Introduction

The Hazardous Materials Security and Technology Analysis Tool provides an in-depth look at the hazardous materials industry as well as the technology deployment. The Analysis Tool contains specific information on company demographics, routing, hazmat hauled, security concerns and issues, and current and future use of security technologies. It contains unique information on technologies specifically geared towards the hazmat industry.

B.1 Objective

The Hazardous Materials Security and Technology Analysis Tool was produced to relate FOT findings with larger hazardous materials industry data. ATRI led this component of the FOT and contacted a number of the key members of the hazmat transportation industry. The data collection approach was developed with significant input from the Battelle Team, FMCSA, and the Independent Evaluation Team. Data for a small group of representative hazmat carriers were gathered to test the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Based on the results of that effort, revisions were made and the larger effort was undertaken. Ultimately, data on 164 hazmat carriers were obtained. These carriers were culled from several different carrier information databases such as the National Fleet Directory, intrastate databases, and the National Tank Truck Carriers membership.

B.2 Profile of Included Companies and their Fleets

Data from 164 trucking companies were obtained. Based on the information collected, ATRI believes the hazmat security topic is considered a "sensitive" issue to the hazmat industry, particularly given the government sponsorship of the survey and the concern over "increased regulations."

B.2.1 Fleet Size

The analysis tool collected data on the number of power units operated by their company. These were categorized using FMCSA-designated categories listed in Table B-1.

D

Figure B-1. Analysis of MCMIS Hazmat Carriers

Figure B-1 compares carrier size of those sampled in the hazmat industry technology analysis with active hazmat carriers within the Motor Carrier Management Information System - Census file (MCMIS).

The sampled carriers appear to show an inverse relationship to those listed in the MCMIS database. The American Trucking Associations' North American Fleet Directory database also indicates that the majority of HM "fleets" are composed of fewer than six trucks. The research team believes that three major rationalizations may explain the differences:

• Driver/Carrier Access Issues - Small carriers, often described as independent operators, are difficult to access for research purposes since they typically drive more than 100,000 miles every year.
• Carrier Security Concerns - Several Federal government studies have shown that smaller carriers have considerably greater security concerns and perceived vulnerabilities, along with fewer resources to address the issues. A recent USDA study¹² involving food transportation carriers found that larger carriers are more comfortable with their security programs and expend greater resources to manage security. The impact on the HM survey may be that larger carriers are better prepared (and staffed) to respond to research inquiries on security efforts and technology utilization.
• Carrier Fleet Size Versus HM Tonnage - The survey analysis didn't attempt to contrast fleet size by tonnage moved. However, American Trucking Associations' Freight Forecast to 2014 shows that large carriers are responsible for moving the majority of freight by tonnage. Interpolating this to the HM survey indicates that the large number of medium to large carrier survey respondents likely carry a substantial portion of all HM shipments.

B.2.2 Range of Operation

The range of operation and type of hazmat hauled for each carrier were determined. The average length of haul was stratified using categories from the 1997 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) produced by the U.S. Census Bureau [1]. Table B-2 represents these categories:

*These numbers derived from an August 2003 FMCSA database query.

For comparison purposes the percentages are compared with other data on the hazmat and general CVO industries. As can be seen, it was easier to obtain data for the longer-range carriers.

According to the American Trucking Trends 2003, 81.3 percent of trucking companies operate six or fewer trucks. This figure is substantiated by an FMCSA query performed in August of 2003 which shows 87.4 percent of carriers operating six or fewer trucks. Alternatively, companies included in the analysis comprise only 8.5 percent of this category. Since there is a large percentage of small (hazmat and non-hazmat) carriers, this difference between included companies and general industry weightings is possibly due to:

• The preponderance of larger carriers in the hazmat sector, and/or
• A greater comfort level by large carriers with providing hazmat information and data to the Deployment Team.
• It is well understood that the majority of the 585,000 for-hire U.S. interstate motor carriers¹³ are individual owner-operators, controlling six or fewer trucks.

Emerging Points

• The largest respondent group (38.8 percent) was the mid-sized company which operates between 21 and 100 power units. This differs considerably from the general industry population of mid-sized carriers (hazmat and non-hazmat) at 3.4 percent.
• It is difficult to ascertain whether the differences in included company's fleet-size weightings reflects differences in hazmat versus general industry composition, or reporting issues.
• Given the volatility of fleet size reporting (e.g., 42 percent of the VIUS carriers reported operating less than six power units), documenting the statistical relationship of fleet size to hazmat transport may not be possible.
• Included companies' range of operation percentages most closely match the general industry in the "short-range" carriers grouping.
• The majority of included companies (28.5 percent) are categorized as long-range medium haulers.

For a variety of technical and security reasons, a carrier's range of operation may play a role in determining the applicability of security issues and strategies. Included company's average length of haul was categorized using breakouts from the 1997 Economic Census: Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. The following represents responses from each of the breakout categories.

B.2.3 Route Variability

Hazardous materials carriers must adhere to strict routing. Hazmat routing is often dictated by both state and federal jurisdictions, but is usually managed at the state level. Based on current Federal regulations (49 CFR Part 397), there are several criteria used to determine hazardous materials routing such as population density, types and quantities of hazardous materials being shipped, terrain considerations, delays in transportation, congestion and accident history, etc.

A straight presentation of responses by carriers that transport hazmat as to the level of route variability (versus fixed or dedicated routes), does not allow for much analysis:

Level of routing variability

• 30 percent - Very variable
• 47 percent - Somewhat variable
• 21 percent - Not much
• 3 percent - Did not answer this question

When this information is considered in context with the number of respondents that listed "radioactive materials transportation" (4.9 percent) it becomes apparent that typical radioactive shipments are moved in relatively small quantities as compared to Class 3 Flammable Liquids.

The following compares responses on route variability (versus fixed routes) with ranges of operation (Table B-3)

• 77 percent of local operators reported having "very much to somewhat" route variability
• 80 percent of short-range operators reported having "somewhat to very little" route variability
• 54 percent of short-range medium operators reported having "somewhat" route variability
• 83 percent of long-range medium operators reporting having "very much or somewhat" route variability
• 64 percent of long-range operators reporting having "very much" route variability.

Emerging Points

• 77 percent of local operators reported having "very much to somewhat" route variability
• 80 percent of short-range operators reported having "somewhat to very little" route variability
• 54 percent of short-range medium operators reported having somewhat route variability
• 83 percent of long-range medium operators reported having very much or somewhat route variability
• 64 percent long-range operators reported having very much route variability.

B.2.4 Fleet Size in Comparison to Ranges of Operation

Given the unique characteristics associated with carrier size and range-of-operation, cross-factoring the two data sets may offer insight into the security vulnerabilities and opportunities associated with certain groupings. For example, small hazmat carriers with local routing may be considerably more difficult to manage during a high national threat level given their lack of technology utilization and technology limitations (e.g., line-of-sight issues with satellite).

Comparing motor carrier size to their average length of haul produces the following analysis as seen in Table B-4.

*Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding and/or multiple entries.

Emerging Points

• The majority of "large" motor carriers (55 percent) indicated moving hazardous materials in the long-range medium or greater category. However, a second-level cross-factoring with fleet characteristics (of large carriers who operate locally), indicates that 3.7 percent of these large local carriers are LTL carriers operating 150+ power units. This is consistent with the trucking industry's larger LTL, or pickup and delivery, trucking companies as previously noted.
• A large percentage of medium-sized carriers (34 percent) indicated their average length of haul as long-range medium.
• The majority of small carriers (42 percent) indicated their average length of haul as short-range.
• More than a third of very small carriers' respondents (36 percent) indicated their average length of haul as local.
• A strong positive correlation appears to exist between carrier size and length of haul.

B.2.5 Hazardous Materials Hauled

As expected, hazmat transporters move a wide variety of hazmat commodities. Figure B-2 presents a distribution of hazmat transported from the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics) for comparison purposes. Figure B-3 presents this distribution of HM transported based on analysis of FOT carriers.

D

Figure B-2. Commodity Flow Survey 1997 - Hazmat Transported

D

Figure B-3. FOT Industry Analysis of Hazardous Material Transported

Comparing the classifications of hazardous materials hauled by operation type, LTL or truckload, results in the following (Table B-5):

*Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding and/or multiple entries.

Emerging Points

• Approximately 88 percent of the included companies indicated their company type as Truckload.
• Ten percent of included LTL companies reported hauling explosives, while truckload respondents reported only two percent. This difference was again present in radioactive materials and flammable solids. Ten percent of included LTL companies reported hauling explosives, while truckload respondents reported only two percent. This difference was again present in radioactive materials and flammable solids. Based on data from the included companies, it would appear that LTL operators are more likely to haul explosives, radioactive materials and flammable solids than truckload respondents.
• According to the Commodity Flow Survey, Hazardous Materials (FHWA, 1999, Table 2), 80.8 percent of total tonnage of hazardous materials were Class 3 Flammable Liquids, transported an average of 73 miles per shipment.

When company size is cross-tabulated with the hazmat classification transported, the following distributions occur as shown in Table B-6.

Emerging Points

• Flammable liquids appear to be hauled by all fleet sizes.
• Medium and large companies haul more poisonous and infectious materials based on the data.
• Large motor carriers were almost four times more likely to carry radioactive material than the other three categories on average.
• No carriers with less than 20 power units reported to transporting explosives or poisonous/infectious materials.

B.3 Leading Security Concerns and Issues

The number and variety of security concerns and issues have multiplied for trucking companies since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. With new security legislation, trucking companies are faced with myriad issues that must be accounted for to ensure safe, compliant transport of commodities. The analysis tool identified the leading security concerns and/or issues relating to hazardous materials transport for the included companies. The Figure B-4 documents the majority of security concerns/issues with the corresponding numbers of those rated in the top five.

B.3.1 Security Concerns and Issues

D

Figure B-4. Analysis of Security Concerns and Issues

Prior to September 11, 2001, cargo theft was the primary security issue based on anecdotal industry information, and continues to be a critical issue. Included companies also listed vehicle theft as one of their top security concerns; when "vehicle security" is included with "vehicle theft", the category moves into the top three issues. "Secured parking facilities" was not listed specifically as an issue but was often cited as a solution to vehicle theft/security as well as "en-route security." Secure parking facilities, both at the terminal, and while on the road are extremely important to security. Cargo security, traffic congestion, and awareness of security concerns were among some of the others listed. It is quite clear that the trucking industry and hazmat transporters in particular, have a large number of legitimate security concerns.

Nevertheless, it was surprising that a significant number of carriers indicated that they have no hazmat security concerns. Despite the media attention highlighting possible HM terrorist activities, more than 10 percent reported that they didn't have any security concerns.

When security concerns were compared with the range of operation, the following distributions arose as seen in Table B-7.

This comparison illustrates that despite a trucking company's range of operation, their top concerns are universal. The three most common concerns are:

1. En-route security
2. Cargo theft
3. Sabotage and tampering

B.4 Technologies, Programs, and Policies Most Likely to Improve Security

Information, support, and training strategies that a carrier would want available to address its security concerns and/or issues were collected using the analysis tool. Figure B-5 depicts carrier responses and suggestions.

B.4.1 Carrier-Requested Support

D

Figure B-5. Company Security Concerns and Issues

Figure B-5 illustrates the general suggestions proffered by the hazmat respondents for addressing security concerns and issues. Updates on security technologies, standardized technologies, updates on security legislation, and security alert bulletins were stated as strong possibilities for supporting the hazmat trucking industry. Also mentioned were alternative funding such as government investment subsidies, and the need for a security best practices guidebook.

B.5 Recommended Technologies and Procedural Solutions

The solutions that included companies use currently, or will incorporate in the future, to address their security issues were identified. As expected, there were a variety of solutions. Table B-8 lists the prominent solutions and technologies as well as the number of included companies that have or will adopt them.

B.5.1 Security Solutions

Emerging Points

• Simple antitheft devices and measures, such as keeping tractor and trailer locked at all times, were the most common carrier solutions.
• Use of vehicle satellite tracking was the second most common security solution or technology identified.

B.6 Technologies Currently Used by Carriers and Future Considerations

A key objective of the analysis tool was to determine which technologies are in use today, and which technologies carriers are likely to purchase for their fleets in the future. For the purposes of this analysis, "future" was defined as the next two to three years. The analysis tool also gathered a listing of vendors for each technology used. Figure B-6 captures the current and future use of these technologies.

B.6.1 Current and Future Technologies

Figure B-6 is a comparison of technologies that are currently used and their potential future use.

D

Figure B-6. Company Current and Future Technology Use

As illustrated above, the trucking industry has and will in the future embrace a range of security technologies. Current technologies most frequently used by the represented companies are cell phones, vehicle tracking, and satellite communications. As well, these are among some of the most mature technologies on the market.

Emerging Points

• Vehicle (truck) tracking continues to expand within the mainstream trucking industry.
• Wireless communications appear to be used by a considerable number of respondents, and will continue to expand in the future based on the data collected.

B.7 Summary Analysis

The analysis, comprised of data from 164 companies, targeted four key areas of interest: (1) profile of respondents and their fleets; (2) leading security concerns and issues; (3) technologies, programs and policies most likely to improve security; and (4) recommended technologies and procedural solutions.

B.7.1 Profile of Included Companies and their Fleets

The majority of included hazmat companies (82 percent) operate between 7 and 100 power units. This appears to be a somewhat inverse relationship to the American Trucking Trends 2003, which states that 81.3 percent of trucking companies operate six or fewer trucks¹⁴. Since the full database of included companies contains a large percentage of small (hazmat and non-hazmat) carriers, this percentage difference between companies included and general industry weightings is possibly due, as previously stated, to: the preponderance of larger carriers in the hazmat sector; greater comfort level by large carriers with providing hazmat information and data to the Deployment Team; and/or the definition and impact of owner-operators on the total carrier populations. Table B-9 compares respondent size to the industry by operating range.

Hazmat transporters move a wide variety of hazmat commodities. The type of hazmat hauled as well as other variables were determined by the analysis. Ten percent of LTL respondents reported hauling explosives, while truckload respondents reported only two percent. This difference was again present in radioactive materials and flammable solids. Based on the data collected, it would appear that LTL are more likely to haul explosives, radioactive materials and flammable solids than their counterparts, truckload respondents. According to the Commodity Flow Survey, Hazardous Materials (FHWA, 1999, Table 2), 80.8 percent of total tonnage of hazardous materials were Class 3 Flammable Liquids, transported an average of 73 miles per shipment.

B.7.2 Leading Security Concerns and Issues

The analysis tool asked respondents to list their five leading security concerns and/or issues relating to hazardous materials transport. The top three ranked issues were en-route security, cargo theft, and sabotage and tampering. Prior to 9/11, cargo theft was the number one issue based on previous surveys, and continues to be a critical issue. Respondents also listed vehicle theft as one of their top security concerns; when "vehicle security" is included with "vehicle theft", the category moves into the top three issues. When security concerns were compared with the range of operation, the following distributions arose: en-route security; cargo theft; and sabotage and tampering.

B.7.3 Technologies, Programs, and Policies Most Likely to Improve Security

The analysis tool solicited information, support, and training strategies that a carrier would want available to address its security concerns and/or issues. Updates on security technologies, standardized technologies, updates on security legislation, and security alert bulletins were stated as strong possibilities for supporting the trucking industry. Also mentioned were alternative funding such as government subsidies and security best practices.

B.7.4 Recommended Technologies and Procedural Solutions

Respondents were asked to list any solutions that they use currently, or will incorporate in the future, to address their security issues. As expected, there were a variety of responses. Simple antitheft devices and measures such as keeping the tractor and trailer locked at all times were the most common carrier responses. Use of vehicle satellite tracking was the second most common carrier response.

The analysis tool also determined which technologies are in use today, and which technologies carriers are likely to purchase for their fleets in the future. Current technologies most frequently used by respondents are cell phones, vehicle tracking, and satellite communications. These are among some of the most mature technologies on the market. Vehicle (truck tracking) continues to move into the mainstream trucking industry. Satellite communications appear to be used by a number of companies and appear that they will continue to be in the future.