4>EPA
          United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
            Office of Solid Waste
            and Emergency Response
            (OS-120)
October 1991
OSWER-91-006.2
Series 6, No. 8
Successful Practices in
Title III Implementation
          Chemical Emergency
          Preparedness and Prevention
          Technical Assistance Bulletin
          Cherry Hill, New Jersey
          Manitowoc County, Wisconsin
          Greene County, Missouri
          State of Hawaii
          Arapahoe County, Colorado
          Subject Index

-------

-------
                         ABOUT THIS BULLETIN


This is another in a series of bulletins that EPA is issuing to provide examples of implementation
programs and strategies of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986,
known as Title HI, that are innovative or have proven effective. The purpose of these bulletins is to
share information on successful practices with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs),
State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), fire departments, and other Title m
implementing agencies throughput the country in the hope that such information will prove useful to
other SERCs and LEPCs as their programs develop and evolve.

Elements from the programs featured here may be transferable to other programs in similar
communities or with similar situations. The bulletins provide information on a variety of practices
	for example, planning, compliance, information management, hazard analysis, and outreach,  ine
particular topics covered in each LEPC or SERC profile are listed in the box at the bottom of the
first page of the profile for easy reference, along with descriptions of the planning district or state
and LEPC or SERC membership.

The descriptions of the innovative and effective implementation programs and strategies are not
exhaustive. They are meant to provide readers with enough information to determine if a particular
approach is applicable to their own situation.  Each profile includes a contact person who can
provide more detailed information.

For your convenience, a subject index covering the contents of the eight Successful Practices
bulletins has been included in this bulletin. The index is designed to allow the reader to identify^
 successful Tide m implementation practices by topic area, and then locate the Successful Practices
bulletin in which the practice was profiled. Details on all eight bulletins, and how to order them, are
 provided on the page preceding the index.

 If you know of Title lH implementation efforts you feel would be of interest to others and that we
 should identify in Successful Practices, please contact your EPA Regional Chemical Emergency
 Preparedness and Prevention coordinator (see the list on page 22), or the Emergency Planning and
 Community Right-to-Know Information Hotline at (800) 535-0202.
                                      Printed on Recycled Paper

-------

-------
Successful Practices
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Paget
       The Township of Cherry Hill is located in
       Camden County, four miles east of
       Philadelphia.  While there are several
       major industries and industrial parks
 within the township, the Cherry Hill LEPC is
 also concerned with hazardous materials
 transportation throughout the township. Two
 major interstate highways, the New Jersey
 Turnpike and 1-295, run through the heart of the
 township and several trucking terminals are
 located within Cherry Hill.
                                                          Cherry Hill,
                                                           New Jersey
            within the township. This group, the Cherry Hill
            Emergency Management Council, was created
            by the mandate of the New Jersey Civil Defense
            Act of 1942 (Title 58, App. A:9 et al). The Act
            required New Jersey municipalities to develop
            emergency operations plans for natural and man-
            made disasters. Following the passage of Title
            in, Cherry Hill and many other municipalities in
            New Jersey incorporated the roles and
            responsibilities of the LEPC into the structure of
            these established councils.
 LEPC Organization

       Prior to the passage of the Emergency
       Planning and Community Right-to-Know
       Act of 1986 (commonly known as Title
 IE), Cherry Hill already had an emergency
 planning group composed of representatives of
 different public- and private-sector organizations
            Planning

                   Using the existing emergency operations
                   plan developed under the direction of the
                   council, the LEPC updated the hazardous
            materials annex as well as the overall plan to
            conform with the comprehensive planning
            process encouraged by the Hazardous Materials
  Membership:  15 members, including elected officials and representatives of the Office of
               Emergency Management, police and fire departments, public works, the American
               Red Cross, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, emergency
               medical services, the general public, and industry.

  Population:   79,000

  Facilities:     21, including a major pharmaceutical manufacturer

  Topics:      LEPC Organization
               Planning
               Information Managment
               Training
               Outreach

-------
 Page 2
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Successful Practices
 Emergency Planning Guide developed by the
 National Response Team, as required under Title
 HI. This document provides guidance on
 identifying and assessing chemical hazards
 throughout the community and developing an
 emergency plan that is coordinated and
 integrated with all organizations, from fire
 departments to the American Red Cross, that
 have a role in emergency situations.

 To identify chemical hazards within the
 township, the Cherry Hill LEPC reviewed
 follow-up notification reports on hazardous
 material accidents that have occurred within the
 township, as well as the right-to-know inventory
 forms (New Jersey's version of the Tier n form
 required under section 312 of Tide DT) submitted
 by reporting facilities. This information
 highlighted the need to address transportation
 corridors in the planning process. Because of the
 size and complexity of the hazardous materials
 transportation hazards, the Cherry Hill LEPC
 recognized the need for immediate access to
 chemical hazard information in a reliable and
 integrated format.
Information Management

       Initially, the information collected by the
       Cherry Hill LEPC under Tide m, which
       included the right-to-know inventory
forms, MSDSs, and facility emergency plans,
were alphabetized by facility name and placed in
a file cabinet in the Police Communications
Center. A copy of the facility's emergency plan
and right-to-know inventory form was also
provided to the appropriate fire district (there are
seven fire districts in Cherry Hill) by each
facility. These materials were stored in a file
drawer on the fire chiefs response vehicle.
While tire information is available for planning
activities, access to hazard and inventory
information critical to response operations was
limited at best

The Cherry Hill LEPC decided that a
computerized information management system
was needed to support their emergency
operations. The system would link all response
entities (e.g., fire department, the hazardous
materials response unit, and emergency
            management) to an integrated, centralized
            database. However, the response community
            lacked sufficient computer hardware or software
            for such a system, the LEPC had no funds
            available, and the township had a cap on
            expenditures that limited their ability to fund
            such a major endeavor.

            Because of the commitment of its members, the
            LEPC did not give up in the face of such
            significant obstacles. Instead, they identified a
            way to access funds necessary to develop their
            system. While each municipality in New Jersey
            operates with a cap on expenditures, the state
            provides a reserve of funds for major capital
            improvements such as resurfacing roads or
            upgrading the computer system for the police
            department. Recognizing this as an avenue for
            obtaining the necessary funding, the LEPC made
            a presentation to a committee of the Township
            Capital Improvement Committee that manages
            the reserve for Cherry Hill. Following the
            presentation, which stressed the need for
            immediate access to emergency information, the
            committee, composed of the township's business
            manager, and the directors of several of the
            township's departments, approved a capital
            improvement grant of $11,000 in May 1991.

            The Cherry Hill LEPC has decided to use the
            CAMEO-DOS software to help them manage
            their Title IH information. CAMEO (Computer-
            Aided Management of Emergency Operations) is
            designed to manage chemical- and facility-
            specific information about hazards in or near a
            community and to help emergency response
            personnel plan for the safe handling of chemical
            accidents. Developed by the U.S. Environmental
            Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
            Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
            (NOAA), CAMEO is available at cost to state
            and local governments through the National
            Safety Council.  Because of its low cost, the
           LEPC was able to purchase the software prior to
           obtaining the grant money. Currently, CAMEO
           is run on the personal IBM-compatible computer
           of the deputy coordinator for the LEPC.
           However, the LEPC is reviewing bids for
           purchasing computers for the Office of
           Emergency Management and the mobile
           command response unit.

-------
Successful Practices
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Page 3
Training

       The Cherry Hill LEPC is currently
       developing a training program for all
       potential CAMEO users in the township.
The training program will explain how to use
CAMEO to develop emergency plans; retrieve
facility Title in reports, emergency plans, and
information on response resources; and use
CAMEO's mapping capabilities to search and
display transportation routes, facilities, and
sensitive populations and create overlays specific
to their planning or response needs.  A full-time
firefighter with extensive computer experience
has been tapped to provide CAMEO training to
all personnel in the fire districts as well as other
response personnel in the township. The training
course is being developed using materials the
LEPC's deputy coordinator obtained at the
national CAMEO conference held in
Washington, DC, in January 1991.

The Cherry Hill fire and police departments have
also sponsored several Title Hi-related training
programs, including hazard awareness training
for all first responders and incident command
courses for all police and fire supervisors. These
training courses have helped to develop closer
relationships among all emergency services
within the community.

 In addition, the Emergency Management Office
 recommended that municipal department
 directors select certain employees to attend a
 series of train-the-trainer courses on hazardous
 materials awareness and employee right-to-
 know; this training was completed in the first
 half of 1991. These new trainers, hi turn, will
 ensure that all municipal employees receive
 hazardous materials awareness and employee
 right-to-know training on a regular basis.
 Outreach

        Working to increase awareness of chemical
        hazards and the Title HI requirements is
        an ongoing process for the Cherry Hill
 LEPC.  A video, Hazardous Materials: An
 Introduction for Public Officials, was provided
 to all municipal department directors. The
 video, which describes the requirements and
 responsibilities of local government in
                   Faster Communication -- Packet Radio

              The LEPC also has used some funds to purchase radio
              modems needed to establish a "packet" radio system.
              Packetradio allows acomputer to be connected to a high
              frequency radio (e.g., police radio) via a radio modem
              that relays data to a receiving computer that also has a
              radio modem. The information is transmitted in small
              "packets" of data (250 characters per packet) to a
              receiving computer, which must return a message that
              the information was received correctly before the next
              packet is sent. Because there is down-time between
              each packet, one frequency can be used by five or six
              computer stations at one time. This is important in
              emergency situations when there is a high demand on
              communication systems and limited frequencies are
              available.

              The LEPC believes this communications system is an
              invaluable tool in response actions, especially at remote
              sites (e.g., transportation-related incidents). Packetradio
              allows the emergency operations center to transmit
              Title HI information or other emergency information
              contained in the CAMEO system to response sites
              where conventional communication systems are non-
              existent, malfunctioning, or destroyed. In addition, the
              costs of establishing such a system are very small when
               compared with other, more elaborate communication
               systems. Packetradio reliesmostly on existinghardware
               — police and fire radios, cellular telephone, personal
               computers, and existing short wave radios, run by a
               network of 29 HAM radio operators in the township
               more than willing to  volunteer in any emergency
               situation.
              implementing Title III, was also shown to the
              LEPC and to facility representatives. The Office
              of Emergency Management also makes available
              the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
              (FEMA) home study course, Hazardous
              Materials: A Citizen's Orientation. The LEPC
              has found that such presentations and courses
              provide a good catalyst to get more people aware
              of chemical hazards in the community and,
              hopefully, more involved in reducing those
              hazards.

              One result of the LEPC's drive to increase public
              awareness of chemical hazards has been with the
              township's seven nursing homes. The LEPC has
              been helping the nursing homes develop
              emergency plans required under state law. As a
              result of the LEPC's cooperation, the nursing
              homes became more aware of chemical hazards

-------
  Page 4
Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Successful Practices
 in their immediate vicinity and the potential
 impact to their establishments. One outcome of
 this cooperation with the nursing homes is that
 the nursing homes are working on developing
 mutual aid agreements. The agreements will
 established emergency procedures so that if one
 nursing home has to be evacuated, procedures
 will be available to distribute the evacuees
 among the other homes in a timely and safe
 manner.
 LESSONS LEARNED

 'It's All in the Presentation," says Craig
 Martin, deputy coordinator for the Cherry Hill
 LEPC, referring to the presentation that got the
 LEPC a $11,000 capital improvement grant to
 purchase a computerized planning and
 information management system. With the
 LEPC stressing the usefulness of the Title HI
 information for responding to hazardous
 materials accidents and the cost effectiveness of
 the EPA and NOAA-developed CAMEO
 software, the committee could not say no to the
 LEPC.

 "The pitch was easy," Craig Martin emphasizes,
 "community right-to-know identifies the
 potential dangers and, through the software, we
 can find out how close these dangers are to
 sensitive populations, like nursing homes or day-
 care centers."

 The Commitment Is There, It's the Time
 That's Needed. The Cherry Hill LEPC has no
 full-time staff.  While the LEPC is composed of
 people dedicated to fulfilling the Title m
 mission, they do have full-time jobs and
 families, and finding the time to accomplish the
 goals they have set for themselves is difficult.
 Many training courses have to be offered on
 weekends, and meetings are held at night. To
 help lighten the load of the volunteers, the LEPC
 is working on having the full-time personnel
from the fire department take on the role of
managing the CAMEO system.
            In addition, the LEPC is also considering
            accessing persons who have been ordered to
            perform community services as the result of
            driving while intoxicated or other such
            violations. These persons, depending on their
            skills or expertise, can help enter data into the
            CAMEO system or help write or review
            emergency plans.

            LEPCs also should look anywhere or anyway to
            find help.  Craig Martin is a good example — he
            is a police officer and an adjunct instructor for
            FEMA's Emergency Management Institute.  His
            "part-time" role as deputy coordinator for the
            LEPC and the Emergency Management Office is
            funded by FEMA's  emergency management
            assistance grant program.
           Contact:

           Craig Martin, Deputy Coordinator
           Cherry Hill Office of Emergency Management
           820 Mercer Street
           P.O. Box 5002
           Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
           (609) 488-7822, extension 7690

-------
Successful Practices
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin
Pages
                                                             Manitowoc County,
                                                                   Wisconsin
       Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, located
       near Lake Michigan approximately 90
       miles north of Milwaukee and 45 miles
       south of Green Bay, includes the cities of
 Manitowoc and Two Rivers.  Several railroads
 and Interstate 43 (1-43) pass through Manitowoc
 County.  Most industry and population in the
 county are concentrated in the cities of
 Manitowoc and Two Rivers.  The Manitowoc
 County Local Emergency Planning Committee
 (LEPC) has established five separate
 subcommittees to address the following issues:
 education, funding, planning, exercises, and
 LEPC membership.
 Outreach

       Upon establishing the education
       subcommittee, the LEPC recognized that
       facilities throughout Manitowoc County
 must understand the Title in requirements and
                their reporting responsibilities. Members of the
                education subcommittee invited local industry
                representatives, the county Tavern League,
                agricultural cooperative (co-op) representatives,
                and a representative from a local advertising
                agency to attend their meetings.

                At an initial, priority-setting meeting in October
                1989, the subcommittee decided that the
                agricultural community should be the first
                audience for focused outreach activities, as most
                local farmers were unfamiliar with Title HI
                reporting requirements. The Manitowoc County
                LEPC sent a letter to all area farmers introducing
                Title HI and providing contacts and telephone
                numbers for more information.  A list of
                commonly-used agricultural chemicals covered
                under Title ffi was included with the letter.

                The LEPC also worked with the local
                 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
                 Service (ASCS) office to send this same letter in
  Membership: 25 members and 12 alternates, including representatives from county emergency
               government, hazmat response team, county board of supervisors, fire service, law
               enforcement, hospitals, the Amercian Red Cross, industry, transportation, citizens,
               news media, the Towns Association, and local health and public works departments,


  Population:   82,477

  Facilities:    216, including several food processing and storage companies


  Topics:      Outreach
               Exercises
               Training

-------
  Page 6
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin      Successful Practices
  conjunction with ASCS's mailing to area
  fanners in January 1990. The ASCS is an
  agency within the Department of Agriculture
  with approximately 2,800 county offices
  nationwide that administers federal agricultural
  programs to local farmers. Coordinating with the
  ASCS allowed the Manitowoc County LEPC to
  reach a large audience at little expense. The
  letter designated area co-op agents as contact
  persons because local farmers are familiar with
  these agents.  About 1,450 farmers from the total
  mailing of 1,500 called for more information.
  As a result of the agricultural outreach
  campaign, the number of farmers that submitted
  Tier H forms under section  312 of Title m
  increased from one to twenty-seven.

  Subsequently, the education subcommittee has
  aimed its outreach campaign at both local
  industry and the general public.  As part of the
  industry outreach campaign, the subcommittee
  consulted with representatives from the local
 industrial council, various members of the press
 and radio, and a local advertising agency. All
 parties agreed that the campaign should be short,
 simple, and to the point and that the goal of the
 industry outreach campaign was to make
 businesses aware of Tide HI in a visual and
 compelling way.

 The LEPC asked representatives from local
 newspapers and radio stations to attend an
 education subcommittee meeting to plan the
 outreach campaign. Pictures with brief Tide IE-
 related articles appeared in various local
 newspapers. An advertising agency donated a
 billboard as a public service, providing a highly
 visible Title El message on the well-traveled
 highway between Manitowoc and Two Rivers.
 The billboard warned of steep fines for industries
 that fail to report the presence of hazardous
 materials on their premises using the message,
 "By playing this lottery, you could lose
 $25,000!" The board depicts a dollar bill in the
 left hand corner with tiny pieces of it breaking
 apart, and a phone number for more information.
 The total cost to the county for the billboard  was
 about $70 for production and posting fees.

Ads echoing the billboard's warning appeared in
various local newspapers throughout Manitowoc
County during the first two weeks in October
                1990. The costs for printing the ads varied —
                the Manitowoc County LEPC secured free space
                in some papers, and received public service- or
                small business-reduced rates in others.  The ads
                ran in at least one area paper on each day of the
                two-week period. Since the industry outreach
                campaign started, the number of facilities that
                submitted Tier E forms under section 312 of
                Title HI increased from 113 to 216.

                The goal of the public outreach campaign, which
                was developed concurrently with the industry
                campaign, was to introduce Title El and its
                community right-to-know message to a largely
                unaware public. A separate advertisement was
                developed and appeared every day for the last
                two weeks in October 1990, in one of the area
                papers and at least one day per week in all the
                others. The theme of the advertisement was "It's
                Your Right to Know," emphasizing the role of
                the LEPC in planning and preparedness, and
                providing a phone number for more information.
                The Emergency Government Director, the LEPC
                chair, and the chair of the education
                subcommittee followed the press ads with
                appearances on local radio talk shows.

                The education subcommittee also has formed an
                LEPC Speakers Bureau whose members are
                available to speak before area groups on Title
                El-related topics. A list of speakers is posted at
                the public library, area colleges, the county
                clerk's office, and other strategic Manitowoc
                County locations.  Speakers do not charge fees,
                but groups may make a donation to support
                LEPC activities.

                As a result of its outreach efforts, the LEPC
               received a "Certificate for Excellence in
               Hazardous Materials Outreach Programs" from
               the Region 5 Regional Response Team, a group
               consisting of regional representatives from the
               fourteen federal agencies with hazardous
               materials response and planning expertise, as
               well as the a representative from each state in the
               Region. These certificates award LEPCs within
               the Region that have exceptional outreach,
               planning, exercise, training, or hazards analysis
               programs.

-------
Successful Practices
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin
Page?
Exercises

       The LEPC's public awareness campaign
       was also supported by two field exercises
       Manitowoc County has held in
cooperation with the local hazmat team.  These
exercises (held on June 13,1989, and October 6,
1990) helped to increase awareness of Title ni
preparedness and response issues.  Manitowoc
County officials have held various full-scale
exercises in the past with two nearby nuclear
plants, but only recently have city officials been
involved in an exercise in which they have to
interact with their county counterparts.
 Training

        Because the Manitowoc County LEPC is
        made up of people with diverse
        backgrounds, the LEPC decided to first
 understand the emergency preparedness and
 response duties or interests of each LEPC
 member. As of May 1991, representatives from
 the local hazmat team, the Red Cross, local law
 enforcement, emergency management, and the
 County Public Works Department, as well as an
 emergency planner from the Kewaunee nuclear
 power plant all have made presentations to the
 Manitowoc County LEPC.  These presentations
 have included a demonstration of hazmat
 emergency response equipment and tours of the
 police department and its dispatch center, as well
 as overviews of Red Cross emergency services,
 the mobile command center and emergency
 operations center, progress on a household
 chemicals outreach campaign, and emergency
 planning techniques at the local nuclear power
 plants.
 LESSONS LEARNED

 Title in Outreach Is a Continuous Process.
 The Manitowoc County LEPC believes that
 outreach is an ongoing process even though they
 have conducted several effective outreach
 campaigns.  The LEPC recognizes that there
 may be many other facilities which are unaware
 or uninterested in the requirements of Title HI.
 In fact, the LEPC still receives a large number of
 calls each month about reporting requirements,
                            Accident Tests LEPC Plan

                   Theemergencyresponseplansofthe Manitowoc County
                   LEPC were tested recently when a tanker truck leaked
                   ferric chloride solution along a stretch of roadway in
                   May 1991. The tanker truck had gotten lost because the
                   driver had no maps and the truck routes may not have
                   been clearly identified. To make matters worse, the
                   truck wasnotinspected after the initial clean-up, creating
                   new leaks to be addressed by responders.  High
                   temperatures and extreme humidity hampered the
                   responding hazmat team, forcing team members to
                   work in short, 15-minute shifts.

                   The coordinated efforts of a range of organizations,
                   including fire, police, public works, Red Cross,
                   emergency government, news media, and the LEPC,
                   helped to alleviate a potentially dangerous situation.
                   Direct radio  links with local radio stations allowed
                   emergency government personnel to make protective
                   action announcements to the public. Mobile phones and
                   fax machines, as  well as other communications
                   equipment, were made available to response personnel.
                   With thecompletion of the responders' work some eight
                   hours after the release began, the efforts to coordinate
                   Manitowoc County emergency planning process had
                   proven extremely effective.
                  fee payments, and other regulations under Title
                  IE.  Because turnover at facilities and, more
                  important, within the LEPC and emergency
                  response community is continuous, the LEPC
                  believes providing these groups with continuous
                  information on Title in and the LEPC's role in
                  planning for potential chemical emergencies is
                  essential.

                  An Emergency Response Plan Is a Living
                  Document. In responding to the recent ferric
                  chloride leak from a tanker truck in May  1991,
                  the Manitowoc County LEPC realized that
                  emergency planning is a dynamic, ongoing
                  process. As a result of that accident, the LEPC
                  recognized that hazardous materials
                  transportation routes should be clearly identified
                  throughout the county and that highway
                  patrolmen should be called earlier to carefully
                  inspect any vehicle involved in a hazardous
                  materials incident before letting the vehicle leave
                  the scene. These issues are to be addressed in
                  future LEPC meetings.

-------
Pages
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin      Successful Practices
Climate can also be a significant factor in
response actions; to avoid exhaustion, hazmat
personnel had to receive tremendous amounts of
fluids while working in high temperatures.
Fatigue on the part of responders can contribute
to loss of concentration, especially during a long
response incident such as this recent one. To
resolve these issues in their emergency plan, the
Manitowoc County LEPC plans to establish
mutual aid agreements with hazmat teams from
neighboring communities to provide back-up
support in future incidents of long duration.
                Contact:

                Doug Day
                Manitowoc County LEPC Chairman
                c/o Wisconsin Public Service
                P.O. Box 19002
                Green Bay, WI54307-9002
                (414) 433-5528

-------
Successful Practices
Greene County, Missouri
Page 9
                                                                Greene County,
                                                                     Missouri
       Greene County is located in southwestern
       Missouri; the county seat, Springfield,
       has a population of over 140,000.
       Primary transportation routes in the
 county include the Burlington Northern and
 Missouri Pacific Railroads, Interstate 44, and
 U.S. Highways 60,65,66,160, and 266.

 Prior to the enactment of Title ffl, a voluntary
 Chemical Emergency Task Force, composed of
 representatives from both  the public sector and
 private industry, began developing an emergency
 plan for the city of Springfield.  The plan
 developed by the task force was submitted to the
 City Council in October 1987. The Springfield
 plan was subsequently converted to a county-
 wide plan in keeping with the designation of
 Greene County as a local emergency planning
 district under Title HI.
             LEPC Organization

                   In the late spring of 1989, the LEPC
                   stopped meeting when the LEPC Chair,
                   the Director of the Springfield-Greene
             County Emergency Management Office,
             resigned.  To avoid the potential for another
             stoppage or slowdown in its activities, the LEPC
             began to develop a more formal organizational
             structure after its re-establishment in November
             1989. In June 1991, the LEPC published a
             document formalizing the structure and
             procedures which have  allowed it to maintain a
             high level of activity over the last year and a
             half, as described below.
  Membership:  111 members, including representatives from the local health, public works, and
               highway departments, fire services, Greene County Commission, local and state
               police, hospitals, Amercian Red Cross, utitlities, emergency services, the Burlington
               Northern Railroad, news media, University of Missouri, industry, Watershed
               Committee, Household Hazardous Waste project, individual citizens, and citizen
               groups. The chair is the director of the Springfield-Greene County Emergency
               Managment Office.

  Population:   200,000

  Facilities:     245

  Topics:       LEPC Organization
               Information Management
               Hazards Analysis
               Exercises

-------
 Page 10
Greene County, Missouri
Successful Practices
      LEPC Active in Other Community Projects

   The varied membership of the Greene County LEPC
   includes representatives from local environmental
   projects such as the Watershed Committee and the
   Household Hazardous Waste Project  The LEPC,
   through various subcommittees, is working with the
   Watershed Committee to address  potential
   con taminationof the watershed from transportation and
   fixed facility incidents involving hazardous chemicals.
   For instance, information on sinkholes located along
   area highways will be entered into the CAMEO system
   to identify the sinkholes as possible avenues for
   watershed contamination in the event of a nearby spill.

  The LEPC is also coordinating with the Watershed
  Committee in developinglegislationtorequiresecondary
  containment at fixed facilities where chemicals, if
  released, could contaminate the watershed. For the
  Household Hazardous Waste Project, the LEPC assists
  in coordinating collection and publicity activities.
LEPC membership is open to any individual who
resides or works in Greene County. All
members are expected, to serve on at least one of
the following eight subcommittees:

       Education and Media: develops outreach
       materials explaining the purpose and
       goals of the LEPC;

       Data Collection:  identifies facilities in
       compliance and provides assistance to
       facilities in meeting the requirements of
       Title HI;

       Data Management and Public Inquiry:
       verifies and reconciles facility
       submissions and responds to citizen
      requests for right-to-know information;

      Assessment: evaluates the hazards posed
      by the storage, production, and use of
      chemicals at specific locations;

      Resources: identifies all available public
      and private resources for emergency
      response purposes;

      Medical and Health:  addresses
      decontamination and emergency medical
      services issues, including training;
                    Evacuation and Sheltering: identifies
                    shelters and develops evacuation and
                    in-place protection procedures; and

                    Exercise and Evaluation: organizes
                    exercises to test the emergency plan and
                    evaluates exercise results.

             The LEPC also has an Executive Committee,
             consisting of the heads of the eight
             subcommittees and the three elected LEPC
             officers (LEPC members elect a chairperson,
             vice-chairperson, and secretary every February).
             The Executive Committee's responsibilities
             include the approving amendments to the
             emergency plan; identifying gaps in the plan;
             reviewing information requests from citizens;
             and overseeing LEPC elections.

             The full LEPC meets bi-monthly at the
             American Red Cross Center, with the Executive
             Committee meeting in the alternate months at the
             county Emergency Operations Center, where all
             LEPC records and information are maintained.
             Subcommittees meet as often as necessary to
             achieve their objectives. To better schedule and
            track LEPC projects, minutes are published for
            all meetings — minutes for the Executive
            Committee and full LEPC meetings are mailed
            to all members; subcommittee minutes are
            distributed to all subcommittee chairs and LEPC
            elected officers.
            Information Management

                   In conjunction with the Missouri
                   Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
                   the LEPC developed a conversion
            program that allows them to download all the
            Tide HI submissions from Greene County
            facilities from the DNR mainframe. This
            process avoids a redundant data entry and helps
            the LEPC's Data Management Subcommittee to
            identify companies that are reporting to the
            SERC and not to the LEPC or the local fire
            department, or that are reporting under some, but
            not all, of the required sections of Title in. In
            the fall of 1990, the LEPC sent out a letter to
            over 100 facilities requesting the submission of
            information to the LEPC or the SERC to
            complete this reconciliation process. Almost
            every one of these facilities have since come into

-------
Successful Practices
Greene County, Missouri
Page 11
compliance, and the publicity surrounding the,
effort alerted several additional facilities that had
previously not provided any information under
Title HI to its reporting requirements.

Continuing to optimize its data management
system, in February 1991, the LEPC installed the
IBM-compatible CAMEO-DOS system to
manage their Title m information and planning
efforts: CAMEO is the Computer-Aided
Management of Emergency Operations system
developed by EPA and the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Both the LEPC and the Springfield Fire
Department are uploading information and the
LEPC hopes to use CAMEO as a resource
database and as a means of more accurately
identifying vulnerable populations once this
process is completed.
 Hazards Analysis

       To begin the process of identifying these
       vulnerable populations, the assessment
       subcommittee has examined over 50
 facilities using a simple format developed by the
 LEPC to assess risk. The initial assessment
 collects information on the types, amounts, and
 locations of hazardous chemicals on-site, and
 potential exposure pathways and vulnerable
 populations. In the next step, the fire department
 will review and validate these assessments based
 on the information collected during their annual
 fire inspections. The finalized assessments will
 be provided to the facility to serve as a means of
 initiating a dialogue with the LEPC on
 mitigating the potential for a dangerous chemical
 release.  Because the preliminary analysis by the
 assessment subcommittee indicates that chlorine
 is one of the primary hazards in the county, the
 next LEPC simulation exercise will address a
 chlorine incident.
 Exercises

        Meanwhile, the LEPC has participated in
        an evacuation and sheltering exercise in
        April 1990 with the American Red Cross,
 the Southwest Missouri State University, the
 Emergency Management Office, the Springfield
 Fire Department, amateur radio operators, and
 other agencies. The exercise simulated
 coordinating of the evacuation and sheltering
             process. The participants — university students
             and other members of the general public —
             remained overnight at a local Red Cross shelter.

             During the course of the evening, workshops
             were held on emergency preparedness issues for
             both the public and first responders. An exercise
             critique held the next morning' identified the
             need to develop clear procedures for the
             decontamination of potential exposure victims
             — two of the simulated victims had been
             transported to the local hospital without
             decontamination of their bodies and clothing.

             The LEPC held a joint field exercise in April
             1991, with the SYNTEX Agribusiness, Inc.,
             facility involving the facility hazmat team and
             the newly organized Springfield Fire Department
             Hazmat Team. The week before, a table-top
             simulation was held to familiarize the
             participants with the scenario.  The incident
             involved a leak of phosphorus trichloride
             reacting with water to create phosphoric and
             chloride acids as liquids and vapors.

             The exercise was designed to test both
             established emergency response procedures and
             the coordination among the various responding
             agencies. Two critical issues were identified:

                    Limited equipment and insufficient
                    procedures for decontaminating exposure
                    victims by emergency medical personnel;
                    and

                    A lack of experience and understanding
                    in making evacuation and in-place
                    protection decisions.

              These problems are being addressed by the
              appropriate subcommittees of the LEPC.  In
              addition, the two hazmat teams have established
              a cross-training relationship to resolve any
              procedural differences; the LEPC has also sent
              out letters to other private facility hazmat teams
              in hopes of developing similar arrangements.

-------
 Page 12
 •••••MBI

 LESSONS LEARNED
Greene County, Missouri
Successful Practices
 Lead Agency Can Provide Partial Funding
 for LEPC Activities. The Springfield-Greene
 County Emergency Management Office (EMO)
 recognized that the Title in mandate was
 consistent with its responsibilities under
 Missouri law to prepare the community for
 emergencies. Thanks to the support of the
 Greene County Commission, EMO has become
 the lead agency for the LEPC, with its director
 serving as the LEPC chair. Funding for LEPC
 mailings and other support is supplemented
 through the annual EMO operations budget.

 The EMO director suggests that other planning
 districts experiencing difficulty in funding their
 activities should consider coordinating their
 activities more closely with a local agency(ies).
 Many of the tasks associated with implementing
 Title HI are already performed, and funded, by
 local fire, police, health, and civil defense
 agencies.

 LEPCs Require Structure and Definition to
 Function. To effectively implement the Title HI
 mandate, each LEPC must organize and establish
 specific operating procedures. LEPCs should
 design a workable system as soon as possible to
 serve as a functional basis for operations, and
 then let experience guide further developing the
 LEPC's structure and guidelines. During its first
 years, the Greene County LEPC relied on the
 leadership of the EMO Director, and when he
 resigned, a period of inactivity followed.
 Recognizing this structural flaw, during the
 November 1989 reorganization, one of the key
 steps taken by the members of the LEPC was to
 develop written procedures to prevent a
recurrence of this type of situation.
                Expanded LEPC Mission Increases
                Awareness.  The Greene County LEPC realizes
                that by becoming involved in other community
                projects relating to chemical usage and
                environmental protection, it will be better able to
                fulfill its Tide m mandate. The LEPC's work
                with the Watershed Committee, the Household
                Hazardous Waste Project, and local
                environmental groups has increased Title III
                awareness among the public and industry. In
                recognition of its achievements, the LEPC
                received the Missouri Department of Natural
                Resources' 1990 Resource Steward Award. This
                award commends the LEPC for its outstanding
                efforts to promote safe chemical management in
                an effort to protect the citizens and natural
                resources of Greene County. The LEPC is now
                working with the Springfield Area Chamber of
                Commerce to gain funding for an informational
                brochure to be distributed to area businesses.

                Compliance Efforts Should Rely First on
                Outreach, Not Enforcement. The Greene
                County LEPC has had notable success with a
                compliance policy which stresses assistance to
                local facilities in being aware of and complying
                with the requirements of Title El. LEPC
                members believe that industry wants to be in
                compliance, and that by adopting an initial,
                enforcement-oriented approach, the LEPC will
                place facilities on the defensive and make them
                less cooperative with the LEPC.
                Contact:

                Mr. Joye G. McElwee, Chair
                Greene County LEPC
                Springfield-Greene County Emergency
                Management Office
                833 BoonviUe
                Springfield, MO 65802
                (417) 869-6040

-------
Successful Practices
State of Hawaii
Page 13
                              State of Hawaii
       To improve Hawaii's chemical emergency
       planning and response capability and to
       streamline the collection of Title IH data,
       the state has been a pioneer in the use of
 CAMEO (Computer-Aided Management of
 Emergency Operations) software developed by
 EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
 Administration (NOAA) to help local districts
 manage and use information about chemical
 hazards in their communities. Hawaii's use of
 CAMEO includes an innovative new effort to
 take Title m awareness "to the streets" through a
 public information pilot program under an EPA
 grant. In addition to its use of CAMEO, the
 Hawaii SERC has conducted emergency
 response exercises and enhanced its hazardous
 material training.

 The lead agency responsible for implementing
 Title m in Hawaii is the state Department of
 Health.  The department's Office of Hazard
 Evaluation and Emergency Response (HEER)
        serves as the technical advisor for chemical
        incidents. HEER also dispatches response
        personnel to the scene of a chemical incident and
        has developed — through a committee
        established by the SERC — an oil and hazardous
        substance emergency response plan. Civil
        defense agencies and fire departments manage
        Title m programs at the LEPC level.
         Information Management

               Hawaii is one of the first states to have a
               fully integrated Title HI data
               management system using CAMEO
         software and Macintosh computers. The
         CAMEO system— a powerful tool that presents
         the user with a wide array of databases,
         including information on chemicals, facilities,
         transportation, and even street maps to assist
         response personnel — is offered to state and
         local governments at cost through the National
  Membership:  15 members, including representatives from the Departments of Health, Defense,
               Labor and Industrial Relations, Business and Economic Development, and
               Trasnportation; Boards of Agriculture and Land and Natural Resources; University
               of Hawaii; American Red Cross; Office of Environmental Control; and the four
               Hawaii LEPCs.

  Organization: 4 LEPCs representing the four Hawaiian counties

  Topics:      Information Management
               Outreach
               LEPC Organization
               Training
               Exercises

-------
 Page 14
State of Hawaii
Successful Practices
          Follow-up Improves Compliance

   The Hawaii SERC has found that getting facilities to fill
   out Title M forms completely and accurately is a vital
   first step in compiling a good database on chemicals in
   thecommunity. In 1989, about 30 percent of the state's
   facilities submitted correct and complete  Title m
   information for the CAMEO database. In contrast, the
   Title HI submissions for 1990 have shown a great
   improvement, with  85 percent submitting correct and
   complete information.

   This achievement is in large part attributable to the
   thoroughfollow-upconductedfor the 1989 submissions.
   Each of these reports was reviewed, and a letter was
   written to eachfacilitythathadsubmitted an incomplete
   report. A follow-up phone call  was made  to those
   facilities that did not respond to the letter, and a final
   follow-up letter was sent to each facility that did not
   respond to the phone call. The HEER office then sent
   a mailout reminder to all previous Title HI submitters in
   February 1991 for the 1990 submission. The reminder
   letterincludedsimpleexamplesofaproperlycompleted
   Tier n form, a list of common TPQs and RQs, a list of
   SERC and LEPC addresses, and an information hotline
   number.
 Safety Council. (A DOS version also is
 available for users with IBM-compatible
 machines.)

 In Hawaii's Title HI community, data is easily
 shared. Rather than having right-to-know
 information scattered around in different
 formats, all of the agencies with a stake in Title
 HI have agreed to use CAMEO.  To get the most
 out of their CAMEO system, Hawaii has
 emphasized training programs for LEPC and
 SERC members who use the software, and has
 worked with chemical facilities to help them
 submit Title HI data in a more consistent form.

As part of this training, the SERC instituted
annual one-week CAMEO training courses, and
sent one representative from each LEPC to a
national CAMEO workshop. EPA's Region 9,
with the assistance of NOAA, also conducted
two CAMEO courses in Honolulu, which were
attended by representatives from all four LEPCs
and the state Department of Health.
         To provide general Macintosh training and more
         specialized instruction in the CAMEO program,
         a Hawaii data management workshop also was
         held. Attendees were given a procedural
         manual, instructions on how to use it, and
         guidance on Tide HI topics such as enforcement
         and facility inspections. The workshop also
         trained attendees in the use of FEMA's
         Hazardous Materials Information Exchange
         (HMK), a computer bulletin board that include
         various categories of information on hazardous
         materials planning and response.

         During the workshop, the participants discussed
         data flow within Hawaii's Title III community
         and identified potential problems. As a result, a
         task force was established to address such issues
         as formatting Title HI information so that all
         users enter data into the system in the same way.
         A $50,000 Tide HI training grant from FEMA
         and funding from the state Department of Health
         cover training and travel expenses for the task
         force.

         In addition, the SERC has conducted workshops
         in each county to help LEPC members and
         facilities learn more about hazards analysis, and
         to provide guidance in filling out Tier n forms
         and the "Hawaii Facility Profile." This four-
         page profile addresses the storage of hazardous
         substances at each facility, as well as
         transportation routes, nearby facilities that
        contribute to potential risk, geographic features,
        climate, critical time variables (e.g. rush hours),
        and the facility's own response capability.
        These data all feed into the CAMEO system and
        can be used either for emergency planning and
        completing a hazards analysis or by response
        personnel at the time of an actual incident.  This
        information can also be used by each LEPC for
        cross-referencing against existing files.


        Outreach

              To enhance the usefulness of its Title HI
              information, the Hawaii SERC recently
              received a  $73,540 grant from EPA to
        develop a computer-based public information
        program. This will allow Hawaii's LEPCs to
        disseminate Title HI data to the general public.
        The project includes public demonstrations of
        the Hawaii CAMEO system, installation at
        permanent public sites, training programs, a
        publicity campaign to inform the public about

-------
Successful Practices
State of Hawaii
Page 15
 the program and Title pi in general, and a survey
 to determine the effectiveness of this outreach.
 Under the grant, Hawaii also will produce a draft
 manual describing how the CAMEO system can
 be used by other states.

 The project is now in the preliminary design
 phase. A contractor has been hired to develop a
 system that would allow any user to locate the
 chemical facility nearest them — perhaps using
 touch-screen computer displays — and to learn
 more about the chemicals at that facility.
 LEPC Organization

       Another central issue for the Hawaii SERC
       has been incorporating Title HI
       administrative responsibilities into the
 emergency response structure that had been in
 place prior to the passage of Tide in. A
 memorandum of understanding facilitated the
 transition from the pre-existing arrangement to a
 new, dual  structure, whereby the civil defense
 agency handles natural disasters and the
 Department of Health handles oil and hazardous
 materials incidents.  A 24-hour civil defense
 emergency notification hotline supports
 reporting of both types of events.

 Each of the four Hawaiian counties — Hawaii,
 Maui, Oahu, and Kauai — has formed its own
 LEPC, but each has its own distinct character
 based on the emergency planning structure that
 had been in place before Title HI. In all four
 counties, the director of the civil defense office
 is the active chair of the LEPC. Fire departments
 provide assistance to varying degrees. For
 example, in Kauai, a small county with only fifty
 facilities, the local fire department's eight-
 member hazmat team handles initial response,
 while civil defense officials are responsible for
 emergency planning and data management But
 hi Maui (a county composed of several islands),
 the fire department assumes both roles.
 Training

        For several years, the Oceania Regional
        Response Team — the federal
        coordinating body for chemical
 emergency preparedness for Hawaii, Guam, and
 the Pacific Islands — has been supporting the
 Honolulu Fire Department's efforts to develop a
        Level A first-responder hazardous materials
        response capability, the first such capability hi
        Hawaii. The Coast Guard and other federal
        agencies have helped in this effort by providing
        training, equipment, and technical assistance.
        The goal is to have all four counties equipped
        with first-responder capability.

        A $60,000 state grant and additional funds from
        FEMA are supporting hazardous materials
        training hi Hawaii. Using this funding, a
        technical committee established by the SERC
        has developed training guidelines that meet or
        exceed the OSHA minimum standards. The
        document discusses four categories of hazmat
        training, ranging from short familiarization
        sessions to intensive courses:

               Hazardous Materials First Responder: An
               8-hour "awareness" course for
               emergency medical personnel, police,
               and highway personnel who might be
               confronted with a hazmat incident.

               Hazardous Materials Incident Response:
               A 40-hour course on personal protection
               for first responders.

               Hazardous Materials Supervisor: An 8-
               hour class for supervisors of response
               teams, taken in addition to the 40-hour
               incident response course.

               Hazardous Materials Specialist: A pah* of
               FEMA courses for personnel entering a
               "hot zone." Two weeks are spent on
               hazardous materials chemistry and two
               weeks on tactical considerations.

        Response exercises have been designed for
        personnel in all categories, and courses are
        offered once or twice a year with state funding.
         Exercises.

                The Hawaii SERC, along with EPA,
                FEMA, and the state and county civil
                defense agencies, have co-sponsored a
         series of exercises that have proven valuable in
         highlighting potential emergency response
         problems. A full-field exercise was conducted in
         Honolulu, on the island of Oahu, and tabletop
         exercises have been conducted in Maui, Hawaii,
         and Kauai counties.

-------
 Page 16
State of Hawaii
Successful Practices
 The main lesson learned from these exercises to
 date has been that response resources are
 inadequate outside of Oahu. At present, the
 Oahu emergency response team is the only one
 with full Level A response capability (including
 personal protective gear). When a chemical
 accident occurs on another island, the Oahu team
 can provide technical advice to initial responders
 until the Oahu responders arrive with Level A
 personal protection equipment. As a result of the
 exercises, each county now recognizes the need
 for an independent response capability to
 manage serious incidents until the Oahu team
 arrives, and Department of Health officials have
 become convinced of the need for additional
 personnel and equipment.

 The exercises also identified communications
 issues relating to response coordination among
 agencies and between field and Emergency
 Operations Center personnel. One proposed
 solution is to equip all Department of Health
 district offices with cellular phones to ensure that
 there are no breaks in communication.
        Cooperation Is the Key. In agreeing to set up a
        common data management system, Hawaii's
        LEPCs and SERC also have learned that
        working together has helped to identify common
        problems among the Title El community and
        foster an atmosphere conducive to developing
        solutions to these problems. For example,
        emergency response exercises conducted on
        islands (other than Oahu) have shown the need
        for each island's independent response
        capability, and the state, through the SERC, is
        supporting the development of these capabilities.

        Contact:

        J. Mark Ingoglia, Manager
        Office of Hazard Evaluation and
              Emergency Response
        Hawaii Department of Health
        5 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 250
        500 Ala Moana Boulevard
        Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
        (808) 543-8249
LESSONS LEARNED

Getting the Most From Title TTT Data.
Hawaii's pioneering use of CAMEO to create a
Title in information database, while still in the
early stages, has already produced results, says
Mark Ingoglia of the state Department of Health.
"It's gotten everybody to pay attention to [the
data], to clean it up and make it a tool, instead of
just a box full of paper."

-------
Successful Practices
Arapahoe County, Colorado
Page 17
                                                            Arapahoe County,
                                                                  Colorado
       Arapahoe County, in the suburbs of
       Denver, encompasses 14 different fire
       districts and five law enforcement
       jurisdictions. Arapahoe County includes
several heavily used interstate highways, Lowry
Air Force Base, and several major railroad
systems. The largest municipality in the county,
Aurora, was designated as its own planning
district and has formed its own LEPC.

The Arapahoe County LEPC, operating through
the Sheriff's Office, has formed two
subcommittees to handle LEPC operations, the
Emergency Response Subcommittee and the
SARA Title El Compliance Subcommittee. The
Emergency Response Subcommittee handles
emergency planning, hazards analysis, and inter-
jurisdictional issues, such as establishing mutual
              aid agreements.  The SARA Title El Compliance
              Subcommittee is responsible for facility
              compliance, public education, outreach, and
              information management. The two
              subcommittees meet in alternating months and
              the LEPC as a whole meets at least annually.
              Planning

                     The Arapahoe County LEPC emergency
                     plan covers the jurisdictions of 14
                     different fire departments, many of
              whom have their own emergency procedures.
              To avoid duplicative or contradictory plans, the
              Emergency Response Subcommittee developed
              an umbrella plan for the entire county, focusing
              on interdepartmental coordination, chain-of-
 Membership:  18 members, including representatives from county government, law enforcement,
               local fire departments, county health department, emergfency management, industry,
               local television and newspapers, and private citizens.

 Population:    400,000

 Facilities:     578 reported under sections 302, 311, and 312, including chemical processors,
               laboratories, chemical distributors, explosives manufactures, food processors, water
               treatment plants, metal plating operations, and aircraft parts manufacturers.

 Topics:       Planning
               Information Management
               Hazards Analysis
               Exercises
               Outreach
               Compliance

-------
  Page 18
Arapahoe County, Colorado
Successful Practices
             Ihter-LEPC Coordination

   An example of the successful coordination among
   neighboring LEPCs is the efforts of the Arapahoe
   County and City of Aurora LEPCs. Lowry Air Force
   Base is located in both the Arapahoe County and the
   Aurora emergency planning districts. By coordinating
   closely with each other and with Lowry, the two LEPCs
   were able to determine the resources needed from each
   district to supplement the Lowry resources for
   responding to a chemical incident at the base. As a
   resultof this cooperative atmosphere.Lowry has offered
   the use of their resources, such as personnel, heavy fire
   fighting equipment, and evacuation equipment, to
   support emergency response actions undertaken by
   both LEPCs, including those not at Lowry Air Force
   Base.
 command structure, mutual aid agreements, and
 emergency communication procedures.

 This umbrella plan also includes provisions for
 coordination and cooperation with neighboring
 LEPCs. The city of Aurora and the neighboring
 counties of Douglas, Jefferson, Adams, and
 Denver are all covered by the inter-jurisdictional
 provisions of the Arapahoe County plan. In
 addition, mutual aid agreements are in place
 between the Arapahoe County LEPC and these
 neighboring LEPCs. As a result of this inter-
 jurisdictional coordination, the Arapahoe County
 LEPC has access to almost 100 fully certified
 hazmat responders.

 The Emergency Response Subcommittee's
 planning efforts are also supported by the State
 of Colorado's Uniform Fire Code, which
 mandates counties to adopt a fire code requiring
 the submission of a facility emergency response
 plan to the LEPC and the local fire department
 by all facilities required to report under sections
 311-312 of Title m. To help incorporate the
 facility response plans into the LEPC plan,
 Arapahoe County has developed the Facility
 Profile and Internal Contingency Plan  form.
 Each facility is asked to provide information on
 the facility location, emergency coordinator and
 alternate(s), quantity of chemicals present, list of
 available material safety data sheets (MSDSs),
 evacuation distances for worst case accident
 scenarios, notification procedures, response
capabilities, and vulnerable or sensitive
populations near the facility. Each completed
               Facility Profile and Internal Contingency Plan is
               then incorporated into the LEPC's umbrella plan.

               The completed Facility Profile and Internal
               Contingency. Plans are also used by the local fire
               departments in their code enforcement and
               emergency planning activities. In most cases,
               the local fire department and the covered facility
               work together to develop specific emergency
               procedures.
               Hazards Analysis

                     When the LEPC receives the Facility
                     Profile and Internal Contingency Plan, a
                     facility identification number is assigned.
               With chemical information received from the
               facility or a computerized database, the LEPC
               uses National Fire Protection Association
               (NFPA)  section 704 labelling standards, which
               rate, on a scale of zero to four, health, fire,
               reactivity, and chemical hazards of chemicals, to
               calculate overall facility hazard codes. The codes
               are then entered into the dispatch computer as
               part of the facility's identification information.
               When a call is placed to the Sheriff's Office, the
               dispatch officer is immediately able to provide
               first responders with general hazard information
               about the incident site.

               The Facility Profile and Internal Contingency
               Plan forms are also examined by the LEPC to
               identify the facilities that present the highest
               likelihood of a chemical incident.  The
               Emergency Response Subcommittee then
               identifies potential accident scenarios that could
               be simulated at these facilities in either a table-
               top or field simulation exercise.
              Exercises

                     The Arapahoe County LEPC conducts
                     exercises to test emergency response
                     procedures, to encourage facility
              compliance with Title HI, and to make facilities
              more aware of the hazards present at their sites.
              As a result of the hazards analysis process
              mentioned above, a large manufacturing facility
              was identified as a location for a potential field
              simulation because of the large quantities of
              chemicals stored on site. The facility agreed to
              participate in the exercise and helped stage the
              incident using facility staff and equipment.

-------
Successful Practices
Arapahoe County, Colorado
Page 19
The simulated incident involved a truck that,
during unloading, rolled into a nearby tank farm
and ruptured two storage tanks,  releasing plumes
of chlorine and ammonia into the atmosphere.
The company's emergency responders
coordinated with the local first responders in the
simulated response.  The mutual aid, emergency
communications, and transportation elements of
the LEPC plan were tested by this exercise.
As  a result, the facility recognized that the staged
truck incident represented a realistic scenario
and, subsequently, better isolated the loading
dock area from the tank farm. The LEPC
determined that the communication procedures
established in the plan were inadequate.
Although the plan included effective procedures
for coordinating vehicles and equipment during a
response, the number and type of vehicles were
inadequate for evacuating large numbers of
people, especially at nursing homes. Since the
exercise, the emergency plan has been revised to
improved communication procedures and, with
the help of Lowry Air Force Base, to increase
the numbers and types of vehicles available for
evacuations.

The list of high-risk facilities is again being
reviewed for a possible exercise in late summer
 1991. One possibility being considered for the
next exercise is a transportation incident along
the Interstate 70 corridor. Interstate 70 is a
heavily travelled commercial route with a history
of chemical incidents. This exercise will utilize
 the LEPC's new computerized information
management system.
 Information Management

        To improve access to Title HI information,
        the Arapahoe County LEPC is
        implementing a computerized
 information management system to be used in
 the field by first responders.  The computerized
 system consists of two parts, a computer-aided
 design (CAD) dispatch system and Macintosh
 personal computers equipped with the
 Computer-Aided Management of Emergency
 Operations (CAMEO) software package. The
 CAD dispatch system is used by the Sheriffs
 Office to track locations and activities of patrol
 cars and consists of a computerized city map and
 tracking system.  The CAMEO software system
 was developed by EPA and the National
 Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
              to assist emergency planners and first responders
              with then* Title HI information management,
              response, and planning activities.

              When the first responders reach the incident site,
              they can use a Macintosh computer, a cellular
              phone, and a fax modem to access the CAMEO
              database maintained by the LEPC in the
              Sheriff's Office. In addition, first responders can
              phone or radio the dispatch officer to request that
              MSDSs or facility maps be sent via the fax
              modem to the responder's computer screen.
              Although this information management system
              has been tested by the LEPC, it has not yet been
              used in an actual response situation — the
              proposed exercise represents its first real
              challenge.
               Outreach

                     To inform first responders, facilities, and
                     the general public about the requirements
                     of Title HI, the Arapahoe County LEPC
               developed a series of fact sheets designed for
               different groups. Each fact sheet explains the
               purpose of Title in and the general reporting
               requirements. The fact sheet for the general
               public includes additional information about how
               the Tide HI data are made available to the public
               and how to use the data to identify chemical
               hazards in the community.  The fact sheet for
               first responders includes additional information
               about the usefulness of Title HI information to
               planning and response activities. The fact sheets
               for private-sector and state and local government
               facilities include more specific information about
               the reporting requirements and applicable
               reporting exemptions. All potentially covered
               facilities are provided the appropriate facility
               fact sheet as part of an information packet, which
               also includes the Facility Profile and Internal
               Contingency Plan form and the Arapahoe
               County LEPC-developed version of the Tier n
               form and instructions.

               The Arapahoe County LEPC routinely places
               articles  in newsletters and LEPC members attend
               meetings of homeowner, community, and special
               interest groups to foster awareness of Title HI,
               the role of the LEPC, and chemical hazards in
               the community.  One such special interest group
               is the "Interstate 70 Corridor Group." This
               group consists of first responders from
               businesses, law enforcement, and local fire

-------
  Page 20
Arapahoe County, Colorado
Successful Practices
 departments which meets monthly to discuss
 issues such as chemical incidents and traffic
 control. On several occasions, members of the
 Arapahoe County LEPC have responded to
 incidents along 1-70 and, as a result, the 1-70
 Group is being approached to participate in a
 possible transportation-related exercise in late
 summer 1991.
 Compliance

        Rather than use limited LEPC resources to
        conduct mass mailings, the Arapahoe
        County LEPC chose to use an existing
 fire inspection program to disseminate Title TTI
 information, identify subject facilities, and
 encourage compliance with the provisions of
 Title m. Under Colorado's Uniform Fire Code,
 local fire departments in Arapahoe County
 regularly identify and inspect both new and
 existing facilities in their jurisdictions for
 potential fire hazards.

 Many provisions of the Uniform Fire Code
 parallel the requirements of Title EL For
 example, the fire code requires that MSDSs be
 submitted to the local emergency planning
 authority, which in Arapahoe County is the
 LEPC.  Because the Uniform Fire Code is
 enforced at the local level, the Arapahoe County
 LEPC encourages compliance with the
 provisions of Title m by working with the local
 fire department to enforce the parallel provisions
 of the Uniform Fire Code.

 During  a fire code inspection, if a facility is
 identified as being potentially subject to Title m
 and has not reported to the LEPC, the fire
 inspector gives the facility owner/operator a
 copy of the facility information packet and
 records  the receipt of the information and
 documents the violation in the inspection report.
 The identified facilities are reported to the LEPC
 Emergency Response Subcommittee monthly.
 Each facility not in compliance is contacted by
 the LEPC, which offers assistance in complying
 with the Tide IE provisions. The facility is then
given two weeks (the time allowed to respond to
a Uniform Fire Code violation) to comply with
the provisions of Title El.
              If nothing is submitted by the facility, the facility
              is contacted again by the LEPC with another
              offer of assistance and is given another two
              weeks to comply (per the Uniform Fire Code).
              If no reports are then forthcoming, the Sheriffs
              Office informs the facility of the penalties for
              noncompliance (called a Hazard Notice). The
              facility is then given seven days and if no reports
              are submitted by the facility, a summons is
              issued for the facility owner/operator to appear
              before a judge to explain this lack of compliance
              and face possible fines and/or a jail sentence.

              Violations of the Uniform Fire Code are
              misdemeanors with penalties up to $1,000 and/or
              a jail sentence of up to 12 months per violation.
              In addition, every day a facility is out of
              compliance with the Uniform Fire Code (the
              time between when the Hazard Notice is
              received and the summons is issued) can be
              considered a separate violation under the
              Uniform Fire Code.  Therefore, a facility that
              does not respond to the Hazard Notice and
              receives a summons could be assessed penalties
              for a minimum of seven violations (one for each
              day between the issuance of the Hazard Notice
              and the issuance of the summons).

              To date, the Arapahoe County LEPC has issued
              only two summonses for non-compliance with
              Title IE. Both of these cases were settled out of
              court and the facilities are now in compliance.
              Most of the facilities that do not immediately
              comply are unfamiliar with the requirements and
              need assistance to determine their reporting
              responsibilities.
              LESSONS LEARNED

              Piggyback on Existing Programs. Like many
              LEPCs, the Arapahoe County LEPC was faced
              with implementing and enforcing Title III on a
              smaU budget. Because of the LEPC's
              commitment to assist first responders by
              providing Title IE information, the LEPC
              considers identifying all subject facilities very
              important. Because many provisions of the
              Uniform Fire Code parallel Title El
             requirements, the LEPC is able to improve
             compliance with Title IE by enforcing the
             Uniform Fire Code.  The local fire departments,

-------
Successful Practices
Arapahoe County, Colorado
Page 21
with their extensive knowledge of facilities in
their jurisdictions and their existing inspection
program, provide the LEPC with an excellent
resource for identifying facilities subject to Title
HI. Through the innovative use of the Uniform
Fire Code, the Arapahoe County LEPC is able to
effectively bring facilities into compliance with
Title HI despite limited resources.

Provide the Tools, Improve the Results. When
the Arapahoe County LEPC first approached the
various local fire departments with their proposal
to have firefighters identify facilities and
distribute information about Title HI, the
proposal was met with much resistance. The
local fire departments already had plenty to do
with their own jobs. The LEPC provided
training to the firefighters on Title m and, more
important, the LEPC illustrated the usefulness of
the information collected under the Title in to
improving the fire department's emergency
response capabilities. As a result, the local fire
departments have become a very active and
knowledgeable  component of the LEPC's efforts
to improve compliance with Title TEL.

Similarly, many facilities are wary of reporting
requirements due to a lack of knowledge of the
regulatory program. By providing the facility
information packets and continuous offers of
assistance, the LEPC has not only increased the
number of facilities in compliance, but also
improved the quality of the information
submitted.

Build on Existing Plans and Procedures. Prior
to Title HI, many organizations had developed
their own emergency response procedures. In
Arapahoe County, the local fire departments had
their own emergency procedures, the Lowry Air
Force Base had a site contingency plan, and
many facilities had standard operating and
emergency procedures. Rather than starting
from scratch, the Arapahoe County LEPC
decided to develop an umbrella plan to
coordinate existing plans and procedures. As a
              result, the Arapahoe County LEPC has
              conserved valuable resources and integrated
              facility-specific information into an LEPC plan
              that can be easily updated. Because the LEPC
              umbrella plan coordinates existing plans and
              sponsors regular exercises, fire department and
              facility first responders are familiar with each
              other's procedures and then- roles within the
              LEPC's umbrella plan.

              Coordination Encourages Cooperation. A
              single local emergency planning district often
              does not have available all the resources
              necessary to respond to a large-scale incident.
              The Arapahoe County LEPC recognized that,
              during an emergency, the county response
              resources may need to be supplemented.  The
              LEPC then began an active coordination effort
              with neighboring LEPCs, stressing not only what
              Arapahoe needed but also what Arapahoe could
              offer to assist them. The Arapahoe County
              LEPC used the same approach when contacting
              subject facilities. By taking the lead in
              coordinating neighboring LEPCs and facilities
              into their emergency plan, the Arapahoe County
              LEPC has successfully created an atmosphere of
              cooperation not only with neighboring LEPCs
              but also with facilities within the district.

              Industry Must be Aware of Accidents Waiting
              to Happen. The Arapahoe County LEPC
              believes that field simulation exercises are
              important not only to test the provisions of the
              LEPC plan, but also to make facilities aware of
              chemical hazards at their sites and identifying
              ways to mitigate those hazards. The key is
              effective facility emergency planning to identify,
              prepare for, and prevent all possible hazards.
               Contact:

               Rick Young
               Arapahoe County LEPC
               5686 S. Court Place
               Littleton, CO 80120
               (303) 797-4410

-------
Page 22
                                    Successful Practices
                                Regional Chemical Emergency
                                 Preparedness and Prevention
                                           Coordinators
             RayDiNardo
             EPA-Region 1
             New England Regional Lab
             60 Westview Street
             Lexington, MA 02173
             (617) 860-4300

             John Ulshoefer
             EPA-Region 2
             Woodbridge Avenue
             Edison, NT 08837
             (908)321-6620

             Karen Wolper
             EPA-Region 3
             841 Chestnut Street
             Philadelphia, PA 19107
             (215)597-8751
 Henry Hudson
 EPA-Region 4
 345 Courfland Street, NE
 Atlanta, GA 30365
 (404)347-1033

 Mark Horwitz
 EPA-Region 5
 230 South Dearborn
 Chicago, IL 60604
 (312) 886-1964

 Jim Staves
 EPA-Region 6
 Allied Bank Tower
 1445 Ross Avenue
 Dallas, TX  75202-2733
 (214) 655-2270

 RonRitter
 EPA-Region 7
 726 Minnesota Avenue
 Kansas City, KS  66101
 (913) 551-7005
       Cheryl Chrisler
       EPA-Region 8
       One Denver Place
       999 18th Street, Suite 1300
       Denver, CO 80202-2413
       (303) 293-1723

       Kathleen Shimmin
       EPA-Region 9
       75 Hawthorne Street
       San Francisco, CA 94105
       (415)744-2100

       Walt Jaspers
       EPA-Region 10
       1200 6th Avenue
       Seattle, WA 98101
       (206) 553-4349
                                   States by Region
                    4 - Alabama
                    10-Alaska
                    9 -Arizona
                    6 - Arkansas
                    9 - California
                    8 - Colorado
                    1 - Connecticut
                    3 - Delaware
                    3-D.C.
                    4 - Florida
                    4 - Georgia
                    9 - Hawaii
                    10-Idaho
                    5-Illinois
                    5 - Indiana
                    7 - Iowa
                    7-Kansas
                    4 - Kentucky
                    6 - Louisiana
 1 -Maine
3 - Maryland
1 - Massachusetts
5 - Michigan
5 - Minnesota
4 - Mississippi
7 - Missouri
8 - Montana
7-Nebraska
9-Nevada
1 - New Hampshire
2 - New Jersey
6 - New Mexico
2-New York
4 - North Carolina
4 - North Dakota
5-Ohio
6 - Oklahoma
10 - Oregon
 3 - Pennsylvania
 1 - Rhode Island
 4 - South Carolina
 8-South Dakota
 4 - Tennessee
 6-Texas
 8-Utah
 1 - Vermont
 3 - Virginia
10 - Washington
 3-West Virginia
 5 - Wisconsin
 8 - Wyoming
 9 - American Samoa
 9-Guam
 2 - Puerto Rico
 2-Virgin Islands

-------
Successful Practices
                                 Page 23
                              More Successful Practices

       Additional Successful Practices in Title HI Implementation technical assistance bulletins
are available from your Regional Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Coordinator
(see the listing on the preceding page), or call the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Information Hotline at (800) 535-0202. The following bulletins are currently available:
Successful Practices #1
Doc. # OSWER-89-006.1, January 1989.

      State of Kansas
      Washtenaw County, Michigan
      Butler County, Kansas
      Jefferson County, Kentucky

Successful Practices #2
Doc. # OSWER-89-006.2, August 1989

      Calhoun County, Alabama
      Pampa, Texas
      State of Wisconsin
      Cuyahoga County, Ohio
      Racine County, Wisconsin
      State of Idaho

Successful Practices #3
Doc. # OSWER-89-006.3, December 1989.

      Woodbury County, Iowa
      State of Virginia
      Fairfax County, Virginia
      Pierce County, Washington
Successful Practices #5
Doc. # OSWER-90-006.2, June 1990.

       Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
       State of Connecticut
       Cumberland County, Maine
       Wyandotte County, Kansas

Successful Practices #6
Doc. # OSWER-90-006.3, September 1990.

       State of Ohio
       Hamilton County, Ohio
       Wallingford, Connecticut
       Ouachita Parish, Louisiana
Successful Practices #7
Doc. # OSWER-91-006.1, February 1991.

      Cameron County, Texas
      Bucks County, Pennsylvania
      Harford County, Maryland
      Dallas County, Texas
Successful Practices #4
Doc. # OSWER-90-006.1, March 1990.

      New York, New York
      El Paso County, Colorado
      Alexandria, Virginia
      State of Maine
Successful Practices #8
Doc. # OSWER-91-006.2, October 1991.

      Cherry Hill, New Jersey
      Manitowoc County, Wisconsin
      Greene County, Missouri
      State of Hawaii
      Arapahoe County, Colorado

-------
Page 24
Successful Practices
               Successful Practices in Title III Implementation:

                                   Subject Index*

Compliance (Enforcement);
      Kansas (SP1:4); Idaho (SP2:14-15); Arapahoe County, Colorado (SP8:26-27)

      Identifying/contacting facilities:
      Calhoun County, Alabama (SP2:l-2); Fairfax County, Virginia (SP3:9); Alexandria, Virginia
      (SP4:13); Wyandotte County, Kansas (SP5:15-16); Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma (SP5:2);
      Hamilton County, Ohio (SP6:11); Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:11); Wisconsin (SP2:8);
      New York, New York (SP4:3-4); Cameron County, Texas (SP7:4)

      Inspections:
      Racine County, Wisconsin (SP2:12); Pampa, Texas (SP2:4-5)


Emergency Plans;
      Jefferson County, Kentucky (SP1:9-10); Idaho (SP2:14); Pierce County, Washington (SP3:13);
      Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma (SP5:2); Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:10-11)

      Community Consequences:
      Racine County, Wisconsin (SP2:12-13); Wallingford, Connecticut (SP6:13)

      Coordination with other LEPCs and communities:
      Dallas County, Texas (SP7:19); Harfbrd County, Maryland (SP7:14-15); Arapahoe County,
      Colorado (SP8:23)

      Existing plans:
      Cumberland County, Maine (SP5:10-11); Cherry Hill, New Jersey (SP8:1)

      Facility input:
      New York, New York (SP4:3); Hamilton County, Ohio (SP6:9); Wyandotte County, Kansas
      (SP5:14-15); El Paso County, Colorado (SP4:6-7); Cuyahoga County, Ohio (SP2:10)

      Facility plans:
      Fairfax County, Virginia (SP3:9)

      Hazard analysis:
      Alexandria, Virginia (SP4:11-12); Butler County, Kansas (SP1:7)

      Planning guidance:
      Connecticut (SP5:5-6); New York, New York (SP4:2), Kansas (SP1:3)

      Public alert and notification system:
      Wyandotte County, Kansas (SP5:17)

      Structure:
      Ohio (SP6:l-2)
*The citation provided for each profile refers to the issue number (SP3 refers to the third issue of
Successful Practices) and the page number within that issue.

-------
Successful Practices
Subject Index
Page 25
Exercises:
       Decontamination:
       Greene County, Missouri (SP8:14)

       Evacuation and sheltering:
       Arapahoe County, Colorado (SP8:24); Greene County, Missouri (SP8:14)

       Field programs:
       Woodbury County, Iowa (SP3:2); Cumberland County, Maine (SP5:11); Hamilton County,
       Ohio (SP6:9-10); Wallingford, Connecticut (SP6:13-14); Oauchita Parish, Louisiana (SP6:21-
       22); Hawaii (SP8:21); Manitowoc County, Wisconsin (SP8:8); Arapahoe County, Colorado
       (SP8:24)

       Table-top programs:
       Hartford County, Maryland (SP7:15); Dallas County, Texas (SP7:20); Hamilton County, Ohio
       (SP6:9-10); Cumberland County, Maine (SP5:11)
Funding:
       Donations:
       Jefferson County, Kentucky (SP1:10); Calhoun County, Alabama (SP2:2); Pierce County,
       Washington (SP3:14); Cameron County, Texas (SP7:4); Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:9)

       Fee systems:
       Kansas (SP1:4); Washtenaw County, Michigan (SP1:5); Calhoun County, Alabama (SP2:2);
       Wisconsin (SP2:7); Fairfax County, Virginia (SP3:10); Maine (SP4:16-18); Ohio (SP6:3)

       Grants:
       Connecticut (SP5:6)

       State and local agency budgets:
       Jefferson County, Kentucky (SP1:10); Wisconsin (SP2:7); Connecticut (SP5:6); Ohio (SP6:3);
       Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:9); Hartford County, Maryland (SP7:16); Dallas County,
       Texas (SP7:20)
Hazards Analysis:
       Hazard identification:
       Cuyahoga County, Ohio (SP2:9-10); Wyandotte County, Kansas (SP5:13-14); Hamilton County,
       Ohio (SP6:7-9); Arapahoe County, Colorado (SP8:23-24); Alexandria, Virginia (SP4:11-12)

       Hazards Incidents Complexity Analysis:
       Kansas (SP1:3); Wyandotte County, Kansas (SP5:13-14)

       Risk analysis:
       Hamilton County, Ohio (SP6:8-9); Dallas County, Texas (SP7:19)

       Transportation:
       Kansas (SP1:3); Butler County, Kansas (SP1:7); Alexandria, Virginia (SP4:11-12)

       Vulnerability zones:
       Cuyahoga County, Ohio (SP2:9); Hamilton County, Ohio (SP6:7-9); Wallingford, Connecticut
       (SP6:14-15); Greene County, Missouri (SP8:13-14)

-------
Page 26
Subject Index
Successful Practices
Information Management (Computer Systems);

      CAMEO:
      Jefferson County, Kentucky (SPlrlO); Racine County, Wisconsin (SP2:13); Pampa, Texas
      (SP2:5); El Paso County, Colorado (SP4:7); New York, New York (SP4:2); Wallingford,
      Connecticut (SP6:14); Hamilton County, Ohio (SP6:10); Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:8);
      Arapahoe County, Colorado (SP8:25); Hawaii (SP8:17-19); Greene County, Missouri (SP8:13);
      Cherry Hill, New Jersey (SP8:2-3); Wyandotte County, Kansas (SP5:16)

      Conversion software:
      Greene County, Missouri (SP8:13)

      dBase:
      El Paso County, Colorado (SP4:7); Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:9)

      Dispatch system:
      Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:9)

      Modified reporting format:
      Ohio (SP6:2), Oauchita Parish, Louisiana (SP6:20), Hawaii (SP8:19)

      Networks:
      Idaho (SP2:15)

      'Tacket" radio:
      El Paso County, Colorado (SP4:7); Cherry Hill, New Jersey (SP8:3)

      Software programs:
      Kansas (SPl:3-4); Pampa, Texas (SP2:5-6); Virginia (SP3:5-6); Fairfax County, Virginia
      (SP3:9-10); New York, New York (SP4:l-2); Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma (SP5:2-3);
      Connecticut (SP5:6-7); Hamilton County, Ohio (SP6:10); Oauchita Parish, Louisiana (SP6:21);
      Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:8); Arapahoe County, Colorado (SP8:25)

      Worksheet forms:
      Washtenaw County, Michigan (SP1:5)
LEPC Coordination:

      Coordination with SERC:
      Hamilton County, Ohio (SP6:10); Kansas (SP1:2)

      Federal facilities:
      Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma (SP5:1)

      Inter-LEPC coordination:
      Virginia (SP3:4-5); Alexandria, Virginia (SP4:12-13); Wyandotte County, Kansas (SP5:17);
      Woodbury County, Iowa (SP3:3)

      International coordination:
      Maine (SP4:18); Cameron County, Texas (SP7:l-3)

-------
Successful Practices
Subject Index
Page 27
LEPC Organization;

      Pre-SARA/Title m organizations:
      Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:7-8); Cherry Hill, New Jersey (SP8:1); Hawaii (SP8:19-20);
      Racine County, Wisconsin (SP2:11); Woodbury County, Iowa (SP3:l-2)

      Subcommittees:
      Calhoun County, Alabama (SP2:2); Oauchita Parish, Louisiana (SP6:17-18); Bucks County,
      Pennsylvania (SP7:7-8); Greene County, Missouri (SP8:11-13); Pampa, Texas (SP2:4); Jefferson
      County, Kentucky (SP1:10)


Liability;
      Virginia (SP3:5); Pierce County, Washington (SP3:15); Maine (SP4:16)
Outreach Programs;
       Wisconsin (SP2:8); Hawaii (SP8:19)

       Agriculture:
       Racine County, Wisconsin (SP2:11-12); Manitowoc County, Wisconsin (SP8:6-7)

       Audio/Visual Aids:
       Virginia (SP3:4-5); Ohio (SP6:2-3); Harford County, Maryland (SP7:15); Cherry Hill, New
       Jersey (SP8:4)

       Brochures, factsheets, and booklets:
       Kansas (SP1:2); Cuyahoga County, Ohio (SP2:10); Idaho (SP2:14); New York, New York
       (SP4:4); Hamilton County, Ohio (SP6:10); Wallingford, Connecticut (SP6:15); Harford County,
       Maryland (SP7:15); Arapahoe County, Colorado (SP8:25)

       Guidelines:
       Cuyahoga County, Ohio (SP2:10); Virginia (SP3:4-5)

       Industry:
       Virginia (SP3:4-5)

       Lectures & workshops:
       Butler County, Kansas (SP1:7); Idaho (SP2:14); Pierce County, Washington (SP3:14); New
       York, New York (SP4:4); Connecticut (SP5:7); Dallas County, Texas (SP7:20); Cameron
       County, Texas (SP7:4); Manitowoc County, Wisconsin (SP8:6-8)

       Library displays:
       Pierce County, Washington (SP3:14); El Paso County, Colorado (SP4:8);

       Local government:
       Cherry Hill, New Jersey (SP8:4)

       Mailing lists:
       New York, New York (SP4:4)

-------
 Page 28
Subject Index
Successful Practices
 Outreach Programs (continued^:

       Media Use (TV, radio, newspaper):
       Kansas (SP1:3); Butler County, Kansas (SP1:7); Woodbury County, Iowa (SP3:2); Fairfax
       County, Virginia (SP3:10); Pierce County, Washington (SP3:14); El Paso County, Colorado
       (SP4:8); Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma (SP5:3); Oauchita Parish, Louisiana (SP6:18-20);
       Cameron County, Texas (SP7:4); Dallas County, Texas (SP7:20); Manitowoc County, Wisconsin
       (SP8:6-8); Harford County, Maryland (SP7:15)

       Public schools:
       El Paso County, Colorado (SP4:8)


 Prevention;
       Washtenaw County, Michigan (SP1:5); Hamilton County, Ohio (SP6:11)


 Public Alert System;
       Wyandotte County, Kansas (SP5:17)


 Reporting Modifications;
       Ohio (SP6:2); Oauchita Parish, Louisiana (SP6:20); Hawaii (SP8:19)


 P?ght-to-Know Laws;
       Washtenaw County, Michigan (SP1:5); Wisconsin (SP2:8); Maine (SP4:15-16); Wyandotte
       County, Kansas (SP5:16-17); New York, New York (SP4:4)


 Section 313 Data;

       Accessibility and analysis:
       Connecticut (SP5:8); El Paso County, Colorado (SP4:9); Ohio (SP6:3-5); DaUas County, Texas
       (SP7:18); Virginia (SP3:6)

       Compliance:
       Fairfax County, Virginia (SP3:8); Ohio (SP6:4)
Special Planning Features;

      Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program facilities:
      Harford County, Maryland (SP7:16)

      Federal facilities:
      Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma (SP5:2); Harford County, Maryland (SP7:14)

      Nursing homes:
      Cherry Hill, New Jersey (SP8:4)

      Schools:
      Wallingford, Connecticut (SP6:13); Harford County, Maryland (SP7:14)

-------
Successful Practices
Subject Index
Page 29
Special Planning Features (continued);

       Transportation:
       Alexandria, Virginia (SP4:11-12); Oauchita Parish, Louisiana (SP6:21-22)


Training Programs;

       Coordination with government organizations:
       Virginia (SP3:4); El Paso County, Colorado (SP4:8); Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma (SP5:3);
       Connecticut (SP5:7); Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP?2ll); Hawaii (SP8:20)

       Facility management personnel:
       Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma (SP5:3); Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:11)

       First-responders:
       Pierce County, Washington (SP3:13-14); El Paso County, Colorado (SP4:8); Tinker Air Force
       Base,OMahorm(SP5:3);Comecticut(SP5:7);QimberlandCbunty,Maine(SP5:ll);Walhngford,
       Connecticut (SP6:15); Harford County, Maryland (SP7:15); Cherry Hill, New Jersey (SP8:3-4);
       Cameron County, Texas (SP7:3)

       Hazmat team personnel:
       Jefferson County, Kentucky (SP1:9); Pampa, Texas (SP2:5); Virginia (SP3:4); Connecticut
       (SP5:7); Harford County, Maryland (SP7:15); Hawaii (SP8:20)

       LEPC:
       Kansas (SP1:3); Virginia (SP3:4); Alexandria, Virginia (SP4:13-14); Connecticut (SP5:7)

       Medical personnel:
       Racine County, Wisconsin (SP2:12)

       Potential CAMEO users:
       Cherry Hill, New Jersey (SP8:3-4)

       Public:
       Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:11)

       Train-the-Trainer:
       Idaho (SP2:15); Maine (SP4:18); Cherry Hill, New Jersey (SP8:4)


Vulnerability Analysis;
       Cuyahoga County, Ohio (SP2:9); Hamilton County, Ohio (SP6:8); Wallingford, Connecticut
       (SP6:14-15); Greene County, Missouri (SP8:13-14)

       HIRT:
       Bucks County, Pennsylvania (SP7:11)
                                                         it U.S.GOVEHNMENTPFINTINQOFFICE;19G1-ei7-003/47CM8

-------

-------