National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix D - Modal Screening Process
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Synopses of Peer Reviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Emerging Technologies Applicable to Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14526.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Synopses of Peer Reviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Emerging Technologies Applicable to Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14526.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E - Synopses of Peer Reviews." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Emerging Technologies Applicable to Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14526.
×
Page 118

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.

116 The purpose of the peer reviews was to get feedback from industry and government Subject Matter Experts on the research approach and findings. Seven peer reviewers were identified and agreed to participate on a voluntary basis. They were provided the following by e-mail: • Summary guidance on the purpose of the review • The link to the TRB project description of HMCRP Project 04 (http://144.171.11.40/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay. asp?ProjectID=2660) • A 15-page “executive summary” version of the HMCRP Project 04 technology selection process and results including tables and figures, such as the overall step-wise process and a table with the most promising technology selections • A table duplicating the preliminary most promising tech- nology selections with amplifying information and a gen- eral characterization of the selections • Mention of the common security credential, one of the original preliminary most promising technologies, a link to the TRB HMCRP Project 08 solicitation, and an explana- tion that the HMCRP Project 04 team recognizes the com- mon security credential technology investigation will be addressed by HMCRP Project 08 • Two spreadsheets, each with four sheets, provided to give insight into how extensively the research was conducted but that did not require the reviewer to get into very detailed information Four of the seven invitees responded. Table E-1 characterizes those four and is followed by their written responses, which are shown in bold type. After considering the reasoning in one of the responses, the team elevated technologies related to con- tainer integrity to most promising technology status. (Simulta- neously and independent of peer review activity, another of the original most promising technology selections—fast power charge/storage—was considered to have already reached prod- uct status. So in effect, the one selection was substituted for the other.) Peer Reviewer Responses Reviewer: Official of Class I Railroad 1. Were the objectives and instructions provided to peer reviewers adequate? Yes 2. Was the project objective clearly explained? Yes 3. Was the characterization of the research approach easy to understand? Yes 4. Does the research approach appear comprehensive and fair? Yes. Well thought out in advance of the research. 5. Are the conclusions reached (i.e., the selection of the ten most promising technologies) properly supported? Yes 6. Is there one or more technology you would have expected to see in the most promising technology selections but did not? If so, what is the technology and its significance? Coverage exceeded expectations (and was actually quite informative already). 7. To what target audience(s) do you think these results will have great interest? Why? Technology holders/entrepreneurs—to an extent this project is highlighting potential markets for existing and adaptable products Industry—technology advances are a viable frontier for enhancements in safety and security, and with cost efficiencies 8. Other thoughts and observations on the process and results. Item 3 Assumptions, second bullet point, has the curious inclusion of “—including corrosives” that doesn’t seem to A P P E N D I X E Synopses of Peer Reviews

117 have relevance by singling out this hazard class. As it doesn’t add significance (at least to me), future inclusion of this cite should better explain the reasoning. Development of Table 3 could use an expanded explana- tion. I didn’t follow the analysis of communications and the rail mode (which seems to be a need area on Table 3, but a low priority on Table 1b). It may just be my feeble brain waves. Overall, an excellent interim report and with an approach much different (and more appealing) than I’d expected. Reviewer: Marine Shipper Official 1. Were the objectives and instructions provided to peer reviewers adequate? The objectives are clear and instructions adequate. 2. Was the project objective clearly explained? The project objective is clearly explained. 3. Was the characterization of the research approach easy to understand? Once I had time to focus on this, I could understand the research approach. 4. Does the research approach appear comprehensive and fair? At first, my thought was the approach was comprehensive and fair, but after reviewing the details of the interviewees, I have concerns that individual bias and unique experi- ences have given undue weight to unrepresentative needs. 5. Are the conclusions reached (i.e., the selection of the ten most promising technologies) properly supported? My response to question 4 notwithstanding, for the most part conclusions have proper support. 6. Is there one or more technology you would have expected to see in the most promising technology selections but did not? If so, what is the technology and its significance? Technology is not my general interest for study. I have nothing more or new to offer. 7. To what target audience(s) do you think these results will have great interest? Why? Government regulatory agencies and some product devel- opers and vendors. 8. Other thoughts and observations on the process and results. First, let me state my experience and expertise comes from 36 years in the Inland Barge Transportation Industry. The observations and conclusions related to Marine seem more directed at “blue water” shipping than “brown water,” where I’m from. I don’t believe we have as many, and certainly not as significant, “requirement gaps” as shown in this study. My biggest concern about the project is that little, if any, energy went into addressing the third objective, “to identify potential impediments to . . . their development, deploy- ment, and maintenance (e.g., technical, economic, legal, and institutional).” The functional requirements appear much as a wish list and development of technologies will tend to be driven by the perceived cost vs. benefit analysis. Quite frankly, some of them would not appear (to me) to make the grade, but that is off the top without proper analysis. Chemical Manufacturer/Shipper Official 1. Were the objectives and instructions provided to peer reviewers adequate? Yes 2. Was the project objective clearly explained? Yes 3. Was the characterization of the research approach easy to understand? Yes 4. Does the research approach appear comprehensive and fair? NOT SURE. Quite honestly, I was surprised by the results in that “detection and response” related technologies seemed to be rated much higher in priority than technolo- gies focused on “deterrence and prevention.” Much of the collaborative work that industry and government are engaged on today in the rail transportation sector is focused on “prevention”—i.e., improving the integrity of the rail tank car against various safety and security threats. This work is being folded into the Advanced Tank Car Collab- orative Research Program—which is likely to fund research in this area in the range of $15 million over the next 5 years. It is not clear how that can be reconciled with the conclu- sions in your report. Part of the issue may be that under your rating scheme, tank car survivability is rated fairly low because there is only one “high priority” check in the box. That fails to rec- ognize that that one check represents the single greatest safety and security risk the chemical industry faces in the transportation sector—e.g., although the frequency of TIH incidents by rail is very low, the potential consequences could be extremely high. In that context, your ranking scheme may “undervalue” the need for additional research to address low probability/high consequence events. 5. Are the conclusions reached (i.e., the selection of the ten most promising technologies) properly supported? See response to question 4. Organization Number Responding Class I Railroad 1 Marine Shipper 1 Chemical Manufacturer/Shipper 1 Regulatory Agency 1 Table E-1. Peer review responders.

118 6. Is there one or more technology you would have expected to see in the most promising technology selections but did not? If so, what is the technology and its significance? See response to question 4. Specific technologies that are being evaluated to improve tank car survivability are listed in the supporting spread- sheet (lines 128-144). If those types of technologies were out-of-scope for the purpose of this study, I do not believe that was clearly stated in the project scope and objectives. By failing to include those technologies, or at least acknowl- edge that they were not included for a stated reason, I believe the report could be misleading (and ultimately criticized). 7. To what target audience(s) do you think these results will have great interest? Why? Government and private sector parties involved in Hazmat transportation and vendors of listed technology solutions. 8. Other thoughts and observations on the process and results. I was confused by tables 1a through 1e, because it appears the axes are labeled improperly. The tables show ratings going from “high” in the lower left corner to “low” at the top and right. I believe that is exactly the opposite of the way ratings are normally presented—and it appears to con- tradict the language in the boxes of those tables, which indicate that as you move up and to the right the ranking increases from “low” to “high”—not from “high” to “low.” Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft report. Regulatory Agency Representative 1. Were the objectives and instructions provided to peer reviewers adequate? The purpose of having the peer review was not clear. Before receiving this evaluation format I had no clear idea about what type of feedback would be valuable to the TRB. The instructions provided at the initial submission of the 15-page project summary and the accompanying spreadsheets were not adequate. Also, being a first-time TRB peer reviewer, I did not have an adequate introduc- tion to the organization or the project. 2. Was the project objective clearly explained? The project objectives, as stated in Section 1 (titled Proj- ect Purpose), were clearly stated, but the other documen- tation was very difficult to comprehend. 3. Was the characterization of the research approach easy to understand? No. The method of application of each functional require- ment was not explained and the tables directly following the functional requirement definitions were not explained and were confusing. For example, the “Package Integrity” requirement does not specify which type of packaging will be the comparison standard. For the Roadway trans- portation mode, does the package refer to tank trailers, drums, cylinders, etc.? It seems as if the research team was trying to capture all types of packaging, but no specifics were given. 4. Does the research approach appear comprehensive and fair? Without a better explanation of the project, I cannot make that determination at this time. 5. Are the conclusions reached (i.e., the selection of the ten most promising technologies) properly supported? I cannot make that determination at this time. 6. Is there one or more technology you would have expected to see in the most promising technology selections but did not? If so, what is the technology and its significance? No 7. To what target audience(s) do you think these results will have great interest? Why? These results would have greatest interest to those seek- ing to manufacture devices to satisfy these needs or for those who are in the process of writing research propos- als. As a Hazmat employee who deals mostly with pres- sure vessels and other types of packaging, my knowledge of emerging technologies outside of this field is limited. 8. Other thoughts and observations on the process and results. Overall, the project summary was not written with the audience in mind. The project summary and its sup- porting documentation are quite voluminous, but at the same time, a great deal of basic information is missing. In my opinion, the peer reviewers likely have diverse backgrounds and experience, so to expect that they will all have an adequate understanding of all of the tech- nology sectors and its implications on transportation is not realistic. Furthermore, my answers to the questions on this peer review document reflect the preparedness of this document for an unindoctrinated audience and its effectiveness in communicating what was done in this research. Though I am sure those who have been closest to this research and the preparation of the peer review documents have a thorough understanding of the research, its methodology and the conclusions, the job of bringing it out of the heavens for external consumption was not well executed.

Next: Appendix F - Developer Interview Research Template »
Emerging Technologies Applicable to Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program (HMCRP) Report 4: Emerging Technologies Applicable to Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security explores near-term (less than 5 years) and longer-term (5–10 years) technologies that are candidates for enhancing the safety and security of hazardous materials transportation for use by shippers, carriers, emergency responders, or government regulatory and enforcement agencies.

The report examines emerging generic technologies that hold promise of being introduced during these near- and longer-term spans. It also highlights potential impediments (e.g., technical, economic, legal, and institutional) to, and opportunities for, their development, deployment, and maintenance.

The research focused on all modes used to transport hazardous materials (trucking, rail, marine, air, and pipeline) and resulted in the identification of nine highly promising emerging technologies.

  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!