# HMEP Best Practices Guide (PDF)

- **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)

Document

 HMEP_Best_Practices_Guide.pdf (376.66 KB)

        HMEP Best Practices Guide (PDF)

          Issued Date: Sunday, November 1, 2015

<<<PAGE 1>>>

Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness
Grant Program
Best Practices Guide
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
Hazmat Grants Program
www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/grants
HMEP.Grants@dot.gov
(202) 366-1109
Developed in collaboration with the HMEP Working Group:
 California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)
 Nevada State Emergency Response Commission
 Nebraska Emergency Management Agency
 North Carolina Emergency Management Agency
 Oregon State Fire Marshal’s Office

<<<PAGE 2>>>

Introduction
Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grants are used to develop, improve,
and implement emergency plans, and train public sector hazardous materials (hazmat)
response employees. This best practices guide was compiled, in part, by users of HMEP grants
at the state and local levels, as well as grant administrators at PHMSA. The intent of this guide
is to list examples of best practice projects from several grant recipient states that are within
allowable costs as outlined by PHMSA. It also was established as a supplement for states
attempting to acquire planning or training monies.
This guide does not supersede or replace expenditures guidance and should not be considered
a replacement for activities in your application.
Always seek guidance from your individual Grant Specialist for specific questions and
activities related to your state or Native American Indian tribe. Examples within this guide
may not apply to every user and should be considered as examples only, and include the
following topics:
• Pre-award — items occurring in the planning stages of the grant.
• Post-award — examples of projects completed after a Notice of Grant Award (NGA) has
been signed.
• Award Close-out — activities that help states close out their grant.
• Additional Guidance — items not covered in a specific grant phase category.
November 2015 HMEP Grants -- Best Practices Guide Page 2 of 6

<<<PAGE 3>>>

Best Practice Examples
Pre-award
Activities that have aided states when creating a grant management plan.
Sub-Award Applications – Several states have created a sub-award notification to send to Local
Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs). This allows the State Emergency Response
Commission (SERC) and State Administrative Agency (SAA) to establish the amount requested
by the LEPC and to plan accordingly when applying to PHMSA. In this notification, sub-grantees
are made aware of the priorities for that funding year. Grant notifications can be sent to the
LEPCs prior to the Federal award notification, which will allow the state a better idea of
expected amounts requested by LEPCs. Example: “This year’s priority is to gain knowledge on
commodity flow relating to crude oil transport.”
Contingency Planning for Grant Dollars – California’s HMEP grant application includes a list of
contingencies for surplus monies USDOT may have following a grant cycle, thus, their plan has
been reviewed and approved in advance. This contingency plan also allows the state to pick up
a secondary project if one previously outlined in the application falls through.
Other Pre-award Activities – States are required to involve their SERC in creating and reviewing
their HMEP application. States that involve their SERC in activities beyond what is required,
such as those that use their SERC to help in hazmat planning, typically use a higher percentage
of funds than those with SERCs not actively engaged in the process.
Post-award
Activities that have helped states manage the grant and sub-award monies to LEPCs.
Training Tracking – Texas uses an on-line system “preparingtexas.org” to track classes,
registrations, and certificate prerequisites that allows easier end-of-year reporting.
Emergency Plans – Emergency plans are being updated and revised nationwide using HMEP
monies. For example, an LEPC in one state hires an outside contractor to develop or update its
LEPC Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan. Another state uses HMEP monies for the
salary of planning staff that help write emergency plans.
Regional Projects – States that use and develop regional projects (such as commodity flow
studies, hazmat plan updates, and specialized hazmat training) were able to increase LEPC
productivity and chemical awareness. For example, Region 7 EPA sponsors a four-state
November 2015 HMEP Grants -- Best Practices Guide Page 3 of 6

<<<PAGE 4>>>

regional conference where LEPCs and first responders gather to learn from their neighboring
states. With prior approval from PHMSA, each state supports the conference using HMEP
monies for conference registration fee and instructor/facilitator fees. California sponsors a
portion of the audio-visual costs for two state-wide hazmat workshops each year, and provides
funding for registration fees for LEPC members. Additionally, they are facilitating the contract
for a state university to conduct a multi-year LEPC regional plan update effort.
Final Reports – PHMSA must report to Congress annually and pulls information from states’
final reports. States must complete the final report in its entirety. For that reason, it is
important to establish effective sub-grantee monitoring practices.
Sub-grantee Monitoring – Best practices for monitoring sub-grantees include:
− Developing a detailed agreement that defines expectations and roles of both parties.
− Clarifying expectations on frequencies of reporting and other requirements.
− Identifying needs and investing time to orient and train sub-grantees; providing training
on requirements consistently and continuously; and providing assistance as needed.
− Conducting continuous and scheduled monitoring using appropriate methods and tools.
− Checking for anything unallowable, unnecessary, or unsupported.
− Checking for non-compliance with grant and regulatory requirements, policies, and
procedures.
− Checking for weaknesses that affect safeguarding of funds and grant compliance such as
in systems, policies, procedures, and practices.
Reimbursement Request – Submitting reimbursement requests within 30 days of expenditures
is fiscally responsible, and enables PHMSA to better monitor grantee use of funds.
Soft Matches – Examples include:
− Time attending conferences and trainings (though it cannot be used as a match if
participant is being paid for attending training).
− Volunteer first responders’ attendance to an approved HMEP activity/project or training
can be used as match (time should be based on a reasonable rate in which the grantee
has determined by use of a formula or other method).
− Equipment donated by a third-party.
− With prior approval, program income, other than state hazmat fees, may be used to
meet the cost sharing or matching requirement of the Federal award. The amount of
the Federal award remains the same.
 If an activity/project is unallowable under the HMEP Grant Program, then you are
unable to use anything attached to it as a match.
 State fees collected in reference to hazmat transportation are not allowed to be used as
a match.
Award Close out
Activities that have helped states close out their grant.
November 2015 HMEP Grants -- Best Practices Guide Page 4 of 6

<<<PAGE 5>>>

Due Dates – Establish due dates for subgrantees to complete activities and submit invoices to
allow states to reallocate funds prior to close-out.
Additional Guidance
Combined Training Efforts – Hazmat dispatch training, first responder awareness, and
operations-level training are conducted in a one-week time frame. This allows more training to
be offered in a shorter time period to a larger audience. Six weeks following initial training, a
hazard analysis is conducted to assist in writing a hazard mitigation plan and discuss
transportation surveys. Twelve weeks following the initial training, a first on-scene operations
and site incident command training is offered. This is all concluded with a table top exercise
and a revision of the response plan.
Commodity Flow Studies – Several grantees use commodity flow studies to determine the
planning and training needs in their states. Studies can be focused on a small, rural area or a
state-wide project similar to the project completed in 2014 by North Carolina, which was
completed throughout a 5-year period.
Conferences and Symposiums – States have supported state-wide conferences and
symposiums AND combined states’ efforts to host multi-state conferences.
Standard Operating Procedures – Maintain institutional knowledge by creating Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs). The SOPs should reflect the grantees internal controls as
required by 2 CFR 200.303.
Grants Management Training – Key grantee officials (those responsible for submitting Financial
Status Reports) partake in annual grant administration training covering financial and
programmatic requirements as well as fraud awareness. This could be implemented via an on-
line training program that should administer a follow-up test ensuring recipients’
understanding of basic requirements, as well as tracking the recipient's training completion.
This training is an allowable expense under the HMEP grant for key grantee officials.
Public-Private Partnership – Georgia has partnered with the Association of Fire Chiefs and the
Public Safety Training Center to develop and deliver specialized pipeline emergency response
training to first responders. Trainings are delivered to LEPCs across the state. HMEP monies
may be used to support travel costs and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA) guidance.
November 2015 HMEP Grants -- Best Practices Guide Page 5 of 6

<<<PAGE 6>>>

TRANSCAER™ – Allowable training that many states support. Costs could be accrued as an
exercise expense and could include fuel, foam, etc.
HMEP Working Group Participants
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)
Neverley Shoemake; neverley.shoemake@caloes.ca.gov
Nevada State Emergency Response Commission (SERC)
Richard Brenner, NASTTPO Regional Representative; rik@clarkcountynv.gov
Nebraska Emergency Management
Tonya Ngotel, NASTTPO President; tonya.ngotel@nebraska.gov
North Carolina Department of Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
Matthew Kemnitz; Matthew.Kemnitz@ncdps.gov.
David Powell; David.R.Powell@ncdps.gov.
Oregon State Fire Marshal’s Office
Sue Otjen, NASTTPO Regional Representative; sue.otjen@state.or.us
November 2015 HMEP Grants -- Best Practices Guide Page 6 of 6
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 10632