacturers of straight trucks, medium/heavy
trucks, transit buses, and various types of truck trailers should be
able to provide information on the composition of their conveyances.
This information could be used to develop estimates of the additions to
the solid waste stream that would result when the conveyances are
involved in a CMV crash. Rough estimates could be developed using cargo
composition straight averages conveyance composition if it was
available. More truly representative estimates could be developed with
information on the nature and composition of the national fleet. Better
estimates of the additions to the solid waste stream could be developed
if additional truck and bus manufacturers provided vehicle composition
information.

It is likely that cargoes damaged in CMV crashes contribute more to the
solid waste stream than anything else. Unfortunately, information on the
damages sustained by cargoes in crashes is not readily available, and it
may not exist. The insurance industry is generally paying for cargoes
lost due to CMV crashes and should have information on those losses.
Unfortunately, the information must be derived from insurers' general
category of losses, which includes theft. Cargo theft is reportedly a
significantly bigger problem for insurers than cargo damage/loss due to
vehicular accidents. Potentially, data on cargo losses due to accidents
could be purchased from the insurance industry. Alternatively, the
insurance industry might be able to provide a percentage breakdown
between theft and accident losses. With that information and the total
cost of both theft and accidents, a rough estimate of the dollar value
of losses due to accidents could be developed. This introduces another
problem: there is not necessarily a predictable correlation between the
value of a cargo and its pollution potential. Furthermore, there is not
necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between the value of a cargo and
its volume. Small cargoes may have a large cash value and other larger
cargoes may have nominal market value. Conversely, both loads would
contribute differing amounts of solid waste. Consequently, the insured
value of cargoes would not necessarily be representative of their impact
on the solid waste stream or on the Nation's landfills.

5.7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

There are many missing data elements that would be needed in order to
reliably estimate solid waste generated from CMV crashes. The missing
data includes the following:

-   Vehicles Involved - Number and type of vehicle involved in each type
    of CMV collision.

-   Totaled Vehicles -- Number of vehicles that have to be completed
    scrapped or significantly repaired to resume function

-   Type of Truck -- The type of truck influences the potential solid
    waste generated. For example concrete mixer will have different

-   Cargo loss -- Mass and volume of cargo loss. Mass and Volume could
    potentially be determined by studying average freight cargos and
    making assumptions that crashes involve average freight.

Additional research could potentially establish values for many of these
missing items. The insurance industry might prove to be an excellent
source of information to address these gaps. The insurance industry,
however, is likely to require payment for developing, estimating, or
locating any of the missing data relating to solid wastes.

#  6. REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abkowitz, M.D., Delorenzo, J.P., Duych, R., Greenberg, A., and
McSweeney, T. (2001). Assessing the Economic Effect of Incidents
Involving Truck Transport of Hazardous Materials. *Transportation
Research Record 1763*, Paper No. 01-0156, 125-129

Acton Spill Center Spill Database (2007). The Spill Center, Acton,
Massachusetts, Database Query

Agent, K., et al. (1995). Evaluation of Advanced Surveying Technology
for Accident Investigation, *Transportation Research Board*, No. 1485.

American Trucking Association (ATA) Foundation (1997). *Incident
Management: Challenges, Strategies, and Solutions for Advancing Safety
and Roadway Efficiency.* Final Report for Federal Highway
Administration, ATA, Alexandria, VA, February 1997.

Argonne National Laboratories, Transportation Technology R & D Center
(2006). GREET Model description:
<http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/>. Last updated: 2006.

Battelle (2001). *Comparative Risks of Hazardous Materials and
Non-Hazardous Materials Truck Shipment Accidents/Incidents.* Final
Report for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Battelle,
Columbus, OH, March 2001.

Brookshire, D.S., Crocker, T.D., and D'Arge, R.C. (1979). *Methods
Development for Assessing Air Pollution Control Benefits.* EPA
600/5-79-001. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.

Brookshire, D.S., Thayer, M.A., and Schulze, W.D., and D'Arge (1982).
Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches.
*The American Economic Review,* 72, 165-177.

Bureau of Census (2002). *Statistical Abstract of the United States*.
Washington DC: US Department of Commerce.

CCSP (2006). *Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for
Understanding and Reconciling Differences.* Karl, T. R., Hassol, S.J.,
Miller, C.D., Murray, W.L., editors Climate Change Science Program and
Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington DC, Synthesis and
Assessment Product 1.1 -- Final Report

Chan, C.C., Spengler, J.D., Ozkaynak, H., and Lefopoulou, M. (1991).
Commuter Exposures to VOCs in Boston, Massachusetts. *Journal of Air
Waste Management, Number* 41, Volume 12, 1594-1600.

Cambridge Systematics (2005). *Traffic Congestion and Reliability:
Trends and Advanced Strategies for Congestion Mitigation.* Final Report
for Federal Highway Administration, Cambridge Systematics, Cambridge,
MA, September 2005.

Chestnut, L.G., and Dennis, R.L. (1997). Economic Benefits of
Improvements in Visibility: Acid Rain Provisions of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments. *Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association*
47, 395-402.

Chestnut, L.G. and Rowe, R.D. (1990a). Economic Valuation of Changes in
Visibility: a State of the Science Assessment for NAPAP. In *Acid
Deposition: State of Science and Technology, Report 27, Methods for
Valuing Acidic Deposition and Pollution Effects.* Pp. 27-153 to 127-175.
Washington, DC: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program.

Chestnut, L.G. and Rowe, R.D. (1990b). *Preservation Values for
Visibility Protection at the National Parks.* Research Triangle Park,
NC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Economic Analysis Branch.

Chin, S.M., Franzese, O., Greene, D.L., Hwang, H.L., and Gibson, R.C.
(2002). Temporary Losses of Highway Capacity and Impacts on Performance.
Oak Ridge National Laboratories for U.S. Department of Energy. Under
Contract DE-AC05-00OR22725

Chin, S.M., Franzese, O., Greene, D.L., and Hwang, H.L. (2004).
Temporary Losses of Highway Capacity and Impacts on Performance: Phase
II. Oak Ridge National Laboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Under DE-AC05-00OR22725

Daniel, J. I, and Bekka, K. (2000). The Environmental Impact of Highway
Congestion Pricing. *Journal of Urban Economics* 47, 180-215.

Delucchi, M.A., Murphy, J., McCubbin D.R., and Kim, J. (1996a). The Cost
of Reduced Visibility due to Particulate Air Pollution from Motor
Vehicles. UC Davis, California, Institute for Transportation Studies,
Report 13 in series: *The Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in
the United States, based on 1990-1991 data*.

Delucchi, M.A. (1997). Emissions of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases from the
Production and Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity. UC Davis,
California, Institute for Transportation Studies.

Delucchi, M.A. (2000). Environmental externalities of motor vehicle use
in the US. *Journal of Transport Economics and Policy* 34, 135-168.

Delucchi, M.A., Murphy, J.J., and McCubbin, D.R. (2002). The health and
visibility cost of air pollution: a comparison of estimation methods.
*Journal of Environmental Management* 64, 139-152.

Delucchi, M.A., (2004) *Personal Non-Monetary Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use:
Report #4 in the series The Annualized Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use
in the United States*. Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Davis, Revised 2004.

De Vlieger, I., De Keukeleere, D., Kretzschmar, J.G. (2000).
Environmental Effects of Driving Behavior and Congestion Related to
Passenger Cars. *Atmospheric Environment,* 34, 4649-4655.

Dockerty, D.W., Schwartz, J., and Pope, C.A. (1995). Comments for
Original Investigators. *Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality,
Replication and Validation of Selected Studies.* Health Effects
Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 115-122.

Downs, A. (2004). *Still Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic
Congestion*, Brookings Institute Press, Washington DC 2004.

Environmental Defense (ED), (2006a). *Green Cars: End-of-Life Vehicle
Management*,
[http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/891_GC%5Feol%2Ehtm](http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/891_GC_eol.htm).

ED (2006b). *Green Cars, End-of-Life Vehicle Management: Auto Shredder
Residue, Volume-Percent Estimation*,
[http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/893_GC%5Fresidue%2Ehtm](http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/893_GC_residue.htm).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 1999. *Development and Validation
of Light-Duty Vehicle Modal Emissions and Fuel Consumption Values for
Traffic Models*. Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-068. Federal Highway
Administration. March 1999.

FHWA (2000). *2000 National Statistics.* Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC

FHWA (2002). *HERS-ST 2.0: Highway Economic Requirements System-State
Version.* Federal Highway Administration.

FHWA (2004). *2004 Highway Statistics.* Report No. FHWA-PL-05-013,
Office of Highway Policy Information (HPPI), FHWA US Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). (2001). Accident
and Incident online crash profiles (CPOL) database.

FMCSA (2004). Order 5610.1, NEPA Implementing Procedures and Policy for
Considering Environmental Impacts. 2004. (Appendix 18 -- Special Areas
of Consideration When Implementing NEPA...#3)

Gesing, A. (2004). Assuring the Continued Recycling of Light Metals in
End-of-Life Vehicles: A Global Perspective, August 2004, *JOM*: A
Hypertext-Enhanced Article,
<http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0408/Gesing-0408.html>.

Giuliano, G. (1989). *Incident Characteristics, Frequency, and Duration
on a High Volume Urban Freeway. Transportation Research Part A: General
23(5),* Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington DC, 27-37.

Glickman, T.S., Macauley, M.K., and Portney, P.R. (1991). Highway
Robbery: Social Costs of Hazardous Materials Incidents on the Capital
Beltway*.* *Transportation Research Record 1313*, 27-32.

Gomez-Ibanez, J.A. (1997). Estimating Whether Transport Users Pay Their
Way: The State of the Art. In David L. Greene, Donald W. Jones, and Mark
A. Delucchi, Eds. *The Full Costs and Benefits of Transportation,*
Chapter 3. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin.

Gotsch, S. (2006). Crash Course, *CCCUpFront*, Vol. III, Issue 2,
<http://www.cccis.com/static/upfront/issue08/feature_01.htm>

GREET (2002). *The Greenhouse Gas and Regulated Emissions for
Transportation (GREET) Model, Version 1.6,* Argonne National
Laboratories.

Grenzeback, L.R. et al. (1990). *Urban Freeway Gridlock Study:
Decreasing the Effects of Large Trucks on Peak-Period Urban Freeway
Congestion,"* Transportation Research Record, No. 1256

Harrington, W. and McConnell, V. (2003). *Motor Vehicles and the
Environment*: RFF Report, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC April
2003.

Great Lake Institute for Recycling Materials (1998). *Auto Recycling
Demonstration Project* Final Report, Great Lakes Institute for Recycling
Materials, January 23, 1998,
<http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ead-recycle-autofinal.pdf>.

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996). *Climate Change
1995: The Science of Climate Change.* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change; J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A.
Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, eds.; Cambridge University Press. Cambridge,
U.K.

IPCC (2001). *Climate Change 2001: The Science of Climate Change.*
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J.
Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A.
Johnson, eds.; Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K.

K.T. Analytics, Inc. and Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (1997).
*Review of Cost of Driving Studies*, 1997. Paper prepared for the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

Kulkarni, R.G., Stough R.R., and Haynes, K.E. (1996). Spin glass and
interactions of congestion and emissions: an exploratory step.
*Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies*, Volume 4, Issue
6.

Lan, C., and Hu, P. (1999). *Delays and Congestion Costs Caused by Truck
Incidents.* Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

Leach, M.A. Bauen, and N. Lucas, (1997). A systems approach to materials
flow in sustainable cities: A case study of paper. *J. Environmental
Planning and Management, 40 (6)*: 705-723, which adapted data from a
literature review by Hormandinger, G (1995): Fuel cells in
transportation, unpublished MSc thesis (University of London, Imperial
College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Centre for Environmental
Technology).

Malm, W.C. (1999). *Introduction to Visibility.* Cooperative Institute
for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA), National Park Service (NPS), NPS
Visibility Program CA2350-97-001, Fort Collins, CO

Marrack, D. (1995). All PM-10 are Not Biologically Equal. Presentation
at *International Conference on Particulate Matter, Health, and
Regulatory Issues.* Pittsburgh, PA, April 4-6 1995.

McClelland, G. et al. (1991) *Valuing Eastern Visibility: A Field Test
of Contingent Valuation Method*. USEPA Cooperative Agreement
#CR-815183-01-2. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.

McCubbin, D.R. and Delucchi, M.A. (1996). The Social Cost of the Health
Effects of Motor-Vehicle Air Pollution Motor. UC Davis, California,
Institute for Transportation Studies, Report 11 in series: *The
Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the United States, based
on 1990-1991 data*.

McCubbin, D.R. and Delucchi, M.A. (1999). The health costs of motor
vehicle related air pollution. *Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy* 33, 253-286.

Miller, Ted (2006). Phone conversations regarding methodology used in
*Revised Costs of Large Truck- and Bus-Involved Crashes*

Mineta, M.Y. (2006). *National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on
America's Transportation Network*. Speech delivered to the National
Retail Federation, May 16, 2006 Washington, DC

Meyer, M. (1994). Alternative Methods for Measuring Congestion Levels,
in *Curbing Gridlock: Peak Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion*,
Vol. 2, National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp 32-61

National League of Cities (2005). *The State of America's Cities 2005:
The Annual Opinion Survey of Municipal Elected Officials.* National
League of Cities, Washington, DC 2005.

National League of Cities (2006). *The State of America's Cities 2005:
The Annual Opinion Survey of Municipal Elected Officials.* National
League of Cities, Washington, DC 2005.

New York Times (2004). *Bumper to Bumper, Travelers Ride Out An I-95
Nightmare.* McFadden, R.D. and Cowan, A.L., March 26 Edition.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), (1992). Memorandum for Heads of
Executive Departments and Establishments: Guidelines and Discount Rates
for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. Circular No. A-94.

OMB (2006). *Draft 2006 Report to Congress on the Cost and Benefits of
Federal Regulations; Notice.* Congressional Federal Register.
Washington, DC. White House, Office of Management and Budget.

PHMSA (2004). *Guide for Preparing Hazardous Materials Incident
Reports.* U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Washington, DC.
January 2004 Revision.

PHMSA (2006). Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS).

Pope, C. Arden III et al. (1995). Particulate Air Pollution as a
Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of U.S. Adults. *American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine* 151, 669-674.

Romily, P. (1999). Substitution of bus for car travel in urban Britain:
an economic evaluation of bus and car exhaust emission and other costs.
*Transportation Research Part D 4*. 109-125.

SAE (1997). *Development of Data-Based Light-Duty Modal Emissions and
Fuel Consumption Models*. Society of Automotive Engineers. 972910.

SAE (2003). *Particulate Matter and Aldehyde Emissions from Idling
Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks.* Society of Automotive Engineers.
2003-01-0289.

Schrank, D. and Lomax, T. (2005). *2005 Urban Mobility Report.* Texas
Transportation Institute, The Texas A & M University System, May 2005.

Staudinger, J., and Keoleian, G.A. (2001). *Management of End-of Life
Vehicles (ELVs) in the US,* Center for Sustainable Systems, University
of Michigan, Report No. CSS01-01, March 2001,
<http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-01.pdf>.

Texas Transportation Institute (2006). Mobility Monitoring Program for
FHWA. Collaborative effort of Texas Transportation Institute and
Cambridge Systematics. <http://mobility.tamu.edu/mmp/>.

Transportation Research Board (1993). *Hazardous Materials Shipment
Information for Emergency Response,"* TRB Special Report 239, published
in book format National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Transportation Research Board (2003). *Safe and Quick Clearance of
Traffic Incidents: A Synthesis of Highway Practice*, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 318. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.

Turner, S.M., Lomax, T.J., and Levinson, H.S. (1996). Measuring and
Estimating Congestion Using Travel-Time Based Procedures, TRB Paper No.
961238, presented at the 75^th^ Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.

Ullman, G.L., and Ogden, M.A. (1996). Analysis of Major Freeway
Incidents in Houston, Texas. *Transportation Research Record 1554*,
221-227.

USC Title 42 (2005). United States Code pertaining to non-attainment
areas
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007509----000-.html>

US Department of Energy (2007). *Fuel Economy Guide*. U.S. Department of
Energy.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (1998). *National Air Quality
and Emissions Trends Report* 1996. EPA-454/R-97-013. Research Triangle
Park, NC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.

US EPA (2000). *2018 Milestone Benefits Assessment of BART reductions in
Nine Western States (Draft Report).* US Environmental Protection Agency,
August 2000.

US EPA (2001). *RCRA, Superfund, & EPCRA Call Center Training Module:
Definition of Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Recycling*.

US EPA (2002). *MOBILE Motor Vehicle Emission Factor Model, version
6.1/6.2,* US Environmental Protection Agency, June 2002.

US EPA (2003). *User's Guide to Mobile 6.1 and Mobile 6.2: Mobile Source
Emission Factor Model,* Ann Arbor, MI: US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Assessment and Standards Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality.

US EPA (2005a). *Regulatory Impact Analysis for Final Clean Air Act
Interstate Rule.* US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Emission,
Monitoring, and Analysis Division, and Clean Air Markets Division,
Washington DC, March 2005.

US EPA (2005b). *Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air
Visibility Rule or Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) Determinations Under the Regional Haze Regulations.* US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Air
Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Emission, Monitoring, and
Analysis Division, and Clean Air Markets Division, Washington DC, June
2005.

US EPA (2006a). EPA Green Book, Criteria Pollutants Section. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.
<http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/o3co.html#Ozone>

US EPA (2006b). *Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources.* U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and
Standards Division, Washington DC, February 2006.

US EPA (2006c). *2006 Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks.* Washington DC, US Environmental Protection Agency.

US EPA (2006d). US Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Air
Pollutants: <http://www.epa.gov/oar/toxicair/newtoxics.html>

US EPA (2006e). *Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy
Trends: 1975 through 2006.* Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
EPA420-R-06-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

US EPA (2007). US Environmental Protection Agency. Mobil Source Air
Toxics. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm#what>

US Department of Transportation (DOT), (2001). *Senate Confirmation
Committee Hearing for then Secretary-Designate Norma Y. Mineta*, January
24, 2001.

US DOT (2002). *Status of the Nation\'s Highways, Bridges, and Transit:\
2002 Conditions and Performance Report.* U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

US DOT (2002a). Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Volume 2, Part
173, October 2002

US DOT (2004). *Emergency Response Guidebook*, A Guidebook for First
Responders During the Initial Phase of a Dangerous Goods/Hazardous
Materials Incident, developed jointly by the US DOT, the Secretariat of
Transport and Communications of Mexico (SCT) and with the collaboration
of CIQUIME (Centro de Informacion Quimica para Emergencias) of
Argentina.

US DOT (2005). Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System, HMIRS Data
Definitions and Codes, prepared by: Catapult Technology Ltd., April
2005.

US DOT (2006a). *Congestion Working Group Action Plan: A Seven Point
Strategy for Reducing Congestion on the U.S. Transportation Network.*
Presentation, May 2006.

US DOT (2006b). Memorandum -- Rulemaking Cost-Benefit Charts.
Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary

US DOT (2006c). Memorandum -- Rulemaking Cost-Benefit Charts.
Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary

Volvo (2001a). *Environmental Product Declaration, Volvo 8500 Low
Entry*,
<http://www.volvo.com/NR/rdonlyres/F3E032FE-CBB1-4ED3-9AEE-8E1D5D33F519/0/epd_volvo_8500_low_entry.pdf>

Volvo (2001b) *Environmental Product Declaration, Volvo FH12 and Volvo
FM12, Euro 3*
<http://www.volvo.com/NR/rdonlyres/E8FD3F6B-B06B-4EBE-BA7D-A529AFE0BFD0/0/euro3_03.pdf>

Wang, M. (2002). *Assessment of Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions of Fishcer-Tropsch Diesel*. Report for US Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Produced by
the Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratories.

Wang, Q.W. and D.J. Santini, (1995). Monetary Values of Air Pollutant
Emissions in Various US Regions. *Transportation Research Record 1475.*
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Washington Post (2006). Fatal I-95 Wreck Felt Across Region: 10-Mile
Traffic Backup Spills Onto Surrounding Arteries*.* Reporters: Dan Morse
and Clarence Williams. *Washington Post* Newspaper, April 14, 2006; Page
B01.

Watkins, P., Arnoff, D., Downing, T., Hepburn, C., Hope, C., Hunt, A.,
and Tol, R. (2005). *The Social Cost of Carbon: Methodological
Approaches for Using SCC Estimates in Policy Assessment.* Oxford, United
Kingdom.

Watson, J.G. and Chow, J.C. (1994). Clear sky as a challenge for
society. *Annual Review of Energy and Environment* 19, 241-266.

Zaloshnja, E., and Miller T. (2002). *Revised Costs of Large Truck- and
Bus-Involved Crashes.* Calverton, Maryland. For the US Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

[^1]: This report was updated in 2006, and it is expected that this
    update will replace the 2002 version in FMCSA economic analyses in
    the very near future.

[^2]: Defined in the American National Standard Institute -- "Manual on
    Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents" (ANSI D1.6,
    Section 2.4.1).

[^3]: Defined in the American National Standard Institute -- "Manual on
    Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents" (ANSI D16.1,
    Section 2.4.2).

[^4]: It should be recognized that there is considerable uncertainty in
    the data used to generate this estimate.

[^5]: The website for TTMA can be found at <http://www.ttmanet.org/>.