Region 8
Emergency Preparedness Newsletter
^6DSr^
v' A v
I.36/
PRO"^
Volume IX No. 3 July 2019 Quarterly Newsletter
Welcome to the EPA Region 8 Preparedness Newsletter.
Feel free to page through the entire newsletter or click on the links to
the stories you want to read first.
AWIA
EPCRA Amendments for Water
Local Governments Reimbursement
Spill Response Assistance
Chemical Facility Security and Safety
Multi-Agency Charter
Full Scale Exercise
Summit County Colorado
Federal and State Agencies
'Working Together'
Colorado A.G. Phil Weiser
F.A.R.M.
EPCRA Amended for Air Releases
Oil Spill Response Training
Upcoming Class in August
FAQs ?
Regulations for Chemical Spills
LEPC Best Practices
Tooele, Utah
EPA Region 8
LEPC and SERC Meetings
Region 8 Contacts

-------
Page 2
America's Water Infrastructure Act
Amendments to EPCRA
On October 23, 2018, America's Water Infrastructure Act was signed into law, amending the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). This new legislation requires state and tribal emergency response
commissions to notify the applicable state agency (i.e., the drinking water primacy agency) of any reportable
releases and provide community water systems with hazardous chemical inventory data. These requirements
went into effect immediately upon signing of the law.
AWIA Amendment to ECPRA Section 304
AWIA section 2018(a) amends EPCRA section 304 to add a new sub-section, section 304(e), 'Addressing Source
Water Used for Drinking Water'. This new sub-section requires SERCs and TERCs to perform the following
actions:
• Promptly notify the drinking water primacy agency of any reportable release and provide this agency with:
-information collected under section 304(b)(2) from the initial release notification; and
-the follow-up written report received under section 304(c).
The drinking water primacy agency is then required to promptly forward all the
information regarding the release to any community water systems whose source water
is affected by the release. The source water for a community water system is potentially
affected if the release occurs in that system's source water area (also known as a source
water protection area). Drinking water primacy agencies and community water systems
can provide the boundaries for source water protection areas.
If there is no drinking water primacy agency in place, the SERC (or
TERC) is required to directly notify the potentially affected
community water systems. Community water systems should use
this information to prepare for possible impacts to their systems
resulting from the release. Furthermore, lessons learned from
releases that occur should be integrated into long-term emergency response planning.
AWIA Amendment to EPCRA Section 312
AWIA section 2018(b) amends EPCRA section 312 to require SERCs, TERCs and LEPCs to
provide affected community water systems with chemical inventory data for facilities
within their source water protection area upon request. Source water protection areas
may span multiple jurisdictional boundaries at the local and state levels, potentially requiring access to data from
multiple SERCs, TERCs, or LEPCs.
Additionally, community water systems should be involved in larger planning efforts undertaken by the LEPC as
section 2013 of AWIA requires community water systems to coordinate, to the extent possible, with LEPCs since
drinking water is a vital component of any community.
The Federal Register Notice for New Risk Assessments and Emergency Response Plans for Community Water
Systems is available.
For more information concerning America's Water Infrastructure Act, please see https://www.congress.gov/
bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3021/text. For more information for SERCs, TERCs and LEPCs, please see the
AWIA EPCRA Fact Sheet.
Return to Top

-------
Page 3
Local Governments Reimbursement Program
The Environmental Protection Agency's Local Governments Reimbursement Program is a funding
mechanism to assist any unit of local government including town or townships, cities, municipalities,
parishes, counties and federally-recognized Indian Tribes. This fund can reimburse for temporary, un-
anticipated emergency measures in response to hazardous substance threats with the exception of
petroleum products (which is not a reimbursable expense.) The fund will reimburse up to $25,000 per
incident.
Examples of activities covered include controlling the release source, containing released substance,
controlling runoff that could contaminate drinking water sources, and temporary site security
measures. Materials that are covered include expendable materials and supplies, rental or leasing
equipment, special technical services and laboratory costs, evacuation services, compensation of
overtime wages and decontamination of equipment.
Expenses that will not be reimbursed include disposable materials and supplies already owned by a
local government, a purchase of durable goods, employee fringe benefits (including comp time),
employee out-of-pocket expenses, legal expenses, medical expenses and administrative costs.
One key point to remember when applying is this program won't cover funding for items normally or
regularly provided by the local government. In addition, applicants must have exhausted all other
avenues to recover the costs from the responsible party, insurance companies, and state funding.
Chemical Facility
Security and Safety Working Group Charter
Several hundred thousand facilities in the United States use, manufacture, and store chemicals
encompassing everything from petroleum refineries to pharmaceutical manufacturers to hardware
stores. The U.S. chemical industry manufactures over 70,000 unique products, many of which are critical
to the health, security, and economy of the nation. The handling and storage of chemicals at facilities
present security and safety risks that can be reduced with federal, state and local governments providing
the necessary regulatory oversight and compliance assistance.
To address these issues, the Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security, and the
Environmental Protection Agency created and signed the Chemical Facility Security and Safety Working
Group Charter. The working group, which includes other federal agency representatives, has oversight of
chemical facility security and safety and is committed to working with stakeholders to address security
and safety at chemical facilities and reducing risks associated with hazardous chemicals to workers and
communities.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the Chemical Facility Security and Safety Working
Group, please email ChemSafe&Secureffihq.dhs.gov. If you would like to join the Region 8 quarterly
calls, please contact Bre Bockstahler at Bockstahler.breann@epa.gov.
Return to Top

-------
Page 4
Summit County, Colorado, Exercise
The Environmental Protection
, Agency (EPA) Region 8 Emergency
£ foMp"t Management Branch participated in
Wr	a full-scale exercise (FSE) with
I Summit County, Colorado, on May
**	i I	objective was coordination with
several response and health agencies including the County Public Health, the
Civil Support Team (National Guard), and the local Hazmat Team. Another
objective was to test the Joint Information Center (JIC) activation with
participating agencies. EPA had a Public Information Officer present at the
JIC.
The hypothetical scenario for the FSE included illegal operations occurring at a mine that also had a
large blowout resulting in mine adit releases along with unknown hazardous chemicals from multiple
55-gallon drums in the river, in the scenario, multiple reports to the local 911 dispatch center indicated
nearby residents became sick from noxious odors coming from the river. The exercise included EPA
Region 8 On-Scene-Coordinators and Incident Management Team (IMT) members, the Colorado
Northwest IMT Team, Summit County personnel, Denver Water, Summit Fire and Emergency
Management Services, American Red Cross, Peak One Surgery Center, St. Anthony Medical Center, and
local police departments.
Return to Top

-------
Page 5
Notes from Colorado's Attorney General
Phil Weiser — States and Federal Agencies
JUNE 7. 2 O 1 9
The Deport met it of Law's Weekly Snapshot


"A few weeks ago, I was part of a
joint meeting of our office and the
Region 8 Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) office. I opened the
meeting by discussing the broad
legal framework that governs our
cooperation with our federal
counterparts. That framework is
known as "cooperative federalism."
Over the last 25 years, I have
thought hard about and worked on
federal-state cooperation from a few different angles, including serving in federal and state government
as well as an observer and commentator.
The first premise of federal-state cooperation is that it begins from a place of mutual respect and
awareness of shared goals. Under our Constitution, for example, the federal government is not
authorized to "commandeer" state and local officials to administer federal law.
In the meeting with the EPA, I talked about the importance of state agency implementation of federal
law and policy goals. In practice, the federal government can rarely ensure by itself that federal policy
goals—whether environmental protection, affordable health care, or competition in
telecommunications markets—are achieved effectively. That's why, in these policy areas and others, the
federal government relies on state agencies to act to achieve important goals. At its best, this
relationship is one of "better together". And where the relationship is not working—either because of
federal attempts to commandeer state officials or because of federal efforts to sideline state efforts to
protect their citizens—it is important that States protect their sovereign responsibilities.
Effective cooperation also must take place between our state government and local governments. Last
week, I witnessed a great example of that cooperation at an Emergency Preparedness event in Summit
County. The collaboration at that event was first-rate. The goal of the exercise was to identify room for
improvement, which it did effectively. In the exercise, there were both public health and environmental
crime components, leading the participants to ask how they could best work with our office."
Phil Weiser, Colorado State Attorney General, June 7, 2019, A Word From Weiser, The Department of
Law's Weekly Snapshot
Return to Top

-------
Page 6
Final Rule Amending EPCRA for F.A.R.M.
On June 4, 2019, EPA Administrator Wheeler signed a final rule to add a reporting exemption
for air emissions from animal waste at farms. The final rule amends the emergency release
notification regulations under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA).
The EPA is amending the release notification regulations under EPCRA to add the reporting
exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms provided in section 103(e) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
In addition, EPA is adding definitions of "animal waste" and "farm" to the EPCRA regulations to
delineate the scope of this reporting exemption. This amendment establishes consistency
between the emergency release notification requirements of EPCRA and CERCLA in accordance
with the statutory text, framework and legislative history of EPCRA, and is consistent with the
Agency's prior regulatory actions.
Excerpt from https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-wheeler-signs-final-rule-add-reporting-
exemption-under-epcra-air
Background: On March 23, 2018, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2018 ("Omnibus Bill"). Title XI of the Omnibus Bill is entitled the "Fair Agricultural Reporting
Method Act" or the "FARM Act." The FARM Act expressly exempts reporting of air emissions
from animal waste (including decomposing animal waste) at a farm from CERCLA section 103.
The FARM Act also provides definitions for the terms "animal waste" and "farm." The FARM Act
amended CERCLA by providing an exemption from reporting air emissions from animal waste at
farms. Because these types of releases are exempted under CERCLA, based on the release
reporting criteria under EPCRA section 304, these types of releases are also exempt under
EPCRA section 304. Consequently, on November 14, 2018, EPA published a proposed rule to
amend the release reporting regulations under EPCRA section 304.
Excerpt from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/06/1 3/2019-1241 I /amendment-to-
emergency-release-notification-regulations-on-reporting-exemption-for-air-emissions
Oil Spill ResponseTrainin
EPA and Marathon Oil are pleased to offer a three-day Oil Spill Response Training class at the
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah on August 20-22, 2019. The training is sponsored by
Marathon Petroleum, EPA Region 8 and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The course will include
some classroom instruction, but will emphasize hands-on exercises and include boat safety
training. The course is offered free for all confirmed registrants.
The class size is limited, so please register soon. Registration is limited to ensure attendance
from each sponsoring agency. Register here.
If you have any questions, call Joyel Dhieux at 303-312-6647.
Return to Top

-------
Page 7
EPCRA Section 304 FAQs

How are releases during transportation or storage incident to transportation
covered under section 304?
Section 304 covers all releases of listed hazardous or extremely hazardous substances, including those
involved in transportation in excess of the reportable quantity (RQ). Owners or operators of
transportation facilities may call 911 or the local telephone operator, in order to satisfy section 304
notification requirements when a release occurs during transportation. Local emergency planning
committees should work with the local 911 system and telephone operators to ensuresuch
transportation release notifications are immediately relayed to the community emergency
coordinator.

Who is the owner or operator for purposes of EPCRA 304 release reporting?
EPCRA section 304 allows either the owner or operator of a facility to give notice after a release.
Owners and operators may make their own arrangements concerning which party is to provide
release notification; however, under EPCRA section 304 both the owner and operator are responsible
if no notification is provided.
Follow-up emergency notice requirements in EPCRA 304 for CERCLA hazardous
substances
Must a follow-up emergency notice be given for a release of a CERCLA hazardous substance which is
not an extremely hazardous substance and for which a reportable quantity has not been established
under section 102(a) of CERCLA?
In lieu of the emergency release notification required under section 304(b), section 304(a)(3)(B)
provides that owners and operators of facilities that produce, use or store a hazardous chemical and
from which is released a CERCLA hazardous substance that is not an extremely hazardous substance
and for which a reportable quantity has not been established under section 102(a) of CERCLA, shall
provide the same notice to the local emergency planning committee as is provided to the National
Response Center under section 103(a) of CERCLA. Although section 304(b) notice is not required, the
facility owner or operator must still provide follow-up emergency notification under section 304(c).
Section 304(c) states that, "As soon as practicable after a release which requires notice under
subsection (a), such owner or operator shall provide a written follow-up emergency notice... setting
forth and updating the information required under subsection (b), and including additional
information...". Notification of the above describe release is required under subsection (a), thus
written follow-up emergency notice is required. Follow-up notification of these releases must be
reported in the manner prescribed by section 304(b).
Excerpts for EPCRA Section 304 FAQs taken from https://emergencvmanagement.zendesk.com/hc/en-
us/sections/202347837-Emergencv-Planning-EPCRA-301-303-
Continueto Next Page

-------
Page 8
EPCRA Section 304 FAQs
Are on-site contractors responsible for extremely hazardous substances (EHSs)
brought on-site?
For section 302 purposes, if a contractor brings an extremely hazardous substance (EHS) on-site to a facility
over the threshold planning quantity, is the owner/operator of the facility or the contractor required to make
the notification to the LEPC?
For section 304 purposes, if a contractor bursts a tank at a facility and causes a release of reportable quantity
of an EHS, should the contractor or the owner/operator of the facility notify the community emergency
coordinator?
For both sections 302 and 304, a contractor could be considered an operator of the facility or of a portion of
the facility depending on if he/she has enough authority. The definition of operator is not defined by statue or
in the regulations. If the contractor is considered an "operator," he or she could be held liable for not making
the required notifications under sections 302 or 304. If no notification is made under sections 302 and 304,
What is the relationship between reportable quantities (RQs) and threshold planning
quantities (TPQs)?
The reportable quantity that triggers emergency release notification (section 304) was developed as a quantity
that when released, poses potential threat to human health and the environment. The RQs were developed
using several criteria, including aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity, ignitability, reactivity, chronic toxicity,
potential carcinogenicity, biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis (50 FR 13468, April 4, 1985).
The threshold planning quantities for emergency planning provisions (section 302) were designed to help
States and local communities focus their planning efforts. The TPQs are based on acute mammalian toxicity
and potential for airborne dispersion and represent those quantities of substances that can cause significant
harm should an accidental release occur.
Spills on concrete floors inside a building
A facility has a spill of an extremely hazardous substance (EHS) in an amount greater than its reportable
quantity (RQ). The spill occurs on a concrete floor that is inside a facility building. Before the spill can be
cleaned up, a portion (less than RQ) of the EHS enters the outside atmosphere through the window. Persons in
off-site buildings report smelling the chemical. Does the facility owner/operator have a reporting requirement
under EPCRA, section 304?
No. The reporting requirements codified at 40 CFR §355.30 apply when there is a "... release of a reportable
quantity of any extremely hazardous substance or CERCLA hazardous substance." The definition of release
further stipulates that the release must occur "...into the environment..." [40 CFR §355.61], In this case,
reporting is not required even though persons off-site are being affected by the spill because an RQ of material
was not released "into the environment."
To determine if reporting is required under EPCRA section 304 for a spill of an EHS or CERCLA hazardous
substance, first determine if an RQ of material has entered "into the environment" (as the phrase is
understood under CERCLA). If an RQ has entered "into the environment", then there has been a release. A
release must be reported unless a specific exemption from reporting applies [such as the exemption for
releases affecting"... persons solely within the boundaries of the facility." 40 CFR §355.31],
Back to Top

-------
Page 9
Tooele, Utah LEPC
Tooele County sits just west of Great Salt Lake and extends to the Nevada border. Tooele
(pronounced "tu ella") covers much of the Great Salt Lake Desert, is the second largest
county in Utah and is among the driest. The Skull Valley Indian Reservation lies within the
county.
Bucky Whitehouse, the LEPC Chair, along with Beckie Boekweg of Tooele
County Emergency Management, recently highlighted the LEPC's
activities and successes. They share the management of the LEPC which includes
recording minutes, establishing the agenda and maintaining the LEPC contact list. The
LEPC meets monthly at the Emergency Management offices in Tooele. Occasionally the
group will take a field trip to industry locations to tour facilities.
The County representatives to the LEPC include dispatch, the sheriff, fire districts,
health and schools as well as one private citizen who has been attending the LEPC
meetings for the last 20 years(i). Nonetheless, active participation of LEPC members
remains a challenge. The LEPC has 100 people who receive the notifications of meetings and minutes,
however often just 20-30 attend the meetings. The Tooele LEPC continually encourages participation
from the commercial and industrial sectors.
Bucky whitehouse
To gain consistent engagement of LEPC members, Bucky and Beckie work to maintain a regular meeting
schedule. The group's goal is to achieve high participation with relevant topics and guest speakers.
During LEPC meetings, industry partners present current operations that could affect emergency
responses. For example, recently, US Magnesium did a presentation on their new battery program
making component parts to be used in processing batteries. Discussions like these provide critical
information not only to response agencies but other businesses and community members. Of course,
recent incidents that involve hazardous materials are discussed, including the agencies that responded
and the challenges that were experienced. Finally, seasonal issues appear regularly such as "fire-wise"
training.
Tooele County LEPC Meeting
Next Page

-------
Page 10
Tooele, Utah LEPC Continued
Relationships with local industry are a high priority. For example, Tooele County often experiences
severe weather which affects important transportation routes vital to industry. The LEPC group has
seen firsthand how engagement between private industry and local government provides crucial
communication and furthers resilience.
Mr. Whitehouse said, "We hope to continue developing new and progressive approaches to
community engagement activities such as our annual contribution to the local Hazardous Waste
Collection Day." He added that one of the rewards of LEPC work is the feedback that the community
is grateful to have local government working to improve industry relations.
He concluded, "For 20 years, Tooele County has had a very progressive and robust LEPC that
continues to maintain a focus on the relationships between government and industry partners. We
continually strive to further community awareness and overall preparedness."
Return to Top

-------
Page 11
LEPC and SERC Meetings in Region 8

P * "SMS




Above: Gunnison LEPC, June
Meeting in Gunnison, Colorado
Left: Chaffee LEPC, June Meeting
near Salida, Colorado
Both Chaffee and Gunnison face an
influx of summer rafters, climbers
and bikers as well as prodigious
snow melt.
Right: Region 8
representatives at
NASTTPO, Reno, Nevada
in April upping their
EPCRA edification.
Left: Utah SERC's
Quarterly Meeting in
beautiful and very
sunny Richfield, Utah.
(The halo around Cody
is real.)
Return to Top

-------
EPA Region 8 Preparedness Unit
Page 12
We will increase EPA Region 8 preparedness through:
•	Planning, training, and developing outreach relations with federal agencies, states,tribes, OUR
local organizations, and the regulated community.	MISSION
•	Assisting in the development of EPA Region 8 preparedness planning and response
capabilities through the RSC, IMT, RRT, OPA, and RMP.
•	Working with facilities to reduce accidents and spills through education, inspections, and enforcement.
Region 8 SERC Contact Information
Colorado
Mr. Greg Stasinos, Co-Chair
Phone: 303-692-3023
greg.stasinos@state.co.us
Mr. Mike Willis, Co-Chair
Phone:720-852-6694
mike.willis@state.co.us
North Dakota
Mr. Cody Schulz, Chair
Phone: 701-328-8100
nddes@nd.gov
Montana
Ms. Delila Bruno, Co-Chair
Phone: 406-324-4777
dbruno@mt.gov
Mr. Bob Habeck, Co-Chair
Phone: 406-444-7305
Email: bhabeck@mt.gov
South Dakota
Mr. Bob McGrath, Chair
Phone: 800-433-2288
Kelsey.Newling@state.sd.us
Utah
Mr. Alan Matheson, Co-Chair
Phone: 801-536-4400
amatheson@utah.gov
Mr. Jess Anderson Co-Chair
Phone: 801-965-4062
jessanderson@utah.gov
Wyoming
Ms. Aimee Binning
Phone: 307 721-1815
ABinning@co.albany.wy.us
RMP Region 8 Reading Room: (303) 312-6345
RMP Reporting Center: The Reporting Center can answer questions about software or installation prob-
lems. The RMP Reporting Center is available from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday - Friday:(703) 227-7650
or email RMPRC@epacdx.net.
RMP: https://www.epa.gov/rmp EPCRA: https://www.epa.gov/epcra
Emergency Response: https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response
SPCC/FRP: https://www.epa.gov/oil-spills-prevention-and-preparedness-regulations
Lists of Lists (Updated June 2019)
Questions? Call the Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil Information Center at (800) 424-9346
(Monday-Thursday).
To report an oil or chemical spill, call the National Response Center
at (800) 424-8802.
1 (800) 424-8002
National

Response

Center

—
U.S. EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street (8SEM-EM)
Denver, CO 80202-1129
800-227-8917
This newsletter provides information on the EPA Risk Management Program, EPCRA, SPCC/FRP (Facility Response Plan) and other issues relating to
Accidental Release Prevention Requirements. The information should be used as a reference tool, not as a definitive source of compliance information.
Compliance regulations are published in 40 CFR Part 68 for CAA section 112(r) Risk Management Program, 40 CFR Part 355/370 for EPCRA, ami 40 CFR
Part 112.2 for SPCC/FRP.
Return to Top

-------