Following the Breadcrumbs to Enhance Hazmat Safety

Insights from Bob Richard, Vice President at HazMat Safety Consulting

If you’ve ever read the fairy tale of Hansel and Gretel, you’ll remember the children dropping breadcrumbs to find their way out of the forest. It’s a simple image—but one that stuck with me throughout my career in hazardous materials enforcement.

When I was overseeing enforcement staff at PHMSA, I often encouraged investigators to “follow the breadcrumbs.” In our world, those breadcrumbs weren’t pieces of bread—they were small clues, bits of documentation, inconsistencies, or procedural gaps that, when traced carefully, could lead us to the root cause of a hazmat incident or compliance failure.

Following the breadcrumbs means connecting seemingly minor details into a bigger picture. It’s less about playing “gotcha” and more about understanding what went wrong, why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again. My philosophy was simple: find problems and fix them.

Breadcrumbs and the “Offeror Rule”

The concept of breadcrumb-tracing ties directly to one of PHMSA’s key regulations: the “Offeror Rule” (HM-223). This rule is part of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR)—the U.S. Department of Transportation’s set of rules governing how hazardous materials are classified, packaged, marked, labeled, documented, and transported safely in commerce.

Under the Offeror Rule, an offeror is defined as:

Any person performing, or responsible for performing, a pre-transportation function under the HMR for a hazardous material, or
Any person who tenders or makes the hazardous material available to a carrier for transportation in commerce.

It also clarified that while offerors and carriers can rely on information provided by others, they can’t simply turn a blind eye. If they know—or should know—that information is incorrect, they can be held accountable.

This is where enforcement becomes more nuanced. The preamble of the rule referred to a formal interpretation published by RSPA (the predecessor agency of PHMSA) in 1988 (55 FR 6761) that stated that, in the situation where more than one person is responsible for performing offeror functions, ‘‘each such person may be held jointly and severally liable for all or some of the ‘offeror’ responsibilities under the HMR.’’

As such under the HMR each person is responsible for their own violations:

Preparing a shipment improperly
Accepting non-compliant shipments and reoffering them
Failing to handle or transport hazmat according to the HMR

In short: each entity that fails to comply will be held responsible. If a carrier accepts a non-compliant shipment, their liability is based on their own acceptance and whether they had constructive knowledge that the shipment was not compliant.

In other words, when a carrier accepts and transports a shipment of hazardous material that is not properly prepared for transportation in commerce, with actual or constructive knowledge of the noncompliance, the carrier’s liability is based on its own improper acceptance and transportation of that shipment—not the violation of the person who improperly prepared the shipment.

The application of ‘‘constructive knowledge’’—when ‘‘a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would have * * * actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation’’ of the law or the HMR—is set forth in RSPA’s prior interpretation published in the Federal Register, 63 FR 30411, 30412 (June 4, 1998) – 98-14561.pdf

Why This Matters in Enforcement

When tracing the cause of a hazmat violation, it’s rarely just one person or company at fault. More often, it’s a chain of decisions, misunderstandings, or oversights across multiple parties.

Following the breadcrumbs allows investigators to:

Identify all contributing factors
Understand the full scope of the issue
Target corrections at the right places in the process

It’s about continuous process improvement—fixing the root cause, not just the symptoms. Sometimes that means issuing penalties when necessary to deter dangerous behavior. Other times, it means focusing on education and partnership to prevent repeat mistakes.

Punishment vs. Prevention

In my view, not every error deserves a penalty—especially when there’s no malicious intent and the party involved is committed to making improvements. The ultimate goal of enforcement shouldn’t be to collect fines; it should be to enhance safety.

By working together—industry and regulators—can make meaningful process changes that protect people, property, and the environment.

Pro Tip: The “Breadcrumb” Approach for Hazmat Safety Teams

Document Everything
Keep complete and accurate records of pre-transportation steps, approvals, and hazard classifications. Missing details are missing breadcrumbs.
Trace the Process Backwards
If something goes wrong, retrace the entire shipping process—from packaging to carrier acceptance—to find where the issue started.
Focus on Root Causes, Not Just Symptoms
Correct the underlying processes or training gaps that led to the mistake. Penalties can stop a bad action once, but prevention keeps it from happening again.

Don’t Leave Your Compliance to Chance

Hazmat violations rarely happen in isolation. They’re the result of interconnected decisions, processes, and oversights that create a trail of risk throughout your operation.

The question isn’t whether PHMSA will follow the breadcrumbs in your facility—it’s whether you’ll find them first.

At HazMat Safety Consulting, we use the same investigative approach that Bob and his team employed at PHMSA, but we’re working for you, not against you. Our compliance audits trace every breadcrumb in your hazmat operations—from initial classification through final carrier acceptance—to identify vulnerabilities before they become violations.

Remember: As Bob Richard learned from years of enforcement, the breadcrumbs always tell a story. Make sure yours has a happy ending.

Questions about your specific situation? Book a call with our expert today!