GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2000 HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS

TRAINING

DOT and Private

Sector Initiatives

Generally

Complement Each

Other

GAO/RCED-00-190

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes 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

Figures Figure 1: HMEP Program Fund Allocations, Fiscal Year 1999 12

Abbreviations

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
Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training
Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-284342 Letr

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.
B-284342

Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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
B-284342

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.

Results in Brief 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 grantrelated 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
B-284342

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.

Background 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

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.
B-284342

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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

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.
B-284342

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.)

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).
B-284342

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

Funding for the HMEP

Program Was Recently

Increased by Requiring

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.

RSPA’s New Rule Increased

Registration Base and Fees

to Fully Fund 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.
B-284342

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.

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.
B-284342

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.

Proceeds From Hazardous

Materials Registration Fees

Pay for Planning 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.

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.
B-284342

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

Figure 1: HMEP Program Fund Allocations, 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

$3.4 •

•

Planning grants

•

$.3

Administration •

$.7

Emergency response guidebook

•

$.4

Training/support activities

$5.1•

Training grants
B-284342

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.

HMEP and Private

Sector Training

Initiatives Generally

Are Not 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.

HMEP Grant Program

Supports Broad ClassroomBased Training for

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
B-284342

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.

The Private Sector’s

Training Initiatives

Primarily Address MaterialSpecific and ContainerSpecific 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
B-284342

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.
B-284342

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

Privately Funded

Training Is Not

Intended to Comply

With Federal 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 industryfunded 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.

Agency Comments 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.
B-284342

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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
Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

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

1998.1 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

1 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.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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.
Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

Appendix II

Federal Regulations and National Standards

for Hazardous Materials Emergency Response

Training ApendxiI

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.

Specific Training

Requirements Set Out for

First Responders

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
Appendix II

Federal Regulations and National Standards

for Hazardous Materials Emergency

Response Training

Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

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 OSHAapproved 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.
Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

Appendix III

HMEP Training Grants for Responding to

Hazardous Materials Emergencies, Fiscal

Years 1993 Through 1999 ApendxiI

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

Massachusetts 100,507 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 Hampshire 36,578 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
Appendix III

HMEP Training Grants for Responding to

Hazardous Materials Emergencies, Fiscal

Years 1993 Through 1999

Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

a Fiscal year 1993 grants were higher because funding came from fees collected in fiscal years 1992

and 1993.

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 Virginia 0 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 tribes 88,012 104,161 87,717 73,866 99,516 97,697 97,601

Total $5,108,105 $3,576,277 $3,110,950 $3,747,032 $3,831,653 $3,814,158 $5,118,079

(Continued From Previous Page)
Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-190 Hazardous Materials Training

Appendix IV

RSPA’s HMEP Program Expenses for

Hazardous Materials Emergency Response,

Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1999 ApendxiIV

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.

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

(348206) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00