Best Potential Options

Four options are discussed in this section. For each option, who will collect data, how data will be collected, where it will be housed, how privileged data will be protected and the ease of implementing such a system are considered.

4.9.1.1 Option A: Improved Compliance with Existing Form DOT F 5800.1 with Damage Reporting Modifications

During the stakeholder interview process, Form DOT F 5800.1 was often identified by individuals and organizations as suitable for developing conditional probability of release and other useful statistical estimates. This would require that:

 Failure descriptions would be modified to include damage descriptions regardless of whether or not a release occurred.

 Compliance would be increased in two areas: reporting that an accident had occurred and accurately reporting package design and accident characteristics. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Form DOT F 5800.1 collects approximately seventy percent of the information identified as essential for estimating conditional probability of release. The modification of fields to record the damage type and identify the components damaged, regardless of whether or not a release occurred would enable a general estimate of the conditional probability of release. However, the HMIRS (the database of accident reports submitted through Form DOT F 5800.1) is currently incomplete due to underreporting and the poor quality of reported information.

Who Would Collect Data. PHMSA would continue to collect the accident data. How Data Would Be Collected. The data would continue to be collected using Form

DOT F 5800.1.

Where Data Would Be Housed. The data would be housed in PHMSA’s HMIRS

138

How Privileged Data Would Be Protected. The data fields in Form DOT F 5800.1 are

non-privileged; therefore, protection is not currently provided.

Ease of Implementation. PHMSA is currently working on updating the data reporting

process to improve data quality (e.g., the responses would be selected from a drop-down list as opposed to a free-form data entry field). Additionally, PHMSA is working with other DOT organizations to facilitate incident identification; thereby ensuring greater compliance (reduce underreporting). Additionally, compliance officers may be employed to ensure greater reporting compliance.

Modifying the form to ask for damage type and identification of damaged components may be more difficult and time consuming to implement. It may require a formal notice, review, and comment process as described in the Administrative Procedure Act. The previous change to Form DOT F 5800.1 took over two years to complete.

4.9.1.2 Option B: Government-Sponsored Extension of Form DOT F 5800.1 with Mandatory Participation

In addition to the information already collected using Form DOT F 5800.1 and the damage reporting modifications discussed as part of Option A, the following variables, at a minimum, are identified to be essential for estimating cargo tank performance:

 Bottom accident damage protection.  Rollover accident damage protection.  Presence of jacket.

 Jacket material.  Jacket thickness.  Insulation type.

 Type of damage (replaces “Type of Failure” in Form DOT F 5800.1).  Whether the type of damage sustained resulted in failure.

 Damage location (on the tank).

 Damaged components (replaces “What Failed” in Form DOT F 5800.1).  Whether the damage sustained by the component resulted in failure.

Extending Form DOT F 5800.1 to include these additional variables would result in the ability to determine a reasonable estimate of the component-specific conditional

139

probability of release combined with strategies to increase package performance in the event of an accident.

Who Would Collect Data. Since most of the necessary information is collected in Form

DOT F 5800.1, the most logical choice to collect the additional data is PHMSA; however any government agency with the capability of making the reporting of accident data mandatory could also collect the additional accident data as long as the PHMSA report number was referenced in the extension database.

How Data Would Be Collected. The data would be submitted to the government

agency through an extended version of Form DOT F 5800.1 or a supplementary form.

Where Data Would Be Housed. The data would be housed in an updated version of

the HMIRS database or a database that references the corresponding HMIRS report number.

How Privileged Data Would Be Protected. Since the option is an extension of Form

DOT F 5800.1, similar to the information in the HMIRS, the additional data will be subject to current Freedom of Information laws and will therefore not be protected, unless a “no- fault” provision is being used.

Ease of Implementation. Modifying the current Form DOT F 5800.1 to include the

proposed fields would require an amendment to the current laws governing compliance. Therefore, this option may be difficult to implement because the process to change or establish new regulations must follow the procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act.

4.9.1.3 Option D: Government-Sponsored New Database that is Independent of Form DOT F 5800.1 with Mandatory Participation

This option focuses on methods to reduce the risk that data from a government- sponsored program is used in a manner detrimental to database contributors. This could be achieved by using a “no-fault” system to report information regarding incidents and

associated bulk container damage. In this system access would be restricted and individual or company names, and certain other details of the accident that would enable identification of the parties involved would not be recorded. With this method, compliance with report submission would need to be addressed to ensure participation. Furthermore, the quality of data provided would need to be checked to encourage complete and consistent reporting.

140

Who Would Collect Data. This option calls for mandatory data reporting by industry.

A government agency would be required to carry out the compliance checks to assure reports are being submitted for all crashes in which the lading retention system is damaged.

How It Would Be Collected. To assure confidential, mandatory reporting, an electronic

form could be created that would provide the necessary quality checks for complete and consistent reporting. This could be achieved by providing options from which a respondent selects the most appropriate response and limiting the number of free-form answers. Furthermore, the new program would include a method for conducting compliance checks to assure the reporting of all highway incidents involving the bulk transportation of

hazardous material resulting in damage to the lading retention system.

Where Data Would Be Housed. There are multiple options for how the data will be

stored. In a confidential reporting system, the data will be vetted for completeness and consistency prior to submittal of the incident report. Furthermore, there may be no possibility of correcting submitted reports. Therefore, the “no-fault” factual data could be added to the database and made available to the public upon receipt of the report.

How Privileged Data Would Be Protected. Many details of the accident that enable

the identification of the parties involved in the accident (e.g., individual or company name, date and location of the accident) are not required for estimating cargo tank performance and developing component-specific conditional probability of release. With a new database, focusing solely on data fields that enable the development of cargo tank performance

estimates, an anonymous reporting system could be developed. The data collected would be available to the public per the current Freedom of Information laws; however, anonymity could be maintained due to the large number of bulk hazmat incidents that occur per month (approximately 132 per month).

Ease of Implementation. Since this option requires establishing new regulations

according to the procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, the

implementation may require a lead-time of two or more years. The database would also be less flexible for subsequent modifications.

4.9.1.4 Option G: Industry-Sponsored Extension of Form DOT F 5800.1 with Voluntary Participation

This option involves referencing the PHMSA’s HMIRS database and requesting the data fields required for determining cargo tank performance and estimating the component-

141

specific conditional probability of release that are not included in Form DOT F 5800.1. There are two variations that could be considered. In one, the entire database would be consolidated; however, an alternative approach would involve development of a separate database for the physical characteristics of all bulk packages that could be drawn upon as needed. Each is described briefly below. In both cases the 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.

 Carriers and/or shippers transporting hazardous materials would provide both accident damage information and package design information for all reportable incidents. Package design information would be limited to name plate and specification plate information as well as external visual information.

 A variation of the first approach would involve creation of a separate database that contains package design parameters for all bulk packages. The advantage of this approach would be that the collection of more detailed information would be feasible. Accident data would be recorded using the extended Form DOT F 5800.1 as described above, but physical parameter data for bulk packages involved would come from a second database. The ISO tank container

information may be available from the Universal Machine Language Equipment Register (UMLER) provided they are all registered in that database. In this approach, the success of the accident damage database depends upon widespread participation in the package design parameter database.

Who Would Collect Data and How It Would Be Collected. In the first approach a

private sector organization would collect the accident damage information through an online or paper form. The process will require tracking and follow-up that will take multiple months to complete, as different data sources become available. The data collection process will need to be standardized by employing consistent definitions and criteria. Using an online form will enhance data quality and result in more reliable statistical development in a shorter timeframe.

In the second approach, package design information for all major models of cargo tanks would be collected initially and then kept up to date on an ongoing basis. Accident

142

damage information would be collected from the carriers using the extended Form DOT F 5800.1 along with the vehicle identification number (VIN) of the tank involved. This VIN would be used to identify the appropriate package design record from the tank

characteristics database during data analyses.

Where Data Would Be Housed. The accident damage data in both approaches would

be housed with a private sector organization. The first approach would store basic package design information along with the accident damage database, while the second approach calls for a separate database.

How Privileged Data Would Be Protected. Potential measures to protect any sensitive

or proprietary information include using a flexible submittal deadline, limiting access to the database, controlling use of the information, approving all analysis of the information and controlling the analysis distribution. A flexible submittal deadline involves allowing for information to be updated or submitted after potential litigation has been completed. The system would need to allow for updates to the initially submitted report. Time-based reminders may be beneficial as they encourage contributors to complete the initial report once litigation has finished. Access to information in the database could be limited to information provided by the requestor. For example, an individual company would only be able to view their submitted accident reports. Only individuals employed by, or authorized by the organization would have access to the entire database, and only under strictly controlled terms of confidentiality. An oversight panel selected by the sponsoring

organization would strictly control use of the database and the specifications for any analyses to be commissioned. When using this database they would be required to:

 Redact non-conditional probability of release information upon combining information in the HMIRS and the extension information.

 Only present information in aggregate.

 Require oversight panel review and approval of all proposed analyses. Finally, completed analyses would be reviewed and approved by the panel who would also decide on distribution of results of each study.

Ease of Implementation. This approach depends upon the willingness of the industry

organizations to host such a database, encourage their members to participate in such an effort, issue appropriate access to companies and consultants, and bear the associated costs.

143

One benefit of such a system is that alterations to the data collected (such as adding or subtracting data fields) may be implemented within a short timeframe.

PHMSA staff are currently updating their data reporting system to incorporate more multiple choice options and pull-down menus, rather than free-form individual answers. This will improve consistency and probably the reliability and completeness of reporting as well. Such capability is best supported by an online program that can be easily 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. For these cases, a printable version of the data entry form should be made available.