£
I
\
PARatus
PRO^°
O
z
UJ
C3
Region 8 Emergency Preparedness
Volume VI No. I Quarterly Newsletter 2016
Welcome to the EPA Region 8 Preparedness Newsletter. Feel free to page through the
entire newsletter or click on the links to the stories your want to read first.
Global Climate Agreement
The historic international
agreement on climate change
goals and Gina McCarthy's
comments.
k
Read More
Colorado Chemical Safety Workshops
Page 2
CEPP, CEPC, OSHA, DHS,
and EPA host chemical safety
workshops.
Read More
Applying Lessons Learned Page 3
Both the Silver Tip and
the Bridger Pipeline spills
contributed to the new
strategic response plans
for Region 8.
Read More
Strategic Response Planning Page 5
ma
Region 8 unveils a new
approach to strategic
response plans using
watershed data.
Read More
2015 UST Regulation Changes Page 7
Regulations for Underground
Storage Tanks are revised to
improve maintenance and
operations.
Read More
FAQs for Tier II Reporting Page 8
Questions from the EPA website
addressing FAQs for Tier II reporting.
Read More
Campbell County LEPC Page 9
David King reviews both past
and planned LEPC activities.
Read More
safety in knowledge"
EO 13650 Update Page 10
Region 8 EPA is working with OSHA and DHS on
SOPs and
supporting
activities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13650
(Sh
{&) yfc;
y
Read More
EPA Announcements
Superfund's anniversary of 35 years
and a name change
for Office of Solid - » *
Waste and Emergency 1 ^
Response.
Read More
Page 10
Training and Exercises Page 11
"Tier2 Submit" Tutorial now available.
EPCRA Online Training announced.
Regional training offered. REOC planned
revisions.
Read More
7fi
G
Reaion 8 Contact Information
-------
Global Climate Agreement
*
Comments from Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator
On December 12, 2015, the UN Conference on Climate Change
wrapped up in Paris and the world turned the corner on one of the
greatest challenges of our time. Nearly 200 countries came
together to adopt the most ambitious climate change agreement
in history.
The Paris Agreement is historic. It sets a goal of keeping warming
well below 2 degrees Celsius and, for the first time, agrees to Gina McCarthy
pursue efforts to limit the increase in temperatures to 1.5 degrees
Celsius.
The Agreement directs all countries to set ambitious national climate targets for
themselves and to communicate their climate targets every 5 years, beginning in
2020. Each target will reflect progress from the prior one, ensuring the highest
possible ambition each country can achieve. And key transparency measures in the
agreement will hold all countries accountable to the targets they set.
The framework for increasing ambition every five years sends a clear market signal
that a low-carbon future is inevitable. It gives investors and innovators a clear picture
of what the world will be demanding going forwardand that is clean, efficient,
low-carbon technologies across sectors of industry.
#COP21
The Paris Agreement is a tribute to U.S. leadership on climate. And EPA has been
essential to this effort at every step of the
way. Whether it's through our actions on fuel
efficiency, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, or
our historic Clean Power Plan, EPA has
continued to prove that we can act on
climate in ways that protect human health
and grow the economy at the same time.
The Paris Agreement is not a finish line, but
a starting point. There's a lot more work to
do. At EPA, we're rolling up our sleeves to
implement the Clean Power Plan and deliver
on a number of other measures that will help
the U.S. achieve our goals.
Return to Top
-------
Page 2
Colorado Chemical Safety Workshops
In partnership with the non-profit Colorado Emergency Preparedness Partnership (CEPP),
the Colorado Emergency Planning Commission (CEPC), OSHA, and DHS, the EPA held
seven chemical safety workshops around Colorado, including sessions in Colorado Springs,
Denver, Brighton, Grand Junction, and Fort Collins/Loveland. There were over 450
attendees, representing more than 200 organizations. Designed as a high-level overview of
federal chemical safety programs and regulations, these three-hour workshops covered
specific chemical and oil safety and prevention programs.
The CEPP organized the workshops and invited facilities from around Colorado. The CEPC
shared a summary of the state's plans as well as LEPC contacts for the facilities in
attendance. Local LEPC members introduced themselves, describing their LEPC activities.
Industry participation with their LEPC was encouraged to enhance partnerships and
coordination.
EPA staff presented on the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA); Risk Management Program (RMP) for chemical facilities; Spill Prevention, Control,
and Countermeasure (SPCC) program for oil facilities; Facility Response Plans (FRP) for
large oil facilities (over one million gallons); and Government Initiated Unannounced
Exercises (GIUE).
Additionally, DHS presented on their Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard and OSHA
presented on the Process Safety Management (PSM) Program.
The workshops included time for questions and provided participants with direct lines of
communication to federal partners, furthering the goals of EO 13650 and strengthening
Region 8's relationship with industry. Additionally, for those unable to attend the in-person
sessions, the EPA will host a webinar of the same material on January 25th, 2016, 9am to
noon.
Chemical Safety Workshop
Call-in information: 1-866-299-9141
Participant Code: 21583153#
To join the meeting
http://epawebconferencina.acms.com/chemworkshop/
Return to Top
-------
Page 3
Lessons Learned and Applied
Silvertip and Bridger Responses
Silvertip
At midnight on Friday, July 2, 2011, a 10" crude oil transmission pipeline severed by debris-
laden floodwaters discharged over 1,500 barrels of sour asphaltic crude oil into the Yellowstone
River upstream of Billings, Montana. The local emergency manager initiated widespread
evacuations to prevent exposure to volatile constituents of the crude oil. Notifications were
made to downstream water users, including the Billings Water Treatment Plant serving over
400,000 residents. Oil industry response teams in the area mobilized crews to determine the
source of the discharge and initiate appropriate response actions.
In the months of shoreline clean-up that followed the spill, local elected officials, state and
federal government agencies and industry leaders began to discuss and evaluate what
measures could be implemented to address these vulnerabilities. Among the ideas was the
creation of a comprehensive geographic response plan or Sub-Area Contingency Plan for the
Yellowstone watershed that included pre-planned control point locations for stopping the
spread of oil downstream.
The spill occurred during peak runoff on
a holiday weekend in a part of the
country without a robust community of
clean-up contractors. As a result, the
spilled crude oil was carried over 80
miles downstream and dispersed into
upland vegetation long before the
nearest qualified contractor arrived with
spill response and clean-up resources.
One of the positive outcomes of the Silvertip spill was the responsible party financing of a
Supplementary Environmental Project (SEP). This SEP provided funding for a comprehensive
training program for local emergency responders that included basic and advanced oil spill
response tactics, including the deployment of boom into a river. The SEP funds provided
equipment for first responders and the development of a region-wide centralized inventory of
equipment needed for oil spill response.
Bridger Pipeline
When the Bridger Pipeline release occurred four years later in 2015, an inventory of where to
find oil boom, vacuum trucks and other needed equipment had already been developed and
was readily available, which was one of the goals of the Sub-Area Contingency Plan.
The Bridger Pipeline release, although similar in volume to Silvertip, occurred during the harsh
winter months when temperatures reached a low of -5° F and ice covered the river 5-feet
thick. Here, ice prevented the oil from coating the riparian corridor as it had in Silvertip and
also made the sheen difficult to track by site or smell.
Continued on next page
-------
Page 4
Silvertip and Bridger Responses continued
Of primary concern in the Bridger incident
was that the Glendive water treatment plant
was 6.5 miles downstream. As part of the Sub
-Area Contingency Plan, Montana Department
of Environmental Quality was notified and
they implemented down-stream
communications protocol, alerting the water
treatment facility staff. Through earlier
strategic planning, control points for the
water treatment plant were already identified
and were readily available to first responders.
The day following the breach, Glendive began receiving taste and odor complaints, but there
was no sheen or odor at the treatment plant. Though the drinking water intake was 14-feet
below the surface of the river and should not have been impacted by the oil, EPA sampled the
clearwell (a holding tank prior to municipal distribution) and analyses showed elevated levels
of hydrocarbons.
A "do not consume" advisory was issued and free bottled water was made available for area
residents. Work began to flush the treatment plant's distribution system. Instructions were
sent out to area residents on how to flush individual area homes. Sections were isolated,
drained and clean water pushed out. The entire distribution system flush took about 36 hours.
In the first few weeks, crews worked
on the ice tethered to air boats that
skated on the frozen surface, auguring
holes in cracks or in uneven areas
where oil gathered, squeegeeing and
collecting what could be extracted
(about 60 barrels).
Within a few weeks ambient
temperatures soared and the ice
became too thin to safely support work
crews, terminating that phase of the
project. With all of the oil that had
been trapped in cracks in the ice and
in uneven ice layers, a surge of off-
gassing from the oil was expected at
the water treatment plant when the ice
break-up occurred. On March 14, after several 50-degree days, the ice broke and, as
expected, concentrations of volatile organic carbons (VOCs) spiked, going from non-detect to
more than 200 ppb. The ice had trapped much of the oil and had not allowed the typical off-
gassing that normally would occur in a release. The treatment facility was notified ahead of
time and the water intake valves were shut off, averting a second public safety issue.
Return to Top
-------
Page 5
Strategic Response Planning
A New Approach Using Watershed Areas
Exploration and drilling in the Bakken and Niobrara Shale formations has pushed North
Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado into the top 10 oil producing states. A significant percentage
of the nation's oil production -- thousands of miles of interstate pipeline, truck and rail
transport-- is represented in EPA Region 8 and includes not only the vast Rocky Mountains but
also some of the country's largest tracts of pristine wilderness areas including major rivers and
countless tributaries. More than a dozen oil refineries and approximately 183 storage facilities,
with storage capacities in excess of a million gallons of oil, dot the Region 8 landscape.
Because of the growth in the oil and gas
industry, the potential for large-volume oil
spills into watersheds has increased
exponentially. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
specifically addressed the effects of major oil
spills into the waters of the United States
requiring each EPA region to develop strategic
response plans.
Region 8 has created a response plan by
dividing the region into ten watershed areas.
The watershed approach is more inclusive and
applies to all downstream users regardless of
jurisdictional boundary. This approach substantially enhances partnerships with federal land
management agencies (trustees), tribal authorities, state and local emergency responders,
other relevant stakeholders, and industry.
In the process of creating a comprehensive geographic response plan, the first step is to
identify likely locations where oil could be spilled into flowing water. This threat assessment
involves looking at transportation corridors, including pipelines, highways and railroads, where
spills would be likely to originate. Once these locations are identified, the planning distance
associated with a worst case discharge is
determined. This planning distance helps
to identify the potential impact of a spill
from fixed facilities or tankers in transit
and identify where control points might be
the most effective. The potential impacts
and control points would identify the
stakeholders that need to be included in
planning efforts.
The criteria for selecting control points
within each of the watersheds includes
finding locations that are readily accessible
for the deployment of response equipment
and the recovery of spilled oil at any time
of year, day or night. These locations
include boat ramps, fishing access points,
and highway bridge crossings over rivers.
Oil Spill Potential Near Watersheds
Identifying Control Access Points
Continued on next page
-------
Page 6
Strategic Response Planning ¦ continued
Control point locations may also include head gates for irrigation ditches and canals or water
intakes for municipal water plants. Once the locations have been identified, a detailed tactical
plan is developed to protect critical infrastructure, including intakes, deflect oil away from
sensitive environments or other resources, or to contain and recover spilled oil.
Included in the planning process is an interactive, web-based GIS software application The
Emergency Response Application' (TERA). TERA is an important tool in the initial stages of a
response and provides readily-accessible information to EPA's On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs),
trustees, and state and local emergency responders. It integrates real-time information from
numerous databases including facilities and pipelines, water bodies, water intakes, sensitive
areas that are prioritized for protection in the event of a spill, land status, and pre-planned
response strategies and control points as they are developed.
Also integrated into TERi\ are inland locations for Oil Spill Response Organizations (OSROs),
identified when the U.S. Coast Guard revamped their classification system in 2013. Each
OSRO is visited by the EPA to ensure the facility's readiness for a spill response. EPA has
been working collaboratively with industry partners to develop spill cooperatives and map
out response resources and detailed geographic response plans for hundreds of control
points. These geographic response plans are designed to help first responders and OSROs
identify viable control points downstream of spill locations and implement containment and
recovery efficiently.
Souris. Red River
Missouri Headwaters, Clark Fork
¦
Missouri, Lake Sakakawea, Oahe Basins
Yellowstone
Missouri, James, White, Big Sioux
North Platte Cheyenne
Utah Great Basin
Green River
South Platte, Upper Arkansas, Rio
Colorado River
¦3
Ten Watershed Areas in Region 8
Return to Top
-------
Page 7
Overview of 2015 UST Regulation Changes
In the July 15, 2015 Federal Register. EPA published the
2015 underground storage tank regulation and the 2015
state program approval regulation. The revisions strengthen
the 1988 federal underground storage tank (UST) regulations
by increasing emphasis on properly operating and
maintaining UST equipment. The revisions will help prevent
and detect UST releases, which are a leading source of
groundwater contamination. The revisions will also help
ensure all USTs in the United States meet the same
minimum standards. This is the first major revision to the
federal UST regulations since 1988.
The 2015 UST regulation changes certain portions of the 1988 underground storage tank
technical regulation in 40 CFR part 280. The changes establish federal requirements that are
similar to key portions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In addition, EPA added new
operation and maintenance requirements and addressed UST systems deferred in the 1988
UST regulation.
The changes include:
Adding secondary containment requirements for new and replaced tanks and
piping
Adding operator training requirements
Adding periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems
Adding requirements to ensure UST system compatibility before storing
certain biofuel blends
Removing past deferrals for emergency generator tanks, airport hydrant
systems, and field- constructed tanks
Updating codes of practice
Making editorial and technical corrections.
With respect to the SPCC rule, cut-and-cover tanks are considered aboveground storage
tanks (ASTs) and are regulated by both the SPCC rule and UST regulations to protect
navigable waters and groundwater, respectively.
Three documents on the OUST website provide additional
information:
"MUSTs for USTs" provides a broad understanding of the
recent changes made to the UST regulations as well as some
helpful tips to ensure compliance with these requirements
"UST System Compatibility With Biofuels" provides a detailed
overview explaining the 2015 compatibility requirements
The implementation brochure outlines the federal regulation
and the dates that owners and operators must comply with the
requirements.
Questions regarding the regulations should be directed to Liz McDermott (OUST) at
mcdermott.elizabeth@epa.gov.
Return to Top
-------
Page 8
EPA Tier II FAQs
Can the Tier II form serve as a list of hazardous chemicals for Section 311?
Section 311 of EPCRA requires facilities to submit copies of Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) or a list
of hazardous chemicals grouped by hazard category for those chemicals present above an
applicable threshold. The language "grouped by hazardous category" in the regulations means
that the facility needs to submit a list of hazardous chemicals with each of the hazard categories
identified. Since the Tier II form would certainly contain at least as much information as a list of
hazardous chemicals grouped by hazard category it would be an acceptable submission for a list
of SDS chemicals under Section 311. Since the Section 312 report is due by March 1 for
information from the previous calendar year, some facilities may submit their report between
January 1 and March 1.
In a guidance published on July 13, 2010 (75 FR 39852) EPA provided that States may allow
facilities to submit a section 312 report for hazardous chemicals that they acquire between
October 1 and December 31 of any given calendar year. In order to be in compliance with
section 311 reporting requirements, facilities are required to submit their section 312 report
three months after acquiring a new hazardous chemical above the reporting threshold.
How are mixtures handled for Sections 31 I and 312 reporting?
The owner or operator of a facility may meet the requirements of Sections 311 and 312 by
choosing one of two options:
Providing the required information on each component that is a hazardous chemical within
the mixture. In this case, the concentration of the hazardous chemical in weight percent must
be multiplied by the mass (in pounds) of the mixture to determine the quantity of the
hazardous chemical in the mixture. No SDS has to be submitted for hazardous components in
a mixture with quantities in concentrations under 0.1 percent for carcinogens and 1 percent for
all other hazardous components of the total weight of the mixture.
Providing the required information on the mixture as a whole, using the total quantity of the
mixture.
When the composition of a mixture is unknown, facilities should report on the mixture as a
whole, using the total quantity of the mixture. Whichever option the owner or operator decides
to use, the reporting of mixtures must be consistent for Sections 311 and 312, where practical.
Two threshold planning quantities (TPQs) listed in 40CFR Part 355?
EHSs that are in solid form are subject to one of two different TPQs. A facility should use the
lower TPQ if the solid is in powdered form and has a particle size less than 100 microns; is in
solution; is in molten form; or meets the criteria for a National Fire Protection Association rating
of 2, 3 or 4 for reactivity (§355.15(a)). If the solid does not meet one of these criteria, then the
TPQ is 10,000 pounds (§355.15(b)).
A facility would only apply the 10,000 pound TPQ for an EHS when complying with the EPCRA
Section 302 emergency planning notification requirements. For the purposes of EPCRA Section
311 or 312 reporting requirements (for example, Tier II reporting), a facility would use the
threshold of 500 pounds or the designated TPQ in Part 355, Appendix A, whichever one is lower
(§370.10(a)(1)).
Click here for more FAQs for Tier II
Return to Tod
-------
Page 9
Speaking with LEPCs
A Conversation with David King, Campbell County
¦ count
IBM
Campbell County is located in northeastern Wyoming. With a population of
almost 50,000 residents, it is one of the more populous counties in
Wyoming. The county is just under 5000 square miles but contains the ten
largest coal mines in North America; their production provides approximately
17% of the nation's electrical power
generated by coal. The county is also
home to over 50,000 methane gas
wells, crude oil production, uranium
solution mining, and two mine-mouth
air-cooled electric power plant complexes.
The LEPC, with an all-hazards focus, is a wide-ranging
group including emergency management, first
responders, volunteer organizations, health services, the
National Guard, ranchers, an attorney, Burlington
Northern and water and power plants.
Logistically, the LEPC meets every month and David King, County
Emergency Management Coordinator and LEPC Secretary/Treasurer,
believes this is part of its success. Members stay 'dialed-in' and don't get
too far behind if they miss a meeting. Also, the meetings are punctual
typically held within the lunch hourso members can reliably plan their
day. Recently, they started meeting at LEPC members'facilities, keeping
things interesting by learning what others are doing.
King endeavors to have the meetings meaningful as well as
interesting. That means having special presentations, such as a pipeline
safety briefing or a briefing by the Adjutant General of the Wyoming
National Guard, and then publicizing the agenda in advance. He also
works to get all the members involved in the LEPC activities rather than
just a core group. He strives to make the meetings educational, such as explaining details of
the LEPCs responsibilities or providing a demonstration of chemicals that
are prevalent in the county and dangers that could occur from accidental
. releases. The LEPC also uses email to stay in touch and cover immediate
needs during the month. This keeps the LEPC moving forward.
Going forward, David sees the LEPC and emergency management placing more emphasis on
public and private partnerships. "Industry doesn't like surprises, and can bring tremendous
assets to the party. And they have a wealth of knowledge."
The LEPC helped organize an annual 'Household Hazardous Materials Collection' day at the
county landfill, in cooperation with the City Sanitation
department. However, that ceased being necessary when
the landfill was able to receive those materials on a daily
basis. "Our LEPC felt that was one of our successes, in
that we worked ourselves out of a job!"
Return to Top
-------
Page 10
EO 13650 Update
Catastrophic chemical facility incidents prompted President Obama to issue
Executive Order (EO) 13650 to enhance the safety and security of chemical facilities
and reduce risks associated with hazardous chemicals to owners and operators,
workers, and communities
The EO directed federal departments and agencies to identify ways to:
Improve operational coordination with, and support to, state and local partners;
Enhance federal agency coordination and information sharing;
Modernize policies, regulations, and standards; and
Work with stakeholders to identify best practices.
Region 8 EO 13650 projects have recently included:
Region 8 EO 13650 website
Western Region Conference for SERC information sharing February 4-5, 2016
One-page fact sheets (EPCRA, RMP, SPCC, FRP/GIUE, CFATs, and PSM)
EPA/OSHA/DHS coordinated inspections and shared outcomes
TERA enhancement adding Emergency Response Plan information from RMPs and OSHA PSM
data
Tutorial for Tier2 Submit created and posted on EPA website
Case studies, FAQs and best practices in Paratus newsletter and on EO 13650 website
OSHA/EPA rulemaking on PSM and RMP coverage in Paratus newsletter
Overarching Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to support EO 13650.
EPA Announcements
Superfund's 35th Year
Since 1980, EPA's Superfund program has helped protect human
health and the environment by managing the cleanup of the nation's
worst hazardous waste sites and responding to local and nationally
significant environmental emergencies.
The EPA has provided a virtual walk through of this program's 35 year
' * '
~ '
a
m
m
WPPfl
i '
history and some of its key milestones and accomplishments. On the
Superfund 35th Anniversary website you will find stories of the actions that were taken to
ensure clean land, surface water and groundwater in communities across the country.
Name Change from Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
The EPA is issuing a final rule to change the name of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) to the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM). This action is
being taken to more accurately reflect the nature of the work that this office does to protect
human health and the environment. In addition, technical corrections are made to more
accurately state the laws implemented previously by OSWER (now OLEM), and to reflect prior
organizational changes.
EXECUTIVE
ORDER
13650 Jf
Return to Tod
-------
Page 11
Region 8 Training
EPCRA Section 312 Tier II Reporting
Tier2 Submit Tutorial
Region 8 has created a webinar for new users of Tier2 Submit. This tutorial provides a primer on
how to fill out a Tier II form using EPA's Tier2 Submit software. It provides preparation
requirements for filling out Tier II forms as well as a page by page guide to the Tier2 Submit
software. It can be accessed at this link or on the EPA EPCRA website or on the Tier2 Submit
software for 2015 web page.
Introduction to EPCRA Training Online
The EPA has announced "EPCRA Training for States, Tribes, LEPCs, Local Planners and
Responders (non-Section 313)"an online training course covering the Emergency
Preparedness and Community Right-to-Know Act. The course is comprehensive and covers
history, state requirements, industry requirements and release reporting
requirements. It does not cover EPCRA Section 313
2016 Training and Classes
Sampling for Hazardous Materials - Train the Trainer course, March 22-24 Salt Lake City
Chemistry for Environmental Professionals, March 28-31 - Salt Lake City
Tentative - 40 Hr. Hazwoper Course, June 6-10 - Wyoming Office of Emergency
Management
Information about the classes and registration directions are at www.trainex.ora.
Revising the REOC Approach
EPA Region 8 IMT/RSC Revision and Update 2016
During 2015, Region 8 reviewed our incident responses involving standing up our Regional
Emergency Operations Center (REOC) and our Incident Management Team (IMT). We
developed a goal to update our Standard Operating Procedures for activation, response and
deployment. Each key leadership position (KLP) was contacted and interviewed.
The questions asked of the KLPs ranged from what went well in a response, what training
and tools are needed, ordering resources,... to what improvements could be made to help in
future deployments? From those interviews, specific SOPs for each KLP are being
developed. In addition, SOPs will be developed for the REOC/Incident Command Post (ICP)/
IMT. Finally, Region 8 will hold a Functional Exercise (FE) within our REOC in September
2016 to verify the new approach, and will incorporate any discoveries during the FE into the
final SOPs.
Return to Tod
-------
Page 12
Region 8 Preparedness Unit Mission Statement
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 re-
sponse capabilities through the RSC, IMT, RRT, OPA, and RMP.
OUR
MISSION
Region 8 SERC Contact Information
Colorado
Mr. Greg Stasinos, CEPC Co-Chair
Phone: 303-692-3023
Email: greg.stasinos@state.co.us
Mr. Dave Hard, CEPC Co-Chair
Phone: 720-852-6611
Email: dave.hard@state.co.us
North Dakota
Mr. Greg M. Wilz, Chairman
Phone: 701-328-8100
Email: nddes@nd.gov
Montana
Ms. Bonnie Lovelace, Co-Chair
Phone: 406-444-1760
Email: blovelace2@mt.gov
Ms. Delila Bruno, Co-Chair
Phone: 406-324-4777
Email: dbruno@mt.gov
South Dakota
Mr. Bob McGrath, SERC Chair
Phone: 800-433-2288
Email: Trish.Kindt@state.sd.us
Utah
Mr. Chris Martin
Phone: 801-536-4287
Email: cmartin@utah.gov
Mr. Jonathan Whitesides
Email: jwhitesl@utah.gov
Office: 801-728-2725
Wyoming
Mr. Don Huber, SERC Chair
Phone: 307-777-4900
Kim Lee: kim.lee@wyo.gov
RMP Hotline: 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 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, for
questions on the Risk Management Plan program: (703) 227-7650 or RMPRC@epacdx.net.
Chemical Emergency Preparedness & Prevention Office (CEPPO) http://www.epa.aov/oem
Compliance and Enforcement: http://www2.epa.aov/enforcement
Lists of Lists
Questions? Call the Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil Information Center at (800) 424-9346 (TDD
800-553-7672) Mon-Thurs 10:00 am to 3:00 pm.
To report an oil or chemical spill, call the National Response Center
at (800) 424-8802.
U.S. EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street (8EPR-ER)
Denver, CO 80202-1129
800-227-8917
1 (800) 424-8802
National
Response
Center
iviviv.nre.uicg.mll
This newsletter provides information on the EPA Risk Management Program, EPCRA, SPCC/FRP (Facility Response Plan) ami other issues relating to Acci-
dental 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 355/370for EPCRA, and 40 CFR Part 112.2 for
SPCC/FRP.
Return to Top
------- |