Hazardous Materials Transportation Study for Contra Costa County

Transcription

1 Hazardous Materials Transportation Study for Contra Costa County Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs Randall Sawyer, Nathaniel Zuckerman, and Neal Price California Department of Health Services Environmental Health Investigations Branch Sharon Lee, Sandra McNeel, Robert Gunier, Robert McLaughlin, and Daniel Smith February 23, 2006

2 Study Components Highway binocular survey Analysis of existing railroad databases

3 Truck Survey Design-1 Original intent: Binocular survey followed by Review of shipping papers of hazmat trucks stopped at CHP weigh stations Stopping of trucks not feasible due to likely increase in traffic congestion Revised design: Binocular survey only Fall, 2004 & Summer, 2005 Post-survey survey site (Hwy 80 at Berkeley): Dec, 2005 Reference: Guidance for Conducting HazMat Flow Surveys U.S. DOT

4 4 5 2a 2b *Map from 2005 Thomas Guide, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Rand McNally # Location 1 Hwy 580 Richmond/San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza 2a Hwy 160 Antioch Bridge Toll Plaza 2b Hwy 4 Oakley/Bridgehead and Main Intersection 3 Hwy 680 Walnut Creek Weigh Station/Treat Blvd Exit # Location 4 Hwy 80 Carquinez Bridge Toll Plaza 5 Hwy 4 Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station 6 Hwy 580 Livermore/Altamont Pass Weigh Station

5 Truck Survey Design-2 Fall, 2004 Locations Highway 80 (Carquinez) Highway 680 (Walnut Creek) Highway 4 (Pittsburg) Survey times 5 weekday mornings, M-F M 8-12 noon or am Information recorded: UN number Placard description Truck type Time (one-hour blocks) Summer, 2005 Locations Fall locations, plus: Highway 580 (Richmond) Highway 4 (Oakley) Highway 160 (Oakley) Highway 680 (Livermore) Survey times 3 weekdays, M, W, Thurs 8-12 noon (all locations) pm (Hwy 80, 680) Information recorded: Same as Fall, 2004

6

7 Placards (worded)

8 Truck Survey Results 160 Total survey hours Overview More than 3,600 hazmat trucks counted Most were tankers carrying bulk loads Hazmat trucks per hour ranged from 8 (Hwy 160) to 33 (Hwy 680) Gasoline tankers - nearly 1/3 of all hazmat trucks

9 Truck Types Carrying Hazardous Materials (Entire Survey) Type Number Percent Tanker Box Other ex: flatbed, utility Multiple large tanks per vehicle Total 2, ,

10

11

12

13

14 Most Common HazMat with UN numbers (Entire Survey) Material Frequency Percent Gasoline Hot liquid (>100 C) 1, Liquified petroleum gas Combustible liquid (ex: diesel) Sulfur, molten

15 Most Common HazMat with Worded Placards (Entire Survey) Non-Flammable Gas Corrosive Hazard Flammable (any) Inhalation Hazard or Poison Frequency Percent Oxidizer 40 5

16 Hazardous Materials Trucks per Hour by Location (Mornings) Hwy 680 Walnut Creek Hwy 580 Livermore Hwy 4 Pittsburg Hwy 80 Carquinez bridge Hwy 4 Oakley Location Hwy 580 Richmond bridge Hwy 160 Antioch bridge Average Trucks per hour

17 Statistical Analysis of HazMat Statistical differences: Truck Data None - truck counts by day of week at each location None - trucks per hour for mornings vs. afternoons Afternoon surveys were at Hwy 80, 680, Summer 05 None - trucks per hour for fall vs. summer (mornings) (Hwy 80, 680, 4-Pittsburg) 4 One difference comparing common UN numbers for fall vs. summer Gasoline marginally higher in fall Gasoline 35% of total in Fall 04; 27% of total in Summer 05 (Hwy 80, 680, 4-Pittsburg) 4

18 Materials with UN Numbers by Emergency Response Guide (ERG) Percent (all UN Numbers) 54% 12% 9% 7% 6% ERG Description Flammable Liquids Toxic or Corrosive Substances Flammable Gases Non-reactive Gases Flammable Solids

19 Toxic by Inhalation Trucked Materials Chemical Truck Loads Number (>1) % (all loads)* Chlorine Ammonia Sulfuryl fluoride Sulphur dioxide *4,050 total hazmat loads in survey

20 Trucks carrying Multiple Hazmat - Chemical Reactivity Risks NOAA Chemical Reactivity Worksheet Pair-wise analysis of chemicals in mixture for potential chemical reactions Examples of co-transported chemicals seen in survey and potential reactivity: Chlorine + Sulfur dioxide Explosion, Fire Hypochlorite solution + Chlorine Explosion, Fire Sodium hydroxide + Phosphoric acid Fire

21 Limitations of binocular survey method Placards (and UN #s) don t always tell you what s being transported Can t distinguish between full loads and empty but not clean loads No night surveys - safety, poor visibility Time and staff intensive

22 Railroad Data

23 Rail Transport Data Contra Costa County Railroad hazmat databases Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Main Contra Costa lines Federal Waybill data Annual statistical sample of U.S. freight movements Not useful for survey - accuracy lower in small geographical areas like counties

24

25 Rail Line HazMat Data 12 consecutive months of data provided, ,000 27,000 hazmat loads annually, on rail line segments in Contra Costa Over 100 different hazmat materials Identified by railroad STCC codes STCC: Standard Transportation Commodity Code

26 Most Common Hazardous Materials Carried by Rail in CCC STCC DESCRIPTION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ( FAK-freight all kinds ) LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GASES ALCOHOLS SULFURIC ACID CARTRIDGES FOR WEAPONS CHLORINE Annual Max Loads any Rail Segment 14,570 5,539 2,956 2,329 1,

27 Most Common Rail HazMat by Emergency Response Guide % Loads 37% 19% 9% 8% 7% ERG Description Mixed Load / Unidentified Cargo Flammable Gases Flammable Liquids Explosives Corrosives

28 Toxic by Inhalation Hazards Carried by Rail CHEMICAL CHLORINE AMMONIA HYDROGEN FLUORIDE SULFUR DIOXIDE METHYL BROMIDE CHLOROPICRIN MAX LOADS (>20)

29 Conclusions Truck Survey >3,600 hazmat trucks observed in 160 survey hours Highest Traffic = Hwy 680 Walnut Creek (33 trucks/hr) Most Frequent Hazmat Gasoline > Elevated Temp. Liquid > LPG Most Frequent ERG Category Flammable followed by Toxic/Corrosive Most Frequent Toxic by Inhalation = Chlorine

30 Conclusions Rail Data 20,300 hazmat loads - annual average per rail segment Most Frequent Hazmat FAK (freight-all all-kinds) > LPG > alcohols > sulfuric acid Most Frequent ERG Category Unidentified Load / Mixed Hazmat followed by Flammable Most Frequent Toxic by Inhalation = Chlorine

31 Possible Next Steps Other Survey Locations / Survey Methods Port (s) Other Urban Areas Border with Mexico Additional data assessment Toxicity Environmental fate Commercial use (origin/destination) Training?

32 For a copy of the report please contact Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs: Neal Price nprice@hsd.co.contra-costa.ca.us costa.ca.us