Search

Question of the Week: When do I need a Security Plan?

Posted on 1/17/2012 by James Griffin

Q. When do I need a hazmat security plan? Do I need a different plan for each placarded shipment?
 
A. Since 2003, the Department of Transportation has required some hazmat shippers and carriers to create security plans under 49 CFR Part 172 Subpart I. These plans are to ensure that high-hazard shipments are protected from malicious misuse, sabotage, and diversion, whereas the traditional hazmat regulations are intended to prevent and mitigate accidents.
 
During the early years of this program, a single outgoing shipment of a placarded load of hazardous materials required a facility to institute a security plan. This one-size-fits-all hazard classes standard covered many shippers and carriers whose activities did not pose a significant security risk.
 
In 2010 (75 FR 10974), the DOT calibrated the security plan requirements to apply to fewer shipments. Consequently, fewer businesses need to create and maintain security plans.
 
Some materials are always dangerous, so any quantity of the following types of hazardous material require a security plan:
 
  • Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosives;
  • A material that is poisonous by inhalation (PIH);
  • Organic peroxides, Type B, liquid or solid, temperature-controlled;
  • Select agents or toxins regulated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; or
  • Highway route controlled quantities of other high-consequence Class 7 radioactive materials.
[49 CFR 172.800(b)(1), (5), (11), (13), and (15)]
 
Less dangerous materials are less regulated, so a placardable amount of the following hazardous material requires a security plan, but smaller quantities do not:
 
  • Division 1.4, 1.5, or 1.6 explosives;
  • Desensitized explosives in Division 4.1 or Class 3;
  • Division 4.3 dangerous when wet materials; or
  • Uranium hexafluoride.
[49 CFR 172.800(b)(2), (7), (9), and (14)]
 
The 2010 revisions to Subpart I created a third security category for hazardous materials. The following hazmats require security plans only when shipped in “large bulk quantities”:
 
  • Division 2.1 flammable gases;
  • Division 2.2 compressed gases with a subsidiary hazard of 5.1;
  • Class 3, PG I or II;
  • Division 4.2, PG I or II;
  • Division 5.1, PG I, PG II, and certain ammonium nitrate compounds;
  • Division 6.1 poison other than PIH; or
  • Class 8, PG I.
[49 CFR 172.800(b)(3), (4), (6), (8), (10), (12), and (16)]
 
A “large bulk quantity” is a quantity greater than 3,000 kg (6,614 lbs.) for solids, 3,000 L (792 gal.) for liquids in a single packaging (including tank cars, cargo tanks, and portable tanks), in other words bigger than an intermediate bulk container (IBC).
 
Other hazardous materials not listed here (Class 8 PG II or III, Class 3 PG III, non-bulk packages of Division 2.1, Division 4.1, etc.) do not require security plans, even in placarded amounts.
 
A security plan must assess the transportation security risks, and describe the measures you will take to address those risks. Most importantly, if you have to have a plan you must review it at least annually and update it “as necessary to reflect changing circumstances.” [49 CFR 172.802(c)]
 
If you’d like more information on these requirements, you can check DOT’s FAQs on security plans.
 

Tags: DOT, hazmat shipping, reporting and recordkeeping

Find a Post

Compliance Archives

Lion - Quotes

Our instructor was very dynamic and kept everyone's interest. Hazmat shipping can be a dry, complicated topic but I was engaged the entire time.

Kimberly Arnao

Senior Director of EH&S

More thorough than a class I attended last year through another company.

Troy Yonkers

HSES Representative

This course went above my expectations from the moment I walked in the door. The instructor led us through two days packed with useful compliance information.

Rachel Stewart

Environmental Manager

This was the 1st instructor that has made the topic actually enjoyable and easy to follow and understand. Far better than the "other" training providers our company has attended!

Lori Hardy

Process & Resource Administrator

The instructor was very patient and engaging - willing to answer and help explain subject matter.

Misty Filipp

Material Control Superintendent

You blew the doors off the competition!

Stephen Bieschke

Facilities Manager

Lion's course was superior to others I have taken in the past. Very clear in the presentation and the examples helped to explain the content presented.

George Bersik

Hazardous Waste Professional

This is the best RCRA training I've experienced! I will be visiting Lion training again.

Cynthia L. Logsdon

Principal Environmental Engineer

Energetic/enthusiastic! Made training enjoyable, understandable and fun!

Amanda Walsh

Hazardous Waste Professional

The instructor was very very informative, helpful, understandable and pleasant. This course answered many questions I had, being new to this industry.

Frances Mona

Shipping Manager

Download Our Latest Whitepaper

Explore ten hazardous waste management errors that caused generators in California the most trouble last year.

Latest Whitepaper

By submitting your phone number, you agree to receive recurring marketing and training text messages. Consent to receive text messages is not required for any purchases. Text STOP at any time to cancel. Message and data rates may apply. View our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.