Volume XII, Edition 9

September 1, 2012

GATEKEEPER NEWSLETTER
Arizona Emergency Response Commission
5636 East McDowell Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85008-3495

Lou Trammell, Chair

Janice K. Brewer, Governor
http://www.governor.state.az.us/

http://www.dem.azdema.gov/
Mark Howard, Executive Director
http://www.azserc.org

Inside this
issue:
EPA Fines Violators
for Failure to Report
Chemical Data

2

Colorado ethanol
plant to pay $5,850
penalty for Risk Management Program
violations:

4

Leaking tank cars
keep Sour Lake residents inside

6

How Small Quantity
Generators of Hazardous Waste Can Store
Hazardous Waste for
up to 270 Days [40
CFR 262.34(e)]:

8

How to Delist Hazardous Waste [40 CFR
10
260.22]:

Use of Electronic
Shipping Papers for
Rail Shipments [49
CFR 172.201(a)]:
DOT Revises Hazardous Material Regulations to Conform to
International Standards:

12

14

Facility Response Plan FYI:
Who needs a Facility Response Plan
(FRP)? Owners or operators of any
non-transportation-related onshore
facility that, because of its location,
could reasonably be expected to cause
substantial harm to the environment by
discharging oil into or on the navigable
waters or adjoining shorelines must
prepare and submit an FRP.
What is an FRP?
An FRP is essentially a plan that describes how a facility would respond to
a worst-case discharge of oil and to a
substantial threat of such a discharge.
An FRP also includes how to respond
to small and medium discharges, as
appropriate.
EPA may, at any time, require the
owner or operator of any nontransportation-related onshore facility
to prepare and submit an FRP after
considering certain factors, including:

•
•
•
•

Type of transfer operation
Oil storage capacity
Lack of secondary containment

Proximity to fish and wildlife and
sensitive environments and other areas
determined by the EPA Regional Administrator (RA) to possess ecological
value

•

Proximity to drinking water in-

takes

•
•

Spill history

Other site-specific characteristics
and environmental factors that EPA
determines are relevant to protecting
the environment from harm
Any person, including a member of

the public or any representative
from a federal, state, or local
agency, may petition EPA to determine whether the facility meets the
applicable threshold. If a determination is made, EPA will notify the
facility owner or operator in writing
and provide a basis for the determination. If EPA notifies the owner or
operator in writing of the requirement to prepare and submit an FRP,
the owner or operator of the facility
must submit an FRP to EPA within
6 months of receipt of the written
notification.
The RA reviews FRPs submitted
by the facilities to determine
whether the facility could, because
of its location, reasonably be expected to cause significant and
substantial harm to the environment
by discharging oil into or on the
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.
FRP Format and Contents
An FRP must follow the format of the
model facility-specific response plan
included in Appendix F of 40 CFR
112, unless an equivalent response
plan has been prepared that is acceptable to the RA. If the FRP does not
follow the model facility-specific
response plan, the facility must have
an Emergency Response Action Plan
(ERAP) that is supplemented with a
cross-reference section to identify the
major elements of the FRP.
Generally, the information that must
be addressed in the FRP includes:

• ERAP, including the identity of a
qualified individual (QI) with the
authority to implement removal actions

• Facility name, type, location,
owner, operator, and qualified individual information
• Emergency response information, including emergency notification, equipment, personnel, evidence
that equipment and personnel are
available (by contract or other approved means), and evacuation information
• A hazard evaluation, including
the identification and evaluation of
potential discharge hazards and previous discharges
• A discussion of specific response planning, including the identification of small, medium, and worstcase discharge scenarios and response
actions
• Description of discharge detection procedures and equipment
• Detailed implementation plans
for containment and disposal
• Facility and response selfinspection
•
•
•

Training, exercises, and drills
Meeting logs

Diagrams of facility and surrounding layout, topography, evacuation paths, and drainage flow paths

•

Security measures
Response Plan cover sheet (form with
basic information concerning the
facility)
Is your ERAP up to snuff? See
tomorrow’s Advisor to make sure
you’ve got a complete plan that is in
compliance with EPA’s requirements.

EPA Corner

Page 2

GATEKEEPER

EPA Fines Violators for Failure to Report Chemical Data:
WASHINGTON – The U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has issued complaints seeking civil penalties
against three companies for
alleged violations of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The alleged violations involved
the companies’ failure to comply with EPA’s TSCA section
8 Inventory Update Reporting
(IUR) regulations, which require companies to submit accurate data about the production and use of chemical substances manufactured or imported during a calendar year.
Under TSCA, penalties can be
assessed up to $37,500 per
day, per violation.
Formerly known as the IUR,
the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting Rule requires the collection of information about
existing chemicals on the market by requiring periodic reports about the production and
use of chemicals to help under-

stand the risks they may pose
to human health and the environment. The data collected
by EPA is the most comprehensive source of information
for chemicals currently in
commerce in the U.S.
The reporting deadline for the
2006 IUR rule ended in
March of 2007. EPA’s enforcement efforts have led to
43 civil enforcement actions
and approximately $2.3 million dollars in civil penalties
against companies that failed
to report required chemical
data information. The reporting deadline for the 2012
submission period of the
Chemical Data Reporting
Rule is August 13, 2012.
The three most recent cases
are against Chemtura Corporation, Bethlehem Apparatus
Company, and Haldor Topsoe, Inc., and resulted in penalties totaling $362,113.
The Chemtura Corporation is
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pa. and has a facility

located in El Dorado, Arizona. In a May 31, 2012
complaint, EPA alleged that
the facility failed to report
two chemicals pursuant to
the 2006 IUR rule and assessed a penalty of $55,901.
The company corrected the
violations, paid the penalty
and a final order was issued
by the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) on June
25, 2012.
During an inspection of the
Bethlehem Apparatus Company, located in Hellertown,
Pa., EPA found that the facility was in violation of the
2006 IUR Rule for one
chemical substance. EPA
also determined during the
inspection that the company
had failed to comply with
the export notification requirements as required under TSCA section 12(b) and
the import certification requirements as required under TSCA section 13 on a
number of occasions for the

same chemical substance.
The company corrected the
violations and paid a
$103,433 penalty proposed
in a May 31, 2012 complaint.
Haldor Topsoe, Inc., headquartered in Houston,
Texas, is subject to a
TSCA complaint that was
filed on June 20, 2012. The
complaint alleged that that
the company had violated
the 2006 IUR rule for 13
chemical substances. The
complaint assessed a proposed penalty of $202,779,
which the company paid on
July 2, 2012.
More information about the
settlements and EPA’s
TSCA enforcement program: http://www.epa.gov/
compliance/resources/civil/
tsca/tscaiur.html
More information about
TSCA reporting requirements: http://
www.epa.gov/iur/

Talisman Energy to pay $62,000 penalty for EPCRA Tier
II violations at 52 natural gas facilities in Pa.:
PHILADELPHIA -- Talisman Energy
USA Inc. will pay a $62,457 penalty to
settle alleged violations of hazardous
chemical reporting requirements at 52
hydraulic fracturing facilities throughout
Pennsylvania that include natural gas well
sites and compressor stations, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency announced today. Talisman discovered the
violations and self-disclosed them to the
EPA.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requires
companies that store specified amounts of
hazardous chemicals to submit material
safety data and lists of chemicals on site
with state and local emergency response

agencies and the local fire departments. The safety data describes
health risks associated with the
chemicals and safe handling instructions. The lists of chemicals
set forth the types and quantities
of chemicals present on site.
Compliance with these requirements is important for the health
and safety of facility occupants
and first responders in the event of
discharge or accidental exposure
to hazardous chemicals. The required information also provides
valuable information to emergency planners.
The settlement reflects Talis-

man’s good faith cooperation with
EPA, and its compliance efforts in selfdisclosing and swiftly correcting the
violations. As part of the settlement,
the company neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations.
In a consent agreement with EPA, the
company has agreed to pay the
$62,457 penalty for failing to file required chemical information for one or
more of the past three years at each of
the facilities included in the settlement.
For more information on EPCRA and
EPA’s toxic chemical reporting program, visit http://www.epa.gov/
emergencies/content/epcra/index.htm .

Volume XII, Edition 9

Page 3

Chemical producer faces fine for environmental violations
at Fairfield, Conn. Facility:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency –
(Connecticut) Chemical producer faces
fine for environmental violations at
Fairfield, Conn. facility. A chemical producer faces a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fine of $93,900 for
failing to report the use and storage of
hazardous chemicals at its Fairfield, Connecticut facility, in violation of the federal
right-to-know law, the EPA announced
July 19. According to an EPA complaint,
5N Plus, Inc. violated the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know
Act by failing to report hazardous chemical inventory data, known as Tier II reports, to local and State emergency re-

sponders. The company also failed
to report the use and potential
release of lead and selenium to the
State and federal Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI), a national, public
database of toxic chemical use.
During a June 2011 inspection,
EPA determined 5N Plus failed to
follow the reporting rules by failing to include gallium trichloride
(an extremely hazardous substance) in its inventory of hazardous chemicals for 2010, and by
failing to submit Tier II reports for
reporting years 2008 and 2009 for
chlorine gas, lead and gallium

trichloride. Following further review,
EPA also determined the firm failed to
submit accurate TRI reports for lead in
2008 and 2009, and for selenium in
2010. After the two inspections, a release of chlorine gas resulted in areawide evacuations and worker exposure
to chlorine gas. Subsequent to the release, the company moved its gallium
trichloride manufacture to another facility. Source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/
opa/admpress.nsf/0/
f2e73ed18fc0f24c85257a40006f4eea?
OpenDocument

Hellertown mercury recycling company fined
$100,000 for alleged reporting violations:
Easton Express-Times –
(Pennsylvania) Hellertown
mercury recycling company
fined $100,000 for alleged
reporting violations. A Hellertown, Pennsylvania mercury recycling company was
fined $103,433 for alleged
violations of the reporting and
record-keeping requirements
under the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA), the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) announced July
24. The EPA issued the fine
against Bethlehem Apparatus
Company, a firm that has been
in the mercury recycling business for more than 50 years.
The TSCA requires the collection of information about existing chemicals on the market by

mandating periodic reports about
the production and use of chemicals. The EPA said the firm corrected its three violations of the
act’s notification requirements
and paid the fine. Source: http://
www.lehighvalleylive.com/
bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/07/
hellertown_mercury_recycling_c.html

GATEKEEPER

Page 4

EPA launches chemical cleanup in West Melbourne:
Brevard Florida Today –
(Florida) EPA launches chemical cleanup in West Melbourne. Thousands of chemical
containers stashed inside trailers
in West Melbourne, Florida,
were discovered in 2010. There
were so many containers, State
investigators had planned to
bring in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to
help, Brevard Florida Today
reported July 28. However, before EPA could take action, the

trailers mysteriously disappeared. Now, State investigators say some of the same
chemical-filled trailers have
become part of an estimated $110,000 federal
cleanup in July just down
the road from where they
were originally found. U.S.
Department of Defense
officials are investigating
whether some of the chemicals came from Navy or
other military facilities and

are trying to figure out who
should be responsible for the
cleanup. Some 3,500 containers of hazardous substances sat unsecured in the
7 trailers and 2 box trucks
for an unknown period of
time. Flammable liquids,
strong acids, and bases
seeped underneath the trailers, near a drainage canal
and within 100 yards of residential areas Sheridan Lakes
to the south and Greenwood

Village to the east. EPA officials secured the site earlier
in July. The agency is in talks
with the military to determine
when the chemicals can be
hauled to a hazardous waste
landfill out of State. Source:
http://www.floridatoday.com/
article/20120728/
NEWS01/307280017/EPAlaunches-chemical-cleanupWest-Melbourne

Colorado ethanol plant to pay $5,850 penalty for Risk
Management Program violations:
Contact Information: David Cobb, 303312-6592; Richard Mylott, 303-312-6654
Clean Air Act requirements designed to
prevent accidental releases of toxic chemicals
(Denver, Colo.) Yuma Ethanol, LLC has
agreed to pay a $5,850 civil penalty and
correct violations relating to the storage
and use of toxic and flammable substances
at its ethanol plant in Yuma, Colorado. An
EPA inspection of the plant in October
2011 found the company had violated Risk
Management Program regulations under
the Clean Air Act. By agreeing to the settlement announced today, the company
has certified that the facility is now in
compliance with these regulations.
"These requirements ensure that facilities
have up-to-date procedures in place to
prevent and respond to releases of toxic
chemicals used on-site,” said Mike Gaydosh, EPA’s Enforcement Director in
Denver. “Failure to comply with these

requirements can leave the public
and environment at risk from accidental releases."
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Yuma Ethanol facility was required to maintain a risk management plan because it exceeded the
10,000-pound storage threshold
for anhydrous ammonia, an extremely hazardous chemical, and
natural gasoline, a flammable substance used to denature ethanol.
Yuma Ethanol was storing approximately 97,000 pounds of
anhydrous ammonia at the time of
the EPA inspection.
This enforcement action will
benefit the community, which
includes minority and low-income
areas. Minority populations comprise nearly half of the residents
within a five-mile radius of the
facility and 45 percent are below
poverty level. Approximately 35

percent of the area’s population is Hispanic.
EPA enforces the Risk Management
Program regulations of the Clean Air
Act with the goal of preventing accidental chemical releases and minimizing the impact of releases or other accidents that may occur. The establishment of effective risk management
plans helps companies, industries and
municipalities operate responsibly,
assists emergency responders by providing vital information necessary to
address accidents and other incidents,
protects the environment by preventing
and minimizing damage from accidental releases, and keeps communities
safer.
For more information on the Clean Air
Act and risk management requirements: http://www.epa.gov/oem/
content/rmp/caa_faqs.htm

Volume XII, Edition 9

LEPC Corner

Page 5

Former assistant secretary Keil believes chemical plant
security at risk:
(CBS News) After 9/11, America realized that more than
4,000 chemical plants were sitting ducks for a terrorist attack - tanks of lethal toxins were
stored around many of our biggest cities. Five years ago,
Homeland Security started a
program to secure those plants.
Half a billion dollars have been
spent. But it turns out 90 percent of the most threatening
plants have not even been inspected. Todd Keil was once in
charge of this program and he
told what he knows to CBS
News.
"As the program stands today,"
Keil said, "it's not effectively
protecting the American people
from high-risk chemical facilities that may be vulnerable."
Keil was the assistant secretary
at Homeland Security responsible for overseeing the Chemical
Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, known as
CFATS, from late 2009 to February 2012. He said he was so
concerned about problems with
the program that he asked for an
internal review.
The review found that after four
-and-a-half years and $480 million:
There had not been a single

inspection of a chemical
plant.
No plant has a site security plan.
The review also found
"...a catastrophic failure to
ensure personal and professional accountability."
"There were administrative
missteps," said Keil. "There
were management missteps,
and there were substantive
missteps, that just led the
program down a path of
failure."
So in other words, broken?
"Broken," Keil said. "I
knew we had to put all of
the dirty laundry on the
table so we could make
corrections, so we could
make the program effective."
As for the response from
Keil's bosses about the
problem, the former assistant secretary said: "'Let's
keep this internal. We'll see
what we can do.' And my
efforts at correcting the
program were thwarted."
Last week, the Government
Accountability Office reported that as of the end of
June, not one of the 4,400
chemical plants in the pro-

gram had been fully inspected.
"The CFTAS program has
been, I think, a tremendous
success to date," said Rand
Beers in March 2010, the
Homeland Security Undersecretary in charge of the
program. He was Todd
Keil's boss.
Beers told CBS News that
120 chemical plants pose a
severe risk -- and of those
120, his program had done
preliminary inspections on
11.
"What the American public
has gotten for $480 million
is a map of the vulnerabilities that this country has
with respect to chemical
facilities, and the process of
developing the plans to
make those sites safer for
the American public," said
Beers. "And we have made
significant progress in that
regard."
When told that four-and-a
half-years into the program,
there were no inspections,
no approved site security
plans -- as well as a large
number of inspectors that
were said to be unqualified
for the jobs they were doing,

and "an environment of
fraud, waste and abuse" -Beers responded:
"We certainly face some
management challenges. And
I think we have, as a result of
the good hard work of the
people who are associated
with this program, we are
moving forward properly
according to the basic risk
and management standards
that are set by independent
organizations."
Sen. Charles Grassley of
Iowa, the ranking member of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants answers. "I think
it's about time that the Department of Homeland Security comes clean," he said,
"and admits that this program
isn't running because the
longer they try to mislead
Congress, when the truth
comes out, the more egg
they're going to have on their
face."
Todd Keil, who told CBS
News about the problems,
said he was forced to resign
in February. The Department
of Homeland Security wouldn't comment officially on his
resignation.

CAMEO Companion is now available for printing please contact:
State of Arizona Department of Corrections
Dirk Johnson, Account Manager
3107 W. Cambridge Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85009
602-272-7600 Ext. 207
Toll Free: 800-992-1738
Fax: 602-272-1007
Cell: 602-388-7230
djohnso1@azcorrections.gov

Page 6

GATEKEEPER

Chemical fire forces home, business
evacuations:
“The building is
pretty much
demolished,”
said the
Oklahoma City
Fire Department
chief.

KWTV 9 Oklahoma City; CBS
News – (Oklahoma) Chemical
fire forces home, business
evacuations. Fire crews and
emergency crews battled to contain a chemical fire in Oklahoma
City that sent toxic smoke billowing into the air and forced the
evacuation of several commercial buildings and nearby homes,
July 25. Smoke from the Bachman Services plant and nearby
Horizon Hydraulics forced employees out of their buildings.
Workers said they heard several

explosions and believe a
forklift caught on fire, which
ignited several hundred
chemical barrels filled with
triazine, a toxic flammable
liquid. Scores of firefighters
worked to keep the fire from
spreading to other buildings.
“The building is pretty much
demolished,” said the Oklahoma City Fire Department
chief. Several Oklahoma
City firefighters had to be
decontaminated after exposure to the toxic fumes, and

people living downwind
were told to evacuate. Public
works and environmental
officials tried to keep the
toxic chemicals from getting
into ground water because
storm water drains in the
area lead straight to the
Oklahoma River. Source:
http://www.wafb.com/
story/19109739/chemicalfire-forces-home-businessevacuations

Officials monitor water runoff from Oklahoma
City chemical fire:
Oklahoma City Oklahoman –
(Oklahoma) Officials monitor water runoff from Oklahoma City chemical fire.
The Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality July
26 was assessing the quality
of the water used to extinguish a chemical plant fire in
Oklahoma City that caused
more than $2 million in damage. The water was contained
in a drainage channel and
poses no threat to drinking

water, a department spokeswoman said. Water is tested to
see if it is contaminated, she
said. If the contaminants fall
within a safe range, the water is
sent to the sewage treatment
plant. If the water is contaminated, then the water is treated
with chemicals and pumped
into the sewer, she said. The
five-alarm, July 24 chemical
fire at Bachman Services Inc.
caused $1.35 million in structural damage, and $700,000 in

damage to structure contents, said
the deputy fire chief. Fire officials identified one of the chemicals in the building as triazine, a
flammable and toxic emulsion
breaker. Source: http://
newsok.com/officials-aremonitoring-runoff-from-okcchemical-fire/article/3695469

Leaking tank cars keep Sour Lake residents inside:
Beaumont Enterprise – (Texas)
Leaking tank cars keep Sour
Lake residents inside. The
Texas Department of Public
Safety (DPS) said material that
spilled from derailed train cars

near Sour Lake, Texas, July
24, was a minimal hazard
to the public and the environment. DPS initially
called for residents to shelter in place after the eight

cars of a train derailed and
started spilling sodium carbonate. A Union Pacific
crew spent about 12 hours
cleaning up the spill.
Source: http://

www.beaumontenterprise.co
m/news/article/Leaking-tankcars-keep-Sour-Lakeresidents-inside-3731783.php

Volume XII, Edition 9

Page 7

Hydrogen peroxide explosion injures one at
Woburn company:
Boston Globe – (Massachusetts)
Hydrogen peroxide explosion
injures one at Woburn company. A hydrogen peroxide explosion at Organix Inc. in Woburn, Massachusetts, July 19,
sent one person to the hospital,
according to the Woburn Fire
Department. The person’s condi-

tion was not immediately
available. Organix is a research and development
company that specializes in
synthetic organic and medicinal chemistry. The explosion did not cause a fire, a
Woburn dispatcher said.
Source: http://

www.boston.com/
metrodesk/2012/07/19/
hydrogen-peroxideexplosion-injures-onewoburn-company/
dIqpOu1ZKkGvywTgpFS8a
P/story.html

Train derailment causes explosions In Eastern
Montana town:
A train derailment 2 miles west of
the small town of Plevna, Montana
has caused several explosions and
has kept emergency crews busy
throughout Sunday in Fallon
County.
Fallon County Disaster and Emergency Services Coordinator Chuck
Lee says around 3p.m. on Sunday,
eight cars from a Burlington Northern Santa Fe train derailed-causing
multiple explosions.
The rail company did respond to

the scene along with Fallon County
and several emergency crews from
across the region to battle several
wildfires which sparked from the
explosions.

away from the train line.

It is believed the explosions are
being caused by denatured alcohol,
which was one of the cargo items
from the derailed cars.

Lee says the plan for now is to allow the fire to burn itself out before
clean-up can begin.

Currently, no evacuation orders
have been issued for Plevna or the
nearby town of Baker, but people
are asked to stay one-half mile

Highway 12 has been blocked off at
either end of the derailment as a
precautionary measure.

Crews will remain at the site for the
remainder of the evening.

Page 8

Industry Corner

GATEKEEPER

Protect Workers From Fluorescent Lamp Mercury
Exposure:
OSHA has issued two new educational resources to help protect workers from mercury exposure while crushing and recycling fluorescent lamps. Compact fluorescent lamps are more
efficient than incandescent
bulbs, but the shift to energysaving fluorescents, which contain mercury, calls for more
attention to workers who handle, dispose of, and recycle used
fluorescent lamps.
The OSHA fact sheet explains
how workers may be exposed,

what kinds of engineering
controls and personal protective equipment they
need, and how to use these
controls and equipment
properly. In addition, a new
OSHA Quick Card alerts
employers and workers to
the hazards of mercury and
provides information on
how to properly clean up
accidently broken fluorescent bulbs to minimize
workers’ exposures to mercury.

Fluorescent lamps can release
mercury and may expose
workers when they are broken
accidentally or crushed as part
of the routine disposal or recycling process. Depending
on the duration and level of
exposure, mercury can cause
nervous system disorders such
as tremors, kidney problems,
and damage to unborn children.
In the following links, you
can find additional guidance
for cleaning up spills that re-

sult from broken fluorescent lamps:
http://epa.gov/cfl/
cflcleanup.html
http://www.epa.gov/hg/
spills/
http://www.epa.gov/osw/
wycd/cflr.htm
http://www.energystar.gov/
ia/partners/promotions/
change_light/downloads/
Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/dep/
toxics/stypes/brkncfls.htm

TRANSCAER® (Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response) is a voluntary national outreach effort
that focuses on assisting communities prepare for and respond to a possible hazardous material transportation incident. TRANSCAER® members consist of volunteer representatives from the chemical manufacturing, transportation, distributor, and emergency response industries, as well as the government. Visit: http://www.transcaer.com/state.aspx for more information.

How Small Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste Can
Store Hazardous Waste for up to 270 Days [40 CFR 262.34
(e)]:
Small Quantity Generators of
hazardous waste (SQGs) are
classified as facilities that generate between 100-1000 kg of
hazardous waste in a calendar
month. Normally, SQGs can
accumulate hazardous waste for
up to 180 days at central accumulation areas (40 CFR 262.34
(d)). Small Quantity Generators
also cannot store more than
6000 kg at any one time (40
CFR 262.34(d)(1)).

There is an exception to
the 180-day accumulation
provision at 40 CFR 262.34
(e). If the waste will be
transported for more than
200 miles for off-site treatment, storage, or disposal,
SQGs may accumulate hazardous waste onsite for 270
days. EPA has clarified that
a SQG may accumulate
waste for up to 270 days if
they ship to a treatment,

storage, or disposal facility
(TSDF) greater than 200
miles away, even if there is an
alternate TSDF closer than
200 miles (EPA Monthly Call
Center Report Question, August 1987, RCRA Online
13000).
The extension of the storage
duration from 180 to 270 days
does not change the 6000 kg
onsite accumulation limit.

To ensure that your hazardous wastes are managed
properly, attend Environmental Resource Center’s
Hazardous Waste Management—The Complete
Course, or state-specific
hazardous waste management training in California
or Texas.

Volume XII, Edition 9

Page 9

How to Identify Hazardous Wastes that are Both
Characteristic and Listed on LDR Forms and Manifests [40
CFR 268.9(b)]:
Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.11, if
you generate hazardous waste,
you must evaluate your waste to
determine which hazardous
waste listings and characteristics apply. However if your
waste is both listed and characteristic, when you determine
which land disposal restriction
(LDR) treatment standards apply to your waste, the treatment
standard for the listing may
operate in lieu of the characteristic standards pursuant to 40
CFR 268.9(b).
If a listed treatment standard
addresses the characteristic, it
operates in lieu of the characteristic treatment standard (even if
less stringent) (see EPA Memorandum, Lowrance to MacMillan, July 31, 1990 (RCRA
Online #11545)).
For example, consider a waste
that has been identified as both
D018 (benzene) and F037
(petroleum refinery separation
sludge). In the Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes
table in 40 CFR 268.40, the
treatment standard for F037
includes a treatment standard
for the regulated hazardous constituent benzene. Therefore, the
F037 treatment standard would

operate in lieu of the D018
treatment standard in terms
of LDR requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 268.9(b).

This principle has a direct
impact on the LDR notification requirements at 40
CFR 268.7. If the treatment
standard for the listed waste
also addresses constituents
that are responsible for the
waste characteristic, the
listed waste code would be
included on the LDR notice
in lieu of the characteristic
waste code. However, if
the listed treatment standard does not directly address the constituent that
makes the waste characteristic, the generator must list
both waste codes on the
notification, and the waste
must meet both treatment
standards before it can be
land disposed (see EPA
Monthly Call Center Report Question, January
2001 (RCRA Online
#14545)).

This principle has practical
implications for hazardous

waste manifests, as
well. EPA has issued guidance indicating that when a
waste meets a specific listing and exhibits a characteristic for one of the constituents that makes up the listed
waste code, the generator
may decide which waste
code to include on the manifest based on which waste
code most accurately identifies the waste for emergency
response purposes (see EPA
Memorandum, Bussard to
Kuhn, June 19, 1996
(RCRA Online #14033)).
When EPA standardized the
content and appearance of
the manifest form in March
2005, the Agency limited
the number of federal and
state waste codes that could
be reported on the form (70
FR 10776, March 4, 2005).
Using the current Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest,
you may identify up to six
waste codes in Item 13 for
each waste stream identified
in Item 9b of the manifest.
EPA clarified that the waste
codes entered on the manifest should be the most representative of a waste. You
can identify additional waste

codes in the Additional Description and Special Handling
box (i.e., item 14) on the manifest; however, the state implementing agency cannot require
the generator to enter the additional waste code information
in that box.

Therefore, you may use your
discretion in deciding which
waste code to use on the manifest, based on your assessment
of which waste code is most
representative of the waste.
Because the listed waste code
accounts for the characteristic
constituent, the listed waste
code may be sufficient. However, you have the
option to also list the characteristic waste code in Item 13 or,
alternatively, note in Item 14
that the waste is also characteristic.
To ensure your hazardous
wastes are managed properly,
attend Environmental Resource
Center’s Hazardous Waste
Land Disposal Restrictions—
Webcast.

Page 10

GATEKEEPER

How to Delist Hazardous Waste [40 CFR 260.22]:
If you generate a hazardous waste
that is listed at 40 CFR 261, Subpart D, and if the waste does not
meet the criteria for which it was
listed, you can petition EPA to
delist the waste. If a delisting is
granted pursuant to 40 CFR
260.22, it will only apply to the
waste generated at the facility that
applied for the delisting. EPA has
estimated that the delisting process can take as much as two years
(EPA Memorandum, Chaudhari to
Bates; December 30, 1991;
RCRA Online 11661).
The delisting requirements can be
found at 40 CFR 260.20(b). The
petition must be submitted to the
Administrator (EPA or state office, if authorized), and must include:
Petitioner’s name and address
A statement of the petitioner’s
interest in the proposed action
A description of the proposed
action, including (where appropriate) suggested regulatory
language
A statement of the need and
justification for the proposed
action, including supporting
tests, studies, or other information
The petitioner must demonstrate
that the waste does not meet any
of the criteria under which the
waste was listed as a hazardous or
acutely hazardous
waste. Petitioners are required to
provide waste-specific information depending on the hazard
codes identified at 40 CFR 261.30
(b). Hazard codes are available for
each listed waste and can be
found in the tables at 40 CFR
261.31(a) and 40 CFR 261.32,
and the regulatory language preceding the tables at 40 CFR
261.33(e) and (f). Petitioners must
demonstrate that:
Listed wastes identified by hazard codes I, C, R, or E do not
exhibit the relevant characteristic
(40 CFR 260.22(c))

Listed wastes identified by
hazard code T do not contain
the toxic constituents, as
defined at 40 CFR 261, Appendix VII, or do not meet
the criterion in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3), and that the
waste does not exhibit any
characteristics (40 CFR
260.22(d))
Listed wastes identified by
hazard code H do not meet
the criterion for listing acute
wastes detailed in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(2), and do not exhibit any characteristics (40
CFR 260.22(e))
The number of waste samples analyzed must enough to
adequately represent the
waste, but in no case less
than four samples, collected
over a period of time sufficient to represent the variability and uniformity of the
waste.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22
(i), petitions for a delisting
must include:
The name and address of the
laboratory performing the
sampling or tests of the
waste
The names and qualifications of the persons sampling and testing the waste
The dates of sampling and
testing
The location of the generating facility
A description of the manufacturing process or other
operations and feed materials producing the waste and
an assessment of whether
such processes, operations,
or feed materials can or
might produce a waste that
is not covered by the demonstration
A description of the waste
and an estimate of the average and maximum monthly

and annual quantities of
waste covered by the demonstration
Pertinent data on and discussion of the factors delineated
in the respective criterion for
listing a hazardous waste,
where the demonstration is
based on the factors in 40
CFR 261.11(a)(3)
A description of the methodologies and equipment used
to obtain the representative
sample
A description of the sample
handling and preparation
techniques, including techniques used for extraction,
containerization, and preservation of the samples
A description of the tests
performed, including results
The names and model numbers of the instruments used
in performing the tests
A certification statement, as
prescribed by 40 CFR 260.22
(i)(12)
After receiving the above
information, the EPA or state
Administrator may request
additional information.
When EPA evaluates your
delisting petition, the agency
will perform a risk assessment
on the data. EPA evaluates the
potential risk to human health
and the environment if your
waste is disposed of as a nonhazardous waste. EPA uses a
software program known as
the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS). DRAS is a
stand-alone software program
that calculates the potential
risks associated with disposing of a particular waste in a
non-hazardous landfill or surface impoundment.
The EPA or state Administrator will make a tentative decision to grant or deny the petition either in the form of an
Advanced Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule,
or a tentative decision to deny
the petition. Upon written request of any interested party, or
of their own motion, the EPA
or state Administrator may hold
an informal hearing on the petition. After evaluating all public
comments, the final decision
will be published in the Federal
Register, as a regulatory
amendment or denial of the
petition. A generator can appeal a delisting petition denial
to EPA or the US Court of Appeals pursuant to the RCRA
7006(a)(1) (see EPA Monthly
Call Center Report; February
1987; RCRA Online 12848).
A list of delisted wastes that
have been excluded pursuant to
40 CFR 260.20 and 40 CFR
260.22 petitions can be found
at 40 CFR 261, Appendix IX.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22(b),
the delisting petitions may be
used to delist hazardous wastes
subject to the mixture and derived-from rules in 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(ii) and (c). This
type of petition extends the
delisting process to treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. To delist treatment residues, petitions must address the
constituents/characteristics for
which the waste was originally
listed (see EPA Memorandum,
Morse to Wood; April 14,
1981; RCRA Online 12028).
Before embarking on a delisting, you may wish to review
EPA’s delisting guidance manual.
To ensure that your hazardous
wastes are managed properly,
attend Environmental Resource
Center’s Hazardous Waste
Management—The Complete
Course, or a state-specific hazardous waste management
course in California or Texas.

Volume XII, Edition 9

Page 11

Proposed Rule Would Require Replacements for Chemicals
of Concern:
.The California Department of
Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) took another step toward fulfilling Governor
Brown’s commitment to environmental protection and expanded business opportunities
by releasing the proposed Safer
Consumer Products Regulation.
The proposal requires manufacturers to seek alternative ingredients in widely used products.
See this link for a summary of
the proposed regulation.
“People don’t choose to buy
items that could harm their family or friends,” said Debbie
Raphael, Director of DTSC.
“Even though a significant number of manufacturers are already
finding fewer toxic ingredients
to use in their products, safer
options for consumers are often
still limited.” Using a worldwide recognized list of
“chemicals of concern” the
regulation would create a process by which manufacturers
who are using one of those
listed chemicals must identify
and examine the viability of
safer ingredients. If an alternative is not feasible, DTSC will
identify steps the manufacturer
must take to ensure the product
is safely used, disposed of, or
phased out. The regulation also
provides consumers with enhanced information about product ingredients. “We see this as
a two-for-one initiative,” said
Raphael. “Public health and the
environment benefits by lessening our use of toxic chemicals,
and California companies get a

significant boost into markets that are rapidly expanding. This regulation
will stimulate growth in
those markets and move us
toward a higher level of
environmental protection.”
DTSC spent several years
working with a diverse
group of stakeholders to
craft the proposed regulation. “The release of our
proposed Safer Consumer
Products Regulation begins
a 45-day comment period,
and we welcome more input that will ultimately
make this regulation more
meaningful and practical,”
said Raphael.
In DTSC’s recent investigations of nail polish and jewelry, it discovered that
highly toxic ingredients still
end up in products even
when they are advertised as
toxic free. The Safer Consumer Products Regulation
recognizes that consumers
around the world are demanding safer products,
and that California’s innovative product designers
can provide the solution.
The regulation levels the
playing field for those who
want to do the right thing.
While stakeholders have
not had an opportunity to
review the proposed regulation prior to today, many
are expressing early support
for the goal of the Safer
Consumer Products Regu-

lation. “This is a great example of how policymakers,
businesses, government
agencies, science, academia,
and consumer advocates can
work collaboratively to create an orderly transition to
safer materials and products
which is a win for business,
consumers, communities
and future generations,” said
Roger McFadden, Vice
President and Senior Scientist for Staples. “Innovation,
change and investment have
allowed my company to
thrive,” said Aaron Leventhal, CEO of Hero Arts, a
leading designer and manufacturer of product for the
papercraft market, with locations in Oakland and
Richmond. “This regulation
is a clear way government
can act to help business. It
clarifies an otherwise turbulent landscape and creates
necessary rules businesses
can rely on, which reduces
market risk and thereby
stimulates investment, job
creation and innovation.”

“We care about the health of
our patients and our communities,” said Kathy Gerwig,
Kaiser Permanente’s Vice
President, Employee Safety,
Health and Wellness and
Environmental Stewardship
Officer. “Our experience has
been that environmental
sustainability is good for
business, and we see
DTSC’s regulations as mov-

ing in the right direction, in
promoting a healthy economy,
healthy environment and
healthy people.”
“For too long, toxic chemicals
have been used in everyday
consumer products with no
accountability for their hazards
to public and environmental
health,” said Gretchen Lee
Salter of Californians for a
Healthy and Green Economy
(CHANGE) and the Breast
Cancer Fund. “This is the kind
of groundbreaking program
that communities have been
demanding for decades, one
that mandates that safer alternatives be identified to prevent
harmful exposures to consumers, workers, and communities. This regulation is an important step towards a greener
economy, healthier people,
and a less toxic environment in
California, and we will be
carefully following its development to ensure that it
reaches its potential.”
DTSC worked with its Green
Ribbon Science Panel, business groups, health care advocates, and environmentalists to
develop the concepts that were
eventually incorporated into
the proposal. Similarly, thousands of public comments
were received and considered
in developing this landmark
regulation.

GATEKEEPER

Page 12

Use of Electronic Shipping Papers for Rail Shipments [49
CFR 172.201(a)]:
On June 25, 2012, the DOT
revised the hazardous materials
regulations to authorize limited
use of paperless shipping papers. This rule adopted most of
a pre-existing special permit for
rail shipping, removing the need
to apply for the special permit
before using it.

according to a format
agreed upon by the sender
and receiver of this information, and transmitted
through a computer transaction that requires no human
intervention or retyping at
either end of the transmission (49 CFR 171.8).

This rule authorizes the use of
Electronic Data Interchange
(EDI), the computer-tocomputer exchange of business
data in a standard format. In
EDI, information is organized

According to 49 CFR
172.201(a)(5), a rail carrier
may accept shipping paper
information either telephonically (i.e., voice communications and facsimiles)

or electronically (EDI) from
an offeror of a hazardous materials shipment.
49 CFR 172.201(a)(5)(i)
specifies that when the information applicable to the consignment is provided in this
manner, the information must
be available to the offeror and
carrier at all times during
transport and the carrier must
have and maintain a printed
copy of this information until
delivery of the hazardous materials on the shipping paper
is complete. Therefore, even

though this rule allows
electronic shipping papers,
paper copies must be maintained until delivery is
complete.
The rule went into effect
July 25, 2012.
To ensure that your hazardous materials shipments
are managed properly, attend Environmental Resource Center’s Hazardous
Materials Training – The
Complete Course, or our
Webcast of the same
course.

How to Ship Live Animals [49 CFR 173.196(c), 49 CFR
173.401(b)(2), IATA 3.9.2.5, IMDG 2.6.3.6, and IMDG
2.9.2.2]:
Shipments of live animals can be
subject to hazardous materials or
dangerous goods regulations. You must take into consideration possible hidden dangers
(infectious substances, radioactive materials, and genetically
modified organisms) and any
dangers posed by the animal itself (e.g. venomous snakes vs.
docile lab rat).
If you offer live animals for domestic US shipments by any
mode of transportation, the DOT
hazardous materials regulations
for Division 6.2 Infectious Substances or Class 7 Radioactive
Materials may apply:
Pursuant to 49 CFR 173.196
(c), live animals may not be
used to transport infectious
substances unless such substances cannot be sent by any
other means. An animal containing or contaminated with
an infectious substance must
be transported under terms
and conditions approved by

the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety (DOT).
Pursuant to 49 CFR
173.401(b)(2),Class 7
(radioactive) materials
that have been implanted
or incorporated into, and
are still in, a person or
live animal for diagnosis
or treatment are not regulated by the DOT as
Class 7 radioactive material.
If you offer live animals for
international transportation
by air, the IATA DGR requirements for Class 9 Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) may apply. Pursuant to IATA DGR
3.9.2.5, genetically modified
live animals must be transported under terms and conditions of the countries involved. Countries from
which the GMOs are
shipped from, through, or to
must approve.

If you ship live animals internationally by vessel, the
IMDG Code requirements for
Division 6.2 Infectious Substances or Class 9 GMOs
may apply:
Pursuant to IMDG 2.6.3.6,
unless an infectious substance cannot be consigned by any other
means, live animals may
not be used to consign
such a substance. A live
animal which has been
intentionally infected and
is known or suspected to
contain infectious substance may only be transported under terms and
conditions approved by
the countries involved in
the transportation. Countries from which the live
animal are shipped from,
through, or to must approve.
Pursuant to IMDG 2.9.2.2,
genetically modified live
animals must be trans-

ported under terms and
conditions of the countries
involved. Countries from
which the GMOs are
shipped from, through, or
to must approve.
Carriers, such as UPS and Fed
Ex, have policies and restrictions on shipping live animals.
Their policies tend to be more
restrictive than DOT, IATA,
or IMDG regulations. For example, dangerous animals,
such as venomous snakes are
generally not accepted, even
though there may be no DOT,
IATA, or IMDG prohibitions.
To ensure that your hazardous
materials are properly classified and shipped, attend Environmental Resource Center’s
Hazardous Materials Training—The Complete Course or
webcast.

Volume XII, Edition 9

Page 13

How to Determine if Your Spent Solvent is F001 or F002
Hazardous Waste [40 CFR 261.31]:
If you generate spent solvents,
you must determine if your waste
is covered by any of the hazardous waste descriptions on the Flist. The chemicals identified in
F001 and F002 are somewhat
similar, but as described below,
their waste descriptions are significantly different.
The difference in these two codes
is in the first sentence of the F001
listing, which states: “The following spent halogenated solvents
used in degreasing….” The F002
listing also applies to spent halogenated solvents but does not apply to degreasing.

The term degreasing refers to
large scale industrial degreasing
equipment and operations. The
document “Listing of Hazardous
Waste (40 CFR 261.31 and
261.32); Identification and Listing
of Hazardous Waste Under
RCRA, Subtitle C, Section
3001” (known as the Background
Listings Document) clarifies the
intent of the F001 listing compared to other spent solvents. The
F001 listing is appropriate when
these solvents are used in largescale industrial degreasing operations (e.g., cold cleaning, vapor
degreasing, and fabric scouring). Alternatively, the same solvents used in equipment cleaning

F001

or in smaller scale degreasing operations involving repair work (that do
not employ industrial degreasing
processes as described above), such
as industrial, maintenance and repair, commercial service and repair,
and consumer-performed maintenance and repair, receive the F002
listing.
To ensure that your hazardous
wastes are managed properly, attend
Environmental Resource Center’s
Hazardous Waste Management—
The Complete Course, or a statespecific hazardous waste management course in California or Texas.

The term degreasing
refers to large scale
industrial degreasing
equipment and
operations. The
document “Listing of
Hazardous Waste
(40 CFR 261.31 and
261.32);
Identification and
Listing of Hazardous
Waste Under RCRA,
Subtitle C, Section
3001” (known as the
Background Listings
Document) clarifies
the intent of the
F001 listing
compared to other
spent solvents.

F002

Tetrachloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene

Trichloroethylene

Methylene chloride Methylene chloride
1,1,1-trichloroethane 1,1,1-trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene
Chlorinated fluoro- 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2carbons
trifluoroethane
Ortho-dichlorobenzene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane

Governor's Tribal Community Outreach:
Visit: http://azgovernor.gov/eop/TribalOutreach.asp for agency contact information.
Tribal Program Link:
http://www.epa.gov/region09/indian

Tribal news:
http://www.navajohopiobserver.com/

Tribal Program Newsletter:
http://www.epa.gov/region09/indian/newslet.html

GATEKEEPER

Page 14

DOT Revises Hazardous Material Regulations to Conform
to International Standards:
DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous
Material Safety Administration
has released a proposed rule to
amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to
maintain alignment with international standards by incorporating various amendments,
including changes to proper
shipping names, hazard
classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel
stowage requirements. These
revisions are necessary to har-

monize the HMR with recent changes made to the
International Maritime
Dangerous Goods (IMDG)
Code, the International
Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Technical
Instructions for the Safe
Transport of Dangerous
Goods by Air, and the
United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods—Model
Regulations, and subsequently address a petition
for rulemaking. Among the

changes proposed, are:
Authorization
to allow wood as a material
of package construction for
certain explosives
Revised vessel storage
codes for explosives
Adopt a new packaging
type: Flexible Bulk Container
Adopt new requirements for
chemicals under pressure
and distinguish them from
liquefied gases
Specify minimum size requirement

s for identification number
markings on nonbulk packages
Changes to the hazardous
materials table to add, revise, and remove proper
shipping names, hazard
classes, packing groups,
special provisions, packaging authorizations, and
bulk cargo aircraft maximum quantity limits

UPCOMING EVENTS:
• September 4-7, 2012– Annual Continuing Challenge Workshop; The
Woodlake Hotel, Sacramento, CA. For
more information go to:
www.hazmat.org

•

October 18-21, 2012 - HOTZONE
Conference; Houston, Texas at the
Crowne Plaza Hotel. For more information go to: http://hotzone.org/
HotzoneMain.aspx

LET’S HEAR FROM YOU!
Send us your inputs and feedback on the newsletter; including, exercises and other LEPC related activities in which
you've been involved. Let us know what you’d like to see in future editions. Talk to us! We appreciate your input
and look forward to hearing from you!
Sincerely,
Mark Howard
Executive Director
Commercial products and services are mentioned for informational purposes only and should not be construed as
AZSERC endorsements.

COMMISSIONERS:

ARIZONA EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION
5636 E. MCDOWELL ROAD
PHOENIX, AZ 85008-3495
PHONE: (602) 464-6346
FAX:
(602) 464-6519

Visit us on the web:www.azserc.org
AZSERC STAFF
Mark Howard

Executive Director

Roger Soden

HAZMAT Program
Coordinator

Paul Culberson

Sylvia Castillo

Will Humble

ADHS Acting Director

Henry Darwin

ADEQ Director

John Halikowski

ADOT Director

Robert Halliday

ADPS Director

DESIGNEES:
Mark Howard

ADEM

Don Herrington

ADHS

Veronica Garcia

ADEQ

David Denlinger

ADPS

Sonya Herrera

ADOT

ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Corporation Commission

- Tom Whitmer

Industrial Commission

- Darin Perkins

Admin Asst III

State Mine Inspector

- Joe Hart

State Fire Marshal

- Bob Barger

Radiation Regulatory Agency

- Aubrey Godwin

Department of Agriculture

- Jack Peterson

our Organization

The AZSERC was established by
Arizona Law (Arizona Revised Statutes-Title 26, Chapter 2, Article 3)
and is tasked with the implementation of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act
(EPRCA) in Arizona.
This Commission oversees 15
Local Emergency Planning Committees and supports community, industry and government and academia
in: planning, release and incident
reporting, data management guidance for inventory reporting, public
disclosure of information about hazardous chemicals in Arizona as well
as development of training and outreach programs.
The Commission supports individual agency goals and objectives.

ADEM Director (Chair)

Web Portal/
Technology
Coordinator

Chrissy McCullough Admin Asst III

About

Lou Trammell

This is accomplished through the
receipt and coordination of emergency notifications of chemical releases, collection and provision of
chemical inventory information to
interested parties, training and grants
programs.
Additionally, the AZSERC provides consultative services, conducts
and participates in workshops and
coordinates development and review
of plans and programs for 15 Local
Emergency Planning Committees.
Further, the AZSERC serves as a
state clearinghouse for hazardous
chemical emergency preparedness
and planning activities and information through coordination with federal, tribal, state, local governments,
industry and community interest

Arizona Fire Chiefs Association
-Mesa FD

- Brady Leffler

-Yuma FD

- Jack McArthur

Asst. State Attorney General

- Jeffrey Cantrell

SRP

- Daniel Casiraro

Intel Corporation

- Randy Holmes

APS

- Monica Ray

Private Sector

- David
McWilliams

GATEKEEPER NEWSLETTER:
MARK HOWARD – EDITOR IN CHIEF
CHRISSY MCCULLOUGH - EDITOR