Hazardous Materials Routing Synopsis Report

7/29/2019 Hazardous Materials Routing Synopsis Report

1/24

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ROUTING SYNOPSIS REPORTWayne County:Proposed Recommendations

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DECEMBER 2012


2/24

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ROUTING SYNOPSIS REPORTWayne County:Proposed Recommendations


3/24

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ROUTING SYNOPSIS REPORT WAYNE COUNTY

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Summary ....................................................................................................................1

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................3

3. Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................4

4. Existing Restrictions ......................................................................................................5

5. Reasons or Review ......................................................................................................5

6. Authority.....................................................................................................................6

7. Roles in Determining Restrictions or Specifc Requirements or Transporto Hazardous Materials in Michigan...............................................................................7

7.1 MDOTs Role ........................................................................................................7

7.2 The Role o the Public .............................................................................................7

8. Analysis .....................................................................................................................7

8.1 Truck Crash Rate Estimates on Selected Route Segments ................................................8

8.2 Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Analysis ........................................................10

8.3 Assessment o Potential Consequences on Selected Routes ...........................................12

8.4 Routing Methodology or Selected Routes .................................................................13

9. Routes and Proposed Recommendations ........................................................................14

9.1 Ambassador Bridge [Detroit] rom Porter Street to Canada [Windsor] ............................14

9.2 Windsor Tunnel [Detroit] rom Jeerson Avenue to Canada [Windsor] ............................15

9.3 State Road M-10 [Detroit] rom Howard Street to Woodward Avenue[Under Cobo Hall (approximately 1 mile)] ...............................................................15

9.4 State Route M-10 [Detroit] rom 8 Mile Road [South] to Wyoming Road ........................15

10. Conclusion ................................................................................................................17

11. Reerences.................................................................................................................18

12. Acronyms .................................................................................................................18

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: Examples o Hazardous Materials Placards ................................................................6

LIST OF TABLESTable 1: Classes and Divisions o Hazardous Materials ............................................................4

Table 2: Estimated Annual Truck Crash Rates or Major Roads in Wayne County ...........................8Table 3: Number o Hazardous Materials Releases Due to Truck Crashes in

Wayne County over a Seven-Year Period ...................................................................9

Table 4: Survey Results: Hazardous Materials Shipments at Eight Michigan Checkpoints ...............10

Table 5: Total Hazardous Materials Shipments to or rom Detroit ...............................................11

Table 6: Risk Analysis Based on Accident Scenarios ...............................................................13

Table 7: Proposed Recommendations or Hazardous Materials Restrictions onSelected Hazardous Materials Routes ......................................................................16


4/241


1. SUMMARYThis synopsis report ocuses on specic Michigan roads or highways withrespect to the transport o hazardous materials. Hazardous material (hazmat)is dened as a substance or material capable o posing an unreasonable riskto health, saety, or property when transported in commerce.1 This denitionunderscores the importance o minimizing risk to the public, to the environment,to public and private property (including animals and the built environment),

and to hazmat shippers or carriers. Moreover, the denition explains theneed or regulatory requirements and strict management o the transport ohazardous materials.

Hazardous materials include elements o everyday lie ranging rompetroleum-related substances (such as uel) and explosives (such as reworks)to a broad range o materials used in the manuacture o ordinary products,such as ertilizers, detergents, bleaching agents and myriad other goods usedor dispensed in households, hospitals, water purication plants, industrialacilities, laboratories, dry cleaners, gas stations, arms and other endeavorsor establishments on a daily basis. Hazardous materials are transported by abroad spectrum o transportation modes, including highways, rail, waterways

and air, as well as by pipelines.

The Michigan Department o Transportation (MDOT) is the authorized agencyresponsible or all Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials (NRHM) routingdesignations and restrictions or requirements in the state o Michigan. Inaddition, MDOT works collaboratively with other state agencies, includingthe Department o Environmental Quality and the Michigan State Police, toadminister routing o radioactive materials. Michigans roads and highwaysall into one o two categories designated routes (highways or roadson which hazardous materials may be transported)2 and restricted routes(highways or roads on which hazardous materials may not be transported)or routes that have specic restrictions, such as requirements or escorts, time-

o-day restrictions, limitations about specic hazardous materials that may beprohibited and/or other requirements or restrictions. Michigans hazmat routesand respective restrictions are included in the U.S. Department o TransportationFederal Motor Carrier Saety Administrations National Hazardous MaterialsRoute Registry (NHMRR). The registry is the national repository or NRHM aswell as radioactive materials routes.

In November 2008, MDOT received a ormal request to change restrictionsrelative to the designated routes in Wayne County. Subsequent to this request,MDOT has taken the ollowing steps:

Commissioned a study ocused on the our Wayne County

hazardous materials routesReviewed the fndings highlighted in the study

Conerred with industry experts and other stakeholdersregarding the fndings

Developed this synopsis report

1U.S. Department o Transportation, Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Saety Administration, Glossary, http://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/glossary.(Accessed Feb. 12, 2012).

2Texas Department o Transportation, Texas Transportation Institute. Public Guidance or Managing Hazardous Materials Transportation in Texas, 2009.


5/24

2HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ROUTING SYNOPSIS REPORT WAYNE COUNTY

As part o its review process in considering a change that would impactspecic, restricted hazardous materials routes, a study was conducted whichocused specically on the our restricted hazardous materials routes in WayneCounty. These our routes existed at the time o ederal regulatory changesenacted by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act o 1994, as amendedin 2002. The current restrictions apply to all hazardous materials truck shipments

traversing these routes.

As Michigans designated routing authority, MDOT is required to ollow allapplicable ederal and state laws, regulations, and guidelines, includingthose specied in Federal Motor Carrier Saety Regulation 49 CFR 397,with respect to possible changes in designated hazardous materials routes.In carrying out hazmat routing responsibilities, MDOT works collaborativelywith ederal partners, including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),the Federal Motor Carrier Saety Administration (FMCSA), the Pipeline andHazardous Materials Saety Administration (PHMSA) and others. Moreover,MDOT maintains close contact with other state departments o transportation,as well as Canadian partners, to ensure a fow o inormation and to employ

best practices and lessons learned with respect to saety and other issues,including hazardous materials transport.

This synopsis report is intended to provide inormation as part o MDOTs eortsto reach out to the public and to inorm stakeholders about the ollowing:

Current hazardous materials routing, including restrictionsand requirements,

The process involved when considering changes to restrictedroutes and/or related restrictions/requirements,

The studies and analyses reviewed and utilized in developingthis report, and

MDOTs proposed recommendations or modifcations tocurrent restrictions that would impact existing routes inWayne County (as outlined in the Conclusion o this report).


6/243


2. INTRODUCTIONClose to a million shipments o hazardous materials traverse the United States daily.3 Hazmat shipments vary widelyin terms o content, size and weight. The transportation modes o shipping hazardous materials also vary. Hazardousmaterials are transported via highway, rail, air, and waterways, as well as by pipelines. According to the FMCSA,roughly 95 percent o U.S. hazmat shipments are transported by trucks on highways and roads.4 Also, slightly more thanhal the hazmat tonnage shipped in the United States is moved by motor carriers (trucks) on highways.5 Because suchsignicant amounts o hazardous materials are transported on highway routes shared by the public, these shipments

must be regulated in a manner that provides utmost saety or human lie, the environment, and property.

While ease o travel and the ecient, economic passage o goods and commerce are high priorities, MDOT andits ederal partners the FMCSA and the PHMSA -- consider saety to be a paramount consideration when it comesto transportation o hazardous materials. Thus, like all states in the nation, the State o Michigan mandates specicrestrictions and imposes certain requirements related to the transportation o hazardous materials on public routes.

Existing hazardous materials routes were established in Michigan on Nov. 14, 1994, and were subsequently reportedto the FHWA on March 8, 1995. All ensuing routing designations and restrictions/requirements or transportation oNRHM in Michigan have been established in accordance with regulations.

The key objective o this synopsis report is to provide public inormation about the required process or hazardousmaterials routing that includes conducting and evaluating studies and analyses relative to any possible changes,as well as providing recommendations relating to the NHMRR and Wayne County routes. Specic considerationsinclude whether:

Current restrictions or specifc hazardous material classes should remain on each o the our studied routes,

Current restrictions or certain hazardous material classes should be removed on all, or part o, each othe our routes, and

New restrictions/requirements concerning specifc hazardous materials classes should be added on each,or any, o the our routes.

In summary, this synopsis report: Presents an overview o some o the existing hazardous materials routing restrictions currently in place in

the state o Michigan, with specifcity regarding our restricted hazmat routes in Wayne County, Sets orth possible modifcations that might impact hazardous materials transport on the our existing

routes studied,

Cites the regulatory authority or hazardous materials routing and MDOTs responsibilities in the process,

Addresses the roles o MDOT and the public in determining changes to existing restrictions or requirements,

Describes the technical analyses used in evaluating the subject hazardous materials routes, along withrelated restrictions, and

Includes proposed recommendations or changes to existing restrictions or requirements impactinghazardous materials routes in Wayne County.

3National Research Council, Transportation Research Board. Special Report 283, Cooperative Research or hazardous Materials Transportation:Defning the Need, Converging on Solutions, Washington, D.C. 2005.

4Federal Register (Vol. 67, No. 193) FR DOC 02-25226, Dept. o Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Saety AdministrationSupplemental Inormation, Oct. 4, 2002.

5U.S. Department o Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau o Transportation Statistics,Hazardous Materials Highlights 2007 Commodity Flow Survey, Washington, D.C. January 2011.


7/24


3. HAZARDOUS MATERIALSSimilar to the denition provided in PHMSAs online glossary, the U.S. Code o Federal Regulations at 49 CFR 397.65denes hazardous material as:

A substance or material, including a hazardous substance, which has been determined by theSecretary o Transportation to be capable o posing an unreasonable risk to health, saety, orproperty when transported in commerce, and which has been so designated.

3.1 CLASSES OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALSHazardous materials are categorized in nine specic classes. Each class is based on various characteristics othe substance or material, such as physical state and risk potential. Classes are urther delineated into divisions,allowing or more detailed specication o the materials or substances. The table that ollows highlights key classesand divisions:

Table 1. Classes and Divisions o Hazardous Materials

CLASS OR DIVISION HAZMAT TYPE/CHARACTERISTIC

1 EXPLOSIVES1.1 Explosives with mass explosion hazard

1.2 Explosives with projection hazard

1.3 Explosive with mass re hazard

1.4 Explosives with minor hazard, such as ammunition or consumer reworks

1.5 Very insensitive (chemically stable) explosives, such as blasting agents

1.6 Extremely insensitive detonating substances

2 GASES

2.1 Flammable Gases

2.2 Non-fammable, nonpoisonous, non-toxic compressed gas

2.3 Poisonous Gases (Toxic -- by inhalation)

3 FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS (includes COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS)

4 FLAMMABLE SOLIDS AND REACTIVE SOLIDS/LIQUIDS

4.1 Flammable Solids

4.2 Spontaneously combustible materials

4.3 Dangerous-when-wet materials

5 OXIDIZERS AND ORGANIC PEROXIDES

5.1 Oxidizers5.2 Organic Peroxide

6 POISONOUS (TOXIC) MATERIALS AND INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCES

6.1 Poisonous (Toxic) Materials

6.2 Inectious Substances

7 RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

8 CORROSIVE MATERIALS

9 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS/DANGEROUS GOODS


8/245


4. EXISTING RESTRICTIONSThe State o Michigan currently has nine thoroughares designated as restricted hazardous materials routes.

Four o these routes are located in Wayne County and include:

NAME OF EXISTINGHAZARDOUS MATERIALS ROUTE

CURRENT RESTRICTIONS

Ambassador Bridge [Detroit] rom Porter Streetto Canada [Windsor]

Classes 1, 3, 7 and 8

Windsor Tunnel [Detroit] rom Jeerson Avenueto Canada [Windsor]


State Route M-10 [Detroit] rom 8 Mile Road[South] to Wyoming Road

Classes 1 and 3

State Route M-10 [Detroit] rom Howard Street

to Woodward Avenue [Under Cobo Hall(approx. 1 mile)] Classes 1 and 3

The aorementioned routes in Wayne County and the pertinent restrictions are included in the NHMRR, the nationalrepository or both NRHM and Radioactive Materials (RAM) routes.

5. REASONS FOR REVIEWOn Nov. 20, 2008, MDOT received an ocial request rom the Detroit International Bridge Co. (DIBC) to change theNHMRR and initiate the process to modiy current restrictions regarding the transportation o certain hazardous materialsacross the Ambassador Bridge in Wayne County. Subsequently, MDOT elected to review all existing hazardousmaterials routes in Wayne County.

On July 13, 2010, MDOT received an additional request rom the DIBC (while the review was pending) proposing therestrictions be modied to allow the transport o specic hazardous materials to include escort vehicles accompanyingthe primary carrier to enhance saety.


9/24


6. AUTHORITYThe statutory authority over highway routing o hazardous material, which has been delegated to the FMCSA, may beound at 49 USC 5112. Section 5112(a) provides in part:

(1) This section applies to a motor vehicle only i the vehicle is transporting hazardous material incommerce or which placarding o the vehicle is required under regulations prescribed underthis chapter . . .

(2) . . . each State and Indian tribe may establish, maintain, and enorce

(A) designations o specic highway routes over which hazardous material may and may notbe transported by motor vehicle; and

(B) limitations and requirements related to highway routing.

49 CFR 397 provides:

Routing requirements and procedures that States and Indian tribes are required to ollow i theyestablish, maintain, or enorce routing designations or non-radioactive hazardous material (NRHM),

Regulations or motor carriers transporting placarded or marked NRHM and procedures or disputeresolutions regarding NRHM routing designations,

Motor carriers transporting NRHM shall comply with NRHM routing designations o a State or Indian tribe.

MDOT is the designated routing agency responsible or all NRHM routing designations and restrictions in Michigan,MCL 480.11a. These routing designations and restrictions apply to all motor carriers transporting hazardous materialscommercially or which the use o placards is required under the Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations.

Examples o hazardous materials placards or Class 3 (Flammable Materials) and Class 8 (Corrosive Materials), two othe nine classications o hazardous materials (presented in Table 1, page 4), are depicted in the gure that ollows:

Figure 1. Examples o Hazardous Materials Placards

Trucks carrying most types o hazardous materials are required to display placards identiying the classication o

hazmat being transported. This requirement underscores the importance o visually communicating that hazardousmaterial is being transported by the motor carrier and serves as a reminder to other motorists to exercise caution aroundvehicles displaying hazmat placards.

Responsibility or enorcement o designated hazardous materials routes rests with the Commercial Vehicle EnorcemenDivision (ormerly Motor Carrier Division) o the Michigan State Police.


10/247


7. ROLES IN DETERMINING RESTRICTIONS ORSPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSPORTOF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN MICHIGAN

As explained earlier, MDOT is the authorized state agency responsible or routing the transport o hazardous materialson Michigans roads and highways. The public and other stakeholders also have a voice in MDOTs determinations

relative to routing restrictions and requirements. An overview o the roles o MDOT and the public concerning routingrestrictions/requirements associated with transport o hazardous materials in Michigan ollows:

7.1 MDOTS ROLEMDOT has executed a key role in the routing o hazardous materials in Michigan or many years. As early as1929, routing restrictions were being developed. In 1994, as a result o ederal law, MDOT was recognized asthe states designated routing agency. Thus, the agency is responsible ocially or all NRHM routing designationsand restrictions/requirements in Michigan. In 1995, routes with specic hazmat restrictions or requirements weregrandathered in as existing hazmat routes. Requests by inrastructure owners to change any existing routes or tomodiy current restrictions or requirements on these routes must be written and presented in hard copy to MDOT. Uponreceipt o a request to modiy existing hazmat routing requirements or restrictions, MDOT must initiate the process bywhich to consider a change. MDOT has 18 months ater public notication o the proposed recommendations to issuea nal decision on the request to modiy the existing hazmat routes or restrictions applicable to the respective routes.

In the course o carrying out its various responsibilities, MDOT regularly engages in a broad range o outreachactivities to ensure that the public is inormed and involved. With respect to this synopsis report and the proposedrecommendations and/or changes o restrictions on hazmat routes in Wayne County, MDOT also will allow or publicinvolvement.

7.2 THE ROLE OF THE PUBLICThe requirements or public participation in the hazmat routing process is set orth in 49 CFR 397.71. This ederalrequirement ensures public participation in the routing process. It requires that the public be given notice o anyproposed NRHM routing designation (or change) and a 30-day period in which to comment. Public input will helpMDOT recognize and address any concerns about possible impacts o the proposed recommendations. Commentssubmitted by the public within the designated 30-day period will be considered by MDOT in its nal determination.

8. ANALYSISThe analysis or this synopsis report ocused on the ollowing major actors:

8.1 Truck Crash Rate Estimates on Selected Route Segments8.2 Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Analysis

8.3 Assessment o Potential Consequences on the Selected Routes

8.4 Routing Methodology or Selected Routes


11/24


ROUTE TOTALMILESTRUCK

CRASHESANNUAL TRUCKMILES TRAVELED

CRASHRATE/106 MILES

I-275 rom Grand River Road to US-24 33 348 102,913,513 1.13

I-96 rom I-275 to I-75 21 353 72,265,328 1.63

I-94 rom Wayne-Washtenaw Co. Lineto S-102

39 1076 201,987,542 1.78

I-75 rom Wayne-Monroe Co. Line to I-96 20 827 84,615,258 3.26

M-10 rom Wayne-Oakland Co. Lineto M-8 (Davidson)

7.5 30 15,156,996 1.05

M-10 rom M-8 (Davidson) to M-85(West Fort Street)

5.6 44 9,508,590 2.60

M-39 rom M-10 to Wayne-Monroe Co. Line 18 250 29,010,545 2.87

M-5 (Grand River Avenue) rom I-96 to US-24 18 14 7,697,111 0.61

US-12 rom Wayne-Washtenaw Co. Line toJeerson (Detroit River)

25 278 10,130,848 9.15

M-85 rom I-75 to (River Rouge) Junction o M-3 16 109 9,601,774 3.78

M-153 rom Wayne-Washtenaw toWyoming Road (I-94)

20 117 10,693,774 3.65

US-24 rom Wayne-Oakland toWayne-Monroe Co. Line

26 337 12,437,261 4.66

Detroit Windsor Tunnel 1 3 203,337 4.92

Ambassador Bridge, including approaches 2 15 3,577,934 1.40

8.1 TRUCK CRASH RATE ESTIMATES ON SELECTED ROUTE SEGMENTS

This section provides an overview o truck crashes that occurred during a seven-year period (2000-2006) in WayneCounty and reviews the number o related hazmat materials releases/spills. It is important to note here that the analysiand related chart provides data about all truck crashes in Wayne County during the seven-year period not just trucktransporting hazardous materials.

Table 2. Estimated Annual Truck Crash Rates or Major Roads in Wayne County

Table 2 demonstrates that expressways -- such as I-275, I-94, I-96, M-39, and the northwestern portion o M-10(highlighted in light gray) -- tend to have lower crash rates compared to primary highways, such as US-12, US-24, andM-85. Exceptions include the southeastern portion o M-10 in the metropolitan area o Detroit, I-96 and M-5 (GrandRiver Avenue). Overall, crash rates or the subject area o I-75, the lower part o M-10 and I-96, are similar to thecrash rates or non-divided highways. M-5 (Grand River Avenue) had the lowest overall crash rates o all the routesevaluated. The truck crash rates depicted in Table 2 were applied to the route risk assessment.


12/249


Slightly more than hal o the truck crashes that resulted in hazmat releases during the seven-year period involved

Class 3 (Flammable Liquids) while the next highest release category was Class 8 (Corrosive Materials). Class 2 (Gases)materials, fammable, non-fammable and toxic gases, were the third-most commonly released substances, representing15 percent o the total hazardous material releases identied in the study.

In addition to hazmat releases or spills that occur during transportation accidents, the HMIRS database also includesreleases or spills that occur while the hazardous materials are being loaded and unloaded, or are in temporary storage.Releases that occurred during loading and unloading and/or related to temporary storage are not included in Table 3.Among the cited data, the HMIRS database lists the location and type o road on which the hazmat incidents occurred,making it possible to determine which crashes occurred on highways built to interstate specications. O the 67accidents in Wayne County involving hazardous materials releases during the seven-year period, 18 incidents (or justover 25 percent) occurred on divided and limited access highways thoroughares that meet interstate specications.

8.1.1 FREQUENCY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILLSON WAYNE COUNTY ROADS

Hazmat motor carriers involved in accidents that result in spills or releases o hazardous materials are required to lea report with the PHMSA. This inormation is compiled in the Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System (HMIRS)database. (For reerence, a Hazardous Materials Class and Division list is outlined in Table 1 in Section 3 o thissynopsis report.) A review o hazmat motor carrier accidents in Wayne County between 2000 and 2006 revealed67 reported crashes that resulted in hazardous materials releases or spills. A breakdown o those releases documentedin the study period is displayed by hazmat class or division in Table 3 that ollows:

Table 3. Number o Hazardous Materials Releases Due to Truck Crashesin Wayne County over a Seven-Year Period

CLASS/DIVISIONNUMBER OF HAZMAT

RELEASESPERCENTAGE

2.1 3 4.5%

2.2 6 9.0%

2.3 1 1.5%

3 34 50.7%

5.1 1 1.5%

5.2 1 1.5%

6.1 1 1.5%

8 16 23.9%

9 4 6.0%

TOTAL 67 100%*

*Rounded


13/24


8.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMODITY FLOW ANALYSISThis section provides an overview o hazardous materials shipments at designated Michigan checkpoints. Data wasobtained by surveying hazardous materials carriers at seven (Michigan) state-operated weigh stations and at the BlueWater Bridge during the all 2009 (a total o eight Michigan checkpoints). Hazmat motor carrier monitoring wasconducted during two eight-hour workdays at each o the ollowing weigh stations, including the Blue Water Bridge:

WEIGH STATION HIGHWAY

Monroe I-75 NB

Monroe I-75 SB

Fowlerville I-96 WB

Fowlerville I-96 EB

Grass Lake I-94 WB

Grass Lake I-94 EB

Pontiac I-75

Blue Water Bridge (Customs) I-69

During the monitoring period, more than 1,200 hazardous materials shipments were tabulated. No estimates were

made about the ratio o hazardous materials to total truck shipments. The number o shipments distributed amongthe various classications o hazardous materials is presented in Table 4. Class 3 (Flammable Liquids) materialsdominated, accounting or about 39 percent o all hazardous materials shipments. Class 8 (Corrosive Materialsshipments accounted or roughly 20 percent o all the hazmat shipments in the study, with Class 9 (MiscellaneousMaterials/Dangerous Goods) accounting or about 18 percent.

Table 4. Survey Results: Hazardous Materials Shipments at Eight Michigan Checkpoints

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLASS CODE NUMBER OF SHIPMENTSPERCENTAGE OF HAZMAT

SHIPMENTS SURVEYED

1.1 1 0.1%

1.2 1 0.1%

1.3 1 0.1%

1.5 1 0.1%

2.1 102 8.3%

2.2 111 9.0%

2.3 17 1.4%

3 477 38.6%

4.1 12 1.0%

4.3 8 0.6%

5.1 10 0.8%

6.1 17 1.4%

6.2 2 0.2%

7 2 0.2%

8 247 20.0%

9 227 18.4%

TOTAL 1,236 100% *

*Rounded


14/2411


As part o the survey, the origin and destinations were tabulated or as many o the hazardous materials shipments aspossible. Using this data, the distribution o origins and destinations were applied to the entire hazardous materialstruck population tabulated. Consequently, it was possible to estimate the number o hazardous materials shipments thatwere transported to or through Detroit. These shipments represented about 26 percent o the total. The percentageso the hazmat substances being shipped were similar to the breakdown or all o the hazardous materials shipmentssurveyed -- about 41 percent were Class 3 (Flammable Liquids) materials, 27 percent Class 8 (Corrosive Materials)and 22 percent Class 9 (Miscellaneous Materials/Dangerous Goods). The distributions, by hazardous materialsclassication, o all the inspection results and or those shipments that presumably went to or came rom Detroit, are

provided in Tables 4 and Table 5, respectively.Table 5. Hazardous Materials Shipments to or rom Detroit

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLASS CODE NUMBER OF SHIPMENTSPERCENTAGE OF HAZMAT

SHIPMENTS SURVEYED

1.1 0 0.0%

1.2 0 0.0%

1.3 0 0.0%

1.5 0 0.0%

2.1 6 1.9%

2.2 9 2.8%2.3 0 0.0%

3 133 41.3%

4.1 6 1.9%

4.3 0 0.0%

5.1 4 1.2%

6.1 4 1.2%

6.2 1 0.3%

7 1 0.3%

8 88 27.3%

9 70 21.7%

TOTAL 322 100% *

*Rounded


15/24


8.3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCESON THE SELECTED ROUTES

This section evaluates the potential consequences o hazardous materialscarrier accidents on the our selected hazmat route segments in Wayne County,including the Detroit Windsor Tunnel, the Ambassador Bridge, the segment oM-10 under Cobo Hall, and the lowered section o M-10 between the junctiono the interchange with Wyoming Road and the interchange with 8 Mile Road.

The consequences o hazmat releases or spills were analyzed without addressingthe likelihood o occurrence. Some assumptions were made regarding theconsequences o the releases. The frst assumption related to the toxic endpoint used to estimate consequences. Additional assumptions concerned frstresponder (emergency personnel) response time, the response behavior opeople in vehicles who would be at risk o exposure to the potential hazmatplume, and the response behavior o people residing (or present) near the routethat would be in the release plume.

The probability o atal exposure given the concentration and duration oexposure was applied in conducting the consequence assessment. The numbero individuals in vehicles, in residences, or other nearby acilities in the aected

area was assumed with a 50 percent potential atality exposure rate and wasused to estimate the consequences o a release. Regarding residents and othersin the vicinity o the highway, it was assumed that emergency responders wouldbe able to notiy them to shelter in place or to evacuate beore the hazmat plumecould reach the aected residences and/or other acilities.

Some uncertainties were inherent in the evaluation, and these uncertaintiescould have impacted the risk assessment results. One o the major uncertaintieswas associated with the accident rate or each o the route segments. The routesegment evaluated was less than a mile. Trafc data averaged over a muchlonger route segment may not be representative o the trafc density in theshort route segment that was evaluated. Varying trafc density also posed a

signifcant unknown.The analysis applied Wayne County accident data ocused on a three-yearperiod. It is possible that accident data or a longer period o time, perhapsduring fve or more years, might increase the accuracy o the estimate. However,collecting historical data or the past fve years or longer may pose otherchallenges because accident rates have been declining. Trafc counts or eacho the evaluated segments might increase the accuracy o the accident rateestimate.

Another uncertainty was associated with the quantity and distribution amongthe classes/divisions o hazardous materials being transported through WayneCounty. While some inormation was collected on the volume and the classes/divisions o hazardous materials traveling into and out o Wayne County, theavailable collection points oten were distant rom Wayne County, makingan exact count o hazardous materials shipments in Wayne County difcult todetermine. The uncertainty in the distribution o shipments among the varioushazardous materials classes and divisions presents an uncertainty that might bemitigated by collecting more data. In spite o the stated uncertainties, a seriousattempt was made to perorm an objective analysis. While the exact shipmentrisk data might be uncertain, the relative risk numbers should provide a validunderstanding o the classes and divisions o hazardous material shipments thattravel through Wayne County.


16/2413


8.3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES BASED ON HAZARDSBased on 10 accident scenarios, a risk analysis was perormed. The scenarios, which are presented in Table 6, arepredicated on specic characteristics o certain hazardous materials that could serve as triggers or these hypotheticalincidents. These scenarios have been categorized in three outcomes or consequences: re, chemical release, andexplosion. Using these accident scenarios, each o the our routes in Wayne County were analyzed. The results othese analyses were compared with a base risk assessment o the same 10 scenarios on a standard highway. Theresults o the risk analysis, augmented by other aspects o the research and a thorough review, indicate which classeso hazardous materials should be restricted or each o the our routes, based on each respective routes characteristics

and the potential or risk to human lie, the environment, property and inrastructure.

Table 6. Risk Analysis Based on Accident Scenarios

8.4 ROUTING METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTED ROUTESThe routing methodology combined the hazmat carrier crash rate data, the commodity fow data, and the consequenceanalysis; subsequently, this data was applied to the current restrictions on the our Wayne County routes. The next stepwas to estimate the number o hazardous materials accidents that might occur on the route segments being evaluated.The two discriminating actors were route length and hazmat carrier accident rate dierences.

For all the route segments analyzed, restricting (prohibiting) Class 3 (Flammable Liquids) hazardous materials shipmentswould result in the biggest risk reduction. This is because Class 3 materials represent more than hal o the hazmatshipments documented in this study. Although higher atality rates are projected or other classes o hazardous materials,the higher requency o accidents involving Class 3 hazmat carriers outweighs the higher consequences o the otherclasses and divisions o hazardous materials. I transportation o previously restricted hazardous materials was allowedon Wayne County routes, a saeguard could be added by requiring that the hazmat shipment motor carriers travel withan escort vehicle or vehicles. In addition to escorting, another precaution could be added to close the particular routesegment being used or a short, controlled distance and/or or a specied period o time.

ACCIDENT SCENARIOCONSEQUENCE

ACCIDENT SCENARIOS HAZMAT TRIGGERS

FireGasoline Fire

Propane Fire

Chemical Release

Small Acrolein Release

Ammonia Release

Chlorine Release

Acrolein Release

Explosion

Cold BLEVE

Hot BLEVE

Propane VCE

Gasoline VCE

BLEVE: Boiling LiquidExpanding Vapor Explosion VCE: Vapor Cloud Explosion


17/24


9. ROUTES AND PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONSThis section contains proposed recommendations or retaining, removing and/or adding hazardous materials classrestrictions or requirements on the our restricted routes in Wayne County. The proposed recommendations includesuggestions or increasing restrictions or requirements or special measures on some routes, while suggesting limitationsor reductions o the shipments o certain classes/divisions o hazardous materials on other routes. As indicated inSection 7.2 o this report, the role o the public is important and will be considered in making a nal determination.

There are no recommendations with respect to transportation o Class 6.2 (Inectious Substances) or Class 7

(Radioactive Materials) as they have other regulations that apply. Generally, the transportation o Class 6.2 andClass 7 material is rigorously controlled and subject to strict restrictions.

Table 7 on page 16 summarizes MDOTs proposed recommendations or hazardous materials restrictions and/orchanges to the selected hazardous material routes, showing current restrictions and proposed recommended restrictions

9.1 AMBASSADOR BRIDGE [DETROIT] FROM PORTER STREETTO CANADA [WINDSOR]:

The bridge is inherently most vulnerable to explosive materials. As a result o limited escape paths, in the event oa hazmat incident resulting in an explosive-caused re or a toxic release triggered by an explosion, many vehicleoccupants might be trapped and possibly not survive. Toxic releases pose a less signicant concern because thesereleases would be elevated and, thus, are less likely to harm people below the bridge, although there is still obviousrisk. Corrosives, while not specically evaluated, would have smaller hazmat release plumes compared to explosivematerials. However, many corrosive materials are recognized water contaminants. Lastly, the recommendation topermit motor carriers with placards to transport Class 3 (Flammable Liquids) would allow the movement o gasolineand other uels needed to supply uel stations and other acilities in areas o Michigan with changing demographicsthat require readily available uel supplies.

A request or escorts (accompanying vehicles) or shipments on NRHM routes has been analyzed. Based on theresearch, it has been determined that vehicular escorts provide an acceptable alternative to restricting certain hazardousmaterials through the use o protective measures. The requirement or escorts -- as an additional means to reduce risk-- was recommended as a viable approach based on key variables, including the length o the route, speed o trac,and control o the trac.

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: Restrict Class 1

Require the use o escort vehicles or all allowable hazardous materials(Class 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6.1, 8, and 9).

Escort vehicles may be subject to additional ederal, state, or local permit requirements withregard to the type o escort vehicles, special markings, time o day, and/or day o the week.

NOTE: See Table 7 or inormation regarding Class 6.2 and Class 7.


18/2415


9.2 WINDSOR TUNNEL [DETROIT] FROM JEFFERSON AVENUETO CANADA [WINDSOR]:

The tunnel is inherently most vulnerable to hazardous materials due to the limited ability o vehicle occupants to avoidtoxic umes in the tunnel. The ventilation system inside the tunnel might contribute to (exacerbate) or impede escapewith respect to hazmat incidents. I the ventilation system were kept on, the air supply could an any res and make theconditions in the impacted section o the tunnel worse. In the case o toxic gas and liquid spills, i the ventilation systemwere kept on, one has to consider the possibility (and resultant consequences) o toxic gases being discharged rom, ordistributed through, the ventilation system. The dilution o the hazardous materials would be a unction o the number oventilation zones in the tunnel aected by the release. For spills o toxic liquids, the impact could be signicant becausegravity would allow the spill to travel toward the lowest point in the tunnel, consequently causing more o the toxicgases to fow into the ventilation system. While the video surveillance system would allow tunnel managers to identiydangerous situations quickly, the number o individuals that might be trapped in the tunnel and the lack o any saeescape portals rom the tunnel decrease the likelihood o escape. Escape portals are present in most modern tunnelslonger than 500 meters, but presently not installed in the Windsor Tunnel.

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: Restrict all placarded vehicles.


PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION:

Restrict all placarded vehicles.NOTE: See Table 7 or inormation regarding Class 6.2 and Class 7.

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION: Restrict Classes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8.


9.3 STATE ROAD M-10 [DETROIT] FROM HOWARD STREET TOWOODWARD AVENUE [UNDER COBO HALL (APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE)]:

The route under Cobo Hall is a unction o the confguration o the route that creates a de acto tunnel, and, as such,there is a need to protect the adjacent downtown area o Detroit, as well as the highway inrastructure. An explosionunder the building would pose an obvious risk to the building structure and to people inside and immediately outside othe building, as well as to those on the aected highway. Many o the types o plumes rom a hazmat release resultingrom a crash near, or under, Cobo Hall have the potential to impact Detroits highly populated downtown business district.

9.4 STATE ROUTE M-10 [DETROIT] FROM 8 MILE ROAD [SOUTH]TO WYOMING ROAD:

For the lowered section o the M-10 (John C. Lodge Freeway) rom 8 Mile Road to Wyoming Road, restricting thetransport o gases and liquids is recommended. These restrictions would be in addition to the current restrictions onClass 1 (Explosives) and Class 3 (Flammable Liquids) materials. In the event o a hazmat release, the vertical wallssurrounding the lowered highway could conne spills o gas, extend the hazardous concentration arther down the

roadway and delay the dissipation o potentially hazardous plumes. Sae escape routes would be limited to existingladders along M-10s vertical walls, thus limiting sae escape routes or vehicle occupants. The risk would be reducedon road sections that are lowered but with sloped, rather than vertical, walls. Based on analysis o the data, whichexamined the potential or a hazardous gas (Class 2 material) involved in an accident to combust or vaporize rapidly presenting the potential or high risk -- Class 2 (Gases) hazardous materials also should be restricted.


19/24


Table 7 summarizes the proposed recommendations or hazardous material restrictions and/or changeson the selected hazardous materials routes.

Table 7. Proposed Recommendations or Hazardous Materials Restrictions onSelected Hazardous Materials Routes*

MDOT PROPOSED RECOMMENDED HAZARDOUS MATERIALSCLASS RESTRICTIONS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ROUTES

NAME OFEXISTING ROUTE

CURRENTRESTRICTIONS

PROPOSEDRECOMMENDEDRESTRICTIONS

ADDITIONALRESTRICTIONS

OR COMMENTS

CLASS NUMBERS CLASS NUMBERS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ambassador Bridge[Detroit] rom Porter Streetto Canada [Windsor]

Require escort(s) orClasses 2-6.1 and

8-9; subject to urtherrestrictions

Windsor Tunnel [Detroit]rom Jeerson Avenue toCanada [Windsor]

Prohibit allplacarded vehicles

State Route M-10 [Detroit]rom Howard Street toWoodward Avenue [underCobo Hall (approximately1 mile)]

Prohibit allplacarded vehicles

State Route M-10 [Detroit]rom 8 Mile Road (South)to Wyoming Road

None

Full ClassNo Restrictions Partial Class (see note below) Other Regulations Apply (see note below)

*NOTE: ForPartial Class andOther Regulations Apply, there are no recommendations with respect to transportation o Class 6.2 (Inectious Substances)or Class 7 (Radioactive Materials) as they have other regulations that apply. Generally, the transportation o Class 6.2 and Class 7 material is rigorouslycontrolled and subject to strict restrictions.


20/2417


10. CONCLUSIONThe inormation presented in this synopsis report is based on a review o the comprehensive study, other researchand discussion with experts. It highlights hazardous materials transportation issues aecting our restricted hazardousmaterials route segments in Wayne County, ranging rom the types (classes and divisions) o hazardous materialsto the levels o risk and relative numbers o hazmat shipments. This synopsis acknowledges the risks o hazardousmaterials transport to the motoring public, property owners, the environment, critical inrastructure, local communities,and the citizens o Michigan and Canada. The transportation o these materials, however, is essential to daily lie

and the economic vitality o Wayne County and the state o Michigan. Thereore, reasonable restrictions and addedsaeguards that address potential risks are essential. Saety continues to be a primary concern.

MDOT proposes that the existing routes be modied to refect the proposed recommendations presented in Section 9 othis synopsis report. In some cases, the use o eective protective measures, including escort vehicles on limited routesand possible time-o-day restrictions, would be acceptable as reasonable approaches to reduce risks. By reviewingvarious studies and analyses, MDOT evaluated existing hazardous materials routes with respect to suitability or thetransportation o specic hazardous materials/substances and the potential impact on each o our routes in the evento a crash and potential release or spill o these materials. Based on the research and the review o many actorsor sae routing o hazardous materials, MDOT developed proposed recommendations or the selected routes. Theseproposed recommendations are highlighted in the chart that ollows:

NAME OFEXISTING ROUTE

CURRENTRESTRICTIONS

PROPOSED RECOMMENDEDRESTRICTIONS*

Ambassador Bridge[Detroit] rom Porter Streetto Canada [Windsor]


Restrict Class 1

Require the use o escort vehiclesor all allowable hazardous materials(Classes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6.1, 8, and 9)

Escort vehicles may be subject toadditional state or local permitting

requirements speciying type o escortvehicles, special markings, time o day,and/or day o the week

Windsor Tunnel [Detroit]rom Jeerson Avenueto Canada [Windsor]

Classes 1, 3, 7 and 8 Restrict all classes

State Route M-10 [Detroit]rom Howard Street to

Woodward Avenue [UnderCobo Hall (approximately1 mile)]

Classes 1 and 3 Restrict all classes

State Route M-10 [Detroit]rom 8 Mile Road [South]to Wyoming Road

Classes 1 and 3 Restrict Classes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8

*Note: See Table 7 or inormation regarding Class 6.2 and Class 7.


21/24


11. REFERENCESFederal Register (Vol. 67, No. 193) FR DOC 02-25226, Dept. o Transportation, Federal Motor

Carrier Saety Administration Supplemental Inormation. Oct. 4, 2002.

National Research Council, Transportation Research Board. Special Report 283, Cooperative Researchor Hazardous Materials Transportation: Defning the Need, Converging on Solutions.Washington, D.C. 2005.

Texas Department o Transportation, Texas Transportation Institute. Public Guidance or ManagingHazardous Materials Transportation in Texas. 2009.

U.S. Department o Transportation, Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Saety Administration,Glossary, http://phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/glossary.

U.S. Department o Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA),Bureau o Transportation Statistics, Hazardous Materials Highlights 2007 Commodity Flow Survey.Washington, D.C. January 2011.

12. ACRONYMSBLEVE -- Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor ExplosionCFR Code o Federal Regulations

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Saety Administration

HMIRS Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System (a transportation regulation)

MCL Michigan Compiled Laws

MDOT Michigan Department o TransportationNHMRR National Hazardous Materials Route Registry

NRHM Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Saety Administration

RAM Radioactive Materials

U.S. United States

USC United States Code

USDOT United States Department o TransportationVCE Vapor Cloud Explosion


22/24


23/24


24/24

MDOT: Providing the highest quality integrated

transportation services or economic beneft and

improved quality o lie.

Documents

Hazardous Materials Routing Synopsis Report