Region 8 Emergency Preparedness Newsletter O Volume VIII No. I January 2018 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. Chemical Safety Board Statement Arkema Fires Investigation North Dakota Delegated RMP Program Utah WEBER County An LEPC in Northern Utah Animal CERCLA Requirements Chemical Safety Board Preventing Inadvertent Mixing Incidents Region 8 LEPC Meetings CAMEO — Tier2 Submit New Releases Available WOTUS Update Waters of the United States Accident Reports for Region 8 NRC 2006-2017 National J Response Center 1-800-424-8 80 2 NDSERC Update Two long-term members ¦ j .. su- refire i Contacts and Information Region 8 EPA Waste at Farms Reporting Riverstreet Warehouse Fire Portland. Oregon ------- Page 2 Chemical Safety Board Fire Investigation ARKEMA Chemical Plant Crosby, Texas Taken from the Statement of Chairperson Sutherland 11/15/17: An investigation of this type of disaster is somewhat new ground for the Chemical Safety Board (CSB). As Hurricane Harvey was approaching the Gulf Coast, a number of the industrial facilities in the region were making plans to shut down all or part of their operations. That's when the CSB re-issued a safety bulletin about startup activities. Based on an investigative history, quick shut downs and startups are opportunities that can expose these systems to greater risk which, if not carefully managed, can result in a major industrial incident. There are a significant number of chemical plants and refineries that lie within the direct path of major storms like Hurricane Harvey. Many of these plants and facilities are interconnected. So, a major disaster in one facility can have a cascading effect on fuel and other commodity productions and storage which can be disruptive to the regional and national economy. There are major lessons to be learned from this event that can be shared within the industry to better prepare for future severe weather and environmental events. The water rose so rapidly at the Arkema site, the first combustion occurred less than 72 hours after flooding commenced. The facility was not prepared for such heavy rainfall which led to a rapid flood rate. Facilities across the Gulf Coast experienced similar problems. As tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico increase in frequency or intensity, it is imperative that facilities have effective emergency response procedures in place. The backup generators at Arkema were elevated two feet off the ground, whereas the flooding exceeded three feet in the vicinity of the generators. Conclusions: Reassess continuity of operations plans and worst case scenario assumptions. —~ Plan and plan again, —~ Don't be lulled into a false sense of safety by thinking that it won't happen here. Link to CSB Animation: https://www.voutube.eom/w at c h ? v=WZm U VQ M h 9 a M i.5 mile radius Timeline Related to Arkema Inc. Chemical Plant Fires August 24 Tropical storm Harvey becomes Hurricane Harvey August 25 Arkema plant shuts down units and prepares for Hurricane Harvey August 26 Arkema plant is fully shut down and the Hurricane ride out crew are all on-site. The ram continues through the day and the water level begins to rise. f August 28 2:00 AM- Water nses to the transformer level and cuts power to the entire Arkema plant. August 28 As the water continues to rise workers move all the low temperature organic peroxide into nine refrigerated trailers. The rising water prevents the workers from moving three of the trailers to higher ground. August 31 1:31AM Black smoke reported from Arkema plant, first trailer combusts September 3 3:40 PM Remaining six trailers are intentionally ignited by Harris County Emergency Responded August 25 10:00 PM - Harvey is upgraded to a Category 3 Hurricane and makes landfall near Corpus Christi, Texas. August 27 Rain continues and the water levels continues to rise. As water levels threaten electrical equipment buildings, including low temperature warehouses storing organic peroxide products are turned off. Organic peroxide is moved into trailers and other buildings to stay cold. August 29 11:00 AM - All workers at Arkema facility evacuated by Harris County Emergency Responders. 1.5 mile evacuation zone established around the site. September 1 September 4 5.00 PM-Two 1:00 AM more trailers begin to zone is lifted COTlOiiSl from around the plant EVACUATION Return to Top ------- Page 3 North Dakota Delegated Responsibilities Agricultural Anhydrous Ammonia In 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted a partial delegation to the North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA) to administer the Risk Management Program (RMP) for agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities. Eric Delzer, Pesticide & Fertilizer Program Director, administers the program for North Dakota which manages the following activities. Education arid Outreach North Dakota's approach to regulation is focused towards education and outreach. The philosophy is 'education before regulation', and state regulators strive to communicate the value of compliance assistance visits. For example, the NDDA staff spent two weeks traveling around the state providing annual industry training classes. These trainings, reaching over 500 people, included RMP requirements as well as anhydrous ammonia safety, emergency response, and nurse tank and facility maintenance. This training is provided at no cost to the industry and qualifies toward the annual 'refresher training requirements' under the North Dakota Century Code. Completeness Checks, Compliance Assistance Visits and Inspection Activities NDDA staff inspected over 50 storage facilities during 2017 to enforce the requirements of the North Dakota Century Code. During these inspections, they visit with managers and safety personnel about the RMP requirements and perform completeness checks on certain components of the RMP. NDDA also received requests from several companies asking for compliance assistance inspections to help ensure that they were properly complying with the rule as required. A benefit of the extensive outreach and communication is facilities are not afraid to call when they have questions. Compliance has risen significantly ever since the NDDA took over the RMP program for these facilities. Common Violations and Enforcement Actions While performing inspections over the last year, the most common violations seen are hazard analysis, maintenance, training, compliance audits, and failure to perform a timely hazards review. NDDA has been able to raise compliance rates by 37%. They believe that using a mix of outreach and regulation is vital to building a good regulatory program. Summary NDDA's implementation of this program has had a very beneficial impact to the agricultural anhydrous ammonia industry in North Dakota. The agency has been able to make large strides in compliance rates and general awareness of the program requirements in a relatively short period of time. The average compliance rate per facility has gone up and the average number of violations has gone down. Most of the violations they are now seeing are very minor/low risk ones with easy corrections. NDDA believes their implementation is very successful and hopes to continue to raise compliance rates and awareness in the future for the benefit and safety of North Dakota. For more information, contact Eric at Delzer@nd.gov. Return to Top ------- Page 4 Prevent Future Inadvertent Mixing Incidents Chemical Safety Board Washington D.C., January 3, 2018 - Today the U.S. Chemical Safety Board released its case study titled "Key Lessons for Preventing Inadvertent Mixing During Chemical Unloading Operations/' which examines a mixture of incompatible ma- terials at the MGPI Processing Plant in Atchison, Kansas on October 21, 2016. The mixture resulted in a chemical re- lease containing chlorine and other compounds that traveled into the community. The CSB's investigation examines several key issues including the design of chemical transfer equipment, automated and remote shut off systems, and chemical unloading procedures. The MGPI facility produces distilled spirits and specialty wheat proteins and starches. The chemical release occurred when sulfuric acid was inadvertently un- loaded from a tanker truck into a fixed sodium hypochlorite tank at the plant. The two materials combined to produce chlorine gas and other by-products that sent over 140 individuals, both workers and members of the public, to area hospitals, and resulted in shelter-in-place and evacuation orders for thousands of local resi- dents. The CSB's final report includes 11 key lessons and outlines clear safety improvements that can be implemented at simi- lar facilities across the country. • Among these are facilities should evaluate chemical unloading equipment and processes and implement safeguards to reduce the likelihood of an incident, while taking into account human factors issues that could impact how facili- ty operators and drivers interact with equipment. • Facility management should evaluate their chemical transfer equipment and processes and, where feasible, install alarms and interlocks in the process control system that can shut down the transfer of chemicals in an emergency. The CSB's investigation found that on the morning of the incident, a tanker truck arrived at the MGPI facility to deliver sulfuric acid. A facility employee escorted the driver to the locked loading dock and unlocked the gate to the fill lines and the sulfuric acid fill line. But unknown to the operator, the sodium hypochlorite fill line was also unlocked. And the two lines, which were only 18 inches apart, looked similar but were not clearly marked. The driver inadvertently connected his truck's sulfuric acid hose to the sodium hypochlorite line and sulfuric acid began flowing inside. As a result of the incorrect connection, thousands of gallons of sulfuric acid from the tanker truck entered the facility's sodium hypochlorite tank. The resulting mixture created a dense green cloud that traveled northeast of the facility until the wind shifted the cloud northwest towards a more densely populated area of town. CLICK HERE to view the CSB's safety video detailing events leading to the release and key recommendations from the investigation. The CSB's report issues safety recommendations to the companies involved in the incident as well as the County's department of emergency manage- ment. The recommendations focus on proper guidance regarding unloading procedures, planning, and training for personnel as well as emergency responders. The case study also reiterates an existing recommendation for ventilation guidance for control buildings. Return to Top ------- Page 5 Cameo and Tier2 Submit — Two New Releases November and January Both CAMEO and Tier2Submit were upgraded in November and then again in early January. Both releases are very similar and you can use either release for Tier II reporting this year. What's changed in CAMEOfim 3.4? • Added new physical and health hazard categories (to match the revised safety data sheet options) • Updated resource types with latest categories from FEMA • Incorporated 2017 North American Industry Classification (NAICS) codes • Added contact phones to the Special Locations report • Added "Outside Storage Pile" to the list of storage types • Updated to allow import of Tier2 Submit 2017 files • Updated state-specific fields • Revised helps What's changed in Tier2 Submit 2017? • Added new physical and health hazard categories (to match the revised safety data sheet options) • Adjusted validation requirement so that "county" is now required for all facilities • Adjusted validation requirements so that "type", "pressure", and "temperature" are now required for all storage locations (even those marked confidential) • Added import check for older MER files to warn users if there are record ID issues that must be resolved this year • Added export check to warn uses if the file contains invalid characters that would prevent an XML export file from being generated • Incorporated 2017 North American Industry Classification (NAICS) codes • Added "Outside Storage Pile" to the list of storage types • Updated state-specific fields • Revised helps MER files vs XML.t2s files In 2016, a national Tier II Data Standard' requirement was adopted in response to EO 13650 to improve operational coordination between federal, state, local and tribal organization as well as enhance information collection and sharing. The Data Standard requires reports to be generated in an XML format. XML is a universal way of structuring data and makes it much easier for software applications to understand the output reports. (More information about the XML files and the Data Standard can be found at https:// cameo.noaa.gov/epcra tier2/data standard/v1/index.htmi.) For Tier2 Submit to comply with the Tier II Data Standard, a modification was required to the reports generated by Tier2 Submit. Historically, Tier2 Submit files were created with files in a MER format which was proprietary and not easily read by files other than CAMEO. The XML files now being generated by Tier2 Submit have the extension '.t2s'. Tier2 Submit 2017 will support import and export via both the new XML and the older MER file formats. However, next year, Tier2 Submit 2018 will only support XML files. Several checks have been added to Tier2 Submit this year noting potential issues that might be present in Tier II data. These issues will prevent an XML file from being generated during export. The Tier2 Submit 2017 export will still include files in the MER format. Additionally, if you only have a MER-based export file, you will not be able to import that into Tier2 Submit 2018. Therefore, if Tier2 Submit alerts you to potential issues in your Tier II data, it is important for you to resolve those issues this year and create a valid XML UVr£ssi ml CAMtt) ALOW* MARPLOT I til » ¦ Facilities Ct-eKicws CowtKte m lnv«PlC"> m iiei Special >yeraro: Continued ------- Page 6 CAMEOfm 3.4.1, Tier2 Submit 2017 Rev 2 Download CAMEOfm 3.4.1 at https://www.epa.gov/cameo/cameo-software Download Tier2 Submit 2017 rev 2 at https://www.epa.gov/epcra/tier2-submit-software What's changed in CAMEOfm 3.4.1 and Tier2 Submit 2017 rev 2? Newer versions of CAMEO 3.4 and Tier2 Submit 2017 are now available with a slight modification to the functionality of the new Hazard Category checkboxes. The 'Hazard Not Otherwise Classified' checkbox can now be checked together with other physical and health hazard categories (if appropriate). A Safety Data Sheet (SDS) may list physical hazards, health hazards, and/or a hazard not otherwise classified in the list of specific physical and health hazards. Users should check the boxes in CAMEO fm and Tier2 Submit for alj hazards that apply to the chemicals they are reporting for their facilities. In some cases, that may mean users are checking specific hazards and also checking the Hazard Not Otherwise Classified box. If the SDS includes information on the additional hazard, then we recommend that users enter the details about the hazard into the Facility Notes field found on the Certification Page of Tier2 Submit. Either version of Tier2 Submit 2017 (November or Rev 2) can be used for reporting purposes and both can be used by CAMEO. MARPLOT 5.1.1 Download MARPLOT 5.1.1 https://www.epa.gov/cameo/marplot-software. What's changed in MARPLOT 5.1.1? • Made improvements to the auto-upgrade process to resolve rare issues some users experienced when upgrading to 5.1 • Modified new layer creation process so that layers default to Individual Graphics Mode • Updated U.S. Boundaries layers to 2017 data • Enhanced threat zone information display in ALOHA popup notes • Made improvements to the installers and the data upgrade process for existing users • Added enhancements for program stability and improvements for program speed • Made additional improvements to the program interface and fixed bug Note: If you're upgrading to CAMEO or MARPLOT from a previous version, follow the instructions on the download page to ensure that your data is transferred successfully to the new version. For More Information For specific Tier II questions or more information, please contact Lori Reed at Reed.Lori@epa.gov. Also, you may wish to view the Tier2 Submit online tutorial for step by step assistance with Tier2 Submit 2017. Return to Top ------- Page 7 Waters of the US On February 28, 2017, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order directing EPA and Department of the Army to review and rescind or revise the 2015 rule. EPA, Department of Army, and the Army Corps of Engineers are in the process of reviewing the 2015 rule and considering a revised definition of "waters of the United States" consistent with the Executive Order. The EPA and Department of Army (the agencies) are implementing the Executive Order in two steps to provide certainty to the regulated community and the public while the agencies develop a revised definition of "waters of the United States." 1) The agencies are proposing to establish the legal status quo in the Code of Federal Regulations, by recodifying the regulation that was in place prior to issuance of the Clean Water Rule and that is being implemented now under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's stay of that rule. 2) The agencies plan to propose a new definition that would replace the approach in the 2015 Clean Water Rule, taking into consideration the principles that Justice Scalia outlined in the Rapanos plurality opinion. The agencies are aware that the scope of CWA jurisdiction is an issue of great national importance and therefore want to provide time for appropriate consultation and deliberations on the ultimate regulation. In the meantime, in light of the nationwide stay of the 2015 rule, the agencies will continue to implement the regulatory definition in place prior to the 2015 rule, consistent with Supreme Court decisions, agency guidance, and longstanding practice. The agencies hope to take final action in early 2018 and schedule a webinar for the States and Tribes in February 2018. More information can be found on the EPA Waters of the US website. North Dakota SERC Two long-time members of North Dakota's Department of Emergency Services (DES) and the North Dakota SERC announced in December they were retiring: Ray DaBoer, Hazardous Chemical Program Coordinator, (left) and Greg Wilz, Director (right). Greg and his family were featured in the Great Light Fight on NBC in December. Helping with the light display were his DES team members; playing Santa Claus was not part of the competition. We will miss both Ray and Greg and their dedicated public service. Return to Top ------- Page 8 WEBER COUNTY L .EPC, UTAH Weber County is strategically located in northern Utah between the eastern shores of Great Salt Lake and the rugged Wasatch Mountains rising several thousand feet above the valley floor. Along this narrow corridor run interstate transportation routes, railroads, rivers, multiple industries, and the city of Ogden. And yet, it is one of Utah's smallest counties. Lance Peterson is the director of Weber County Emergency Management and the Weber County LEPC Secretary. He has been in emergency management for much of his career and has worked through four disaster declarations. In his spare time, he prefers to be on his farm, driving his tractor. In a recent conversation, he relayed some of the Best Practices for the successful and active Weber County LEPC. The LEPC chairperson position is rotated yearly. One year the chair is from the government sector; the next year it is from the private sector. Private sector LEPC members are typically assigned to the LEPC by the job they hold in their business. Many members are Tier2 reporting facilities. Some are plant managers who volunteer. The LEPC also encourages members of their county hazmat task force to attend. The 'private sector—first response' connectivity is an important element of their LEPC. The LEPC meetings are held monthly, excepting July and December. They move their meetings around to members' facilities, taking tours and having the host present their safety plans or RMP plans. The LEPC has several committees reporting at the meeting including Tier2, Planning, Training, and Membership Committees. As Secretary, Peterson supports the LEPC administratively and as a member of the executive committee. He is in charge of ail correspondence to the membership as well as receiving Tier2 reports. Weber County, along with Davis County, uniquely sponsors an annual LEPC "Peer Exchange." The LEPCs meet together to learn more about LEPC activities, regulations, chemical concerns, emergency planning and other topics. It is a communal time for the members of the LEPC to share ideas amongst themselves. It is well attended each year with upwards of 100 attendees. Next year it will expand to six counties and be a northern Utah conference. Peterson cited two important roles for the Weber LEPC. First, it should provide comprehensive safety training to the membership. He believes that each monthly meeting should be actively working toward providing front line protection of their citizens. 0 ^—WHlfi ~' i—r —M —I The second important role is providing key information to the first responders, and the community, about existing chemical hazards. It is vital responders know the hazards involved before an accident happens. "Finding out about hazards in the middle of the battle doesn't cut it. That is how disasters get really bad. I don't want our county to be a case study on what not to do." Their biggest challenge as an LEPC is trying to provide good, meaningful training for their members. Chemical safety is the primary objective and they strive to provide timely and applicable training. This mission makes attendance easier to justify, especially when budgets are tight. "Information exchanges are great, but the information has to be useful." Peterson envisions a future where the LEPC has helped all their RMP sites to be fully prepared including integrated plans, table top exercises, plume modelings, joint drills with the hazmat task force, and a well-trained facility safety team. Return to Top ------- Page 9 Animal Waste at Farms Due to a recent court decision, farms (including ranches, livestock operations and/or animal operations) will soon be required to report hazardous substance air releases from animal waste under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) when they release hazardous substances from animal waste in amounts greater than or equal to their reportable quantity within a 24- hour period. Facility owners and operators are required to report an estimate only—monitoring data is not required. Additionally, farmers are not required to reduce emissions. Farmers should keep a copy of their calculation for future reference. For more information, please see Resources at www.epa.gov/animalwaste. When Do I Report? Farms are not required to report until the Court issues its mandate. The EPA filed a motion with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to further delay issuance of the mandate by three months. To stay informed on Court actions, use the resources at the end of this article. How Do I Report for CERCLA? Farms may use a streamlined reporting process known as "continuous release reporting." This requires the farm owner or operator to follow these steps: Step 1: Provide the National Response Center (NRC) with an initial continuous release notification by email (farms@uscg.mil). The email should include the name of the farm, the location (city and state) and the hazardous substance(s) released. You will receive a standard generic Continuous Release-Emergency Response Notification System (CR-ERNS) identification number for your farm. Step 2: Within 30 days of the NRC notification date, submit a written notification to the EPA Regional Office for the area where the release has occurred. Then submit a one-time first anniversary follow-up report to the EPA office. Do farms with animals residing out of doors need to comply? Yes, if the farm has releases above the reportable quantity. For purposes of determining whether you have a reportable release, a person must identify all of the sources of hazardous substances releases, identify the quantifies that are emitted from each source and add them up. The farms should include all releases from the facility, including releases from animal waste due to animals that reside primarily outside. Do I need to submit an EPCRA report? EPA interprets the statute to exclude farms that use substances in "routine agricultural operatons" from reporting under EPCRA section 304. This encompasses farms, feeding oeperations, nurseries, horticultural operations and aquaculture. For more information go to: www.epa.gov/epcra/question-and-answer-epcra- reporting-requirements-air-releases-hazardous-substances-animal. Additional Resources Email comments or suggestions on guidance materials to: CERCCL103guidance@epa.gov Regional Contacts: www.epa.gov/epcra/cr-erns-regional-contacts CERCLA and EPCRA guidance for more information: www.epa.gov/animalwaste Questions? Call EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center: 1-800-424-9346 For more information within Region 8, contact Danny Nguyen, CR-ERNS Coordinator at Nguyen.Danny@epa.gov. Return to Top ------- Page 10 SERC and LEPC Meetings West Valley City LEPC, West Valley City, Utah Return to Top ------- Page 11 River Street Warehouse Fire, Portland Oregon On Sunday, May 14th, 2017, a fire broke out at a warehouse in North Portland, Oregon. The warehouse was located on the northern bank of the Willamette River and was constructed on wood pilings partly over the river. No one was injured in the fire. Wind-blown ash and debris was found southwest of the river in a densely populated residential area consisting of mostly multi-story buildings. Fire crews were on the scene when the fire started. The building had a history of safety and other violations and the building owner had no insurance. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) conducted a preliminary assessment of the warehouse and nearby properties and determined that the roofing paper contains 90% chrysotile asbestos. The roofing paper was significantly deteriorated and friable when touched. ODEQ requested EPA assistance in conducting air monitoring, surveying the area for debris, and addressing mixed asbestos contamination at the warehouse and the debris deposited in the residential area across the river. EPA mobilized three On-Scene Coordinators and an Incident Management Team to form unified command with ODEQ. The EPA, in coordination with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the City of Portland, and other state and local partners, continued to clean up hazardous materials and secure the property where the warehouse burned down. The River Street Warehouse Fire site includes the area where the warehouse was located and other areas containing contaminated debris from the warehouse fire. How is EPA cleaning up the River Street Warehouse Fire Site? Activities to contain the fire and Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) debris occurred immediately after the warehouse burned, and included spraying the site with water mist and also applying a glue-like material over burned debris in order to prevent mobilization of ACM. Additional work was conducted to remove all of the ACM debris from the site. In order to address safety concerns about the structural integrity of the site during the second phase of the cleanup, EPA constructed two trestles (metal frames) over the site to safely access and remove all remaining ACM. EPA used water to minimize the amount of dust and ACM that may be carried offsite by the wind during the cleanup activities. Site documents and the most current information regarding the River Street Warehouse Fire Cleanup are available to view online at response.epa.gov/RiverStreetWarehouseFire . Return to Top ------- Page 12 NRC Accident Report Analysis 2006-2017 The National Response Center (NRC) is the sole national point of contact for reporting ali 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 2006-2017 into a graphical report. Below are a few graphics from the consolidated data for the region. The full report is available here. Incidents By State Incident Causes Transport Unknown Dumping 20% 4% Operator Error 9% WOtiL I Equipment Other Failure 24% 32% CO 35% MT 8% 1808 Total Incidents Reported 2006-2017 Return to Top ------- EPA Region 8 Preparedness Unit Page 13 OUR MISSION 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. • 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 Mr. 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. Rick Lopez Phone: 307-777-4663 ricklopez@wyo.gov 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 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 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 (8EPR-ER) Denver, CO 80202-1129 800-227-8917 1 (800) 424-8802 . Y> \ National PtCO ! Response Center 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 355/370for EPCRA, ami 40 CFR Part 112.2 for SPCC/FRP. Return to Top ------- |