Region 8
Emergency Preparedness Newsletter
* o \
Vol. VII, No. 1, January 2017
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.
Large Chemical Disposal Nears Completion
A Utah manufacturer warehoused more than 35,000
containers of chemicals.
Accidental Release Report
The National Response Center (NRC) data has
been analyzed for Region 8 2006-2015.
Hydraulic Fracturing Effects on Drinking Water
The EPA released a report on the potential impacts
of hydraulic fracturing on water.
R.E.S.P.O.N.S.E.
A bill to enhance emergency responder training for
incidents involving hazardous materials rail
transportation.
FAQs on Tier II Reporting
Commonly asked questions and links to more
answers concerning Tier II reporting requirements.
Upcoming Workshops
North Dakota offers a hazmat regulation workshop
for facilities and South Dakota offers one for LEPCs.
TRI Changes for NPEs
EPA is proposing to add a nonylphenol ethoxylates
(NPEs) category to the list of toxic chemicals for TRI
reporting.
Best Practices in LEPCs
Dunn County LEPC organizer Denise Brew shares
ideas about managing a growing LEPC.
RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator Rule
This rule updates hazardous waste generator
regulations to enhance understanding.
Gold King Mine
The EPA has released the Final Fate and Transport
Report for the Gold King Mine release.
Ricin Mistakenly Used for Training
CDP has suspended all chemical and biological
operations following the incident.
Tier2 Submit Software 2016
A Summary of the RMP Final Rule
The article includes changes to the accident
prevention program.
Region 8 EPA Contacts and Information
Western States SERCs Conference

-------
Page 1
Huge Chemical Disposal Nears Final Completion
Parish Chemical Company
The largest single chemical disposal in the history of Region 8 will soon be a thing of the past. This Vineyard,
Utah, manufacturer, now insolvent, warehoused more than 35,000 containers of designer chemicals including
volatile, flammable organic solvents such as ethers, oxidizers, peroxides and corrosive chemicals, strong acids
and bases such as sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide and even water-reactive chemicals such as metallic
sodium.
The site first came to the attention
of the EPA in 1992 when the state
sought EPA assistance with a fire
at the facility. The local Orem Fire
Department chief would not let his
men near the fire for safety
concerns, and local authorities
evacuated everyone, including a
local elementary school, within %
of a mile radius and shutdown
nearby Interstate 15 for hours.
The Parish Chemical Company had a long history of non-compliance with numerous local, state and federal
regulations. Appropriate chemical segregation was not maintained, labeling was inconsistent and often non-
existing, open wiring and ignition sources were located throughout the site, and outside storage subjected heat
-sensitive chemicals to extreme temperature fluctuations.
EPA's first removal in 2008 was to stabilize and reduce safety concerns at the site, but the current removal,
which began in September 2013 included the final disposal of all chemicals. This painstaking procedure
involved haz-catting the chemicals on site to appropriately segregate and remove. "Originally we checked 20%
of the containers containing chemicals to assess their contents, but when we found wide discrepancies, we
had to go to 100% inspection," On-Scene Coordinator David Romero said.
The Parish facility manufactured specialty, hazardous chemicals and stored more than 100,000 gallons of
liquid chemicals, in containers ranging from small vials to 5,000 gallon tanks, including shock-sensitive
explosives, phosgene gas (a WWI gas, a precursor to chlorine gas), cyanides, and more than 1,000 gallons of
peroxides (extremely unstable, shock-sensitive and explosive).
"For proper disposal, Clean Harbors had to ascertain the composition of every container, determine the
contents and decide upon a plan for disposal," said OSC Romero,
adding, "Some chemicals were incinerated, others neutralized and
put in a landfill. There were a lot of unknowns."
Soon the facility will go up for sale at auction to help recoup some of
the more than $4 million spent by the EPA since 2008. There are
less than 200 containers remaining for disposal and the removal will
soon be complete.
The meticulous work of dealing with so many exotic, dangerous
chemicals took longer than expected, which resulted in increased
costs, but with all the inherent dangers there were no safety
incidents. "And that's the way I wanted to keep it," said Romero.
Return to Top

-------
Page 2
EPA Report
Hydraulic Fracturing Effects on Drinking Water
People rely on clean and plentiful water resources to meet their basic needs, including
drinking, bathing, and cooking. In the early 2000s, members of the public began to raise
concerns about potential impacts on their drinking water from hydraulic fracturing at nearby oil
and gas production wells.
In response to these concerns, Congress urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas and drinking water
in the United States. The goals of the study were to assess the potential for activities in the
hydraulic fracturing water cycle to impact the quality or quantity of drinking water resources
and to identify factors that affect the frequency or severity of those impacts.
To achieve these goals, the EPA conducted independent research, engaged stakeholders
through technical workshops and roundtables, and reviewed approximately 1,200 cited
sources of data and information. The data and information gathered through these efforts
served as the basis for a report, representing the culmination of the study of the potential
impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources.
The final assessment was announced in December, 2016. Read the executive summary or to
view the PowerPoint briefing by the EPA, click this link.
Railroad Emergency Preparedness
R.E.S.P.O.N.S.E. Railroad Emergency Services Preparedness, Operational Needs, and
Safety Evaluation is a bill to enhance emergency responder training for incidents
involving hazardous materials rail transportation. The bill was signed into law (114-321) on
December 16, 2016.
The RESPONSE Act establishes a temporary subcommittee under the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) National Advisory Council to provide recommendations and
advice regarding emergency responder training related to hazardous materials incidents
involving railroads.
The subcommittee will be composed of members from various government agencies, including
the Federal Railroad Administration, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, and FEMA. The subcommittee will also include non-governmental members,
including those from affected industries, technical experts, and emergency responder training
providers.
The RESPONSE Act will enhance rail safety by helping improve access to training for
emergency responders, identifying challenges to obtaining appropriate training for emergency
responders, modernizing training course content related to rail hazardous materials incidents,
and identifying strategies to integrate data regarding the flow of hazardous materials by rail and
other relevant data for local emergency responders.
Return to Top

-------
Page 3
TRI
Changes for NPEs
EPA is proposing to add a nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) category to the list of toxic chemicals
subject to reporting under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). EPA is proposing to add this
chemical category to the EPCRA section 313 list because EPA believes NPEs meet the EPCRA
section 313(d)(2)(C) toxicity criteria.
Specifically, EPA believes that longer chain NPEs can break down in the environment to short-chain
NPEs and nonylphenol, both of which are highly toxic to aquatic organisms. Based on a review of the
available production and use information, members of the NPEs category are expected to be
manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities that would exceed EPCRA section 313
reporting thresholds.
RCRA
Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule
Rule Summary:
The EPA Administrator signed the final Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule on October
28, 2016 which was published in the Federal Register {FR) on November 28, 2016.
This rule finalizes a much-needed update to the hazardous waste generator regulations to make the
rule easier to understand, facilitate better compliance, provide greater flexibility in how hazardous
waste is managed, and close important gaps in the regulations.
Two key provisions where EPA is finalizing flexibility are:
•	Allowing a hazardous waste generator to avoid increased burden of a higher generator status
when generating episodic waste provided the episodic waste is properly managed, and
•	Allowing a very small quantity generator (VSQG) to send its hazardous waste to a large quantity
generator under control of the same person.
In addition to finalizing key flexibilities, the rule enhances the safety of facilities, employees, and the
general public by improving hazardous waste risk communication and ensuring that emergency
management requirements meet today's needs.
Further, the EPA is finalizing a number of clarifications without increasing burden including a
reorganization of the hazardous waste generator regulations so that all of the generator regulations are
in one place.
For More Information:
View the rule in the Federal Register
Fact Sheet
Frequently Asked Questions
Webinar
Return to Top

-------
Page 4
Tier II Reporting
The Tier2 Submit Software for Tier II reporting is available for downloading at the EPA website. There
were few modifications this year. The most significant change was incorporating XML file formatting.
Other modifications were adding "Date Signed" to the Advanced Search, updating the chemical
inventory links in the Tier2 Submit-generated KML files, and resolving a large file import issue, as well
as incorporating state- specific fields. The 2016 Tier2 Submit Tutorial is also available at this link.
Executive Order 13650
Western Regions SERC Conference
Registration is still open for the 2017 Western Regions SERC Conference in Denver, CO January
31-February 1. The Western Regions Conference is held for SERCs in Regions 8, 9, and 10 and
was convened as part of Executive Order 13650: Chemical Facility Safety and Security. The
meeting focuses on State Emergency Response Commission concerns and provides updates,
information sharing, and tools regarding chemical facility safety and security. The Chemical Safety
Board will be featured as a presenter.
State and tribal representatives may register for the conference and receive hotel information and
an updated agenda here.
Ricin Mistakenly Used During Training
The Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) discovered that students and workers at the
Chemical, Ordnance, Biological, and Radiological unit (COBRA) facility, in Anniston, Alabama, since
2011 had been using the toxic version of ricin as opposed to the less lethal version the CDP had
thought was being ordered. The discovery was first noted in November 2016.
FEMA's CDP has consequently suspended all chemical and biological operations following the
incident. The center said it had been ordering a ricin extract that was supposed to be safer for
training, but the supplier had been sending the full toxin, which is deadly. An estimated 9,600 first
responders from across the country may have been exposed to the ricin.
The center put out a statement saying in part, "There is no higher priority than the health and safety
of our employees and those we train." There have been no reports of trainees falling sick during
hazmat training.
Last December, a congressional committee that oversees FEMA wrote to the agency's director
demanding answers about the mistaken use of the deadly toxin. The bipartisan committee leaders
asked FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate to respond to several questions about the agency's
handling and knowledge of the problem that resulted in firefighters, nurses and emergency medical
personnel being exposed to the deadly toxin. Among the questions posed in the letter are how and
when FEMA learned of the problem, questions on the CDP's procurement of the toxin, how the
agency will prevent such mistakes in the future and what role the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention plays in training and oversight of the CDP.
The suspension will last through at least January 2017.
Return to Top

-------
Page 5
2006-2015 Accidental Release Report
The National Response Center (NRC) is the sole national point of contact for reporting all oil,
chemical, radiological, biological and etiological discharges into the environment. In addition
to gathering and distributing spill data and serving as the communications and operations
center for the National Response Team (NRT), the NRC makes notifications regarding
incidents meeting established trigger criteria. Region 8 has recently gathered the information
from reportable spills within the region dating from 2006-2015 into a graphical report. Below
are a few graphics from the consolidated data for the region. The full report is available here.
Top 10 Hazardous Materials Released 2006 to 2015
Unknown Sheen
102
3%
Railroad
Non-Release
Railroad
222
6%
Co®1 Mercmy hydrogen Rav* Sodium Refrigerant Pnospftonc
Sulfide Sewage Hypochtofife Gases
Artiytirous Unknown Natural
OS
Storage Tank
441
11%
Pipeline
495
12%
Fixed
1,122
28%
Mobile
1,621
40%
TOTAL INCIDENTS REPORTED
EPA REGION 8
Region 8 Release Sources
2006-2015
1 BOB
f
¦ Storage Tank ¦ Fixed ¦ Mobile • Pipeline ¦ Railroad ¦ Unknown Sheen ¦ Railro
|
723
717
S43
2007
2010
2013
Return to Top

-------
Page 6
FAQs Tier II Reporting
Check out the EPAs Frequently Asked Questions about Tier II Reporting. There are several pages of
questions arranged in alphabetical order. Some answers are listed below.
Agricultural use exemption and fuels?
The exemption for routine agricultural use under Sections 311 and 312 is designed to eliminate the reporting of
fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemical substances when applied, administered, or otherwise used as part of
routine agricultural activities. In other words, the agricultural exemption is intended primarily to cover hazardous
chemicals used or stored at the farm facility. The term "agricultural" is a broad term encompassing a wide
range of growing operations, farms, nurseries and other horticultural operations (52 FR 38344). Harvesting
service is not considered to be part of the growing operation. Therefore, the fuel used by the harvesting service
must be reported under sections 311 and 312 if it exceeds the reporting threshold. However, fuel used by the
farmer and which is located at the farm itself would be exempt.
Are farm suppliers and retailers exempt from 311 and 312?
Under Section 311(e)(5), retailers are exempted from reporting requirements for fertilizers only. Therefore,
substances sold as fertilizers would not need to be reported under Sections 311 and 312 by retail
sellers. However, other agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, would have to be reported under Sections
311 and 312 retail sellers.
Are hazardous chemicals, blended for fertilizer, exempted under agricultural use exemption?
Are ammonia and phosphoric acid, held for blending at the retailer's facility, exempt from the definition of
"hazardous chemical?"
Section 311(e)(5) exempts from the definition of hazardous chemical "any substance to the extent it is used in
routine agricultural operations or is a fertilizer held for sale by a retailer to the ultimate customer". In this
example, the ammonia and phosphoric acid intended for blending are not exempt from the definition of
"hazardous chemical" since they are not"... a fertilizer held for sale by a retailer to the ultimate customer."
They are, in essence, chemicals held for the purpose of producing a fertilizer. In other words, the ammonia and
phosphoric acid held for blending are the starting materials used to make a fertilizer; they are not, in this
instance, fertilizers themselves. The retailer should report the amounts of ammonia and phosphoric acid that
are held for blending to produce the new fertilizer. The amounts of ammonia and phosphoric acid that are sold
directly to the ultimate customer (without blending) are fertilizers exempt from the definition of "hazardous
chemical" and would, thus, be exempt from reporting under Sections 311/312.
Consumer product exemption and batteries
Section 311(e)(3) exempts "any substance to the extent it is used for personal, family, or household purposes,
or is present in the same form and concentration as a product packaged for distribution and use for the general
public." Because the public is generally familiar with the hazards posed by such materials, the disclosure of
such substances is unnecessary for right-to-know purposes. The exemption extends to any substance
packaged in the same form or concentration as a consumer product whether or not it is used for the same
purpose as the consumer product.
What about car batteries at a wholesaler?
Section 311(e)(3) exempts from the definition of hazardous chemical "any substance to the extent is used for
personal, family, or household purposes, or is present in the same form and concentration as a product
packaged for distribution and use by the general public." This exclusion applies to household or consumer
products either in use by the general public or in commercial or industrial use when the product has the same
form and concentration as that intended for use by the general public. The term "form" refers to the packaging,
rather than the physical state of the substance. Therefore, car batteries held for sale by a wholesaler are
exempt from reporting since the hazardous chemicals contained are in the same form and concentration as
batteries sold for use by the general public.
Return to Top

-------
Page 7
South Dakota Chemical Workshops for LEPCs
The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), is
partnering with EPA, OSHA and DHS to hold Chemical Safety Industry Workshops for
LEPCs across the state this coming spring. The information will be pertinent to Local
Emergency Planning Committees. Register here.
March 27—Mitchell
March 28 — Aberdeen
March 29 — Pierre
March 30—Rapid City
Workshops
The topics covered will include :
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and Tier
Reporting
Risk Management Program (RMP)
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Program (SPCC)
Facility Response Plan Rule (FRP)
Government Initiated Unannounced Exercises (GIUEs)
Process Safety Management Program (PSM)
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard (CFATS)
Spill Reporting Requirements
Participation in Local Emergency Planning Committees
Executive Order (EO) 13650 - Federal response to the West, TX explosion
North Dakota Chemical Industry Workshops This Spring
North Dakota's Department of Emergency Services is offering workshops on federal programs
that regulate chemical safety. Representatives from OSHA, DHS, and EPA will describe their
programs, reporting requirements and the responsibilities of industry, as well as where to find
resources and how to report a spill or release. The intended audience is industries regulated by
federal programs (RMP, EPCRA, PSM, CFATS, SPCC, FRP) and their Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPCs).
Register for North Dakota Chemical Facility Safety Workshops
Minot, April 10
Williston, April 11
Dickinson, April 12
Bismarck, April 13
Fargo, April 14
workshop
Return to Tod

-------
Page 8
Spotlight on North Dakota LEPC
Wind, water and sand... these components sculpted northeastern Dunn County's
wildly rugged Little Missouri Breaks country. Called "Mako Shika" or "where the land
breaks" by the Sioux, these unusual land formations offer the state's awe-inspiring
scenery. The picturesque Killdeer Mountains are located in the northwest part of the
Dunn county, while the southern portion is prairie land. Dunn County's economy is
based on agriculture and oil.
Denise Brew is the Dunn County Emergency Manager and the person who organizes
the LEPC meetings.
The Dunn County LEPC membership is comprised of members from the sheriffs'
department, police department, fire departments, ambulance personnel, the county
coroner, county government officials including mayors and emergency managers. Also
represented are commercial oil and pipeline companies. In addition, members include
the county health nurse, auditor, treasurer, planning and zoning coordinator, the tax
director as well as the state attorney. The emergency manager organizes the
meetings, including notifications and running the meetings .
Dunn County, like many LEPCs, has struggled with attendance in the past, and in 2016 instigated regular
quarterly meetings. This practice has helped. In addition, Brew turned the quarterly meeting into a social
gathering including a meal. The meeting is held while the members share the meal. This social time also
assists the first responders in recognizing other first responders. A 2017 goal is holding an event for all first
responders so they can have a meet and greet.
The LEPC is expected to continue to increase in importance in 2017 as
Dunn County is now predicted to be the largest oil producing county in
North Dakota; this is huge in the emergency responders' world.
Supporting their needs becomes critical. With this growth, Brew is hoping
to see more companies reaching out to become LEPC members.
The most frequently discussed topic remains covering any events occurring in the past quarter, and any
tools needed by emergency responders.
In the recent past, the LEPC established a Critical Response
Plan to assist persons in need of lodging or help. The plan
will assist with finding lodging and introducing Social Services
to the people in need.
Brew is proud to be a part of the LEPC and to support and
inform the public about the LEPC. She basically loves
emergency management and is a little surprised not everyone
is as excited about emergency planning as she is.
The December meeting was held with a wind chili of -35
below!
focus each quarter."
Brew stated, "The most important task of the LEPC is ensuring all
emergency responders have every tool needed to respond to
emergencies. With the changing seasons in North Dakota, this is our
Return to Top

-------
Page 9
Gold King Mine
Fate and Transport Report
WASHINGTON January 6, 2017 - Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted
the final fate and transport report for the Gold King Mine (GKM) release. The report focuses on
understanding pre-existing river conditions, the movement of metals related to the GKM release
through the river system, and the effects of the GKM release on water quality. The research
supports EPA's earlier statements that water quality in the affected river system returned to the
levels that existed prior to the GKM release and contamination of metals from the release have
moved through the river system to Lake Powell.
"This report is a comprehensive analysis of the effects on water quality from the Gold King Mine
release," said Dr. Thomas A. Burke, EPA's Science Advisor and Deputy Assistant Administrator of
EPA's Office of Research and Development. "While data indicate that water quality has returned to
pre-event conditions, EPA is committed to continue our work with states and tribes in the river
system affected by the Gold King Mine release to ensure the protection of public health and the
environment."
The area affected by the Gold King Mine release consists of complex river systems influenced by
decades of historic acid mine drainage. The report shows the total amount of metals, dominated by
iron and aluminum, entering the Animas River following the release — which lasted about nine
hours on August 5, 2015 -was comparable to four to seven days of ongoing GKM acid mine
drainage or the average amount of metals carried by the river in one to two days of high spring
runoff. However, the concentrations of some metals in the GKM plume were higher than historical
mine drainage. As the yellow plume of metal-laden water traveled downstream after the release,
the metal concentrations within the plume decreased as they were diluted by river water and as
some of the metals settled to the river bed.
There were no reported fish kills in the affected rivers, and post-release surveys by multiple
organizations have found that other aquatic life does not appear to have suffered harmful short-
term effects from the GKM plume. The concentrations of metals in well-water samples collected
after the plume passed did not exceed federal drinking water standards. No public water system
using Lake Powell as a source of drinking water has reported an exceedance of metals standards
since the release.
Some metals from the GKM release contributed to exceedances of state and tribal water quality
criteria at various times for nine months after the release in some locations. Metals from the GKM
release may have contributed to some water quality criteria exceedances during the spring 2016
snow melt. Other exceedances may reflect longstanding contributions of metals from historic
mining activities in the region and natural levels of metals in soils and rocks in the area. EPA will
continue to work with states and tribes to interpret and respond to these findings.
Results from this analysis will inform future federal, state and tribal decisions on water and
sediment monitoring. EPA will continue to work with states and tribes to ensure the protection of
public health and the environment in the river system affected by the Gold King Mine release.
Contact Information
Christie St. Clair (stclair.christie@epa.gov)
(202) 564-2880
Return to Top

-------
Page 10
RMP Final Rule Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized amendments to the Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements for Risk Management Programs (RMP) under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7). The
amendments aim to modernize EPA's RMP regulations as required under Executive Order (EO) 13650 which
directs the federal government to carry out a number of tasks intended to prevent chemical incidents.
The amendments:
•	Address and improve accident prevention program elements;
•	Enhance the emergency preparedness requirements;
•	Ensure LEPCs (Local Emergency Planning Committees), local emergency response officials, and the
public can access information in a user-friendly format to help them understand the risks at RMP facilities
and better prepare for emergencies.
The effective date forthe amendments is March 14, 2017. More information about the amendments is
available at the EPA RMP website.
Accident Prevention Program Revisions:
All facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes must conduct a root cause analysis as part of an incident
investigation of a catastrophic release or an incident that could have reasonably resulted in a catastrophic
release.
Regulated facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes must contract with an independent third-party to perform a
compliance audit after the facility has an RMP reportable accident.
The rule adds an element to the process hazard analysis (PHA), which is updated every five years. Program 3
facility owners or operators in NAICS codes 322 324 and 325 are required to conduct a 'safer technology and
alternatives analysis' (STAA) as part of their PHA, and to evaluate the practicability of any inherently safer
technology (1ST) identified.
Emergency Response:
Program 2 or 3 process facilities are required to coordinate with the local emergency response agencies at
least once a year to determine how the facility is addressed in the community emergency response plan and
to ensure that local response organizations are aware of the regulated substances at the source, their
quantities, the risks presented by covered processes, and the resources and capabilities at the facility to
respond to an accidental release of a regulated substance.
All facilities with Program 2 or 3 processes are required to conduct notification exercises annually to ensure
that their emergency contact information is accurate and complete.
Responding facilities shall conduct field exercises and tabletop exercises with schedules advised by local
emergency planners, but at a minimum:
•	full field exercises at least once every ten years and
•	tabletop exercises at least once every three years.
Responding facilities that have an RMP reportable accident, and document the response
activities in an after-action report comparable to the exercise evaluation reports, may use
that response to satisfy the field exercise requirements.
Owner and operators of responding facilities that conduct exercises to meet other
Federal, state or local exercise requirements may satisfy the RMP exercise requirements provided that the
scope of the exercise includes the objectives of an RMP exercise.
Ri IP
Next Page

-------
RMP Final Rule Summary Continued
Page 11
Information Sharing
The rule requires all facilities to provide certain basic information to the public, upon
request.
-	Names of regulated substances held in a process;
-	Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for all regulated substances located at the facility;
-	The five-year accident history information required to be reported under § 68.42;
-	The following summary information concerning the stationary source's compliance
with § 68.10(f)(3) or the emergency response provisions of subpart E:
•	Whether the stationary source is a responding stationary source or a non-
responding stationary source;
•	Name and phone number of local emergency response organizations with
which the owner or operator last coordinated emergency response efforts,
pursuant to § 68.180; and
•	For stationary sources subject to § 68.95, procedures for informing the pub-
lic and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases;
o Exercises. A list of scheduled exercises required under § 68.96; and
o LEPC contact information. Include LEPC name, phone number, and web
address as available.
-	The owner or operator of the facility shall provide ongoing notification of availability of
information elements on a company website, social media platforms, or through
some other publicly accessible means that:
o The information specified above is available
§ (i) Specify the information elements can be requested; and
§ (ii) Provide instructions for how to request the information (e.g.
email, mailing address, and/or telephone or website request);
-	The rule also requires all facilities to hold a public meeting for the local community
within 90 days of an RMP reportable accident
EPA proposed requirements for facilities to provide certain information to the Local
Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), Tribal Emergency Planning
Committee (TEPC) or other local emergency response agencies. How-
ever, rather than prescribe information elements that must be provided
upon request, EPA is requiring the owner or operator of a stationary
jy> source to share information that is relevant to emergency response
planning as part of the coordination activities that occur annually be-
tween facility representatives and local emergency response agencies.
Return to Top

-------
EPA Region 8 Preparedness Unit
We will increase EPA Region 8 preparedness through:
•	Planning, training, and developing outreach relations with federal agencies, states, tribes, local
organizations, and the regulated community.
•	Assisting in the development of EPA Region 8 preparedness planning and response capabilities through
the RSC, IMT, RRT, OPA, and RMP.
Page 12
OUR
MISSION
• Working with facilities to reduce accidents and spills through education, inspections, and enforcement.
To contact a member of our Region 8 EPA Preparedness Unit team, review our programs or view our
organization chart, please see: https://www.epa.aov/emeraencv-response/reaion-8-preparedness-unit-members
Region 8 SERC Contact Information
Colorado
Mr. Greg Stasinos, Co-Chair
Phone: 303-692-3023
greg.stasinos@state.co.us
Ms. Marilyn Gaily, Co-Chair
Phone: 720-852-6694
marilyn.gally@state.co.us
North Dakota
Mr. Greg M. Wilz, Chair
Phone:701-328-8100
nddes@nd.gov
Montana
Ms. Delila Bruno, Co-Chair
Phone: 406-324-4777
dbruno@mt.gov
Bob Habeck, Co-Chair
Phone: 406-444-7305
Email: bhabeck@mt.gov
South Dakota
Mr. Bob McGrath, Chair
Phone: 800-433-2288
Trish. Kindt@state .sd .us
Utah
Mr. Alan Matheson, Co-Chair
Phone: 801-536-4400
amatheson@utah.gov
Mr. Keith Squires, Co-Chair
Phone: 801-965-4461
ksquires@utah.gov
Wyoming
Mr. Don Huber, Chair
Phone: 307-670-2590
donhuberl 1 @gmail.com
RMP Hotline: (303) 312-6345
RMP Reporting Center: The Reporting Center can answer questions about software or installation
problems. The RMP Reporting Center is available from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday - Friday:
(703) 227-7650 or RMPRC@epacdx.net.
RMP: https://www.epa.gov/rmp	EPCRA: https://www.epa.gov/epcra
Emergency Response: https://www.epa.gov/emergencv-response
SPCC/FRP: https://www.epa.gov/oil-spills-prevention-and-preparedness-regulations
Compliance and Enforcement: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement
List of Lists: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/epcracerclacaa-ss112r-consolidated-list-lists-march-2015-
version
To report an oil or chemical spill, call the National Response Center:
(800) 424-8802.
U.S. EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street (8EPR-ER)
Denver, CO 80202-1129
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, and 40 CFR Part 112.2 for SPCC/FRP.
Return to Top

-------