Arrow Safety recently held hazmat technician refresher courses at two industrial sites. Here’s a look at what they did and what students learned.
What agency led the training?
Where was it held?
Joplin, MO and Quapaw, OK. They held two similar trainings in these nearby areas in October 2025 for three different industrial hazmat response teams.
What was the set up time?
30 minutes.
How many were trained?
12 at each site.
What hazmat levels were the trainees?
Technician.
What were the training objectives?
Both of these training sessions were 8-hour hazmat technician refresher courses. They ran through the OSHA-required information in the classroom, reviewed NFPA 470 and the concepts of NIMS and ICS. Then they focused on having the teams demonstrate their skills and competencies through multiple training evolutions throughout the day.
What evolutions did trainees do?
Multiple evolutions included:
- Leaking drum: Using a plastic 55-gallon drum with multiple holes in it, teams demonstrated various competencies during multiple evolutions of this scenario. While wearing Level B ensembles, teams were required to use repair kits to plug the existing holes in the drum, then overpack the drum and prepare it for transport.
- Air monitoring: Using our HazSim training simulator, teams entered a building wearing Level A and B ensembles and responded to various readings. These sites have numerous chemicals on-site, including chlorine gas (Cl2), liquid nitrogen (LN2), hydrochloric acid (HCl), potassium hydroxide (KOH), thionyl chloride (Cl2OS), as well as many flammables and VOCs. Using the HazSim, teams had to perform monitoring in multiple areas of the scene, interpret the readings shown (low O2, high LEL, high VOCs, etc.), and determine the appropriate course of action from various standpoints, including reconnaissance, leak detection, establishing control zones (hot, warm, and cold), etc.
HazSim Training Scenarios: Chlorine Release from a Cylinder
- Decon: Crews set up a decontamination line and demonstrated various decon competencies, including basic decon with soap and water, as well as dry decon.
- A and B kits: At the Quapaw site, which has more than 2,000 pounds of Cl2, the team practiced using chlorine A and B kits on a 100-pound cylinder and on a 1-ton cylinder while wearing Level A ensembles.
- Man down rescue: During part of the previously mentioned scenarios, a responding team member would be told to “collapse” due to various reasons (e.g., heat exhaustion, chemical breakthrough, etc.). The goal was to determine how quickly the man-down situation was detected, how quickly the issue was communicated to incident command, if a plan developed, and if they properly used the Hazmat Sked to extricate the downed victim.
- Communications: In a classroom setting, the class was broken up into two teams. Each team was given an identical set of Legos in a plastic bag, with only one team having the instructions and knowing what the end result would be. With each team in a different room, Team 1’s job was to read the instructions and properly communicate how to assemble the Legos to Team 2. The goal was to see if the two teams could effectively communicate and assemble the Lego kits to build the same thing.
Also Read: Q & A: Hazmat Start-up on How to Train
- Dexterity: Students wore their Level A and/or B ensembles to deal with a custom-built leak prop (consisting of a pipe with a flange, four bolts and nuts, and a gasket). The prop was hooked to a water hose to create a leaking flange and gasket scenario. Working in groups of two, each group had to install the gasket, flange, and four bolts and nuts, then tighten the bolts then nuts using hand tools until the leak stopped. Teams would then remove the flange in reverse order. This demonstrated the importance of good dexterity and the ability to perform mechanical tasks with small parts while wearing their CPCs.
What technology was used?
HazSim, as well as the customer’s on-site gas detection equipment, including colorimetric tubes, standard four-gas meters, and other direct-reading instruments.
What were the biggest successes?
Throughout all scenarios, teams benefitted from effective communication throughout their scenarios. Whether it was using the HazSim to effectively communicate to the incident commander what they see (and don’t see) to deliver a mock response to a local news station regarding relevant incident information (PIO skills), the teams worked together to ensure a prompt, effective response during each of the training scenarios.
What would you do differently next time?
Each of these sites could benefit from additional gas detection equipment with various sensors and technologies to allow them to see more of the “puzzle pieces” when responding to a hazmat situation, such as NDIR technology, additional sensors, etc. We could then train them on the various sensor operations using a combination of classroom lectures and practical, hands-on scenarios, such as using the HazSim.
