Volume XIII, Edition 4

April 1, 2013

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 Proposes Significant New Use Rule
for 37 Chemicals:

3

Company to Pay
$225K for RMP General Duty Clause
Violations

4

Delaware River Spill
Requires Hazmat
Cleanup, Hospitalizes
2:

6

US antiterrorism site
security plan could
take 9 years more:

8

State Reporting of
CAA Violations:

10

Lead and Copper Rule
101: Requirements
before an Action
Level Exceedance

12

Updated TRI Reporting Forms Now
Available:
The Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) reports required by the
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
(SARA Title III) are must be
submitted to EPA by July 1 of
each year. Your facility is required to report to the TRI Program if it meets all of these
three threshold criteria:
Your facility is included in a
TRI-covered North American
Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code (see the TRI
NAICS code webpage or Table
I of the current Reporting Forms
and Instructions for a complete
list)
• The facility has 10 or more
full-time employee equivalents
(i.e., a total of 20,000 hours or
greater; see 40 CFR 372.3)
The facility manufactures
(defined to include importing),
processes or otherwise uses any
EPCRA Section 313 chemical
in quantities greater than the

established threshold in the
course of a calendar year

tion for RY2012 includes the
following revisions:
• New process to certify
TRI forms within the TRIYou can use EPA’s thresh- MEweb reporting applicaold screening tool to deter- tion
mine if your site must sub- • New electronic reporting
mit a Form A or Form R
security requirements for
TRI report. This brief
identification purposes
online tutorial can also help New alternative electronic
you determine if you must
signature agreements to exsubmit a TRI report.
pedite the transmission, certification, and submission of
the TRI reports
EPA prefers that you use
use the Agency’s TRIMEweb application to sub- To learn how to meet your
mit your TRI reports elecTRI reporting requirements,
tronically. EPA’s TRI
attend Environmental Reforms, instructions, and
source Center’s SARA Title
TRI-MEweb application
III Form R (EPCRA Section
for reporting year 2012
313) Webcast or SARA Title
(RY2012) are now availIII (EPCRA) Workshop.
able on EPA’s TRI website.
The TRI-MEweb applica-

GATEKEEPER

Page 2

9th Annual Gatekeeper Regulatory Roundup
SAVE - THE - DATE
Early-Bird Pricing until January 31, 2013.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: For Your Site & in Your Town
April 2 - 3, 2013
Chaparral Suites Resort
5001 N. Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, Arizona
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
Abstracts are being accepted until January 31, 2013.
Suggested Topics:
Lean Environmental Practices, Wastewater Treatment Technologies, Vapor Intrusion, Stack Measurement Techniques, Tank
Emissions, Groundwater Plume Delineation, Pillars of Sustainability, NSR Rule Revisions, Preparing for EPCRA and CAA
112(r) Inspections, Greenhouse Gas BACT, Alternative Fuels, Sustainable Business Practices, Emergency Planning & Response, NEPA/Wildlife Considerations, Preparing for Environmental Litigation, Pharmaceuticals and/or other Emerging
Drinking Water Concerns.
CALL FOR SPONSORS
Sponsorship opportunities are available at the following levels:
•Break ($250)

•Breakfast ($350)

•Lunch ($1,500)

•Corporate ($2,000)

•Premier ($3,000)

Conference Chairperson:

For Sponsors and Exhibitors

Michael Ford

Sponsorship Coordinator:

Exhibitor Coordinator:

(602) 650-2321

Laura Adams

Nancy Nesky

FAX (602) 916-1500

(480) 433-6718

(480) 226-4991

mford@polsinelli.com

ladams2@republicservices.com

nnesky@itsi.com
Website: www.epaz.org

EPA Corner

Volume XIII, Edition 4

Page 3

Amalgamated Sugar settles for failure to immediately
report the release of chlorine gas into the environment:
Contact Information: Hanady Kader,
EPA Public Affairs, 206-553-0454
(Seattle) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a settlement
with Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC
(Amalgamated Sugar) for failing to properly report the release of dangerous chlorine gas at its Paul, Idaho facility. Amalgamated Sugar, a sugar manufacturing
facility that processes sugar beets, will pay
$18,000 in penalties.
According to the settlement, plant operators did not immediately notify federal and
state authorities about the chlorine gas
release.
“Companies need to notify the appropriate
agencies right away so emergency personnel can quickly respond to these hazardous
chemical releases," said Ed Kowalski,
Director of EPA’s Office of Compliance

& Enforcement in Seattle.
“Failure to do this puts not only
employees, but the community at
risk.”
The release on February 7, 2012,
was caused when a chemical truck
driver mistakenly unloaded hydrochloric acid into the tank containing sodium hypochlorite. When
mixed, the chemicals caused a
violent reaction which blew the
access lid off the tank, emitting 43
pounds of chlorine gas into the
atmosphere. According to Amalgamated Sugar, the driver was
injured and evacuated by ambulance. The company’s notification
to state and federal authorities was
over 46 hours late.

can cause serious injury or death in
extreme cases.
The chlorine release and the failure to
notify appropriate agencies are violations of the federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
For information on EPA's Emergency
Planning and Community Right to
Know Act, visit http://www.epa.gov/
oecaagct/lcra.html
For more about toxic effects of Anhydrous Ammonia (NIOSH GUIDE):
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/
npgd0115.html

Chlorine is a toxic gas that attacks
skin, eyes, throat, and lungs and

EPA Proposes Significant New Use Rule for 37
Chemicals:
EPA is proposing significant
new use rules (SNURs) under
the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) for 37 chemical
substances, which were the
subject of pre-manufacture
notices (PMNs). Seventeen of
these chemical substances are
subject to TSCA section 5(e)

consent orders issued by EPA.
This action would require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of
these 37 chemical substances,
which include carbon nanotubes, siloxanes, isocyanates,
and other chemicals, for an activity that is designated as a

significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least
90 days before commencing that
activity. The required notification
would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended
use and, if necessary, to prohibit
or limit that activity before it occurs.

GATEKEEPER

Page 4

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

Company to Pay $225K for RMP General Duty Clause Violations:
According to a recent EPA complaint, the
company failed to put in place a required
Risk Management Plan (RMP) for ammonia used in the refrigeration system at its
Rhode Island facility, in violation of the
federal CAA. EPA also alleged that the
company violated CAA's General Duty
Clause, which applies to facilities where
extremely hazardous substances such as
ammonia are present, at its Massachusetts
location.
Under the General Duty Clause, owners
and operators of these facilities are required to identify hazards, design and
maintain the facility in a safe manner, taking steps to prevent accidental releases of
the extremely hazardous substance, and
take steps to minimize the consequences
of any accidental releases that occur. EPA
says the company had not taken required
steps to design and maintain a safe facility
or taken precautions that would minimize
the consequences of an accidental release
of ammonia, if one were to occur, at its
Massachusetts facility.
For example, according to EPA, they
failed to:
• Provide mechanical ventilation;
• Provide working ammonia detectors
and an emergency shutdown switch for the
machinery room;
• Develop operating procedures and a
comprehensive mechanical integrity program; and,
Train employees in the proper operation of

the system at the Massachusetts facility.
Ammonia presents a significant
health hazard because it is corrosive
to the skin, eyes, and lungs. Exposure
to 300 parts per million (ppm) is immediately dangerous to life and
health. Ammonia is also flammable
at concentrations of about 15 percent
to 28 percent by volume in air. It can
explode if it is released in an enclosed space with a source of ignition
present, or if a vessel containing anhydrous ammonia is exposed to fire.
RMPs required under the CAA and
steps required under the General
Duty Clause, help prevent accidental
releases of substances that can cause
serious harm to the public and the
environment from short-term exposures and reduces the severity of releases that do occur. A company that
fails to take these steps can leave the
public and environment at risk from
accidental releases.
According to EPA, both facilities are
located less than a fifth of a mile
from residential homes, and less than
a quarter of a mile from retail and
office areas.
EPA learned about the company's
facilities following an inspection of
the Massachusetts facility in November 2011. After EPA’s inspection, the
company developed and submitted an
RMP for its Rhode Island facility,

and the company is currently working
to fix problems identified at the Massachusetts facility. For example, the
company has installed an ammonia
detector and investigated and corrected
pipe corrosion and vibration problems
noted by EPA inspectors. The company also plans to install a ventilation
fan and an emergency shutdown switch
and to prepare and implement an improved maintenance program for the
system.
General Duty Clause and Risk Management
Even if a facility does not have a listed
substance above the threshold limit or
has reconfigured or taken an enforceable limit to avoid having to submit an
RMP, a facility may still have responsibilities. 42 USC 7412(r)(1) requires
the owner or operator of a stationary
source that produces, processes, handles, or stores any listed substance or
other extremely hazardous substance to
identify hazards that may result from
the release of these chemicals.
While the statute states that no liability
or basis for suit resulting from a release is created by the section, the
General Duty Clause clearly implies
the need for a source to carefully look
at its processes and take steps to reduce
the amount and effects of an accidental
release.

Volume XIII, Edition 4

Page 5

EPA fines six Arizona school districts for asbestos
violations:
More than 15,000 students to be protected
by additional inspections, asbestos plans
SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has fined six
Arizona school districts a combined total
of $94,575 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) violations.
More than 15,000 children attend the 25
schools not in compliance with the federal
AHERA in these districts.
During inspections conducted in 2011,
EPA inspectors discovered numerous violations, from failing to inspect facilities for
asbestos containing materials, failing to reinspect campuses with known asbestos
containing materials, and failing to have
an Asbestos Management Plan. All of the
school districts have since taken necessary
actions to comply with the law, with the
cost of compliance reducing the penalties
in most cases to zero.
“Asbestos in schools has the potential to
harm the health of students, teachers, and
maintenance workers,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator
for the Pacific Southwest. “EPA takes
these violations seriously, and we are satisfied the schools have now conducted
inspections and put their asbestos plans in
place.”
Each school district is allowed to subtract
properly documented costs of complying

with the regulations from the penalty amount. The six school districts are:

•

Apache Junction Unified
School District (Pinal County):
fined $21,675, but this was reduced to $7,933 because of the
school district’s
• Florence Unified School
District (Pinal County): fined
$31,705, but no cash payment was
due because the documented costs
of compliance exceeded the penalty.
• St. John’s Unified School
District (Apache County): fined
$14,195, reduced to $824 by the
school district’s cost of achieving
compliance.
• Vernon Elementary School
District (Apache County): fined
$2,700, but no cash payment was
due because the documented costs
of compliance exceeded the penalty.
• McNary Elementary School
District (Fort Apache Indian Reservation): fined $14,200, but no
cash payment was due because the
documented costs of compliance
exceeded the penalty.
Round Valley Unified School
District (Apache County): fined
$10,100, but no cash payment was
due because the documented costs
of compliance exceeded the pen-

alty.
Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos
-containing building material is present
and develop a management plan to
address the asbestos materials found in
the school buildings. Schools are also
required to appoint a designated person
who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure compliance with
federal regulations. Finally, schools
must conduct periodic surveillance and
re-inspections of asbestos-containing
building material, properly train the
maintenance and custodial staff, and
maintain records in the management
plan.
Local education agencies must keep an
updated copy of the management plan
in its administrative office and at the
school which must be made available
for inspection by parents, teachers, and
the general public.
For more information about federal
asbestos regulations visit: http://
www.epa.gov/asbestos/lawsregs.html

Page 6

LEPC Corner

GATEKEEPE

All SB lanes of I-225 near Smith Road reopen after hazmat crews
clean up corrosive chemical spill:
AURORA, Colo. - All southbound lanes
of Interstate 225 near 17th Avenue in
Aurora reopened about 5:45 a.m. Friday
after crews finished cleaning up a morning
hazardous material.
Aurora's hazardous material clean-up
crews were called to I-225 about 8:30 a.m.
after a truck leaked chlorine and a corrosive chemical near Smith Road.

The chemical leaked from a truck
while it was moving, according to
Aurora Police Department Capt. Allen Robnett.
The amount of product released is
unknown. However, it is well dispersed, Aurora city officials said on
Facebook.

reduced to one lane approaching 17th
Avenue. Northbound traffic was not
affected.
The Colorado Department of Transportation said drivers should expect delays.

Traffic on southbound I-225 was

Delaware River Spill Requires Hazmat
Cleanup, Hospitalizes 2:
PHILADELPHIA An early-morning hazardous
materials situation in Port
Richmond sent two people to
the hospital.
Fire officials were not able to
confirm what was spilled into
the Delaware River near the

3300 block of North Delaware
Avenue around 11 pm Sunday
night.

River.

Officials now confirm that a
piece of equipment malfunctioned at a gas plant, the Kinder
Morgan Company facility,

mann University Hospital
for
observation. They are in stable
condition.

spilling 50 gallons
of carbonic acid into the Delaware

Two workers were exposed to the
chemical and taken to Hahne-

Volume XIII, Edition 4

Page 7

Fire erupts at Texas City plant:
KHOU 11 Houston – (Texas) Fire
erupts at Texas City plant. Firefighters worked for several hours to
put out a fire that started from a
pump at the Marathon Galveston

Bay refinery. A tank and pipes on
the south side of the building that
caught on fire were also quickly
put out by rescuers using foam.
Source: http://

houston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/28/
fire-erupts-at-texas-city-plant/

Hazmat cleaning up spill on Interstate 35:
WOAI 4 San Antonio – (Texas)
Hazmat cleaning up spill on
Interstate 35. A tractor-trailer
crashed on Interstate 35 in San
Antonio, spilling fuel and the

soft drink cargo and causing
the Interstate to remain closed
from midnight through the
morning rush hour. Source:
http://www.woai.com/news/

local/story/TRAFFIC-ALERTHazmat-cleaning-up-spill-on/
IxV-feGeok-8j9zyeaottQ.cspx

Police: Monette man admits to stealing 300 lbs. of
copper from Entergy:
KAIT 8 Jonesboro – (Arkansas)
Police: Monette man admits to
stealing 300 lbs. of copper from
Entergy. Authorities from the
Craighead County Sheriff’s Depart-

ment arrested a man who confessed
to stealing about 300 pounds of
copper, valued at $7,500, from
Entergy over the course of several
months in order to sell the items

for scrap. Source: http://
www.kait8.com/story/21441858/
police-monette-man-admits-tostealing-300-lbs-of-copper-fromentergy

Page 8

Industry Corner

GATEKEEPER

US antiterrorism site security plan could take 9 years more:
WASHINGTON (ICIS)--It
might take another nine years
for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to complete implementing the fiveyear-old programme to protect
chemical plants from terrorist
attacks, a new report said on
Thursday.
An audit submitted by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce said that many problems
remain in the long-troubled
DHS effort to fully implement
the Chemical Facility AntiTerrorism Standards (CFATS).
Speaking at the hearing,
Stephen Caldwell, director of
homeland security issues at
GAO and author of the audit,
said that among other things, the
departments criteria and process
for determining which chemical
facilities are at higher risk for
attack are flawed and not in
keeping with the CFATS law
approved by Congress in 2006.
Under CFATS, chemical facilities deemed to be at high risk
for a terrorist attack must evaluate their security arrangements
and submit a plan to the department on how the plants protections can be improved to meet
federal standards.
But Caldwell said that the department does not consider all
of the elements of consequence,
threat and vulnerability associated with a terrorist attack", and
that consequently DHS cannot
be certain of risks posed by particular facilities.
He said that while the depart-

ment is taking steps to improve its pace of reviewing
the site security plans
(SSPs) that the approximately 3,100 regulated facilities are required to submit, the process could take
as long as nine years.
Caldwell said that using the
departments expected plan
approval rate of 30 to 40
plans a month, GAO estimated that it could take
another seven to nine years
before [the department] is
able to complete reviews on
the approximately 3,120
plans in its queue.
The department’s implementation of CFATS also
came under criticism from
industry, with complaints
that some enforcement
compliance deadlines are
too short, the review process cited by Caldwell is too
slow and that fully five
years after the programme
was launched there is still
no department process for
doing security background
checks on facility workers
and vendors.
Bill Allmond, vice president for government relations at the Society of
Chemical Manufacturers
and Affiliates (SOCMA),
told the panel that the DHS
on-site security review
process requires an enormous amount of time and
resources to prepare for an
inspection and, in particular, to respond to one after
it has been completed.
Allmond complained that

the small- and medium-size
specialty and batch chemical
producers in SOCMA don’t
have large staffs and other
assets needed to respond
within the department’s 30day post-inspection mandate.
Our members have encountered so far an unwillingness
to reasonably extend deadlines or provide additional
time for facility response, he
said.
Timothy Scott, chief security
officer at Dow Chemical
Company, also cited the long
delays that are anticipated in
the department’s processing
of a mountain of site security
plans.
More troubling, said Scott, is
that DHS still does not currently have a workable personnel surety programme
(PSP) in place.
That programme is mandated
by CFATS and is supposed to
establish means for security
background checks for employees and suppliers that
have access to at-risk plant
sites.
Speaking for the American
Chemistry Council (ACC),
Scott said that this deficiency
is a significant issue that must
be addressed to ensure that all
high-risk chemical facilities
are safe, secure and fully
comply with CFATS.
Charles Drevna, president of
the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
(AFPM), also cited the delay
in getting a background check
process established, saying:
The PSP programme must be

fixed soon.
Drevna also complained
that while AFPM had offered to make key chemical
company executives available to DHS to help train
the department’s site inspectors, DHS has yet to
take us up on this offer.
Rand Beers, DHS undersecretary with responsibility for the CFATS programme, told the subcommittee: We believe the department has turned a corner on the CFATS programme.
We are moving forward
strategically to address the
challenges before us, he
said.
The department’s yearslong effort to get the
CFATS programme fully
operational came under
sharp criticism in Congress
early last year when an
internal DHS memo revealed widespread staffing,
administrative and acquisition problems.
One senator charged that
the $500m (385m) already
spent on CFATS had been
wasted and the implementation programme was a
failure.
($1 = 0.77)
By Joe Kamalick
+1 713 525 2653
icisnews.americas@icis.com

Volume XIII, Edition 4

Page 9

Hazardous Materials Transport Regulations Revised:
The US Department of Transportation has recently published two notices in the Federal Register that are making
changes is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR). In the first rulemaking, which was published on
March 11, the agency is making the following changes,
which become effective on
May 10, but compliance is
optional now:
Revise the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) to correct
an error in the transportation
requirements for entries
listed under the proper shipping name, ``Hydrazine Dicarbonic Acid Diazide.”
Revise the HMT to remove
the entry for “Zinc ethyl, see
Diethylzinc” that was superseded by proper shipping
names adopted in a previous
rulemaking.
Add the inadvertently omitted
entries for “Paint related
material, flammable, corrosive (including paint thinning
or reducing compound)”
UN3469, PG II, and PG III
to the Sec. 172.101 HMT.
Remove references to special
provisions B72 and B74 in
49 CFR 172.102.
Revise special provision 138
in 49 CFR 172.102 to clarify
the lead solubility calculation
used to classify a material as
a Marine Pollutant.
Revise the shipping paper
requirements in 49 CFR
172.203(e) to permit the
placement of phrase
“Residue last contained”
before or after the basic shipping description sequence, or
for rail shipments, directly
preceding the proper shipping name in the basic shipping description sequence.
Update the training recordkeeping requirements in 49
CFR 172.704 to specify that
a hazmat employer must

make hazmat employee
training records available
upon request, at a reasonable time and location, to
an authorized official of
the Department of Transportation or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Clarify that the material of
trade exception in 49
CFR 173.6 may be used
when transporting Division 2.1 and 2.2 gases in
Dewar flasks.
Clarify the lab pack provisions in 49 CFR 173.12
pertaining to temperaturecontrolled materials contained in a lab pack.
Clarify the exceptions for
external emergency selfclosing valves on cargo
tank motor vehicles
(CTMVs) in 49 CFR
173.33(g) to specify that
external emergency selfclosing valves on MC
338 cargo tanks containing cryogenic liquids may
remain open during transportation.
Correct an inadvertent
deletion of the 49 CFR
173.62 packaging requirements for explosives.
Incorporate special permit
DOT SP-13556 into 49
CFR 173.134, to authorize the transportation by
motor vehicle of certain
regulated medical wastes,
designated as sharps, in
non-DOT specification
containers fitted into
wheeled racks.
Revise the requirements
for cargo air transport of
alcoholic beverages in 49
CFR173.150 to harmonize with the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO)
Technical Instructions
(TI).

Clarify the exceptions in 49
CFR 173.159a for nonspillable batteries secured to
skids or pallets.
Revise 49 CFR 178.2(c) to
clarify the applicability of
the closure notification requirements for packages
containing residues.
Correct regulatory citations
in 49 CFR 178.2(c).
Clarify the requirements for
the Flame Penetration Resistance test specified for
chemical oxygen generators
and certain compressed
gases in Appendix E to Part
178.
Clarify the inspection record
requirements in 49 CFR
180.416 for discharge systems of cargo tanks transporting liquefied compressed gases.
In an earlier rulemaking published on March 7, the agency
is making the following
changes, which become effective on May 6, but compliance is optional now:
Revise 49 CFR 178.3 to
clearly indicate that a
manufacturer or third-party
laboratory mark may not be
used when continued certification of a packaging is
conducted by someone
other than the original
manufacturer or third-party
testing laboratory, unless
specifically authorized by
the original manufacturer or
third-party testing laboratory.
Revise 49 CFR 178.601(l),
178.801(l) and 178.955(i)
to relax the record retention
requirements for packaging
test reports and provide a
chart to clearly identify the
retention requirements.
Revise the Hazardous Materials Table by removing the
listing for “NA1203, Gasohol, gasoline mixed with

ethyl alcohol, with not
more than 10% alcohol”;
and removing reference to
gasohol in Sections Sec.
Sec. 172.336(c)(4) and
172.336(c)(5).
Revise 49 CFR 172.101 to
refer to 49 CFR 173.151
to harmonize internationally and provide a limited
quantity exception for
Division 4.1, Self-reactive
solids and Self-reactive
liquids, Types B through
F.
Add a reference in 49 CFR
178.601(c)(4) and
178.801(c)(7) to ASTM
D4976-06 Standard Specification for Polyethylene
Plastics Molding and Extrusion Materials to provide a range of acceptable
resin tolerances in the
plastic drum and IBC material.
Allow smokeless powder
classed as a Division 1.4C
material to be reclassed as
a Division 4.1 material to
relax the regulatory requirements for these materials without compromising safety.
Allow the Dangerous
Cargo Manifest (DCM) to
be in locations designated
by the master of the vessel
besides “on or near the
vessel’s bridge” while the
vessel is in a United
States port to ensure that
the DCM is readily available to communicate to
emergency responders and
enforcement personnel the
presence and nature of the
hazardous materials on
board a vessel.

Page 10

GATEKEEPER

State Reporting of CAA Violations:
In general, the answer is yes,
and from the perspective of the
facility owner/operator, the implications are important. Moreover, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has
noted that states have been
somewhat lax in reporting CAA
violations. While the Agency
gives states a small amount of
latitude in how they prioritize
reporting, the general expectation at EPA’s end is that all
emissions-related violations
must be reported.
Public Information
This transfer of information is
more than a paper exercise. The
EPA stores reports about CAA
violations in its Air Facility
System (AFS), a database of
compliance and permit data for
stationary sources regulated by
the EPA, state, and local air
pollution agencies. The EPA
says that the AFS is an important tool state agencies use to
track compliance, but the EPA
also relies on the data to provide
the public with the latest state
and federal compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. In other words, if your
facility was not previously listed
in the AFS, the newly reported
information gives both the public and the EPA a new avenue—
and a new reason—to monitor
not only developments associated with the violation but also
any other regulated activity that
interests them.
State Reporting Lapses
State reporting of CAA federally reportable violations
(FRVs) became a subject of
discussion several years ago

when the EPA found that a
“significant percentage” of
violations of federal enforceable CAA requirements and implementing
regulations were not being
reported by states to the
EPA in a consistent or accurate manner. In fact, the
EPA had published guidance and policy documents
and information collection
requests in 1986, 1998,
2005, and 2008 defining
high-priority violations
(HPVs) and minimum data
requirements (MDRs) to
assist states in reporting
CAA violations. When
issues concerning state reporting subsequently came
to light, the EPA produced
a clarification memo in
March 2010.
Prioritizing Reports
The main point in the 2010
memo is that states
“should” report both HPVs
and other violations of federally enforceable requirements to the AFS. At the
same time, the memo recognizes that states have
limited resources to commit
to reporting. Hence, the
memo adds yet two more
terms—Tier I FRVs and
Tier II FRVs. Both tiers
should be reported, but the
EPA writes that it expects
state and local air agencies
to first focus on complete,
timely, and accurate reporting of Tier I violations and
enforcement actions, which
the Agency says comports
with its “highest national
need.”

Current reporting requirements direct agencies to report data within 60 days following the date the violation
commenced.
Here’s how the Agency defines Tier I and Tier II FRVs.
Tier I
Tier I FRVs are any emissions
violation or significant procedural violation (see definition
below) continuing or likely to
continue based on any credible evidence for at least 7
days of a federally enforceable requirement at any
source that is:
• A major source
• A synthetic minor source
• Listed in a compliance
monitoring plan
• A Part 61 National Emissions Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
minor source (Asbestos
NESHAP demolition and
renovation violations are not
reportable.)
An active HPV
Tier II
Tier II FRVs are any emissions or significant procedural
violation (see definition below) continuing or likely to
continue based on any credible evidence for at least 7
days of a federally enforceable requirement at any
source not covered by Tier I,
which is subject to a formal
enforcement action
(Violations of open burning,
nuisance violations, and violations of asbestos demolition
and renovation requirements
are not reportable.)

The 7-day minimum requirement does not apply
to violations at NESHAP
Part 61 minor sources or to
HPVs.
Significant Procedural
Violation
A significant procedural
violation includes:
• For New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)
and NESHAP sources,
activities such as failure to
install a continuous emissions monitoring system
(CEMS) or other monitoring equipment, failure to
conduct timely performance tests, and failure to
conduct appropriate monitoring and associated recordkeeping
• For state implementation plan (SIP) sources,
activities such as failure to
install a CEMS or failure to
obtain a required New
Source Review (NSR) permit
• For Title V sources,
failure to apply for a Title
V permit or failure to submit annual compliance
certification reports
For a state consent decree,
court order, or administrative order, failure by the
source to accomplish or
maintain interim emissions
reductions or achieve interim increments of progress, which jeopardize the
ability of the source to
meet the final compliance
dates

Volume XIII, Edition 4

Page 11

Manufacturer May Pay $41K OSHA Fine for Poor PPE:
Three of the violations involve
failing to ensure that workers
used personal protective equipment (PPE) when exposed to
hazards capable of causing injury and impairment. These
included a lack of hand, eye,
and face protection for workers
exposed to liquid chemicals,
acids, or caustic liquids.
The remaining violations involve failing to include evacuation routes and procedures in
the company’s emergency response and contingency plan
and to ensure that workers engaged in emergency response
involving inhalation hazards
were provided with breathing
apparatus for respiratory protection and trained on adequate
emergency response.
OSHA cites a serious violation
when there is substantial probability that death or serious
physical harm could result from
a hazard about which the employer knew or should have
known.
The company employs more
than 12,450 people at 50 manufacturing and 9 product development and engineering facilities throughout the United
States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and Spain. The
Illinois plant was previously

cited by OSHA in May
2012, which resulted in 6
serious violations.
What OSHA Says About
Eye and Face Protection
Employers are responsible
for requiring employees to
wear proper eye or face
protection when working in
areas with the potential for
hazards caused by:
• Flying particles
(impact hazards)
• Molten metal
• Liquid chemicals
• Acids or caustic liquids
• Chemical gases or vapors
• Potentially infected
material
• Harmful light radiation
OSHA requires that employers assess the hazards
faced by their employees in
order to determine the appropriate eye and face protection for the job. Employers must also pay for most
PPE, with some exceptions.
OSHA mandates that eye
and face protection must
satisfy the requirements of
any of the following ANSI
standards: ANSI Z87.1-

2003, ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R1998), or ANSI Z87.1-1989,
unless the employer can
demonstrate that the protection is as least as effective
as those constructed in accordance with these ANSI
standards.
Choosing the Right Eye
and Face Protection
When choosing appropriate
eye and face protection for
your workers, you should
think about:
• Specific hazards
• Proper fit
• Comfortable fit
• Not obstructing vision
• Not hindering movement
• Not interfering with the
proper use of other PPE
• Durability
• Ease of cleaning and
maintaining
Regardless of the specific
PPE selected, information
identifying the manufacturer
must appear on the eye or
face protection.
For employees who work in
areas where there may be
flying objects, employers
must require eye protection

that also protects from the
side. To satisfy this requirement, employees may use
detachable side shields.
Employees who wear everyday prescription glasses are
not properly shielded from
eye hazards when wearing
only those glasses. If employees who are exposed to eye
hazards have prescription
lenses, they must have prescription eye protection or
appropriate eye protection
that fits properly over their
lenses. Wearers of contact
lenses also need to use eye or
face protection.
Recognizing the hazard of
potentially injurious light
radiation, OSHA mandates
that employers must require
employees to wear PPE with
filter lenses that provide
proper shade protection depending on the light radiation. OSHA has created a
chart detailing the minimum
protective shade number that
should be used according to
the work being done.

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.

GATEKEEPER

Page 12

Lead and Copper Rule 101: Requirements
before an Action Level Exceedance Webinar:
EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is
hosting a Lead and Copper
Rule 101 webinar series. The
first webinar will be on May
22, 2013 1-3pm ET.
The webinar on May 22, 2013
will be the first in the series
and will cover the Lead and
Copper Rule requirements
before an action level exceedance, the second webinar
of this series will cover the
Lead and Copper Rule requirements after an action
level exceedance and the third
webinar will cover the Lead
and Copper Rule reporting
requirements and compliance
determination under the LCR.

Specifically this webinar will
provide an overview of key
provisions of the rule including
lead and copper tap monitoring
requirements, how to calculate
the 90th percentile level, requirements to inform the public,
water quality parameter monitoring requirements, and requirements related to long term
treatment changes and new
source additions.
If you have any questions
please email Francine St. Denis
at st-denis.francine@epa.gov or
call 202-564-3829.
We ask that you distribute the
webinar invitation below to
those in your network that
would benefit from attending.

Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar seat now
at:
https://www3.gotomeeting.com/
register/360602006
Title: Lead and Copper Rule
101:Requirements before an Action Level Exceedance
Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM EDT
Conference Call in number
for Attendees
Toll: +1 (415) 655-0059
Toll-free:
Access Code: 556-097-077
Audio PIN: Shown after joining
the Webinar
00319

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

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