Hazmat Transport Risks: Societal and Individual Perspectives
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 119, Issue 2
Abstract
Risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials (hazmat) by truck and rail are viewed from two perspectives: society in general and the individual residing adjacent to the route. Societal and individual risks are assessed for the bulk transport of liquefied chlorine gas along a typical highway/rail corridor. The results of this analysis suggest that individual risks associated with the bulk transport of chlorine gas by truck and rail are low, and in the acceptable range. Significant differences in individual risks were observed between the two modes. Societal risks are much more significant than individual risks, given their concern with very low frequency—high consequence events. For the bulk transport of chlorine along the selected corridor, societal risks for trucks are moderately higher than for rail. Consideration of both individual and societal risks renders the risk analysis process more complete for the purpose of decision‐making.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Andrews, W. B. et al. (1980). “An assessment of risk of transporting liquid chlorine by rail.” PNL‐3376, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Wash.
2.
Canadine, I. C., and Purdy, G. (1989). “The transport of chlorine by road and rail in Britain—a consideration of risks.” 6th Int. Symp. of Loss Prevention in the Process Ind., Oslo, Norway, June 19–22, 15.1.
3.
Consultants report to the Toronto area rail transportation of dangerous goods task force. (1989). Concorde Environmental, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
4.
Final Report for Transport Canada. (1989). Toronto Area Rail Transportation of Dangerous Goods Task Force. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
5.
Harwood, D. W., Viner, J. G., and Russell, E. R. (1989). “A truck accident rate model for hazardous material routing.” Transportation Research Record No. 1264, Nat. Res. Council, Washington, D.C., 12.
6.
“Reported releases of dangerous goods during transport by truck and rail.” (1989). Transport Canada, Canadian Transport Emergency Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
7.
“Risk analysis for the handling and transportation of dangerous goods.” (1987). Final report to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Directorate, Institute for Risk Research. Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
8.
Saccomanno, F. F., Shortreed, J. H., and Thomson, M. (1990). “Fault tree analysis of releases of pressure liquefied gases from in‐transit rail bulk tankers.” Forensic Engrg., 2(3), 357–369.
9.
Users manual for the EPI model. (1989). Homann and Assoc., Freemont, Calif.
10.
Wilson, D. J. (1987). “Stay indoors or evacuate to avoid exposure to toxic gas?” Emergency Preparedness Digest, 14(1), 19–24.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 119 • Issue 2 • March 1993
Pages: 177 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 3, 1992
Published online: Mar 1, 1993
Published in print: Mar 1993
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.