By Frits Wybenga, Senior Technical Advisor    July, 2007

PHMSA held a public workshop on June 14, 2007, on the loading and unloading of hazardous materials and how it might reduce the risks of these operations. The meeting was well attended by members of the affected industries with government participation by the Chemical Safety Board, NTSB, EPA, FRA, FMCSA, and PHMSA. In this article Mr. Wybenga discusses the four main areas covered in the workshop: the definition of the problem and identification of a possible solution, industry perspectives, emergency response community perspectives, and the perspectives of the federal government.

As announced in the May 11, 2007, Federal Register, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) held a public workshop on June 14, 2007, on the loading and unloading of hazardous materials and how it might reduce the risks of these operations. The meeting was well attended by members of the affected industries with government participation by the Chemical Safety Board (CSB), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and PHMSA. The workshop was subdivided into panels that considered (1) the definition of the problem and identification of a possible solution, (2) industry perspectives, (3) emergency response community perspectives and (4) the perspectives of the federal government.

PHMSA to Take the Enterprise Approach
PHMSA Deputy Administrator Krista Edwards opened the meeting by welcoming all participants. She noted that through data analysis PHMSA has concluded there is a serious safety concern with loading and unloading operations. PHMSA wants to take the “Enterprise Approach” in solving this problem. This approach acknowledges that government works best by fully engaging stakeholders who in addition to having an interest in a problem are also are in the best position to solve it.

Defining the Problem and a Possible Solution
Dr. Ted Willke, then PHMSA’s Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety (recently officially appointed to this position) opened this panel session. Noting the PHMSA accident data analysis and anecdotal accidents gleaned from the press, he raised a number of questions to stimulate discussion: Why is the industry recommended approach, to be presented later, the answer? Are there other solutions? Why are the problems not adequately addressed by existing industry standards? Are new regulations needed? Should PHMSA address human factors? If so, how? Is better training required? Should the Department of Transportation (DOT) use an “integrity management approach” requiring a risk assessment and proactive measures to address the risk?

PHMSA’s Rick Boyle from its technology office and the lead project officer for the loading and unloading issue then described the conclusions reached by PHMSA’s accident data analysis. (This analysis was reported in the March/April 2007 edition of Hazmat Packager and Shipper and is now available on the DOT Docket Management System (DMS) website as indicated at the end of this article). The analysis is based on PHMSA incident data for the last three years. It shows that 89 percent of reported incidents (serious and non-serious) and 97 percent of serious incidents are attributable to highway or rail transportation with these two modes moving 72 percent of the hazmat on a ton mile basis. For bulk transport, serious incidents involve release of the material and result in death, major injury, closure of a major artery, or evacuation of the public. Further, 27 percent of the serious incidents are directly attributable to loading and unloading operations. In addition, serious incidents occurring while enroute or during in-transit storage may also be attributed to loading or unloading operations since root causes such as overfilling or loose closures are often cited in the reports. With 24 percent of serious incidents occurring while enroute or during in-transit storage, up to 51 percent of serious incidents may be attributed to loading and unloading operations. Further, in looking at the trend of loading and unloading incident data over a ten-year period, no significant fluctuation in the number of serious incidents is observed. This suggests that without some type of intervention, the rate of incidents can be expected to remain the same. Rick concluded by saying that while there might be some disagreements on the numbers, it is clear there is a safety issue to be addressed.

 John Bresland, a member of the Chemical Safety Board, then discussed two chlorine unloading incidents – one in Festus, Missouri and the other in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In one case the emergency shutdown system worked and the release was stopped within a minute. In the other, the shutdown failed and twenty-four tons of chlorine were released over a three-hour period. He observed that DOT regulations call for shutdown systems on trucks but not on rail cars, presumably because the systems are used in unloading. DOT considers unloading of rail tank cars to be outside of transportation. Based on the Chemical Safety Board’s analysis, it is formally recommending that DOT expand its regulatory coverage to include rail and tank truck chlorine unloading operations. In addition, the Board recommends that DOT require remotely operated isolation valves and proper maintenance of these systems.

Paul Rankin of the Reusable Industrial Packaging Association (RIPA) then introduced a proposal by a group of industry associations. Participating in this group are: the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Association of HAZMAT Shippers (AHS), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Trucking Association (ATA), the Air Transport Association (ATA), the Chlorine Institute (CI), the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC), the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA), the National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC) and RIPA. This proposal was published in the May/June 2007 edition of Hazmat Packager and Shipper.

Industry Perspective 
Selected representatives of industry were invited to provide formal presentations. These representatives all supported the industry proposal.

This article, in its entirety,  is archived in HAZMAT Packager & Shipper's HazMat Database, an optional feature to subscribers. Information on obtaining a subscription to HAZMAT Packager & Shipper and its associated features can be found here.