Sustainability Strategies Addressing Supply-Chain Air Emissions (2014)

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.

124 A P P E N D I X F Supply-Chain Sustainability Metrics Introduction This appendix presents the broad range of existing metrics for supply-chain performance (as these relate to air quality and GHG emissions) that are in use by shippers and carriers and required or proposed by public agencies. In reviewing the metrics commonly employed to assess transportation supply chains, it was found that different agencies in the public and private sectors focus on very dif- ferent sets of metrics, that ends and means are commonly confused in discussions of sustainability metrics, and that the distinction between outputs and outcomes is not always made. Therefore, the team developed a supply-chain sustain- ability metrics map that attempts to address the relationships between the regulatory drivers, shipper/carrier consider- ations, impacts, outputs, and outcomes. It is intended to enable a better understanding of the effects of decision mak- ing on impacts (such as mode share), outputs (such as air emissions), and outcomes (for example ambient air quality, health, energy security). Sustainable Supply-Chain Definition To direct and refine the metrics that are of relevance to supply-chain sustainability, a definition of supply-chain sus- tainability was developed. This was based on findings of the literature review and discussions with public- and private- sector interviewees. It is considered that the metrics employed should reflect, as far as possible, the components of the fol- lowing definition of sustainable transportation supply chains: Sustainable supply chains connect a competitive economy in an efficient manner, consistent with human and ecosystem health, at the same time reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Specifically, they • Enable efficient, safe, reliable, and cost-effective freight dis- tribution by a choice of transport modes; • Reduce unnecessary freight movements, minimize distance traveled, and maximize loads with effective planning; and • Are supported by public policy, regulation, infrastruc- ture, and financial incentives that optimize land-use configurations, promote promising technologies, and minimize the impacts of harmful air and noise emissions on communities. Types of Sustainable Supply-Chain Performance Metrics The Task 1 literature review and Task 2 stakeholder inter- views identified a range of different types of performance metrics as these pertain to the sustainability impacts of sup- ply chains. These include those metrics reported by private companies under voluntary reporting frameworks, metrics that are monitored and developed by the public sector as part of their regulatory role, and supply-chain metrics that are commonly deployed by supply-chain participants themselves. These are discussed in more detail in the rest of this appendix. Voluntary Reporting Frameworks A review of voluntary corporate sustainability reporting programs found that GHG emissions are more commonly reported than CAP emissions and that shippers do not com- monly report on transportation emissions (although carriers are more likely to do so). The exception to this is the EPA SmartWay Program, which is specifically focused on logistics emissions. Commonly used corporate sustainability protocols (such as the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the Carbon Trust, and EPA’s Climate Leaders Program) are focused on climate change and hence GHG emissions. Note, however, that under these reporting regimes at present, ship- pers are not obligated to and do not typically include freight transportation emissions in their reporting unless these occur

125 from fleet vehicles. These reporting regimes do not currently encourage shippers to consider their lifecycle emissions. Never- theless, several reporting protocols (such as the Carbon Disclo- sure Project Supply Chain Program and the Carbon Trust PAS 2050 carbon footprinting standard) are pushing beyond such boundaries, motivating shippers to address the issue of carrier emissions in their reporting, and requiring the measurement of GHG emissions from goods and services throughout their entire lifecycle, from sourcing raw materials, through to manu- facture, distribution, use, and disposal. Another widely used program is the Global Reporting Ini- tiative (GRI) protocol, which, in addition to Scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions and CAP emissions reporting, includes a protocol for reporting the significant environmental impacts of transporting products and other goods and materials used for the organization’s operations. These impacts include energy (or fuel) use, GHG and CAP emissions, and noise. The Clean Cargo Working Group (CCWG) has developed a calculator that provides an industry standard for assessments and sharing of information in respect of the air emissions impacts of container shipping. The CCWG has assembled emissions data (CO2, SOx, NOx) from some of the largest transportation carriers as part of the creation of measure- ment tools that did not exist previously. Carriers report on vessel capacity, distance sailed, fuel consumed, and number of reefer plugs. The CCWG Performance Metrics Tool uses this information to calculate vessel CO2 emissions (the gen- eral formula for this calculation is total kg fuel consumed for containers, multiplied by 3114.4 gCO2/kg fuel, divided by the product of [maximum nominal TEU capacity  total distance sailed]; see http://www.bsr.org/en/our-work/working-groups/ clean-cargo). Other data reported includes average sulfur content of fuel, and engine NOx performance (BSR, 2011). National Ambient Air Quality Standards Under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the six principal pollutants. The primary standards, which are the limits set to protect public health, set levels (in parts per million or mg/ m3) for pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, PM, ozone, and sulfur dioxide. Areas where air pollution levels persistently exceed the National Ambient Air Quality standards may be designated nonattainment areas by the EPA. In areas that do not comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the preparation of a state implementation plan (SIP) to demonstrate how the area will come into compliance with NAAQS. Part of the process of developing a SIP involves the creation of an emis- sions inventory. These emission inventories also are used to demonstrate “rate of progress” toward NAAQS attainment. Further, where infrastructure (e.g., port or railyard) expan- sion will affect an area’s attainment status or rate of progress, emission inventories may be prepared for environmental impact statements (EIS) as part of the NEPA requirements. State and local air pollution control agencies are responsi- ble for developing CAP emissions inventories (by year, pollut- ant, county, and air basin) as part of the development of the states’ air pollution control programs. Various agencies con- tribute data to these inventories including the Air Resources Boards, air pollution control and air quality management districts, state departments of transportation, and regional transportation agencies. Port authorities (such as POLA, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, South Carolina State Port Authority) also produce their own air emissions inventories. In the case of the Californian ports and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, these include GHG emissions as well as pollutant emissions, by source. There are compelling non-regulatory reasons for ports to develop and maintain an accurate assessment of port-related emissions. These inventories enable ports to be engaged in national and regional discussions about environmental issues. Inventory data also ensures that they have sufficient under- standing of the sources of their emissions such that they are well prepared to participate in discussions and respond to new regu- lations and initiatives, particularly where ports are growing or where they are located in regions that may be designated as a air quality nonattainment area in future (Ang-Olson, 2004). Health Risk Assessment Regulatory agencies (such as CARB) also may undertake health risk assessments for particular sites, based on the expo- sure of populations to emissions. Typically, these include met- rics such as risk of deaths attributed to respiratory illness as a result of freight emissions, cancer risk, risk of non-cancer chronic health effects from diesel PM, school days lost due to respiratory illness, and health costs associated with respiratory illness. GHG Emissions Presently, there are no federal-level performance measures for freight-related greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are estimates of emissions that can be monitored as general measures of the trends related to GHGs generated by the freight sector. Typically, the EPA generates these estimates by multiplying fuel-use data by the emission factors generated from several sources. In California (following the enactment of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, AB 32), CARB has been tasked with helping to address global warming and thus has responsibilities to develop and maintain a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and oversee mandatory reporting of

126 GHG emissions by large private-sector emitters. Transpor- tation emissions from heavy-duty trucks, shipping, aviation, and rail are reported (in total tonnes of CO2e) as part of the greenhouse gas inventory. EPA SmartWay Metrics EPA SmartWay reports on a range of metrics associated with the program including the following: • Number of partners; • CO2, PM, and NOx reductions (tonnes) achieved; • Fuel savings ($ and gallons)—relative to a base case with- out the SmartWay Program initiatives; • Oil savings (barrels)—relative to a base case without the SmartWay Program initiatives; • Absolute reductions in emissions achieved as a result of the SmartWay Program; and • Environmental justice—number of susceptible popula- tions (poor, minorities, children, the elderly) affected by pollution. State Departments of Transportation Metrics State DOTs tend to be concerned with the performance of transportation infrastructure and the benefits derived from infrastructure investments. Typical measures include • Velocity, • Throughput, • Reliability, • Congestion, • Environmental impacts, and • Security. The literature review and stakeholder interviews con- firmed that the impacts of specific infrastructure projects may be measured in terms of the following: • Reductions in traffic delays, • Improvements to safety, • Economic benefits from decreased congestion, • Energy/fuel benefits, and • Reductions in community severance. The railroads involved in this project assess benefits in terms of improvements to rail running time. EPA Regulatory Impacts Analysis (RIA) As part of their rulemaking in respect of air emissions, the EPA undertakes regulatory impact analysis and reports on the costs and benefits of regulations. Metrics include, for example, the following: • Forecast emissions reductions (by pollutant in tonnes per year), • Forecast premature deaths averted (lives saved per year), • Forecast relief from respiratory symptoms (number of people per year), • Monetized health-related benefits (in $), • Costs of reduction of pollutants ($/tonne by pollutant— NOx, SOx, PM), and • Impacts on carrier operating costs (% and in $ per ton or TEU). The RIA approach is not only independent, but it also combines the three cornerstones of sustainability (envi- ronment, society, and economy) into a single approach. It includes composite metrics, such as cost per tonne of pol- lutant reduced, which enable a more integrated assessment of environmental benefits relative to economic costs. It also potentially enables comparison of the relative costs and ben- efits of different approaches to emissions mitigation. Complexity of Monitoring Supply-Chain Performance The review of the literature pertaining to supply-chain performance indicates that even without the inclusion of environmental and social sustainability performance consid- erations, the monitoring of supply-chain performance on the part of the private sector is extremely complex. Cai et al. contend that it is often difficult for supply-chain managers to figure out the intricate relationship between dif- ferent key performance indicators (KPIs) in the supply chain, and the order of priority of these KPIs. Their analysis shows that traditional measures of supply-chain performance are usually classified into four categories: quality, time, cost, and flexibility. However, the cause and effect relationships between KPIs are not always clear. Shepherd and Gunter (2006) claim that within the private sector there is a disproportionate emphasis on cost in most supply-chain performance assessments, while other aspects (such as quality, time, flexibility, innovation) tend to receive significantly less attention. Their analysis highlights the pau- city of environmental performance measures in traditional approaches. Quariguasi Frota Neto (2008) asserts that win-win solu- tions for the environment and business are elusive in practice and that initiatives on the part of private companies, which are both profitable and environmentally friendly, are the exception rather than the rule. He points to the “family” of activities influ- encing the environment and costs in supply-chain networks, of

127 which transportation is just one aspect. He contends that the multitude of trade-offs and decisionmakers affecting environ- mental and financial performance obscures causal relationships and makes informed decision making (as well as monitoring) extremely difficult. Cottrell (2008) investigates freight transportation perfor- mance metrics used by carriers. He notes that freight transport providers are typically concerned with financial performance measures and customer service metrics, which generally are not consistent with those used in, or of interest to, the public sec- tor. His research also draws attention to the lack of uniformity in performance measurement across freight transportation mode. Cottrell’s analysis reveals that the measures of interest depend on the role of the agency (i.e., users, shippers, carriers, regulatory authorities) and the geographic scale of their interest (local, regional, and national). Further, he notes that the critical distinction between the performance measures suggested in lit- erature, and those actually applied in practice, is the availability of data to compute the measure (Cottrell, 2008). Use and Availability of Freight Transportation Metrics The result of stakeholder consultation undertaken as part of NCFRP Report 10: Performance Measures for Freight Trans- portation is useful to this research insofar as it reveals the relative availability and utility of different metrics to various stakeholders. Public-sector stakeholders are typically inter- ested in less frequently updated measures to assist with policy, planning, and infrastructure-investment decisions. Private- sector stakeholders are more interested in continuously avail- able measures to make daily operational decisions including reliability and travel time measures. The research found that within the public sector, the minority of states that have freight performance measures use only a handful (up to 5 and 10 measures in “mature” states), that no two states had the same measures, and there are wide differences in the metrics. The most commonly reported metrics relate to the performance of infrastructure including level of services (LOS), traffic volume, vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), travel time, speed, incidents, duration of congestion, and percentage of system congested. The research found that the cost of logistics ranked low- est on the list of state DOT’s preferred performance metrics. Performance regarding the emissions, pollution, and energy impacts of freight also ranked very low. Local congestion and reliability were the highest rated. Environmental performance metrics rated second highest overall for federal agencies, after estimates of future demand. For truckers, the use of performance measures to make busi- ness practices more efficient was by far the strongest moti- vator. Rationales included improving bottom line return, increasing operational efficiency, increase productivity, con- trolling costs, or improving and measuring productivity. Spe- cific measures included • On-time pickup and delivery, • Revenue yield by shipment or mile, • Fuel economy, • Equipment utilization, and • Out-of-route and loaded miles. The freight transportation system is a mixture of pub- lic and private infrastructure, private carriers and shippers, public planning and regulatory bodies, and other players interacting at global, national, regional, and local scales. The researchers assert that the challenges presented by grow- ing demand for freight movements in the face of physical, economic, and environmental constraints are beyond the capabilities of any one private entity, level of government, or community of interest. Collaboration among diverse public and private parties is required to meet the challenges effec- tively. Programs need to be developed in partnership, with metrics based on balancing considerations. The research suggests the creation of a freight system report card that relies upon existing sources and reports freight per- formance measures across the following six categories: 1. Freight demand (volumes); 2. Freight efficiency (speeds, reliability, cost as a % of GDP); 3. Freight system condition (bridge and road condition); 4. Freight environmental impacts (total GHG and CAP emis- sions by mode); 5. Freight safety; and 6. Adequacy of investment in the freight system. Metrics Map The literature review, stakeholder interviews, and research in respect of supply-chain performance metrics indicate that for supply-chain participants the range and complexity of supply-chain issues and the relationships between them is daunting even without the additional overlay of environmen- tal and social sustainability considerations. The research highlights that a range of data relevant to supply-chain sustainability is collected by various different agencies, depending upon their mandates or areas of con- cern. Although various data are available, these data are in the hands of a range of organizations. Further, the parameters of these data vary and they relate to various aspects of the sup- ply chain. Some relate to inputs or means (e.g., vehicle fuel efficiency, freight miles), while other parameters relate to ends or outputs (e.g., GHG emissions or CAP emissions) and still other data relate to outcomes (e.g., ambient air quality, health,

128 and noise impacts). Recognition of the relationships between these parameters is critical to understanding the drivers, causal relationships, and linkages in sustainable supply chains. Based on Singh et al., the research team concluded that ideally a useful set of sustainability indicators is transparent; clearly distinguishes between ends and means; enables bal- anced consideration of social, economic, and environmental considerations; and should reflect the priorities of the com- munities of interest. Thus, the researchers developed a sustainable supply-chain metrics map that attempts to identify the influences and rela- tionships between the different types of sustainability metrics. The categories identified incorporate critical freight perfor- mance measures as well as sustainability considerations and builds upon what is currently being measured and where data is most likely to be readily available. The sustainable supply- chain metrics map shown in Exhibit F-1 is intended as a guide to potential metrics that might be employed in assessing sus- tainability impacts, allowing a range of data to be captured depending on availability. It is also intended to allow for the use of data from both public- and private-sector data sources and, for example, to permit the development of composite metrics such as cost (to carriers or shippers) per tonne of emissions reduced. Proposed Metrics Regulatory Drivers The regulatory driver metrics (Exhibit F-2) set the context for actions on the part of the supply-chain actors. They directly affect shipper and carrier behavior as well as impacts, and hence, outputs. They may be influenced by outcomes. These metrics are generally inputs into the sustainable supply-chain Exhibit F-1. Supply-chain sustainability metrics map.

129 system. The exception to this is Administration and Enforce- ment Costs associated with regulation or financial incentives. These, for example, may be considered together with Shipper or Carrier Costs to develop an understanding of the overall costs of emissions-reduction efforts. Shipper/Carrier Considerations These metrics (Exhibit F-3) are the main issues that private- sector shippers and carriers need to balance. They are subject to external forces including the availability of technology (such as vehicle technology, marine vessel design, ITS) as well as public pressure and expectations. The latter encompasses community action, public sustainability expectations, and industry sustainability reporting norms. Individual shipper/ carrier considerations may assume different levels of impor- tance under various circumstances. Decisions relating to the balance of these considerations affect freight transportation impacts (such as freight mode split, fleet composition, fuel use). There is a degree of reverse interaction between impacts and shipper/carrier considerations, too. For example, conges- tion levels and distances to distribution centers will impact travel time and operating costs. Freight Transportation Impacts Freight transportation impacts (Exhibit F-4) occur as a result of the interaction between regulatory drivers and shipper/ carrier considerations. They are key determinants of emissions. Outputs Outputs refer to the air emissions from freight transportation and logistics operations. These are typically those associated Exhibit F-2. Regulatory drivers metrics. Consideration Measure Applicability Engine emissions standards Standards for CAP emissions (usually expressed as g/bhp·hr) Applicable to all modes, including Standards for heavy trucks Locomotives Off-road engines Category 3 marine engines Harbor craft Vehicle fuel economy standards Average fuel consumption (gallons per 1,000 ton-miles) Applies to trucking. Standards are currently proposed at the federal and state (California) levels. Fuel standards Permitted level of sulfur in fuel (ppm) Applies to all modes. Fuel carbon intensity Federal low carbon fuel standard proposed Speed limits Expressed in mph Applies to trucking only. knots Applies to shipping. Truck weight and length Gross vehicle weight (in pounds) length (in feet) Applies to trucking only. Typically improved efficiencies can be achieved as weight and length increases. (This can impact mode shift to trucking.) Ambient Air Quality Standards Standards for pollutants (typically expressed in ppm or µg/m3) Typically set as the federal level. Nonattainment invokes a requirement for a state implementation plan (SIP), which may include measures to reduce emissions from freight. GHG targets % reduction over a base year Currently applied at the state level in more than 20 states. Land use controls Policy, zoning, and permitting for DCs Impacts locational options and vehicle miles. Route and access restrictions Limits on truck access Impacts locational options and vehicle miles. Infrastructure investment $ invested Includes all modes. May include public-private partnerships. Taxation Vehicle taxes Typically affects truck carriers. $ per gallon (fuel) Typically affects truck carriers. Grants/incentives Total $ value by type Usually levied to encourage uptake of cleaner/greener technologies. Admin/enforcement costs Cost in $ to the public sector Utility of regulation is in part driven by the ease/cost of implementation and enforcement.

130 with vehicle emissions, but may also include secondary emis- sions associated with energy provision to warehouse opera- tions. Where shippers are in a position to consider lifecycle energy use, lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the entire supply chain (and the proportion of these which are logistics related) may also be considered. However, it is considered that this is likely to be the exception rather than the rule for shippers at present. There are various measures for reporting CAP and GHG emissions, depending on which agency is reporting. See Exhibit F-5. Outcomes Outcomes refer to the effects of air emissions from freight transportation and logistics operations. These relate primarily to CAP emissions in respect of ambient air quality and health impacts on affected populations. Noise has been included here, although the study tasks to date have not indicated that this metric is widely employed (other than in the EU). Data on noise impacts may need to be more qualitative for the pur- poses of case study assessments. See Exhibit F-6. Conclusion Various metrics are used by different agencies in the public and private sectors, with little commonality between agencies. Further, there are issues associated with data availability and compatibility (e.g., with different mea- sures applied across modes and between agencies). For supply-chain participants (and for shippers in particular) the range and complexity of supply-chain issues, and the Exhibit F-3. Shipper/carrier considerations metrics. Consideration Measure Applicability Capital costs Investment ($) Applies to cost of investment in sustainability made by shippers/ carriers either as a result of regulation or of voluntary initiatives Payback period (years) or return on investment (ROI) Return on investment Operating costs $ per tonne mile Changes in shipper/carrier operating costs as a result of regulatory or voluntary initiatives Change in operating cost (%) Transit time Average speed (mph) Relevant across modes for shippers and carriers; includes slow steaming considerations for marine vessels Length of time in transit Typically by route; applies across modes for shippers and carriers Reliability On-time deliveries as a % of total number of shipments Applies to shippers and carriers Customer satisfaction Change in customer satisfaction ratings Applies to shippers and carriers Productivity Ratio of vehicle-miles to ton-miles Applies to truck carriers Miles traveled empty as a proportion of total miles Applies to truck and rail carriers, as well as to fleets Average capacity utilization (average actual load as a proportion of full load capacity) Applies to carriers of all modes as well as to fleets Total energy use Warehouse energy use intensity (total source energy use/by the gross floor area) measured in kBtu/sq ft (based on Energy Star performance rating methods) Warehouse energy use impacts GHG emissions Direct energy consumption by source/energy type measured in GJ This is a GRI reporting requirement; consideration of total supply-chain energy use is relevant to shippers in developing a lifecycle approach to emissions Freight transport intensity Total freight miles Applies to shippers and carriers The ratio of freight movement to economic output expressed as ton- miles/revenue $ Applies to shippers and carriers

131 Exhibit F-4. Freight transportation impacts metrics. Consideration Measure Applicability Mode split Total freight ton-miles by mode Mode choice impacts emissions, journey length, route, fuel consumption and emissions Frequently reported by carriers (e.g., Wal- Mart, Stonyfield Farm) Amount (%) of cargo shifted to “cleaner” modes Congestion Standard deviation from mean travel time Applies to road and rail carriers Average delay in hours Route-based measure Relative congestion—the ratio of average delay over total transport time (measured as hours/ton-km) Congestion costs (measured in $ terms based on value of time of total hours lost) Financial measure often employed by DOTs Fleet composition Composition of fleet by model year, emissions standard (tier), and additional vehicle equipment specification Applies to road and rail carriers; this is an indicator of potential emissions Composition of off-road equipment fleet by emission standard Applies to port and rail facilities Fuel use Total fuel consumed by type (gallons) EPA SmartWay measure; also reported as part of corporate reporting Average fuel consumption (gallons/ton-mile or TEU miles) Fuel savings (%) Location of facilities Average distance from distribution center to outlet Applies to shippers and carriers Average trip length Vehicle-miles traveled Total miles, by mode Impacts overall emissions in interaction with other impacts (not a useful measure on its own) Exhibit F-5. Freight transportation impacts metrics. Consideration Measures Applicability CAP emissions Total CAP emissions (tonnes by pollutant) Usually applicable to a facility such as a port or railyard; currently reported by agencies such as CARB and ports; applicable to carriers and shippers Total annual average CAP emissions (lbs per day) Average CAP emissions (tonnes) per ton-mile and per ton Applies primarily to carriers and shippers CAP emissions reductions (tonnes, %, and per ton-mile) Applies to facilities, carriers, and shippers GHG emissions Total GHG emissions (tonnes of CO2e) Applicable to facilities such as a ports or railyards; currently reported by agencies such as CARB and (some) ports facilities; applicable to carriers and shippers Total GHG emissions (tonnes of CO2e) from transportation and distribution by private-sector companies Applies to shippers and carriers; required by Carbon Disclosure Project Tons of GHG by volume of units shipped Measures of intensity typically reported by shippers and carriers, for example by Wal-Mart GHGs (in metric tons) emitted per million $s in sales GHG emissions Total annual average GHG emissions (lbs of CO2e per day) from freight transportation as a proportion of all GHG emissions Frequently reported by the federal government Average GHG emissions per ton-mile and per ton Applies primarily to carriers and shippers GHG emissions reductions (tonnes, %, and per ton-mile) Applies to facilities, regions, shippers, and carriers

132 Exhibit F-6. Freight transportation impacts metrics. Consideration Measures Applicability Ambient air quality Ambient concentrations of pollutants (measured in PPM) Applied to a particular location affected by emissions Based on facility/mobile source emissions added to background levels Part of Air Emissions Inventory data Improvements in ambient air quality Health risks Diesel exhaust concentration (24-hour average in ppm) and human intake estimates Usually part of health risk assessments—linked to emissions inventories Risk of premature deaths due to cardiovascular disease and non- cancer health effects such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Usually part of health risk assessments—linked to emissions inventories Estimated number of acres where cancer risk is higher than 10 in 1 million and population that resides therein Non-cancer chronic health effects from diesel PM School days lost due to respiratory illness Health costs associated with respiratory illness ($) Deaths attributed to respiratory illness as a result of freight emissions GHG targets Contribution to emissions target Where reduction targets exist Noise Total distance exposed to noise levels above 50 dB or 55 dB for rail Qualitative assessments may be required (e.g., based on time of exposure and relative level of noise from vehicles and equipment Not commonly reported; metrics employed in EU Super Green Project; noise has recently been added to GRI reporting for airports Energy security Oil savings (barrels) EPA SmartWay measure Safety Incidence of crashes, accidents, injuries, and fatalities by mode and ton-miles Relevant to all supply-chain participants relationships between them, is daunting even without the additional overlay of environmental and social sustainabil- ity considerations. The supply-chain sustainability metrics map is intended to provide an initial framework to better expose the relationships between different supply-chain parameters that ultimately affect air emissions and the associated sustainability outcomes of supply-chain activity (including, for example, ambient air quality, health, safety, energy security, and noise). The frame- work also can enable causal relationships and linkages to be imputed using qualitative assumptions in the absence of quan- titative data.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation