A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned for Improving Local Community Recovery from Disastrous Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents (2012)

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.

2The goal of this report is to identify best practices, lessons learned, and sound planning approaches aimed at restoring and revitalizing a community following a disastrous hazard- ous materials transportation incident as pictured in Figure 1-1. It is intended for use by the full range of public, private, and non-governmental organizations that play a role in com- munity disaster recovery for urban, suburban and rural jurisdictions. Topics covered include the following: • Federal roles and responsibilities in recovery; • Resources available to assist communities with their recovery efforts; • Best practices, lessons learned, background information, and examples related to community recovery planning, operations, and information sharing; and • Gaps in information and guidance. The information presented on these topics is based on data available in the public domain and gathered from (1) relevant state and local recovery planning documents; (2) federal statutes and recovery planning guidance; (3) after-action reports from real-world incidents and exercises; (4) domestic and international press materials; (5) academic studies; and (6) TRB publications. Best practices and lessons learned are presented as case studies. Most of these are from actual incident after-action reports, and the pertinent information is directly quoted to avoid injecting the opinions of the research team. The objective of the research project as established by HMCRP is to develop a compen- dium of best practices that can be used by local communities to plan for recovery from disastrous hazardous materials transportation incidents. Recovery is defined as both short- and long-term efforts to rebuild and revitalize affected communities. Recovery planning must provide for a near-seamless transition from emergency response activities to recovery operations to debriefing lessons learned, including, but not limited to, restoration of inter- rupted utility services, reestablishment of transportation routes, the provision of food and shelter to displaced persons, environmental restoration, business continuity, and economic rebuilding. 1.1 Document Flow This report has been designed to follow the typical flow of operations in relation to recovery from a hazardous materials transportation incident. Figure 1-2 presents this flow of operations in graphic form with reference to appropriate chapters of the report. C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

Introduction 3 1.2 Guiding Principles Whether resulting from a hazardous materials transportation incident or a natural, techno- logical, or man-made disaster, experience shows that the framework for a recovery process gener- ally has four common elements. This report is organized to consider the following: 1. Mass care (including medical and mental health, sheltering and decontamination, short-term housing, and long-term housing); 2. Restoration of infrastructure (refers to both “hard” infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and “soft” infrastructure like mass transportation); 3. Environmental response and remediation (ranging from immediate/short-term concerns to long-term efforts to remove contaminants/pollutants from environmental media to protect ecological and human interests); and 4. Economic viability (economic conditions relating to tangibles like lost revenue from reduced taxes and job loss to intangibles such as lost business opportunities). It is important to note that while these four elements are anticipated to be part of any recovery process, the level of effort and time required to implement each is highly dependent on the type and magnitude of the event. For example, components of mass care, such as temporary housing, have not been as predominant a need in the aftermath of past hazardous materials transporta- tion incidents as has been the case for natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina (2005) or, more recently, the earthquakes in Haiti (2010), New Zealand (2011), and Japan (2011). This report carefully addresses these nuances. As shown in Figure 1-2, recovery operations are cyclic, in that planning begins pre-incident and looks at each of the four elements where risks are considered (i.e., mass care, restoration of infrastructure, environment response and remediation, and economic viability), existing pro- grams are evaluated and updated, and mitigation measures are explored and implemented. As part of these preparedness activities, resources are identified, training is provided to personnel involved, and exercises are presented to test each part of the recovery plan. Once the incident (SOURCE: http://www.sbcfire.org/hazmat/er.asp; photo credit: San Bernardino County Fire Department) Figure 1-1. Hazardous materials transportation incident involving a freight train derailment.

4 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Figure 1-2. Document flow in relation to operations.

Introduction 5 occurs and the details of casualties and damage are known, the specific requirements of the programs are identified and these programs are implemented. When the community has been restored to its pre-incident condition, the recovery organization can look to implementing mitigation measures that were identified during operations, as well as ensuring that the long- term economic recovery continues. These topics are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 of this report. Finally, although numerous short-term recovery initiatives have been required as a result of hazardous materials transportation incidents over the years, only a few appear to have resulted in the need for intermediate or long-term recovery actions. To ensure that useful information is provided to support both the short- and long-term aspects of community recovery, this report also examines relevant best practices and lessons learned from other types of domestic and international incidents. 1.3 Understanding the Movement of Hazardous Materials The following subsections are presented as background to enhance the understanding of what materials most commonly move through our communities, risks posed, and potential costs of an incident. 1.3.1 Key Definitions The following two definitions are particularly important to the context of this report: • The U.S.DOT defines hazardous materials as “a substance or material capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, or property . . . .” See http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/ glossary#H. • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines hazardous waste as “waste that is dan- gerous or potentially harmful to our health or the environment. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, gases, or sludges. They can be discarded commercial products, like cleaning fluids or pesticides, or the by-products of manufacturing processes.” See http://www.epa.gov/ osw/hazard/index.htm. Since DOT is responsible for developing regulations and requirements for the safe transport of hazardous materials, they have defined what constitutes a hazardous material. This allows transporters to then find the appropriate requirements for the safe transport of the particular material. The EPA, however, is concerned with spills and releases. When there is a spill or release, the material in question is a hazardous waste. This report also specifically addresses the concept of a disastrous hazardous materials trans- portation incident. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines disastrous as follows: • 1. Attended by or causing suffering or disaster: Calamitous (a disastrous flood); 2. Terrible, horrendous (a disastrous score).” See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disastrous. However, this definition does not specifically quantify when a hazardous materials incident becomes disastrous. The available definition that comes closest to doing so is the Stafford Act definition of a major disaster, which states . . . any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determi- nation of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this act to supplement the efforts and available resources of states, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.1

6 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned In general terms, this could be interpreted to mean a hazardous materials incident becomes disastrous when the local community does not have sufficient, available resources to effectively respond to, and recover from, the incident and must obtain the needed resources from another entity or entities. 1.3.2 Modes of Transportation for Hazardous Materials2 Table 1-1 considers nine classes of hazardous materials and the quantities transported. This information is based on a U.S.DOT special report entitled Hazardous Materials Highlights – 2007 Commodity Flow Survey published by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. This data indicates that Class 3 Flammable Liquids represent the largest volume and highest dollar value of hazard- ous material being shipped. Table 1-2 presents the modes of transportation and the percentage of hazardous materials transported by each mode In 2007, the percentage of hazardous materials carried by truck was 53.9 percent – significantly more than any other mode. The results presented are based on a com- modity flow study and a representative sampling of the modes of transportation. The percent- ages presented show the relative ranking of the various modes of transportation. (SOURCE: Duych, Ron; Ford, Chester; and Sanjani, Hossain, Hazardous Materials Highlights – 2007 Commodity Flow Study, Special Report, RITA Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, January 2011) Hazard Class and Description Value ($M) Tons (K) Ton-miles (M) Average miles per shipment Class 1, Explosives 11,754 3,047 911 738 Class 2, Gases 131,810 250,506 55,260 51 Class 3, Flammable Liquids 1,170,455 1,752,814 181,615 91 Class 4, Flammable Solids 4,067 20,408 5,547 309 Class 5, Oxidizers and Organic Peroxides 6,695 14,959 7,024 361 Class 6, Toxic (poison) 21,198 11,270 5,667 467 Class 7, Radioactive Materials 20,633 515 37 Not reported Class 8, Corrosive Materials 51,475 114,441 44,395 208 Class 9, Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods 30,131 63,173 23,002 484 Total 1,448,218 2,231,133 323,457 96 Table 1-1. Hazardous materials shipments by hazard class, 2007. (SOURCE: Duych, Ron; Ford, Chester; and Sanjani, Hossain, Hazardous Materials Highlights – 2007 Commodity Flow Study, Special Report, RITA Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, January 2011) Mode of Transportation Percentage of Total Tonnage Carried Highway (truck) 53.9 Pipeline 28.2 Maritime 6.7 Freight Rail 5.8 Multiple Modes 5.0 Other and Unknown Modes 0.4 Total 100 Table 1-2. Hazardous materials shipments by tonnage by mode, 2007.

Introduction 7 Table 1-3 presents hazardous materials versus non-hazardous materials in the terms of per- centages by mode of transportation. Together, these three tables demonstrate that • Class 3 Flammable Liquids represent the greatest volume of hazardous material shipped in the United States; • The most common form of transportation for hazardous materials is by truck at 53.9 percent; and • Of all materials shipped in the United States, 17.8 percent are hazardous materials. 1.3.3 Annual Normalized Risk for Selected Hazardous Materials3 Table 1-4 presents the annual normalized risk associated with the transportation of several categories of hazardous materials and is based on the general categories of (1) toxic inhalation (SOURCE: Duych, Ron; Ford, Chester; and Sanjani, Hossain, Hazardous Materials Highlights – 2007 Commodity Flow Study, Special Report, RITA Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, January 2011) Tons Ton-Miles Mode of Transportation Total Tonnage (K) % Hazardous % Non- Hazardous Total Ton-Miles (M) % Hazardous % Non- Hazardous Highway 8,778,713 13.7 86.3 1,342,104 7.7 92.3 For-hire truck 4,075,136 12.1 87.9 1,055,646 6.0 94.0 Private truck 4,703,576 15.0 85.0 286,457 14.2 85.8 Rail 1,861,307 7.0 93.0 1,344,040 6.9 93.1 Maritime 403,639 37.1 62.9 157,314 23.6 76.4 Air (includes truck & air) 3,611 Not Reported 90.2 4,510 Not Reported 96.1 Pipeline 650,859 96.6 3.4 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Multiple modes 573,729 19.4 80.6 416,642 10.3 89.7 Parcel, U.S.P.S. or Courier 33,900 0.7 99.3 27,961 0.5 99.5 Other multiple modes 113,841 49.8 50.2 46,402 37.3 62.7 Other and unknown modes 271,567 3.1 96.9 33,764 4.3 95.7 All modes 12,543,425 17.8 82.2 3,344,658 9.7 90.3 Table 1-3. Hazardous versus non-hazardous materials by mode of transportation, 2007. (SOURCE: Hwang, Steve T.; Brown, David F.; O’Steen, James K.; Policastro, Anthony J.; and Dunn, William E. Risk Assessment for National Transportation of Selected Hazardous Materials, Transportation Research Record 1763, Paper No. 01-2217, Transportation Research Board, 2001; the reference for the full document Brown, D.F., W.E. Dunn and A.J. Policastro, A National Risk Assessment for Selected Hazardous Materials in Transportation, Argonne National Laboratory, December 2000, ANL/DIS-01-1) Total Amount of Annual Risk Normalized Risk Material Injuries per Year Fatalities per Year Injuries per million ton- mile s Fatalities per million ton-miles All TIH materials No sheltering or mitigation 846 16 0.11 0.0021 With passive sheltering 85 2.3 0.011 0.00030 LP Gas 15 4.2 0.010 0.0028 Gasoline 21 11 0.0012 0.00064 Explosives 1.4 0.49 0.0018 0.00061 Table 1-4. Total annual and normalized risk associated with transportation incidents.

8 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned hazard (TIH), (2) Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LP gas), (3) gasoline, and (4) explosives. The data is based on the 2001 TRB study entitled Risk Assessment for National Transportation of Selected Hazardous Materials. This data was derived from commodity flow surveys taken in 1977 and 1993. The data gathered from these two years was combined to produce a data set of between 25 and 60 representative shipments for each hazardous material studied. The risk data provided in Table 1-4 should be compared against previous risk assessments performed by the community to determine the appropriate context for that community. To aid in the development of risk assessments related to hazardous materials transportation incidents, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) has developed a framework for risk management as it relates to the transportation of hazardous materials. This product, designated as the Risk Management Self- Evaluation Framework (RMSEF), provides a basic framework for managing risk as part of the hazardous materials transportation process. RMSEF is intended as a tool for various hazardous materials transportation stakeholders (regulators, shippers, carriers, emergency response per- sonnel, and others) to support the integration of risk management and assessment into planning and operations.4 1.3.4 Economic Effects of Selected Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents5 To put these risks into context, it is helpful to consider the costs associated with previ- ous incidents. A peer-reviewed journal article, entitled “Assessing the Economic Effect of Incidents Involving Truck Transport of Hazardous Materials,” provides useful insights into the potential economic consequences associated with hazardous materials transportation incidents as follows: • Injuries and fatalities: Estimated at the amount DOT would spend to avoid an injury or fatal- ity associated with enhanced safety programs. Costs consisted of $200,000 for accident related injuries, $32,000 non-accident related injuries, and $2 million for fatalities. • Cleanup costs: Costs for curbing and removing spilled material. Cleanup costs averaged $34,000 per enroute accident, $1,100 per enroute non-accident spill, and $600 for spills asso- ciated with unloading and loading. • Property damage: Cost of repairing or replacing other vehicles and costs for public and pri- vate property (buildings, utilities, roadways, etc.). These costs averaged $5,900 for enroute accidents, $90 for enroute non-accidents, and $90 for loading and unloading. • Carrier damage: Cost of repairing or replacing vehicle owned by the carrier. Costs aver- aged $36,000 per enroute accident, $130 per enroute non-accident, and $130 for loading and unloading. • Evacuation: Approximately 8 percent of 498 incidents involving Class 3 materials resulted in evacuations, estimated at $1,000 per evacuee. • Product loss: Quantity and value of Class 3 cargo lost. The average costs were $3,800 per spill, $130 per spill for non-accident related incidents, and $80 per spill for loading and unloading incidents. • Traffic incident delay: Based on a 2-hour average duration; 12 hours for major incidents. Five percent of all incidents are classified as major. Average value of time (value of driver’s time plus fuel consumption) used was $15/hour per person. • Environmental damage: Costs after emergency cleanup at the site. The costs are estimated at $1,800 per incident.

Introduction 9 1.4 Other Considerations The following subsections address other foundational recovery terms and concepts that may influence or contribute to the success of a community’s recovery effort. 1.4.1 Transportation Accident or Hazardous Materials Incident? The terms accident and incident are often used interchangeably. For the purposes of this report, an accident is defined as any event that happens unexpectedly without a deliberate plan or cause (www.dictionary.com). An accident involving a vehicle transporting hazard- ous materials becomes a hazardous materials incident if the hazardous material leaks or is involved in a fire, or the potential exists for a release, fire, or other hazard.6 Such incidents can occur during the loading, unloading, transportation, or temporary enroute storage of hazardous materials. 1.4.2 Overlaps between Response and Recovery Consideration of the four phases of integrated emergency management (preparedness, miti- gation, response, and recovery) results in a comprehensive program working continuously to improve a community’s capabilities in an all-hazards approach. Each of these four phases may be addressed separately; however, all four are necessary for a comprehensive program. These phases build upon each other and have periods of overlap where one or more phases are being implemented in tandem. Although this report focuses on recovery planning and operations, the preparedness, miti- gation, and response phases all have the potential to reduce a community’s vulnerability and thereby reduce the consequences of a natural, technological, or manmade incident, thus simpli- fying the recovery phase. Because the recovery phase overlaps with emergency response as opera- tions transition, some direct mention of response is also necessary to ensure proper context. To develop this context, it was necessary to consider documents that differentiate between response and recovery. Although there are various interpretations and definitions of response, this report uses the following description provided in the National Response Framework (NRF) (http:// www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf)as follows: The term response as used in this framework includes immediate actions to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs. Response also includes the execution of emergency plans and actions to support short-term recovery. Further, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states (http://www.epa.gov/region5 superfund/eerb.html) Emergency response actions are quick, relatively low-cost activities that address substantial threats from hazardous substances. . . . While threats confronted by the emergency response program (Superfund Emergency Response) vary greatly in size, nature, and location, there is a common element in all cases— time. Prompt action is crucial. Likewise, recovery has been characterized using a variety of terms and definitions. The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) defines recovery as follows: Those capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an incident to recover effectively, includ- ing, but not limited to, rebuilding infrastructure systems; providing adequate interim and long-term housing for survivors; restoring health, social, and community services; promoting economic develop- ment; and restoring natural and cultural resources.7

10 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Further, the NDRF8 provides the following distinctions for characterizing the phases of recovery: • Short-term Recovery – Phase of recovery that addresses the health and safety needs beyond rescue, the assessment of the scope of damages and needs, the restoration of basic infrastruc- ture and the mobilization of recovery organizations and resources including restarting and/ or restoring essential services for recovery decisionmaking. • Intermediate Recovery – Phase of recovery that involves returning individuals and families, critical infrastructure and essential government or commercial services back to a functional, if not pre-disaster state. Such activities are often characterized by temporary actions that pro- vide a bridge to permanent measures. • Long-term Recovery – Phase of recovery that may continue for months to years and addresses complete redevelopment and revitalization of the damaged area, rebuilding or relocating damaged or destroyed social, economic, natural, and built environments, and a move toward self-sufficiency, sustainability, and resilience. This report utilizes these descriptions and explanations with the understanding that early aspects of recovery will overlap with response activities. 1.4.3 Challenges in Determining the Beginning of the Recovery Phase Whether addressing recovery from the standpoint of a hazardous materials transportation incident or another type of catastrophe, choosing a precise start and end point is difficult. Even key resources, such as the NRF, Government Accountability Office (GAO) documentation on response and recovery, American Red Cross resources, and the NDRF, do not provide guidance on a starting point for recovery. In fact, the NDRF states Recovery begins with pre-disaster preparedness and includes a wide range of planning activities. The NDRF clarifies the roles and responsibilities for stakeholders in recovery, both pre- and post-disaster. It recognizes that recovery is a continuum and that there is opportunity within recovery. It also recognizes that when a disaster occurs, it impacts some segments of the population more than others.9 Although the actual starting point for recovery cannot be easily pinpointed or tied to a par- ticular action, initial recovery begins when the immediate threat of the incident has been miti- gated and work begins to remediate the consequences of the incident. This point occurs during the transition from response to recovery, and the activities that occur during this transition period are considered by many to be primarily response related. However, the specific activities addressed in this report (e.g., medical needs, evacuation, sheltering, and decontamination) can have an impact on the recovery of the affected community and are included for this reason. 1.4.4 The Recovery Timeline Recovery operations following a hazardous materials transportation incident can take any- where from a few days to many years depending on the severity of the incident and the materials involved. Figure 1-3 presents the response and recovery phases as a timeline and illustrates how each ramps up and has a time period that overlaps with, or transitions into, other phases. The model presented is from the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency. Here, the Emergency Phase equates to response; the Sustained Emergency/Restoration Phase represents the short-term recovery; and the Recovery & Reconstruction Phase is synonymous with intermediate and long- term recovery. The timeline is presented in weeks. However, depending upon the incident, it can be extended into months or even years.

Introduction 11 (SOURCE: Baird, Malcolm E., Ph.D., P.E., The Recovery Phase of Emergency Management, Vanderbilt Center for Transportation Research (VECTOR), for Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute (ITFI) University of Memphis, January 2010, page 14, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/vector/research/recoveryphase.pdf) Figure 1-3. Recovery timeline.