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.

117 7.1 Overview This section contains a list of shortfalls in information and guidance identified during the development of this report, as well as possible approaches for closing these gaps. The options for closing these gaps consider the differing capabilities and available resources among large, medium, small, rural, and urban communities, as well as among communities within any of the potential subsets. 7.2 Restitution and Funding Guidelines Financial assistance for local communities is a major element of successful recovery oper- ations. However, the project team’s research found a lack of clarity between and among the various funding mechanisms that could come into play, potentially making it difficult for local communities to receive financial assistance in a timely manner. 7.2.1 Gap: Clear Guidance Needed on Funding Sources for Recovery There appears to be confusion and misunderstanding regarding funding for response to, and recovery from, a hazardous materials transportation incident. There are some entities that believe the Stafford Act is a primary funding source. This is compounded by a mistaken belief that the NRF is tied directly to Stafford Act funding. For example • Current guidance makes it clear that response and recovery activities associated with oil spills that are on, or impact, waterways are paid through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), while releases of other types of hazardous materials (not based on oil or petroleum) are reim- bursed through Superfund. Limits have been established for each of these funds; however, there is no discussion of what happens when those limits have been reached and the recovery operations are not yet completed. In such cases, it is unclear whether EPA or the USCG could go back to Congress for additional funding (in the case of the Stafford Act, if the original allo- cation from Congress for a particular disaster is exceeded, FEMA may request an additional allocation from Congress). • If the funds from the responsible party are also exhausted, and the per incident limits imposed by the OSLTF or Superfund are met, it is unclear if the Stafford Act would apply, because the President would have to declare a major disaster and activate the Public Assistance Program, and Congress would have to allocate the necessary funds. The question of duplication of ben- efits also still exists, since the OSLTF or the Superfund could still have money even when an incident limit is reached. C H A P T E R 7 Gap Analysis

118 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Option: One potential approach to closing this gap would be for the EPA, USCG, and FEMA to develop clear and detailed guidance for each of the funding sources applicable to recovery from a hazardous materials transportation incident. This guidance document could explain the funds outline the limits, explain the process for securing funding from the potentially respon- sible party, describe eligible costs, and provide information on the claims process. Further, this guidance document could clearly articulate the relationship (or lack thereof) between the Staf- ford Act and the other funding sources. 7.3 Planning and Source Documentation Many communities are not specifically planning for response to, and recovery from, a large- scale hazardous materials transportation incident. It is known that such an incident is possible, especially with the amount of these materials being transported and the fact that most are trans- ported by truck. However, planning at the local and regional levels appears to be conducted more for local, small hazardous materials transportation incidents, rather than a large incident that could devastate a community regardless of its size, possibly involve multiple jurisdictions, and/or affect a large geographic area. 7.3.1 Gap: Coordinated Response and Recovery Planning Guidance Needed for Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents Review of the federal documents considered in developing this report shows that there are two primary documents available to local communities to assist in planning for hazardous materials transportation incidents. These are as follows: • EPA National Response Team – Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Guide (2001). This guidance document presents background information on the various environmental laws and walks through the planning process using a step-by-step approach. These guidelines address fixed-site facilities through the Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act and transportation incidents. EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis (the “Green Book”) may be used to assist local communities in ranking hazards posed by less prevalent but extremely hazardous substances. • DOE Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program (TEPP) – TEPP Planning Products Model Procedure Hazardous Materials Incident Response (2007) contains recommended actions for response to a hazardous materials transportation incident that involves radioactive materials. The NRT planning guidelines address the need for communitywide emergency plans con- sistent with other planning guidance from FEMA. The DOE document provides the basis for an incident-specific response plan to be used by hazardous materials teams responding to an incident involving radioactive materials. There is no indication that these two documents have been coordinated to ensure that the information presented in each is current, compatible, and applicable. Also, the NRT planning document is 10 years old, while the DOE guidance is 5 years old. Further, there is no indication of a schedule for review and update of either document. A third document, which is available through TRB, is HMCRP Report 5: A Guide for Assess- ing Community Emergency Response Needs and Capabilities for Hazardous Materials Releases, prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH. Though not specifically planning guid- ance, this document provides the local community with tools to perform risk assessments, shows how to determine response needs and capabilities and how to fill the shortfalls, and discusses response operations.

Gap Analysis 119 Option: One possible solution that could close this gap would be for the NRT and TEPP to work together to develop a single planning document for local communities encompassing fixed hazardous materials sites and hazardous materials transportation incidents and including all major types of hazardous materials. This should consider the work included in HMCRP Report 5 and this report. At a minimum, both programs could also consider a regular schedule for updat- ing these planning guidelines. 7.3.2 Gap: A Single Repository is Needed for Hazardous Materials Background and Source Materials Public access to background information regarding hazardous materials, and more specifically hazardous materials transportation incidents, appears to be widely dispersed between numerous public and private entities. From a federal agency standpoint, information is available from EPA, USCG, DOT, DOE, OSHA, FEMA, the CDC, and the National Fire Academy (NFA). Each of these entities has multiple components that develop and publish background information. Each of the referenced agencies also has differing responsibilities related to managing, transporting, and regulating hazardous materials. Additionally, industry maintains databases on various haz- ardous materials. For example, the rail industry annually publishes the most commonly shipped or released commodities and CHEMTREC maintains technical information on chemicals. As local communities work to develop and/or update their emergency plans to include response and recovery operations for hazardous materials transportation incidents, a single repository of this information would be invaluable. Another issue is the difficulty in bringing all relevant characteristics of hazardous materials together in one database. This difficulty results from the lack of a common identifier code. Most databases listed have distinct purposes (e.g., USCG CHRIS Manual is designed specifically for hazardous materials behavior in water, OSHA is for workplace impacts, etc.). The development of a crosswalk of harmonized identification codes across agencies would be valuable. Option: An approach to closing this gap could be for the identified agencies to work together to develop a single repository for planning guidance and background information relating to hazardous materials. This single repository could be something similar to, or perhaps even lever- age, the DHS Homeland Security Digital Library (www.hsdl.gov) or FEMA’s Lessons Learned Information Sharing site (www.llis.gov). 7.3.3 Gap: Minimal Information has been Compiled on Long-Term Recovery from Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents As with other types of disasters, both natural and manmade, there appears to be little infor- mation available regarding long-term recovery for local communities impacted by hazardous materials transportation incidents. There are federal and state requirements for the prepara- tion of an after-action report and corrective action plan following the response to any incident. However, there are no such requirements in relation to recovery operations, more specifically, the long-term recovery component. For large-scale disasters and incidents, recovery operations may require many months or even years from the time of the incident. As these operations come to a close, there is little media attention, response agencies and departments have moved on to other activities, and elected officials are typically concerned with more current/pressing issues. There is a significant need within the emergency management community for access to documentation on long-term recovery lessons learned and best practices. Option: One approach to closing this gap could be for FEMA, in conjunction with NEMA, to explore the reasonableness of modifying the National Incident Management System (NIMS)

120 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned to incorporate a recommendation that after-action reports covering the stabilizing, mid-term recovery activities, and long-term phases of recovery be developed for any incident. If it is found to be a reasonable requirement, appropriate guidance could then be developed. Another option would be to utilize the DOT 5800 Report, which may be the most adaptable report to capture details on recovery and mitigation. 7.3.4 Gap: A Current National Risk Assessment is Needed for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials Emergency plans are typically risk based. However, the available data on hazardous materials transportation appears to be mostly outdated. Furthermore, in 2000, DOT commissioned an assessment of the effectiveness of its hazardous materials transportation program. One of the key findings of that study was that DOT’s Strategic Plan did not highlight the risks associ- ated with hazardous materials.1 The report made recommendations for addressing this finding. For communities to put their risk for a hazardous materials transportation incident into the appropriate context, it would be helpful to have an updated national risk assessment for the transportation of hazardous materials similar to that presented in Table 1-4 in Section 1.2.2 of this report. Option: One approach for addressing this gap could be for DOT to develop a national risk assessment and process for regular updates that would show the risks for transporting hazardous materials across all modes of transportation. This risk assessment could then be posted on the DOT website, such that it would be easily accessible to local communities. 7.4 Long-Term Consequences, Decontamination, and Cleanup of Hazardous Materials There appear to be key gaps in documentation related to long-term recovery. For example, there is a large amount of information relating to the short-term consequences of exposure to various hazardous materials, but minimal information on the long-term consequences. In rela- tion to building materials, there is almost no information on the long-term effects of various hazardous materials. This same lack of information also exists with decontamination, especially in relation to when decontamination is required, and finally with cleanup operations involving debris management. 7.4.1 Gap: Documentation Needed on the Long-Term Effects of Hazardous Materials Very little information was found relating to the longer-term consequences to humans of exposure to hazardous materials. This lack of information also applies to the consequences of exposure of construction materials, such as wood, steel, concrete, asphalt, etc., to hazardous materials. For a local community to be able to adequately understand the full consequences of a hazardous materials transportation incident, background material on the short- and long-term consequences of exposure to hazardous materials is vital. This background material needs to cover both the human impacts, as well as those for the infrastructure and the systems that use that infrastructure. Option: A possible solution to close this gap could be for EPA and CDC to encourage more research relating to the long-term consequences of exposure to hazardous materials. Local com- munities ultimately need this information to be able to plan for long-term medical care for

Gap Analysis 121 victims and responders. Communities will also need information on the impacts to building materials so they can create proper inspection procedures and determine how to proceed following hazardous materials transportation incidents. 7.4.2 Gap: Published Guidelines Needed on Planning for Decontamination Operations Although there have been numerous guidelines developed by professional organizations, private companies, fire departments, and state agencies related to decontamination operations, these are mostly narrow in focus and tailored to the specific needs of the organization. For the private com- panies, much of the guidance was related to proprietary products. Most of the fire departments and professional organizations were focused on the use of water. The state guidelines typically focused on specific contaminants and did not provide general guidance. There were also numer- ous documents related to decontaminating patients in hospitals, but little information on when such decontamination would be required. Also, none of this guidance provided insight into when decontamination should be started. In addition, no information was found for establishing decon- tamination operations and procedures in the field for other than water hose-offs for responders. DOE has published some guidelines through their TEPP program. Their decontamination guide, TEPP Planning Products Model Procedure for Radioactive Material or Multiple Hazardous Materials Decontamination, provides guidance for decontamination of emergency responders only when they leave the “hot zone” at either a transportation incident involving only radio- active materials or a transportation incident involving multiple hazardous materials (including radioactive material). The EPA’s National Decontamination Team is also available to respond to incidents to provide onsite advice regarding decontamination. However, no EPA documents could be found relating to when decontamination would be required. This same lack of guid- ance also applies to decontamination of animals and livestock. The few documents we found provided good information for decontamination with water, but the documents were more of a procedural approach than a planning guideline. As local communities develop or update their hazardous materials plans, comprehensive guid- ance on decontamination operations would be extremely helpful. These operations can be time- consuming and expensive. Some questions that planners need answers to include the following: • What hazardous materials require decontamination of people and structures? • What decontaminants are recommended under what kinds of situations? Or, is a thorough wash-down with water sufficient? • What is the recommended approach to decontamination? • If decontamination is required, to what level should people and structures be decontaminated? “How clean is clean?” • Can community residents perform “self decontamination”? • How are decontamination materials collected and properly disposed of? Other areas that local community planners need to address include the following: • How to evacuate and decontaminate animals from the local zoo or wild animal park if they are in the contaminated area; • If the incident occurs at or near a tourist venue (stadium, amusement park, etc.): – How do you control and decontaminate the visitors? – How do you provide for their comfort and needs if they have to be quarantined or seques- tered for a period of time? – How do you track them (especially out-of-town visitors)? – How do you/they take care of their needs or issues back home?

122 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned Contamination of foodstuffs is also an area of concern. Our research identified a few federal guidance documents, but these were primarily related to intentional contamination of food and dealt primarily with grocery stores and restaurants. In a disastrous hazardous materials trans- portation incident, it would be reasonable to assume that if buildings have been contaminated, then the foodstuffs in grocery stores, restaurants, and homes in the affected area would also be contaminated. How do homeowners and proprietors dispose of the contaminated foodstuffs? This also raises questions in relation to debris management and the collection of the contami- nated foodstuffs. Option: One approach for closing this gap could be for the National Decontamination Team to take the lead in developing comprehensive guidelines for decontamination opera- tions. At a minimum, these guidelines could address when decontamination is required, the best methods and materials to use for decontamination, and how to dispose of the materials used for decontamination. 7.4.3 Gap: Planning and Operational Guidance Needed for Dealing with Debris Contaminated by Hazardous Materials RCRA tells us that contaminated debris must be either decontaminated or placed in appropri- ate vessels for disposal at a recognized hazardous materials disposal site. The Public Assistance Debris Management Guide, FEMA 325, provides information on (1) contracting, managing, and establishing temporary storage and reduction sites and (2) the handling of disaster debris. How- ever, there appears to be no guidance on how to pick up and manage contaminated debris follow- ing a hazardous materials incident, whether a fixed site or a transportation incident. This leaves many questions for which local communities need answers to be able to develop appropriate debris management plans. The element of contamination makes these operations significantly different than debris management following other types of disasters. Some of the issues that need to be addressed include, but are not limited to the following: • How do businesses dispose of contaminated inventory and furnishings? • How do residents dispose of contaminated furnishings? • How do grocery stores, restaurants, and residents dispose of contaminated foodstuffs? • What are the procedures for decontaminating debris in a temporary storage and reduction site? • Who is responsible for the relocation of contaminated debris from a temporary storage and reduction site to a permanent storage area? • What can local communities do to help their citizens prepare for a hazardous materials trans- portation incident? Option: One possible approach for closing this gap could be for EPA, USCG, DOE, and DOT to develop a debris management guide for hazardous materials similar to the guidance developed by FEMA for debris generated by natural disasters. The guide could address what personal protective equipment (PPE) is required for the various contaminants, how to collect contaminated debris, how to decontaminate debris, and how to store and transport contami- nated debris to a permanent storage area. Additional guidance for home and business owners on how to dispose of furnishings, foodstuffs, and inventories could also be very helpful for preparedness activities. 7.5 Evacuation and Victim Tracking Tracking of evacuees and victims after an incident is of importance to local communities, especially as it relates to locating and reuniting families or making arrangements for debris to be removed from private property. In the case of a pending hurricane when entire communi-

Gap Analysis 123 ties are evacuated, it is necessary for the community to be able to find these individuals and to be able to make contact with them if for no other reason than to address issues of debris on their property. Many areas around New Orleans experienced this problem following Hurricane Katrina (2005), where piles of debris remained for several years because the local government could not locate the property owners and the government could not go on to private property to remove the debris. 7.5.1 Gap: A Simple Internet-Based System Needed for Tracking Evacuees that Accounts for Decontamination and Medical Assistance Historically, as individuals check in to a shelter, their names and contact information are collected. This helps later in the recovery when families are being reunited. However, when indi- viduals do not go to a shelter, it is very difficult to track these people. This issue becomes even more complicated for a hazardous materials incident that involves decontamination and the potential need for medical intervention. Each community should have the capability of collecting basic information on evacuees and victims to aid in management of the incident. Ideally, this would be a Web-based system wherein the various departments and agencies within the community could have access to find people who have evacuated the area. Even for events with a long lead time (like a hurricane), people could be encouraged to log on, enter name, address of record, phone number, and the address where they are going. For those kinds of incidents where there is no lead time for evacuation, the information could be collected by hand at shelters, reception and decontamination centers, hospitals, clinics, etc. Dates and times of decontamination, medical treatment, etc. should also be entered. The data can be provided to the geographic information systems (GIS) staff to be plotted on a map of the community. In the case where someone has left the area and there is a sig- nificant amount of debris on their property, this data could be used to get in touch with them and secure a right-of-entry agreement that would allow the community to remove the debris from their private property. This is just one example of how such data could be used in the recovery phase. Option: One possible approach for closing this gap could be for the NEMA to develop a tem- plate tracking spreadsheet suitable for loading into a community’s disaster management soft- ware. The tracking spreadsheet could include the individual’s name, home of record, location to which they are evacuating, contact phone number, date and time of decontamination, and date and time of medical treatment. The spreadsheet could be available on line to shelters, medical centers, clinics, reception and decontamination centers, and the community’s EOC. 7.6 Public Information Compared to other types of disasters, both natural and manmade, hazardous materials trans- portation incidents do not appear to generate the same level of national attention that other types of disasters garner. This lack of attention could impact the speed at which assistance is provided to local communities. 7.6.1 Gap: Lack of Public Information Operations Guidance Regarding Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents There is a significant amount of information that can be generated from a hazardous materials transportation incident. This information needs to be clearly communicated with the public in

124 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned simple, non-technical terms. Following a hazardous materials transportation incident, the immedi- ate needs for public information will be to announce that there is a health hazard, what precautions individuals need to take, identification of particular vulnerabilities (respiratory, contact, inges- tion, etc.), the boundaries of where the contamination is located (places to avoid), and symptoms of exposure so people know if they need to go to the hospital immediately. This vital information is then followed by shelter-in-place requirements, information on any required evacuations, and information on the location and operations of reception and decontamination centers. As the operations move into the recovery phase, information will need to be shared with the public on standards that will be employed in decontamination, areas of the environment which may be closed during cleanup, and locations where individuals and businesses can apply for assistance. These types of public information releases should be developed prior to an incident with the incident specifics provided just before release. As the operations progress, and if decontamina- tion is required, it will be extremely important that the parameters (how clean is clean) of the decontamination procedures be clearly presented to the public. Option: A possible approach to closing this gap could be for EPA, USCG, DOE, and CDC to develop a guidance document for PIOs that outlines decontamination requirements and proce- dures. This document could also provide guidance for public information announcements on the issue of the level of decontamination. 7.6.2 Gap: Lack of Standardized Public Education Programs on Hazardous Materials Research suggests that public awareness and understanding of hazardous materials is lacking. In this regard, no information was found regarding procedures or methods for enhancing the public’s knowledge of hazardous materials and transportation issues. A more informed public can be a more prepared public. Option: A possible solution to this gap could be for EPA, USCG, DOE, DOT, and CDC to work together on developing standardized public education programs on hazardous materials and safety issues related to hazardous materials that can be provided to local communities for pre- sentation to the public. These programs could be in the form of public service announcements, fliers to accompany utility bills, web page content, radio campaigns, even ideas for documenta- ries. FEMA could play a role in this effort, because they have a successful record of creating such public education programs for other hazards. 7.7 Summary of Identified Gaps Table 7-1 provides a summary of the identified gaps presented in order of appearance in this section.

Gap Analysis 125 Table 7-1. Summary of identified gaps. Gap Option Clear Guidance Needed on Funding Sources for Recovery One potential approach to closing this gap would be for the EPA, USCG, and FEMA to develop clear and detailed guidance for each of the funding sources applicable to recovery from a hazardous materials transportation incident. This guidance document could explain the fund, outline the limits, explain the process for securing funding from the potentially responsible party, describe eligible costs, and provide information on the claims process. Further, this guidance document could clearly articulate the relationship (or lack thereof) between the Stafford Act and the other funding sources. Coordinated Response and Recovery Planning Guidance Needed for Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents One possible solution that could close this gap would be for the NRT and TEPP to work together to develop a single planning document for local communities encompassing fixed hazardous materials sites and hazardous materials transportation incidents, and including all major types of hazardous materials. At a minimum, both programs could also consider a regular schedule for updating these planning guidelines. A Single Repository is Needed for Hazardous Materials Background and Source Materials An approach to closing this gap could be for the identified agencies to work together to develop a single repository for planning guidance and background information relating to hazardous materials. This single repository could be something similar to, or perhaps even leverage, the DHS Homeland Security Digital Library (www.hsdl.gov) or FEMA’s Lessons Learned Information Sharing site (www.llis.gov). Minimal Information has been Compiled on Long-Term Recovery from Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents One approach to closing this gap could be for FEMA, in conjunction with NEMA, to explore the reasonableness of modifying the National Incident Management System (NIMS) to incorporate a recommendation that after- action reports covering the stabilizing, mid-term recovery activities and long-term phases of recovery be developed for any incident. If it is found to be a reasonable requirement, appropriate guidance could then be developed. Another option would be to utilize the DOT 5800 Report, which may be the most adaptable report to capture details on recovery and mitigation. A Current National Risk Assessment is Needed for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials One approach for addressing this gap could be for DOT to develop a national risk assessment and process for regular updates that would show the risks for transporting hazardous materials across all modes of transportation. This risk assessment could then be posted on the DOT website, such that it would be easily accessible to local communities. Documentation Needed on the Long-Term Effects of Hazardous Materials A possible solution to close this gap could be for EPA and CDC to encourage more research relating to the long-term consequences of exposure to hazardous materials. Local communities ultimately need this information to be able to plan for long-term medical care for victims and responders. They will also need information on the impacts to building materials so they can create proper inspection procedures and determine how to proceed following hazardous materials transportation incidents. (continued on next page)

126 A Compendium of Best Practices and Lessons Learned documentaries. FEMA could play a role in this effort, because they have a successful record of creating such public education programs for other hazards. Planning and Operational Guidance Needed for Dealing with Debris Contaminated by Hazardous Materials One possible approach for closing this gap could be for EPA, USCG, DOE, and DOT to develop a debris management guide for hazardous materials similar to the guidance developed by FEMA for debris generated by natural disasters. The guide could address what personal protective equipment (PPE) is required for the various contaminants, how to collect contaminated debris, how to decontaminate debris, and how to store and transport contaminated debris to a permanent storage area. Additional guidance for home and business owners on how to dispose of furnishings, foodstuffs, and inventories could also be very helpful for preparedness activities. A Simple Internet-Based System Needed for Tracking Evacuees that Accounts for Decontamination and Medical Assistance One possible approach for closing this gap could be for NEMA to develop a template tracking spreadsheet suitable for loading into a community’s disaster management software. The tracking spreadsheet could include the individual’s name, home of record, where they are evacuating to, contact phone number, date and time of decontamination, and date and time of medical treatment. The spreadsheet could be available on line to shelters, medical centers, clinics, reception and decontamination centers, and the community’s EOC. Lack of Public Information Operations Guidance Regarding Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents A possible approach to closing this gap could be for EPA, USCG, DOE, and CDC to develop a guidance document for PIOs that outlines decontamination requirements and procedures. This document could also provide guidance for public information announcements on the issue of the level of decontamination. Lack of Standardized Public Education Programs on Hazardous Materials A possible solution to this gap could be for EPA, USCG, DOE, DOT, and CDC to work together on developing standardized public education programs (on hazardous materials and safety issues related to hazardous materials) that can be provided to local communities for presentation to the public. These programs could be in the form of public service announcements, fliers to accompany utility bills, web page content, radio campaigns, even ideas for Gap Option used for decontamination. Published Guidelines Needed on Planning for Decontamination Operations One approach for closing this gap could be for the National Decontamination Team to take the lead in developing comprehensive guidelines for decontamination operations. At a minimum, these guidelines could address when decontamination is required, the best methods and materials to use for decontamination, and how to dispose of the materials Table 7-1. (Continued).