Organizing the Hazmat Response: Five Models

BY ALBERT BASSETT

So, you were not able to take that vacation day. You now are responsible for the hazardous materials incident. Your fears of hazmat incidents come from the lack experience in managing them. Although they are not routine, you can systematically manage them to accomplish our goals.

• Three-Point Hazmat Size-Up
• One Is the Loneliest Number: Incident Command Priorities at Spill Incidents
• Hazmat Survival Tips: Hazardous Materials Incident Size-Up
• The Process of Making Decisions At Hazardous Materials Incidents

A decision-making/problem-solving model memory aid tailored to hazmats can assist you with size-up, developing strategies and tactics, and evaluating the situation. It’s like those for structure fires—e.g., RECEO-VS. The model provides a checklist to guide the hazmat incident commander (IC), group supervisor, or officer through the process.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 1910.120 and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 470, Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Standard for Responders, require that the IC have the minimum of hazmat operations-level training. You also need to assign the “go-to” hazmat technician as your aide, hazmat group supervisor, or technical specialist to whisper in your ear (photo 1).

Various decision-making models are used in hazmat response, including the GEDAPER, the DECIDE, the APIE, and the Eight Stop-Process models I will discuss below. Each covers size-up, risk assessment, strategy and tactics development, and evaluation.

DECIDE

The DECIDE model was developed around the early 1970s by Ludwig Brenner, senior hazmat accident investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board, who investigated multiple hazmat accidents that occurred during the 1960s through 1980s. DECIDE is a mnemonic for the six decision events: Detect the hazmat presence, Estimate the likely harm without intervention, Choose the response objectives, Identify the action options, Do the best option, and Evaluate the progress.

Detecting the hazmat presence and estimating the likely harm without intervention are hazmat incident size-up.

Benner also introduced the General Hazardous Material Behavior Model (GEBMO) that uses a flow chart to apply a hazard/risk analysis to the event. The question in this size-up is, How bad will it get if we do not intervene? It’s still a viable question, but 50 years later, a larger population will be more greatly affected.

Based on the D and E (size-up) items of DECIDE, choosing the response objectives will be based on the hazard/risk analysis. Are there savable people or property? What is our strategy?

Once you have determined the strategy (response objective), you must identify action options and do the best one. What actions can I take to achieve the strategy? This decision will be based on but not limited to resources, training, time, and cost.

Finally, evaluate progress. Is it working? Has the event stopped or been reduced in size? It may just be manageable to recover for the responsible party.

APIE

The APIE model is the structure and layout of NFPA 470. It stands for the following: Analyze the incident, Plan the response, Implement the planned response, and Evaluate progress.

Analyzing the incident is the size-up to assess the incident’s hazards and consequences. Based on the information gathered and your assessment, you will then plan the response. Planning the response covers developing the incident objectives, the strategy, and the tactics to be accomplished. The plan will again have to weigh the benefits against the resources, training, time, and cost. Implementing the planned response is the task level of the event—for example, technicians engaging in offensive operations to plug or cap a container leak or the operations-level responder constructing a dike.

Finally, evaluate the progress—i.e., are we accomplishing our incident objectives? If the strategies and tactics are not working, the model goes back to analyzing for adjustment.

APIE is a very basic system that requires the IC to have extensive knowledge of the event or know where to get the expertise. NFPA 470 uses the APIE model for the hazmat professional competencies and job performance requirements. Based on the level of training, you would know your limitations and how to acquire a higher level of expertise.

GEDAPER

The GEDAPER process is part of the National Fire Academy’s hazmat curriculum. Originally developed by Dave Lesak, a long-time instructor and hazmat responder, GEDAPER stands for the following: Gather information, Estimate the potential course and harm, Determine strategic goals, Assess the tactical options and resources, Plan and implement the actions decided on, Evaluate the action plan, Review the strategic goals.

Gathering the information is size-up. GEDAPER looks at four components in this phase: the product, the environment, the container, and the cause. This also goes into estimating the potential course and harm. How bad can this event really be? The product is the hazard; that does not change. However, the environment, the container, and the cause will influence the level of risk.

For example, consider an MC-306/DOT-406 aluminum cargo tank truck on a rural road that is leaking gasoline from a gouge because the driver scraped a road sign vs. the same container in your downtown area on a Friday night with an improvised explosive strapped to it. Gasoline is gasoline—but the cause of its release and where it is released contribute to much larger risks.

Determining strategic goals and assessing the tactical options and resources are taking the information and the potential to develop a plan to handle it. The strategy and tactical options are determined by available resources and responders’ training levels.

Once you set the strategy and tactical options, you can implement the plan and put members to work on the actions chosen phase to accomplish tasks.

Finally, evaluating the action plan and reviewing the strategic goals determine whether we are accomplishing the job.

Eight-Step Process

The Eight-Step Process developed by Gregory Noll, Michael Hildebrand, and James Yvorra is a procedural model that sets benchmarks for a hazmat incident. Many responders feel the process is at the tactical vs. strategic level. However, whichever strategy is selected, it allows an IC to complete each step to manage the incident.

1. Site management and control.
2. Identify the problem.
3. Hazard assessment and risk evaluation.
4. Selection of protective clothing and equipment.
5. Information and resource coordination.
6. Implement response objectives.
7. Decontamination.
8. Termination.

The Eight-Step Process identifies the need for immediate site management and control on the arrival. Using the Emergency Response Guidebook and other job aids, an IC can quickly keep the public and responders safe before determining a strategy.

Identifying the problem and the hazard and risk analysis are size-up. Once the IC has identified the problem and completed the hazard and risk analysis, he can select a strategy and the supporting tactical objectives—i.e., the incident action plan.

Based on the tactical objectives and the tasks required, the needed protective clothing and equipment must be selected.

Although information and resource coordination is an incident checkpoint, it is also an ongoing task throughout the incident. It allows the IC to confirm that the incident command system structure is appropriate for the incident, critical information is shared among all responders and agencies, sufficient resources are in staging and available, and appropriate notifications have been made.

Once the IC has confirmed his resources, he is prepared to implement the response objectives. Decontamination is closely tied to response objectives. The decon plan must be implemented at the same time as the response objective. The IC should always be evaluating the response objectives to determine if they are meeting his goals.

Although the Eight-Step Process does not provide a clear evaluation step as the other models do, evaluation is an integral element of hazard assessment and risk evaluation. The IC and hazmat officers must continually determine if objectives are being successfully met and progress is being made. They also must be prepared to alter the tactics to achieve the objective (photo 2).

Finally, incident termination focuses on important steps such as debriefing, postincident analysis, and critique. The IC needs to address the incident’s recovery and remediation phase.

Container-Product-Environment

One additional size-up and evaluation model based on GEBMO may be easier for younger, faster-paced responders who attempt to multitask. Tony Mussorfiti’s model evaluates the Container, the Product, and the Environment—what kind of container, what size, the quantity or how much product it contains (assume full capacity if undetermined), the construction material, its orientation, and the damage. The product is the chemical; is it a solid, a liquid, or a gas? Responders will have to research the substance’s chemical and physical properties to determine the hazards. Finally, what is the environment the container and the product are in? How will the environment affect the container and how will the chemical affect the environment? This focus is now the beginning of a risk-based response.

Follow a decision-making model, your checklist, to bring you through the incident. Whichever mnemonic or process you choose, it comes down to performing a size-up, conducting a hazard and risk analysis, selecting a strategy, developing objectives, implementing tasks, and evaluating. Each process forces the IC to perform a risk-based response. Each process incorporates the facts, the science, and the circumstances.

ICs have many responsibilities and subjects on which they need to stay current. Hazmat response is just another one. Get comfortable using the available tools through training. Get out and see what those hazmat members are training on this month. Trust their training and technical leadership to guide you in the right direction. Do not hesitate to slow down the incident to ask questions to make sure you are making the correct decisions.

As always, training is the path to success. Scenario-based tabletop training allows us to discuss options and understand whether a plan can be accomplished. The tabletop setting will also allow for condensed timeframes. When decision makers are running a practical scenario, it’s an opportunity for a “time out” to train to reinforce learning.

Multiple scenarios can be done at the same time. We are working with commanders who have been in the field for many years. A group of decision makers can be given a scenario; they can work through it and then report out. Each group will give a scenario overview and how they came up with their plan.

Objective, Tactics, and Training Levels

The models cited above requires the IC to develop the objective, the goal the IC wishes to achieve; develop a strategy, the course of action; and implement tactics, the specific tasks that will achieve the strategy.

When creating the objectives and selecting a strategy and tactics to implement, always reference the incident priorities of Life safety, Incident stabilization, and Property conservation (LIP). How much of LIP can you accomplish? Are civilian lives at risk? Then saving lives will become your objective, your goal, your initial priority. You will develop a strategy and accompanying tactics to protect those lives. If no lives are in danger but the size-up indicates that the leak can be controlled safely, stabilize the incident. Often, efficient offensive operations will be a money-saving operation for your tax-paying industry.

Operations: Offensive, Defensive, or Nonintervention?

Events in which no civilian lives are in harm’s way—e.g., a tear in a pressure vessel that can’t be controlled and a release that killed the plant life on contact and will need long-term remediation—are losers for an emergency response. Protect what has not been lost.

The operations at a hazmat incident can be offensive, defensive, or nonintervention. Offensive strategies will need a broad goal statement—e.g., mitigate the spill or perform rescue; usually they require more highly trained resources.

Defensive operations involve proactive measures to stop the incident from getting worse. Responders will confine the spill or leak without direct contact with the hazmat.

Nonintervention operations are not used in firefighting but are in hazmat response. Nonintervention is backing away from the incident and letting it run its course. Several historical hazmat responses have resulted in emergency responder fatalities and injuries where responders should have used a nonintervention strategy, including an incident in Kingman, Arizona, in 1973 in which a railcar was exhibiting various signs of a potential boiling-liquid, expanding-vapor explosion (BLEVE) and there was a limited water supply.

Tactics are formulated to achieve the strategy. Consider a DOT 406 tanker hauling gasoline; gasoline is leaking from the dome covers. Objective: Contain the gasoline and limit the impact to the environment. Strategy: Entry to apply dome clamps; confine and contain the spilled material; and transfer the product to a recovery vessel.

The tactics are the task-level duties assigned to the technician- and operational-level responders. Each tactic is divided into a number of tasks to support and complete the objective.

Tactics are as follows (not necessarily in order):

• Dress an entry and a backup team.
• Provide foam and fire protection.
• Set up a technical decon.
• Monitor the atmosphere during entry.
• Bond and ground the damaged vessel.
• Apply the dome clamps.

The organization’s level of hazmat training will assist in developing the objectives and selecting the strategy. Emergency responders should be trained to perform their assigned duties and tasks. NFPA 470 outlines the competencies and job performance requirements for hazmat responders; OSHA 1910.120 lists the legal requirements for hazmat responders.

In the fire service, we are concerned with awareness, operations, and technician levels. Awareness-level personnel should be able to recognize a hazmat event and notify the proper agencies to respond. Based on a firefighter’s responsibilities, he should be trained above the awareness level. The operations-level responder can operate defensively. He would be able to prevent the event from spreading. The technician-level responder can operate offensively and become intimate with the product by plugging and patching a vessel, neutralizing a corrosive, or transferring a product. The initial strategy may depend on the level of training and the number of responders available.

---

ALBERT BASSETT is chief of the New Canaan (CT) Fire Department. Previously, he served 29 years with the Norwalk (CT) Fire Department, retiring as assistant chief. Bassett is certified as hazardous materials technician and hazmat safety officer. He is a member and chair of the Fairfield County Hazardous Incident Response Team and CT US&R Task Force 1. Bassett is an NFPA 470 committee member and an adjunct instructor for the Connecticut Fire Academy.