To get a more clear answer we turn to OSHA’s Compliance Directive for HAZWOPER Enforcement (CPL-02-073-2007). But first, let’s look at how the standard defines “emergency response”…
“Emergency response” is defined in 29 CFR 1910.120(a)(3) as follows: “Emergency response . . . means a response effort by employees from outside the immediate release area or by other designated responders (i.e., mutual-aid groups, local fire departments, etc.) to an occurrence which results, or is likely to result, in an uncontrolled release of a hazardous substance. Responses to incidental releases of hazardous substances where the substance can be absorbed, neutralized, or otherwise controlled at the time of release by employees in the immediate release area, or by maintenance personnel, are not considered to be emergency responses within the scope of this standard. Responses to releases of hazardous substances where there is no potential safety or health hazard (i.e., fire, explosion, or chemical exposure) are not considered to be emergency responses.”
The CPL states the following about a response that would be considered an “emergency response”:
An emergency response includes, but is not limited to, the following situations:
1. The response comes from outside the immediate release area.
2. The release requires evacuation of employees in the area.
3. The release poses, or has the potential to pose, conditions that are immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH).
4. The release poses a serious threat of fire or explosion (exceeds or has the potential to exceed the lower explosive limit or lower flammable limit).
5. The release requires immediate attention because of imminent danger.
6. The release may cause high levels of exposure to toxic substances.
7. There is uncertainty about whether the employees in the work area can handle the severity of the hazard with the PPE and equipment that has been provided and the exposure limit could easily be exceeded.
8. The situation is unclear, or data are lacking on important factors.
There are releases of hazardous substances that pose a sufficient threat to health and safety that, by their very nature, require an emergency response regardless of the circumstances surrounding the release or the mitigating factors. An employer must determine the potential for an emergency in a reasonably predictable worst-case scenario (or “anticipated emergencies,” 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(1)), and plan response procedures accordingly.
For example, a motor carrier is engaged in the transportation of HAZMAT. At the time of an accidental release, the product cannot be contained by employees in the immediate vicinity and be cleaned up utilizing absorbent. Because of the larger problem, the motor carrier’s employees evacuate the area and call for outside help, as instructed by the employer. In this instance, if a spill of a hazardous substance occurs and an employer instructs all of his/her employees to evacuate the danger area, then the employer may not be required to train those employees under 1910.120. However, the ability to decide whether a spill is an incidental spill or one requiring an emergency response requires training. Also, any employees who are expected to become actively involved in an emergency response due to a release of a hazardous substance are covered by 1910.120 and must be trained accordingly.
Generally, the release of anhydrous ammonia, for example, from a refrigeration unit would necessitate an emergency response under HAZWOPER. Employers must determine if there is a potential for release of ammonia in their facility which could result in an emergency situation. Anhydrous ammonia can produce severe health effects, depending upon the degree of exposure. Another situation that would likely require an emergency response includes fire departments who receive emergency calls reporting a suspected release of a hazardous substance. The fire department should not knowingly dispatch a firefighter trained only under the HCS standard, or even trained to the “Awareness Level” to respond to a hazardous substance emergency response. For example, an emergency call involving the discovery of three 55-gallon drums on the side of a road that may be connected to a nearby methamphetamine laboratory would classify the situation as a potential emergency response requiring appropriately trained personnel.
The standard covers responses “by other designated responders.” The use of the word “or” means that responders are a separate group, different from employees outside the immediate release area, directed to respond to the emergency by the employer. Employees working in the immediate release area (not just outsiders) are covered if the employer designates them as emergency responders. The standard, 29 CFR 1910.120(q), uses the term “responders” generally to refer to employees who respond to emergencies. SARA, the statute mandating HAZWOPER, directs broad coverage of all employees responding to emergencies with no limitation to their location. SARA states, “. . . standards shall set forth responding requirements for training of workers who are responsible for responding to hazardous emergency situations who may be exposed to toxic substances” (see SARA 126(d)(4)). For an emergency to be covered by the standard, conditions causing a dangerous situation which involve hazardous substances are sufficient; there need not be both an emergency and a response by outside responders before the employer prepares for an emergency.
For example, a release of chlorine gas above the IDLH level, obscuring visibility and moving through a facility, is an emergency situation even if the initial responders are from the immediate release area. Employees who would respond to this situation, whether they work in the immediate area or come from outside, would need to act in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120(q). Employees are not barred from responding to releases in the immediate release area that would otherwise require outside assistance from a trained HAZMAT team merely because the definition of an emergency response states that an emergency response is “. . . a response effort by employees from outside the immediate release area.” Conversely, incidental releases of hazardous substances that are routinely cleaned up by those from outside the immediate release area need not be considered emergency responses solely because the employees responsible for clean up come from outside the immediate release area. For example, Paint thinner is spilled in an art studio and the janitor is called from outside the immediate release area to mop it up. The janitor does not have to respond in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120, although the janitor would be expected to understand the hazards associated with paint thinner through hazard communication training.
UPDATED on 4/21/11…I have received a lot of requests to break this down even further. Here it is in a blunt way…
If you have a spill or release of a hazardous chemical AND the incident is of such magnitude (size, hazard, or complexity) that the workers who normally work/handle the hazardous chemical can NOT control/clean-up the released material because it is beyond their capabilities because the PPE they normally wear when handling the material would NOT be adequate AND they have to call for additional help or specialized help, then this would be considered an EMERGENCY RESPONSE.
On the other hand, if the release or spill is either so small or lesser hazards AND the workers have the training and needed PPE to control the release then the incident is NOT an emergency response that falls under 1910.120. It would not matter if additional resources were called in to help with the clean-up in order to make the clean-up faster. If the outside resources are called in for their expertise in PPE, methods of protection against HAMZAT, control methods, etc. then those responding or involved in the response will fall under 1910.120.
Look at this way… workers have to be trained in HAZCOM and PPE to work with the chemicals; but there is a HUGE difference in working with 55-gallon drums of the material vs. working in an area where 20,000 gallons has spilled. Workers who are trained to wear 1/2 Mask Air Purifying Respirators are able to work with the 55-gallon quantities and NOT exceed the Assigned Protection Factor, but when the storage tank fails and 20,000 gallons of the material is spilled, the vapor concentration will quickly exceed to APF of 10 for the 1/2 Mask APR. A Self Contained Breathing Appartus (SCBA) is is now needed and there are only a select group of workers on site trained to wear this level of respiratory protection. These workers are called and sent into the area in an attempt to control the release. They WOULD MOST CERTAINLY fall under 1910.120, REGARDLESS of what your facility calls this “team of workers”. Just because the facility does not call them “emergency responders” does not mean that 1910.120 would not apply to your facility. Now on the flip side, if the 20,000 gallons is not hazardous and can be left to sit in the dike until the vac truck arrives later in the week and this delay in action would NOT endanger workers in the area, then the material would not be considered hazardous and the spill would not fall under 1910.120.
Please take a few minutes and read APPENDIX A – RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES THAT REQUIRE AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE from the HAZWOPER CPL.