# COMPARATIVE RISKS OF

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

AND NON

- HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS TRUCK SHIPMENT

ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS

Final Report

Prepared for

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

March 2001

5 05 King Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201

### Final Repo rt

—March 2001 

### i 

# Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. ES

- 1

1.0 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1

- 1

1.1 Purpose and Organization

................................ ................................ ................... 1

- 1

1.2 Hazardous Materials Transportation

................................ ................................ ... 1

- 2

1.3 Hazardous Material Flow

................................ ................................ .................... 1

- 3

2.0 Study Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 1

2.1 Accident and Incident Data Source s

................................ ................................ ... 2

- 1

2.2 Methodology for Estimating Accidents/Incidents

................................ ............... 2

- 5

2.3 Impact Methodology

................................ ................................ ........................... 2

- 10

2.4 Impact Summary Discussion

................................ ................................ ............... 2

- 25

3.0 High Consequence Low Probability Accidents

................................ ............................. 3

- 1

3.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3

- 1

3.2 Event Tree Application

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

- 1

4.0 Accident a nd Incident Numbers and Impacts

................................ ................................ 4

- 1

4.1 Accident and Incident Likelihood

................................ ................................ ....... 4

- 1

4.2 Shipment Impact Summary

................................ ................................ ................. 4

- 2

5.0 Impact Summary by HM Category

................................ ................................ ................ 5

- 1

5.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 5

- 1

5.2 HM Category 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

................................ ................................ ................... 5

- 1

5.3 HM Category 1.4, 1.5, 1.6

................................ ................................ ................... 5

- 1

5.4 HM Category 2.1

................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

- 1

5.5 HM Category 2.2

................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

- 9

5.6 HM Category 2.3

................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

- 9

5.7 HM Category 3

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5

- 9

5.8 HM Category 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

................................ ................................ ................... 5

- 10

5.9 HM Category 5.1, 5.2

................................ ................................ .......................... 5

- 10

5.10 HM Category 6.1, 6.2

................................ ................................ .......................... 5

- 10

5.11 HM Category 7

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5

- 10

5.12 HM Category 8

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5

- 10

5.13 HM Category 9

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5

- 11

5.14 All HM Categories

................................ ................................ .............................. 5

- 11

# Table of Contents (Continued)

Final Report

—March 2001 ii 

## Page

6.0 Non

- Hazardous Materials Accident Totals and Impacts

................................ ............... 6

- 1

6.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 6

- 1

6.2 Accident and Incident Totals

................................ ................................ ............... 6

- 1

6.3 Non

- HM Accident Impacts

................................ ................................ ................. 6

- 1

6.4 Non

- HM Accident Risk and Cost per Mile

................................ ......................... 6

- 2

7.0 Comparative Impacts and Risk of HM and Non

- HM Shipments

................................ .. 7

- 1

7.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 7

- 1

7.2 Comparative Costs

................................ ................................ .............................. 7

- 1

7.3 Comparative Risk and Cost per Mile

................................ ................................ .. 7

- 1

7.4 Discussion

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 7

- 4

8.0 SafeStat Applications

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8

- 1

8.1 Introduction to SafeStat

................................ ................................ ....................... 8

- 1

8.2 Current Role of HM in the SafeStat Algorithm

................................ .................. 8

- 1

8.3 SafeStat HM Analysis

................................ ................................ ......................... 8

- 2

8.4 Changes in SafeStat Applications

................................ ................................ ....... 8

- 4

9.0 HM Database Assessments and Recommendations

................................ ...................... 9

- 1

9.1 Purpose and Organization

................................ ................................ ................... 9

- 1

9.2 Opportunities for Database Improvement

................................ ........................... 9

- 2

9.3 Recommendations and Conclusions

................................ ................................ .... 9

- 5

10.0 Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10

- 1

10.1 Project Significance

................................ ................................ ............................. 10

- 1

10.2 Project Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10

- 2

10.3 Recommendations for Future Projects

................................ ................................ 10

- 3



# List of Appendices

A ppendix A. State Hazardous Material Flo ws

................................ ................................ ...... A

- 1

Appendix B Database Search Criteria

................................ ................................ .................. B

- 1

Appendix C. Accident Information for Class 3, Class 2.1, and Class 8

................................ C

- 1

Appendix D Natural Resource Damages Settlements

................................ .......................... D

- 1

Appendix E Class 2.1 Releases

................................ ................................ ............................ E

- 1

Appendix F Impact Case Examples

................................ ................................ ..................... F

- 1

Appendix G References

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ G

- 1

# Table of Contents (Continued)

Final Report

—March 2001 iii 

# List of Tables

Page

Table 1. Class 3 Truck Shipments

—Estimated Unique Accidents for 1996

.................. 2

- 9

Table 2. Class 2.1 Truck Shipments

—Estimated Unique Accidents for 1995

– 1997

..... 2

- 9

Table 3. Class 8 Truck Shipments

—Estimated Uniqu e Accidents for 1995

– 1997

........ 2

- 10

Table 4. Distribution of VMT by Functional Class and Vehicle Type

............................. 2

- 18

Table 5. Summary of Steps

................................ ................................ ............................... 2

- 22

Table 6. Initiating Event Frequency and Event Tree Branch Probabilities

for Various Classes/Divisions of HM Being Tran sported by Truck

................... 3

- 9

Table 7. Initiating Event Frequency and Event Tree Branch Probabilities

for Division 2.3 (Poison Gases) by Truck

................................ ........................... 3

- 10

Table 8. Initiating Event Frequency and Event Tree Branch Probabilities

for Class 7 (Radioactive) by Truck

................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 1 0

Table 9. HM Accident and Incident Likelihood

................................ ................................ 4

- 1

Table 10. Enroute Release Accident Types

................................ ................................ ......... 4

- 2

Table 11. Estimated Annual Accident and Incident Impacts (Costs)

................................ .. 4

- 3

Table 12. Estimated Annual Release Accident Impact Costs

................................ ............. 4

- 3

Table 13. Average Accident /Incident Costs for the Portrait Year

................................ ....... 4

- 5

Table 14. Average Accident Costs for the Portrait Year

................................ ..................... 4

- 5

Table 15. Average Impacts per Accident as if the High Consequence/Infrequent Accident

had Occurred in the Portrait Year Compared to Average Costs for tha t Year

.... 4

- 6

Table 16. Enroute Accidents: Total HM (Release/Non

- Release) Impact Components

...... 4

- 7

Table 17. Enroute Accident: Total Releases, Impact Components

................................ ..... 4

- 9

Table 18. Enroute Accident: Release Only, Impacts Components

................................ ..... 4

- 9

Table 19. Enroute Accident: Fire, Impact Components

................................ ...................... 4

- 10

Table 20. Enroute Accident: Explosion Impact Components

................................ ............. 4

- 10

Table 21. Enroute Accidents Non

- Release Accidents Impact Components

....................... 4

- 11

Table 22. Leak Enroute Impact Components

................................ ................................ ...... 4

- 11

Table 23. Loading/Unloading Incidents

................................ ................................ .............. 4

- 12

Table 24. HM Accident Rate Per Mile

................................ ................................ ................ 4

- 13

Table 25. HM Accident/Incident Risk Per Mile (Includes Leak Enroute Incidents)

.......... 4

- 13

Table 26. HM Accident Cost Per Mile

................................ ................................ ................ 4

- 14

Table 27. HM Accident/Incident Cost Per Mile (Includes Leak Enroute)

.......................... 4

- 14

Table 28. C ategory 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

................................ ................................ .......................... 5

- 2

Table 29. Category 1.4, 1.5, 1.6

................................ ................................ .......................... 5

- 2

Table 30. Category 2.1

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5

- 3

Table 31. Category 2.2

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5

- 3

Table 32. Category 2.3

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5

- 4

Table 33. Category 3.0

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5

- 4

Table 34. Category 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

................................ ................................ .......................... 5

- 5

Table 35. Category 5.1, 5.2

................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

- 5

Table 36

. Category 6.1, 6.2

................................ ................................ ................................ . 5

- 6

Table 37. Category 7

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 5

- 6

Table 38. Category 8

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 5

- 7

Table 39. Category 9

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 5

- 7

Table 40. All HM Categories

................................ ................................ .............................. 5

- 8

# Table of Contents (Continued)

Final Report

—March 2001 iv 

# List of Tables (Continued)

Page

Table 41. Estimated Non

- HM Accidents in 1996

................................ ............................... 6

- 1

Table 42. Estimated Annual Non

- HM Accident Impacts

................................ ................... 6

- 2

Table 43. HM and Non

- HM Accident Rate per Mile

................................ .......................... 7

- 2

Table 44. HM Accident and Non

- HM Accident Cost per Mile

................................ .......... 7

- 4

Table 45. Effect of Removing All HM Weightings

from the SafeStat Scoring Algorithm

................................ ................................ .. 8

- 7

Table 46. Effect of Adding N on

- Spill Accidents to the Accident SEA Algorithm

............ 8

- 8

Table 47. Effect of Doubling Weight of Spill and Non

- Spill Accidents

to the Accident SEA Algorithm

................................ ................................ .......... 8

- 8

Table 48. Effect of Scoring all Bulk HM with Accident SEA >70

................................ ..... 8

- 10

Table 49. Effect of Includin g Bulk Carriers with ACSEA Scores >70 and

Adding Non

- Spill to the Spill Accidents and Doubling the Weighting

.............. 8

- 10



# List of Figures

Figure 1. Demand and Bottleneck Traffic Flows

................................ ............................... 2

- 16

Figure 2. Level of Service Versus Delay Traffic Volume

................................ .................. 2

- 19

Figure 3. Level of Service Versus Delay Traffic Volume

................................ .................. 2

- 20

Figure 4. Event Tree Used to Model Division 1.1, 1.4, 2.1,

Class 3 and Class 9 Accidents

................................ ................................ ............. 3

- 2

Figure 5. Event Tree Used to Model Division 2.2, Classes 5, 6, and 8 Accidents

............. 3

- 3

Figure 6. Event Tree U sed to Model Class 4 Accidents

................................ ..................... 3

- 4

Figure 7. Event Tree Used to Model Division 2.3 Accidents

................................ ............. 3

- 5

Figure 8. Event Tree Used to Model Class 7 Accidents

................................ ..................... 3

- 6

### Final Report

—March 2001 ES

- 1



# COM PA RATIVE RISKS OF HAZARDOUS M ATERIALS AND

NON

- HAZARDOUS M ATERIALS TRUCK SHIPMENT

ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS

Executive Summary

his project was designed to assist the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) in

achieving their strategic goal of reducing the rate and severity of transportation fatalities

and injuries in hazardous materials (HM) transportation and of reducing the dollar loss from

high

- consequence, transportation accidents. The purpose of this project is to assess the additional

risks posed by

HM transportation when compared to non

- hazardous shipments. The results will

also be used to assist the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in identifying high

risk motor carriers.

The project has been divided in three phases.

• The init ial portion of the first phase characterized for one year the shipment impacts of Class 3

shipments and assessed the feasibility of conducting a comprehensive risk assessment of HM

and non

- HM shipments. The feasibility study results were published in the Plan for Assessing

the Feasibility for Conducting a Comparative Risk Assessment on Hazardous Materials and

Non

- hazardous Materials Movements, June 1999.

• The second part of the first phase characterized the one

- year shipment impacts of Class 2.1 and

Class 8 and provided a preliminary estimate of the impacts of non

- HM shipments. Two white

papers, Potential for Integrating Hazmat Transportation Risk Assessment into Safestat and

Incorporating Severe Class 3 and Class 2.1 Accidents into the Truck Transportati on Risk

Assessment

were produced by the project in 1999.

• The project’s second phase was the actual comparative risk assessment between HM and non

HM truck shipments. To obtain the overall HM risk, the study calculated the risk associated

with each clas s/division of hazardous material. With the completion of the second phase of the

project, the risk associated with the shipment of any class/division of HM can be compared to

the risk associated with other classes/divisions as well as to the shipment of n on

- HM materials.

• The third phase of the project focused on a possible application of the HM risk results.

Specifically, the study assessed how HM risk information is currently being used in the SafeStat

program to identify potentially unsafe HM carrier s. With these results in hand, the assessment

then focused on how the HM risk information obtained during the first two phases of the study

could be applied to the SafeStat algorithm to better identify “high risk” HM carriers.

• For comparative purposes, t he risk assigned was applied to 12 HM categories, consisting of

classes and divisions or groups of divisions as follows: 

# T

### Final Report

—March 2001 ES

- 2



## • Class 1: Divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

—all have the potential for mass detonation

• Class 1: Divisions 1.4, 1.5, 1.6

— characteristics m ake mass detonation unlikely

• Class 2 : Division 2.1

—Flammable gases

• Class 2 : Division 2.2

—Non

- flammable gases

• Class 2: Division 2.3

—Poisonous gases

• Class 3: Flammable liquids (and combustible liquids)

• Class 4: Division 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

—Flammable solids; spontaneously combustible materials

and dangerous when wet materials

• Class 5: Division 5.1, 5.2

—Oxidizers and organic peroxides

• Class 6: Division 6.1, 6.2

—Toxic (poison) materials and infectious substances

• Class 7: Radioactive materials

• Class 8: Corr osive materials

• Class 9: Miscellaneous dangerous goods

.

Adding non

- HM transport brought the total number of categories of materials being assessed to 13

.

This report analyzes events involving the transportation of hazardous material that may or may not

r esult in the release of hazardous material to the environ ment. These events are defined as accidents

and incidents. An accident is defined here as an event that occurs when the vehicle transporting the

goods is involved in a collision. Any accident inv olving the shipment of HM would be considered

as a HM accident regardless of whether any of the material was spilled or was exposed to the

atmosphere. Similarly, a non

- HM shipment accident would be considered as a non

- HM shipment

accident even if fuel fro m the tractor spilled during an accident. An event that occurs when the

vehicle transporting the goods spills some of the HM cargo but is not involved in a collision is

termed an enroute incident. An event resulting in the spill or release of HM material during loading

or unloading is defined as a loading/unloading incident.

An initial step in developing a risk assessment is to estimate reliably the number of accidents and

incidents across a defined period of time. For the first phase, estimates were d eveloped for Class 3,

Division 2.1, and Class 8 truck shipment incidents and accidents for a representative year. The

Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS) database served as the baseline database. T he

HMIS represents the only national database o f hazardous materials, highway transportation

incidents with details of the material, packaging and consequences involved. To be more complete,

the data found in the HMIS were supplemented with data from other federal and state databases.

The most import ant of these was the Motor Carrier Manage ment Information System (MCMIS)

accident database that provides accident information for both spill and no

- spill accidents. The study

determined underreporting rates for Class 3, Division 2.1, and Class 8 accident s and incidents by

examining the same accident in several databases. These underreporting factors were then applied

to the other HM categories to develop accident and incident likelihoods for an annual portrait.

A key portion of this assessment was the consideration of the impacts of high consequence/low

frequency accidents. First, these severe accidents were identified through an examination of the

historical record during the past fifty years. Next, the study obtained the likelihood of occurrence

by estimating the fraction of the accidents represented by the accident sequence that would, based

on the historical record, likely to be severe. Thus, a total likelihood of accidents for the portrait year

was developed for all of the HM categories.

### Final Report

—March 2001 ES

- 3



## The ave rage annual enroute HM accident frequency was estimated to be 2,484 accidents. The

release accidents are estimated at 768. Average annual enroute leak incidents totaled 1,455 and

loading/unloading incidents totaled 10,746.

Class 3 shipments account for about 64 percent of the enroute accidents with releases and about 52

percent of the non

- release accidents. Class 3 shipments along with categories 2.1, 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, 8,

and 9, represent about 94 percent of all enroute accidents with releases and about 93 percent of all

enroute non

- release accidents.

Classes 3 and 8 alone are involved in about 77 percent of all of the enroute leaks in the year. For

loading and unloading incidents, these two classes were involved in about 84 percent of all

incidents.

To derive an estimate of the economic impact of incidents/accidents for the annual portrait, the

following impact categories were considered:

• Injuries and Deaths

• Cleanup Costs

• Property Damage

• Evacuation

• Product Loss

• Traffic Incident Delay

• Environmental Damage.

The study reviewed several sources of information to establish reasonable estimates of the

economic impacts of each consequence. A literature review was conducted, as was an evaluation

of the utility of the federal and state databases. Impact es timates not readily available from the

above sources, such as incident delay, were modeled. Finally, all impacts were converted to dollars

to permit comparison and to compile total impact cost.

The HMIS proved to be an important source of impact costs f or product loss, cleanup costs, and

property damage. Injuries and deaths were valued to be the amount the USDOT would be willing

to spend to avoid an injury or death. This averaged out to be $200,000 to avoid an injury and

$2,800,000 to avoid a fatality.

Traffic incident delay was established as the total number of people delayed at an incident or

accident multiplied by $15 per hour. The size of an average spill and the value placed on

environmental contamination as determined by an average of 30 legal settlements constituted an

estimate of environmental damage.

Total HM annual impacts for the portrait year are estimated at about $1.2 billion. Enroute accidents

with total impacts of just over $1 billion account for about 89 percent of the total impacts

. Accidents with a release of HM with impacts of $416 million account for a total of about 40 percent

of the enroute accident impacts. Within the release accident category, accidents with a fire and

accidents with an explosion have total impacts of $139 million or about 34 percent of the total cost

of enroute release accidents. The consequences of these accidents are important because they make

up only about 12 percent of the total number of enroute release accidents. Non

- release accidents

make up about

60 percent of the total enroute accident impacts in the annual portrait.

### Final Report — March 2001 ES-4 

## Leaks enroute at $72 million account for an additional six percent and loading/unloading incidents

at $53.5 million accounts for about five percent of the impacts.

Class 3 represents 56 percent of all of the impacts, while categories 8, 2.1, 2.2, and 9 represent 13

percent, 9 percent, 6 percent, and 7 percent respectively. These five categories alone account for

approximately 91 percent of the estimated annual impacts for HM shipments. No other category

accounts for more than three percent of the total impacts.

Injuries and fatalities dominated the impact costs. For both release and non-release accidents

combined, injuries represent about 40 percent of the impact costs. Fatalities represent about 40

percent of all impact costs for enroute accidents. Thus, injuries and fatalities together account for

about 80 percent of the impact cost. Incident delay for both release and non-release enroute

accidents add up to about nine percent of the total cost. Carrier, property damage, and product loss

together represent about eight percent of the total. Clean up, environmental damage, and

evacuations account for the remaining three percent of impacts.

Non-HM shipments experienced an estimated 126,880 accidents in the portrait year. After

compensating for underreporting, there were an estimated 5,009 fatalities and 109,779 injuries.

These injuries and fatalities result in impact costs of about $43 billion. All but $7 billion of that

cost results from injuries and fatalities.

All release and non-release enroute accidents for all of the HM categories for the annual portrait

year have an average value of about $414,000 per accident, while non-HM accidents averaged

about $340,000 per accident. This difference is magnified when non-HM accident impacts are

compared with HM release impacts. In the annual portrait year, the average cost per HM accident

release is about $536,000. The average impact cost of a release accident with a fire or one with an

explosion compared to the average cost of a non-HM accident shows an even greater contrast.

The non-HM accident rate of 0.73 per million vehicle miles is more than double the average HM

accident rate of 0.32 per million vehicle miles. This comparison is based on estimated mileage

figures from the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS). As stated above, the annual economic

impact of non-HM truck accidents is over $43 billion, considerably higher than for HM truck

incidents. Although due primarily to a much larger volume of transport activity, the estimated nonHM truck accident rate is also reflected in the impact cost per vehicle-mile.

Hazardous material shipments make up between four and eight percent of all shipments. Given this

small percentage, the cost of non-HM accidents clearly dominates the cost of HM accidents.

Although the average cost of an accident is higher for HM, these higher costs are not nearly enough

to overcome the large disparity in shipment volume between HM and non-HM shipments by truck.

Taking these observations into consideration, one should view the results of this risk assessment in

the context of establishing a general estimate or bound on the financial impact of this problem

rather than a precise valuation. This project represents a systematic attempt to benchmark the

financial implications of the problem based on the best available data. We anticipate that

meaningful research and policy inferences can be derived for risk management purposes.

The SafeStat algorithm was evaluated to determine the appropriate inclusion of the risk of

hazardous materials shipments in the FMCSA carrier selection process. Potential changes in how

### Final Report

—March 2001 ES

- 5



## HM is used in the algorithm were the focus of this effort. At the present time, about 1.6 pe rcent of

the bulk HM carriers are identified as potentially unsafe carriers and are therefore subjected to a

compliance review. However, the risk assessment results show that the cost associated with the

transport of bulk HM by truck represents over two p ercent of the total truck accident risk. Thus, the

current SafeStat algorithm under represents bulk HM carriers. Several alternative scenarios for

increasing this percentage were subsequently defined and evaluated. Based on these results, the

recommenda tions formulated state that all bulk HM carriers with a D score should undergo a

compliance review. In addition, the scoring algorithm should be changed for bulk HM carriers to

include all ACSEA scores greater than 70. Finally, the accident weighting for HM accidents should

be expanded to include both spill and non

- spill accidents. Currently, SafeStat uses only HM spill

accidents in the accident weighting.

The HM risk assessment results presented in this study made extensive use of DOT, Census Bureau

and State supported databases. While these results would not be possible without the availability of

these databases, limitations of the study can in part be linked to their deficiencies. The study

concludes with recommendations, such as investigating wa ys to cross

- reference the TIFA, MCMIS,

and HMIS databases and determining the causes of HM accidents. These would enable FMSCA to

improve its safety performance monitoring capabilities. The benefit of such improvements would

be a reduction in the expense associated with maintaining the databases and in the availability of

additional information, such as causal factors, that could be used to develop programs to improve

the safety of both HM and non

- HM truck transport.

### Final Report

—March 2001 1

- 1 

# 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Organization

he United States Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) 1997 Draft Strategic Plan

recognizes safety as its most important strategic goal and commits to promoting the public

health and safety by working t owards the elimination of transportation related deaths,

injuries, and property damage. This project was designed to assist DOT in achieving this strategic

goal by reducing the rate and severity of transportation fatalities and injuries in hazardous mater ials

transportation and the dollar loss from high

- consequence transportation accidents. Additionally, the

FMCSA 2000

- 2001 Hazardous Materials Program Plan stresses the identification of high risk

carriers for compliance reviews as a primary strategy for t he reduction of hazardous materials

incidents. The information developed in this project will be directed toward that strategy.

The long

- term purpose of this project is to assess the additional risks posed by hazardous materials

(HM) highway truck shipme nts when compared to non

- hazardous materials (non

- HM) highway

truck shipments. Specifically, the project focuses on benchmarking the risk associated with HM

highway transportation as compared to the transportation of non

- HM. A second purpose of the

proje ct is to develop a transportation risk assessment model that will enable the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to identify programs that can result in the greatest

improvement in safety. Additionally, the FMSCA must be able to break down the HM risk

assessment into hazard classes so that experts can compare the costs associated with accidents/

incidents for each class. The distinction among hazard classes is based on the regulatory hazard

classification system that includes nine classes with divisions contained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) part 172.101 (49CFR Part 172).

The project was divided into three phases.

• The initial portion of Phase I characterized the shipment impacts for one year of Class 3 HM

shipments and assesse d the feasibility of conducting a comprehensive risk assessment of HM

and non

- HM shipments. Class 3 materials were selected because of their relative importance

among HM shipments in volume and their potential for injury and damage during an accident.

Th e characterization of the one

- year of impacts of Class 3 HM shipments is contained in this

report. The assessment of the feasibility of conducting a comprehensive risk assessment of HM

and non

- HM shipments is contained in the Plan for Assessing the Feasib ility for Conducting a

Comparative Risk Assessment on Hazardous Materials and Nonhazardous Materials

Movements , April 1999.

The second portion of Phase I characterized the shipment impacts for one year of Class 2.1 and

Class 8 shipments as well as a pre liminary annual portrait of non

- HM shipments. These

characteriza tions are also contained in this report.

The project’s first phase also produced the two white papers: Potential for Integrating Hazmat

Transportation Risk Assessment into SafeStat and T he Identifica tion of High Consequence Low

Frequency Class 3 Hazmat Transportation Accidents. The papers were produced in late 1999. 

# T

### Final Report

—March 2001 1

- 2



## • Phase II of the project produced the actual comparative risk assessment between HM and non

HM truck shipments. The overa ll HM risk depends on the risk associated with each class/

division of hazardous material. They are calculated for this report. Thus, with the completion

of Phase II of the project, the risk associated with the shipment of any class/division of HM can

be compared to the risk associated with other classes/divisions as well as to the shipment of

non

- HM materials.

• Phase III of this project uses the information developed for the first two phases and analyzes the

SafeStat algorithm to determine the appropria te inclusion of the risk of hazardous materials in

the FMCSA carrier selection process.



# 1.2 Hazardous Materials Transportation

A hazardous material shipment is cargo that is part or all hazardous material according to the Code

of Federal Regulations (49C FR). An incident involving the shipment of HM is defined in 49 CFR

parts 171.15 and 171.16 and includes criteria for non

- spill accidents. In the CFR, hazardous

materials are separated into the following classes (49CFR Part 171):

• Class 1

—Explosives

• Cla ss 2

—Gases

• Class 3

—Flammable liquids (and combustible liquids)

• Class 4

—Flammable solids; spontaneously combustible materials and dangerous when wet

materials

• Class 5

—Oxidizers and organic peroxides

• Class 6

—Toxic (poison) materials and infectious substances

• Class 7

—Radioactive materials

• Class 8

—Corrosive materials

• Class 9

—Miscellaneous dangerous goods

.

The majority of classes are segmented into divisions. For purposes of comparing risks, this analysis

employed a finer categorization of haza rdous materials. Specifically, risks were developed for the

following classes and divisions or groups of divisions of HM. These are called categories in the

report.

• Class 1: Divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

- all have the potential for mass detonating

• Class 1: D ivisions 1.4, 1.5, 1.6

- characteristics make mass detonation extremely unlikely

• Class 2: Division 2.1

- Flammable Gases

• Class 2: Division 2.2

- Non

- flammable Gases

• Class 2: Division 2.3

- Poisonous Gases

• Class 3

• Class 4: Division 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

• Class 5: D ivision 5.1, 5.2

• Class 6: Division 6.1, 6.2

• Class 7

• Class 8

• Class 9

### Final Report

—March 2001 1

- 3



## This risk assessment considered a total of 12 different categories of hazardous materials. Adding

non

- HM transport brings the total number of categories of materials assessed to 13

.



# 1.3 Hazardous Material Flow

An essential element of the annual characterization of HM shipments is a description of traffic

flows. An estimate of transportation flows for all truck traffic and for all hazardous materials can

be derived from several sourc es.

One source is the 1993 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996).

The (CFS) is a component of the quinquennial Census of Transportation that is designed to sample

the economic activity of the transportation of goods by mode of t ransportation. The 1993

Commodity Flow Survey provides an estimate of ton

- miles for all commodities shipped and an

approximate estimate of the percentage of HM shipments of this total volume. The report shows

that all commodities were shipped an estimate d 869,536,000,000 ton

- miles in 1993 with hazardous

materials comprising about 74,410,000,000 ton miles of this total. Hazardous materials represent

about 8.5 percent of the total ton

- miles. Unfortunately, the data for calculating the percentage of the

HM allocated to the various HM classes is limited, so the 1993 Commodity Flow study does not

provide a reasonable number in this regard. In addition, average shipment tonnages are not

available for calculating the mileage.

The 1997 CFS (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000) is a more recent source of data. The report

shows that all commodities shipped by truck comprised an estimated 1,023,506,000,000 ton miles

in 1997, with hazardous materials comprising about 74,939,000,000 ton miles of this total. This

rep resents about 7 percent of the total truck ton mileage. Utilizing average tonnage values per

shipment supplied by the Census Bureau and assuming an average of about two shipments per

truckload, the ton mileage for all truck shipments in 1997 can be conver ted into an estimated

182,132,216,586 vehicle miles. HM shipments constitute approximately 7,763,282,762 vehicle

miles, or approximately 5 percent of the total mileage. The data clearly indicate that HM

shipments, although on average heavier than non

- HM shipments, tend to travel shorter distances.

This is especially true for Class 3 shipments that involve gasoline and fuel oil.

Another source for vehicle miles traveled is the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)

Highway Statistics for 1996, which p rovides annual vehicle miles for 1996. The total for all

combination and single unit trucks is 182,756,000,000 miles (U.S. DOT, 1997b). During the first

phase of the project, the study utilized the National Fleet Safety Survey for 1996 to estimate the

pe rcentage of HM (Star Mountain Inc., 1997). For 1996, using a weighted average, 7.2 percent of

all trucks surveyed carried HM. To calculate the percentage of Class 3 materials carried by truck

for 1996, five regional HM commodity flow surveys were used. Based on the five surveys, the

project team estimated that 52 percent of HM vehicles carried flammable liquids. Appendix A

provides additional information from these flow studies.

The Research and Special Program Administration’s (RSPA) Office of Hazard ous Materials Safety

in their 1998 study “Hazardous Materials Shipments” (US DOT, 1998) provided an estimate for

the number of daily shipments of hazardous materials and the number of tons shipped. This study,

based on a number of sources, estimates that all hazardous material truck shipments accounted for

about 769,000 shipments per day and about 1.4 billion tons shipped annually. Petroleum products,

which comprise the major part of the Class 3 shipments, accounted for an estimated 314,000

### Final Report

—March 2001 1

- 4



## of these daily

shipments and about 1.04 billion annual tons shipped. Chemical and allied products

accounted for about 445,000 daily shipments and “other” for about 10,000 daily shipments. The

RSPA study found that although only 43 percent of all HM tonnage is transpor ted by truck, this

accounts for approximately 94 percent of all the individual shipments transported by truck.

### Final Report — March 2001 2-1 

# 2.0 Study Methodology

his section describes the methodology used for this report. Crucial portions of the

methodology include the

• review, selection and analysis of available data sources;

• estimation of the number of hazardous material and non hazardous material accidents and

incidents for the annual portrait; and

• measurement of impacts from these accidents and incidents.



# 2.1 Accident and Incident Data Sources

In this report, an incident is defined as an event involving the transportation of hazardous material

that results in an unanticipated cost to the shipper, carrier or any other party. An accident is an

incident that occurs when the vehicle transporting the goods is involved in a collision. The study

included HM accidents with a release, HM accidents with no release, loading/unloading with

release, and enroute leaks not caused by a vehicular accident. Non-spill accidents warranted

consideration in this study because severe consequences (e.g., injuries and fatalities) can still occur.

In addition, law enforcement and fire protection officials often treat any HM accident as a potential

spill even if no release of material is apparent.

An initial step in developing a risk assessment is estimating the number of accidents and incidents

reliably for a defined period of time. In the initial part of Phase I, an estimate of accidents and

incidents was developed for Class 3 truck shipments for the annual portrait. The estimate focused

on the Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS) database and utilized several sources of

data to adjust the incidents and accidents reported in the HMIS. The adjustment was made in an

effort to reflect the actual number of incidents and accidents in a one-year period. During the

second part of Phase I, the methodology developed for Class 3 was applied to two additional

classes/divisions of HM: Division 2.1 - Flammable Gases and Class 8 - Corrosives.

Findings during Phase I affected the Phase II risk assessment work. Data analysis revealed that the

impacts from fires and explosions represented a series of impacts that should be separately assessed

whenever the data could support such a breakout. Another finding was the necessity of using more

than one year of accident data for the other 11 classes/divisions of HM, if similar accident statistics

were to be realized. For the analyses of Division 2.1 and Class 8 transport, initially three years of

data were used. Eventually, over nine years of data were used to obtain the statistics for all

12 categories of HM.

As the studies began to focus on the categories with less shipping exposure, some techniques

adjusting for underreporting had to change as well. Rather than look at several databases and

determine the amount of underreporting directly, the underreporting was estimated using factors

obtained from the detailed look at the first three categories of hazardous material, Classes 3 and 8

and Division 2.1. Even if time and money permitted using the accident reporting comparisons for

the other categories of hazardous material, it would have not been possible because only the HMIS

data covered the entire nine-year study period. For most of the other databases, only one or two

years of data were obtainable. The following sections describe the databases used in this effort. 

# T

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-2 

## Data identified and reviewed during initial research efforts associated with FMCSA ’ s hazardous

materials risk assessment study were from multiple sources and categories with varying detail.

Sources of data reviewed consisted of federal and state databases as well as research studies and

analytical reports. The categories reviewed were numerator data, characterized as hazardous

materials accidents/incidents or general commodity highway crashes, and denominator data,

consisting of the flow or movement of hazardous materials and general commodities.

The data assembled and reviewed may be categorized as generally being from a federal or state

database with input in some instances by local authorities or private companies. The federal

databases are collected and maintained by multiple administrations within the U.S. DOT as well as

the Commerce Department ’ s Census Bureau. These data are collected under different regulations,

utilizing disparate definitions under programs that have varying missions. The state databases have

issues of incompleteness and inconsistency primarily due to jurisdictional reporting variances

among the states as well as diversity in data processing capability. A review of the various

pertinent databases initially assembled for this project follows.

2.1.1 Federal Databases

Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS). The HMIS is a system of databases maintained and managed by the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) within the RSPA.

The major database in the HMIS and the most pertinent for the FMCSA risk assessment study is the

incident/accident database. This database dates back to 1971, contains more than 300,000 records,

and currently adds approximately 14,000 reports annually. Although the HMIS is a multi-modal

database, about 85 percent of the records are in the highway mode. The HMIS consists of incidents

where an unintentional release of a hazardous material in commerce occurs during the course of

transportation or is possibly imminent and results in the closure of a major artery or an evacuation

of the general public. Although the HMIS annually adds more than 10,000 truck transport-related

reports, an average of 250 reports represent highway accidents with the great majority

(approximately 200) involving cargo tanks.

Until recently, the intrastate carriers, those operating in only one state, were not required to file

HM incident reports. Thus, for most of the recording period, the HMIS reports encompassed motor

carriers that operate interstate and those that transport certain highly hazardous materials interstate.

This reporting requirement was extended to intrastate motor carriers on October 1, 1998. In

49CFR, Parts 171.15 and 171.16 provide the specific reporting requirements. As a result of the

distribution practices of some hazardous materials, such as gasoline, fuel oil, propane, and fertilizers

that are transported in large volumes by intrastate motor carriers, a substantial increase in HMIS

reports was predicted but has not been immediately realized

. The HMIS is specifically designed to

capture information concerning the unintentional release of a hazardous material. Although an

accident checkbox is available on the HMIS report form, the only detailed information involving the

causation of an accident is found in the narrative section or in attachments.

For the purposes of FMCSA ’ s risk assessment study, the HMIS represents the only national

database of hazardous materials highway transportation accidents and incidents with details of the

material, packaging, and consequences involved. This database is mature, well maintained, and has

been extensively examined; as a result, its limitations can be identified. The consequences

associated with an incident are not comprehensive and in some instances the report form may not

even be complete. This deficiency, together with the lack of accident information, intrastate carrier

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-3 

## incidents and non-spill incidents, requires input from additional databases whose strengths will

complement the HMIS for conducting the risk assessment. Of all the databases, this database is one

of the more thoroughly checked and most inconsistencies have been eliminated. While it is clear

that some accidents must be reported, two carriers might experience essentially the same minor

incident and one will report it and the other will not. The minor incidents that are reported

dominate the truck transport records contained in the HMIS database

.

Registration Database. The registration database for carriers, shippers, and offerors of certain

types or quantities of hazardous materials is contained within RSPA ’ s HMIS. An annual registration form must be completed and submitted to RSPA that indicates the company ’ s primary activity

and the states in which the company operates. The registration database collects approximately

26,500 records annually and may be sorted by primary activity, whether the registrant is a carrier,

offeror or both and whether the registrant operates inter- or intrastate. Recent annual tabulations

show that of the 26,500 registrations received by RSPA, 2,820 are intrastate carriers and 731

indicate that they are both carriers and offerors on an intrastate basis. This database may prove

useful in estimating the lack of intrastate incidents not recorded in 1999.

News Clippings Database. The RSPA contracts with a private clipping service to provide

nationwide coverage of newspaper reports of hazardous material incidents. Copies of these

incidents are forwarded to RSPA for entry into an electronic database. This database supplements

HMIS data by compiling hazardous materials incidents not reported to RSPA. Paper copies of this

database were obtained from RSPA, and after review, data elements were entered into a separate

database for comparison with the HMIS database.

Safetynet MCMIS Database. The Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) is a

system of databases - not unlike RSPA ’ s HMIS - managed by the FMCSA. The Safetynet database,

also known as the accident file, is comprised of police accident reports (PAR) assembled by the

states and forwarded to the FMCSA. Each state has adopted the National Governors Association ’ s

(NGA) twenty-two uniform truck accident data elements on their PAR. This database was designed

to provide a census of truck accidents nationwide. Among the states, there is a wide variance

among the local jurisdictions that provide PARs for a state ’ s submittal into Safetynet. Because of

this wide diversity of reporting jurisdictions within the states, some states have a more comprehensive data set in Safetynet than others. This database captures the general details of a crash, as well

as information on the vehicle and hazardous material cargo involved.

For the purposes of the FMCSA risk assessment study, Safetynet data files were requested for

eight selected states (PA, IN, IA, MN, CO, OR, OH, and CA). Six of these states belong to the

Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) program that links

U.S. DOT ’ s information system to the states ’ systems. The PRISM program began as a mandate

from Congress in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 to explore

the potential of linking the commercial vehicle registration process to motor vehicle safety. The

PRISM program includes two major processes: the Commercial Vehicle Registration Process and

the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Process (MCSIP). These two processes work in parallel to

identify motor carriers and to hold them responsible for the safety of their operations. The six

states participating in the PRISM program are also part of an effort to improve the accuracy and

timeliness of data reported to the federal government. The two non-PRISM states selected, OH and

CA, were chosen because they produce additional state databases that were expected to be useful

for the purposes of the FMCSA risk assessment study. The Safetynet database proved very useful

in adjusting the HMIS database by adding intrastate carrier accidents and non-spill accidents.

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-4 

## Trucks in Fatal Accidents. The Trucks in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) is a database developed by the

University of Michigan Truck Research Institute (UMTRI) from the Fatal Accident Reporting

System (FARS) compiled by the U.S. DOT. Under contract to the U.S. DOT, UMTRI identifies

truck accidents in FARS and does extensive follow up on details of the fatal truck accident,

including the presence of hazardous materials as cargo. TIFA does not however contain any details

on the consequences resulting from a hazardous materials spill. This makes it difficult to compare

TIFA with other databases containing HM data.

Commodity Flow Survey (CFS). The processing of the 1997 CFS hazardous materials report was

completed in the spring of 2000. Much needed data regarding the flow of hazardous materials for

risk assessment studies is now available from the 1997 CFS. The largest contribution to hazardous

materials data comes from the highway data produced from the 1997 CFS. In sharp contrast to a

single HM table produced from the 1993 CFS, a total of 26 HM tables were produced from the 1997

CFS. All but four of the 1997 CFS HM tables had some application to hazardous material

transportation in the highway mode.

The 1997 CFS hazardous materials tables included fourteen tables concerned with HM class or

division, six mode specific tables, three state/geographic tables, and three tables on selected

materials. The tabulations of the 1997 CFS hazardous materials data was compiled using the

standard CFS breakout of tons, ton miles, average shipment distance and weight. These data were

tabulated utilizing the data set assembled in the 1997 CFS from responses containing a UN/NA

entry. Presentations of the 1997 CFS hazardous materials data were constructed from the UN/NA

data set.

In addition to the 1997 CFS hazardous materials tables, estimates were derived and employed in

this risk assessment study to establish the approximate number of miles hazardous materials were

transported by truck to help in the identification of the exposure level of hazardous materials on our

nations ’ highways. The hazardous material tables from the 1997 CFS can be found in the document

1997 Commodity Flow Survey issued April 2000, EC97TCF-US (HM) RV. Included in this report

are twenty-six tables, an overview of the 1997 CFS, a review of the sample design, data collection,

and an estimation methodology and sample report forms and instructions.

Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS). The Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS), known

as the Truck Inventory Use Survey (TIUS) until 1992, is a component of the quinquennial Census

of Transportation and complements the CFS. The name change occurred because other vehicles

such as buses and recreational vehicles were intended to be added to the sample frame in 1997.

However vehicles other than trucks were not included in the sample so VIUS remains solely a truck

survey.

The 1997 VIUS was released in early 2000 and is now available for review and analysis. A hard

copy report has been published and the micro data is available on a CD ROM. The VIUS provides

figures for the number and type of trucks in operation, together with the physical and operating

characteristics of the country ’ s truck population. The format for hazardous materials data collection

in the VIUS involves an indication of whether the truck was used to transport placarded hazardous

materials, with a hazard class breakout. A broad breakout of the national percentage of trucks that

have carried hazardous materials by hazard class and equipment type is available. Limitations

associated with this database include definitional issues (e.g., a truck may also include a pickup, and

a placard must have been used) and little trailer information, as well as a limited sample of about

131,000 registered private and commercial trucks to draw on.

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-5 

## 2.1.2 State Databases

State reports and databases were utilized for Ohio, California, and Colorado. They included reports

from the Public Utility Commission of Ohio and databases from the California Highway Patrol and

Colorado State Patrol. These databases focus on hazardous material incidents and provide an

independent source of data.

California Highway Patrol (CHP). The CHP maintains a database of all reported hazardous

material incidents. A subset of the CHP database was obtained from the CHP for analysis in

FMCSA ’ s risk assessment study. This database includes information on the actual incident,

hazardous material, and casualties but lacked carrier information and whether the incident was

actually an incident or accident. However, the database was able to provide enough information on

1996 Class 3 accidents to supplement the HMIS database.

Colorado State Patrol. The Colorado State Patrol also maintains a database of all reported

hazardous material incidents. The 1996 hazardous material incidents database was obtained for

analysis for Phase I of FMCSA ’ s risk assessment study. The database contains information

concerning the actual incident, along with detailed information on the hazardous material and

carrier information. Thus, the database was able to provide enough information to supplement

HMIS.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) Incident Reports. The PUCO provided copies

of HM incident reports from January 1, 1996 to mid 1998. These reports contained information on

the incident and carrier along with evacuation and road closure details. The reports were also very

valuable in that they typically contained a detailed description of the incident, an item missing in

most of the other databases. The PUCO reports were reviewed and data was extracted and entered

into a database for comparison to HMIS.

2.1.3 Other Databases

Dialogue (Newspaper Clippings ). A search of newspaper clippings from the eight states was

completed to identify Classes 3, 2.1, and 8 accidents/incidents for the annual portrait. Those that

were identified were included in the adjustment of the HMIS database. Most of the articles also

provided additional detailed information about the accident/incident.



# 2.2 Methodology for Estimating Accidents/Incidents

The following sections describe the methodology used in the effort to estimate accidents/incidents

for the one-year period.

2.2.1 Selection of Reference Database

The first step was to select a reference database. For the purposes of OMC ’ s risk assessment study,

the HMIS represents the only national database of hazardous materials highway transportation

incidents with details of the material, packaging, and consequences involved, although these

consequences may not be comprehensive. The database is well maintained and carrier participation

is required. Deficiencies include a lack of accidents or incidents involving intrastate carriers

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-6 

## (although this deficiency is being corrected for FY 1999) and lack of coverage for no-spill HM

accidents. No-spill HM accidents should be included in an analysis because law enforcement and

fire protection officials often treat any HM accident as a potential spill even if no release of material

is apparent. Any accident involving a truck transporting HM should receive serious scrutiny from

officials and the DOT.

DOT has done an excellent job maintaining the integrity of the database as various changes have

been made in the definition of the classes/divisions of Hazardous Materials and as additional fields

have been added. For example, when the explosive categories were changed from A, B, and C to

numerical categories, the 1982 through 1990 records were modified to show the A through C class

accidents as 1.7 through 1.9. This enables a database search to go back as far as 1982 and get

meaningful accident data on the classes of HM.

When the project was started, 1996 was chosen as the base year for the analysis. At that time it

happened to be the last year for which complete data were available from all data sources. The first

analysis was for Class 3, flammable and combustible liquid transport. Because this single class

represents more than 50 percent of all HM truck transport, good statistics could be obtained by

looking at just one year. The first study during the second part of Phase I added two additional

classes/divisions of HM to the analysis, Division 2.1 (flammable gases) and Class 8 (corrosives).

Because these materials are involved in fewer accidents, the analysis base was expanded to 3 years

of records, 1995 - 1997. During Phase II, this analysis was subsequently extended to all classes/

divisions of HM truck transport. In the expanded categories of HM, some categories have few

incidents occurring in a given year. Thus, for the final analysis, data from 1990 through

March 1999 were used to create an annual portrait of HM impacts. This provided the greatest

quantity of HM incident data from which consequence and likelihood values could be obtained.

While data from 1982 on could have been used, prior to 1990, only total impact costs were

provided. Since breaking the total cost out into multiple cost categories is crucial for the risk

assessment, and pre-1990 data did not have this information, it was not used. While more than nine

years of data were used to evaluate consequences and likelihoods, the risk portrait continued to

describe one year. Whenever the approach is to collect data that covers several years in order to

consider the results to be representative of a year portrait, there is always a concern about trends.

Accident rate changes and cost escalation trends might be expected to be major concerns. However,

the data for the period 1982 to 1998 shows that the average total cost of an accident remained

constant. Furthermore, the total number of accidents reported each year did not seem to change

significantly over the 17-year period. While this result was somewhat surprising given the

significant cost increases in parameters such as the vehicle cost, the HMIS data provided no basis

for the selection of an escalation factor, so none was used. Although the costs were checked with

other sources to determine reasonableness, subsequent research and analyses should be conducted to

confirm whether increased accident costs occurred during these years.

2.2.2 Selection of Additional Databases

Additional databases with strengths complementing the HMIS for conducting the risk assessment

were consulted to supplement HMIS data with data on other spill accidents (especially intrastate

accidents) and non-spill accidents. In all cases, the additional databases covered fewer years.

However, because it was always possible to reduce the statistics to cover a single year, this

limitation was not significant. The greatest limitation was in the time period covered by the

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-7 

## databases. Where the databases covered the same time period, it was feasible to look at data from

a single year in a wide variety of databases and, in so doing, evaluate the underreporting that was

present in the databases. However, it was not feasible to continue to compare databases over many

years of data and for all HM classes. First of all, most databases, particularly the state databases,

are generated for a specific purpose and the information may only have been collected for a year or

two. Secondly, if accidents are very infrequent, which is the case for some of the classes/divisions

of HM, when one database misses one accident, the correction factor for underreporting of that

class/division of HM would be large and making such corrections would not be an accurate

representation of reality. Thus in the second part of Phase I, two additional classes/divisions

— Division 2.1, flammable gases and Class 8, corrosives

—were used to compare multiple databases

for estimating the number of accidents/incidents occurring in a year. When added to the data from

Class 3, the comparison represents more than 75 percent of all the HM shipped by truck in a given

year. Given the large fraction of HM shipments represented by these categories of HM, it was felt

to be appropriate to apply the underreporting factors developed for these three HM categories to all

the remaining HM categories.

The search criteria used to identify the 1996 Class 3 and 8 and Division 2.1 truck shipments for

each database is located in Appendix B. Because each database has its own field characteristic,

individual queries were generated to identify the truck shipments. Criteria used across each

database included the following:

• Year

• Accident (vs. Incident)

• Class

• Placarded vehicle

• Enroute (traveling from origin to destination).

2.2.3 Approach for Estimating Accidents

As stated in the previous section, two distinct approaches were used to estimate the frequency of

accidents for a given hazard class. Using the data for Classes 3 and 8 and Division 2.1 in each

database, underreporting factors were developed for accidents and incidents in HMIS and non-spill

accidents in MCMIS. These underreporting factors were developed by using the HMIS database

and comparing additional spill accidents that were present in the other databases. Accidents that

appeared in the other databases but not in HMIS were assumed to represent underreporting. These

underreporting factors were then applied to the other classes/division of HM. The following

paragraphs describe this process in more detail.

The specific approach to supplementing the HMIS data involved focusing on the eight-state sample

and more intensively on California, Colorado, and Ohio because of additional state database

availability. The HMIS data for the eight states were systematically compared with respect to

specific accidents, which were found in one or more of the additional databases. By identifying

accidents, which appeared in other databases and probably should have also appeared in the HMIS,

a portion of those underreported accidents were identified. The Safetynet data proved to be the

most useful of the other databases because it included both intrastate and no-spill accidents

involving HM. After analyzing the data in the various databases described above, the accident

count for the eight states was used as a measure to calculate the number of accidents for the nation.

This process required four steps:

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-8 

## 1. The number of accidents for the eight states was estimated by supplementing the HMIS data

with data from the other databases.

Tables C-1 through C-24 provide the tables for each of the eight states which summarize the

accident information used to estimate the number of accidents for the annual portrait. (Note that

for the analysis, the three states where state databases and dialogue information was used were

weighted more heavily.)

2. A proportion of the national accidents represented by the eight states was calculated.

Commodity flow and truck registration data for the eight states were both used to estimate the

portion of the total HM traffic represented by the eight states. The 1993 Commodity Flow

Study tabulation of ton-miles provides an estimation of the total commodity ton-miles allocated

to HM for each of the eight case-study states. The total ton-miles within the eight states

represent about 30 percent of the total ton-miles for the United States. California, Ohio and

Pennsylvania alone represent about 19 percent of the total US ton-mileage.

3. The accident estimates for each of the eight states were totaled.

4. The total estimated national accident number was calculated by assuming the additional

70 percent of the national accidents occurred at the same rates and types and then by adding the

estimate for the remaining 42 states to the eight-state estimate.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the estimated unique accidents for 1996 for both release (spill) and nonrelease (no-spill) accidents for Classes 3, 2.1, and 8. The tables also show how these numbers were

converted into national numbers.

2.2.4 Approach for Estimating Incidents

Incidents were estimated in a more direct manner. Because the HMIS is the best source for enroute

and loading/unloading incidents, these numbers were used for the fifty states. They were

augmented by the percentage represented by the number of intrastate incidents that were not

covered in the HMIS for the 1996 data. Utilizing the Safetynet data for the eight states, the

percentage of accidents represented by intrastate carriers was about 22 percent. Thus the incidents

for the fifty states were supplemented by 22 percent.

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-9 

## Table 1. Class 3 Truck Shipments — Estimated Unique Accidents for 1996

(HMIS used as a base)

'DWD 6RXUFH DQG $FFLGHQW 1XPEHUV 6XPPDU\ $FFLGHQW 1XPEHUV

6$)(7<1(7 6WDWH 1HZV

&OLSSLQJV 6SLOOV 1R 6SLOOV

6WDWH +0,6

DQG 7,)$ 6SLOO 1R 6SLOO 1R 6SLOO 1R  , )  , )

&RORUDGR             

2KLR             

&DOLIRUQLD

7,)$ 

            

,QGLDQD
             

2UHJRQ
             

,RZD
             

0LQQHVRWD
             

3HQQV\OYDQLD             

7RWDOV      

, LQMXULHV ) IDWDOLWLHV

+0,6 VSLOO DFFLGHQWV LQFUHDVHG E\  SHUFHQW WR FRPSHQVDWH IRU QR VWDWH GDWDEDVH 1RVSLOOV LQFUHDVHG

 SHUFHQW 1HZV FOLSSLQJV QXPEHU LQFUHDVHG E\  SHUFHQW WR FRPSHQVDWH IRU 'LDORJXH

 VWDWHV UHSUHVHQW  SHUFHQW RI WKH WRWDO 86 DFFLGHQWV

   VSLOOV VSLOO LQMXULHV  IDWDOLWLHV 

   QR VSLOOV QR VSLOO LQMXULHV  IDWDOLWLHV 



## Using this method, the number of Class 3 accidents with spills for 1996 was estimated at 490 and

the number of no spill accidents at 953.

Table 2. Class 2.1 Truck Shipments

—Estimated Unique Accidents for 1995

– 1997

(HMIS used as a base)

'DWD 6RXUFH DQG $FFLGHQW 1XPEHUV 6XPPDU\ $FFLGHQW 1XPEHUV

7,)$ 6$)(7<1(7 6WDWH 1HZV

&OLSSLQJV 6SLOOV 1R 6SLOOV

6WDWH +0,6

6SLOO 6SLOO 1R 6SLOO 1R 6SLOO 1R 6SLOO 1R  , )  , )

&RORUDGR               

2KLR               

&DOLIRUQLD               

,QGLDQD
               

2UHJRQ
              

,RZD
              

0LQQHVRWD
              

3HQQV\OYDQLD               

Total      

, LQMXULHV ) IDWDOLWLHV

+0,6 VSLOO DFFLGHQWV LQFUHDVHG E\  SHUFHQW WR FRPSHQVDWH IRU QR VWDWH GDWDEDVH 1RVSLOOV LQFUHDVHG

 SHUFHQW

 \HDUV RI GDWD DYHUDJHG WR UHSUHVHQW 

  

  

 VWDWHV UHSUHVHQW  SHUFHQW RI WKH WRWDO 86 DFFLGHQWV

   VSLOOV VSLOO LQMXULHV  IDWDOLWLHV 

   QR VSLOOV QR VSLOO LQMXULHV  IDWDOLWLHV 



## Using this method, the number of Class 2.1 accidents with spills for 1996 was estimated at 47 and

the number of no spill accidents 154.

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-10 

## Table 3. Class 8 Truck Shipments

—Estimated Unique Accidents for 1995

– 1997

(HMIS used as a base)

'DWD 6RXUFH DQG $FFLGHQW 1XPEHUV 6XPPDU\ $FFLGHQW 1XPEHUV

7,)$ 6$)(7<1(7 6WDWH 1HZV

&OLSSLQJV 6SLOOV 1R 6SLOOV

6WDWH +0,6

6SLOO 6SLOO R 6SLOO 1R 6SLOO 1R 6SLOO 1R  , )  , )

&RORUDGR               

2KLR               

&DOLIRUQLD               

,QGLDQD
               

2UHJRQ
               

,RZD
               

0LQQHVRWD
               

3HQQV\OYDQLD               

Total      

, LQMXULHV ) IDWDOLWLHV

• +0,6 VSLOO DFFLGHQWV LQFUHDVHG E\  SHUFHQW WR FRPSHQVDWH IRU QR VWDWH GDWDEDVH 1RVSLOOV LQFUHDVHG

 SHUFHQW

 \HDUV RI GDWD DYHUDJHG WR UHSUHVHQW 

  

  

 VWDWHV UHSUHVHQW  SHUFHQW RI WKH WRWDO 86 DFFLGHQWV

   VSLOOV VSLOO LQMXULHV  IDWDOLWLHV 

   QR VSLOOV QR VSLOO LQMXULHV  IDWDOLWLHV 



## Using this method, the number of Class 8 accidents with spills for 1996 was estimated at 73 and the

number of no spill accidents at 138.



# 2.3 Impact Methodology

To derive an estimate of the annual economic impact of incidents/accidents involving truck

shipments of hazardous materials, a number of incident/accident consequences must be taken into

consideration.

To develop the impacts of accidents and incidents, a six-step process was followed. The study

1. Selected impact categories that could be compared among the incidents/accidents. The impacts

categories selected were:

• Injuries and Deaths

• Cleanup Costs

• Property Damage

• Evacuation

• Product Loss

• Traffic Incident Delay

• Environmental Damage.

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-11 

## 2. Reviewed several sources of information to establish reasonable estimates of the economic

impacts of each consequence. It also conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify

unit costs that have been used in prior economic evaluation studies related to transportation,

environmental health, and safety. In addition, the study analyzed the HMIS and several state

databases to the extent that economic consequences were been reported.

3. Tallied impacts reported in federal and state databases.

4. Supplemented impacts found in the databases with impacts derived from literature sources and

interviews with knowledgeable sources.

5. Modeled impacts not readily available from the above sources to develop impact estimates. For

example, incident delay was modeled because HMIS and the other databases do not report this

parameter.

6. Converted all impacts into dollar values to enable comparison among the impacts and the

preparation of a total impact figure for the annual portrait year.

Where feasible, an attempt was made to compensate for accidents whose impacts are unlikely to be

representative when a single year ’ s data is used. For example, several years of HMIS data were

used to estimate average property loss costs.

The following sections present the parameters and background used to calculate impacts for the

annual portrait year. Based on this review and analysis, “ ball park ” unit costs of hazardous

materials transportation events can be established.

2.3.1 Injuries and Deaths

Injuries and fatalities associated with HM shipments can be attributed to the effects of the hazardous

cargo or to other non-hazardous material related causes. This differentiation is sometimes clear-cut.

For example, in 1978 in Spain as a result of a traffic accident, a LPG tank rocketed into a trailer

park and exploded. The ensuing fire injured and killed more than two hundred people. They would

not have been injured or killed if the material involved in the accident were not hazardous.

Differentiation becomes especially difficult when the traffic accident involves flammable material.

For example, if a truck carrying Class 3 material collides with a car, trapping a person, and a fire

ensues and burns and kills that individual, can we attribute this death directly to the hazardous

cargo? Because gasoline is associated with the car, the individual might have died in a non-HM

accident as well. Or perhaps it was the leaking cargo from the truck that caused the car fuel to burn.

Although the HMIS tabulates only those fatalities attributable to HM, other databases such as

MCMIS include fatalities regardless of the direct cause. For the purpose of this evaluation, injuries

and fatalities associated with all accidents were tabulated whether or not they were known to have

been caused by HM.

Injuries and deaths were tabulated from the major federal and state databases and estimated through

analysis of the data for the eight states. To accomplish this, the HMIS data for the eight selected

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-12 

## states were used as the reference case and data from the other databases were used to estimate the

total fatalities and injuries for those states. As was the case for the accident numbers, the numbers

of fatalities and injuries were extrapolated for the entire country. Injuries and deaths were estimated

in detail for Classes 3, 2.1, and 8.

Preparation of impact estimates for all 12 groups of HM classes/divisions employed a two-tiered

approach. This approach involved tabulating injuries and fatalities for accidents in HMIS,

developing a rate per accident and using these as representative of injuries and fatalities caused by

HM. For these, accidents, an injury and fatality rate per accident was calculated from MCMIS for

non-HM and used to represent all injuries and fatalities that could be expected to develop as a result

of the truck crash itself. Both rates were added to give the total injury and fatality rate for HM

shipments.

The value placed on an injury or fatality suffered in an accident varies considerably. Part of this

discrepancy can be attributable to different approaches to calculating the value. One approach is to

see an injury or fatality in terms of lost income and economic productivity to society. Another more

comprehensive approach collects data not only on lost productivity, but also quality of life. This

estimate might more closely approximate compensation awarded by the courts for fatalities and

injuries in accidents. Finally, a third approach considers the cost of a fatality or injury as the

amount of money required to prevent it from happening.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated the cost of

fatalities and injuries in 1994 and presented these estimates in terms of lost productivity. In 1996

dollars, a fatality would be worth about $913,000 and a critical injury about $780,000 (NHTSA,

1996). An earlier report, the Cost of Highway Crashes, (FHWA, 1991), utilizes a comprehensive

approach. In 1996 dollars, this report estimates that a fatality would be worth about $3,170,000 and

an incapacitating injury about $225,000.

The National Safety Council is considered another primary source for obtaining estimates of the

impacts of deaths and injuries in economic terms (National Safety Council, 1996). One approach

presented is based on comprehensive costs, which indicate what people are actually willing to pay

to reduce their safety and health risks. The cost estimates include wage and productivity losses

(i.e., wages and fringe benefits, replacement cost and travel delays caused by the accident), medical

expenses (i.e., doctor fees, hospital charges, cost of medicines, future medical costs and other

emergency medical services), administrative expenses (i.e., insurance premiums and paid claims,

police and legal costs), motor vehicle damage (i.e., property damage to vehicles), and employer

costs (i.e., time lost by uninjured workers, investigation and reporting time, production slowdowns,

training of replacement workers and extra costs of overtime for uninsured workers). Comprehensive costs tend to be three to four times higher than historical costs for each human health

consequence category because of a societal desire to avoid these consequences in the future. The

1996 estimates of comprehensive costs are:

• $2,790,000 per death

• $138,000 per incapacitating injury

• $35,700 per non-incapacitating injury

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-13 

## • $17,000 per possible injury

• $1,700 per non-injury.

It is important to recognize that these estimates are based on motor-vehicle accidents as a whole.

The impact of a truck accident is likely to be more severe across several of the components that

comprise these unit costs. Moreover, a truck accident involving the transport of hazardous

materials would add to the economic considerations because of the inherent danger of a cargo spill.

Therefore, for this portrait, these numbers should be considered low-end estimates of the economic

consequences.

Finally, a third approach, developed by NHTSA, that estimates the cost of avoiding the fatality

or injury, resulted in an estimate of $2,800,000 for a fatality and $400,000 for an injury requiring

hospitalization. This estimate is used by some portions of the USDOT to estimate the cost of

avoiding a fatality or serious injury (NHTSA, 1996).

For the purposes to this report, the latter estimate of the cost for avoiding the fatality or serious

injury is used as a means to estimate the overall cost for the accidents during the annual portrait

year. For minor injuries, an estimated value of $4,000 is used. The distribution of major and minor

injuries in the HMIS for 1995, 1996, and 1997 was used to determine the ratio of major to minor

injuries. During those three years, the two types of injuries are evenly distributed. Thus, an

estimated cost of $200,000 is used as the cost of avoiding an accident/incident injury.

2.3.2 Cleanup Costs

Cleanup costs are assumed to encompass the costs of both stopping the spread of a spill and

removing spilled materials. Cleanup costs vary widely depending on the size, type of materials, and

location of the spill.

Different approaches exist to placing financial value on these considerations. Clean-up can include

initial response costs, soil and groundwater remediation, incineration, and restoration. Our

literature review identified the following relevant statistics:

• A New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study placed clean-up costs for

small trucks at $6,717 per vehicle and large trucks at $13,437 per vehicle (U.S. EPA, 1996).

These costs were reported in 1987 dollars and converted to 1996 dollars for this report. They

apply only to the removal of the vehicle from the scene.

• The same study reports clean-up costs as $40.38, $57.26, and $78.40 per square meter of impact

area if the incident/accident occurs in an urban, suburban or farmland setting, respectively.

Furthermore, clean-up costs associated with environmental impairment are estimated to be

$131.01, $61.83, and $429.47 per square meter of affected woodland, park, or river/lake

respectively. These figures were also reported in 1987 dollars and converted to 1996 dollars.

Private environmental contractors provide yet another source for cleanup estimates. For example,

PRO TERRA, a Columbus based environmental contracting company, estimates the average cost of

a cleanup at about $14,000. However, their record cost was $102,000 to clean up a jet fuel spill at

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-14 

## the Rickenbacker AFB that required 10 men at the site (Hogue, J., 1998). The average HM cleanup

costs about $1,000 per hour.

The HMIS database includes a field for cleanup costs. This data is submitted by the carrier and it

should be accurate since the carrier is responsible for paying the cleanup costs. For 1990 to1999,

cleanup costs averaged about $24,000 per enroute accident cleanup, $1,300 per cleanup for an

enroute incident spill, and $260 for an unloading/loading accident and incident spill cleanup. To

create a conservative estimate, these figures were applied as the average cleanup cost for all spills.

2.3.3 Evacuation

A small percentage of HM accidents causes the evacuation of people and business operations. This

is one important impact of HM transportation. The HMIS database and the Ohio PUCO are among

the few databases which provide evacuation data. Of the two, the HMIS provides a comprehensive

picture. For example, three years of HMIS data (1995, 1996, 1997), 498 records of Class 3

shipment accidents showed that about eight percent resulted in an evacuation. These evacuations

involved 1,974 people, an average of 51 per evacuation.

For the 1320 incidents recorded, about one percent resulted in evacuations. Thus, a total of

431 people were evacuated with an average of 25 people per evacuation.

The cost of evacuations is very difficult to estimate since there are numerous variables. These costs

include the expense for temporary lodging and food, losses due to lost wages and business disruptions, inconvenience to the public and the cost of agencies assisting with the operation. The U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for example, uses a range of $600 to $1,800 per person evacuated.

A reasonable estimate would be $1,000 per person evacuated (Transportation Research Board,

1993). This $1,000 estimate is also used by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to estimate

impacts from railroad evacuations. For this report, evacuations were also assumed to be possible

for all HM classes whether or not a release occurred. Evacuations for non-release accidents were

assumed to occur at the same rate as evacuations for release accidents.

2.3.4 Product Loss

Product loss refers to the quantity and value of the HM material lost during a spill. The HMIS

provides estimates for product loss in its cost estimates. For example, for Class 3 enroute accident

related spills, the average cost of product lost per spill 1990 to 1999 was $3,208. For enroute

incident spills, the average cost of product lost during the same three-year period was $117.

Incidents and accidents during loading and unloading accounted for average product loss of about

$61 over the more than nine years. Similarly, for Class 2.1 accidents, the average cost of product

lost per enroute accident related to a spill accident during the same period was $1,140. For enroute

Class 2.1, incident spills, the average cost of product lost during the same three-year period was

$1,656; for incidents and accidents during loading and unloading, it was $171. During the same

period, Class 8 spill accidents averaged $4,910 in product loss while product lost during enroute

incidents averaged $124; for loading and unloading incidents, it averaged $62.

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-15 

## 2.3.5 Public Property Damage

Property damage encompasses damage to other vehicles, which may have been involved in the

accident, and damage to both public and private property in addition to the vehicles involved in the

accident. For example, this could include damage to a private building, public utilities, or a public

roadway and related structures. Environmental damage to property that results in economic losses

is another category of damage that will be addressed in Section 2.3.9.

The HMIS provides estimates of property damage in one of its fields. This estimate appears to be

reliable for damage to vehicles involved in the accident but perhaps less reliable when estimating

public property damage. However, these estimates have been used as the basis for calculating the

impacts to property and the amount of damage. For the over nine-year period for which the HMIS

was analyzed, the average property damage for Class 3 enroute accidents was $16,041, while the

average property damage for enroute incident spills was $274. Property damage for leaks occurring

during loading and unloading incidents and accidents was $68. Average property damage for

Class 2.1 enroute accidents, enroute spills, and loading and unloading incidents were $3,147, $173,

and $2,315, respectively. For Class 8, the average values for enroute accidents, enroute spill

incidents, and loading and unloading incidents were $3,104, $67, and $17, respectively.

2.3.6 Carrier Damage

Carrier damage includes damage to the truck and associated equipment transporting the Class 3,

Class 2.1, and Class 8 materials.

A New York State Department of Environmental Conservation study reported the economic loss

from damaged vehicle downtime as $7,887 per large truck, expressed in 1996-dollar terms,

converted for this report from the original 1987 dollars of the study (U.S. EPA, 1996).

The estimate provided by the HMIS database is probably a more reliable estimate. For the 1990 to

1999, the more than 9-year period for which the HMIS was analyzed, the average carrier damage

for Class 3 enroute accidents was $33,013; the average carrier damage for enroute incident spills

was $174; and the damages for spills associated with unloading and loading accidents/incidents was

$37. Class 2.1 carrier damage for enroute accidents, enroute spills, and for loading and unloading

incidents averaged $25,582, $1,407, and $815 respectively. Class 8 carrier damage averaged

$25,541 for enroute accidents. Class 8 carrier damage for enroute spills and for loading and

unloading incidents averaged $165 and $17.

2.3.7 Traffic Incident Delay

Although an aspect of these costs is embedded in the National Safety Council estimates, it is

important to isolate this effect because HM spills (or suspected spills) typically require a different

type of emergency response that tends to lengthen traffic delays considerably. To aid in this effort,

HM incident delay was extracted from data collected by the states of California and Ohio. This was

supplemented by several studies reported in the literature (Agent, K.R, 1995; Grenzeback, L.R.,

1990).

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-16 S 1

S 2

S 

## Traffic incident delay had no relatively simple method of estimating the costs of incident delay

induced by an accident. Consequently, a model was adapted to be able to estimate the number of

hours and the cost of incident delay. For Section 2.3.7, all accidents and incidents are referred to as

incidents.

Delay Estimation. There are two groups of approaches to estimating incident delays, namely

deterministic and stochastic. The former approach is simpler and easier to apply and is intended for

after incident evaluation where information of traffic flow is assumed known. Incident delay is

affected by a number of factors, including incident duration, road capacity, arrival pattern, traffic

volume, functional class of the road, and the time of day. A deterministic approach developed by

Morales (1977) is used in this study because of its simplicity relative to other methods e.g., Fu et al.

(1997). Moreover, the data requirements for the deterministic approach can be more easily obtained

or derived.

In this study, incident delay is estimated, assuming the condition of simple lane closure. This

assumption is practical given that HM incidents involve trucks and invariably result in lane or road

closures. For this condition, estimates for three types of traffic flow are required:

1. Demand traffic flow that would have gone through a point if the incident had not

occurred, S 2 

## 2. Reduced traffic flow resulting from the incident, S 3 

## 3. The gateway flow after the incident has been cleared, S 1



## .

This flow is assumed to be equal to the capacity of the roadway. The demand and bottleneck flows

are assumed steady state flows for the particular time of day. These are illustrated in Figure 1.

In addition to the flows, the duration of the incident,

T, is required to estimate the delay.

Figure 1. Demand and Bottleneck Traffic Flows

Information on practical capacity was obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual (1994) and

actual traffic flow data from 1996 Highway Statistics (U.S. DOT, 1997b). First, the capacity of

each functional class was used to estimate the average demand traffic flow for levels of service

expressed as traffic volume (v) to service flow (sf) v/sf ratios between 0.5 and 0.9. The demand

traffic values are then compared with ADT data in Highway Statistics to establish reasonableness.Cumulative traffic volume



### T ime T

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-17 

## The v/sf ratio range is chosen to include the threshold value above which congestion occurs i.e.,

v/sf = 0.80 and free-flow conditions reflecting non-peak flows which occur at v/sf less than 0.80.

Bottleneck traffic flow is assumed to be about 60 percent of the actual (demand) flow. This

assumption is consistent with earlier observations (Jacobson, 1992) that about 80 percent of

incidents reduce capacity by at least one-third, regardless of whether a lane was blocked.

Incident delay is estimated as a function of the level of service offered for four functional highway

classes: (1) urban interstate, freeways and expressways; (2) other urban roads; (3) rural interstate;

and (4) other rural roads. It is important that incident delay be considered within the context of

highway functional class because of differences in the level of service, the volume of traffic, and the

average annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT is a utilization measure of the highway

facility, therefore an indication of the level of exposure or the risk of being involved in an incident.

Incident delay can be estimated from the following equations for simple lane closure condition

(Morales, 1977).

Figure 2 shows the variation of  with v/sf ratio for the four functional highway classes. For a

given demand traffic flow, the v/sf ratio on a particular highway class and the  can be determined

from the graphs in Figure 2. This value can be multiplied by the incident duration, T, to obtain an

estimate of the incident delay in veh-hr on the particular highway class. Figure 3 shows the

variation of incident delay in vehicle-hours with incident duration for the congestion threshold v/sf

value of 0.80. This v/sf ratio represents a typical operating condition on the interstate system. Data

from the 1966 Highway Statistics indicate that 95 percent of the rural interstate, 66 percent of the

urban interstate and 75 percent of other freeways and expressways operate at v/sf ratios less than

0.80. As noted in the equation and depicted in the figure, incident delay is a linear function of the

duration of the incident. Figures 2 and 3 are developed based on service flows (or capacity) that are

considered typical minimum values for each functional highway class as derived from the Highway

Capacity Manual (1994). The curves may be considered conservative given the differences in

traffic flows, HM types, and type of incident and incident response management.

To obtain the user costs resulting from incident delays, information on the occurrence or probability

of an occurrence of an incident or the split between trucks and other vehicles on the various

highway systems may be required. Data on VMT for trucks and other vehicles for the various

functional highway classes may be used to obtain the distribution of incident delay costs between

trucks and other vehicles. Table 4 summarizes the percent of VMT by trucks and other vehicles on

the four groups of functional highway classes and the distribution of VMT among on the functional

classes, using both truck VMT data only and total VMT. 

# ) 2 ) ) (

2 1 3 2 3 1



# S

- S ( S

- S ( S

- S

= κ κ T. D

=

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-18 

## Table 4. Distribution of VMT by Functional Class and Vehicle Type

Percent of VMT by vehicle type (%)

Functional Highway class Trucks Other vehicles

Rural Interstate

Other Rural highways

Urban Interstate

Other Urban highways 18.22

7.97

8.33

4.63 81.78

92.03

91.67

95.37

Percent of VMT by highway class (%)

Functional Highway class Truck VMT Total VMT

Rural Interstate

Other Rural highways

Urban Interstate

Other Urban highways 22.6

31.8

15.8

29.8 9.2

29.4

14.0

47.4

6RXUFH  +&$6 %DVH &DVH 907 GDWD 86 '27 F



## Incident Delay Cost. The cost associated with incident delay can be estimated by applying the unit

cost of delay by the values obtained from the graphs in Figures 2 or 3. These delay costs due to

traffic are based on value of time and do not include the clean up costs of the incident. Earlier

studies (Grenzeback, L.R. et al., 1990) assumed the cost of incident delay to be about $20 for trucks

and $10 for other vehicles. A study of the congestion costs estimated average unit cost to be $14.43

per vehicle-hour of delay. This is calculated from a unit cost per vehicle hour of $10.92 (1990

dollars) from the Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) multiplied by a CPI of 1.25 to

adjust the figure to 1998 dollars. To account for the increase fuel consumption due to congestion,

add [(0.7 gal/hour) * $1.11 per gallon (1998 dollars)]. The unit delay cost includes value of time

and fuel costs.

Available Incident Data. Data on HM incidents in the California Highway Patrol database, the

Ohio PUCO Incident Reports, and literature indicate the following:

• California data (1994 to 1998)

—Average duration of HM incidents, specifically DOT Hazard Class 3 (flammable and

combustible liquids), is 4.8 hours with a standard deviation of 2.1 hours.

—Only 4 percent of HM incidents have duration less than 1 hour and about 6 percent have

duration greater than 12 hours.

—75 percent of HM incidents resulted in partial or full road closures.

• Ohio data (1995-1998)

—Duration of incidents on rural interstates is 2 to 18 hours with 70 percent lane or road

closures

—Duration of incidents on other rural roads is 3 to 22 hours with 60 percent lane or road

closures

—Duration of incidents on urban interstates is up to 4 hours with 100 percent lane or road

closures

—Duration of incidents on other urban roads is 2 to 20 hours with 75 percent lane or road

closures.

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-19Figure 2. Level of Service Versus Delay Traffic VolumeRural Interstate05001000150020002500300035000.4 0.5 0.60.70.80.91v/sf ratioUrban Interstate05001000150020002500300035000.40.50.60.70.80.91v/sf ratioRural - other roads02004006008000.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.80.91v/sf ratioUrban - other roads02004006008000.4 0.50.60.70.80.91v/sf ratio

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-20Note: These graphs are developed for v/sf = 0.80. Similar graphs can be generated for other v/sf ratio valueFigure 3. Level of Service Versus Delay Traffic VolumeRural Interstate01000200030004000500060000 1234Duration (hrs)

Incident delay (veh-hr)Rural - Other Roads02004006008001000120014000 1234Duration (hrs)

ncident delay (veh-hr)Urban Interstate010002000300040005000600001234Duration (hrs)

Incident Delay (veh-hr)Urban Roads0200400600800100001234Duration (hrs)

Incident Delay (veh-hr)

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-21 

## • Literature

—Major incidents constitute 5 to 10 percent of all truck incidents (Grenzeback, L.R. et al.,

1990). A major incident is one that blocks two or more lanes of the freeway for 2 hours or

longer.

—Average duration of major incidents is 3 hours 39 minutes, and it triggers an average of

2,800 veh-hr of delay on freeways around it. Major incidents lasting 10 to 12 hours

triggered 30,000 to 40,000 veh-hr delay (Recker et al., 1988).

—Average duration of a common incident is 1 hour with an average 1,200 veh-hr delay

(Recker et al., 1988).

—About two thirds of major incidents are the result of overturns, spills, or shifted loads.

Input Data Summary. The following is a summary of inputs for estimating incident delays based

on the limited data discussed above. These are for the purposes of obtaining rough estimates of

incident delays and associated costs, using the process described in Delay Estimation

.

• Average duration of all incidents

–5 hours.

• Average duration of major incidents (those requiring closure of all lanes)

– 12 hours.

• Average duration of common incidents - 2 hours.

• About 5 percent of all incidents can be classified as major incidents.

• Average unit cost of delay is $15 per vehicle-hour.

• Minimum service flows (or capacities) expressed in vehicles per hour (vph) per direction used

in developing the curves are:

—Rural interstate

–3,200 vph

—Rural other highways

–900 vph

—Urban interstate

–4,000 vph

—Urban other highways

–600 vph

These values are used to calculate the v/sf ratio and determine  from Figure 2.

Illustration. The following illustration describes the sequential steps followed to calculate incident

delay. Assume that average traffic volumes shown above are representative of the respective

groups of functional highway classes. Assume average duration of 5 hours per incident regardless

of the functional class of highway. The steps in estimating the incident delays are summarized in

Table 5 and described below.

Step 1 — Determine the design service flow (vph in each direction of travel) for the functional

highway class in question.

Step 2 — Determine the average actual traffic flow (vph) per direction for that highway.

Step 3 — Calculate the v/sf ratio by dividing the value of Step 2 by that of Step 1.

Step 4 — With the v/sf ratio read off the corresponding  -value from Figure 2.

Step 5 — Obtain the average duration of incidents for the type of incident and/or highway from

historical data.

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-22 

## Step 6

— Multiply the  -value from step 4 by the duration in step 5. The product is delay in veh-hr

per incident on that highway class.

Step 7

— Multiply delay by unit cost of $15 to obtain cost per incident on each highway.

Step 8

— Determine the number of incidents on each highway class for the time period under

consideration.

Step 9

— Multiply cost of incident by the number of incidents to obtain the total cost of incidents on

the highway class for the given time period.

Step 10

— Sum total cost to obtain the grand total for all highway classes.

Table 5. Summary of Steps

Highway class sf

(vph)

(1) v

(vph)

(2) v/sf

(3)  (4) T

(hr)

(5) D

(veh-hr)

(6) Cost

@ $15

(7) # of

incidents

(8) Total cost $

(9)

Rural Interstate 3200 1900 0.6 615 5 3075 $46,125 408 18,819,000

Rural Other 900 450 0.5 125 5 625 $9,375 574 5,381,250

Urban Interstate 4000 3200 0.8 1660 5 8300 $124,500 285 35,482,500

Urban Other 600 400 0.7 160 5 800 $12,000 538 6,456,000

(10) Grand Total 66,138,750



## For calculating incident delay in this report, the following incident delay durations were used:

• HM release accident, explosion 12 hours

• HM release accident fire only 8 hours

• HM release only accident 5 hours

• HM non-release accident 5 hours

• HM leak enroute incident 5 hours

• Non-HM accidents 2 hours

2.3.8 Environmental Damage

Environmental damage is considered to be damage to the environment that remains after cleanup

has been completed. This damage can be calculated in terms of loss of economic productivity as in

agricultural production lost and/or in loss of habitat or ecosystem deterioration. Most estimates of

environmental damage have been conducted for major ecological disasters, such as major oil spills

in oceans or large lakes. Some estimates of environmental damage have been assembled for such

contaminated sites as superfund and CERCLA sites where penalties have been levied.

Three estimates of environmental damage costs are presented for this section. The loss of

agricultural productivity can be estimated as the crops that could not be grown during a 20-year

period due to contamination. If wheat were used as an example, a field could produce 35 bushels

per acre with a value of $5 per bushel. This wheat crop for an acre would amount to a gross income

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-23 

## of $3,500 over a 20-year period. For corn, a field could produce 128 bushels per acre with a value

of $2.50 per bushel that would be worth $320 for one year and $6,400 of gross income for a twentyyear period. Of course, the net income would be considerably less.

A New York State Department of Environmental Conservation study reported property damage to

the incident/accident site as subsequent economic loss of 8.3 percent of the annual net revenue

generated per square meter of property impacted, with a corresponding property devaluation of

5 percent of the resale value of property per square meter (EPA, 1996). The same study reported

that economic loss due to environmental impairment was estimated as $7.37 per square meter of

impacted area in woodland, park and river/lake settings. This would mean an additional loss of

approximately $469 per acre. These figures were reported in 1987 dollars and converted to 1996

dollars for this report.

Natural resource damage settlements were selected as presenting a more conservative estimate

of environmental damage. Damages were collected for 18 cases where environmental damage

settlements were completed (Battelle Compilation of Environmental Settlements, 1998). These

settlements were primarily against companies that had damaged the environment and were now

paying a fine. The average per acre settlement price was $3,792. This average per acre settlement

price could be for more serious pollution cases than that represented by a spill of Class 3, Class 2.1,

or Class 8 materials. However, the average figure represents one conservative estimate of environmental damage. This figure was selected as a simple estimate of environmental damage that could

be used as a representative number. A table listing all of the settlements is shown in Appendix D.

To calculate the natural resource environmental damage from a truck release of Class 3, Class 2.1,

or Class 8 materials, its necessary to know how much material was spilled, where the spill occurred,

and what sort of surface it covered. An assumption was made that all of the spills would occur on

land and on a dirt surface. In reality, a certain proportion of the spills would occur in water or a

paved surface. Furthermore, at least one barrel, or 55 gallons, had to escape in order for the spill to

be considered. Below this threshold no damage was considered to occur.

HMIS data was consulted to determine spill size and distribution. For 1996 and for Class 3 enroute

accidents resulting in a spill, the average spill greater than 55 gallons was 3,031 gallons, although

the largest spill was 9,200 gallons. The data shows that 170 spills took place during an enroute

accident and that 69 percent of the spills are represented by the 3,031 figure. For the material

covered and the spill size, a formula was used which assumed that the surface would be dirt and that

the spill would spread to about one centimeter in thickness. The area covered by the average spill

size of 3,031 gallons would be about .21 acres. To be conservative, this estimated area of coverage

was increased to .7 acres. Thus, for an average spill exceeding 55 gallons, $2,654 dollars of

environmental damage would occur, calculating this spill as a percentage of the $3,792 figure cited

earlier. However, since this estimate was applied to only 69 percent of the enroute spills, all spills

over 55 gallons would average about $1,800 of environmental damage where only a release

occurred.

For the typical full tanker spill of 8,000 gallons, an estimated $7,000 of environmental damage

would be incurred.

The area suffering environmental damage from Class 2.1 materials would be expected to be smaller

than for Class 3 materials. Appendix E provides a discussion of the likely behavior of Class 2.1

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-24 

## materials in an accident. Class 2.1 represents liquefied petroleum gases. The most common

materials are Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). LPG is

predominately propane and LNG is predominately methane. For this report, we assume the spill

area is 60 percent of the area we used for Class 3 flammable liquids, such as gasoline. The LNG

calculation indicates that 70 percent is a reasonable estimate but when the LNG is released from the

tank, there will be some mixing with air that decreases the spill percentage. This will result in

additional vaporization for the colder LNG and will bring the two estimates closer together.

Class 2.1 accidents enroute spills averaged about 2144 gallons per spill. The 2144 gallon spill

would cover about 0.09 acres (assuming 60 percent coverage of a Class 3 spill). The 0.09 acres

are increased to 0.30 acres to be conservative. This represents a cost of about $1,138 per spill.

However, only about 35 percent of the spills exceeded 55 gallons and the average spill size

distributed among all of the accidents was estimated to be 750 gallons per spill. Consequently, the

average cost of environmental damage per spill for an enroute Class 2.1 accident spill is $398.

Unlike Class 2.1 spills, Class 8 (corrosives) spills are assumed to cover about the same area as

Class 3 spills. For Class 8 incidents enroute, an average spill totaled about 496 gallons. Thus,

each spill would affect about 0.12 acres. This area was increased to 0.4 acres to ensure a

conservative estimate. This amounts to about $1,517 of environmental damage per spill. In 1996,

only 66 accidents had spills greater than 55 gallons (about 13 percent). Thus, the average

environmental damage for each of the 522 enroute incident spills would be $191.

Class 8 accidents enroute registered 60 spills over the 1995 to 1997 period. These spills averaged

911 gallons. Sixty-seven percent of all spill accidents had spills greater than 55 gallons. Each

911-gallon spill would cover about 0.06 acres, which was then increased by 3.33 times to 0.21 acres

to be conservative. This amounts to $796 per average spill. However, since only 67 percent of all

spill accidents would have an average spill greater than 55 gallons, the value of environmental

damage for an average spill accident for 1996 would be $533.

The analysis of environmental damage assumed that release-only accidents (no fire or explosion)

for the other nine HM classes/divisions would be similar to either Class 3, Class 2.1, or Class 8 in

environmental damage. For Class 7 radioactive materials, environmental damages are estimated to

be about the same as for a spill-only accident for Class 3.0, while damages for a Class 2.2 spill-only

accident averages about the same as Class 2.1, $398 in environmental damage. All of the other HM

groups except for Class 2.3 have an average environmental damage for a spill-only accident of

about $533, the same as for Class 8.

HM release accidents with a fire and those with an explosion, result in greater environmental

damage, due to thermal damage from fire and blast damage from explosions. Accidents with a fire

result in an average environmental damage of about $7,584, while damages from explosions

average an estimated $30,336.

Class 2.3 (poison gas) releases constitute the greatest environmental damage. Dispersion models

for chlorine gas indicates that an average of $53,336 of environmental damage will result.

### Final Report

—March 2001 2-25 

# 2.4 Impact Summary Discussion

The primary objective of this effort is to estimate the annual economic impact of transportation

safety involving truck transport of Class 3, Class 2.1, and Class 8 hazardous materials. While the

goal is to establish a high degree of confidence in these estimates, the reality is that the quality of

available data limits the ability to do so. Among the reasons for this are:

• Concerns about the non-reporting of incidents/accidents to HMIS, as well as the accuracy of the

reports that have been filed.

• The impacts of catastrophic events on these estimates; the absence or existence of a single

catastrophic event can significantly alter the reported estimates.

• The vintage of the literature being used and its implications in terms of safety investments

which may have been made since then, as well as the net present economic value of the reported

costs.

• The study sample and its relevance to truck transport of Class 3, Class 2.1, and Class 8

hazardous materials on a national level.

Taking these observations into consideration, one should view the results in the context of

establishing a general estimate or bound on the financial impact of this problem rather than a

precise valuation. As such, it represents a valid attempt to benchmark the financial implications

of the problem based on best available data.

### Final Report

—March 2001 3

- 

### 1



# 3.0 High Consequence Low Probability Accidents

3.1 Introduction

he consideration of high consequence/low probability accidents is essential for completing a

comprehensive risk assessment. To determine the likelihoods and sequencing of these

accidents, the first step was to develop event trees for each of the HM class/division groups used

for this analysis. Next, a historical record of severe accidents was compiled. These severe events are

logical appendages to the event trees. Then the likelihood of severe accidents occurring was calculated

by looking at the record of severe accidents and the likelihood of an accident sequence. Then the study

staff estimated the fraction of the accidents represented by accident sequences of the severity

documented b y the historical record. For many of the classes/divisions of hazardous materials, the

historical record identified no severe accidents. In these cases, no appending was performed. The

special analysis section describes the approach that was used in the few cases where the above process

failed to produce the needed results.

The appending of the severe accidents to the event trees is considered to be an important step in the

risk assessment since these severe accidents get extensive media coverage. As a result, the public is

more aware of these accidents than the less severe accidents that occur much more frequently. As will

be shown, these tragic and sensational events are not the events that control the risk level. However,

the general public would consider any assessment that did not explicitly include severe accidents to be

incomplete.

Most of the probabilities shown on the event trees were obtained from the databases maintained by the

Department of Transportation. The primary source of informa tion on non

- release accidents was the

MCMIS Accident File. The primary source of information on release accidents was the HMIS

database. Both databases were corrected for underreporting, using additional secondary sources that

also should have captured t he same accidents recorded by DOT. Numerous queries were run to

identify any relationships that might enable the model to better represent the accident risk. Evaluations

of accident likelihood as a function of time identified no significant trends. Simi lar evaluations of

accident cost over time also showed no significant trend. While this was somewhat surprising given

the known increases in the costs of vehicles, property, and materials, no trend was observed. So no

corrections were made. In actuality , the absence of time

- related trends simplified the analysis because

no time weighting was needed. This enabled the queries to use an extended time period without

correction.



# 3.2 Event Tree Application

Although there seemed to be no overall cost or ac cident frequency trends, queries showed that the

severity of an accident was a function of whether or not a fire or explosion occurred as part of the

accident sequence. Thus, where the data supported breaking out explosions and fire as separate

accident s equences, the breakout was made. One way to show accident sequences is by event trees.

An analysis of the data for all the classes/divisions of HM material being shipped, revealed that all the

classes/divisions could be presented using four event trees. These event trees are shown in Figures 4

though 8. All begin with “accident occurs.” Figure 4 is representative of the event tree structure for

five of the 12 HM categories being considered in this analysis. These classes or divisions represented 

# T

### Final Report

—March 2001 3

- 

### 2



## by th e Figure 4 event tree structure are 1.1, 1.4, 2.1, 3, and 9. For each of these HM categories, the

second branch is “release occurs,” the next set of branches are “fire occurs” and the third set of

branches are “explosion occurs.”

Accident Occurs Release

No Release Fire

No Fire Explosion

No Explosion



## Figure 4. Event Tree Used to Model Division 1.1, 1.4, 2.1,

Class 3 and Class 9 Accidents

### Final Report

—March 2001 3

- 

### 3 Accident Occurs Release

No Release Fire

No Fire



## Figure 5. Event Tree Used to Model Division 2.2, Classes 5, 6, and 8 Accidents

### Final Report

—March 2001 3

- 

### 4 Accident Occurs Release

No Release



## Figure 6. E vent Tree Used to Model Class 4 Accidents

Although the structure is the same, the branch probabilities are different for each HM category. The

branch probabilities are presented in Table 6. The second event tree structure is very similar to the

first e xcept that there is not enough information to develop the “explosion occurs” branches. This

smaller event tree is presented as Figure 5. It is representative of the structure used for five additional

HM categories, specifically 2.2, 5, 6, 8, and 4. The event tree probabilities for these HM categories are

presented at the bottom of Table 6.

### Final Report

—March 2001 3

- 

### 5 Accident Occurs Release

No Release Large Release

Small Release Urban Area

Rural Area



## Figure 7. Event Tree Used to Model Division 2.3 Accidents

### Final Report

—March 2001 3

- 

### 6 Accident Occurs Release

No Release

Release

No Release

Release

No Release Class A

Class B

Class C



## Figure 8. Event Tree Used to Model Class 7 Accidents

Distinct event trees are presented for the two remaining HM categories, Division 2.3

–“Poison Gases,”

and Class 7

–“Radioactive.” As shown in Figure 6, the event tree branches for “Poison Gases”

considers “Release,” “Large Release” and “Urb an Release” as subsequent branches on the event tree.

Table 7 presents the probabilities for the HM Division 2.3 event tree branches.

Table 8 presents the event tree branch probabilities for Class 7 shipments. For Class 7 shipments, the

initial set of

branches consider three types of radioactive material “A,” “B” or “C;” the subsequent

branches consider “release occurs.” The event tree probabilities presented in Tables 6 through 8 form

the basis for the risk analysis that is developed in subsequent ch apters of this report.

3.2.1 Explosions

When the event trees for the various categories of hazardous material were compared, sufficient

accident data were available to divide the fire category into an additional branch “explosion occurs” for

Class 1, Divis ion 2.1, Class 3, and Class 9. In the case of Class 1 materials, no explosions occurred

during the study period of 1990 to1999. However, there were several National Transporta tion Safety

Board reports on truck explosions that occurred during the past 50 years. Based on the historical

### Final Report

—March 2001 3

- 

### 7



## record, there will be one explosion of Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosives every 10 years. The impacts

reported for the explosion scenario were obtained by averaging the impacts associated with the

explosions that have oc curred over the last 50 years.

3.2.2 Fire and Explosion Relationships

Comparisons of the impacts from different classes/divisions of material were made by analyzing fire

without explosion scenarios and explosion scenarios. If the comparisons showed trends that did not

seem to be representative of the accident environment, the results were handled in one of two ways. In

some cases, where there were only one or two accidents in a ten

- year period, the decision was made to

not break out the fire and explosion accidents as a separate accident category with independent impact

costs. In other cases, there were quite a few accidents but some of the impact categories had smaller

impacts than the non

- fire scenario. When this occurred, an average impact ratio from a class with

more data, i.e., Class 3 was used to adjust the data for that cost category. One such category was

personal property damage. The amount of damage is dependent on where the accident occurs. For

example, a fire involving a truck and several o ther vehicles in an urban setting could result in

considerably higher costs than one involving fewer vehicles that occurred in a rural setting. When

there are not many records for a category, often these records are from accidents that occurred in rural

a reas with low population density and dispersed built

- up areas and, therefore, show low impacts.

However, in the case of Class 3, there are enough data for the historical record to capture some

accidents in areas where the population density, and therefore the personal property damage, is likely

to be high.

3.2.3 Special Analyses

There are a couple of categories where special analyses were performed to develop the event trees.

Over the last 50 years, there have been a few releases following truck acciden ts involving Division 2.3

material

— poisonous gases. However, none of these releases have been large, and none have occurred

in populated areas. If such a release occurred in a populated area, fatalities could be expected. Given

the limited quantity of d ivision 2.3 hazardous material being shipped by truck, the absence of a large

release with subsequent fatalities is consistent with the historical record. Thus, the procedure used for

other divisions/classes of hazardous material does not yield the desire d result for division 2.3

shipments. The containers for shipping poisonous gases of division 2.3 are quite similar to the

containers used to ship large quantities of flammable gases, of division 2.1 Therefore, probabilities that

could not be filled in on the division 2.3 event tree could be taken from the 2.1 event tree. The

probability that one of the accidents in division 2.1 would be severe was then estimated using the

constructed 2.3 event tree as the starting point. Once the probability of a large r elease was obtained,

the study transformed the accident location into a highly populated area by assuming that nine percent

of the transport would be in such an area. This figure corresponds to percentages used in routing

models such as HIGHWAY. The numb er of fatalities was then estimated assuming the material

released was chlorine.

The final category for which there was no release data was Class 7, radioactive materials. The vast

majority of radioactive material shipments are small packages, many of w hich are transported by

package delivery services. If the material being shipped is a liquid, there must be sufficient absorbent

material in the packaging to prevent the material from being released as a free liquid. Thus, the

### Final Report

—March 2001 3

- 

### 8



## impacts are very small. Th ere are very infrequent accidents that have larger impacts. What was done

was to model one of each, neither of which, it turns out, adds significantly to the overall risk of

shipping hazardous materials.

3.2.4 Incorporation of High Consequence Accidents

W hile the event trees enable the modeling of accidents with varying severity within the same hazard

class or division, the approach is to use average impact numbers and not extremes. Furthermore,

because it was recognized that some very severe accidents mi ght not be present in the database

records, an effort was made to look at accidents around the world that have been recorded during the

last 50 years to see if any significant accidents have been missed. As a result, several severe, less

frequent events w ere added. As each was added, a check was made to see if the addition presented a

type of significant accident that had not been previously considered. As more and more accidents were

added, fewer accidents could be considered distinct. Therefore, addit ional scenarios contributed less to

the overall risk of transporting hazardous material. For example, a bus

- gasoline truck accident in

which many of the bus passengers were trapped in the ensuing fire was added because a similar

accident killed more than 50 people in Brazil in 1998. Once that accident scenario was added, a

similar accident scenario could be added to consider the situation where the truck was carrying other

types of flammable material, for example, flammable gas, division 2.1. That scenar io presented a risk

similar to that of the bus

-- flammable gasoline truck fire scenario Therefore, that accident scenario was

not added. Once professional judgement indicated that all of the various types of accident scenarios

had been evaluated, the proce ss of identifying additional accidents for inclusion ended, based on the

assumption that no significant risks (ones that would significantly increase the overall risk) of shipping

hazardous materials had been neglected.

### Final Report

—March 2001 3

- 

### 9



## Table 6. Initiating Event Freque ncy and Event Tree Branch Probabilities

for Various Classes/Divisions of HM Being Transported by Truc k

Class or

Division Accident

Frequency Release

(Y/N) Branch

Probability

(Release

Y/N) Fire

(Y/N) Branch

Probability

(Fire Y/N) Explosion

(Y/N) Branch

Prob abilit y

(Explosion Y/N) Branch

Frequencies

1.1 142 Y 1.55E

- 01 Y 9.10E

- 02 Y 5.00E

- 01 1.00E+00

Y 1.55E

- 01 Y 9.10E

- 02 N 5.00E

- 01 1.00E+00

Y 1.55E

- 01 N 9.09E

- 01 2.00E+01

N 8.45E

- 01 1.20E+02

1.4 321 Y 2.84E

- 01 Y 1.10E

- 02 Y 1.00E

- 02 1.00E

- 02

Y 2.84E

- 01 Y 1.10E

- 02 N 9.90E

- 01 9.93E

- 01

Y 2.84E

- 01 N 9.89E

- 01 9.02E+01

N 7.16E

- 01 2.30E+02

2.1 276 Y 1.70E

- 01 Y 1.92E

- 01 Y 2.20E

- 01 1.98E+00

Y 1.70E

- 01 Y 1.92E

- 01 N 7.80E

- 01 7.03E+00

Y 1.70E

- 01 N 8.08E

- 01 3.79E+01

N 8.30E

- 01 2.29E+02

3 1380 Y 3.55E

- 01 Y 1.47E

- 01 Y 3.06E

- 01 2.20E+01

Y 3.55E

- 01 Y 1.47E

- 01 N 6.94E

- 01 5.00E+01

Y 3.55E

- 01 N 8.53E

- 01 4.18E+02

N 6.45E

- 01 8.90E+02

9 179 Y 3.36E

- 01 Y 2.20E

- 02 Y 2.30E

- 01 3. 04E

- 01

Y 3.36E

- 01 Y 2.20E

- 02 N 7.70E

- 01 1.02E+00

Y 3.36E

- 01 N 9.78E

- 01 5.88E+01

N 6.64E

- 01 1.19E+02

2.2 178 Y 1.46E

- 01 Y 7.70E

- 02 2.00E+00

Y 1.46E

- 01 N 9.23E

- 01 2.40E+01

N 8.54E

- 01 1.52E+02

5 61 Y 4.75 E

- 01 Y 6.90E

- 02 2.00E+00

Y 4.75E

- 01 N 9.31E

- 01 2.70E+01

N 5.25E

- 01 3.20E+01

6 50 Y 3.00E

- 01 Y 6.70E

- 02 1.01E+00

Y 3.00E

- 01 N 9.33E

- 01 1.40E+01

N 7.00E

- 01 3.50E+01

8 257 Y 2.84E

- 01 Y 2.70E

- 02 1.97E+0 0

Y 2.84E

- 01 N 9.73E

- 01 7.10E+01

N 7.16E

- 01 1.84E+02

4 33 Y 2.42E

- 01 7.99E+00

N 7.58E

- 01 2.50E+01

### Final Report

—March 2001 3

- 

### 10



## Table 7. Initiating Event Frequency and Event Tree Branch Probabilities

for Division 2.3 (Poison Gases) b y Truck

Class or

Division Accident

Frequency Release

(Y/N) Branch

Probability

Release

Y/N Large

Release

(Y/N) Branch

Probability

Large Release

- Y/N Urban

Release

(Y/N) Branch

Probability

Urban Release

Y/N Branch

Frequencies

2.3 1.20E

- 01 Y 1.68E

- 01 Y 2 .20E

- 01 Y 9.10E

- 02 4.04E

- 04

Y 1.68E

- 01 Y 2.20E

- 01 N 9.09E

- 01 4.03E

- 03

Y 1.68E

- 01 N 7.80E

- 01 1.57E

- 02

N 8.32E

- 01 9.98E

- 02



## Table 8. Initiating Event Frequency and Event Tree Branch Probabilities

for Class 7 (Radioactive) by Tr uck

Class or

Division Accident

Frequency Type Branch

Probability

Release

Y/N Release

(Y/N) Branch

Probability

Release

Y/N Branch

Frequencies

7 1.20E

- 01 A 9.00E

- 01 Y 2.20E

- 01 2.38E

- 02

A 9.00E

- 01 N 7.80E

- 01 8.42E

- 02

B 9.00E

- 02 Y 1.00E

- 01 1. 08E

- 03

B 9.00E

- 02 N 9.00E

- 01 9.72E

- 03

C 1.00E

- 02 Y 6.00E

- 05 7.20E

- 08

C 1.00E

- 02 N 1.00E+00 1.20E

- 03

### Final Report

—March 2001 4

- 1



# 4.0 Accident and Incident Numbers and Impacts

his chapter summarizes the analysis of the annual impacts of accidents and incidents for the

12 categories of HM classes and divisions selected for analysis.



# 4.1 Accident and Incident Likelihood

This secti on presents an overview of the estimated annual number of HM accident and incidents.

Table 9 shows the breakdown by the 12 categories of accidents and incidents. It includes enroute

release accidents broken into release (spill), non

- release (no spill) ac cidents, leaks enroute, and

loading and unloading incidents. Totals are presented for each HM category and accident/incident

type.

Likelihood is the number of accidents that occur in one year. Enroute accident likelihood accounts

for 2,483.6 accidents . The 0.6 accident represents accidents that are not expected to occur each

year. The release accidents are estimated at 767.6 and non

- release at 1,716. Enroute leak incidents

totaled 1,455 and loading/unloading incidents 10,746.

Class 3 accounts for a

bout 64 percent of the enroute accidents with releases and about 52 percent of

the non

- release accidents. Class 3 along with categories: 2.1, 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, 8, and 9 represent about

94 percent of all enroute accidents with releases and about 93 percent o f all enroute non release

accidents. 

# T

Table 9. HM Accident and Incident Likelihood

Enroute Accident

HM Category Release No Release Release/Non

Release Leak

Enroute Loading/

Unloading Total For

All Hazmat

Incidents % of Total

(b y

Categories)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 2.200 12.000 14.200 1.00 1 16.200 0.11%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 9.101 23.000 32.101 3.00 3 38.101 0.26%

2.1 47.000 229.000 276.000 15.00 67 358.000 2.44%

2.2 26.000 152.000 178.000 19.00 126 323.000 2.20%

2.3 2.020 10.000 12.020 5.00 2 0 37.020 0.25%

3 490.021 889.000 1,379.021 587.00 4855 6,821.021 46.45%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 8.000 25.000 33.000 13.00 92 138.000 0.94%

5.1, 5.2 29.000 32.000 61.000 50.00 372 483.000 3.29%

6.1, 6.2 15.000 35.000 50.000 125.00 760 935.000 6.37%

7 6.001 6.000 12.001 4.00 4 20.001 0.14%

8 73.000 184.000 257.000 539.00 4130 4,926.000 33.55%

9 60.300 119.000 179.300 94.00 316 589.300 4.01%

All Categories 767.642 1,716.000 2,483.642 1455.00 10746 14,684.642 100.00%

% of Total

Incidents 5.23% 11.69% 16.91% 9.91 % 73.18% 100.00%

% of Total Enroute

Accidents 30.91% 69.09% 100.00%

### Final Report

—March 2001 4

- 2 

## Table 10. Enroute Release Accident Types

HM Category Fire Explosion Release

Only Total

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 0.1 0.1 2 2.20

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 0.1 0.001 9 9.10

2.1 7 2 38 47.00

2.2 2 0 24 26.00

2.3 0 0 2.02 2.02

3 50 22.0205 418 490.02

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 0 0 8 8.00

5.1, 5.2 2 0 27 29.00

6.1, 6.2 1 0 14 15.00

7 0 0.0005 6 6.00

8 2 0 71 73.00

9 1 0.3 59 60.30

All Categories 65.2 24.422 678.02 767.64

% of Total Enroute

Release Accide nts 8.49% 3.18% 88.33% 100.00%

% of Total Hazmat

Accidents 2.63% 0.98% 27.30% 30.91% 

## Classes 3 and 8 alone are involved in about 77 percent of all of the enroute leaks in the year. For

loading and unloading incidents, these two classes were involved in about 84 percent of all

incidents.

Table 10 sho ws the

breakdown of enroute release

accident types. The table

breaks release accidents into

three types: release only, fire

but no explosion, and

explosion. Approximately

eight percent of all release

accidents result in a fire.

About three percent resu lt in

an explosion. Thus, about 12

percent of all release

accidents result in either a fire

or explosion. However, for

categories 2.1 and 3, the

percentages are 19 percent

and 15 percent respectively.

The number of accidents with

fire or explosion is es pecially important because of their association with larger impacts. These

impacts are discussed in following sections of the report.



# 4.2 Shipment Impact Summary

This section summarizes the annual shipment impacts for each of the HM categories.

4.2.1 To tal Impact Costs

Tables 11 and 12 provide a summary of the total annual estimated impacts for HM shipments.

Table 11 shows dollar values for the following categories: enroute release accidents, non

- release

accidents, leak enroute, loading/unloading. In Table 12, enroute release accidents are broken into

release

- only, fire, and explosion. The costs are totaled for each category and for each type of

accident.

In addition, the percentage that each category contributes to the total HM accident picture is

d isplayed. Total HM annual impacts are estimated at about $1.2 billion. Enroute accidents with

impacts of about $1 billion account for about 89 percent of the total impacts. Release accidents

with impacts of approximately $416 million account for a total of about 40 percent of the enroute

accident impact. Within the release accident category, accidents with a fire and accidents with an

explosion have total impacts of nearly $140 million, about 34 percent of the total cost of enroute

release accidents. H owever, individually these accidents are important because their impact is

greater. The total number of these accidents represents only 12 percent of the total number of

enroute release accidents but 34 percent of cost. Non release accidents make up abou t 60 percent of

the total enroute accident impacts for the annual portrait.

### Final Report

—March 2001 4

- 3 

## Table 11. Estimated Annual Accident and Incident Impacts (Costs)

Enroute Accident

HM Category Release No Release Release/

NonRelease Leak En route Loading/

Unloading Total For All

Hazmat

Accidents % of Total (by

Category)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 $3,700,000 $6,000,000 $9,700,000 $100,000 $0 $9,800,000 0.84%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 $4,100,000 $7,900,000 $12,000,000 $100,000 $100,000 $12,200,000 1.05%

2.1 $25,500,000 $81,100,000 $110,000,000 $ 800,000 $1,000,000 $110,000,000 9.31%

2.2 $9,600,000 $55,000,000 $64,600,000 $1,500,000 $2,100,000 $68,200,000 5.85%

2.3 $3,100,000 $3,400,000 $6,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,300,000 $10,800,000 0.93%

3 $290,300,000 $320,000,000 $610,000,000 $26,100,000 $12,60 0,000 $650,000,000 55.78%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 $3,000,000 $10,000,000 $13,000,000 $700,000 $700,000 $14,500,000 1.24%

5.1, 5.2 $10,600,000 $7,700,000 $18,300,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $22,800,000 1.96%

6.1, 6.2 $8,800,000 $9,800,000 $18,600,000 $5,700,000 $6,4 00,000 $30,700,000 2.63%

7 $2,100,000 $2,400,000 $4,500,000 $200,000 $0 $4,700,000 0.40%

8 $31,200,000 $66,700,000 $97,900,000 $27,900,000 $24,200,000 $150,000,000 12.88%

9 $23,700,000 $45,300,000 $68,900,000 $4,500,000 $2,100,000 $75,500,000 7.13%

All Categories $415,800,000 $616,000,000 $1,031,800,000 $72,100,000 $53,500,000 $1,157,300,000 100.00%

% of Total

Costs 35.93% 53.23% 89.15% 6.23% 4.62% 100.00%

% of Total

Enroute

Accidents 40.30% 59.70% 100.00%



## Table 12. Estimated Annual Release Ac cident Impact Costs

Enroute Release Accidents

HM Category Fire Costs Explosion Release

- Onl y Total

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 $710,000 $1,820,000 $1,190,000 $3,720,000



### 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 $710,000 $18,000 $3,360,000 $4,090,000



### 2.1 $4,500,000 $7,720,000 $13, 360,000 $25,540,000



### 2.2 $810,000 $0 $8,820,000 $9,630,000



### 2.3 $0 $0 $3,050,000 $3,050,000



### 3 $63,600,000 $52,500,000 $174,200,000 $290,300,000



### 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000



### 5.1, 5.2 $780,000 $0 $9,840,000 $10,610,000



### 6.1, 6.2 $2,830,000 $0 $5,970,000 $8,800,000



### 7 $0 $10,000 $2,090,000 $2,100,000



### 8 $2,900,000 $0 $28,400,000 $31,230,000



### 9 $380,000 $130,000 $23,200,000 $23,690,000



### All HM Categories $77,200,000 $62,200,000 $276,400,000 $415,800,000



### %of Total Enroute

Release Accident Costs 18.56% 14.96% 66.48% 100.00%

% Total Enroute

Accident Costs 7.42% 5.99% 26.59% 40.00%



## Leaks enroute account for about $72 million, an additional 6 percent; loading/unloading incidents

cost $53.5 million or abou t 4.6 percent of the impacts.

Class 3 represents 56 percent of all of the impacts, while categories 8, 2.1, 2.2, and 9 represent

about13 percent, 9 percent, 6 percent and 7 percent respectively. These five categories alone

account for approximately 91 pe rcent of the estimated annual impacts for HM shipments. No other

category accounts for more than three percent of the total impacts.

### Final Report

—March 2001 4

- 4



## For Class 3 enroute release accidents, the importance of impacts from fires and explosions is

dramatic. Of the $290 mil lion impact value (about 70 percent of the impacts from enroute release

accidents), fire and explosion accidents account for an estimated $114.5 million or about 40 percent

of the value. Fire and explosion accidents constitute about 15 percent of the 490 Class 3 release

accidents in a year. Similarly, for Division 2.1, fire and explosion impacts represent about 48

percent of the $25.5 million release accidents impact value, although it only represents about 19

percent of the accidents.

4.2.2 Average Impac t Costs

This subsection describes the average costs of HM accidents for the portrait year. The total impact

was divided by the accident likelihood to calculate the average cost. Each high consequence/low

frequency accident represents one accident even th ough only a fraction (based on its likelihood of

occurring in one year) of the full accident cost has been allocated to impacts for the portrait year.

Table 13 shows the average costs by HM category for annual accidents and incidents; Table 14

shows avera ge costs for the different types of release accidents.

The tables demonstrate that for the two types of materials that could result in catastrophic impacts

in an accident, average impacts are high. These include Categories 1.1, 1,2 and 1.3 (explosives) a nd

Division 2.3 (poison gas). Table 14 shows that for Category 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, the average cost of

a release accident is about $930,000 and for Division 2.3, the average cost of a release accident is

about $1,020,000. However, Table 14 shows Class 3 with far greater total impacts and with many

more accidents. The average cost per release accident for Class 3 is about $590,000.

The tables also demonstrate that the average cost is considerably higher for an enroute accident with

an explosion than for an a ccident with only a fire. The tables also show that an accident with only a

release has considerably lower average cost per accident than one with a fire. As Table 14 shows,

accidents with explosions have the highest average cost per accidents. Table 14 shows that

accidents with explosions average $2,070,000; those with fires, $1,150,000; and those with a release

only, $410,000 per accident. All release accidents together averaged $540,000 in annual impacts.

Enroute accidents without a release averaged about $359,000 per accident in the portrait year.

Appendix F provides case study descriptions of selected Class 3, Division 2.1, and Class 8

accidents. Incidents have the lowest average cost. Leak enroute average about $50,000 per

incident, while loadi ng/unloading incidents average only about $5,000 per incident.

### Final Report

—March 2001 4

- 5 

## Table 13. Average Accident/Incident Costs for the Portrait Year

Enroute Accident

HM Category Release No Release (x) Release/

Non Release (y)

Leak

Enroute (z)

Loading/

Unloading 

Su m: (x,y,z)

(incidents

being

constant) %

Difference

f rom Mean

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 $930,000 $501,000 $608,000 $80,000 $0 $688,000 46.8%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 $372,000 $343,000 $352,000 $48,000 $24,000 $424,000

- 9.6%

2.1 $543,000 $354,000 $386,000 $52,000 $15,000 $453,000

- 3.3%

2.2 $370,000 $362,000 $363,000 $77,000 $17,000 $457,000

- 2.5%

2.3 $1,017,000 $341,000 $497,000 $409,000 $115,000 $1,021,000 118.0%

3 $590,000 $361,000 $443,000 $44,000 $3,000 $490,000 4.5%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 $375, 000 $402,000 $395,000 $57,000 $7,000 $460,000

- 1.8%

5.1, 5.2 $366,000 $240,000 $300,000 $50,000 $6,000 $355,000

- 24.1%

6.1, 6.2 $587,000 $279,000 $371,000 $45,000 $8,000 $425,000

- 9.3%

7 $300,000 $400,000 $346,000 $39,000 $1,000 $ 386,000

- 17.6%

8 $428,000 $362,000 $381,000 $52,000 $6,000 $439,000

- 6.4%

9 $388,000 $380,000 $383,000 $47,000 $7,000 $437,000

- 6.7%

All Categories $536,000 $359,000 $414,000 $50,000 $5,000 $469,000 0.0%



## Table 14. Average Accident Costs for the Portrait Year

Enroute Release Accidents

HM Category Fire Costs Explosion Release

- Onl y Total Releases

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 $710,000 $1,820,000 $590,000 $930,000

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 $710,000 $18,200 $370,000 $370,000

2.1 $640,000 $3,860,0 00 $350,000 $540,000

2.2 $400,000 N/A $370,000 $370,000

2.3 N/A N/A $1,020,000 $1,020,000

3 $1,270,000 $2,190,000 $420,000 $590,000

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 N/A N/A $380,000 $380,000

5.1, 5.2 $390,000 N/A $360,000 $370,000

6.1, 6.2 $2,830,000 N/A $430,000 $590,000

7 N/A $7,200 $350,000 $300,000

8 $1,430,000 N/A $400,000 $430,000

9 $380,000 $130,000 $390,000 $390,000

All Categories $1,150,000 $2,070,000 $410,000 $540,000

% inc./dec. relative to Average

Release

- Onl y Accident Cost 183% 409% 0.00% 32%

% inc./dec. relative to Average HM

Enroute Accident Cost 176% 397%

- 2.4% 28%



## As stated above, the full cost of high consequence/infrequent accidents were not included in Tables 13

and 14. Table 15 shows average impacts per re lease accident as if the infrequent accident had occurred

in the portrait year and all of its value was assigned to that year. The table presents a comparison

between what average impacts could have been if these high consequence accidents had happened in

the portrait year and the average values based on the fraction of the total accident impacts allocated to

that year. The comparisons are greatest for those HM materials that can result in catastrophic impacts

in an accident but have a low likelihood, suc h as Division 2.3 and category 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. Although

there are very high consequence/low frequency accidents associated with Class 3, the average cost per

accident doesn’t increase as much when the full cost of a high consequence accident is added to th e

### Final Report

—March 2001 4

- 6



## total because of the high likelihood. For example, as Table 15 shows, for category 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 the

average cost of a release accident for the portrait year would have been $6.6 million and for Division

2.3, $26.9 million if the full impacts of the hig h consequence accidents were included in the

calculation of the average impacts. These average accident impacts compare to $930,000 for Category

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 (14 percent of the cost) and $1,020,000 for Division 2.3 (about 4 percent of the cost). The

ave rages were calculated after the cost of the high consequence/infrequent accident was distributed

according to the likelihood of occurrence. For Class 3, the two figures are closer. There are an estimated $1,030,000 in average impacts per accident when th e full value of high consequence

accident impacts are included in the average and $590,000 of impacts (about 57 percent of the cost)

when only the fraction of the high consequence accident is included.

Table 15. Average Impacts per Accident as if the Hig h Consequence/Infrequent

Accident had Occurred in the Portrait Year Compared to Average Costs for that Year

HM Category Number of High

Consequence

Accidents Average Release

Cost with

High Consequence

Accidents In 1 year Portrait Year Average

Release Co st

with Percentage of

High Consequence Accidents

Relative to its Likelihood High Consequence

Accident

Likelihood

(number per year)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 2 $6,600,000 $930,000 .1 / .1

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 2 $2,600,000 $370,000 .1 / 0.001

2.3 1 $26,90 0,000 $1,020,000 0.02

3 2 $1,030,000 $590,000 .02 / .005

7 1 $2,400,000 $300,000 0.0005

9 1 $390,000 $390,000 0.3



## 4.2.3 Accident and Incident Major Impact Components

This subsection discusses the major components of the impacts for both ac cidents and incidents.

Tables 16 through 23 present the major impact components for total enroute release and non

- release

accidents, total enroute release accidents, enroute release accidents without fire or explosion, enroute

release accidents with a fire , enroute release accidents with an explosion, non

- release accidents, leak

enroute incidents, and loading/unloading incidents. Table 16 provides an overview of the major

impact components for all HM accidents, including release and non

- release accidents. The tables

include the following impact categories: cleanup, product loss, carrier damage, property damage,

environmental damage, injuries, fatalities, evacuations, and incident delay. Analyzing impacts by

major components confirms that injuries and fat alities account for the major part of the impacts.

For both release and non

- release accidents combined, injuries represents about 40 percent of the

impact costs. Fatalities represent about 40 percent of all impact costs for enroute accidents. Thus,

inju ries and fatalities together account for about 80 percent of the impact cost. Incident delay for both

release and non

- release enroute accidents add up to about nine percent of the total cost. Carrier,

property damage, and product loss together represent about eight percent of the total; clean up,

environmental damage, and evacuations account for the remaining approximately three percent of

impacts.Final Report—March 20014-7 

## Table 16. Enroute Accidents: Total HM (Release/Non

- Release) Impact Components

HM

Category Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Tota l Costs % of Total

(by Class)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 14.2 $29,000 $4,000 $240,000 $700,000 $4,900 $2,200,000 $3,100,000 $2,962,500 $530,000 $9,700,000 0.94%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 32.101 $22,000 $13,000 $640,000 $260,000 $5,600 $5,000,000 $4,600,000 $210, 000 $1,180,000 $12,000,000 1.16%

2.1 276 $68,000 $54,000 $5,200,000 $640,000 $130,000 $45,400,000 $44,000,000 $690,000 $10,380,000 $107,000,000 10.33%

2.2 178 $24,000 $62,000 $4,900,000 $70,000 $25,000 $27,600,000 $25,000,000 $230,000 $6,570,000 $64,600,000 6.26%

2.3 12.02 $610 $2,500 $98,000 $200,000 $110,000 $2,700,000 $2,800,000 $176,000 $440,000 $6,500,000 0.63%

3 1379.021 $15,600,000 $1,600,000 $36,100,000 $17,600,000 $1,800,000 $232,000,000 $254,000,000 $90, 000 $52,800,000 $611,000,000 59.23%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 33 $130,000 $25,000 $300,000 $110,000 $4,300 $4,900,000 $6,200,000 $150,000 $1,210,000 $13,000,000 1.26%

5.1, 5.2 61 $150,000 $52,000 $950,000 $50,000 $30,000 $9,400,000 $5,300,000 $52 ,000 $2,280,000 $18,300,000 1.77%

6.1, 6.2 50 $530,000 $120,000 $610,000 $96,000 $15,000 $8,800,000 $4,300,000 $2,180,000 $1,860,000 $18,600,000 1.80%

7 12.0005 $5,500 $3,600 $68,000 $5,900 $11,000 $2,600,000 $1,400,000 $500 $440,000 $4,500,000 0.44%

8 257 $1,140,000 $358,421 $5,100,000 $620,000 $53,000 $44,900,000 $35,000,000 $1,230,000 $9,470,000 $97,900,000 9.49%

9 179.3 $810,000 $110,000 $3,900,000 $630,000 $48,000 $31,500,000 $25,000,000 $10,000 $6,610,000 $68,900,000 6.68%

All

Categories 2483.642 $18,500,000 $2,400,000 $58,100,000 $20,900,000 $2,200,000 $417,000,000 $411,000,000 $7,990,000 $93,800,000 $1,032,000,000 100.00%

% of Total

Costs 1.80% 0.23% 5.63% 2.03% 0.22% 40.40% 39.84% 0.77% 9.0 9% 100.00%

### Final Report

—March 2001 4

- 8



## Examining release accidents by themselves reveals differences with all HM enroute accidents. Table

17 shows that clean

- up costs alone account for about 4.5 percent of the impacts. Although

environmental damage only accounts for about 0.5 percent of all i mpacts, it is more then twice the

relative importance compared with environmental damage for all HM accidents. Table 18 shows that

the distribution of impacts for enroute accidents, release

- only, is similar to that shown for total releases

except that the percentage of impacts related to fatalities and injuries differ. Injury impacts for enroute

accident release

- only account for more that 46 percent and fatality account for about 30 percent of the

impacts, compared to about 37 percent for injuries and 41 percent of the fatalities for total release

- only.

Enroute release accident with a fire and no explosion indicates the relative importance of fatalities in

this accident type. Table 19 shows that fatalities account for more than 61 percent of impacts and

injuries only about 19 percent. Incident delay accounts for only about five percent of the impacts for

this category. Enroute release accidents with explosions are characterized by a similar impact

relationship between fatalities and injuries, as occurs with fire only accidents. Table 20 shows that

fatalities in explosion accidents account for more than 67 percent while injuries only about 16.5

percent. As might be expected, carrier and property damage and product loss are higher and accounts

for about 10.5 percent compared to about eight percent for release accidents with fire

- only. Incident

delay represents less that four percent of the impact total for explosions compared to about five percent

of the total for accidents with fires.

Table 21shows the impacts for enroute accidents without a release. For these accidents, fatalities and

injuries still account for most of the impacts and together total about 82 percent of the impacts.

Incident delay represents about 10 percent of the total. Unlike the r elease accidents, there are no

impacts attributed to clean

- up costs, product loss, and environmental damage.

The distribution of the costs differs for leak enroute incidents when compared to enroute accidents.

Table 22 shows that about 74 percent of the c ost for leak incidents enroute is composed of incident

delay cost. About 22 percent of the cost relates to injuries, 2.6 percent to cleanup costs, and about 1.25

to the cost of product loss, carrier damage, and property damage combined.

Table 23 shows th at for loading and unloading incidents, there are no incident delay costs but the cost

to avoid injuries accounts for about 91 percent of the costs. Cleanup accounts for about five percent of

the impact costs and product loss; carrier and property damage add up to about three percent of the

total.Final Report—March 20014-9 

## Table 17. Enroute Accident: Total Releases, Impact Components

HM

Category Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Tot al

(by Class)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 2.2 $29,000 $4,000 $64,000 $690,000 $4,900 $382,000 $1,800,000 $710,000 $88,000 $3,700,000 0.89%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 9.101 $22,000 $13,000 $240,000 $230,000 $5,600 $1,700,000 $1,400,000 $181,000 $336,000 $4,100,00 0 0.98%

2.1 47 $68,000 $54,000 $1,202,000 $150,000 $130,000 $10,600,000 $11,100,000 $200,000 $2,000,000 $25,500,000 6.14%

2.2 26 $24,000 $62,000 $980,000 $14,000 $25,000 $4,500,000 $3,000,000 $32,000 $997,000 $9,600,000 2.32%

2.3 2. 02 $610 $2,500 $24,000 $200,000 $107,000 $1,100,000 $1,400,000 $46,000 $75,000 $3,100,000 0.73%

3 490.0205 $15,600,000 $1,600,000 $16,200,000 $7,900,000 $1,800,000 $95,600,000 $131,500,000 $66,000 $20,200,000 $290,300,000 69.82%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 8 $130,000 $25,000 $96,000 $36,000 $4,300 $1,400,000 $990,000 $36,000 $293,000 $3,000,000 0.72%

5.1, 5.2 29 $150,000 $52,000 $540,000 $29,000 $30,000 $5,400,000 $3,300,000 $24,000 $1,100,000 $10,600,000 2.55%

6.1, 6.2 15 $530 ,000 $120,000 $234,000 $37,000 $15,000 $3,400,000 $1,766,000 $2,100,000 $572,000 $8,800,000 2.12%

7 6.0005 $5,500 $3,600 $40,000 $5,600 $11,000 $1,000,000 $770,000 $500 $220,000 $2,100,000 0.50%

8 73 $1,138,000 $360,000 $1,900,000 $230,000 $53,000 $15,800,000 $8,200,000 $883,000 $2,700,000 $3,100,000 7.51%

9 60.3 $810,000 $110,000 $1,700,000 $270,000 $48,000 $11,700,000 $6,800,000 $3,500 $2,200,000 $23,700,000 5.70%

All

Categories 767.642 $18,500,000 $2,400,000 $23,100,000 $9,700,000 $2,200,000 $152,600,000 $172,000,000 $4,300,000 $30,800,000 $415,800,000 100.00%

% of Total

Costs 4.46% 0.57% 5.56% 2.34% 0.54% 36.71% 41.37% 1.03% 7.42% 100.00%



## Table 18. Enroute Accident: Release Only, Impacts Compo nents

HM

Category Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

(by Class)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 2 $28,600 $4,000 $63,600 $ 690,000 $4,900 $382,000 $1,800,000 $710,000 $88,000 $3,700,000 0.43%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 9 $21,600 $13,500 $241,000 $233,000 $5,600 $1,700,000 $1,400,000 $181,000 $336,000 $4,100,000 1.21%

2.1 38 $67,800 $53,600 $1,200,000 $148,000 $129,00 0 $10,600,000 $11,100,000 $200,000 $1,980,000 $25,500,000 4.83%

2.2 24 $24,100 $62,200 $980,000 $14,100 $24,700 $4,500,000 $3,000,000 $31,800 $997,000 $9,600,000 3.19%

2.3 2.02 $610 $2,500 $23,900 $200,400 $106,700 $1,100,000 $1,400 ,000 $46,000 $75,100 $3,100,000 1.10%

3 418 $15,600,000 $1,600,000 $16,200,000 $7,900,000 $1,800,000 $95,600,000 $131,500,000 $66,100 $20,200,000 $290,300,000 63.01%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 8 $132,000 $24,600 $95,500 $36,000 $4,300 $1,400,000 $ 1,000,000 $35,900 $293,000 $3,000,000 1.09%

5.1, 5.2 27 $151,000 $52,200 $543,000 $28,500 $29,600 $5,400,000 $3,300,000 $23,600 $1,110,000 $10,600,000 3.56%

6.1, 6.2 14 $534,000 $124,400 $234,000 $36,900 $15,000 $3,400,000 $1,800,000 $2,088,200 $572,000 $8,800,000 2.16%

7 6 $5,500 $3,600 $40,400 $5,600 $10,800 $1,000,000 $800,000 $500 $220,000 $2,100,000 0.76%

8 71 $1,100,000 $358,000 $1,900,000 $227,000 $53,000 $15,800,000 $8,200,000 $883,000 $2,720,000 $3,100 ,000 10.27%

9 59 $814,000 $112,000 $1,700,000 $267,000 $48,100 $11,700,000 $6,800,000 $3,500 $2,250,000 $23,700,000 8.38%

All

Categories 678.02 $18,500,000 $2,400,000 $23,100,000 $9,700,000 $2,230,700 $152,600,000 $172,000,000 $4,270,00 0 $30,800,000 $415,800,000 100.00%

% of Total

Costs 5.89% 0.60% 6.61% 0.88% 0.36% 46.29% 30.09% 0.29% 8.99% 100.00%Final Report—March 20014-10 

## Table 19. Enroute Accident: Fire, Impact Components

HM

Category Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

(by Class)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 0.1 $5,000 $2,000 $10,000 $213,000 $1,000 $17,000 $291,000 $167,000 $6,000 $712,000 0.92%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 0.1 $5,000 $2,000 $10,000 $213,000 $1,000 $17,000 $291,000 $167,000 $6,000 $71,000 0.92%

2.1 7 $19,000 $12,000 $324,000 $60,000 $53,000 $1,540,000 $1,930,000 $111,000 $411,000 $4,460,000 5.78%

2.2 2 $16,000 $1,000 $90,000 $0 $ 15,000 $347,000 $221,000 $0 $117,000 $808,000 1.05%

2.3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

3 50 $1,280,000 $436,000 $2,760,000 $1,900,000 $379,000 $10,200,000 $43,700,000 $17,000 $2,930,000 $63,600,000 82.46%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

5.1, 5.2 2 $24,000 $5,000 $42,000 $6,000 $15,000 $347,000 $221,000 $0 $117,000 $778,000 1.01%

6.1, 6.2 1 $277,000 $91,000 $35,000 $25,000 $8,000 $174,000 $111,000 $2,100,000 $59,000 $2,800 ,000 3.67%

7 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

8 2 $22,000 $27,000 $91,000 $5,000 $15,000 $1,600,000 $221,000 $750,000 $117,000 $2,850,000 3.70%

9 1 $3,000 $2,000 $25,000 $1,000 $8,000 $174,000 $111,000 $0 $59,000 $381, 000 0.49%

All

Categories 65.2 $1,700,000 $577,000 $3,390,000 $2,420,000 $494,000 $14,400,000 $47,100,000 $3,260,000 $3,830,000 $77,200,000 100.00%

% of Total

Costs 2.15% 0.75% 4.39% 3.13% 0.64% 18.71% 61.04% 4.23% 4.96% 100.00%



## Table 20. Enroute Accident: Explosion Impact Components

HM

Category Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

(by Class)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 0.1 $10,000 $2,000 $10,000 $473,000 $3,000 $17,400 $1,130,000 $167,000 $8,800 $1,820,000 2.93%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 0.001 $100 $20 $100 $4,700 $30 $170 $11,300 $1,670 $88 $18,200 0.03%

2.1 2 $1,500 $12,700 $64,000 $33,600 $ 60,700 $2,480,000 $4,890,000 $7,500 $176,000 $7,720,000 12.42%

2.2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

2.3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

3 22.0205 $575,000 $132,000 $1,400,000 $4,390,000 $667,547 $7,700,000 $35, 664,360 $37,200 $1,937,159 $52,500,000 84.40%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

5.1, 5.2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

6.1, 6.2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

7 0.0005 $1,000 $30 $500 $5,000 $15 $0 $0 $500 $170 $7,200 0.01%

8 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%

9 0.3 $930 $500 $10,900 $436 $9,100 $52,100 $33,200 $0 $26,400 $134,000 0.21%

All

Categories 24.422 $588,000 $147,000 $1,480,000 $4,910,000 $740,000 $10,300,000 $41,700,000 $214,000 $2,150,000 $62,200,000 100.00%

% of Total

Costs 0.95% 0.24% 2.39% 7.89% 1.19% 16.48% 67.08% 0.34% 3.45% 100.00%Final Report—March 20014-11 

## Table 21. Enroute Accidents Non

- Release Accidents Impact Components

HM

Category Likelih ood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

(by Class)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 12 $0 $0 $178,000 $15,200 $0 $1,780,000 $1,340,000 $2,250,000 $440,000 $6,010,000 0.98%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 23 $0 $0 $401,000 $26,500 $0 $3,360,000 $3,220,000 $31,000 $843,000 $7,880,000 1.28%

2.1 229 $0 $0 $3,980,000 $490,000 $0 $34,700,000 $33,000,000 $489,000 $8,400,000 $81,100,000 13.16 %

2.2 152 $0 $0 $3,890,000 $56,000 $0 $23,100,000 $22,200,000 $202,000 $5,570,000 $55,000,000 8.93%

2.3 10 $0 $0 $74,400 $1,000 $0 $1,530,000 $1,300,000 $130,000 $367,000 $3,410,000 0.55%

3 889 $0 $0 $20,000,000 $9,690,000 $0 $136,000 ,000 $122,000,000 $25,000 $32,600,000 $321,000,000 52.08%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 25 $0 $0 $203,000 $76,500 $0 $3,500,000 $5,230,000 $112,000 $917,000 $10,047,000 1.63%

5.1, 5.2 32 $0 $0 $408,000 $21,400 $0 $4,040,000 $2,020,000 $28,000 $1,170,0 00 $7,690,000 1.25%

6.1, 6.2 35 $0 $0 $371,000 $58,600 $0 $5,410,000 $2,550,000 $96,000 $1,280,000 $9,760,000 1.58%

7 6 $0 $0 $27,100 $0 $0 $1,570,000 $579,000 $0 $220,000 $2,400,000 0.39%

8 184 $0 $0 $3,200,000 $388,000 $0 $29,100, 000 $26,900,000 $345,000 $6,750,000 $66,700,000 10.82%

9 119 $0 $0 $2,230,000 $360,000 $0 $19,800,000 $18,500,000 $7,000 $4,360,000 $45,000,000 7.35%

All

Categories 1716 $0 $0 $34,900,000 $11,200,000 $0 $264,000,000 $239,000,000 $3,717, 000 $62,900,000 $616,000,000 100.00%

% of Total

Costs 0.00% 0.00% 5.67% 1.82% 0.00% 42.89% 38.81% 0.60% 10.21% 100.00%



## Table 22. Leak Enroute Impact Components

HM Category Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Env ironmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

(by Class)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 1 $12,900 $20,700 $1,700 $1,700 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $36,700 $79,700 0.11%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 3 $1,800 $2,800 $3,300 $0 $0 $26,100 $0 $0 $110,000 $144,000 0.20%

2.1 15 $14,400 $24,800 $21,100 $2,600 $0 $104,000 $0 $62,300 $550,000 $780,000 1.08%

2.2 19 $9,700 $13,500 $20,600 $30,600 $0 $668,000 $0 $24,700 $697,000 $1,460,000 2.03%

2.3 5 $8,3 00 $300 $600 $4,900 $0 $1,670,000 $0 $180,000 $183,000 $2,040,000 2.84%

3 587 $739,000 $68,900 $102,000 $161,000 $0 $3,490,000 $0 $4,700 $21,500,000 $26,100,000 36.21%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 13 $41,600 $1,700 $17,700 $200 $0 $200,000 $0 $8,600 $477,000 $746,000 1.04%

5.1, 5.2 50 $49,000 $21,500 $16,900 $7,500 $0 $557,000 $0 $4,500 $1,830,000 $2,490,000 3.46%

6.1, 6.2 125 $258,000 $10,800 $14,500 $72,500 $0 $741,000 $0 $4,200 $4,580,000 $5,680,000 7.89%

7 4 $3,80 0 $400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,300 $147,000 $155,000 0.22%

8 539 $604,000 $66,800 $88,800 $36,300 $0 $7,370,000 $0 $6,300 $19,800,000 $27,900,000 38.76%

9 94 $133,000 $6,400 $47,900 $6,500 $0 $811,000 $0 $1,800 $3,450,000 $4,450,00 0 6.18%

All

Categories 1455 $1,870,000 $239,000 $335,000 $323,000 $0 $15,600,000 $0 $307,200 $53,300,000 $72,100,000 100.00%

% of Total

Costs 2.60% 0.33% 0.47% 0.45% 0.00% 21.69% 0.00% 0.43% 74.04% 100.00%Final Report—March 20014-12 

## Table 23. Loading/Unloading I ncidents

HM Category Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

(by Class)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 1 $37 $17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54 0.00%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 3 $3,000 $300 $4,300 $10,900 $0 $52,200 $0 $0 $0 $70,800 0.13%

2.1 67 $6,900 $11,500 $54,600 $155,000 $0 $684,000 $15,900 $52,700 $0 $981,000 1.83%

2.2 126 $17,400 $25,800 $8,600 $12,100 $0 $2,030,000 $0 $12,000 $0 $2,110,000 3.94%

2.3 20 $19,400 $1,300 $600 $100 $0 $2,230,000 $0 $60,800 $0 $2,310,000 4.32%

3 4855 $1,510,000 $298,000 $178,000 $331,700 $0 $10,200,000 $700 $1,000 $0 $12,600,000 23.47%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 92 $27,400 $5,100 $107,000 $11,000 $0 $533,000 $0 $900 $0 $685,000 1.28%

5.1, 5.2 372 $58,200 $19,700 $2,300 $4,000 $0 $1,960,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $2,050,000 3.83%

6.1, 6.2 760 $330,000 $38,700 $26,300 $26,600 $0 $5,980,000 $0 $3,6 00 $0 $6,410,000 11.99%

7 4 $900 $3,200 $400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,600 0.01%

8 4130 $716,000 $257,700 $70,000 $69,600 $0 $23,000,000 $200 $2,200 $0 $24,200,000 45.18%

9 316 $96,800 $23,900 $9,600 $3,500 $0 $2,010,000 $0 $800 $0 $2,140,000 4.01%

All

Categories 10746 $2,780,000 $685,000 $462,000 $625,000 $0 $48,800,000 $16,800 $134,900 $0 $53,500,000 100.00%

% of Total

Costs 5.20% 1.28% 0.86% 1.17% 0.00% 91.20% 0.03% 0.25% 0.00% 100.00%

### Final Report

—March 2001 4

- 13



## 4.2.4 Accident Risk and Cost Per Mile

This subsection discusses accident risk and cost per mile for each of the HM categories. Table 24

shows the mileage traveled for 1996, the likelihood for an HM enroute accident (both release and non

release), and the risk per mile for each of the 12 HM categories. Risk of an accident per mile ranges

from 1.3E

- 07 for Division 2.2 to 7.2E

- 07 for Class 9. The average accident rate for HM is 3.2 E

- 07 . If

enroute incidents are included, as shown in Table 25, the risk incr eases to an average risk of 5.0E

- 07

. Thus, without including enroute incidents, the accident/incident rate for accidents on the road declines

by about 37 percent.

Table 24. HM Accident Rate Per Mile

HM Category Hazmat

Miles Total Hazmat

Accidents Hazma t Accident Rate

Accident./Mile

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 23,000,000 14.200 6.15453E

- 07

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 46,000,000 32.101 7.00887E

- 07

2.1 805,000,000 276.000 3.42784E

- 07

2.2 1,400,000,000 178.000 1.30091E

- 07

2.3 50,000,000 12.020 2.38753E

- 07

3 2,800,000,000 1,379.0 21 4.96414E

- 07

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 48,000,000 33.000 6.85756E

- 07

5.1, 5.2 201,000,000 61.000 3.03833E

- 07

6.1, 6.2 218,000,000 50.000 2.29576E

- 07

7 30,000,000 12.001 3.94605E

- 07

8 1,900,000,000 257.000 1.32109E

- 07

9 250,000,000 179.300 7.16646E

- 07

All Cate gories 7,800,000,000 2,483.642 3.19922E

- 07



## Table 25. HM Accident/Incident Risk Per Mile

(Includes Leak Enroute Incidents)

HM Categories Hazmat

Miles Total Hazmat

Accidents Hazmat Accident Rate

Accident/Mile

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 23,000,000 15.200 6.58794E

- 07

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 46,000,000 35.101 7.66388E

- 07

2.1 805,000,000 291.000 3.61413E

- 07

2.2 1,400,000,000 197.000 1.43977E

- 07

2.3 50,000,000 17.020 3.38068E

- 07

3 2,800,000,000 1,966.021 7.0772E

- 07

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 48,000,000 46.000 9.55902E

- 07

5.1, 5.2 201, 000,000 111.000 5.52876E

- 07

6.1, 6.2 218,000,000 175.000 8.03516E

- 07

7 30,000,000 16.001 5.26134E

- 07

8 1,900,000,000 796.000 4.09178E

- 07

9 250,000,000 273.300 1.09236E

- 06

All Categories 7,800,000,000 3,938.642 5.07342E

- 07

### Final Report

—March 2001 4

- 14



## Table 26 shows the avera ge cost per mile of HM accidents. Costs range from a high of 43 cents

per mile for category 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 to a low of 5 cents per mile for categories 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, and 6.2.

The estimated average accident cost per mile for HM is 13 cents per mile tra veled. As shown in

Table 27, if enroute leak enroute incidents are added to enroute, additional costs per mile are relatively

small due to the average low cost per enroute incident.

Table 26. HM Accident Cost Per Mile

HM Category Hazmat

Miles Total Haz mat

Accidents Hazmat Accident

Rate

Accident/Mile

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 23,000,000 $9,700,000 $0.42

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 46,000,000 $12,000,000 $0.26

2.1 805,000,000 $106,600,000 $0.13

2.2 1,400,000,000 $64,600,000 $0.05

2.3 50,000,000 $6,500,000 $0.13

3 2,800, 000,000 $611,000,000 $0.22

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 48,000,000 $13,000,000 $0.27

5.1, 5.2 201,000,000 $18,300,000 $0.09

6.1, 6.2 218,000,000 $18,600,000 $0.09

7 30,000,000 $4,500,000 $0.15

8 1,900,000,000 $97,900,000 $0.05

9 250,000,000 $68,900,000 $0.28

All Categories 7,800,000,000 $1,032,000,000 $0.13



## Table 27. HM Accident/Incident Cost Per Mile

(Includes Leak Enroute )

HM Category Hazmat

Miles Total Hazmat

Accidents Hazmat Accident

Rate

Accident./Mile

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 23,000,000 $9,800,000 $0.43

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 46,000,000 $12,100,000 $0.26

2.1 805,000,000 $107,400,000 $0.13

2.2 1,400,000,000 $66,100,000 $0.05

2.3 50,000,000 $8,500,000 $0.17

3 2,800,000,000 $637,200,000 $0.23

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 48,000,000 $13,800,000 $0.29

5.1, 5.2 201,000,000 $20,800,000 $0.10

6.1, 6.2 218,000,000 $24,200,000 $0.11

7 30,000,000 $4,700,000 $0.15

8 1,900,000,000 $125,800,000 $0.06

9 250,000,000 $73,400,000 $0.29

All Categories 7,800,000,000 $1,111,400,000 $0.14

### Final Report

—March 2001 5

- 

### 1



# Chapter 5.0 Impact Summary by HM Category

5.1 Introduction

his chapter describes and summarizes the impacts for each of the 12 HM categories analyzed

for this report. Differences in HM impacts within the HM categories are analyzed and

explained where feasible. For each HM category, a table compares the accident/incident

likelihood and impacts for release accidents, non

- release accidents, leaks enroute, and loading/

unloading incidents. Release accidents are subdivided into accidents characterized by a release

only, a fire, or an explosion. Total impacts for all release accidents in that group are also provided.

The data included in Tables 28 through 39 present the impacts for one of the 12 HM categories.

Table 40 provides a summary for all HM categ ories.



# 5.2 HM Categor

y 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

Divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, explosives, are characterized by relatively few accidents and incidents in the

portrait year but with relatively great importance placed on the impact of explosions. Table 28

shows the distrib ution of impacts for Divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. As is the case for all of the categories,

injuries and fatalities account for most of the impacts, about 54 percent for Divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.

As Table 28 shows, enroute explosion accidents account for abou t 49 percent of the impacts of all

enroute release accidents and about 19 percent of all impacts and incidents for the category. This

compares to about 15 percent of the impacts represented by accidents with explosions for all

enroute release accidents in all HM categories and about five percent of all impacts for accidents

and incidents in all HM categories.

Evacuation costs are an important component of the impact costs for Divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.

Evacuation costs represent more than 30 percent of th e total impacts for this category. This

compares to less than one percent of the impacts for all HM impacts. Category 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 account

for less than one percent of the total accident/incident impacts for all HM categories.



# 5.3 HM Categor

y 1.4, 1.5 , 1.6

Divisions 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, explosives and blasting agents, are also characterized by relatively few

accidents and incidents in the portrait year. Table 29 provides a summary of accident/incident

impacts for explosions. Explosions in this category acc ount for less than one half percent of the

impacts for enroute release accidents. Accidents with fire represent more than 17 percent of this

value. Impacts from Divisions 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 account for a little more than one percent of the impacts

from all HM categories.



# 5.4 HM Categor y 2.1

Division 2.1, flammable gas, was involved in an estimated 47 enroute accidents resulting in releases

and 229 non release accidents for the portrait year. Division 2.1 is mainly transported in bulk

carriers and approxima tely 64 percent of all listed accidents involved cargo tanks. Table 30

summarizes the impacts in terms of dollars for the estimated Division 2.1 accidents and incidents 

# TFinal Report—March 20015-2 

## Table 28. Category 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

HM Accident/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enrout e

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 2 $13,571 $00 $43,629 $3,714 $1,066 $347,071 $328,598 $375,500 $73,332 $1,186,482 31.89% 12.10%

Enroute Accident

Fire 0.1 $5,000 $2,000 $10,00 0 $213,000 $758 $17,354 $291,054 $167,000 $5,867 $712,032 19.14% 7.26%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 0.1 $10,000 $2,000 $10,000 $473,000 $3,034 $17,354 $1,131,054 $167,000 $8,800 $1,822,241 48.98% 18.58%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 2.2 $28,571 $4,000 $63,629 $689,714 $4,858 $381,778 $1,750,706 $709,500 $87,998 $3,720,755 100.00% 37.94%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 12 $0 $0 $178,005 $15,154 $0 $1,776,000 $1,344,000 $2,253,00 0 $439,992 $6,006,151 61.25%

Leak Enroute 1 $12,875 $20,673 $1,733 $1,747 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $36,666 $79,694 0.81%

Loading Unloading 1 $37 $17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54 0.00%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 16.2 $41,483 $24,689 $ 243,366 $706,616 $4,858 $2,157,778 $3,094,706 $2,968,500 $564,656 $9,806,653 100.00%



## Table 29. Category 1.4, 1.5, 1.6

HM Accident/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 9 $16,482 $11,441 $230,916 $15,248 $4,797 $1,633,821 $1,102,372 $12,111 $329,99 4 $3,357,181 82.13% 27.56%

Enroute Accident

Fire 0.1 $5,000 $2,000 $10,000 $213,000 $758 $17,354 $291,054 $167,000 $5,867 $712,032 17.42% 5.84%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 0.001 $100 $20 $100 $4,730 $3 0 $174 $11,311 $1,670 $88 $18,222 0.45% 0.15%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 9.101 $21,582 $13,461 $241,016 $232,978 $5,586 $1,651,348 $1,404,736 $180,781 $335,949 $4,087,436 100.00% 33.55%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 23 $0 $0 $401,281 $26,498 $0 $3,358,000 $3,220,000 $30,951 $843,318 $7,880,048 64.68%

Leak Enroute 3 $1,798 $2,817 $3,300 $0 $0 $26,087 $0 $0 $109,998 $143,999 1.18%

Loading/Unloading 3 $3,045 $346 $4,348 $10,870 $0 $52,174 $0 $0 $0 $70,782 0.58%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 38.101 $26,425 $16,623 $649,945 $270,345 $5,586 $5,087,609 $4,624,736 $211,732 $1,289,265 $12,182,265 100.00%Final Report—March 20015-3 

## Table 30. Category 2.1

HM Accident/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Releas e

- Only 38 $47,783 $28,959 $814,734 $54,748 $15,124 $6,594,354 $4,329,471 $81,132 $1,393,308 $13,359,613 52.30% 12.33%

Enroute Accident

Fire 7 $18,561 $11,963 $323,621 $59,586 $53,088 $1,544,161 $1,926,715 $111,143 $410,662 $4,45 9,500 17.46% 4.11%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 2 $1,467 $12,667 $64,000 $33,594 $60,672 $2,480,405 $4,887,745 $7,500 $175,996 $7,724,045 30.24% 7.13%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 47 $67,811 $53,590 $1,202,356 $147,928 $128,884 $10,618,920 $11,143,931 $199,774 $1,979,966 $25,543,158 100.00% 23.57%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 229 $0 $0 $3,983,634 $490,112 $0 $34,746,390 $32,979,624 $488,924 $8,396,514 $81,085,200 74.81%

Leak Enroute 15 $14,398 $24,833 $21,103 $2,588 $0 $104,348 $0 $62,333 $549,990 $779,593 0.72%

Loading/Unloading 67 $6,856 $11,506 $54,622 $155,073 $0 $683,932 $15,879 $52,746 $0 $980,614 0.90%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 358 $89,065 $89,929 $5,261,715 $795,701 $128,884 $46,153,589 $44,139,434 $803,779 $10,926,470 $108,388,564 100.00%



## Table 31. Category 2.2

HM Accident/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 24 $8,087 $61,261 $889,271 $14,090 $9,552 $4,164,855 $2,760,458 $31,833 $879,984 $8,819,391 91.61% 12.94%

Enroute Accident

Fire 2 $16,000 $952 $90,280 $0 $15,168 $347,071 $221,078 $0 $117,332 $807,880 8.39% 1.18%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 0 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 26 $24,087 $62,212 $979,551 $14,090 $24,720 $4,511,926 $2,981,536 $31,833 $997,316 $9,627,272 100.00% 14.12%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 152 $0 $0 $3,894,092 $56,013 $0 $23,060,507 $22,199,702 $201,611 $5,573,232 $54,985,157 80.64%

Leak Enroute 19 $9,682 $13,548 $20,636 $30,587 $0 $667,568 $0 $24,684 $696,654 $1,463,358 2.15%

Loading/Unloading 126 $17,413 $25,792 $8,631 $12,073 $0 $2,030,211 $0 $12,048 $0 $2,106,168 3.09%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 323 $51,182 $101,553 $4,902,909 $112,762 $24,720 $30,270,212 $25,181,238 $270,176 $7,267,202 $68,181,954 100.00%Final Report—March 20015-4 

## Table 32. Category 2.3

HM Accident/

Incident Typ e Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 2.02 $606 $2,456 $23,880 $200,400 $106,708 $1,147,071 $1,448,598 $46,000 $75,092 $3,050,811 100.00% 28.21%

Enroute Accident

Fire 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 2.02 $606 $2,456 $23,880 $200,400 $106,708 $1,147,071 $1,448,598 $46,000 $75,092 $3,050,811 100.00% 28.21%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 10 $0 $0 $74,392 $1,360 $0 $1,534,884 $1,302,326 $130,000 $366,660 $3,409,621 31.53%

Leak Enroute 5 $8,252 $267 $594 $4,872 $0 $1,666,667 $0 $179,800 $183,330 $2,043,782 18.90%

Loading/Unloading 20 $19,409 $1,287 $5 89 $95 $0 $2,227,848 $0 $60,750 $0 $2,309,977 21.36%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 37.02 $28,267 $4,009 $99,455 $206,727 $106,708 $6,576,470 $2,750,924 $416,550 $625,082 $10,814,192 100.00%



## Table 33. Category 3.0

HM Acci dent/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 418 $13,760,506 $1,003,878 $12,020,077 $1,573,326 $752,400 $77,640,566 $52,076,913 $11,720 $15,326,388 $174,165,774 60.00% 26.81%

Enroute Accident

Fire 50 $1,284,483 $435,772 $2,758,513 $ 1,895,624 $379,200 $10,215,243 $43,708,773 $17,200 $2,933,300 $63,628,107 21.92% 9.79%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 22.0205 $574,646 $132,238 $1,398,578 $4,391,629 $667,547 $7,700,034 $35,664,360 $37,188 $1,937,159 $52,503,380 18. 09% 8.08%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 490.0205 $15,619,635 $1,571,888 $16,177,168 $7,860,579 $1,799,147 $95,555,843 $131,450,046 $66,108 $20,196,847 $290,297,261 100.00% 44.68%

Enroute Accident

No n

- Release 889 $0 $0 $19,956,608 $9,692,676 $0 $136,359,577 $122,173,169 $24,926 $32,596,074 $320,803,031 49.37%

Leak Enroute 587 $738,946 $68,901 $102,193 $160,600 $0 $3,491,166 $0 $4,733 $21,522,942 $26,089,480 4.02%

Loading/Unloading 4855 $1,505,95 4 $297,586 $177,541 $331,687 $0 $10,236,600 $734 $958 $0 $12,551,058 1.93%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 6821.021 $17,864,534 $1,938,375 $36,413,509 $18,045,542 $1,799,147 $245,643,185 $253,623,949 $96,725 $74,315,863 $649,740,83 0 100.00%Final Report—March 20015-5 

## Table 34. Category 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

HM Accident/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 8 $131,557 $24,647 $95,512 $36,020 $4,264 $1,388,285 $991,833 $35,875 $293,328 $3,001,321 100.00% 20.73%

Enroute Accident

Fire 0 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 8 $131,557 $24,647 $95,512 $36,020 $4,264 $1,388,285 $99 1,833 $35,875 $293,328 $3,001,321 100.00% 20.73%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 25 $0 $0 $202,962 $76,543 $0 $3,504,673 $5,233,645 $112,110 $916,650 $10,046,582 69.39%

Leak Enroute 13 $41,587 $1,727 $17,675 $203 $0 $200,000 $0 $8,615 $476,658 $746,465 5.16%

Loading/Unloading 92 $27,380 $5,120 $107,315 $11,017 $0 $532,966 $0 $913 $0 $684,711 4.73%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 138 $200,524 $31,494 $423,464 $123,783 $4,264 $5,625,923 $6,225,478 $157,5 13 $1,686,636 $14,479,078 100.00%



## Table 35. Category 5.1, 5.2

HM Accident/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Cos ts Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 27 $126,253 $47,311 $501,078 $22,572 $14,391 $5,018,795 $3,092,075 $23,630 $989,982 $9,836,088 92.67% 43.05%

Enroute Accident

Fire 2 $24,498 $4,919 $42,336 $5,950 $15,168 $347,071 $221,078 $0 $117,332 $778,351 7.33% 3.41%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 29 $150,750 $52,230 $543,414 $28,522 $29,559 $5,365,866 $3,313,154 $23,630 $1,107,314 $10,614,439 100.00% 46.46%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 32 $0 $0 $407,748 $21,401 $0 $4,042,105 $2,021,052 $28,005 $1,173,312 $7,693,624 33.68%

Leak Enroute 50 $48,988 $21,462 $16,895 $7,508 $0 $556,962 $0 $4,480 $1,833,300 $2,489,595 10.90%

Loading/Unloading 372 $58,207 $19,662 $2,345 $4,046 $0 $1,962,590 $0 $987 $0 $2,047,836 8.96%

Total

Acc idents/Incidents 483 $257,945 $93,355 $970,402 $61,476 $29,559 $11,927,524 $5,334,206 $57,102 $4,113,926 $22,845,494 100.00%Final Report—March 20015-6 

## Table 36. Category 6.1, 6.2

HM Accident/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Dam age Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 14 $256,584 $33,401 $198,963 $11,935 $7,462 $3, 256,771 $1,655,067 $38,214 $513,324 $5,971,722 67.86% 19.48%

Enroute Accident

Fire 1 $277,000 $91,000 $35,000 $25,000 $7,584 $173,536 $110,539 $2,050,000 $58,666 $2,828,325 32.14% 9.23%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 15 $533,584 $124,401 $233,963 $36,935 $15,046 $3,430,307 $1,765,606 $2,088,214 $571,990 $8,800,047 100.00% 28.71%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 35 $0 $0 $371,221 $58,603 $0 $5,409,091 $2,545,455 $95,536 $1,283,310 $9,763,215 31.85%

Leak Enroute 125 $257,855 $10,836 $14,476 $72,491 $0 $740,552 $0 $4,152 $4,583,250 $5,683,612 18.54%

Loading/Unloading 760 $329,67 2 $38,749 $26,304 $26,579 $0 $5,984,252 $0 $3,591 $0 $6,409,147 20.91%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 935 $1,121,111 $173,987 $645,963 $194,608 $15,046 $15,564,202 $4,311,061 $2,191,493 $6,438,550 $30,656,020 100.00%



## Table 3 7. Category 7

HM Accident/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc ./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 6 $4,484 $3,589 $39,882 $565 $10,800 $1,041,214 $770,755 $0 $219,996 $2,091,285 99.66% 44.90%

Enroute Accident

Fire 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00%

En route Accident

Explosion 0.0005 $1,000 $30 $500 $5,000 $15 $0 $0 $500 $170 $7,215 0.34% 0.15%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 6.0005 $5,484 $3,619 $40,382 $5,565 $10,815 $1,041,214 $770,755 $500 $220,1 66 $2,098,500 100.00% 45.06%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 6 $0 $0 $27,120 $384 $0 $1,572,414 $579,310 $0 $219,996 $2,399,224 51.51%

Leak Enroute 4 $3,843 $378 $14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,250 $146,664 $155,149 3.33%

Loading/Unloadin g 4 $947 $3,234 $379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,560 0.10%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 20.0005 $10,274 $7,231 $67,895 $5,949 $10,815 $2,613,628 $1,350,065 $4,750 $586,826 $4,657,433 100.00%Final Report—March 20015-7 

## Table 38. Category 8

HM Accident/

In cident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 71 $1,115,129 $331,320 $1,773,214 $221,612 $37,843 $14,208,371 $7,955,795 $133,282 $2,603,286 $28,379,852 90.86% 18.92%

Enroute Accident

Fire 2 $22,494 $27,101 $91,286 $5,007 $15,168 $1,604,214 $ 221,078 $750,000 $117,332 $2,853,681 9.14% 1.90%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 73 $1,137,623 $358,421 $1,864,500 $226,619 $53,0 11 $15,812,585 $8,176,874 $883,282 $2,720,618 $31,233,533 100.00% 20.82%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 184 $0 $0 $3,195,701 $388,420 $0 $29,055,044 $26,946,949 $345,406 $6,746,544 $66,678,064 44.45%

Leak Enroute 539 $603,744 $ 66,804 $88,816 $36,302 $00 $7,365,059 $0 $6,317 $19,762,974 $27,930,017 18.62%

Loading/Unloading 4130 $715,717 $257,700 $69,998 $69,6126 $0 $23,043,465 $173 $2,177 $0 $24,158,842 16.11%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 4926 $2,45 7,084 $682,925 $5,219,015 $720,953 $53,011 $75,276,153 $35,123,995 $1,237,183 $29,230,136 $150,000,455 100.00%



## Table 39. Category 9

HM Accident/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Da mage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enroute

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 59 $810,134 $109,670 $1,631,990 $265,441 $31,447 $11,512,465 $6,645 ,058 $3,475 $2,163,294 $23,172,974 97.83% 30.68%

Enroute Accident

Fire 1 $3,087 $1,669 $24,651 $1,118 $7,584 $173,536 $110,539 $0 $58,666 $380,849 1.61% 0.50%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 0.3 $926 $501 $10,918 $436 $9,101 $52,061 $33,162 $0 $26,399 $133,503 0.56% 0.18%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 60.3 $814,146 $111,839 $1,667,560 $266,995 $48,132 $11,738,062 $6,788,759 $3,475 $2,248,359 $23,687,327 100.00% 31.36%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 119 $0 $0 $2,234,257 $359,500 $0 $19,784,362 $18,511,111 $7,008 $4,363,254 $45,259,492 59.91%

Leak Enroute 94 $133,022 $6,415 $47,879 $6,489 $0 $810,782 $0 $1,798 $3,446,604 $4,452,988 5.89%

Loading/Unl oading 316 $96,814 $23,886 $9,608 $3,483 $0 $2,008,367 $0 $766 $0 $2,142,924 2.84%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 589.3 $1,043,983 $142,140 $3,959,303 $636,467 $48,132 $34,341,572 $25,299,870 $13,046 $10,058,217 $75,542,731 100. 00%Final Report—March 20015-8 

## Table 40. All HM Categories

HM Accident/

Incident Type Likelihood Cleanup

Costs Product

Loss Carrier

Damage Property

Damage Environmental

Damage Injury

Costs Fatality

Costs Evacuation

Costs Incident

Delay Costs Total Costs % of Total

Enrou te

Acc. % of Total

Inc./Acc.

Enroute Accident

Release

- Only 678.02 $16,291,175 $1,657,935 $18,263,146 $2,419,671 $995,854 $127,953,640 $83,156,994 $792,771 $24,861,308 $276,392,494 66.48% 23.88%

Enroute Accident

Fire 65.2 $1,656,122 $577,375 $3,385,687 $2,418,285 $494,477 $14,439,539 $47,101,908 $3,262,343 $3,825,023 $77,160,758 18.56% 6.67%

Enroute Accident

Explosion 24.422 $588,139 $147,456 $1,484,097 $4,908,389 $740,399 $1 0,250,026 $41,727,631 $213,858 $2,148,612 $62,208,606 14.96% 5.38%

Enroute Accident

Total Releases 767.642 $18,535,436 $2,382,765 $23,132,929 $9,746,345 $2,230,730 $152,643,205 $171,986,533 $4,268,973 $30,834,943 $415,761,858 10 0.00% 35.93%

Enroute Accident

Non

- Release 1716 $0 $0 $34,927,020 $11,186,664 $0 $264,203,046 $239,056,344 $3,717,477 $62,918,856 $616,009,408 53.23%

Leak Enroute 1455 $1,874,988 $238,661 $335,314 $323,387 $0 $15,629,189 $0 $3 07,163 $53,349,030 $72,057,731 6.23%

Loading/Unloading 10746 $2,781,452 $684,884 $461,679 $624,533 $0 $48,762,404 $16,786 $134,935 $0 $53,466,672 4.62%

Total

Accidents/Incidents 14684.642 $23,191,876 $3,306,310 $58,856,942 $21,880,928 $2,230,730 $481,237,844 $411,059,663 $8,428,547 $147,102,829 $1,157,295,670 100.00%

### Final Report

—March 2001 5

- 

### 9



## for the portrait year. As shown in the table, the cost for the year was $108,388,564. Injuries and

fatalities accounted for approximately 83 percent of the total cost. Carrier damage and incident

delay costs together accounted for about 15 percent of th e total estimated cost for the year. The cost

related to accidents is considerably higher than that for incidents. Both release and non release

accidents account for about 98 percent of the estimated costs for the portrait year. Release accidents

with e xplosions or fires total only seven and two respectively but represent about 48 percent of the

impacts for all enroute release accidents and about 11 percent of the annual impacts for all Division

2.1 incidents and accidents.

Non release accidents alone a ccount for about 75 percent of the costs. This is primarily because the

number of non release accidents is more than three times the number of spill accidents and results in

more injuries and fatalities. Although there are no cleanup costs for the produc t or environmental

damage costs, the costs are still considerably more than for the spill accidents.

Impacts from Division 2.1 represent about nine percent of the impacts from all HM incidents and

accident impacts in the portrait year.



# 5.5 HM Categor

y 2 .2

Division 2.2, non

- flammable gas, was involved in an estimated 24 enroute release accidents and 152

non

- release accidents in the portrait year. As Table 31 shows, none of the release accidents resulted

in an explosion and only two in fires. Release acc idents represent about 14 percent of the impacts;

non

- release accidents represent more than 80 percent of the total impacts for the portrait year.



# 5.6 HM Categor

y 2.3

Trucks shipping Division 2.3, poison gas, experienced an estimated two enroute accidents and 10

non

- release accidents in the portrait year. Because of the nature of the hazard, catastrophic impacts

are possible. One high consequence accident with an estimated probability of once every 50 years

was added to the release accidents. The total enroute release impact for the portrait year, as shown

in Table 32, is estimated at about 28 percent of the total impact cost.



# 5.7 HM Categor

y 3

Class 3, flammable and combustible liquids, accident and incident impacts are the most important

single categ ory of the 12 categories examined in this report. Impacts from Class 3 accidents and

incidents account for about 56 percent of all of the impacts for HM in the portrait year. Class 3

materials travel predominantly in bulk carriers. For the total number of enroute accidents estimated

for the year, an estimated 88 percent of listed accidents involved cargo tanks. This does not include

the approximately four percent of accidents for which this information is unavailable.

As Table 33 shows, Class 3 acciden ts include an estimated 490 release accidents and about

889 non

- release accidents in the portrait year. Total accidents and incidents totaled more than

6,620. The cost related to accidents is considerably higher than that for incidents. Both release and

non release accidents account for about 94 percent of the estimated costs for the portrait year.

Enroute release accidents account for about 45 percent of all Class 3 impacts. Impacts from fires

and explosions are important. Impacts from enroute releas e fire and explosion accidents account for

### Final Report

—March 2001 5

- 

### 10



## an estimated 40 percent of the cost of all Class 3 release accidents, although they only represent

15 percent of these accidents. As shown in table 33, the cost for the portrait year for all Class 3

impacts was a bout $650 million. The costs of injuries and fatalities accounted for about 77 percent

of the total.



# 5.8 HM Categor y 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

Divisions 4.1, 4.2, 4.3



flammable solids, spontaneously combustible, and dangerous when wet

materials

 accounted for only a n estimated 33 enroute accidents in portrait year. Eight were

release accidents. These eight accidents represented about 21 percent of the total impacts for the

year. As Table 34 shows, there were no enroute release accidents associated with either an

e xplosion or a fire. Non

- release accidents represented about 70 percent of the impact value.



# 5.9 HM Categor

y 5.1, 5.2

Divisions 5.1, 5.2, oxidizers and organic peroxides, experienced an estimated 56 accidents in the

portrait year. Table 35 shows that 27 of these were release accidents. Of these 27 accidents,

two resulted in fires. As shown in Table 35, release accident accounted for about 46 percent of the

total impacts, compared to only about 34 percent for the non

- release accidents. Total impacts for

these divisions amounted to about $23 million in the portrait year



# 5.10 HM Category 6.1, 6.2

Divisions 6.1, 6.2, toxic materials and infectious substances, had a total of 50 accidents in the

portrait year of which only 15 were release accidents. One of the release accidents resulted in a fire.

In addition to the enroute accidents, there were 125 leak enroute incidents and 760 loading and

unloading incidents. As Table 36 shows, although almost 61 percent of the impacts were associated

with the accidents , more than 39 percent were associated with incidents. Impacts for Divisions 6.1,

6.2 in the portrait year totaled about $30,500,000.



# 5. 11 HM Category 7

Class 7, radioactive materials, experienced only about 12 enroute accidents in the portrait year.

Ha lf of these resulted in releases. One high consequence accident was added to the release

accidents. However, it was judged to occur once in a couple of thousand years. As Table 37 shows,

the impact from release accidents totals about 45 percent of the t otal impacts. Enroute accidents

represent almost 97 percent of all the impacts. Impact costs for the portrait year totaled about $4.6

million.



# 5.12 HM Category 8

Class 8, corrosive materials, represents the HM category with the second greatest proportio n of the

impacts after Class 3. As shown in Table 38, the cost of the Class 8 category for the portrait year

was about $150 million. This constitutes about 13 percent of the total impact cost for all of the HM

categories. There were an estimated 257 rel ease accidents in the portrait year of which 73 were

### Final Report

—March 2001 5

- 

### 11



## release accidents and two were associated with a fire. As Table 38 shows, enroute accidents

accounted for more than 65 percent of the total impacts. Enroute leaks and loading/unloading

incidents alone accounted for about 35 percent of the total impacts. Costs for avoiding injuries and

fatalities accounted for approximately 74 percent of the total costs with injury costs alone

representing an estimated half of all impact costs.



# 5.13 HM Category 9

Class 9, miscellaneous dangerous goods, represents about seven percent of the total HM impacts.

For the portrait year, Table 39 shows an estimated 179 accidents of which about 60 were release

accidents. One accident was associated with a fire and one explosion with a likelihood of 0.3 was

estimated for the year. More than 91 percent of the impacts for the class are associated with enroute

accidents. Non

- release accidents represented about 60 percent of the total Class 9 impacts and

release accidents about 31 percent of the total. Total Class 9 impacts for the portrait year amounted

to about $76 million.



# 5.14 All HM Categories

Table 40 summarizes the impacts for all HM categories. The table follows the same format as

Tables 28 through 39 and therefore, facil itates comparisons among the 12 categories.

The HM category summaries show clearly that more detail can be developed for some categories of

HM because those classes or divisions have more accident exposure. For example, fire and

explosion statistics were developed for Division 2.1, Classes 3 and 9, but it was not possible to

separate out the accident statistics for many other categories. For these other categories, the impact

costs for fire and explosion accidents are included in the class or division i mpact costs. If the

likelihood of occurrence is greater than about 0.2 per year, they have been included. If all accidents

were captured by the databases, this number would be about 0.1 since about 10 years of accident

history were analyzed. However, be cause of under reporting, this number should be significantly

higher. For fire and explosion to be segmented into separate categories, one should have at least

five actual records of fires or explosions reported during the almost 10

- year evaluation period . If

there were fewer accidents, the only cases where fire and explosion were separated out was for

groups of HM divisions in which the severity was sufficient to generate many detailed accident

reports over the last 50 years.

The 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 HM c ategory fell into this category. In all other cases, the fire and explosion

impacts were not broken out. Thus, when comparing the 12 categories of HM analyzed,

comparisons of the average impacts among HM categories might be the only valid comparison that

can be made. Where maximum impacts are presented, they are based on the historical record and

are made only where data support the results. Thus, categories for which maximum impacts are not

presented could have accidents that are of similar severity to those that are captured in the database.

The absence of such maximum impact cases does not distract from the results, as long as the

limitation that is imbedded in analyses based on historical information is recognized.

### Final Report

—Marc h 2001 6

- 1



# 6.0 Non

- Hazardous Materials Accident Totals and Impacts

6.1 Introduction

n estimating the annual non

- HM truck transport risk, the study attempted to establish

consistency within the HM risk assessment methodology to allow for valid comparisons.

Annual non

- HM accident counts were derived from the MCMIS data and subsequently

modified to reflect under reporting using the same factors that were applied to HM non

- release

accident counts. The economic consequences of each non

- HM accident were derived by usi ng the

same impact considerations as for HM. However, cleanup costs, environmental damage and

evacuation costs were omitted from consideration since they occur to a much lesser degree in non

HM accidents. For the remaining financial considerations (e.g., delay costs, injuries, etc.), the study

derived impact ratios of non

- HM accidents to HM accidents from the results of research performed

by Harwood and Russell (Harwood et al, 1989). The study then derived the overall annual non

- HM

risk by taking the afo rementioned estimates and applying exposure measures reported in the CFS.



# 6.2 Accident and Incident Totals

This section summarizes an analysis of non

- hazardous material truck shipment accidents for the

annual portrait year and the tabulation of impacts an d associated costs. To determine the impacts

from non

- HM accidents for the annual portrait, 1996 was used as a representative year. One year of

data was judged to be sufficient due to the high frequency of non

- HM accidents in one year.

Table 41 shows t he estimated non

- HM accidents for 1996. These numbers were derived from the

MCMIS database. The number of truck accidents was increased using factors suggested in a GAO

report for accidents without fatalities and those with fatalities. The 92,127 truck a ccidents were

increased to 126,880 to compensate for estimated underreporting of 38 percent for accidents

without fatalities (122,732) and 30 percent for accidents with fatalities (4,148) (GAO June 1999).

Numbers of fatalities and injuries were increased using a similar approach. The 3,853 fatalities in

MCMIS were increased by 30 percent to 5,009. The 79,766 injuries in MCMIS were increased to

compensate for underreporting in two steps. First the 75,732 injuries not associated with a fatality

were incre ased to 104,510 injuries, and

second the 4,053 injuries associated with

fatal accidents were increased to 5,269

injuries. This resulted in a total of

109,779 injuries.



# 6.3 Non

- HM Accident Impacts

This section provides an estimate of the impacts of non

- HM truck transportation accidents. Impact

estimates for non

- HM accident product loss, carrier and property damage have been estimated

relative to impacts for HM accidents. During late 1999 and early 2000, information needed for a

more detailed analysis w as requested from major trucking companies. Unfortunately, the

companies were unable or unwilling to provide accident impact data. 

# I

Table 41. Estimated Non

- HM Accidents in 1996

1996 Estimate of Non

- HM Truck Accidents, Deaths, Injuries

Accident Numbers Deaths Injuries

126,880 5,009 1 09,779

### Final Report — March 2001 6-2 

## Table 42 summarizes the impacts in terms of dollars for the estimated non-HM accidents in 1996.

As shown in the table, the estimated cost for the annual portrait year was about $43 billion. The

costs for avoiding injuries and fatalities accounted for approximately 83 percent of the total cost.

Carrier and property damage together accounted for about nine percent of the total. Incident delay

and product loss each contributed about four percent of the total for the year. Despite an average

product loss that is higher for non-HM accidents, incident delay costs are considerably lower and

environmental damage and decontamination costs are absent. Thus, all but $7 billion of the impact

cost of about $43 billion results from injuries and fatalities.

The impact of a non-HM accident averages about $340,000 per accident.

Table 42. Estimated Annual Non-HM Accident Impacts

Annual

Number Product Loss Carrier/Property

Damage Injury Fatal Incident Delay

126,880 $12,416 per 1



### (estimated)

$1,575,342,080 $29,125 per 2



### (estimated)

$3,695,434,558 $200,000 per 3



### 109,779=

$21,955,800,000 $2,800,000 per 4



### 5,009 fatalities =

$14,025,200,000 $15/per person

hour 5



### = 1,860,948,960

Total $43,112,725,598



### 1 HMIS database, four times average cost for Class 3 accident in 1990 to 1999

2 HMIS database, 68 percent of average cost per accident for 1990 to 1999 (Harwood et al, 1989)

3 Value placed on avoiding injury

4 Value placed on avoiding a fatality

5 Includes passenger vehicles and trucks



# 6.4 Non-HM Accident Risk and Cost per Mile

Based on the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey, non-HM materials traveled an estimated 174 billion

miles in 1997. With an estimated 126,880 accidents in 1996, this results in an accident risk of

7.3E-07 per mile traveled.

Based on the total impact cost of $43 billion, the estimated average accident cost per mile for nonHM is 25 cents per mile traveled.

### Final Report — March 2001 7-1 

# 7.0 Comparative Impacts and Risk of HM

and Non-HM Shipments

7.1 Introduction

his section examines the comparative impacts of shipping HM and non-HM cargoes on the

nation’s highways. Due to some inherent data uncertainties with respect to material flows,

these comparisons are preliminary. Future research will be needed to present more definitive

risk comparisons. Section 9.0 presents data needs and opportunities.



# 7.2 Comparative Costs

Although non-HM shipments have a far greater cumulative impact than HM shipments,

approximately $43.1 billion as compared to $1.1 billion in the portrait year, the cost per individual

accident differs considerably.

Despite an average product loss that is higher for non-HM accidents, incident delay costs for nonHM accidents are considerably lower and environmental damage and decontamination costs are

usually limited. For example in the portrait year,

• all release and non-release enroute accidents for all HM categories have an average

value of about $414,000 per accident;

• non-HM accidents averaged about $340,000 per accident; however

• the average per HM release accident costs about $536,000

There is a large difference when non-HM accident impacts are compared with HM release accident

impacts.

An even greater contrast occurs when the average impact costs of a release accident with a fire or

one with an explosion are compared to the average cost of a non-HM accident. In the portrait year,

the average cost of

• an HM release accident with a fire was about $1,152,000. This average cost is almost

three times as much as for the non-HM accident.

• an HM release accident with an explosion is about $2,100,000 or more than five times

the average cost of a non-HM accident.



# 7.3 Comparative Risk and Cost per Mile

The non-HM accident rate of 0.73 per million vehicle miles is more than double the average HM

accident rate of 0.32 per million vehicle miles. These accident rates are shown in Table 43. The

table also compares accident rates for each of the 12 HM categories with the accident rate for nonHM. The table shows that for all HM classes, the accident rate is lower than for non-HM. However

differences vary from about four percent higher for Divisions 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 to almost 80 percent 

# T

### Final Report

—March 2001 7

- 2



## higher for Class 8. Table 43 also ind icates that the average accident rate is about 56 percent lower

for all HM classes when compared with non

- HM shipments.

Table 43. HM and Non

- HM Accident Rate per Mile

HM Class/Division Hazmat

Miles Total Hazmat

Accidents Hazmat Accident

Rate

Accident/M ile % Decrease

Relative to Non

Hazmat

Accident Rate

(7.27652E

- 07)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 23,100,000.00 14.2 6.15E

- 07

- 15.4%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 45,800,000.00 32.101 7.01E

- 07

- 3.7%

2.1 805,000,000.00 276 3.43E

- 07

- 52.9%

2.2 1,368,000,000.00 178 1.30E

- 07

- 82.1%

2.3 5 0,300,000.00 12.02 2.39E

- 07

- 67.2%

3 2,778,000,000.00 1,379.02 4.96E

- 07

- 31.8%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 48,100,000.00 33 6.86E

- 07

- 5.8%

5.1, 5.2 201,000,000.00 61 3.04E

- 07

- 58.2%

6.1, 6.2 218,000,000.00 50 2.30E

- 07

- 68.5%

7 30,400,000.00 12.001 3.95E

- 07

- 45.8%

8 1,945,000,000.00 257 1.32E

- 07

- 81.8%

9 250,000,000.00 179.3 7.17E

- 07

- 1.5%

All Classes 7,763,000,000.00 2,483.64 3.20E

- 07

- 56.0%



## The biggest uncertainty associated with the comparison of accident rates is the reliability of the

mileage estimate deri ved from the Commodity Flow Study. The Commodity Flow Survey provides

ton

- miles by HM class and for non

- HM shipments. To convert the ton

- miles to mileage, ton

- miles

must be divided by the average weight of cargo that trucks carry. The Census Bureau was able to

supply the average shipment weight for each HM class as well as for non

- HM. However, trucks

often carry more than one shipment. Consequently, the average number of shipments per truck

must be used to multiply the average shipment weight to obtain an average weight per truckload.

This weight converted into tons was divided into the ton

- miles to estimate mileage. The uncertainty

of the mileage estimates applied here rests in determining an accurate average number of shipments

per truckload.

The entire analysis is based on the assumption that two shipments constitute a single truckload. The

selection of two as the average number of shipments associated with a truckload is based on expert

knowledge and assumptions about shipping patterns of HM car riers. Varying HM shipping

considerations make assumptions difficult. For example, for bulk shipments, i.e. gasoline, the cargo

tank may transport the gasoline to two separate service stations and then return, still placarded, but

empty. That is defined as two shipments but the return placarded empty trip would still be

considered as part of HM mileage. On the other hand, a different scenario might be occurring for

corrosives. The truckload leaving the shipper might be placarded as a corrosive shipment on its

outgoing leg and the placards might be removed and a non

- HM cargo transported to some other

facility after delivering the corrosive shipment to its destination. In this case, the factor of two

assumes that the load of corrosive containers would, o n average, be delivered to two receivers. The

factor of two could be too low. There is nothing to prevent bulk carriers from dropping gasoline off

at three service stations; it is also reasonable to assume that the corrosive truckload might drop off

prod uct at many locations.

### Final Report

—March 2001 7

- 3



## Using the factor of two causes the total HM mileage to be about five percent of the total truck

mileage during a year. There are many checks on the total truck mileage. The best is the collection

of diesel road taxes. It’s reas onable to assume that a diesel truck gets about six miles per gallon. In

addition, several past surveys have estimated that the HM shipments constitute about five percent of

the total truck miles traveled. To make the accident rate the same as the non

- HM accident rate, the

total HM truck mileage would have to be cut in half to less than 2.5% of the total mileage. No

survey has estimated the HM truck mileage to be that small a fraction of the total truck mileage.

Such a reduction would also require that the assumption be made that there is only one shipment per

truck. This is known to be incorrect.

Perhaps the difference in accident rate per mile results from underreporting. If twice as many HM

accidents went unreported as non

- HM accidents, then the accident rates would be the same.

However, the underreporting would be expected to be greater for non

- HM accidents. Thus, even

after considering the uncertainties, the lower accident rate shown for HM shipments appears to be

significant.

The differenc es in the accident rates among hazard classes/divisions are more uncertain. First of all,

some hazard classes/divisions might have a larger number of shipments on a truck when it leaves

the shipping dock. Whereas the 30 percent lower rate might be reason able for Class 3 shipments, if

there were four shipments per truck for corrosives instead of two, then the accident rate for

corrosives would be 40 percent less than the non

- HM accident rate. This can be compared with the

80% lower rate calculated by usin g the two shipment average. A similar factor might be reasonable

to use for Division 2.2 truck transport. If the truck is delivering liquefied gases, there are probably

many cases where the facility, i.e., a hospital receiving liquefied oxygen, would not receive the

entire content of the cargo tank. The cargo might be split among several facilities. Similarly, a

truck delivering standard portable industrial gas cylinders might drop one or two cylinders at each

of 10 to 20 facilities. Low numbers are ea sier to explain away than numbers approaching the non

HM accident rate. Since it is difficult to envision a scenario where the number of shipments per

truck is less than two, particularly for a specialized vehicle such as a bulk cargo tank, the high

accid ent rate for Class 9 materials compared to other HM classes/divisions might be significant.

Before such a conclusion can be made, additional data is needed.

As shown in Table 44, the non

- HM accident cost per mile is about 25 cents. The average HM

accide nt cost per mile is about 13 cents. Thus, the non

- HM cost per mile is nearly twice that of the

average HM accident cost per mile. The slight change in ratio by moving from accident rates to

cost rates is due to the fact that HM accidents have only a slig htly higher average cost associated

with them. This is due to the fact that accident

- induced injuries and fatalities associated with both

HM and non

- HM accidents drive the majority of the economic impacts.

### Final Report

—March 2001 7

- 4 

## Table 44. HM Accident and Non

- HM Accident Cost per Mile

HM Class/Division Hazmat

Miles Hazmat

Road Costs Hazmat

Costs per

Mile % Difference

Relative to Non

Hazmat

Cost per Mile ($0.25)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 23,100,000 $9,730,000 $0.42 70.6%

1.4, 1.5, 1.6 45,800,000 $12,000,000 $0.26 5.7%

2.1 805,0 00,000 $107,000,000 $0.13

- 46.4%

2.2 1,368,000,000 $64,600,000 $0.05

- 80.9%

2.3 50,300,000 $6,460,000 $0.13

- 48.1%

3 2,778,000,000 $611,000,000 $0.22

- 11.0%

4.1, 4.2, 4.3 48,100,000 $13,000,000 $0.27 9.7%

5.1, 5.2 201,000,000 $18,300,000 $0 .09

- 63.1%

6.1, 6.2 218,000,000 $18,600,000 $0.09

- 65.5%

7 30,400,000 $4,500,000 $0.15

- 40.2%

8 1,945,000,000 $97,900,000 $0.05

- 79.6%

9 250,000,000 $76,500,000 $0.31 23.7%

All Classes 7,763,000,000 $1,039,000,000 $0.13

- 45.8%



# 7.4 Discuss ion

Comparisons between hazardous and non

- hazardous transport must be made by utilizing multiple

databases prepared for different purposes by several organizations. For example, the carrier files

the HMIS accident/incident report and a police agency compl etes an accident report that is

assembled by a state and submitted to MCMIS. The Commodity Flow Survey was conducted by

the Census Department whose focus is primarily economic. In the first phase of this study, an

investigation was conducted to determine how many unique accidents were reported in all

databases. The results were key for the comparison of HM and non

- HM impacts. In most

situations, the accident was reported by two sources but seldom by all. These differences make it

challenging to compare non

- hazardous and hazardous transport risk.

Though it is difficult to compare hazardous and non

- hazardous transport risk, the differences appear

to be significant enough to conclude that the shear magnitude of non

- hazardous transport accidents

dominate s highway transport risk. Furthermore, although data uncertainties are evident, the

difference in accident rates for non

- hazardous and HM truck shipments appear to be meaningful.

Perhaps the specific hazardous material trucking regulations and the additi onal care provided by

carriers and shippers are effectively reducing the accident rate for hazardous material shipments.

This may indicate that these improvements in safety could possibly be applied to reduce non

- HM

shipment accident rates.

While an ef

fort was made to collect shipment and accident information for various categories of

HM over a ten

- year

- period, uncertainties remain. The approach taken in this analysis was to base

the results on actual data as opposed to theoretical modeling. For HM ca tegories with only a few

accidents in a 10

- year period, large uncertainties develop. Furthermore, it is easier to model bulk

material transport as opposed to shipments containing many packages. This can be seen in the

comparison of Class 3 and Class 8. Together they make up over 75 percent of the overall HM truck

shipment risk. About 90 percent of the Class 3 shipments are bulk but only 50 percent of the Class

8 shipments are bulk. When a Class 8 shipment gets involved in an accident, many of the relea ses

are from one or two packages. Although this accident enters into the statistics of estimated accident

### Final Report

—March 2001 7

- 5



## rates, the actual cost of these accidents is relatively small. This is seen in the low cost per mile rates

for Class 8 as compared to Class 3. Some of the other categories with low rates are also probably

influenced by non

- bulk shipment.

Most analyses show that hazardous material shipments make up between four and eight percent of

all shipments. Consequently, the cost of non

- HM accidents dominate s that of HM accidents. As

shown in other sections of the report, the average cost of an accident is higher for HM, but these

higher costs are not nearly large enough to overcome the large disparity in shipment volume

between HM and non

- HM shipments by tr uck. This dominance is illustrated by an assumption

embedded in the analysis. In the HMIS database, all non

- HM related injuries and fatalities are

excluded. Therefore, the non

- HM related fatalities and injuries were added back into the analysis.

This w as done by calculating the injury and fatality rate per accident from MCMIS and then adding

this rate to the injury and fatality rate for HM, as reported in the HMIS database. The importance of

this assumption is realized only after the total cost of inju ries and fatalities for non

- HM accidents

have been obtained. These two costs dominate the impacts. As shown in the analysis, unless the

HM costs for other impact categories are much higher, these two impact costs will dominate the

HM risk as well.

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 1 

# 8.0 SafeStat Applications

he economic impact of incidents and accidents associated with the truck transport of HM in

the United States is substantial. The magnitude of this impact underscores the importance of

effectively managing HM transportation ris k. One mechanism for improving safety

performance in HM transportation is making more effective use of existing programs, such as the

FMCSA’s Safety Status (SafeStat) Measurement System compliance initiative.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore

• how the findings of this study correlate with assumptions about HM carriers contained in

the current SafeStat algorithm; and,

• if appropriate, suggest enhancements to the SafeStat algorithm that might improve its

effectiveness in identifying high risk HM c arriers.

This chapter is intended to serve as a conceptual discussion rather than a prescription for change.



# 8.1 Introduction to SafeStat

The SafeStat Program was conceived under a research project at the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Volpe Nation al Transportation System Center to monitor motor carrier safety

fitness. SafeStat is designed to incorporate current on

- road safety performance, enforcement

history, and on

- site compliance review information in an automated, data

- driven analysis system fo r

measuring the relative safety fitness of motor carriers. The objective of this initiative is to enable

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to target inspection resources more

effectively by improving identification of those carriers with high risk profiles.

SafeStat ranks the relative performance of motor carriers in four areas: (1) accident history,

(2) driver performance, (3) vehicle safety, and (4) safety management. While SafeStat algorithms

do contain entries related to hazard ous material transport, the impact of the HM entries on the final

rankings is unclear. This makes it difficult for regulators to determine if the SafeStat algorithm is

targeting sufficient resources at HM carriers, specifically bulk carriers that have bee n shown in

previous analyses to make up about 75 percent of the HM Risk. This study will help determine if

the ratio of HM to non

- HM carriers being placed in the various ranking categories is commensurate

with the relative risk.



# 8.2 Current Role of HM in the SafeStat Algorithm

As mentioned above, SafeStat evaluates carrier performance across four Safety Evaluation Areas

(SEAs): Accident, Driver, Vehicle and Safety Management. Within each SEA, the performance of

an individual carrier is compared to its p eers. A carrier SEA score in each category is obtained by

dividing the carriers into groups with similar experiences (i.e. carriers having a similar number of

accidents). Then the rating compares the performance of all carriers in the group, ranking them in

ascending order and assigning each a corresponding percentile ranking from 0 to 100. For example,

the carrier in the group with the worst performance would be assigned a score of 100. 

# T

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 2



## Carriers with a SEA score above 75 in at least one of the four s afety evaluation areas are placed in

an A through G category, based on its score in each of the four areas. Not all the evaluation areas

are weighted equally in calculating a carrier’s score. A carrier’s Accident SEA score is doubled and

the carrier’s Dr iver SEA score is multiplied by 1.5 when the total score is calculated. The other two

categories have a weighting of one.

To be assigned to:

• A Category, a carrier must have a weighted score in excess of 350. (Includes all 4 SEAs

or 3 SEAs that result

in a weighted score > 350)

• B Category, its score must be less than 350 but greater than 225. (Includes 3 SEAs that

result in a weighted score of < 350 or 2 SEAs that result in a weighted score > 225).

• C Category, its score must be less than 225 and great er than 150. (2 SEAs that result in

a weighted score < 225)

The remainder of the scored carriers have a score above 75 in only one area. If its score is above 75

in the accident, driver, vehicle or safety management areas, the carrier is assigned to the D, E, F or

G Category respectively.

Carriers in the A and B Category receive an on site compliance review by FMCSA inspectors.

Carriers assigned to a lower category are candidates for a compliance review as resources allow.

Occasionally, D Category car riers, those that have an accident and score from 75 to 100 points, are

reviewed by FMCSA inspectors.

The information used in the SEA calculation is obtained from accident data, compliance reviews,

enforcement actions and roadside inspections. The accide nt data are time weighted so that poor

performance during the last six

- month period is more important than poor performance earlier. For

the other three safety evaluation areas, a carrier’s score is not time weighted.

HM is already considered in the SEA calculations to a limited extent. In the Accident SEA, if an

accident results in an HM release, then points are added to the severity index component of the

scoring algorithm. Similarly, the Safety Management SEA (SMSEA) contains an HM review

indicator ( HMRI) that is based on the number and severity of hazardous material

- related

acute/critical violations cited at a carrier’s most recent compliance review.



# 8.3 SafeStat HM Analysis

To understand these relationships and their implications, an analysis was conducted to: (1) evaluate

the current SafeStat algorithm in terms of the percentage of HM carriers that have been scored, (2)

examine these carriers and determine if they adequately reflect HM transportation risk as

demonstrated in this comparative risk assessment study and, if appropriate, (3) assess how the

algorithm could be adjusted to target high risk HM carriers more effectively.

In the discussion below, the contribution of HM accidents, HM related enforcement actions, and

HM on

- site compliance reviews to the scoring and ranking of HM carriers is systematically

determined. Sensitivity analyses are subsequently performed on the scoring and ranking algorithms

to determine how changes in the algorithms would affect the scores assigned to HM carrier s and

their respective category ranking.

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 3



## 8.3.1 The Contribution of HM to SafeStat

To determine the impact of HM within SafeStat, the contribution of HM was first removed from the

algorithm. To accomplish this, new Safety Evaluation Area (SEA) values were calcu lated without

HM. The HM contribution to SafeStat most directly affects ACSEA and SMSEA.

The HM contribution to SMSEA is the easiest to remove. Rather than calculate SMSEA based on

the maximum of the Enforcement History Indicator (EHI), Hazardous Mate rial Review Indicator

(HMRI), and Safety Management Review Indicator (SMRI), the SMSEA value without HM is

based on the maximum of EHI and SMRI. In the recent SafeStat run of 09/23/2000, the net effect

of adding HMRI to the calculation of SMSEA resulted i n 26 additional carriers requiring a

compliance review because their scores fell in the A or B Category as a result of the poor HM

performance. The analysis also showed that 42 carriers went from unscored to scored because of

this factor. When considerin g that there are about 1,850 known HM carriers included in the 9/23/00

SafeStat run, the effect of HMRI is limited because it only affects the value of SMSEA when it is

greater than EHI, the enforcement indicator, plus SMRI, the non

- HM compliance review sc ore. It is

further limited because the SMSEA has no effect on the carrier’s score if it is less than 75.

The contribution of HM to the ACSEA is similar but the logic of when to use the component with

the HM factor is more involved. The time weighted num ber of accidents, Total Consequence/Time

Weighted Accidents (TCTWA), is determined by a number of factors. The TCTWA is calculated

by first determining the severity of a crash. The severity score is the sum of two different

components of the accident. A score of 1 is assigned to the accident if the truck involved in the

accident was towed but no injuries or fatalities occurred. A score of 2 is assigned if an injury or

fatality occurred. If there was a hazardous material release, a score of 1 is then ad ded to this

severity score. The severity score is then “time weighted.” The TCTWA is “increased” by

multiplying the severity score by

• 3 if the release occurred in the last six months,

• 2 if the release occurred in the period of time between 7 and 18 months, and

• 1 for accidents that resulted in an HM release 19 to 30 months prior to the SafeStat run

date.

Note, accidents that occurred more than 30 months before the review date are not considered.

To remove HM releases from TCTWA, the MCMIS accide nt file was searched to identify releases

that occurred in each of the three time periods. These were weighted and then added together to

produce the effect on TCTWA. It was assumed that the HM releases occurred when both the

accident fields, HM Placard and HM Cargo were “Y.” The next step was to subtract the HM

contribution to TCTWA from every carrier that had an HM release during the 30

- month period.

The results were placed in the “TCTWANEW” field. This number was then divided by the number

of power units operated by the carrier to obtain New Accident Involvement Measure, “AIMNEW.”

Since the number of accidents is not changed by the occurrence of an HM spill, the carrier’s

accident group is not changed. Thus, the next step is to recalculate the New Accident Involvement

Indicator “AIINNEW” for each carrier based on its accident group.

ACSEA is calculated from “AIINEW” and “RAI.” Although “RAI” is called the reportable

accident indicator, it might more accurately be called the recent accident indic ator. It contains no

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 4



## HM component and is calculated based on the number of reported accidents the carrier has

experienced since the last compliance review. “RAI” is the percentile ranking of “RAR,” which is

calculated by dividing the number of accidents since the review by the annual mileage driven by the

carrier in millions. “ACSEANEW” is

• set equal to “AIINEW” if there has been no compliance review in the last 12 months or

• set to be the higher of “RAI” and “AIINEW” if a compliance review has occurre d in the

last 12 months, but there has been no reported accident since the last compliance review.

When this methodology was applied to the 9/23/00 SafeStat run, only 24 ACSEA scores for carriers

changed and of those, only 7 required a compliance review because they fell in an A or B Category.

Thus, only 7 carriers, about one percent, required a compliance review because of their poor HM

performance.

When HM contributions to SafeStat were removed from both the SMSEA and ACSEA values, only

29 had their

scores elevated into the A, B, C, or D scoring categories.

8.3.2 Expected Influence of HM in the SafeStat Scoring from the Comparative Risk

Analysis

Previous sections of this report have compared the risk of hazardous and non

- hazardous material

truck shipments. The analysis results provided insights into how HM could be weighted in the

SafeStat algorithm.

The estimated annual accident impact for non

- HM shipments is $43.1 billion as compared to $1.1

billion for HM shipments. Thus, HM comprises approximately 2. 5% of the total impacts. It

logically follows that HM should represent about 2.5% of the Accident SEA in SafeStat. However,

a higher inspection fraction might be justifiable. As described in Chapter 7, HM accidents

individually represent greater costs t han non

- HM accidents. Comparing the average $536,000 cost

of an HM accident (including only release accidents) with the average $400,000 cost of a non

- HM

accident, shows that the HM accident has an impact that averages about 34% greater than that for

the non

- HM accident. The high consequence HM accident poses an increased transportation risk

that should also be considered. The average cost of an HM accident with an explosion is about

$2.1million. This is more than five times the cost of the average non

- HM accident.



# 8.4 Changes in SafeStat Applications

There are several approaches to making HM more representative in SafeStat. They include the

following:

• Selecting appropriate methodologies for identifying HM carriers.

• Segmenting bulk and non

- bulk HM ca rriers.

• Evaluating the performance of non

- bulk carriers that move both HM and non

- HM

• Deciding on the vintage of “historical” data to use in the algorithms.

• Determining inputs into SEA category scoring algorithms.

• Weighting of respective SEA category score s.

• Standardizing criteria for counting a SEA score towards the overall SafeStat score.

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 5



## Each of the approaches is discussed in the following sections.

8.4.1 Selecting Appropriate Methodologies for Identifying HM Carriers

If HM carriers are to be ranked, it is important to consider how they can be identified. This might

seem like a straightforward process. However, there are many possible sources and the question

arises as to which one is the best source. One is the MCMIS Census file. In this file, carriers

register their intent to carry various classes of HM. In SafeStat there are two fields

- one called “H

B” and the other “HM Review.” The first field uses a “H” to designate Interstate HM carriers, an

“I” to designate Intrastate HM carriers and a “B” to id entify intercity commercial bus operators.

The “HM Review” field is filled out if a carrier has had a recent HM compliance review. The last

source, the MCMIS accident file has several fields that could be used. Since states sometimes

report the release of diesel fuel from cargo tanks as an HM release, the HM Placard field was

ultimately used to identify carriers that have had HM accidents.

Of the methods for identifying HM carriers, the data in the Census file did not match well with the

others and wa s eliminated from further consideration. The two SafeStat fields tended to identify the

same carriers with some exceptions. When these records were checked against the MCMIS

Accident file, more HM carriers were identified. Thus, this method was used to identify the HM

carriers for this analysis.

There was one other source, the RSPA registration file. Previous attempts to match MCMIS and

RSPA records were unsuccessful, resulting in many unmatched carriers. As the quality of the

MCMIS data has improve d significantly since this earlier attempt, the comparison might be

reattempted in the future. For now, the HM carriers identified from the MCMIS Accident file have

been used.

8.4.2 Segmenting Bulk and non

- Bulk HM Carriers

The sources for identifying bulk and non

- bulk carriers are much more limited. One source was the

RSPA HMIS database. The second was the MCMIS Accident file. While a great deal of use of the

RSPA database has been made in the previous chapters of this report, since the MCMIS accident

file contains both spill and non

- spill accidents, the MCMIS Accident file was selected as the most

comprehensive source for identifying bulk and non

- bulk carriers that have had accidents. In making

this distinction, the study recognized that many carriers tran sport bulk HM, non

- bulk HM and

general freight (i.e. non

- HM shipments). Thus, a list of bulk HM carriers could contain some of the

same carriers listed on a non

- HM carrier list.

8.4.3 Evaluating the HM Performance of Carriers that Move both HM and non

- HM

One of the problems faced when attempting to identify whether sufficient resources are being

directed at HM carriers is that a carrier’s poor HM performance can be easily masked by a carrier’s

good performance in the non

- HM area. This would be particularly tr ue if the HM component of the

carrier’s business represented a very small fraction of its overall business. To determine whether or

not this was the case, a query was run to determine the ratio of HM to non

– HM accidents for 3,695

bulk carriers. The 3,695 carriers were identified by searching the MCMIS accident file for carriers

that had bulk accidents over the last nine years. For 75 percent of the carriers, it was found that the

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 6



## ratio of HM accidents to total accidents was greater than 50%. This sugges ts that, for most carriers,

if they have a poor HM accident record, it will be very difficult to hide that record based on their

non

- HM accident record.

8.4.4 Deciding on the Vintage of “Historical” Data to Use in the Algorithms

The current SafeStat algorithm us es time weighted data collected over the last 30 months for the

accident, driver and vehicle SEA determinations. For the Safety Management SEA, the HM and

SM compliance measures are based on reviews over the last 12 months. For the enforcement

indicator, the third measure used to calculate the safety management score, enforcement actions that

have occurred over the last six years are considered in a time weighted manner. These time periods

and time weighting factors have been selected for evaluating all carriers and no evidence has been

collected to justify using different time periods and time weighting factors for HM shipments.

8.4.5 Determining Inputs into the SEA Category Scoring Algorithms

Currently, the major HM inputs into the scoring are in the Accide nt and Safety Management SEAs.

The extent to which a carrier complies with the HM regulations enters into the Safety Management

SEA. The time weighted number of HM spill accidents enters into the Accident SEA. While the

weighting on the HM compliance sc ores could be increased, there seems to be no justification for

making such a change.

HM bulk carriers were selected to investigate the effect of removing HM weightings or modifying

the SafeStat algorithm because bulk carriers account for about 75% of a ll HM risk. Currently, all

carriers with A or B SafeStat rankings receive a compliance review. Table 45 shows that if there is

no HM contribution to the SafeStat scoring, then eight bulk HM carriers drop from the list of

carriers that receive a complianc e review. The implication is that only eight of the 4,457 (432 A’s +

4,025 B’s) carriers that are subjected to a compliance review are being reviewed because of poor

HM performance. This is less than 0.2% of the carriers. Furthermore, only 1.5% of the c arriers

subjected to a compliance review are bulk HM carriers. In the previous chapters, it was found that

approximately 2.5 % of the accident risk, expressed in dollars, is associated with HM transport. It

follows that if 4,457 carriers are being subjec ted to a compliance review, about 110 carriers should

be HM carriers. In the current SafeStat run, only eight carriers were identified because of their HM

performance. To inspect 2.5% of the carriers because of poor HM performance, it follows that the

nu mber of HM carriers being inspected should be about 4%, since several will be identified for poor

performance in areas other than their HM.

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 7



## One approach to increasing the number of eligible bulk HM carriers is to subject all bulk HM

carriers with a D sc ore to a compliance review automatically. SEA category D are those deficient

in the accident area. Accidents have been shown to be a reliable indicator for identifying unsafe

carriers. The C category carriers can not have the accident SEA as one of its two SEAs since once

the 75 point minimal accident score is doubled, there are insufficient points available to include the

other required SEA. However, as can be seen from Table 45, although 139 carriers would now be

subjected to a compliance review, 126 of these carriers are being inspected because of poor accident

rate performance in the non

- HM area. This strategy does not accomplish the objective of

identifying 110 more bulk HM carriers to include in the compliance reviews.

Table 45. Effect of Rem oving All HM Weightings from the SafeStat Scoring Algorithm

Scores in 09232000 Run Base Case Remove all Bulk HM from Scoring

SEA_CAT All Carriers Bulk HM

Carriers

Scores Percentage Rows in

Weighted

Score Weighted

Scores Bulk HM

Carriers

Scores Percentage Rows in

Weighted

Score Weighted

Scores

A 432 3 0.69% 3 0.69%

B 4025 70 1.74% A

- B 1.64% 62 1.54% A

- B 1.46%

C 3176 30 0.94% A

- B

- C 1.35% 29 0.91% A

- B

- C 1.23%

D 2371 139 5.86% A

- B

- D 3.10% 126 5.31% A

- B

- D 2.80%

E 10202 58 0.57% 63 0.62%

F 17880 265 1.48% 267 1.49%

G 1924 77 4.00% 69 3.59%

113677 1939 H

411102 749 0.51% 2711 0.69%

Sum 564789 3330 0.59% 3330 0.59%



## If the Accident SEA is the best indicator of future accidents, then it follows log ically that the

number of non

- spill HM accidents a carrier is experiencing would be a good precursor to spill

accidents. Tables 46 and 47 show the results of assigning equal weight to spill and non

- spill

accidents in the SafeStat Accident Category scoring algorithm.

In Table 46, by comparing the last three columns to the previous three and placing equal weight on

non

- spill and spill accidents, the fraction of bulk carriers that are placed in the A, B, and D

categories increases from 2.4 to 3.7 %. Furthe rmore, 39 additional bulk HM carriers have been

identified for a compliance review. The greatest portion of these carriers was previously unscored.

The total of the unscored bulk HM carriers in the base case is 2688 (1939+749) and that number

decreases b y 28 to 2,660 as a result of this scoring change. Furthermore most go into the D

category. This would be expected, since only the ACSEA score is being affected by these changes.

The ability to identify unscored carriers that have had HM accidents but no releases is an important

finding because future accidents may result in HM spills.

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 8



## Table 46. Effect of Adding Non

- Spill Accidents to the Accident SEA Algorithm

Scores in 09232000 Run Base Case Equal Weight to Spill and Non

- Spill

SEA_CAT All Carriers Bulk HM

Carriers

Scores Percentage Rows in

Weighted

Score Weighted

Scores Bulk HM

Carriers

Scores Percentage Rows in

Weighted

Score Weighted

Scores

A 432 3 0.69% 3 0.69%

B 4025 70 1.74% A

- B 1.64% 74 1.84% A

- B 1.73%

C 3176 30 0.94% A

- C 1.35% 29 0.91% A

- B

- C 1.39%

D 2371 139 5.86% A

- D 2.42% 174 7.34% A

- B

- D 3.68%

E 10202 58 0.57% 60 0.59%

F 17880 265 1.48% 262 1.47%

G 1924 77 4.00% 68 3.53%

113677 1939 H

411102 749 0.51% 2660 0.51%

Sum 564789 3330 0.59 % 3330 0.59%



## In Table 47, the HM bulk weighting in the ACSEA algorithm is doubled if a carrier has a bulk HM

accident. This strategy identifies 107 new bulk HM carriers that would be subjected to a

compliance review. One could accept this stra tegy as meeting the target of inspecting 110

additional bulk HM carriers. The basis for this conclusion is that, in the base case, the total number

of bulk HM A, B, and D carriers inspected is 212. The number of A, B, and D bulk HM carriers

inspected if the spill and non

- spill accidents are weighted double is 319 for a difference of 107. The

percentage of A, B, and D bulk HM carriers that would be inspected is 4.7% of all the A, B, and D

carriers scored. As with the previous case, the number of unscored carriers that became scored

increased by 85 (2,688

–2,603). In addition, there were 10 “F” scored (Vehicle) carriers and 10

“G” scored (Safety Management) carriers that would now be subjected to a compliance review. As

was the case with the previous ch anges to the algorithm, the only way to ensure that a significantly

higher fraction of the inspected carriers are bulk HM carriers is to include “D” scored bulk HM

carriers in the compliance review program.

Table 47. Effect of Doubling Weight of Spill a nd Non

- Spill Accidents

to the Accident SEA Algorithm

Scores in 09232000 Run Base Case

- Bulk HM Carriers Double Weight to Bulk HM Spill

and Non

- Spill

SEA_CAT All Carriers Bulk HM

Carriers

Scores Percentage Rows in

Weighted

Score Weighted

Scores Bulk HM

C arriers

Scores Percentage Rows in

Weighted

Score Weighted

Scores

A 432 3 0.69% 4 0.93%

B 4025 70 1.74% A

- B 1.74% 84 2.09% A

- B 1.97%

C 3176 30 0.94% A

- B

- C 1.39% 28 0.88% A

- B

- C 1.52%

D 2371 139 5.86% A

- B

- D 3.10% 231 9.74% A

- B

- D 4.67%

E 10202 58 0.57% 58 0.57%

F 17880 265 1.48% 255 1.43%

G 1924 77 4.00% 67 3.48%

113677 1939 H

411102 749 0.51% 2603 0.69%

Sum 564789 3330 0.59% 3330 0.59%

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 9



## 8.4.6 Weighting of Respective SEA Category Scores

The Volpe Tran sportation Systems Center, the developers of SafeStat, have performed extensive

studies of accident precursors and have found that the accident and driver performance measures

used in SafeStat are more important than the other two as predictors of future p oor carrier

performance. Accordingly, the weighting factors have been set at 2 and 1.5 for the Accident and

Driver SEA respectively. Without additional study requiring the collection of a great deal more

data, there is no justification for moving away fr om the Volpe SEA SafeStat weighting factors.

8.4.7 Standardizing Criteria for Counting a SEA Score Toward the Overall SafeStat

Score

At the present time, only those carriers with a score above 75 are counted. Furthermore, some

groups of carriers (e.g. those wit h only one accident over the past 30 month period) are assigned to

accident Group 1; the highest score attainable for this group is 74. If all Accident SEA scores above

70, instead of the current 75, were used for bulk carriers, then there would be an add itional 5% of

the Group 1 carriers that scored between 70 and 74 as well as the carriers in the other accident

groups that scored above 70 that would be counted. The effect of such a scoring algorithm is shown

in Table 48 and discussed in the following pa ragraphs.

Table 48 shows that scoring all bulk HM Carriers with ACSEA scores above 70 creates a result

similar to that observed when the bulk non

- spill accidents were added. The number of bulk HM

carriers that would undergo a required compliance review, A and B scored carriers, would increase

from 1.6 to 1.8 percent. If the A, B, and D bulk HM carriers were subjected to a compliance

review, the number of carriers reviewed would increase from 3.1 to 3.9 percent. More importantly,

as a result of this cha nge, the 2,688 bulk HM carriers unscored (H = 1,939 + 749 = 2,688) is

reduced by 43. Most of the newly scored carriers are scored as a “D.” However, what is different

in this case is the change in the number of A

- B scored carriers. There are three more carriers that

become “As,”and three more that become “Bs,” and thus are automatically subjected to a

compliance review. However, as in the previous cases, the greatest change is in the number of

carriers that went from “H,” unscored, to “D.” Thus as in t he past cases, the only way to guarantee

that a “high risk” HM bulk carrier is subjected to a compliance review is to inspect the “D” scored

bulk HM carriers. In terms of the target of identifying 110 new bulk HM carriers subject to a

compliance review, t his algorithm identifies only 54 new carriers (268 A, B, and Ds in the

augmented case minus 212 A, B, and Ds in the base case).

Table 49, shown below, combines two of the cases analyzed above. First, both bulk HM spill and

non

- spill accidents are include d in the ACSEA score and the HM weighting for both spill and non

spill accidents is doubled. Second all ACSEA scores greater than 70 when calculating the overall

SafeStat score for bulk HM carriers are added. As can be seen from the table, the number of A and

B scored carriers increases from 1.6 to 2.0 percent, about the same as was observed by doubling the

weighting on spill and non

- spill accidents. By far the biggest change was in the totals for the A, B,

and D scores for bulk HM carriers. If all bulk HM carriers with an A through D score were

subjected to a compliance review, the number inspected would more than triple, increasing from 1.6

to 5.2 percent. As stated above, 1.6 percent is considered the base case because that is the number

of bulk HM c arriers that are being inspected using the current SafeStat algorithm.

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 10 

## Table 48. Effect of Scoring all Bulk HM with Accident SEA >70

Scores in 09232000 Run Base Case

- Bulk HM Carriers Score Bulk Carriers with ACSEA>70

SEA_CAT All Carriers Bulk HM

Car riers

Scores Percentage Rows in

Weighted

Score Weighted

Scores Bulk HM

Carriers

Scores Percentage Rows in

Weighted

Score Weighted

Scores

A 432 3 0.69% 6 1.39%

B 4025 70 1.74% A

- B 1.64% 73 1.81% A

- B 1.77%

C 3176 30 0.94% A

- B

- C 1.35% 29 0.91% A

- B

- C 1.41%

D 2371 139 5.86% A

- B

- D 3.10% 189 7.97% A

- B

- D 3.93%

E 10202 58 0.57% 59 0.58%

F 17880 265 1.48% 260 1.45%

G 1924 77 4.00% 69 3.59%

113677 1939 H

411102 749 0.51% 2645 0.69%

Sum 564789 3330 0.59% 33 30 0.59%



## Table 49. Effect of Including Bulk Carriers with ACSEA Scores >70 and

Adding Non

- Spill to the Spill Accidents and Doubling the Weignting

Scores in 09232000 Run Base Case

– Bulk HM Carriers Bulk Carriers ACSEA>70 & All Accidents

SEA_CAT All Carriers Bulk HM

Carriers

Scores Percentage Rows in

Weighted

Score Weighted

Scores Bulk HM

Carriers

Scores Percentage Rows in

Weighted

Score Weighted

Scores

A 432 3 0.69% 6 1.39%

B 4025 70 1.74% A

- B 1.64% 85 2.11% A

- B 2.04%

C 3176 30 0.94% A

- B

- C 1.35% 29 0.91% A

- B

- C 1.57%

D 2371 139 5.86% A

- B

- D 3.10% 265 11.18% A

- B

- D 5.21%

E 10202 58 0.57% 57 0.56%

F 17880 265 1.48% 252 1.41%

G 1924 77 4.00% 67 3.48%

113677 1939 H

411102 749 0.51% 2569 0.69%

Sum 564 789 3330 0.59% 3330 0.59%



## In addition, 191new bulk HM carriers would be subjected to a compliance review (356 A, B, and

Ds minus 212 A, B, and Ds in the base case).

When comparing the base case with the case shown in Figure 49, several pieces of information are

worth noting. For the base case, the number of A and B carriers requiring an inspection totaled

4,457. Of this total 73 were HM bulk carriers. With the new run, adding non

- spill HM accidents,

doubling the weighting for them and includ ing ACSEA scores >70, resulted in 4,391 A and B

carriers. However, when the 265 HM bulk carriers in the D category are added, there would be a

total of 4,656 carriers that would now require an inspection. Because the accident threshold was

changed to 70, in a few cases carriers with an accident score of 70 could now fall into the C

category. This applies to two carriers in the C category. If these two C carriers are required to have

a compliance review, there would be an increase of 201 carriers requiri ng compliance reviews.

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 11



## With the new run, 358 HM bulk carriers would be inspected because they were in the A, B, C, or D

categories. Of these, 138 of the carriers were previously in the D category and 127 were previously

unscored and moved into the D cate gory. As stated above, two HM bulk carriers moved into the C

category with the new run. One of these went from the F category and the other the G category to

the C category. Seventy

- two of the HM bulk carriers from the A or B Category in the base case a re

combined with 19 new HM carriers that rose to A or B resulting in 91 A and B HM bulk carriers

subject to a compliance review. (One carrier that was on the base case list dropped off the list).

Thus, a total of 283 new bulk carriers would be subject to inspection.

8.4.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

In summary, the SafeStat Algorithm has two major HM entries: (1) compliance review indicator

that is part of the Safety Management SEA and (2) a weighting applied to HM spills that have

occurred over the last 30 months that is incorporated into the Accident SEA. The analysis showed

that using the current SafeStat algorithm resulted in about 3.1 % of the carriers receiving an A, B, or

D score being bulk HM carriers. If all these carriers were being review ed because of their poor HM

performance, then simply adding the bulk HM carriers with D scores to the compliance review

program would meet the arbitrary target of having the percentage of bulk HM carriers inspected

equal the percentage of the total acciden t cost attributable to HM carriers. However, it was shown

in the analysis that most of the carriers are not being identified because of poor HM performance.

The analysis also showed that if the target were to be reached, then at least 110 new bulk HM

car riers would have to be added to the carriers being subjected to a compliance review. Several

sensitivity analyses were performed to identify possible changes in the scoring algorithm that would

enable this target to be met. The study found that by adding the non

- spill accidents to the HM

scoring and having all A, B, and D bulk HM carriers subjected to a compliance review, the number

of bulk HM carriers falling into those categories increased to 3.7%. However, this change alone

would not meet the target o f identifying 110 new bulk HM carriers for a compliance review. Since

most of the increase occurs because unscored bulk HM carriers are now scored in the D category

due to their high HM non

- spill accident rate, the change in the algorithm is clearly ident ifying

carriers that previously went unidentified and are very likely to have an accident that results in a

spill in the future. Thus, this change fits very well into SafeStat’s target of identifying those carriers

to prevent future accidents, in this cas e future HM spill accidents. Two additional changes were

evaluated that would identify 110 new bulk HM carriers. One was a doubling of the accident spill

and non

- spill score. The second was to decrease the threshold for bulk HM carriers in the ACSEA

are a to 70.

Of all the possible changes, three changes came closest to attaining the target of identifying 110

new bulk HM carriers to be subjected to a compliance review. First, including non

- spill HM

accidents and equating them to spill accidents. Seco nd, doubling the weighting for both of these

categories of accidents. Third, combining the spill and non

- spill accident weighting and the

ACSEA > 70. These changes together result in an identification of over 140 new bulk HM carriers

that had not been in cluded in the A, B, C, or D categories for the base case. Rather than just

increasing the weighting, these changes provide a balanced approach.

Based on the analyses that were performed for this study, the following change to the SafeStat

algorithm are recommended in order to make the number of bulk HM carriers being inspected more

commensurate with the risk of accidents posed by this group of carriers.

### Final Report

—March 2001 8

- 12



## Thus, the final recommendations are:

• Add non

- spill HM accidents as well as spill HM accidents to th e Accident SEA scoring

algorithm and double weight all of these HM accidents;

• Include all bulk HM ACSEA scores >70; and

• Expand those carriers subjected to a compliance review to include all bulk HM carriers

in the A, B and D Categories as well as those in the C Category that include an accident

component.

### Final Report

—March 2001 9

- 

### 1 

# 9.0 HM Database Assessments and Recommendations

9.1 Purpose and Organization

his chapter summarizes the recommendations formulated as a result of completing this risk

assessment of HM and non

- HM transport by truck.

9.1.1 Background

Accurate and comp rehensive data is the most essential component in the production of a risk

assessment. Experiential data is necessary to document the consequences and likelihood of HM

accidents. Meaningful assessments of the safety of hazardous materials transportation on the

nation’s highways require such data. The ability to make informed decisions and to develop

effective safety policies and regulations concerning hazardous material transportation can be

seriously compromised if it is not based on reliable informatio n.

This risk assessment reviewed numerous databases, managed and maintained in multiple public

agencies. These agencies collect data for varying purposes, using disparate definitions under

limited jurisdictional authority. As a result, much of the data available for this risk assessment was

inconsistent, fragmented, and incomplete.

Databases should standardize definitions to reduce the differences in the definition of

• what constitutes an accident,

• which accidents must be reported, and

• what informati on must be reported.

Until this standardization occurs, it will not be possible for DOT to realize fully the benefits of a

relational database structure. If such a structure were developed, the reporting requirements would

be greatly simplified, accura cy would be increased, there would be fewer databases, and the overall

size of the databases would be dramatically smaller.

9.1.2 Approach

The review and comparison of the databases assembled and analyzed for this risk assessment could

be used to develop a road map to better data collection in the future. The limitations of the

databases assembled and reviewed provided the analysts involved in this project with an overview

of potential improvements to existing databases. The limitations associated with t hese databases

became readily apparent as they were employed in the risk assessment. Possible improvements to

these existing public databases are discussed in the following section.

Extensive efforts were also made by the research team to identify and ob tain data from private

sector sources. Solicitations were made of companies in the trucking and insurance industries for

data involving the costs associated with highway accidents of both hazardous materials and non



# T

### Final Report

—March 2001 9

- 

### 2 

## hazardous commodities. In all cases, d espite repeated efforts, no data was obtained regarding

accident costs from the private sector.

The lack of any positive response to attempts to acquire cost figures for highway accidents is in

keeping with past results in this area. In the Transportati on Research Board’s Special Report #229

“Safety Research for a Changing Highway Environment,” this was succinctly discussed with the

statement that from the private sector, “Detailed information is not available....” Although the

empirical cost data mainta ined by the private sector would be invaluable in conducting a risk

assessment, concerns about confidentiality and competitiveness ensure that these data are viewed as

proprietary information and not releasable. Absent a major and substantial outreach pro gram by a

government safety agency to solicit private companies to cooperate and provide data for safety

research, it does not appear any useful information will be forthcoming from the private sector.

Therefore, as a lesson learned from efforts made in co nducting this report, researchers should focus

exclusively on public databases to obtain data for future studies.



# 9.2 Opportunities for Database Improvement

Although public databases containing information useful for conducting risk assessments are

defici ent in a number of areas, they can be improved. Better coordination among the multiple

agencies that collect data would allow for the correction of definitional differences and the

coordination of inconsistent reporting requirements. The collection of da ta, whether it is by a

survey or in a census database, should be done with consideration and planning for consistency and

coordina tion with other datasets. Substantive improvements to existing data sources and the

implementation of useful new data source s is most effectively derived by addressing data gaps and

existing database shortcomings. Opportunities that currently exist for improved hazardous material

highway data might include considering the following recommendations.

Improvements in the DOT da tabases should be made now, anticipating the successful completion of

a number of on

- going initiatives. For example, there is a requirement that all carriers reregister over

the next two years. This will enable DOT to update its listing of motor carriers . In anticipation of

this event, the MCMIS accident file, HMIS database, and the MCMIS registration database should

be restructured so all are linked by the shippers and carriers DOT registration number

9.2.1 The Trucks in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) Database

The Trucks in Fatal Accidents (TIFA) database could modestly expand the number of questions on

its questionnaire that concern hazardous materials. The TIFA database currently consists of only

one additional hazardous material question, “Was there a rele ase of the material?” This is asked

after the Fatal Accident Report yes/no field of “Was hazardous material present in the cargo?”

Additional questions that could be asked might include a request for the identification number of the

material transported, the DOT specification of the truck or trailer, and a more detailed explanation

of the consequences resulting from a spill. This would be a modest effort that could result in greater

knowledge of the circumstances and consequences associated with a seriou s incident.

Annually, about four to five percent of the FARS truck accidents followed up on in TIFA involve

trucks transporting hazardous materials and only a quarter of these or one percent of all TIFA

accidents result in a release of the material. Bas ed on approximately 5,300 TIFA records from the

most recent year’s data, additional queries would need to be made of approximately 250 cases.

### Final Report

—March 2001 9

- 

### 3 

## DOT should investigate ways of coupling the TIFA, MCMIS and HMIS databases so information

can be shared between the databases. One potential solution might be to request that the MCMIS

accident report number filed by the local law enforcement agency be included as a record in the

TIFA file. Assuming DOT has already coupled the HMIS and MCMIS accident files, adding the

MCMIS accident report number to the TIFA file would effectively couple TIFA with HMIS.

Through such coupling, the unique information compiled by each database could be shared without

requiring significant additions to any database. This effort would compensate for HMIS not

containing all the fatal HM accidents in TIFA due to HMIS’s exclusion of fatalities that were not

caused by the hazardous material.

9.2.2 The Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS)

The Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) can also with a modest expansion in the hazardous

material section contribute new and useful data. A single question is currently asked of the

respondent, “...was this vehicle (or combination) used to haul hazardous materials in quantities large

enough to req uire a hazmat placard ...” A rephrasing of the question to request the respondent to

provide the percentage of the time the vehicle or combination was used to haul hazardous materials

would be helpful. Additional improvements to VIUS hazardous materials d ata could include

finding a way to control for the double counting associated with the placarding responses and to

somehow obtain the DOT specification numbers on responses involving cargo tanks.

9.2.3 The Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMI S)

Under the Motor Safety Improvement Act of 1999, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

(FMCSA) is obligated to require refiling of the motor carrier identification report form MCS

- 150

starting December 9, 2000. The current registration file in the Motor Carrier Management

Information System (MCMIS) is woefully out of date and contains many cases of inaccurate

information. Once an update has been completed to the MCMIS registration file, a detailed analysis

should be undertaken. This analysis should include comparisons with other existing hazardous

material registration databases, such as RSPA’s registration database, which has recently been

substantially expanded.

The accuracy of the MCMIS database should be improved by using “pick lists” whe n entering the

data. In addition, the record should not be accepted if certain required fields are not filled out. Use

of the “pick list” would reduce errors. As the person using a “pick list” starts to type in the data,

such as a company name or chemic al, the selection of choices narrows until the correct name is

displayed among the list of choices showing on the input screen. By using a cursor, the data entry

person then selects the correct entry. At the moment that is not how the system works. If y ou query

the current database, it is evident that every field is filled out uniquely. For example,

• If the current database is queried to look for the company name and address of a large

carrier associated with a specified DOT registration number, the lis t of variations will fill

pages. Some variations concern only the presence or absence of a period at the end of

“Inc.”

• If the current database is queried asking for “Like ‘Carrier Name,’” several DOT

registration numbers will be listed for the same carrie r.

### Final Report

—March 2001 9

- 

### 4 

## • If UN number 1005 queries the database, “ammonia” will pop up, entered at least in 25

different ways. In many cases, ammonia is misspelled. Data entry personnel should not

be expected to know how to spell the names of thousands of chemicals.

The use of “pick lists” will improve the accuracy of the database and also improve the accuracy of

the queries because the fields will be filled out accurately. In a case where HM is involved, there

should be a requirement that certain fields, such as hazard code and chemical name, be filled out

before the record can be entered. Currently, the HM field is often checked in association with

blank entries in all the other HM related fields.

When the accident involves HM, one of the required fields entered in the MCMIS accident file

should be the HMIS report number. If none has been assigned, then it should be possible to assign

one and place the relevant accident data in the HMIS file. Later on, when the HMIS report is

submitted, the first step would be to s ee if the HMIS number had already been assigned. Given this

simple coupling, it would be possible to identify carriers that are not reporting their HMIS accidents

and formally request that they do so. It should also be possible to identify law enforcemen t

agencies that are not filing MCMIS reports for HM accidents.

9.2.4 The Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS)

The Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS), the primary incident database for collecting

data on hazardous materials incidents nat ionwide, is currently undergoing a revision of its form.

This revision of the F 5800.1 form will have far reaching consequences for hazardous materials

incident data for a decade or more to come. Major efforts need to be exerted to assure that the

revisi ons to the form include critical data fields that will aid in conducting future risk assessments.

This is enormously important to the highway mode, since approximately 85 percent of HMIS

reports now involve highway transportation.

There are a number of

important fields that are being considered for inclusion on the DOT F 5800.1

form. Two additional questions that would prove very useful for future research:

1. The addition of a field to capture the police accident report (PAR) number for accidents

and

2. A field to record the amount in a container at the time of the release.

DOT should make the database more relational in the future. One area in particular exemplifies the

need for making this significant improvement. There are many standard DOT speci fication

containers that are used in the shipping of HM. If a standard specification container is involved in

an accident, all that should be required is to list the container number. The rest of the information

should be in the database. If there is co ncern about possible variations among containers designed

to the same specification, as a minimum, all the generic information should pop up so the person

entering the data can edit those fields that are different.

9.2.5 The 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (CF S)

The 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) was recently released and utilized for the estimation of

mileage traveled by both HM and non

- HM shipments. Although the CFS represents a major

### Final Report

—March 2001 9

- 

### 5 

## expansion in highway denominator or flow data, the data did not provide a calculated mileage

estimate for truckload shipments. The data for tons miles had to be converted into mileage by

dividing tons

- miles by the average truck load weight of a particular hazard class. Average shipment

weight was available for shipments but information regarding the number of shipments per truck

was unavailable. In the future, this additional data should be made available to facilitate the

assembly of reliable denominator data for future risk investigations. A review of the highway data

con tained in the CFS with input from data users should help identify other improvements that might

be made to future surveys in both the collection and processing of responses.

Recommendations for improvements to hazardous material highway data can also be b roader than

enhancements to specific databases. There is a need for much better data on the costs and

consequences associated with incidents involving hazardous material highway incidents. Whether

this lack of reliable data is addressed by better reporti ng on existing forms or achieved through

other means, such as greater use of survey methodology, this is a topic that should be addressed. It

should be self evident that it is in everyone’s interest for a coordinated effort to be made among the

responsibl e public agencies and the private sector to identify and obtain better data for improving

the safety of hazardous materials transportation on our nation’s highways.



# 9.3 Recommendations and Conclusions

This project demonstrated that to date, no single data base is able to provide all of the data required

to conduct a risk analysis. For example, to catalogue the total number of accidents, the project team

selected the HMIS database as the reference database and supplemented this information with data

from th e MCMIS and TIFA databases, as well as selected state accident databases. This was done

to obtain a more complete portrait of the HM accidents for one year. This exercise demonstrated

clearly that it was necessary to use more than one database to obtain the full portrait of annual

accidents. This was especially true for HMIS and MCMIS because, although both included spill

accidents, only MCMIS include the no

- spill accident. Therefore, in order to obtain a portrait of spill

and non

- spill accidents for a period of time, the researcher would have to use at a minimum the

HMIS and MCMIS databases. The databases should be linked through the use of a common field,

such as the MCMIS accident number, so queries can be made using unique information. To

accomplis h this, a small committee could be formed, consisting of FMCSA and RSPA staff, to

develop recommendations for an approach to link the databases. Clearly, a key will be to ensure

that common fields, such as the DOT Registration Number and a unique accident number, are used

so that all records related to those numbers can easily be retrieved.

The recommendations identified for the specific databases in this chapter are summarized below.

1. Over time, definitions in accident databases such as HMIS, MCMIS an d TIFA should be

standardized so there is a reduction in the differences in the definition of (a) what constitutes an

accident, (b) which accidents must be reported, and (c) what information must be reported.

2. Accident databases should have sufficient comm on fields so that information about the accident

entered in one database can be shared rather than duplicated in the other databases.

3. DOT should determine a viable mechanism for using carrier records for the purpose of verifying

that HMIS and MCMIS repor ts are complete and accurate.

### Final Report

—March 2001 9

- 

### 6 

## 4. Improvements in the DOT databases should be made now, anticipating the successful

completion of a number of on

- going initiatives, i.e., the reregistering of carriers and shippers

that started in December 2000.

5. The accurac y of the MCMIS database should be improved by using “pick lists”or other aids to

improve the accuracy of entered data.

6. Electronic filing should be available for HMIS and MCMIS reports.

7. Databases should be coupled to allow DOT enforcement staff to have i nstant access to complete

accident information in more than one database.

### Final Report

—March 2 001 10

- 1 

# 10.0 Conclusion

10 .1 Project Significance

his report has presented the results of a project designed to better understand HM truck safety

in the context of key risk contributors within the industry. The study approach and

corresponding results allow f or comparisons to be made across several dimensions: (1) HM

vs. non

- HM, (2) by HM category, and (3) by HM incident type. These results are portrayed both as

estimates of annual economic impact and on a per vehicle

- mile basis.

The report also demonstrat es the usefulness of a methodology for effectively estimating the number

of accidents and incidents for a one

- year or a longer period. This methodology focuses on the use

of existing national databases and the selection of data from sample states to suppl ement national

databases. The methodology uses the HMIS database and the MCMIS accident file supplemented

by state databases and news clippings to assemble an annual number of accidents from an eight

state sample. This eight

- state accident count was then assigned a likely proportion of the national

accidents and extrapolated to develop a national estimate of accident and incident numbers.

The report has estimated the number and type of impacts for accidents and incidents in 12 HM

categories of HM classes or divisions. HM impact estimates were made for the following:

• Injuries and deaths

• Cleanup costs

• Carrier/Property damage

• Evacuation

• Product loss

• Traffic incident delay

• Environmental damage

An impact estimate was also made for accidents involving no n

- HM accidents. For non

- HM

accidents, impacts were estimated for:

• Injuries and deaths

• Cargo loss

• Carrier/Property damage

• Traffic incident delay

Based on available data, dollar cost estimates were made for each of the impact categories and

translated in to a per accident or incident cost. Then, the total cost for the impact was calculated

based on the number of accidents or incidents.

While this study represents a valid attempt to benchmark the financial implications of the problem

based on best availab le data, these observations should be viewed in the context of establishing

a general estimate or bound on the financial impact of this problem rather than a precise valuation.

Consequently, if the results are within an order of magnitude, meaningful compa risons can be

derived for evaluation purposes. 

# T

### Final Report — March 2001 10-2 

## Impact measures can be refined in the future by supplementing available data with impact estimates

obtained from private sector sources, such as insurance companies and trucking companies.



# 10.2 Project Results

The annual number of non-HM accidents is estimated to be 126,880, in contrast with the

approximately 15,000 HM accidents and incidents estimated to occur each year. Of these HM

incidents and accidents, about 75% are represented by loading and unloading incidents. Enroute

HM accidents total about 2,500 annually with about 700 (28%) of these being spill accidents.

The estimated number of annual incidents (and accidents) can be converted into rates by using

annual vehicle miles of HM operation. The 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) was used for this

estimate. The mileage numbers provide a general measure of differences but more rigorous

comparisons must await further refinements in the accuracy of CFS mileage numbers.

The average HM accident rate is 0.32 accidents per million vehicle-miles and the average HM

incident rate is 0.51 accidents per million vehicle-miles. When comparing across HM categories,

Class 9 has the highest accident and incident rates, and Class 2.2 has the lowest. However, the HM

category accident and incident rates are all within the same order of magnitude.

Several findings can be reported from reviewing the analysis results, including:

• HM truck incidents cost society nearly $1.2 billion on an annual basis.

• Injuries and fatalities comprise the largest components of this cost.

• Class 3 contributes the largest economic impact associated with HM incidents.

• Bulk shipments account for about 75% of the risk for HM shipments. Class 3 and Class

8 make up over 75% of the overall HM truck shipment risk. About 90% of the Class 3

shipments and 50% of Class 8 shipments are bulk. Class 2.1 gases, representing about

9% of all HM risks, is transported in bulk shipments about 64% of the time.

• Release-causing enroute accidents have the highest average cost, followed by enroute

accidents in which a release does not occur. Leaks enroute are an order of magnitude

lower in average cost with the average cost of loading/unloading incidents an order of

magnitude lower than that. The greatest economic impact is associated with accidents

enroute where a release does not occur, due to the higher frequency of these events.

• Of those enroute accidents resulting in a release, explosions have the highest per incident

cost, followed by fires and then releases where neither a fire or explosion ensue;

however, the release-only incidents contribute more to the annual economic impact

because of the frequency of such events. Explosions result in the greatest economic

impact, with an average cost of over $2.1 million per accident. The average cost of an

enroute accident resulting in a fire is nearly $1.2 million, while enroute accidents that

have a release without fire or explosion have an average cost of slightly over $400,000

.

### Final Report

—March 2 001 10

- 3



## The annual economic impact of non

- HM truck accidents is over $43 billion, considerably higher

than for HM truck incidents. The annual number of non

- HM accidents is 126,880 in contrast with

the approximately 15,000 HM incidents. Although due primarily to a much larger volume of

transport activity, the estimated non

- HM truck accident rate is more than twice the HM truck

accident rate, a relationship also reflected in the impact cost per vehicle

- mile.

Hazardous material shipments make up between four and eight percent of all shipments. Gi ven this

small percentage, the overall cost of non

- HM accidents clearly dominates the cost of HM accidents.

However, although the average cost of an accident is higher for HM, these higher costs are not

nearly enough to overcome the large disparity in shi pment volume between HM and non

- HM

shipments by truck.



# 10.3 Recommendations for Future Projects

This section describes five future initiatives that follow from the HM risk assessment project

described in this report.

1. Database Enhancements

This project effort demonstrated the need to improve the data used for HM truck safety

evaluations. To promote continuous improvement in HM safety data quality, the study makes

the following recommendations:

• Incident/accident databases, such as HMIS and MCMIS, shoul d contain standardized

definitions to provide greater compatibility in

(1) What constitutes an incident/accident,

(2) Which incidents/accidents must be reported, and

(3) What incident/accident attributes must be reported.

• Different incident/accident d atabases should have sufficient common fields to expedite

sharing of information. DOT should investigate ways to cross reference the TIFA, MCMIS,

and HMIS databases.

• DOT should develop a system to verify the accuracy and completeness of HMIS reports by

c omparing the data with the carrier records.

• The quality and completeness of the MCMIS database should be improved. Quality control

protocols should be developed for inclusion in MCMIS accident file to ensure that required

fields are properly completed.

2. HM Risk Management Policy Development

Results of the HM Risk Assessment Study provide an opportunity to establish this foundation,

leading to the development of future HM risk management initiatives within FMCSA.

Although the FMCSA has adopted a risk

- ba sed approach for enhancing the safety of hazardous

materials truck transport, the principal objective of this approach is to assign priorities and

allocate resources to policies and programs that are cost

- effective in satisfying the agency’s

### Final Report

—March 2 001 10

- 4



## safety mission . A key to success is a thorough understanding of the likelihood and severity of

incidents involving the truck transport of HM cargo.

By systematically evaluating the focus of its current risk management activities, FMCSA will

have an opportunity to val idate the significance of ongoing initiatives, while taking corrective

actions to improve areas of deficiency. The bottom line will be a more targeted use of

resources, directed at problems that cause the greatest threat to the safety of HM truck

shipment s.

3. HM Risk Management Training

Federal, state and local HM program managers are being asked to implement risk management

methods and practices, often with little knowledge or awareness of the concept of risk

management. This restricts their ability to lead this effort, which reduces the potential

effectiveness of corresponding programs. Education is needed to improve understanding of risk

management concepts and methods.

This could be addressed with the development of a 1⁄2 to 1

- day executive management training

course covering HM risk management concepts and methods. The curriculum could include

findings and implications from the HM Risk Assessment study as well as best practices in risk

management being used in government and industry. As part of the course, the risk assessment

model developed in the study could be made available for attendees to use in their own

operations.

4. Determination of HM Accident Causation

If the FMCSA is going to reach its goal of reducing the average number of truck related

fatalities by 50 percent, then it is necessary to identify and address the causal factors associated

with accidents.

As part of the Phase I activities, the remarks file in HMIS was examined to identify the

precursor events for serious accidents. Althoug h the precursor cause of an accident, such as a

tanker rollover, could be determined, the root cause could not. For example, if the cause of the

accident was driver error or some type of equipment failure on the vehicle, we could not identify

why there wa s driver error or equipment failure. Did the driver make a mistake because he had

been driving for 10 hours? Was the cause of the equipment failure poor maintenance or just a

random failure? FMCSA could use other sources of data, such as police accident reports and

personal interviews with drivers involved in selected accidents, to compile root causes for major

HM accidents.

5. Augmentation of “HM Model”

A product of this study has been the development of the essential elements of a Hazardous

Material Truc k Transportation Risk Model. In any model, some elements of the model are more

important than others. The most cost

- effective way to improve a model is to develop better

algorithms in the areas that are most important to consider. In this way, the model becomes a

better risk management tool for FMCSA.

### Final Report

—March 2 001 10

- 5



## The proposed project would begin by performing sensitivity studies on the parameters

incorporated in the current risk model. For example, currently mean values are being used for

all the parameters. How ever, some parameters can take on a broad range of values, i.e., the

delay cost from an HM accident. In some cases, it is just a few hours delay, but there are

frequently times when the traffic flow patterns can be disrupted for weeks or longer when a

cri tical structure, damaged by the accident, is replaced.

The development of such distributed models must be balanced by the proportion of the overall

risk represented by traffic delay. If the dominant risk component is injuries, which is indicated

by the current model, then collecting better data on injuries might be the most cost effective way

to improved the accuracy of the model. Such an analysis would look at the extent to which the

number of injuries is underreported.

The anticipated benefit of t he project is the development of a more accurate risk model for

hazardous material transport by truck that could be used by FMCSA to more precisely develop

programs designed to reduce transportation risk and improve truck safety.

# 







### Final Report — March 2001 A -1 

# Appendix A

State Hazardous Material Flows

Truck Transportation of Hazardous Materials:

Traffic and Commodity Flow

his appendix summarizes the results of the regional HM flow studies that have been

conducted in recent years and some of the data from the national databases.



# Summary of State and Local Flow Studies

Colorado

Mesa County Local Emergency Planning Committee. Hazardous Materials in Mesa County.

August 1997

A survey was conducted on two major roadways through Mesa County, which is located in western

Colorado. Two inspection stations were set up on I-70 and Highway 6 & 50 for two days

(12 hours/day) in August, where each truck was classified by hazard class.

For both survey locations, HM vehicles comprised 7 percent of observed vehicles. Commodities in

Hazard Class 2 (Gases) and Class 3 (Flammable Liquids) accounted for 43 percent and 36 percent

of HM vehicles.

Delaware

State Emergency Response Commission. Delaware Hazardous Material Transportation Flow

Study . June 1994

The Delaware Hazardous Material Transportation Flow Study consisted of statewide survey of HM

trucks on highways in March of 1994. Trucks were classified by placard/hazard class and counted

during a 4-day (8 hours/day) survey at eighteen intersections on Interstate or Principal Arterials.

For all sites, the results of the highway truck survey showed that HM vehicles accounted for

6 percent of the total truck traffic. Petroleum products, specifically gasoline, fuel oil and propane,

consisted of more than 55 percent of all HM vehicles observed. Furthermore, 59 percent of all HM

vehicles were carrying flammable liquids. 

# T

### Final Report

—March 2001 A -2 

## Kentucky

Kentucky Emergency Response Commission. Corridor Commodity Flow Analysis Final Reports.

I-24, January 1998

I-71, December 1997

I-75, November 1995

I-65, September 1995

I-64, June 1995

Each corridor study consisted of 600 hours of observations at weigh stations along the interstate

highway. Each survey recorded placard information for HM vehicles.

For all five corridors, HM vehicles consisted of 3.4 percent of total truck traffic. Most frequently

observed placards were for gasoline and motor fuel and for flammable materials consisting of

approximately 17 and 12 percent of HM trucks respectively. Trucks carrying flammable liquids

consisted of 57 percent of all HM vehicles.

Ohio

“Growth Fuels Talk or Route Review.” Columbus Dispatch . July 21, 1996

Observations at I-70 and I-71 interchanges with I-270 through Columbus showed that 47 percent

of placarded trucks were carrying flammable liquids. No information regarding date, time and

duration of the observation period was specified.

Oregon

Public Utility Commission of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Hazardous

Material Movements on Oregon Highways. 1987

A statewide survey was conducted at 11 truck weigh scale locations for three days in both March

and August. The survey recorded the hazard class, the specific material ’ s shipping name and

identification number of each HM truck.

For all sites combined, hazardous materials were being carried by six percent of the trucks

observed. Fifty-four percent of placarded trucks carried goods in the flammable or combustible

hazard class. Gasoline and fuel oil, followed by paint and hazardous wastes, were the most

common materials being transported.

### Final Report

—March 2001 A -3 

# Summary of State and Local Flow Studies

Table A-1. Traffic Statistics

+D]DUGRXV 0DWHULDOV

3HUFHQWDJH RI WRWDO

WUXFN WUDIILF )ODPPDEOH /LTXLGV

3HUFHQW RI +0

YHKLFOHV

&RORUDGR  

'HODZDUH  

.HQWXFN\  

&ROXPEXV 2KLR  

2UHJRQ  

1DWLRQDO )OHHW 6DIHW\ 6XUYH\  3



# Summary of National Commodity Flow Sources

National Fleet Safety Survey

Office of Motor Carriers

Federal Highway Administration, March 1997.

This survey randomly sampled over 10,000 trucks in 11 states to assess the level of compliance with

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and with Hazardous Materials Regulations. The survey

found 5.6 percent of all sampled trucks to be carrying hazardous materials.

The national weighted estimate of the percentage of operating trucks carrying HM was determined

to be 7.2 percent. The weighting procedure considered the location of the inspections along with

VMT by state and by highway functional class.

1993 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS)

Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

The CFS provides data on the movement of goods by mode of transportation. Information

regarding volumes and ton-miles of hazardous commodities transported by truck was taken from

Table 6 (Shipment Characteristics by Commodity and Mode of Transportation) compiled for the

United States. The HM volumes and ton-miles were underestimated because data for crude

petroleum and natural gas shipment was lacking. As well, the major commodity groupings

(two digit codes) did not readily disaggregate into detailed commodity types (three digit codes)

that would be considered solely hazardous but that would also include materials that were not

hazardous. Similarly, the determination of flammable liquids was inaccurate. Detailed commodity

information was not available at the state level.

### Final Report

—March 2001 A -4 

## 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS)

Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

The 1997 CFS provides the first comprehensive view of hazardous materials flows in the United

States. Hazardous materials totaled 1.6 billion tons, or 14.1 percent of all commodities measured in

the 1997 CFS, with 80 percent being flammable liquids. These data are identified by mode, hazard

class, division, and selected identification numbers to serve as exposure measures for risk

assessments. The hazardous materials data represent a major expansion in the availability of safety

data, particularly in the air and highway modes.

For the 1997 CFS, approximately 100,000 domestic establishments were sampled from a universe

of about 800,000 establishments in mining, manufacturing, wholesale, and selected retail industries.

Also included were auxiliary locations (warehouses) of multi-establishment companies. The CFS

does not cover farms, forestry, fisheries, governments, households, foreign establishments, and most

establishments in retail and services. The sampling frame was the Standard Statistical

Establishment List (SSEL) of business establishments with paid employees, maintained by the

Census Bureau.

1987 and 1992 Truck Inventory and Use Survey (TIUS)

Census of Transportation

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

TIUS measures the operational characteristics of the nation's truck fleet. The study consisted of

a mail survey of about 154,000 selected trucks including large trucks and small trucks (pickups

and vans). Published information is reported as national totals and by state of registration. The

unaggregated database is available as a microdata file. The information is a result of the number

of trucks and truck-miles reported during 1992. TIUS reports only the number of vehicles used to

transport various commodities rather than the amount of commodity moved over a distance (tonmiles for example). As well, the trucks reported may be used to transport more than one hazardous

commodity.

The 1992 survey showed that two percent of all trucks including small trucks carried HMs. Of the

HM carriers, 35 percent carried commodities that could be considered flammable liquids. Analysis

showed that 18 percent of large trucks carried HMs and that 20 percent of them were placarded as

flammable.

1997 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS)

Census of Transportation

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

This is formerly known as the Truck Inventory and Use Survey (TIUS). It contains data about

vehicles--physical characteristics, including date of purchase, weight, number of axles, overall

length, type of engine, and body type. Operational characteristics data include type of use, lease

characteristics, operator classification, base of operation, gas mileage, annual and lifetime miles

### Final Report

—March 2001 A -5 

## driven, weeks operated, commodities hauled by type, and hazardous materials carried. Less

detailed physical characteristics data are collected for pickups, vans, minivans, and sport utility

vehicles because they are relatively homogenous in design and use.

A mail-out/mail-back surveyed selected trucks. Large truck owners receive a standard form, and

small truck owners (pickups, vans, minivans, and sport utility vehicles) receive a short form. A

stratified random sample of registered trucks is selected from all 50 states and the District of

Columbia. Samples are selected by state and stratified mainly by body type. Data collection is

staggered as state records become available. Owners report data only for the vehicles selected.

Truck Transportation of Hazardous Materials: A National Overview

Transportation Systems Center

US DOT, December 1987.

The report presents and overview of HM transport on highways. Information and estimates of truck

traffic divisions are derived from the U.S. Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Census). The

report develops truck flows and traffic patterns using commodity and truck operating characteristics

from the CFS and TIUS of 1977.

The study reported that HM commodities accounted for 17 percent of truck ton-miles. Of that,

28 percent of HM ton-miles could be considered flammable liquid movements.

Table A-2. Selected National Commodity Flow Statistics

Commodity Statistics

+D]DUGRXV 0DWHULDOV

3HUFHQWDJH RI WRWDO

FRPPRGLW\ )ODPPDEOH /LTXLGV

3HUFHQW RI +D]PDW

FRPPRGLW\

 &)6

7RQPLOHV

H[FOXGHV SHWUROHXP SURGXFWV  

 7,86

$OO UHJLVWHUHG WUXFNV LQFOXGHV ODUJH

DQG VPDOO WUXFNV

/DUJH WUXFNV

7UXFNPLOHV RI +0 



 





 7,86

$OO UHJLVWHUHG WUXFNV LQFOXGHV ODUJH

DQG VPDOO WUXFNV

/DUJH WUXFNV

7UXFNPLOHV RI +0 



 





7UXFN 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ RI +D]DUGRXV

0DWHULDOV 

7RQPLOHV IDFWRUHG YROXPHV  

# 







### Final Report

—March 2001 B -1 

# Appendix B

Database Search Criteria

ppendix B includes a set of tables that summarize the search criteria used to identify 1996

Class 3 truck shipments for each database. Since each database has its own field

characteristics, Tables B-1 to B-6 each cover a single database.

Table B-1. HMIS

)LHOG +0,6 )LHOG 1DPH DQG &ULWHULD

$FFLGHQW $&&'5 <(6

6RXUFH +0,6

,QWHUVWDWH $VVXPHG <HV

6SLOO $VVXPHG <HV

'DWH ,'$7( 



7LPH ,7,0(

$FFLGHQW 6WUHHW ,5287(

$FFLGHQW &LW\ ,&,7<

&RXQW\ ,&2817<

$FFLGHQW 6WDWH ,67 &$ &2 25 ,$ ,1 01 2+ 3$

&DUULHU 1DPH &$55,

&HQVXV 1XPEHU &5312

&DUULHU 6WDWH &$567

+=07 3ODFDUGV $VVXPHG <HV

+=07 1DPH &202'

+=07 7UDGH 75$'(

+=07 'LJLW  81180

+=07 'LJLW  &0&/  &ODVV 

&DUJR &DUJR <HV RU 1R

 )DWDOLWLHV '($'

 ,QMXULHV ,1-85< >0-,1*01,1*@

3KDVH 3+$6(  (QURXWH %HWZHHQ 2ULJLQ DQG 'HVWLQDWLRQ

2WKHUV 9$175/  <HV RU 1R 

# A

### Final Report

—March 2001 B -2 

## Table B-2. Safetynet

)LHOG 6DIHW\QHW )LHOG 1DPH DQG &ULWHULD

$FFLGHQW $VVXPHG <HV

6RXUFH 6WDWH

,QWHUVWDWH ,QWHUVWDWH  <HV RU 1R

6SLOO +D]DUGRXV 0DWHULDO 5HOHDVH RI &DUJR  <HV RU 1R

'DWH $FFLGHQW 'DWH<HDU  $FFLGHQW 'DWH0RQWK

$FFLGHQW 'DWH'D\

7LPH $FFLGHQW 7LPH +RXU  $FFLGHQW 7LPH 0LQXWH

$FFLGHQW 6WUHHW $FFLGHQW 6WUHHW /RFDWLRQ

$FFLGHQW &LW\ $FFLGHQW &LW\ 1DPH

&RXQW\ $FFLGHQW &RXQW\ &RGH

$FFLGHQW 6WDWH $FFLGHQW 6WDWH

&DUULHU 1DPH &DUULHU 1DPH

&HQVXV 1XPEHU &HQVXV 1XPEHU

&DUULHU 6WDWH &DUULHU $GGUHVV 6WDWH

+=07 3ODFDUGV +D]DUGRXV 0DWHULDO 3ODFDUG <

+=07 1DPH +D]DUGRXV 0DWHULDO 1DPH

+=07 7UDGH 1$

+=07 'LJLW  +D]DUGRXV 0DWHULDO 'LJLW 1XPEHU

+=07 'LJLW  +D]DUGRXV 0DWHULDO 'LJLW 1XPEHU 

&DUJR &DUJR %RG\ 7\SH

 )DWDOLWLHV 1XPEHU RI )DWDOLWLHV

 ,QMXULHV 1XPEHU RI ,QMXULHV

3KDVH 1$

2WKHUV 7UXFN%XV W WUXFN

### Final Report

—March 2001 B -3 

## Table B-3. California Highway Patrol

)LHOG &DOLIRUQLD +LJKZD\ 3DWURO )LHOG 1DPH DQG &ULWHULD

$FFLGHQW $VVXPLQJ <HV 6LQFH DOO 3URSHUW\ 8VH LV +LJKZD\ 



### 6RXUFH &$

,QWHUVWDWH &DQQRW GHWHUPLQH LI ,QWHUVWDWH RU ,QWUDVWDWH 



### 6SLOO ([WHQW RI 5HOHDVH DQG 5HOHDVH )DFWRU

'DWH ,QGDWH 



7LPH 7LPH 1RWLILHG

$FFLGHQW 6WUHHW $GGUHVV

$FFLGHQW &LW\ &LW\

&RXQW\ &RXQW\

$FFLGHQW 6WDWH &$ E\ GHIDXOW

&DUULHU 1DPH 1RW DYDLODEOH

&HQVXV 1XPEHU 1RW DYDLODEOH

&DUULHU 6WDWH 1RW DYDLODEOH

+=07 3ODFDUGV 3ODFDUGV 5HTXLUHG  <HV

+=07 1DPH &KHPQDPH

+=07 7UDGH 1$

+=07 'LJLW  '27,'

+=07 'LJLW  '27 +D]DUG &ODVV 

&DUJR &RQWDLQHU 7\SH

 )DWDOLWLHV )DWDOLW\

 ,QMXULHV ,QMXU\

3KDVH 1$

2WKHUV 6XUURXQGLQJ $UHD 3URSHUW\ 8VH 'HVFULSWLRQ

3URSHUW\ 8VH FRGH   

IUHHZD\ FRXQW\FLW\ URDG SULYDWH URDG

0RELOH 3URSHUW\ 'HVFULSWLRQ

&RGHPRELOH    )UHLJKW 9HKLFOHURDG

2WKHU 8QGHWHUPLQHG

(TXLSPHQW 7\SH 'HVFULSWLRQ

&RGH HTXLSPHQW 1RW  QRW 9HKLFOH )XHO 6\VWHP

&RQ'HVFULEH QRW  QRW IL[HG

&RQW\SH QRW  QRW YHKLFOH IXHO WDQN

&RQOHYHO QRW  QRW EHORZ JURXQG



## 1. Assuming all records pulled are accidents since all occurred on highways.

2. Cannot determine if Interstate of Intrastate carrier.

### Final Report

—March 2001 B -4 

## Table B-4. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO)

)LHOG 38&2 )LHOG 1DPH DQG &ULWHULD

$FFLGHQW $FFLGHQW <HV

6RXUFH 2+ 38&2

,QWHUVWDWH ,QWHUVWDWH  <HV 1R RU 8QNQRZQ

6SLOO 5HOHDVHG  <HV RU 1R

'DWH 'DWH 



7LPH 7LPH

$FFLGHQW 6WUHHW 5RXWH0LOHSRVW

$FFLGHQW &LW\ &LW\

&RXQW\ &RXQW\

$FFLGHQW 6WDWH 2+ E\ GHIDXOW

&DUULHU 1DPH &DUULHU QDPH

&HQVXV 1XPEHU 1RW DYDLODEOH

&DUULHU 6WDWH &DUULHU 6WDWH

+=07 3ODFDUGV 1RW DYDLODEOH 2 $VVXPHG <HV

+=07 1DPH 0DWHULDOV ,QYROYHG

+=07 7UDGH 1$

+=07 'LJLW  1RW DYDLODEOH

+=07 'LJLW  1RW DYDLODEOH 



### &DUJR &DUJR <HV RU 8QNQRZQ DQG 3DFNDJLQJ

 )DWDOLWLHV )DWDOLWLHV

 ,QMXULHV ,QMXULHV

3KDVH 1$

2WKHUV (QURXWH <HV

*DOORQV

&DUULHU &LW\



## 1. Materials Involved: Using the 1996 North America Emergency Response

Handbook, the Materials Involved field was analyzed to see if was Class 3. If not

Class 3, then the entry was deleted from the search.

### Final Report

—March 2001 B -5 

## Table B-5. Colorado State Patrol

)LHOG &RORUDGR 6WDWH 3DWURO )LHOG 1DPH DQG &ULWHULD

$FFLGHQW $VVXPLQJ <HV 6LQFH DOO 3URSHUW\ 8VH LV +LJKZD\ 



### 6RXUFH &R63

,QWHUVWDWH &DQ QRW GHWHUPLQH LI ,QWHUVWDWH RU ,QWUDVWDWH

6SLOO 5HOIDFW    RU ,V 1XOO

&ROOLVLRQ2YHUWXUQ )LUHH[SORVLRQ 1R 5HOHDVH 1XOO 



### 'DWH ,QFLGHQW 'DWH $OO  UHFRUGV

7LPH ,QFLGHQW 7LPH

$FFLGHQW 6WUHHW /RFDWLRQ

$FFLGHQW &LW\ &LW\7RZQ

&RXQW\ &RXQW\

$FFLGHQW 6WDWH &2 E\ GHIDXOW

&DUULHU 1DPH &DUULHUV)DFLOLW\ 1DPH

&HQVXV 1XPEHU 1RW DYDLODEOH

&DUULHU 6WDWH &DUU)DFLO 6W

+=07 3ODFDUGV 3ODFGV 5HTG <  VW 

###  QG 

### +=07 (QWULHV

+=07 1DPH &KHP7UDGH1DPH

+=07 7UDGH 1$

+=07 'LJLW  '27 ,' 1R  VW 

###  QG 

### +=07 (QWULHV

+=07 'LJLW  '27 +=5' &ODVV   VW 

###  QG 

### +=07 (QWULHV

&DUJR &RQWDLQHU 7\SH

 )DWDOLWLHV )DWDOLW\ >UHVSRQGHUV NLOOHG  RWKHUV NLOOHG@

 ,QMXULHV ,QMXU\ >UHVSRQGHUV LQMXUHG  RWKHUV LQMXUHG@

3KDVH 1$

2WKHUV 3URSHUW\ 8VH     RU ,V 1XOO

IUHHZD\ FRXQW\FLW\ URDG SULYDWH URDG RWKHU RU 1XOO

7\SH RI ,QFLGHQW 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ RU 1XOO

9HK 7\SH  RU ,V 1XOO )UHLJKW 9HK5RDG

&RQWDLQHU 7\SH  VW 

###  QG 

### +=07 (QWULHV

([WHQW RI 5HOHDVH  VW 

###  QG 

### +=07 (QWULHV

&DU)DFLO &LW\

86 '27 



## 1. Assuming all records pulled are accidents since all occurred on highways

2. Spill field manually entered as y/n based on Relfact field plus other information.

### Final Report

—March 2001 B

- 

### 6 

## Table B-6. Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents (TIFA)

)LHOG 7,)$ )LHOG 1DPH DQG &ULWHULD

$FFLGHQW $VVXPLQJ <HV

6RXUFH 7,)$

,QWHUVWDWH &DQ QRW GHWHUPLQH LI ,QWHUVWDWH RU ,QWUDVWDWH 



### 6SLOO 6SLOO6SLOO

'DWH 'DWH >$FFLGHQW 0RQWK $FFLGHQW 'D\ $FFLGHQW <HDU@

7LPH 7LPH >$FFLGHQW +RXU $FFLGHQW 0LQXWH@

$FFLGHQW 6WUHHW &DVH 6WUHHW

$FFLGHQW &LW\ &DVH &LW\

&RXQW\ &DVH &RXQW\ 1DPH

$FFLGHQW 6WDWH &DVH 6WDWH $%%5(9

&DUULHU 1DPH 1RW DYDLODEOH

&HQVXV 1XPEHU 1RW DYDLODEOH

&DUULHU 6WDWH 1RW DYDLODEOH

+=07 3ODFDUGV +=07 3ODFDUG +DV 3ODFDUG

+=07 1DPH 6SHF &DUJR

+=07 7UDGH 1$

+=07 'LJLW  1RW DYDLODEOH

+=07 'LJLW  'HWHUPLQHG E\ 8VHU 



### &DUJR 9&DUJR %RG\ 7\SH

 )DWDOLWLHV )DWDOLWLHV

 ,QMXULHV ,QMXULHV

3KDVH 1$

2WKHUV +D]DUGRXV &DUJR 

38 +=07 &DUJR 38 +DV &DUJR

7 +=07 &DUJR 7 +DV &DUJR

7 +=07 &DUJR 7 +DV &DUJR

7 +=07 &DUJR 7 +DV &DUJR



## 1. Cannot determine if Interstate or Intrastate carrier.

2. Looked up HZMT Name in 1996 North American Emergency Response

Handbook to determine which HZMT Names were Class 3. Deleted non-class 3

entries and no placard entries.

# Appendix C

**Accident**

**Information for**

**Class 3,**

**Class 2.1,** 

and Class 8Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

## * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-1 

## Table C

- 1. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for Colorado

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts Colorado State

Patrol + ERNS

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

01/03/96 Roadway Express

Inc N 1 ✓ Colorado 6 &

Colorado 70 Not reported

Clear Creek ✓ 0 0

01/08/96 Eveready Freight

Service, Inc. Y ✓ I

- 70 7600 BLK Arvada

Jefferson ✓ 1 0

01/19/96 Richard Stewart

Transport Y ✓ Colorado 40 & MP

249 Not reported

Clear Creek ✓ 1 0

01/25/96 Eveready Freight

Co Y ✓ Colorado 70 & Exit

221 Not reported

Clear Creek ✓ 1 0

01/28/96 Basin Western,

In c. Y 2 ✓ Colorado 40 & MP

161 Not reported

Grand ✓ 0 0 ✓ 0 0

01/30/96 Dooley Oil

Transport, Inc. Y ✓ Colorado I

- 25 &

MP 293 Not reported

Larimer ✓ 0 0

02/04/96 Monument Oil

Company Y ✓ Colorado 13 & MP

83 Not reported

Moffat ✓ 0 0

02/17/96 Fleischli Oil Co.,

Inc. Y ✓ RCR 27 MP 19 Hayden

Routt ✓ 0 0 ✓ 0 0 ✓ 0 0

02/19/96 James, Inc. Y ✓ Colorado 40 & MP

161 Not reported

Grand ✓ 1 0

03/05/96 DSI Transports,

Inc. Y ✓ Bri ghton Rd & 77 th

Ave Not reported

Adams ✓ 2 0

03/05/96 NATCO Petroleum,

Inc. Y ✓ Colorado 285 &

MP 5 Not reported

Conejos ✓ 2 0

03/18/96 Groendyke

Transport, Inc. Y ✓ Colorado 25 & MP

188 Not reported

Douglas ✓ 1 0 0

04/03/96 Sweitzer Oil, Inc. Y ✓ Colorado 285 .3N

MP 168 Not reported

Park ✓ 0 0

04/05/96 Palmer Oil

Company Y ✓ C&K Oil Company

Hwy 40 Cheyenne Wells

Cheyenne 

### * * 0 0

04/19/96 J C Trucking, Inc. Y ✓ US HWY 40 MP

162 Kremmling

Grand ✓ 0 0 ✓ 0 0

04/30/96 Groendyke

Transport, Inc. Y ✓ Powers Blvd &

W Bradley Rd Not reported

El Paso ✓ 1 0 ✓ 1 0

1 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Colorado State Patrol says “tank”, not cargo tank

## Table C

- 1. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for Colorado (continued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

## * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-2 HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts Colorado State

Patrol + ERNS

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

05/06/96 Monte Vista Coop Y ✓ Colorado 96 & MP

203 Not reported

Kiowa ✓ 1 0

06/10/96 Fleet Transport

Co., Inc. Y ✓ I

- 70 West 412 MN Vona

Kit Carson ✓ 0 0 ✓ 2 0

06/13/96 Thomas Bodkin 

## * ✓ 7400 Blk Hwy 85 Commerce City

Adams ✓ 1 0

06/22/96 Matlack, Inc. Y ✓ US 40 Berthoud Falls

Clear Creek ✓ 0 0 ✓ 2 0

07/09/96 Klein Frank C &

Co., Inc. Y ✓ I

- 70 Idaho Springs

Clear Creek ✓ 0 0 ✓ 0 0

07/18/96 Bogue

Construction Co Y ✓ Colorado 70 EB

.9E MP 146 Not reported

Eagle ✓ 0 0

07/27/96 Te xaco Trading &

Transport Y ✓ Weld CR 390 .2 N

Weld CR 136 Not reported

Weld ✓ 0 0

07/28/96 Harpel Oil

Company, Inc. Y ✓ I

- 70 & Colorado

121 Arvada

Jefferson ✓ 0 0

07/29/96 Groendyke

Transport, Inc. Y ✓ E Quincy Ave &

S Parker Road Aurora

Arapahoe ✓ 0 0

08/04/96 Total Petroleum Y ✓ I

- 76 at MM 31 West of Hudson

Weld ✓ 0 0

08/19/96 Loco, Inc. Y ✓ Hwy 133 Paonia

Delta ✓ 0 0

08/20/96 Groendyke

Transport, Inc. Y ✓ Colorado 76 &

Colorado 25 Not reported

Adams ✓ 1 0

09/01/96 Basin Western,

Inc. Y ✓ I

- 70 B & 31 1⁄2

Road Grand Junction

Mesa ✓ 0 0

09/16/96 Steere Tank Lines,

Inc. Y ✓ I

- 25 & MP 205 Denver

Denver ✓ 1 0

10/03/96 Arkansas Valley

Coop Y ✓ Colorado 10 & CR

22 Not reported

Otero ✓ 1 0

10/09/96 Farmland

Industries, Inc. Y ✓ I

- 70 & MP 283 Aurora

Adams ✓ 0 0

11/26/96 Iowa Tanklines,

Inc. Y ✓ Colorado 25 &

Colorado 11 9 Not reported

Weld ✓ 1 0

11/27/96 Wright Valley Oil,

Inc. Y ✓ Colorado 160 &

MP 273 Not reported

Costilla ✓ 3 0 ✓ 0 0

12/14/96 Ehnle Oil Y ✓ Colorado 40 &

Empire Not reported

Clear Creek ✓ 0 0

## Table C

- 1. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for Colorado (continued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

## * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-3 HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts Colorado State

Patrol + ERNS

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

12/16/9 6 James, Inc. Y ✓ Colorado 25 .4 Ft

N MP 239 Not reported

Weld ✓ 1 0

12/17/96 Groendyke

Transport, Inc. Y ✓ 6900 Blk I

- 25 &

E Arapahoe Greenwood Village

Arapahoe ✓ 1 0

12/17/96 Iowa Tanklines,

Inc. Y ✓ 3805 Kipling Wheat Ridge

Jefferson ✓ 0 0

12/17/96 Unknown Y ✓ I

- 25 at Colorado 7 Not reported

Adams ✓ 

### * *

12/28/96 Peerless Tyre Co Y ✓ S Sheridan Blvd &

W Mississippi Lakewood

Jefferson ✓ 0 0

12/29/96 Basin We stern,

Inc. Y ✓ MP 125 Co Hwy 9 Silverthorne

Summit ✓ 0 0 ✓ 1 0Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

## * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-4 

## Table C

- 2. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for Ohio

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts Ohio PUCO

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

01/02/96 Penske Truck

Leasing Y ✓ MP 006.00 Denmark Township

Ashtabula ✓ 0 0

01/03/96 B P Oil Co. Y ✓ Rt 162 Chatham

Medina ✓ 0 0

02/06/96 Preston Trucking Co. N 1 ✓ 2977 Brecksville

Road Richfield

Henry ✓ 0 0

04/01/96 Advantage Tank

Lines, Inc. Y ✓ MP 073.00 Somerford Township

Madison ✓ 0 0

04/15/96 Suttles Truck

Leasing, Inc. Y ✓ I

- 71 NB MM63 Columbus

Fairfield ✓ 0 0

04/25/96 Dixieland Express Y ✓ I

- 71 Symmes

Hamilton ✓ 0 0

06/14/96 Consolidated

Freightways Corp Del N 1 ✓ I

- 71 Northbound Mount Sterling

Madison ✓ 0 0

06/30/96 Lykins Oil Co. Y ✓ Rt 48 at I

- 71

Ramp Not Available

Warren ✓ 0 0 ✓ 1 0 ✓ 0 0

08/26/96 Safety Kleen Y ✓ Rt 6/Wapakoneta

Rd Grand Rapids

Wood ✓ 2 1

08/29/96 BMI Transportation,

Inc. Y ✓ Rt 519E Franklin

Columbiana ✓ 1 0

09/05/96 Not Available Y ✓ Route 31 5 Columbus

Franklin ✓ 2 0

09/23/96 Freight Sales, Inc. Y ✓ MP 005.00 Moorefield Twp

Harrison ✓ 1 0

10/29/96 Matlack, Inc. Y ✓ I

- 70/MM 122 Kirkersville

Licking ✓ 0 0 ✓ 1 0 ✓ 1 0

10/30/96 Columbia Oil Co. Y ✓ State Route 73 Wilmington

Clinton ✓ 0 0

11/06/96 Not Available Y ✓ North Dixie Drive Harrison Twp

Not Available ✓ 1 0

11/07/96 Swifty Oil Y ✓ Rt 25A Dayton

Montgomery ✓ 0 0

11/18/96 Sun Company Y ✓ Ohio Turnpike/

MM 196 Mantua/Reenna

Portage ✓ 0 0 ✓ 0 0

12/30/96 Premier Tank Lines Y ✓ SR #138 Clarksburg

Ross ✓ 0 0 ✓ 1 0 ✓ 0 0

1 Van Truck/TrailerLegend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

## * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-5 

## Table C

- 3. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for California

HMIS

Impacts SAF ETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts CA Highway

Patrol Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

01/09/96 Pan Pacific Petroleum

Co., Inc. Y ✓ Rt 405/Normandie

Ave Torrance

Not Available ✓ 0 0

01/10/96 Chevron USA, Inc. Y ✓ Rt 118/Chatsworth Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

01/12/96 HF Cox Y ✓ Rt 118/Ruffner

Ave Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

01/20/96 Pearce Tank Line Y ✓ Rt 405/Carson Carson

Not Ava ilable ✓ 2 0

01/21/96 H F Cox, Inc. Y ✓ Rt 5/Rye Cyn Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

01/23/96 Miller Roy Freight

Lines, Inc. N 1 ✓ Ferguson Road Gilroy

Santa Clara ✓ 0 0

01/30/96 Cool Transports, Inc

. 

## * ✓ Rt 101 Nbon/R/

Pilgrimage Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 1 0

02/08/96 Shell Oil Products Co. Y ✓ Rt 17/Glenwood

Cut/Off Santa Cruz

Not Available ✓ 0 0

02/24/96 Van Dyk Oil Co., Inc. Y ✓ Rt 395/Osdick Rd San Bern ardino

Not Available ✓ 0 0

02/25/96 Cox Oil Co., Inc. Y ✓ Rt 91/Woodruff Av Bellflower

Not Available ✓ 1 0

02/26/96 Systems Transport Y ✓ Rt 91/Orange Av Long Beach

Not Available ✓ 0 0

02/27/96 Cros s Petroleum Inc. Y ✓ Rt 99 Sboff/R/E

Park Ave Chico

Not Available ✓ 0 0

03/05/96 Alta Y ✓ Rt 710 Sbtrn/Rt

405 Long Beach

Not Available ✓ 1 0

03/13/96 Atlas Bulk, Inc. Y ✓ Rt 210/Madre Pasadena

Not Available ✓ 0 0

03/13/96 San Joaquin

Helicopters Y ✓ 30 Av/Nevada Av Kings

Not Available ✓ 1 0

03/16/96 Golden Bear Y ✓ Rt 405/Mulholland

Dr Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

03/19/96 Jose Toledo Y ✓ Rt 5/Rt 223 Ker n

Kern ✓ 1 1 ✓ 3 1

03/22/96 United Oil Company Y ✓ Rt 101/Echo Pk Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

1 Van Truck/Trailer

## Table C

- 3. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for California (co ntinued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

## * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-6 HMIS

Impacts SAF ETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts CA Highway

Patrol Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

03/24/96 Vasto Valley Farms Y ✓ Rt 198/California

Aquedct Fresno

Not Available ✓ 5 0

03/28/96 Crown Che mical Y ✓ Rt 5/Las Flores Carlsbad

Not Available ✓ 0 0

04/03/96 Redwood Oil

Company Y ✓ Rt 101/San

Antonio Rd Sonoma

Not Available ✓ 1 0

04/10/96 KEC Engineering N 2 ✓ Rt 60/Gilman Spg

Rd Riverside

Not Available ✓ 0 0

04/13/96 Not Available Y ✓ Avenue 24 East of

SR 99 Chowchilla

Madera ✓ 0 0

04/22/96 Myers Tank Lines Y ✓ Rt 8/Severin Dr LaMesa

Not Available ✓ 0 0

05/11/96 Yellow Freight

Systems N 2 ✓ Rt 105/H arris Av Lynwood

Not Available ✓ 0 0

05/13/96 Larry Dee Kothe Y ✓ Rt 405/120 Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

05/23/96 R F White Co., Inc. Y ✓ Main/Placentia Ln Riverside

Not Available ✓ 0 0

05/30/96 BC Stocking

Distributing N 2 ✓ Rt 680/Monument

BL UC Pleasant Hill

Not Available ✓ 0 0

06/07/96 J W Myers, Inc. Y ✓ Rd 16/Av 6 Madera

Not Available ✓ 0 0

06/09/96 Arco Products Co. Y ✓ Rt 5/Zoo Dr OC Los Angeles

No t Available ✓ 1 0

07/04/96 Atlas Bulk, Inc. Y ✓ Rt 101 Petaluma

Sonoma ✓ 0 1 ✓ 0 1 ✓ 0 1

07/08/96 Atlas Bulk, Inc. Y ✓ Rt 805/Adams Av

OC San Diego

Not Available ✓ 0 0

07/15/96 Beneto, Inc. Y ✓ Hwy 99 S outh Mettler

Kern ✓ 0 0 ✓ 1 0

07/18/96 Jack Griggs, Inc. Y ✓ Cedar Av/Adams

Av Fresno

Not Available ✓ 0 0

07/19/96 Casazza Trucking Co. Y ✓ Rt 395/1.6 miles N

of Buckeye Road Bridgeport

Mono ✓ 0 0 ✓ 0 0 ✓ 0 0

07/26/96 Trans Petro of

California Y ✓ Tuxford/San

Fernando Road Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 1 0

07/29/96 Not Available Y ✓ I15 Ontario

San Bernardino ✓ 0 1

2 Van/Enclosed Box

## Table C

- 3. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for California (co ntinued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

## * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-7 HMIS

Impacts SAF ETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts CA Highway

Patrol Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

07/29/96 Toms Sierra Co., Inc. N 1 ✓ Hwy 70 Exit Orovill e

Butte ✓ 0 0

08/06/96 Redwood Oil Co. Y ✓ Rt 116/Arnold Dr. Sonoma

Not Available ✓ 5 0

08/07/96 Not Available Y ✓ S/B I

- 5 S/O Obrien Uninc. Redding

Shasta 

## * * 0 0

08/08/96 Marvin, Inc. Y ✓ Aberde en Dr/Rt

247 San Bernardino

Not Available ✓ 0 0

08/13/96 Columbia Helicopters,

Inc. Y ✓ Rt 20/Walker

Ridge Rd Lake

Not Available ✓ 0 0

08/16/96 Mobil Oil Corp. Y ✓ Rt. 215/Mill UC San Bernardino

Not Available ✓ 1 0

08/30/96 Southwest Trails Y ✓ Rt 101/Canoga Av. Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

08/31/96 Dan Clark Y ✓ Rt 46/Browns

Material Rd Kern

Not Available ✓ 0 0

09/08/96 Desert Propane

Service Y ✓ Rt 91/Lo ng Bch Bl Long Beach

Not Available ✓ 0 0

09/11/96 American Propane LP Y ✓ Rt 5 Stanislaus

Not Available ✓ 0 0

09/11/96 Williams Tank Lines Y ✓ Rt 14/Puritan Mine

Rd UC Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

10/01/96 Van Dyk Oil Co., Inc. 

## * ✓ Rt 15/Rt 138 San Bernardino

Not Available ✓ 0 0

10/02/96 Not Available Y ✓ Rt 98 Not Available

Monterey ✓ 0 1

10/08/96 BiState Petroleum Y ✓ US Hwy 50 Not Available

Not Availabl e ✓ 0 0

10/15/96 Desert Propane

Service 

## * ✓ Rt 110/Pico Bl Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

10/20/96 Ueta of California, Inc. Y ✓ Rt 94/Home AV

OC San Diego

Not Available ✓ 0 0

10/21/96 H F Cox, Inc. Y ✓ Rt 14/Placerita

Cyn Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 1 0

11/01/96 Beneto Tank Lines Y ✓ Rt 15/Franklin OC Riverside

Not Available ✓ 1 0

11/01/96 Coastal Transport Co.,

Inc. Y ✓ Rt 78/Town Palo

Verde Imperial

Not Av ailable ✓ 1 0

11/05/96 Cross Petroleum

Transport, Inc. Y ✓ Interstate 5 &

O’Brien Exit O’Brien

Shasta ✓ 0 0 

## * * 0 0

11/11/96 Ramos Oil Co., Inc. Y ✓ Sievers Rd/Sparks

Rch Rd Solano

Not Available ✓ 0 0

## Table C

- 3. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for California (co ntinued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

## * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-8 HMIS

Impacts SAF ETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts CA Highway

Patrol Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

1 1/12/96 Flying J Transporta

tion, Inc. Y ✓ Worthington Rd/

McConnell Rd Imperial

Not Available ✓ 4 0

11/22/96 Not Available Y ✓ Rt 78 Not Available

Imperial ✓ 0 1

11/22/96 Arco Products Co. Y ✓ Reservoir @

Philadel phia Pomona

Los Angeles ✓ 0 0

12/12/96 D L Peterson/West

Shore Corp. N 2 ✓ Rt 5/Buena Vista

Cnl Rd Kern

Not Available ✓ 2 0

12/14/96 Arco Products Co. Y ✓ 785 E Stanley Blvd Livermore

Alameda ✓ 0 0

1 2/16/96 Polyester Chemical

Corp N 2 ✓ Rt 14/Escondido

Cyn Rd Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

12/22/96 Rinehart Oil, Inc. Y ✓ Marina Vista and

Shell Avenue Martinez

Not Available ✓ 0 0

12/24/96 Cosby Oil Company Y ✓ Rt 5/Broadway Av Los Angeles

Not Available ✓ 0 0

12/29/96 Williams Tank Lines,

Inc. Y ✓ Rt 99/Carpenter

Rd OC Modesto

Not Available ✓ 0 0

12/31/96 California Fresno

Trans. Co. Y ✓ Rt 41/McKinley Av

UC Fresno

Not Avai lable ✓ 0 0Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-9 

## Table C

- 4. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for Indiana

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident

Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 01/03/96 Ashland Chemical Co. N 1 

### ✓ I

- 65 NB 12MM Sellersburg Clark ✓ 1 0

01/04/96 Oliver D. Ad ams Y ✓ US

- 231 Cloverdale Putnam ✓ 1 0

01/22/96 Stahly Cartage Co. Y ✓ SR

- 3/SR

- 205 Laotto DeKalb ✓ 2 0

01/26/96 Preston Trucking Co., Inc. N 1 

### ✓ I

- 94 WB 29MM Michigan City Porter ✓ 1 0

04/05/96 Metropolitan Trucking, Inc. N 1



### ✓ Indiana Toll Rd

59.2MM New Carlisle LaPorte ✓ 2 0

04/23/96 Distribution Transportation

System N 1 

### ✓ US

- 36 and CR

200 West Muncie Randolph ✓ 0 0

05/01/96 R&D Transport, Inc. Y ✓ US 136 at Dandy

Trail Clermont Marion ✓ 1 0

05/14/96 Superior Carriers, Inc. Y ✓ I 80 EB 12MM Lake Station Lake ✓ 0 0

06/05/96 Usher Transport, Inc. Y ✓ I

- 64 EB

122.5MM New Albany Floyd ✓ 0 0 ✓ 2 0

07/29/96 Crystal Flash Y ✓ SR

- 39 & SR

- 142 Monrovia Morgan ✓ 1 0

08/26/96 FJ Schilling, Inc. N 1 ✓ 

### I

- 465 W 37BMM Indianapolis Marion ✓ 

### 1 0

08/27/96 Montgomery Tank Lines Y ✓ US

- 52 & US

- 28 Fickle Tippecanoe ✓ 0 0

08/29/96 DC Trucking, Inc. N 1 

### ✓ I

- 65 SB 53MM Seymour Jackson ✓ 2 0

09/04/ 96 Preston Trucking Co., Inc. N 1 

### ✓ US

- 41 SB Shelburn Sullivan ✓ 1 0

09/07/96 Mid

- States Express, Inc. N 2



### ✓ I

- 94 @ US Route

20 Burns Harbor Porter ✓ 0 0

09/09/96 Howell Transportation

Services, Inc. Y ✓ I

- 69 72MM VanBuren Grant ✓ 0 0 ✓ 2 0

09/16/96 Premier AG Coop Y ✓ SR

- 32 East of

Casey Westfield Hamilton ✓ 0 1 ✓ 0 1

1 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Van Truck/Trailer

## Table C

- 4. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for Indiana (continued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-10 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident

Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 09/24/96 Reis Trucking, Inc. Y ✓ SR

- 350 & North

Hogan Rd Center Twp. Dearborn ✓ 2 0

10/08/96 Matlack, Inc. Y ✓ I

- 65 NB to I

- 80

WB Calumet Lake ✓ 1 0

10/09/96 Harvey Construction Co., Inc. 

## * ✓ 5579 East 146 th



### Street Noblesville Hamilton ✓ 1 0

10/21/96 American Freightways, Co.,

Inc. N 2 

### ✓ Jefferson Blvd. Fort Wayne Allen ✓ 0 0

10/28/96 Fayette County Co

- Op Y ✓ SR

- 44 WB Connersville Fayette ✓ 1 0

10/29/96 R&D Transport 

## * ✓ I

- 65 SB 251MM Merrillville Lake ✓ 0 0

11/02/96 Ag One Co

- Op Y ✓ CR

- 500 N West

of CR

- 300N Lafayette Twp. Madison ✓ 2 0

11/09/96 USF Holland, Inc. N 1 

### ✓ Ind iana Toll Rd

136.1MM WB Orland Steuben ✓ 0 0

11/20/96 Transwood, Inc. Y ✓ I

- 65 NB N of

200MM Remington Jasper ✓ 0 0

11/22/96 American Freightways, Inc. N 1 

### ✓ Tibbs &

Minnesota Indianapolis Marion ✓ 0 0

11/27/96 Knox Co. Far m Bureau Co

Op Association, Inc. Y ✓ Old US

- 41S Vincennes Knox ✓ 1 0

12/02/96 Midland Co

- Op, Inc. N 1 

### ✓ 600 N Indiana

Street Greencastle Putnam ✓ 1 0

12/12/96 Bork Transport, Inc. Y ✓ N. Franklin Road

& E 34 th 

### Street Indianapolis M arion ✓ 2 0

12/19/96 Johnson Oil Company, Inc. Y ✓ I

- 456 SB 200’

South of 42MM Indianapolis Marion ✓ 4 0

12/19/96 Luke Oil Company Y ✓ I

- 90 WB 12.7MM Gary Lake ✓ 0 0

12/29/96 McDaniel Transportation Y ✓ I

- 65S 98MM Greenw ood Johnson ✓ 0 0Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-11 

## Table C

- 5. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for Oregon

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 01/20/96 Johnson Oil Company Y 

### ✓ .2E Woodson Road Not Available Columbia ✓ 2 2

01/23/96 Barnes Fuel Oil Service Y 

### ✓ Sunset St. &

Alameda Not Available Douglas ✓ 0 0

01/30/96 Hayes, RW Co. Y 

### ✓ Not Available Not Available Lane ✓ 0 0

02/24/96 American Transport, Inc. Y 

### ✓ Chemaward Not Available Marion ✓ 2 0

03/20/96 Tarr, Inc. Y 

### ✓ 2700 Block Not Available Washington ✓ 1 0

04/22/96 Staub, Ed & Sons Petroleum,

Inc. Y 

### ✓ .3 N Co. Rd. 2

- 9 Not Available Lake ✓ 0 0

05/18/96 Jackson Oil Trucking, Inc. Y 

### ✓ 1.00 S Old Ritter

Road Not Available Grant ✓ 1 0

05/22/96 Carson Oil Co., Inc. Y 

### ✓ Wilsonville Road Not Available Clackamas ✓ 0 0

06/26/96 Fossil Fuel, Inc. Y 

### ✓ Hwy 207 Not Available Wheeler ✓ 1 0

07/18/96 Swift Transportation Co., Inc. 

## * ✓ .5W Hoyt Road Not Available U matilla ✓ 1 0

07/22/96 Texaco Refining & Marketing Y 

### ✓ State Hwy 37 MP 13 Holdman Umatilla ✓ 1 0 ✓ 1 0

07/30/96 Nationsway Transport Service,

Inc. 

## * ✓ Not Available Not Available Union ✓ 0 0

07/31/96 USF Reddaway, Inc. 

## * ✓ 1.5N Sunny Valley Not Available Josephine ✓ 1 0

08/21/96 Texaco Refining & Marketing Y 

### ✓ 2.5 E US

- 30 Not Available Baker ✓ 1 0

08/22/96 Texaco Refining & Marketing Y 

### ✓ E 1

- 84 near MP 289 North Powder Union ✓ 1 0

08/30/96 W illiams Tank Lines Y 

### ✓ 13MM on Sprague

River Hwy Chiloquin Klamath ✓ 0 0

09/05/96 Tosco Refining & Marketing

Company Y 

### ✓ Broadway & 6 th



### Street Not Available Multnomah ✓ 0 0

09/11/96 Rickreall Farm Supply, Inc. Y 

### ✓ .25 Hwy 22 Not A vailable Polk ✓ 1 0

09/12/96 Oil Products, Inc. Y ✓ Near I

- 5 Not Available Marion ✓ 0 0

09/25/96 Viking Freight, Inc. 

## * ✓ Not Available Not Available Jackson ✓ 1 0

10/16/96 Chinkapin, Inc. Y ✓ 40 Ft W Dexter

Road Not Ava ilable Lane ✓ 1 0

11/04/96 Alpha Owens Corning, LLC 

## * ✓ Barlow RD &

Whiskey HI Not Available Clackamas ✓ 1 0

11/05/96 Star Oil Company Y ✓ Harold Street Not Available Multnomah ✓ 1 0

## Table C

- 5. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for Oregon (continued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-12 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 11/19/96 American Transport, Inc. Y ✓ Not Available Not Available Jefferson ✓ 1 0

11/19/96 The Oil House Y ✓ Williams Hwy Not Available Jackson ✓ 0 0

11/20/96 Space Age Fuel, Inc. Y ✓ Not Available Not Available Wasco ✓ 0 0

12/03/96 Werner Enterprises N 1 

### ✓ I

- 84 Mile Post 333 Weatherby Baker ✓ 0 0

12/23/96 Reese’s Oil Co., Inc. Y ✓ 100 Ft S Park Not Available Clackamas ✓ 4 0

12/27/96 Harris Transportation Co. Y ✓ Not Available Not Available Sherman ✓ 1 0

12/30/96 Cascade Tran sfer, LLC Y ✓ Delta Hwy Not Available Lane ✓ 1 0

1 Van Truck/TrailerLegend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-13 

## Table C

- 6. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for Iowa

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 1/26/96 Solar Transport Co Y ✓ B35 and Hwy 65 Mason City Cerro Gordo ✓ 0 0

2/19/96 Denny Wessel Transport Y ✓ Hwy 18 & N 60 Cylinder Palo Alto ✓ 0 0 ✓ 1 0

2/23/96 Iowa Tanklines Inc Y ✓ 1 1/2 mi North of IA 546 Carlisle Polk ✓ 0 0

2/23/96 Wynne Transport Service Inc N 1 

### ✓ I 80 EB 187.75 MM no t available Poweshiek ✓ 1 0

3/27/96 Farmland Industries Y ✓ Army Post Rd Hwy 5 Des Moines Polk ✓ 0 1

4/29/96 Adm Trucking Inc Y ✓ I

- 30, NB Milemarker 46 Urbana Benton ✓ 0 0 ✓ 1 0

8/09/96 Dougs Transfer N 1 

### ✓ Hwy 65 1/2 mile South

of Mason City Cerro Gordo Cerro Gordo ✓ 

### 3 0

8/10/96 Wayne Transports Inc Y ✓ Hwy 9 and 71,327

E Peoria Avenue Spirit Lake Dickinson ✓ 

### 1 0

9/21/96 Transwood Inc. Y ✓ Interstate 35 South Story City Story ✓ 0 0 ✓ 1 0

10/22 /96 G & G Express Inc N 2 

### ✓ Hwy 30 Grand Mound Clinton ✓ 0 0

1 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Van Truck/TrailerLegend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-14 

## Table C

- 7. 1996, Class 3, Accident Information for Minnesota

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

Cou ntySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 1/15/96 Jebro, Inc. Y ✓ Interstate 90 Mile

Marker 35 D ewald Nobles ✓ 0 0

2/08/96 Independent Diversified

Transport Y ✓ Co. Rd. 14 Co. Rd. 102 Miltona Douglas ✓ 0 0 

## * * 1 0

3/14/96 Dahlen Transport, Inc. Y ✓ Madison Ave & River

Front Drive Mankato Blue Earth ✓ 0 0

5/21/96 Jensen T ransport Co., Inc. Y ✓ Hwy 86 MP 4 Lakefield Jackson ✓ 0 0

8/02/96 Dahlen Transport, Inc. Y ✓ 63 Northbound Racine Mower ✓ 0 0 ✓ 1 1

8/23/96 Orton Transport Y ✓ Hwy 2 Polk ✓ 1 0

8/29/96 Kane Transport Co. Y ✓ Minnesota H wy 7 New Germany Carver ✓ 2 0

9/06/96 Mielke Oil Co. Y ✓ Concord & 494 South St. Paul Dakota ✓ 0 0

9/20/96 Roche Oil Co. Y ✓ CSAH 102 Mountain Iron St. Louis ✓ 0 0

10/19/96 Wayne Transports, Inc. Y ✓ Hwy 88 & County LA N ew Brighton Ramsey ✓ 0 0

10/29/96 Dahlen Transport, Inc. Y ✓ Hwy 101 NB @ Co.

Rd. 42 Otsego Wright ✓ 0 0

12/24/96 Yocum Oil Company Y ✓ E Co. Rd. E Vadnais Heights Ramsey * * 1 0Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-15 

## Table C

- 8. 1996, Class 3, Accident Infor mation for Pennsylvania

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 01/02/96 C A Leasing Inc Y T Route 2004 Hamilton Monroe T 1 0

01/02/96 Union Fuel Co. Y T Pierce St Easton Northampton T 1 0

01/04/96 AIRCO Industries Y T Route 0202 Upper Merion Montgomery T 0 0

01/05/96 Agway Energy Products Y T Route 1011 Oakland Butler T 0 1

01/05/96 JJ Skelton Oil Co Y T Route 1007 Silver Spring Cumberland T 2 0

01/06/96 Box Gases Y T East/West Turnpike Penn Westmoreland T 1 0

01/06/96 Brinkers Fuels Inc Y T Perry Auger Rd Nockamixon Bucks T 0 0

01/06/96 Joanna Oil Company Y T Zion Rd Robeson Berks T 0 0

01/09/96 Ferrell Gas Y T Route 0472 Colerain Lancaster T 1 0

01/09/96 H. L. Meyer Inc. Y T Horseshoe Pk South Annville Lebanon T 0 0

01/09/96 Reed Oil Y T Lakewood Rd Hickory Lawrence T 1 0

01/10/96 Exxon Co USA Y T Interstate 0079 Cecil Washington T 1 0

01/10/9 6 K L Lamborson Inc Y T Pine St Mt Union Huntingdon T 1 0

01/10/96 Russell E Conrad Inc. Y T Sander Al Kutztown Berks T 0 0

01/11/96 Boncosky Services Inc Y T Lincolnway Rd New Oxford Adams T 0 0

01/11/96 Carninal USA Fuel Y T Providence Rd Nether

Providence Delaware T 0 0

01/11/96 Creamer Oil Company Inc Y T Gabler Rd Hamilton Franklin T 0 0

01/11/96 Fanelli Bros Trking & Leasing N 1 

### T Interstate 0078 Weisenberg Lehigh T 1 0

01/11/ 96 Hutter Inc Y T Walnut St Lebanon Lebanon T 1 0

01/11/96 Peters Gas & Oil Inc Y T Route 0437 Fairview Luzerne T 0 0

01/11/96 Seifert Enterprises Inc Y T William Penn Hw Whitehall Lehigh T 1 0

01/12/96 Stahl Oil Co I nc Y T Buffalo Pittsburgh Croyle Cambria T 1 0

01/12/96 Yellow Freight System Inc N 1 

### T Interstate 0080 Marion Centre T 0 0

01/13/96 Amerada Hess Corp Y T Hanover Rd Heidelberg York T 0 0

01/13/96 Superior Carriers Inc

. N 2 

### T Interstate 0080 Greene Clinton T 1 0

1 Van/Enclosed Box

## Table C

- 8. 1996, Class 3, Acc ident Information for Pennsylvania (continued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-16 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 01/14/96 J D Sales Inc Y T Lower York Rd Solebury Bucks T 0 0

01/15/96 Joseph D Miller & Sons Inc 

## * T Ninth St Philadelphia Philadelphia T 1 0

01/15/96 Montour Oil Service C o Y T Old Montoursvillrd Loyalsock Lycoming T 0 0

01/15/96 Spartan Express Inc N 1 

### T Seventh St Emmaus Lehigh T 1 0

01/16/96 Bruceton Farm Services Inc Y T Route 0051 Perryopolis Fayette T 3 0

01/16/96 Roadway Express Inc. N 1 

### T Interstate 0078 Greenwich Berks 

### * * 1 0

01/17/96 Overnite Transportation Co N 1 

### T William Penn Hw Greenwood Perry T 1 0

01/18/96 Best Fuel Oil Y T Route 0209 Polk Monroe T 0 0

01/18/96 Supervalu Transportation N 1 

### T Route 0366 Washington Westmoreland T 1 0

01/19/96 Baker Petroleum Trans Co Y T Funk Rd Hatfield Montgomery T 1 0

01/20/96 Michael K Kowalski Incorp Y T Union St Corry Erie T 0 0

01/22/96 Penndot Y T Route 0026 Hopewell Bedford T 2 0

01/23/96 Pjax N 1 

### T Route 0068 Oakland Butler T 0 0

01/24/96 L K Burket & Brother Y T Ithan Av Radnor Delaware T 1 0

01/25/96 D E Walker And Sons Y T Sumneytown Pk Lower Gwynedd Montgomery T 0 0

01/26/96 Hillers Inc. Y T Main St So Williamsport Lycoming T 1 0

01/27/96 New Penn Motor Express N 1 

### T East/West Turnpike Rapho Lancaster T 0 0

01/27/96 Praxair Inc. Y T Interstate 0079 Jackson Butler T 2 0

0 1/30/96 Moyer & Son Y T Welsh Rd Horsham Montgomery T 1 0

01/31/96 Keroscene Y T Roosevelt Bl Philadelphia Philadelphia T 1 0

02/09/96 Action Oil Co Y T Route 3012 Georges Fayette T 0 0

02/11/96 Titan Express N 1 

### T I nterstate 0080 Clarion Clarion T 2 0

02/12/96 Butler Petroleum Corporation Y T Route 0224 Mahoning Lawrence T 0 0

02/12/96 DBA Petroleum Heating Co. 

## * T Main St Macungie Lehigh T 1 0

02/12/96 U S Xpress Leasing Inc N 2 

### T Route 0062 Hermitage Mercer T 1 0

02/12/96 Wilmington Oil Company Inc Y T Benjamin Franklin HW Mahoning Lawrence T 1 0

02/13/96 Mckelvey Oil Co Inc Y T Sr 0764 Sh Allegheny Blair T 2 0

2 Garbage/Refuse

## Table C

- 8. 1996, Class 3, Acc ident Information for Pennsylvania (continued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-17 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 02/14/96 Ho Wolding Inc N 1 

### T Interstate 0080 Marion Centre T 0 0

02/14/96 M Lynch Transportation Inc Y T Susquehanna Tr Penn Snyder T 0 0

02/15/96 Hale Intermodal Trucking Co. N 1 

### T East/West Turnpike Bristol Bucks T 0 0

02/19/96 Guttman Oil Co Y T Route 0088 Speers Washington T 0 1

02/20/96 Pro Oil Co Inc Y T Route 62 Pine Grove Warren T 0 0 T 1 0

02/20/96 Triangle Gasoline Co. Y T Route 0038 Washington Butler T 0 0

02/28/96 The Sico Co. Y T Gap Newport Pk New Ga rden Chester T 1 0

03/02/96 Sank Inc. 

## * T Interstate 0095 Philadelphia Philadelphia T 0 0

03/06/96 Heath Oil Inc N 1, 3 

### T I80 Mercer Mercer T 0 0 T 2 0

03/06/96 Penn Mar Oil Co Inc Y T Guilford Franklin T 0 0

03 /07/96 Atlantic Refining & Marketing

Corp 

## * T McFarland RD Mt Lebanon Allegheny T 0 0

03/09/96 V J Belotti Inc Y T Main St Avoca Luzerne T 3 0

03/11/96 Bahn Fuel Oil Co Y T Snyder Hill Rd Warwick Lancaster T 1 0

03/12 /96 Pitt

- Ohio Express Inc N 4 

### T Interstate 80 Milesburg Centre T 0 0

03/12/96 Sun Refining & Marketing Co * T Cheyney Rd Concord Delaware T 1 0

03/12/96 Zeke's Inc Y T Telegraph Rd West Caln Chester T 1 0

03/13/96 Glass mere Fuel Service Inc Y T Butler St Etna Allegheny T 1 0

03/13/96 Penske Truck Leasing Co N 1 

### T Interstate 0078 Tilden Berks T 1 0

03/13/96 Snapp Brothers Y T Interstate 0099 Snyder Blair T 3 0

03/16/96 Roberts Expres s Inc Y T Penn Hill Lancaster T 0 0

03/22/96 Herzog Brothers Y T Route 0062 Pine Grove Warren T 1 1

03/25/96 Crossett Inc Y T Rt 770 Marshburg Mckean T 0 0 T 1 0

04/4/96 Zappi Oil & Gas Co Inc Y T Route 0088 Jefferson G reene T 1 0

04/8/96 Joy Cone Co N 1 

### T Findley Mercer T 0 1

04/9/96 Aero Oil Co. Y T East/West Turnpike Lower Swatara Dauphin T 0 0

04/9/96 Jack A Allen Inc Y T Fourth Av Coraopolis Allegheny T 1 0

3 HMIS says yes cargo tank

4 Van Truck/Trailer

## Table C

- 8. 1996, Class 3, Acc ident Information for Pennsylvania (continued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-18 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 04/9/96 P hilip Lynn Hershey N 5 

### T Route 4011 Allegany Potter T 3 0

04/10/96 Advanatge Tank Lines Inc. Y T Robinson Allegheny T 0 0

04/10/96 Qst Express 

## * T William Flinn Hw Shaler Allegheny T 1 0

04/15/96 Landis Y T Lincoln Hw Columbia Lancaster T 0 0

04/17/96 Tolsdorf Oil Co N 6 

### T Chester Rd East Goshen Chester T 2 0

04/22/96 G & G Transport Inc

Petroleum 

## * T Chalmers Av Philadelphia Philadelphia T 1 0

04/23/96 Reilly & Sons Inc. Y T Pao li Pk West Goshen Chester T 1 0

05/10/96 Ace Fast Freight N 6 

### T City Line Av Philadelphia Philadelphia T 1 0

05/13/96 Gallagher Truck Salvage N 6 

### T Route 0029 Plymouth Luzerne T 0 0

05/14/96 Conewago Contractord Y T Win dsor Rd Windsor York T 0 0

05/15/96 Advantage Tank Line Y T Bud Shuster Hw Boggs Centre T 1 0

05/15/96 Dave Hanly Inc Y T Sumneytown Pk Upper Gwynedd Montgomery T 1 0

05/16/96 Paul C. Emery Co. Y T Seven Stars Rd East Vincent Chester T 0 0

05/24/96 John Cheryl Inc N 5 

### T Route 3006 Washington Erie T 1 0

05/24/96 Ryder Truck Rental Inc 

## * T Interstate 0095 Chester Delaware T 1 0

05/25/96 Consolidated Freightways

Corp N 1 

### l T 322 Derry Mifflin T 0 1 T 1 1

05/29/96 Agway Inc N 6 

### T Route 0449 Genesee Potter T 0 0

06/03/96 Mauger And Co Inc Y T Aston Delaware T 1 0

06/04/96 Advantage Tank Lines Y T Interstate 0079 South Strabane Washington T 1 0

06/04/96 Carlos R Leffler Inc Y T Millersville Pk Lancaster Lancaster T 0 0

06/05/96 Carlos R Leffler Y T Main St Palmyra Lebanon T 1 0

06/11/96 Hampshire Distributors Y T Route 0220 Cumberland

Valley Bedford T 2 0

06/18/96 Frenz Petroleum Corp Y T Rt 422 New Castle Lawrence T 0 0 T 0 1 T 0 1

06/19/96 CCCarriers Inc N 1 

### T Bernville Rd Bern Berks T 3 0

06/21/96 Deimler Trucking Y T Enola Rd East Pennsboro Cumberland T 0 0

5 D ump

6 Flatbed

## Table C

- 8. 1996, Class 3, Acc ident Information for Pennsylvania (continued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-19 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 06/24/96 Ashbri dge Oil Co Inc Y T Buffalo Pittsburgh Adams Cambria T 1 0

06/28/96 Bumgardner And Flasher Oil Y T Water St Mt Union Huntingdon T 0 0

06/28/96 Sun Refining And Marketing

Co Y T Interstate 0076 Lower Merion Montgomery T 1 0

07/06/96 Molnar Hauling Inc Y T Route 0060 Brighton Beaver T 2 0

07/08/96 Arentz Oil Service Inc Y T Baltimore St Penn York T 0 0

07/13/96 C R Dampman Fuel &

Concrete Inc Y T Upper Ridge Rd Marlborough Montgomery T 0 0

07/13/96 Foster Oil Co. Y T Route 0066 Farmington Clarion T 0 0

07/15/96 Carlos R Leffler Inc Y T Bud Shuster Hw Pine Creek Clinton T 1 0

07/15/96 Montour Oil Sservice Co Y T Route 0220 Piatt Lycoming T 1 0

07/ 16/96 New Penn Motor Express Inc N 1 

### T West End Bl Richland Bucks T 1 0

07/18/96 Russell Standard Corp Y T Springfield Pk Connellsville Fayette T 1 0

07/19/96 Satterlee Leasing Co Y T Route 0036 Eldred Jefferson T 0 0

07/22/96 Joseph V Heenan Jr N 5 

### T Preston Rd Conewango Warren T 1 0

07/30/96 Gordon Sevig Trucking Co. N 1 

### T Route 0011 Liverpool Perry T 3 0

07/30/96 Houff Transfer Inc. N 1 

### T Route 0011 Liverpool Perry T 3 0

08/02/96 T immons Oil Inc. Y T Route 0533 Southampton Franklin T 0 0

08/09/96 Cleveland Contract Carrier N 1 

### T Route 0512 Bushkill Northampton T 3 0

08/09/96 Guttman Oil Co. Y T Interstate 0070 Fallowfield Washington T 0 0

08/12/ 96 Agway Petroleum Corp Y T Route 0160 Stonycreek Somerset T 1 0

08/12/96 The Sico Co. Y T Furnace Hill Rd Elizabeth Lancaster T 1 0

08/17/96 Yellow Freight Systems Inc. N 1 

### T Interstate 0080 Washington Jefferson T 0 0

08/19/96 Pjax Inc N 1 

### T Interstate 0079 Robinson Allegheny T 1 1

08/23/96 Taylor Oil Co., Inc. Y T Blair Mill Rd Upper Moreland Montgomery T 0 0

08/25/96 Molnar Inc Y T New Stanton Westmoreland T 0 1 T 0 1 T 0 1

08/27/96 A merada Hess Corp N 6 

### T Interstate 0083 Conewago York T 2 0

09/04/96 Advantage Tank Lines Ohio 

## * T Steubenville Pk Robinson Allegheny T 0 0

09/05/96 International Petroleum Corp 

## * T Allegheny Avenue Philadelphia Philadelphia T 0 0

09/9/96 Eugene K Martin 

## * T Route 0419 Cornwall Lebanon T 0 0

## Table C

- 8. 1996, Class 3, Acc ident Information for Pennsylvania (continued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-20 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 09/9/96 John Glemer Trucking N 5 

### T Access Rd Philadelphia Philadelphia T 1 0

09/16/96 Compass Enterprises Inc. N 1 

### T Marine Corps Leahw Union Union T 0 0

09/16/96 Petroleum Product Corp North Y T Route 2004 Decatur Mifflin T 1 0

09/17/96 Nittany Oil Company Y T Route 0522 Beaver Snyder T 0 0

09/17/96 Pitt Ohio Express Inc N 1 

### T Interstate 0080 Mt Pleasant Columbia T 0 0

09/20/96 Marshall Oil Company Y T Bud Shuster Hw Cumberland

Valley Bedford T 0 0

09/23/96 Castleman Enterprise N 5 

### T Route 0281 Somerset Somerset T 1 0

09/23/96 K L Harring N 1 

### T Interstate 0081 South Middleton

Twp Cumber land T 2 0

09/24/96 J H Russell Inc N 2 

### T Route 4039 Conemaugh Somerset T 0 0

9/25/96 Seaboard Tank Lines Y T Lincoln Hw Manheim Lancaster T 3 0

09/27/96 Heath Oil Inc Y T Sr 173 @ T808 Pine

Twp Grove City Mercer T 0 0 T 4 0

09/30/96 Abel Oil Y T Airy St Norristown Montgomery T 0 0

09/30/96 Get Inc Y T Saint Johns St Titusville Crawford T 0 0

10/04/96 Con

- Way Trans Service Inc N 1 

### T Interstate 0080 Liberty Montour T 2 0

10/07 /96 West Penn Laco Inc N 6 

### T Fifth Av Pittsburgh T 2 0

10/08/96 C & K Petroleum Products Inc. Y T Route 4093 Allegheny Westmoreland T 1 0

10/08/96 Jeviv Transportation N 1 

### T Route 0309 Upper Dublin Montgomery T 0 0

10/1 5/96 Viking Freight System Inc N 1 

### T Interstate 0081 Antrim Franklin T 1 0

10/19/96 K L L M Inc N 1 

### T I

- 81 MM 105 Tremont Fayette T 0 0 T 0 0

10/24/96 Earl Paddock Trans Inc N 6 

### T Interstate 0083 Fairview York T 1 0

10/24/96 Rob

- Lu Oil Co., Inc. Y T Neville Allegheny T 0 0

10/27/96 Penske Trucking Company N 1 

### T Route 0011 Reed Dauphin T 1 0

11/01/96 Howard E Groff Co Y T Beaver Valley Pk Providence Lancaster T 1 0

11/01/96 W L Roenigk N 6 

### T Mayview Rd Cecil Washington T 0 0

11/04/96 Sun Company Inc Y T Interstate 0076 Upper Merion Montgomery T 0 0

11/06/96 Bernville Quality Fuel Y T Seventeenth Halfst Reading Berks T 0 0

11/08/96 Fuchs Y T Gap Newpo rt Rd London Grove Chester T 0 0

11/08/96 Sun Refining & Marketing Y T Marple Rd Marple Delaware T 1 0

## Table C

- 8. 1996, Class 3, Acc ident Information for Pennsylvania (continued)

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; 

### * Not reportedFinal Report—March 2001C-21 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City Accident

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality



### 11/09/96 Brinker Fuels Inc. Y T Lower State Rd Doylestown Bucks T 0 0

11/11/96 Petro Chemical Y T Grand Army Repub

HW Wayne Erie T 1 0

11/11/96 R L Jehu Gulf Supply Inc Y T Buffalo Pittsburgh Henderson Jefferson T 2 0

11/13/96 Chemical Leaman Tank Lines

Inc Y T Us Route 322 & 522 Lewistown Mifflin T 0 0 T 1 0

11/14/96 Welles Mill Co In c Y T US Rte 87 Mehoopany Wyoming T 0 0

11/15/96 Dana Transport Systems Inc Y T Stenton Av Philadelphia Philadelphia T 0 0

11/16/96 R & W Oil Products Y T Ohio Av Glassport Allegheny T 1 0

11/19/96 D J Witman Inc Y T Antietam Rd Lower Alsace Berks T 1 0

11/23/96 Aero Oil Co Y T Lincoln Hw Jackson York T 1 1

11/25/96 Boncosky Services Inc Y T Interstate 0080 East

Lackawannock Mercer T 1 0

11/28/96 Berks Products Y T West Shore BP Cumru Berks T 0 0

11/29/96 Diamond Materials Y T Linfield Rd Lower

Pottsgrove Montgomery T 0 0

11/30/96 BP Oil Co Y T William Penn Hw North Fayette Allegheny T 1 0

11/30/96 Orris Fuel Y T McCleland Rd Indiana Alleghen y T 1 0

12/02/96 Ace Robbins Inc Y T Route 4005 Mehoopany Wyoming T 0 0

12/04/96 Camerson Coca Cola N 1 

### T O’Hara Allegheny T 1 0

12/04/96 Stevers Trucking T Route 2021 Jenkins Luzerne T 0 0

12/05/96 Agway Petroleum Corp Y T Manheim Lancaster T 0 0

12/06/96 Carlos R Leffler Inc Y T Hogestown Rd Silver Spring Cumberland T 0 0

12/11/96 A S A Trucking Company N 2 

### T Turnpike Ramp Rd Taylor Lackawanna T 1 0

12/11/96 Good Oil Co. Y T Skippack Pk Whitpain Montgomery T 0 0

12/13/96 R C Stahlnecker Co Y T Route 0642 Valley Montour T 1 0

12/17/96 Bolea Oil Products Y T Montour St Coraopolis T 1 0

12/17/96 Export Fuel Co Inc Y T Route 0021 M asontown Fayette T 0 0

12/24/96 Glassmere Fuel Service Inc Y T Route 1013 West Deer Allegheny T 1 0

12/27/96 Root Oil Co Inc Y T Route 0414 Morris Tioga T 0 01 Van/Enclosed Box

Legend: Y = Yes; N = NoFinal Rreport—March 2001C-22 

## Table C

- 9. Class 2.1 Accident Information for Colorado

SAFETYNET

Impacts CO State Patrol

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

02/11/95 Propane Transport Inc. Y T Colorado 550 & MP 83 Unknown/Ouray T 0 0

08/25/95 Sutton Petroleum Co. Y T CR 7 & MP 5 Unknown/Moffat T 1 7

09/20/95 Sutherland Trucking Y T Colorado 85 & WCR 18 1⁄2 Unknown/Weld T 4 0

01/26/96 Basin Western, Inc. Y T Colorado 139 & MP 72 Unknown/Rio Blanco T 1 0

02/06/96 Southwest Express, Inc. Y T Colorado 96 & MP 23 Unknown/Custer T 1 0

02/28/96 United States Welding, Inc. N 1 T Colorado 125 & MP 56 Unknown/Jackson T 0 0

07/21/96 Basin Weste rn Y T Road Bb 1.3 W Colo 666 Unknown/Montezuma T 0 0 T 0 0

07/31/96 Comfurt Gas, Inc. Y T Colorado 24 & MP 197 Unknown/Chaffee T 1 0

08/23/96 Reed Oil Co. Y T 215 Teresa Dr Unknown/Clear Creek T 0 0

10/25/96 Groendyke Transport, Inc. Y T Colorado 139 & MP 59 Unknown/Rio Blanco T 1 0 T 1 0

12/02/96 Independent Propane Y T Kerr Dr & Bardwell Rd Unknown/Jefferson T 1 0 T 0 0

12/06/96 Bob's LP Gas, Inc. Y T Colorado 160 & MP 114 Unknown/Archuleta T 0 0

12/21/96 Basin West ern, Inc. Y T Hwy 550 & MP 68 Unknown/San Juan T 1 0

02/17/97 Matlack, Inc. Y T Colorado 125 & MP 74 Unknown/Jackson T 0 0

03/12/97 Hankel Trucking Y T US 6 & MP 226 Unknown/Clear Creek T 1 0

04/10/97 Suburban Propa ne LP Y T Magnolia Dr & Co 119 Unknown/Boulder T 1 0

08/29/97 Roy Meier Y T I

- 76 & WCR 59 Unknown/Weld T 0 0

11/06/97 Als Gas Service Y T I

- 25 & MP 22 Unknown/Las Animas T 0 0

11/11/97 Ferrell Gas Y T Cr 275 & CO 70 Unknown/Clear Creek T 0 0

12/01/97 Ferrellgas Lp Y T W Lake Creek & Lake Creek Unknown/Eagle T 0 0

12/02/97 Pease Oilfield Service, Inc. Y T WCR 44 & WCR 47 Unknown/Weld T 1 0

12/15/97 Pelco Gas, Inc. Y T CR T & CR 52 Unknown/Cheyenne T 0 0

12/16/97 Amerigas Y T Elk River Dr & RCR 129 Unknown/Routt T 0 01 Unknown

2 Cylinders

3 Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-23 

## Table C

- 10. Class 2.1 Accident Information for Ohio

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts Ohio

- PUCO

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

01/08/95 Unknown N 1 T 6 Unknown /Sandusky T 1 1

01/23/95 Ferrel LP Y T Sr0060R Ruggles Township /

Ashland T 0 0

01/30/95 Propane, Inc. Y T Quarry Ro Bloom Township / Wood T 0 0

02/13/95 Rutland Furniture Co. Y T SR0588R Raccoon Township /

Gallia T 0 0

01/12/96 Rutland Bottled Gas

Co. N 1 T Unknown Redtown /Unknown T N/A N/A

03/11/96 Unk nown N 1 T 108 Unknown /Henry T 0 1

09/17/96 De's LP Gas Service,

Inc. Y T US 20 and SR

300 Gibsonburg /Sandusky T 2 0 T N/A N/A

09/27/96 James L Ridenour Y T SR0160R Wilkesville Township /

Hancock T 0 0

10/28/96 AGA Gas N 2 T SR 579 Northwood /Wood T 0 0 T 2 1 T N/A N/A

01/09/97 Valley National

Gases, Inc. Y T SR 83 Cumberland / Guernsey T 1 0 T 1 0 T N/A N/A

01/22/97 Wilhelm's Bottled Gas Y T SR 3 & SR 36,

MP 3 Unknown /Knox T 0 0

02/03/97 Level Propane

Gases, Inc. N 1 T 10052 Jones

Road Litchfield /Medina T 0 0

02/07/97 Auxier Gas, Inc. N 3 T CR0101 Sterling Township /

Brown T 0 0

03/07/97 Unknown Y T Ohio #8 Exit

Ramp Akron /Unknown T 1 0

03/31/97 Level Propane Y T MP021.00 Andover Township /

Ashtabula T 2 0 T N/A N/A

04/11/97 Youngstown Propane,

Inc. N 3 T CR0108r Ne wton Township /

Geauga T 0 0

06/16/97 Level Propane

Gases, Inc. Y T Piquad Ro American Township /

Allen T 1 0

07/02/97 Mojac, Inc. Y T US Route 22

@ Leist Road Amanda /Fairfield T 0 0 T N/A N/A T 1 01 Unknown

2 Van/Enclosed Box

3 Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-24 

## Table C

- 11. Class 2.1 Accident Information for California

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts CA Highway

Patrol Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Acciden t City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

01/13/95 Lone Star

Trucking Y T RT 405/Lassen Los Angeles /

Unknown T 5 1

02/05/95 Button Transpor

tation, Inc. N 1 T I580 & I80 Emeryville / Alameda T 6 1 T 3 1 T 10 1

02/09/95 Disalvo Trucking N 2 T RT 5/Twisselman Kern /Unknown T 0 0

02/14/95 Coteco Dist Co. Y T RT 710/Imperial

Hwy OC Lynwood /Unknown T 1 0

02/24/95 Suburban

Propane N 3 T RT 41/Hodges Hill

Dr Madera /Unknown T 0 0

05/30/95 Amerigas

Propane N 1 T Santa Rosa Rd Perris /Riverside T 0 0

05/31/95 Viking Propane,

Inc. N 1 T County Rd 14/Rt

113 Yolo /Unknown T 0 0

08/25/95 Lone Star

Trucking, Inc. Y T RT 40 5/Van Ness

Av Torrance /Unknown T 1 0

09/13/95 Unknown Y T Fox Rock Unknown /

Mendocino T 0 1

10/10/95 Blue Star Gas Y T Montgomery Rd/

Bodega Hwy Sonoma /Unknown T 0 0

12/06/95 Amerigas

Pr opane N 1 T Trasition Rd 91 E

to 710 N Lakewood /

Los Angeles T 0 0

02/06/96 Enron Gas

Liquids, Inc. Y T RT 166/Bull Cyn

Rd San Luis Obispo /

Unknown T 1 0

03/26/96 College Oak

Towing Y T RT 680/Lake

Herman Rd Solano /Unknown T 0 0

03/29/96 Bulk Transpor

tation, Inc. Y T RT 91/Atlantic Av Long Beach /

Unknown T 0 0

05/14/96 Propane

Transport, Inc. N 1 T Elk Hills Rd Tupman /Kern T 0 0 T N/A N/A

09/06/96 Coast Gas N 2 T RT 193/Rt 49 El Dorado /Unknown T 0 0

10/19/96 Reliable Couriers,

Inc. Y T RT 5/Terra Bella Los Angeles /

Unknown T 0 0 T 0 0

10/29/96 Unknown Y T 70 Unknown /Butte T 0 1

## Table C

- 11. Class 2.1 Accident Information for California (continued)

1 Unknown

2 Van/Enclosed Box

3 Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-25 HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts CA Highway

Patrol Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Acciden t City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

05/04/97 D L Peterson

Trust C/O

Amerigas Y T RT 1/Annapolis

Road Sonoma /Unknown T 0 0

05/07/97 Amerigas

Propane N 1 T Unknown Gualala /Unknown T N/ A N/A

08/26/97 Jeffco Painting

and Coating Y T RT 101/

Robinson Oc Mendocino /

Unknown T 0 0

08/28/97 Unknown Y T US 101 N/B 4

Miles S/of Robins Uninc /Mendocino T 0 0

09/27/97 Cal Gas

Transport, Inc. Y T RT 5/Basilone Rd San Diego /Unknown T 2 0

10/28/97 Kamps Propane

Service Y T RT 120/Main Manteca /Unknown T 0 0

11/24/97 Suburban

Propane Y T Columbia Av/

Lolita Av Tehama /Unknown T 4 01 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Unknown

3 Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-26 

## Table C

- 12. Class 2.1 Accident Information for Indiana

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

03/15/95 Silgas, Inc. 

### N 1 T I

- 80 EB 5MM Gary/Lake T 0 0

04/28/95 Unknown 

### N 2 T 57 Petersburg/Pike T 1 1

12/26/95 Grammer Industries, Inc. 

### Y T SR

- 5 Huntington/Huntington T 1 0

01/26/96 Amerigas Porpane LP/Propan e

Transport 

### Y T US

- 24 & Broadway Huntington/Huntington T 1 0

05/03/96 United Parcel Service, Inc. 

### N 1 T I

- 65 SB @ SR

- 46 Columbus/Bartholomew T 1 0

08/22/96 East Side Gas Company 

### N 3 T E Michigan St & N Davidson Indianapolis/ Marion T 1 0

09/06/96 Praxair 

### Y T I

- 80 Tollroad 104MM WB Bristol/Elkhart T 2 0

10/14/96 Pipeline Industries/Columbus

Silgas 

### Y T SR

- 46 & CR

- 1125E Hartsville/Bartholomew T 1 0

11/13/96 Level Propane Gases, Inc. 

### N 2 T ST RD 46 West Nashville/Brown T 0 0 T 0 0 T N/A N/A

11/18/96 East Side Gas Company, Inc. 

### Y T US

- 40 WB 1⁄4 mile E of

CR

- 550E Greencastle/Putnam T 1 0

01/26/97 Styer Trans 

### N 1 T I

- 65 at 191MM Brookston/W hite T 1 0

02/10/97 Baker Oil Co. 

### Y T CR

- 950E 3500' S of SR

- 64 Oakland City/Gibson T 0 0

03/25/97 Welder Services, Inc. 

### N 2 T Unknown Huntington/Unknown T N/A N/A

05/05/97 Jackson Jenning Farm Bureau

Coop 

### Y T Franklin School Rd Franklin/Washington T 0 0

05/28/97 Amerigas Propane LP 

### Y T East Lincolnway & Boston St Laporte/Laporte T 1 0

05/30/97 Bergman Companies 

### N 2 T SR

- 912 SB & 180th Pl Hammond/Lake T 0 0

05/31/97 P raxair, Inc. 

### Y T I

- 80 002

- B Hammond/Lake T 0 0

08/08/97 Star Gas Propane LP DBA Silgas 

### Y T Brownstown Rd East of US

- 31 Henryville/Clark T 1 0

08/28/97 Grammer Industries, Inc. 

### Y T US

- 41 At Crossing Dr Terre Haute/Vigo T 0 0

09/10/97 Ferrellgas, Inc. 

### Y T Springville/Fayetteville Rd Springville/Lawrence T 1 0

10/11/97 ABF Freights 

### N 1 T US

- 30 West 1326ft West Oday

Rd Fort Wayne/Allen T 0 0

11/25/97 Amerigas 

### Y T Tunnel Mill Rd Cha rlestown/Clark T 0 01 Unknown

2 Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = NoFinal Report—March 2001C-27 

## Table C

- 13. Class 2.1 Accident Information for Oregon

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

03/22/95 Suburban Propane Y T Unknown Unknown/Josephine T 

### 0 0

05/22/95 Ferrell Gas, Inc. N 1 T Wagner Creek Rd Talent/Jackson T 

### 0 0 T 

### 0 0

07/25/95 Amerigas Propane LP Y T Unknown Unknown/Umatilla T 

### 1 0

09/09/96 Morrow County Grain Growers, Inc. Y T Unknown Unknown/Morrow T 

### 1 0

11/15/96 Pacific Airgas, Inc. N 2 T W 11 th Unknown/Lane T 

### 3 0

12/06/96 Suburban Propane LP N 1 T Unknown Unknown/Clackamas T 

### 0 0

12/18/96 Pacer Portland Propane LLC N 1 T Union Mills Rd Unknown/Clackama s T 

### 0 0

02/03/97 Cenex Land O Lakes Agronomy Compa* N 1 T Sherrod Rd Unknown/Wallowa T 

### 0 0

07/09/97 Ferrell Gas, Inc. N 1 T Hwy 99 Winston/Douglas T 

### 0 0

08/26/97 Eastern Oregon Fast Freight, Inc. N 1 T 3.12 E Big Lake Rd Unknown/Jefferson T 

### 0 11 Unknown

Legend: Y = Yes; N = NoFinal Report–March 2001C-28 

## Table C

- 14. Class 2.1 Accident Information for Iowa

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

01/12/95 SM Service Co. 

### Y T Devils Glen Road Bettendorf /Scott T 

### 0 0

01/26/95 Moore LP Gas, Inc. 

### Y T US 18 and T38 Unknown/Floyd T 

### 2 0

02/14/95 National Propane Corp. 

### N 1 T North Dakota Road Ames /Story T 

### 0 0

01/23/96 Farmers Oil Co. 

### Y T IA 13 6 Dyersville /Dubuque T 

### 1 0

07/09/96 B & B Oil Company 

### N 1 T 5th Ave NE Waverly /Bremer T 

### 1 0

11/29/96 Clarence Cooperative Co. 

### N 1 T Unknown Anamosa /Jones T 

### 0 0

12/30/96 North Central Farm Service 

### Y T 2669 Baxter Ave Eagle Grove /Wright T 

### 0 0

01/17/97 C & J Service 

### Y T 140th St/410th Av Andover /Clinton T 

### 0 0

03/26/97 Sully Transport 

### Y T Higginsport Road Unknown /Dubuque T 

### 1 01 Unknown

Legend: N = NoFinal Report—March 2001C-29 

## Table C

- 15. Class 2.1 Accident Information for Minnesota

HMIS

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

11/30/95 Ferrel Gas, In c. N 1 T HWY 29 Alexandria/Douglas T 0 01 Unknown

2 Van/Enclosed Box

3 Flatbed

4 Garbage/Refuse

L egend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-30 

## Table C

- 16. Class 2.1 Accident Information for Pennsylvania

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

01/18/95 Farm & Home Oil Company 

### Y T Marine Corps Leahw Kelly/Union T 0 0

01/21/95 Molnar Hauling 

### Y T Interstate 0079 Jackson/Butler T 1 0

02/20/95 Amerigas Propane, Inc. 

### Y T Buttermilk Falls Rd Smithfield/Monroe T 0 0 T N/A N/A T N/A N/A

02/23/95 A gway Energy 

### N 1 T RT 23 & I

- 176 Morgantown/Berks T 0 0 T 0 0

02/24/95 Amerigas Propane 

### N 1 T Delmont

- Slickville Rd Slickville/Westmoreland T 0 0

03/08/95 E L Heard & Son, Inc. 

### Y T Grand Army Repubhw Leboeuf/Erie T 0 0

04/11/95 Merk Trucking, Inc. 

### N 2 T Route 0030 East Providence/Bedford T 1 0

08/02/95 Chowns Communications,

Inc. 

### N 1 T Rosedale Rd Milford/Bucks T 0 0

08/05/95 Gunthers Transport Inc 

### N 1 T Lewis Av Jeannette/Westmorelan d T 0 0

09/17/95 Carlos Leffler 

### Y T Route 0034 Carroll/Perry T 0 0

09/22/95 Ferrellgas LP 

### N 1 T Island Av Stowe/Allegheny T 0 0

10/03/95 Oliver Oil Co., Inc. 

### Y T Trindle Rd Silver Spring/Cumberland T 0 0

10/17/95 Gasoline Transport MC 306 

### Y T Route 0981 Derry/Westmoreland T 0 1

10/27/95 Advantage Tank Lines 

### Y T Route 0028 Buffalo/Butler T 1 0

11/09/95 Agway Petroleum Corp. 

### Y T Route 0196 Mt Pocono/Monroe T 0 0

11/13/95 Crossett, Inc. 

### Y T Grand Army Repub Hw Hamilton/McKean T 1 0

12/01/95 M G Industries 

### N 1 T Taft Rd St Marys/Elk T 0 0 T 1 0

12/04/95 P & H Transportation, Inc. 

### Y T Route 0136 Hempfield/Westmoreland T 1 0

12/09/95 Mit Trasportation, Inc. 

### Y T Route 0309 Upper Dublin/Montgomery T 1 0

12/12/95 Columbia Propane Corp. 

### Y T Twin Hills Rd Franklin/York T 1 0

12/14/95 Francis L Werley, Inc. 

### Y T Interstate 0078 Windsor/Be rks T 1 0

12/27/95 Kehm Oil Co. 

### Y T Interstate 0376 Pittsburgh/Allegheny T 1 0

01/02/96 Littles Gas Service, Inc. 

### Y T Unknown Straban/Adams T 0 0

01/10/96 Ryder,Truck, Rental, Inc. 

### Y T Route 0187 Terry/Bradford T 1 0

01/16/96 Valley Propane Co. 

### N 1 T Route 0093 Sugarlo/Luzerne T 1 0

## Table C

- 16. Class 2.1 Accident Information for Pennsylvania (continued)

1 Unknown

2 Van/Enclosed Box

3 Flatbed

4 Garbage/Refuse

L egend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-31 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

01/17/96 Orris Fuel 

### Y T Pittsburgh St Cheswick/Allegheny T 1 0

02/07/96 Trexler & Haines, Inc. 

### Y T Route 010 0 Washington/Berks T 2 0

02/13/96 Bolus Freight Systems, Inc. 

### N 1 T Keyser Av Taylor/Lackawanna T 2 0

02/28/96 Beers Trucking 

### Y T Route 0191 Buckingham/Wayne T 0 0

02/28/96 Gress Gas Company 

### Y T Easton Rd Plum stead/Bucks T 1 0

03/01/96 Advantage Tank Lines 

### Y T Unknown Conewango/Warren T 0 0

03/08/96 Ferrellgas LP 

### N 1 T Round Top Rd Athens/Bradford T 1 0

05/31/96 Consolidated Freightways

Corp of Del. 

### N 2 T Marine Cor ps Leahw Kelly/Union T 0 0

07/09/96 Ferrell Gas 

### Y T Route 0118 Sugarloaf/Columbia T 1 0

07/23/96 Tioga Petroleum Co., Inc. 

### Y T Seventh St Mansfield/Tioga T 1 0

07/24/96 Walter J Styer, Inc. 

### Y T Route 2023 Wes t Whiteland/Chester T 1 0

08/12/96 Carlos Leffler Propane, Inc. 

### N 3 T Furnace Hill Pk Elizabeth/Lancaster T 2 0

08/16/96 Scully Welding Supply 

### N 3 T Essington Av Eddystone/Delaware T 0 0

08/16/96 Sun Company, Inc

. 

### Y T Blandon Rd Ruscombmanor/Berks T 1 0

09/27/96 Goss Gas Products 

### N 1 T Twentyeighth Divhw Paint/Clarion T 0 0

11/14/96 Wynds Express, Inc. 

### N 2 T Route 9302 Armagh/Mifflin T 1 0

12/23/96 American Propane

Tra nsport Intl 

### Y T Route 0100 Pottstown/Montgomery T 2 0

12/24/96 American Gas 

### Y T Valley Green Rd Newberry/York T 1 0

12/31/96 ELT, Inc. 

### Y T Liberty St Franklin/Venango T 2 0

01/08/97 P ennzoil Products Co. 

### Y T Route 0008 Shaler/Allegheny T 0 0

01/18/97 Bell Mills Trading Post, Inc.. 

### Y T Route 2025 Pine Creek/Jefferson T 1 0

01/22/97 Linden Bulk 

### Y T Interstate 0080 Spring/Centre T 2 0

02/08/ 97 Crosset, Inc. 

### Y T Interstate 0080 Boggs/Centre T 0 0

## Table C

- 16. Class 2.1 Accident Information for Pennsylvania (continued)

1 Unknown

2 Van/Enclosed Box

3 Flatbed

4 Garbage/Refuse

L egend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-32 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

02/27/97 Hillardale Farms, Inc. 

### N 2 T Route 0366 Murrysville/Westmoreland T 0 0

03/15/97 Decker Transportation Co.,

Inc. 

### N 2 T Interstate 0080 Pine Creek/Jefferson T 2 0

06/10/97 Unknown 

### Y T I95 Unknown/Delaware T 1 1

08/11/97 Wilke Trucking 

### N 4 T Route 0413 Bristol/Bucks T 1 0

08/21/97 Amerada Hess Corporation 

### Y T Route 1010 Hampden/Cumberland T 0 0

08/28/97 C arlos R. Leffler Propane,

Inc. 

### N 3 T Route 3014 Penbrook/Dauphin T 0 0

10/08/97 Sea Board Tank Lines 

### Y T Route 0029 Upper Milford/Lehigh T 1 0

11/18/97 Yetters Gas Service, Inc. 

### Y T Route 3002 Mifflintown/Juniata T 0 0

12/16/97 Allied Signal Canada, Inc. 

### Y T Route 0011 Monroe/Snyder T 1 0

12/30/97 Mon Valley Petroleum Co. 

### Y T Interstate 0079 Collier/Allegheny T 0 01 Unknown

2 Van/Enclosed Box

3 Van/Trailer/Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-33 

## Table C

- 17. Class 8 Accident Information for Colorado

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

03/01/95 South Park Motor Lines,

Inc. Y T I

- 25 & Cimarron Street Colorado Springs/

El Paso T 1 0

12/14/95 Cast Transportation, Inc. Y T Colorado 9 & SCR

1004 Unknown/Summit T 1 0

01/19/96 Autozone N 1 T I

- 25 & S Washington Denver/Denver T 0 0

06/29/96 United Parcel Service N 1 T Unknown Commerce

City/Adams T N/A N/A

01/27/97 DPC Industries, Inc. Y T Colorado 70 & MP 210 Unknown/Summit T 0 0

04/25/97 Andrews Transport, Inc. Y T CO 70 & MP 444 Unknown/Lake T 0 0

07/17/97 Halliburton Energy

Services N 1 T I

- 70 W @ Mile Marker

71 Parachute/Garfield T 0 0 T 1 0

08/10/97 J & C Trucking Y T CO 285 & MP 76 Unkn own/Saguache T 1 1 T 1 1

09/04/97 Slt Express, Inc. N 2 T CO 70 at CO 225 Denver/Denver T 0 0

10/29/97 H V H Transportation, Inc. N 3 T I

- 25 Pueblo/Pueblo T 0 0 T 0 1

12/15/97 Nationsway Transport

Service N 3 T I 25 NB @ Hwy 66 Longmont/ Boulder T 0 01 Van/Trailer/Flatbed

2 Boxes/Bag s/Drums

3 Unknown

4 Van/Enclosed Box

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-34 

## Table C

- 18. Class 8 Accident Information for Ohio

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts Ohio

- PUCO

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

08/28/95 Laking Trucking 

### Y T Rumbaughro Jackson Township/

Allen ✓ 2 0

09/07/95 ABF Freight System,

Inc. 

### N 1 T I 75 91 Mile

Marker Sidney/Shelby T 0 0 T 0 1

12/11/95 Knight Marketing

Corp. 

### N 1 T Rte 6 Sandusky/Erie T 0 0 T 0 0

12/14 /95 Rush Package

Delivery, Inc. 

### N 2 T I

- 70, EB, MP 180 Unknown/Guernsey T 0 0

05/10/96 Blanks Agri Service 

### Y T MP005.00 Pleasant Township/

Adams T 3 0

07/01/96 MC Tank Transport 

### N 3 T Unk nown Evendale/Hamilton T N/A N/A

07/22/96 Envirite Corp 

### N 3 T US Route #23 Chillicothe/Ross T 0 0 T 0 0 T N/A N/A

07/27/96 Roadway Express Inc 

### N 3 T Unknown Harrison/Hamilton

07/30/96 Unknown 

### N 3 T I480 Unknown/Unknown T N/A N/A T 1 0

10/17/96 Refiners Transport &

Terminal 

### N 3 T Unknown Ashland/Ashland T N/A N/A

10/18/96 Refiners Transport &

Terminal Corp 

### Y T I

- 71 N, MP 192 Ashland/Ashland T 0 0

11/11 /96 Detrex Corp 

### N 3 T Rte 11 S of Mile

Marker 167 Ashtabula/Ashtabula T 0 0 T 0 0

11/21/96 R & L Transfer, Inc. 

### N 2 T I

- 275 Unknown/Hamilton T 0 0

12/31/96 Montgomery Tank

Lines 

### Y T I

- 76 to I

- 71 Ramp Unknown/Medina T 0 0

01/05/97 Anderson Trucking

Service 

### N 4 T MP003.00 Goshen Township/

Mahoning T 0 0

01/15/97 Towne Air Freight 

### N 2 T SR 83 Otsego/Muskingum T 0 0

03/12/97 Coast Midwest

Tr ansport, Inc. 

### N 2 T Route 271 S,

MP 1 Unknown/Medina T 0 0

03/19/97 Ryder Truck Rental

Inc 

### N 4 T CR0210 Shalersville

Township/Crawford T 2 0

## Table C

- 18. Class 8 Accident Information for Ohio (continued)

1 Van/Trailer/Flatbed

2 Boxes/Bag s/Drums

3 Unknown

4 Van/Enclosed Box

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-35 HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts Ohio

- PUCO

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

03/20/97 Pjax Inc 

### N 1 T Maulhauser Road Fairfield/Butler T 0 0

03/28/97 Safeway Chemical

Transportation 

### N 2 T Route 24, MP 15 Defiance/Unknown T 0 0

03/29/97 Safeway Chemical

Transport Inc 

### N 1 T Route 24

– East Defiance/Defiance T 0 0

04/24/97 Werner Enterprises 

### N 3 T Unknow n Bellville/Richland T N/A N/A

05/03/97 Transcontinental

Refrigerated 

### N 1 T I

- 76 W Girard/Trumbull T 0 0

06/17/97 MC Tank Transport,

Inc. 

### Y T MP007.00 Ellsworth Township/

Mahoning T 1 0

06/21/97 Chee seman Trucking,

Inc. 

### N 4 T MP030.00 Wabash Township/

Darke T 1 0

08/04/97 Ashland Chemical 

### N 2 T I

- 71 SB, MP 27 Unknown/Warren T 0 0

08/19/97 Manfredi Motor

Transit Co. 

### Y T Camp Perro Erie Township/Clark T 9 6

08/29/97 Lindsey Motor

Express, Inc. 

### N 3 T I

- 75 NB Entrance

Ramp Springboro/Warren T 0 0

12/10/97 Erickson Tank Lines

Corp. 

### Y T I

- 70 WB, MM 62 Unknown/Clark T 0 0 T 0 01 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Drum/Box/Bag

3 Unknown

4 Van/Trailer/Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-36 

## Table C

- 19. Class 8 Accident Information for California

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts CA Highway

Patrol Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

01/03/95 West Coast

Inte rmodal Y T RT 5/RT 145 Fresno/

Unknown T 2 0

01/05/95 Ranger Transporta

tion, Inc. N 1 T RT 99/7

Standard Road Kern/Unknown T 0 0

03/04/95 Unknown N 2 T E/B SR

- 58 W/of

SR

- 223 Unic./Kern T 0 0

06/03/ 95 Imperial West

Chemical Y T RT 15/Halloran

Spg Road San Bernardino/

Unknown T 1 0

07/07/95 West Coast

Intermodal, Inc. N 3 T Unknown Colfax/Placer T N/A N/A

07/20/95 Vickie Canty

Backhoe N 1 T RT 5/RT 152 Merced/

U nknown T 1 0 T N/A N/A

08/10/95 GNB Battery

Technologies N 1 T RT 395/Shingl

Mlls Cmpgrd Mono/Unknown T 1 0

09/05/95 Imperial West

Chemical Y T RT 14/RT 58 Kern/Unknown T 1 0

10/17/95 Unknown Y T Sola no Avenue

under SR

- 4 Uninc./Contra

Costa T 0 0

10/19/95 G & E Commercial

Warehouse, Inc. N 1 T RT 20/Houghton

Rch Road Nevada/

Unknown T 0 0

10/30/95 Unknown Y T SR/60 W/B from

Mountain

Avenue Ontario/San

Bernardino T 0 0

01/02/96 GNP Battery

Technologies N 1 T RT 10/Motor

Avenue Los Angeles/

Unknown T 0 0

02/25/96 Teco Express, Inc. N 1 T RT 58/Sand Cyn

Road UC Kern/Unknown T 0 0

02/2 6/96 Unknown N 3 T Unknown Tehachapi/

Unknown T N/A N/A

04/22/96 Unknown N 3 T I

- 80 E/B

Antelope Scales Uninc./

Sacramento T N/A N/A

05/06/96 Chemical Leamon

Tank Y T RT 10/Rt 15 OC Ontario/

Unknown T 0 0

## Table C

- 19. Class 8 Accident Information for California (continued)

1 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Drum/Box/Bag

3 Unknown

4 Van/Trailer/Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-37 HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts CA Highway

Patrol Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts

Date Carrier

NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown

Accident

Street Accident City/

CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

06/28/96 Intl Trucking Rental Y T RT 15/Mercy

Road UC San Diego/

Unknown T 0 0

07/17/96 BJ Services N 3 T Unknown Ventura/Ventura T N/A N/A

08/28/96 Chemical Transfer

Co., Inc. N 1 T RT 12/RT 160 Sacramento/

U nknown T 0 1 T 1 1

01/21/97 Wiegand Button

Motor Express N 4 T Highway I

- S

North Bound Los Banos/

Merced T 0 0

02/25/97 Kemwater North

America N 3 T State Hwy 58 Boron/Kern T 0 0 T 1 0

03/04/97 Conway Western

Express N 4 T Interstate 5

Waterloo Exit Visalia/Tulare T 0 0 T N/A N/A

03/05/97 Pressure Vessel

Service, Inc. Y T RT 2/Oak Glen

Pl Los Angeles/

Unknown T 0 0

05/05/97 Unknown N 2 T SR 60 S/B E of

Central Avenue Chino/San

Bernardino T 0 0

06/11/97 Unknown N 2 T I 580 W/B W of

Santa Rita Road Pleasanton/

Alameda T 0 0

08/29/97 Unknown N 3 T N/B I 5 S/of

Clairemont

Mesa B San Diego/

San Diego T 0 0

10/12/97 Bulk Transportation,

Inc. Y T RT 15/Kenwood

Avenue UC San Bernardino/

Unknown T 0 0

10/21/97 Unknown Y T I 5 SB N of

Gibson Road Lakehead/

Shasta T 0 0

10/27/97 Unknown N 2 T N/B SR 99 at

Turne r Road Lodi/

San Joaquin T 0 01 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Unknown

3 Van/Flatbed/Trailer

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-38 

## Table C

- 20. Class 8 Accident Information for Indiana

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatality

01/07/95 Equity Transportation

Co. Inc. N 1 T I

- 80WB 1MM Hammond /Lake T 1 0

04/21/95 Usher Transportation,

Inc. Y T SR

- 11 Mauckport /Harrison T 1 0

07/06/95 Waddell Battery Co.,

Inc. N 1 T I

- 65 NB Seymour /Jackson T 1 0

07/13/95 United Parcel Service N 2 T Unknown Bloomington /Monroe T N/A N/A

11/16/95 C A Transportation, Inc. N 1 T I

- 70 122MM Spiceland /Henry T 0 0

12/20/95 Country Wide Truck

Services N 1 T I

- 465W 51MM Indianapolis /Marion T 1 0

01/23/96 Jevic Transportation,

Inc. N 1 T SR

- 56 East of

Whiskey Hollow Vevay /Switzerland T 0 0

01/30/96 Yellow Freight System,

Inc. N 1 T SR

- 630& 1780 South Clinton /Vermillion T 1 0

0 2/26/96 Liquid Transport Corp. Y T US

- 421 Jct Mich

Road Madison /Jefferson T 1 0

03/19/96 Slay Transportation Y T SR

- 37 Six Miles

North Tell City /Perry T 1 0

03/20/96 Overnite Transportation

Co. N 1 T I

- 65 NB at 107M M Indianapolis /Marion T 0 0

09/17/96 Frontier Transport Corp. N 3 T Shadeland Ave/I

- 70

E B Ramp Indianapolis /Marion T 0 0 T N/A N/A

12/03/96 McKinley Trucking Co.,

Inc. Y T I

- 94 WB Rest Park

43MM Michigan City /La Port T 0 0

01/09/97 Biokem N 1 T US

- 30 at Grovertown

Truckstop Grovertown /Starke T 1 0

01/29/97 Ulrich Chemical, Inc. Y T US

- 52 near

Wyandotte Rd. Lafayette /

Tippecanoe T 0 0

02 /25/97 Jones Chemical, Inc. N 1 T 1918 W Sycamore Kokomo /Howard T 1 0

03/20/97 Arnold Brothers

Transport, Inc. N 1 T I

- 80/94 EB 300' W of

3MM Hammond/Lake T 4 0

04/07/97 GNB Battery

Technologies N 1 T US

- 40 E of Maste n

Road Stilesville /Hendricks T 1 0

## Table C

- 20. Class 8 Accident Inform ation for Indiana (continued)

1 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Unknown

3 Van/Flatbed/Trailer

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-39 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatality

05/10/97 Overnite Transportation

Co. N 1 T I

- 65 SB Near 45MM Seymour /Jackson T 0 0

07/08/97 USF Holland, Inc. N 1 T SB US

- 41 at R.R

Tracks Evansville/

Vanderburgh T 0 0

08/06/97 McKinley Trucking Co. N 2 T I

- 94, MM 29 Michigan

City /LaPorte T 0 0 T 0 1 T 0 1 T N/A N/A T 0 1

09/26/97 Unknown N 2 T Unknown LaPorte /Unknown T 1 0

09/30/97 Rogers Cartage

Company Y T Nucor Steel

Compound Crawfords ville /

Montgomery T 0 0

11/15/97 Eaglebrook Transport,

Inc. N 1 T I

- 80 WB at 9 MM Gary /Lake T 3 0

12/12/97 USF Holland Motor

Express, Inc. N 1 T 2700 North Clinton

Street Fort Wayne /Allen T 1 0

12/19/ 97 U S Cartage Co. of

Indianapolis N 3 T Interloop I65 North Indianapolis /Marion T 0 0 T 1 01 Unknow n

Legend: Y = Yes; N = NoFinal Report—March 2001C-40 

## Table C

- 21. Class 8 Accident Information for Oregon

SAFETYNET

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

02/12/95 Arrow Transportat ion Co. Y T Unknown Unknown /Washington T 

### 0 0

03/08/95 Genuine Parts Company N 1 T Unknown Unknown /Lane T 

### 0 0

08/27/95 Roehl Transport, Inc. N 1 T .1 S McLain Avenue Unknown /Douglas T 

### 1 0

09/12/95 T N T Reddaway Truck Line, Inc. N 1 T Unknown Unknown /Mario n T 

### 0 0

10/11/95 T N T Reddaway Truck Line, Inc. N 1 T .3 N Exit 73 Unknown /Josephine T 

### 2 0

01/02/97 National Carriers, Inc. N 1 T 9 E Steamboat Cr Road Unknown /Douglas T 

### 0 0

01/21/97 Nelson, Walter E Co. N 1 T 69th Street Unknown /Washington T 

### 2 0

07/06/97 Arrow Transportation Co. Y T Unknown Unknown /Marion T 

### 0 0

10/17/97 All Pure Chemical Co. Y T .5 S 14th Street Unknown /Tillamook T 

### 0 0

11/05/97 North Star Transport, Inc. N 1 T .09 E Millican Road Unknown /Pawnee T 

### 0 01 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Unknown

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No;Final Report—March 2001C-41 

## Table C

- 22. Class 8 Accident Information for Iowa

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident City/CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

06/28/95 Consolidated Freightways of Del 

### N 1 T I380 SB off Ramp to I80 WB Coralville /Johnson T 

### 0 0

12/06/95 Magnum Ltd 

### N 1 T I29 Harrison /Unknown T 

### 0 0

01/04/96 Ryder Dedicated Logistics 

### N 1 T Army Post Road Des Moines /Polk T 

### 1 0

02/07/96 Montgomery Tank Lines, Inc. 

### Y T US Hig hway 67 N Davenport /Scott T 

### 1 0

07/18/96 Tnt Holland Motor Express, Inc. 

### N 1 T Hwy 63 4 3/4 No of Lourdes Howard Center / Howard T 

### 0 0

07/25/96 Vulcan Materials Chemicals Div 

### Y T 1 29 MB 11 NB Unknown /Fremont T 

### 2 0

07/17/97 Clark Bros T ransfer Co. 

### N 2 T Unknown Unknown /Polk T 

### 0 0

12/03/97 Huling Ken Trucking 

### N 2 T Clover Leaf Hwy 61 & 30 De Witt /Clinton T 

### 0 01 Unknown

2 Van/Trailer/Flatbed

Legend: Y = Y es; N = NoFinal Report—March 2001C-42 

## Table C

- 23. Class 8 Accident Information for Minnesota

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatalitySpill—YesSpill—NoInjuryFatality

05/28/95 Schneider Nat’l Bulk Carriers N 1 T HWY 61 Grand Marais/Cook T 0 0

02/04/97 Roughrider Transportation, Inc. Y T 9 Riverton/Clay T 0 0

08/28/97 Quest Transfer, Inc. N 2 T 20948 County Road 2 Silver Lake/Martin T 0 0Final Report—March 2001C-43 1 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Flatbed

3 Unknown

4 Van/Trailer/Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not available 

## Table C

- 24. Class 8 Accident Information for Pennsylvania

HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatality

01/21/95 Yellow Freight

Systems 

### N 1 T Interstate 0080 Tunkannock / Monroe T 

### 1 0

02/15/95 Chemical Leaman

Tank Lines, Inc. 

### Y T Constitution Bl Darlington /Beaver T 

### 1 0

02/17/95 Dana Transport Co. 

### Y T Cochecton & Greard Herrick / Susquehanna T 

### 1 0

04/17/95 Ww Transport, Inc. 

### N 1 T East/West Turnpike Allegheny / Somerset T 

### 1 0

05/05/95 Mason Dixon 

### N 2 T Lincoln Hw Springettsbury /York T 

### 3 0

06/29/95 P Jax, Inc. 

### N 1 T Route 0030 West Providence / Bedford T 

### 1 0

07/19/95 Textile Chemicle Co.,

Inc. 

### N 1 T William Penn Hw Oliver /Mifflin T 

### 2 0

10/25/95 W W Transport, Inc. 

### N 1 T Interstate 0081 East Hanover /Lebanon T 

### 1 0

11/08/95 Consolidated

Freightways Cor p. 

### N 1 T N.E. Extension Plymouth /Montgomery T 

### 0 0

11/13/95 McTank Transport, Inc. 

### Y T Beaver Valley Ex Findlay /Allegheny T 

### 1 0

11/13/95 Roeder Cartage Co.,

Inc, 

### Y T William Penn Hw North Fayette /Allegheny T 

### 1 0

11/14/95 MCB Delivery 

### N 1 T Interstate 0080 Sugarloaf /Luzerne T 

### 0 0

11/14/95 Stevens Transportation 

### N 1 T N.E. Extension Washington /Lehigh T 

### 1 0

11/26/95 Robert Hansen

Trucking 

### N 1 T Interstate 0076 Lowe r Merion /Montgomery T 

### 0 0

12/19/95 Consolidated

Freightways 

### N 1 T East/West Turnpike Monroeville /Allegheny T 

### 1 0

12/27/95 JMG Enterprises 

### Y T William Penn Hw Murrysville /Westmoreland T 

### 0 0

01/09/96 Roadway Express, Inc. 

### N 1 T Interstate 0080 Marion /Centre T 

### 0 0

01/16/96 Eastern America 

### N 1 T Interstate 0380 Coolbaugh /Monroe T 

### 0 0

01/24/96 Roadway Express 

### N 1 T Interstate 0080 Jackson / Monroe T 

### 2 0

02/28/96 Yellow Freight

Systems 

### N 1 T Interstate 0080 Shenango /Mercer T 

### 1 0

## Table C

- 24. Class 8 Accident Information for Pennsylvania (continued)

1 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Flatbed

3 Unknown

4 Van/Trailer/Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-44 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatality

03/07/96 Robert Hansen

Trucking, Inc. 

### N 1 T Interstate 0080 Spring /Centre T 

### 1 0

03/14/96 Harold Marcus Limited 

### Y T Interstate 0081 New Milford /

Susquehanna T 

### 1 0

04/06/96 Chemical Leaman

Tank Line Inc 

### Y T Commodore Barry Br Chester /Delaware T 

### 0 0

05/11/96 Con

- Way Trans

Services Inc 

### N 1 T Unknown Sandy /Clearfield T 

### 2 0

05/20/96 Trans States Lines,

Inc. 

### N 1 T Moselem Spring Road Perry /Berks T 

### 1 0

06/06/96 Grace Atlantic

Corporation 

### Y T Route 0300 East Hempfield /Lancaster T 

### 1 0

06/19/96 Buckmans, Inc. 

### N 2 T Wissahickon Av e Philadelphia /Philadelphia T 

### 1 0

07/02/96 American Tank Trans.,

Inc. 

### Y T N.E. Extension Plymouth /Montgomery T 

### 3 0

08/06/96 Wonder Chemical

Corp. 

### N 3 T Intersection of Canal

& N Bold Fairless Hills /Bucks T 

### 0 0

09/11/96 Road Scholar

Transport 

### N 1 T Interstate 0081 Dunmore /Lackawanna T 

### 0 0

10/04/96 Trans Carrier, Inc. 

### N 1 T Route 0222 Richmond /Berks T 

### 2 0

10/09/96 Eagle Chemical Co.. 

### N 1 T Albert St Allentown /Lehig h T 

### 1 0

10/14/96 Liquid Cargo Lines 

### N 3 T Rte 248 Lehigh /Northampton T 

### 0 0 T 

### N/A N/A T 

### 0 0

10/16/96 Fleet Transportation

Comp., Inc. 

### Y T First Avenue Pittsburgh /Allegheny T 

### 0 0

10/28/96 Chemical Leaman

Tan k Lines, Inc. 

### Y T Interstate 0076 Upper Merion /

Montgomery T 

### 1 0

10/31/96 Superior Carriers, Inc. 

### N 3 T Unknown Swiftwater /Monroe T 

### N/A N/A

11/08/96 Kramer Chemical 

### N 1 T Easton Road Bedminster /Bucks T 

### 0 0

11/25/96 Douglas Battery Mfg.,

Co. 

### N 1 T William Flinn Hw Middlesex /Butler T 

### 2 0

11/26/96 Overnite

Transportation, Inc. 

### N 1 T East/West Turnpike East Cocalico /Lancaster T 

### 0 0

12/01/96 Bradley Caldwell, Inc. 

### N 1 T Interstate 0080 Marion /Centre T 

### 1 0

## Table C

- 24. Class 8 Accident Information for Pennsylvania (continued)

1 Van/Enclosed Box

2 Flatbed

3 Unknown

4 Van/Trailer/Flatbed

Legend: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = not availableFinal Report—March 2001C-45 

### HMIS

Impacts SAFETYNET

Impacts TIFA

Impacts FHWA Media

Impacts Dialog

Impacts

Date Carrier NameCargo TankInterstateIntrastateUnknown



### Accident Street Accident

City/CountySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatalitySpill–YesSpill–NoInjuryFatality

12/18/96 Melburn Truck Lines,

Inc. 

### N 1 T Interstate 0084 Dunmore /Lackawanna T 

### 8 0

01/09/97 Transport Corp. of

America 

### N 1 T Route 0080 Stroudsburg /Mo nroe T 

### 0 0

01/24/97 Carman Supply &

Equip Co. 

### N 1 T Second Street Charleroi /Washington T 

### 0 0

01/27/97 Textile Chemical PA 

### N 1 T Route 2007 Horsham /Montgomery T 

### 1 0

01/28/97 Stevens Transport, Inc. 

### N 1 T Route 9202 Dorrance /Luzerne T 

### 3 0

02/12/97 Matlack, Inc. 

### N 3 T Route 879 North Clearfield /Clearfield T 

### 0 0

03/25/97 Baggett Transportation 

### N 1 T Route 0061 Ontelaunee /Berks T 

### 0 0

04/22/97 Piedmont

Transportation

Company 

### N 3 T Kensington Avenue Philadelphia /Philadelphia T 

### 0 0

04/29/97 Betz Laboratories, Inc. 

### N 1 T Route 0422 Amity /Berks T 

### 0 1 T 

### 1 1

05/12/97 Oriole Chemical

Carriers, Inc. 

### N 3 T East/West Turnpike West Nantmeal /Chester T 

### 1 0

05/27/97 Interstate Chemical

Co., Inc. 

### Y T Route 0060 Chippewa /Beaver T 

### 0 0

07/07/97 Berkley Products 

### N 1 T Route 2003 Springettsbury /York T 

### 0 0

08/18/97 Yellow Freight Sy stem,

Inc. 

### N 1 T East/West Turnpike Hempfield /Westmoreland T 

### 1 0

09/11/97 Riley Leasing Corp. N 3 T Interstate 0084 Dunmore /Lackawanna T 

### 1 0

09/12/97 Aduie Pyle, Inc. 

### N 1 T Route 0222 Lower Macungie /Lehigh T 

### 1 0

09/16/97 Best Bro Paint Mfg 

### N 1 T Route 0422 Cleona /Lebanon T 

### 0 0

09/17/97 Decker Transport Co.,

Inc. 

### N 4 T I

- 78 W Hamburg /Berks T 

### 0 0 T 

### 2 1

12/06/97 Lakeway Trucking, Inc. 

### N 1 T Unknown Pine Grove /Schuylkil l T 

### 0 1

# Appendix D

Natural Resource

Damages Settlements

### Final Report — March 2001 D-1 

# Appendix D

Natural Resource Damages Settlements

able (D-1) presents 30 natural resource settlements from sites around the country.

The settlements are representative of the magnitude of settlement characteristic of sites

where environmental damage has occurred. The settlements are often the result of

complex environmental damage that would likely be more serious than that anticipated from

a HM spill after cleanup has occurred. However the damages provide a useful conservative

estimate of damage associated with specified acreage. 

# T

### Final Report — March 2001 D-2Table D-1. Natural Resource Damage Settlements by Habitat Type and LocationHabitatLocationSite TitlePotentially ResponsibleParties (PRPs)AreaAffected$ Settlement$/UnitUnitCOCs(e)Bay & estuary (saline) WA: central PugetSoundElliott Bay,Seattle, WASeattle (city andmetropolitan area)5189 $24,000,000 $4,625 ac. Cr, Cd, Cu, Pb,Zn, & PCBs insedimentsBay & estuary (saline)(a)WA: southernPuget SoundCommencementBayPort of Tacoma; SimpsonTacoma Kraft Co.37.9 $13,300,000 $350,923 ac. variety ofhazardoussubstancesDune & swale IN: northern Midco I & II Midco ? $304,567 ? ac. VOCs, PCBs, &metalsEstuary sediments(saline)MA: AchushnetRiver, nearBuzzards BayNew BedfordHarbor5 companies 18000 $20,200,000 $1,122 ac. PCBs & heavymetals in biota &sedimentsGrassland & oldfield IN: Laporte Co. Fisher-CalcoChemicalSuperfund SiteFisher-Calco ChemicalCompany and SolventsCorp.150 $200,000 $1,333 ac. Bleach, sulfurdioxide, chloride,ammonia, VOCs,& PCBsGrassland & oldfield(f)IN: St. Joseph Co.,MishawakaDouglasRoad/Uniroyal,Inc. LandfillUniroyal, Inc. 19 $163,035 $8,581 ac. hydrocarbons ingroundwaterGrassland & oldfield(f)IN: Whitley Co.,Columbia CityWayneReclamation &RecyclingWayne Waste Oil divisionof Wayne Reclamation &Recycling, Inc.35 $73,474 $2,099 ac. VOCs: benzene,TCE, vinylchloride, &tolueneGrassland withwetlands; dump in riverfloodplainIN: Allen Co., FortWayne in floodplainof Maumee RiverFort WayneReductionDumpFort Wayne Reduction;National Recycling Corp.;Service Corp. of America35 $5,000 $143 ac. VOCs, PCBs,PAHs, phenols, &heavy metals insoil &groundwaterIndustrial site PA: Crawford Co.,SaegertownSaegertownIndustrial AreaGeneral AmericanTransfer; SaegertownMfg. Co.; SpectrumControl, Inc.; Lord Corp.100 $94,510 $945 ac. VOCs & PAHs insoil and pondsedimentsIndustrial site infloodplain of riverPA: Berks Co., nearShoemakersville inflood-plain ofSchuylkill RiverBrown's BatteryBreakingBrown's Battery Breaking 14 $24,217 $1,730 ac. Pb, Ni, ZnTable D-1. (continued)



### Final Report — March 2001 D-3HabitatLocationSite TitlePotentially ResponsibleParties (PRPs)AreaAffected$ Settlement$/UnitUnitCOCs(e)Industrial site withstreamPA: Mifflin Co.,Maitland; JacksCreek flowsthrough siteJacks Creek/Sitkin Smelting& Refining, Inc.Joseph Krentzman andSon, Inc.; C.I.T. Corp.;Alabama BankruptcyCourt115 $136,465 $1,187 ac. PCBs & heavymetals (primarilyPb) in soil andwaterIndustrial site withstreams and wetlandsPA: Adams Co.,Fred ShealerPropertyHunterstownRoadseveral local corporations 3 $3,000 $1,000 ac. VOCs in surface& ground water;heavy metals andasbestos in soilIndustrial site; peregrinefalcons nest near sitePA: PhiladelphiaCo., SoutheastPhiladelphiaPublickerIndustriesBruga Corp.; AAAWarehousing, Inc.;Publicker Industries;Cuyahoga Wrecking/Overland Corp.40 $547,000 $13,675 ac. toxic, flammable,& reactive gases;PCBs; VOCs;asbestosOcean floor CA: offshore LosAngeles Co."Montrose"Offshore LosAngeles County10 industrial companies ? $42,200,000 ? ac. DDT & PCBs insoil & sedimentsRiver (fish spawning &rearing habitat)OR: North Fork ofJohn Day River;north-central ORJohn Day River Thatcher Trucking Co. ? $275,000 ? mi. hydrochloric acidRiver (trout fishery) CA: SacramentoRiver nearDunsmuirCantara Loop ? 42 $14,000,000 $333,333 mi. herbicide metamsodiumStream (salmon rearinghabitat)ID: Panther CreekWater-shed;Salmon Nat'l ForestBlackbird Mine PRPs associated withHaynes Stellite Adit37 $4,700,000 $127,027 mi. Au, Cu, & Co instreamsWetland & upland(c)MA:MassachusettsMilitary ReservationMassachusettsMilitaryReservation(d)National Guard Bureau 3,900 $500,000 $128 ac. VOCs: TCA, TCE,&dichloroethyleneWetland (forested) MA: Dartmouth Bristol CountyBoard ofCorrections(d)Commonwealth of MA &Dimeo Construction Co.11.5 $150,000 $13,043 ac. wetland filled infor constructionWetland (forested) MN: north ofBemidjiKummerSanitary LandfillKummer Sanitary Landfill 6.7 $22,000 $3,284 ac. chlorinatedorganicsTable D-1. (continued)



### Final Report — March 2001 D-4HabitatLocationSite TitlePotentially ResponsibleParties (PRPs)AreaAffected$ Settlement$/UnitUnitCOCs(e)Wetland (prairie) IN: Laporte Co. Fisher-CalcoChemicalSuperfund SiteFisher-Calco ChemicalCompany and SolventsCorp.8 $16,000 $2,000 ac. Bleach, sulfurdioxide, chloride,ammonia, VOCs,& PCBsWetland (river) DE: 1.3 mi. NW ofCheswoldCokersSanitationService LandfillsCokers Sanitation Service 25 $80,000 $3,200 ac. acrolein,ethylbenzene, &Zn from latexsludgeWetland (saline tobrackish marsh)TX: Harris Co. French Limited French Limited TaskGroup25 $60,000 $2,400 ac. PCBs & heavymetals ingroundwater &subsoilWetland (saline) NY: Nassau Co.;peninsula off LongIsland SoundAppliedEnvironmentalServices SiteShore Realty ? $50,000 ? ac. PCBs & VOC(toluene)Wetland (saline,intertidal)TX: Pasadena;Cotton PatchBayouMobil Miningand MineralsMobil Oil Corporation 17 $67,022 $3,942 ac. acidic processwater fromfertilizer plantWetland (stream) &reservoirIN: Finley CreekWatershed & EagleCreek Reservoir,Boone Co.Envirochem,SanitaryLandfill, &Asphalt SitesEnvirochem Corp.,Northside SanitaryLandfill, Inc., Great LakesAsphalt? $80,730 ? mi. VOCs, PCBs, &metalsWetland (stream)(b)DE: New CastleCo.;Army Creektributary toDelaware RiverArmy CreekLandfillNew Castle County 225 $600,000 $2,667 mi. landfill leachateWetland (stream,freshwater)TX: Pasadena;Cotton PatchBayouMobil Miningand MineralsMobil Oil Corporation 16 $63,080 $3,943 ac. acidic processwater fromfertilizer plant(a) Includes vegetated shallows, mudflats, tidal marshes and creeks, off-channel sloughs and lagoons, naturalized stream channels,and adjacent upland buffer areas(b) Also includes 60 ac. uplands and 1.5 mi. stream habitat(c) Percent upland versus wetland not stated(d) From EPA (1955) Enforcement Report(e) COC = contaminants of concern(f) Acreage listed is area where material was dumped, not the area contaminated, which may be larger

# Appendix D

Natural Resource

Damages Settlements

### Final Report — March 2001 D-1 

# Appendix D

Natural Resource Damages Settlements

able (D-1) presents 30 natural resource settlements from sites around the country.

The settlements are representative of the magnitude of settlement characteristic of sites

where environmental damage has occurred. The settlements are often the result of

complex environmental damage that would likely be more serious than that anticipated from

a HM spill after cleanup has occurred. However the damages provide a useful conservative

estimate of damage associated with specified acreage. 

# T

### Final Report — March 2001 D-2Table D-1. Natural Resource Damage Settlements by Habitat Type and LocationHabitatLocationSite TitlePotentially ResponsibleParties (PRPs)AreaAffected$ Settlement$/UnitUnitCOCs(e)Bay & estuary (saline) WA: central PugetSoundElliott Bay,Seattle, WASeattle (city andmetropolitan area)5189 $24,000,000 $4,625 ac. Cr, Cd, Cu, Pb,Zn, & PCBs insedimentsBay & estuary (saline)(a)WA: southernPuget SoundCommencementBayPort of Tacoma; SimpsonTacoma Kraft Co.37.9 $13,300,000 $350,923 ac. variety ofhazardoussubstancesDune & swale IN: northern Midco I & II Midco ? $304,567 ? ac. VOCs, PCBs, &metalsEstuary sediments(saline)MA: AchushnetRiver, nearBuzzards BayNew BedfordHarbor5 companies 18000 $20,200,000 $1,122 ac. PCBs & heavymetals in biota &sedimentsGrassland & oldfield IN: Laporte Co. Fisher-CalcoChemicalSuperfund SiteFisher-Calco ChemicalCompany and SolventsCorp.150 $200,000 $1,333 ac. Bleach, sulfurdioxide, chloride,ammonia, VOCs,& PCBsGrassland & oldfield(f)IN: St. Joseph Co.,MishawakaDouglasRoad/Uniroyal,Inc. LandfillUniroyal, Inc. 19 $163,035 $8,581 ac. hydrocarbons ingroundwaterGrassland & oldfield(f)IN: Whitley Co.,Columbia CityWayneReclamation &RecyclingWayne Waste Oil divisionof Wayne Reclamation &Recycling, Inc.35 $73,474 $2,099 ac. VOCs: benzene,TCE, vinylchloride, &tolueneGrassland withwetlands; dump in riverfloodplainIN: Allen Co., FortWayne in floodplainof Maumee RiverFort WayneReductionDumpFort Wayne Reduction;National Recycling Corp.;Service Corp. of America35 $5,000 $143 ac. VOCs, PCBs,PAHs, phenols, &heavy metals insoil &groundwaterIndustrial site PA: Crawford Co.,SaegertownSaegertownIndustrial AreaGeneral AmericanTransfer; SaegertownMfg. Co.; SpectrumControl, Inc.; Lord Corp.100 $94,510 $945 ac. VOCs & PAHs insoil and pondsedimentsIndustrial site infloodplain of riverPA: Berks Co., nearShoemakersville inflood-plain ofSchuylkill RiverBrown's BatteryBreakingBrown's Battery Breaking 14 $24,217 $1,730 ac. Pb, Ni, ZnIndustrial site withstreamPA: Mifflin Co.,Maitland; JacksCreek flowsthrough siteJacks Creek/Sitkin Smelting& Refining, Inc.Joseph Krentzman andSon, Inc.; C.I.T. Corp.;Alabama BankruptcyCourt115 $136,465 $1,187 ac. PCBs & heavymetals (primarilyPb) in soil andwaterTable D-1. (continued)



### Final Report — March 2001 D-3HabitatLocationSite TitlePotentially ResponsibleParties (PRPs)AreaAffected$ Settlement$/UnitUnitCOCs(e)Industrial site withstreams and wetlandsPA: Adams Co.,Fred ShealerPropertyHunterstownRoadseveral local corporations 3 $3,000 $1,000 ac. VOCs in surface& ground water;heavy metals andasbestos in soilIndustrial site; peregrinefalcons nest near sitePA: PhiladelphiaCo., SoutheastPhiladelphiaPublickerIndustriesBruga Corp.; AAAWarehousing, Inc.;Publicker Industries;Cuyahoga Wrecking/Overland Corp.40 $547,000 $13,675 ac. toxic, flammable,& reactive gases;PCBs; VOCs;asbestosOcean floor CA: offshore LosAngeles Co."Montrose"Offshore LosAngeles County10 industrial companies ? $42,200,000 ? ac. DDT & PCBs insoil & sedimentsRiver (fish spawning &rearing habitat)OR: North Fork ofJohn Day River;north-central ORJohn Day River Thatcher Trucking Co. ? $275,000 ? mi. hydrochloric acidRiver (trout fishery) CA: SacramentoRiver nearDunsmuirCantara Loop ? 42 $14,000,000 $333,333 mi. herbicide metamsodiumStream (salmon rearinghabitat)ID: Panther CreekWater-shed;Salmon Nat'l ForestBlackbird Mine PRPs associated withHaynes Stellite Adit37 $4,700,000 $127,027 mi. Au, Cu, & Co instreamsWetland & upland(c)MA:MassachusettsMilitary ReservationMassachusettsMilitaryReservation(d)National Guard Bureau 3,900 $500,000 $128 ac. VOCs: TCA, TCE,&dichloroethyleneWetland (forested) MA: Dartmouth Bristol CountyBoard ofCorrections(d)Commonwealth of MA &Dimeo Construction Co.11.5 $150,000 $13,043 ac. wetland filled infor constructionWetland (forested) MN: north ofBemidjiKummerSanitary LandfillKummer Sanitary Landfill 6.7 $22,000 $3,284 ac. chlorinatedorganicsWetland (prairie) IN: Laporte Co. Fisher-CalcoChemicalSuperfund SiteFisher-Calco ChemicalCompany and SolventsCorp.8 $16,000 $2,000 ac. Bleach, sulfurdioxide, chloride,ammonia, VOCs,& PCBsWetland (river) DE: 1.3 mi. NW ofCheswoldCokersSanitationService LandfillsCokers Sanitation Service 25 $80,000 $3,200 ac. acrolein,ethylbenzene, &Zn from latexsludgeWetland (saline tobrackish marsh)TX: Harris Co. French Limited French Limited TaskGroup25 $60,000 $2,400 ac. PCBs & heavymetals ingroundwater &subsoilWetland (saline) NY: Nassau Co.;peninsula off LongIsland SoundAppliedEnvironmentalServices SiteShore Realty ? $50,000 ? ac. PCBs & VOC(toluene)Table D-1. (continued)



### Final Report — March 2001 D-4HabitatLocationSite TitlePotentially ResponsibleParties (PRPs)AreaAffected$ Settlement$/UnitUnitCOCs(e)Wetland (saline,intertidal)TX: Pasadena;Cotton PatchBayouMobil Miningand MineralsMobil Oil Corporation 17 $67,022 $3,942 ac. acidic processwater fromfertilizer plantWetland (stream) &reservoirIN: Finley CreekWatershed & EagleCreek Reservoir,Boone Co.Envirochem,SanitaryLandfill, &Asphalt SitesEnvirochem Corp.,Northside SanitaryLandfill, Inc., Great LakesAsphalt? $80,730 ? mi. VOCs, PCBs, &metalsWetland (stream)(b)DE: New CastleCo.;Army Creektributary toDelaware RiverArmy CreekLandfillNew Castle County 225 $600,000 $2,667 mi. landfill leachateWetland (stream,freshwater)TX: Pasadena;Cotton PatchBayouMobil Miningand MineralsMobil Oil Corporation 16 $63,080 $3,943 ac. acidic processwater fromfertilizer plant(a) Includes vegetated shallows, mudflats, tidal marshes and creeks, off-channel sloughs and lagoons, naturalized stream channels, and adjacent upland bufferareas(b) Also includes 60 ac. uplands and 1.5 mi. stream habitat(c) Percent upland versus wetland not stated(d) From EPA (1955) Enforcement Report(e) COC = contaminants of concern(f) Acreage listed is area where material was dumped, not the area contaminated, which may be larger

# Appendix E

Class 2.1 Releases

### Final Report

—March 2001 E

- 

### 1 

# Appendix E

Class 2.1 Releases

lass 2.1 represents liquefied petroleum gases. The most common materials are Liquefied

Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). LPG is predominately propane

and LNG is predominate ly methane. Propane can be shipped as a liquid under pressure

without refrigeration. At 70 ° F its vapor pressure is about 120 psig. The gas cylinder for the

common barbecue grill is liquefied propane.

LPG

A transportation accident involving LPG can r esult in four scenarios that can have major

consequences.

1. The LPG can be released into a pool which evaporates and disperses without ignition.

A simple energy balance shows that about 40 percent of the released liquid immediately

flashes into vapor. T he resultant liquid pool on the ground is only 60 percent of the size of a

pool associated with spilling a similar quantity of gasoline. While the size of the pool is

smaller, the damage to the environment will be severe because all the vegetation will be

frozen. The temperature of the liquid pool of propane will be

– 44 ° F.

2. Secondly, the LPG can be released and if the flammable cloud contacts an ignition source,

the flame front can flash back and set the liquid pool on fire. For the quantities of LPG

shi pped by truck, the vapor cloud explosion would not be a major concern.

3. A boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE) can occur. For a BLEVE to occur,

the tank containing the LPG must be engulfed in a fire and the rate of pressure buildup in the

tank must exceed the capacity of the relief valve. This scenario is more likely to occur

during rail transportation where the released fuel from one car can form a burning pool that

engulfs another.

4. As a result of the accident, the tank ruptures and rockets away from the accident scene and

ignites.

Of these four scenarios, the second and the fourth are most likely to result in significant

consequences, the second if there are a large number of people trapped in the immediate vicinity of

the accident and the fourth if the tank that rocketed from the accident scene lands in a populated

area. It should be pointed out that because the LPG is stored under pressure, the probability the

tank will rupture in an accident is much lower than the probability a tank carr ying Class 3 liquids

will rupture.

LNG

LNG must be shipped as a refrigerated liquid since its critical temperature, the highest temperature

at which it can exist in the liquid state at any pressure, is

– 117 ° F. Its normal boiling point is

–

260 ° F. The L NG is being loaded into the double walled highly insulated transport vessel at

atmospheric pressure. Thus the temperature of the LNG immediately after filling is

– 260 ° F. The

temperature of the LNG is maintained at this temperature by evaporation of the b oiling liquid and

venting of the evaporated material. The vent must be closed for shipment. Thus, during shipment 

# C

### Final Report

—March 2001 E

- 

### 2



## the pressure in the tank will gradually build and the temperature of the liquid will rise as the boiling

point rises with pressure. The cry ogenic tanks are rated based on the pressure buildup over a

specified period of time. A typical cryogenic tank rating is 75 psig pressure rise over a 100 hour

time period. Thus, if a typical transport distance were 500 miles at an average speed, consider ing

stops, of 40 mph, the pressure in the tank at the end of the run would be approximately 10 psig.

Given the amount of insulation associated with the cryogenic tanks, the carrier probably does not

wait for equilibrium to be attained. Thus, the pressure buildup will probably be higher than 10 psig

over the time the LNG is being shipped. For purposes of this analysis, it will be assumed that the

average pressure in the LNG tank is 30 psig. The temperature of the LNG at a pressure of 30 psig is

– 230 ° F, a n increase of 30 degrees from its normal boiling point. In the case of the LNG,

approximately 30% will flash into vapor when released.

The same scenarios considered for the LPG can be considered for LNG. Because of the amount of

insulation on the tank , the BLEVE will be more likely for LNG. Basically what would have to

happen is for an accident to occur between two trucks, one carrying gasoline and the other LNG.

The gasoline would have to spill and burn, fully engulfing the LNG tank. The fire would then have

to last over an hour. There are really two competing phenomena occurring. At some point,

probably below 300 psig, the relief valve will rise and slow the rate of pressure buildup. The

second phenomenon is the weakening of the walls of the tan k by heating. BLEVE failures occur in

the upper region of the tank in an area not cooled by the boiling LNG remaining in the tank.

In term of likelihood of a release, the double walled construction of the LNG tank will reduce the

likelihood of a releas e when compared to a LPG tank. However, once released, the consequences of

the two releases will be similar. The area covered by released liquid will be killed by exposure to

very low temperatures. There is really not much difference between the effects of

– 40 and

– 260 ° F. Direct exposure to either temperature will kill anything living.

Since the one year profile will probably not have any of these serious accidents, most of the above

discussion will be relevant to the section addressing catastrophic, less likely accident scenarios.

# Appendix F

**Impact Case**

**Examples**

### Final Report

—March 2001 F

- 1 

# Appendix F

Impact Case Examples

his appendix presents impact summaries for actual Class 3, Division 2.1, and Class 8

accidents. These three categories were selected because of their importance within HM

accident impact s. The three categories together account for almost 78 percent of the total

impacts from accident/incidents for the portrait year. These examples provide an indication of the

range of impacts from Class 3 accidents. Field values were obtained from newsp aper clippings and

different Federal and state databases. However, estimations of some impact costs were added when

data was unavailable. These values are annotated with an asterisk. For example, if a tractor and

trailer were destroyed, an estimated val ue for the equipment was added even if HMIS reported the

value as $0. The case examples indicate that there is considerable variability among particular

accidents, but that serious injuries can dominate the cost, even in the case of the Kirkersville, Ohio

, accident, where impact delay costs were high because a major interstate was affected. A similar

situation applies to the Northwood, Ohio, accident, which is dominated by the single fatality,

although 100 people were evacuated. Tables F

- 1 to F

- 8 provide a summary of the impacts for each

case.

October 29, 1996, 4:50 a.m., Near Kirkersville, OH. A tanker truck, traveling eastbound on I

- 70,

went into the median and rolled onto its side. The cargo tank was carrying 6,800 gallons of acetone.

Less than 100 gallons of the hazardous cargo was released through the tank’s pressure relief valve.

The driver apparently had fallen asleep and lost control of the vehicle. He was taken to the hospital

for injuries. Both the east

- and westbound lanes of I

- 70 were cl osed starting at 5 a.m. and were

expected to open by 2 p.m. An environmental contractor was called to clean up the spill.

Table F

- 1. Kirkersville, OH.

Field Value*

Commodity Acetone

Class 3; Flammable

– Combustible Liquid HM Information

Quantity Sp illed Less than 100 gallons

Location I

- 70 Eastbound, 122 MM, East of SR158,

near Kirkersville, OH (Rural community)

Fatalities 0

Injuries 1 person

$400,000 Accident

Information

Evacuation 0

Product Loss $500

Carrier Damage $2,000

Publ ic/Private

Property Damage $0

Decontamination/

Cleanup $1,500

Incident Delay $83,025 Damages

Environmental

Damage $88

Total Estimated Cost $487,113

* Dollar values based on data and assumptions in Section 2.3 and an assessment of likely costs for this case

. 

# T

### Final Report

—March 2001 F

- 2



## Thursday, March 14, 1996, 12:00 p.m., Mankato MN. A tractor

- semi

- tanker, carrying

8,500 gallons of gasoline, tipped while turning off Riverfront Drive onto Madison Avenue.

The tanker was punctured, spilling approximately 235 gallons of gasoline onto Ri verfront Drive.

Approximately 25 gallons went into a stormsewer, while none appeared to flow into the river or

contaminate any ground or soil. Although the driver was only traveling at 10 mph, speed may have

been a factor in the accident. Parts of River front Drive and Madison Avenue were closed from

noon to 10 p.m. Several businesses and families were evacuated along the 700, 800 and 900 blocks

of Riverfront Drive and one side of 2 nd 

## Street for approximately six hours. The only injury involved

the driv er, who was treated at the scene of the accident. An environmental contractor was called to

drain the remaining fuel from the tanker. The city billed the trucking company $13,212 for the spill

clean up, which included police and fire personnel hours, equ ipment and supplies. The trucking

company paid this bill in May of 1996.

Table F

- 2. Mankato, MN.

Field Value*

Commodity Gasoline

Class 3; Flammable

– Combustible Liquid HM Information

Quantity Spilled 235 gallons

Location Rive rfront Dr. and Madison Ave.,

Mankato, MN (Suburban community)

Fatalities 0

Injuries (Minor) 1 person

$4,000 Accident

Information

Evacuation 75 people for 6 hours

$75,000

Product Loss $425

Carrier Damage $60,000

Public/Private

Property Damage $1,000

Decontamination/

Cleanup $6,000

Other Damages $13,212 City bill

Incident Delay $12,000 Damages

Environmental

Damage $208

Total Estimated Cost $171,846

* Dollar values based on data and assumptions in Section 2.3 and an assessment of likely costs for thi s case.

### Final Report

—March 2001 F

- 3



## June 22, 1996, 5:15 a.m., Berthoud Falls, CO. A tanker truck traveling along U.S. 40 and carrying

8,200 gallons of diesel fuel ran off the road and rolled approximately 3⁄4 times, before catching fire.

The first person at the scene, a passerby, wa s able to pull the two injured passengers from the tractor

before flames engulfed it. The tanker melted due to the heat of the fire. The spilled fuel and fire

traveled down the roadside ditch and proceeded to burn out a car and home; fortunately there we re

no injuries due to the spreading fire. The fire continued to burn 50

–60 yards of the surrounding

area. Approximately 50 residents were evacuated from the rural community, and the road was

closed for approximately 2 hours. Colorado State Highway Pat rol noted that the road surface was

wet from rain and that the driver’s condition appeared normal. The truck was reported as traveling

at 35 mph. An environmental contractor was called to clean up the spill.

Table F

- 3. Berthoud Falls, CO.

Field Value*

Commodity Diesel Fuel

Class 3; Flammable

– Combustible Liquid HM Information

Quantity Spilled 8,200 gallons

Location U.S. 40 & milepost 249, Berthoud Falls, CO

(Rural community)

Fatalities 0

Injuries 2 people

$400,000 Accident

Information

Evacu ation 50 people

$50,000

Product Loss $8,000

Carrier Damage $107,000 (assumes total damage)

Public/Private

Property Damage $60,000

Decontamination/

Cleanup $30,000

Incident Delay $46,125 Damages

Environmental

Damage $3,597

(assumes half of leaked cargo burned)

Total Estimated Cost $704,722

* Dollar values based on data and assumptions in Section 2.3 and an assessment of likely costs for this case.

### Final Report

—March 2001 F

- 4



## Saturday, September 7, 1996, 3:30 p.m., Burns Harbor, IN. A tractor

- trailer rig was exiting I

- 9 4

onto U.S. 20 via a full circular exit ramp, traveling at 30 mph, when the contents of the trailer

shifted to the left, causing the tractor

- trailer to roll over onto its left side. The trailer contained ten,

600

- gallon containers of a flammable resin sol ution. Three of the containers ruptured at the seams,

spilling 1,200 gallons of the resin solution. No other vehicles were involved in the accident,

however, the driver of the vehicle and his two children traveling with him were hospitalized for

minor in juries and released Saturday evening. The resin solution was also thought to be toxic if

inhaled in large quantities. Thus, three homes and a fireworks warehouse were evacuated shortly

after the spill. Evacuees were allowed to return late Sunday afterno on. The resin solution spilled

onto U.S. 20, closing the road from Ind. 149 to just east of the I

- 94 interchange until 5 p.m. on

Sunday. The solution also contaminated some of the surrounding land. By nightfall a dump truck

with sand was brought to the site to construct a dike to contain the resin, which had been covered

with foam. At least 30 firefighters, hazardous materials experts and paramedics remained at the

scene through Saturday night. To remove the containers and tractor

- trailer from the high way, the

vehicle’s owner hired an environmental contractor.

Table F

- 4. Burns Harbor, IN.

Field Value*

Commodity Resin Solution

Class 3; Flammable

– Combustible Liquid HM Information

Quantity Spilled 1,200 gallons

Location U.S. Route 20 at I

- 94, Burns Harbor, IN

(Rural community)

Fatalities 0

Injuries 3 people

$96,000 Accident

Information

Evacuation Three households and a fireworks

warehouse.

Product Loss $1,200

Carrier Damage $28,419

Public/Private

Property Damage $0

Decontamina tion/

Cleanup $74,059

Other Damages $2,179

Incident Delay $46,875 Damages

Environmental

Damage $1,053

Total Estimated Cost $265,785

* Dollar values based on data and assumptions in Section 2.3 and an assessment of likely costs for this case.

### Final Report

—March 2001 F

- 5



## February 5, 1995, 9:00 a.m., Emeryville, CA. A tanker truck carrying more than 8,000 gallons

of liquefied petroleum gas was trying to change lanes from I

- 80 to the MacArthur Maze when it

skidded out of control and crashed into the center divide at the Cypress Str eet off

- ramp. Sparks

ignited the gas gushing form the ruptured tanker. A fireball, estimated at more than a hundred feet

across, engulfed the truck and cars on the connector ramp between westbound I

- 80 and eastbound I

580 (MacArthur Maze). The driver of the truck died when the tractor plunged off the interstate.

Authorities closed the Cypress Street off

- ramp and the ramp between westbound I

- 80 and eastbound

I

- 580, creating a massive traffic jam that persisted through most of Sunday. At least six people

were treated for first

- and second

- degree burns, and flying debris and fire damaged seven cars. A

crane took an hour on the afternoon of Sunday, February 5 th 

## , to lift the wreckage of the tanker.

CALTRANS workers spent Sunday and early Monday clearing a debris trail that stretched

approximately an eighth of a mile. The explosion damaged electrical wires that run along the road,

destroyed three signs spanning the highway, and ripped away a section of guardrail from its

concrete moorings, leaving a gaping hole. A 40

- member repair team was on the job all night

repairing the roadway. The connector ramp was reopened at 5:04 a.m. on Monday, in time for rush

hour. However, there was still a lot of work to be done along the highway.

Table F

- 5. Emeryville, CA

Field Value*

Commodity Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Class Flammable Compressed Gas HM Information

Quantity Spilled 1,100 CFT

Location I

- 580 and I

- 80, Emeryville City, Alameda

County, CA

Fatalities 1 person

$2,800,000

Injuries 6 people

$1,200,000 Accident Information

Evacuation 0

Product Loss $3,500

Carrier Damage $95,000

Public/Private Property

Damage $120,000

Decontamination/

Cleanup $3,870

Incident Delay $498,000 Damages

Environmental Damage $4,200

Total Estimated Cost $4,724,570



### *Dollar values based on data and assumptions in Section 2.3 and an assessment of likely costs for this case.

### Final Report

—March 2001 F

- 6



## October 28, 1996, 8:28 a.m., Northwood, OH. A flatbed truck carrying cylinders of dissolved

acetylene was in an accident at SR 579 and Wil liston Road, a rural agricultural area. Due to a spill

and vapor cloud of the hazardous material, an evacuation of 100 people occurred. There were no

road closures noted. However, there were two injuries and one fatality.

Table F

- 6. Northwood, OH

F ield Value*

Commodity Dissolved Acetylene

Class Flammable Compressed Gas HM Information

Quantity Spilled 370 CFT, plus a vapor

Location SR 579 and Williston Rd, Northwood

City, Wood County, OH

Fatalities 1 person

$2,800,000

I njuries 2 people

$400,000 Accident Information

Evacuation 100 people

$100,000

Product Loss $60

Carrier Damage $60,000

Public/Private Property

Damage $4,000

Other Damage $11,900

Decontamination/

Cleanup $40,000

Incident Delay $9,375 Damages

Environmental Damage $ 398

Total Estimated Cost $3,425,773



### *Dollar values based on data and assumptions in Section 2.3 and an assessment of likely costs for this case.

### Final Report

—March 2001 F

- 7



## October 14, 1996, 9:00 a.m., Lehigh, PA. A tanker truck, traveling on Route 248, separated from

its tractor and skidded 30 feet, causing a leak from a valve. The tanker was carrying 8,000 gallons

of an ammonia solution (approximately 30 percent ammonia and 70 percent water). A leak trickled

from a valve, while simultaneously causing a hazardous ammonia vapor to form. An estimated 5 to

10 gallons of the load leaked from the tanker. Shortly after the accident, firefighters started

evacuating homes; 10 to 15 homes within a half

- mile radius were evacuated, causing 35 people to

leave the area. Timberline Road and Route 248 between Routes 946 and 145 were immediately

closed. An employee from the tanker filling station arrived in a self

- contained suit within

15 minutes of the accident and stopped the leak. By noon, the trucking companies hazardous

material s team arrived to transfer the chemical onto another tanker. By 5:30 p.m., the chemical was

transferred to the other truck, the roads were opened and the residents were allowed to go home.

No one was injured or killed. In all, 130 fire and emergency per sonnel responded.

Table F

- 7. Lehigh, PA

Field Value*

Commodity Ammonia Solutions 10

- 35%

Class Corrosive Material HM Information

Quantity Spilled 5

- 10 gallons, plus a vapor

Location Route 248, Lehigh City, Northampton

County , PA

Fatalities 0

Injuries 0 Accident Information

Evacuation 35 people

$35,000

Product Loss $0

Carrier Damage $4,500

Public/Private Property

Damage $0

Other Damages $13,500

Decontamination/

Cleanup $0

Incident Delay $15,938 Damages

Environmental Damage $0

T otal Estimated Cost $55,438



### *Dollar values based on data and assumptions in Section 2.3 and an assessment of likely costs for this case.

### Final Report

—March 2001 F

- 8



## August 6, 1997, 2:00 p.m., Michigan City, IN. An auto carrier truck slammed into the back of a

tanker truck st opped in congested traffic on the eastbound lane of I

- 94. The tanker truck was

carrying sodium hydroxide (50 percent solution); 3,000

–4,000 gallons of the corrosive chemical

spilled from the tanker as a result of the accident. All six lanes of I

- 94 wer e closed, starting a little

after two o

- clock along a nine

- mile stretch between Chesterton and Michigan City. The three

westbound lanes were reopened on Wednesday, August 6 th 

## , around 5:30 p.m. At 11:00 p.m. on

Wednesday, the center and left lanes of the eastbound side were reopened; the right hand lane was

still closed well into Thursday. About 500 to 1,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide remained in the

tanker after the accident and was transferred to another tanker. Cleanup of the accident included

removi ng all contaminated soil along the side of the interstate. Two tractor

- trailer loads of soil had

already been removed by 3:30 p.m., and the cleanup was still underway. Water samples were also

taken from a small creek to check for any contamination. OSI Environmental conducted the

cleanup; the Porter County Hazardous Materials Team and the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management oversaw the cleanup. The tank truck company was said to be

responsible for the payment of the cleanup. The sodium hydro xide, which will burn skin on

contact, affected three people who received minor burns when some of the chemical spilled on

them. The auto carrier truck veered to the right after the collision, crashed through a guardrail,

overturned, and burst into flames . The driver of the auto carrier died of multiple injuries.

Firefighters came from three neighboring township volunteer fire departments.

Table F

- 8. Michigan City, IN

Field Value*

Commodity Sodium Hydroxide Solution

Class Corrosive Material HM Information

Quantity Spilled 3,000

– 4,000 gal.

Location Mile marker 29 on I

- 94, Michigan City,

La Porte County, IN

Fatalities 1 person

$2,8 00,000

Injuries 3 people minor injuries

$12,000 Accident Information

Evacuation 0

Product Loss $35, 000

Carrier Damage $107,000

Public/Private Property

Damage $2,300

Other Damage $11,940

Decontamination/

Cleanup $13,500

Incident Delay $83,025 Damages

Environmental Damage $3,063

Total Estimated Cost $3,067,828

*Dollar values based on data an d assumptions in Section 2.3 and an assessment of likely costs for this case.

# Appendix G

**References**

### Final Report

—March 2001 G

- 

### 1 

# Appendix G

References

49 CFR Parts 170

- 179, Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT

Agent, Kenneth R., et. al. “Evaluation of Advanced Surveying Technology for Accident

Investigation,” Transportation Research Record , No. 1485, 1995

Battelle Compilation of Environmental Settlements, 1998

Delaware Hazardous Material Transportation Flow Study. June 1994

Fu, Liping et al. “Real

- Time Estimation of Incident Delay in Dynamic and Stochastic Networks.”

Transportation Research

, No. 1603, 1997

Government Accounting Office (GAO), Truck Safety: Effectiveness of Motor Carriers Office

Hampered by Data Problems and Slow Progress on Implementing Safety Initiatives , T

- RCED

- 99

- 122, March 1999

Grenzeback, Lance R., et. al. “Urban Freewa y Gridlock Study: Decreasing the Effects of Large

Trucks on Peak

- Period Urban Freeway Congestion,” Transportation Research Record , No. 1256,

1990

“Growth Fuels Talk or Route Review.” Columbus Dispatch . July 21, 1996

Harwood, Douglas W., et. al. “Chara cteristics of Accidents and Incidents in Highway

Transportation of Hazardous Materials,” Presentation at the Transportation Research Board Annual

Meeting, January 1989.

Hazardous Materials in Mesa County , August 1997

Highway Capacity Manual, 1994

Interv iew with Joel Hogue, PRO TERRA, July 7, 1998

Jacobson, Leslie N., et al. “Incident Management Using total Stations,” Transportation Research

Board , No. 1376, 1992

Kentucky Emergency Response Commission. Corridor Commodity Flow Analysis Final Reports

. I

- 24, January 1998; I

- 71, December 1997; I

- 75, November 1995; I

- 65, September 1995; I

- 64,

June 1995

Morales, Juan M. “Analytical Procedures for Estimating Freeway Traffic Congestion,” ITE

Journal , Vol. 57, No. 1, January 1987, pp. 45

- 49

### Final Report

—March 2001 G

- 

### 2



## National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), The Economic Cost of Motor

Vehicle Crashes: http//www.nhtsa.dot.gov, 1996

National Safety Council, Estimating the Cost of Unintentional Injuries , 1996

Public Utility Commission of Oregon and the Oregon Depart ment of Transportation. Hazardous

Material Movements on Oregon Highways . 1987

Recker, W.W., et al. “An Analysis of Truck Involved Freeway Accidents.” Institute of

Transportation Studies, University of California at Irvine, 1988

Research and Special P rograms Administration. Hazardous Materials Shipment , Washington, D.C.,

1998

Star Mountain, Inc., for Office of Motor Carriers. National Fleet Safety Survey , 1996, Alexandria,

VA 1997

The Cost of Highway Crashes, FHWA

- RD

- 91

- 055, October 1991

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (49CFR), Transportation

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (49CFR), Transportation, Parts 171 and 172

Transportation Research Board, Hazardous Materials Shipment Information for Emergency

Response , Special Report 239, Wash ington D.C., 1993

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 1993 Commodity Flow Survey , Washington D.C.,

1996

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 1997 Commodity Flow Survey , Washington D.C.,

EC97TCF

- US (HM) RV, April 2000

U.S. DOT, 1997 Draft

Strategic Plan , Washington, D.C., 1997

U.S. DOT, Transport Canada. 1996 North American Emergency Response Guidebook , 1997(a)

U.S. DOT, FHWA, Highway Statistics, 1996 , Washington, D.C., 1997(b)

U.S. DOT, 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study , Wash ington, D.C., 1997(c)

US DOT, Transportation Systems Center Truck Transportation of Hazardous Materials: A National

Overview , December 1987

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Valuing Potential Environmental Liabilities for Managerial

Decision

- Making: A Review of Available Techniques , Report No. EPA742

- R

- 96

- 003,

December 1996

### Final Report

—March 2001 G

- 

### 3



## Zebe, Paul, TSC, personal conversation, August 1998