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.
CHAPTER 5 PEER EXCHANGE ORGANIZATION AND CONDUCT OF THE PEER EXCHANGE WORKSHOP The draft model curricula were reviewed and evaluated at a one-day peer exchange at the National Academiesâ Beckman Center in Irvine, California. Invited workshop participants represented a variety of stakeholder groups expected to benefit from having the curricula available, and considered knowledgeable about the educational needs of their constituents. The stakeholder list appearing in Table 7 served as the starting point for identifying candidate workshop participants. Within the broad constituent groups in the table, potential candidates were identified from a number of sources, including: ⢠HMCRP Oversight Panel and project panels ⢠TRB Committee on Hazardous Materials Transportation ⢠Other relevant TRB committees ⢠USDOT University Transportation Centers and the Council of University Transportation Centers ⢠DHS Centers of Excellence ⢠Relevant industry associations ⢠Hazmat industry private companies, primarily shippers and carriers ⢠Individuals identified in the initial review of existing programs and resources ⢠Researcher individual contact networks in industry, government, and education With guidance provided by the project panel, the list was reduced to a subset of individuals, who were each contacted to gain a better understanding of what they might be able to contribute to the workshop, as well as to ascertain their level of interest in participating. The final invitation list comprised 53 individuals with the following distributional representation: 9 Shippers and receivers (of raw materials and finished products) 14 Carriers 4 Distributor/warehouser/terminal operator 4 International freight forwarder/carrier/broker 4 Policymakers (elected/appointed officials) 4 Transportation infrastructure providers and operators 5 Regulators 2 Transportation security 2 Compliance and enforcement 1 Community planner/economic developer 2 Emergency responders 2 Emergency managers 8 Educators 13 Trainers 53
10 Researchers 7 Consultants Note that because many invitees were considered as being associated with more than one stakeholder group the above list sums to well over 53. This overlap was considered advantageous in that these individuals would be able to review the model curricula from multiple perspectives. Also, note that there is disproportionate representation across certain stakeholder groups. This was done purposely, to reflect that certain audiences are primarily potential curriculum users, while others are highly knowledgeable about existing hazmat education and training resources. Appendix D provides some of the materials used at the workshop, including the agenda and the invitation roster. The shaded rows in the roster identify four invitees who were not able to attend. The last three columns of the roster indicate the breakout groups to which participants were assigned by the project team to help ensure balanced perspectives in each group. The first plenary session included a brief summary of the project findings to that date, since most participants were not familiar with the background effort that led to the draft curricula. In the second plenary session project team members presented overviews of each module. Participants were asked to provide feedback on the overall breadth and depth of the draft curricula, and to identify any missing topics. Other mechanisms were made available for providing detailed comments, as follows: ⢠Binders with hardcopy slides for markup were available throughout the day. ⢠Workshop folders included blank sheets for participant comments (signed or anonymous). The sheets were collected at the final session. ⢠Participants were encouraged to send email to the projectâs principal investigator ⢠Participants were invited to talk to research team members throughout the day. At the end of the plenary session, electronic polling was used to obtain input on which modules the participants desired to discuss in depth during the breakout sessions to follow. Modules covering the topics of hazmat legal and regulatory environment, risk management, and hazmat transportation incident management were selected. As time permitted, the other modules were also discussed. Each breakout group was also asked to discuss any special topics that warranted coverage in an existing module or treatment as a separate curricula module. In the first afternoon plenary session, reports from the morning breakout sessions were presented. At the end of the session participants used electronic polling to register their preferences on the proposed special topics. Two topics emerged as those of highest interest: (1) new technologies and (2) workforce issues and careers in hazmat transportation. The afternoon breakout groups discussed curriculum deployment strategies and considerations, and performance measures. In all three groups the bulk of the discussion was on the first of these topics. The breakout group conclusions and recommendations were presented in the concluding plenary session. This was followed by a closing discussion on the totality of the workshop proceedings. 54
On the second day, the project panel, TRB staff, and research team met for several hours to discuss the workshop outcomes and remaining project work tasks. PEER EXCHANGE RESULTS Feedback from the workshop included a transcript of the handwritten notes that were taken to capture issues and questions raised during the various workshop sessions, and a compilation of specific participant comments submitted during and at the end of the workshop and some via e- mail. This feedback was used to in guiding the module revision process and developing the project final report. A summary of the overarching comments follows. 1. Considerable support for implementing the curricula was evident. a. Product viewed as a âcurriculum toolkit.â b. Most valuable material is the vetted module content. 2. Clarify scope and target audience. a. Focus on education recognizing multiple audiences (e.g., university students, professionals, etc.). b. Teach student how to think about the problem (e.g., fewer lists, more synthesis). c. Limit amount of âhow toâ information 3. Key points to consider in finalizing curricula a. Use risk management as a unifying concept. b. Include an international/global slant (e.g., âdangerous goodsâ as well as âhazardous materialsâ). c. Include recognition of industry roles and initiatives. d. Focus more on management processes, including the concept of risk versus reward. e. Make sure that air, marine, pipeline, and nuclear transport are adequately covered. f. Consider developing guidance on how the material may be utilized by different audiences. i. Instructor guide or curricula guide as preface ii. Notes throughout modules 4. Need to define âhazardous materialsâ and âdangerous goods,â and use these terms consistently through the modules 5. Make greater use of case studies 6. Consider social media channels to: a. raise awareness b. impart curriculum (in subjects such as risk communication and incident management) c. use as a student assignment (e.g., truth digging associated with a past incident) d. access and utilize You Tube videos and other relevant information. 7. Recommend a program of follow-up deployment activities involving stakeholders. 55
