The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 55-84

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 55... ... 55 S e c t i o n 3 The second objective of HMCRP Project 07, to identify possible methodologies for systematic collection of the necessary performance data, was achieved through a literature review, consideration of existing accident and hazardous materials data collection processes, and examination of accident severity thresholds. Industry surveys and interviews were used to identify preferable methodologies, and the most favorable methodology was explored through the development and implementation of a pilot study. Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... 56 This process enabled identification of several improvements to the pilot data collection tool and generated a total of 50 accident records with varying degrees of completeness, particularly regarding bulk package design, the extent of the damage, and the dimensions of the breach. The data collected as part of the pilot study were also used to estimate the amount of time for such a system to yield statistically significant accident performance measures. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... 57 occurred or the damages to the bulk package cost more than $500. However, the current process does not record information in sufficient detail to address some of the pertinent questions concerning bulk package performance. Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... 58 in which incidents of greater magnitude have more detailed reporting requirements. Reporting thresholds have both practical and analytical implications for the resultant database, and these should be understood when developing a new database. Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... 59 TIFA has the same accident definitions and reporting criteria as FARS. Specifically, a crash is included if there is • A fatality that occurs as a result of a crash. Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... 60 • How effective are different design changes at improving safety? • How has tank car safety improved as a result of some change in design or operation? Read the entire page →
From page 61... ... 61 This corresponds to an accident rate of 132 per month, of which 34 result in a release. Since not all of the FMCSA MCMIS records are of accidents that resulted in damage to the lading retention system, the combined data set serves to identify the limits of underreporting. Read the entire page →
From page 62... ... 62 In contrast with their ability to determine standard industry injury and fatality rates, PHMSA is unable to determine baseline rates for tank damage and hazardous material spills. Furthermore, based on their experience with the HMIRS, PHMSA identified the following future potential challenges: • Reconciling differences between and performing analyses on combined data from old and new versions of datareporting forms. Read the entire page →
From page 63... ... 63 This has resulted in more pragmatic, effective, and fact-based regulatory proposals. Approaches to Data Collection The following three dichotomies were considered to facilitate decisions regarding the different approaches for development of an accident database: • Voluntary versus mandatory data reporting. Read the entire page →
From page 64... ... 64 only collects information related to accident damage and not accident identification information such as date, time, location (of accident) , and carrier/shipper information. Read the entire page →
From page 65... ... 65 Manufacturers The manufacturers who replied to the survey indicated that liability considerations and, to a lesser extent, confidentiality and paperwork are of greatest concern when considering participation in a voluntary program. As a result, while two manufacturers indicated they would be willing to participate in such a voluntary effort, one indicated that it probably would not. Read the entire page →
From page 66... ... 66 Main Concerns Industry-Sponsored Approach Government-Sponsored Approach • Industry has the expertise (knowledge/experience) to correctly interpret the data • Industry will be better able to keep the program on track • The industry is overregulated as it is, but has good self-regulation • Increased ability to change what is being reported • Industry-sponsored approaches lead to more homogeneous samples • Government is better equipped to keep the program on track and deal with enforcement issues (if mandatory approach is also adopted) Read the entire page →
From page 67... ... 67 • Option G: Industry-sponsored extension of Form DOT F 5800.1 with voluntary participation. • Option H: Industry-sponsored new database with mandatory participation. Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... 68 • Whether the type of damage sustained resulted in failure. • Damage location (on the tank) Read the entire page →
From page 69... ... 69 Option G: Industry-Sponsored Extension of Form DOT F 5800.1 with Voluntary Participation This option involves referencing records collected by PHMSA's HMIRS and requesting data not included in Form DOT F 5800.1 that are required for determining cargo tank performance and estimating the component-specific conditional probability of release. This database would be developed and maintained by a private sector organization or consortium of organizations on behalf of the carriers, shippers, and/or manufacturers of bulk packages transporting hazardous materials. Read the entire page →
From page 70... ... 70 adjusted to add, subtract, or modify fields as the need arises. However, not all respondents will have reliable, convenient Internet access, so a paper-based system will also be needed. Read the entire page →
From page 71... ... 71 package performance database (see Table 40) Read the entire page →
From page 72... ... Variable Possible Responses Packaging Type Cargo Tank Portable Tank General Material Type Aluminum Stainless Steel Carbon Steel Composite Materials Combination Cargo Tank Specification Cargo Tank Portable Tank DOT 406 MC 306 DOT 407 MC 407 DOT 412 MC 312 MC 331 MC 338 Asphalt Cargo Tank Compressed Gas Tube Trailer Other T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T50 T75 DOT Specification 51 DOT Specification 56 DOT Specification 57 DOT Specification 60 IM 101 – IMO Type 1 IM 102 – IMO Type 2 IMO Type 5 Cryogenic Tank Container – IMO Type 7 Tube Module Other Number of Compartments Cargo Tank Portable Tank 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A Table 41. General package design characteristics available from existing Form DOT F 5800.1 fields. Read the entire page →
From page 73... ... 73 Damage Information The accurate recording of damage information is necessary to develop bulk package statistical performance metrics, regardless of whether the damage resulted in the release of lading. When responding to Question 25 in Form DOT F 5800.1, the individual currently identifies which component failed, how it failed, and the cause of the failure. Read the entire page →
From page 74... ... 74 Material Thickness Range (Inches) Corresponding Gauges Aluminum 0.100 inches to 0.500 inches 10 gauge (0.102 inches) Read the entire page →
From page 75... ... 75 Specification Pressure Range DOT 406 or MC 306 2.65–2.99 psig 3.00–3.49 psig 3.50–4.00 psig DOT 407 or MC 307 25–29 psig 30–34 psig 35–40 psig DOT 412 or MC 312 5–9 psig 10–14 psig 15–19 psig 20–25 psig MC 331 100–199 psig 200–299 psig 300–399 psig 400–500 psig MC 338 23.5–99 psig 100–199 psig 200–299 psig 300–399 psig 400–500 psig All Others Text-entered numerical value (in psig) Table 45. Read the entire page →
From page 76... ... Hazardous Class Possible Responses Class 1 -- Explosives Division 1.1 -- Explosives with a Mass Explosion Hazard Division 1.2 -- Explosives with a Projection Hazard Division 1.3 -- Explosives with Predominantly a Fire Hazard Division 1.4 -- Explosives with No Significant Blast Hazard Division 1.5 -- Very Insensitive Explosives with a Mass Explosion Hazard Division 1.6 -- Extremely Insensitive Articles Class 2 -- Gases Division 2.1 -- Flammable Gases Division 2.2 -- Non-Flammable, Non-Toxic Gases Division 2.3 -- Toxic Gases Class 4 -- Flammable Solids, Spontaneously Combustible Materials, etc. Division 4.1 -- Flammable Solids Division 4.2 -- Spontaneously Combustible Materials Division 4.3 -- Water-Reactive Substances/Dangerous When Wet Materials Class 5 -- Oxidizing Substances and Organic Peroxides Division 5.1 -- Oxidizing Substances Division 5.2 -- Organic Peroxides Class 6 -- Toxic Substances and Infectious Substances Division 6.1 -- Toxic Substances Division 6.2 -- Infectious Substances Table 47. Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... 77 Possible Responses Cargo Tank Portable Tank Tank Head Tank Shell Air Inlet Bolts and Nuts Bottom Outlet Valve Check Valve Cover Discharge Valve or Coupling Excess Flow Valve Fill Hole Flange Frangible Disc Fusible Pressure Relief Device or Element Gasket Gauging Device Heater Coil High Level Sensor Hose Hose Adaptor or Coupling Inlet (Loading) Valve Lifting Lug Liner Liquid Line Liquid Valve Loading or Unloading Lines Locking Bar Manway or Dome Cover Mounting Studs O-Ring or Seals Piping or Fittings Shear Section Pressure Relief Valve or Device -- Non-Reclosing Pressure Relief Valve or Device -- Reclosing Remote Control Device Sample Line Sump Thermometer Well Threaded Connection Vacuum Relief Valve Valve Body Valve Seat Valve Spring Valve Stem Vapor Valve Vent Washout Weld or Seam Other Tank Head Tank Shell Bolts and Nuts Bottom Outlet Valve Check Valve Chime Closure (e.g., Cap, Top, or Plug) Read the entire page →
From page 78... ... 78 Variable Possible Responses Damage Type Abraded Bent Burst or Ruptured Cracked Crushed Failed to Operate Gouged or Cut Leaked Punctured Ripped or Torn Structural Torn Off or Damaged Vented Unknown Other Damage Width Text-entered Numerical Value Damage Width Units of Measure Inches Feet Damage Height Text-entered Numerical Value Damage Height Units of Measure Inches Feet Damage Depth Text-entered Numerical Value Damage Depth Units of Measure Inches Feet Whether Damage Resulted in a Release Yes No Table 50. Damage information collected for each component damaged. Read the entire page →
From page 79... ... Variable Possible Responses Vehicle Speed Prior to Crash • 0–4 mph • 5–9 mph • 10–14 mph • 15–19 mph • 20–24 mph • 25–29 mph • 30–34 mph • 35–39 mph • 40–44 mph • 45–49 mph • 50–54 mph • 55–59 mph • 60–64 mph • 65–69 mph • 70–74 mph • 75–79 mph • 80 mph or greater How Vehicle Speed Was Established • Obtained from Vehicle Data Recorders • Estimated Based on Speed Limit • Driver Estimated • Other Overturned • Yes • No Whether the Bulk Package Was Struck by or Struck an Object • An Object Struck the Bulk Package • The Bulk Package Struck an Object Impacting Object Object Struck the Bulk Package Bulk Package Struck an Object • Passenger Vehicle • Heavy Vehicle • Other • Passenger Vehicle • Heavy Vehicle • Roadway • Ground • Concrete Barrier • Guard Rail • Lighting Pole • Other Speed of Impacting Object Prior to Crash Passenger Vehicle or Heavy Vehicle Other Objects • 0–4 mph • 5–9 mph N/A • 10–14 mph • 15–19 mph • 20–24 mph • 25–29 mph • 30–34 mph • 35–39 mph • 40–44 mph • 45–49 mph • 50–54 mph • 55–59 mph • 60–64 mph • 65–69 mph • 70–74 mph • 75–79 mph • 80 mph or greater How the Impacting Object Speed Was Established • Obtained from Vehicle Data Recorders • Estimated Based on Speed Limit • Driver Estimated • Other N/A Table 52. Accident information. Read the entire page →
From page 80... ... 80 In this database schema, each cargo tank involved in an accident is assigned a separate incident identification number. Due to the nature of the data collected in the Administrative Variables, General Design Characteristics, and Basic Accident Information tables, one record corresponding to each reported accident is expected. Read the entire page →
From page 81... ... 81 an incident resulting in a release will also contain records of non-release damage. Security Access Controls The implementation of this prototype database management system may require, at a minimum, three levels of access: administrator access, reporter access, and public access. Read the entire page →
From page 82... ... 82 like clarification concerning the available responses, they should refer to the tab marked "Pilot Test Supplemental Information." If the information was not there, they were requested to leave a comment so that this information could be provided in the future. Finally, participants were informed that because this was a pilot study, quality checks had not been built into the data collection tool. Read the entire page →
From page 83... ... 83 • Basic accident information. This section recorded information concerning the object impacting the bulk package, speeds of the vehicle(s) Read the entire page →
From page 84... ... 84 – Non-collision, downhill runaway. – Non-collision, cargo loss or shift. Read the entire page →

From page 55...

... 55 S e c t i o n 3 The second objective of HMCRP Project 07, to identify possible methodologies for systematic collection of the necessary performance data, was achieved through a literature review, consideration of existing accident and hazardous materials data collection processes, and examination of accident severity thresholds. Industry surveys and interviews were used to identify preferable methodologies, and the most favorable methodology was explored through the development and implementation of a pilot study.