Region 8
Emergency Preparedness Newsletter
» Q
I® i
Volume X No. 3 July 2020 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.
QSC Response
Wall Creek Oil Spill
FAQs
RMP Questions and Answers

LEPC Best Practices
Box Eider, Utah

fILEPC
3M .. c-Vi.
Restarting Reminders
Resuming Operations After
Shutdown

TSCA

Informative Announcement If ' O; 1 -SCA
* Update
Enforcement Actions
Region 8 Announcements
Coronavirus Information
COVID-19 EPA Information
Chemical Safety
Board
I
New Chair Announced in April
EPA Region 8 Personnel
Emergency Preparedness
Assistant
EPA Region 8 Contacts
&
Next Page

-------
Page 2
Wall Creek, Montana Oil Spill Response
On April 22, 2020, Cardinal Oil, LLC reported to the National
Response Center (NRC) an accidental discharge of over 100
barrels of oil from a tank battery site. The release was due to
a cracked valve on a 400-barrel tank approximately 75 miles
north of Billings, Montana. The Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Montana Board of
Oil and Gas Conservation (BOGC) were contacted as well.
-EPA On Scene Coordinator (OSC), Kerry Guy, discussed the
situation with Cardinal Oil representatives who indicated
Little Wall Creek was impacted two miles downstream and
estimated approximately four barrels had been released to
the creek.
Because of the difficult terrain, the BOGC felt it would take a clean-up crew several days to work their
way downstream with all-terrain vehicles and
complete cleanup at areas where oil had pooled.
The spill area between the battery tank and the
creek is on private property.
The Montana BOGC field representative was
able to get on-site and confirmed the spill
impacts were for at least two miles. The
representative estimated the spill occurred
several days before it was reported. Although
evidence of the spill reached two miles downstream, the BOGC field representative reported minimal
impacts to the creek bank and vegetation, except for occasional deeper pools.
Cardinal Oil acquired supplies (boom and
sorbent pads) and began organizing to conduct
cleanup of the area with several staff members.
Response crew members utilizing mechanical means to push oil down to a collection point for oil
recovery
Next Page

-------
Page 3
Wall Creek, Montana Oil Spill Response
Cardinal Oil established a sausage boom across sections of the creek, as well as in front of culverts
and at several other locations, to act as collection points. Sorbent pads were placed along oiled
bank areas and heavily oiled area on top of the bank. Vacuums were used to extract oil from the
surface and where oil accumulated on the shore. The clean up crew then began pushing oil
downstream to collection points.
Kerry Guy, EPA OSC, said, "A unique twist to this
response was it occurred entirely during the CQVID-19
shut down in both Montana and Colorado." One
problem was simply getting personnel out to the site.
MDEQ was able to get personnel out on day three of
the incident, and then only for the day. But their
onsite inspection proved key to the response. During
the inspection, MDEQ helped Cardinal Oil assess the
extent of the damage and the cleanup required.
Following MDEQ's visit, Cardinal Oil immediately hired
a contractor. After this informative assessment from
EPA, MDEQ, Cardinal Oil and the contractors formed a
unified command and held morning briefing teleconferences with the contractors in the field.
Guy added, "COVID-19 work rules and policies had to be reviewed , but we were impressed by the
measures and precautions taken by the contractor." These precautions included the use of masks,
social distancing, small workgroups, rig 'decon', gloves, and additional precautions during lunch
and meetings. The efforts and progress by the Oil Spill Removal Organization-were reported — via
email —each morning. "This gave incident command confidence in overseeing the response
remotely," Kerry added. MDEQ conducted two more site visits during the response, which wrapped
up by mid-May.
Next Page
Return to Top

-------
Page 4

Box Elder Utah LEPC
Box Elder is probably best known for the 'Golden Spike' hammered in place on
May 10, 1869. Important to both Utah and the nation, the location represents
the completion of the 'Transcontinental
Railroad." Within the county, archaeological
sites date back as far as 12,000 years ago.
Box Elder is also home to the Bear River Bird
Migratory Reserve and contains much of the
Great Salt Lake shoreline.
Golden Spike Commemoration
m
Mr-
E-Ja
V~\
JT
4"
i j
The active Box Elder LEPC meets regularly and continues to meet via Zoom
throughout the COVID-19 shutdown. Their May meeting was sponsored by the Tri-County Health
department with a presentation on the current coronavirus status.
The LEPC membership is made up of hospital, health, fire, hazmat, and law enforcement agencies, local
businesses, state fire and military personnel, the Civil Support Team, state and federal environmental
agencies, and other interested parties. The LEPC works to have local businesses
attend meetings on a regular basis.
The meetings are held monthly at the county sheriff's building; although some
meetings are held at local businesses. Mark Millet is the Emergency Manager for Box
Elder and the LEPC Director. However, he relies on the two current co-chairs, Phil
Collins and Eric Andersen, to organize and run the meetings. Mark adds "We are also
grateful to Marsha Andersen who coordinates the meeting agenda with input and
ideas for presentations."
The meetings focus on sharing information and
lessons learned. In many cases, it is the smaller
companies asking questions of larger companies on
processes or management practices. Eric elaborated,
"We share information about personnel, employee
and business preparedness concepts. We also share
information on emergency-related incidents in the
county or information on preparations for large
community activities."
Mark Millet, LEPC
Director
Oil Slick Clean Up in Box Elder County
Next Page

-------
Page 5
Box Elder LEPC Continued
Eric Andersen, Co-Chair
LEPC Booth
Mountain View in Box Elder County
The LEPC serves as a venue to coordinate with community partners who have a
similar concern regarding the hazardous materials in Box Elder and emergency
preparedness in general. There is broad representation between state, county
and local governments, public safety responders, businesses, and the public at
large. Even with this success, Eric said they are still always trying to "reach out
and bring more of our partners to the table." He added, "Successful responses to
emergencies are more about building relationships than just writing plans;
better yet, successful prevention is more about implementing best practices
than just following regulations."
Anhydrous A,mmonia Leak
The success of the Box Elder LEPC is attributable to encouraging active input
from members, as well as meetings and tours at local businesses. This allows
better understanding of chemicals and processes involved in the LEPC response area, helping the LEPC
make better informed response plans for specific businesses.
Three LEPC subcommittees focus on Training, Business/Citizen Outreach,
and Tier II Reporting. The LEPC encourages members to participate while
providing coaching and help while new members are in unfamiliar territory.
The Business/Citizen Outreach Committee hosts an information booth at
the local county fair as well as a yearly community training event with
guest speakers including 'lessons learned' and 'response efficiency'.
	Co-chair Andersen also runs the industrial
ammonia refrigeration system for a Walmart grocery distribution center. This
position, in turn, involved him with the Central Box Elder Fire District, due to
the hazardous material nature of ammonia. When discussing the value the
LEPC provides the community, Eric added, "When I attended my first LEPC
meeting, I was setting up an ammonia hazmat drill for my employer. With all
the different agencies involved within the LEPC, I found the LEPC very useful
and informative, especially with the ability to talk directly to many different
entities at once. After that experience, I attended as many meetings as I
could."
Next Page
Return to Top

-------
Page 6
RMP Frequently Asked Questions
Who must develop an emergency response program under RMP?
The risk management program regulations require the owner or operator of a covered stationary
source to develop and implement an emergency response program as described in 40 CFR §68.95,
which must include an emergency response plan, emergency response equipment procedures, employ-
ee training, and procedures to ensure the program is up-to-date.
Do all facilities subject to the risk management program regulations have to develop an emergency
response program ?
No. As provided in §68.90(a), only the owner or operator of a stationary source with Program 2 and
Program 3 processes, whose employees will respond to accidental releases of RMP-regulated substanc-
es, must comply with the requirements of §68.95.
EPA recognizes that, in some cases (particularly for retailers and other small operations with few em-
ployees), it may not be appropriate for employees to conduct response operations for releases of regu-
lated substances. For example, it would be inappropriate, and probably unsafe, for an ammonia retailer
with only one full-time employee to expect that a tank fire could be handled without the help of the
local fire department or other emergency responders. EPA does not intend to force such facilities to
develop emergency response capabilities. Therefore, the owner or operator of a stationary source
whose employees will not respond to accidental releases of regulated substances need not comply with
§68.95 provided that:
•	For stationary sources with any regulated toxic substance held in a process above the threshold
quantity, the stationary sources must be included in the community emergency response plan pre-
pared under EPCRA.
•	For stationary sources with only regulated flammable substances held in a process above the
threshold quantity, the owner or operator must coordinate response actions with the local fire de-
partment.
•	Appropriate mechanisms are in place to notify emergency responders when there is a need for a
response (§68.90(b)).
•	The owner or operator performs the annual emergency response coordination activities required
under §68.93.
•	The owner or operator performs the annual notification exercises required under §68.96(a).
Next Page

-------
Page 7
RMP Frequently Asked Questions
Does compliance under OSHA's PSM demonstrate compliance with the risk
management program?
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) mandated the Occupational Safety and Health Admin-
istration (OSHA) to develop a regulatory program to protect workers from the risk of accidents that
involve hazardous chemicals. OSHA promulgated its Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard on
February 24, 1992 (57 FR 6356), codified at 40 CFR Section 1910.119. The CAAA also mandated EPA to
develop a regulatory program to reduce the risk of serious chemical accidents that could affect public
health and the environment. In response, EPA promulgated its List Rule on January 31, 1994
(59 FR 4478). and its Risk Management Program Rule on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668PDF). codified at
40 CFR Part 68.
A process that is subject to OSHA's PSM, unless it meets the criteria for Program 1 eligibility, will be
subject to Program 3 requirements under EPA's Risk Management Program Rule. The prevention pro-
gram requirements for Program 3 processes under 40 CFR Sections 68.65 through 68.87 are almost
identical to the requirements of OSHA's PSM. Thus, a source owner or operator responsible for a pro-
cess that is in compliance with OSHA's PSM should already be in compliance with the Program 3 pre-
vention program requirements (61 FR 31687PDF; June 20, 1996). The owner or operator of the sta-
tionary source would still need to develop a management system, conduct a hazard assessment, devel-
op and implement an emergency response program, and submit a risk management plan
The prevention program requirements under 40 CFR Part 68, Subparts C and D,
include hazard reviews and process hazard analyses. Is a hazard review synon-
ymous with a process hazard analysis (PHA)?
No. A hazard review is different from a PHA. A hazard review is part of the Program 2 prevention pro-
gram (40 CFR §68.50). The hazard review must identify the hazards associated with the process and
regulated substances, opportunities for equipment malfunctions or human errors, safeguards needed
to control the hazards or prevent equipment malfunction or human error, and any steps used or need-
ed to detect or monitor releases. A PHA is a requirement of the Program 3 prevention program (40
CFR §68.67). It involves the rigorous step-by-step examination of processes, process equipment and
controls, and procedures to identify each point at which a mishap may occur (e.g., a valve failing, a
gauge malfunctioning, human error) and examines the possible consequences of the mishap
(58 FR 54196; October 20, 1993). To complete a PHA, owners or operators may use a "what if" analy-
sis, a checklist, a hazard and operability study (HAZOP), a failure mode and effects analysis, or a fault
tree analysis (40 CFR §68.67(b)).
More information and similar questions concerning RMP are available at EPA Frequent Questions
Next Page
Back to Top

-------
Page 8
Startup Processes
A Reminder After COVID-19 Shutdowns
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) issued an advisory on the critical nature of
restarting and resuming operations after a shutdown such as the world experienced this spring.
It is critical that chemical facilities carry out safety reviews before they resume operations after
shutdowns put in place to prevent the spread of coronavirus Covid-19, according to the ICCA.
"A significant number, likely the majority" of chemical incidents at plants happen during start up, the
trade body said in a guidance document released on May 18, 2020 to help companies reopen facilities
safely. In the U.S., incidents during start up are five times more likely to take place than during normal
operations, according to data cited by the ICCA. The pandemic has led to "unique circumstances at
many sites", in that some entire plants have been shuttered for weeks. For example, the New York
Times reported a stvrene gas leak in India caused at least 11 deaths and hundreds of hospitalizations
in early May as a plant tried to restart production after a 44-day shutdown.
In the chemical industry, it is common for individual processes to be shut down for maintenance,
inspection or other reasons, the ICCA said. But it is uncommon for an entire plant to be shut down,
and even more so for weeks, potentially without staff onsite conducting preventative maintenance
and inspections. A safety review can help companies assess any issues that may need to be addressed
before restarting the plant, according to the trade body.
Safe restart procedures will vary by operation, but the ICCA outlined four steps that a general
approach could follow:
•	document state of operations "as found", such as where chemicals have been stored and their
environmental conditions;
•	create a startup plan, or revise the existing one based on the current situation;
•	review training needs and consider drilling restart procedures with employees; and
•	proceed with caution - and consider allocating a dedicated employee to monitor the startup
process.
Next Page Return to Top

-------
Page 9
Toxic Substance Control Act
TSCA—Final Rule Announced
On Monday, May 11, 2020, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention, signed the following document: Action: Final Rule. Title: Small Manufacturer Definition
Update for Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Section 8(a) FRL #: 10008-14 Docket ID #: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0321. EPA is submitting this document for
publication in the Federal Register (FR); EPA is providing this document solely for the convenience of interested
parties. The official version will publish in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government
Printing Office's govinfo website and on Regulations.gov in the docket identified above.
Notwithstanding the fact that EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the final rule will not be promulgated
until published in the Federal Register. Once the official version of this document is published in the Federal
Register, this version will be removed from the Internet and replaced with a link to the official version. At that
time, access the on-line docket for this Federal Register document at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information about the docket and, if applicable, instructions for commenting, please consult the address
section in the front of the Federal Register document.
Enforcement Actions for Non-Compliance of
CAA 112(r) and EPCRA, Region 8
The Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Section in the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division recently
filed the following administrative orders to address non-compliance of CAA 112(r) and EPCRA at regulated
facilities. The links are to the orders on the EPA Administrative Enforcement Docket which houses the orders.
K2D, INC. or Colorado Premium Cold Storage/ CAA 112(r)(7) Administrative Compliance Order on Consent
Big West Oil, L.L.C./ CAA 112(r)(7) Administrative Compliance Order on Consent
Big West Oil, L.L.C./ EPCRA 313 Consent Agreement & Final Order
Daily's Premium Meats, LLC/ CAA 112(r)(7) Consent Agreement & Final Order
Producers COOP/ CAA 112(r)(7) Consent Agreement & Final Order
Anheuser-Busch, LLC/ CAA 112(r)(7) Administrative Compliance Order on Consent
Next Page	Return to Top

-------
Page 10
$
5
30
\
.?>«''""I:,
Q
x „,/5
Region 8 Emergency Preparedness
COVID-19 Informational Links
As emergency preparedness readers, you are all fully immersed in this pandemic. Thank you for
all you have done and continue to do for your community. We have included a few links with
helpful information and updates provided by the EPA. Please check out these websites
providing updated information and guidance as it becomes available. They are being updated
frequently.
EPA
This website provides key EPA resources on the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
•	https://www.epa.gov/coronavirus
•	EPA Region 8 began reopening offices using a phased approach beginning in June.
Disinfectants
Information on EPA acceptable disinfectants to use against the virus
•	https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2
Press Releases
•	EPA press releases concerning Coronavirus
Additional Timely Information
World Health Organization https://www.who.int/
Center for Disease Control https://www.cdc.gov/
Next Page
Back to Top

-------
Page 11
Welcome Mark Quick
Emergency Preparedness Assistant

Mark Quick is joining the EPA's Region 8 Emergency Preparedness and
Site Assessment Section. He is based in Denver but hopes to visit many
of the LEPCs and SERCs throughout the region. Mark has held a variety of
emergency response positions throughout Colorado. He served as the
State Fire Training Director as well as the Division Chief over training,
certification, safety and hazardous materials response for the Colorado
Division of Fire Prevention and Control.
Throughout his career, in various cities in
Colorado, he has been a volunteer fire fighter,
the hazardous materials team leader, the bioterrorism program
coordinator, the hazardous materials program manager. He majored
in Environmental Health at Colorado State University. Recently, he
served as a member of the Colorado Emergency Planning Commission.
We are excited to welcome Mark to EPA's Emergency Preparedness
team.
Dr. Katherine Lemos Chairperson
Chemical Safety Board
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is an independent, nonregulatory federal agency that
investigates the root causes of major chemical incidents with a mission to drive chemical safety
change through independent investigations to protect people and the environment. The agency was
created under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. To date, the agency has deployed to
over 130 chemical incidents and issued more than 800 recommendations that have led to numerous
safety improvements across a wide variety of industries.
In April of this year, they announced their new chairperson, Dr. Katherine Lemos. In a press release
Dr. Lemos said "As I begin my term as Chairperson and CEO of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. I am
grateful to President Trump and the U.S. Senate for the confidence they have placed in me to lead
this important agency. Over the next five years, I look forward to working with a diverse, skilled and
motivated team of investigators, legal experts, public and government affairs specialists, and business
staff to advance safety across the chemical industry The full press release can be read here-
Next Page
Return to Top

-------
EPA Region 8 Preparedness Program
We will increase EPA Region 8 preparedness through:
•	Planning, training, and developing outreach relations with federal agencies, states, tribes, local	OUR
organizations, and the regulated community. MISSIC
•	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.
To contact a member of our Region 8 EPA Preparedness Unit team, review our programs or view our
organization chart, click this link.
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
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, Chair
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
problems. 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/emergencv-response
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.
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) ami 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 355/3 70for
Return to Top

-------