National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies (2011)

Chapter: Chapter 7 - Implement Information

« Previous: Chapter 6 - Analyze and Document Data
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Implement Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Implement Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Implement Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Implement Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Implement Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Implement Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14559.
×
Page 74

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

The HMCFS information that was prepared by the project team is reviewed by the core team in the final step of the HMCFS process. The core team then takes actions that are necessary to imple- ment the information. Closing the HMCFS life cycle by using it to make objectives a reality is crit- ical in making the HMCFS worthwhile. Also critical to HMCFS implementation is a recognition and complete appreciation of the limitations of the study. A review of the choices made in con- ducting the HMCFS will help decision makers recognize what additional information might be required to make high-level decisions. A flow chart of the HMCFS process focusing on implemen- tation is shown in Figure 7-1. 7.1 Review Objectives and Limitations Before the results of the HMCFS are implemented, the core team reviews the objectives that were set for the HMCFS and the project’s limitations. This helps decision makers interpret and apply the results appropriately. Reviewing the objectives and limitations of the HMCFS involves the following: • Listing specific objectives, • Listing the HMCFS results that bear on each outcome, and • Identifying the limitations associated with each result. Decision makers should determine the extent to which HMCFS results merit actions to miti- gate, avoid, or prepare for the risk. Table 7-1 illustrates how specific objectives, results to support them, and the basis of information can be placed side by side. 7.2 Disseminate and Communicate Information HMCFS dissemination consists of the one-way communication of the results of the study to various audiences, while HMCFS communication is a two-way interaction about the results of the study with these stakeholders. The core team is responsible for both disseminating and com- municating HMCFS information. 7.2.1 Dissemination Dissemination of HMCFS results is a simple, three-step process, as follows: 1. Decide which critical results can be distributed in a one-way communication without clarification or elaboration; 69 C H A P T E R 7 Implement Information

2. Decide to whom these critical results should be delivered, and collect contact information; and 3. Deliver the documents, videos, or presentations to the contacts listed in Step 2. Deciding what HMCFS objectives and results to disseminate may prove challenging. Infor- mation disseminated is typically limited to the simplest, most direct, and generic results stem- ming from a well-conducted HMCFS. Results at this level require little or no explanation—they are self evident. This does not mean they have no value! For example, discoveries of hazmat flows where they were previously not known to exist have clear, self-evident implications. 70 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies Figure 7-1. The HMCFS implementation process.

7.2.2 Communication Communication of HMCFS results to critical stakeholders is more intense and time-consuming than dissemination but also provides feedback about the validity of the study results. Commu- nicating HMCFS results can involve the following: • Scheduling and holding meetings, • Making presentations, • Holding open forums, and • Engaging in personal communication with critical stakeholders. Communication of the HMCFS information focuses on both the critical and more subtle aspects of the project that are important to critical stakeholders. Tailoring the message to the interests of each critical stakeholder will help engage them in the implementation process. Risk communication allows for the following: • Discussion and interpretation of results; • Sharing of more subtle information (e.g., impressions, suggestions); and • High-order interpretations, such as the connection between stakeholder experience and expertise and what was observed directly. Implement Information 71 Specific Objective HMCFSResults Limitation Possible Recommendation National traffic data and VIUS hazmat data results in “national average” risk, not local Collect more local data Local traffic data and VIUS data result in “local estimates” of risk Begin to develop plans for potential route designation Routing hazmat around business district of town Estimates of risk on route segment around business district Local traffic and hazmat data results in locally observed risk estimates Take action to implement route designation Table 7-1. Example of objectives, results, basis, and recommendations. Tips for Encouraging Participation FEMA’s CPG 101 (2, p 3-8) lists some tips for getting active participation from planning team members. Some of these tips may be useful for HMCFS projects, including the following: • Plan ahead. Provide plenty of notice about where and when the meeting will be held. If time permits, ask team members to identify the time(s) and place(s) that will work for the group. • Provide information about team expectations. Explain why participating is important to the participants’ agencies and to the community itself. • Ask the senior elected or appointed official or designee to sign the meeting announcement. A directive from the executive office carries the authority of the senior official and sends a clear signal that the participants are expected to attend.

Multi-way communication of HMCFS results often involves discussion of the findings and their underlying meaning for the project’s objectives. This multi-way discussion also can help explain the complexities of the HMCFS objectives and data collection efforts to help assure that the HMCFS is not interpreted beyond its information capacity—decisions based on too little information are usually risky. Appendix D.10, Use Risk Communication Checklist, contains a checklist of entities to which HMCFS communication can be considered. 7.3 Apply Results The HMCFS is a living document in that it contributes to ongoing planning processes includ- ing emergency planning, transportation planning, comprehensive planning, equipment pro- curement, and hazmat route planning. Presenting the results in a document is only a momentary snapshot of an ongoing process. Simply stopping at this point and putting the document on the shelf fails to stimulate discussion, decision making, or proactive response to impending situa- tions. Applying the results of the HMCFS project to emergency planning and other community concerns is the responsibility of the core team and community stakeholders. The HMCFS can provide evidence of potential concern for public and local authorities. Using the results of the study to inform the public, public officials, and community leadership in this regard is one very useful outcome of the HMCFS process. The critical question for implementa- tion is what will be done differently now that the HMCFS information is available? What adjust- ments are needed to accommodate what is now known about the transport of hazmat into, out of, within, and through the community? Appendix D.11, Demonstrate Local Risk, encourages users to employ the HMCFS results to help obtain support for emergency planning. Implementation involves actively engaging vari- ous groups of interested parties, stakeholders, community leaders, industry, and other end users. As with formation of the HMCFS core team, communication of HMCFS results is another opportunity to involve major hazmat transportation, responder, and community stakeholders. To begin, sponsors of the HMCFS should be engaged to meet either implied or explicit contrac- tual agreements. Other participants were engaged in the HMCFS process because they have some vested interest. This interest, together with their active participation, makes them some of the most likely people to use the HMCFS for its intended purposes. • CPG 101 notes that “elected leaders are legally responsible for ensuring that necessary and appropriate actions are taken to protect people and property from the consequences of emer- gencies or disasters” (2, p 1-1). This includes consequences resulting from hazmat transporta- tion incidents. Community leaders such as the county judge and commissioners, the mayor(s) and council(s), fire and police chiefs, and county sheriff have an interest in using these data to provide for community well-being and safety. • Personnel engaged in emergency planning and response, at all levels public and private, will find the results of the HMCFS directly relevant to their missions. • Hospital administrators are likely to find the results useful to validate emergency operations plans. In addition, because hospitals are often located near major transportation corridors to allow access (i.e., locations most likely to be impacted by releases along those corridors), they also must be concerned about response plans to assure the safety and well-being of patients and staff. • Although nursing and convalescent care facilities are less likely than most other types of facil- ities to have access problems, they may find themselves located in potentially impacted corri- dors and in need of emergency response plans to accommodate hazmat concerns. • Public school officials are likely to have similar concerns about their locations and student well-being and safety. 72 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies

Sharing these data with community leaders provides a validation of the data, engenders buy-in, and increases the likelihood of the study being used for its intended purpose(s). These community leaders should be engaged to inform, protect, and serve the community’s best interests. Each of these critical people and the offices they represent should be • Briefed on the results of the HMCFS, • Asked to provide any conflicting data or information, • Asked to provide any data that may confirm the results, and • Asked to document any adjustments they are likely to consider based on the HMCFS. The briefings should include discussions about implications of the findings. Decisions or changes that need to be made can be identified, as well as who has authority to take action. Rec- ommendations regarding needed changes or actions should be made. Conflicts may need to be resolved, but will ultimately strengthen the project’s outcomes. Confirmation of HMCFS results further validates the study. Implement Information 73 Implementing HMCFS information in emergency planning and training is key to making it worthwhile. Some real-world examples include the following: • Lewis and Upshur Counties LEPC in West Virginia developed a risk and vulnera- bility analysis for transportation routes and fixed facilities. • Victoria County LEPC in Texas plans to use their HMCFS for siting of local facili- ties, evaluation of hazmat routes, and guiding training needs. • Pennsylvania’s Cambria County LEPC uses their HMCFS information to guide training and equipment needs, and distributes the information to police and fire departments to promote hazmat transport awareness. • HMCFS results were used by the Arizona SERC and LEPCs to identify worst- case incident scenarios and inform officials of the need for critical response teams. • Iowa’s Region V LEPC purchased and stocked two hazmat incident response trailers and planned responder training. Taylor County LEPC in Wisconsin used their information to establish the need for a Level B hazmat team. Colorado’s Jefferson County LEPC and Johnson County LEPC in Missouri identified personal protective equipment needs for their hazmat teams. • Sullivan County LEPC in Pennsylvania used their HMCFS information as justifica- tion for reducing speed limits in municipal areas to prevent future incidents from occurring. • LEPCs in Canyon County, Idaho and Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, confirmed local knowledge of hazmat transport activities, while Illinois’ Effingham County LEPC learned they had less hazmat transport than they had previously thought. • Pueblo County LEPC in Colorado used their HMCFS information as a public and carrier education tool about risks of shortcuts between transport routes. • Hidalgo County LEPC in Texas was able to identify the source and ownership of a crude oil pipeline rupture with their hazmat CFS information.

7.4 Archiving the HMCFS Once the HMCFS dissemination and communication processes are complete at the local level, the issue becomes how the HMCFS and associated data can be preserved for the future in a way that encourages its use in ongoing processes. Clearly, the results of the study should be preserved. In addition, all materials disseminated to interested parties should be preserved as different materials may focus on different aspects of the HMCFS. Identifying the sources of existing data and locations and procedures for collected data are useful both for documenting what was done, and as a template of where to begin next time. Presentations also can be archived for future use in documenting changes or stable patterns. Documents should be archived in a variety of locations so that focused catastrophes cannot wipe out all records. For example, they can be stored in county records, municipal records, sent to fed- eral and state authorities, as well as put on Web sites and stored at the public library. This will help make it nearly impossible for one failure to wipe out all the documentation of the HMCFS. To the extent that electronic records allow for information management, searching, retrieval, and distri- bution from decentralized locations, electronic archival is preferred. This further underscores the need to archive in several locations to avoid future loss of critical information. 7.5 Revisions and Updates An HMCFS is a static picture of an ongoing, changing process. Thus, local entities need to consider when an HMCFS should be revised or updated. Continuous updating and revisions would be difficult to manage for many jurisdictions. Critical incidents or accidents in the study area, nearby, or in similar communities elsewhere should trigger the re-examination of relevant HMCFS data. In a similar manner, significant changes in resident populations, industrial or transport facilities, or route or route segments should trigger the re-examination of relevant HMCFS data. The re-examination may demonstrate that transport on nearby parallel routes accounted for new flows, or identify a need for conducting a new HMCFS to account for signif- icant changes in the community. Keep in mind that many of the hazards associated with hazmat transportation may be con- sidered to be stable compared with adaptive hazards or threats such as terrorism. Ongoing plan- ning for hazards due to hazmat transportation will require changes as the community’s characteristics change. As noted in CPG 101, other updates to an HMCFS may be considered “in association with changes in operational resources, formal emergency planning updates, changes in elected officials, major exercises or activation events, or enactment of new or amended laws and ordinances” (2, p 3-23). The faster significant changes occur in a community (e.g., populated areas or locations) or its hazmat flows, the greater the need for more frequent updates and revisions to the HMCFS. Large metropolitan areas with complex flows are likely to opt for more frequent revisions and updates to successfully manage HMCFS efforts. Even small communities with complex flows (especially through-traffic) may find it nec- essary to revise and update the HMCFS frequently, while those with less complex flows may find that a well-done HMCFS can last for years. 74 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies Cambria County LEPC in Pennsylvania has kept their HMCFS current and relevant by doing a little bit each year for 12 years in a row. In addition to scheduled traffic counts, LEPC members collect data at different high- way locations when they are “out and about.” The LEPC can easily keep track of their top five hazardous materials moved by truck.

Next: Chapter 8 - Conclusions and Recommendations »
Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program (HMCRP) Report 3: Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies is designed to support risk assessment, emergency response preparedness, resource allocation, and analyses of hazardous commodity flows across jurisdictions.

The guidebook updates the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Guidance for Conducting Hazardous Materials Flow Surveys. All modes of transportation, all classes and divisions of hazardous materials, and the effects of seasonality on hazardous materials movements are discussed in the guidebook.

The contractor’s final report and appendices (unedited by TRB), which documents the research supporting the development of the guidebook, are available online.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!