Identification of Target Issues in Turkey s ADR Integration Matthias Klumpp 1, Dilay Çelebi 2 1 Institute for Logistics and Service Management (ild), FOM University of Applied Sciences, Leimkugelstraße 6, 45141 Essen/Germany matthias.klumpp@fom-ild.de 2 Faculty of Management Engineering, Technical of Istanbul, Macka, Istanbul/Turkey celebid@itu.edu.tr Abstract Major goal of the regulations on the transportation of dangerous goods is to provide a safe and secure transportation of dangerous materials by eliminating or reducing the number of incidents that could lead to a release or misuse. For road transport in Europe, the legal framework defined in The European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) is relevant. Turkey has to comply and update its legislation on the transport of dangerous goods and to fully respect the EU rules which rely on the ADR legislation. The aim of this study is to identify target issues need to be handled on implementation of ADR legislation in Turkey in terms of regulations most likely to create hurdles for a smooth and straightforward implementation process. An importance ranking of the target issues is determined by Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP being a strong tool to handle such complex evaluations. Analysis is based on data collected in interviews with key people from Turkish organizations connected to the transportation of dangerous goods such as government agencies, trade associations, and leading companies in the sector. Results of the study provide guidelines to support practices for implementation of ADR legislation both in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. Keywords: Dangerous Goods, ADR Integration, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). 1. Introduction Improving the efficiency and security for transportation of Dangerous Goods (DG) is important due to several reasons. Perhaps the most significant one is safety, such that a transport containing dangerous goods can have severe effects on the environment in case of an accident and often incurs a higher cost for the society than non dangerous goods accidents [1]. Another reason is the complexity of operations. Transportation of dangerous goods is more complicated than non dangerous goods due to several factors such as the large number of regulated dangerous materials, regulations that vary by transportation mode, region and country, and different hazard criteria, including toxicity, flammability, corrosiveness, and reactivity [2]. Major goal for regulations on transportation of dangerous goods is to provide a safe and secure transportation of dangerous materials by eliminating or reducing the number of incidents that could lead to a release or misuse. For road transport in Europe, the legal framework defined in the "The European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) is relevant. ADR has been revised and put into force in 2009 which governs the conditions for the international transport of dangerous goods within the 33 European ADR countries. It has been drawn up to improve safety in international road transport and to replace the variety of national and local regulations in Europe, which are applicable to the international transport of dangerous goods, by a set of jointly-agreed conditions under which the international transport of dangerous goods is authorized within the borders of all ADR countries. These conditions have been drawn up to take into account all safety parameters (such as temperature, climate, topography, population density) involved in 1
the national regulations to be replaced. It includes rigid safety standards for vehicles, safety training, and driver training for dangerous goods transporters. Turkey has to comply and update its legislation on the transport of dangerous goods and to respectfully the EU rules which rely on the ADR and RID Conventions (on international carriage of dangerous goods by road and by rail). The Regulation concerning the transport of Dangerous Goods by Road has been declared in Official Gazette 31.03.2007 (26479), based on Law on Approval to Join the European Agreement on International Transportation of Dangerous Goods. The Turkish regulation is structured to refer to the applicable paragraph numbers of the ADR. The original intent was to put this regulation in force by 01.01.2009; however, the administrative infrastructure for ADR implementation is not yet fully ready. For example, the control and testing system for vehicles and tanks has not been established yet, the term safety advisor is ambiguous and there is no established institution fulfilling the requirements of the ADR Convention to certify vehicles, packaging and labeling. Additionally, adequate infrastructure for training of personnel, which is the most important factor in DG transportation, is not ready. Training and certification of drivers are done via accredited institutions in the EU. As a result this date was first postponed to 01.01.2010 (Official Gazette, 15.06.2008 (26907)), which was then re-postponed to 01.01.2011 (Official Gazette, 10.07.2009 (27284)). Finally regulations were decided to be put in force incrementally in a 3- year-period, with a full implementation deadline as of 01.01.2014 (Official Gazette, 18.12.2010 (27789)). Although the basic requirements of the road transport are incorporated in legislation for international road transport activities, effective implementation and enforcement of social, safety, technical and environmental standards are not ensured. The purpose of this study is to support practices to improve the efficiency and security of dangerous goods transports by identifying issues and problems concerning the application and control of rules and regulations in line with the road transport legislation of the European Union, in terms of road safety and social, fiscal, and technical rules. Relevantly, this study aims to develop a general overview regarding the dangerous goods transportation sector in Turkey with relevance to integration of ADR. The following chapter two provides an overview about the implemented research method (AHP), whereas the subsequent chapter three presents the relevant AHP results derived from the expert interviews in Turkey. Chapter four describes a discussion of these results in the light of practical and theoretical relevance for logistics. Finally, chapter six provides further research questions and an outlook regarding dangerous goods transports. 2. Method Specifically, this study proposes and assesses the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a tool for identifying target issues need to be handled on implementation of ADR legislation in Turkey in terms of regulations most likely to create adversities against a smooth and straightforward implementation process. AHP is a simple yet powerful tool that was first developed within the management science field over 20 years ago [3]. It was developed to help managers make more effective decisions by structuring and evaluating the relative attractiveness of competing options or alternatives. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one of the best widely used multiple criteria decision-making tools [4]. It is a practical methodology that has been used for evaluating the weights of criteria. It prioritizes criteria by comparing each two criteria and calculating scalar weight for each criterion. AHP has been identified as an important approach to multi-criteria 2
decision-making problems of choice and prioritization and applied to various industries and decision making problems. According to AHP, complex multiple criteria decision problems are broken down into its component parts of which every possible attributes are arranged into multiple hierarchical levels. After that, pair wise comparisons are made for all combinations using the fundamental comparison scale based on the decision maker s experience and knowledge. Some degree of inconsistency may be occurred because of the personal or subjective judgments. In order to reach consistent result, the final operation called consistency verification is made. Once all pair wise comparisons are carried out at every level, and are proved to be consistent, the principal eigenvector of comparison matrix are used for evaluating the weights of factors [5]. An advantage of AHP is its applicability to group decision settings. AHP is considered to be well suited for group decision making due to its role as a synthesizing mechanism in group decisions. When used in a group setting, AHP can accommodate both tangible and intangible characteristics, individual values and shared values in the group decision process [6]. Each expert can make a judgment separately, based on individual judgments, which is then entered into a separate model and averaged. 3. Analysis The development of a decision hierarchy is very important to the successful application of the AHP. Analysis is based on the data collected in interviews with key people from the organizations responsible for the transportation of dangerous goods such as government agencies, trade associations, and leading companies in the sector. The initial hierarchy structure is formulated based on the titles covered in the orange book of ADR which covers the provisions concerning transportation of dangerous goods by road. This initial structure is then shared with experts in a group discussion to capture their knowledge on the current implementation issues. Depending on experts ideas, the hierarchy tree is reconstructed to include some additional elements like management of inspections where some factors that are negligible, not relevant or already resolved are eliminated for simplifying the pair wise comparison process. 3
Figure 1. Hierarchy of Factors The resulting hierarchy, which is depicted in Figure 1, classifies factors under two levels. The highest level of the hierarchy is the set of main factors expressed in fairly general terms. Whenever possible, each factor is associated with relevant ADR section to provide a better understanding of the issues included under the title. Second level includes the important sub factors that can be classified under given main factor. This level is used to identify dimensions and leading factors that drive the main factor s importance such that a broader understanding of situation can be obtained. At this level of detail, the target issues in ADR integration can be compared in higher detail. Pair wise comparisons are conducted individually by face-to-face interviews where experts were given instructions on how to conduct the comparison of the elements in the hierarchy. Their judgment of the importance of one factor over another are made subjectively over a verbal scale. These subjective judgments are then converted to a numerical value using a scale of 1 9 where 1 denotes equal importance and 9 denotes the highest degree of importance [9] and [10]. Relative weights for the factors are first calculated individually for each expert. Once all the individual relative weights have been calculated, a composite weight for each factor is determined by aggregating the weights over the hierarchy in order to derive an overall prioritization and ranking. This includes the application of a geometric mean, which can be used to bind the group and reconcile conflicting judgments even when the group members may hold unequal levels of influence. The geometric mean is calculated by averaging the experts individual responses at each point of comparison to form a composite matrix, which is then used to obtain the relative and composite weights in high level of factors. The individual and combined results are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 respectively. 4
Figure 2-Individual Weights of Main Factors 5
Figure 3-Combined Weights of Main Factors Results show that most concerning issue in ADR integration of Turkey arises as ADR8- Requirements for Vehicle Crew with a weight of 0.25. Following factor with a weight of 0.179 is integration issues arising through provisions for Carrying, Loading and Unloading as stated in ADR section 7. These factors are followed by Conformation of Vehicles, Inspection and Control, Consignment Procedures, and Requirements for Construction and Approval of Vehicles with relatively similar weights, ranging from 0.098 to 0.110. The least important issue is identified as Packing and Tank Provisions with a relative weight of 0.068. These steps have been repeated to evaluate the weights of sub-factors and the derived AHP weights are provided in Table 1. In order to avoid potential comparative inconsistency between pairs of categories, a consistency ratio (CR), an index for consistency, was calculated to assure the appropriateness of the comparisons. For the details of the CR development, readers are referred to [3] and [11]. The resulting CR values for our case study are shown in Table 2. Since CR is smaller than the commonly critical value of 0.1, there is no evidence of inconsistency. 6
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Combined ADR4. Packing and Tank Provisions ADR5. Consignment Procedures ADR7. Provisions for Carrying, Loading, Unloading Inspection and Control Conformation of Vehicles ADR8. Requirements for Vehicle Crew ADR1.8.3. Safety Adviser ADR9. Requirements for Construction and Approval of Vehicles ADR4.1.Use of packaging and portable tanks ADR6. Construction, testing and approval of packaging 87,50% 50,00% 12,50% 83,30% 1,25% 48,30% 12,50% 50,00% 87,50% 16,70% 87,50% 51,70% ADR5.2.Marking and Labeling 71,10% 47,40% 20,20% 28,10% 23,40% 45,80% ADR5.4. Documentation 24,30% 47,40% 70,10% 13,50% 8,00% 33,00% ADR.8.6.Determination of road tunnel restrictions and marking of tunnels ADR.7.5.2. Mixed Loading Restrictions ADR.7.5.4. Precautions w.r.t. Food Stuff and Other Consumables ADR.7.5.4. Limitations of the Quantities Carried ADR.7.5.7-8. Provisions concerning Loading, Unloading, and Handling ADR8.4.Requirements Concerning the Supervision of Vehicles 1.8.Determination of Competent Authorities ADR.1.8.7. Administrative Controls of Inspections ADR.1.8.6. Training of Inspection Bodies 4,60% 5,30% 9,70% 58,40% 68,50% 21,20% 26,00% 17,70% 5,30% 6,00% 6,00% 11,80% 7,70% 34,90% 6,10% 2,60% 2,60% 8,10% 19,70% 12,20% 16,70% 20,20% 20,20% 19,70% 42,10% 17,70% 34,90% 18,90% 18,90% 30,10% 4,50% 17,70% 37,00% 52,40% 52,40% 30,30% 24,00% 33,30% 18,50% 9,10% 9,10% 17,90% 5,90% 33,30% 15,60% 9,10% 9,10% 13,10% 70,10% 33,30% 65,90% 81,80% 81,80% 69,00% ADR.1.5. Derogations 16,70% 10,00% 12,50% 90,00% 10,00% 24,00% ADR.8.1. Determination of Vehicle Requirements ADR.8.2. Management of Testing Operations ADR.8.5. Trainings Related to Class 1 and 7 items ADR.1.8.3. Preparation of Implementation Regulations ADR.1.8.3. Training of Safety Advisors 83,30% 90,00% 87,50% 10,00% 90,00% 76,00% 83,30% 90,00% 83,30% 50,00% 90,00% 82,10% 16,70% 10,00% 16,70% 50,00% 10,00% 17,90% 58,90% 25,00% 62,50% 69,20% 43,80% 53,80% 22,50% 25,00% 12,50% 19,20% 6,80% 17,50% ADR.1.8.3. Management of Testing 5,40% 25,00% 12,50% 2,70% 16,00% 10,10% ADR.1.8.3. Determination of Common Curriculum 13,30% 25,00% 12,50% 8,90% 33,30% 18,60% ADR.9.Determination of Competent Authorities ADR.9.Preparation of Requirements 75,00% 10,00% 50,00% 83,30% 25,00% 47,10% 25,00% 90,00% 50,00% 16,70% 75,00% 52,90% Table 1 - Individual and Combined Weights of Sub Factors 7
CR Overall Hierarchy 0.05 ADR4. Packing and Tank Provisions 0.00 ADR5. Consignment Procedures 0.04 ADR7. Provisions for Carrying, Loading, Unloading 0.04 Inspection and Control 0.01 Conformation of Vehicles 0.00 ADR8. Requirements for Vehicle Crew 0.00 ADR1.8.3. Safety Adviser 0.04 ADR9. Requirements for Construction and Approval of Vehicles Table 2-Consistency Ratios Results show that even though there have been various steps taken in development of a training scheme for drivers in Turkey, arrangements related to regulations given under ADR8 - Requirements for Vehicle Crew still arise as the most consequential issue for ADR integration. Main sub factor under it appears as the Management of the testing operations with a weight of 83%. Mainly companies are having problems related to testing of crew. Currently, the number of the tests and testing bodies are not sufficient and timing of the tests is not parallel to training. A driver might need to wait 4-5 months for taking the test after completing the training. Receiving the certificate also takes a long time which creates operational problems and pushes the companies to use drivers illegally before officially receiving the certificate. Issues related to management of loading, unloading and handling operations are deemed as significant issues as well. This is associated with the current chaotic environment in management of logistics operations mainly in small sized companies working without any systematic operations control or any certification. Companies that already conform their operations to ADR regulations are suffering from high costs related to operations and complaining about the unfair competition in the logistics market created by not regulated small companies. On the other hand these small companies are worried about the investment costs and impact of ADR regulations on their business which can even push them out of the market. Determination of vehicle requirements has been found as one of the main issues in ADR integration. Currently vehicle specifications that will be allowed to operate are not determined by the responsible authorities, which will determine the economic burden that will be created by the replacement of incompatible vehicles. 5. Conclusion In this study we use AHP as a tool for identifying target issues need to be handled on implementation of ADR legislation in Turkey in terms of regulations most likely to create hurdles for a smooth and straightforward implementation process. Analysis is based on data 0.00 8
collected in interviews with key people from Turkish organizations connected to the transportation of dangerous goods such as government agencies, trade associations, and leading companies in the sector. Our research does cast a strong light on these practical issues in ADR integration which are likely to be the most problematic and costly influencers in integration success. The study provides guidelines to support practices for implementation of ADR legislation both in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. Our study is a first attempt to deal with ADR integration related issues and regulations and it does suffer from limitations, and these give rise to a number of suggestions for further research. In order to provide more insights with respect to the findings of this study, further qualitative research (e.g. an in-depth interview) is needed to investigate the impacts of issues and create cause-effect relationships. Acknowledgement This research is connected to the national excellence research cluster LogistikRuhr (www.effizienzcluster.de), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the project funding line 01 C10L19D. 6. References [1] Fuller, B.A., 2009. Managing transportation safety and security risks, Chemical Engineering Progress, 105, 10; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry, pg. 25. [2] Ellis, J., 2002. Risks in dangerous goods transport an analysis of risk in road rail and marine transport, Gothenburg, Sweden, Department of Transportation and Logistics Chalmers University of Technology. [3] Saaty, T., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. [4] Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S., 2006, Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications, European Journal Of Operational Research, Volume: 169, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-29 [5] Ho, W., 2008. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 186(1): 211 228. [6] Donegan, H., Dodd, F. and Mc Master, T.B.M., 1992. A new approach to AHP decisionmaking. The Statician 41(3): 295 302. 9