cross-border hazardous materials transportation study: el ... · cross-border hazardous materials...

Cross-Border Hazardous Materials

Transportation Study: El Paso, Texas

Saving Lives, Time and Resources

March 2013

CROSS-BORDER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION STUDY: EL PASO, TEXAS

by

David Bierling, Ph.D.

Associate Research Scientist

Edwin Varela

Graduate Assistant Researcher

Juan Carlos Villa

Program Manager

Edward (Luke) Cowsar

Student Worker II

Debbie Jasek

Research Specialist

Alexis Garcia

Student Worker III

Arturo Bujanda

Associate Research Specialist

Project performed by

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research In cooperation with

Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Division of Emergency Management

Report No. 186052-00003-1

Project No. 186052-00003: Analysis of Hazardous Materials Shipment Information for Truck

Traffic in the El Paso Region

March 2013

Report prepared by

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research

Texas A&M Transportation Institute

4050 Rio Bravo, Suite 151

El Paso, Texas 79902

TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE

The Texas A&M University System

College Station, Texas 77843-3135

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research Texas A&M Transportation Institute Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv

Disclaimer and Acknowledgments ............................................................................................ vii

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... viii

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

1 Purpose and Overview .......................................................................................................... 3

2 El Paso Border Region .......................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Cargo Generators.............................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Cargo Transport Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Roadways .................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Railways .................................................................................................................... 9

2.2.3 Airports ................................................................................................................... 11

3 Previous HazMat Transport Studies ................................................................................. 12 3.1 Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Study (1998) ................................................... 12 3.2 Transboundary Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Survey (2004) ........................ 14

4 Project Tasks ....................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Kickoff Meetings............................................................................................................ 17

4.2 Coordinate Data Collection ............................................................................................ 17 4.2.1 Zaragoza POE ......................................................................................................... 17 4.2.2 Anthony POE .......................................................................................................... 18

4.3 Collect Data .................................................................................................................... 18 4.3.1 Zaragoza POE ......................................................................................................... 21

4.3.2 Anthony POE .......................................................................................................... 26 4.4 Process Data ................................................................................................................... 29 4.5 Analyze Data .................................................................................................................. 30 4.6 Document Results .......................................................................................................... 30

4.7 Present Results ............................................................................................................... 30

5 2012 Zaragoza POE HazMat Survey Results ................................................................... 31 5.1 Video Data Analysis....................................................................................................... 31 5.2 Shipping Manifest Data Analysis ................................................................................... 37

5.2.1 Shipment Types, Origins, and Destinations ............................................................ 38 5.2.2 Carrier Safety Information ...................................................................................... 45 5.2.3 Comparison with Data from 2004 Survey .............................................................. 47

5.3 Other Analysis of Inbound Truck Traffic ...................................................................... 48 5.4 Summary FOR Zaragoza POE ....................................................................................... 52

6 2012 Anthony POE HazMat Survey Results .................................................................... 54 6.1 Manual Truck Count Analysis ....................................................................................... 54

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research Texas A&M Transportation Institute Page ii

6.2 Shipping Manifest Data Analysis ................................................................................... 61 6.2.1 Shipment Types, Origins, and Destinations ............................................................ 61 6.2.2 Carrier Safety Information ...................................................................................... 76

6.3 Summary for Anthony POE ........................................................................................... 79

7 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 80 7.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 80 7.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 80

7.2.1 Use Project Results ................................................................................................. 80 7.2.2 Keep the Data Current ............................................................................................ 81

7.2.3 Expand the Knowledge Basis ................................................................................. 81

References .................................................................................................................................... 84

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research Texas A&M Transportation Institute Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Potential Freight Generators in El Paso-Ciudad Juarez Binational

Region. ................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2. Location of Industrial Parks and Maquiladoras in Ciudad Juarez. ................................. 6 Figure 3. Existing Truck Routes and HazMat Cargo Routes in El Paso, and Major

Arterials in Ciudad Juarez. .................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. El Paso Rail Network. ................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Texas DPS CVE Zaragoza Port of Entry in South El Paso, Texas. .............................. 19 Figure 6. New Mexico MTP Anthony Port of Entry to the Northwest of El Paso, Texas............ 20 Figure 7. Truck Screening and Shipping Manifest Surveyor Locations at Texas DPS CVE

Zaragoza Port of Entry. ..................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8. Screening Trucks for Shipping Manifest Data Collection at Texas DPS CVE

Zaragoza Port of Entry. ..................................................................................................... 23 Figure 9. Collecting Shipping Manifest Data at Texas DPS CVE Zaragoza Port of Entry. ......... 25

Figure 10. Truck Screening and Shipping Manifest Surveyor Locations at Anthony POE. ........ 27 Figure 11. Screening Trucks for Shipping Manifest Data Collection at Anthony POE. .............. 28

Figure 12. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: Observed Inbound Weekday Truck Traffic

Levels. ............................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 13. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: Weekday Truck Traffic by Truck Type. .............. 34

Figure 14. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: Weekday Percentage of Inbound Placarded

Truck Traffic. .................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 15. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Observed Weekday Truck Traffic on

I-10 WB. ........................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 16. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Observed Weekday Truck Traffic by

Truck Type on I-10 WB. ................................................................................................... 57

Figure 17. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Weekday Percentage of Placarded Tank

Truck Traffic on I-10 WB. ................................................................................................ 58

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research Texas A&M Transportation Institute Page iv

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Existing Truck Routes and HazMat Cargo Routes in El Paso. ......................................... 7

Table 2. Truck Types and Counts Included in 1997 Cross-Border HazMat Survey. ................... 12 Table 3. HazMat Commodities and Truck Loadings in 1997 Cross-Border HazMat

Survey. .............................................................................................................................. 12 Table 4. Spill Histories by Transport Source in 1998 Cross-Border HazMat Study Report. ....... 13 Table 5. Major Transported, Placarded Commodities by Number of Truckloads for

Inbound and Outbound Trucks at Zaragoza Bridge as Reported for

March 15–19, 2004, Survey. ............................................................................................. 15

Table 6. Truck Condition by Direction as Reported in 2004 Transboundary Hazardous

Materials Commodity Flow Survey Report. ..................................................................... 16

Table 7. Hours of Video-Recorded Data included in Zaragoza POE Traffic Evaluation. ............ 31 Table 8. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: Weekday Inbound Truck Size and Type and

HazMat Placard Observations. .......................................................................................... 36 Table 9. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: HazMat Placard IDs. ............................................... 37 Table 10. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: Number of Placards by Primary HazMat

Class/Division. .................................................................................................................. 37 Table 11. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: HazMat Placard IDs on Inbound

Trucks. .............................................................................................................................. 38 Table 12. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Tank Truck Loading Classifications. ........... 39

Table 13. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound

Trucks That Were Placarded for Hydrofluoric Acid. ....................................................... 40


Trucks That Were Placarded for Liquefied Petroleum Gas. ............................................. 40 Table 15. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound

Trucks That Were Placarded for Nitrogen (Refrigerated). ............................................... 40 Table 16. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound

Trucks That Were Placarded for Carbon Dioxide (Refrigerated.). .................................. 42 Table 17. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound

Trucks That Were Placarded for Liquid Environmentally Hazardous Substances,

Hazardous Waste, or Other Regulated Substances. .......................................................... 42


Trucks That Were Marked for Elevated Temperature Liquids. ........................................ 43


Trucks That Were Placarded for Airbag Modules. ........................................................... 43 Table 20. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: HazMat Shipment Information for

Inbound Trucks That Were Not Placarded. ...................................................................... 44 Table 21. Carrier Safety Information for Inbound Trucks from Zaragoza POE Shipping

Manifest Survey. ............................................................................................................... 46 Table 22. Comparison of Top Commodities (2004) and Observed Placards (2012) on

Inbound Trucks at Zaragoza POE. .................................................................................... 48

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research Texas A&M Transportation Institute Page v

Table 23. Manual Count Data: Non-HazMat Commodity Categories and Types on

Inbound Trucks during Survey Hours at Zaragoza POE on June 11, 12, and 14,

2012................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 24. Hours of Manual Truck Traffic Count Data from Westbound I-10, Anthony

POE, Doña Ana County, New Mexico. ............................................................................ 54 Table 25. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Weekday Truck Size and Type and HazMat

Placard Observations. ....................................................................................................... 59 Table 26. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Weekday ‘Most Frequent’ UN/NA Placard

IDs on Observed Trucks. .................................................................................................. 60

Table 27. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Number of Placards, by Primary HazMat

Class/Division, on Observed Trucks................................................................................. 61 Table 28. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: ‘Most Frequent’ UN/NA Placard IDs

on Surveyed Trucks. ......................................................................................................... 62 Table 29. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Number of HazMat Placards, by

HazMat Class/Division, on Surveyed Trucks. .................................................................. 63

Table 30. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Tank Truck Loading Classifications. ............ 64 Table 31. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 2 Material Shipments by

Placards Displayed on Trucks. .......................................................................................... 65 Table 32. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 3 Material Shipments by

Placards Displayed on Trucks. .......................................................................................... 66

Table 33. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 5.1 Material Shipments by


Table 34. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 6.1 Material Shipments by


Table 35. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 8 Material Shipments by


Table 36. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 9 Material Shipments by

Placards Displayed Trucks. ............................................................................................... 69 Table 37. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: O-D Pairs and Associated Frequencies,

Ranks, and Percentages for Shipments on Surveyed Trucks. ........................................... 70 Table 38. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: O-D Pairs and Associated Frequencies,

Number of Equivalent Trucks, Shipment/Truck Ratios, and O-D Distances for

Shipments on Surveyed Trucks. ....................................................................................... 71

Table 39. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Destinations for

HazMat Shipments Originating in El Paso, Texas, by HazMat Class. ............................ 73 Table 40. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Destinations for

HazMat Shipments Originating in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, by HazMat Class. ........... 73 Table 41. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Destinations for

HazMat Shipments Originating in Houston, Texas, by HazMat Class............................ 74 Table 42. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Destinations for

HazMat Shipments Originating in Corpus Christi, Texas, by HazMat Class. .................. 74 Table 43. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Destinations for

HazMat Shipments Originating in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas, by HazMat

Class. ................................................................................................................................. 74 Table 44. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Origins for HazMat

Shipments with Destinations in Las Cruces, NM, by HazMat Class............................... 75

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research Texas A&M Transportation Institute Page vi

Table 45. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Origins for HazMat

Shipments with Destinations in Albuquerque, NM, by HazMat Class............................. 76 Table 46. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Origins for HazMat

Shipments with Destinations in Lordsburg-Deming, NM, and Silver City, NM,

by HazMat Class. .............................................................................................................. 76 Table 47. Carrier Safety Information for Trucks from Anthony POE Shipping Manifest

Survey. .............................................................................................................................. 77

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research Texas A&M Transportation Institute Page vii

DISCLAIMER AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research presented in this report was funded by Texas A&M Transportation Institute’s

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research. Dr. David Bierling was the

Principal Investigator for the project, and Ms. Debbie Jasek was Co-Principal Investigator.

Funding for this study provided an in-kind match for a hazardous materials commodity flow

study that was conducted in 2012 for El Paso, Texas, and the I-10 Corridor in West and Central

Texas, which was funded by the Texas Division of Emergency Management. We gratefully

acknowledge the support and participation of the following organizations and individuals in this

project:

Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Highway Patrol, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement

Captain Jessie Mendez

Lieutenant Matthew Scales

Sergeant Thomas Curry

Troopers and Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Commercial Vehicle Inspectors at the Ysleta-

Zaragoza Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas

New Mexico Department of Public Safety, Motor Transport Police

Captain Tim LaBier

Port Supervisor William Carpenter

Troopers and Commercial Vehicle Inspectors at the Anthony Port of Entry in Anthony,

New Mexico

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Border Liaison Office

Dr. Carlos Rincon, Director

Ms. Maria Sisneros, E.I.T., Environmental Engineer

City of El Paso Fire Department, Special Operations Division

Battalion Chief Rafael Reyes

FST Marco Alvarado

FST Alejandro Rodriguez

Command staff and firefighters of EPFD Hazardous Materials Response Team

Doña Ana County Local Emergency Planning Committee

Assistant Fire Marshal Eric Crespin, Doña Ana County Fire & Emergency Services

Emergency Management Supervisor David Almaguer, Doña Ana County Office of Emergency

Management

LEPC members and affiliated organizations

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research Texas A&M Transportation Institute Page viii

ABSTRACT

A hazardous materials (HazMat) truck traffic and shipping manifest study was conducted at

the Yselta-Zaragoza Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas, and at the Anthony, Port of Entry in

Anthony, New Mexico, in 2012. Truck traffic information presented in this report includes

estimated truck traffic levels, as well as truck size, type, and HazMat placards. HazMat shipping

manifest information includes truck configurations and body types, HazMat placards, shipment

origin and destination, commodity name, commodity UN/NA number, shipment quantities, and

shipment packaging configurations. This report complements a hazardous materials commodity

flow study that was conducted in 2012 for roadways and railways in El Paso County, and along

the I-10 Corridor in West and Central Texas.

Center for International Intelligent Transportation Research Texas A&M Transportation Institute Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of hazardous materials truck traffic and shipping manifest

surveys that were conducted at two locations in the El Paso region. The first location

documented HazMat shipments on inbound truck traffic at the Zaragoza International Port of

Entry (POE) between the U.S. and Mexico, the second location documented HazMat shipments

on westbound I-10 from Texas into New Mexico at the Anthony, New Mexico, POE.

Emergency responders, elected officials, community and transportation planners, and the

general public must be aware of and prepared for the potential of HazMat incidents wherever

these types of materials are transported, or at fixed facilities where they are stored, produced, or

consumed. The primary purpose of this report is to provide information that can be used to

enhance HazMat transport incident planning, preparedness, and response.

There is strong diversity and industrial capacities that promote manufacturing and bi-national

trade in the El Paso-Juarez region. However, the types and quantities of hazardous materials

transported by truck into the U.S. from Mexico at Zaragoza POE are limited and were not

significantly different for data collected in 2004 and 2012. Bulk HazMat shipments consist

primarily of flammable and non-flammable gases. These shipments are mostly empty tank trucks

returning to the U.S. after having delivered shipments in Mexico. There are also loaded, inbound

bulk shipments by tank truck of hydrofluoric acid, a corrosive, toxic material. Non-bulk

shipments of hazardous materials into the U.S. from Mexico at Zaragoza POE are primarily

airbag modules.

In contrast, the I-10 trade corridor in the El Paso-New Mexico area has a much higher level

and greater diversity of HazMat transport. This includes regional deliveries of bulk fuel and

gases to New Mexico, and long-haul bulk and breakbulk shipments through New Mexico of

gases, flammable liquids, oxidizers, poisonous and toxic materials, corrosive materials, and

miscellaneous dangerous goods. While there are also shipments of radioactive materials over the

corridor, there were no shipments of these materials included in our survey.

We did not find much evidence to support the idea of ‘dangerous trucks from Mexico’ that

transport hazardous materials into the U.S. at El Paso. In fact, there were proportionately more

trucks in our surveys at the Anthony POE that belonged to carriers which have higher than

average FMCSA out-of-service (OOS) ratings for vehicles, drivers, and hazardous materials,

than at the Zaragoza POE. There were also multiple trucks in our survey at Anthony POE whose

carriers have higher than average OOS ratings in multiple categories.

Based strictly on truck traffic and HazMat shipping manifest data, and carrier safety

information, the general likelihood of a HazMat transport incident appears to be greater over the

I-10 corridor than at Zaragoza POE. This does not mean, however, that there is no risk of a

HazMat incident at Zaragoza POE.

Reports for a regional hazardous materials commodity flow study, funded by the Texas

Division of Emergency Management and conducted by Texas A&M Transportation Institute

(TTI), were provided separately to the City of El Paso Fire Department on behalf of the El Paso

County Local Emergency Planning Committee. We encourage officials and agencies in the El


Paso region, as well as other local, state, and federal stakeholders, to use the information in these

studies. Suggestions include:

Using the information to enhance emergency operations plans and standard operating

procedures for response, and informing emergency response training and exercises.

Integrating the information into community and transportation planning, not only to

account for transport of hazardous materials, but also commercial vehicle traffic in

general.

Using information about demographics and proximity to transport infrastructures to

identify population risks due to chemical exposures and anticipated responses to

emergency warnings such as evacuation and/or shelter-in-place notifications.

Keeping data current by updating hazmat transportation and shipping manifest studies to

identify changes in transportation patterns and potential exposures to populations.

We also identified potential future research projects that can help expand the knowledge

basis about HazMat transportation, and potential effects on vulnerable populations in the El Paso

region and other areas. Recommendations for future research include:

Conducting an expanded shipping manifest study at Anthony POE on I-10 to account for

nighttime, weekend, and/or seasonal traffic. Such a study might also include whether

commercial vehicles are attempting to bypass truck inspection facilities.

Evaluating shipping manifests for other commercial vehicle inspection stations on I-10 or

other roadways in Texas and/or other states.

Working with DOT-certified commercial vehicle inspectors to include truck inspection

data with shipping manifest survey analysis.

Assessing hazmat transport incident risks on roadways by examining commercial vehicle

incident/accident reports maintained by Texas Department of Transportation, and

HazMat incident reports, and using geographic information systems (GIS) to identify risk

‘hotspots.’

Examining safety management practices of transportation carriers and how these

practices affect vehicle maintenance and incident risks.

Evaluating population demographics and HazMat transport corridor proximity using U.S.

Census microdata and GIS.

Analyzing effects of infrastructures (roadways and buildings) on potential toxic plume

migrations or explosive blasts in the urbanized areas.

Evaluating how information about HazMat transportation is integrated into emergency,

transportation, and community plans. For example, addressing responses of vulnerable

populations to emergency warning notifications, and ways of effectively communicating

risks to those populations.

Researching horizontal and vertical communications and information sharing practices

among local, state, and federal agencies, and the private sector. For example, sharing of

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) e-manifest data with local and state agencies,

or on effective and efficient sharing of data from electronic tracking of HazMat

shipments while addressing privacy and security concerns.


1 PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW

The purpose of this project was to provide information about the specific nature of HazMat

shipments in the El Paso area that can be used to enhance HazMat transport incident planning,

preparedness, and response, as well as environmental hazards assessments. A hazardous

materials shipment analysis is one type of study that can provide this type of information. The

types of information that can be collected include specific hazardous material names, quantities,

and packaging configurations, and shipment origin/destination.

A community can use information about hazardous materials transportation as part of

emergency preparedness and response plans. These plans help guide incident response training

activities, identify risk hotspots, evaluate equipment and supplies resources and needs, develop

warning systems (e.g., evacuation or shelter-in-place), locate resources and schedule personnel,

or evaluate HazMat route designations. Information can also be used to support comprehensive

community planning (transportation, emergency services, environmental, land use, etc.) and,

infrequently, legal takings. More ideas about how information from this study can be used are

provided in a report for 2012 El Paso Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Study (HMCFS)

project1 that was conducted by TTI for the El Paso Local Emergency Planning Committee and

Texas Division of Emergency Management.

Chapter 2 of this report provides an overview of the El Paso border region, including

manufacturing facilities and transportation infrastructures in Juarez, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas.

Chapter 3 describes results from prior studies on cross-border HazMat movements between

Juarez and El Paso, conducted for U.S. EPA in 1998 and 2004. Chapter 4 reviews the project

tasks, including descriptions of data collection locations and procedures. Chapter 5 presents

results from truck traffic and shipping manifest surveys that were conducted for the present study

at the Zaragoza Port of Entry in El Paso. Chapter 6 describes results from truck traffic and

shipping manifest surveys that were conducted for this study at the Anthony, New Mexico, Port

of Entry on I-10. Chapter 7 provides conclusions of this study, suggestions for using the

information for emergency response and community planning, and recommendations for future

research.

1 HMCFS projects identify the types and amounts of hazardous materials that are transported into, out of, within,

and through a specific area. Typically data collected for an HMCFS are at a broader range of locations but a coarser

level of information (e.g., truck type and identification of hazardous materials placards) than are collected in a

shipping manifest study. An HMCFS for the El Paso region was conducted in conjunction with the hazardous

materials shipment analysis, with funding through the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM).


2 EL PASO BORDER REGION

This chapter presents an overview of economic and transport activity in the El Paso border

region, particularly in El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. It reviews land uses and

identifies the locations of existing facilities that generate freight. The infrastructure serving to

facilitate the movement of cargo is also discussed (roads, railroads, and airports).

2.1 CARGO GENERATORS

Industrial operations in the El Paso – Ciudad Juarez region are part of a complex

intercontinental supply chain. In general terms, cross-border traffic between the U.S. and

Mexico in El Paso supports mainly third-party logistics (3PLs) operations, i.e., warehousing,

distribution, and supplying raw materials or work-in-process inventory coming from North

America, Asia, Europe, Mexico, and South America to the maquiladoras in Ciudad Juarez—the

manufacturing base. Work-in-process and finished products come back to El Paso for

warehousing and further distribution inside the U.S.

Most industrial operations in Ciudad Juarez are located near the Bridge of the Americas

(BOTA) and Ysleta-Zaragoza Ports of Entry (POE), toward the eastern side of both Juarez and

El Paso (Figure 1). The industrial developments on the west side of the region are less extensive

(concentrated close to the Santa Teresa, New Mexico, POE). Recently, the Union Pacific

Railroad announced the construction of an all-new rail facility in Santa Teresa, which might

attract industrial and manufacturing facilities that are seeking to relocate to Juarez or El Paso (1)

and could potentially impact freight volumes in this area in the future.


Figure 1. Location of Potential Freight Generators in El Paso-Ciudad Juarez Binational

Region (Map by Texas A&M Transportation Institute Using GIS Data from Regional

Geospatial Service Center, University of Texas at El Paso).

According to Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (2), the population in

Ciudad Juarez was over 1.33 million habitants and employment of nearly 500,000 jobs in 2010,

making it the largest metropolitan region in the Texas-Mexico border. Maquiladoras receive

most of their raw materials and work-in-process inventories through El Paso POEs. The Ciudad

Juarez manufacturing base consists of approximately 345 plants distributed in 39 industrial

zones, as illustrated in Figure 2. According to a model from the Dallas Federal Reserve that

tracks Juarez maquiladora employment since 2006, in 2011 Juarez maquiladora employment

increased at a 5.5 percent rate, equivalent to almost 12,000 new jobs (3). Freight typically

produced at these plants include automotive parts, computers, refrigerators and ovens, medical

products assemblies, and more recently wind blades, efficiency engines and turbines for

airplanes and power generation. Increasing production in Ciudad Juarez manufacturing base is

expected to result in more freight activity on both sides of the border.


Figure 2. Location of Industrial Parks and Maquiladoras in Ciudad Juarez (Map by Texas

A&M Transportation Institute Using GIS Data from Regional Geospatial Service Center,

University of Texas at El Paso).

El Paso is the largest city on the Texas-Mexico border by population and employment: with

652,113 habitants and 253,938 jobs in 2010 (4). The transportation infrastructure in El Paso is

not only critical for the movement of people and freight, but also for the vitality of the overall

U.S.-Mexico trade. In 2009, for example, the total U.S.-Mexico trade was $306 billion, from

which 70 percent took place through Texas’ transportation network (including its POEs) and

16 percent took place through El Paso—using trucks as the predominant mode. El Paso is one of

the most important POEs for the U.S. (5).

The combination of increasing fuel prices, structural changes in the supply chain operations,

and a more mature cargo market in the region are expected to impact cargo demand. Because of

the impacts of the 2007 recession, manufacturing plants in Ciudad Juarez are still operating


below capacity. However, recent trends of some plants relocating near the U.S.-Mexico border

(nearshoring) might translate in an increase of demand for the movement of freight between El

Paso and Ciudad Juarez in the medium term.

2.2 CARGO TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

2.2.1 Roadways

El Paso is the second-largest truck POE in Texas, with two commercial border crossings

(Ysleta-Zaragoza POE and Bridge of the Americas POE) that processed over 714,000 trucks

entering to the U.S. in 2011—around 20 percent of northbound traffic entering Texas. I-10,

U.S. 54, and U.S. 62/180 are major corridors that connect El Paso with U.S. hinterlands and

carry thousands of cars and trucks through the El Paso metropolitan area; furthermore, these are

the only reasonably efficient routes along the southern border of the U.S. that provided

connectivity between the East Coast and West Coast, for example, between Atlanta and Los

Angeles. Other important roadways for cargo transport in the area are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Existing Truck Routes and HazMat Cargo Routes in El Paso. Truck Routes Hazmat Routes

I-10 I-10 US 54 Loop 375

Spur 601 US 54 Global Reach Rd. Railroad Dr.

US 62/Montana Ave. Fred Wilson Ave. Airway Blvd. Trowbridge Ave

TX 20 Delta Dr. FM 1281 Airway Blvd

FM 76 US 62/Montana Ave. FM 2316 Zaragoza Rd.

Trowbridge Ave. Clark Dr.

Artcraft Rd.

Source: Regional Geospatial Service Center, University of Texas at El Paso.

Within the El Paso area, TX (Loop) 375 carries substantial truck volumes south of

US 62/180. Spur 601 is another recent corridor that is intended to improve the mobility in east-

central El Paso. Combined with the POEs, these roadways provide critically important links in

the overall U.S.-Mexico supply-chain. Given the location of warehousing and manufacturing

facilities in the El-Paso-Juarez region, these routes currently provide the most-viable economic

options for cargo transport. The roadway infrastructure serving cargo traffic, including

movement of hazardous materials, is illustrated in Figure 3.

El Paso is developing additional capacity to alleviate truck traffic. Construction is already

taking place to provide a four-lane divided arterial on the Loop 375 from I-10 to the Franklin

Mountains State Park in western El Paso, and two direct connectors to I-10. TxDOT is

rehabilitating four existing lanes and create two managed toll lanes in the center the section of

Loop 375 known as the César Chávez Border Highway along the U.S.-Mexico border in

southern El Paso from US 54 to S. Zaragoza Road (6). A second project on Loop 375 from S.


Zaragoza Road to I-10 includes the addition of two express toll lanes, one lane in each direction.

Existing access points to Loop 375 are located at S. Zaragoza Road, FM 258 (Socorro Road),

FM 76 (North Loop Drive), and I-10 (7). The managed lanes would be located inside of the

existing lanes. These two projects are will increase accessibility to and from the BOTA and

Ysleta-Zaragoza POEs.

Figure 3. Existing Truck Routes and HazMat Cargo Routes in El Paso, and Major

Arterials in Ciudad Juarez (Map by Texas A&M Transportation Institute Using GIS Data

from Regional Geospatial Service Center, University of Texas at El Paso).

Several long-term projects included in the Mission 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan

(MTP) for El Paso could also impact the levels truck traffic, although to a lesser extent than the

improvements discussed above. These include: the Ysleta-Zaragoza POE commercial lane

improvements; the Guadalupe-Tornillo POE; the Santa Teresa POE Intelligent Transportation

System improvements; the Santa Teresa intermodal rail station; and railroad overpasses as well

as truck road infrastructure (8). In March 2005, El Paso County received a Presidential Permit


for the construction of a new POE (Tornillo/Guadalupe) at Fabens. The plans call for a POE that

is 1,274 feet long and 94 feet wide, and have six vehicular lanes and two pedestrian crossings.

El Paso County will obtain 270 acres of adjacent vacant land to support the development. This

facility could represent a viable alternative route for trucks in the long run as new industrial

developments take place near this POE.

The 2009 Regional Development Plan of Ciudad Juarez incorporates several urban areas that

already consider future land uses and the type of activities that will be allowed (9). Some

portions of these zones are already part of the city limits of Juarez; nonetheless, they have

received special treatment as areas of urban growth adding up to more than 19,205 hectares. This

implies that growth will be directed toward the south-eastern side of Ciudad Juarez, and it will be

restricted to the west, with exception of the San Jeronimo reserve already approved very near to

the Santa Teresa-San Jeronimo POE; growth along the Carretera Casas Grandes highway will be

also restricted.

2.2.2 Railways

Most of the Class I railroad trackage in the El Paso area is owned by Union Pacific Railroad

(UPRR). Figure 4 illustrates the El Paso railroad transportation network, including UPRR’s

Lordsburg and Valentine Subdivisions, which are part of the Sunset Route, which runs between

the Los Angeles, California, area and New Orleans, Louisiana, and the UPRR Carrizozo

Subdivision, which is part of the Tucumcari Line, which runs between El Paso, Texas, and

Topeka, Kansas.

Figure 4 also shows the BNSF El Paso Subdivision, which runs between El Paso, Texas, and

Isleta, New Mexico. The BNSF also has ‘trackage rights’ over UPRR’s Sunset Line between El

Paso and Sierra Blanca, Texas. However, BNSF has indicated they seldom exercise trackage

rights over this segment and was not aware of such HazMat traffic in 2011.

Both UPRR and BNSF interchange with Mexican railroad Ferromex at the U.S.-Mexico

border, also indicated on Figure 4. While most of BNSF’s traffic is international, with some

origination and termination in El Paso, UPRR traffic consists of cross-country (U.S.) and

international movements, as well as origination and termination in El Paso. UPRR operates four

railyards in the El Paso area, and BNSF operates one railyard. These yards serve primarily as

interchanges for the railway network connections and local cargo deliveries. However, the

railyards also handle transloading of intermodal shipments between truck and rail. These

shipments are transported by truck across the U.S.-Mexico border.2

2 Much of the information in Section 2.2.2 was taken from the following report: Bierling, D., Jasek, D., Martin, M.,

Cutaia, L., Lorente, P., & Van Alstyne, M. (2012, September). Hazardous materials commodity flow study:

Railways in El Paso County, Texas. Prepared for the Texas Division of Emergency Management and the El Paso

County Local Emergency Planning Committee. Texas A&M Transportation Institute.

Center for International Intelligent T

ransportation Research

Texas A

&M

Transportation Institute

P

age 10

Figure 4. El Paso Rail Network. (Source: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/rail/freight/el_paso.pdf)


Further general information about rail operations in the El Paso area can be found in the 2011

El Paso Region Freight Rail Study, prepared by HNTB for the Texas Department of

Transportation, and available at http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/rail/freight/el_paso.pdf.

2.2.3 Airports

El Paso International Airport (EPIA) has the most extensive facilities of all the airports that

are located within 50 miles from the border with Mexico in Texas and New Mexico. The airport

also serves as a gateway for West Texas, southern New Mexico, and northern Mexico. This

288,000 ft2 air cargo complex is centered in the Butterfield Trail Industrial Park, tailored to the

“just-in-time” nature of U.S.-Mexico trade. The $60 million dollar facility accommodates four

air cargo carriers: DB Schenker, DHL, FedEx, and United Parcel Services (10). The Foreign

Trade Zone (FTZ) No. 68 Office consists of 21 sites containing 3,443 acres within El Paso

County. The City of El Paso is the grantee and operator of the FTZ No.68 under the EPIA. FTZ

No.68 provides special customs procedures reducing transaction costs for U.S. companies

engaged in international commerce (11).

The Abraham González International Airport (AGIA) in Ciudad Juarez is one of the few

airports on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border that have facilities for cargo handling.

Grupo Aeroportuario Centro Norte operates a subsidiary called OMA Carga, which has

warehouse space at Ciudad Juarez. OMA’s cargo facilities at AGIA, which are operated by

Estafeta and Jett Paquetería, consist of 5,382 square feet with 6 inspection platforms, a

confiscation platform, customs office, and X-Ray area. AGIA has the most significant cargo

volumes of the Mexican airports on the border—handling an average of 2,841 cargo tons per

year, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of −3.24 percent from 2006 to 2011. In the

last decade, Mexico has been making significant efforts to promote the development of the

aerospace industry. As of 2011, there is a significant presence of aerospace industries in the four

Mexican states sharing the border with Texas (e.g., in Chihuahua: Cessna, Zodiac Aerospace,

Nordam) (12).


3 PREVIOUS HAZMAT TRANSPORT STUDIES

Typically, little information is available to local emergency planners about hazardous

materials (HazMat) shipments in their jurisdictions unless a local hazardous materials

commodity flow study (HMCFS) or similar type of analysis is conducted. Regarding cross-

border flows of HazMat, U.S. Customs and Border Protection data are restricted to other federal

agencies (this issue is addressed in Chapter 7), and obtaining permission for other entities to use

these data is time-consuming and the outcome uncertain. National commodity flow data are not

applicable locally or for specific commodities. Private data are closely guarded by shippers and

carriers, and data from private firms are costly and of limited specification.

Our initial expectation based on research of available Internet sources was that there was

limited recent information available to local entities about the specific nature of HazMat

shipments over trans-border and other corridors in El Paso. However, reports that were provided

by U.S. EPA Region 6 office during the project, via the Border Liaison Office in El Paso,

indicate that two cross-border HazMat transport studies were previously conducted in El Paso,

one study published in 1998 (13) and the other published in 2004 (14). The results of these

studies that are relevant to this research are presented below.

3.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMODITY FLOW STUDY (1998)

The 1998 study (13) describes the bridge crossing at Zaragoza POE as the site selected for

traffic survey “since it is the principal location for truck transportation across the border with

Mexico and is the principal hazardous and non-hazardous transportation route in the area”

(p. 17). Surveys for the 1998 study were conducted from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. from February 3

through 6, 1997, and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on February 7, 1997. The surveys resulted in driver

interviews/inspections of 387 trucks, of which 326 trucks were transporting hazmat. Of the

hazmat trucks, 207 were empty and 119 were “full” (sic, interpreted to mean loaded). Table 2

describes the truck types reported from the 1997 survey.

Table 2. Truck Types and Counts Included in 1997 Cross-Border HazMat Survey.

Truck Type Count

Container 1 Dump 2

Flatbed 6 Hopper (cement) 1

Single trailer 20 Straight 22 Tanker 335

Total 387

The report describes that of the 119 trucks that were reported as carrying hazmat, 85 had

appropriate papers, and 33 had incomplete papers or no papers. Table 3 describes whether trucks

from the 1997 survey were classified as full or empty, based on information summarized in the

1998 report.


Table 3. HazMat Commodities and Truck Loadings in 1997 Cross-Border HazMat Survey. HazMat Commodity Number of Full Trucks Number of Empty Trucks

Propane 50 126 Diesel 35 58 Fuel 7 16

Liquid nitrogen 6 5 Remaining substances* 21 3

Total 119 208**

* 1998 report describes remaining substances as trucks that “were carrying, or had carried such

substances as volatile liquids, lead, mercury, spent paint sludge, and liquid hydrogen.”

** There is a small discrepancy between totals reported in different parts of the 1998 report.

The report notes that 16 percent of the trucks carrying hazardous materials had incorrect

placards or no placards at all. It is not clear from the report whether trucks with no placards were

actually required to display placards, or were exempt from placarding requirements because the

quantities of hazardous materials they were transporting were below threshold levels.

The 1998 report discusses condition of trucks in the survey, based on inspections done by

survey team members regarding overall truck condition, including tires, containers, windshields,

fire extinguishers, braking systems, and lighting systems. It describes that 14 trucks were in

excellent condition, 283 trucks in good condition, 88 trucks in fair condition, and 2 trucks in

poor condition. The report notes the lack of correlation between truck condition and cargo type.

However, it also does not indicate truck condition according to whether the truck was inbound or

outbound, does not indicate specific scoring methods or criteria that were used in assigning truck

conditions, or whether different personnel were responsible for scoring vehicles.

The 1998 study also tabulated accidental spill histories from both fixed and mobile sources.

Mobile source data are presumed to be from the Texas Natural Resources Conservation

Commission (TNRCC), the forerunner to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

(TCEQ), and fixed source data (not shown here) are presumed to be from the U.S. EPA’s

Emergency Release Notification System. The reported accidental spill histories from the 1998

report are summarized for transportation sources in Table 4.

Table 4. Spill Histories by Transport Source in 1998 Cross-Border HazMat Study Report. Transportation Source 1994 1995 1996

Rail 10 15 9 Pipeline 0 72 42

Highway vehicle 2 18 14

Total 12 105 65

The 1998 report includes a review of traffic accidents for all types of roadway traffic

accidents in El Paso, including passenger vehicles. The report identifies I-10 in the vicinity of

Airway Blvd. as a primary accident location, as well as traffic on Montana Avenue, to the south

of the airport, westbound I-10 at Executive Drive, southbound US 54 and Fred Wilson Ave. (TX

601), and the intersection of Zaragoza Rd. and Americas Blvd. (TX 375).


3.2 TRANSBOUNDARY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMODITY FLOW SURVEY (2004)

The 2004 report (14) describes the results of a truck traffic survey at the Zaragoza POE,

which was conducted from March 15–19, 2004. The hours over which the survey took place

were not reported in the main body of the report. The report describes that of the 6,155 total

inbound and outbound loads, 371 or around 6 percent were reported as carrying or equipped to

carry hazmat loads. Of outbound trucks, 211 were carrying or equipped to carry hazmat,

reported as 6.8 percent of total outbound traffic. This means that there were a total of

approximately 3,100 outbound trucks during the survey period, and correspondingly a total of

around 3,055 inbound trucks during the survey period.

With inbound hazmat traffic thus totaling 160 trucks (derived from 371 trucks minus 211

trucks), this corresponds to around 5.2 percent of inbound trucks carrying or equipped to carry

hazmat. Table 5 summarizes the top transported, placarded commodities for inbound and

outbound traffic at Zaragoza POE during the March 15–19, 2004, survey, based on information

presented in the report. We interpret discrepancies between numbers of hazmat trucks described

above and reported in Table 5 as being due to numbers of trucks that are ‘carrying or equipped to

carry’ hazardous materials versus placarded loads or placarded commodities, multiple placards

on some trucks, and/or other reasons.



Texas A

&M


P

age 15

Table 5. Major Transported, Placarded Commodities by Number of Truckloads for Inbound and Outbound Trucks at Zaragoza Bridge as Reported for March 15–19, 2004, Survey.

Commodity (Class or UN/NA ID)

Inbound Trucks Outbound Trucks

# Loads Rank # Loads Rank

LPG; Propane (1075) 78 1 127 1

Miscellaneous dangerous goods (Cl. 9) 34 2 7 6

Elevated temp. liquids, n.o.s., at or above 100 C and below its flash point; Asphalt (3257)

25 3 23 3

Carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid (2187) 9 4 6 7

Flammable and combustible liquids (Cl. 3) 7 5.5 13 4.5

Corrosive materials (Cl. 8) 7 5.5 5 8

Flammable gases (Cl. 2) 4 7 95 2

Environmentally hazardous substances (3082) 3 8.5 N/A*

Flammable solids; Spontaneously combustible materials; Dangerous when wet materials (Cl. 4)

3 8.5 N/A

Nitriles, poisonous, flammable, n.o.s. (3276) 2 10

Nitrogen, refrigerated liquid (1977) N/A 13 4.5

Argon, refrigerated liquid (1951) N/A 4 9

* N/A = not available in report.


The 2004 report also discusses condition of trucks in the survey, based on inspections done

by survey team members with the assistance of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service. A

survey form (which was reported to be provided in an appendix that was not available for

review) was used to indicate a condition rating based on “a cursory inspection of the overall

condition of the transports” (p. 9). The report describes that inbound traffic “was subject to a

complete inspection” but that outbound traffic “could not be stopped for such an inspection,

though placards were noted as well as other information that could be obtained visually” (p. 10).

Table 6 summarizes the results of the inspections based on information contained in the report.

Table 6. Truck Condition by Direction as Reported in 2004 Transboundary Hazardous

Materials Commodity Flow Survey Report. Direction/Condition Excellent Good Fair/Poor Total

Inbound 17 125 18* 160 Outbound 8 197 6** 211

Total 25 322 24 371

* Only one truck in this category was rated as “Poor,” all other trucks were rated as “Fair.”

**All trucks in this category were rated as “Fair.”

What might at first appear to be a statistically higher number of trucks rated as “Excellent” or

“Fair/Poor” for inbound trucks, and a statistically higher number of trucks rated as “Good” for

outbound trucks, must be regarded as inconclusive upon further consideration (it also should be

noted that the 2004 report does not attempt to make such comparisons). First, no indication is

given as to whether the same personnel were involved in rating the inbound and outbound trucks.

Second, the methods by which inbound and outbound trucks were rated are different.

Information in the report suggests that inbound trucks were subject to detailed inspections, while

outbound trucks were subject to only a cursory visual review, which took place while trucks

were not stopped for an actual inspection.

The lack of ability to physically inspect outbound vehicles may therefore have led to an

inability to distinguish across differences in vehicle conditions, resulting in a greater number of

moderate (“Good”) ratings for outbound vehicles, and fewer ratings on the extremes. For similar

reasons, comparison of safety ratings of inbound traffic from the 2004 report and the 1998 report

are inconclusive, as there is no ability to determine consistency in the personnel, procedures, and

criteria that were used in assigning ratings in the respective surveys.


4 PROJECT TASKS

This chapter describes the different project tasks for the 2012 shipping manifest study project

in the El Paso area.

4.1 KICKOFF MEETINGS

Task 1 was to hold kickoff meetings with key stakeholders in the El Paso area to brief them

about the project’s objectives and receive input on the methods and activities. Stakeholder

groups included the El Paso Fire Department (representing El Paso County Local Emergency

Planning Committee), Texas Department of Public Safety – Commercial Vehicle Enforcement

(CVE), New Mexico Department of Public Safety - Motor Transport Police (MTP), Doña Ana

County Local Emergency Planning Committee (including different local, state, and federal and

private representatives), and U.S. EPA.

4.2 COORDINATE DATA COLLECTION

Task 2 was to coordinate data collection. This included meetings with Texas Department of

Public Safety – Commercial Vehicle Enforcement (CVE) Division staff regarding data collection

at the Ysleta-Zaragoza International POE, hereafter referred to as the Zaragoza POE, on the

Juarez-El Paso border, and with New Mexico Department of Public Safety - Motor Transport

Police (MTP) regarding data collection at the Anthony Port of Entry near the Texas-New Mexico

Border. We also developed a Project Safety Plan, reviewed previously-developed data collection

instruments, documentation, and analysis procedures, and developed additional aids for data

collection. A graduate student from the University of Texas at El Paso Department of Civil

Engineering was also hired to assist with the project.

4.2.1 Zaragoza POE

The Zaragoza POE is one of three gateways for truck traffic between the El Paso region and

Juarez, Mexico. Other gateways are the Bridge of the Americas between El Paso and Ciudad

Juarez in south-central El Paso, and the Santa Theresa Port of Entry between Santa Theresa, New

Mexico, and Jeronimo, Mexico, to the west of El Paso. Of the three, hazardous materials

shipments are currently permitted only through the Zaragoza POE, although HazMat shipments

through Santa Theresa are also being considered for the future.

There are two inspection stations for northbound (inbound) truck traffic at the Zaragoza POE.

The first is a federal facility through which shipments must clear U.S. Customs and may be

subject to inspections by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration, and other federal agencies. After passing through the federal facility, trucks

must proceed through a state facility that is owned by the Texas Department of Transportation

and operated by Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), Texas Highway Patrol Commercial

Vehicle Enforcement (CVE) Division at which trucks may be inspected for vehicle safety. Data

for this project were collected at the DPS facility. Figure 5 shows the general location of the

Texas DPS Zaragoza POE facility in South El Paso.


4.2.2 Anthony POE

The Anthony, New Mexico Port of Entry, hereafter referred to as the Anthony POE, is a

covered, fixed inspection and permitting facility located on Westbound I-10 approximately

4.5 miles north of the Texas-New Mexico border. This facility is operated by the New Mexico

Motor Transport Police (MTP) and serves truck traffic entering New Mexico from Texas. There

are also two uncovered scales in Texas that are operated intermittently by Texas DPS to the

south of the Texas-New Mexico border. Data were collected for this project at the Anthony POE

facility given that the facility is open and staffed 24-hours a day and offered protection from

extreme weather conditions. Figure 6 shows the general location of the New Mexico MTP

Anthony POE, to the northwest of El Paso.

4.3 COLLECT DATA

HazMat shipping manifest data were collected by TTI personnel at both Zaragoza POE and

Anthony POE in April, May, and June 2012. Local agencies were also invited to participate in

data collection. While there was not local agency participation in actual data collection, local

emergency responders and emergency planners associated with Doña Ana County LEPC met

with MTP staff at the Anthony POE to discuss MTP operations and HazMat transport by truck

over area roadways.

Equipment and supplies used for the data collection included safety vests, steel toe boots, sun

block, drinking water, pens, a digital video camera provided by TTI’s El Paso Office and video

tape, digital photo camera, clipboards, and data sheets. The overall data collection procedure

relied on prescreening trucks for presence of hazardous materials in the shipments, and then

collecting shipment document information from trucks that were identified as having or

potentially having hazardous materials during the prescreening process.



Texas A

&M


P

age 19

Figure 5. Texas DPS CVE Zaragoza Port of Entry in South El Paso, Texas

(Image Created Using Google Earth; Image Source Is INEGI).



Texas A

&M


P

age 20

Figure 6. New Mexico MTP Anthony Port of Entry to the Northwest of El Paso, Texas

(Image Created Using Google Earth; Image Sources Are Digital Globe and GeoEye).


4.3.1 Zaragoza POE

At the Zaragoza POE, prescreening trucks for hazardous materials was done by TTI

personnel with assistance from Texas DMV inspectors and Texas Highway Patrol CVE

Troopers. The prescreening consisted of observing hazardous materials placards on trucks,

and/or asking truck drivers (in Spanish) about shipment contents, and occasionally examining

shipping documents. The Zaragoza POE prescreening location is shown on Figure 7 as the

“Truck/Survey Identifier Location.” Figure 8 shows a data collector conducting prescreening

trucks for hazardous materials. At Zaragoza POE the types and configurations of trucks passing

through the facilities during data collection were also recorded by videotaping of the truck traffic

passing through the facility. The video tapes were later reviewed, and truck types/configurations

and presence of HazMat placards were recorded during data processing.



Texas A

&M


P

age 22

Figure 7. Truck Screening and Shipping Manifest Surveyor Locations at Texas DPS CVE Zaragoza Port of Entry




Texas A

&M


P

age 23

Figure 8. Screening Trucks for Shipping Manifest Data Collection at Texas DPS CVE Zaragoza Port of Entry

(Photo by Texas A&M Transportation Institute).


After the prescreening process, trucks that were identified as carrying any hazardous

materials were directed to a location at which hazardous materials shipment data were collected

through examination of shipping documents and asking fact-based questions of drivers. Our goal

was to collect hazardous materials shipment data within five minutes or less. For complex

shipments, images were recorded of shipping documents and transcribed later. The shipment

data collection location is also shown on Figure 7 as the “Truck/Manifest Surveyor Location.”

Both the prescreening and shipment data collection locations were selected based on input from

CVE Supervisors to maximize safety of data collectors, truck drivers, and facility personnel,

provide access to trucks, ensure safety of truck drivers and facility personnel, and efficiency of

facility operations.

Collected shipping manifest data included but were not limited to:

General information:

o Name of data recorder.

o Location of data collection.

o Day, date, and time of data collection.

Truck information (as observed by data recorder):

o Truck configuration, body type, and number of axles.

o Cargo tank type (as applicable).

o US DOT registration number.

o UN/NA placard IDs and placard location on trucks.

Load information (from drivers and manifest sheets):

o Direction of travel.

o Load origin.

o Load destination.

HazMat shipment information (from manifest sheets):

o Commodity name.

o Commodity UN/NA number.

o Commodity origin.

o Commodity destination.

o Commodity amount.

o Commodity packaging configuration.

o Empty backhaul indicator (if truck was returning empty after delivery).

Figure 9 shows a data collector collecting truck and hazardous materials shipment

information at Zaragoza POE.



Texas A

&M


P

age 25

Figure 9. Collecting Shipping Manifest Data at Texas DPS CVE Zaragoza Port of Entry



After a trial data collection effort in February 2012, the first round of data collection at the

Zaragoza POE took place on April 3 between approximately 11:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and on

April 4 between approximately 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Video data collection equipment were

assembled prior to data collection, and video tapes were changed approximately every two hours.

Initially, we attempted to use a sign-board for prescreening, with basic questions in printed

Spanish about whether their trucks were loaded or empty, and then for loaded trucks whether

shipments contained hazardous materials. The text and symbols on the signs directed drivers to

provide a ‘thumbs-up’ or ‘thumbs-down’ in response, as applicable. However, after this initial

data collection effort it was determined that this method of prescreening was inefficient and was

delaying the flow of truck traffic through the facility.

The second data collection at Zaragoza POE took place on May 16 between approximately

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., and on May 18 between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. During this data

collection, truck drivers were asked verbally about truck and shipment content, and affirmative

or negative responses for loaded/empty trucks were indicated by the prescreening personnel

physically giving a thumbs-up (loaded) or thumbs-down (empty) gesture in view of video

recording equipment.

The third data collection at Zaragoza POE took place on June 11 between approximately

1:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., on June 12 between approximately 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., and on

June 14 between approximately 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. As with the second data collection,

affirmative and negative responses to questions about loaded/empty trucks were indicated by

prescreeners who indicated a thumbs-up or thumbs-down gesture in view of video recording

equipment. During this data collection, we also expanded the prescreening process to ask drivers

about the load contents and record their responses. We also intermittently examined shipping

documents to verify information that was provided by the truck drivers. This was done to

confirm the accuracy of driver reports about load contents, particularly with respect to hazardous

materials. In no cases were driver reports about hazardous materials content inconsistent with

the information provided on shipping manifests.

4.3.2 Anthony POE

At the Anthony POE, prescreening trucks for hazardous materials was done by New Mexico

Motor Vehicle Division inspectors by observing hazardous materials placards on trucks and/or

asking truck drivers about shipment contents (presence of hazardous materials). Only trucks that

passed through the inspection station were screened. Since a substantial portion of trucks did not

pass through the inspection station because they have PrePass clearance, only a portion of the

trucks were able to be prescreened. The Anthony POE prescreening location is shown on

Figure 10 as the “Truck/Survey Identifier Location.” Figure 11 shows a queue of trucks passing

through the Anthony POE for HazMat cargo prescreening.



Texas A

&M


P

age 27

Figure 10. Truck Screening and Shipping Manifest Surveyor Locations at Anthony POE




Texas A

&M


P

age 28

Figure 11. Screening Trucks for Shipping Manifest Data Collection at Anthony POE



Whereas the types and configurations of trucks, as well as indications of whether trucks were

loaded or empty were recorded on video tape at Zaragoza POE for later transcription, the types

and configurations of trucks at Anthony POE were manually recorded on data sheets at the time

of data collection. This included trucks that passed through the Anthony POE facility as well as

trucks that did not enter the facility (presuming PrePass clearance). However, we were not able

to identify whether trucks were loaded or empty at Anthony POE unless they were directed for

HazMat shipping manifest data collection through the prescreening process.

Trucks that were identified by MTP in the prescreening process as being placarded or

potentially carrying hazardous materials at the Anthony POE were directed to a secondary

location at which hazardous materials shipment data were collected. As with data collection at

Zaragoza POE, our goal here was also to collect hazardous materials shipment data within five

minutes or less, and for complex shipments images were recorded of shipping documents and

transcribed later. The shipment data collection location at the Anthony POE is shown on

Figure 11 as the “Truck/Manifest Surveyor Location.” Both the prescreening and shipment data

collection locations were selected based on input from MTP Supervisors to maximize safety of

data collectors and access to truck drivers, as well as ensure safety of truck drivers and facility

personnel, and efficiency of facility operations.

The first round of data collection at the Anthony POE took place on April 5 between

approximately 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. The second round of data collection at the Anthony

POE took place on May 15 between approximately 7:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and on May 17

between approximately 10:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The third round of data collection took place

on June 13 between approximately 5:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. MTP staff did attempt to bring all

HazMat trucks in through the Anthony POE for a short time during the morning of June 13,

however, this created a substantial congestion problem at the port and was soon discontinued.

The same categories of shipping manifest data were collected at Anthony POE as are described

above for Zaragoza POE.

4.4 PROCESS DATA

Video data from data collection at the Zaragoza POE was visually reviewed to identify truck

type and configuration, presence of hazardous materials placards, and indications whether trucks

were loaded or empty. These data, along with handwritten data from hazardous materials

manifest survey sheets, and handwritten data on truck type and configuration and presence of

hazardous materials placards, were entered into MS Excel and MS Access files. Data were

quality checked for consistency of data entry. Two undergraduate students from Texas A&M

University’s Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning were hired to assist with

data processing and analysis.


4.5 ANALYZE DATA

The data were analyzed for important metrics related to hazardous materials transportation.

These metrics include:

Truck traffic patterns by time of day.

HazMat traffic patterns by time of day.

Classification of observed hazardous material placards by:

o Specific UN/NA ID.

o Hazardous material class/division.

o Configuration and type of truck.

Classification of hazardous material shipments by:

o Locations of origin and destination.

o Specific hazardous materials transported associated with UN/NA placard identifiers

on vehicles.

o Shipment quantities, packaging, and transport configurations.

o Placarded versus non-placarded loads.

o Carrier (company) safety and compliance information.

Results of the data analysis are presented in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report.

4.6 DOCUMENT RESULTS

This report documents the results of the research, including research methods and findings.

Funding for this project also served as in-kind matching funds for a hazardous materials

commodity flow study that was conducted by TTI for the El Paso Metropolitan area and the I-10

Corridor between El Paso and San Antonio, Texas. The HMCFS project was funded through the

Hazardous Materials Emergency Management (HMEP) Grant Program, administered in Texas

by the Texas Division of Emergency Management. HMCFS project reports were distributed

separately to the respective Texas LEPCs in October 2012.

4.7 PRESENT RESULTS

Preliminary results of this project were presented to personnel from El Paso Fire Department,

Texas Department of Public Safety CVE Division, New Mexico MTP, and U.S. EPA in

September 2012, and to Doña Ana County LEPC members in October 2012.


5 2012 ZARAGOZA POE HAZMAT SURVEY RESULTS

This chapter describes results of truck traffic and shipping manifest surveys at Zaragoza

POE.

5.1 VIDEO DATA ANALYSIS

Video-tapes of truck traffic at Zaragoza POE were examined to identify truck and hazmat

traffic patterns.3 The data were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and analyzed. The

spreadsheet calculations require 30-minute segments of data. Because the actual video-recorded

data does not exactly correspond with 30-minute segments, some data trimming was required.

That is, sometimes available video data were separated by a short time period, (e.g., a few

minutes to change tapes). In three instances, data from two adjacent timeperiods, which together

total 30 minutes were spliced together, and are interpreted as representing a single 30-minute

timeperiod, provided they represent the same hour of day. Any splicing or trimming of data was

done in a non-biased manner to avoid misrepresentation of observed truck or HazMat traffic

levels. The dates and times for which this was done are indicated in Table 7 below, which lists

hours of data that were included in the analysis spreadsheet.

Table 7. Hours of Video-Recorded Data included in Zaragoza POE Traffic Evaluation.

Hour of Day

Hours of Video Data, by Date

2/8 4/3 4/4 5/16 5/18 6/11 6/12 6/14 Total

8

0.5

0.5

9

1.0

1.0

2.0

10

1.0*

0.5

1.5

11 0.5 1.0

1.0

1.0

3.5

12

0.5 0.5

0.5

1.5

13 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5* 1.0 0.5 1.0

4.5

14 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5

6.0

15

1.0 1.0* 1.0 1.0 1.0

5.0

16

0.5 0.5

1.0 1.0

1.0 4.0

17

1.0

0.5 1.5

18

0.5

0.5 1.0

19

1.0 1.0

Total 2.0 3.5 3.0 6.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 32.0

* includes spliced data from adjacent timeperiod.

3 We also augmented these data with observations of truck traffic through the Zaragoza POE that were conducted in

addition to video data collection.


The following figures and tables were developed using the video data in the analysis

spreadsheet for the dates and times listed in Table 7.

Figure 12 shows a chart of total inbound truck traffic levels at Zaragoza POE. Truck

traffic levels suggest a decreasing trend during the day, on the dates and times that data

were collected.

Figure 13 shows a chart of the proportions of inbound truck traffic types, by hour of day.

Box trucks were the predominant configuration at all times of day, with a generally

increasing trend, on the dates and times that data were collected.

Figure 14 shows a chart of the proportions of inbound trucks observed with HazMat

placards at Zaragoza POE, by hour of day. Percentages of placarded trucks ranged

between 2 and 6 percent during the daytime. Truck traffic past 7 p.m. was only recorded

on one day, with no recorded HazMat trucks. This level is consistent with information

from POE personnel, who indicated that evening HazMat truck traffic is typically less

than during the daytime.

Table 8 lists the overall proportions of truck traffic, by truck configuration and type, and

the percentages of each truck configuration/type category with HazMat placards or

markings. More than 83 percent of observed trucks were box van trucks, and most of

these were tractor-trailer configurations. Around 2.5 percent of box trucks were

placarded. Less than 3 percent of observed trucks were tank trucks, and nearly all of

these were placarded.

Table 9 lists the number of placards by placard ID or classification that were observed on

trucks in the recorded video for Zaragoza POE. The most-frequent UN/NA IDs observed

in the video data were for UN/NA IDs 1075, 3268, and 3257/Hot. Note that the total

number of placards observed was greater than the number of placarded trucks reported in

Table 8, as some trucks displayed multiple placards.

Table 10 lists the number of placards by HazMat class that were observed on trucks in the

recorded video.



Texas A

&M


P

age 33

Figure 12. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: Observed Inbound Weekday Truck Traffic Levels.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Nu

mb

er

of

Tru

ck

s (

Avg

.)

Hour of Day

Weekday Truck Traffic on NB Americas Ave, at Zaragoza Port of Entry, El Paso, Texas

Northbound

Trendline (Northbound Traffic)

Notes

Truck Traffic:

955 NB trucks from 8 a.m.-5 p.m.

Truck and HazMat traffic estimates do not reflect daily, weekly, or seasonal variations. Estimates use data collected on the following dates in 2012: Feb. 8, Apr. 3-4, May 16, 18, Jun. 11-12, 14.

August 2012 by



Texas A

&M


P

age 34

Figure 13. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: Weekday Truck Traffic by Truck Type.



Texas A

&M


P

age 35

Figure 14. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: Weekday Percentage of Inbound Placarded Truck Traffic.



Texas A

&M


P

age 36

Table 8. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: Weekday Inbound Truck Size and Type and HazMat Placard Observations.

Truck Size and Type

Number of Trucks Observed

Percent of Total Trucks Observed

Number of Trucks Observed

with HazMat Placard

Percent of Truck Size and Type with HazMat Placard

Straight 565 17.3% 4 0.7%

Box 339 10.4% 3 0.9%

Flatbed 4 0.1% 0 0.0%

Other 220 6.7% 0 0.0%

Refrigerated 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

Tank 1 0.0% 1 100.0%

Tractor-Trailer 2,696 82.7% 128 4.7%

Box 2,388 73.2% 44 1.8%

Dry Tank 8 0.2% 0 0.0%

Flatbed 103 3.2% 1 1.0%

Other 55 1.7% 0 0.0%

Refrigerated 57 1.7% 0 0.0%

Tank 85 2.6% 83 97.6%

Grand Total 3,261 100.0% 132 4.0%

Note: Includes data collected on Feb. 8, Apr. 3–4, May 16, 18, Jun. 11–12, 14.


Table 9. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: HazMat Placard IDs. HazMat ID or Classification Commodity Description

Number of Placards Recorded

1075 Liquefied petroleum gas; or other related gases† 52 1977 Nitrogen, refrigerated liquid (cryogenic liquid) 6 2187 Carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid 5

Class 2.3 or 6.1 “Inhalation hazard,” “Toxic,” or “Poison” placards 8 Other Class 2 UN/NA IDs 1046, 1070, 1951, 2037, and 3164, and

“Flammable gas” and “Non-flammable gas” placards 10

Class 3 UN/NA IDs 1203 and 1866, and “Flammable” placards 5 Class 4 UN NA ID 3170, and “Dangerous when wet” and

“Flammable solid” placards 4

Class 8 UN/NA ID 1052 (has Class 6.1 as secondary classification), and “Corrosive” placards

8

3082 Environmentally hazardous substances, hazardous waste, or other regulated substances, liquid, n.o.s.

3

3257/Hot Elevated temperature liquid, n.o.s, at or above 100°C (212°F), and below its flash point

10

Class 9 Predominantly UN/NA ID 3268 (26 placards); also UN/NA ID 3077 and general Class 9 placards

30

Total 141

†Includes butane; butane mixture; butylene; isobutane; isobutane mixture; isobutylene; propane;

propane mixture; and propylene.

Table 10. Zaragoza POE Video Count Data: Number of Placards by Primary HazMat Class/Division.

Primary Class/Division

No. Placards Observed

Percent Placards Observed

Class 2.1 54 38.3%

Class 2.2 19 13.5%

Class 2.3 or 6.1 8 5.7%

Class 3 5 3.5%

Class 4 4 2.8%

Class 8 8 5.7%

Class 9 43 30.5%

Total 141 100%

5.2 SHIPPING MANIFEST DATA ANALYSIS

In addition to the video-recorded data described in Section 5.1, we collected data from

shipping manifests of trucks passing through the Zaragoza POE. These data are described in a

separate section because the shipping manifest data collection does not correspond exactly with

the video data collection. In some cases, trucks that were recorded in the video data were not

included in the shipping manifest data collection, and vice-versa.


5.2.1 Shipment Types, Origins, and Destinations

Table 11 lists the placards that were observed on trucks that were included in the HazMat

shipping manifest survey. Based on a comparison of the HazMat IDs for trucks included in the

shipping manifest survey (Table 11) with the HazMat IDs for trucks included in the video data

analysis (Table 9), the frequencies of commodity observations correspond to each other. (They

should, as the data collection for the two samples generally but not completely overlaps.) This

suggests that the shipping manifest data collection was not biased toward particular commodity

types.

Table 11. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: HazMat Placard IDs on Inbound Trucks.

HazMat ID or Classification Commodity Description

Number of Placards Recorded

1075 Liquefied petroleum gas; or other related gases† 61 1977 Nitrogen, refrigerated liquid (cryogenic liquid) 9 2187 Carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid 5

Class 2.3 or 6.1 UN/NA ID 3306, and “Inhalation hazard”, “Toxic”, or “Poison” placards

9

Other Class 2 UN/NA IDs 1044, 1046, 1073, 1951, 2037, and 3164, and “Flammable gas” and “Non-flammable gas” placards

12

Class 3 UN/NA ID 1866, and “Flammable” placards 5 Class 4 UN NA IDs 1436 and 3170, and “Dangerous when wet” and

“Flammable solid” placards 4

Class 8 UN/NA ID 1052 (has Class 6.1 as secondary classification), and “Corrosive” placards

7

3082 Environmentally hazardous substances, hazardous waste, or other regulated substances, liquid, n.o.s.

4


10

Class 9 Predominantly UN/NA ID 3268 (37 placards); also UN/NA IDs 2990 and 3077, and general Class 9 placards

45

Total 171

†Includes butane; butane mixture; butylene; isobutane; isobutane mixture; isobutylene; propane;

propane mixture; and propylene.

While placarded box truck traffic at Zaragoza POE was generally ‘loaded,’ e.g., carrying at

least some hazardous materials, most of the tank trucks were ‘empty.’ That is to say, they were

returning to the U.S. after having delivered their commodity loads to Mexico. We did not

ascertain whether the trucks were completely cleaned of hazardous materials. This would not be

the general practice, so we expect that even ‘empty’ tank trucks were carrying small or residual

quantities of hazardous materials.

There were 100 tank trucks included in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey.

Table 12 summarizes whether these tank were ‘Loaded’ or ‘Empty’ by placard/commodity

number. Overall, 94 of the 100 trucks were empty, and 6 were loaded. Four of the six loaded

trucks were carrying hydrofluoric acid (UN/NA ID 1052).


Table 12. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Tank Truck Loading Classifications. UN/NA

Placard ID ‘Loaded’ Trucks

‘Empty’ Trucks Total Trucks

1046

1 1 1052 4

4

1073

1 1 1075

61 61

1866

4 4 1951

2 2

1977

10 10 2187 1 3 4 3082

3 3

3257 1 9 10

Total 6 94 100

The following tables provide information about placarding, truck configurations, transported

quantities, load origins, load destinations, and whether the truck was loaded or empty for

predominant types of HazMat shipments that were included in the Zaragoza POE shipping

manifest survey. All data are for inbound shipments from Mexico into the U.S.

Table 13 lists observed placards, truck configurations, quantities, load origins and

destinations, and truck loading for individual bulk shipments of hydrofluoric acid that

were included in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey. All of these trucks were

loaded, and carried around 17 to 19 short tons of hydrofluoric acid.

Table 14 lists numbers of trucks, truck configurations, median quantities, and truck

loading for bulk shipments by origins-destination pairings of liquefied petroleum gas

(LPG) shipments that were included in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey. All

LPG trucks were empty, returning to the U.S. after having delivered shipments to

Mexico.

Table 15 lists number of trucks, truck configuration, median quantity, and truck loading

for bulk shipments of refrigerated liquid nitrogen between Juarez, Mexico, and El Paso,

Texas, that were included in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey. All liquid

nitrogen trucks were empty, returning to the U.S. after having delivered shipments to

Mexico.



Texas A

&M


Page 40

Table 13. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound Trucks That Were Placarded for Hydrofluoric Acid.

Primary Placard ID Additional Placard IDs

Truck Configuration

Quantity (lb) Load Origin Load Destination Loaded/Empty

1052 Poison; Inhalation hazard TT Tank 38,400 Juarez, CH El Paso, TX Loaded 1052 Poison; Inhalation hazard TT Tank 37,360 Juarez, CH Corpus Christi, TX Loaded 1052 Toxic; Inhalation hazard TT Tank 34,300 Juarez, CH Wilmington, CA Loaded 1052 Poison; Inhalation hazard TT Tank 34,319 Juarez, CH Houston, TX Loaded

Table 14. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound Trucks That Were Placarded for Liquefied Petroleum Gas.

Placard ID Number of

Trucks Truck Configuration Median

Quantity (gal) Load Origin Load Destination Loaded/Empty

1075 32 TT Tank 8,990a El Paso, TX Juarez, CH Empty

1075 1 TT Tank 9,220 Ozona, TX Juarez, CH Empty 1075 28 TT Tank 8,115

b Sundown, TX Juarez, CH Empty

a. Based on data from 30 shipments.

b. Based on data from 27 shipments.

Table 15. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound Trucks That Were Placarded for Nitrogen (Refrigerated).


Trucks Truck Configuration Median

Quantity (lb) Load Origin Load Destination Loaded/Empty

1977 9 TT Tank (Cryo) 35,000a El Paso, TX Juarez, CH Empty

a. Based on data from 5 shipments; Quantities for three other shipments listed as 600,000 cf (each).


Table 16 lists numbers of trucks, truck configurations, median quantities, and truck

loading for bulk shipments of refrigerated liquid carbon dioxide between Juarez, Mexico,

and El Paso, Texas, that were included in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey.

Three of the four liquid carbon dioxide tank trucks were empty, returning to the U.S. after

having delivered shipments to Mexico. The truck placard and manifest data did not

match for one truck, as noted.

Table 17 lists truck configurations, commodity names, quantities, origin-destination

pairs, and truck loading individual shipments for shipments of liquid environmentally

hazardous substances, hazardous waste, or other regulated substances that were included

in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey. Three of the four trucks were empty tank

trucks, returning to the U.S. after having delivered shipments of around 22 short tons to

Mexico.

Table 18 lists numbers of trucks, truck configurations, quantities, origin-destination pairs,

and truck loading individual shipments for shipments of elevated temperature liquids that

were included in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey. Nine of the 10 tank trucks

were empty, returning to the U.S. after having delivered shipments of around 23 short

tons of asphalt or related materials to Mexico.

Table 19 lists numbers of trucks, truck configurations, packaging configurations, load

origins, load destinations, and truck loading for shipments of airbag modules that were

included in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey. All trucks were loaded. There

appeared to be some inconsistencies in manifest data for containerized shipments with El

Paso destinations, as it was generally understood that these shipments were to be

delivered for transshipment at El Paso rail yards, from where they would be transported

to their final destinations.

Table 20 lists truck configurations, transported commodities, quantities, load origins, load

destinations, and truck loading for shipments that were transported in non-placarded

trucks that were included in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey. All trucks were

loaded.



Texas A

&M


P

age 42

Table 16. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound Trucks That Were Placarded for Carbon Dioxide (Refrigerated).


Trucks Truck Configuration Quantity Load Origin Load Destination Loaded/Empty

2187 3 TT Tank (Cryo) 600,000 cfa El Paso, TX Juarez, CH Empty

2187 1 TT Tank (Cryo) 20,000 lb El Paso, TX Juarez, CH Loaded 2187 1 TT Tank (Cryo) 34,000 lb El Paso, TX Juarez, CH Empty

a. Based on data from 2 shipments; Quantities for another shipment listed as 35,000 lb.

b. Shipping manifest was for shipment of Nitrogen, refrigerated liquid (UN/NA ID 1977). Truck was improperly placarded,

or shipping manifest data were incorrect.

Table 17. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound Trucks That Were Placarded for Liquid Environmentally Hazardous Substances, Hazardous Waste, or Other Regulated Substances.

Placard ID Truck

Configuration Commodity Quantity

(lb) Load Origin Load

Destination Loaded/ Empty

3082 TT Tank Diphenylmethane, Discyanate, enviro. hazardous subs., liquid

45,000 El Paso, TX Juarez, CH Empty

3082 TT Tank Environmentally hazardous isocyanate, N.O.S.

44,820 El Paso, TX Juarez, CH Empty

3082 TT Tank Isocyanate (Bayer), enviro. hazardous substance, liquid, N.O.S.

45,660 Pittsburg, PA Juarez, CH Empty

3082 TT Box Dibutyl phthalate, Empty metal containers, enviro. hazardous substance, liquid, N.O.S.

1,402 Juarez, CH Duluth, GA Loaded

Polyglycol diamine, Polymine, Amines, liquid, corrosive, N.O.S.

351 Juarez, CH Duluth, GA Loaded



Texas A

&M


P

age 43

Table 18. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound Trucks That Were Marked for Elevated Temperature Liquids.

Marking ID Number of

Trucks Truck Configuration Average

Quantity (lbs.) Load Origin Load Destination Loaded/Empty

3257/Hot 9 TT Tank 45,756a El Paso, TX Juarez, CH Empty

3257/Hot 1 TT Tank 41,094b Juarez, CH Clint, TX Loaded

a. Various hot mix asphalt shipments or similar; Average based on data from 5 shipments; Quantities for two other shipments

are ≈ 140 barrels each; Quantities for two other shipments are ≈ 5,850 gallons each.

b. Shipment of Disproproportionated gum resin.

Table 19. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: Shipment Information for Inbound Trucks That Were Placarded for Airbag Modules.


Trucks Truck

Configuration Packaging

Configurations Shipment Origins Shipment

Destinations Loaded/ Empty

3268 25 TT Box Bundles Cartons Containers Packages Pallets Pieces

Chihuahua, CH Juarez, CH

Chicago, IL Louisville, KY Dearborn, MI Detroit, MI Holt, MI Claycomo, MO Wentzville, MO El Paso, TX

Loaded

3268 12 TT Container Bundles Cartons Containers Packages Pallets Pieces

Chihuahua, CH Juarez, CH

Chicago, IL Dearborn, MI Detroit, MI Warren, MI Toledo, OH El Paso, TX Milwaukee, WI Ontario, Canada

Loaded



Texas A

&M


P

age 44

Table 20. Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Data: HazMat Shipment Information for Inbound Trucks That Were Not Placarded.

Placard ID Truck

Configuration Commodity Quantity

(lb) Load Origin Load

Destination Loaded/ Empty

No placard TT Box Fire extinguisher, nonflammable compressed gas (UN/NA ID 1044, does not require placard); On pallets

16,724 Juarez, CH El Paso, TX Loaded

No placard TT Box Fire extinguisher, nonflammable compressed gas (UN/NA ID 1044, does not require placard); On pallets


No placard TT Box Hydrofluoric acid solution, LT 60% Strength (UN/NA ID 1790); One 250 mL bottle

-- Juarez, CH Alorton, IL Loaded

No placard S Box Flammable liquid, n.o.s. (Isopropanol-methanol) (UN/NA ID 1993); One box

35 Juarez, CH El Paso, TX Loaded

No placard S Box Thermostat receptacles, small, contain gas (cartridges) (UN/NA ID 2037); On pallets



5.2.2 Carrier Safety Information

We also evaluated safety-related statistics for the trucking companies (carriers) who owned

trucks that were included in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey. The US DOT

registration numbers were recorded for 156 of the 161 trucks in the shipping manifest survey.

The DOT registration numbers were entered into the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration’s Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER) System Company Snapshot

Web page (http://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov/CompanySnapshop.aspx). Information for each carrier

was collected for the total number of U.S. inspections in 2009–2010, as well as the vehicle,

driver, and HazMat out of service (OOS) ratings for the 24 months prior to July 2012. We

identified the number of trucks for each carrier that were included in the shipping manifest

survey, and associated placards that were observed on the trucks. This information is

summarized in Table 21. Note that this analysis does not include safety information of the

specific trucks that were included in the manifest survey, only the carriers that owned the trucks.

OOS ratings for carriers that were higher than national averages over the 2009–2010

timeperiod are identified in Table 21 using italicized text. The vehicle and driver OOS ratings

for the carriers that were included in the Zaragoza POE shipping manifest survey are all better

than national averages. However, the information also shows that two of the three carriers

included in the survey that were placarded for transport of liquid environmentally hazardous

substances, hazardous waste, or other regulated substances (UN/NA ID 3082) have HazMat OOS

ratings above national averages.



Texas A

&M


Page 46

Table 21. Carrier Safety Information for Inbound Trucks from Zaragoza POE Shipping Manifest Survey.

Company DOT # Company Legal Name

Total National

Inspections 2009–2010

Inspection % Out of Service Number Trucks in Sample Placard IDs in Sample Vehicle Driver Hazmat

74816 Texas International Gas & Oil Company 1,651 7.66% 1.57% 0.71% 24 1075

233222 Transportes Lopez y Hijos SA de CV 436 17.36% 0.23% 2.06% 4 1977, 2187

258923 Fletes Sotelo SA de CV 4,648 12.27% 0.49% 3.45% 2 2990, 3082

298907 Rinchem Company Inc. 290 9.82% 1.04% 2.80% 4 1052, Inhalation Hazard, Poison, Toxic

557870 Express Tres Fronteras SA de CV 2,852 16.67% 1.09% 0.61% 21 3268

558117 Eco Transportes Internationales SA de CV 674 7.74% 0.30% 4.30% 22 1044, 1046, 1436, 1866, 2037, 3077, 3164, 3257/Hot, 3306, Corrosive, Dangerous when wet, Flammable, Flammable solid, Class 9

589266 California Gas Transport Inc. 1,697 16.06% 1.42% 0.58% 31 1075

604849 Transportes Kemsa SA de CV 3,658 16.00% 0.22% 2.39% 14 3268, 3164

640568 Praxair Mexico S de RL de CV 171 4.68% 0.00% 0.66% 7 1977, 2187

683428 Operadora de Transporte Internacional SA de CV

8,971 13.65% 0.64% 15.38% 1 3082, Class 9

736393 Guyahnos SA de CV 58 10.34% 0.00% 0.00% 1 3170

739066 Asfaltos de la Frontera SA de CV 180 14.44% 0.56% 0.00% 5 3257/Hot

753534 Activa Transportes y Servicios Especializados SA de CV

99 6.12% 0.00% 2.17% 5 1951, 1977, 2187

797792 Asfaltos y Pavimentos de Ciudad Juarez SA de CV

29 3.45% 0.00% 0.00% 2 3257/Hot

815942 Transportes Hermanos Beltran SA de CV 308 8.17% 0.00% 0.00% 2 3268

824454 Transportes Soto y Hijos SA de CV 1,585 10.78% 0.44% 0.00% 1 3164

1613307 Deborah Lynn 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1075

1613507 Transportadora Silza SA de CV 41 9.76% 0.00% 0.00% 5 1075

1692179 Border Express de Mexico SA de CV 671 7.74% 0.30% 7.14% 2 Non-flammable gas

2153151 Antonio Enrique Campos Lee 124 13.51% 0.00% 6.25% 2 3082

Total 156

National Averages (2009–2010) 20.72% 5.51% 4.50%


5.2.3 Comparison with Data from 2004 Survey

We compared the proportions of inbound placarded trucks from the 2004 survey as discussed

in Section 3.2 with the proportions of inbound placarded trucks from the 2012 traffic video data

analysis to identify whether the proportions of trucks with HazMat placards varies statistically by

year.

For the 2004 data, there were a total of around 3,055 inbound trucks, of which 160 were

placarded, corresponding to 5.2 percent of trucks being placarded. For the 2012 traffic video

data, there were a total of 3,261 inbound trucks, of which 132 were placarded, corresponding to

4.0 percent of the trucks being placarded. There is a statistical difference in the proportions of

placarded trucks to non-placarded trucks by year (χ2 = 5.06, df = 1, p ≈ .025; Fisher Exact Test:

p = .026). This suggests that the proportion of placarded trucks in the 2012 sample may be

different than the proportion of placarded trucks in the 2004 sample.

However, the practical importance of such a difference is debatable. Assuming a difference

of approximately 1 percent between the two years, this corresponds to between 10 and 15

additional HazMat trucks per day through Zaragoza POE at current traffic levels. By

comparison, we estimated between 25 and 50 HazMat trucks per daytime hours (8 a.m. to

5 p.m.) on the Cesar E. Chavez Border Highway (TX 375), which receives inbound traffic from

the Zaragoza POE. Thus, any difference in proportions of truck traffic placarded for hazardous

materials for 2004 and 2012 likely has only modest effects on the numbers of inbound placarded

trucks passing through Zaragoza POE and traveling on adjacent roadways.

We also compared the top inbound commodities from the 2004 survey (Table 5) with the

numbers of placards observed on trucks for the same commodities in our 2012 samples, as

measured using the traffic video data (Table 9), and the manifest survey data (Table 11). This

was done to identify whether the types of hazardous materials that were transported by inbound

trucks at Zaragoza POE is different between the two years. Some commodities were grouped

according to type or similarity in classification, as summarized in Table 22.

Based on the reported amounts and these commodity groupings, the evidence is insufficient

(Chi-square tests) to conclude that there is statistical dependence between the 2004 top

commodities and the number of placards observed on trucks for the same types of commodities

in either of our samples from 2012. This suggests that, when considered in these groupings, the

overall mix of these particular groupings of commodities, relative to each other, is similar

between the two years. Note however that these data do not include all placard observations in

either 2004 or 2012. Further, the selected commodities are based only on those reported as top

commodities from the 2004 study. This also does not necessarily indicate that the relative mix of

these commodity types was similar during years between the samples (2005 through 2011) or at

other times of the year.


Table 22. Comparison of Top Commodities (2004) and Observed Placards (2012) on Inbound Trucks at Zaragoza POE.

Commodity Classifications

Frequencies

2004 Top Commodities

2012 Video

Placards

2012 Manifest Placards

Liquefied petroleum gas (UN/NA ID 1075) and Flammable gases (Cl. 2.1)

82 54 63

Carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid (UN/NA ID 2187)

9 5 5

Poisonous or toxic liquids and gases (Cl. 2.3/6.1)*

2 4 5

Flammable and combustible liquids (Cl. 3) 7 5 5 Flammable solids; Spontaneously combustible

materials; Dangerous when wet materials (Cl. 4) 3 4 4

Corrosive materials (Cl. 8) 7 8 7 Elevated temp. liquids, n.o.s., at or above 100 C

and below its flash point (Asphalt) (UN/NA ID 3257); Miscellaneous dangerous goods (includes UN/NA IDs 3077 and Other Cl. 9 materials for 2012 data); Environmentally hazardous substances (UN/NA ID 3082)

62 40 54

Subtotal Above: 172 120 143

* For 2004 reported commodities, includes Nitriles, poisonous, flammable, n.o.s. (UN/NA ID

3275); For 2012 observed placards, includes ‘Inhalation hazard,’ ‘Poison,’ and ‘Toxic’

placards on trucks carrying hydrogen fluoride (also included in their primary hazard class for

corrosive materials, Class 8).

5.3 OTHER ANALYSIS OF INBOUND TRUCK TRAFFIC

We reviewed the 2012 traffic video data for information about whether non-placarded trucks

were loaded or empty, based on indications from truck drivers and prescreening personnel that

were captured on video. We were able to identify whether a truck was loaded or empty for 1,932

trucks. A total of 1,421 of these trucks were loaded (73.6 percent), and 511 of these trucks were

empty (26.4 percent). While this only represents a portion of the 2012 traffic video data sample,

we do not expect a systematic bias for those trucks for which it was unknown whether the truck

was loaded or empty based on video data (e.g., because the screener was either off-screen, or

because trucks were being allowed to pass through the facility without screening during breaks).

Thus, we expect this proportion generally applies for all non-hazmat trucks that passed through

the facility during the survey timeperiod.

During the last three days of the survey at Zaragoza POE, we also collected information

about the contents of loaded non-placarded trucks by asking truck drivers about cargo contents,

and/or examination of shipping manifest documents. The results of this survey, which includes a

total of 889 non-placarded truckloads, are included in Table 23. Note that this only includes

inbound trucks that passed through the Zaragoza POE during the times we collected data, not the

total time that the port was open on these three days. We then categorized truckloads of different

non-hazmat commodity types as follows, with numbers of trucks in each category noted in

parenthesis:


Automotive parts (133 trucks).

Other motorized vehicles/wheeled appliances (34 trucks).

Home and office furnishings, appliances, and parts (194 trucks).

Miscellaneous automotive, vehicle, and/or appliance parts (163 trucks).

Construction/home improvement materials and tools (147 trucks).

Scrap (37 trucks).

Food and food supplies (20 trucks).

Other (161 trucks).

Table 23. Manual Count Data: Non-HazMat Commodity Categories and Types on Inbound

Trucks during Survey Hours at Zaragoza POE on June 11, 12, and 14, 2012.

Category and Commodity Type

Number of Trucks by Date

11-Jun 12-Jun 14-Jun

Automotive parts

Air bags 3 3

Aluminum wheels 3 11 3

Automotive bands 1

Auto parts 13 19 21

Batteries, no acid 2 3

Seats/seat covers/leather seats/interior parts 14 10 13

Radiators 1 1 3

Steering wheels

1

Windshield wipers 1 4 3

Other motorized vehicles/wheeled appliances

ATVs/RVs/motorcycles 8 5 4

ATVs/RVs/motorcycle parts

1 1

Farm equipment/trailers

1

Lawnmowers 1 4 4

Lawnmower parts 1

4

Home and office furnishings, appliances, and parts

Computers 4 7 10

Computer parts 7 4 2

Digital cameras/parts 2 1

Electrical appliances (small) 1

Ink cartridge/toner 2 1 2

Fixtures lighting

3 1

Furniture/metal cabinets 3 7 2

Lamps/lamp parts 1 1 4

Laser scanner/printer 2 2 1

LCD monitors

3

Light fixtures

2

Refrigerators/freezers 10 22 24





Refrigerator/freezer parts 3 1 1

Satellite dishes

1

Smoke detectors/alarms 1 3 1

AC condensers, AC/heating parts 1

6

TVs 2 5

TV amplifiers 1

Vacuum cleaners/parts 4 3 4

Washing/drying machines 4 11 6

Washer/dryer parts 2 1

Water heaters/parts 2

Misc. automotive, vehicle, and/or appliances parts

Airplanes/helicopter/airplane and helicopter parts

3

Aluminum parts 1

Boat parts 1

Brake plates/pads 3 2 1

Box for AC/steering

2

Cables/wiring/connectors 1

Capacitors/conductors 3 2

Controllers

1

Electrical components/electrical parts 11 27 10

Electrical harness

7 14

Electrical insulation 1

Electric motors 1 12

Engine/lubricating oil 2 1

Engine assembly 1

Fuel pump, fuel assemblies, fuel assembly parts 2 3 1

Hose 1

Igniters

1

Instrument control cluster

1

LED lamps/LED displays 1 6 1

Metal cover/metal parts 1 4

Weld box, endoserve

1

Speakers 3 2 2

Signals/switches/key switches

1 1

Timers/photo control/thermostats 1 2

Wiring harnesses/assemblies 13 5 3

Construction/home improvement materials and tools

Ballast 1 1 1

Box meters 3 2 1

Bricks

1

Cement

5





Ceramic tiles/travertine 19 18 6

Curved shears 1

Damper housing seal

1

Electrical cabinets/transformers/fuses 3

Filtrete/corrugated filters/air filters/filter frames 5 10 3

House supplies 1

Iron/steel articles

1

Ladders/aluminum ladders/fiberglass ladders 21 14 9

Lock set 1

1

Molding 1

Sandpaper 1

Sprinklers/irrigation equipment 2

3

Stone

1 1

Vinyl 1

1

Wire, electrical/cables 2 1

Wood 1 3

Scrap

Scrap 3 7 1

Scrap metal 2 13 3

Scrap/waste paper 1 3

Scrap plastic 1

Scrap wire 2 1

Food and food supplies

Aprons 1

Jalapenos/peppers 4 8

Pecans 2

Potato chips

4

Vegetables, prepared in vinegar 1

Other

ATM parts 1

1

Barrels, aluminum

1

Barrels/containers, plastic 4 3 4

Bingo cards and game parts

1

Bite block 1

Box connector 1

Cardboard/cardboard boxes 6 1 1

Cell phones/phone parts/communications equipment 6 5 2

Cloth, fabric

4 3

Clothing/jeans 5

2

Concrete boxes 3 1

Coffins

2





Coolers, boxes

1

Cotton, ginned/bales

1 2

Foam/foam products

2 1

Environmental staples

1

Eye glasses 1

Illuminated signs 1

Laser gun

1

Mail

1

Medical/hospital supplies 8 17 13

Metal boxes, parts 4 2

Metal ribbon/foil 1

Miscellaneous items

1

Needles, sewing kits 1

Other mineral substances 1

Paper 2 1

Photo film 1

Plastic, plastic parts

8 3

Plastic boxes/lids/trays/pallets 5 8

Radio phone

1

Seals

6

Rubber soles 1

Sherpa body pillow 1

Spool drums

1

Steel/aluminum bars, steel rolls 4

Temporary use goods 1

Totals: 280 385 224

5.4 SUMMARY FOR ZARAGOZA POE

Truck traffic that was inbound to the U.S. from Mexico at the Zaragoza International Port of

Entry during our survey included a limited range of hazardous materials. Truck traffic levels

normalized to a period of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. totaled around 950 trucks, and HazMat placarded truck

traffic comprised around 4 percent of trucks at Zaragoza POE. While the overall proportion of

placarded truck traffic at Zaragoza POE in our survey appears to be slightly less when compared

with data from 2004, the practical effects of this difference are likely minimal on the overall

levels of HazMat truck traffic through the port, and compared with levels on nearby major

roadways. In addition, the relative mix of different types of predominant hazardous commodities

through the port does not appear to be significantly different for the 2004 and 2012 data.


The large majority of inbound placarded tank truck traffic at Zaragoza POE was for empty

loads that were placarded for liquefied petroleum gas, non-flammable gases including

refrigerated carbon dioxide and refrigerated nitrogen, and liquid asphalt. Four of the six

inbound, loaded, placarded tank trucks at Zaragoza POE were for hydrofluoric acid shipments

(UN/NA ID 1052), a corrosive, toxic liquid. Inbound box truck traffic at Zaragoza POE was

primarily for shipments of airbag modules. There were also shipments of environmentally

hazardous substances and hazardous waste in both bulk (tank truck) and breakbulk packaging

(drums and totes in box trucks).

The safety profile of companies whose trucks were included in the Zaragoza POE shipping

manifest survey were better than national averages for vehicle and driver out-of-service ratings.

There were a few trucks from carriers with HazMat OOS ratings higher than national averages,

and these were primarily associated with shipments of environmentally hazardous substances or

hazardous wastes.


6 2012 ANTHONY POE HAZMAT SURVEY RESULTS

This chapter describes results of truck traffic and shipping manifest surveys at the Anthony

POE.

6.1 MANUAL TRUCK COUNT ANALYSIS

Manual counts of westbound truck traffic on I-10 at the Anthony POE were conducted by

observing truck traffic at the port facility. The manual count data were recorded using

handwritten notes on a template form, transcribed to Microsoft Excel, and analyzed. Table 24

shows the hours of manually collected data for westbound I-10 at Anthony POE, by hour of day

and date.

Table 24. Hours of Manual Truck Traffic Count Data from Westbound I-10,

Anthony POE, Doña Ana County, New Mexico.

Hour of Day

Hours of Data, by Date

4/4 5/16 5/18 6/14 Total

5

1.0 1.0

6

0.5 0.5

7

0.5

1.0 1.5

8

0.5

0.5 1.0

9 1.0 1.0

1.0 3.0

10

0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5

11

1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0

12

0.5 0.5

1.0

13

1.0 0.5

1.5

14

1.0

1.0

15

1.0

1.0

Total 1.0 5.0 4.5 5.5 16.0

The following figures and tables were developed using the manual traffic count data for the

dates and times listed in Table 25.

Figure 15 shows a chart of overall westbound truck traffic levels at Anthony POE. Truck

traffic levels suggest an increasing trend during the day until early afternoon on the dates

and times that data were collected.

Figure 16 shows a chart of the proportions of westbound truck traffic types, by hour of

day, at Anthony POE. Box trucks are the predominant configuration at all times of day

that data were collected.


Figure 17 shows a chart of the proportions of westbound trucks observed with HazMat

placards at Anthony POE, by hour of day. Percentages of placard trucks ranged between

two and nine percent, and generally decreased from morning to early afternoon.

Table 25 lists the overall proportions of truck traffic by truck configuration and type, and

the percentages of each truck configuration/type category with HazMat placards or

markings. We identified trucks that did not enter the port facilities (PrePass Trucks), as

well as those that did enter the port facility (POE Trucks).

Nearly half of all observed trucks were box van trucks, and most of these were tractor-trailer

configurations. Around one percent of straight and tractor-trailer box trucks were placarded, but

more than nine percent of multi-trailer box trucks were placarded. Approximately six percent of

observed trucks were tank trucks, and around half of these were placarded. More than two-thirds

of placarded trucks entered the POE facility.

Table 26 lists the number of placards by placard ID that were observed on trucks at

Anthony POE, including those on PrePass trucks and those on trucks that entered the

POE facility. The most-frequent placards observed were for UN/NA IDs 1203, 1993, and

‘Corrosive,’ and ‘Flammable’ placards. Of placards on trucks that did not enter the POE

facility, most were for UN/NA ID 1203 or ‘Corrosive’ placards. As for Zaragoza POE,

the total number of placards observed was greater than the number of placarded trucks

reported in Table 25, as some trucks displayed multiple placards.

Table 27 lists the number of placards by HazMat class that were observed on trucks at

Anthony POE, including those on PrePass trucks and those on trucks that entered the

POE facility. The most-frequent HazMat classes for observed placards observed were for

Class 3 flammable and combustible materials, and Class 8 corrosive materials.



Texas A

&M


P

age 56

Figure 15. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Observed Weekday Truck Traffic on I-10 WB.

0

50

100

150

200

250

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Nu

mb

er

of

Tru

ck

s (A

vg

.)

Hour of Day

Weekday Truck Traffic on I-10 WB, Anthony Port of Entry,

Doña Ana County, New Mexico

Westbound

Trendline (Westbound Traf f ic)

Notes

Truck Traffic:

1,730 WB trucks from 8 a.m.-5 p.m.

Truck and HazMat trafficestimates do not reflect daily, weekly, or seasonalvariations. Estimates usedata collected on the following dates in 2012:Apr. 5, May 15, 17, Jun. 13.

August 2012 by



Texas A

&M


P

age 57

Figure 16. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Observed Weekday Truck Traffic by Truck Type on I-10 WB.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Tru

ck

Tra

ffic

Hour of Day

Weekday Percentage of Truck Traffic by Type on I-10 WB,

Anthony Port of Entry, Doña Ana County, New MexicoTank Truck %

Box Truck %

Flatbed Truck %

Notes

6.3% of trucks were tankers(90% CI = 5.6-6.9%)

50.7% of trucks were box(90% CI = 49.4-52.1%)

12.9% of trucks were flatbeds(90% CI = 11.9-13.9%)

Traffic estimates do not reflect daily, weekly, or seasonal variations.Estimates use data collected on the following dates in 2012:Apr. 5, May 15, 17, Jun. 13.

August 2012 by



Texas A

&M


P

age 58

Figure 17. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Weekday Percentage of Placarded Tank Truck Traffic on I-10 WB.

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Tru

ck

Tra

ffic

wit

h P

lac

ard

Hour of Day

Weekday Percentage of All Truck Traffic with Placard on I-10 WB,

Anthony Port of Entry, Doña Ana County, New Mexico

Westbound

Notes

4.2% of WB trucks were placarded from 8 a.m.-5 p.m.(90% CI = 3.5-4.9%)

6.5% of WB trucks wereplacarded from 5 a.m.-8 a.m.(90% CI = 4.7-9.0%)

Traffic estimates do not reflect daily, weekly, or seasonal variations.Estimates use data collected on the following dates in 2012:Apr. 5, May 15, 17, Jun. 13.

August 2012 by



Texas A

&M


P

age 59

Table 25. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Weekday Truck Size and Type and HazMat Placard Observations.

Truck Size and Type

PrePass Trucks

Placarded PrePass Trucks POE Trucks

Placarded POE Trucks

Total Trucks

Total Placarded

Trucks

Percent of Truck Size and Type With HazMat Placard

Straight 104 0 236 3 340 3 0.9%

Box 54 0 106 1 160 1 0.6%

Flatbed 14 0 23 0 37 0 0.0%

Other 32 0 83 0 115 0 0.0%

Refrigerated 1 0 4 0 5 0 0.0%

Tank 1 0 5 2 6 2 33.3%

Utility 2 0 15 0 17 0 0.0%

Tractor-Trailer 860 31 1,361 75 2,221 106 4.8%

Box 476 4 581 7 1,057 11 1.0%

Dry Tank 11 0 7 0 18 0 0.0%

Flatbed 85 0 207 4 292 4 1.4%

Other 73 0 146 2 219 2 0.9%

Refrigerated 149 0 316 0 465 0 0.0%

Tank 66 27 104 62 170 89 52.4%

Multi-Trailer 51 2 65 9 116 11 9.5%

Box 47 1 62 9 109 10 9.2%

Flatbed 0 0 2 0 2 0 0.0%

Other 3 0 0 0 3 0 0.0%

Refrigerated 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.0%

Tank 1 1 0 0 1 1 100.0%

Grand Total 1,015 33 1,662 87 2,677 120 4.5%

Note: Includes data collected on May 15, 17, Jun. 13, 2012.



Texas A

&M


P

age 60

Table 26. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Weekday ‘Most Frequent’ UN/NA Placard IDs on Observed Trucks.

UN/NA ID Material Description Class 2008

ERG # PrePass Placards

POE Placards

Total Placards

% of Total Placards Counted

1203 Gasoline, gasohol, or motor fuel 3 128 14 22 36 26.5%

1993 Combustible liquid, n.o.s.† 3 128 1 16 17 12.5%

Corrosive Corrosive 8 153 6 8 14 10.3%

Flammable Flammable 3 127 1 6 7 5.1%

1202 Diesel fuel, fuel oil, gas oil, or heating oil

3 128 1 4 5 3.7%

2014 Hydrogen peroxide 5.1 140 2 3 5 3.7%


9 128 0 5 5 3.7%

1075 Liquefied petroleum gas; or other related gases‡

2.1 115 1 3 4 2.9%

Dangerous Unknown Unk. 111 1 3 4 2.9%

Non-flammable gas Non-flammable gas 2.2 121 0 4 4 2.9%

Red Unidentified red placard Unk. Unk. 4 0 4 2.9%

Subtotal Above

31 74 105 77.2%

Total Placards*

37 99 136 100.0%

†Includes combustible liquid, n.o.s.; compound, cleaning liquid (flammable); compound, tree or weed killing, liquid (flammable);

diesel fuel; fuel oil; medicines, flammable, liquid, n.o.s.; and refrigerating machine.

‡Includes butane; butane mixture; butylene; isobutane; isobutane mixture; isobutylene; propane; propane mixture; and propylene.

* Other UN/NA IDs include: (3 placards) 1830, 2201, Class 3; (2 placards) 1046, 1866, 3077; (1 placard) 1230, 1755, 1760, 1770,

1972, 2582, 2789, 3082, 3264, 3265, 3266, Flammable gas, Green, Inhalation hazard, Oxidizer, Poison.



Table 27. Anthony POE Manual Count Data: Number of Placards, by Primary HazMat Class/Division, on Observed Trucks.

Primary Class/Division

PrePass Placards POE Placards Total Placards

Percent of Total Placards

2.1 1 5 6 4.4%

2.2 1 9 10 7.4%

2.3 or 6.1 0 1 1 0.7%

3 20 51 71 52.2%

5.1 3 3 6 4.4%

6.1 0 1 1 0.7%

8 6 19 25 18.4%

9 1 7 8 5.9%

Unknown 5 3 8 5.9%

Overall Total 37 99 136 100.0%


6.2 SHIPPING MANIFEST DATA ANALYSIS

In addition to the manually-collected data described in Section 6.1, we also collected data

from shipping manifest information from trucks that passed through the Anthony POE and were

identified through prescreening by NMMTP inspectors as carrying hazardous materials. These

data are described in a separate section because the shipping manifest data collection does not

correspond exactly with the manually-collected data. In some cases, trucks that were recorded in

the manually-collected data were not included in the shipping manifest data collection, and vice-

versa.

6.2.1 Shipment Types, Origins, and Destinations

Table 28 lists the placards that were observed on trucks included in the HazMat shipping

manifest survey at Anthony POE. Based on a comparison of the HazMat IDs for trucks included

in the shipping manifest survey (Table 28) with the HazMat IDs for trucks included in the

manually-collected data (Table 26), the frequencies of commodity classifications correspond to

each other. (They should, as the data collection for the two samples generally but not completely

overlaps.) This suggests that the shipping manifest data collection at Anthony POE was not

biased toward particular commodity types, compared with general HazMat traffic on westbound

I-10.



Texas A

&M


Page 62

Table 28. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: ‘Most Frequent’ UN/NA Placard IDs on Surveyed Trucks.

UN/NA ID Material Description Class 2008

ERG # Placards

% of Total Placards Counted

1203 Gasoline, gasohol, or motor fuel 3 128 22 20.6%

Corrosive Corrosive 8 153 13 12.1%

1993 Combustible liquid, n.o.s.† 3 128 11 10.3%

Flammable Flammable 3 127 10 9.3%

Dangerous Unknown Unk. 111 6 5.6%

1075 Liquefied petroleum gas; or other related gases‡ 2.1 115 5 4.7%

Non-flammable gas Non-flammable gas 2.2 121 4 3.7%

1202 Diesel fuel, fuel oil, gas oil, or heating oil 3 128 3 2.8%


9 128 3 2.8%

Oxidizer Oxidizer 5.1 140 3 2.8%

Subtotal Above

80 74.8%

Total Placards*

107 100.0%

†Includes combustible liquid, n.o.s.; compound, cleaning liquid (flammable); compound, tree or weed killing, liquid (flammable);

diesel fuel; fuel oil; medicines, flammable, liquid, n.o.s.; and refrigerating machine.

‡Includes butane; butane mixture; butylene; isobutane; isobutane mixture; isobutylene; propane; propane mixture; and propylene.

* Other UN/NA IDs include: 1830, 2014, Poison, 1046, 1170, 1268, 1755, 1760, 1826, 1863, 1866, 1942, 1972, 1977, 2201, 2921,

3077, 3264, 3265, 3266, 3272, Class 8, Flammable Gas, Inhalation Hazard.


Table 29 lists the number of placards by HazMat class that was observed on trucks included

in the shipping manifest data collection at Anthony POE. The most-frequent HazMat classes

included in the Anthony POE shipping manifest survey were for Class 3 flammable and

combustible materials, and Class 8 corrosive materials.

Table 29. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Number of HazMat Placards,

by HazMat Class/Division, on Surveyed Trucks.

Class/Division No. Placards

Observed Percent Placards

Observed

2.1 7 6.5%

2.2 7 6.5%

2.3 or 6.1 1 0.9%

3 51 47.7%

5.1 6 5.6%

6.1 2 1.9%

8 23 21.5%

9 4 3.7%

Unknown 6 5.6%

Overall Total 107 100.0%

There were 59 tank trucks included in the Anthony POE shipping manifest survey. Table 30

summarizes whether these tank trucks were ‘Loaded’ or ‘Empty,’ or the load was ‘Unknown’ by

placard/commodity number. Overall, 50 of the 59 tank trucks were loaded, 6 were empty, and

the load was unknown for 3 tank trucks.


Table 30. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Tank Truck Loading Classifications.

UN/NA Placard ID

‘Loaded’ Tank Trucks

‘Empty’ Tank

Trucks Tank Load Unknown

Total Tank Trucks

1046

1 1 1075 2 1 3 1202 5 1 6 1203 19 3 22 1268 1 1 1826 1 1 1830 2 2 1863 1 1 1866 2 2 1972 1 1 1977 1

1

1993 9

9 2014

2 2

2201 1

1 3077 1

1

3257 3

3 3266 1

1

3272 1

1

Total 50 6 3 59

The data collected in the shipping manifest survey at Anthony POE includes a much greater

diversity of shipments for the different types and classes of hazardous materials than for

Zaragoza POE. Because of this, the Anthony POE shipment data presented in this section for

individual commodities are summarized more generally by each class of hazardous material than

was presented in Chapter 5 for Zaragoza POE.

Tables 31 through 36 list the commodity names and number of shipments according to

the respective placards that were displayed on trucks included in the shipping manifest

survey at Anthony POE for Class 2, Class 3, Class 5.1, Class 6.1, Class 8, and Class 9

materials, respectively. The tables list only those commodity shipments associated with

the respective class of materials that are summarized. If one or more trucks displayed

placards for multiple classes of materials, for example, a ‘Corrosive’ (Class 8) placard

and a ‘Flammable’ (Class 3) placard on the same truck, only shipments of Class 3

materials are listed in the table that summarizes Class 3 shipments, even though the

truck(s) also contained shipments of Class 8 materials.

Class 2 materials consisted primarily of bulk shipments of flammable gases and non-

flammable gases, as well as breakbulk shipments of gases in cylinders. There were also

package shipments of gases in cases or boxes of aerosol cans and fire extinguishers.

Class 3 materials consisted of bulk shipments of fuels, as well as breakbulk and package

shipments (e.g., totes, containers, pails and buckets) of a variety of flammable liquids

such as paints, paint thinning compounds, alcohols, etc. There were some packages

shipments of cans of flammable liquids.

Class 5.1 materials consisted of bulk shipments of hydrogen peroxide solutions and

breakbulk (bagged and palletized) shipments of ammonium nitrate. There were also

package shipments of compounds such as chemicals for water treatment.


Class 6 materials consisted of feedstock chemicals used in industrial manufacturing,

including pharmaceuticals, herbicides, and pesticides.

Class 8 materials consisted of a wide range of bulk and breakbulk shipments (totes,

containers, drums, pails, etc.). These include acids and bases for industrial feedstock and

waste chemicals. There were also shipments of wet batteries.

Class 9 materials consisted of bulk and breakbulk shipments of environmentally

hazardous substances and hazardous wastes, and bulk shipments of elevated temperature

liquids.

Table 31. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data:

Class 2 Material Shipments by Placards Displayed on Trucks. Placard(s) on

Trucks Commodity Name Number of Shipments

1046 Helium, compressed 1

1075 Liquefied petroleum gas, or similar 3

1972 Methane, refrigerated liquid 1

1977 Nitrogen, refrigerated liquid 1

1993, Dangerous Compressed gas, flammable, N.O.S. 1

2201, Non-flammable gas

Nitrous oxide, refrigerated liquid 1

Corrosive, Dangerous

Aerosols, Flammable, 2.1 1

Dangerous, Class 8 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane 1

Flammable gas, Non-flammable gas

Acetylene 1

Carbon dioxide 2.2 1

Helium (compressed) 1

Hydrogen 1

Nitrogen (compressed) 1

Nitrous oxide 1

Oxygen (compressed) 1

Propane 2

Non-flammable gas 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, Non- flammable gas 1

Argon (75%)/Carbon dioxide (25%) 1

Carbon dioxide, compressed 1

Nitrogen, compressed 1

Oxygen, compressed 1

No placard 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane 1

Aerosols 2.1 1

Fire extinguishers 2.2 1

Lighters 2

Liquefied gas, N.O.S. 2.2 (Chlorodifluoromethane, 1,1,1- Trifluoro ethane, Pentafluoroethane)

1

Liquefied gas, N.O.S. 2.2 (Hydrofluorocarbons) 1

Nitrogen, compressed gas 2.2 1

Propylene 1

Grand Total 33


Table 32. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 3 Material Shipments by Placards Displayed on Trucks.

Placard(s) on Trucks Commodity Name

Number of Shipments

1170 Ethanol 1 Gasoline, gasohol, motor fuel 1

1202 Diesel 3

1203 86 Octane 1 Biodiesel 1 Diesel 6 Gasoline, gasohol, motor fuel 17 Hydrobate 1

1268 Kerosene 1

1863 JPA - Jet fuel 1

1866 Resin solution, or similar 1

1993 Diesel 6 Naphthalene - Nalco 1 Transmix, flammable liquid, N.O.S. 1

3272 Esters, N.O.S., (contains Propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate) 1

1755, 1760, 1826, 1993, Corrosive

Combustible liquids, N.O.S. (Naphthalene, 1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene) 1

1993, Dangerous

Methanol, flammable liquid, N.O.S. 1


Alcohols, N.O.S. (Contains Ethyl alcohol, Methanol, 3, PGII) 1 Paint related material (3, PGII) 1 Paint, or similar 1

Corrosive, Flammable

Isopropenylbenzene, marine pollutant, (Alpha-methyl styrene) 1

Dangerous Resin solution, or similar 1

Dangerous, Flammable

Paint related materials, and associated solvents 5

Flammable Adhesives 1 Flammable liquid, Microblend brake parts cleaner, N.O.S.,

(Hexane, Isopropanol) 1

IPA 1 Methyl acetate 1 Pail, coating solution 1 Paint related materials 1 Paint, or similar 2 Triethylamine 1 Xylenes 1

No placard Alcohols, N.O.S. 1 Ethanol solutions 1 Flammable liquids, N.O.S. (Ethanol) 1 IPA 1 Paint, or similar 2 Petroleum distillates, N.O.S. 1 Xylenes 2

Grand Total

74


Table 33. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 5.1 Material Shipments by Placards Displayed on Trucks.


Number of Shipments

1942 Ammonium nitrate 1

2014 Hydrogen peroxide solution, aqueous, 30 percent 1

2014, Corrosive Hydrogen peroxide solution 1

Corrosive Calcium hydrochlorite mixture, dry, 5.1 1

Oxidizing solid, N.O.S. 5.1 (1-Brano-3-Cloro 5,5-Dimethylhydantoin)

1

Corrosive, Oxidizer Bioguard (Calcium hypochlorite, hydrated mixtures, 5.1, II RQ 1

Bioguard (Hydrogen peroxide, aqueous solutions, 5.1, (8) II) 1

Bioguard (Oxidizing solid, N.O.S., Lithium hypochlorite mixture, 5.1, III)

1

Bioguard (Trichloroisocyanuric acid, dry, mixture, 5.1, II) 1


Chromium trioxide, anhydrous 1

Oxidizer Ammonium nitrate 1

No placard Chlorinating tablets - oxidizer 5.1 1

Grand Total 12

Table 34. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 6.1 Material Shipments by Placards Displayed on Trucks.


Number of Shipments

Dangerous, Class 8 Hydrazine, aqueous solution 1


Toxic, liquids, organic, n.o.s., (Methylene choride phenol mixture)

1

Flammable Carbonate pesticide, liquid, toxic, flammable, contains Methomyl, Cyclohexane, and Methanol

1

Poison Furfuryl alcohol 1 Organophosphorus pesticides, toxic, liquid, flammable 1

Grand Total 5


Table 35. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 8 Material Shipments by Placards Displayed on Trucks.


Number of Shipments

1830 Sulfuric acid 2

2921 Corrosive solid, flammable, N.O.S. (N-Hexane, Titanium tetrachloride) 1

3264 Corrosive liquid, acidic, inorganic, N.O.S. (Ferric sulfate) 1

3265 Corrosive liquid, acidic, organic, N.O.S., (1-Hydroxyethylene-1, 1-Diphosphonic acid)

1

3266 Sodium thiophosphate, corrosive, basic, inorganic, combustible, N.O.S. 1

1755, 1760, 1826, 1993, Corrosive

Waste chromic acid solution, 8 1 Waste corrosive liquid, acidic, inorganic, N.O.S. (contains Chromic acid,

Nitric acid, Silver nitrate, Hydrofluoric acid), 8 1

Waste corrosive liquid, acidic, organic, N.O.S. (Nitric acid, Hydrofluoric acid)

1

Waste corrosive liquid, acidic, organic, N.O.S. (Sulfuric acid, Thiourea) 1 Waste corrosive liquids, oxidizing, N.O.S. (Nitric acid) 1 Waste corrosive liquids, N.O.S. (Hydrochloric acid), 8 1 Waste hydrochloric acid, solution 1 Waste nitrating acid mixtures, spent, N.O.S., (Nitric acid), 8 1 Waste phosphoric acid, 8 1 Waste sulfuric acid 2 Waste sulfuric acid mixture, spent 1

Corrosive Aluminum fluoride solution 1 Amines, liquid, corrosive, N.O.S., 8, III (Amines) 1 Batteries, wet, filled with acid, Class 8 1 Corrosive liquids N.O.S. (Sodium hydroxide solution), 8 1 Ethylenediamine 1 Hydrochloric acid 1 Sodium hypochlorite 2


Corrosive liquid, acidic, organic, N.O.S. (Ethephon), 8 , III 1 Paint related material, 8, PG II 1 Sulfuric acid 1

Corrosive, Flammable

Morpholine 1

Corrosive, Inhalation hazard

Titanium tetrachloride 1

Corrosive, Oxidizer

Proguard, corrosive solid, acidic, inorganic, N.O.S. (Monosulfate compound)

1

Dangerous 45 pails of Isophorone diamine fluorite 1

Dangerous, Class 8

Corrosive liquids, toxic, N.O.S. (Sodium hydroxide/Sodium nitrite) 1 Morpholine/Potassium hydroxide 1 Phosphoric acid solution 1 Potassium hydroxide 1


Batteries, wet, filled with Alkali; Life-saving devices, self-inflating 2 Chromic acid solution 1

Flammable Corrosive liquid, basic, inorganic, N.O.S. 1

No placard Acid, corrosive 1 Corrosive liquid, acidic, inorganic, N.O.S., (Phosphoric acid, Sulfuric acid) 1 Corrosive liquid, basic, inorganic, N.O.S. 1 Corrosive solid, acidic, inorganic, N.O.S., (Monopersulfate compound) 1 Corrosive liquids, N.O.S., 8 1 Disodium trioxosilicate 1 Hydrochloric acid, solution 1 Sodium hydroxide 1

Grand Total

50


Table 36. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Class 9 Material Shipments by Placards Displayed Trucks.


Number of Shipments

3077 Silica sand, environmentally hazardous substance, solid, N.O.S., contains Lead

1

3257 Asphalt, elevated temperature liquid, or similar 2 Elevated temperature liquid, N.O.S. (Polyisobutylene) 1

1755, 1760, 1826, 1993, Corrosive

Hazardous waste, liquid, N.O.S. (contains Themersol, Silver K, Barium, or Silver)

1

Corrosive Baquacil, premium algicide - ORM-D 1


Consumer commodity 1

Corrosive, Flammable,

Environmentally hazardous substances, liquid, N.O.S. (Triphenyl phosphate, Phosphoric acid, Isodecyl diphenyl ester)

1

Dangerous, Class 8 Environmentally hazardous substances, liquid, N.O.S. (Dichlorotoluene/Heavy aromatic naphtha; Limonene)

1


Environmentally hazardous substances, liquid, n.o.s. 1

Grand Total

12

We also reviewed cross-tabulations of origin and destination regions for shipments contained

on trucks that were included in the Anthony POE shipping manifest survey. We then identified

the number of shipments by origin-destination region, the associated ranking of each O-D region

pair, and the percentages of shipments represented for each respective origin and destination.

These data are summarized in Table 37. We also examined the number of shipments per truck

for each of the O-D region pairs from Table 37 to identify the equivalent number of trucks

between the O-D region pairs that were included in the Anthony POE shipping manifest survey,

and the mileage between the O-D region pairs. These data are summarized in Table 38. The

data from Tables 37 and 38 indicate the following:

At least 113 shipments (60 percent) originated in Texas, 59 of them in El Paso

(31percent).

At least 75 shipments (40 percent) had destinations in New Mexico, 55 in Las Cruces

(29 percent)

Around 20 percent of shipments (39) and 28 percent of HazMat trucks (30) were

traveling between El Paso and Las Cruces.

Shipments originating outside of Texas were primarily coming from the Southeastern

U.S., but no particular state dominated shipment origins.

Shipments destined outside of New Mexico were going predominantly to the Los

Angeles-San Diego, California region.

Shipments between El Paso, Texas, and New Mexico destinations had a low number of

shipments per truck. These were mostly deliveries of bulk liquid fuels. Shipments

originating outside of El Paso, Texas tended to have higher numbers of different

shipments per truck. These were typically breakbulk shipments of various commodities.



Texas A

&M


P

age 70

Table 37. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: O-D Pairs and Associated Frequencies, Ranks, and Percentages for Shipments on Surveyed Trucks.

Origin Destination Shipment Frequency

Shipment Rank

Percent of All Shipments

from Origin

Percent of All Shipments to Destination

El Paso, TX Las Cruces, NM 39 1 62% 64%

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 17 2 55% 38%

Corpus Christi, TX Beatty, NV 14 3 100% 100%

El Paso, TX Albuquerque, NM 13 4 21% 93%

Houston, TX Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 10 5 53% 22%

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Las Cruces, NM 9 6 29% 15%

El Paso, TX Silver City, NM 7 7 11% 88%

Atlanta, GA Phoenix, AZ 5 8 45% 45%

Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Gulfport

Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 4 9 100% 9%

Memphis, TN Las Cruces, NM 4 9 100% 7%

Rio Grande Valley, TX Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 4 9 100% 9%

Unknown Unknown 4 9 80% 100%

Atlanta, GA Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 3 13 27% 7%

Jacksonville, FL Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 3 13 75% 7%

Kansas City, MO Las Cruces, NM 3 13 100% 5%

Subtotal Above:

139

73.9%

Total Shipments: 188 100%



Texas A

&M


P

age 71

Table 38. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: O-D Pairs and Associated Frequencies, Number of Equivalent Trucks, Shipment/Truck Ratios, and O-D Distances for Shipments on Surveyed Trucks.

Origin Destination Shipment Frequency

Number of Equivalent

Trucks

Ratio of Shipments/

Trucks O-D Distance

(miles)

El Paso, TX Las Cruces, NM 39 30.0 1.30 46

El Paso, TX Silver City, NM 7 6.0 1.17 154

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 17 5.0 3.40 1,420

El Paso, TX Albuquerque, NM 13 5.0 2.60 269

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Las Cruces, NM 9 4.0 2.25 663

Unknown Unknown 4 4.0 1.00 Unknown

Houston, TX Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 10 3.0 3.33 1,546

Atlanta, GA Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 3 2.0 1.50 2,218

Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Gulfport

Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 4 1.7 2.40 1,892

Corpus Christi, TX Beatty, NV 14 1.0 14.00 1,534

Atlanta, GA Phoenix, AZ 5 1.0 5.00 1,846

Rio Grande Valley, TX Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 4 1.0 4.00 1,592

Jacksonville, FL Los Angeles-San Diego, CA 3 1.0 3.00 2,415

Kansas City, MO Las Cruces, NM 3 1.0 3.00 1,116

Memphis, TN Las Cruces, NM 4 0.8 5.00 1,132

Subtotal Above:

139 66.5

Total Shipments: 188 108


We also cross-tabulated the number of shipments by HazMat commodity class for different

origin-destination region pairs. These data are summarized in Tables 39 through 46.

Table 39: Nearly all of the HazMat shipments that originated in El Paso, Texas (63), had

destinations in New Mexico (61). Most of these destinations were in Las Cruces (39),

followed by Albuquerque (13). Over half of the shipments that originated in El Paso

were Class 3 flammable and combustible liquids (36), while over a quarter were Class 2

gases (18).

Table 40: Most of the HazMat shipments that originated in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas

region (31) had destinations outside of New Mexico (22). Most of these destinations

were in the Los Angeles-San Diego, California region (17). Class 3 flammable and

combustible liquids (11), and Class 8 corrosive materials (9) accounted for around one-

third of the shipments, each.

Table 41: All of the HazMat shipments that originated in Houston, Texas (19), had

destinations outside of New Mexico. Around half of these destinations were in the Los

Angeles-San Diego, California region (10). The largest share of shipments were of Class

8 corrosive materials (7), followed by Class 3 flammable and combustible liquids (5).

Table 42: All of the HazMat shipments that originated in Corpus Christi, Texas (14),

were carried on one truck and were destined for Beatty, Nevada. The large majority of

these shipments were of Class 8 corrosive materials (12).

Table 43: All of the HazMat shipments that originated in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas,

region (4) were destined for the Los Angeles-San Diego, California region. Three of

these shipments were of Class 3 flammable and combustible liquids.

Table 44: The majority of HazMat shipments with destinations in Las Cruces, New

Mexico (61), had origins in Texas (49). Most of these origins were from El Paso (39),

followed by the Dallas-Fort Worth region (9). Over half of the shipments with

destinations in Las Cruces were Class 3 flammable and combustible liquids (33), while

around 20 percent were Class 8 corrosive materials (14) and Class 2 gases (11).

Table 45: All of HazMat shipments with destinations in Albuquerque, New Mexico (14),

had origins in Texas. The large majority of these originated in El Paso (13). More than

70 percent of the shipments with destinations in Albuquerque were Class 2 gases (10).

Table 46: Most of HazMat shipments with destinations in Silver City, New Mexico (8),

originated in El Paso, Texas (1). All shipments with destinations in the Lordsburg-

Deming, New Mexico region or Silver City, New Mexico were Class 3 flammable and

combustible liquids (10).



Texas A

&M


P

age 73

Table 39. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Destinations for HazMat Shipments Originating in El Paso, Texas, by HazMat Class.

HazMat Class

New Mexico Destinations Non-New Mexico

Destinations

Grand Total

Albuquerque, NM

Las Cruces,

NM

Lordsburg-Deming,

NM Silver City,

NM Sub- Total

Phoenix, AZ

Southeast Colorado

Sub- Total

2 - Gases 10 7 17 1 1 18 3 - Flammable and

Combustible Liquids 1 26 2 7 36 36

5.1 - Oxidizers 1 1 1 8 - Corrosives 5 5 1 1 6 9 - Miscellaneous

Hazardous Materials 2 2 2

Total 13 39 2 7 61 1 1 2 63

Table 40. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Destinations for HazMat Shipments Originating in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, by HazMat Class.

HazMat Class

Las Cruces,

NM

Non-New Mexico Destinations

Grand Total

Fresno-Bakersfield,

CA

Los Angeles-San Diego,

CA Northeast

AZ

Pomona-San Bernardino,

CA

San Francisco-

Oakland, CA Sub-Total

2 - Gases 2 1 1 1 3 5 3 - Flammable and

Combustible Liquids 1 8 1 1 10 11

5.1 - Oxidizers 1 1 1 2 6.1 - Toxics and

Poisons 1 1 1 2

8 - Corrosives 4 1 4 5 9 9 - Miscellaneous

Hazardous Materials 2 2 2

Total 9 2 17 1 1 1 22 31



Texas A

&M


P

age 74

Table 41. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Destinations for HazMat Shipments Originating in Houston, Texas, by HazMat Class.

HazMat Class

Non-New Mexico Destinations

Eastern AZ

Fresno-Bakersfield,

CA Las

Vegas, NV

LA- San Diego,

CA Malay-

sia

Pomona- San Bernard.,

CA Phoenix,

AZ

San Fran.-Oakland,

CA

South Central Coast,

CA Grand Total

2 - Gases 1 1 2

3 - Flammable and Combustible Liquids

1 1 1 2 5

5.2 - Organic Peroxide 1 1

6.1 - Toxics and Poisons 1 1 2

8 - Corrosives 1 5 1 7

9 - Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials

2 2

Total 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 2 1 19

Table 42. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Destinations for HazMat Shipments Originating in Corpus Christi, Texas, by HazMat Class. HazMat Class Destination: Beatty, NV

3 - Flammable and Combustible Liquids

1

8 - Corrosives 12 9 - Miscellaneous

Hazardous Materials 1

Total 14

Table 43. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Destinations for HazMat Shipments Originating in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas, by HazMat Class.

HazMat Class

Destination: Los Angeles-San Diego,

CA

2 - Gases 1 3 - Flammable and

Combustible Liquids 3

Total 4



Texas A

&M


P

age 75

Table 44. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Origins for HazMat Shipments with Destinations in Las Cruces, NM, by HazMat Class.

Region of Origin

HazMat Class

Total Class 2 - Gases

Class 3 - Flammable and

Combustible Liquids

Class 5.1 - Oxidizers

Class 6.1 - Toxics and

Poisons Class 8 -

Corrosives

Texas El Paso, TX 7 26 1 5 39

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 2 1 1 1 4 9

Lubbock, TX 1 1

Subtotal: 9 27 2 1 10 49

Non-Texas Albuquerque, NM 1 1 Atlanta, GA 1 1 Charlotte, NC 1 1 Chicago, IL 1 1 Kansas City, MO 3 3 Memphis, TN 1 2 1 4 San Diego, CA 1 1

Subtotal: 2 6 4 12

Grand Total:

11 33 2 1 14 61


Table 45. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Origins for HazMat Shipments with Destinations in Albuquerque, NM, by HazMat Class.

Region of Origin

HazMat Class

Total Class 2 - Gases

Class 3 - Flammable and

Combustible Liquids

Class 9 - Miscellaneous

Hazardous Materials

El Paso, TX 10 1 2 13 Lufkin-Nacogdoches, TX 1 1

Grand Total: 10 1 3 14

Table 46. Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Data: Frequencies of Origins for HazMat Shipments with Destinations in Lordsburg-Deming, NM, and Silver City, NM,

by HazMat Class.

Region of Origin

HazMat Class 3 - Flammable and Combustible

Liquids

Total Lordsburg-Deming, NM

Silver City, NM

El Paso, TX 2 7 9 Lordsburg-Deming, NM 1 1

Grand Total: 2 8 10

6.2.2 Carrier Safety Information

As described for Zaragoza POE, we also evaluated safety-related statistics for trucks that

were included in the Anthony POE shipping manifest survey, summarized in Table 47. We

obtained DOT registration numbers for 108 of 111 trucks that were included in the shipping

manifest survey. OOS ratings for carriers that were higher than national averages over the 2009–

2010 timeperiod are identified in Table 47 using italicized text.

Unlike the shipping manifest evaluation for Zaragoza POE, there were a number of trucks

were included in the Anthony POE shipping manifest survey that were owned by carriers with

vehicle and driver OOS ratings that were worse than national averages. There were also a

number of carriers with HazMat OOS ratings worse than national averages. Together, there were

15 out of 108 trucks for which we obtained DOT registration numbers at Anthony POE,

representing 13 different carriers, that had OOS ratings worse than national averages. Five of

these carriers had OOS ratings in multiple categories that were higher than national averages.

Although all of the 13 carriers with higher than average OOS ratings had only one or two

trucks each that were included in the Anthony POE shipping manifest survey, there appeared to

be two predominant types of hazardous materials that were associated with these carriers in the

survey. Nine of the trucks had placards for UN/NA ID 1993 or ‘Flammable’ materials, and six

of the trucks had placards for ‘Corrosive’ materials or UN/NA ID 3265.



Texas A

&M


P

age 77

Table 47. Carrier Safety Information for Trucks from Anthony POE Shipping Manifest Survey.


Total National

Inspections 2009-2010

Inspection % Out of Service Number of Trucks in Sample Placard IDs in Sample Vehicle Driver Hazmat

4247 Groendyke Transport, Inc. 2,389 9.41% 0.55% 1.34% 2 1203

7448 Tex-Air Gas Co., Inc. 8 14.29% 12.50% 0.00% 1 1046

16130 Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. 6,483 8.27% 1.46% 1.78% 1 1993

20293 G I Trucking Company 1,264 11.29% 1.32% 7.25% 1 No placard

29124 SAIA Motor Freight Line, LLC 4,260 14.98% 0.76% 3.88% 3 3267, Corrosive, Flammable

36647 Coastal Transport Co., Inc. 1,600 12.33% 0.63% 1.16% 18 1075,1170, 1203, 3257,1993

63391 Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. 5,079 12.93% 0.74% 4.08% 5 No placards, Dangerous, Class 8,

71821 YRC, Inc. 8,034 18.89% 0.72% 4.97% 1 Corrosive

75063 Mayfield Pool Supply, LP 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 No placards

76324 Truserv Logistics Company 433 8.33% 0.93% 2.94% 1 No placards

84338 Superior Carriers, Inc. 1,437 8.72% 0.84% 1.25% 1 3266

86873 Helena Chemical Company 888 12.27% 0.71% 7.61% 1 Flammable

117034 Central Freight Lines, Inc. 1,838 21.02% 2.63% 5.03% 1 Flammable

118390 BJ Cecil Trucking, Inc. 246 10.15% 3.02% 3.64% 1 1830

121058 UPS Ground Freight, Inc. 6,824 13.68% 1.39% 3.65% 2 No placard

134151 Baron Chemical Co., Inc. 7 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Corrosive

146620 Brewer Oil Co. 39 9.38% 0.00% 0.00% 2 1203

149333 Jack B Kelley, Inc. 721 4.82% 0.43% 0.34% 1 1972

172508 Western Refining Wholesale, Inc. 560 7.14% 0.36% 0.90% 4 1202, 1203

185040 United Petroleum Transports, Inc. 1,707 13.52% 1.18% 2.19% 3 1203, 1993

194997 Quality Transport, Inc. 110 10.98% 3.96% 0.00% 1 1830

223430 Argyle Welding Supply Co., Inc. 15 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Non-flammable gas

226118 Southern Freight, Inc. 514 15.29% 3.50% 1.63% 1 Oxidizer

239039 FedEx Freight, Inc. 7,011 12.09% 0.69% 4.08% 19 No placard, Corrosive, Dangerous, Flammable, Inhalation hazard, Poison

241572 Landstar Ranger, Inc. 13,866 13.48% 2.43% 1.96% 2 Corrosive, Dangerous, Flammable, Oxidizer

241829 Con-Way Freight, Inc. 6,212 10.31% 0.99% 4.36% 1 No placard



Texas A

&M


P

age 78


Total National

Inspections 2009-2010

Inspection % Out of Service Number of Trucks in Sample Placard IDs in Sample Vehicle Driver Hazmat

246020 J & M Company 112 1.10% 0.00% 0.00% 1 2201, Non-flammable gas

256308 Trimac Trans. Svcs. Western, Inc. 571 13.45% 1.60% 0.30% 1 1977

273818 Covenant Transport, Inc. 5,221 12.10% 1.31% 2.96% 1 Flammable

282721 American Transport, Inc. 1,322 21.15% 4.79% 6.67% 1 1993

285929 Triad Transport, Inc. 808 13.06% 2.61% 4.30% 3 1942, Corrosive, Flammable, Oxidizer

288323 Autozone Texas, LP 1,463 6.95% 0.14% 0.45% 1 Corrosive

388004 Amerigas Propane, LP 4,146 8.44% 0.81% 1.54% 2 1075

439116 Joseph J Ashe 67 7.27% 0.00% 0.00% 1 1203

454597 Desert Refined Products Transport, Inc. 238 5.83% 0.42% 1.86% 1 1863

540777 Transwood, Inc. 1,116 7.27% 1.26% 0.67% 1 3257

540805 Airgas Southwest 667 3.43% 0.90% 0.47% 1 Flammable gas, Non-flammable gas

549324 Dansk Investment Group 30 22.22% 0.00% 7.69% 1 1993

661173 Central Transport, LLC 3,222 21.26% 1.82% 9.14% 2 Flammable, Non-flammable gas

688633 Linden Bulk Transportation SW, LLC 728 9.39% 4.54% 0.98% 1 3272

726496 Official Fast Freight, LLC 48 15.63% 0.00% 0.00% 1 Corrosive

786781 EQ Industrial Services, Inc. 328 7.46% 2.13% 2.74% 1 1755, 1760, 1826, 1993, Corrosive

824474 Tigua Transportation, Inc. 22 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 2 1993

913300 Gemini Motor Transport, LP 1,013 1.85% 0.30% 0.00% 1 1993

992406 Chemical Logistics, Inc. 167 11.11% 2.99% 1.53% 1 2014, Corrosive

1258582 LMD Integrated Logistic Services, Inc. 46 0.00% 2.27% 0.00% 1 2921

1296876 Cerchio Enterprise, Inc. 32 22.73% 0.00% 0.00% 1 3265

1384545 RJ Leasing, LLC 30 33.33% 6.67% 0.00% 1 1993

1495193 Bulk Trans, Inc. 125 21.82% 7.20% 4.63% 1 1993

1561741 Xpert Transportation, LLC 117 7.62% 0.85% 1.83% 2 1203

1632012 Southwest Cargo Systems, LLC 168 16.28% 4.76% 3.08% 1 1268

2059502 CGL Transport, LLC 128 5.68% 3.91% 0.99% 1 2014

Total 108

National Averages (2009-2010) 20.72% 5.51% 4.50%


6.3 SUMMARY FOR ANTHONY POE

The truck traffic that was outbound from Texas to New Mexico on I-10 at the Anthony, NM,

Port of Entry included a wide range of different hazardous materials. Truck traffic levels

normalized to a period of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. totaled around 1,730 westbound trucks, and HazMat

placarded truck traffic comprised around 4.5 percent of trucks we counted. Around half of the

shipments were of Class 3 flammable and combustible liquids, and around 20 percent were of

Class 8 corrosive materials. The most frequently observed placards were labeled for UN/NA ID

1203, ‘Corrosive,’ UN/NA ID 1993, and ‘Flammable’ materials.

At least 60 percent of shipments included in the Anthony POE shipping manifest survey

originated in Texas, and half of these originated in El Paso. At least 40 percent of shipments had

destinations in New Mexico, two-thirds of these in Las Cruces. Shipments originating outside of

Texas were primarily coming from the Southeastern U.S., and shipments destined outside of

New Mexico were predominantly going to the Los Angeles-San Diego, California region.

Trucks that were traveling between El Paso, Texas, and New Mexico destinations had a low

number of shipments per truck. These were mostly deliveries of bulk liquid fuels. Trucks that

were travelling from origins outside of El Paso, Texas, tended to have higher numbers of

different shipments per truck. These were typically breakbulk shipments of various

commodities.

The safety profiles of 13 companies whose trucks were included in Anthony POE shipping

manifest survey were worse than national averages for vehicle, driver, and/or HazMat out-of-

service ratings. Five of the companies had OOS ratings worse than national averages in multiple

categories. Although all of the 13 carriers with higher than average OOS ratings had only one or

two trucks each that were included in the Anthony POE shipping manifest survey, there appeared

to be two predominant types of hazardous materials that were associated with these carriers in

the survey. Nine of the trucks had placards for UN/NA ID 1993 or ‘Flammable’ materials, and

six of the trucks had placards for ‘Corrosive’ materials or UN/NA ID 3265.


7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 CONCLUSIONS

While there is strong diversity and industrial capacities that promote of manufacturing and

bi-national trade in the El Paso-Juarez region, the types and quantities of hazardous materials

that are transported by truck into the U.S. from Mexico at Zaragoza POE are limited, and appear

to be relatively stable over time. Bulk HazMat shipments consisted primarily of flammable and

non-flammable gases, and comprised mostly empty tank trucks returning to the U.S. after having

delivered shipments in Mexico. There were also loaded, inbound bulk shipments by tank truck

of hydrofluoric acid, a corrosive, toxic liquid. Non-bulk shipments of hazardous materials into

the U.S. from Mexico at Zaragoza POE were primarily airbag modules.

In contrast, the I-10 trade corridor in the El Paso-New Mexico area has a much higher level

and greater diversity of HazMat transport. This includes regional deliveries of bulk fuel and

shipments of gases to New Mexico, and long-haul bulk and breakbulk shipments of gases,

flammable liquids, oxidizers, poisonous and toxic materials, corrosive materials, and

miscellaneous dangerous goods. While there are also shipments of radioactive materials over the

corridor, there were no shipments of these materials included in our survey.

While we did not examine individual trucks for compliance with safety requirements at either

Zaragoza POE or Anthony POE (our survey personnel were not DOT-certified inspectors), we

reviewed publicly available information for carriers that owned the trucks that were included in

the shipping manifest surveys. Based on those analyses, we did not find much evidence to

support the idea of ‘dangerous trucks from Mexico’ that transport hazardous materials into the

U.S. at El Paso. There were proportionately more trucks in our survey at Anthony POE

associated with carriers that have higher than average FMCSA out-of-service ratings for

vehicles, drivers, and hazardous materials, than at the Zaragoza POE. There were also multiple

trucks in our survey at Anthony POE associated with carriers that have higher than average OOS

ratings in multiple categories. Based strictly on these truck and HazMat traffic data, and carrier

safety information, the general likelihood of a HazMat transport incident appears to be greater

over the I-10 corridor than at Zaragoza POE. This does not mean however that there is no risk of

a HazMat incident at Zaragoza POE.

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.2.1 Use Project Results

Emergency responders, elected officials, public health and hospital agencies, community and

transportation planners, and the general public must be aware of and prepared for the potential of

HazMat incidents wherever these types of materials are transported or at fixed facilities where

they are stored, produced, or consumed. The reports for a 2012 El Paso Hazardous Materials

Commodity Flow Study (provided separately to the City of El Paso Fire Department on behalf of

the El Paso County Local Emergency Planning Committee) include suggestions about how

responders, elected officials, planners and other public agencies, and the public can use this


information (15,16). We encourage officials and agencies in the El Paso region to use the

information from this study and the 2012 El Paso Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Study

and share the information with other relevant stakeholders. Specific applications for this

information include:

Use the information to enhance emergency operations plans and standard operating

procedures for response, and informing emergency response training and exercises.

Integrate the information into community and transportation planning, not only to

account for transport of hazardous materials, but also commercial vehicle traffic in

general. Relevant agencies include local, state, and federal transportation agencies,

metropolitan planning organizations, and other municipal and county agencies.

For community-specific impacts, we note that the commodity flow study reports

described above included population demographic profiles based on U.S. Census data at

block group levels and proximities to major truck and rail corridors. The analysis

showed that as proximity to major road and rail infrastructures increase, median

household income and level of education decrease, and age and Hispanic ethnicity

increase. These factors relate to population risks due to chemical exposures and

anticipated responses to emergency warnings such as evacuation and/or shelter-in-place

notifications. Agencies that could use this information include response agencies, public

health and hospital officials, and municipal and county information offices.

7.2.2 Keep the Data Current

Changes in communities can affect both transport of hazardous materials and population

risks of exposure to harmful effects of hazmat transport incidents. For example, the El Paso

region is experiencing rapid growth and modernization of its transport infrastructures, for

example along I-10 and on Loop 375, which can affect flows of both commercial truck and

passenger vehicle traffic. Economic activity is another important consideration. Chapter 2

discussed the growth potential for increased manufacturing activity in the Juarez-El Paso region,

as well as effects of intercontinental trade flows. While cross-border HazMat traffic in the El

Paso-Juarez region is currently permitted only through the Zaragoza POE, HazMat traffic may be

permitted in the future through the Santa Teresa POE. These changes can be expected to alter

HazMat flows not only at the ports of entry but also connecting roadway and highway networks.

Updates to transportation information sources such as this shipping manifest study are one way

to identify changes in hazardous materials flows, and their potential effects on surrounding

communities.

7.2.3 Expand the Knowledge Basis

Expanding the basis of knowledge and information can help local communities, states, and

the federal government plan for safe and efficient movement of hazardous materials, and

minimize negative effects on populations and the environment. Recommendations for future

research include projects about hazardous materials transport and potential population effects in

the El Paso area, as well as regionally and nationally. Examples of projects include:

1. An expanded shipping manifest study on I-10, for example at Anthony POE. This report

summarizes the outcomes of shipping manifest data collection at Anthony POE over 16


hours during the daytime on four different weekdays during the spring and early summer.

This information could be expanded to account for nighttime, weekend, and/or seasonal

traffic. Such a study might also include an evaluation of whether commercial vehicles

are attempting to bypass truck inspection facilities.

2. Other shipping manifest evaluations could be conducted at other commercial vehicle

inspection stations on I-10 in Texas and/or other states. This could expand the available

information about both local/regional and long-haul traffic, and help transportation and

emergency planners better understand risks and potential traffic impacts along the

corridor.

3. These projects could also incorporate results of commercial vehicle inspections by DOT-

certified inspectors, as well as driver record-keeping and citation information. While the

amount of time required is probably too great to include Level I (Standard) inspections, it

might be possible to include Level II (Walk Around/Driver) inspections.

4. In addition, research projects could examine commercial vehicle incident/accident data

maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation, as well as other data that might

be available for HazMat incidents, and use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to co-

locate these data with information about transportation networks, populations, and critical

infrastructures and identify risk ‘hotspots.’

5. Another type of study might focus on the safety management practices of transportation

carriers and how these practices affect vehicle maintenance and incident risks. This

report identified that HazMat carriers with higher than average out-of-service ratings are

operating in the El Paso region. Practices of these carriers could be compared with those

who have better safety ratings to identify whether there are systemic factors that drive

carrier performance in safety related areas.

6. Section 7.2.1 refers to a general population demographic and transport corridor proximity

analysis was conducted using U.S. Census block group data. This type of analysis could

be expanded to include U.S. Census microdata (potentially available through the Texas

Census Data Research Center at Texas A&M University) and use GIS to identify more-

specific demographics (e.g., non-English speaking or English-second-language

households) that are potentially at risk.

7. The downtown El Paso area has an extensive network of both elevated and depressed

transport infrastructures. There are also industrial facilities and transportation hubs in the

area that are potential sources of chemical releases. Analyses of physical infrastructure

could inform about potential impacts of toxic plume migrations or explosive blasts as

channeled by urban structures (e.g., roadways and buildings) that are not accounted for in

chemical release models.

8. Other studies could examine how information about HazMat transportation is integrated

into emergency, transportation, and community plans. Using information about

population vulnerabilities, for example, emergency preparedness and response planning


might be able to address responses of vulnerable populations to emergency warning

notifications, and ways of communicating risks to those populations.

9. Research on response and planning organizations might address communications and

information sharing practices both horizontally and vertically among local, state, and

federal agencies. For example, all truck shipments that cross from Mexico into the U.S.

are required to file an e-manifest with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The

e-manifest is usually filed by the carrier and has to be done one hour prior to arrival at a

U.S. land border port of entry, or 30 minutes if the carrier is a participant in the Free and

Secure Trade (FAST) program. The e-manifests provide CBP with cargo information

such as crew, conveyance, equipment, and shipment details.

Information that is included in the e-manifest is managed by CBP’s Automated

Commercial Environment (ACE), and it distributes the information to other federal

agencies under a Single Window environment. Federal agencies that are part of the

program are called Participating Government Agencies (PGAs), and from the Department

of Transportation include the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Pipeline Hazardous

Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The federal agencies receive certain data

elements from the e-manifest.

As the e-manifest includes commodity detail, cross-border hazmat shipments could be

identified. State and local agencies could work together with the federal agencies to

establish the necessary protocols for data sharing. The ACE program has been developed

over a long time, and currently state and local agencies are not considered PGAs;

however, tracking hazmat in the international border environment is important to local

communities and therefore the mechanisms to share information between federal and

local agencies should be implemented.

Other research that is currently being conducted by federal agencies and the private sector

involves electronic tracking of HazMat shipments. While these data are not generally available

to local agencies, it could be a valuable source of information to help identify the particular risks

and vulnerabilities that local populations are exposed to. Future research could identify ways of

communicating this type of information effectively and efficiently while addressing privacy and

security concerns.


REFERENCES

(1) Union Pacific Railroad begins construction of $400 Million rail facility in New Mexico.

(2011, August 8). Union Pacific, News Releases website, http://www.uprr.com/

newsinfo/releases/capital_investment/2011/0808_santa_teresa.shtml

(2) Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (n.d.). Información Nacional por Entidad

Federativa y Municipios [Data file for Municipio: Juárez, 2010]. Retrieved September,

2012, from http://www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/mexicocifras/default.aspx?e=08

(3) Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, El Paso Branch. (2012, August). Economic update—El

Paso. Retrieved from http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/update/ep/

2012/1205epupdate.pdf

(4) Fullerton, T.M., & Walke, A.G. (2011, December). Borderplex economic outlook: 2011-

2013. Business Report SR11-1. University of Texas at El Paso.

(5) Villa, J.C., & Bujanda, A. (2010, December). Texas international trade corridor plan.

Texas Department of Transportation. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-

info/library/reports/gov/tpp/itcp_2010.pdf

(6) Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority. (2008, July). 2008 comprehensive mobility

plan: Partners for mobility. Retrieved from http://www.crrma.org/_documents/3%20-

%202008%20CMP%20-%20TxDOT%20Powerpoint%20(July%202008).pdf#view=fitH

(7) Valdez, D.W. (2011, July 12). Toll-lane, interchange projects not expected to affect

commute on Border Highway. El Paso Times. Retrieved from

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_18456131

(8) El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization. (2012, September 7). Mission 2035

metropolitan transportation plan update. Retrieved from http://www.elpasompo.org/

MTPDocs/Mission2035MTPUpdate0912_compressed.pdf

(9) Instituto Municipal de Investigación y Planeación. (2009). Plan de Desarrollo Urbano

Ciudad Juarez 2009. Ciudad Juarez: Instituto Municipal de Investigación y Planeación.

(10) El Paso International Airport. (n.d.). Business–Air cargo. Retrieved September, 2012,

from http://www.elpasointernationalairport.com/air-cargo.php

(11) City of El Paso (n.d.). Welcome to the City of El Paso, Foreign Trade Zone No. 68.

Retrieved September, 2012, from http://home.elpasotexas.gov/ftz/

(12) Bujanda, A., Villa, J.C., & Borowiec, J. (2011). Texas-Mexico border airports: System

analysis. Prepared for Texas Department of Transportation, Aviation Division. Texas

A&M Transportation Institute.

(13) Ambiotec Environmental Consultants, Inc. (1998, February). Hazardous materials

commodity flow study. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

(14) A&B Environmental Services, Inc. (2004, April). Transboundary hazardous material

survey for El Paso, Texas. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

(15) Bierling, D., Martin, M., Jasek, D., Cutaia, L., & Songchitruksa, P. (2012, September).

Hazardous materials commodity flow study: Roadways in El Paso County, Texas.

Prepared for the Texas Division of Emergency Management and the El Paso County

Local Emergency Planning Committee. Texas A&M Transportation Institute.


(16) Bierling, D., Jasek, D., Martin, M., Cutaia, L., Lorente, P., & Van Alstyne, M. (2012,

September). Hazardous materials commodity flow study: Railways in El Paso County,

Texas. Prepared for the Texas Division of Emergency Management and the El Paso

County Local Emergency Planning Committee. Texas A&M Transportation Institute.

cross-border hazardous materials transportation study: el ... · cross-border hazardous materials...

Documents