FEMA1877 December 1989
PROCEEDINGS
1989
NATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TRAINING
MARCH 27-30, 1989
NATIONAL EMERGENCY TRAINING CENTER
EMMITSBURG, MARYLAND
SPONSORED BY
THE NATIONAL RESPONSE TEAM
-------
-------
*****
THE NATIONAL RESPONSE TEAM
al Response Team (NRT) - composed of 14 federal agencies having major responsibilities in environmental
ion. «iw«« management, worker safety, and public health areas - is the national body responsible for '
'««*, preparedness, and response actions related to oil discharges and hazardous substance
are: Environmental Protection Agency (Chair), U.S. Coast Guard (Vice-chair), Department of
r lent of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of State,
' H,",^S Depar^nt of Transportation (Research and Special Programs Administration), Department of
^^^^^^ Management Agency, Department of Energy, Department Labor,
As incidents'involving hazardous materials have attracted more public attention during the past two decades officials
throughout the country have become increasingly concerned about the quality and the SvailAiS^SSfSS^
required so that emergency planning and response personnel (such as members of the fire service and police depart-
ments as wdl as medical workers) can safely and effectively prepare for and respond to hazardous material iSents
To address these concerns, the NRT established a Training Committee in 1985 materials incidents.
rrnJJ U g C°mimttee devel°P«l a "training strategy" accepted by the NRT in fanuary 1987. This strategy
recogmzed that emergency preparedness and response training must be managed at the state and local levels Sderal
involvement; in training should be limited primarily to developing and makingLailable to iLtes an?Sittes selected
courses and programs coordinating federal agency training efforts, and facilitating the flow of inf o^S about frafn
snsord M ^ng its training strateg,
sponsored the National Conference on Hazardous Materials Training in March 1989 egy,
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
j The National Conference on Hazardous Materials Training, sponsored by the National Response
Team, took place March 27 - 30, 1989, at the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg,
Maryland. 160 participants from 46 states, one Indian tribe, two territories, and ten federal
regions attended the conference. The participants included emergency program managers, emer-
gpncy response personnel and administrators, and training specialists. Conference participants
represented the full range of those involved in hazardous materials emergency preparedness and
response, including first responders, local and state officials, federal government policy makers,
and industry representatives. A full list of participants can be found beginning on page 24.
_The purpose of the conference was to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information about haz-
ardous materials training. The theme of the conference was "WHAT' WORKS". Participants were
invited to share questions and problems they face as well as solutions they might have developed.
The conference was organized around working groups. Over the course of two days, three
working group sessions on each of five different topics were held. In that way, attendees could
participate in three different working groups. The topics for the working group sessions were the
following:
Innovative techniques;
Funding sources;
Federal, state, and local training roles and responsibilities!;
Public-private sector training coordination; and
Title III grant activities.
i
Two leaders had been appointed in advance for each working group. To stimulate discussion,
individuals were invited to deliver introductory remarks for about 20 minutes, offering an example
of "what has worked" in their experience for the topic under discussion. At the final plenary
session, the working group leaders summarized the outcome of the sessions.
These proceedings include the following: the results of an informal survey of participants in ad-
vance of the conference; an overview of each working group; a summary of the various introduc-
tory presentations made at each working group session; the highlights of the information shared
at the conference; a list of recommendations for future action; and a list of participants.
-------
CURRENT STATUS OF HAZMAT
TRAINING
Prior to the Emmitsburg conference, an informal telephone interview with attendees was con-
ducted. The following questions and answers are highlights from these pre-conference interviews.
1. Describe briefly the hazardous materials training program in your state. What do you
consider to be its strengths and weaknesses?
States use various sources to help them with training universities and community colleges,
state fire and police academies, and industry. Courses offered include first responder, hazard
Identification, contingency planning, and EPA courses. Many of these are given in traln-the-
tralner format. State training strengths include the number and variety of courses and delivery by
multi-agency teams. Weaknesses cited were lack of uniformity, inability to reach all local person-
nel, shifting and/or conflicting federal information, off-year funding, inadequate funding, and the
timeliness and breadth of Information.
2. For which groups is your training geared?
Although first responders (fire and police officers and emergency medical technicians) are the
focus for the training, other Individuals (e.g., hospital staff, public officials, and local planners)
also attend.
3. What are the different methods your state uses to conduct training? Which do you
find to be the most effective?
Classroom Instruction is the primary method used to conduct training, followed by hands-on
experience and the use of audio-visual materials. Presentations by expert speakers, teleconfer-
ences, and table-top exercises are less frequently utilized alternatives. Hands-on training is
identified as the most effective method, followed by workshops and seminars.
4. How do you coordinate training with the private sector in your state?
Local emergency management agencies, local emergency planning committees (LEPCs), and
state emergency response commissions (SERCs) usually handle coordination with the private
sector. Industry conducts training for state and local personnel, or invites them to participate in
on-going training. Some states conduct workshops for the private sector for a fee.
&. How do you coordinate training with your local emergency planning committees
and/or local governments?
Training coordination Is handled through the emergency management community network of
LEPCs, state and local emergency management agencies, the National Fire Academy, and local fire
departments. Mass mailings of training literature and follow-up calls for course invitations are
the primary methods of coordinating training activities.
6. Aside from funding, specifically, how can the federal government assist you in your
training efforts?
There is demand for an Increase in the number of federal courses train-the-trainer, recogni-
tion and hazards identification, first response, spills control, and industry-specific courses (e.g.,
mining) -- and for courses geared to different educational levels. Additional resources (e.g.,
-------
CURRENT STATUS OF HAZMAT TRAINING
[
audio-visual materials, software specifically related tn SARA T TTT
supplies of printed materials) Is needed ^ More tasf^ct^,^ J" " re'*u*ements, and adequate
teach field courses and explain Title m req^e^ente anS ?
""I
anu srssis: ussusss'iisss taT -r-1 ~
SSa^^^^
tlon and certification Issues. moatlon on public/private sector ventures, and legisla-
*>°ut
for better coordination among fedeaien
ma,eria]s faatatog in
-nore effecuve tra.n.ngand
is on hazmat teams, and the need
for
^lude standards for
EMI train-the-trainer courses pn^o tSS lo^t' ^/^ FEMA clas*es; completion of NFA/
and/cir NFPA standards. training locals; and adherence to state fire academy, OSHA,
I
11. jHas your state made any use of eoxnputers In training (e.g., HMIX or CAMEO)*
e is occasional use of computers, but many states and localities do not have them
iike t
fund their programs, and the oss^r^SSS^SZ81? ^ finfI« ~ h^ other states
development of a uniform training format wtthSSi ^f m? ^ fr°m Other sources " ^d the
quiring attention are questioToflSgSo^d S3SS1 ^^ C°Ur£ieS' Othter issues re'
training will be required imSa*on and Lability that states may have to face, and what
-------
WORKING GROUP SUMMARIES
1: INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES
Leaders:
Jenny Records, Idaho Emergency Response Commission
Jim Licklider, Superintendent, Nevada Hazmat Training Academy
Introductory Presentation:
Craig DeAtiey, Director. Emergency Medical Service Degree Program; George Washington
University: Washington, DC (see page 7)
Focus:
and issues surrounding the implementation of hazardous materials tratoing and
developed for hazardous materials training. The general
issues covered by the participants included:
Training beyond initial awareness training;
Interagency coordination;
. Training distribution and curriculum standardization; and
I Community and public official apathy to hazardous materials training issues.
2: FUNDING SOURCES
Leaders:
Dan Williams, Illinois Fire Marshall's Office
Brooke Hefner, Wyoming Emergency Management Agency
Steve Herman, Arizona Department of Public Safety
Introductory Presentation:
Steve Herman, Arizona Department of Public Safety
Focus:
The availability and diversity of funding, including:
Legislative appropriations;
Hazmat fees (producers, storers, users, and transporters);
User fees (students);
Corporate funding;
Federal/state/local funding; and
Grants from industry and/or foundations.
Funds were viewed as a means to an end - the end being "productive training." With imagi-
substitutes for cash can be found to cover the costs of training in non-cash ways.
-------
WORKING GROUP SUMMARIES
3: FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TRAINING
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Leaders:
i . '
Introductory Presentation:
' "--<<». and
; v*^ Department
Focus:
* Who needs to receive the training? '
What are the available delivery strategies?
How is training done?
-------
WORKING GROUP SUMMARIES
4; PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR COORDINATION
Leaders:
Introductory Presentations:
Gres Render Signal Hill Fire Department; Belleville, Illinois (see page 7)
SS£ Emergency Management Office, New York State (see page10)
S^asSies,NewJerseyOfficeofEmergencyManagement seepage 11)
Jim O'Donnell, Industrial Safety Council, California (see page 10)
Focus:
Factors inhibiting public and private cooperation and possible solutions, with emphasis on
the following:
Lack of leadership;
M Fragmented interagency coordination;
« Poor communication of needs and low public awareness; and
Liability and legal issues.
5: TITLE III GRANT ACTIVITIES
Leaders:
Peter Jensen, Office of Emergency Management; Racine County, Wisconsin
William Klein. Alabama Emergency Management Agency.
Introductory Presentation:
Peter Jensen. Office ofEmergency Management; Racine County, Wisconsin (seepage 11)
Focus:
responders.
-------
WHAT WORKS... §6me Examples
Medical Surveillance of Hazmat Responders
j Craig DeAtley (Director, Emergency Medical Service Degree Program, George Washington Uni-
versity) reported that as a result of a hazmat incident in which several emergency room personnel
were themselves seriously injured by exposure to hazardous materials while treating contami-
nated patients, he and his coUeagues constructed a two-part, 44-hour course that combines
lectures, discussions, case studies and simulation exercises.
| The course outlines the problems hazardous materials pose to pre-hospital care providers.
The first two days of the training address basic hazmat information, foUowed by three days on the
implications of hazardous materials for medical personnel. The training is organized around 20
case studies that illustrate concepts and provide practice in applying them. Practical hands-on
wprk is emphasized, and differing types of instructional media are used throughout the training.
The course is taught by expert medical guest faculty with 5 or more years of hazmat experience
College credit is available.
, To date, training participants have been of varying ages and have had a wide range of experi-
ence with hazardous materials. The occupational background of the students has been split
between fire/EMS personnel and hospital personnel. This training course should be beneficial to
all physicians, nurses, and EMS personnel who may have contact with hazardous materials
themselves or patients who may be contaminated with hazardous materials.
Gateway Hazardous Materials Network
I Greg Render (Signal Hill Fire Department; Belleville, Illinois) reported that the Gateway Haz-
ardous Materials Network was established to coordinate hazmat activities and increase emer-
gency response capabilities for fire departments and industries in the St. Louis area. The net-
work is an association of business representatives and public emergency response agencies and
was established as a voluntary non-profit group of first responders, fire fighters, and police at the
local, state, and federal levels. Support for operating costs is provided by the members of the
network, with the bulk of financial support coming from chemical, manufacturing, and transpor-
tation companies.
i The Training Committee of the Gateway Network uses scripted training exercises to prepare
first responders for effective reaction to incidents. These exercises involve local first responder
groups, and most importantly, local industry. Combined exercises prcimote public and private
sector cooperation. Industry provides expertise, technical resources, and funds, and is involved
in the governmental decision-making process.
-------
WHAT WORKS... Some Examples
Virginia's Approach to Hazardous
Materials Training
Norm McTague (Director, Program Development, Evaluation, and Training; Virginia Department
of Emergency Services) reported that the Commonwealth of Virginia has developed a hazardous
materials training curriculum that is segmented into different levels of training. This program
began in 1983 with the establishment of an ad hoc committee initially composed of representa-
tives of several state agencies. This group was later enlarged to include all parties interested in
hazardous materials training, such as local government and industry representatives, the com-
mittee designed and developed a broad-based, functional training program that satisfied the re-
quirements of all the state agencies. The program is segmented into different levels of training
and emphasizes performance standards or functional skills.
Level I training provides a 12 to 16 hour basic orientation and introduction to hazardous ma-
terials and is flexibly designed to be taught In one, two, four, or eight hour blocks.
Level II training consists of three or four separate classes that require a minimum of 40
hours and an optimum of 48 hours to complete. Two of the classes are adopted from the Na-
tional Fire Academy course on strategy and tactics for responding to hazardous materials inci-
dents. The other two classes are optional. One addresses strategies and tactics for controlling
spills using commonly available tools, equipment, and materials. The other course, primarily
directed toward rescue squad personnel, provides training in basic life support and pre-hospital
care for victims of chemical accidents.
Level III training is a series of specialized classes for individuals designated to be members of
hazardous materials response teams. A total of six courses, requiring over 200 hours to com-
plete, covers the chemistry of hazardous materials, personal protective equipment, decontamina-
tion, monitoring equipment, strategy and tactics, and hazmat team organization and functions.
Level IV training is nonsequential and is restricted to managers and coordinators who plan
for and direct hazardous materials emergency response operations. This training is not more
advanced than level in; rather it emphasizes issues that are pertinent to planners and coordina-
tors. , Level IV training consists of three courses that are concerned with incident command,
planning and coordination, and simulated management activities. Level IV requires 40 hours to
complete.
The committee also developed a delivery mechanism that emphasized both state and local
resources. Local Instructors are trained to teach specific classes in the curriculum. Upon com-
pletion of instructor training programs and, In some cases, apprentice periods, these individuals
become adjunct Instructors for the state and deliver training under the auspices of state spon-
sors. Each level of training has specific background and training requirements for the instruc-
tors of that particular level.
Prior to 1987, training was funded by sponsoring state agencies from funds budgeted for a
variety of uses. In many cases, local jurisdictions had to provide all of the funding to receive
hazardous materials training. Since 1987, the Virginia General Assembly has appropriated
funds for hazardous materials training.
8
-------
WHAT WORKS... Some Examples
Getting Help from Industry
: j
i . ,
i Tom Lukish (Dupont) made the following suggestions on how emergency response
organizations can get needed help from industry.
! Industry prefers volunteerism to regulation. CMA's CAER (Community Awareness and
| Emergency Response) program is a completely cooperative effort between industry,
1 community, and emergency organizations. j
I -
\ m Industry will respond to reasonable requests from the community; if you have any
reluctance in approaching local industry, overcome it. Industry wants to help and is
| waiting for you to give us the opportunity so knock on our door, or call us on the
telephone. I
i I
Industry can provide you with:
i
i
j Human resources, such as planners or clerical and professional staff;
Access to and training with computer systems for MSDS aiid chemical toxicity
; information;
i Emergency response plans, standard operating procedures; and checklists;
i Fire-fighting equipment, as well as office equipment, including computers, file cabi-
nets, desks, and even paper;
Chemical training, videotapes and lesson plans, assistance to speakers, and facility
tours; and
j Funds, either through outright contributions, or payments for services rendered.
I . ' '
How can you get this assistance?
First identify your specific needs. For example, you might need:
; Descriptions of facility operations and tour scheduling;
, Training assistance including videotapes and lesson plans; and/or
, Emergency equipment, or office equipment, or anything else, such as computers,
I VCRs, and typewriters.
Then prioritize your needs. (The following criteria may prove useful in this regard.)
Identify the urgency of specific needs within each type of assistance;
Identify risk, if any, if need is not met by industry; and
Separate "needs" into necessities and desirables.
How should you approach industry?
1. Most communities now have an LEPC which represents all key parties in the training world.
This is a very good way to reach several facilities simultaneously, and provides industry with an
opportunity to improve its public relations image in the open forum of the LEPC meeting.
2. Direct communication with the industrial facility is the other alternative. You do not need
to worry too much about why you are there; industry knows the importance of community
outreach and SARA Title III. My recommendation is to initiate contact: with the facility manager.
Start as high up in the organization as possible, and if you have a friend who works at the facil-
ity, ask him/her if they have a better contact.
.
Be sure to describe your needs, explain their importance, and have an open, friendly discus-
sion. You do not need a formal presentation ~ industry does not expect it and neither should
you.
-------
WHAT WORKS... Some Examples
Monroe County (New York) Team
Kevin Neary (Emergency Management Office, New York State) reported that the Monroe
County Team approach was established as a cooperative effort between public agencies and
Industries to ensure adequate hazardous material responses. Prior to this effort, county
hazmat capabilities were fragmented and training was not coordinated. The following are
some of the problems with the county's capability that were identified: limited resources, lack
of coordinated responses, training variations, lack of a consistent incident command system
among parties, and lack of training standards. The Monroe County Team was created with the
following objectives: Increase awareness of emergency management techniques in the commu-
nity; activate an emergency management plan; ensure that personnel are adequately trained;
and develop a data base for emergency planning.
An executive committee comprised of members from public service, private industry, and
public education was formed to guide program development. The goal was to pool resources
and talent and develop an understanding with business and Industry. Also, the committee
defined the best strategy for delivering training, as well as addressing the need for standards
of Instructional techniques. The committee process allowed for input from all Involved parties.
A training program was instituted at a community college to promote awareness and appli-
cation of emergency management techniques in the community. Regular training exercises in-
volving industry ensure that personnel are adequately prepared for hazardous material re-
sponses.
San Mateo County (California) Hazardous Materials
Response Plan and Hazmat Response Unit
Jim OTDonnell (Industrial Safety Council, California) reported that, as a result of efforts
initiated In 1978, an industrial emergency council that brought industry and response organi-
zations In San Mateo County together was formed to foster cooperation between government
and Industry for hazardous material emergency response. The principal focus of this organi-
zation Is to promote training; early activities included development of a regional response
concept and establishment of a county-wide hazmat response system. Training activities
centered around an apprenticeship training model, and exercises are conducted that involve
hazmat organizations and Industries.
A complete description of this effort and organization was presented in a FEMA document
(Monograph Series No. 3) titled "Exemplary Practices In Emergency Management: San Mateo
County California Hazardous Materials Response Plan and Hazmat Response Unit."
10
-------
WHAT WORKS... Some Examples
I
Hazardous Materials Training in New Jersey
I Thomas Davles (New Jersey Office of Emergency Management) reported that, as a result of
the Bhopal incident in December 1984, as well as incidents in New Jersey, five major companies
initiated an effort to provide hazardous materials training in New Jersey by offering grants to
trajin hazmat first responders. Training patterned after NFPA and 29 CFR 1910.120 guidelines
was provided to two counties by the New Jersey State Hazardous Materials Training Program.
Th|e program is administered by the New Jersey/New York Hazardous Materials Worker Training
Center and is partially funded by a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences. A large number of individuals have been trained to date, in most cases on their own
time. With continued industry support, these efforts will be expanded.
Training Needs and Requirements for the Title III Local
Emergency Planning Committeein Racine, Wisconsin
j Peter Jensen (Office of Emergency Management; Racine County, Wisconsin) reported that the
Racine County Office of Emergency Government identified a number of critical training needs to
make the LEPC program meet the intent of SARA and developed several programs to address
these needs.
The Racine County Office of Emergency Government categorized their training needs into
three broad groups: general public education, emergency response training, and supporting
response training. General public education includes the need to make the public aware of the
various elements of Title III, to educate industry on its new reporting responsibilities, and to
instruct the LEPC on its new role and mission. Mass and targeted education programs, such as
providing access to instructional videotapes on MSDSs, were developed to build awareness and
promote knowledge about Title III activities and goals.
i Emergency response training had been an ongoing activity for emergency responders in
Racine County; however, more comprehensive or refresher training was judged necessary for
several groups. For example, a wide disparity between training programs for paid, paid on-call,
and volunteer fire departments was noted, as was a need to increase the incorporation of hazard-
ous materials response techniques into fire training.
I ;
I Finally, training for groups supporting the traditional response community was deemed
desirable even though these groups had in the past not been included in hazardous materials
training. These groups included such organizations as the Red Cross, human services agencies,
and the news media. For example, given the prevalence of farms in Racine County and the exten-
sive use of chemicals in agriculture, education of veterinarians and their inclusion in the warn-
ing and response network is being considered.
11
-------
WHAT WORKS..Information Exchanged
This section includes highlights of the information and ideas shared during working group
sessions. These highlights are divided into four sections: government roles and responsibilities,
funding, the private sector, and Title HI. Innovative techniques are included in several of these
sections.
A. Government Roles and Responsibilities
Development of a successful hazardous materials training program requires the sup-
port of key decisionmakers with the responsibility and authority to provide funds (e.g.,
a local official, a state agency, or a legislative committee). Support of officials at the
local and state level is especially critical.
Studies show that communities that respond well to chemical emergencies have local
officials who support and encourage hazardous materials programs and training. Ap-
proach local and state officials and educate them concerning the benefits and impor-
tance of hazardous materials training and planning.
Apathy regarding hazardous materials incidents and training is a problem in many
states, particularly in rural states and those that are in financial difficulty. Hazardous
materials training often is not a budget priority for state legislatures when funds are
tight.
There seems to be a strong link between hazardous materials incidents, hazardous
materials awareness, and hazardous materials training. Incidents increase awareness
and lead to additional training.
Local and state politicians respond to their constituencies, and should be lobbied di-
rectly. Make your case directly to those who control the funds. Do not assume they
care as much about hazardous materials as you do.
Organize grass roots support. Go to local conservation and ecological groups for help.
« Become involved with special interest groups such as fire, police, and EMS personnel
federations or unions.
Many participants suggested that the federal government develop a national training
plan to provide direction to the states. However, other participants disputed this view
and suggested that each state should develop its own training plan. In this view, the
federal government should only have a minimal role. In any case, a training strategy
must be developed in order for a training program to be implemented.
Communication is the number one problem for locals; they lack the networks needed
to learn about training.
Many participants argued that the federal government should take a lead role in devel-
oping technical training. The federal government has the resources and expertise to
identify common elements of successful state programs, package training materials,
and offer them to the states. This would permit states to tailor the training materials
to their specific needs.
Some said that a formal certification process is needed. On the other hand, some
participants said that national training standards were not necessary because many
standards were available at the state level.
12
-------
WHAT WORKS... Information Exchanged
New OSHA standards (March 1989), as well as NFPA standards, are available.
More flexibility in FEMA instructor certifications would be helpful because more local
trainers would be available.
FEMA standards/requirements may be fostering "non-innovation" because of fear that
innovative programs may not be approved for SARA section 305(a) funding.
There is a need for a list/bibliography of available training courses and providers
(whether standardized or not).
I
Hazmat training should extend beyond likely first respondere; LEPCs, SERCs, and
elected officials need awareness training. j
In general, training delivery should be conducted by local instructors, which requires
the commitment of local officials to allocate personnel and resources. Local instructors
can tailor the training program to the local audience and the local hazmat situation.
Interest in courses decreases if there is not a federal government instructor. Many
courses fill up if taught by a federal employee; the same course led by a state or local
person does not generate the same interest. It appears thai federally sponsored
courses are perceived to be more credible than state or local sponsored training. This
can be resolved by utilizing a team concept in which federal, state, and local instruc-
tors participate in the delivery of the training program.
Los Angeles and other local and state bodies use telelinks available from commercial
services, or public television, or public access channels on cable to provide training.
Public access channels often do not have enough material to fill up their air time, and
are very willing to provide support. For student feedback, use phone calls to ask ques-
tions. For a large telelink effort, set up an 800 number for calls.
Arkansas has a program for hazmat training that uses video for the basic skills. In-
structors are then sent out to cover the more advanced skills, cutting their field time
from five to two days. Students are only allowed into the second part after they have
passed a test on the video portion.
Working with the news media can be an effective way to disseminate information to a
large audience.
'
Training must come together at the local level.
The State of California worked with the Red Cross to develop sheltering plans for
victims of a hazardous materials release. This involved establishing procedures for
people who may have been contaminated.
Because of turnover in the training population and advances in technology, the need
for basic awareness training continues, even after a strong program has been in place
for some time. To meet the need for awareness training and free up instructors for
more advanced courses, Oregon is trying to place all Recognition and Identification
(R&I) and R&I Enhanced training on videotape.
Advanced hazmat training programs are beginning to face a recertification problem:
students that have been trained three or more years ago must be recertified. Little re-
certification training is available. Prince George's County (Maryland) is currently
developing an 8-12 hour, non-hands-on recertification course.
13
-------
WHAT WORKS... Information Exchanged
Periodic turnover of staff, particularly in volunteer fire departments, is a concern. Plan
review must occur each year and the LEPC must consider whether the response per-
sonnel identified in the plan need refresher courses or need to receive training for the
first time (if they are new).
Incident response training of mixed audiences allows the participants to learn from
each other during the course. The goal in emergency response is a coordinated effort
and this will only be accomplished when the different response communities learn first
hand about their peers' techniques for dealing with emergencies. Coordination with
facility emergency response personnel was also recognized as important, with sugges-
tions including a sharing of training materials and joint courses.
An EMS personnel and hospital staff course on dealing with victims of a hazardous
materials release was developed in Wisconsin after it was realized that no training
existed for these vital members of the response community.
» Oregon offers one basic course that is then adapted to particular agencies and taught
by instructors in those specific disciplines. All groups receive the same basic course
material, but the instructors can tailor the course with their own expertise and stu-
dents are more receptive to information delivered by professionals in their own area of
expertise.
Oregon has programs that are recognized or certifiable under OSHA. The measure of
success is the competency of the person trained. Courses are delivered free of charge,
although some adjuncts may charge a minimal fee and present the course with a more
convenient schedule. Of the money dedicated to form hazmat teams in the state, a
certainpercentage is set aside for training teams at the two different levels that will be
developed.
The regional hazmat team approach is used in North Carolina to avoid the need for
every locality to address emergency response competency issues.
Train-the-trainer programs become more important as more extensive curricula are
developed. Inclusion of more topics requires more instructional expertise. In addition,
the need to develop advanced courses takes time away from current instruction. Sug-
gested solutions included cross-training instructors in several of the advanced topics
(do not let them specialize too much); videotaping basic training so that instructor time
is reduced; and videotaping advanced training courses so that a new instructor can get
some "instant" training, and old instructors, who have not taught the course in a
while, can get refresher training.
Unless courses are designed carefully, advanced training may have a higher "washout"
rate because the skills are more technically difficult, and the students must be better
prepared (i.e., must have a foundation in basic hazmat).
As advanced trainers develop expertise, they become more in demand, and are often
lost to the local community.
States and localities that have extensive hazmat training curricula beyond awareness
training include California, Oregon, New York, Connecticut, Virginia, and Prince
George's County in Maryland.
Advanced training often requires advanced expertise. Oregon has met this need by
designating adjunct instructors from Industry and the public sector. The state pro-
gram handles the logistics while the instructors conduct the course. Adjunct instruc-
tors are certified fire and police instructors.
14
-------
WHAT WORKS... Information Exchanged
' Interagency coordination is needed to prevent turf battles between state and local
communities competing for limited funding. New Mexico has approached this problem
j by establishing, through state law, a Hazardous Materials Safety Board which requires
i inter-agency coordination. The board has centralized planning and training, and coor-
\ dinates the efforts of the various agencies involved in hazmat. To avoid confusion
: during an incident, New Mexico law also mandates that the state police are always in
charge of a hazmat Incident. Special "Incident Coordinators" from the state police have
I been specially trained in hazardous materials and hazardous materials incidents com-
mand and control.
i
t
' Several states coordinate training available to fire and police; personnel, and when slots
: are available, let each group attend the other's training.
! Colorado trains first responders in the use of the DOT first response handbook. The
i training includes exercises in which participants must locate information in the docu-
j ment. At the training, handbooks are available for sale (at cost).
| Racine County (Wisconsin) realized that veterinarians were an important group in
| largely rural communities. They would be called in the event of livestock exposure to a
I hazardous materials release and could play an important role in informing residents of
i procedures required to protect themselves and their animals.
! Connecticut charges fees to maintain its hazmat training program. The state funds 75
percent of the fee. Attendees pay 25 percent.
; In Montana, the state legislature was petitioned to authorize training delivery via the
; LEPC members. Three-person teams from the LEPCs now deliver training during their
! regular duty hours.
| Wisconsin presented a hazmat planning course to the Racine County LEPC to provide
; its members with some basic skills necessary to complete their planning responsibili-
1 ties.
B. FUNDING
i
; Funding is a means to an end which is "productive training." With imagination, one
can find substitutes for cash (i.e., can cover the costs of training in non-monetary
; ways).
I
! Conducting risk assessments and hazards analyses creates political awareness. Pro-
j fessional staff can then make presentations to state legislative committees. The payoff
is increased funding.
t
j Involve universities as trainers and seek help through their safety offices. An intern
program can be developed with colleges and universities. Interns can be used to con-
; duct studies and reviews.
! Have training needs and development studies conducted through universities and
community colleges.
i
[ "Cast-off' equipment from federal agencies (e.g., the Coast Guard discards its hazmat
S suits every couple of years) and the private sector may be available to use in training.
Working with industry is an important way of substituting for dollars.
i Legislators should be made aware of the information available through Title III and the
work being done by localities. Targeting legislators may help generate increased
funding.
1 ! 15
-------
WHAT WORKS... Information Exchanged
m Nevada has worked extensively with industry to set up a hazardous materials institute.
The railroad industry has donated eight cars from a train wreck for use in simulation
exercises; the trucking industry has agreed to donate a truck; and United Airlines has
agreed to set up a fuselage and cargo hold.
In Idaho, local fire departments receive funding from mining companies for hazmat
equipment and training in exchange for providing a hazardous materials response
capability.
Railroads often provide training free or at a minimal cost, especially to communities
along their right-of-way. Burlington Northern Railroad has developed a four-hour
training course consisting of two hours of classroom instruction and two hours of
practical work. Trainees must provide a classroom.
Minnesota uses the Ashland Oil facility for training. Initially, the state had to overcome
corporate resistance regarding liability. Ashland officials decided, however, that it was
good public relations to allow the use of their training facility. Michigan law covers
industry trainers if they are conducting training as part of a state program.
Michigan is working with industry to develop a joint hazardous materials training
facility. Industry is providing the funding. The facility will be used by both the public
and private sector.
In some states (e.g., Massachusetts) industry funded special conferences for SARA Title
III focused on public officials.
The American Red Cross conducts evacuation training for its employees and volunteer
workers. Delivery of this training created political support for hazardous materials
training and response.
In one state, the Governor directed that all hazmat training be coordinated through one
agency in order to eliminate different agency training requirements for similar jobs.
In several states, training is delivered through community colleges at low cost.
Some states conduct training using instructors from state agencies and industry
(provided at no cost). They charge a small fee to cover the expenses of the trainers and
classroom.
C. THE PRIVATE SECTOR
Work with industry. Meet regularly in a non-adversarial manner. Help each other;
gain trust and rapport.
Industry should be an integral part of hazardous materials training and planning.
Industry can provide support through funding and expertise. In some cases, local
officials must solicit industry support for hazardous materials programs. One approach
promotes industry participation by providing support to industry in meeting the Title III
requirements. If government supports industry, industry may be more likely to support
government programs pertaining to Title III. In addition, it is important that LEPCs
coordinate their response plans with industry plans.
The public sector has not been active enough in seeking assistance from business and
industry. Public agencies may not have asked industry for assistance, or may need to
make more of an effort to get industry involved. In most cases, industry is willing to
assist the public sector, but someone must ask for its involvement.
16
-------
WHAT WORKS.., Information Exchanged
Political and organizational issues (turf) and past history may inhibit efforts to foster
public-private cooperation. For example, a public-private coordination effort admini-
stered by a public agency may already exist; mounting a separate effort may either
undercut the existing effort or lead to inconsistency. Prior commitments can make it
difficult or impossible for industry to support new efforts. It is also possible that after
initiating an effort, another agency or organization may impose its will on the effort
through political maneuvering. Generally, it is best to assess the possibility of these
events and solicit participation prior to initiating an effort.
A catalyst a person or persons committed to achieving the goal of more public-
private cooperation -- may be required. The key ingredients are enthusiasm, an ability
to describe the importance and need, and the drive to make things happen. Individu-
als with energy and commitment are the catalysts that can foster industry involve-
ment.
Requests for industry assistance made in terms of what is required and what will be
the industry role in the plan will most likely be effective. Requests should be specific;
it is difficult for industry to respond to an undefined request for assistance.
Knowing something about an organization in advance can be beneficial. For example,
information regarding resources and equipment that might be available from individ-
ual businesses allows for the development of targeted and specific requests.
An approach that addresses the major needs of all involved: parties (public and private
sector) will most likely promote involvement. Success often depends on the ability to
provide mutual benefits.
Networks of vertical and horizontal linkages build support. Appealing to those groups
in the community that are interested and concerned about hazardous material inci-
dent planning and response can yield positive results. For example, regular atten-
dance at Industry (e.g CAER), LEPC, SERC, business council, and/or Chamber of
Commerce meetings can identify key people who might assist in promoting coopera-
tion. Generally, taking advantage of contacts and building networks can be an effec-
tive strategy; one person working alone most likely will not be effective.
Lack of interagency coordination hinders progress. It may be necessary to bring the
local government bodies together and present a unified front. Typically, industry is
more likely to respond to requests made by a broad-based organization representing
diverse community groups rather than an individual or single organization.
A unified approach such as a regional effort may help, especially if response organiza-
tions are too small to approach industries individually or if there are several adjacent,
small organizations that could benefit by joining forces. In addition, this approach may
be appropriate for several large response organizations whose combined request may
be more readily and efficiently accepted than multiple individual requests.
It may be appropriate to solicit the involvement of SERCs, LEPCs, Chambers of Com-
merce, CAER, trade associations, TRANSCAER, and others to further promote a uni-
fied approach. Public-private cooperation should encompass all parties that have an
interest in fostering and enhancing hazardous materials response capabilities.
Resource needs must be clearly defined before they can be articulated to potential
industry participants. A needs assessment that specifies resources required to sup-
port a hazardous material response program may be required. Relative to this assess-
ment, the resources that industry might supply, such as technical expertise, equip-
ment, materials, and/or funding can be identified. In addition, the needs assessment
can provide industry with an understanding of the "big picture" and how industry
contributions support an overall program.
I
17
-------
WHAT WORKS... Information Exchanged
A marketing plan that defines the incentives for industry and addresses the benefits of
Industry assistance to the community may promote public-private cooperation. In
some cases, industry's goal might simply be increased capability for the response
organization. In other situations, the industry contributor will seek favorable public
relations, such as recognition for assisting the community in preparing for a possible
hazmat Incident. A marketing plan should highlight all aspects of the contributing
participant's anticipated role and indicate the benefits of participation.
Educating industry and other agencies regarding hazmat response and planning, as
well as the need for community support may be necessary. Potential participants may
not be aware of the extent of the community's hazardous material response capabilities
and associated resource needs. It may be necessary to inform them through on-site
visits, newsletters, press releases, press coverage of training exercises, and other
public relations efforts.
Liability concerns during industry-sponsored training merit further attention. States
may wish to consider the Michigan approach where state law covers private sector
trainers when they conduct training as part of the state program.
Industry may not want to participate because of concerns that it will be seen as a
funding source if liability problems arise.
Where public-private efforts may be prohibited, it may be appropriate to issue new
guidance or change the laws. Actively seeking support from industry could be viewed
as a conflict of interest. Also, receiving funds directly from industry may be prohibited.
Options other than money, such as barter or in-kind contributions are alternative
means of support from industry. These options are limited only by the creativity of the
parties.
» In areas that are geographically isolated (e.g., Hawaii), a single company often produces
or uses selected chemicals. States have approached such companies for training
assistance and have received both training and response kits. Companies in such
situations have a vested interest in assisting the surrounding communities. A
drawback is that the recipients cannot control the quality of the instruction or
instructors.
Many suppliers and distributors of personal safety equipment will conduct free demon-
strations and training in the use of their gear. Occasionally, they will give free
equipment for training purposes.
In several states, industry has donated old tank cars (rail and truck) for training.
In at least one state, industry has taken steps to encourage standardization of all
response equipment with the fire departments. Hence, all industry and fire department
equipment is interchangeable, and they can support each other and temporarily
resupply one another.
Some states have received A, B, and C kits from chlorine distributors. The kits are
often maintained within the fire departments.
a TITLE in
There is still a need to increase industry awareness of the requirements of Title III.
States have used different strategies to accomplish this goal after recognizing that poor
compliance was related to lack of information on the part of industry.
18
-------
WHAT WORKS.. \, Information Exchanged
California has used teleconferencing as an effective and inexpensive device to reach a
large number of businesses. Many industries use teleconferencing in their own train-
ing programs and a recorded teleconference can be shared and used repeatedly.
i
Alabama worked with the regional EPA office and LEPCs in an industry awareness pilot
project to target facilities that might be required to report under Title III. Facilities
were identified through the Dun and Bradstreet database, Department of Labor data,
and the telephone book. Letters and telephone calls were used to remind facilities of
the reporting requirements. News media attention to the event also increased reporting
levels.
Several states used "piggy back" inspections through the state OSHA program or
pre-fire planning to alert facilities that they may need to report. Some states report
success in making examples of selected facilities through well-publicized enforcement
proceedings. \
Public awareness training needs attention. Although Title III allows citizens access to
a large amount of new information on the facilities in their locality, many people are
not aware of the law. Also, guidance on the use and meaning of the information avail-
able is needed.
Some facilities have training videotapes for use by their employees on reading MSDSs.
In Wisconsin, these tapes were borrowed to give citizens interested in viewing Title III
information a quick training course on the information provided in MSDSs.
County agricultural extension agents have contact with a variety of people and can
informally communicate information about complying with. Title III and using right-to-
know information.
Training public officials has been tried by many states. Brief programs to introduce
civic groups to Title III can generate interest in the program. Related programs such as
The Killing of Bhopal" could be tied into a presentation about Title III.
In North Carolina, the Governor discussed the new Title III requirements with the
insurance companies that insure the facilities in the state. These companies have an
interest in encouraging facility compliance.
I
To motivate inactive LEPCs in Kansas, letters highlighting the responsibilities of LEPCs
under SARA, were sent to county attorneys.
Training on the new OSHA emergency response standards will highlight the need for
LEPCs to remain active to ensure that the responders in their plans receive training.
Planning and training cannot be divorced.
19
-------
PARTICIPANT RECOMMENDATIONS
At a closing plenary session, conference participants developed the following recommendations.
These recommendations do not necessarily reflect the policies and procedures of NRT member
agencies. However, the NRT encourages all levels of government, as well as the private sector, to
consider these recommendations when undertaking hazardous materials training initiatives.
There should be better coordination at the federal level on a number of training issues
Including funding. Conflicting or confusing direction from the national level makes it
much harder to assure state legislators that there is a unified picture on the training
scene.
An "awareness program" should be developed to reach non-hazmat groups (e.g., the
League of Women Voters, Kiwanis, local associations). Through the program, the
Importance of hazmat programs and the need for training could be explained and could
lead to productive dividends (e.g., writing letters and lobbying the legislature).
The federal government should develop a questionnaire on training issues including
funding. The questionnaire could be distributed through a neutral group (e.g.,
National Governor's Association) to poll states on training needs including:
- Availability of training courses (level and number of students);
- Associated costs;
- Availability of retraining and refresher training;
- Development of special courses (e.g., industry specific); and
Instructor costs.
Reglonallzatlon (i.e., the pooling of resources across communities, counties, and states)
should be encouraged as a cost-effective way of providing a comprehensive, coordi-
nated hazmat capability. Small departments within a state should be discouraged from
developing their own training programs. Regionalization provides an opportunity for
Instructors to teach more often and avoid skill decay, makes more equipment available,
and facilitates updating equipment and training.
States and localities should seek external training grants from non-hazmat sources.
Most participants agreed that the federal government should provide more funds for
the Implementation of Title III. Most participants also agreed that funding provided by
the federal government should be disbursed to the state, which, in turn, would have
discretion on the allocation of the funds to LEPCs or others Involved with hazardous
materials. The disbursement of funds can be used as an incentive to promote partici-
pation by counties and LEPCs in hazardous materials planning and training.
The federal government should establish uniform training standards rather than
permit each state to develop its own standards. Uniform standards would promote
better coordination and sharing. Also, if there is national standardization, legislatures
are more inclined to appropriate funds.
To ensure that training programs are designed appropriately for the target audience, it
is necessary to conduct a task analysis that defines the tasks required to manage and
mitigate a hazardous materials incident. Such a comprehensive task analysis could be
completed by the federal government and be made available to states for their own
specific needs and requirements. The list of tasks can be considered as baseline
requirements and used or modified by states to establish training requirements. Such
a task analysis could be issued by the NRT as a resource or reference document that
could serve as a guide to states and local authorities in developing training programs.
20
-------
PARTICIPANT RECOMMENDATIONS
,'_ '. £ p.1 * , "
The federal government should either create a new information clearinghouse mecha-, ">.
nism or promote existing ones (e.g., HMIX) more extensively. Clearinghouses should ;
be used to exchange Information on training programs currently available and being
developed. Available training information, packages, and materials can be used by
other organizations as is, or with modifications. Such an exchange of information
could help to eliminate duplicative training courses.
Awareness programs should be developed to market and promote Title III and
hazardous materials programs to state and local officials and industry. The success of
emergency response depends on the support of both target audiences and each needs
to be convinced of the importance and value of Title III. Awareness programs must be
ongoing as public officials and local Industry personnel may change fairly frequently.
FEMA should waive restrictions on the utilization of FEMA-funded personnel in
hazmat plan development as well as the restriction on permitting no more than 30
percent of exercises for CCA credit to be in the technological hazards area.
FEMA, working with other federal agencies, should take the; lead in providing hazmat
exercise scenario development and exercise evaluation assistance for all jurisdictions,
and develop a system for tracking scheduled exercises.
EPA and FEMA should jointly survey all hazmat teams in the nation and identify
minimum standards in terms of equipment, resources, and personnel for hazmat
teams. Where adequate teams are not available, EPA and FEMA should sponsor the
creation of strategically located teams which should be funded by a consortium of
federal, state, local, and private sector agencies.
i
NRT member agencies and the private sector should cooperate In funding the develop-
ment and delivery of additional courses as needs are identified.
A core of skilled hazmat Individuals should be identified. The group should be ex-
panded into a national list of local, state, industry, and federal personnel identified by
skill, experience, specialty, and availability.
A core group of state and local experts should be identified and meet quarterly. This
group could maintain the momentum established at the conference and develop a
standing national training management structure. This management structure could
act as an advisory board to the NRT Training Committee's Curriculum Working Group.
Federal NRT agencies should develop a uniform scheme for meeting local needs for
technical assistance in the field, including speakers, experts, and instructors. This
effort would dovetail with the proposed talent bank and would focus on major areas of
highly technical needs.
The NRT should support a second hazrnat training conference next year and consider
supporting similar conferences on a regular basis. Participants thought that such a
conference provides a forum for information exchange and for identifying what training
needs require greater attention from public and/or private officials. The list of confer-
ence/seminar topics should be expanded. Additional training exchange activities
should be encouraged to augment the national gathering, including regional support
efforts.
Federal agencies should enhance current efforts to identify good core training materi-
als. Non-federal materials that are useful to the national hazmat training constituency
should be included. In addition, after such quality core products are identified, exam-
ined, and approved by the NRT Training Committee, resources should be expended to
ensure adequate distribution of these materials throughout the nation. (States typi-
cally do not have the resources needed to ship their materials to all other states.)
21
-------
PARTICIPANT RECOMMENDATIONS
* Systematic identification of alternative sources of funding for student stipends, travel,
and materials is needed, especially in view of the continued absence of major federal
funds. The Identification and collection of this information would result in a central
clearinghouse of tuition sources, similar to many college student-aid resources, to
track available student funds for all levels of training, including reimbursement for
presenters and instructors. Most sources would be non-federal but the clearinghouse
process would be a federal agency operation.
Many participants expressed the opinion that there is little public-private sector
collaboration and coordination. Many believe that federal representatives are unaware
of training resources available from industry.
Most participants articulated a deep concern over liability issues and expressed a
desire for greater attention to this topic at subsequent conferences.
22
-------
PARTICIPANTS
BACA, BOB
Director
New Mexico Fire Marshal's Office
P.O. Drawer 1269
Santa Fe, NM 87504
(505) 827-4560
BAKER, SHARYN L.
Instructor
Martin Marietta Aerospace
P.O. Box 179, MSH 1371
Denver, CO 80201
(303) 977-5546
BARDO-BARNES, LISA
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I
Regional Laboratory 60
Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(617) 860-4383
BARDSLEY, JR., RICHARD W.
Hazardous Materials Coordinator/
Operations Officer
Colorado Division of Disaster
Emergency Services
15000 Old Golden Road
Golden, CO 80401
(303) 273-1789
BARLETTE, RICHARD
Administration
New York Fire Prevention and Control
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
(518) 474-6746
BEAVER, WILLIE L.
Hazardous Materials Bureau Chief
Ohio Fire Marshal's Office
8895 East Main Street
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
(614) 864-5510
BEGNAUD, DARREL J.
Coordinator
Louisiana State University
Fire Training
6868 Nicholson Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70820
(504) 766-0600
BETTENCOURT, lAWRENCE J.
1st Selectman (Mayor)
Town of Waterford
15 Rope Ferry Road
Waterford, CT 06385
(203) 444-5834
BLOSCH, KATHAMNE C.
Hazardous Materials Institute
1543 Sunnyside Avenue
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
(801) 533-5272
BOESPFLUG, JOEL T.
State Hazardous Materials Coordinator
North Dakota State Fire Marshal's Office
P.O. Box 5511
Bismarck, ND 58602
(701) 224-2434
BORGATTI, EDWARD M.
State Haz. Mat'ls Training Coordinator
Department of Community Development
Ninth and Columbia Building, MS/GH-51
Olympia, WA 98504-4151
(206) 753-5679
BOUGHTON, GEORGE J.
Instructor
Guam Emergency Services
P.O. Box 2877
Agana, GU 96910
(671) 734-2921
BOWEN, BOBBY M.
Manager
FEMA Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404) 230-4218
23
-------
PARTICIPANTS
BOWEN, JOHN E.
Professor
University of Hawaii
461W. Lanikaula Street
Hilo.HI 96720
(808) 935-2885
BRENNAN, THOMAS R.
BROWN, FREDERICK G.
Commissioner
Maine Emergency Management
State House Station 72
Augusta. ME 04333
(207) 873-3347
BROWN, KAREN L.
Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia. PA 19107
(215) 597-3184
BROWN, WILLIAM L.
Hazardous Materials Program Manager
FEMA Region X
Federal Regional Center
Bothell. WA 98021-9796
(206) 487-4696
BRUEN, WILLIAM H.
Manager
Minnesota Technical Institute System
550 Cedar Street, Suite 101
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 296-8106
BUIKEMA, EDWARD G.
Police Lieutenant
Michigan State Police
300 South Washington Square
Lansing, MI 48913
(517) 334-5127
CALLAHAN, JOHN J.
Massachusetts Civil Defense
400 Worcester Road
Framingham, MA 01701
(508) 820-2000
CARAKER, ANDREW
Director
Chelsea International Corporation
1718 P Street, N.W., Suite T200
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 483-3777
CHRISTOPHER. MARK
Training Officer
New Mexico Public Safety
P.O. Box 1628
Santa Fe. NM 87504
(505) 827-9240
CLARK. SUSAN A.
CONTROVICH, JAMES T.
Emergency Response Coordinator/
Principal Planner
City Hall, Room 315
36 Court Street
Springfield, MA 01108
(413) 787-6020
COSTELLO, BEVJ.
Training Manager
Iowa Disaster Services
Level A-29 Hoover Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515)281-3231
CREAMER, WILLIAM P.
Hazardous Materials Specialist/Officer
FEMA Region I
J.W. McCormack P.O.
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 223-4412
CRISOSTOMO, JERRY P.
Fire Chief
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 2322
Saipan, MP 96950
CRUIKSHANK, DONALD H.
Training Officer
Emergency Management Division
Vermont Department of Public Safety
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury. VT 05676
(802) 244-8721
CUSICK, HARRY J.
Senior Project Manager
Hazardous Materials Management
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
(215) 430-7525
24
-------
PARTICIPANTS
DALLY, DAVID W.
Coordinator
Minnesota Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
State Capitol, Room 5-B
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)296-0453
DALY, RUSSELL A.
Manager
Nebraska Fire Service
3721 W. Cumlng Street
Lincoln, NE 68524
(402) 471-2803
DARTE, NANCY
Technological Hazards Program Specialist
FEMA Region IX
Building 105
Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94129
(415) 923-7196
DAVIES, THOMAS P.
Supervisor
New Jersey Emergency Management
P.O. Box 7068
West Trenton, NJ 08628
(609) 530-6515
DEATLEY, CRAIG
George Washington University
2140 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 994-4372
DICKOVER, ROBERTA.
Special Assistant to the Director
Maryland Emergency Management
and Civil Defense Agency
Two Sudbrook Lane, East
Pikesvllle, MD 21208
(301) 486-4422
DOBBIN, DENNY
Program Administrator, Hazardous Waste
Worker Training Grants Program
National Institute of Environmental Health
Science
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709
(919) 541-0752
DREW, A. GREGORY
Superintendent
Ohio Fire Academy
8895 E. Main Street
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
(614) 864-5510
DUNMIRE, ROBERT J.
Chief of Training
North Carolina Emergency Management
116 W.Jones Street :
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919)733-3767
DUNN, BILL B.
Hazardous Materieils Specialist/Officer
Missouri Division of Transportation
P.O. Box 1216
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-7101
EDWARDS, STEVEN D. .
LEPC Vice-Chairman
Missoula Rural Fire District
2521 South Avenue, West
Missoula, MT 59801
(406) 549-6172
ENGLISH, GEORGE W.
Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-1399 >
FELCHNER, GENE T.
Training Officer
Illinois Emergency Services
110 E. Adams Street , .
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-7318
FISHER, DENZEL L.
FEMA, Natural and Technological
Hazards Division
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
(202) 646-2876
FREEMAN, RALPH D.
Training Officer
Texas Division of Emergency Management
P.O. Box 4087 '
Austin, TX 78773
(512)465-2138
! .
GAZDA, CHARLES A.
Branch Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)655-2270
25
-------
PARTICIPANTS
GEORGE, STEVEN T.
Hazardous Materials Instructor
Oklahoma State University
Fire Service Training
P.O. Box 626
Choctaw, OK 73020
(405) 390-8068
GERARD, STAGEY
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-4463
GIBSON, STANLEY L.
Director
Indiana Fire Marshal's Office
1099 N. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-2222
GOFF, GORDON D.
Regional Preparedness Coordinator
U.S. Env. Protection Agency, HW-093
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-4349
GRAINER, STEPHEN E.
Branch Chief
Virginia Emergency Services
310 Turner Road
Richmond, VA 23225
(804) 674-2454
GRIFFON, MARK
Work Environment Department
University of Lowell
Lowell, MA 01854
(508) 459-9145
HALL, JAMES J.
FEMA Region I
442 J. W. McCormack P.O. and C.H.
Boston. MA 02109
(617) 223-9517
HARE, ROBERT S.
Chief Inspector/Haz. Mat. Specialist
Nassau Co., Office of the Fire Marshal
and Massapequa Fire Department
Front Street and Second Avenue
Massapequa Park, NY 11762
(516) 566-5800
HARKINS, CLARE D.
Fire Service Training State Supervisor
State Board for Vocational Education
650 West State
Boise, ID 83720
(208)334-3211
HARMAN, GEORGE H.
Program Administrator
Toxics Information Program
Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(301) 631-3794
HARRIS, JUANITA E.
FEMA
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
(202) 646-3158
HART, STEVEN V.
Hazardous Materials Safety Specialist
U.S. Department of Transportation
Transportation Safety Institute
6500 S. MacArthur Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
(405) 680-7228
HECKMANN, KAREN S.
Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor
1555 Times Drive
Des Plaines, IL 60018
(312) 297-4810
HEFNER, BROOKE W.
Hazardous Materials Specialist/Officer
Wyoming Emergency Management
P.O. Box 1709
Cheyenne, WY 82003
(307) 777-7566
HEHR, DANIEL W.
Emergency Response Training Center
1000 N. Main Street
Findlay, OH 45840-3695
(419) 424-4753
26
-------
PARTICIPANTS
HENDERSON, GORDON
SARA Title III Coordinator
Delaware Department of Public Safety
Emergency Planning and Operations Div.
P.O. Box 527
Delaware City, DE 19706
(302)834-4531
HENNE, DON
U.S. Department of the Interior
217 Custom House
Second and Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
HENRY, DAVID B.
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
(202} 366-4439
HEPLE, JANIS A.
Program Coordinator, NIEHS Grant
University Extension
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
(916) 752-4481
HERMANN, STEVE
Motor Carrier/District Commander
Arizona Department of Public Safety
Special Services Division
2610 South 16th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85034
(602) 223-2522
HORWITZ, MARK J.
Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-1964
HUQ, SYED Y.
Director
Rosebud Sioux Tribe
Water Resources, Box 430
Rosebud, SD 57570
(605) 747-2559
JENKINS, JANET S.
Administrative Assistant
Nevada Hazardous Materials Training Ctr.
Capitol Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 885-4290
JENSEN, PETER R.
Racine County Office of Emergency Gvt.
Safety Building
730 Center Street
Racine, WI 53403
(414) 636-3515
JOHNSON, W. WAYNON
Life Scientist t
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-393
KEFFER, BILL
Senior Engineering Advisor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS 66115
(913) 236-3720
KIMBALL, LELA1SD M.
Coordinator
New Hampshire Emergency Response Comm.
107 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-2231
KLEIN, WILLIAM E.
Planner
Alabama Emergency Management Agency
520 S. Court Street
Montgomery, AL, 36130
(205) 834-1375
KNIPE, BRUCE A.
Hazardous Materials Emergency Planner
FEMA Region X
130 228th Street, S.W.
Bothell, WA 98021
(206) 487-4689
KRAKOVER, LA1RRY
OSHA/Department of Labor
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Room N 3641
Washington, DC 20210
(202) 523-8091
LANARD, ROBERT
Training Officer
New Jersey State Police
P.O. Box 7068
West Trenton, NJ 07068
(609) 882-2000
27
-------
PARTICIPANTS
LICKLIDER, JAMES G.
State Fire Marshall
Capitol Complex
1937 N. Carson
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 885-4290/5088
LITRES, VIRGINIA. T.
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street. S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-4900
LUK3SH, THOMAS J.
Dupont Company
Fibres Department
Maple Run Building
P.O. Box 80,721
Wilmington, DE 19880-0721
(302) 999-5576
LUPOLI.PAULF.
Assistant Coordinator ,
Rhode Island Emergency Management
State House, Room 27
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 421-7333
MARGOLIS, ARLENE E.
Training Specialist
Massachusetts Public Works
c/o Institute for Governmental Services
Univ. of Massachusetts Downtown Center
Boston, MA 02125
(617) 542-6571
MARTIN. CRAIG T.
Director of Local Programs
Kentucky Disaster and Emergency Services
EOC Building, Boone Center
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-8685
MARTIN, DAVID K.
FEMA
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
(202) 646-3159
MCCLURE, GARYE.
Manager
FEMA Region VII
911 Walnut Street. Room 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
(816) 283-7043
MCCOY, CARL E.
Hazardous Materials Program Manager
FEMA Region VI
800 N. Loop 288
Denton,TX 76201
(817) 898-9137
MCDOWELL, DAVID L.
Coordinator
Alaska Emergency Services
3501 E. Bogard Road
Wasffla,AK 99687
(907) 376-2337
MCKINNEY, TOM H.
Chairman
Louisiana Emergency Response Commission
Louisiana State University
42 Atkinson Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
(504) 388-8521
MCLEOD, JACK
Training Officer
Alabama Emergency Management
520 S. Court Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205) 834-1375
MCMILLION, DAVID
Director
Maryland Emergency Management
Two Sudbrook Lane, East
Pikesville, MD 21208
(301)486-4422
MCRANEY, DIANE
Training Coordinator
Mississippi Emergency Management
P.O. Box 4501
Jackson, MS 39216
(601) 960-9048
MCTAGUE, NORMAN S.
Director, Program Development/
Evaluation and Training
Virginia Emergency Services
310 Turner Road
Richmond, VA 23225
(804) 674-2459
MURRAY, JAYT.
Instructor
Iowa State University
Fire Service Institute
Ames, IA 50011
(515) 294-6817
28
-------
PARTICIPANTS
NASH, JR, ARTHUR R.
First Lieutenant
Michigan State Police
Fire Marshal Division
7150 Harris Drive
Lansing, MI 48913
(517)322-1924
NEARY, KEVIN P.
New York Emergency Management
BtrQding 22, Public Safety
Albany, NY 12226
(518) 457-9987
NEILES, JAMES W.
Director
South Dakota Emergency and
Disaster Services
State Capitol Building
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 773-3231
NOLL, GREGORY G.
Hazardous Materials Coordinator
Prince George's County Fire Department
Fire Services Building
6820 Webster Street
Landover Hills, MD 20784
(301) 772-9025
O'DONNELL, JAMES M.
Battalion/District Chief
South Co. Fire Protection Authority
666 Elm Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
(415) 593-8016
PATE, MARY L.
Hazardous Materials Specialist/Officer
FEMA Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404) 853-4454
PATTANI, CRAIG G.
Hazardous Materials Specialist/Officer
FEMA Region III
105 S. Seventh Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 931-5528
PATTERSON, WILLIAM J.
Manager
FEMA Region IX
Presidio of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94129
(415) 923-7187
PERKINS, SANDRA A.
Planner
D.C. Emergency Preparedness
2000 14th Street, N.W., Eighth Floor
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 727-6161
QUINN, JANICE A.
EPA/CEPP Office
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-4667
RAMSEY, ROGER L.
Deputy/Assistant Chief
Seattle Fire Department
301 Second Avenue, South
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 386-1481
RECORDS, JE1NNIE D.
Coordinator
Idaho Emergency Response Commission
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5888
RENDER, GREG L.
Assistant Chief
Signal Hill Fire Department
329 Hazel Avenue
Belleville, IL 62223
(618) 397-1995
RICHARDSON, SHELDON D.
Director :
Arkansas Fire Academy
P.O. Box 3499
Camden,AR 71701
(501) 574-1521
ROBERTS, ALAN I.
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-0656
ROBINSON, STUART A.
Hazardous Materials Specialist/Officer
Smithfield Fire Department
Putnam Pike
Smithfield, RI 02828
(401) 949-1330
29
-------
PARTICIPANTS
RODIA, RALPH M.
RODY, JR., THOMAS M.
Coordinator
Indiana Civil Defense
100 N. Senate Avenue, Room B-90
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-3830
ROGERS, ROBERT F.
Chief, Operations and Training
Missouri Emergency Management
P.O. Box 116
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-9582
ROHENA, JR., SANTOS
Chairman
Emergency Planning Commission
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
ROTHBERG, PAUL F.
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., S.E.
Washington, DC 20540
(202) 707-7012
ROWLAND, RACHAEL A.
Emergency Management Specialist
FEMA Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404) 853-4450
SANDFORD, WAYNE E.
Director of Training
Fire Prevention and Control Commission
294 Colony Street
Meriden, CT 06450
(203) 238-6587
SARGENT, DAVID L.
Chief, Federal/State/Private Sector
Initiatives Division, DHM-50
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-4900
SASAMOTO, FELIX A.
Civil Defense Coordinator
Emergency Management Services
Capitol Hill Rural Branch
Saipan, MP 96950
SEABENECK, LAURA E.
FEMA, Natural and Technological
Hazards Division
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
(202) 646-3525
SELL, THOMAS C.
Training Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Response Team
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7537
SMITH, RICHARD B. '.
Training Officer
South Dakota Emergency and
Disaster Services
Military and Veteran Affairs
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 773-3231
SMITH, SHARON L.
Administrative Director
Minnesota Emergency Management
B5 - State Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-0455
SMITH, STEVEN J.
SARA Title III Coordinator
Tennessee Emergency Management Agency
3041 Sidco Drive
Nashville, TN 37204
(615) 252-3300
SMITH, W. CLARK
Coordinator, Title III Program
Nebraska Emergency Response Commission/
Department of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402) 471-4217
STIRLING, ALBERT G.
Div. Head, Oil and Haz. Mat'ls Training
Texas A&M University System
Texas Engineer Extension Service
College Station, TX 77843
(409) 845-7952
30
-------
PARTICIPANTS
TAYLOR, DONALD F.
Director
Pennsylvania Emergency Management
P.O. Box 3321
Harrisburg, PA 17105
(717) 783-3963
TEBRINK, ALAN L.
Supervisor /Program Coordinator
Colorado Safety Institute
100 E. 66th Avenue
Denver, CO 80221
(303) 429-0018
TESTA, LISA A.
Hazardous Materials Specialist/Officer
FEMA Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1337
New York, NY 10278
(212) 238-8225
THOMPSON, ANDREW J.
Coordinator
All Indian Pueblo Council
P.O. Box 3256
Albuquerque, NM 87190
(505) 881-1992
THURBER, PAMELA J.
Environmental Planning Specialist
D.C. Office of Emergency Preparedness
2000 14th Street, N.W., 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 727-2985
TOKLE, GARY
Deputy Director
California State Fire Marshal's Office
7171 Bowling Drive
Sacramento, CA 95823
(916) 427-4175
TURLEY, JOHN D.
President
Education and Consulting Resources, Inc.
30 Oak Ridge Place
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
(803) 272-3855
VANHOUTEN, LINDA I.
Coordinator
Alaska Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box O
Juneau, AK 99811
(907) 465-2630
VASCO, MARY BEITH
Technological Hazards Program Specialist
FEMA Region VIII
Federal Regional Center, Building 710
Denver, CO 80225-0267
(303) 235-4830
VAUGHN, SUZANNE T.
Coordinator
Connecticut Env. Protection Agency
165 Capital Avenue, Room 161
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566-4856
WALKER, ALAN G.
Director
Univ. of Kansas Fire Service Training
646 New Hampshire
Lawrence, KS 66045
(913) 864-4467
WHELAN, ANN E.
Hazardous Materials Specialist/Officer
FEMA Region V
175 W. Jackson EJoulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)408-5524
WHETSEL, CHERYL
U.S. DOT/HMIX Coordinator
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 8102
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-4448
WILLIAMS, DAN L.
Illinois Fire Marshall's Office
3150 Executive Park Drive
Springfield, IL 62703
(215)785-1030
WILLIAMS, SHIRLEY C.
FEMA, Natural and Technological
Hazards Division
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
(202) 646-3067
WINGO, CRAIG S.
FEMA, Natural and Technological
Hazards Division
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
(202) 646-3026
31
-------
PARTICIPANTS
WREN, DWIGHTR.
Instructor
Alabama Fire College
2015 McFarland Boulevard, E.
Tuscaloosa, AL 35405
(205) 823-4072
WRIGHT, CHARLES J.
Supervisor, Hazardous Material Training
Union Pacific Railroad
1416 Dodge Street
Omaha, NE 68179
(402) 271-3313
ZIEBART, RICKY L.
Deputy/Assistant Director
Arkansas Fire Academy
P.O. Box 3499
East Camden, AR 71701
(501) 574-1521
ZOCCHETTI, DAVID
Title III Program Manager
California Office of Emergency Services
2800 Meadowview Road
Sacramento, CA 95832
(916) 427-4287
32
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990/718-965
-------
-------
0
-------
-------
------- |