Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0020
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2015-09-25T04:00Z

Notes from discussion with Phil Oakes and Jim Narva, International Association of Fire Marshalls, concerning Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Regulations, July 2012.
Also results of discussion with Mark Howard  -  Arizona Emergency Response
In reciting their experience and positions, it's clear they all have expertise in this area.
Phil thought the subpart C and D rules were vague and generic.
265.37- Rule fails to mention the frequency by which the generator is supposed to reach out to emergency responders. Phil (and Mark) both emphasized the importance and need to reach out and establish relationships and face-to-face contact with emergency responders. See reg text below. 
 (a) The owner or operator must attempt to make the following arrangements, as appropriate for the type of waste handled at his facility and the potential need for the services of these organizations:
Jessica pointed out that there is no requirement in 265.37 to familiarize emergency responders with the quantities of HW generated. See below.
(a)(1) Arrangements to familiarize police, fire departments, and emergency response teams with the layout of the facility, properties of hazardous waste handled at the facility and associated hazards, places where facility personnel would normally be working, entrances to roads inside the facility, and possible evacuation routes;
265.52  -  Size of contingency plan determines level of use with fire department. Both Phil and Mark mentioned that the fire chief will review the contingency plan, with underlings as needed. Both mentioned the need for an executive summary or Cliff Notes that fire department could use to address the first few minutes of the incident. Once nature and extent of emergency was determined, then emergency responders could revert back to detailed contingency plan. 
Note: I put in a request to both Jim and Phil to see whether they could send us a template or example of what they were talking about.    
Both Phil and Mark mentioned the need to exercise their contingency plan. However, as we all know, incorporating that into a regulatory requirement would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare.
 Phil mentioned the need to have a hard copy of the contingency plan always available. Despite all the technology available to everyone, there are still many emergency responders, particularly in rural areas, where a computer is not available.
If computers were available, emergency or first responders would still need a slim version of contingency plan to quickly review and plan course of action before actually responding.
Phil also mentioned that hospitals may need copies, particularly if they need to prepare for unique situations in responding. He used the example of a local petroleum refinery that would need a specific type of medication should a fire or accident occur.
Besides hospitals and fire departments, the local planning emergency commissions would also need copies to prepare for area wide emergency response situations.
 I raised the issue of the emergency responder having to "walk on water" to do his/her job effectively. Phil mentioned that the operations manager would most likely be that person. He also mentioned that he thought the operations manager should familiarize himself with local response capabilities. 
I mentioned the discussion I had with Mark Arnold who thought facilities subject to EPCRA reporting should also provide hazardous waste information, particularly if they were using Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS). I have an email into Craig Mattihisen in the Office of emergency Management to follow-up on this idea.
Kristin brought up the issue of Hazardous Waste Label and how we could improve upon the existing requirement.
Discussion got into the use of DOT placarding, concerns about redundancy with DOT requirements, whether the ERG book was better than the NIOSH Book in terms of chemical names, whether a Life Safety Code would help, and the role of local enforcement in determining what might be an appropriate label. (Could use some help here.)
Phil mentioned that SQGs also need to reach out to local responders and let them know what stuff they have on site. Phil emphasized the need for emergency responders to be aware of the hazards posed as well as generators. 
Phil thought that the contingency planning process is already there, facilities and emergency responders just have to apply/test out those plans.