National Academies Press: OpenBook

Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments (2012)

Chapter: Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews

« Previous: Appendix B - Initial Research Interview Summary and Guideline
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Results of Initial Research Interviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22747.
×
Page 96

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

84 The following pages contain more detailed information from the initial interviews held for HMCRP Project 05. Appendix C is organized as follows: Detailed information from interviews with representatives of stakeholder groups • Motor carriers • Rail carriers • Air carriers • Ocean carriers • Emergency responders • Roadside enforcement officers Observations • Effective practices • Benefits and impediments C-1 Detailed Information from Interviews with Representatives of Stakeholder Groups C-1.1 Motor Carriers Introduction Participants from a broad cross-section of the trucking industry were given an interview guide and interviewed to determine the current use of electronic hazmat shipping infor- mation that is converted from paper and to specifically garner the industry’s perception of the benefits of and impediments to the use of ESP. The resulting interview summary provided insight into current hazmat shipment data management throughout the supply chain. Respondents represented 15 motor carriers in the three primary sectors of the industry, each with unique operat- ing environments (i.e., TL, LTL, specialized). It should be noted that the majority of specialized carriers were bulk hazmat carriers (i.e., operating tanker trucks). Though sev- eral respondents represented carriers that hauled hazmat shipments exclusively, other carriers indicated that hazmat shipments were a small percentage of their overall business activity, which is reflective of the industry as a whole. In addi- tion, industry regulatory personnel and relevant technology vendors were interviewed. Types of Hazmat/Hazmat Packaging The carrier population interviewed hauled most classes of hazmat, ranging from consumer-related hazmat (i.e., paint) to hazardous waste to explosives. In addition to bulk hazmat, other hazmat packaging types hauled by the carriers inter- viewed included palletized cartons and 55-gallon drums. Only one carrier indicated that they transport hazmat in intermediate bulk containers. Intermodal/International Shipments Of the interviewees, only 15% of carriers were involved in intermodal hazmat shipments. Of the five carriers that were involved in international hazmat shipments, each indicated that hazmat transport is a very small portion of their total company operations. Conversion of Paper to Electronic Shipping Documents In general, carriers may convert paper shipping documents (shipper BOLs) to an electronic format during three main activities: prior to pickup, at the point of pickup, or when the driver returns to a company terminal. However, respondents indicated that TL carriers, the predominant carrier type in the United States, derived little benefit from converting hard copy shipping documents to an electronic format and were therefore the least likely to do so. A P P E N D I X C Results of Initial Research Interviews

85 Over half of the respondent motor carriers (53%) con- verted at least some portion (respondents could not specify an exact percentage) of paper-based hazmat shipping docu- ments to an electronic format prior to pickup. It should be noted this does not suggest that 53% of the respondent motor carriers were already using ESP. These carriers were more likely to represent the specialized sector. Conversely, 20% of carriers converted paper to an electronic format at the point of pickup, while a smaller percentage of carriers (13%) converted to electronic format when the driver returned to a company terminal. Another 13% of carriers never converted paper hazmat documents to an electronic format. A large majority of carriers interviewed (87%) received at least some type of advance notification of a hazmat shipment. It should be noted that many of these carriers did not receive advance notice from all customers and all shipments, so this did not suggest that ESP were implemented for 87% of the respondent motor carriers. Slightly less than half (42%) of these carriers indicated receipt of advance shipment informa- tion for a very small number of shipments/customers, while an equal number of carriers (42%) noted receipt of advance hazmat information from a majority of customers. The detailed level of information provided by shippers (and thus captured by a motor carrier’s internal systems) prior to pickup and how the carrier received the advance notice varied significantly. In general, carriers noted that larger, more tech- nologically sophisticated customers were much more likely to provide some type of advance shipment notice information. Carriers also noted that shippers transmitted advance notice for only certain types of hazmat commodities (e.g., propane). Nearly two-thirds (64%) of carriers received advance ship- ment notification via e-mail, phone call, or fax. These meth- ods of communication required carriers to manually enter hazmat information into back office systems if the carrier chose to do so. There were 27% that received advance noti- fication for hazmat shipments via EDI/XML, while only one respondent indicated receiving this information via company website (where shippers could enter the information). One carrier noted that customers were strongly encouraged to send data via XML (as compared to EDI) since this data for- mat greatly reduced the level of effort and subsequent costs of interfacing disparate shipper/carrier back office systems. The level of detail contained in advance notices varied significantly. In some instances, detailed hazmat informa- tion was provided (e.g., hazmat class, United Nations num- ber) although it was more common for shippers to provide general shipment information (e.g., pallet count, shipment weight). Of the carriers that did receive advance hazmat ship- ment information, a large majority (79%) required drivers to validate shipment information at the point of pickup. If no advance notice was sent to the carrier, carriers may not have required drivers to validate specific hazmat information. At the point of pickup, over one-third (36%) of carriers required drivers to verify with back office personnel shipment level detail, while the remaining carriers (64%) required drivers to verify shipment information via an in-cab commu- nication system that, in turn, communicated with back office personnel and IT systems. Outside of the CBP’s ACE system, only two carriers trans- mitted hazmat data to governmental entities. These included munitions-related information and hazardous waste shipment details/tonnage. Very few carriers interviewed (2) had formal plans to improve the use of electronic hazmat shipment information. While the preferences of the two that had formal plans or the remainder who did not were not identified, it is noted in this mode’s impediments discussion that follows that the two most significant issues noted in this regard were the challenges of driver data entry of hazmat information and the capital and recurring costs of equipping drivers with handheld devices to enter hazmat-related information. (It should be noted that no concept of an ESP system, particularly one requiring driver data entry, was either stated or implied during interviews; rather, some respondents inferred driver data entry based on their own conceptions of what a system might entail.) Of those that planned to improve the use of electronic hazmat shipment information, carriers cited in-cab commu- nication systems equipped with an onboard paper scanner. In such a scenario, the driver keys in the hazmat information from the shipper BOL upon pickup and then scans the shipper’s BOL. The in-cab communication system next transmits an image of the hard copy BOL to the carrier’s back office systems. Finally, back office personnel retrieve the image and verify that the driver correctly entered the shipment/hazmat information. Several carriers noted that the current economic environment precluded major technology investment initiatives. Converting to ESP Only one carrier (a large specialized carrier) had already converted to a system of ESP. This carrier received advance notification of shipments, which included detailed hazmat information, and required drivers to validate shipment infor- mation at the point of pickup. It should be noted that this carrier received advance shipment notification from shippers via phone or fax but not in other electronic forms. Six respondents noted that to convert to an ESP system, the carrier needs to: • Encourage shippers to provide detailed hazmat shipment in an EDI/XML format prior to pickup, • Equip all tractors with in-cab communication systems, • Require drivers to enter shipment data into the system, and • Hire and train in-house hazmat experts to verify the driver’s data entry.

86 In-cab communication systems were frequently cited as a key technology needed for carriers to obtain hazmat ESP at the point of pickup. Respondents seemed to focus on the pickup location as the primary place where they obtain the hazmat information. A wireless communication provider was also interviewed to gain insight into how carriers use, or could use, these systems to transmit or verify hazmat ship- ment information. The wireless vendor indicated that carri- ers have great flexibility in the types of information that they may require drivers to enter via the use of form messages. Form messages can consist of data entry fields restricted to certain formats/types of data or the designation of required fields (e.g., the hazmat class or UN number). Impediments to Converting Respondents noted that the most significant issues with or impediments to converting to the use of ESP is driver data entry of hazmat information and the capital and recurring costs of equipping drivers with handheld devices to enter hazmat-related information. Other impediments include: • Training of full-time and part-time drivers, • The need for increased technology at company cross-docks, • Receiving accurate and timely information, and • Inability of most customers to send accurate data prior to pickup. Benefits of ESP Carriers perceived that the benefits that would result from the use of hazmat ESP may include administrative cost reduction related to the handling, tracking, and filing of paper BOLs; improvements to data accuracy; and recon- ciliation of quantity discrepancies. (It should be noted that improvements in data accuracy may depend on who is enter- ing the data. It is likely that drivers are not as good at this as shippers, who have more familiarity with the product.) Less commonly cited benefits included improved customer ser- vice, the potential to mitigate delivery quantity issues (bulk), and providing carriers with advance notice of types of hazmat the carrier will not haul prior to dispatching a driver to a pickup (e.g., radioactive materials). Concerns with ESP The top concerns identified by carriers over the use of ESP included: • The availability of hazmat information during roadside inspections, • Driver data entry accuracy and training, • Determination of how responders in urban and rural loca- tions retrieve the information, • Protection of the confidentiality of carrier/shipper propri- etary information, and • Determination of which party is responsible for data integrity/accuracy. One of the top concerns expressed by a respondent was the availability of electronic shipping documents during a carrier compliance review and/or roadside inspection. Impact of Electronic Shipping Documents Carriers cited that a mandate to use ESP will likely reduce the pool of carriers that can haul hazmat and reduce the number of shippers that can ship hazmat. Though sev- eral respondents noted that the use of electronic shipment documents could reduce administrative and/or operational costs, carriers generally perceived that these savings will be much less than the cost to implement and/or participate in such a system. In addition to significant capital costs, carri- ers felt that they would be subject to several recurring costs, including: • Technology device maintenance, tracking, and upgrading; • Additional labor costs of back office personnel to verify shipper advance notice and driver data entry accuracy; and • Ongoing driver and back office personnel training programs. Safety and Security Eight of 15 respondents agreed that the use of ESP could improve the safety and security of hazmat transport. (It should be noted that the underlying reasons for the per- ception of these respondents that safety and, especially, security could be improved was not clear.) Most of these carriers, however, noted that safety and security improve- ments will likely be small. Most carriers were of the opin- ion that the current system of paper-based documents provides adequately for the safe and secure transport of hazmat shipments. At least one respondent noted that potential areas of improvement include data accuracy and more accurate trailer placarding. In contrast, one respondent noted that this type of system will have the opposite effect on safety and security by providing terrorists with a tool to increase the accessibility of information related to hazmat shipments. In general, respondents believed that there could be at least some benefit from the use of ESP in incident mitigation or as part of the emergency responder preparedness efforts. Ben- efits cited by carriers included:

87 • A reduction in the number of responders dispatched to a scene (and the subsequent cost of the response), and • A backup in case the hard copy shipping paper with emer- gency response information is missing. However, two carriers indicated that there would be no benefit to this type of system, stating that the information is already available in paper form and that during an incident, if responders contact the carrier, the information can be pro- vided quickly. Possible Implementation The majority of respondents recommended that an ESP system should begin with the original shipper (not a 3PL). In this type of system, the shipper creates a record of the ship- ment in a centralized database or website. If the shipper is unable to transmit the data electronically, then the shipper enters the information via a centralized web portal. As the shipment moves through the carrier’s distribution system, the carrier updates the shipment record upon pickup with the appropriate carrier/trailer information or with any pertinent shipment quantity or type discrepancies. The car- rier updates the shipment record via EDI or XML. Carriers unable to receive or transmit hazmat shipment data enter data manually via a centralized web portal. Respondents cited several notable challenges to the fea- sibility of ESP. These challenges included the technological limitations of smaller carriers and shippers, the need to train a very large group of drivers, data format consistencies, and the accuracy of data provided by both shippers and drivers. Next Steps Carriers cited several actions that need to be conducted on the use of ESP. One of the most commonly cited actions was to develop a system for only the most volatile/dangerous hazmat commodities (for example, radioactive materials). Carriers voiced their opinion that there was little need for ESP for the large amounts of consumer-based hazmat com- modities (for example, paint cans or hair spray). This recom- mendation was offered by a regulatory representative as well. There was strong support for the use of cost–benefit analy- ses with the use of ESP. Carriers noted that incidents involv- ing hazmat releases occur very infrequently and that current practices sufficiently address the need to provide responders with hazmat commodity information. Lastly, several carriers intimated that the use of ESP is akin to a solution looking for a problem based on historical data or precedents. To determine the perspective of regulatory/enforcement personnel for implementing such a system, two interviews were conducted with representatives of a regulatory agency. These respondents recommended several potential actions that could facilitate the use of ESP: • Data standards, agreements, and protocols need to be clearly defined; • Requirements of the electronic documents need to be explicitly defined; • Electronic shipping documents from the marine mode may be used, in some cases, for highway shipments; and • A system that keeps proprietary information on a carrier’s system may mitigate the industry’s concern of inadvertent disclosure of proprietary/confidential information. C-1.2 Rail Carriers Introduction One Class 1 railroad and a railroad industry group repre- senting several Class 1 railroads were interviewed (facilitated by a rail trade association) to determine the extent of their use of electronic hazmat shipping information. The informa- tion that follows represents the practice of those railroads. Current Practice 1. Hazmat shipments are a small percentage of total traffic on a shipment basis, in the 2% to 6% range for different carriers and around 5% of U.S. originating carloads in 2008. Rail ships any hazmat authorized in 49 CFR 172.01 except for infectious waste, although intermodal ship- ments may be further restricted by carriers. This includes more than 2,250 different chemical commodity codes encompassing over 1.57 million shipments. 2. Virtually all shipment information is now electronic and has been for years, supported by a no-fax rule. 3. Electronic information is received from offerors, various third parties, and interline partners for over 90% of ship- ments. All U.S., Canadian, and IMDG code regulations are accommodated in current ESP. 4. Information comes in as EDI 404 BOL (i.e., Rail Carrier Shipment Information Transaction Set 404) and has infor- mation on containers, trailers, and boxes. It is also possible to send a flat file and convert it to EDI. XML is used in other industry transactions but not in the BOL aspect. 5. The key electronic data are the Electronic Data Inter- change Rail Carrier Shipment Information Transaction Set 404 (EDI 404 BOL), and the EDI Rail Carrier Waybill Interchange Transaction Set 417 (EDI Waybill). EDI 417 is how information is shared. The EDI 410 freight invoice is how the railroad gets paid (although alternatively there can be automatic bank withdrawals). Interchange Trans- action Set 418 (Rail Advance Interchange Consist) is used to transmit advance information on equipment being

88 interchanged to a connection rail carrier, from a con- signor, or to a consignee. However, hazmat information, where applicable, is transmitted in other EDI data sets. 6. There is no requirement to transmit shipment data to regulatory or government agencies. Providing paper cop- ies to emergency response agencies has been tried, but the volume proved to be overwhelming. 7. When requested by local emergency response agencies, railroads provide commodity flow information for a minimum of the top 25 hazardous materials being trans- ported through their jurisdictions. 8. Some paperwork is still required. Hard copy shipping documents are carried by train crews, who need them in order to respond accurately about cargo in the event of an accident/incident. A train list is provided to each crew, and they must have a copy showing what is on the train. They will also have information on scheduled pickups with location, car number, and hazmat information for that car. Otherwise, information is stored in the waybill file. Waybills are maintained for 3 years and train lists for 5 years, in an electronic file. 9. Information that can potentially be used by emergency responders is updated whenever a railcar with a hazmat shipment goes by an AEI CLM RFID reader. 10. There are security components in the electronic trans- mission systems to preclude unauthorized access to send- ing or displaying information. Response agencies getting information during an incident or response or planning agencies getting commodity flow information are vetted. 11. Rail uses the term “shipping paper”; to the rail industry, “manifest” is a term used for hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is an area where there is not sole EDI use. Attorneys require paper for hazardous waste, so there is a hybrid system. (Railroads consider this an anomaly because they haul substances that are more dangerous than hazardous waste.) Moving a railcar that is not in technical compli- ance also requires papers; a railroad must get movement approval and store the document. 12. The hazmat community trades information well because they do not want things to happen that tarnish their industry. 13. There are two levels of training: (1) hazmat awareness training, and (2) function-specific training. There are gen- erally three major training costs associated with shipment papers: (1) cost service center employees, all of whom must get hazmat awareness training, (2) EDI users, who require function-specific and other specialized train- ing, and (3) operators of equipment, who get training on hazmat shipping papers on a biennial basis. Operat- ing managers and engineers must be trained on an annual basis. Training is also required for long-haul drivers that support railroads. 14. There is an EDI Technical Advisory Group (TAG) com- posed of hazmat and EDI programmer data specialists. The American Chemistry Council and the IAFC are involved with regulations for shipping description. International groups are involved in the TAG. 15. There is an EDI working committee. EDI standards are changing and are updated every 2 years or so. Benefits 1. In general, the rail carriers’ perceived advantage from the EDI was that one person inputs it and it is sent to every- one who needs it (including the regulatory and inspec- tion side if requested). 2. The actual benefits experienced have been that there are no more hard copies that clerks have to file, search out, and retrieve. Now a record can be pulled up in less than a minute. 3. There is no need for large physical storage space for records. 4. Previously, in the days of paper, some percentage of papers was misfiled, which could be perplexing and waste resources. Now, if documents are lost or destroyed, they can be easily regenerated. 5. EDI provides for sharing data more quickly in an emer- gency response situation. 6. Rail industry estimates put the total cost of handling paper documentation for the 5% to 10% of shipments that cur- rently come in that way at $11 to $22 million per year. Concerns with ESP 1. The biggest remaining headache involved with record keep- ing is that with a large workforce, it is difficult to keep up with changes such as death, retirement, resignations, and so on. However, electronic media makes that better, not worse. 2. The rail industry is beyond the stage of dealing with imped- iments. There are no concerns with ESP, outside of incon- venience from the exceptions that still require handling paperwork. 3. The U.S. EPA is considering electronic hazardous waste manifests. There is concern that what they implement will not be compatible with the current railroad EDI system. Issues 1. While it is certainly desirable that emergency response agencies have quick access to information when there has been an accident or incident, they generally may not want information on a day-to-day basis. The Class 1 railroad respondent mentioned a time when the railroad faxed information on pending hazmat shipments to enforce- ment agencies prior to the passage of a train carrying

89 hazmat through its areas of concern, and the enforcement agencies were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of that advance information. 2. There are multiple delivery modes, such as XML and EDIFACT, in addition to existing ANSI X12 standards, which are widely implemented worldwide. 3. Shipper education will help facilitate the implementation and use of ESP. Conclusions 1. ESP are being widely and successfully used by the rail industry. 2. Rail carriers and other participants in rail shipments exchange information well. 3. Rail carriers would be pleased if the last remaining require- ments for paper were to disappear, but there is a sense by some that hard copy information carried by the train crew is still desirable for supporting emergency response. C-1.3 Air Carriers Introduction A number of domestic and foreign airlines, domestic and international airline industry groups, a pilot group, and fed- eral regulators were interviewed about the use of ESP in the air transportation of hazmat. Current Practices 1. Cargo carriers (members of a certain air carrier associa- tion) accept all classes of hazmat for shipment. Since some members operate in support of the U.S. military, they carry hazmat under exemptions that are not allowed in commercial operations. Other freighter operators accept all non-bulk hazmat, excluding most explosives, toxic gas, toxic inhalation hazards, and infectious substances. Pas- senger carriers’ hazmat acceptance policies range from very minimal hazmat exceptions to carrying everything permissible under the hazardous materials regulations. For the smaller/more restrictive carriers, the most com- mon and frequently tendered hazmat is dry ice. The “par- tially will-carry” passenger airlines typically will not accept Division 1: Explosives (except 1.4, small arms ammuni- tion); Division 2.3 Poisonous Gases; Division 6.1 and 6.2: Toxic Materials and Infectious Substances; Division 7: Radioactive Materials; items forbidden for air shipping in Section 4.2, columns I and K of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations; or items forbidden per 49 CFR 173.21. 2. Manual processes are time-consuming, involving recheck- ing records, handling missing paperwork, and creating necessary manifest documentation. The airline acceptance checklist is manually prepared at the time of cargo acceptance. Much of that information could be provided electronically. 3. There is minimal electronic sharing of hazmat data to air- lines. Information is taken at the time of booking and man- ually entered into airline systems. Electronic controls, load planning, and document creation occur through internal systems utilizing these data. The flight crew notification document is carried by the crew. 4. In general, most members of this air carrier associa- tion are not yet receiving electronic hazmat shipment data from supply chain participants. One of the major integrated carriers (all-cargo aircraft) does require its shippers to upload electronic hazmat information, and most of its customers use the carrier-supplied software to accomplish this task. Other shippers use third-party software to generate the required data. Larger shippers often have in-house systems that have been programmed to provide the required data. 5. Except for the automated integrated member carrier of this air carrier association, no paper to electronic con- version occurs. The automated carrier currently only uses electronic hazmat information for pilot notifica- tion (NOTOC or NOPIC) and internal airline emer- gency response. As such, the electronic data are verified during hazmat acceptance or, if not present, converted from paper to electronic at the dangerous goods accep- tance location. 6. There is extensive sharing of electronic shipment manifest data (non-hazmat) that they receive or create; it is shared downstream with interlines, regulatory agencies, airports, forwarders, and cargo handlers. 7. Shipment data for both hazmat and non-hazmat consign- ments are submitted via the Automated Manifest System (AMS). AMS is a multi-modular cargo inventory control and release notification system that interfaces directly with Customs Cargo Selectivity and In-Bond systems, and indirectly with the Automated Broker Interface, allow- ing faster identification and release of low risk shipments. However, the international manifest data elements do not include any hazmat detail. Most carriers use electronic air waybill/shipment manifest data with shippers, forwarders, and regulatory agencies. 8. Access to electronically shared data is protected by a third-party provider. 9. Shipper-certified copies are not forwarded to truckers for on-forwarding. Certified copies stay with airlines. BOLs are provided to truckers. 10. Emergency response takes on a different dimension when in flight because accidents are usually catastrophic. 11. When a plane is diverted, the new arrival airport must receive the DGM.

90 12. This air carrier association supports the following elec- tronic data standards: • IATA (EDI) Declaration for Dangerous Goods message • IATA Shipper’s Declaration for Dangerous Goods-XML (SDDG-XML) message • The 2009–10 edition of the ICAO Technical Instruction and the 50th edition of the Dangerous Goods Regula- tions will allow EDI as an alternative to paper SDDG’s. Countries that adopt the ICAO Technical Instruction by reference in national legislation will, by default, permit EDI in place of paper SDDGs. Issues and Benefits of ESP 1. ESP will create efficiency and lower processing costs by eliminating entry processes and will enhance data sharing. The airline acceptance checklist takes several minutes to complete, and many of the items are redundant to data that will be available electronically. 2. Manual errors due to rekeying will be reduced. 3. Critical hazmat information could be accessed more read- ily and quickly provided there were a communications capability present (e.g., Internet signal and power). 4. Improved visibility improves safety and responsiveness. 5. Document handling will be more secure and the audit trail more effective. 6. Significant storage space will be freed. 7. This air carrier association has developed the e-freight pro- gram, which is an industry-wide initiative involving car- riers, freight forwarders, ground handlers, shippers, and customs authorities. Benefits of electronic documents cited by the air carrier association’s e-freight initiative include: • Faster supply chain transit times: The ability to send shipment documentation ahead of the cargo can reduce the industry cycle time by an average of 24 hours. • Greater accuracy: Allowing one-time electronic data entry at the point of origin. Electronic documents are also less likely to be misplaced. These reduce the like- lihood of flight and cargo handling delays caused by missing or inaccurate paperwork. • Better results for the environment through reduced volume of paper. 8. If the data are dynamic, linked to the shipment, and easily accessible whenever needed, as opposed to existing only on a shipping paper, there are additional concerns about programming and software integration. Concerns with ESP 1. One concern was with partial acceptance of electronic for- mat. Some countries, smaller carriers, or interlined modes may not accept electronic formats. This would require most carriers involved in international or multimodal supply chains to maintain hard copy shipping papers, thus dimin- ishing the benefits of automation. Partial industry accep- tance will be difficult for shippers to deal with (knowing when a paper document is required and when it is not). 2. CBP requires both electronic manifest transmission (AMS) as well as hard copies of paperwork, and there is no auto- mated export air manifest system for air cargo shipments in ACE. Until the regulators allow a fully automated system and eliminate redundant paper requirements, there is no real benefit to electronic sharing of manifest data. Implementation and Operational Issues 1. Cargo manifests are extensive. If the manifests are in an electronic format, the responders must be able to quickly identify the dangerous goods, what they are, how much are onboard, and where they are located. 2. How will this information be presented to emergency responders? 3. There are concerns that the data will be monitored by regulators, who will issue fines if data are incomplete or inaccurate. 4. Interlining could be more difficult if some carriers use paper and some use electronic means. 5. Concerns with partial acceptance of the electronic for- mat (also listed previously as an issue). Some countries, smaller carriers, or interlined modes may not accept elec- tronic formats. This will require most carriers involved in international or multimodal supply chains to maintain paper, thus diminishing the benefits of automation. Par- tial industry acceptance will be difficult for shippers to deal with (knowing when a paper document is required and when it is not). 6. The industry is moving forward under the air carrier association’s e-freight initiative. Electronic documenta- tion had the support of all the survey respondents, who were hazmat—not IT—professionals. The air carrier association is taking a multimodal approach, attempting to replace common transportation documents such as BOLs, packing lists, and commercial invoices in formats that can be shared across modes. 7. ESP must be developed using a standard accepted by all modes. A regulatory or industry group—a muscular champion—is needed. This includes an accompanying process design that describes how the data are to be used. 8. The regulations will have to allow for the use of ESP, and shippers have to be motivated or required to make the switch to a standardized electronic format. Large shippers will struggle with making changes to internal systems. Car- riers will have to modify or build new systems to handle the electronic information, costing both time and money.

91 9. Dual and redundant paper/electronic systems should not be maintained indefinitely. 10. Implementation cost is a concern, particularly if the approach requires extensive hardware and or soft- ware investment. System compatibility could be an issue as well. 11. The use of XML alternatives will lower the cost of adoption. 12. The solution needs to be low in cost and easily implemented. 13. One concern is whether there is a sufficient safety benefit in the air mode. How many times in a year do emergency responders use the information on a real-time basis (e.g., aircraft crash)? What weight is placed on the information (hazmat vs. fire when loss of life is the issue)? What is the practical value when location of contents may be impos- sible to discern? 14. One impediment is the need to make the documentation available to all parties in the chain of custody. 15. Air carriers have heard comments from some pilots, for example, that the current amount of information on the NOTOC/NOPIC is far too much to sort through to find the really dangerous shipments. Perhaps only providing that information for a subset of materials would be more beneficial. Conclusions 1. Electronic receipt of shipment data is not very common in current air operations; however, it seems that a consider- able amount of downstream data sharing takes place with interlines, regulatory agencies, airports, forwarders, and cargo handlers. 2. Considerable cost savings are possible. 3. Inconsistent use throughout the supply chain will hinder effectiveness and adoption, particularly with respect to interlining. 4. Implementation cost is a concern. 5. Current regulatory requirements preclude an economic benefit, since paper is still required (for inbound inter- national shipments). 6. Cargo manifests are extensive, and an easy, quick way to find the relevant information is important. 7. Some question the relative safety benefit in the air mode as compared to other modes. C-1.4 Ocean Carriers Introduction A number of steamship lines, industry groups, and fed- eral regulators were interviewed about the use of ESP in the marine transportation of hazmat. Current Practice 1. General use of electronic data sharing for ocean booking, manifesting, loading, and status is extensive. Its uses are operational, commercial, and regulatory. 2. Few shippers or intermediaries (e.g., NVOCCs) share hazmat data electronically. For the large majority of hazmat shipments, data are input manually. This can result in data inaccuracy, at the very least creating rework as booking records are checked by hazmat compliance teams. The cost of processing hazmat shipments is very high because of the manual data entry and management of hazmat shipments through the entire process. Respondents could not accu- rately identify total cost, however. 3. Hazmat cargo is a significant revenue producer for ocean carriers (between 8% and 20% for the respon- dents’ companies). 4. Hazmat data are captured at the time of booking. Some carriers will have general booking agents capture the hazmat data. These will be checked by hazmat compliance teams, and some will route customers to hazmat booking specialists. 5. Carriers are required to complete a container placement certification for hazmat containers as part of the receiving process. 6. Hazmat data are captured in carriers’ internal operating systems with special flags for document checks and ves- sel loading procedures. The booking record is checked against the documents presented when the cargo is deliv- ered to the carrier. Hazmat vessel manifests (DCMs) are prepared. The manifests are required for the voyage— actual shipper hazmat certifications are not. 7. Hazmat data are shared with terminals and vessel-sharing partners and with regulatory agencies (e.g., CBP), but only those data having descriptions such as shipper’s or UN number. 8. Hazmat data are shared with rail and truck carriers. There is not a requirement to provide the shipper’s certification to forwarding carriers. The originating carrier is required to retain the shipper’s certification and only report the necessary information to forwarding carriers. The hazmat data provided to rail and truck carriers from ocean carriers reside electronically in the ocean carriers’ systems. 9. Railroads interline a significant portion of import ocean cargo. Railroad EDI standards require the hazmat STCC to be used instead of the UN number. This can cause data and instruction conflicts. Some ocean carriers do not send EDI to the railroads because of liability concerns over the instruction conflicts, while others do send EDI and have built UN-STCC reference tables into their internal systems. All ocean carrier respondents were vocal about the railroad industry sticking by a standard that does not

92 enhance intermodal data sharing and operational effi- ciency. The ocean industry feels the rail industry mandat- ing EDI is counterproductive as long as railroads insist on STCC numbers. The ocean industry supports use of the UN number, which is broadly accepted by motor and air carriers. 10. The USCG requires pre-arrival notification of certain dangerous cargo (CDC) under 33 CFR 160.204. The CDC listing is not a comprehensive list of all hazmat items. 11. Ocean carriers provide extensive training to almost all functional areas in the business (anyone involved in documents, information, cargo, and sales). Issues and Benefits 1. All respondents indicated involvement in, and support for, Vessel Operators Hazardous Materials Association (VOHMA) initiatives. (VOHMA subsequently changed to IVODGA.) One respondent referred to Impediments to Intermodal Transportation meetings as a reference source for issues related to data sharing. Respondents also referred to PHMSA for related initiatives. 2. ESP will lower administrative costs, generate environ- mental benefits, and improve accuracy and speed in pro- cessing shipments from booking to transfer to interlining truck and rail. Concerns with ESP 1. A chief concern with electronic data access is the availabil- ity of data if power or Internet access are lost. 2. Lack of multimodal standards is a chief impediment to data sharing. The rail industry was singled out as an example. 3. Possible up-front hardware or software investment to move to a paperless environment is a concern. 4. Mandatory adoption is a concern since it might exclude arrangements with partners or interline carriers (mostly motor carriers) that lack the capability to support ESP. Cost of entry for small trucking companies, upon which ocean carriers rely, will also inhibit widespread adoption. 5. Data security is a concern. Implementation and Operational Issues 1. The ocean carrier industry favors multimodal standards and is supportive of the IATA e-freight initiative. Lack of data standardization—particularly with rail—is a significant impediment to multimodal data sharing. 2. Ocean carriers are removed from the issues of drivers and roadway emergency responders—all respondents having long ago moved away from operating domestic trucking operations. 3. Recommendations ranged from a centralized service (like CHEMTREC) to web-enabled handheld devices for emer- gency responders. 4. The DoD U.S. Transportation Command will need to participate in sharing of electronic hazmat data. (They are not doing so today.) 5. Implementation must be multimodal. ESP must be developed using a standard accepted by all modes. The promotion and support of a regulatory or industry group is needed. 6. High tech and expensive solutions are the hardest to adopt widely. No one in the industry wants to bear the cost, and they are concerned about solutions that inhibit adoption in emerging countries and with smaller truck- ing companies. 7. Emergency responders need instant access to actionable information. They cannot sort through manifests looking for items of interest. Conclusions 1. General use of electronic data sharing among the steam- ship lines for ocean booking, manifesting, loading, and sta- tus is extensive. However, much of the shipper-provided data are input manually. 2. Railroads interline a significant portion of import ocean cargo. Railroad EDI standards rely on commodity codes not used by steamship lines. The ocean transport industry supports use of the UN number, which is broadly accepted by motor and air carriers. 3. Data availability during power disruptions is a concern. 4. Lack of multimodal standards is a chief impediment to data sharing. 5. Data security is also a concern. C-1.5 Emergency Responders It should be noted that while the interviews did not request emergency response stakeholders to consider ESP as a replacement for hard copy shipping papers, some respon- dents nevertheless considered the tradeoffs that would arise if the situation were an either–or choice. Important Shipment Information for Response to a (Potential) Hazmat Incident Emergency response personnel at the national level who were contacted agreed that at the scene of an incident, it is important to have the ability to identify the hazmat present through various means, including shipping papers, placards, labels, and containers. In addition to the basic information required by regulation, it is also important to be able to iden-

93 tify the transporter and have the ability to contact either the shipper or transporter for more information. While all of the respondents agreed that information accompanying hazmat shipments must identify the type of material, the type(s) of containers, the amount of material, and compatibility with other materials in the shipment, the needs of the first of four national emergency response orga- nizations referenced reach beyond the initial incident. In the case of the first of these emergency responder organizations, the respondents wanted to have information regarding the care, custody, and control of the material in order to mitigate not only the incident, but any legal actions coming out of it. All respondents also agreed that the information must comply with the regulations. The respondent from the second emergency responder organization indicated that GPS should be used to provide incident location, severity, and other information for use in formulating a proper response. Typical Process for Obtaining Hazmat Information There was agreement that placards, labels, and shipping papers are the primary sources of information for respond- ers. No advance shipment information is accessible (or legally mandated) at this time. Pre-notification of hazmat shipments has been preempted on many occasions over the years. There are mechanisms in place today for emergency responders to gather additional information on the scene. These include contacting the shipper or transporter of the material and contacting emergency response information providers such as CHEMTREC. The respondent from the first emergency responder orga- nization expressed the opinion that in the future, it may be possible to have a memory stick device on the transportation vehicle that can be accessed for MSDS and ESP information through the use of a wireless reader. Process for Dealing with Missing Shipping Information When hard copy shipping papers are not available, emer- gency responders use visual cues. Shipping papers are one part of the identification system that includes shipping papers, placards, markings, labels, containers (i.e., in the case of bulk shipments), emergency response information, and emergency response telephone numbers per 49 CFR Part 172. Firefighters and other responders are aware that it is a multifaceted system designed to provide multiple means of identification. Again, when shipping papers are not available, emergency response personnel can make calls to the transportation com- pany or to CHEMTREC for information. The respondent from the third emergency responder orga- nization stated that in many cases when shipping papers are not available, response time is delayed while information is being obtained. Issues All respondents to a question about modal differences in benefits and concerns agreed that all modes would pose the same concerns and/or advantages. Only the regulatory struc- tures would be different, not the response to an incident. Benefits While the third emergency responder organization was not in favor of eliminating paper copies of shipping papers, other response organizations saw improved response times and more accurate information from ESP. A representative of the fourth emergency responder orga- nization believed that providing electronic shipping data on hazmat would be beneficial for emergency responders because in cases where the driver is incapacitated, an emergency responder sometimes cannot get close enough to the vehicle to read the shipping papers. ESP would provide the opportunity to learn about the quantity and type of material involved in the shipment from a more remote, safer location. One respondent looked beyond the benefits of ESP for emergency response and cited improvements in the settle- ment of claims and mitigation of lawsuits arising from the incident as benefits also. Concerns with ESP The third emergency responder organization was con- cerned about inaccessibility to ESP due to the fact that not all responders have mobile capability to access the Internet. This could be due to budgetary restraints or to the incident occurring in an area without wireless signals. The third national responder organization also feared system outage and failure at the most critical times should the network be overloaded. Should the system fail during the response to an incident, then the responder would be in a worse situation than having to rely on paper copies of shipping papers and other visual clues. Additionally, there is a fear that the system would not keep the information current. The respondent from the second emergency responder organization saw no concerns, while the first national emer- gency response organization cited the possibility of security problems. The third emergency responder organization expressed concern that if both hard copy and electronic forms of ship- ping papers were available, the information might not match. If the information did not match, then there would be further

94 delays in the incident mitigation due to the fact that the veri- fication process would take additional time. The other two respondents saw no special concerns. Information Needed to Determine which Type of Shipping Paper Was in Use The third emergency responder organization wanted to retain use of the hard copy or shipping paper; therefore, no additional information needed to be determined as to what format the shipping paper should be in. One respondent did not answer this question, and the other would like to see a system in which the hazmat vehicles are monitored electronically from a distance. If no informa- tion comes up, then follow-up measures would be taken to gather the needed information. Communication Equipment Available in the Field The third emergency responder organization stated that communications equipment availability and access to needed databases varies by jurisdiction and department. They restated their position of not endorsing the use of ESP in place of the paper form. The respondent from the second emergency responder organization stated that a laptop is all that a responder would need to access ESP and that emergency responders typically have wireless connectivity. The respondent from the first emergency responder orga- nization stated that laptops are broadly available, but with limited connectivity from police systems, so there will be obstacles to overcome should the information be computer- based only. The respondent from the first emergency responder organization was the only one to address cell phones and PDAs. He stated that most agencies will have access to cell phones but not PDAs. He further stated that at least one person at the scene of every incident is equipped with a cell phone. The respondent from the first emergency responder organi- zation commented that, while all emergency response agencies (including the police and fire departments) have radios, most do not communicate well with one another. Preferences for Receiving Electronic Information The third emergency responder organization wanted paper copies. However, the second emergency responder organiza- tion wanted the information via the web on a computer. The first emergency responder organization wanted electronic tagging of the vehicle in order to pull relevant information through scanning. Conclusions All respondents agreed that, at the scene of an incident, it is important to have the ability to identify the hazmat present through various means, including shipping papers, placards, labels, and containers. In addition to the basic information required by regulation, it is also important to be able to iden- tify the transporter and have the ability to contact either the shipper or transporter for more information. The third emergency responder organization was adamant in its response to the question of ESP potential. Its representa- tive expressed grave concern over a carrier having the ability to choose electronics over paper. While the organization had no problem with a carrier having both, they nevertheless felt that this could lead to confusion should there be variances in the information contained on the hard copy shipping paper versus the electronic information. The other respondents were very much in favor of ESP for a number of reasons, including ease of obtaining informa- tion, accuracy, the ability to expedite mitigation of the inci- dent, and resolution of disputes and claims. It was expressed that lives and property could be saved due to this perceived increase in speed. The third emergency responder organization stated that not all jurisdictions have access to electronic technology. This could be due to budgetary constraints or merely to the fact that no broadband connectivity is available, such as in remote areas. This again pointed to the third emergency responder organization’s reluctance to endorse the use of ESP in lieu of paper shipping papers. The other respondents did not express this concern. In fact, they felt that ESP would pose no problems at all and that most have some type of connectivity through the use of cell phones and computers. The computer would be more limited due to constraints imposed by the jurisdiction and/or agency. It was apparent that there was a divide in opinion between the third emergency responder organization and the other respondents. The third emergency responder organization definitely opposed the allowance of ESP as the only means of hazmat documentation, while the other two respondents clearly supported migration to electronic identification of hazmat shipments. C-1.6 Roadside Enforcement Officers Current Practice A roadside enforcement/inspection organization that was interviewed stated that it currently depends on the presence of hard copy shipping papers to enforce provisions of the HMR since that is the only method allowed today. However, they have been involved in a number of studies geared toward the use of electronic data exchange, including the following:

95 • Northrop-Grumman: Hazardous materials emergency preparedness study, in conjunction with Volvo and the Spill Center; • FMCSA/Battelle: Hazardous materials safety and security operational test; • DOE/University of Nevada–Las Vegas: Radioactive materials truck tracking study; • VOHMA’s (IVODGA’s) EDI project; and • PHMSA’s ESP forum (i.e., HM-ACCESS). While active in this area, the members of this roadside enforcement/inspection organization had not developed a formal position on the use of ESP. Benefits The main benefit for enforcement, should ESP be allowed, is that the accessibility aspect of the regulations would vir- tually disappear. Roadside enforcement would not have to rely on the driver providing the paperwork since it would be available online. Concerns with ESP There were several concerns, including: • Data quality: The information received by the roadside inspector is only as good as the data entered. Also, there is a question as to the timeliness of the data at point of inspection or incident, especially in the LTL segment of the motor carrier industry. • Accessibility: There is concern that, should the system be down, the information would be inaccessible for a time. This was a real concern due to the nature of computers and electronics in general. Additionally, in some areas, con- nectivity is either limited or nonexistent. In those areas, inspectors would be at a loss to verify shipment informa- tion. Another concern was related to how an inspector would determine which vehicles are using ESP and which are using hard copy shipping papers. • Data format: Whatever the format, it needs to be consistent across the board, and it needs to be secure. Issues The roadside enforcement/inspection organization stated several issues: • Safety and security: While no real concerns were seen regard- ing inspector safety, there was a concern over the security of the information, especially when transporting security- sensitive hazmat. It was thought that “if law enforcement can gain access to the information, so too can those who should not have access.” Fear of the system being hacked to gain this information for nefarious purposes is real. • Incident mitigation: This could be affected either posi- tively or negatively, depending on whether an inspector or emergency responder has a means to identify whether the transporter uses ESP. Otherwise, if a driver of a motor vehicle, for example, is unconscious or otherwise unable to provide information to the responder, then the responder is left in the dark as to whether to look for hard copy ship- ping papers or attempt to obtain electronic versions. This step could cost valuable time in the overall response to and mitigation of the incident. • Emergency response preparedness: Inspectors of this roadside enforcement/inspection organization believed that there would be no impact from ESP on emergency response preparedness due to the fact that hazmat ship- ment pre-notification is not required. (Nor did the roadside enforcement/inspection organization endorse implementation of this practice.) Incident mitigation, however, could be enhanced as long as the data were timely, standardized, accurate, and in compliance with the HMR. • Impediments to implementation: Due to the cost of converting transporters’ computer systems to supply the necessary data, members of the roadside enforcement/ inspection organization felt that use of ESP would not be widespread. Also, concerns over the security of proprietary information has hindered past efforts (Operation Respond, for one) to get the motor carrier industry involved in elec- tronic information sharing. They saw no change in that attitude from the trucking industry at this point. There will also be implementation costs for states and localities to enable readers, scanners, and other devices nec- essary to identify users of ESP, and then to actually access that information. Many jurisdictions do not have the funds, espe- cially in today’s environment, to implement such systems. Conclusions 1. This roadside enforcement/inspection organization did not have a formal policy at this time. 2. This roadside enforcement/inspection organization did not oppose use of ESP as a method of supplying shipment information. 3. Information standards and communication protocols must be standardized. 4. There needs to be a process for identifying carriers using ESP versus those that are using paper versions. 5. In areas of diminished or no connectivity, there needs to be means of access to shipment information.

96 6. No one mode of transportation poses any advantage or additional risk to inspectors should ESP be allowed in lieu of paper shipping papers. 7. Implementation and widespread use of ESP will be ham- pered by costs associated with the computer system and programming and due to the fear by carriers of loss of proprietary information to competitors or the criminal element. C-2 Observations C-2.1 Effective Practices This section summarizes the best practices in implement- ing freight management systems. There are a number of good examples in use today. Both Bolero and TradeNet are active global electronic sup- ply chain management systems in widespread use throughout the world. Other more localized examples are the Columbus Electronic Freight Management system deployment test (U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Benefits Database Summary, Columbus Electronic Fright Management system benefits, http://www.itslessons.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/E87 5B84CA305ECBD8525756A00675FEA?OpenDocument &Query=BOTM) and the Kansas City SmartPort Trade Data Exchange initiative (Kansas City SmartPort, http://www. kcsmartport.com/about/about.php). IATA is the air transport industry’s global trade association. With 230 members in more than 130 countries, IATA repre- sents 93% of international scheduled traffic. IATA e-freight is an industry-wide program that aims to reduce the use of paper documents in the airfreight supply chain by moving to a sim- pler, paper-free, electronic environment. It involves airlines, shippers, freight forwarders, ground handling agents, and cus- toms authorities, among others. The IATA e-freight initiative provides tools for accomplishing electronic data transactions and replacing paper documents with electronic messages. The current EDI implementation on U.S. Class 1 railroads is a system that has been in place for many years; its electronic data sharing is providing benefits that are valued by those car- riers, although other transportation modes find that rail uses a standard that does not enhance intermodal data sharing and operational efficiency. Certain segments of the ocean shipping industry also make extensive use of electronic data sharing, but not necessarily including all the information needed to support ESP. Hazmat data, though, are shared with terminals and regulatory agencies such as CBP and, for some materials, with the USCG. Among these systems, there is not one that is universally recognized as having the attributes that could allow it to be currently embraced by the variety of stakeholders, with their differing needs, that are considering the utility of ESP as an alternative to hard copy shipping documents. C-2.2 Benefits and Impediments Benefits and impediments of ESP as an alternative to hard copy shipping papers are discussed specifically in Sub- sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2, respectively.

Next: Appendix D - Technology That Can Benefit Stand-Off Detection of ESP by Emergency Response and Regulatory Personnel »
Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments Get This Book
×
 Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments
Buy Paperback | $57.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program (HMCRP) Report 8: Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments examines the challenges of advancing the use of electronic shipping papers as an alternative to the current paper-based hazardous materials communication system.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!