Chemical Safety
Emergency Response Community Views on the Adequacy of Federally Required Chemical Information Gao ID: GAO-02-799 July 31, 2002The United States has become increasingly aware of the need to be prepared for emergencies, including those involving hazardous chemicals. The local emergency responders and representatives from national organizations that GAO contacted have varied views on the adequacy of (1) information in chemical inventory forms and risk management plans and (2) the manner in which that information is delivered. Most members of the emergency response community believe that the manner of delivery of federally required information could be improved. Environmental Protection Agency officials cited their efforts to ensure compliance with provisions of the Clean Air Act's risk management program. However, their sense of the extent of compliance varies across three specific provisions; that is, the extent to which (1) facilities have registered risk management plans, (2) the plans contain accurate information, and (3) local responders are receiving the plans.
GAO-02-799, Chemical Safety: Emergency Response Community Views on the Adequacy of Federally Required Chemical Information
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-799
entitled 'Chemical Safety: Emergency Response Community Views on the
Adequacy of Federally Required Chemical Information' which was released
on July 31, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
July 2002:
Chemical Safety:
Emergency Response Community Views on the Adequacy of Federally Required
Chemical Information:
GAO-02-799:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Emergency Response Community Has Varied Views on the Adequacy of
Federally Required Chemical Information and the Manner in Which It Is
Delivered:
EPA‘s Sense of Compliance with the Risk Management Plan Requirements
Varies:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Sample Chemical Inventory Form:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Abbreviations:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 31, 2002:
The Honorable James Jeffords:
Chairman:
The Honorable Robert C. Smith:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable W.J. ’Billy“ Tauzin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John D. Dingell:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives:
In light of recent terrorist activity within our nation‘s borders, the
United States has become increasingly aware of the need to be prepared
to respond to emergencies, including those involving hazardous
chemicals. To help protect communities from incidents involving
hazardous chemicals, local emergency responders need information such
as the types of chemicals used or stored at facilities in their
communities. Two federal laws require chemical facilities to provide
such information: the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act of 1986 [Footnote 1] (EPCRA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. [Footnote 2] EPCRA, among other things, requires facilities to
annually complete and submit chemical inventory forms to their state
and local emergency response officials to help them prepare for and
respond to chemical incidents. The Clean Air Act‘s risk management plan
provisions, which focus on accident prevention and preparedness
planning, require facilities that handle specified quantities of
certain substances to develop and register risk management plans with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at least every 5 years. The
Clean Air Act also requires that these plans be submitted to state and
local agencies responsible for preparing for or responding to accidental
chemical releases. EPA oversees the implementation of both acts, but has
delegated some authority for implementation of the Clean Air Act‘s risk
management provisions to some state and local governments.
In 1999, largely because of concerns that terrorists could easily access
chemical facilities‘ information on the Internet, the Congress passed
the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory
Relief Act [Footnote 3] primarily to limit the public availability of
sensitive information under the Clean Air Act. This act also mandated
that we report, within 3 years, on the adequacy of chemical information
required to be submitted to local emergency response personnel to help
them respond to chemical incidents, the adequacy of the delivery of
that information, and the level of compliance with the requirement to
submit the information. As agreed with your offices, this report
addresses that mandate by (1) providing views of the emergency response
community on the adequacy of the information in federally required
chemical inventory forms and risk management plans and the manner in
which that information is delivered and (2) describing EPA‘s actions to
ensure compliance with the risk management plan provisions”
specifically, whether facilities are registering risk management plans,
the plans contain accurate information, and local responders are
obtaining them”and EPA‘s sense of the extent of compliance.
To obtain the views of members of the emergency response community on
the adequacy of chemical information and its delivery, we interviewed 51
local emergency responders (emergency planners and fire fighters) from
10 out of almost 8,000 communities that have at least one chemical
facility that registered a risk management plan. While this work is not
generalizable to all communities, it provides useful examples of the
views of local communities. To obtain a national perspective, we
interviewed representatives from 11 national organizations, including
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We chose these organizations
because they represent responders, the chemical industry, or government
officials who are concerned about emergency response or because
officials from EPA‘s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office identified them as being knowledgeable of the issues. To
describe EPA‘s actions to ensure compliance and EPA‘s sense of
compliance with risk management plan provisions, we interviewed
officials from EPA‘s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office and all 10 EPA regional offices, which are responsible for
overseeing compliance. We performed our work between August 2001 and
July 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Appendix I provides further details about our scope and
methodology.
Results in Brief:
The local emergency responders and representatives from national
organizations we contacted have varied views on the adequacy of (1)
information in chemical inventory forms and risk management plans and
(2) the manner in which that information is delivered. Local responders
in most of the communities we contacted believe this information
generally meets their needs, but a few said that it was not adequate to
help them respond to chemical incidents; representatives of the
national organizations were divided in their opinions on the adequacy
of the information as well. Both local responders and national
organization representatives made suggestions that they believe would
improve the usefulness of the information. For example, some suggested
that:
* for both the chemical inventory forms and the risk management plans,
the specified quantities of hazardous chemicals that trigger reporting
requirements should be lowered and the lists of chemicals should be
expanded and;
* the chemical inventory forms should require facilities to report on
specific quantities of specified chemicals that they maintain rather
than broad ranges of quantities.
Most members of the emergency response community believe that the
manner of delivery of federally required information is generally
adequate but that it could be improved. Although the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act and the Clean Air Act do not specify a
particular manner for delivering the information, most local responders
we contacted receive the chemical information in hard copy. Some local
responders said they prefer hard copy, and others said they would prefer
to receive the information electronically. The national organizations
that addressed the adequacy of delivery commented that electronic
delivery would be more useful to responders.
EPA officials cited several agency efforts to ensure compliance with
provisions of the Clean Air Act‘s risk management program. However,
their sense of the extent of compliance varies across the three specific
provisions that we reviewed; that is, the extent to which (1)
facilities have registered risk management plans, (2) the plans contain
accurate information, and (3) local responders are receiving the plans.
More specifically:
* EPA officials said they have made significant efforts to identify
facilities required to register plans”for example, by reviewing federal
chemical databases for facilities that may need to register and
notifying facilities of their potential responsibilities. As of August
30, 2001, about 15,000 facilities had registered plans. While agency
officials have not determined the exact number of facilities required
to register, they believe, on the basis of the outreach efforts and
other steps taken by EPA regions, that most facilities have complied
with the registration requirement.
* Because EPA has reviewed only a small portion of the risk management
plans”about 15 percent as of September 30, 2001”and because these
reviews ranged from simply reading the plans to carrying out detailed
on-site inspections, the agency does not have a comprehensive picture
of the accuracy of information in the plans. Recognizing the need to
review more plans, but faced with resource constraints, EPA is
considering allowing facilities to hire EPA-certified auditors to
perform on-site inspections.
* While EPA has made some efforts to ensure local responders have
access to plans, the agency does not know the extent to which this is
occurring. Local responders from most of the communities we contacted
said that they generally had obtained copies of the plans, but some
national organizations raised concerns that not all local responders
had obtained them.
Background:
Under EPCRA, facilities that maintain specified quantities of certain
hazardous chemicals are required to annually submit chemical inventory
forms to state and local emergency response officials to help them
prepare for and respond to chemical incidents. The information to be
provided includes (1) an estimated range of the maximum amount of
specified hazardous chemicals present at the facility at any time
during the preceding calendar year, (2) an estimated range of the
average amount of these chemicals present daily, and (3) the location
in the facility of the specified chemicals. Inventory forms are
required for approximately 500,000 materials. See appendix II for an
example of a chemical inventory form.
Additionally, EPCRA requires the formation of local emergency planning
committees whose members include, at a minimum, local police, fire,
civil defense, public health, environmental, and transportation
officials, as well as representatives of facilities subject to the
emergency planning requirements, community groups, and the media. There
are approximately 3,500 local emergency planning committees across the
nation. Under the act, the committees are required to develop and
periodically review emergency response plans for their communities
that, among other things, identify chemical facilities and outline
procedures for response personnel to follow in the event of a chemical
incident. The chemical facilities are required to supply emergency
response information to the local emergency planning committee for
incorporation into the emergency response plans. While this report does
not specifically address them, EPCRA also has other provisions designed
to provide local responders with information about chemical hazards.
For example, facilities must notify local responders if there is a
release of a specified quantity of certain hazardous substances, and
facilities must submit to EPA a toxic chemical release inventory
covering releases that occurred during the preceding calendar year.
Under the Clean Air Act, chemical facilities maintaining more than a
specified amount of a regulated substance must register risk management
plans with EPA headquarters at least every 5 years. [Footnote 4]
Regulated substances include 77 toxic substances, such as ammonia and
chlorine, and 63 flammable substances, such as butane and hydrogen. A
risk management plan includes documentation that the facility has (1)
completed a hazard assessment that incorporates a 5-year accident
history, by substance by site, and an evaluation of potential
consequences to surrounding communities of chemical releases that
includes the worst-case scenario; (2) developed a prevention program
that includes facility safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring,
and employee training measures; and (3) developed a response program
that outlines emergency health care procedures, employee training
measures, and procedures for informing the public and local agencies
responsible for responding to chemical releases. The act requires that
risk management plans be submitted to local agencies or entities
responsible for preparing for or responding to chemical releases. EPA‘s
implementing regulations for risk management plans [Footnote 5] require
chemical facilities to coordinate emergency response plans created
under their emergency response programs with community emergency
response plans.
Emergency Response Community Has Varied Views on the Adequacy of
Federally Required Chemical Information and the Manner in Which It Is
Delivered:
The members of the emergency response community we contacted have
varied views on the adequacy of the information reported in chemical
inventory forms and risk management plans and on the manner in which
that information is delivered. Most members of the community believe
that information provided in chemical inventory forms and risk
management plans is adequate to meet the needs of local responders, but
some do not share this view. In addition, many members made suggestions
to improve the usefulness of the information. Finally, some members of
the community question the usefulness of the manner in which the
federally required information is delivered.
Most Members of the Emergency Response Community We Contacted Believe
the Federally Required Information Is Adequate:
Local responders in most of the communities we contacted believe that
the information in the chemical inventory forms and the risk management
plans is generally adequate to help them prepare for and respond to
chemical incidents. Responders from eight of the communities find the
information in the inventory forms to be adequate and said they use it
in different ways, such as to identify specific chemicals at facilities,
determine the location of stored chemicals, and analyze the potential
effects of a chemical release on the surrounding community. Responders
from seven communities find the information in risk management plans
adequate. Some responders said they use the information in the plans to
develop community emergency response plans, one reported using it to
develop a ’quick action“ plan to share with other responders, and others
said they use it to conduct planning activities at facilities.
Representatives from five national organizations told us they believe
the federally required information is generally adequate to help local
responders prepare for chemical incidents. Representatives from the
American Chemistry Council, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the National
Association of State Fire Marshals said that the information in the
chemical inventory form is useful and critical in preparing for
chemical incidents. They said that the chemical inventory form helps
responders by identifying the extent of facilities‘ emergency response
capabilities. Regarding risk management plans, representatives from the
American Chemistry Council and the National Volunteer Fire Council
stated that the plans are useful in identifying small facilities that
store and use dangerous chemicals, such as chlorine, that were not
previously required to report federal information, and in identifying
the resources responders would need to respond to chemical incidents.
Local responders from a few communities question the adequacy of the
information. Local responders from three communities said they have
particular concerns about the accuracy and currency of the chemical
information they receive. For example, responders from two communities
said that they do not know if the information in the risk management
plans they receive is accurate and that there is no way to be sure. (As
discussed in a subsequent section of this report, because EPA has
performed limited verification of risk management plans, the agency
does not have a complete picture of the accuracy of most of the plans.)
Responders from the third community commented that the information in
chemical inventory forms is outdated and that they have found errors in
these forms. In addition, local responders from five communities
commented that they receive such a large amount of information that it
is difficult to manage. Responders from two of these communities stated
that the risk management plan is too large to be taken to the scene of
an incident and that responders have difficulty locating important
information in the plan. As a result, most local responders said they
prefer to use the chemical inventory form when responding to a chemical
incident. An EPA official stated that the risk management plan was
intended to serve many purposes, including providing a community with
information to assist in development of an emergency response plan and
providing responders with hazard information that might not be
available from other sources. However, the agency did not design the
risk management plan specifically to be used at the scene of an
incident.
Regarding the national organizations, four representatives said that the
information is not adequate to assist local responders for various
reasons. One reason cited was that the information is not current and
accurate. For example, the International Fire Marshals Association has
concerns about the accuracy of facilities‘ analyses of community
impacts contained in the risk management plans. Another reason is the
large amount of information responders receive. For example, a
representative from the National Emergency Management Association said
that the risk management plan contains too much information, which
makes it difficult for responders to know what information is
necessary.
In light of the events of September 11, 2001, we asked members of the
emergency response community about the adequacy of chemical information
to assist them in responding to chemical incidents involving
terrorists. The community has diverse opinions about this issue as well.
Local responders from six communities believe the chemical information
they receive would be adequate to assist them in the event of a chemical
incident caused by terrorists. For example, some said that the chemical
information that responders need is the same whether an incident is
caused accidentally or by a terrorist act. Responders from two
communities said they would consider the information adequate if it had
been reviewed and found accurate. Finally, responders from two
communities said they did not have adequate chemical information to
respond to a terrorist incident but did not provide suggestions to
improve the information.
We also asked national organizations for their opinions on the adequacy
of chemical information to help responders in the event of a terrorist
incident, and three provided comments. The representative for the
Chlorine Institute said that the information is sufficient. A
representative from one organization, the National Association of
Emergency Medical Technicians, said that the outcomes of accidental and
terrorist-related chemical releases would be similar but that the
latter may pose additional threats to the responders. A representative
from the third organization, the National Emergency Management
Association, stated that communication between federal law enforcement
agencies and local emergency responders is more important in the event
of a terrorist incident than the adequacy of federally required
chemical information.
Most Members of the Emergency Response Community We Contacted Want More
Specific Information on More Chemicals:
Although most of the members of the emergency response community that
we contacted said the federally required information was adequate, these
members generally want more specific information on more chemicals.
Their suggestions included (1) lowering or eliminating the thresholds of
hazardous chemicals that trigger the requirement for facilities to
report them and expanding the list of chemicals to be reported; (2)
changing the focus of the risk management plan from worst-case scenario
to probable-case scenario; and (3) requiring chemical facilities to
report exact quantities of chemicals, rather than ranges, on the
chemical inventory form. Members of the emergency response community
also had suggestions, not relating specifically to the federally
required chemical information they received, that they believe would
improve their ability to respond to chemical incidents.
Lower or Eliminate Thresholds for Reporting and Expand List of
Chemicals to Be Reported:
Many members of the emergency response community made suggestions that
they believe would improve the quality of the information reported.
Local responders from six communities believe that the thresholds for
chemical inventory forms and risk management plans are set too high and
suggested that EPA revisit this issue for the most dangerous chemicals.
* A responder from one community stated that all chemicals on the lists
of hazardous substances are dangerous and that chemical facilities
should report them if they have them in any quantity.
* Local responders from another community believe that the threshold
for petroleum products should be lowered because these products account
for the majority of hazardous incidents in their community.
* Local responders from three communities suggested expanding the list
of chemicals required to be reported in chemical inventory forms and
risk management plans. For example, responders from one community would
like to see mining chemicals regulated.
Representatives from several national organizations shared the following
concerns:
* Representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters
commented that the thresholds for reporting hazardous chemicals are set
too high.
* Representatives from the National Volunteer Fire Council suggested
that the thresholds should be reviewed on a regular basis. [Footnote 6]
* Representatives from the American Chemistry Council, the
International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Fire
Marshals Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council believe
that propane should be included in risk management plans because it
poses a greater hazard than other chemicals already included. [Footnote
7]
Focus Risk Management Plans on Probable-Case Scenarios:
Some local responders and representatives of three national
organizations expressed concern that EPA and others place too much
emphasis on and devote too many resources to developing the worst-case
scenario section of the risk management plan.
* Local responders from four communities believe that many chemical
facilities are spending most of their efforts analyzing worst-case
scenario data when it is highly unlikely that such a scenario will
occur.
* A representative from the International Association of Fire Chiefs
said that although the worst-case scenario information may be useful,
the probable-case scenario is more useful and that fire fighters are
interested in the most likely scenario.
* Representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters
stated that responders should not disregard the likely scenario because
of focusing on the worst-case scenario.
Report Exact Quantities of Chemicals:
Chemical facilities‘ inventory forms must document the estimated ranges
of maximum and average daily amounts of specified chemicals that they
handle. For example, one range on the form is from 100 pounds to 999
pounds; another is from 10,000 pounds to 99,999 pounds. Local responders
from three communities stated that these ranges are not useful because
they lack specificity. Representatives from the International
Association of Fire Fighters and the International Fire Marshals
Association commented that local responders want chemical information
to be reported in exact quantities and not broad ranges.
Provide Other Information or Resources to Help Responders:
Members of the emergency response community also noted other types of
information and resources they believe would assist local responders
when responding to chemical incidents in their communities.
* Local responders from seven communities expressed the following two
concerns. They would like to have more information on the chemicals
being transported through their communities by road or rail, [Footnote
8] and they would like to have additional funding for training and
equipment so that they can be better prepared to respond to a chemical
incident when it occurs. Officials from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency commented that they provide training for local responders to
help them respond to chemical incidents. However, they noted that
resources are limited and only a small percentage of local responders
nationwide have attended their training.
* Representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters,
the International Fire Marshals Association, the National Association of
State Fire Marshals, and the National Volunteer Fire Council
emphasized that local responders should work with chemical facilities
to obtain information through site visits of facilities and by
conducting drills.
* Representatives from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the
International Fire Marshals Association, the National Emergency
Management Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council also
agreed with the local responders‘ need for information on
transportation of hazardous chemicals.
Some Members of the Emergency Response Community Question the Manner in
Which the Federally Required Information Is Delivered:
Although most of the local responders we contacted said that the way in
which they receive chemical information”in hard copy”is adequate, some
responders and representatives of national organizations question the
adequacy of this manner of delivery. EPCRA and the Clean Air Act do not
specify the form in which responders are to receive chemical inventory
forms and risk management plans.
Local responders from eight communities said hard copy delivery of
chemical inventory forms is adequate. Local responders from the eight
communities that obtained risk management plans also believe hard copy
delivery is adequate. Two communities noted that chemical inventory
forms are easy to mark and distribute and easy to use in an emergency
situation. Moreover, responders from three communities emphasized the
importance of hard copy forms for local planners and responders who may
not have access to computer terminals or necessary software.
While many responders find the delivery of federally required
information adequate, local responders from four communities would
prefer to receive chemical inventory forms electronically, and
responders from two communities would prefer to receive risk management
plans electronically. Although local responders from seven communities
manage their chemical information entirely in hard copy, responders
from three communities manage it electronically by entering it into a
computer database. In addition, four communities are designing or
implementing programs to allow for electronic registering, management,
and transmission of chemical information to responders. Local responders
expressed interest in variations of electronic reporting.
* A responder from one community hopes to receive chemical information
from facilities by E-mail.
* A responder from another community would like the information to be
posted on a Web site from which responders could access it when needed.
This responder believes that electronic access might allow facilities
to more easily update data, thus allowing his response team to obtain
current data more quickly.
* A responder from another community wants forms to be transmitted
electronically to the response scene.
* Responders from two communities noted the need to secure information
transmitted or posted on the Internet.
Finally, responders from two of the same communities that preferred an
electronic or combination format for storing and sharing information
noted they would likely continue to use hard copy for reviewing
information.
Representatives of all eight national organizations that commented
prefer electronic delivery, and representatives from several are
concerned that local responders are not receiving chemical information
electronically.
* A representative from the National Emergency Management Association
believes that electronic data facilitates the movement of chemical
information.
* Representatives from the National Volunteer Fire Council believe that
forms need to be electronic to be useful. They consider hard copy
reports extremely difficult for responders to manage given space
limitations in the response vehicle and at the scene of an incident.
* A representative from the International Fire Marshals Association
commented that he would prefer electronic reporting because data
could be updated frequently to assist local responders.
* A representative from the International Association of Fire Fighters
believes that chemical information should be managed electronically in
a secure environment.
EPA‘s Sense of Compliance with the Risk Management Plan Requirements
Varies:
EPA officials told us that the agency has undertaken several efforts to
ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act‘s risk management program.
Based on those efforts, EPA‘s sense of the extent of compliance varied
across the three risk management program requirements that we reviewed.
For example, while the agency has had difficulty in identifying the
universe of facilities required to file risk management plans, on the
basis of outreach activities it has undertaken, the agency believes
compliance with the registration requirement to be high. In contrast,
EPA‘s actions to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the
registered risk management plans have been limited and, accordingly, the
agency cannot be certain of the accuracy of most plans. Finally, EPA
does not monitor the extent to which local responders have risk
management plans, and therefore does not have a sense of the extent of
compliance with this requirement.
EPA Believes Most Facilities Have Registered Risk Management Plans:
EPA officials told us that as the risk management program was first
being implemented, they took significant steps to identify and notify
facilities across the country that were potentially subject to the
registration requirement. For example, EPA held outreach meetings and
workshops to educate chemical facility representatives about program
requirements and conducted mass mailings to facilities citing the types
of facilities that should register risk management plans. The work to
determine the universe of facilities required to register varied by
region, but according to regional officials, it generally included the
following efforts.
* Comparing lists of facilities that had registered risk management
plans with existing federal chemical information databases, most
commonly those containing information about facilities that had
registered under EPCRA.
* Consulting telephone directories, library sources, and trade journals
and speaking to groups representing small businesses.
* Contacting facilities that might need to register to determine if they
were required to do so.
According to the officials, these contacts identified few facilities
that still needed to register risk management plans. Those that were
identified usually submitted plans as a result of the contact or
reduced their chemical inventories below the threshold to avoid having
to register. An official in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance said that EPA had about 100 enforcement actions in process or
completed as of September 30, 2001, most of which related to facilities
failing to register risk management plans.
Despite its efforts, EPA is uncertain of the number of facilities that
are required to register. Before the June 21, 1999, deadline for
registering risk management plans, EPA had estimated that about 64,000
facilities would need to register. Subsequently, the Chemical Safety
Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act exempted
most facilities that handled propane from the requirement to register
plans. With this exemption, EPA refined its estimate to 33,000
facilities. About 15,000 facilities registered by the deadline.
According to an EPA official, two factors, other than noncompliance,
likely contributed to the difference between EPA‘s estimate and the
actual number of registrants. First, EPA may have overestimated the
number of facilities subject to the regulation. Second, some facilities
took actions to avoid being regulated under the program, such as
reducing chemical inventory below the thresholds that trigger the
reporting requirement, replacing a regulated chemical with one not
covered by the requirement, or eliminating a particular regulated
chemical.
An EPA headquarters official from the office responsible for chemical
preparedness noted that registering a risk management plan in and of
itself does not necessarily indicate that a facility has undertaken all
necessary actions. According to the official, the ’paper plan“
submitted to EPA captures certain details, but it is the underlying
program elements, properly implemented, that protect the public from
accidental chemical releases. He stated that there may be facilities
that have registered plans with EPA but still have deficiencies in
their underlying program.
EPA Has Not Determined the Accuracy of Most Risk Management Plans:
Although EPA had reviewed to varying degrees about 15 percent of the
risk management plans registered as of the end of fiscal year 2001, the
agency does not have a complete picture of the accuracy of most risk
management plans. All risk management plans registered with EPA were
electronically verified to check for completeness; if all data fields
had entries, the plan was considered complete. After that check, EPA
reviewed some of the plans for accuracy or internal consistency. As of
September 30, 2001, EPA had reviewed about 2,200 of the approximately
15,000 registered plans for accuracy. [Footnote 9] These reviews
consisted of about 1,500 desk audits of the plans and about 700 on-site
inspections. According to an EPA official, the agency‘s ability to
perform more comprehensive reviews has been constrained by resources.
Most regions performed some desk audits, which ranged from reviewing a
few elements of the plans to reviewing the entire plan. Most EPA
regional officials who performed desk audits said they used guidance
issued by headquarters as a basis for their audits or as a supplement
to their own procedures. Program auditors in most regions verified that
data, such as reported chemical quantities and calculations, were
accurate and also that facilities were coordinating with local
responders. However, EPA regional officials approached verifying
coordination with local responders in different ways. For example, some
regional officials considered coordination to exist when a facility
held public meetings to discuss its risk management plan with the
community; others said that coordination had occurred only if the
facility and the community participated in emergency exercises. These
varying interpretations can lead to inconsistent compliance monitoring.
While EPA has issued guidance to facilities on what constitutes
coordination, it has not provided such guidance to the regions.
Officials from all EPA regional offices told us that they had performed
some on-site inspections of facilities that have registered risk
management plans; however, the number performed in each region varied
from 2 to 145. For example, officials from one region responsible for
1,217 risk management plans conducted 30 inspections and found one
facility in violation because of a poor quality analysis of the impact
on the surrounding community. Officials from another region, where 1,006
facilities registered risk management plans, conducted 105 inspections,
finding varying levels of compliance; some facilities needed to update
their training, others were not performing scheduled maintenance on
equipment, and still others were not implementing the safety procedures
listed in their risk management plans. These regional officials told us
that all facilities, except one, took action to comply, and EPA filed an
enforcement action against the remaining facility.
To supplement its resources for carrying out compliance activities, EPA
is considering using private sector EPA-certified auditors to assess the
accuracy of risk management plan information. According to an EPA
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office official, EPA
recently studied the viability of this approach. This official said
that the results of the study were promising but that the details of
the proposal are not yet complete. Such a proposal would require
certified auditors to perform reviews at facilities that had
volunteered for this program. The facilities would incur the inspection
cost, but they would receive regulatory incentives if they maintained
certain safety records. Agency officials have not yet agreed on what
the incentives would be. According to an EPA official, the agency‘s use
of similar methods to meet other inspection requirements has improved
safety at the facilities and limited the amount of EPA resources spent.
EPA has encouraged states, counties, and cities to apply for the
authority to monitor compliance with the risk management program. EPA
officials told us that they had originally envisioned that more states
and localities would accept responsibility for implementing the
program, which they said would have given the agency a better sense of
compliance with registration and the accuracy of information reported.
However, only 16 locations received delegated authority as of February
28, 2002. [Footnote 10]
EPA Does Not Know the Extent to Which Local Responders Are Obtaining
Risk Management Plans:
While EPA has addressed facilities‘ compliance with the registration and
accuracy of risk management plans, the agency does not monitor the
extent to which local responders have obtained plans. The Clean Air Act
requires that risk management plans be submitted to local agencies or
entities with responsibility for planning for or responding to
accidental chemical releases, but the act does not specify how this is
to be accomplished.
EPA issued guidance [Footnote 11] in November 1999 that specified that
local responders could obtain risk management plans”with the exception
of certain sensitive data, such as specific information about the
potential risks to a community”by visiting the agency Web site or by
requesting the plans in their entirety from EPA. However, after the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, EPA removed the plans from its
Web site. According to EPA officials, local responders are still able
to request and obtain the plans from EPA, and the agency is currently
deliberating whether to return the plans to the Web site. They also
noted that both the general public and local responders have access to
risk management plans through reading rooms managed by EPA and the
Department of Justice and located in 55 major cities across the country
and in U.S. territories and commonwealths. [Footnote 12]
While EPA makes the plans available to local responders, it has taken no
specific steps to ensure that local responders actually obtain them. EPA
leaves the responsibility for obtaining plans to local responders.
* Responders from 8 of the 10 communities we contacted said that they
have obtained the plans, or executive summaries of the plans, for
almost all of the facilities in their communities directly from the
facilities. [Footnote 13]
* According to a national survey contracted by EPA and conducted by The
George Washington University in 1999, 73 percent of local responders
that replied to the survey reported that they intended to obtain risk
management plans directly from facilities in their communities.
[Footnote 14]
* Local responders in two of the communities we contacted said they had
not obtained the plans but knew where to get them if needed. Responders
from one of these communities said that their state did not participate
in the risk management program because it wanted to avoid legal
liability if the plan‘s sensitive data were to fall into the wrong
hands.
* A study conducted by the National Institute for Chemical Studies found
that local responders from most of the 32 communities they contacted
did not obtain or maintain copies of the plans, [Footnote 15] but an
institute representative clarified that these local responders knew how
to obtain plans if needed.
Representatives from national organizations expressed the following
concerns about whether and how responders are obtaining plans.
* The representatives from the International Association of Fire
Fighters and the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians
doubt that all local responders actually obtain the plans.
* The representative from the International Fire Marshals Association,
who is also an emergency responder, noted that he has plans only
because he has sought them from facilities.
* The representative from the International Fire Marshals Association
and the National Association of State Fire Marshals expressed concern
that the local responders have to do so much work to obtain the plans.
* Representatives from the International Fire Marshals Association, the
National Association of State Fire Marshals, the International
Association of Fire Fighters, and the National Volunteer Fire Council
commented that facility visits by local responders are critical to their
obtaining complete chemical information. They also said that local
responders do not receive all the plans because either the facilities
are not sending them or the plans are becoming caught up in the local
bureaucracy and not reaching the local responders.
Agency Comments:
We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. The
Director of EPA‘s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office provided technical clarifications that we incorporated where
appropriate. The Director also orally commented that the report fairly
and accurately presented information about federally required chemical
information and EPA‘s actions to ensure compliance with the Clean Air
Act‘s risk management provisions.
We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, appropriate congressional committees,
and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call
me at (202) 512-6111. Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix III.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David G. Wood:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To provide the views of members of the emergency response community on
the adequacy of (1) the information in federally required chemical
inventory forms and risk management plans and (2) the manner in which
that information is delivered, we interviewed 51 local emergency
responders (emergency planners and fire fighters) from 10 out of almost
8,000 communities that have at least one chemical facility that
registered a risk management plan. We chose the sample of communities
to include a variety of concentrations of chemical facilities required
to submit risk management plans in different parts of the country. We
obtained a copy of the Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA)
RMP*Review, which is a database of risk management plans submitted to
EPA, as of August 30, 2001; sorted the plans by city; and grouped the
cities according to the numbers of chemical facilities that had
registered plans in each. The groups were cities with 1 facility; 2 to
5 facilities; 6 to 10 facilities; 11 to 29 facilities; and 30 to 75
facilities. We chose two cities from each group using a random number
table. When the two cities we chose for a group were in the same or an
adjoining state, we discarded one and chose another to ensure
geographic dispersion.
This process resulted in the selection of the following 10 cities:
Phoenix, Arizona; El Dorado, Arkansas; Shasta Lake, California;
Orlando, Florida; Brownstown, Indiana; Holloman Air Force Base in
Alamogordo, New Mexico; Buffalo, New York; Morrisville, Pennsylvania;
Houston, Texas; and Wendover City, Utah. We contacted the local
emergency planning committees that covered these cities, as well as
local responders that the planning committees recommended.
To obtain a national perspective, we interviewed representatives from
seven national emergency response organizations, two chemical industry
organizations, a federal agency with an interest in chemical emergency
response, and one other organization. We chose most of these
organizations because they represent responders, the chemical industry,
or government officials who are concerned about emergency response. We
chose others on the basis of recommendations from officials from EPA‘s
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office. The national
organizations whose representatives provided opinions included the
International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association
of Fire Fighters; the International Fire Marshals Association; the
National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians; the National
Association of State Fire Marshals; the National Emergency Management
Association; the National Volunteer Fire Council; the American
Chemistry Council; The Chlorine Institute, Inc.; the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; and the National Governors Association.
Representatives from another five organizations”the International
Association of Emergency Managers, the International Institute of
Ammonia Refrigeration, the National Association of Chemical
Distributors, the National Association of SARA Title III Program
Officials, and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Association”either did not have a national perspective on these issues
or did not respond to our inquiries.
To describe EPA‘s efforts to ensure compliance with risk management
plan provisions and its sense of compliance, we contacted officials from
EPA‘s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, which is
responsible for the overall implementation of the risk management plan
program. We also contacted all 10 EPA regional offices, which are
responsible for overseeing compliance, to obtain information on the
reviews these offices had performed at chemical facilities. We also met
with EPA officials from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance to obtain enforcement action information and the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response to obtain the agency‘s RMP*Review
database. We did not contact officials from the state and local
governments to whom EPA had delegated authority for management of the
risk management program.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Sample Chemical Inventory Form:
Tier Two Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory:
Specific Information By Chemical:
Facility Identification:
Name:
Street:
City:
County:
State:
Zip:
SIC Code:
Dun & Brad Number:
Owner/Operator Name:
Name:
Phone:
Mail address:
Emergency Contact:
Name:
Title:
Phone:
24 hour phone:
For Official Use Only:
ID#:
Date Received:
Important: REad all instructions before completing form.
Reporting period: From January 1 to December 31, 19___:
Check if information below is identical to the information submitted
last year:
Chemical description:
CAS:
Chemical Name:
Trade secret:
Check all that apply:
* Pure:
* Mix:
* Solid:
* Liquid:
* Gas:
* EHS:
EHS Name:
Physical and Health Hazards (check all that apply):
Fire:
Sudden release of pressure:
Reactivity:
Immediate (acute):
Delayed (chronic):
Inventory:
Maximum daily amount (code):
Average daily amount (code):
Number of days on-site (days):
Container type:
Pressure:
Temperature:
Storage Codes and Locations:
Storage Locations:
Optional?
Certification (read and sign after completing all sections): I certify
under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar
with the information submitted in pages one through ___, and that based
on my inquiry of those individuals responsible for obtaining the
information, I believe that the submitted information is true,
accurate, and complete.
Name and title of owner/operator or owner/operator's authorized
representative:
Signature:
Date signed:
Optional attachments:
I have attached a site plan:
I have attached a list of site coordinate abbreviations:
I have attached a description of dikes and other safeguard measures.
[End of form}
Note: Chemical inventory forms are classified as either Tier I or Tier
II forms. A Tier I form is the standard form that a facility is
required to submit, but a facility may choose, or may be requested, to
submit a Tier II form that supplies more specific information. Most of
the local responders that we spoke with said that they received Tier II
forms.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Linda Libician, (214) 777-5709.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the name above, Jeanne Barger, Marwin Brown, Nancy
Crothers, Paige Gilbreath, Luann Moy, Pauline Treviso, and Amy Webbink
made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] P.L. 99-499, Title III, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986).
[2] P.L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, sec. 112(r) (1990) (codified at 42
U.S.C. 7412(r)).
[3] P.L. 106-40, 113 Stat. 207 (1999).
[4] A facility must update its risk management plan when the quantity
of a chemical exceeds the specified threshold level or the facility
changes its operations in a manner that affects the threat to the
surrounding community.
[5] 40 C.F.R. 68.1, et seq.
[6] An EPA official noted that EPA has reviewed the lists and
thresholds, as the Clean Air Act requires be done at least every 5
years, and has made changes. For example, the agency changed the
threshold for hydrochloric acid and deleted certain explosives. EPA
intends to continue to review the lists periodically.
[7] The Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory
Relief Act prohibited EPA from listing a flammable substance used as a
fuel or held for sale as a fuel at a retail facility solely because of
its explosive or flammable properties, unless a fire or explosion
caused by the substance would result in acute adverse health effects to
humans. As a result, EPA created a regulatory exclusion for propane
when used as a fuel or held for sale at a retail facility; however,
propane remains on the list when used for other purposes. For more
information, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Chemical Safety:
Status of Changes to the National Fire Protection Association Code for
Propane, GAO-01-709 (Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2001).
[8] An EPA official noted that the transportation of chemicals is
within the purview of the Department of Transportation, not EPA. We
have other work currently ongoing that will address the safety of the
transportation of chemicals.
[9] This figure does not include reviews by state and local governments
to which EPA has delegated authority for management of the risk
management provisions. Not all of the four EPA regions that have
delegated authority to state and local governments had this information
readily available.
[10] EPA Region 2 delegated authority to the state of New Jersey, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territory of the Virgin Islands;
EPA Region 3 delegated authority to the state of Delaware and the
county of Allegheny, Pennsylvania; EPA Region 4 delegated authority to
the states of Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
and South Carolina, as well as to the counties of Buncombe and
Forsythe, North Carolina, the county of Jefferson, Kentucky, and the
city of Asheville, North Carolina; and Region 5 delegated authority to
the state of Ohio.
[11] Environmental Protection Agency. Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention Office. RMPs Are on the Way! How LEPCs and Other Local
Agencies Can Include Information from Risk Management Plans in Their
Ongoing Work. November 1999.
[12] A bill (S. 2579) was introduced on June 5, 2002, that would limit
the risk management plan information available to members of the public
so that the identity or location of any facility would not be disclosed
and could not be deduced.
[13] While our questions addressed risk management plans, we also note
that local responders from five of the communities said that they doubt
that they receive all required chemical inventory forms. However, the
American Chemistry Council, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and
the National Emergency Management Association said that, with a few
exceptions, they believe most facilities are compliant with submitting
the chemical inventory forms.
[14] Mark Starik et al., ’1999 Nationwide LEPC Survey,“ a report
prepared at the request of EPA‘s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office by the Center for Environmental Policy and
Sustainability Management at The George Washington University, May
2000.
[15] National Institute for Chemical Studies, ’Local Emergency Planning
Committees and Risk Management Plans: Encouraging Hazard Reduction,“ a
report prepared at the request of EPA‘s Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention Office, June 2001.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
