----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 1:11 PM
Subject: RE: DOT Emergency Response Phone
Number
Having been there when the ERI requirement came out
in the early 90's, and having dealt with various Emergency Response situations
involving using the Emergency Contact numbers, I can offer the following
comments:
The
DOT intent is for the number to be either the actual shipper or receiver of
the product, who also has the resources available to advise a responder, or a
number akin to CHEMTREC. CHEMTREC requires that companies using its service
register with them, provide MSDS for the products, and then telephone numbers
of competent company employees who have knowledge of the product. In large
chemical companies with many branches, that's usually someone at he
manufacturing plant. There are other companies in the business besides
CHEMTREC, but I use them as the example because they are the Granddaddy of the
concept.
I've
used these services in several incidents, none involving radioactive
materials. In every case that I used them, they were able to find somebody to
wake up at odd hours to share my misery. They do this by having their operator
bridge the responder telephonically with the company person. The delay in
contacting the company person was never more that 5 - 7 minutes. The first
thing I learned about these operations is to immediately get the name and
direct phone number of the person I was talking to, because on two occasions
the telephone bridge failed in the middle of a
conversation.
The
only radioactive materials incidents I worked have both involved radio
pharmaceuticals, both from the same source (the folks outside Boston,
Massachusetts), with their own, internal response system. In neither case
did I talk to them directly, so I can't comment on what happened there. In
neither case did the materials leave the inner packaging.
It
may be unfair, but I think that a lot of how these cases will be dealt with
depends on how much notice the incident gets in the media, whether
the emergency contact system fails the responders' needs, and whether that
failure gets communicated to US DOT. It also will depend to a certain extent
on the material involved. If it's gasoline, diesel fuel, or even propane, the
responders are less likely to call for help with HOW to respond. Their call
will be to find out who the clean-up contractor is and how soon will they be
there...
It's
US DOT's regulation and therefore enforcement depends largely on DOT's
interpretation, not NRC's.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Capt. Bruce Bugg
Special Projects Coordinator
Law
Enforcement Division
Georgia Department of
Motor Vehicle Safety
P.O. Box 80447
Conyers, GA 30013-8047
voice: 678.413.8825
fax: 678.413.8832
e-mail: obbugg@dmvs.ga.gov
I am trying to resolve
conflicting interpretations of the requirement of 49 CFR 172.604(a)(2) that
the emergency response telephone number required on DOT shipping papers
be: "The number of a person who is either knowledgeable of the
hazardous material being shipped and has comprehensive emergency response
and incident mitigation information for that material, or has
immediate access to a person who possesses such knowledge and
information..." [emphasis mine].
In Information Notice 92-62, "Emergency Response Information Requirements
for Radioactive Material Shipments," the NRC states that, "...Emergency
responders will expect this [emergency response] information to be provided
within 15 minutes..."
However a DOT/RSPA letter of interpretation (letter to Mr. Andrew C.
Rymer, dated April 5, 2001, Ref. No. 00-280 - available thru link on
DOT/RSPA hazmat safety web site) states: "We are aware of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Information Notice 92-62 that was issued...
The NRC provided its opinions that emergency responders would want or expect
that this information be provided within 15 minutes. It is our opinion
that an emergency responder would want the information as quickly as
possible and that, in many if not most hazardous materials transportation
situations, a delay of 15 minutes would be unacceptable."
[emphasis mine].
If not 15 minutes, is there a workable time limit? The letter of
interpretation states, " Clearly a few minutes may lapse during a telephone
call... However, any delay longer than a few minutes would be unacceptable,
as would any delay involving call-back..."
In my opinion, this hard line policy may actually compromise the quality
of information provided to incident responders. Obviously, the person
most familiar with the shipment cannot be at the emergency response number
for the entire duration of a long shipment. The shipper must thus rely
on the written information provided to the person monitoring the emergency
response phone number. If we later provided more detailed information,
could we be cited for undue delay?
I'd be interested in the opinions of any transportation experts out
there, as well as information regarding whether anyone who provided the
required information within 15 minutes was still cited by DOT, State Police,
etc.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's
about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com