Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 73


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 72
72 Guidebook for Conducting Local Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Studies 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.

OCR for page 72
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. 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.