Hazardous Materials Training: DOT and Private Sector Initiatives
Generally Complement Each Other (Letter Report, 07/31/2000,
GAO/RCED-00-190).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed Department of
Transportation (DOT) and private sector initiatives on hazardous
materials training, focusing on: (1) the funding sources and
expenditures for the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP)
grants program; (2) whether the HMEP program and private sector efforts
duplicate each other; and (3) whether the private sector's training
initiatives meet federal training regulations and national training
standards.
GAO noted that: (1) the HMEP program has been funded, or self-financed,
through registration fees paid by shippers and carriers of hazardous
materials--however, Congress, through DOT's appropriations statutes,
limited the amount of program funds that could be spent; (2) in February
2000, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) issued a
final rule, effective May 1, 2000, that increased by two-thirds the
number of shippers and carriers required to register and raised the
fees; (3) RSPA took this action to provide grants at the fully
authorized level--$12.8 million annually; (4) according to RSPA
officials, they expanded the program to ensure that a larger segment of
the hazardous materials response community will receive training at all
levels; (5) since 1992, when the program was first funded, through
fiscal year 1999, RSPA has spent an annual average of about $8.1 million
for the entire HMEP program; (6) over 80 percent of these funds were
spent on training and planning grants, with the remaining funds spent on
such grant-related activities as providing technical assistance to
grantees for their emergency response planning and training; (7) in the
seven states GAO contacted, HMEP-funded training to teach emergency
responders about addressing hazardous materials emergencies and private
sector training initiatives do not duplicate each other; (8) moreover,
according to national representatives of major shippers and carriers of
hazardous materials, such duplication does not occur nationwide; (9)
rather, as part of a portfolio of training resources for the nation's
emergency responders, these two types of training activities complement
each other; (10) the HMEP-funded training addresses potential accidents
involving a wide range of hazardous materials and containers; (11) much
of this training teaches the emergency responders to recognize the
nature and potential severity of a hazardous materials incident and the
appropriate actions to take; (12) in contrast, the initiatives funded by
the private sector focus primarily on how emergency responders should
react to incidents involving specific hazardous materials; and (13)
according to representatives of national associations of hazardous
materials shippers and carriers, the private sector's training
initiatives on responding to hazardous materials emergencies are not
designed or intended to comply with federal regulations and national
training standards on emergency response training for public sector
employees.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-00-190
TITLE: Hazardous Materials Training: DOT and Private Sector
Initiatives Generally Complement Each Other
DATE: 07/31/2000
SUBJECT: Hazardous substances
Human resources training
Private sector
Emergency preparedness
Federal grants
Transportation industry
IDENTIFIER: RSPA Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Program
Alabama
California
Delaware
Illinois
Montana
New York
Virginia
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/RCED-00-190
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology
18
Appendix II: Federal Regulations and National Standards
for Hazardous Materials Emergency Response
Training
22
Appendix III: HMEP Training Grants for Responding to Hazardous Materials
Emergencies, Fiscal Years 1993 Through
1999
24
Appendix IV: RSPA's HMEP Program Expenses for Hazardous
Materials Emergency Response, Fiscal Years 1993
Through 1999
26
Figure 1: HMEP Program Fund Allocations, Fiscal Year 1999 12
DOT Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GAO General Accounting Office
HMEP Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration
Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division
B-284342
July 31, 2000
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby
Chairman
Subcommittee on Transportation
and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Frank R. Wolf
Chairman
Subcommittee on Transportation
and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Every day, trucks and trains transport over 770,000 shipments of hazardous
materials across the United States. Accidents involving these
materials--spills, fires, and explosions--cost the United States over $459
million annually and can have serious consequences for surrounding
communities. For example, in 1996, in Weyauwega, Wisconsin, many rail cars
derailed, triggering a fire of propane gas tank cars; the evacuation of over
3,100 people, many for up to 2 weeks; and property damages totaling about
$20 million. Public sector emergency responders, such as fire fighters,
police, and emergency medical technicians, are trained to respond
appropriately to such accidents in order to protect themselves and affected
communities.
Part of emergency responders' training is funded through federal grants
administered by the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Research and
Special Programs Administration (RSPA). These training grants, as well as
planning grants to develop response plans for hazardous materials
emergencies, were authorized by the Hazardous Materials Transportation
Uniform Safety Act of 1990, which established the Hazardous Materials
Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grants program. HMEP training and planning
grants go to states, territories, and Native American tribes. Each year, the
training grants are used to help train over 120,000 of the nation's more
than 2 million emergency responders. HMEP grants (called "planning grants")
are also used for developing community plans to respond to emergencies
involving hazardous materials.
Furthermore, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Fire Protection
Association have established regulations and standards for training
emergency responders in addressing hazardous materials emergencies. Pursuant
to OSHA's and EPA's regulations, employers must train emergency responders
according to each responder's duties--for example, as a fire fighter or as a
member of a police department. In general, the National Fire Protection
Association's training standards apply to different levels of
training--ranging from basic to advanced--and to a variety of hazardous
materials and situations--varying from mild to severe emergencies.
This year, RSPA significantly expanded the hazardous materials registration
program to provide more funds for training and planning grants. Moreover,
the private sector provides training assistance to the public sector's
emergency responders in addressing hazardous materials situations. Because
of this expansion of the registration program, you asked us to address
concerns that HMEP-funded training could be duplicating the private sector's
training assistance. As agreed with your offices, this report (1) describes
the funding sources and expenditures for the HMEP program, (2) assesses
whether the HMEP program and private sector efforts duplicate each other,
and (3) provides information on whether the private sector's training
initiatives meet federal training regulations and national training
standards.
In examining any duplication between the HMEP-funded and the private
sector-funded training activities, we discovered that there is no source of
centralized data on public and private sector training activities. We
addressed this constraint by reviewing HMEP-funded training for hazardous
materials emergencies and private sector-funded initiatives in seven
states--Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, Montana, New York, and
Virginia. According to RSPA and industry officials, these states were
reasonably representative of all states in terms of size, geographic
dispersion, and the risks posed by the transportation of hazardous
materials. In each state, we interviewed officials responsible for providing
training in responding to hazardous materials emergencies and reviewed their
training programs and budgets. To gain a nationwide perspective on potential
duplication, we obtained the views of officials from national associations
representing hazardous materials shippers and carriers and asked a
consortium of 33 such associations to provide documentation on their
training activities in the seven states we examined. We also interviewed
officials and reviewed documents from EPA, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), the National Fire Protection Association, OSHA, and RSPA. A
detailed description of our scope and methodology is contained in appendix
I.
The HMEP program has been funded, or self-financed, through registration
fees paid by shippers and carriers of hazardous materials; however, the
Congress, through DOT's appropriations statutes, limited the amount of
program funds that could be spent. In February 2000, RSPA issued a final
rule, effective May 1, 2000, that significantly expanded the program. The
rule increased by two-thirds the number of shippers and carriers required to
register and raised the fees. RSPA took this action to provide grants at the
fully authorized level--$12.8 million annually. According to RSPA officials,
they expanded the program to ensure that a larger segment of the hazardous
materials response community will receive training at all levels. DOT's
appropriations act for fiscal year 2000 did not limit, as it had done in
fiscal year 1999, the amount of money that RSPA could spend on the HMEP
program. Since 1992, when the program was first funded, through fiscal year
1999, RSPA has spent an annual average of about $8.1 million for the entire
HMEP program. Over 80 percent of these funds were spent on training and
planning grants, with the remaining funds spent on such grant-related
activities as providing technical assistance to grantees for their emergency
response planning and training.
In the seven states we contacted, HMEP-funded training to teach emergency
responders about addressing hazardous materials emergencies and private
sector training initiatives do not duplicate each other. Moreover, according
to national representatives of major shippers and carriers of hazardous
materials, such duplication does not occur nationwide. Rather, as part of a
portfolio of training resources for the nation's emergency responders, these
two types of training activities complement each other. The HMEP-funded
training is classroom-based and broad in scope, addressing potential
accidents involving a wide range of hazardous materials and containers. Much
of this training teaches the emergency responders, who are likely to be the
first ones to reach an accident scene, to recognize the nature and potential
severity of a hazardous materials incident and the appropriate actions to
take. In contrast, the initiatives funded by the private sector focus
primarily on how emergency responders should react to incidents involving
specific hazardous materials, such as propane, or specific containers, such
as railroad tank cars. Generally, these private initiatives provide
information and training materials, such as videos or books, rather than
classroom training.
According to representatives of national associations of hazardous materials
shippers and carriers, the private sector's training initiatives on
responding to hazardous materials emergencies are not designed or intended
to comply with federal regulations and national training standards on
emergency response training for public sector employees. These regulations
and standards include the OSHA and EPA regulations for responding to
hazardous materials emergencies and the National Fire Protection
Association's training standards, which apply to different levels of
training that range from basic to advanced.
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment. In
responding for the Department, RSPA officials generally agreed with the
facts presented and provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated
as appropriate.
Under the 1975 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, RSPA has the
authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials, including
their packaging and labeling, as well as the identification that vehicles
must have in transporting these materials.1 In 1990, the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Uniform Safety Act, which amended the 1975 act, required
certain hazardous materials shippers and carriers to register with RSPA and
pay an annual registration fee. RSPA can set the registration fee at a
minimum of $250 but not more than $5,000.
The HMEP program is funded from fees that RSPA sets and collects from
certain hazardous materials shippers and carriers. The proceeds from these
fees are allocated for planning and training grants to states, territories,
and Native American tribes for responding to emergencies involving hazardous
materials. RSPA awards the training grants on the basis of a formula that
uses such factors as population, the number of highway miles, and the number
of chemical facilities in each state. Grant recipients must provide 20
percent of the total cost of their HMEP-funded training and planning
activities.
The HMEP program has a number of other grant-related activities that are
also funded from the registration fees paid by the shippers and carriers of
hazardous materials. Specifically, in coordination with FEMA's Emergency
Management Institute, the program funds the development and the periodic
updating of the national curriculum for hazardous materials emergency
response training, including the list of "Assessed Hazardous Materials
Response Courses." The states receiving HMEP grants assess the courses that
they sponsor to certify that the courses are consistent with applicable OSHA
and EPA training regulations and the National Fire Protection Association's
training standards. The HMEP program also provides technical assistance to
grantees to implement emergency response training and planning for hazardous
materials incidents. Finally, the program funds the publication and
distribution, every 3 years, of the Emergency Response Guidebook2 and
supports the hazardous materials training program of the International
Association of Fire Fighters.
Other federal, state, and local government programs also provide funding and
training for emergency responders who may face hazardous materials
incidents. At the federal level, under the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986, FEMA awards grants and provides technical support
to the states and local governments for training in hazard mitigation. EPA
also provides funding for similar training. Moreover, the departments of
Energy and Justice have grant programs for training in other types of
emergencies, such as those involving radioactive materials or terrorist
chemical attacks. In addition, state and local governments provide training
in responding to hazardous materials emergencies, often through their fire
academies.
Effective in 1990, OSHA's training regulations--Hazardous Waste Operations
and Emergency Response regulations (29 C.F.R. 1910.120(q))--and EPA's
regulation (40 C.F.R. 311) established emergency response training
requirements for employers in the private and public sectors. 3 These
regulations require these employers to train emergency responders according
to the duties each responder performs as a member of an emergency response
organization, such as a local fire or police department. These employers
must also ensure that trainers satisfy standards, and they must provide
refresher training for emergency response employees each year.
Pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA and EPA
training regulations must be based on the training standards set by a
recognized, standard-setting organization--in this case, the National Fire
Protection Association. In general, the National Fire Protection
Association's training standards apply to different levels of
training--ranging from basic to advanced--and to a variety of hazardous
materials and situations--varying from mild to severe emergencies. The
Association's standards require public sector emergency responders to
receive training that covers the range of hazardous materials they may
encounter. More specifically, the Association's training standards include
professional "competencies" (or levels of expertise) for emergency personnel
who respond to hazardous materials incidents.4 According to these standards,
at the basic training level, emergency responders are to be trained to
demonstrate numerous competencies. For example, responders are expected to
be able to identify (1) examples of each of the hazardous materials
classified by RSPA and (2) the primary hazards associated with each of these
hazardous materials. Other, more advanced, levels of training have far more
detailed expectations about proactive steps that emergency responders can
take to stop a spill or leak of a specific hazardous material--for example,
petroleum--from a specific container, such as a tanker truck. (See app. II
for a discussion of national training regulations and standards for
emergency response training.)
More Carriers and Shippers to Register
The HMEP program has been funded through registration fees paid by certain
shippers and carriers of hazardous materials. In fiscal year 2000, RSPA
expanded the hazardous materials registration program significantly by
increasing the number of shippers and carriers required to register and pay
the fees and by increasing the fees. Such actions would enable RSPA to
collect sufficient funds to provide grants at the program's maximum
authorized level--$12.8 million annually. If RSPA provides grants at the
$12.8 million level, it will have nearly doubled the annual average spent on
planning and training grants. Since 1992, when the program was first funded,
through fiscal year 1999, RSPA has spent an annual average of about $8.1
million for the HMEP program. Most of these funds--over 80 percent--were
spent on planning and training grants.
the HMEP Program
According to agency officials, RSPA decided to expand the hazardous
materials program's registration base to collect more funds. They explained
that such an action would ensure that a larger segment of the emergency
response community would receive hazardous materials response training at
all levels. The legislation that created the HMEP program authorized up to
$12.8 million per year for planning and training grants. However, each year
from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1996, and again in fiscal year
1999, language in the provisions of DOT's appropriations legislation limited
the amount of money that RSPA is allowed to spend for HMEP's planning and
training grants. The Department's appropriations act for fiscal year 2000
did not limit obligations for the HMEP program.
In a February 2000 rule, RSPA expanded the number of firms that must
register by including all shippers and carriers required by the Hazardous
Materials Regulations to identify their loads with hazardous materials
placards. RSPA's rule became effective on May 1, 2000. Prior to this
rulemaking, the registration and fees were applied to any shipper or carrier
that transported (1) any hazardous material in a bulk container with a
capacity greater than 3,500 gallons for liquid or 468 cubic feet for solids
or (2) a shipment other than in a bulk container that weighs more than 5,000
pounds of a hazardous material requiring placarding.5 Under the new rule,
most farmers would not have to register and pay fees.6 According to RSPA
officials, the new rule will expand by two-thirds the number of firms
required to register, from about 27,000 to over 45,000. RSPA also
established a two-tiered fee structure, with small businesses paying $275
(up from $250) and about 1,500 other7 firms paying $1,975 (also up from
$250).8
Opponents of the new rule questioned the equity of requiring very large
companies to pay only $1,975 while very small companies must pay $275. Some
firms and industry associations argued that very large companies ship
greater quantities of hazardous materials than many smaller entities
combined, such as propane gas distributors. Representatives of the National
Propane Gas Association--which has many member firms that will now be
required to register and pay fees for the first time--questioned RSPA's
decision to expand the program. These representatives asked whether RSPA had
adequately determined how grantees use their HMEP grants. They cited their
industry's efforts to improve emergency response capabilities for propane
incidents and questioned the need for their members to provide additional
funds for training efforts.
According to RSPA officials, RSPA spent considerable effort evaluating
several different methods of apportioning the new fees among registrants,
based on such factors as the type of material, type or size of container,
and the number of shipments offered and transported. According to agency
officials, RSPA's objectives were to establish a fee system that would
better meet the needs of the emergency response community, match the
registration fee to risks, and strike a balance between simplicity and
fairness. These officials explained that the changes would provide the level
of revenue needed to fund the HMEP program at the fully authorized level.
They estimated that the fees generated by the new rule will provide $14.3
million to be collected in fiscal year 2000, enabling RSPA to award $12.8
million in planning and training grants in fiscal year 2000.9 The remaining
$1.5 million in fees would be used to fund the emergency response guidebook,
the development of a national curriculum of training courses on responding
to hazardous materials emergencies, the International Association of Fire
Fighters' training, technical assistance to grantees, and administrative
costs.
and Training Grants
For fiscal years 1992 through 1999, the registration fees that RPSA
collected from hazardous materials shippers and carriers ranged from $6.8
million to $9.4 million annually. During this time, most of these
proceeds--an average of about $6.7 million per year--were used to pay for
planning and training grants. (See apps. III and IV.) Figure 1 shows the
distribution of funds in fiscal year 1999.
Dollars in millions
Note: The HMEP program's training and/or training support activities
included appropriations of $200,000 for curriculum development and $250,000
to support the training programs of the International Association of Fire
Fighters. Fig. 1 excludes $1.6 million in registration fees--of which
$721,000 was the cost of collecting fees as well as of registering carriers
and shippers of hazardous materials. The remainder of the $1.6 million was
retained in the Treasury's general fund.
In fiscal year 1999, out of total HMEP program expenditures of $9.9 million,
the program spent about $8.5 million on grants--$5.1 million on training
grants and $3.4 million on planning grants. The individual training grants
to states ranged from about $28,000 to $390,000. The HMEP program also spent
about $1.4 million on other grant-related activities. To promote compliance
with federal regulations and national standards for emergency response
training, the program funded the development and periodic updating of the
national curriculum on training for responding to hazardous materials
emergencies. Specifically, under a cooperative agreement with DOT, FEMA's
Emergency Management Institute provides ongoing technical assistance for
curriculum development. This included the preparation, publication, and
distribution of the March 1998 "Guidelines for Public Sector Hazardous
Materials Training." When they follow these guidelines, grantees
independently assess whether their training courses comply with federal
regulations and national standards. The Institute reviews the grantees'
assessments and adds to a course catalogue the courses that satisfy the
guidelines. According to an Emergency Management Institute official, all
courses funded by HMEP training grants have been assessed as being
consistent with OSHA's and EPA's regulations and the National Fire
Protection Association's standards.
Duplicative
In the seven states we reviewed, HMEP-funded training for responding to
hazardous materials emergencies and private sector-funded training
initiatives do not duplicate each other. Furthermore, duplication does not
generally occur nationwide, according to national representatives of major
shippers and carriers of hazardous materials. HMEP training grants generally
support training that covers the full range of hazardous materials and
shipping containers and typically fund classroom-based training. In
contrast, private sector-funded initiatives focus on responding to
emergencies involving specific hazardous materials and the containers used
to transport them. Also, these training initiatives typically are not
classroom-based but are provided through other means, such as texts and
videos, or feature company personnel who participate in emergency response
exercises with local agencies, such as fire and police departments.
Emergency Personnel
HMEP grants generally pay for classroom-based response training that teaches
public sector emergency responders to respond to a variety of hazardous
materials emergencies. Differing levels of training address the appropriate
defensive or proactive actions required. For defensive purposes, HMEP-funded
basic training teaches emergency responders who are likely to be the first
to reach an accident scene to recognize the nature and potential severity of
a hazardous materials incident and the appropriate steps to take. For
example, in an accident involving a derailed tank car, the emergency
responders who are the first on the scene are taught to recognize the
presence of hazardous materials and the appropriate defensive measures to
take. These measures include securing the area, containing the spill, and,
if necessary, evacuating nearby residents until advanced teams arrive.
The HMEP-sponsored training also teaches more proactive or advanced
responses that go beyond recognizing or containing an accident but which are
designed to halt the spill or release of hazardous materials. This more
proactive training sometimes includes the use of specialized protective
clothing and control equipment. It enables emergency responders to safely
approach an accident scene to plug, patch, or otherwise stop a release of
hazardous materials into the environment. For example, the Commonwealth of
Virginia uses its HMEP grants to provide advanced training to 13 specialized
teams that respond to hazardous materials emergencies throughout the state.
The teams receive this training at a facility that has the specialized
containers (for example, tankers and rail cars) that may be involved in
hazardous materials emergencies.
In fiscal year 1999, the states we examined provided both basic defensive,
as well as more proactive, or advanced, training. For instance, Alabama's
fire college conducted 14 basic to advanced classes for 396 emergency
responders, including fire fighters, police, and emergency medical
technicians. However, most of these states emphasized basic defensive
training. For example, Illinois provided basic training classes for almost
8,000 emergency responders. Montana's Fire Services Training School
conducted 37 classes, often in remote locations, primarily in basic training
for 619 personnel. The two largest states that we examined--California and
New York--trained thousands of emergency responders in both basic and
advanced responses. California trained over 20,000 personnel in 1,183
classes, ranging from basic and refresher courses to advanced training on
managing a hazardous materials emergency scene. Many of the California
courses required 40 hours to complete. New York State provided basic and
advanced classroom training to over 7,000 emergency responders.
Material-Specific and Container-Specific Emergencies
Private sector training initiatives differ from the HMEP-funded training by
focusing on specific materials and containers. According to officials of
some national associations of shippers and carriers of hazardous materials,
providing training for their specific materials or containers is the norm
for their industries.
For example, the National Propane Gas Association, through the Propane
Education and Research Council, has been proactive in educating fire
fighters on propane-specific emergencies. Toward this end, the Council
developed and distributed a 219-page book--Propane Emergencies --to fire
departments, fire academies, and propane marketers nationwide. The book
discusses the physical properties of propane, the design and construction of
propane containers, typical emergency scenarios, and tactical guidelines for
addressing propane emergencies. The Council also developed a
propane-specific training video, published emergency response case studies,
and established an Internet website to support its educational efforts.
Industry experts also participate in local emergency response training
exercises. For instance, according to Alabama state officials, private
companies, such as AMOCO and CSX, occasionally bring rail cars into local
communities and participate in emergency incident training exercises to
demonstrate how their equipment (such as valves on tank cars) operates and
how to respond to spills of hazardous materials. In addition, according to
industry representatives, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the
Association of American Railroads, and the American Trucking Associations
together provide training on responding to spills of hazardous materials
along routes frequently used by hazardous materials carriers.
As these examples also suggest, the private sector generally provides its
training in ways that differ from the classroom-based HMEP-funded training.
Industry initiatives include written material and videotapes covering
specific hazardous materials. Additionally, at no charge, private sector
experts sometimes teach parts of training classes conducted at state fire
academies, and company personnel sometimes participate in emergency response
training exercises held by the public sector at the local level. A Chemical
Manufacturers Association official told us that member companies often
conduct drills and sponsor training programs involving local emergency
personnel and other groups in the communities in which their plants are
located.
State officials we contacted emphasized that the scope of industry's efforts
was limited, usually to specific materials or containers. For instance, the
chief of New York State's Hazardous Materials Bureau told us that a
representative of the state propane association teaches the propane
section--approximately one-quarter of the state's 2-day "Flammable Gas
Emergency Response Workshop." While praising industry efforts, the New York
official said the state would welcome additional assistance from industry
representatives. Furthermore, officials in six of the seven states told us
that industry-funded training initiatives were generally valuable. All seven
states, however, said that this training was provided infrequently. For
example, Montana state officials said that there has been no private sector
training since the mid-1990s, when a railroad company conducted a seminar,
but this seminar was held only in eastern Montana.
Training Regulations and National Training Standards
The private sector's training initiatives are not designed to comply with
federal training regulations and national training standards, according to
representatives from the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the
American Trucking Associations, the Institute of Makers of Explosives, and
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, as well as other members of a
consortium of 33 associations of hazardous materials shippers and carriers.
These regulations and standards include OSHA and EPA regulations for
responding to hazardous materials emergencies and the National Fire
Protection Association's training standards, which apply to different levels
of training, ranging from basic to advanced.
According to industry representatives we contacted, no requirement exists
for industry's training efforts to comply with federal regulations for
public sector training. Typically, industry, voluntarily and at no charge,
provides training assistance to the public sector's emergency responders.
For example, according to representatives of the National Propane Gas
Association, the propane industry provides training assistance to public
sector responders on a voluntary basis to be a "good corporate citizen."
Officials in six of the seven states we contacted stated that the
industry-funded training initiatives do not fulfill the requirements
established by OSHA and EPA and detailed in the National Fire Protection
Association's standards. In the remaining state, the manager of the state
training programs told us that it is up to the local jurisdiction to
determine whether the private sector-provided training assistance meets
federal training regulations and national training standards.
We provided DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment. RSPA's
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Planning and Analysis, and RSPA's
Manager, HMEP Grants, among others, responded for DOT. The officials
generally agreed with the facts presented in our report but wanted to
emphasize a few points. For example, the officials stated that they elected
to expand the size of hazardous materials registration program because of
the estimated 2 million emergency responders who require initial and
recurring training. We modified the report to incorporate this information.
RSPA officials also provided other technical clarifications, which we
incorporated as appropriate. OSHA officials also provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We performed our review from December 1999 through June 2000 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to the cognizant congressional
committees; the Honorable Rodney E. Slater, Secretary of Transportation;
Kelley S. Coyner, Administrator, Research and Special Programs
Administration; and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request.
If you have any questions about this report, please call me at (202)
512-2834. Key contributors to this report were Ernie Hazera, Alexander
Lawrence, William Sparling, and Frank Taliaferro.
Phyllis F. Scheinberg
Associate Director,
Transportation Issues
Objectives, Scope and Methodology
This report (1) describes the funding sources and expenditures for the
Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) program, (2) assesses
whether the HMEP program and private sector efforts duplicate each other,
and (3) provides information on whether the private sector's training
initiatives meet federal training regulations and national training
standards.
To describe the funding sources and expenditures for the HMEP program, we
interviewed Research and Special Program Administration (RSPA) officials.
During our meetings, we discussed such topics as the legislative authority
for the program, the program's expansion, and RSPA's administration of the
program. We also reviewed available supporting documentation, including (1)
RSPA's proposed and final regulations, which expanded the registration
requirements and increased the fees, and (2) the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) 1998 report to the Congress addressing RSPA's
administration of the training grants program. To gain the perspective of
the private sector, we discussed the expansion of the HMEP program with
representatives of such organizations as the National Propane Gas
Association, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the American
Trucking Associations, a 33-member consortium of hazardous material shippers
and carriers, and others.
To assess whether the HMEP program and private sector efforts duplicate each
other, we sought nationwide data on the sources of training provided to
emergency response personnel in the public sector in federal fiscal year
1998.10 Because no comparable centralized national data exist on either
HMEP-funded training or on training initiatives funded by the hazardous
materials industry, we considered conducting a survey of states and of
hazardous materials shippers and carriers to gather nationally
representative data. This approach was not feasible because no comprehensive
list of shippers and carriers of hazardous materials exists from which to
select a sample. Because of these constraints, we decided to limit our
review of HMEP-funded and private sector-funded training to seven states:
Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, Montana New York, and Virginia. As
a result, our findings are generally limited to the seven selected states.
To address the limitation, we asked representatives of national associations
of major shippers and carriers of hazardous materials about the training
initiatives they and their members provide in these seven states as well as
nationwide.
In each of the states, we contacted and interviewed officials of the state
emergency response commission--the agency responsible for administering
training programs in responding to hazardous materials emergencies. In this
effort, we obtained and analyzed information on the (1) number of emergency
response personnel (professional and volunteer) in the state who received
hazardous materials response training in fiscal year 1999 and (2) the number
and type of training courses in hazardous materials emergency response
provided in that year. In addition, we asked the state officials to provide
(1) a list of training courses funded with HMEP training grant funds and (2)
additional information, including the name and location of each course, the
number of attendees, and whether course content was consistent with federal
training regulations and national training standards. The responses we
received from each state listed the classroom-based training supported with
HMEP funds and the additional information requested. We also interviewed
officials from state and local fire academies and local emergency response
committees.
Similarly, to gather data on private sector-funded training initiatives in
the selected states, we asked associations representing major national
shippers and carriers of hazardous materials to provide (1) a list of
training courses they or their member firms funded and (2) additional
information, including the number of courses funded, the name and location
of each course, the number of attendees, and whether the course content was
consistent with federal training regulations and national training
standards. We made this request through a consortium of 33 national shippers
and carriers of hazardous materials. Because our initial work provided no
evidence of classroom-based training assistance on the part of the private
sector, we also asked about alternative forms of training assistance, such
as emergency response video tapes, textbooks, training equipment donated for
training exercises, and any other forms of industry-provided training
assistance for public sector emergency response personnel. Because we
received no direct responses from this approach, we also spoke with
individual members of the consortium, attended a meeting of the consortium,
and repeated our requests for the above information. The information we
report on private sector training initiatives was provided to us during
those interviews. Some associations also provided us with copies of the
training assistance, such as videos and printed materials, which we
reviewed.
The decision on which states to include in our study reflected the level of
HMEP grant funding that each state received in fiscal year 1998. The HMEP
funding level was based primarily on risk factors DOT uses to indicate the
level of risk of the occurrence of hazardous materials-related incidents.
These risk factors include each state's (1) population as a proportion of
the national population, (2) highway miles and miles that trucks carry
hazardous materials, and (3) number of fixed-site hazardous materials
facilities. In aggregate, the states we selected represented between 20 and
25 percent of the nation for these risk factors. Moreover, in our selection
of states to include in our study, we chose states that were small, medium,
and large in population and were geographically dispersed. Moreover, these
states reflected the different hazardous materials response-training needs
of states with large cities, states with mostly medium-sized or smaller
cities, and states with predominantly rural character. Specifically, states
with large cities have professional fire departments and often have their
own fire academies, while states with medium-sized and smaller cities and
states that are primarily rural have mostly volunteer fire departments. We
contacted California, Illinois, and New York because they have large
metropolitan areas; we contacted Alabama and Virginia because they have
medium-sized cities and rural areas; and we contacted Montana, because it is
predominantly rural. We also added Delaware, which has numerous chemical
facilities, at the request of the spokesperson for the consortium of 33
hazardous material associations. These seven states accounted for over 24
percent of all transportation-related hazardous materials incidents in 1998,
about 22 percent of HMEP's total training grant funds, and about 28 percent
of the nation's population.
While the data collected from the seven states did not provide statistically
projectable results, officials we contacted indicated that the selected
states were generally representative of the nation as a whole. Specifically,
officials from the HMEP grant program, from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) Emergency Management Institute, and the consortium of 33
hazardous material associations, supported our selection of states. They
told us that the states covered in our review provide a reasonable
representation of the nation with regard to hazardous material
transportation issues, including training public sector emergency
responders. The consortium spokesperson suggested that we add Delaware and
West Virginia to our original list of six states because both states have
numerous chemical facilities and industry training programs. We generally
agreed, but because of time limitations added only one state, Delaware.
To provide information on whether the private sector's training initiatives
meet federal training regulations and national training standards, including
those of the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
National Fire Protection Association, and to obtain an understanding of the
applicable goals, standards, and regulations that apply to hazardous
materials emergency response training, we reviewed program documents, OSHA
and EPA regulations, and standards established by the National Fire
Protection Association. Specifically, we reviewed and analyzed RSPA's
training curriculum, RSPA's course assessment guidance, and federal
regulations for training the public sector's emergency responders in
addressing hazardous materials emergencies. These regulations include OSHA's
29 C.F.R. 1910.120(q) and EPA's 49 C.F.R. 311. We also reviewed and analyzed
the National Fire Protection Association's guidelines for hazardous
materials emergency response training--specifically, NFPA 472, Standard for
Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents . We
discussed these regulations and standards with RSPA, OSHA, EPA, and National
Fire Protection Association officials.
We also asked national industry association representatives, including
members of the consortium of 33 associations, whether the hazardous
materials response training they funded for public sector emergency
personnel was consistent with the goals of the HMEP program, OSHA's and
EPA's regulations, and the National Fire Protection Association's standards.
We also queried state officials about whether any privately funded hazardous
materials emergency response training delivered in their states complied
with these regulations and standards, as well as any separate state
requirements.
We performed our review from December 1999 through June 2000 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Federal Regulations and National Standards for Hazardous Materials Emergency
Response Training
To comply with federal regulations, hazardous materials emergency response
training must adhere to OSHA or EPA requirements. The applicability of the
OSHA or EPA regulations depends on individual states' decisions on whether
to comply with federal health and safety law or to establish independent
health and safety standards that meet or exceed federal OSHA standards.
While OSHA and EPA regulations provide standards that must be met, the
National Fire Protection Association standards detail the specific knowledge
that trainees must have to be considered competent to provide varying levels
of response to a hazardous materials incident.
The federal OSHA program was established pursuant to the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-596). According to OSHA, under section 18 of
the act, states could assume responsibility for occupational safety and
health enforcement through OSHA-approved state plans. These plans, operating
under the authority of state law, must adopt standards that are identical
to, or at least as effective as OSHA standards. Also, these plans must cover
state and local government workers, who are not covered under OSHA's
enabling legislation. Consequently, 25 states and territories, including New
York, California, and Virginia (which were among the states we contacted),
developed their own safety and health plans that cover state and local
public sector employees. The applicability of the OSHA regulations to
federal workers is covered under Executive Order No. 12196.
OSHA's regulations implemented national policy on emergency response
training that employers must adhere to, among other things. Section
1910.120(q) of OSHA's regulations requires employers to provide emergency
response training based on the duties and function to be performed by each
responder in an emergency response organization. Employers are also required
to establish an emergency response plan, develop procedures for handling an
emergency response, and ensure that trainers are qualified and that
employees receive annual refresher training.
OSHA's regulation (OSHA 1910.120(q)(6)) has several levels of response
training, such as (1) First Responder Awareness, (2) First Responder
Operations, (3) Hazardous Materials Technician, (4) Hazardous Materials
Specialist, and (5) On scene Incident Commander. Awareness and Operations
courses train responders to take a cautious defensive approach, such as
notifying the proper authorities, keeping a release from spreading, and
preventing exposures from a safe distance. Conversely, the technician and
specialist level courses train responders to take offensive action intended
to stop a release. For example, a hazardous materials technician or
specialist is trained to approach a point of a hazardous material release in
order to plug, patch, or otherwise stop it. Training at the incident command
level, while defensive in nature, provides instruction on controlling
incident scenes by implementing employer and local emergency response plans.
Employees of state and local governments in states that do not have
OSHA-approved health and safety plans are subject to EPA 40 C.F.R. 311.
Section 126(f) of the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act of 1986
required EPA to promulgate standards identical to those contained in 29
C.F.R. 1910.120. As a result, state and local government emergency
responders enjoy the health and safety protections provided to all workers
and are subject to the training requirements detailed in the OSHA
regulation. While this regulation cites specific training requirements, it
provides limited detail on the wide array of hazardous material emergency
response knowledge, known as competencies, needed by emergency response
personnel. These competencies were detailed in the National Fire Protection
Association's standard known as NFPA 472.
The National Fire Protection Association serves as the OSHA-recognized
standard-setting organization for fire fighters in North America and in this
role establishes the OSHA "national consensus standard." A wide array of
experts from fire fighting and related professions across the country meet
as expert committees to carry out this voluntary, industry-based,
consensus-based effort. Development of NFPA 472--Standard on Professional
Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents --began in 1986;
and the current standard was issued in 1997. This document sets out the
knowledge and skills--known as "competencies"--that should be achieved
through emergency response training. These competencies were established for
the various levels of emergency response training contained in OSHA's 29
C.F.R. 1910.120 (q)(6), although the Hazardous Materials Specialist level
has been deleted and replaced with various specialty levels of training.
Changes in the standard result because NFPA technical committees review
their standards for currency and update them at least every 5 years. NPFA
472 specifies minimum competencies for those who will respond to hazardous
materials incidents and is not intended to restrict any jurisdiction from
exceeding these minimum competencies.
HMEP Training Grants for Responding to Hazardous Materials Emergencies,
Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1999
State FY 1993a FY 1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
Alabama $93,287 61,700 $54,906 66,436 66,436 66,436 89,370
Alaska 29,960 19,817 17,582 21,274 21,274 21,274 28,618
Arizona 73,122 48,363 42,896 51,904 51,904 51,904 69,821
Arkansas 69,521 45,982 40,717 49,268 49,268 49,268 66,275
California 408,215 269,995 239,982 290,378 290,378 290,378 390,617
Colorado 79,608 52,653 46,886 56,732 56,732 56,732 76,316
Connecticut 64,839 42,885 38,249 46,281 46,281 46,281 62,257
Delaware 31,103 20,571 18,199 22,021 22,021 22,021 29,623
District of
Columbia 26,517 17,539 15,731 19,035 19,035 19,035 25,606
Florida 192,521 127,334 113,205 136,978 136,978 136,978 184,263
Georgia 135,067 89,334 79,274 95,922 95,922 95,922 129,034
Hawaii 32,650 21,594 19,125 23,141 23,141 23,141 31,129
Idaho 50,825 33,616 29,921 36,204 36,204 36,204 48,702
Illinois 204,547 135,288 120,299 145,562 145,562 145,562 195,810
Indiana 101,853 73,755 65,394 79,127 79,127 79,127 106,442
Iowa 87,217 57,686 51,204 61,957 61,957 61,957 83,345
Kansas 90,696 59,987 53,364 64,570 64,570 64,570 86,860
Kentucky 82,383 54,488 48,428 58,598 58,598 58,598 78,826
Louisiana 89,641 59,288 52,746 63,823 63,823 63,823 85,855
Maine 0 26,624 23,751 28,739 28,739 28,739 38,660
Maryland 79,352 52,483 46,577 56,358 56,358 56,358 75,813
Massachusetts100,507 66,476 58,916 71,288 71,288 71,288 95,897
Michigan 159,926 105,776 94,080 113,837 113,837 113,837 153,134
Minnesota 109,399 72,357 64,160 77,634 77,634 77,634 104,434
Mississippi 70,279 46,483 41,334 50,014 50,014 50,014 67,279
Missouri 123,294 81,547 72,488 87,710 87,710 87,710 117,987
Montana 51,964 34,370 30,538 36,951 36,951 36,951 49,706
Nebraska 66,160 43,758 38,866 47,028 47,028 47,028 63,262
Nevada 47,405 31,353 27,761 33,591 33,591 33,591 45,187
New Hampshire36,578 24,193 21,592 26,126 26,126 26,126 35,145
New Jersey 155,113 102,593 90,996 110,105 110,105 110,105 148,113
New Mexico 0 35,170 31,154 37,696 37,696 37,696 50,709
New York 251,283 166,200 147,752 178,780 178,780 178,780 240,495
North
Carolina 125,776 83,189 74,030 89,576 89,576 89,576 120,498
North Dakota 54,838 36,270 32,080 38,568 38,568 38,568 51,882
State FY 1993a FY 1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
Ohio 188,236 124,501 110,737 133,992 133,992 133,992 180,246
Oklahoma 89,356 59,101 52,438 63,450 63,450 63,450 85,353
Oregon 82,538 54,591 48,428 58,598 58,598 58,598 78,826
Pennsylvania 191,378 126,578 112,588 136,231 136,231 136,231 183,258
Rhode Island 34,774 23,000 20,358 24,633 24,633 24,633 33,136
South
Carolina 80,546 53,274 47,194 57,105 57,105 57,105 76,818
South Dakota 51,573 34,111 30,228 36,576 36,576 36,576 49,202
Tennessee 103,225 68,273 60,767 73,528 73,528 73,528 98,910
Texas 315,575 208,722 185,384 224,315 224,315 224,315 301,749
Utah 53,506 35,388 31,463 38,070 38,070 38,070 51,212
Vermont 30,934 20,459 18,199 22,021 22,021 22,021 29,623
Virginia 103,938 68,745 61,075 73,901 73,901 73,901 99,412
Washington 97,481 64,475 57,374 69,423 69,423 69,423 93,388
West Virginia0 33,695 29,921 36,204 36,204 36,204 48,702
Wisconsin 112,037 74,101 65,702 79,499 79,499 79,499 106,942
Wyoming 38,497 25,462 22,518 27,247 27,247 27,247 36,653
Territories 71,053 96,923 24,676 45,161 104,132 88,456 140,078
Native
American 88,012 104,161 87,717 73,866 99,516 97,697 97,601
tribes
Total $5,108,105 $3,576,277 $3,110,950 $3,747,032$3,831,653 $3,814,158 $5,118,079
a Fiscal year 1993 grants were higher because funding came from fees
collected in fiscal years 1992 and 1993.
RSPA's HMEP Program Expenses for Hazardous Materials Emergency Response,
Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1999
Dollars in millions
Types of expenses FY93a FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY97 FY 98 FY 99
Training and planning
grants to statesb $8.39 $5.88 $5.19 $6.31 $6.37 $6.37 $8.51
Emergency Response
Guidebookc 1.10 0 0 0.70 0 0 0.70
Curriculum developmentd 0.70 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Technical assistancee 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 .23 0 0
NIEHSf 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0
IAFFg 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.25
Administrative expensesh 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.26 0.27 0.26
Total HMEP Program Cost 11.24 6.98 6.54 7.91 7.06 7.09 9.92
Registration expensesI 2.80 0.98 1.00 0.74 0.76 0.76 0.72
Total expenses 14.04 7.96 7.54 8.65 7.82 7.85 10.64
Excess fees to the
Treasury's general fund j -0.20 0.38 0.43 0.68 0.77 0.89 0.86
a RSPA did not award grants in fiscal year 1992. The grants for fiscal year
1993 included funds from fees collected in fiscal years 1992 and 1993.
b Amounts include unused funds that have been de-obligated and includes
grants to territories and tribes.
c Guidebook distributed to fire fighters, police, and other emergency
services personnel who may be the first to arrive at the scene of a
transportation incident involving a hazardous material.
d Curriculum development performed by FEMA's Emergency Management Institute
in Emmitsburg, MD.
e Technical assistance includes assisting grantees in carrying out emergency
response training and planning.
f National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
g The International Association of Fire Fighters trains local personnel to
conduct hazardous materials emergency response training programs.
h RSPA's grant administration expenses.
i RSPA's administrative cost of collecting fees and registering hazardous
materials shippers and carriers. Registration fees are separate from, and
not considered part of, the HMEP grant program.
j The excess fees collected to administer the registration program were
retained in the Treasury's general fund.
(348206)
Figure 1: HMEP Program Fund Allocations, Fiscal Year 1999 12
1. As part of this responsibility, RSPA defines materials as being hazardous
for transportation purposes and requires that the containers have labels,
placards, or markings identifying the materials being shipped. RSPA places
these materials into various categories, such as explosives; flammable,
poisonous, or corrosive gases; flammable liquids; and flammable or
spontaneously combustible solids; or solids that are dangerous when wet.
Other categories of hazardous materials include oxidizers and organic
peroxides; poisonous and infectious materials; radioactive materials;
corrosive material; and other materials that are hazardous but present a
limited hazard while being transported.
2. Developed jointly by DOT, Transport Canada, and Mexico's Secretariat of
Transport and Communications, the guidebook is an aid to fire fighters,
police, and other first responders to a hazardous materials accident scene
for (1) quickly identifying the specific or generic classification of the
material(s) involved in the incident and (2) protecting themselves and the
public during the initial response to the incident.
3. The Secretary of Labor (through OSHA) and EPA established training
requirements for employees who are engaged in hazardous waste operations.
OSHA's training regulations are applicable to private sector employees and
to federal employees through Executive Order No. 12196. Generally, OSHA's
regulations do not extend to employees of state and local governments--such
as fire fighters or police--unless states have adopted OSHA-approved worker
health and safety plans that include OSHA's training requirements. Other
state and local employees are covered by the EPA regulation, which
incorporates the OSHA regulations.
4. NFPA 472, Standard on Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous
Materials Incidents, 1997 Edition (National Fire Protection Association).
5. Prior to RSPA's February 2000 rule, registration fees were also paid by
all carriers and shippers of (1) highway route-controlled quantities of
certain radioactive materials, (2) more than 55 pounds of certain types of
explosive materials, and (3) more than a liter per package of material that
is extremely toxic by inhalation.
6. According to RSPA, an exception was made for farmers offering or
transporting hazardous materials, such as fertilizer and pesticides, in
direct support of their farming activities.
7. Firms not classified as "small businesses" under Small Business
Administration guidelines.
8. Prior to the February 2000 rule, transporters and shippers paid a $250
registration fee plus a $50 administrative service charge. The new rule
increases the registration fee to $275 for small firms and to $1,975 for
other firms but lowers the service charge to $25. According to RSPA
officials, the processing fee was reduced because receipts substantially
exceeded costs.
9. According to RSPA officials, RSPA awards grants in the same fiscal year
as it collects the fees. However, because the award takes place late in the
fiscal year, the grantees spend the funds in the next fiscal year. For
example, in fiscal year 2001, the grantees will spend the $12.8 million that
RSPA awarded in fiscal year 2000.
10. At the time we conducted our study, fiscal year 1999 was the most recent
year for which RSPA had all state HMEP program annual reports.
*** End of document. ***