Volume XII, Edition 11

November 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:
U.S. EPA Fines U.S.
Pipe Company for
Hazardous Waste
Violations:

2

EPA to Revise
Chemical Hazard
Assessment Program:

4

EPA announces settlement of three pesticides enforcement
actions:

6

DEQ fines company
over leaks in Isaac:

8

How to Label Packages Subject to Both
OSHA and DOT
Requirements [29
CFR 1910.1200
C.2.3.3]:

10

How to Label Workplace Containers
under the New OSHA
GHS Hazard Communication Standard [29
CFR 1910.1200(f)
(6)]:

12

New Haven Company
Faces Fine for Hazardous Waste Violations:

14

EPA Announces New Electronic
Filing System for Environmental
Reviews:
WASHINGTON – Today,
the
U.S. Environmental Protectio
n Agency (EPA) announced e
-NEPA, a new online system
that allows federal agencies to
submit environmental impact
statements (EISs) electronically. Traditionally, EISs
have been submitted to EPA
in hard copy. e-NEPA eliminates the need to mail or deliver copies of EISs to EPA
headquarters, reducing printing, shipping, and delivery
costs. It also saves time
through electronic filing and e
-confirmation and improves
transparency, allowing EPA
to post EIS documents to
EPA’s website.
“The release of e-NEPA is an
important step forward in advancing the President’s commitment to streamline the federal environmental review
process,” said Cynthia Giles,

assistant administrator for
EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Through electronic filing, we are making it easier for federal
agencies to submit environmental impact statements, allowing them to
save time and reduce
costs, while making the
process more transparent
for the public.”
The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requires federal
agencies to integrate environmental considerations
into their decision-making
processes by identifying
the environmental impacts
and reasonable alternatives to their proposed
actions. To meet NEPA
requirements federal agencies prepare detailed
analyses known as EISs.

EPA reviews, provides
comments, and maintains a
national filing system for
EISs.
Beginning on October 1,
2012, all agencies are required to use the e-NEPA
filing system.
More information about eNEPA: http://
www.epa.gov/compliance/
nepa/submiteis/index.html
More information about
NEPA: http://
www.epa.gov/compliance/
nepa/index.html
More information about
how to file an EIS electronically: http://
www.epa.gov/compliance/
nepa/submiteis/guide-to-enepa-electronic-submittalof-eis.pdf

EPA Corner

Page 2

GATEKEEPER

U.S. EPA Fines U.S. Pipe Company for Hazardous Waste
Violations:
“Baghouse dust” improperly
managed, posed threat to
worker safety
SAN FRANCISCO – The
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has fined the Union
City, Calif.-based United
States Pipe and Foundry Company (U.S. Pipe) $158,000 for
improperly managing
“baghouse dust,” a hazardous
waste containing cadmium and
lead generated from iron pipe
fabrication, under the federal
Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA).
EPA discovered in an August
2011 inspection that U.S.
Pipe had failed to contain the
dust, which was found on the
ground of the facility. The
facility cleaned up the spilled
dust and soil where the dust
was found, and conducted
subsequent sampling to ensure all contamination was
removed.
“EPA is committed to ensuring hazardous waste is properly managed,” said Jared

Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the
Pacific Southwest. “Preventing the release of this dust is critical
to protect U.S. Pipe workers
and the environment.”
Following EPA’s findings,
U.S. Pipe modified its operational practices to minimize the potential for future
releases and improved staff
training in proper dust management.
The Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act authorizes EPA to oversee the
generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous
waste. Under RCRA, hazardous waste must be
stored in closed and labeled
containers.
For more information on
the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act,
visit: http://www.epa.gov/
lawsregs/laws/rcra.html.

EPA fines Sinclair $378,000 for violations at
Rawlins refinery:
Casper Star-Tribune –
(Wyoming) EPA fines Sinclair $378,000 for violations
at Rawlins refinery. Sinclair
Oil will pay a $378,000 fine
under a settlement with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stemming
from a 2010 inspection of the
company‘s troubled oil refinery near Rawlins, Wyoming,
the agency announced October 11. The inspection

showed Sinclair did not properly implement its risk management plan, a key requirement
for the facility, which deals
with a large range of toxic substances and hazardous gases,
the EPA said. Under the terms
of the deal, Sinclair will also
update operating procedures for
its process equipment, provide
additional training to workers,
improve maintenance of equipment, and perform integrity

tests on pressure vessels and piping that will reduce the possibility
of an accidental release of hazardous chemicals from the refinery, the EPA said. Source: http://
trib.com/business/energy/epafines-sinclair-for-violations-atrawlins-refinery/article_ab4bb5b1
-7acd-5ca6-b11c32b025aad098.html

Volume XII, Edition 11

Page 3

U.S. EPA awards Arizona more than $27 million to
improve water quality, protect public health:
Hundreds of millions in funding provided
to Arizona since 1990
SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently
awarded the Water Infrastructure Finance
Authority of Arizona (WIFA) a
$9,542,000 million grant for its Clean Water State Revolving Fund and an
$18,327,000 million grant for its Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund for water
pollution control and drinking water infrastructure projects.
WIFA will use the funds to provide lowcost loans for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades. WIFA’s Clean
Water State Revolving Fund provides financing for municipal wastewater treatment projects, while its Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund provides financial
assistance for basic drinking water infrastructure for both public and private drinking water systems.
“EPA is continuing its investment in Arizona’s water infrastructure,” said Jared
Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “Our goal is
to ensure that Arizona has safe, reliable
drinking water and proper wastewater
treatment.”

U.S. EPA has awarded more than
$240 million in federal funding
for Arizona’s Clean Water State
Revolving Fund from inception of
the program. WIFA increases the
investment in Arizona by leveraging the federal dollars on the bond
market. WIFA’s Clean Water Revolving Fund reached $1.4 billion
in assistance provided cumulatively, with a total of 171 wastewater treatment projects funded
through 2012. The funds are used
for a wide variety of water quality
projects, including nonpoint
source pollution control, watershed protection or restoration,
water and energy efficiency projects, wastewater reclamation, and
traditional municipal wastewater
treatment projects.
WIFA’s Drinking Water Revolving Fund has received $297.1 million in federal funding to date.
WIFA has issued 185 drinking
water loans totaling $713 million
through 2012. Funds to the program also support projects like
drinking water plant operator
training, and technical assistance.

“One of the best things about WIFA is
our ability to help communities
throughout Arizona with their water
infrastructure needs,” said WIFA Executive Director, Sandy Sutton. “Not
only are we able to award very lowinterest rate loans, we also offer incentives for green projects and even further financial incentives for disadvantaged communities. For some communities, this is their only option when it
comes to improving or upgrading their
water infrastructure.”
Forty years ago, when the federal
Clean Water Act was made law, Congress charged a fledgling EPA with the
goal of making the nation’s waters
“fishable and swimmable.” Achieving
this goal requires communities to make
large investments in drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure. The
state revolving funds are EPA’s primary tools for helping communities
meet their continuing and significant
water infrastructure needs. Each state
maintains revolving loan fund programs, capitalized by the EPA, to provide low‑cost financing for water quality infrastructure projects.

BP pays $210,000 after failing EPA test:
Houston Chronicle –
(Maryland; National) BP pays
$210,000 after failing EPA
test. BP Products North America will pay $210,000 and create
enhanced oil spill response programs at all of its U.S. oil facilities under the terms of a consent
agreement announced September 27. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had alleged BP violated federal regulations for
emergency oil spill response at

its Curtis Bay Terminal in
Maryland, according to the
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The EPA
said the company twice
failed to pass unannounced
oil-spill exercises administered by the EPA and U.S.
Coast Guard. BP was unable to contain a smallscale discharge of fuel from
the facility in the time allotted for the test. As a condi-

tion of the DOJ‘s ruling, BP
Products must review its
response plans and perform
training, drills, and exercises
above standard requirements. ―Being prepared to
respond to an oil spill can be
the difference between dealing with a small, contained
event or a full-blown environmental disaster,ԡ the
assistant administrator for
EPA‘s Office of Enforce-

ment and Compliance Assurance said in a statement. BP‘s
12 ―high-riskԡ and marine
petroleum facilities also will
be independently audited to
make sure emergency response tactics are up to par.
Source: http://fuelfix.com/
blog/2012/09/27/582111/

GATEKEEPER

Page 4

U.S. EPA Settles with Lead Acid Battery Manufacturer in
Corona for Air Violations:
Company to Pay More Than
$167,000, Install Additional Air
Filters to Capture Lead Particles
Los Angeles -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
announced today that U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company
has agreed to pay $167,300 to
resolve federal Clean Air Act
violations. U.S. Battery, located
in Corona, Calif., failed to comply with federal emissions
monitoring and reporting requirements, including performance testing requirements for its
lead emission control devices.
In addition to paying the penalty, the company will install
secondary high efficiency air
filters to capture additional lead
particles.

“By failing to monitor and
test its pollution controls,
the company increased the
health risks for employees
and the nearby community,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional
Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. "EPA will
remain vigilant in enforcing
the Clean Air Act."
EPA discovered the violations after the company
failed to provide a thorough
response to an information
request sent by the agency
in February 2010. After
further review, federal investigators found that U.S.
Battery failed to perform
semi-annual inspection and
maintenance to ensure

proper performance of its
equipment, failed to submit
performance reports and
failed to conduct performance testing of its air pollution control devices.
In addition to the fine, U.S.
Battery has agreed to improve its work practices by
voluntarily installing High
Efficiency Particulate Air
(HEPA) filters to further
reduce lead emissions.
These HEPA filters will
serve as secondary filters
that will be used to capture
remaining lead emissions
that pass through the existing air pollution control
equipment. HEPA filters can
capture more than 99.9% of
particles.

The facility has been operating as a lead acid battery
manufacturing plant in Corona since 1991 and is located within a mile of several
schools and a residential
neighborhood.
Lead is a major environmental health hazard for
young children and pregnant
women. Exposure to lead can
result in lowered intelligence,
reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, and
hyperactivity.
For more information about
the Clean Air Act, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/
region09/air/aboutus.html

EPA to Revise Chemical Hazard Assessment
Program:
In a major change to its criticized chemicals assessment
program, EPA will seek early
input about chemicals under
review. Stakeholders from
industry and other concerned
groups will be able to provide
their views about a substance’s toxicity before EPA
decides what information to
rely on for the assessments,
according to the agency.
Kenneth Olden, director of
EPA’s National Center for
Environmental Assessment,
announced the change last
week before a new committee
of the National Research

Council (NRC). NRC is reviewing the agency’s chemical hazard assessment database—
called the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)—for
Congress.
EPA’s completed IRIS assessments provide scientifically
based judgments on the safe
dose of a chemical, which is the
maximum exposure to the substance that won’t cause health
effects. EPA, other federal and
state agencies, and some foreign countries use IRIS to guide
regulation.
With early input from stake-

holders, EPA can work with outside parties to pinpoint gaps in a
chemical’s existing toxicity data,
Olden said. EPA and stakeholders
could then devise a plan, such as
jointly funded research, to generate the information before a
chemical assessment is complete,
he continued.
EPA will also address a major
complaint from the chemical industry about IRIS: lack of information about how EPA selects
the scientific studies used in assessments. Olden said EPA will
set rules for picking scientific
studies it will rely on for its review of a chemical.

Volume XII, Edition 11

Page 5

State of Nevada, U.S. EPA and Shoshone Paiute Tribes to
oversee cleanup, creek improvement:
SAN FRANCISCO – The Department of Justice, the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection announced a $25 million
agreement for the cleanup of the
Rio Tinto Mine, an abandoned
copper mine in Elko County,
Nev. Four companies have
agreed to pay for the environmental project.
The state of Nevada will oversee the cleanup with input from
EPA and the Shoshone Paiute
Tribes of Duck Valley. The four
corporations financing the
cleanup, Atlantic Richfield
Company, DuPont and Company, The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron
Company and Teck American
Inc. are corporate successors to
companies that operated the
mine from 1932 to 1976. A fifth
entity, Mountain City Remediation, has been created by the
four defendants to conduct the
cleanup.
Under the terms of the agreement, the defendants agreed to
remove mine tailings from Mill
Creek, improve the creek to
support the redband trout, and
improve water quality in Mill

Creek and the East Fork
Owyhee River. The defendants will also pay for the
Shoshone Paiute Tribes to
monitor the cleanup. The
companies are required to
provide robust performance
guarantees including payments to a trust account
they will use to implement
the cleanup.

ample of federal, state and
tribal agencies working sideby-side to reach a cleanup
agreement with private parties,” said Jared Blumenfeld,
EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “The companies will
not only clean up mine tailings, but also enhance the
habitat for redband trout.

“This agreement will result
in the cleanup of mine contamination, protection of
Nevada’s Owyhee River,
and the restoration of a
natural and cultural resource that is invaluable to
the Shoshone Paiute people,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney
General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the
Department of Justice.
“This significant effort
demonstrates a spirit of
collaboration and commitment to environmental and
natural resource protection
that we share with our federal, state and tribal partners.”

“To the Shoshone Paiute
people, the redband trout is
not merely a species to be
considered; it is a cultural
resource. And the habitat for
the trout must be protected
as well,” said Terry Gibson,
Tribal Chairman. “The
cleanup effort at the Rio
Tinto Mine is very encouraging, and is an essential
step to restoring and protecting these cultural resources,
not only for today, but for
generations to come."

“This project is a great ex-

“The efforts of federal, state
and tribal agencies over the
past few years have culminated in a settlement designed to improve significant cultural and natural
resources of Nevada,” said
Nevada Attorney General

Catherine Cortez Masto. “In
addition, we believe this project will bring an economic
benefit to Elko County.”
“We are really pleased to see a
final agreement between all of
the parties and to have work
begin at this site,” stated Nevada Department of Environmental Protection Administrator, Colleen Cripps.
The consent decree, a formal
settlement under the federal
Superfund law, will be posted
in the Federal Register and
will be available for public
comment for a period of 30
days. The consent decree will
be available to be viewed on
the Justice Department website: www.justice.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html.
The Rio Tinto Mine site is
located approximately 2.5
miles south of Mountain City
on Mill Creek, a tributary of
the East Fork Owyhee River.

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

Two Puget Sound-area metalworking facilities fail to disclose
use of chemicals:
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency – (Washington) Two
Puget Sound-area metalworking facilities fail to disclose use
of chemicals. Two metalworking facilities in Seattle and Tukwila, Washington, failed to report toxic chemical use under
federal community right-toknow laws, according to two

separate settlements with
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency released
September 13. Under the
settlements, North Star
Casteel Products, Inc. and
Jorgensen Forge Corporation submitted missing reports outlining chemical
use at their facilities and

will pay fines of $87,000 and
$73,600, respectively. North
Star Casteel Products failed to
report on time its use and offsite disposal of chromium and
manganese compounds for 4
years between 2006 and 2010.
Jorgensen Forge Corporation
failed to report on time for
use and off-site disposal of

chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel in 2010.
Source: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
admpress.nsf/0/
f5d07d7a0f189bc385257a78006d1ba1?
OpenDocument

EPA announces settlement of three pesticides enforcement
actions:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency –
(Missouri) EPA announces settlement of
three pesticides enforcement actions.
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) announced three enforcement actions against Missouri pesticides
distributors September 13 for violations
related to sales or distribution of unregistered and misbranded pesticides. All three
cases involved the sale and distribution of
plant growth regulators, which are regulated as pesticides by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). June 14, Mayberry Seed Co., of
Essex agreed to pay a $17,160 penalty

after the EPA alleged it distributed
or sold an unregistered plant
growth regulator and fungicide on
at least 14 occasions between
April 1, 2010, and August 25,
2011. July 5, Southeast Cooperative Service Company, Inc., of
Advance agreed to pay a $12,000
civil penalty to resolve multiple
sales of an unregistered plant
growth regulator and fungicide to
at least four individuals between
April 1, 2010, and August 21,
2010. September 4, AgXplore
International, LLC, of Parma

agreed to pay a $237,573 civil penalty
to resolve 212 counts for the sale or
distribution between May 7, 2009, and
March 25, 2012, of 19 different unregistered pesticide products, including
plant regulators, insecticides, and fungicides. AgXplore informed its customers and distributors of its violative
products. Source: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
admpress.nsf/0/82e3cdcb7f43f1c48525
7a78005ba929?OpenDocument

Volume XII, Edition 11

LEPC Corner

Page 7

Industrial fire breaks out in Painesville Township:
Willoughby News-Herald – (Ohio) Industrial fire breaks out in Painesville
Township. A huge industrial fire broke
out early October 11 in Painesville
Township, Ohio, and continued to burn
into the night. The Painesville Township fire chief said the Hardy Industrial
Technologies plant processes vegetable
oil into cattle feed. After batting the
blaze for 2 hours, fire crews began to
evacuate from the area around the

building because of the fire threatening rail cars near it. The fire
chief said the vegetable oil process
contained in the cars was not dangerous by itself, but under pressure
from the heat of the flames the
tankers could vent, potentially
causing a ―catastrophic explosion.ԡ He noted it was not worth
the risk to put firefighters and
equipment close to the tanks. There

is a sprinkler system in the building,
but the fire chief was not sure how
effective it was or if it was working
when the fire started. Officials planned
for firefighters to remain on scene
overnight into October 12 to put out
any flare-ups. Source: http://newsherald.com/articles/2012/10/12/news/
doc5076d3b17aecd507265556.txt

Chemical fire forces Hazmat crews into action
in Elkhart:
WSBT 22 South Bend –
(Indiana) Chemical fire
forces Hazmat crews into
action in Elkhart. HAZMAT
crews responded to a fire at
an Elkhart, Indiana chemical
firm that burned one employee, September 18. The
fire was reported in the mixing room of Superior Oil,
which distributes fiberglass
and resins used in the RV and
truck part business. The
building was evacuated and
several fire departments were

called in. Superior’s vice president of operations said an employee was filling a portable
tank with flammable solvent,
causing a flash fire. A suppression foam firefighting system
extinguished it. One employee
suffered burns to his hands and
was taken to a hospital. He was
wearing a fire protective suit.
The building did not appear
damaged. HAZMAT was called
because foam mixed with solvent and fumes had built up in
the building. An unknown

amount of solvent spilled, but
was contained in the building.
Officials said a private contractor
would be called in to help with
cleanup. Employees in surrounding buildings in the industrial
area were asked not to leave for
about 2.5 hours because of the
concern over fumes. Source:
http://www.wsbt.com/news/wsbtchemical-fire-forces-hazmatcrews-into-action-in-elkhart20120918,0,1837943.story

Page 8

GATEKEEPER

DEQ fines company over leaks in Isaac:
Associated Press – (Louisiana)
DEQ fines company over leaks in
Isaac. Louisiana regulators issued a
$12,189 fine against a chemical
terminal flooded during Hurricane
Isaac because it did not notify authorities fast enough about chemical releases. September 18, the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) said it issued
the fine against Stolthaven New

Orleans LLC, a company that operates a chemical terminal along the
Mississippi River in Plaquemines
Parish. It said the chemicals — 1octene and ethyl acrylate — leaked
out August 30, but the company
told DEQ about it September 1. A
company is supposed to alert authorities within 1 hour of a release.
DEQ said more fines may be issued against Stolthaven. Cleanup

continued at the facility September
18. The firm has reported thousands
of gallons of chemicals leaked from
tanks damaged by storm surge.
Source: http://www.wafb.com/
story/19578870/deq-fines-company
-over-leaks-in-isaac

Maryland Air National Guard settles hazardous waste
violations at Baltimore facility:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency –
(Maryland) Maryland Air National
Guard settles hazardous waste violations at Baltimore facility. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
announced October 18 that the Maryland
Air National Guard (MDANG), 175th
Wing, agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty to
settle alleged violations of hazardous
waste regulations at its Baltimore facility.
The consent agreement resolves alleged
violations discovered in an April 2011
inspection. According to the EPA,

MDANG stored hazardous waste
for more than 90 days without a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous
waste permit or interim status,
failed to provide annual hazardous
waste training to some of its employees for a 3-year period, and
violated RCRA rules on labeling
and recordkeeping. The wastes
involved in these alleged violations included lubricants, paints,
sealants, cleaning solutions, and

adhesive wastes. These wastes are hazardous because they exhibited the characteristics of being ignitable, corrosive,
or toxic due to chromium, methyl ethyl
ketone, or other compounds. Source:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
admpress.nsf/
d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/
d0e836342e4230a185257a9b005f8445
!OpenDocument

Volume XII, Edition 11

Industry Corner

Page 9

The Right Way to Use EPCRA for Good Risk
Communication:
Why does the public understand
that these risks have probabilistic statements of risk associated
with them, while the risks posed
by chemicals are classified as
safe or harmful?
There are a lot of reasons for
these inconsistencies. The primary reason is that these risks
are personal choices over which
the public has control. The corollary speaks to the root of industry’s problem under EPCRA.
When citizens have no control
of the chemicals that industry
uses, abuses, or releases to the
community, the public expresses alarm, distrust, and outrage. EPCRA can actually help
douse these fires rather than fan
them.
Industry Must Open the
Doors
EPCRA gives the power to the
people to request emergency

planning, chemical reporting, and chemical release
reporting information—
from the SERC, the LEPCs,
or EPA. The public has
been provided some leverage. Industry should recognize that this power has led
and will continue to lead to
a spate of public requests
for information and, therefore, countless headaches.
However, because the law
provides a sense of control
to the public, it has increased the public’s desire
to truly learn about technology, chemicals, waste minimization, and health problems in the community.
Industry should seize this
opportunity and accept the
challenge.
According to Peter Sandman, who wrote, Explain-

ing Environmental Risk, prepared for EPA’s Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)
Assistance Office, “Any environmental risk controversy
has two levels. The substantive issue is what to do; the
process issue is who decides.
So long as people feel disempowered on the process issue,
they are understandably unbending on the substantive
issue.”
Keep the Doors Open
Facilities have three options
for addressing the “process”
issues. The most common
method is to inform the public
about what you are doing. A
better option is to seek the
public’s input and/or feedback
on proposed plans or strategies that may affect the public.
The best option, although not

always workable, is to have
the public share power.
When citizens participate
in a risk management decision they are far more
likely to accept a decision
for three reasons:
1. They have instituted
changes that make it objectively more acceptable.
2. They have proceeded
past the process issue of
control and mastered the
technical data on risk—that
is, they have learned why
the experts consider it acceptable.
3. They have been heard
and not excluded, and so
can appreciate the legitimacy of the decision, even
if they continue to dislike
the decision itself.

What Will You Do When the Roof Falls In? Protecting HQ and Other Critical Facilities. How can WE, as
business continuity professionals, best protect our physical workspaces? Marcia Kittler shares with us 5 steps
that will help lead you to facility preparedness. Click HERE>> (http://www.disaster-resource.com/
newsletter/2012/subpages/v417/meettheexperts.pdf )

New Rules for Pharmaceutical Hazardous Waste:
EPA is planning to develop a
rule for ensuring the safe disposal of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals (HWP) under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) instead of
adding the provisions to its universal waste rule as previously
proposed. Mathy Stanislaus,
head of the Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) wrote a
letter to the agency’s Office
of Inspector General (IG)
saying his agency would
“propose a rule designed to
facilitate proper management of HWP in the health
care industry. We anticipate
proposing a rule in August

2013.” The agency also plans
to determine if any existing
pharmaceuticals should qualify for regulation as hazardous waste. A report by EPA’s
IG in May found eight chemicals in pharmaceuticals that
meet EPA’s criteria for regulation as acute hazardous
waste currently not being

regulated as such and notes
more than 100 drugs that
federal occupational safety
organizations have identified as hazardous that EPA
has yet to review.

Page 10

GATEKEEPER

How to Label Packages Subject to Both OSHA and DOT
Requirements [29 CFR 1910.1200 C.2.3.3]:
If you manufacture, distribute,
import, or ship hazardous
chemicals, your packages can
be subject to both OSHA new
Globally Harmonized System
(GHS) hazard communication
and DOT hazardous materials
labeling requirements.

ers bear the following information found in 29 CFR
1910.1200(f)(1)(i)-(vi):

DOT’s marking and labeling
regulations found in 49 CFR
172 Subparts D & E, respectively, require the following
(but not limited to) marks &
labels on the outer package:

-Pictogram(s) (diamond
shaped)

-Proper shipping name
-Identification number
-Technical names
-Name & addresses of consignee or consignor
-Special marking requirements
-Diamond hazard class label
OSHAs new GHS labeling
regulations require that contain-

-Product identifier
-Signal word
-Hazard statement

-Precautionary statement(s)
-Name, address, and telephone number of the
chemical manufacturer,
importer, or other responsible party
According to 29 CFR
1910.1200 C.2.3.3: “Where
a label required by DOT
appears on a container, the
pictogram specified in C.4
for the same hazard shall
not appear.” This means
that when a hazardous
chemical is shipped, the

outer package must bear all
of the required DOT marks
and labels, and all of the
OSHA container label information with the exception of
the diamond shaped pictogram that displays the same
hazards as the DOT diamond hazard labels.
For example: a product classified by:
-DOT as both a Class 3
flammable liquid and Class
8 Corrosive Material
-OSHA with the following
hazards identified:

-Category 2 Flammable
liquid
-Category 3 Oral Acute
Toxicity

(STOT-RE)
As shown below, the only
pictogram that should be displayed on the outer package
should be the health hazard
representing STOT-RE.
Learn more about the new
OSHA GHS Hazard Communication requirements by attending Environmental Resource Center’s seminar on
OSHA GHS Hazard Communication Standard: Training
for Trainers, or a webcast on
How to Prepare for OSHA's
Globally Harmonized Hazard
Communication Standard
(GHS) or How to Author
GHS Safety Data Sheets.
Contact us for information on
on-site GHS Hazard Communication training.

-Category 2, Specific target
organ repeated exposure

DOT Revises Hazardous Materials
Regulations:
DOT has released a final rule
to correct editorial errors,
make minor regulatory
changes, and, in response to
requests for clarification, improve the clarity of certain

provisions in the Hazardous
Materials Regulations. The intended effect of this rule is to
enhance the accuracy and reduce misunderstandings of the
regulations. The amendments

contained in this rule, such as
correcting the spelling of
“labelled” to “labeled” are nonsubstantive changes and do not
impose new requirements.

Volume XII, Edition 11

Page 11

More On Storing Your Hazardous Waste Without A Permit:
If you are a hazardous waste
generator you may be able to
use the satellite accumulation
rule to get out of obtaining a
storage permit and still be compliant with RCRA. Yesterday’s
Advisor talked about the storage time and quantity limitations under the rule for LQGs,
SQGs, and CESQGs. Here’s
more good stuff to know about
getting around the hazardous
waste permitting process without violating RCRA.
Satellite Accumulation
LQGs and SQGs may accumulate up to 55 gallons (gal) of
hazardous waste or 1 quart (qt)
of acutely hazardous waste in
containers at or near any point
of generation where the wastes
initially accumulate and away
from the generator’s central
storage area for an unlimited
amount of time if certain conditions are met. Storing waste
away from the central storage
area is referred to as “satellite
accumulation.” Satellite accumulation time standards require
the generator to (40 CFR 262.34
(c)(2)):
• Keep the containers under
the control of the operator of the
process generating the waste
• Label each container as
“Hazardous Waste” or with
other words to identify the container’s contents (e.g., “spent
toluene solvent” or “green tank
waste”).
• Comply with the use and
management of container regulations found at 40 CFR
265.171, 40 CFR 265.172, and
40 CFR 265.172(a) (i.e., the
container must be in good condition, compatible with the haz-

ardous waste placed in it,
and always closed except
when adding or removing
waste).
• Mark the container
with the date that the 55-gal
or 1 qt limit was reached
before transferring it from
the satellite accumulation
area.
• Transfer the waste,
once the 55-gal or 1-qt
level has been reached,
within 3 days to a container
in the central storage area,
or send the waste off-site
for additional treatment,
storage, and disposal.
Satellite accumulation is
intended by EPA for industries that generate
small amounts of hazardous waste in numerous
locations at a facility. It
allows generators to accumulate small amounts
of hazardous waste until
the 55-gal or the 1-qt
limit has been reached.
Once the quantity limit is
reached, the generator
has 3 days to move the
container to the facility’s
central accumulation area
where it can remain for
the applicable amount of
time (90 days for LQGs;
up to 180 or 270 days for
SQGs.).
On-Site Storage Management
While the accumulation
rule sets forth specific
requirements applicable
to LQGs and SQGs, individually (not discussed
here), the rule also requires both classes of
generators to comply
with the following requirements:

Hazardous waste determination. While not specifically mentioned in the
accumulation time rule,
determining whether a
generated waste is hazardous is key to determining
what class of generator
you are and, in the case of
SQGs, whether you have
surpassed the quantity
restrictions of the accumulation rule. All generators who manage hazardous waste on-site must
make this determination. Generators determine whether their waste
is hazardous by: reviewing the EPA lists in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261 to
see if the waste in question has been identified by
EPA as a hazardous
waste, by sampling and
analyzing the waste for
hazardous characteristics,
or by using judgment and
knowledge of the
waste. If the waste is
hazardous and has not
been excluded from hazardous waste regulations
under 40 CFR 261.4, then
the generator must manage the waste in compliance with applicable regulations, including those
for storing hazardous
waste on-site without a
permit.
Identification and labeling. All containers must
be marked with the date
the storage period began
(which must be visible for
inspection). Although not
specified in the rule, EPA
also requires that all tanks
be marked with the date
that the storage period

began. Both containers and
tanks must be labeled or
marked clearly with the
words “Hazardous Waste.”
EPA ID number. All generators that generate more
than 100 kg of hazardous
waste per month are required
to have an EPA identification
(ID) number. Some states
may also require CESQGs to
obtain an EPA ID number.
Preparedness and prevention plan. Generators must
comply with the interimstatus preparedness and prevention requirements under
40 CFR 265, Subpart C.
These requirements specify
emergency equipment and
require that the facility have
response team available to
respond to a fire, explosion,
or release of hazardous waste.
Land disposal restrictions
(LDRs). Generators must
determine if the hazardous
waste must be treated before
it can be land disposed,
thereby making it subject to
all applicable LDRs of 40
CFR 268. For example,
LQGs and SQGs that manage
and treat prohibited waste or
contaminated soil in tanks,
containers, or containment
buildings in order to meet
applicable LDR treatment
standards of 40 CFR 268.40
must develop and follow a
written waste analysis plan
that describes the procedures
they will carry out to comply
with the treatment standards.
The waste analysis plan must
comply with the requirements
set forth at 40 CFR 268.7(a)
(5) (40 CFR 262.34(a)(4), 40
CFR 262.34(d)(4), and 40
CFR 268.1(b)).

GATEKEEPER

Page 12

How to Label Workplace Containers under the New OSHA
GHS Hazard Communication Standard [29 CFR 1910.1200
(f)(6)]:
OSHA has revised the Hazard
Communication Standard to
align 29 CFR 1910.1200 with
the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for the Classification and Labeling of Chemicals.
One area with significant
changes is the format and content requirements for labels.
The new labeling requirements
are at 29 CFR 1910.1200(f) and
29 CFR 1910.1200, Appendix
C.

The new OSHA hazard communication standard requires suppliers, such as chemical manufacturers, importers, and distributors to ensure that hazardous chemicals that they supply
to other workplaces are labeled,
tagged, or marked as described
below. Hazards “not otherwise
classified” do not have to be
addressed on the container. The
information that is required on
supplier container labels is
found in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)
(1)(i)-(vi), and includes the following:
-Product Identifier
-Signal Word: A single word
used to indicate the relative
level of severity of hazard and
alert the reader to a potential
hazard on the label. The signal
words used are "Danger" and
"Warning." "Danger" is used for
the more severe hazards, while
"Warning" is used for less severe hazards
-Hazard statement: A statement
assigned to a hazard class and
category that describes the nature of the hazard(s) of a chemical, including, where appropriate, the degree of hazard.
-Pictogram(s): A symbol plus

other graphic elements,
such as a border, background pattern, or color
that is intended to convey
specific information about
the hazards of a chemical.
Each pictogram consists of
a different symbol on a
white background within a
red square frame set on a
point (i.e. a red diamond).
There are nine pictograms
under the GHS. However,
only eight pictograms are
required under the HCS.
-Precautionary Statement
(s): A phrase that describes
recommended measures to
be taken to minimize or
prevent adverse effects
resulting from exposure to
a hazardous chemical, or
improper storage or handling of a hazardous chemical
-Name, address, and telephone number of the
chemical manufacturer,
importer, or other responsible party.
The new Hazard Communication standard provides
employers with some flexibility regarding labeling
system to be used in the
workplace. According to 29
CFR 1910.1200(f)(6), employers must ensure that
each container of hazardous
chemicals in the workplace
is labeled, tagged or
marked with either:
-The information on the
original containers, or
-Product identifier and
words, pictures, symbols,
or combination thereof,
which provide at least gen-

eral information regarding
the hazards of the chemical.
These alternative conveyances are to be used in conjunction with other information (e.g. SDSs) immediately available to employees
under the hazard communication program.
Alternative labeling systems
such as the National Fire
Protection Association
(NFPA) 704 Hazard Rating
and the Hazardous Material
Information System (HMIS)
are permitted for workplace
containers. However, the
information supplied on
these labels must be consistent with the revised HCS,
e.g., no conflicting hazard
warnings or pictograms.
Because many workplaces
are beginning to receive
labels and SDSs that are
consistent with the GHS,
employers are required to
train their employees on the
new label elements and the
new safety data sheet format
(see: Required Content of
the New GHS Safety Data
Sheet [29 CFR 1910.1200
(g)]) by December 1, 2013.
This will ensure that when

employees see the new labels
and SDSs, they will be familiar with them, understand
how to use them, and access
the information effectively.
To learn how to achieve compliance with the new OSHA
GHS Hazard Communication
requirements, attend Environmental Resource Center’s
seminar on OSHA GHS Hazard Communication Standard: Training for Trainers,
or a webcast on How to Prepare for OSHA's Globally
Harmonized Hazard Communication Standard (GHS) or
How to Author GHS Safety
Data Sheets. Contact us for
information on on-site GHS
Hazard Communication
training.

Volume XII, Edition 11

Page 13

Used Oil Prohibited from Use as a Dust Suppressant
[40 CFR 279.12(b)]:
If you are a used oil generator,
according to 40 CFR 279.12(b)
you are prohibited from using
used oil as a dust suppressant,
except when such activity takes
place in one of the states listed in
40 CFR 279.82(c). EPA views the
use of used oil for dust suppression or road treatment as use in a
manner constituting disposal (see
EPA Monthly Call Center Report
Question; March 1, 1990 (RCRA
Online 13357)).
A state may petition EPA to allow
the use of used oil as a dust suppressant, as long as the used oil is
not mixed with hazardous waste
and does not exhibit a characteristic other than ignitability. The
state must demonstrate that it has
a program in place to prevent the
use of the prohibited used oil/
hazardous waste mixtures or used
oil exhibiting a characteristic
other than ignitability. In addition,

such program must minimize the
impacts of use of used oil as a
dust suppressant on the environment. The petition may be submitted as part of the state’s authorization petition submitted
under 40 CFR 271.5 or by a separate submission (40 CFR 279.82
(b)).

Currently, no states are authorized
to implement a used oil program
that allows the use of used oil as a
dust suppressant (40 CFR 279.82
(c)).
The Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) prohibits the use of
used oil that contains any detectable concentration of polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs) as a sealant, coating, or dust control agent
pursuant to 40 CFR 761.20(d).
This prohibition specifically includes road oiling and general

dust control. Thus, in the event that
a state were authorized to use used
oil as a dust suppressant pursuant to
40 CFR 279.82, the prohibition in
40 CFR 761.20(d) would still apply.
(63 FR 24963, 24965; May 6, 1998)

However, it is important to note that
EPA does not have the authority
under RCRA to regulate commercial
dust suppressants or other commercial products other than wastederived products and discarded
commercial chemical products (see
EPA Memorandum, Bussard to
Pring; February 16, 1996 (RCRA
Online 14059)).
To help ensure your used oil is managed properly, attend Environmental
Resource Center’s Used Oil and
Special Waste—Webcast.

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.

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

Kinder Morgan to pay penalty and improve accident prevention
and preparedness at natural gas plants in Casper and Douglas,
Wyoming:
Natural gas processor will pay
$316K penalty, improve risk management and maintenance
Contact: David Cobb 303-3126592, cobb.david@epa.gov;
Mathew Allen 303-312-6085 allen.matthew@epa.gov
(Denver, Colo. – September 20,
2012) The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency today announced two Clean Air Act settlements with Kinder Morgan Upstream LLC in which the company
has agreed to pay a total of
$316,000 in penalties for violating

Risk Management Plan provisions at natural gas plants in
Casper and Douglas, Wyoming. In addition, the company has agreed to establish
new operating procedures,
improve equipment maintenance, and perform integrity
tests on pressure vessels to
reduce the possibility of an
accidental release of hazardous
chemicals at both facilities.
“Companies that use chemicals and substances which
pose a potential danger are

responsible for having a robust
risk management program in
place,” said Mike Gaydosh, director of EPA’s enforcement
program in Denver. “Failure to
do so places the environment,
employees, and nearby communities at risk.”
Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that contain hazardous and
flammable substances above
specified thresholds must develop and submit a risk management plan to assist with emergency preparedness, chemical

release prevention, and minimization of releases that occur. EPA inspectors found that
the Kinder Morgan facilities
had not adequately implemented those regulations.
For more information on the
Clean Air Act and risk management requirements: http://
www.epa.gov/oem/content/
rmp/

New Haven Company Faces Fine for Hazardous Waste
Violations:
Contact Information: David Deegan, (617)
918-1017
(Boston, Mass.) - A New Haven, Conn. company that makes door hardware faces a penalty of $64,495 from the US Environmental
Protection Agency for violating state and
federal hazardous waste laws.
According to a complaint filed recently by
EPA’s New England office, the Sargent
Manufacturing Company failed to segregate
containers of incompatible hazardous waste,
failed to have an adequate hazardous waste
training program, failed to close containers of
hazardous waste, failed to maintain adequate
aisle space between containers of hazardous
waste, failed to mark containers with the
date that accumulation of hazardous waste

began, failed to update and submit revised
contingency plan to local authorities, and
otherwise failed to manage hazardous waste
in accordance with the requirements.
Sargent Manufacturing is owned by Assa
Abloy, a company based in Sweden.
The case stems from a March 2011 inspection by EPA to see if the company was meeting the requirements of the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and related
state regulations. This federal law is designed to help protect public health and the
environment by promoting the proper management of hazardous wastes.
Sargent’s failure to segregate containers of
spent hydrochloric acid and sodium fluoride
prompted significant concern. If the contain-

ers were to break or leak, the mixing of
these incompatible wastes could lead to a
reaction, such as fire or explosion, or the
generation of flammable hydrogen
gas. Sargent’s failure to have an adequate
hazardous waste training program increased the likelihood that wastes generated may not be properly managed and that
Sargent personnel may not be able to adequately coordinate all emergency response
measures in the event of emergency.
More information : Enforcing hazardous
waste laws in New England (http://
www.epa.gov/region1/enforcement/waste/
index.html )

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