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.
19 The project consisted of performing the following tasks: Task 1. Gather information focused on topics and organiza- tions such as but not limited to: 1. Previous research in the documentation of hazmat ship- ments, including findings from HMCRP Project 04, âEmerging Technologies Applicable to Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security,â and the PHMSA regulatory docket; 2. Current international efforts; 3. Hazmat data needs assessment in industry and the emergency response community; 4. Current electronic hazmat data-sharing processes between parties in the distribution chain (e.g., shippers, carriers, freight forwarders); 5. Commercial applications and safety benefits; 6. Impediments to electronic hazmat data systems in technology and regulations; and 7. Interviews (in-person, electronic, or telephonic) with officials and stakeholders in federal, safety, and industry organizations. Task 2. Develop sample process maps of common and com- plex hazmat shipments, including intermodal shipments, from origin to destination. Task 3. Submit an interim report based on the findings of Tasks 1 and 2. The interim report should include: 1. The results of work to date; 2. A summary of the interviews conducted; 3. Effective practices identified; 4. Benefits and impediments as described in terms of the objective; and 5. A differentiation of the information required for emer- gency response and business operations. Upon panel approval, proceed with Task 4. Task 4. Submit, for panel review and approval, a draft road map for the implementation of a cost-effective electronic hazmat documentation and data transfer system, includ- ing but not limited to: 1. Safety and operational implications of mixed paper and electronic operations; 2. Solutions to maximize benefits and minimize imped- iments to the use of electronic hazardous materials documentation, such as how the implementation of an electronic communication system will affect: a. Safety and security, b. Incident mitigation, c. Total transportation costs, d. Movement of hazardous materials, and, e. Preparedness of emergency responders for incidents; 3. Methods to transfer and receive safety, operational, regulatory compliance, and emergency response data; 4. Regulatory changes; 5. Standard electronic hazardous materials communica- tion practices to exchange data across international borders and amongst intermodal carriers; and 6. Secure transfer and receipt of electronic data communications. Task 5. Propose a methodology for proof-of-concept exercises designed to test the implementation strategies and function- ality of an electronic hazmat documentation and data transfer system identified in Task 4 (i.e., the road map). The deliverable is not expected to detail specific scenarios but is intended to provide a framework, a guideline, and/or a series of questions through which future researchers may propose validation exercises. Task 6. Submit the road map and a draft final report that documents the entire research effort, explains and justi- fies recommendations, provides background informa- tion used in the development of recommendations that address deficiencies, and recommends further research, including the proof-of-concept exercises. Task 7. Consider and respond to panel review comments and submit the final report. C H A P T E R 2 Research Approach
20 The following sections describe the approach followed through the projectâs task progression. The background research and information gathering described in detail in this chapter make up the first three tasks: gather background information, develop process maps, and submit interim report. 2.1 Detail of Task 1 (Gather Information on Topics and Organizations) A thorough literature review was conducted to identify relevant information. The search included periodicals, journal articles, media reports, Internet resources, and other reports. In addition, interviews were conducted with various stake- holders and experts in the field to determine the range of practices related to the electronic sharing of information, to identify any issues or concerns, to obtain their thoughts on best implementation strategies as well as potential impediments to widespread adoption, and to solicit suggestions for additional organizations, companies, or individuals to contact for addi- tional input. A summary of the literature review is presented in Subsection 2.1.1. A summary of the interview results is presented in Subsection 2.1.2; a more detailed discussion of the interviews conducted appears in Appendix C. The literature search for this project focused on gathering published information, data, and sources related to the iden- tification of relevant information concerning the use of ESP and electronic freight management (EFM) systems as well as enforcement and emergency response issues surrounding access to and use of hazmat shipment information. While shippers and carriers are required to have hard copy shipping papers that accompany hazmat shipments throughout the trip, there are various advantages and disadvantages to the current system of using hard copy shipping papers that are discussed. For example, in a hazmat incident response scenario, electronic systems could be either beneficial or detrimental depending on the circumstances. The research explored whether a tran- sition to the use of ESP could be advantageous overall. There are already several industries and international groups that have integrated ESP or EDI systems into their shipping routines. In addition to looking at these established systems, the literature search reviewed how the use of EFM systems can be beneficial to hazmat incident response. The project was informed by HMCRP Report 4: Emerging Technologies Applicable to Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security. 2.1.1 Synopses of Relevant Information The discussion that follows contains synopses of relevant lit- erature organized into three overarching themes: (1) current use of ESP and EFM systems in general, (2) enforcement and emergency response issues related to hazmat shipping infor- mation, and (3) issues involving the implementation of EDI systems. Other than data obtained through the stake- holder interviews and summarized in Subsection 2.1.2, there were limited reference materials that focused on ESP or transportation-related EDI in general. 2.1.1.1 Use of ESP and EFM Systems Electronic communication offers several advantages over paper communication. For the shipper, all information pertaining to the shipment can be delivered to any party immediately. This information can be transmitted without the need to re-enter the information and allows for a quicker method for readying goods for shipment. For the freight forwarder or carrier, data are more reliable because they reflect what is in the shipperâs computer. In addition, ESP are more likely to be presented in a standardized format, and electronic communication is a less time-consuming way for companies to process documentation. Finally, ESP offer the potential for emergency responders to be able to stand off from a hazmat transportation accident or incident scene and remotely learn about the details of the released hazmat that are critical to protecting the health and safety of the responders and the public. However, it must be emphasized that for ESP to realize the widespread benefits that can accrue from their use, there must be both effective standardization and implementation. A standardized shipping paper format will not happen by itself. Software is dependent on standardization and may need to reformat shipping papers differently for various entities throughout the supply chain. Government needs to take the lead in standardizing shipping paper format. While it is certainly the case that ESP are intended to meet the needs of e-commerce business information exchanges, have a low error rate, and operate within effective standard- ization, it is recognized that there are currently factors that preclude all of these benefits from being realized by all who are involved in transportation. Exchanges of electronic ship- ping information currently are working quite well for some in the transportation community. But there are some areas where, despite standardization, the manner in which data are retrieved and/or standards are applied is inconsistent, which can lead to confusion. For emergency circumstances in which the electronic shipping paper data need to be available very quickly and with unquestioned accuracy, confusion must be eliminated. This report gives examples in which EDI, a type of elec- tronic exchange of data, is already providing benefits for its users. However, it is not suggested that these examples necessarily represent the realities of EDI for additional users, nor is it intended to convey that any of the examples are a
21 recommendation or preference for the road map that was developed in this project. EDI is an electronic transmission of data that replaces a physical transfer of paper. It was designed to eliminate the need for paper, reduce errors, improve accu- racy, and allow more productivity. However, there are several legal obstacles that prevent the implementation of EDI for shipments. An electronic bill of lading (e-BOL) must legally be authenticated so that ownership can be easily determined. In addition to proving a shipmentâs existence and contents, an e-BOLâsimilar to a hard copy BOLâconfirms the con- dition of the shipment at the point of origin and specifies to whom the shipment should be delivered at the final desti- nation. In most circumstances, the carrier is legally required to deliver a BOL/e-BOL to the person who receives the shipment. Note: In addition to EDI, other modes of electronic data exchange mentioned in Subsections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 include extensible markup language (XML) and electronic data interchange for administration, commerce, and transport (EDIFACT). XML is a set of rules for encoding, transferring, and storing data electronically. XML has an increasingly important role in the exchange of a wide variety of data on the Internet, World Wide Web, and elsewhere. The EDIFACT coordinates international standardization by working through the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE). Among other attributes, EDIFACT provides an international EDI standard. There are two methods for legally authenticating an e-BOL. The first is to use an intermediate third party that will receive documents from the shipper and receiver. In the event of a dispute, the records held by the third party would be considered valid. The other possibility is the use of a digital signature. This digital signature can only be created by the person generating it. A document needs to be encrypted by the sender and then decrypted by the receiver, but the receiver would not have the capability to encrypt the document again. The Bolero Project, funded 50% by the European Commis- sion, was created in 1998 to develop an e-BOL. Bolero is a company headquartered in London with worldwide regional offices that operates to develop, implement, and enforce standards that facilitate electronic (paperless) commerce. Bolero supports a combining of the physical and financial supply chains for solutions. It has the role of a neutral entity, a third part that supplies an open platform. This platform makes possible paperless trading applications for many multi- national businesses, and it provides the attendant advantages of electronic commerce such as speed and visibility. Its established role in electronic commerce and support by large multinational businesses makes it worthy of study. The Bolero system is based on an initial entry, created by a transaction, followed by messages related to the transportation and shipment. By documenting specific messages along the entire shipping process, the Bolero system is able to track where an e-BOL and shipment are at all times. Security is a funda- mental concern of any EDI system. Digital signatures and smart keys are used in the Bolero system to verify all signa- tures, messages, and goods transfers. Thus, Bolero uses both the e-BOL and the digital signature methods mentioned. The Bolero system is able to maintain its neutrality by not being managed by a purchasing, shipping, or receiving group. TradeNet, another EDI application, is an electronic network that facilitates international trade by integrating all the processing procedures for import, export, and transshipment documents and licenses. It uses a single document to fulfill all the trade documentation requirements, and that document is routed electronically to all the parties associated with trading. All the trading partners are linked to each other electronically. The software also ensures the confidentiality and integrity of all communication and permits electronic payments for government duties and fees, customs, and other controlling agencies. It also offers an online inquiry system that gives the status of any trade declaration at any time. ACE is the commercial trade processing/truck manifest system developed by CBP to facilitate legitimate trade and strengthen border security. With ACE, truck carriers and other eligible parties are required to transmit advance electronic truck cargo information to CBP through a CBP- approved EDI. All contract carriers hauling general freight that enters the United States through any border crossing must (with some exceptions) submit an electronic manifest (e-manifest) to CBP prior to arriving at the border crossing. Before reaching the border, all Canadian, Mexican, and American truck carriers will ultimately be required to submit an e-manifest to CBP by using the ACE secure data portal or a CBP-approved EDI. Receiving the manifest information early allows CBP and other border security agencies to prescreen the manifest through multiple checks for items of interest before the truck arrives at the port. As mentioned, Canada has a comparable system, the ACI. 2.1.1.2 Enforcement and Emergency Response Issues Concerning Hazmat Shipping Information The regulations promulgated under 49 CFR state that for hazmat shipments, emergency response information must remain with the shipment. U.S. regulations are not limited to full-load shipments, and all shipments of hazmat entering the United States must comply with 49 CFR. However, 49 CFR does not specify how or in what format this information should be presented. When considering different alternatives to physical forms, a number of separate objectives should be considered. These include identifying the products involved in the shipment and delivering the proper response information
22 for emergency responder, compliance, enforcement, and commercial purposes. Enforcement/roadside inspection personnel currently depend on the availability of hard copy shipping papers to enforce provisions of the HMR. The main benefits for them should ESP be allowed are that the accessibility aspect of the regulations will virtually disappear, and they will not have to rely on the driver providing paperwork that is already available online. The enforcement/roadside inspection per- sonnel contacted do not have a formal policy concerning ESP at this time and do not oppose the use of ESP as a method of supplying shipment information. They noted the importance of standardizing information and communication protocols, having a process to identify those carriers that are using ESP rather than paper copies, and accessing shipment information in areas of diminished or no connectivity. They wondered whether implementation and widespread use of shipping papers would be hampered by costs associated with computer system and programming requirements and by carriersâ con- cerns that proprietary information could be lost to competitors or to the criminal element. One of the national emergency response organizations contacted had no problem with a carrier having both paper and ESP but nevertheless indicated that they have serious concerns that confusion will result should there be variances in the information contained on the shipping paper and the electronic information. This organization was also concerned that not all jurisdictions have access to electronic technology. Other national emergency response organizations were very much in favor of ESP for a number of reasons, including ease of obtaining information, accuracy, the ability to expedite mitigation of an incident, and resolution of disputes and claims. They felt that lives and property could be saved due to the increased speed by which electronic data could be provided. They also felt that there will practically always be some access to electronic technology through cell phones and computers, although computers can be more limited than cell phones due to constraints that may be imposed by a jurisdiction or agency. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) initiated research, reported in 2005, to evaluate the potential for alter- native technologies applicable to replace the current hazmat placarding system (13). The TSA research is mentioned to illustrate that the idea of technology alternatives to placards is somewhat analogous to the idea of technology alternatives to hard copy shipping papers for emergency responders. In the TSA research, the technologies examined as alternatives to placarding fell into three categories: ⢠Cloaking devices â Individual systems located on the tank car that provide equivalent placard information when queried or when triggered by an incident, ⢠Decentralized systems â Component systems that rely on a distributed database to supply information on tank car contents through some means or method of communication other than the tank car, and ⢠Centralized systems â Systems that use a centralized database to maintain all tank car information for authorized user access. The TSA research summary noted the potential trade-offs between safety and security that could result from technology systems that are alternatives to the current placards. This report assumes that some of these same trade-offs could apply to technologies that are alternative systems to the current hard copy shipping papers. From an emergency response standpoint, one of the main problems with transitioning to an ESP approach is that most emergency responder groups are unlikely to have either the necessary equipment to take full advantage of ESP or the funds for the equipment. Thus, in many cases emergency responders can only benefit if they invest money in the equipment. It would be more efficient to establish a link between carriers and emergency responders by using a centralized system rather than establishing a link between each potential emergency responder and each carrier. It is easier to train one group rather than many, and the central group is able to pass the information on to emergency responders who have varying degrees of technological capabilities. However, there would be costs with a potential centralized system. Rail carriers are exploring the use of local databases to access EDI information rather than transmitting it, and these data- bases could also be used for emergency response information. Paper documentation can only provide limited support when an accident occurs. In the United States, there is a partnership between CHEMTREC and CSX railroad and another partner- ship between the FRA, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, RailInc [a wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads (AAR)], and CHEMTREC. The Canadian Transport Emergency Center (CANUTEC) is a centralized call center available to Canadian emergency responders that tells them what is on a particular train and what actions to take. CANUTEC is similar to the U.S.-based CHEMTREC. CANUTEC contacts the appropriate carrier to find out what is on a train and perform other research as needed. This could be taken a step further if CANUTEC were equipped with a computer system that had access to the centralized information source. In Canada, emergency responders will most likely call CANUTEC to get information on the products involved regardless of whether the shipping documents and printed emergency response information are available at the site. Cen- tralizing the information gathering functions in CANUTEC has several advantages: ⢠Emergency responders only have to contact CANUTEC and CANUTEC will establish other contacts and compile information.
23 ⢠Emergency responders could focus on other responsibili- ties such as securing the accident site while CANUTEC is gathering information. ⢠CANUTEC could respond in the most appropriate way to emergency responders with differing technical capabilities. ⢠CANUTEC can complement emergency information with its own expertise. The Canadian Transportation Commission has mandated the use of the ERF for rail shipments of dangerous goods as classified by Transport Canada with regulated form and printing styles. Every full load of most dangerous goods shipped by rail must have an ERF, which provides emergency responders with basic information about the properties of the dangerous goods should they be involved in an accident. The ERF includes the shipperâs name and phone number, the destination, and the location of the product (shipping or routing information). An ERF must be physically attached to a dangerous goods shipping document, which precludes its replacement by an EDI system. But, as the ERF is intended for emergency responders, there are several disadvantages to using physical forms, including availability, potential destruction in an accident, omission, time wasted looking for the form, and misreading or misinterpreting the information. A Japanese company has started a service called the Indus- trial Waste Electronic Manifest Data Management System to improve and modernize the waste-disposal industry. Using the global positioning system (GPS) and a communications satellite, the service tracks and monitors the movement of transportation vehicles and the waste loaded on them to ensure that the waste is properly handled. Each transporting vehicle is equipped with a satellite communications controller, an antenna, a GPS locating unit, a barcode reader, and a dedicated terminal. The service provides a system scaled to the needs of the user and promotes modernization of the businessâs operations systems. 2.1.1.3 Implementing EDI Systems The planning phase of an EDI application consists of analyzing the current process, developing work flows for the EDI application, and developing an EDI implementation plan. Pilot EDI programs typically involve transitioning a small number of trading partners to an EDI application with one or two transaction sets for a short period of time. The main cost categories when implementing EDI-based applications are hardware for the EDI gateway, software, cost of modifying the current application systems, telecommuni- cations charges, trading partner outreach program costs, and ongoing support and maintenance costs. Some of the cost savings from EDI-based applications are savings in labor costs, elimination of mailing costs, and reduction of document management costs. Other benefits of implementing EDI systems are reduction in data entry error rates, improved cash management, elimination of communication lag time between agency and customer, improved customer service, and expandability of the system to other functions. A large multinational retailer uses EDI to manage the flow of information, purchase orders (POs), and invoices. This helps the retailer provide better customer service, increase the productivity of its workers, and save on costs. In order to become a supplier to this retailer, a company must be willing to acquire an EDI system that conforms to the retailerâs standards. By requiring all suppliers to use EDI, the retailer shows its commitment to EDI and the benefits it receives by conducting business electronically. Two companies researched were able to use EDI applications to become more cost-effective businesses. Switching to EDI applications allowed both companiesâ employees to become more efficient and to focus on different aspects of the business. Another company researched began using EDI systems based on requests from its largest customers. It used EDI as an opportunity to redevelop the way it managed customer information. Because it was a less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier, it had to be able to quickly receive and transmit information since a single shipment could contain goods from over a dozen shippers. The company used a new, standardized EDI system to send and receive thousands of invoices every day. 2.1.2 Synopses of Stakeholder Interviews The stakeholder interviews are summarized by mode and function in Subsection 2.3.1. The questions used to structure the interviews are included in Appendix B, and the detailed interview responses are included in Appendix C. In total, there were approximately 50 direct interviews conducted, not counting surveys of specific carrier groups by their respective associations. Most of these interviews were conducted by telephone or in person, while some individuals were provided copies of the questions in advance and were called or e-mailed to gather additional information about their responses or to clarify the information provided. It should be noted that in preparing for and conducting interviews on this project, questions were centered on get- ting insight into current hazmat shipment data management throughout the supply chain. No vision, description, or high-level concept of operations of a future ESP system were offered. Thus during interviews, stakeholders offered feed- back based on what they envisioned an ESP system might be. Consequently, some of the responses, such as the perception that driver data entry is needed, are not consistent with this reportâs conclusions. The interviews involved (1) 22 organizations, including government agencies, carrier and trade associations of various
24 modes, and a council; (2) 23 carriers of all modes, and (3) four national emergency response organizations. Motor carriers were represented in three sectors as described in Appendix C. There were some additional interviews, such as with a wireless technology provider. 2.2 Detail of Task 2 (Develop Sample Process Maps) 2.2.1 Overview This activity demonstrated the transportation of hazmat across various modes in both graphical and narrative form. The process activities and relationships were shown at a relatively high level and were intentionally generic in nature because individual industries, carriers, shippers, or transporta- tion intermediaries may have unique processes or requirements in place for their handling of hazmat shipments. The process maps followed the swim lane approach, in which each role was depicted as a separate lane. In general, hazmat shipments are distinguished from general cargo shipments in two ways: additional documentation requirements and special equip- ment or loading requirements. Carriers across various represented modes treat hazmat shipments with special care starting at the point of shipment booking. Carriers will either route booking requests to a spe- cial department with trained personnel or, alternatively, will have bookings reviewed after the fact by trained personnel. Carrier databases are used to varying degrees in managing this process, depending upon their sophistication. In many cases, all documentation required for hazmat transportation is generated from the carrier system based on the booking information. Documentation and electronic notification to forwarding or interlining carriers are often generated from the carriersâ systems. Some respondents advised that the shipperâs certification is only required to be retained by the originating carrier. Rather than passing the certification to a forwarding or interlining carrier, the originating carrier will present a hazmat BOL or other documentation. Special equipment or loading requirements are involved in hazmat shipments. Stowage and loading plans for LTL, ocean, and air carriers are especially critical because these convey- ances (trips or voyages) combine a multitude of shipments and commodities. Proximity and handling of hazmat com- modities in mixed conveyances are of critical importance. Carriers prepare stowage plans or hazmat manifests to enable emergency responders to quickly identify the location of par- ticular commodities in these conveyances. Through the information obtained by reviewing the rel- evant literature and discussions with stakeholders, an initial sample process map was developed that incorporated the specific elements that are present in most shipment types. This initial process map was ultimately used as a basis for developing distinct process maps for a number of unique shipment profiles. The process maps that follow share many commonalities and relatively few differences. The key differentiating factors are the number of carriers and number of intermediaries involved [the use of a freight forwarder, as an example, as depicted in the air process map (Figure 5)]. A shipment that is tendered directly by a shipper to an integrated carrier is mapped showing the activities of intermediaries and other carriers falling in the âCarrier (Air)â swim lane. Descriptions are provided for the elements of each process map in Subsection 2.2.7. 2.2.2 Truckload The truckload (TL) process flow shown in Figure 1 is straightforward and serves as a useful model for understand- ing the basic interrelationships between shipper (consignor), carrier, and receiver (consignee). There are only one carrier, one vehicle (typically), and three parties involved. The repre- sented business processes between consignor and consignee are generalized. In TL shipments, the documents, including the shipperâs hazmat certification, will move with the shipment. 2.2.3 Less-Than-Truckload The LTL flow shown in Figure 2 is very similar to the TL flow. This representation shows a generic transportation movement segmented into pickup, line-haul, and delivery with inter- mediate carrier cross-docking activity. Documents, including the shipperâs hazmat certification, will move with the shipment. 2.2.4 Rail The rail process flow is represented in Figure 3 without either intermediaries or interlines. Similar generic activities to LTL occur, but under different names. Document flow is represented here as moving with the shipment. The ocean intermodal process map (Figure 4) represents the role of the railroad in an ocean intermodal move. 2.2.5 Ocean Intermodal The ocean intermodal process flow in Figure 4 represents a highly complex movement involving numerous carriers and intermediaries. The shipment booking process involves mul- tiple layers, with the consignor booking to the ocean carrier who in turn places bookings with other parties involved in the transportation and handling. Some supply chains involve other intermediariesâconsolidators or non-vessel operating common carriers/consolidators (NVOCCâs)âthat are not represented here. The shipperâs hazmat certification is not
Truckload C a r r i e r C o n s i g n o r C o n s i g n e e Pre-shipment Shipment Receive PO Process Order/ Make Book Shipment Receive Booking Confirm Booking Receive Booking Confirmation Ship Order Pick up Shipment Create Purchase Order Send PO Send ASN Dispatch Truck Receive ASN In-Transit Request Delivery Appointment Receive Delivery Request Send Delivery Confirmation Receive Delivery Confirmation Deliver Shipment Receive Shipment Hazmat Classify/Package/ Mark Hazmat Prepare Certification Shipping Papers Transfer Yard Figure 1. Truckload process map.
Figure 2. Less-than-truckload process map. LTL C a r r i e r C o n s i g n o r C o n s i g n e e Ship Order Dispatch Pick Up Local Cross-Dock Linehaul Intermediate/ Destination Cross-Dock Deliver Shipment Receive Shipment Receive PO Process Order/ Make Create Purchase Order Send PO Book Shipment Receive Booking Confirmation Confirm Booking Receive Booking Hazmat Prepare Certification Shipping Papers Hazmat Classify/Package/ Mark Receive Delivery Confirmation Send Delivery Confirmation Receive Delivery Request Request Delivery Appointment
Rail C a r r i e r ( R a i l ) C o n s i g n o r C o n s i g n e e Car Loading Crew, Car Dispatch Pick Up Origin Switching Linehaul Intermediate/ Destination Switching Deliver Car Unloading Order Car Receive PO Send PO Process Order/ Make Create Purchase Order Hazmat Prepare Certification Shipping Papers Hazmat Classify/Package/ Mark Receive Car Order Confirm Car Order Confirm Car Order Request Delivery Appointment Receive Delivery Request Send Delivery Confirmation Receive Delivery Confirmation Figure 3. Rail process map.
Ocean/Intermodal B r o k e r R e g u l a t o r y C a r r i e r ( T r u c k ) C a r r i e r ( R a i l ) T e r m i n a l ( D e s t i n a t i o n ) T e r m i n a l ( O r i g i n ) C a r r i e r ( T r u c k ) C a r r i e r ( O c e a n ) C o n s i g n o r C o n s i g n e e Pick UpDispatch Deliver Ship Order Transit Unload Container Receive Documents Verify Shipping Papers to Booking Receive Process Process Load Process Export Process Export Transit Unload Process Import Process Import Receive PO Process Order/ Make Create Purchase Order Send PO Confirm Booking Book Shipment Receive Booking Confirmation Receive Booking Load Container Prepare Container Placement CertificationBook Shipment Receive Booking Confirm Booking Receive Booking Confirm Booking Hazmat Prepare Certification Shipping Papers Hazmat Classify/Package/ Mark Records Hazmat Information Prepare Hazmat BOL Receive Hazmat BOL Receive Hazmat BOL 2a Prepare Coast Guard CDC Notification A A Coast Guard CDC Notification Prepare Hazmat Stowage Plan Figure 4. Ocean intermodal process map.
29 transferred from the ocean carrier to forwarding or inter- lining carriers and intermediaries. A hazmat BOL represents the document that conveys necessary information to these parties. As with air freight, the carrier follows a cargo check-in process that compares the receipt to the booking and prepares a stowage plan and hazmat manifest. 2.2.6 Air The air freight process flow in Figure 5 represents a highly complex movement involving numerous carriers and inter- mediaries. The relationships modeled here involve a freight forwarder acting as the intermediary between the consignor and air carrier. The freight forwarder also coordinates truck transportation. There are a number of process variations with air cargo transport that are not represented. As the party dealing directly with the consignor, the freight forwarder takes the ini- tial booking and, in turn, places bookings with other parties. As with the ocean intermodal process, the carrier (or terminal) follows a check-in process that compares the receipt to the booking and prepares a load plan and hazmat manifest. 2.2.7 Process Map Element Descriptions This subsection describes each of the activities found in the preceding sample process maps, including the primary party or parties responsible for performing each activity. In some cases, the terminology for similar activities differs by mode, and these differences are noted. Table 1 provides a description of the process map elements, including activity identifiers, roles, and definitions. 2.3 Detail of Task 3 (Submit Interim Report) The draft interim report (product of Task 3) covered all activities in Tasks 1 and 2. It included the following major sections: ⢠Introduction, ⢠Background Research and Information Gathering, and ⢠Sample Process Maps. Comments from the HMCRP project panel were incor- porated into the revised interim report, and with HMCRP authorization, preparation of the Task 4 road map proceeded. The details from the Task 1 and Task 2 research and the synthesized findings that resulted from the interim report are captured in this section. As mentioned in Section 2.1, a more detailed discussion of the interviews conducted appears in Appendix C. Some observations found in the road map resulted from later interviews. 2.3.1 Summary of Findings on Benefits, Impediments, and Other Key Issues The projectâs revised interim report provided an in-depth look at what stakeholders felt about ESP in terms of their needs and interests. In total, there were approximately 50 direct interviews conducted, not counting surveys of specific carrier groups by their respective associations. The major stakeholder groups were: ⢠Shippers ⢠Carriers, including: â Motor carriers, both TL and LTL â Railroads â Air carriers â Ocean carriers ⢠Regulatory personnel ⢠Emergency responders This subsection describes both the benefits identified from successful implementation (or that can be expected) and the issues that are likely to create problems with successful implementation for the purposes of augmenting or replacing the existing hazmat communication system. It should be noted that while there are considered to be four major stakeholder groups, there are differences in the findings related to stakeholders within each group. For example, some regulatory personnel may be primarily involved with safety and others with security. 2.3.1.1 Benefits The primary benefits to carriers are through the reduction of operational costs, primarily in back office clerical activities. The quantification of such savings would depend greatly on the level of process automation for the implementing carrier and its partners (customers and interlining carriers) and the type of solution implemented. Such alternatives could include but would not be limited to: ⢠Third party-hosted or carrier-hosted; ⢠Web portal access for shippers, data interchange, or e-documents; and ⢠Stand-alone application or fully integrated with the carrierâs operating system. The back office activities that are streamlined through the automation of shipping documents and business-to-business transactions include: ⢠Data entry; ⢠Copying/scanning/transmittal;
Air B r o k e r R e g u l a t o r y C a r r i e r ( T r u c k ) T e r m i n a l C a r r i e r ( A i r ) T e r m i n a l C a r r i e r ( T r u c k ) F o r w a r d e r C o n s i g n o r C o n s i g n e e Shipment Document Processing Ship Order Pick Up Deliver Receive Receive Documents Export? Process Export No Dispatch Prepare Shipping Documents Process Load Import? Process Export Transit Unload Receive Process Process Import Process ImportA AYes Book Shipment Receive PO Send PO Receive Booking Process Order/Make Create Purchase Order Confirm Booking Book Shipment Receive Booking Confirm Booking Confirm Booking Receive Booking Receive Booking Confirmation Yes Airline Acceptance Checklist/ Check Shipment Against Booking Create Load Plan and HM Manifest 2a No Records Hazmat Information Receive Documents Figure 5. Air process map.
31 noitinifeDeloRsreifitnedIytivitcA Create PO Consignee (receiver) The consignee will create a PO, which is a legally binding document used to track shipped goods and link them with invoices. The PO provides the PO number, a description of the goods, the quantity ordered, and delivery dates (earliest and latest), and identifies the shipper, broker, and container freight station for delivery as well as buyer-specific information such as the brand and/or division placing the order. Send PO Consignee (receiver) The purchasing arm of the consignee will forward the PO to the consignor. This can be done through fax, e-mail, file transfer, or traditional letter mail. Receive PO Consignor (shipper) The consignor will then confirm receipt of the PO by telephone or one of the aforementioned methods. Process order/make Consignor The consignee will check whether the item is in stock. If it is, it will issue stock for shipping. If not, the vendor will begin the production process for its manufacture in accordance with the PO. This item will then be considered the consignment. Book shipment (order car for rail) Consignor The consignor will select a carrier for the consignment and send the carrier a booking. The booking will include information about the product, its destination, and delivery dates. Additionally, it will include information on the types/quantities of hazmat. Receive booking (receive car order for rail) Carrier The carrier will accept the booking and plan the means of transportation for the consignment. Confirm booking (confirm car order for rail) Carrier The carrier will then send confirmation to the consignor and schedule a pick-up time. Receive booking confirmation (confirm car order for rail) Consignor The consignor will receive the booking confirmation and prepare the consignment for shipping at the scheduled pick-up time. Record hazmat information (ocean and air) Carrier The carrier will note specific information for the proper receipt, documentation, handling, stowage, and reporting associated with hazmat shipments. Trained designated hazmat personnel will take, or later validate, the booking. Hazmat shipment: classify/package/mark Consignor If the consignment contains hazmat, the consignor will mark the shipment in accordance with federal, state, or international regulations. Hazmat shipment: prepare certification shipping papers Consignor Additionally, the consigner will prepare hazmat shipping papers, which include some of the following information: identification number, PSN, hazard class, packing group, additional descriptions, emergency response numbers, and shipperâs certification. Dispatch (crew, car dispatch for rail) Carrier The carrier will dispatch a truck (or rail crew, locomotive, and car) to pick up the consignment from the consignor at the scheduled pick-up time. Ship order (car loading for rail) Consignor The consignment will be loaded onto the truck or rail car, accompanied by hazmat shipping papers. Pick up shipment Carrier The consignment will be picked up by the carrier, which can be a separate activity from the loading. In the case of rail, the car is retrieved by a locomotive and crew. Deliver shipment Carrier The carrier (a) transfers the shipment to the next party or (b) completes the delivery of the consignment to the buyer. Receive shipment Carrier The carrier or intermediary accepting transfer of the shipment from another carrier. Verify shipping papers to booking (ocean) Airline acceptance checklist (air) Terminal, carrier Upon receipt, the carrier or its representative (terminal) will verify shipping documents and markings to the booking to ensure a match. Prepare container placement certificate (ocean) Carrier The ocean carrier will complete a certificate completed for handling containerized hazmat shipments. Process shipment Terminal A terminal receives a shipment on behalf of an ocean or air carrier and processes the shipmentâsometimes involving container loadingâfor loading onto the craft or vessel. Prepare hazmat BOL (ocean) Carrier A BOL prepared by the ocean carrier with description and disposition instructions to be tendered to interline or on- forwarding carriers. Table 1. Process map element descriptions. (continued on next page)
32 noitinifeDeloRsreifitnedIytivitcA Receive hazmat bill of lading (ocean) Carrier Receipt of the hazmat BOL by the interline or on-forwarding carrier. Prepare hazmat stowage plan (ocean) Carrier A vessel stowage plan prepared by the ocean carrier that identifies the location of all hazmat on board the vessel. This will include description and quantity of each item as well. Prepare U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) certain dangerous cargo (CDC) notification Carrier The USCG requires pre-arrival notification of CDCs under 33 CFR 160.204. CDC listing is not a comprehensive list of all hazmat items. Create load plan and hazmat manifest (air) Carrier Similar to the ocean carrier stowage plan, the air carrier will create a load plan and create a hazmat manifest that describes the location, description, and quantity of all items on the aircraft. The pilot will carry a copy (sometimes abbreviated) of the hazmat manifest. Send advance shipping notification (ASN) Consignor Publishing the ASN is a key point in the delivery of the consignment. This message contains key information such as gross weight and delivery date/time. It identifies the goods being shipped and their quantity, style, size, and color. Receive ASN Consignee, carrier The ASN will be used to prepare for receipt and processing of the shipment. Local cross dock (LTL) Carrier Unloading consignments from an incoming truck or rail car and loading these consignments directly onto outbound trucks with little or no storage in between. This may be done to change type of conveyance, to sort material intended for different destinations, or to combine material from different origins into transport vehicles (or containers) with the same, or similar, destination. Origin switching (rail) Carrier Rail car switching from local to line-haul trains. Transfer yard (TL) Carrier A different driver or interlined carrier may be used from the one that made the pickup. The transfer of the trailer occurs at the transfer yard. Load, unload container (rail, ocean) Terminal, carrier Process of moving containers on or off ships or rail cars. In-transit or line-haul Carrier The primary movement of the consignment from the point of origin or transfer to the point of destination or transfer. When more than one carrier, vehicle, or driver are involved, this does not typically include the pickup and delivery of the shipment. For ocean and air shipments, this refers to the port-to-port movement. Intermediate/destination cross dock (LTL) Carrier Intermediate or destination terminal unloading of consignments from an incoming truck and loading these consignments directly onto outbound trucks with little or no storage in between. Intermediate/destination switching (rail) Rail car switching from line-haul trains for local delivery or for transfer to other lines or interlining rail carriers. Receive documents (air, ocean) Broker A customs house broker receipt of documents necessary to submit to the customs authority for export or import clearance. Process export (air, ocean) Broker, regulatory The process of submitting and clearing consignment documentation for export. Process import (air, ocean) Broker, regulatory The process of submitting and clearing consignment documentation for import. Receive USCG CDC notification Regulatory Receipt by the USCG of the CDC. Request delivery appointment Carrier As the shipment is nearing the consigneeâs delivery point, the shipper will request a delivery appointment. Receive delivery request Consignee Upon receiving of the delivery request, the consignee will continue preparations for the receipt of the consignment. Send delivery confirmation Consignee If the consignee is ready for delivery, it will confirm the delivery appointment with the shipper. Receive delivery confirmation Carrier The shipper will then ensure that the consignment is delivered at the correct place and time. Deliver shipment Carrier The carrier (a) transfers the shipment to the next party or (b) completes the delivery of the consignment to the buyer. Table 1. (Continued).
33 ⢠Filing, retrieval, and file maintenance; ⢠Error correction; and ⢠Partner communication. Survey interviews asked participating carriers to estimate the total time or cost associated with their processing of hard copy shipping papers. Responses varied. A sample of responses is given in Table 2, which illustrates the range of impact depend- ing on the level of automation and mode-specific processes and practices. It is unclear why the range of estimated impacts varies so greatly, particularly with the ocean carrier. The primary benefits to government are through the stream- lining of document (shipping paper) acquisition and review, as well as a reduction in data entry errors if ESP information can be integrated with roadside inspection software and other relevant reports to be completed, such as crash and incident reports. There likely will also be a reduction of operational costs through efficiency gains, particularly with the ability to move ESP data electronically to stakeholders with a need to know more quickly and accurately than is done today so that they may be acted upon more quickly. The quantification of such savings would depend greatly on the level of process automation for the particular government entities and the type of solution(s) implemented. The primary operational cost benefits that stakeholders would expect to realize include: ⢠Reduced administrative costs related to data entry; ⢠Reduced administrative costs related to handling, tracking, filing, and retrieving paper shipping papers (in terms of both time and storage space); ⢠Faster booking process; ⢠Improved data accuracy; ⢠Improved data sharing; and ⢠Better record retention (fewer misplaced or lost records). Secondary operational cost benefits include: ⢠Improved customer service, ⢠Improved ability to resolve quantity discrepancies, ⢠Reduced affects from staff turnover, and ⢠A more effective audit trail provided by secure electronic document handling. Safety benefits are expected to accrue largely to the emergency response community. Timely and effective access to electronic hazmat information may eliminate the need for emergency responders to approach the vehicle in a fire, spill, or under other hazardous circumstance to retrieve the hard copy shipping papers with emergency response information. Primary safety benefits include: ⢠Quicker access to hazmat information; ⢠Increased accuracy in transcribing data onto relevant documents (i.e., roadside inspection reports, crash and incident reports); ⢠Ability to more quickly notify appropriate parties with relevant ESP data; and ⢠Facilitation in providing hazmat information to alternate transportation facilities, such as when aircraft are diverted to alternate airports. Secondary safety benefits include: ⢠Ability to provide advance notice to shippers that certain materials will not be acceptedâfor example, due to a facil- ityâs inability to process a certain class of hazmat. Regulatory benefits will depend on the modifications made or parameters established by oversight agencies to accept ESP as an alternative to hard copy papers. 2.3.1.2 Impediments Research conducted in Tasks 1 and 2 of HMCRP Project 05 engaged many organizations, both within and outside of the four primary stakeholder groups of shippers, carriers, regulatory agencies, and emergency responders. The terms âcomplianceâ and âenforcementâ in this document are used with regard to regulatory compliance or law enforcement stakeholder organizations that may need to identify what hazmat is on a vehicle. Neither term is used in the sense of enforcing compliance with the unified system described in this road map. The findings of the projectâs interim report (14) documented organizationsâ thoughts, concerns, observations, and hopes for ESP as an alternative to the paper-based communication system. A number of interviewed organizations are already using some form of e-commerce. The interim report noted their experience and success with the systems they use. There were differences of opinion among participants regarding the degree and approach needed to a more inclusive ESP solution. Similarly, there were differences in the details of the implementation they felt would be optimal for their organizations. Respondent Estimate of Impact Air carrier 1 hour Air carrier 40 min to 1 hour, 40 min Integrator 5 min Ocean carrier Minutes to hours Table 2. Impact of processing time avoided by ESP over hard copy shipping papers.
34 The primary concerns and potential impediments stake- holders raised included: ⢠Concerns about access to data when power is disrupted, such as might occur during a major incident, which is also when the system is most likely to become overloaded. ⢠The necessity for good costâbenefit data to facilitate a move toward ESP. ⢠Implementation and operational costs for some segments of the industry might not justify costs for the carriers. ⢠Availability of current hazmat information during roadside inspections. ⢠Concern that regulators will monitor the electronic data and issue fines for incomplete or inaccurate data. ⢠How responders in urban and rural locations would retrieve the information and in what form. ⢠The ability for all emergency responders to access ESP information. ⢠The ability for responders to determine quickly whether a given shipment is accompanied by electronic or paper shipment information. ⢠Assignment of responsibility for data integrity and accuracy. ⢠The confidentiality of carrier/shipper proprietary infor- mation (potentially mitigated if such information could remain housed on company systems). ⢠The ability to realize benefits if only some parties in the supply chain use electronic data sharing; partial carrier industry acceptance may cause confusion for shippers regarding when electronic information sharing is possible. ⢠Availability of electronic documentation to all parties in the chain of custody. ⢠Level of technology adoption in the government/ enforcement/response community and the ability to ensure that data are shared with all who have a need to know in a timely manner. For a significant period of time, many government personnel will not be equipped with the appro- priate technology to take advantage of ESP, so how these stakeholders will continue to function effectively in their job duties is a significant issue. ⢠A full understanding of the regulatory, legal, and infor- mation system needs/activities necessary to allow for the implementation of ESP in government. Protecting business- sensitive information and ensuring that it does not end up in the wrong hands is critical. Identifying individuals and agencies with a need to know and providing accessibility for these individuals to the proper information will be a large task. ⢠A potential hindrance to adoption is the creation of multiple delivery modes, such as XML and UN/EDIFACT in addition to existing American National Standards Insti- tute (ANSI) X12 standards, which are widely implemented worldwide. ⢠Concern that since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is considering electronic hazardous waste manifests, what they implement may not be compatible with the current railroad EDI system. ⢠Need for a champion to standardize ESP across all modes. ⢠Driver data entry accuracy and training. Concerning the last bullet, it should be reiterated that no high-level concept of operations of any specific ESP system was provided or implied during interviews, although driver data entry was perhaps inferred by some respondents. Subsequent to the interviews associated with the interim report, a hazmat transportation industry subject matter expert noted that high turnover with carriers is also an impediment. 2.4 Detail of Task 4 (Submit Draft Road Map) Comments from the project panel on the draft road map resulted in a significant revision. The revised draft road map included the following major sections: ⢠Background/Overview ⢠User Needs, Stakeholder Organizations, and Related Initiatives ⢠Context and Issues ⢠Current Electronic Commerce Systems Versus Needs ⢠Solution Alternatives ⢠Road Map Recommended Actions ⢠Methodology for Proof-of-Concept Exercises Designed to Test Implementation Strategies and Functionality ⢠Summary/Conclusions The revised draft road map included the Task 5 proposed proof-of-concept methodology in order to compress the schedule. Comments from the project panel on the revised draft road map were incorporated into the final version of the draft road map, and preparation of the draft final report proceeded. The findings from Task 4 research that built on Tasks 1 through 3 and led to development of the road map concept are documented in this report in Chapter 3: Findings and Applications. The resulting road map is discussed in Section 4.1. 2.5 Detail of Task 5 (Propose Methodology for Proof-of-Concept Exercises) As mentioned in Section 1.1, the Task 5 methodology for proof-of-concept exercises was developed concurrently with
35 Task 4 and was included with the road map document. It appears as Section 4.2. 2.6 Detail of Task 6 (Submit Road Map and Draft Final Report) The road map with methodology for proof-of-concept exercises is included in this report, which also includes responses to project panel comments on the revised draft road map. 2.7 Detail of Task 7 (Respond to Panel Comments/ Submit Final Report) All findings are included in this report and its appendices.
