PHMSA Initiates Pipeline Incident Notification Time Limit Advisory

On January 3, 2012, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90) was signed into law. Section 9 of the Act obligates the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Administration (PHMSA) to implement time limit requirements for telephonic or electronic reporting of pipeline accidents and incidents to the Secretary and the National Response Center (NRC). Currently, PHMSA requires pipeline owners and operators to notify the NRC by telephone or electronically at the earliest practicable moment following discovery (§§ 191.5 and 195.52).

On January 30, 2013, an advisory bulletin was published by the Department of Transportation to advise owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and LNG facilities that the NRC should be notified within one hour of discovery of a pipeline incident. Owners, operators, or facilities are now also required to file additional telephonic reports if there are significant changes in the number of fatalities or injuries, product release estimates or the extent of damages.

The advisory reads as follows:

Owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines and LNG facilities are reminded that the pipeline safety regulations already require operators to make a telephonic report of an incident to the NRC in Washington, DC at the earliest practicable opportunity (usually one-to-two hours after discovering the incident). However, under Section 9(b)(1) of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, PHMSA is required to issue regulations requiring owners and operators to notify the NRC within one hour of discovery of a pipeline accident or incident. The 2011 Act requires PHMSA to establish a time limit for telephonic or electronic notification of an accident or incident to require such notification at the earliest practicable moment following confirmed discovery of an accident or incident that is not later than one hour following the time of such confirmed discovery. PHMSA will issue a proposed rule at a later date, but encourages owners and operators of the gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and LNG facilities, as a practice, to report such accidents and incidents within one hour of confirmed discovery.

According to the advisory, the following information is required during NRC notification:

• Name of the operator
• Name and telephone number of the person making the report
• Location of the incident
• Number of fatalities and injuries
• All other significant facts relevant to the cause of the incident or extent of the damages.

“PHMSA will issue a proposed rule at a later date, but encourages owners and operators of the gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and LNG facilities, as a practice, to report such accidents and incidents within one hour of confirmed discovery.” The final ruling will require the following minimum requirements:

1. Establish time limits for telephonic or electronic notification of an accident or incident to require such notification at the earliest practicable moment following confirmed discovery of an accident or incident and not later than 1 hour following the time of such confirmed discovery.
2. Review procedures for owners and operators of pipeline facilities and the National Response Center to provide thorough and coordinated notification to all relevant State and local emergency response officials, including 911 emergency call centers, for the jurisdictions in which those pipeline facilities are located in the event of an accident or incident, and revise such procedures as appropriate.
3. Require such owners and operators to revise their initial telephonic or electronic notice to the Secretary and the National Response Center with an estimate of the amount of the product released, an estimate of the number of fatalities and injuries, if any, and any other information determined appropriate by the Secretary within 48 hours of the accident or incident, to the extent practicable.

 

NTSB Advocates Pipeline Safety

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is pushing pipeline safety to the forefront its advocacy priorities for 2013.  Although transporting petroleum products through pipelines is safer than trucking, proactive corporate safety, emergency planning, and maintenance programs are required to continually improve pipeline infrastructures, identify potential threats, and improve the overall state of the current U.S. pipeline system.

Pipeline safety should continue to improve as increased funding for advanced inspection protocols, vulnerability insights, operators’ efforts, and advanced technologies are embraced. Over the past few years, a series of pipeline incidents has made national headlines and garnered the attention of policy-makers. However, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) statistics show that the average number of serious incidents has declined since 1992.

Infrastructure-critical petroleum products continue to flow  through existing pipelines, while the construction of new pipelines increases steadily. In 2013, policy makers may make decisive actions on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension, which would transport crude oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. The pipeline critics draw attention to the number pipeline accidents that occur every year and highlight recent pipeline accidents, blaming aging pipeline infrastructure and minimal external oversight. However, the age of a pipeline is not a true indicator of material integrity or impending failure. Pipeline failure is ultimately related to how the pipeline is/was constructed, maintained, and operated.

According to PHMSA:

• 175,000 miles (12%) of onshore and offshore pipelines carry hazardous liquids
• 321,000 miles of gas transmission and gathering pipelines (38%), both onshore and offshore
• 2,035,253 miles of pipelines are dedicated to gas distribution mains and services
• 24% of total energy consumption in the U.S. is distributed by natural gas pipelines
• Petroleum pipelines distribute 39% of total energy consumption in the U.S.

By implementing and prioritizing mitigation and preparedness (the first two phases of emergency management), industry-wide pipeline incidents, despite age, can be minimized. Below are some of the PHMSA’s Office of Pipeline Safety supported mitigation and preparedness initiatives:

Mitigation

• Expanding Integrity Management (IM) Protection reform
• Valve Spacing & Remotely Operated/Automatically Operated Valves
• Leak Detection Systems
• Damage Prevention Programs, such as 811
• Public Awareness pipeline safety messaging
• Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA): aims to improve pipeline safety through implementation of recommended practices for risk informed land use and development planning.
• Community Assistance and Technical Support (CATS): provides outreach to all pipeline safety stakeholders.
• Stakeholder Communication Web Site

Preparedness

• Pipeline Emergencies Training Program
• National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS): consists of geospatial data, attribute data, public contact information, and metadata pertaining to the interstate and intrastate hazardous liquid trunk lines and hazardous liquid low-stress lines, gas transmission pipelines, liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants, and hazardous liquid breakout tanks jurisdictional to PHMSA.
• Transportation Research Board (TRB) Project - A Guide for Communicating Emergency Response Information for Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipelines.
• Advisory notices as necessary to inform affected pipeline operators and Federal and state pipeline safety personnel of matters that have the potential of becoming safety or environmental risks.

 

Regulatory Compliance Management and the Price of Non-Compliance

The increasing number of stringent regulatory compliance standards compounds the complexity of industrial operations. Most companies believe they have the regulatory compliance component of their business under control. However, agencies such as OSHA, EPA, and DOT, continue to inspect and fine companies for non-compliance for a variety of infractions. 

A bill put forth to Congress entitled “Providing Assistance with the Paperwork from Excessive Regulations Act of 2012” was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Small Business. While the bill is aimed at small businesses, the title highlights the “excessive” number of regulations that may be applicable to one facility. 

If government regulations are applicable to operations, companies need to prioritize compliance in order to minimize financial burdens resulting from fines, negative public perceptions, and potential government mandated shutdown of operations. Every month, audits and enforcement mandates are issued from various federal and state agencies that oversee industrial facilities. Costly non-compliance fines continually result from the lack of an implemented, thorough, or effective regulatory compliance programs.

Below are examples of the price of non-compliance for the first eight months of 2012. The list is comprised of a wide array of companies from various regulatory agencies (dates are by citation, not occurrence).

January

• EPA: Collected a penalty of $25,347 from an oil company in Pennsylvania for alleged violations of oil spill prevention regulations at an oil storage facility
• OSHA: Proposed penalties of $148,000 in fines to a chemical company in Nebraska for 25 safety violations, 14 of which relate directly to OSHA's standard regulating the process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals.

Feburary

• DOT: The U.S. Department of Transportation announced it has resolved a record number of enforcement cases against pipeline operators over the last three years
• OSHA: Cited chemical company $ 139,000 for eight repeat and 13 serious safety and health violations at its Delaware facility. Proposed penalties resulted from an inspection that was initiated as part of OSHA's Site-Specific Targeting Program for industries with high injury and illness rates.

March

• EPA: Handed down a $1.2 million civil penalty to a power company for significant violations of the Clean Water Act, Chemical Bulk Storage Regulations, and Navigation Laws. A transformer explosion resulted in thousands of gallons of petroleum entering New York’s Hudson River.

April

• OSHA: Cited an Atlanta based company for three repeat, three serious, and two other-than-serious safety and health violations at one of its plastics manufacturing facility. The proposed penalties totaled $71,000.
• PHMSA: A fine of $251,170 was given to an energy company for serious violations regarding a pump/compressor related equipment failure.

May

• EPA:  An Oregon chemical manufacturer failed to report the use of toxic chemicals at its facility. The violation of the Community Right-To-Know laws resulted in a penalty of $58,200.
• EPA: According to a consent agreement, a frozen foods company will pay over $84,000 to settle hazardous chemical reporting violations at one of its facility.

June

• OSHA: Penalties totaling $199,800 were presented to a vinyl manufacturer for a total of 30 safety and health violations; including three repeat violations for failing to properly ground electrical equipment and a lack of machine guarding.
• EPA: A TSCA complaint resulted in a proposed penalty of $202,779. The complaint alleged that that the company had violated the 2006 IUR rule for 13 chemical substances.

July

• USCG:  Charged an international shipping company $1 million in criminal fines, served probationary status, and required to pay $300,000 to the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries after the Coast Guard inspection revealed undocumented internal transfers and discharges of oily waste into the ocean.
• PHMSA:  Proposed a record $3,699,200 in fines to one company. The agency listed 24 violations of hazardous liquid pipeline regulations, including failure to fix corrosion problems in the damaged pipe joint discovered 10 years prior.

August

• PHMSA: Violations of federal pipeline safety regulations resulted in fines totaling more than $2.4 million for one company. Two employees were killed when pipeline repairs caused leaking crude oil to ignite.
• EPA:  Fined an oil company $15,052 for failing to maintain and fully implement an oil spill prevention plan (SPCC). Negligence contributed to a release of approximately 1,500 gallons of used motor oil from a tanker truck at one facility. As part of the agreement, the company will spend $10,575 to upgrade equipment.

September

• OSHA:  Cited a chemical company for 14 safety and health violations following an inspection. The company faces proposed penalties of $104,000

Effective technology can be inexpensively utilized to monitor continually evolving regulatory requirements. While some companies may use Excel spreadsheets to manage these requirements, this approach is typically burdensome and ineffective. As companies grow and operations grow, spreadsheets can be overwhelming and time consuming. Operators should consider utilizing database technology to ensure enterprise-wide compliance on multiple government agency fronts.

Key concepts for managing regulatory compliance from a corporate perspective include, but are not limited to:

• Database Technology -
• Each applicable regulatory requirement can be hyperlinked to associated site-specific information for each facility.
• A database will minimize task repetition generated when multiple agencies have regulations that are related to the same subject matter.
• Updating evolving regulatory information can be effectively managed across multiple facilities with the use of a central database.
• The ability to search a database for key words and phrases associated with regulations will minimize maintenance time.

• Compliance Consultations - Identify and utilize corporate resources or outsource compliance expertise to minimize the uncertainty of evolving regulations.
• Facility-Specific Regulations - Identify mandatory operational and submission requirements for each facility associated with each regulatory agency.
• Tasking - Assign compliance tasks, frequencies, due dates, persons responsible, and document completion actions.
• Identify Best Practices - Apply best practices and potential mitigation measures related to compliance.

Regulatory non-compliance has proven to be expensive, time consuming, and potentially dangerous to company employees and the surrounding communities. An effective compliance management process can result in an efficient and integrated program that optimizes the efforts of company stakeholders, and improves compliance.

 

For a sample Emergency Response Checklist, download our helpful and informative guide.

 

Integrated Contingency Plan - The "One Plan" for Regulatory Agencies

In 1996, the National Response Team published the Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) Guidance in an effort to provide facilities with the means to comply with multiple federal planning requirements required by various regulatory agencies by consolidating them into one emergency response plan. 

By creating a single comprehensive integrated contingency plan, emergency managers can;

• reduce the need for multiple plans
• minimize administrative costs
• simplify plan reviews
• minimize discrepancies across various plans
• streamline response directives from one source

An ICP does not exempt facilities from applicable regulatory planning requirements pertinent to releases of oil and non-hazardous substances. Multiple federal agencies endorse the use of an ICP as a means to incorporate statutes and regulations, include requirements for emergency response planning. A particular facility may use an ICP to incorporate one or more of the following applicable federal regulations:

• EPA
• Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (SPCC and Facility Response Plan Requirements), 40 CFR part 112.7(d) and 112.20-.21
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Contingency Planning Requirements, 40 CFR part 264, Subpart D, 40 CFR part 265, Subpart D, and 40 CFR 279.52.
• Risk Management Programs Regulation, 40 CFR part 68

• Department of Transportation/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
• RSPA Pipeline Response Plan Regulation, 49 CFR part 194
• US Coast Guard, Facility Response Plan Regulation, 33 CFR part 154, Subpart F

• Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
• Emergency Action Plan Regulation, 29 CFR 1910.38(a)
• OSHA's Process Safety Standard, 29 CFR 1910.119
• OSHA's HAZWOPER Regulation, 29 CFR 1910.120

Facilities may also be subject to state emergency response planning requirements that is not included in the National Response Team ICP Guidance. Facilities are encouraged to coordinate development of their ICP with relevant state and local agencies to ensure compliance with any additional regulatory requirements.

National Response Team is composed of 16 Federal agencies having major responsibilities in environmental, transportation, emergency management, worker safety, and public health areas is the national body responsible for coordinating Federal planning, preparedness, and response actions related to oil discharges and hazardous substance releases

For a sample Emergency Response Checklist, download our helpful and informative guide.

 

New 2012 Emergency Preparedness Codes and Standards

Below are a few of the new recent changes that have been implemented in 2012 regarding emergency response and emergency planning.

ISO 22320:2011, Societal security – Emergency management – Requirements for Incident Response “outlines global best practice for establishing command and control organizational structures and procedures, decision support, traceability and information management. Interoperability amongst involved organizations is essential for successful incident response. The standard also helps ensure timely, relevant and accurate operational information by specifying processes, systems of work, data capture and management. It also establishes a foundation for coordination and cooperation, ensuring that all relevant parties are on the same page during a disaster, minimizing the risk of misunderstandings and ensuring a more effective use of the combined resources.”

ISO 19011:2011, Guidelines for auditing management systems, has expanded on the ISO 9001 (quality) and ISO 14001 (environment) standards to reflect the complexities of auditing multiple management system standards (MSS). The standard is meant to “assist organizations by optimizing and facilitating the integration of management systems through a single audit of its systems. This should streamline the audit processes, reduce duplication of effort, and decrease disruption of work units being audited.”

Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011: The new law doubles the maximum fines that pipeline operators face for safety violations, and requires PHMSA to issue new pipeline safety standards that require operators to install automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves and excess flow valves in new or replaced transmission pipelines.

International Code Council 2012: Changes are a result of the 9/11 International Code Council Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism-Resistant Buildings investigations. Some of the changes in building construction that will aid in a more effective emergency response include:

• Required elevators in high-rise buildings more than 120 feet tall. This improves firefighters’ access to higher floors, especially with heavy equipment.
• An additional stairway for high-rises that are more than 420 feet tall.
• In lieu of the additional stairway, an option to provide enhanced elevators that can be used by the building occupants for emergency evacuation, without waiting for assistance from emergency personnel.
• A higher standard for fire resistance in high-rise buildings more than 420 feet tall
• More robust fire proofing for buildings more than 75 feet tall, that will be less likely to be dislodged by impacts or explosions.
• Shafts enclosing elevators and exit stairways which have impact resistant walls
• Self-luminous exit pathway markings in all exit stairways that provide a lighted pathway when both the primary and secondary lighting fails.
• Radio systems within the building to allow emergency personnel to better communicate with involved parties.

For a free guide that details the world of HAZWOPER training, download A Guide to HAZWOPER Training.

 

Hazardous Materials Response Team Training Requirements

A Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Response team is comprised of hazardous material experts who specialize in detecting, containing, and removing any release or potential release of hazardous substances in order to control or stabilize an incident. According to the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER), a HAZMAT team “is not a fire brigade, nor is a typical fire brigade termed a HAZMAT team. However, a HAZMAT team is often a separate component of a fire brigade or fire department.”

The acronym  HAZMAT refers to any substance (gas, liquid or solid) capable of creating harm to people, the environment, or property. It is often used when discussing the production, transport, use, disposal, cleanup, or emergency response of hazardous materials.

HAZWOPER is one of the training components of a HAZMAT team. The intent of the HAZWOPER standard is to protect workers engaged in "Emergency response operations for releases of, or substantial threats of releases of, hazardous substances without regard to the location of the hazard." (29 CFR 1910.120(a)(1)(v)).

According to the HAZMAT Team Planning Guide of the EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, a HAZMAT Team should be trained to the “Hazardous Materials Technician” level defined by NFPA Standard 472 and HAZWOPER 29 CFR 1910.120.

HAZMAT employees, that may or may not be part of a HAZMAT team, must be trained, at a minimum, in accordance with:

• OSHA, 29 CFR 1910.120(a)(1)(v) Hazardous waste operations and emergency response.
• OSHA Initial training should include Hazard Communication, 29 CFR 1910.1200 requirements (training is part of “Hazard Communication” training or ½ day stand alone)
• PHMSA, 49 CFR §172, Sub part H, Training
• PHMSA, §172.602, Emergency response information

Records need to be maintained for all employees that have been, or will be trained before handling hazardous materials, in accordance with the training requirements set forth in 49 CFR §172.704 and 172.602, and 29 CFR §1910.120 and 1910.1200.

For a free guide that details the world of HAZWOPER training, download A Guide to HAZWOPER Training.

 

Pipeline Safety versus Regulation Overload

On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 into law. The law provides the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) with stronger enforcement tools, doubles maximum fines for safety violations to $2 million, and requires new pipeline safety standards.

Prompted by the deadly 2010 San Bruno, CA gas pipeline explosion that killed 8 people, injured dozens of others and damaged or destroyed more than 100 homes, the new law requires PHMSA to require operators to install automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves and excess flow valves in new or replaced transmission pipeline.

However, some safety advocates feel the law does not align itself with several key recommendations arising from the 2010 investigations, including stricter leak-detection or integrity management requirements. Additionally, the National Transportation and Safety Board suggested that new automatic valves would be highly beneficial on aging pipelines in highly populated areas. It was stated that the disaster in San Bruno would have been far less devastating if the new valves had been installed. Unfortunately, the cost of replacing valves on existing pipelines is far more expensive than during the initial or replacement phase.

US Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood stated, “To promote regulatory certainty for the pipeline industry, the new bill prohibits PHMSA during a 2-3 year congressional review period, from issuing regulations establishing leak-detection requirements or expanding integrity management requirements beyond high-consequence areas. However, this restriction would not apply if a condition poses any risk to public safety, property, or the environment.”

According to the PHMSA, The United States currently has approximately 2.3 million miles of pipelines that transport oil, natural gas, and hazardous liquids.

For tips and best practices on designing a crisis management program, download Tips for Effective Exercises.

 

Increased Inspections and PHMSA Enforcement for Pipeline Safety

In a June hearing before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the PHMSA communicated their support for stronger enforcement authority, expanding integrity management requirements beyond existing high consequence areas, improving pipeline infrastructure data collection, and advancing safety in other important ways. They highlighted their accomplishment resulting from thorough review of its inspection and enforcement related regulations, procedures, and guidance, as well as its data collection and transparency efforts.

The following six PHMSA rules have been implemented as a result of their recent efforts:
1) Operators of gas distribution pipelines are required to develop and implement integrity management programs similar to those required for gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines;
2) Operators of gas distribution pipelines must address human factors and other aspects of control room management for pipelines where controllers use supervisory control and data acquisition systems;
3) Regulation of the remaining population of unregulated rural hazardous liquid low stress pipelines, which was required by the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006;
4) Improve data collection from operators of pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities;
5) Clarify data and annual reporting requirements;
6) Expedite the deadlines in the control room management rule for pipelines.

The PHMSA would like to increase civil financial penalties for serious violations leading to deaths, injuries, or significant environmental damage.  For these types of violations, the agency supports increasing the caps from $100,000 per violation per day/$1,000,000 per series of related violations, to $250,000 per violation per day/$2,500,000 per series of related violations. These current financial penalties for violations of the pipeline safety requirements have remained stagnant for almost 10 years. The PHMSA believes this increased levels of penalties are necessary to achieve deterrence goals, particularly in serious cases in which violations led to injuries, fatalities, or significant environmental damage.

Additionally, the PHMSA supports the elimination all remaining statutory exemptions for both gas and hazardous liquid gathering lines. Removal of these exemptions would allow the remaining unregulated pipeline mileage to be regulated. Production facilities and flow lines would remain non-jurisdictional.

For tips and best practices on designing a crisis management program, download Best Practices for Crisis Management.

 

FEMA's Plan for the Future - Strategic Foresight Initiative

The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) released the Strategic Foresight Initiative in hopes to assist the emergency management profession better plan for the future.

The Strategic Foresight Initiative, derived from over 500 members of the emergency response community, addresses nine areas that will affect the future of emergency management:

1. Changing role of the individual in disaster preparedness
- Increased empowerment of the individual through availability of information
- Lack of trust in government authorities
- Changing definition of community from the traditional geographic community to a virtual community

2. Climate change
- Heightened weather patterns (ex: more flooding rains, intense storms, droughts)

3. Critical infrastructure
- Aging transportation, communication, energy, and health care infrastructure may create additional emergency situations

4. Evolving terrorist threat
- Availability of technical and scientific knowledge may increase terrorist access to “high consequence” weapons

5. Global interdependency
- Emergency managers may take on greater role in Emergency Management internationally
- A more global role for American emergency managers could have major resource and capability implications

6. Technological innovation and dependency
- Our communications, energy, and transportation infrastructure are all heavily dependent on technology
- This dependency creates a significant vulnerability to cyber-attack, particularly if our reliance creates single points of failure within our systems

7. Universal access to and use of information
- Access to real time information will continue to increase as social media and advances in technology create new patterns of communications
- Citizens are becoming both producers and consumers of information
- Legitimacy and accuracy of information must constantly be questioned and verified

8. U.S. demographic shifts
- Potential increasing populations, ethnic diversity, and larger percentage of senior citizens will create additional planning challenges

For tips and best practices on designing a crisis management program, download Best Practices for Crisis Management.

 

OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and Emergency Training

The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) both have regulations focused on safety for transportation of hazardous materials. 

In 1986, OSHA initiated the Hazard Communication Standard - 29 CFR1910.1200. The purpose of this regulation is to communicate information to employees who may be exposed to hazardous chemicals in the workplace. As a result of this standard, each container of hazardous chemicals must:

• Be labeled, tagged or marked with the identity of the hazardous chemical
• Contain an appropriate hazard warning
• Identify the name and address of the chemical manufacturer, importer, or other responsible party.

Based on the information on the label, the chemical manufacturer or other responsible party should be able to be contacted to determine emergency control measures and to estimate worst-case exposures.

According to OSHA, a MSDS must accompany each initial shipment of hazardous chemical and be readily accessible to employees handling the chemical. Since DOT requires truck drivers to carry MSDS information with the bill of lading for all shipments of hazardous cargo, which satisfies both agency requirements. Additionally, DOT requires transported hazardous materials to contain proper labeling in compliance with 49 CFR 172.302.

If the potential exists for an emergency situation to develop, training must be provided as described in 29 CFR 1910.1200. Training includes, but is not limited to:

• Applicable leak and spill cleanup procedures
• Appropriate PPE usage
• Decontamination procedures and safety precautions

If an emergency response may be required for transported hazardous materials, emergency response plans must be developed and implemented and the provisions of OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard - 29 CFR 1910.120 apply.

When organizations opt to respond to emergencies with company personnel, a sufficient number of trained personnel must be available. In most cases, this is not the truck driver. However, the training required under 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(6) depends on the duties and functions to be performed by the truck driver. If truck drivers are expected to stop leaks involving hazardous materials and clean up potential spills, then a minimum of technician or specialist level training is required.

On March 10, 2011, the Department of Transportation announced a proposed rule to improve the safety of transferring hazardous materials to and from cargo tank motor vehicles. The notice proposes to add the following requirements:

• Practice drills and classroom training of truck drivers and other workers who unload or load hazardous material
• Training on automatic valve shut systems
• Developing inspection and maintenance programs to ensure the safety of hoses, valves and other equipment used in loading and unloading.

For tips and best practices on designing a crisis management program, download Tips for Effective Exercises.