{"operation":"document","citation":"PHMSA Guidance, HMEP Best Practices Guide (PDF)","title":"HMEP Best Practices Guide (PDF)","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2015-11-01","effective_on":"2015-11-01","summary":"HMEP Best Practices Guide (PDF) Document HMEP_Best_Practices_Guide.pdf (376.66 KB) HMEP Best Practices Guide (PDF) Issued Date: Sunday, November 1, 2015","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-hmep-best-practices-guide-pdf-6b5dc237.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-hmep-best-practices-guide-pdf-6b5dc237.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-hmep-best-practices-guide-pdf-6b5dc237","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/grants/hazmat/hmep-best-practices-guide-pdf","body":"HMEP Best Practices Guide (PDF)\n\nDocument\n\n HMEP_Best_Practices_Guide.pdf (376.66 KB)\n\n        HMEP Best Practices Guide (PDF)\n\n          Issued Date: Sunday, November 1, 2015\n\n<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nHazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness\nGrant Program\nBest Practices Guide\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nHazmat Grants Program\nwww.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/grants\nHMEP.Grants@dot.gov\n(202) 366-1109\nDeveloped in collaboration with the HMEP Working Group:\n California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)\n Nevada State Emergency Response Commission\n Nebraska Emergency Management Agency\n North Carolina Emergency Management Agency\n Oregon State Fire Marshal’s Office\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nIntroduction\nHazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grants are used to develop, improve,\nand implement emergency plans, and train public sector hazardous materials (hazmat)\nresponse employees. This best practices guide was compiled, in part, by users of HMEP grants\nat the state and local levels, as well as grant administrators at PHMSA. The intent of this guide\nis to list examples of best practice projects from several grant recipient states that are within\nallowable costs as outlined by PHMSA. It also was established as a supplement for states\nattempting to acquire planning or training monies.\nThis guide does not supersede or replace expenditures guidance and should not be considered\na replacement for activities in your application.\nAlways seek guidance from your individual Grant Specialist for specific questions and\nactivities related to your state or Native American Indian tribe. Examples within this guide\nmay not apply to every user and should be considered as examples only, and include the\nfollowing topics:\n• Pre-award — items occurring in the planning stages of the grant.\n• Post-award — examples of projects completed after a Notice of Grant Award (NGA) has\nbeen signed.\n• Award Close-out — activities that help states close out their grant.\n• Additional Guidance — items not covered in a specific grant phase category.\nNovember 2015 HMEP Grants -- Best Practices Guide Page 2 of 6\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nBest Practice Examples\nPre-award\nActivities that have aided states when creating a grant management plan.\nSub-Award Applications – Several states have created a sub-award notification to send to Local\nEmergency Planning Committees (LEPCs). This allows the State Emergency Response\nCommission (SERC) and State Administrative Agency (SAA) to establish the amount requested\nby the LEPC and to plan accordingly when applying to PHMSA. In this notification, sub-grantees\nare made aware of the priorities for that funding year. Grant notifications can be sent to the\nLEPCs prior to the Federal award notification, which will allow the state a better idea of\nexpected amounts requested by LEPCs. Example: “This year’s priority is to gain knowledge on\ncommodity flow relating to crude oil transport.”\nContingency Planning for Grant Dollars – California’s HMEP grant application includes a list of\ncontingencies for surplus monies USDOT may have following a grant cycle, thus, their plan has\nbeen reviewed and approved in advance. This contingency plan also allows the state to pick up\na secondary project if one previously outlined in the application falls through.\nOther Pre-award Activities – States are required to involve their SERC in creating and reviewing\ntheir HMEP application. States that involve their SERC in activities beyond what is required,\nsuch as those that use their SERC to help in hazmat planning, typically use a higher percentage\nof funds than those with SERCs not actively engaged in the process.\nPost-award\nActivities that have helped states manage the grant and sub-award monies to LEPCs.\nTraining Tracking – Texas uses an on-line system “preparingtexas.org” to track classes,\nregistrations, and certificate prerequisites that allows easier end-of-year reporting.\nEmergency Plans – Emergency plans are being updated and revised nationwide using HMEP\nmonies. For example, an LEPC in one state hires an outside contractor to develop or update its\nLEPC Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan. Another state uses HMEP monies for the\nsalary of planning staff that help write emergency plans.\nRegional Projects – States that use and develop regional projects (such as commodity flow\nstudies, hazmat plan updates, and specialized hazmat training) were able to increase LEPC\nproductivity and chemical awareness. For example, Region 7 EPA sponsors a four-state\nNovember 2015 HMEP Grants -- Best Practices Guide Page 3 of 6\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nregional conference where LEPCs and first responders gather to learn from their neighboring\nstates. With prior approval from PHMSA, each state supports the conference using HMEP\nmonies for conference registration fee and instructor/facilitator fees. California sponsors a\nportion of the audio-visual costs for two state-wide hazmat workshops each year, and provides\nfunding for registration fees for LEPC members. Additionally, they are facilitating the contract\nfor a state university to conduct a multi-year LEPC regional plan update effort.\nFinal Reports – PHMSA must report to Congress annually and pulls information from states’\nfinal reports. States must complete the final report in its entirety. For that reason, it is\nimportant to establish effective sub-grantee monitoring practices.\nSub-grantee Monitoring – Best practices for monitoring sub-grantees include:\n− Developing a detailed agreement that defines expectations and roles of both parties.\n− Clarifying expectations on frequencies of reporting and other requirements.\n− Identifying needs and investing time to orient and train sub-grantees; providing training\non requirements consistently and continuously; and providing assistance as needed.\n− Conducting continuous and scheduled monitoring using appropriate methods and tools.\n− Checking for anything unallowable, unnecessary, or unsupported.\n− Checking for non-compliance with grant and regulatory requirements, policies, and\nprocedures.\n− Checking for weaknesses that affect safeguarding of funds and grant compliance such as\nin systems, policies, procedures, and practices.\nReimbursement Request – Submitting reimbursement requests within 30 days of expenditures\nis fiscally responsible, and enables PHMSA to better monitor grantee use of funds.\nSoft Matches – Examples include:\n− Time attending conferences and trainings (though it cannot be used as a match if\nparticipant is being paid for attending training).\n− Volunteer first responders’ attendance to an approved HMEP activity/project or training\ncan be used as match (time should be based on a reasonable rate in which the grantee\nhas determined by use of a formula or other method).\n− Equipment donated by a third-party.\n− With prior approval, program income, other than state hazmat fees, may be used to\nmeet the cost sharing or matching requirement of the Federal award. The amount of\nthe Federal award remains the same.\n If an activity/project is unallowable under the HMEP Grant Program, then you are\nunable to use anything attached to it as a match.\n State fees collected in reference to hazmat transportation are not allowed to be used as\na match.\nAward Close out\nActivities that have helped states close out their grant.\nNovember 2015 HMEP Grants -- Best Practices Guide Page 4 of 6\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nDue Dates – Establish due dates for subgrantees to complete activities and submit invoices to\nallow states to reallocate funds prior to close-out.\nAdditional Guidance\nCombined Training Efforts – Hazmat dispatch training, first responder awareness, and\noperations-level training are conducted in a one-week time frame. This allows more training to\nbe offered in a shorter time period to a larger audience. Six weeks following initial training, a\nhazard analysis is conducted to assist in writing a hazard mitigation plan and discuss\ntransportation surveys. Twelve weeks following the initial training, a first on-scene operations\nand site incident command training is offered. This is all concluded with a table top exercise\nand a revision of the response plan.\nCommodity Flow Studies – Several grantees use commodity flow studies to determine the\nplanning and training needs in their states. Studies can be focused on a small, rural area or a\nstate-wide project similar to the project completed in 2014 by North Carolina, which was\ncompleted throughout a 5-year period.\nConferences and Symposiums – States have supported state-wide conferences and\nsymposiums AND combined states’ efforts to host multi-state conferences.\nStandard Operating Procedures – Maintain institutional knowledge by creating Standard\nOperating Procedures (SOPs). The SOPs should reflect the grantees internal controls as\nrequired by 2 CFR 200.303.\nGrants Management Training – Key grantee officials (those responsible for submitting Financial\nStatus Reports) partake in annual grant administration training covering financial and\nprogrammatic requirements as well as fraud awareness. This could be implemented via an on-\nline training program that should administer a follow-up test ensuring recipients’\nunderstanding of basic requirements, as well as tracking the recipient's training completion.\nThis training is an allowable expense under the HMEP grant for key grantee officials.\nPublic-Private Partnership – Georgia has partnered with the Association of Fire Chiefs and the\nPublic Safety Training Center to develop and deliver specialized pipeline emergency response\ntraining to first responders. Trainings are delivered to LEPCs across the state. HMEP monies\nmay be used to support travel costs and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know\nAct (EPCRA) guidance.\nNovember 2015 HMEP Grants -- Best Practices Guide Page 5 of 6\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nTRANSCAER™ – Allowable training that many states support. Costs could be accrued as an\nexercise expense and could include fuel, foam, etc.\nHMEP Working Group Participants\nCalifornia Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)\nNeverley Shoemake; neverley.shoemake@caloes.ca.gov\nNevada State Emergency Response Commission (SERC)\nRichard Brenner, NASTTPO Regional Representative; rik@clarkcountynv.gov\nNebraska Emergency Management\nTonya Ngotel, NASTTPO President; tonya.ngotel@nebraska.gov\nNorth Carolina Department of Public Safety\nDivision of Emergency Management\nMatthew Kemnitz; Matthew.Kemnitz@ncdps.gov.\nDavid Powell; David.R.Powell@ncdps.gov.\nOregon State Fire Marshal’s Office\nSue Otjen, NASTTPO Regional Representative; sue.otjen@state.or.us\nNovember 2015 HMEP Grants -- Best Practices Guide Page 6 of 6","truncated":false,"body_characters":10632}