The Hazardous Materials Safety and Security Technology Operational Test

1. The Hazardous Materials Safety and Security Technology Operational Test Identifying Improvements in Safety, Security and Efficiency Joseph P. DeLorenzo Midwest Service Center Hazardous Materials Specialist ITS America May 4, 2005

2. Presentation Outline • Research Overview • Deployment • Technology & performance • Evaluation • Benefit-cost analysis using wireless communication with GPS as example • Conclusions

3. Project Goals • Demonstrate an approach that uses existing technology to improve the safety and security of HazMat • Quantify the benefits and costs of this approach

4. Research Questions • The study quantitatively verified many assumptions about technology & security • Wireless communication w/ GPS is the base for all impact areas • Efficiency drives private deployment • Benefit-cost ratios vary based on load type (Low end is LTL, High end is explosives) • Technology is most effective at reducing theft • Technology is not a complete solution

5. PICKUP • Driver identification • Cargo verification • Cargo tampering • Remote lock/unlock • EN ROUTE • Driver identification • Cargo location tracking • Cargo route adherence • Untethered trailer tracking • Cargo tampering alert • Remote lock/unlock • Real-time alerts to dispatch • Real-time alerts from dispatch to enforcement • Remote vehicle disabling • DELIVERY • Driver identification • Cargo verification • Remote lock/unlock • PUBLIC SECTOR • Driver verification and identification (enforcement) • Cargo route adherence (dispatch and enforcement) • Real-time alerts from dispatch to enforcement and emergency response Test Design

6. Research Approach • Considered Safety, Security and Efficiency benefits • Utilized an Expert Panel & Delphi Process for security benefits • Co-chaired by TSA and SAIC • Includes representatives from major associations and other security/counter terrorism experts. • Provided input into staged and controlled tests • Providing input into Delphi process • Reviewed and commented on final analysis

7. Technologies Tested Wireless – Mobile Communications • Served as the base technology • Both Satellite and Terrestrial Communications with GPS • Digital Cellular phone

8. Technologies Tested Vehicle and Trailer Tracking • AVL (GPS) • Geofencing, Off-route alerts • Tethered trailer tracking • Untethered trailer tracking • RESULTS/LESSONS LEARNED • Functioned as expected • Geofencing had high level of interest but there are resolution issues • Trailer tracking has high level of interest (additional FMCSA testing)

9. Additional Technologies • Good Performance • Panic buttons • Remote vehicle disabling • Remote locking & unlocking • Global Login • Need further development • Biometric (fingerprint)/ESCM • E-Seals

10. Technologies Tested Automated Public Sector Response Center (PSRC) • RESULTS/LESSONS LEARNED • Technology functioned well, demonstrated ability to reduce incident notification times. • System needs to be exception based. • There are concerns about relying on an industry based system. • Message priority is a concern. • Needs of public sector need to be further investigated.

11. Efficiency Benefits • Only wireless communication with GPS positioning demonstrated operational efficiency gains. • Partially a function of how the technologies were deployed • Many technologies were security focused and relied on the wireless communication system for functionality

12. Efficiency Benefits • Savings per truck ranged from $160/month to $914/month from wireless communication with GPS • Payback periods within industry standards • Recognizing that all operations may not realize all of the benefits, a “minimum” benefit was calculated. • Full deployment could result in savings of $1 billion per year industry wide

13. Safety and Public Sector Benefits • Public Sector focused on two areas: • Improved response times through faster notification • Panic buttons provided time savings of 18 minutes over traditional notification process • Off-route detections improved by nearly 3 hours • Improved quality of information • Positive driver ID time savings of 28 minutes • Alerts included manifest information, driver information and location

14. Security Benefits • Using the Delphi method vulnerability reductions were identified • Greatest reduction was from the base wireless communication system with GPS • Incremental gains were identified from the other technologies • Greatest reductions were in theft prevention

15. Conclusions • The wireless communication system with GPS tracking provided efficiency benefits and the base vulnerability reduction • Additional technologies provided incremental improvements in security. • A stratification of load types and technologies seems inherent in the results • Greatest vulnerability reductions were provided for theft scenario • Wireless communications with GPS tracking provided a positive return on investment in all four test scenarios.

16. Conclusions • Except for LTL, preventing only one terrorist attack over a three year period produces a cost savings well beyond the break even point for benefits and costs. • The combined benefit-cost analysis showed positive benefit-cost ratios in all categories • Notification times and the quality of information provided to the public sector was improved.

17. The Bottom Line Despite the results, technology alone is not a complete security solution – only technology along with sound security practices and supported by ongoing public and private outreach, training and security programs can help to meet a constantly present threat.

18. Next Steps • High-level Needs Assessment to address public sector response to hazmat safety and security incidents. Completion April 2005 • Industry Outreach Task • Promote voluntary deployment • Continue and expand Technology Compendium • www.safehazmat.com • Additional testing: • Untethered Trailer Tracking • Expanded Satellite Based Communications • Vehicle Disable (upcoming)

19. Final Reports • Posted on the FMCSA Web site: www.fmcsa.dot.gov www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/hazmat/fot/index.htm 2 Final Reports • Deployment final report – describes the actual testing process and lessons learned • Evaluation final report – the independence evaluation and benefit-cost analysis

20. The End joseph.delorenzo@fmcsa.dot.gov 708.283.3572