Environmental Health & Safety Compliance Blog

By Doug Graham, CHMM Sr. Compliance Advisor & Training Manager

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is modifying current security plan requirements applicable to shippers and carriers of hazardous material.

Based on an evaluation of the security threats associated with specific types and quantities of hazardous materials, the final rule narrows the list of materials subject to security plan requirements. The final rule also clarifies certain requirements related to security plan components, training, and documentation.

In a qualitative risk evaluation, DOT considered the following factors when deciding how the new security planning requirements would better address actual terrorism threats: (1) Physical and chemical properties of the material or class of materials and how those properties could contribute to a security incident; (2) quantities shipped and mode of transport; (3) past terrorist use; (4) potential use; and (5) availability.

In this "new look" at which materials pose significant risk, DOT explained that , "One of the most significant security vulnerabilities involves the potential for an individual or group to take control of a conveyance containing a high-risk material and move it to a site where the material could cause maximum physical or psychological damage. For some hazardous materials, the primary security threat involves theft or highjacking of raw materials for use in developing explosive devices or weapons".

So, based upon this fresh analysis and the need for clarification to the original rule, the following is a summary of the regulatory changes to the security planning rule that are slated to go into effect on October 1 of 2010:

• Firstly, the list of materials being either offered or transported, which would trigger the requirement for developing a security plan has changed. The list, found in 49 CFR 172.800(b) currently identifies seven categories, including placardable quantities. The new list identifies sixteen very specific categories of hazardous materials, most of which have threshold quantities.
• Secondly, the required components of a written security plan under 49 CFR 172.802 have been clarified and expanded. Hi-lights include:

1. clarification that the plan must address risks associated only to those materials identified in 172.800(b);
2. there must be a senior management official identified who is responsible for development and implementation of the plan;
3. the plan must identify security duties for each position or department responsible for implementing all or part of the plan;
4. the plan must describe the process for notifying employees when plan elements are to be implemented; and
5. the plan must be in writing, retained (paper or electronic), available to employees responsible for implementing it, updated as necessary, reviewed annually, and made available to the DOT for inspection, upon request.

• And lastly, the security training requirements under 172.704 have been clarified.

In summary, it is anticipated that many employers who currently require security plans solely due to offering placardable quantities of common hazardous material will no longer need them. Additionally, those who will still require security plans under the new rule will need to make major revisions to their plans, procedures, and recordkeeping.

To see the complete revised rule change as published in the March 9, 2010 Federal Register, go to: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-4778.htm

By Greg Rosinski, Chemist II

Walking through the laboratories of colleges and universities will result in seeing a lot of unused chemicals that are prior circa 1980. Typically the chemicals are pushed to the back of the chemical storage cabinet until the professor retires. In order to decrease the potential exposure these chemicals could create it is important for the Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) department to monitor the amount of these chemicals remaining. Recently, a local university had a professor retire from a career of over 50 years of teaching in the same lab. This professor had a refrigerator full of temperature sensitive chemicals that he kept adding to over the years without properly disposing of them. Murphy’s Law played out in this circumstance when a storm happened on the weekend causing a power outage. The school’s generators also were struck causing the refrigerator to shut off, and increase in temperatures beyond the allowable range for the chemicals. The chemicals reacted causing the containers to fail, and spill throughout the refrigerator. On Monday when the professor went to open the refrigerator to start his lab the fumes were nauseating, and forced the EH&S department to call Triumvirate Environmental Inc. to properly dispose of the chemicals. The EH&S then had to make a phone call to have the refrigerator properly decontaminated. The cost to the university in bills and the inconvenience of shutting down the lab has made the EH&S director proactive in disposing of unused chemicals. The result of proper management of aged chemicals has reduced their average spending on disposal, and the occurrence of spills or other incidents. Properly managing chemicals involves spending time in labs, and looking outside of the normal areas. This will help to identify chemicals that are no longer in use. The cost of spills costs more than proactively managing a hazardous waste program. A good place to start looking for temperature sensitive chemicals (not an all inclusive list) is the Department of Transportation (DOT). The DOT’s list can be found in 49 CFR 173.224 for self reactive materials, and 49 CFR 173.225 for organic peroxides. These two types of chemicals are known to become unstable with age.