Download - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION 112 (R) IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
5FLORIDA’S HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM
A REFLECTION OF THE FIRST TEN YEARS
9PROGRESS REPORT:
FLORIDA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISTRICT RESPONSE TEAMS
13U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL EMERGENCY PLANNING GRANT
17TRI: TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
19FLORIDA’S SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
21THE STATE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
OUR OTHER OFFICE
FLORIDADEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITYAFFA IRS
STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSIONF O R H A Z A R D O U S M A T E R I A L S
M E M B E R S
Mr. Steven M. Seibert
Chairman
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Mr. Joseph F. Myers
Alternate Chairman
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Mr. J. Allison DeFoor II*
Office of the Governor
Mr. Greg Lee
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Mr. George E. Rice, Jr.
Florida Department of Transportation
Chief Randall W. Napoli
State Fire Marshal’s Office
Commissioner Cindy Gennell*
Florida League of Cities
Mr. Manny Pamariega*
Florida Regional Councils Association
Chief Michael D. Murphy
Florida Fire Chiefs’ Association
Ms. Nancy Stephens
Florida Manufacturing & Chemical Council
Mr. Ozzie Morris
Florida Phosphate Council
Mr. Daniel L. McGowan
Associated Industries of Florida
Ms. Suzi Ruhl
Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation
Inspector Ken Morris
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Vacant
Florida Department of Labor and
Employment Security
Mr. Paul Lewis, Jr.
Florida Power Corporation
Mr. Richard R. Smith
Florida Emergency Preparedness Association
Mr. John Hudson
Local Emergency Planning
Committee Chairperson
Mr. Tom Mason
Florida Association of Counties
Vacant
Agricultural Industry
Mr. David Mica
Petroleum Industry
Mr. David Rogers
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Industry
Vacant
Seminole Tribe of Florida
Mr. Steve Rutz
Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
Mr. Richard D. Radford
Sierra Club
Lieutenant Wayne Yoder
Florida Professional Firefighters
Ms. Suzy Davis
Florida Department of Health
(Emergency Medical Services)
* Pending appointment
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION regarding the State Emergency Response
Commission on Hazardous Materials (SERC) and the Hazardous Materials Planning
Program, contact:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Phone: (850) 413-9970 or (800) 635-7179 (in Florida)
Fax: (850) 488-1739
Internet: http://www.dca.state.fl.us/cps/SERC/serc.htm
Printed on recycled paper.
MAY • 1999
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the following
group who enhanced the presentation
of this Annual Report by providing
photographs:
• Apalachee Regional Planning Council
ARP/RMP Accidental Release Prevention/Risk Management Planning
DCA Department of Community Affairs
EHS Extremely Hazardous Substance
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GIS Geographic Information Systems
LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee
RMP Risk Management Plan/Program
RPC Regional Planning Council
SEOC State Emergency Operations Center
SERC State Emergency Response Commission
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT
The close of 1998 marked the for-
mal beginning of the expanded
Florida Hazardous Materials
Planning Program. On December 21,
1998, the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA), Region 4, granted
the Florida Department of Community
Affairs delegation to implement the Risk
Management Planning (RMP) provi-
sions of Section 112(r) of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 for selected
sources. This delegation was the cul-
mination of more than three years of de-
tailed analysis by the State Emergency
Response Commission (SERC) regard-
ing the most appropriate means to
implement the federal provisions in
Florida.
Florida is the first state in the nation
to integrate the Risk Management Plan-
ning prevention component into its over-
all emergency management responsi-
bilities. The 1998 Legislature’s passage
of the Florida Accidental Release Pre-
vention and Risk Management Planning
(ARP/RMP) Act and the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency’s program
delegation based on the Act’s authori-
ties and resources, is a tribute to the
Commission’s Emergency Planning
and Community Right-To-Know Act
(EPCRA) implementation philosophy
over the past ten years. Additionally, the
Florida Accidental Release Prevention
and Risk Management Planning Act
recognizes that Congress’ Emergency
Planning and Community Right-To-
Know Act vision of an active and effec-
tive dialogue among industry, respond-
ers and the community can be realized
when State Emergency Response
Commissions and Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPCs) are pro-
vided adequate financial and technical
resources.
This 1998 State Emergency Re-
sponse Commission Annual Report
highlights the continued accomplish-
ments of Florida’s Local Emergency
Planning Committees under the Emer-
gency Planning and Community Right-
To-Know Act program and their new op-
portunities to participate in Risk Man-
agement Planning initiatives. The report
reflects on a decade of Emergency
Planning and Community Right-To-
Know Act implementation in Florida, fo-
cusing on trends in Section 313 Toxic
Release Inventory reporting, innovative
Supplemental Environmental Projects
associated with enforcement actions,
and the impact of changes to federal
reporting requirements.
Finally, as a tribute to Florida’s active
emergency season, the 1998 Annual
Report features an article on State
Emergency Response Commission
staff responsibilities during disasters.
Participation in the state’s response and
recovery operations for a broad range of
hazards makes us better prepared to re-
spond to the consequences of an event
involving hazardous materials.
Executive Summary
1998 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORTSERC
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 1
Clean Air ActSECTION 112(R) IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
During this year, the Section
112(r) Work Group established
by the State Emergency Re-
sponse Commission accomplished all
of its goals. Under Section 112(r), fa-
cilities which use, store, process or
manufacture any one of 140 listed sub-
stances above a set threshold quantity
per process must develop and imple-
ment a risk management program on-
site and submit a plan summarizing this
program to the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency’s national Risk Manage-
ment Program Reporting Center by
June 21, 1999. Elements of the program
include a hazard assessment evaluat-
ing the off-site effects and physical ex-
tent of a chemical release, a preven-
tion program incorporating require-
ments for management of change and
other safety features, and an emer-
gency response program.
The Work Group’s goals were the se-
lection of the most appropriate state
agency for efficient implementation of
the program, preparing delegation op-
tions, identifying the number and type
of affected Florida facilities as well as
potential funding sources, and drafting
legislative language requesting budget-
ary and enforcement authority for the
program. After identifying all potential
implementation agencies, the Work
Group recommended in 1997 that the
Florida Department of Community Af-
fairs seek delegation of the Accidental
Release Prevention and Risk Manage-
ment Planning provisions of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 from EPA.
The Work Group concluded that the
program would add a critical prevention
component to the state’s Hazardous
Material Planning Program while pro-
viding facilities the benefits of state level
implementation which reflects Florida’s
enforcement philosophy. With the assis-
tance of the Work Group, notably the
Florida Manufacturing and Chemical
Council representative (Ms. Nancy
Stephens), the Department of Commu-
nity Affairs pursued legislative change.
Senator Buddy Dyer and Representa-
tive Lori Edwards sponsored the bills,
Senate Bill 812 and House Bill 3717
respectively, and were instrumental in
passage of the Florida Accidental Re-
lease Prevention and Risk Manage-
ment Planning (ARP/RMP) Act on May
24, 1998.
The Act, codified in Chapter 252,
Part IV, Florida Statutes, directs the
Department of Community Affairs to
1998 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORTSERC
2 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
seek delegation of the Section 112(r)
program from EPA for all sources ex-
cept those facilities which contained
propane as the sole regulated sub-
stance–essentially, propane retailers.
EPA Region 4 will implement the Sec-
tion 112(r) program for these facilities
(approximately 500 sources). The Act
also provides for funding through a fee
system and a start-up loan, tort liabil-
ity, and budgetary, inspection, and en-
forcement authorities for DCA. Annual
registration fees for each affected facil-
ity (approximately 1,500 facilities) are
due to DCA upon initial submission of
the risk management plan to EPA’s
RMP Reporting Center by June 21,
1999 and on every April 1 thereafter.
The fee schedule is based upon the
highest program level assigned to a pro-
cess on-site. Program levels range from
1 to 3; a reflection of the complexity of
each process and its historical safety
record. The Act allows fee caps for own-
ers of multiple facilities and a cap for
facilities classified in Standard Indus-
trial Classification code groups 01, 02,
and 07 (routine agricultural operations).
DCA formally requested program
delegation from EPA Region 4 on June
12, 1998. Following review of the del-
egation package by both regional and
national staff, EPA promulgated an ap-
proval notice in the Federal Register on
October 20, 1998. The notice was is-
sued as a direct final rule, effective on
December 21, 1998. Meanwhile, DCA
prepared rule language to implement
the fee provisions in the ARP/RMP Act.
Rule Chapter 9G-21, Florida Adminis-
trative Code, titled the Hazardous Ma-
terials Risk Management Planning
Fee Schedule, was proposed in the
Florida Administrative Weekly on July
17, 1998 and became final on Novem-
ber 9, 1998. DCA also has executed
Memoranda of Understanding with the
Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, and the Department of Labor and
Employment Security. Establishing
Memoranda of Understanding officially
recognized the interagency coordina-
tion begun during the Work Group
phase and ensured the program’s suc-
cess by allowing DCA access to regu-
latory, inspection, and technical re-
sources present in those agencies.
DCA continued to participate on the
EPA national workgroup addressing
implementation issues and helped to
critique the database created for elec-
tronic submittal of risk management
plans (RMP*SUBMIT) during the beta-
testing phase (September–October
1998). During 1998, DCA conducted
several training workshops with indus-
try and Local Emergency Planning
Committees on program requirements,
applicability issues, modeling chemical
releases, and reviewing the beta-ver-
sion of RMP*SUBMIT. Staff also cre-
ated a new webpage on the 112(r) pro-
gram, accessible from the DCA/SERC
homepage on the Internet.
The 1999 year will bring even more
challenges as DCA continues program
outreach, technical assistance, and
training in preparation for the June 21
submittal date for risk management
plans. In early February, DCA mailed
out letters and guidance materials to
potentially affected sources, advising
them of the state program requirements.
This enabled DCA to refine the data-
base of affected sources prior to the fee
package mailout in March. DCA will
also develop educational packets for
media and elected officials in each
LEPC district.
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 3
FLORIDA’S HAZARDOUS MATERIALSPLANNING PROGRAM
A Reflection on theFirst Ten Years
gency plans for facilities with ex-
tremely hazardous substances and
to the Regional Planning Councils
to provide professional staff support
to the Local Emergency Planning
Committees and serve as the reposi-
tories for reports received from in-
dustry.
In 1988, the Florida Legislature
passed the Florida Hazardous Materi-
als Emergency Response and Commu-
nity Right-to-Know Act and the Florida
Hazardous Materials Program began a
vigorous outreach campaign to alert in-
dustry of the new federal and state re-
porting and fee requirements. Hazard-
ous Materials Planning Program staff
toured the state conducting “How-to-
Comply” seminars and providing Local
Emergency Planning Committees, lo-
cal governments and industry with tech-
nical compliance information. Staff also
provided the media with public service
announcements and press releases
and distributed over 100,000 letters and
brochures directly to potentially affected
industry informing them of the new fed-
eral and state laws. The first year of the
Florida Hazardous Materials Program
was devoted entirely to these outreach
efforts with the State Emergency Re-
sponse Commission leading the way in
setting the tone for a unique working
relationship among the state, Local
Emergency Planning Committees,
counties and industry that continues to
this day. None of these activities would
I n 1988, with the passage of the
Florida Hazardous Materials Emer-
gency Response and Community
Right-to-Know Act (Chapter 252, Part
II, Florida Statutes), the Florida Hazard-
ous Materials Program took off and has
never looked back. Ten years later the
program can boast of many accom-
plishments as well as reflect on numer-
ous learning experiences.
With the enactment of the federal
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act of 1986, all 50 states
were immediately faced with the chal-
lenge of implementing a program that
imposed new, extensive and complex
hazardous materials reporting require-
ments on a large segment of industries
with no federal funding provided. In
Florida, the State Emergency Response
Commission, appointed by Governor
Martinez in 1987, began paving the way
for the future of the Florida Hazardous
Materials Program by recommending the
following measures be taken to ensure
successful Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know Act imple-
mentation:
◆ passage of a state law to implement
the federal requirements and estab-
lish an industry based fee system;
◆ using the existing Regional Planning
Council boundaries for the Local
Emergency Planning Committee dis-
tricts; and
◆ providing state funds from industry
fees to the counties to develop emer-
1998 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORTSERC
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 5
have been possible without industry
support through fees, technical exper-
tise and participation on Local Emer-
gency Planning Committees.
In 1989, the program was expanded
and emphasis was transferred from
pure outreach and notification to com-
pliance verification and enforcement.
This was managed by a newly created
Compliance Verification/Enforcement
Unit tasked with working directly with
industry to verify compliance, provide
technical assistance and notify facilities
of the steps necessary to achieve com-
pliance. Organizationally, the Verifica-
tion/Enforcement Unit was comple-
mented by the Planning/Training Unit
that was responsible for working directly
with the Local Emergency Planning
Committees and counties regarding
their roles in program implementation.
The Planning/Training Unit was respon-
sible for reviewing the first set of Local
Emergency Planning Committee Haz-
ardous Materials Plans which were ap-
proved by the State Emergency Re-
sponse Commission in 1989. Due to the
extensive outreach and compliance re-
lated efforts, the year saw tremendous
growth in the number of facilities report-
ing, a trend that would continue into the
early 1990s. Under the State Emer-
gency Response Commission’s direc-
tion, the huge success of the first two
years established the foundation for the
Florida Hazardous Materials Program
that has continued to serve as a leader
among programs of its type throughout
the nation.
During the years of 1990 through
1995, the program continued to grow
and face many new challenges. Sev-
eral new initiatives and projects were
undertaken and accomplishments
made by the State Emergency Re-
sponse Commission during this period.
The following is a breakdown by year
of the highlights.
week of March 1 to focus on outreach
efforts to industry.
◆ Department of Community Affairs’
Hazardous Materials Planning Sec-
tion is awarded the prestigious Davis
Productivity Award for outstanding
service.
◆ Legislative review of hazard-based
fee proposal and election to retain
employee-based fees.
◆ Pollution prevention initiative con-
ducted jointly between the Depart-
ment of Community Affairs and the
Department of Environmental Regu-
lation (now the Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection) using Toxic Re-
lease Inventory data to identify facili-
ties suited to pollution prevention
practices.
1993◆ State Emergency Response Com-
mission Efficiency Task Force estab-
lished to promote program efficiency,
cooperation among state agencies
and reduce duplication in reporting
among industry.
◆ State Emergency Response Com-
mission Training Task Force estab-
lished to formulate policies for deliv-
ery of standardized hazardous ma-
terials training for the public and pri-
vate sectors and address other train-
ing needs.
1990◆ Adoption of the EPA Penalty Policy
for enforcement of Emergency Plan-
ning and Community Right-To-Know
Act (EPCRA) Sections 302, 303, 304,
311 and 312.
◆ Demonstration projects with the City
of Tampa, Hillsborough, Dade and
Duval Counties—identified over 200
new EPCRA facilities.
◆ Outreach campaign to suppliers of
compressed gases–identified over
1,000 new Emergency Planning and
EPCRA facilities.
1991◆ Completion of development of the
Hazardous Materials Information
System used to store and manage all
chemical and facility information for
EPCRA reporters.
◆ Establishment of the State Emer-
gency Response Commission Annual
Awards Program.
◆ Awarded U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency grant for development
and distribution of EPCRA outreach
materials.
1992◆ Inaugural year for Emergency Plan-
ning and Community Right-To-Know
Act Hazardous Materials Awareness
Week— held each year during the
6 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
◆ Revised State Emergency Response
Commission Executive Order to ex-
pand representatives to include ad-
ditional affected industry groups.
1994◆ Inaugural State Emergency Re-
sponse Commission Annual Report
published.
◆ Development and State Emergency
Response Commission Adoption of
Public Sector Training Guidelines.
1995◆ State Emergency Response Com-
mission Adoption of Private Sector
Training Guidelines.
◆ Completion of the High Risk/High
Priority Initiative conducted jointly
among the Commission, EPA, local
government and industry in the
Tampa Bay area.
◆ National Governors’ Association
State Emergency Response Com-
mission Conference hosted by
Florida.
◆ State Emergency Response Com-
mission passes a resolution in sup-
port of Operation Clean Sweep.
1996 served as a turning point
for the program as the Commission
dealt with two very important and dif-
ferent issues. One concerned past re-
porting requirements under Emergency
Planning and Community Right-To-Know
Act and the other concerned the future
of a new, far-reaching federal hazard-
ous materials program. The new pro-
gram involved the requirement under
state law for the 1996 Florida Legisla-
ture to review and reauthorize the ex-
isting fee system. After much delibera-
tion among members of both chambers
of the legislature, a bill was passed that
reauthorized the fee system at its ex-
isting funding levels. A portion of the
bill included a provision for a fee am-
nesty period which brought approxi-
mately 200 facilities that had not re-
ported previously under the Act into
compliance. The other important step
taken by the Commission in 1996 in-
volved the establishment of the Clean
Air Act Section 112(r) Work Group. The
Work Group, established in July 1996,
was tasked with mapping out the future
for the implementation of the federal
Section 112(r) Accidental Release Pre-
vention and Risk Management Planning
requirements in Florida.
The Section 112(r) Work Group met
regularly through 1997 when a rec-
ommendation was presented to and
passed by the Commission to have the
Department of Community Affairs’ Haz-
ardous Materials Program seek delega-
tion from the U.S. EPA to be the Sec-
tion 112(r) implementing agency.
1998 saw the Work Group’s efforts
fulfilled as the Florida Legislature
passed the Florida Accidental Release
Prevention and Risk Management Plan-
ning (ARP/RMP) Act of 1998. The Act
provides the Department of Community
Affairs with full implementation author-
ity for the Section 112(r) program with
the exception of the propane industry
which opted out of the state program.
The U. S. EPA, Region 4, is implement-
ing the Section 112(r) program for
Florida facilities with propane as their
only regulated substance. Among the
key elements of the Act are an industry
based fee system, inspection and au-
dit provisions and enforcement author-
ity. The state received formal delega-
tion of the program from EPA in Decem-
ber 1998.
1998 also brought with it several new
proposals by the U.S. EPA that could
drastically change the complexion of the
mergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act side of the Florida
Hazardous Materials Planning Pro-
gram. One such proposal, which in
early 1999 was finalized by EPA, is rais-
ing the threshold for gasoline and die-
sel fuel at retail petroleum facilities. It
is estimated, with the passage of this
final rule, the Florida program will lose
approximately 5,000 reporting facilities
and $75,000 annually in fees. Other pro-
posals of interest which could have a
significant future impact on the state’s
program include provisions for elec-
tronic submission of Sections 311/312
information and reporting only changes
in Tier Two chemical inventories rather
than submitting entirely new reports
each year.
The first 10 years of the Florida Haz-
ardous Materials Planning Program
have been very successful on many
levels. During this period the number
of active facilities reporting under Emer-
gency Planning and Community Right-
To-Know Act has grown to more than
17,000. Enhancing responder capabili-
ties and public information and educa-
tion continue to play prominent roles in
the program. In addition, with the pas-
sage of the Florida Accidental Release
Prevention and Risk Management Plan-
ning Act, the section has now taken on
an entirely new program and is faced
with many of the same implementation
challenges it faced with the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-To-Know
Act over 10 years ago. Currently in the
midst of an extensive outreach program,
the program staff is again utilizing many
of the successful methods that were
used in conducting outreach for
EPCRA in 1988. Due to advanced tech-
nologies, staff has also been able to
develop new techniques for outreach
such as the development of a compre-
hensive Internet Web Site for both the
ARP/RMP and EPCRA programs. The
ARP/RMP program is benefitting from
many of the lessons learned from the
EPCRA program. With the SERC’s
guidance, this new federal program is
destined to experience the success that
the Florida EPCRA program has expe-
rienced in its first 10 years.
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 7
PROGRESS REPORT:
Florida Hazardous MaterialsDistrict Response Teams
F lorida’s implementation of the
Emergency Planning and Com-
munity Right-to-Know Act has
been recognized as one of the best in
the country. The Florida Department
of Community Affairs’ Division of Emer-
gency Management, the Local Emer-
gency Planning Committees and the
State Emergency Response Commis-
sion are actively involved in ongoing
efforts to help ensure the continued
success of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act pro-
gram. This includes further enhancing
the program’s contributions to Florida’s
local communities for response and re-
covery activities associated with haz-
ardous materials incidents. This com-
mitment is based on a proactive strat-
egy to identify opportunities to improve
local capabilities and provide a func-
tional framework whereby existing
statewide resources can be effectively
deployed to support local hazardous
materials emergency response teams.
In 1993, the State Emergency Re-
sponse Commission created the Train-
ing Task Force to address hazardous
materials training issues. Since its in-
ception, the task force’s responsibilities
have evolved and expanded to include
the development of statewide adopted
responder training guidelines for all as-
pects of public and private sectors; co-
ordination with various responder
groups to ensure the availability of re-
quired hazardous materials training; es-
tablishment of a uniform classification
system for hazardous materials inci-
dents; and the examination of the need
and feasibility of statewide hazardous
materials district response teams.
Based on the complexity of issues
involved with hazardous materials re-
sponse teams, the task force organized
a separate subcommittee, utilizing per-
sonnel with specific experience, to ana-
lyze Florida’s existing response teams’
capabilities and service areas. This
group recommended that the name of
any proposed state-sponsored hazard-
ous materials “Regional Response
Teams” be worded to avoid potential
confusion with existing federal hazard-
ous materials regional response teams.
The Commission recently approved the
name of these teams as the “Florida
Hazardous Materials District Response
Teams”. These state-sponsored re-
sponse teams would be utilized as sup-
port units for hazardous materials inci-
dents that exceed the resources of lo-
cal response agencies. This article pro-
vides an update of the subcommittee’s
1998 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORTSERC
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 9
accomplishments, activities and ongo-
ing efforts in analyzing the potential
need for the Florida Hazardous Materi-
als District Response Teams.
One of the first issues the Team Sub-
committee focused on was the devel-
opment of a definition for the Florida
Hazardous Materials District Response
Team. The definition, as recommended
by the Subcommittee and approved by
the State Emergency Response Com-
mission, is:
◆ An organized group of trained re-
sponse personnel, designated by the
organization, operating under an
emergency response plan and ap-
propriate standard operating proce-
dures, who are expected to perform
work to handle and control or other-
wise minimize or eliminate the haz-
ards to people, property, or the en-
vironment from an actual or poten-
tial leak or spill of hazardous sub-
stances requiring possible close ap-
proach to the substance.
◆ A hazardous materials team is not a
fire brigade nor is a typical fire bri-
gade a hazardous materials team.
◆ A hazardous materials team in-
cludes a minimum of seven team
members.
The next stage of work undertaken
by the subcommittee included the de-
termination and development of meth-
ods to identify existing response re-
sources, hazards and vulnerabilities,
and capabilities throughout the state in
relation to hazardous materials pre-
paredness and response. The Sub-
committee initially identified statewide
resources and vulnerabilities through
the use of Geographic Information Sys-
tem (GIS) maps. Maps were generated
that depicted the number of hazardous
materials response teams and their lo-
cation throughout the state as well as
areas that had a potential deficit of haz-
ardous materials response capability.
Maps of each Local Emergency Plan-
ning Committee District were also pro-
duced and reviewed to determine high
risk areas (such as Section 302 facili-
ties, ports, railways and transportation
routes). Evaluation of existing response
teams includes consideration of the
teams’ physical locations to appropri-
ately identify service areas throughout
the state and to maximize the teams’
effectiveness to support local re-
sources.
Subcommittee members also re-
searched and surveyed other states
that had established state-sponsored
hazardous materials (regional) re-
sponse teams. Subcommittee members
held discussions with representatives
from several of these states including
Idaho, Massachusetts, North Carolina,
Virginia and Wisconsin. States’ enabling
legislation and funding levels for oper-
ating, startup costs and cost recovery
mechanism were also reviewed.
The Subcommittee prepared and
mailed out a comprehensive response
capabilities survey to more than180 ex-
isting hazardous materials teams lo-
cated in Florida, most of which were
already participants of the Florida Fire
Chiefs statewide mutual aid plan. Of
these surveys, a total of 58 were com-
pleted and returned to the Subcommit-
tee. Subcommittee members evaluated
and assigned a score to the returned
surveys based on the teams’ current in-
ventory of specialized equipment, train-
ing of members and number of mem-
bers.
To further determine each team’s ca-
pability, an on-site assessment tool was
developed by an independent contrac-
1 0 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
tor and piloted in sample areas of the
state. The capability assessment tool,
as refined by the pilot study, will be used
to survey participants to obtain an ac-
curate, consistent and standardized as-
sessment of existing hazardous mate-
rials response capabilities. Approxi-
mately 20 hazardous materials re-
sponse teams throughout the state will
be selected to take part in this assess-
ment program. This on-site assessment
effort is financed through a grant to the
Department by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
To complement the technical analy-
sis, the subcommittee formed a sepa-
rate sub-group to identify and resolve
the potential legal issues involved in the
establishment of state-sponsored haz-
ardous materials response teams. The
Legal Committee is examining existing
state legal authorities and responsibili-
ties for hazardous materials response,
funding sources and cost recovery. The
current mechanism used by hazardous
material response teams to provide as-
sistance outside their established ser-
vice areas is primarily through the use
of mutual aid agreements. The Legal
Committee further discovered that ex-
isting legislation may not permit the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection to contract with local govern-
ment entities for emergency response
assistance as it does with private haz-
ardous waste contractors for
remediation activities. The Legal Com-
mittee continues to explore state law to
gain a clearer picture of the authorities
and responsibilities that currently exist
and to propose additional statutory au-
thorities where necessary and appro-
priate.
At the present time, the Florida Haz-
ardous Materials District Response
Teams subcommittee continues to
tackle many challenging issues and ini-
tiatives associated with establishing a
state-sponsored hazardous materials
response program. Subcommittee
members have completed and are cur-
rently working on the following tasks:
◆ Define location and number of
teams.
◆ Develop and finalize standards for
personnel to serve on hazardous
materials response teams.
◆ Develop procedures to determine
how the designated response teams
will receive an on-site assessment.
◆ Prepare advanced training recom-
mendations for hazardous materials
response team members.
◆ Identify equipment and staff for haz-
ardous materials response teams.
◆ Determine how to disseminate risk
and accessibility data from the Divi-
sion of Emergency Management to
district teams.
◆ Determine call out and response re-
quest procedures in conjunction with
the Florida Fire Chiefs Mutual Aid
Plan.
Subcommittee members and the Le-
gal Committee will also be working on
the following issues in the upcoming
months:
◆ Identify companion legislation to au-
thorize creation of a state-sponsored
hazardous materials response pro-
gram.
◆ Determine and/or develop budget
program requirements and statutory
authorities.
◆ Determine and develop scope of
work and concept of operations for
the program.
◆ Address civil liability protection and
response cost recovery.
The new millennium already prom-
ises to provide exciting opportunities for
further strengthening Florida’s pre-
paredness and response capabilities.
The Florida Hazardous Materials Dis-
trict Response Teams subcommittee is
commended for its hard-work and ac-
tivities accomplished to date with this
critical and complicated hazardous ma-
terials response program project.
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 1 1
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Hazardous MaterialEmergency Planning Grant(FORMERLY KNOWN AS HMTUSA AND HMTA)
In 1993, the Florida Department of
Community Affairs’ Division of Emer-
gency Management first applied for
and was awarded a hazardous materi-
als training and planning grant through
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
These funds were distributed statewide
to the 11 Local Emergency Planning
Committees through a contract with the
Department. Since then, funding has
been provided on an annual basis to
ensure first responder and higher level
training for hazardous materials inci-
dents (see Figure 1). In addition, plan-
ning funds are provided for exercise de-
sign, development and implementation;
commodity flow studies; risk analyses
and assessments; Section 302 facility
analyses and community workshops
and outreach (see Figure 2).
As indicated by Figure 1, although
1994 was the base year, each Local
Emergency Planning Committee district
ensured first responders were trained
at the Awareness Level. In 1996, the
Local Emergency Planning Committees
focused on providing expanded train-
ing, including Operations and Techni-
cian Level training as well as other haz-
ardous materials training for traditional
and non-traditional responders. The dis-
tribution of the Florida developed
Awareness Level training video for haz-
ardous materials correlated with an in-
crease in training (specifically in District
8) for fire responders. The reporting
years of 1997 and 1998 show a less
dramatic increase in total persons
trained than in previous years and this
trend is expected to continue. This is
primarily due to the majority of respond-
ers having received training early in the
program and the number of train-the-
trainer courses given, which allow for
training at the local level without the
necessity of state funds.
As shown in Figure 2, on an annual
basis each Local Emergency Planning
Committee chooses a planning project
to further awareness of hazardous ma-
terials issues in its region. Although oc-
casionally a Local Emergency Planning
Committee will repeat a project, new
projects are encouraged to ensure a
more comprehensive overview of the
hazardous materials issues per district.
The planning projects in the earlier
years of the grant centered on data col-
lection and analysis. In 1997 and 1998
chosen projects have been geared to-
ward the Community Outreach and
Awareness campaign. With the in-
crease of industry in the state, each
Local Emergency Planning Committee
strives to have the most up-to-date in-
formation available on the risks of haz-
ardous materials. Through the U.S.
Department of Transportation Hazard-
ous Materials Emergency Planning
Grant, the Planning Committees will
have the continued opportunity to en-
sure that the most current information
is shared with their community.
Each Local Emergency Planning
Committee has enhanced the capabili-
ties of their first responders, as well as
providing citizens a comprehensive
analysis of the hazardous materials
within their region. Additionally, each
Planning Committee has provided tech-
nical assistance to facilities and local
governments regarding the transporta-
tion, use and storage of hazardous
materials.
The U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion Hazardous Materials Emergency
Planning Grant has been utilized to
ensure that citizens and facilities are
aware of the location and distribution
of hazardous materials statewide. This
grant program ensures that cooperation
between the Local Emergency Planning
Committee, the Division of Emergency
Management and local entities is main-
tained; and that a collaborative effort is
made by all parties to inform the citi-
zens of the state regarding the impacts
hazardous materials.
1998 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORTSERC
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 1 3
DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 71994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals 1994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals
Awareness 266 0 59 226 313 864 Awareness 51 0 109 35 55 250
Operations 0 0 7 53 73 133 Operations 27 0 4 17 19 67
Technician 0 0 49 0 0 49 Technician 0 0 5 0 0 5
Other 0 0 21 0 0 21 Other 0 0 0 37 0 37
Total 266 0 136 279 386 1,067 Total 78 0 118 89 74 359
DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 81994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals 1994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals
Awareness 22 0 63 606 428 1,119 Awareness 71 0 3,478 134 218 3,901
Operations 19 0 116 22 51 208 Operations 65 0 68 54 22 209
Technician 0 0 4 0 0 4 Technician 0 0 50 21 0 71
Other 0 0 175 0 161 336 Other 0 0 170 9 34 213
Total 41 0 358 628 640 1,667 Total 136 0 3,766 218 274 4,394
DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 91994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals 1994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals
Awareness 649 0 125 265 183 1,222 Awareness 40 0 71 430 91 632
Operations 22 0 35 0 150 207 Operations 60 0 3 12 0 75
Technician 0 0 31 12 40 83 Technician 0 0 19 0 0 19
Other 0 0 134 39 4 177 Other 0 0 5 0 0 5
Total 671 0 325 316 377 1,689 Total 100 0 98 442 91 731
DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 101994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals 1994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals
Awareness 121 0 59 0 32 212 Awareness 120 0 53 0 0 173
Operations 2 0 0 0 4 6 Operations 0 0 6 0 65 71
Technician 4 0 0 31 65 100 Technician 0 0 4 59 0 63
Other 0 0 46 36 15 97 Other 0 0 4 0 0 4
Total 127 0 105 67 116 415 Total 120 0 67 59 65 311
DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 111994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals 1994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals
Awareness 105 0 43 73 0 221 Awareness 28 0 31 0 36 95
Operations 105 0 3 45 27 180 Operations 46 0 0 44 22 112
Technician 0 0 11 25 0 36 Technician 0 0 0 0 78 78
Other 92 0 9 19 16 136 Other 0 0 69 32 0 101
Total 302 0 66 162 43 573 Total 74 0 100 76 136 386
DISTRICT 6 GRAND TOTAL1994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals 1994 1995* 1996 1997 1998 Totals
Awareness 44 0 310 2 0 356 Awareness 1,517 0 4,401 1,771 1,356 9,045
Operations 44 0 135 290 32 501 Operations 390 0 377 537 465 1,769
Technician 0 0 343 1 11 355 Technician 4 0 516 149 194 863
Other 0 0 274 16 0 290 Other 92 0 907 188 230 1,417
Total 88 0 1,062 309 43 1,502 Total 2,003 0 6,201 2,645 2,245 13,094
* 1995 FIGURES UNAVAILABLE
Figure 1: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAZARDOUS MATERIALSEMERGENCY PLANNING GRANT TRAINING BY LEPC DISTRICT
1 4 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
DIST
RICT
1994
1995
*19
9619
9719
9819
99
Dist
rict 1
Com
mod
ity F
low
Stud
yUn
avai
labl
eQ
uality
Con
trol o
f Sub
mitt
edCo
mm
unity
Wor
ksho
psSh
elte
r-In-
Plac
eSh
elte
r-In-
Plac
eTi
er II
Info
rmat
ion
Educ
atio
n En
hanc
emen
t
Dist
rict 2
Need
s As
sess
men
t for
Unav
aila
ble
Com
mod
ity F
low
Stud
ySe
ctio
n 30
2 Fa
cility
Com
mun
ity W
orks
hops
&LE
PC P
lan
Exer
cise
Haza
rdou
s M
ater
ials
Team
sO
utre
ach
Sect
ion
302
Facil
ity O
utre
ach
Dist
rict 3
Enha
nced
Haz
ards
Unav
aila
ble
Facil
ity H
azar
dsLE
PC E
xerc
iseCo
mm
unity
Wor
ksho
ps &
LEPC
Pla
n Ex
ercis
eAn
alys
isAn
alys
is Su
mm
ary
Sect
ion
302
Facil
ity O
utre
ach
Dist
rict 4
Need
s As
sess
men
t of
Unav
aila
ble
Com
mun
ity W
orks
hops
Sect
ion
302
Facil
ityCo
mm
unity
Wor
ksho
ps &
Com
mun
ity W
orks
hops
&Ha
zard
ous
Mat
eria
lsO
utre
ach
Sect
ion
302
Facil
ity O
utre
ach
Sect
ion
302
Facil
ity O
utre
ach
Dist
rict 5
Com
mod
ity F
low
Stud
yUn
avai
labl
eFa
cility
Haz
ards
Ana
lysis
Qua
lity C
ontro
l of
Com
mun
ity W
orks
hops
&Co
mm
unity
Wor
ksho
ps &
Sum
mar
ySu
bmitt
ed T
ier I
I Inf
orm
atio
nSe
ctio
n 30
2 Fa
cility
Out
reac
hSe
ctio
n 30
2 Fa
cility
Out
reac
h
Dist
rict 6
Com
mod
ity F
low
Stud
yUn
avai
labl
eCo
mm
unity
Wor
ksho
psCo
mm
unity
Wor
ksho
psCo
mm
odity
Flo
w St
udy
+Co
mm
odity
Flo
w St
udy
Dist
rict 7
Enha
nced
Haz
ards
Ana
lysis
Unav
aila
ble
Com
mun
ity W
orks
hops
Sect
ion
302
Facil
ity O
utre
ach
Com
mod
ity F
low
Stud
yLE
PC P
lan
Exer
cise
Dist
rict 8
Com
mod
ity F
low
Stud
yUn
avai
labl
eQ
uality
Con
trol o
f Sub
mitt
edCo
mm
unity
Wor
ksho
psCo
mm
unity
Wor
ksho
ps &
Qua
lity C
ontro
l of S
ubm
itted
Tier
II In
form
atio
nSe
ctio
n 30
2 Fa
cility
Out
reac
hTi
er II
Info
rmat
ion
Dist
rict 9
Enha
nced
Haz
ards
Ana
lysis
Unav
aila
ble
Facil
ity H
azar
ds A
nalys
isLE
PC E
xerc
iseFa
cility
Haz
ards
Ana
lysis
Com
mun
ity W
orks
hops
&Su
mm
ary
Sum
mar
ySe
ctio
n 30
2 Fa
cility
Out
reac
h
Dist
rict 1
0Ne
eds
Asse
ssm
ent f
orUn
avai
labl
eCo
mm
unity
Wor
ksho
psCo
mm
odity
Flo
w St
udy
LEPC
Pla
nnin
g Co
mm
ittee
Com
mun
ity W
orks
hops
& H
azar
dous
Mat
eria
ls Te
ams
Plan
Exe
rcise
Sect
ion
302
Facil
ity O
utre
ach
Dist
rict 1
1Ne
eds
Asse
ssm
ent f
orUn
avai
labl
eFa
cility
Haz
ards
Ana
lysis
Qua
lity C
ontro
l of S
ubm
itted
LEPC
Pla
nnin
g Co
mm
ittee
Com
mun
ity W
orks
hops
& H
azar
dous
Mat
eria
ls Te
ams
Sum
mar
yTi
er II
Info
rmat
ion
Plan
Exe
rcise
Sect
ion
302
Facil
ity O
utre
ach
* D
ata
for
1995
is u
nava
ilabl
e+ N
ot b
egun
due
to E
mer
genc
y E
vent
s
Fig
ure
2: U
.S. D
EP
AR
TM
EN
T O
F T
RA
NS
PO
RTA
TIO
N H
AZ
AR
DO
US
MA
TE
RIA
LS
EM
ER
GE
NC
Y P
LA
NN
ING
GR
AN
T P
RO
JE
CT
S B
Y L
EP
C D
IST
RIC
T
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 1 5
TRI:Toxic Release Inventory
The 1998 Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) reporting year brought sev-
eral important changes to the
Section 313 Program. Most notable of
the changes are the addition of seven
new sectors to the list of industry groups
subject to the TRI reporting require-
ments. These industry groups repre-
sent the first set of non-manufacturing
industries to be added to the Section
313 reporting requirements with the ex-
ception of the federal facilities which
were added by Executive Order in 1993.
Following are the industry sectors in-
cluded in the Final Rule:
◆ Coal mining;
◆ Metal mining;
◆ Electric utilities that combust coal
and/or oil;
◆ Chemicals and allied products-
wholesale;
◆ Commercial hazardous waste treat-
ment;
◆ Petroleum bulk terminals-wholesale;
and
◆ Solvent recovery services.
The U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency believes the addition of these
non-manufacturing industry groups will
significantly increase the public’s knowl-
edge about releases, transfers and
other waste management practices in-
volving toxic chemicals.
The 1998 Florida Legislature en-
acted changes to the state reporting re-
quirements for Section 313 which in-
cluded modifications to the fee system
and a change in the effective date for
the listed substances covered under
Section 313. The fee change, imple-
mented by revisions to Rule Chapter
9G-14, Florida Administrative Code, re-
duced the annual fee for alternate
threshold filings (Form A) from $150 per
chemical report to $75 per chemical
report. This fee reduction reflects the
shorter processing time required for the
less complicated Form A reports. The
annual filing fee for the more complex
Form R remains at $150 per chemical
report.
In conjunction with EPA, staff con-
ducted outreach workshops to inform
the recently included industry sectors
of their potential new Section 313 re-
porting obligations. Staff also began to
1998 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORTSERC
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 1 7
focus additional outreach efforts on in-
dustry sectors already covered under
Section 313. These industries which
include paint manufacturing, boat build-
ers and cultured marble users among
others, have historically low TRI com-
pliance rates and the increased techni-
cal assistance should increase Section
313 reporting among these types of fa-
cilities.
To further assist expanded compli-
ance, a 1998 TRI reporting package will
be mailed to approximately 1,000 facili-
ties prior to the July 1, 1999 deadline.
Of this number, only 548 are facilities
that have previously reported under
Section 313. The remaining 452 facili-
ties, identified as potentially subject to
Section 313 based on their Standard
Industrial Classification code, include
facilities in the newly included industry
sectors as well as other facilities that
may have Section 313 reporting obli-
gations.
Looking to the future, a number of
changes are in the works for the 1999
reporting year (reports are due July 1,
2000). The EPA has proposed lower
reporting thresholds for certain persis-
tent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals
that are subject to reporting under Sec-
tion 313. EPA has also proposed lower
reporting thresholds for dioxin and di-
oxin-like compounds that are proposed
for addition to the Section 313 list of
toxic chemicals. In addition, EPA has
proposed adding certain persistent
bioaccumulative toxic chemicals to the
list of chemicals subject to reporting
under Section 313. The proposed ad-
dition of these chemicals is based on
their carcinogenicity or other chronic
human health effects and/or adverse
effects on the environment. The EPA
also proposed the requirement that
separate reports be filed for tetraethyl
lead and tetramethyl lead which are cur-
rently listed under the lead compounds
category. This proposed rule could be-
come final sometime in the Fall of 1999.
With the addition of the new indus-
try groups for 1998 and the proposed
changes for 1999, the TRI program may
experience a reversal of the downward
trend of recent years in the number of
reports submitted. Florida’s increased
outreach efforts to certain industries will
also likely bolster TRI reporting num-
bers.
1 8 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
Florida’s SupplementalEnvironmental Projects
The Florida Department of Com-
munity Affairs began investigat-
ing facilities for violations of Sec-
tion 304 (accidental release notification
requirements) of the Emergency Plan-
ning and Community Right-To-Know
Act in 1989. Since that time, the De-
partment has entered into 29 settlement
agreements with facilities cited for al-
leged violations of accidental release
notifications. Over the years, Supple-
mental Environmental Projects have
been used in approximately 50 percent
of these settlements.
Supplemental Environmental Pro-
jects are projects that are used as al-
ternative methods to monetary fines for
resolving enforcement actions under
EPCRA. The U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, in 1991, issued the Fi-
nal Supplemental Environmental
Projects Policy which set forth guide-
lines for EPA to follow when using
Supplemental Environmental Projects
in settlements of enforcement actions.
The policy, which was revised in 1995,
outlines seven broad categories of
types of projects that are eligible for
Supplemental Environmental Projects:
◆ Public Health
◆ Pollution Prevention
◆ Pollution Reduction
◆ Environmental Restoration and
Protection
◆ Assessments and Audits
◆ Environmental Compliance
Promotion
◆ Emergency Planning and Prepared-
ness
Supplemental Environmental Pro-
jects are perceived as a more positive
approach to settling enforcement ac-
tions and allow the enforcing authority
and the potential violator to reach an
agreement that has a direct benefit to
the environment and the local commu-
nity in which the incident occurred.
In Florida, facilities investigated un-
der Section 304 are given the option to
enter into an agreement that involves a
Supplemental Environmental Project or
pay a flat monetary penalty. Those in-
terested in Supplemental Environmen-
tal Projects are provided with informa-
tion on the different types of projects
considered as eligible projects. They are
also encouraged to contact their local
emergency management offices and
Local Emergency Planning Committees
to identify projects that meet the local
need or enhance local capabilities.
Since 1991, the Florida Hazardous Ma-
terials Program has used Supplemen-
tal Environmental Projects in 14 settle-
ment agreements. Following are some
of the types of projects used over the
years:
1998 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORTSERC
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 1 9
◆ Outreach activities regarding
Emergency Planning and Commu-
nity Right-To-Know Act require-
ments
◆ Hazardous materials training for
local responders
◆ Facility Identification/Compliance
Promotion
◆ Printing Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know Act
advertisements and articles in
trade journals and magazines
◆ Donation of equipment to Local
Emergency Planning Committees,
local emergency management
offices and fire departments
◆ Facility safety improvements for pol-
lution and accidental release preven-
tion
One of the more interesting Supple-
mental Environmental Project applica-
tions involved the installation of a warn-
ing system equipped with sirens to no-
tify the outlying community of acciden-
tal releases. The facility sponsoring the
Supplemental Environmental Project
experienced an ammonia release that
impacted approximately 40 individuals
offsite and closed down a major high-
way for a short period. The impact of
the release could have been mitigated
in large part with a more efficient warn-
ing system for the community. The in-
stallation of the alert system which in-
volved extensive outreach and interac-
tion among the facility, other local in-
dustries, local government and the com-
munity was very successful and serves
as an excellent example of the benefits
of using Supplemental Environmental
Projects in enforcement actions.
Supplemental Environmental Proj-
ects exemplify the State Emergency
Response Commission’s philosophy of
working together with industry to pro-
mote a better prepared, safer and edu-
cated community with respect to the
threats posed by hazardous materials.
The Department of Community Affairs
and the SERC recognize the positive
benefits of Supplemental Environmen-
tal Projects and support the continued
use of them in implementing Section
304 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know Act.
2 0 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
THE STATE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
Our Other Office
F rom 8:00am to 5:00pm, Monday
through Friday, theCompliance
Planning staff is busy assisting
industry and local government with vari-
ous sections of the Emergency Plan-
ning Community Right-to-Know Act and
Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act.
However, when Florida is threatened or
experiencing a natural or man-made di-
saster the majority of the 15 plus people
that make up the Compliance Planning
staff switch gears and move to the State
Emergency Operations Center to serve
as Response Liaisons.
The State Emergency Operations
Center is divided into 17 different emer-
gency support functions known as
ESFs. Each ESF is responsible for sup-
porting local government in response
to and recovery from a natural or man-
made disaster. The role of the Re-
sponse Liaison is to serve as the single
point of contact between the county
Emergency Operations Center and the
state ESFs. What this entails is gather-
ing information from and providing in-
formation to the county and taking
county requests for resources. While,
at the onset, this may seem relatively
simple, there is much varied knowledge
that is required to perform these tasks
successfully. A working knowledge of
anything from sandbags to generators
to comfort stations is mandatory as is a
good understanding of the structure and
organization of local emergency man-
agement. Also, to communicate effec-
tively, it is imperative that a Response
Liaison have thorough knowledge of the
various Division of Emergency Manage-
ment programs to be able to comfort-
ably converse with counties during the
different stages of a disaster.
During 1998, the State Emergency
Operations Center was activated for
over 200 days as Florida experienced
disasters from floods to wild fires. Dur-
ing the summer of 1998 the state was
faced with a devastating drought the
consequences of which were numerous
fires. The role of the Response Liaison
changed considerably during this time.
Due to the specific nature of the re-
source requests from the county it was
necessary to interface more directly
with the Division of Forestry. Re-
sponse Liaisons were situated
within the Division of Forestry work
area to assist Forestry staff and
county personnel to utilize the re-
sources the State Emergency Op-
erations Center has to offer.
Staff also serve as State Emer-
gency Response Team chiefs, Op-
erations chiefs, Rapid Impact As-
sessment Team leaders and
Branch chiefs during times of acti-
vation. State Emergency Response
Team chiefs handle policy issues that
arise during a disaster while Operations
chiefs and Branch chiefs deal with the
coordination of response efforts. Rapid
Impact Assessment Team leaders, on
the other hand, lead a small team that
goes into an impacted area directly af-
ter an event to assist in assessing the
immediate needs of a community.
It is essential that Division of Emer-
gency Management staff work together
as a team in times of disaster and Com-
pliance Planning staff make up an im-
portant part of that team. From fires to
tornadoes, floods to hurricanes and
even mass migration, staff must be pre-
pared at any time to drop what they are
doing, put on their “other hat” and as-
sist the citizens of Florida.
1998 STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORTSERC
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 2 1
District1 WEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
LEPC Chairperson: Richard Delp / Staff Contact:Terry JosephPost Office Box 486 • Pensacola 32593-0486(850) 595-8910 s/c 695-8910 FAX: (850) 595-8967e-mail address: [email protected]
2 APALACHEE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILLEPC Chairperson: Richard Smith / Staff Contact: Neil Fleckenstein314 E. Central Ave., Rm. 119 • Blountstown 32424(850) 674-4571 s/c 771-4417 FAX: (850) 674-4574Tallahassee Office (850) 488-6211 FAX: (850) 488-1616e-mail address: [email protected]
33333 NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILLEPC Chairperson: John Hudson / Staff Contact: Dwayne Mundy2009 N.W. 67 Place, Suite A • Gainesville 32653(352) 955-2200 s/c 625-2200 FAX: (352) 955-2209e-mail address: [email protected]
4 NORTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILLEPC Chairperson: Michael Chlada / Staff Contact: Wayne Dyess9143 Phillips Highway, Suite 350 • Jacksonville 32256(904) 363-6375 s/c 874-6350 FAX: (904) 363-6356e-mail address: [email protected]
5 WITHLACOOCHEE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILLEPC Chairperson: Milton Hill / Staff Contact: Charlotte Neupauer1241 S.W. 10th Street • Ocala 34474-2798(352) 732-1315 s/c 667-1315 FAX: (352) 732-1319e-mail address: [email protected]
6 EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILLEPC Chairperson: Phillip Graves / Staff Contact: Teri Hunalp1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105 • Winter Park 32789(407) 623-1075 ext. 335 s/c 334-1075 FAX: (407) 623-1084e-mail address: [email protected]
7 CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILLEPC Chairperson: Ed Higby / Staff Contact: Ricky KeckPost Office Drawer 2089 • Bartow 33831(941) 534-7130 ext. 104 s/c 549-7130 FAX: (941) 534-7138e-mail address: [email protected]
8 TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILLEPC Chairperson: Ernie Hiers / Staff Contact: Bill Lofgren9455 Koger Blvd., Suite 219 • St. Petersburg 33702-2491(813) 577-5151 ext. 248 s/c 586-3217 FAX: (813) 570-5118e-mail address: [email protected]
9 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILLEPC Chairperson: Bruce Porter/ Staff Contact: John GibbonsPost Office Box 3455 • North Ft. Myers 33918-3455(941) 656-7720 s/c 749-7720 FAX: (941) 656-7724e-mail address: [email protected]
10 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILLEPC Chairperson: John Gojkovich / Staff Contact: Bruce Pisani301 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 300 • Stuart 34994(561) 221-4060 s/c 269-4060 FAX: (561) 221-4067e-mail address: [email protected]
11 SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILLEPC Chairperson: George Danz/ Staff Contact: Evangeline Suarez Pearson3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 140 • Hollywood 33021(954) 985-4416 s/c 473-4416 FAX: (954) 985-4417e-mail address: [email protected]
Figure 3: Local Emergency Planning Committees
4/1/99
2 2 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
1
23 4
5
6
78
10
9
11
Esca
mbi
a SantaRosa Okaloosa
Walton
Holmes
Washington
Jackson
CalhounBay
Gulf
Liberty
Gadsden
Franklin
Leon
Wakulla
Jeffe
rson
Madison
Taylor
Lafayette
Suwannee
Hamilton
Dixie
ColumbiaBaker
Union
BradfordClay
Putnam
Nassau
Duval
Alachua
Levy
Gilch
rist
St.Johns
Flagler
Marion
Volusia
Citrus
Hernando
Pasco
Lake
Seminole
Sum
ter
Orange
Osceola
Polk
HardeeManatee
SarasotaDeSoto
Highlands
Glades
Brevard
IndianRiver
St.Lucie
Okeechobee
Martin
Palm BeachHendry
Charlotte
Lee
Broward
Pine
llas
Collier
DadeMonroe
Hillsborough
M o n r o e C o u n t y
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
28
55
70
59
41
32
55
128
1214
0
50
100
150
200
250
District1
112
69 69
175
98
121
192
205
127
106
142
District2
District3
District4
District5
District6
District7
District8
District9
District10
District11
Figure 4: Section 304 Incidents by Year 1988-1998
Figure 5: Total Hazardous Materials Incidents by LEPC District 1998
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 2 3
Figure 6: Florida’s Top Ten Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHSs) and Inventory Levels
Figure 7: Florida’s Top Ten TRI Substances and Release Totals
Phosphoric Acid
Nitrate Compounds
Ammonia Zinc Compounds
Methanol
Styrene
Lead CompoundsFormic Acid
CopperN-Butyl Alcohol
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Sulfuric Acid (non-aerosol forms) 703,622,357
Ammonia 366,494,741
Adiponitrile 580,050,000
Nitric Acid 32,611,121
Chlorine 29,329,846
Sulfur Dioxide 14,766,695
Cadmium Oxide 12,968,061
Hyrogen Sulfide 10,730,459
Hydrogen Fluoride 5,471,686
Bromomethane 5,131,849
Release
Chemical Estimate (lbs.)
Phosphoric Acid 26,032,610
Nitrate Compounds 20,117,611
Methanol 17,253,157
Ammonia 10,866,480
Zinc Compounds 5,678,761
Styrene 4,579,829
Lead Compounds 4,048,916
Formic Acid 3,806,700
Copper 3,243,753
N-Butyl Alcohol 2,465,840
Ammonia
Sulfuric Acid
Adiponitrile
Nitric AcidChlorine
Cadmium OxideHydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen FluorideBromomethane
Sulfur Dioxide
2 4 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Adiponitrile 58,050,000
Ammonia 44,628,389
Nitric Acid 28,302,314
Hydrogen Sulfide 10,643,803
Sulfuric Acid 7,163,813
Cyclohexylamine 4,012,300
Acrylonitrile 3,600,000
Hydrogen Chloride 2,168,785
Chlorine 1,485,244
Vinyl Acetate Monomer 480,000
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Sulfuric Acid 3,178,177
Chlorine 772,864
Nitric Acid 246,825
Bromomethane 103,720
Sulfur Trioxide 35,194
Cyclohexylamine 19,139
Aldicarb 15,845
Ethion 14,700
Sulfur Dioxide 12,200
Boron Triflouride 9,440
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Sulfuric Acid 144,645,160
Ammonia 10,130,991
Chlorine 2,247,390
Vanadium Pentoxide 1,540,661
Nitric Acid 206,000
Cadmium Oxide 166,000
Sulfur Dioxide 118,565
Trimethylchlorosilane 108,304
Hydrogen Sulfide 86,406
Bromomethane 78,777
District 1
District 2
District 3
Figure 8: Top Ten Section 302 Chemicals by LEPC District
Adiponitrile
Ammonia
Nitric Acid
Hyrogen Sulfide
Sulfuric Acid
CyclohexylamineAcrylonitrile
ChlorineVinyl Acetate Monomer
Hydrogen Chloride
Sulfuric AcidNitric Acid
Chlorine
BromomethaneSulfur Trioxide
Sulfur Dioxide
Cyclohexylamine
Boron Triflouride
AldicarbEthion
Hydrogen SulfideBromomethane
Sulfuric Acid
Ammonia
Chlorine
Nitric AcidVanadium Pentoxide
Cadmium OxideSulfur Dioxide
Trimethylchlorosilane
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 2 5
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Chlorine 7,279,955
Sulfuric Acid 6,220,438
Ammonia 1,804,890
Sulfur Dioxide 1,230,427
Nitric Acid 680,500
Ethoprop 511,395
Hydrogen Chloride 377,384
Acrylamide 360,000
Hydrogen Peroxide 213,854
Endosulfan 137,195
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Chlorine 571,880
Sulfuric Acid 346,244
Nitric Acid 100,174
Ammonia 89,349
Hydrogen Fluoride 66,749
Formaldehyde 43,082
Bromomethane 18,800
Toluene 2,4-Diisocyanate 18,704
Toluene 2,6-Diisocyanate 10,017
Hydrogen Peroxide 6,216
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Sulfuric Acid 26,594,753
Chlorine 4,101,561
Nitrogen Dioxide 2,265,342
Ammonia 1,785,059
Hydrazine 676,859
Nitric Acid 567,432
Formaldehyde 397,943
Aldicarb 266,072
Ethoprop 253,397
Propylene Oxide 250,000
District 4
District 5
District 6
Top Ten Section 302 Chemicals by LEPC District (continued)
Sulfuric Acid Ammonia
Chlorine
Ethoprop
Hydrogen Peroxide
Endosulfan
Nitric AcidSulfur Dioxide
Acrylamide
Hydrogen Chloride
Sulfuric Acid Nitric Acid
Chlorine
Hydrogen Fluoride
Bromomethane
Hydrogen PeroxideToluene 2,6 Diisocyanate
Formaldehyde
Ammonia
Toluene 2,4 Diisocyanate
Sulfuric AcidNitrogen Dioxide
Chlorine
EthopropPropylene Oxide
Aldicarb
HydrazineNitric Acid
Ammonia
Formaldehyde
2 6 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Sulfuric Acid 27,973,572
Cadmium Oxide 12,800,000
Sulfur Dioxide 12,289,087
Ammonia 12,116,067
Vanadium Pentoxide 1,930,772
Chlorine 984,201
Nitric Acid 708,863
Hydrogen Fluoride 571,274
Aldicarb 503,705
Phosphorus 500,000
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Ammonia 294,489,683
Sulfuric Acid 224,617,915
Hydrogen Fluoride 4,600,302
Chlorine 4,528,844
Bromomethane 3,274,896
Vanadium Pentoxide 1,510,093
Nitric Acid 1,418,205
Sulfur Dioxide 472,226
Aldicarb 288,539
Ethoprop 250,720
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Sulfuric Acid 2,160,556
Chlorine 1,061,068
Bromomethane 579,240
Ammonia 307,086
Aldicarb 117,480
Sulfur Dioxide 56,850
Ethion 29,509
Paraquat Dichloride 15,808
Phorate 14,024
Endosulfan 11,805
District 7
District 8
District 9
Top Ten Section 302 Chemicals by LEPC District (continued)
Sulfuric Acid
Cadmium OxideAmmonia
Chlorine
Hydrogen FluorideNitric Acid
Vanadium Pentoxide
Aldicarb
Sulfur Dioxide
PhosphorusAldicarb
Sulfuric Acid
Ammonia
Bromomethane
Nitric AcidVanadium Pentoxide
ChlorineHydrogen Fluoride
Sulfur DioxideAldicarb
Ethoprop
Sulfuric Acid
Bromomethane
Chlorine
Sulfur Dioxide
Phorate
EthionParaquat Dichloride
Ammonia
Aldicarb
Endosulfan
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 2 7
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Sulfuric Acid 3,715,615
Chlorine 2,109,634
Phorate 1,190,150
Ammonia 452,847
Bromomethane 390,950
Nitric Acid 337,298
Sulfur Dioxide 174,000
Ethoprop 142,340
Zinc Phosphide 130,000
Paraquat Dichloride 109,947
Chemical MaximumInventory (lbs)
Chlorine 4,187,205
Sulfuric Acid 3,280,473
Ammonia 685,680
Bromomethane 635,803
Hydrogen Peroxide 236,000
Phenol 114,808
Formaldehyde 100,885
Sulfur Dioxide 65,800
Hydrogen Fluoride 61,665
Nitric Acid 41,110
District 10
District 11
Top Ten Section 302 Chemicals by LEPC District (continued)
Sulfuric Acid
Phorate
Chlorine
Bromomethane
Paraquat Dichloride
Nitric Acid
Ethoprop
Zinc Phosphide
Sulfur Dioxide
Ammonia
Chlorine
Ammonia
Sulfuric Acid
Hydrogen Peroxide
Bromomethane
Formaldehyde
Hydrogen FluorideSulfur Dioxide
Phenol
Nitric Acid
2 8 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
Figure 9:Florida’s Section 302 Facilities by LEPC District
Number of Section 302 Facilities
101-350 Facilities
51-100 Facilities
26-50 Facilities
25 or less Facilities
1
23
5
78
11
4
6
109
Esca
mbi
a SantaRosa Okaloosa
Walton
Bay
GulfFranklin
Wakulla
Jeffe
rson
Taylor
Dixie
Nassau
Levy
St.Johns
Flagler
Volusia
Citrus
Hernando
Pasco
Manatee
Sarasota
Brevard
IndianRiver
St.Lucie
Martin
Palm Beach
Charlotte
Lee
Broward
Pine
llas
Collier
Dade
Monroe
Hillsborough
M o n r o e C o u n t y
Holmes
Washington
Jackson
Calhoun
Liberty
Gadsden
Leon Madison
Lafayette
Suwannee
Hamilton
ColumbiaBaker
Union
BradfordClay
PutnamAlachua
Gilch
rist
Marion
Lake
Seminole
Sum
ter
Orange
Osceola
Polk
Hardee
DeSotoHighlands
Glades
Okeechobee
Hendry
Duval
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Distric
t 2
Distric
t 3
Distric
t 4
Distric
t 5
Distric
t 6
Distric
t 1
Distric
t 7
Distric
t 8
Distric
t 9
Distric
t 10
Distric
t 11
322
230 224
388
177
737
459
306
415360
617
Total Section 302 Facilities by LEPC District
Total Facilities= 4,235
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 2 9
Figure 10: Florida’s Section 311/312 Facilities by LEPC District
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Distric
t 2
Distric
t 3
Distric
t 4
Distric
t 5
Distric
t 6
Distric
t 1
Distric
t 7
Distric
t 8
Distric
t 9
Distric
t 10
Distric
t 11
1029
533459
1208
573
1845
787688
843
1169
1649
Section 311/312 Facilities by LEPC District
Number of Section 311/312 Facilities
501-1000 Facilities
101-500 Facilities
50-100 Facilities
Less than 50 Facilities
1
23
5
78
109
11
Esca
mbi
a SantaRosa Okaloosa
Walton
Bay
GulfFranklin
Wakulla
Jeffe
rson
Taylor
Dixie
Nassau
Duval
Levy
St.Johns
Flagler
Volusia
Citrus
Hernando
Pasco
Manatee
Sarasota
Brevard
IndianRiver
St.Lucie
Martin
Palm Beach
Charlotte
Lee
Broward
Pine
llas
Collier
Dade
Monroe
Hillsborough
M o n r o e C o u n t y
Holmes
Washington
Jackson
Calhoun
Liberty
Gadsden
Leon Madison
Lafayette
Suwannee
Hamilton
ColumbiaBaker
Union
BradfordClay
PutnamAlachua
Gilch
rist
Marion
Lake
Seminole
Sum
ter
Orange
Osceola
Polk
Hardee
DeSotoHighlands
Glades
Okeechobee
Hendry
4
6
Total Facilities= 10,783
3 0 • 1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT
Figure 11: Florida’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Facilities by LEPC District
0
50
100
150
200
Distric
t 2
Distric
t 3
Distric
t 4
Distric
t 5
Distric
t 6
Distric
t 1
Distric
t 7
Distric
t 8
Distric
t 9
Distric
t 10
Distric
t 11
40
1427
101
43
148
77
47 43
146
184
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Facilities by LEPC District
Total TRI Facilities
51-100 Facilities
26-50 Facilities
11-25 Facilities
10 or less Facilities
1
23
5
8
9
11
4
6
10
Esca
mbi
a SantaRosa Okaloosa
Walton
Bay
GulfFranklin
Wakulla
Jeffe
rson
Taylor
Dixie
Nassau
Levy
St.Johns
Flagler
Volusia
Citrus
Hernando
Pasco
Manatee
Sarasota
Brevard
IndianRiver
St.Lucie
Martin
Palm Beach
Charlotte
Lee
Broward
Pine
llas
Collier
Dade
Monroe
Hillsborough
M o n r o e C o u n t y
Holmes
Washington
Jackson
Calhoun
Liberty
Gadsden
Leon Madison
Lafayette
Suwannee
Hamilton
ColumbiaBaker
Union
BradfordClay
PutnamAlachua
Gilch
rist
Marion
Lake
Seminole
Sum
ter
Orange
Osceola
Polk
Hardee
DeSotoHighlands
Glades
Okeechobee
Hendry
Duval
7
Total Facilities= 870
1 9 9 8 S TAT E E M E R G E N C Y R E S P O N S E C O M M I S S I O N A N N UA L R E P O RT • 3 1