1.1 本指南涵盖了新的和预期的州和联邦监管计划，这些计划规定了受监管设施、地方应急规划委员会（“LEPC”）和应急响应者之间在应急准备规划方面“协调和合作”的义务。加强协调与合作的目的是提高社区对涉及危险化学品和危险废物的潜在事故的准备。目前，现有法规没有充分描述适用于应急准备工作各方的“协调与合作”过程的期望。 本指南旨在协助设施、LEPC、应急响应人员和其他利益相关者在社区准备水平上履行协调与合作职能。 1.1.1 由于“协调与合作”过程的结果是由社区驱动的，因此很难在监管中产生这些期望。如果没有进一步的指导或标准，这些义务很容易被误解或忽视。由于缺乏“协调与合作”标准，设施可能会因不符合要求而被强制执行，更令人担忧的是，这些设施通常无法通知LEPC、应急响应人员和社区成员，以便他们能够发现在其社区更好地做好准备的机会。 1.1.2 准备计划与响应- 应急响应活动是一个涉及培训、危险意识和特定类型设备的专业领域。应急准备规划的协调与合作与应急响应无关。相反，它是一个整体的社区意识和教育过程。广泛的目标是所有社区成员最终了解他们应该采取什么行动来保护自己、家人和财产。所有社区成员都是准备规划过程中的利益相关者，每个社区在邀请参与者参与该过程时都需要进行广泛思考。 1.2 本标准并非旨在解决与其使用相关的所有安全问题（如有）。本标准的用户有责任在使用前制定适当的安全、健康和环境实践，并确定监管限制的适用性。 1.3 本国际标准是根据世界贸易组织技术性贸易壁垒（TBT）委员会发布的《关于制定国际标准、指南和建议的原则的决定》中确立的国际公认标准化原则制定的。 ====意义和用途====== 6.1 准备工作包括对可能受到危险品事故影响的所有社区成员的认识和教育，以及在事故发生时对所有社区成员的行动产生期望。 6.1.1 准备工作的重点是通过所有社区成员的行动，而不是仅通过设施和响应机构的行动，将化学事故的影响降至最低。这些措施与事故预防和后果减少策略相结合，可降低危险品事故的可能性，并将已发生事故的后果降至最低。 6.2 对于设施、社区、LEPC和应急响应人员来说，对其社区中存在的化学危害和事故准备能力形成共识具有巨大的潜在益处。这种共识可以显著减少危险化学品事故的后果（见NPFA 1600）。 6.3 协调与合作必须融入改善社区准备的过程。 6.3.1 准备首先基于社区对当地存在的风险的广泛认识和理解。 接下来是社区范围的评估，评估哪些社区成员最容易受到风险的影响，风险的机制或途径，以及在发生事故时应对这些风险的现有能力。被评估的能力不仅仅包括第一反应者采取行动的能力。它包括所有社区成员采取适当行动的能力。 6.3.2 由于在针对社区中存在的风险进行评估时，所有社区都存在能力差距，因此下一步是进行战略规划，以通过社区成员制定的这些努力的优先顺序来填补这些能力差距。 再次强调，改进准备工作是目标，而不仅仅是侧重于应对能力。 6.3.3 填补能力差距需要使用社区及其合作伙伴可用的所有监管和社会工具。所有社区成员在预防事故、减少后果和提高集体沟通和反应能力方面都有利害关系。通过提高认识、教育、培训、合作项目和实践来实现改进。解决已确定的能力差距可以包括一系列广泛的选项，如事故预防，以对社区成员的行动产生期望，使其能够避难、疏散和向他人提供援助。 利益相关者的参与对于成功弥合能力差距至关重要。 6.3.4 完成这些任务是一项社区级活动。虽然它可能由应急经理或当地应急规划委员会领导，但成功的应急规划的关键是广泛的协调与合作，涉及所有社区成员。 6.3.5 设施必须成为准备工作的一部分，因为它们在其工厂中存在的危险化学品的特性、对其操作系统和程序的知识、危险评估、应急计划和应急响应能力方面具有更大的专业知识。

1.1 This guide covers new and anticipated state and federal regulatory programs that create an obligation to “coordinate and cooperate” on emergency preparedness planning between regulated facilities, local emergency planning committees (“LEPCs”) and emergency responders. The goal of this increased coordination and cooperation is to develop better community preparedness for potential accidents involving hazardous chemicals and hazardous waste. Currently, existing regulations do not adequately describe the expectations for the “coordinate and cooperate” process, that apply to each party working on emergency preparedness. This guide is intended to assist facilities, LEPCs, emergency responders, and other stakeholders in performing the coordinate and cooperate function at a community preparedness level. 1.1.1 As the outcome of the “coordinate and cooperate” process is community driven, it would be extremely difficult to create these expectations in regulation. Without further guidance or standards, these obligations could easily be misconstrued or ignored. The absence of standards for “coordination and cooperation” potentially subjects facilities to enforcement for noncompliance and, more concerning, fails to inform LEPCs, emergency responders and community members generally so they can identify opportunities for better preparedness in their communities. 1.1.2 Preparedness Planning versus Response— Emergency response activities are a specialized field involving programs of training, hazard awareness and specific types of equipment. Coordination and cooperation on emergency preparedness planning is not about emergency response. Instead, it is a whole-of-community process of awareness and education. The broad objective is that all community members ultimately understand the actions they should take to protect themselves, their families and property. All community members are stakeholders in the preparedness planning process and each community needs to think expansively when inviting participants to the process. 1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. ====== Significance And Use ====== 6.1 Preparedness includes awareness and education for all community members that might be impacted by a hazardous materials accident, and creating expectations for the actions of all community members should an accident occur. 6.1.1 The point of preparedness is to minimize the impact of a chemical accident through the actions of all community members, rather than the actions of only facility and response agencies. These actions, when coupled with accident prevention and consequence reduction strategies, reduce the potential for hazardous materials accidents and minimize the consequences of those that do occur. 6.2 There is great potential benefit to facilities, communities, LEPCs and emergency responders in developing a common understanding of the chemical hazards and accident preparedness capabilities present in their communities. The common understanding can significantly minimize he consequences of hazardous chemical accidents (See NPFA 1600). 6.3 Coordination and cooperation must fit into the process for improving community preparedness. 6.3.1 Preparedness is based first on the community developing a broad awareness and understanding of the risks that are present, locally. Next comes a community-wide evaluation of which community members are most vulnerable to risks, the mechanisms or pathways of risks, and the existing capabilities to address those risks should an accident occur. The capabilities being evaluated include more than the ability of the first responders to take actions. It includes the capabilities of all community members to take appropriate actions. 6.3.2 Since all communities have capability gaps when evaluated against the risks present in the community, the subsequent step is strategic planning to fill those capability gaps with prioritization for these efforts developed by the community members. Again, improved preparedness is the goal, not simply focusing on response capacity. 6.3.3 Filling capability gaps requires the use of all the regulatory and social tools available to the community and its partners. All community members have a stake in accident prevention, consequence reduction and improving the collective ability to communicate and respond. Improvements are made through increased awareness, education, training, cooperative programs, and practice. Addressing the identified capability gaps can include a broad range of options such as accident prevention to creation of expectations for the actions of community members to be able to shelter, evacuate and provide aid to others. Stakeholder engagement is critical to successfully closing capability gaps. 6.3.4 Accomplishing these tasks is a community-level activity. While it might be led by an emergency manager or local emergency planning committee, the key to successful preparedness planning is broad coordination and cooperation involving all community members. 6.3.5 Facilities must be part of the preparedness effort because of their greater expertise on the properties of the hazardous chemicals present at their plants, knowledge of their operating systems and procedures, hazards assessments, their emergency plans, and emergency response capabilities.