£ g% *
V PR0^°
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
ICHLORINEI
Chemical Import Data May
Help EPA Identify Facilities
That Need to File or Update
Risk Management Plans
April 28, 2014
Report No. 14-N-0239
Scan this mobile
code to learn more
about the EPA OIG.

-------
Report Contributors:	Rick Beusse
Bao Chuong
Jim Hatfield
Wendy Wierzbicki
Abbreviations
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OIG	Office of Inspector General
RMP	Risk Management Plan
Cover photo: Truck trailer for transporting chlorine parked at a risk management
program-regulated chlorine repackaging facility in Arizona.
(U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board photo)
Hotline

To report fraud, waste or abuse, contact us
through one of the following methods:
email:
OIG Hotline@epa.aov
phone:
1-888-546-8740
fax:
1-202-566-2599
online:
http://www.epa.aov/oia/hotline.htm
write:
EPA Inspector General Hotline

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mailcode 2431T

Washington, DC 20460
Suggestions for Audits or Evaluations
To make suggestions for audits or evaluations,
contact us through one of the following methods:
email:	OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov
phone:	1-202-566-2391
fax:	1-202-566-2599
online:	http://www.epa.g0v/0ig/c0ntact.html#Full Info
write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mailcode 2431T
Washington, DC 20460

-------
^tDsr-%
• B \
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
14-N-0239
April 28, 2014
Why We Did This Review
While conducting work as part
of an Office of Inspector
General evaluation of a
U.S. territory's implementation
of its delegated Clean Air Act
programs, we obtained and
analyzed data on imports of
hazardous substances to the
United States. We obtained this
data to help us determine
whether facilities may have
hazardous substances onsite in
amounts that would require
them to prepare risk
management plans (RMPs)
under the Clean Air Act
Section 112(r) risk
management program.
The work performed and
disclosed in this report does not
constitute an Office of Inspector
General evaluation conducted
in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing
standards issued by the
Comptroller General of the
United States.
This report addresses the
following EPA theme:
• Taking action on toxics and
chemical safety.
For further information,
contact our public affairs office
at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2014/
20140428-14-N-0239.pdf
Chemical Import Data May Help EPA Identify Facilities
That Need to File or Update Risk Management Plans
What We Found
Import data showed large shipments of
anhydrous ammonia and chlorine to ports
and facilities across the United States for
which facilities may need to prepare an
RMP or revise their RMPs. We identified
four types of situations that could indicate
facilities need to prepare or revise RMPs to
reflect large amounts of regulated
chemicals, as follows:
Given the potential public harm
if an accidental release were to
occur at a facility using or storing
substances at or above threshold
levels, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency may want to
use chemical import data to help
determine whether facilities have
a sufficient RMP in place.
•	Imports of chemicals above the reporting threshold to facilities with no RMP.
•	Return shipments of large empty containers to facilities with no RMP.
•	Imports of chemicals in amounts greater than the amount reported in the
facility's RMP.
•	Large shipments of regulated chemicals for which consignee information
was not available.
Additional analyses and/or onsite inspections are needed to determine whether
the facilities described above are complying with risk management program
requirements. Because of the sensitive nature of the information we developed,
we will provide the agency with our detailed analyses separately from this report.
If facilities subject to the risk management program are not preparing RMPs, they
may not be taking adequate measures to prevent accidents or mitigate the
consequences of such accidents to the public. Further, without a plan detailing
the chemicals located onsite and the risks associated with those chemicals, first
responders may not have the information necessary to safely and effectively
respond to a chemical accident.
We make no formal recommendations, but we encourage the agency to use the
information we developed to determine whether the facilities we identified need to
prepare or revise RMPs. We also encourage the agency to assess whether it
should develop procedures for using import and export data as a method for
identifying potential RMP non-filers.

-------
^EDSX
* Q \
I® !
April 28, 2014
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Chemical Import Data May Help EPA Identify Facilities That Need to
File or Update Risk Management Plans
Report No. 14-N-0239
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:	Lawrence M. Stanton, Director
Office of Emergency Management
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
This report provides you with information we obtained while conducting another Office of Inspector
General (OIG) evaluation on a U.S. territory's implementation of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) authorized programs. The information in this report may help the EPA in assuring that
facilities comply with risk management program regulations designed to protect the public from
accidental airborne releases of hazardous chemicals. Specifically, this information could help identify
facilities that:
•	Have not filed the required risk management plans (RMPs) with the EPA.
•	May need to update their RMPs.
The work performed and disclosed in this report does not constitute an EPA OIG evaluation conducted
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General
of the United States. The information we obtained is not sufficient by itself to conclude whether these
facilities need to prepare or update RMPs. However, given the potential public harm if an accidental
release were to occur at a facility using or storing these substances at or above threshold levels, we are
providing this information to you so that the EPA can take appropriate actions to determine whether
these facilities are complying with applicable risk management program regulations.
Background
As required by Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7), the EPA issued the risk management program rule in
1996. The rule requires stationary sources that have more than the threshold quantity of any of
140 regulated substances (77 toxic and 63 flammable) onsite in any one process to implement a risk
management program. A facility's risk management program must include a hazard assessment, a
prevention program and an emergency response program.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
14-N-0239
1

-------
All covered facilities must submit an RMP to the EPA that describes their risk management program.
Compliance with risk management program requirements helps to prevent accidents and mitigate the
harm to human health and the environment from those that do occur. A facility's failure to follow
program requirements could lead to accidental releases of harmful chemicals and/or inadequate
responses to protect the public when such accidents occur. Between October 2008 and March 2012,
323 facilities reported 460 accidents to EPA. These accidents caused over $264 million in onsite and
offsite damages. Further, the accidents resulted in 14 worker fatalities, over 330 worker injuries, and
over 64,000 people being sheltered in place.
The two most commonly reported toxic substances subject to risk management program requirements
are anhydrous ammonia and chlorine. Both substances can cause eye, skin and respiratory tract burns.
Exposure to high concentrations of either substance can be fatal. The threshold quantities for anhydrous
ammonia and chlorine are 10,000 pounds and 2,500 pounds, respectively. The EPA's Office of
Emergency Management, within the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, manages the
risk management program.
Scope and Methodology
While conducting work as part of an OIG evaluation of a U.S. territory's implementation of its
EPA-authorized air programs, we obtained and analyzed data on international imports of hazardous
substances to the United States and its territories for the period July 1, 2013, to January 21, 2014. This
data was based on vessel manifests collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.1 We obtained this
data to help us determine whether facilities may be storing or using hazardous substances in amounts
that would require them to prepare RMPs.2 While reviewing this data, we noticed large shipments of
regulated substances, as well as empty containers for these regulated substances, to various ports and
facilities across the United States. We compared the import data to the EPA's RMP National Database
records for the facilities or companies that received the shipments to determine whether the facilities had
filed an RMP or had reported amounts consistent with the amounts imported.
We also learned that the Department of Commerce's Census Bureau, through the Automated Export
System, electronically collects and maintains U.S. export data. We did not review this data as it is not
readily available and exempt from public disclosure. However, this data may be useful to the EPA as
another source for identifying potential RMP non-filers.
Chemical Shipping Data May Show Facilities That Need to Prepare or Update RMPs
Import data showed large shipments of anhydrous ammonia and chlorine—as well as empty containers
for these substances—to ports and facilities in Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New York/New Jersey area, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia. In comparing
this data to the EPA's RMP National Database, we identified four types of situations that could indicate
facilities would need to prepare RMPs or revise their RMPs to reflect large amounts of covered
chemicals, as follows:
1	The international import data we used came from a commercial company that obtained vessel manifests from the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
2	We did not conduct audit work to verify or test the accuracy of this information.
14-N-0239
2

-------
1.	Imports of chemicals above the reporting threshold to facilities with no RMP. Imports of
chemicals above the reporting threshold could indicate that these facilities are storing or using
these chemicals in amounts over the RMP threshold. We identified four facilities—in California,
Connecticut, Florida and Texas—that received from one to 11 shipments of anhydrous ammonia
over the approximately 6-month period. Each shipment weighed from 15,000 to more than
56 million pounds. These facilities have not filed RMPs with the EPA, according to the RMP
National Database.3
2.	Return shipments of large empty containers to facilities with no RMP. Return shipments of
empty containers could indicate that these facilities are producing and/or storing chemicals for
export in amounts over the RMP threshold. We identified two facilities—in California and North
Carolina—that received shipments of empty chlorine containers. Based on the size of these
empty cylinders, we estimated that these facilities may have produced and/or stored between
4,700 and 16,200 pounds of chlorine. Neither facility has an RMP on file with the EPA. We
identified a third facility—in Arizona—that received return shipments of empty anhydrous
ammonia containers. Based on the size of these empty cylinders, we estimated that this facility
may have produced and/or stored from 34,000 to more than 40,000 pounds of anhydrous
ammonia. The facility has an RMP on file with the EPA but the RMP does not include
anhydrous ammonia.
3.	Imports of chemicals in amounts greater than the amount reported in the facility's RMP.
This information could indicate that a facility is using or storing regulated chemicals in amounts
greater than what the facility reported on its RMP. We identified one facility—in Texas—that
imported more than 33 million pounds of anhydrous ammonia on two different dates, which is
43.8 percent more than its RMP-listed process of 23 million pounds of anhydrous ammonia.
4.	Large shipments of regulated chemicals and empty containers for which consignee
information was not available. The unavailability of this information4 makes it difficult to
identify facilities that may be storing, producing and/or using chemicals in amounts over the
RMP threshold that may not have filed RMPs or need to update their RMPs. Consignee
information was not available for 23 shipments of anhydrous ammonia to two ports in Louisiana,
each weighing over 700,000 to more than 87 million pounds; and one shipment of chlorine,
weighing approximately 550,000 pounds, to a port in Alabama. We also identified 15 return
shipments of empty anhydrous ammonia containers to the Port of New York and New Jersey.
Based on the sizes of these containers, we estimated facilities may have produced and/or stored
between 16,000 and more than 68,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia.
Additional analyses and/or onsite inspections are needed to determine whether the facilities described
above are complying with risk management program requirements. Because of the sensitive nature of
the information we developed, we will provide the agency with our detailed analyses separate from this
report.
3	The addresses of two of the four facilities appeared to be corporate addresses; as such, we searched the RMP National
Database for all facilities with these company names and did not find any facilities with the same names.
4	Under 19 CFR 103.31(d), a consignee may request from U.S. Customs and Border Protection confidential treatment of both
its name and address on inward manifests, as well as confidential treatment of the shipper's name and address.
14-N-0239

-------
We believe this information would also be useful to the ongoing work of the Chemical Facility Safety
and Security Working Group, as it assesses methods that federal and state agencies can use to identify
chemical facilities that have not met or are otherwise out of compliance with regulatory safety and
security requirements.5
Suggestions to EPA
We encourage the EPA to:
•	Determine whether the facilities we identified without RMPs are required to prepare and submit
RMPs to the EPA.
•	Determine whether the facilities with RMPs that imported substances in excess of the amounts
reported on their RMPs should amend their RMPs to account for large quantities of regulated
chemicals.
•	Obtain consignee information from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for large imports of
RMP-regulated substances and empty containers to ports in Alabama, Louisiana and the
New York/New Jersey area and determine whether these facilities are complying with RMP
requirements.
•	Assess whether the EPA should develop procedures for using manifest data from U.S. Customs
and Border Protection and electronic export information from the Department of Commerce as a
method for identifying potential RMP non-filers.
•	Based on results of the above assessment, determine whether to share with the Chemical Facility
Safety and Security Working Group this approach of identifying potential facilities that are not in
compliance with regulatory safety and security requirements using manifest data and electronic
export information.
This report is for your information. Providing this information to the agency in this form does not
preclude the OIG from looking at these issues in the future. The agency is not required to provide a
written response to this report. Should you choose to provide a response to this final report, we will post
your response on the OIG's public website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response.
You should provide your response as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility
requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper,
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation, at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov:
or Rick Beusse, Director, Air Evaluations, at (919) 541-5747 or beusse.rick@epa.gov.
5 The Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group was established under Executive Order 13650 on
Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security (issued on August 1, 2013), and is co-chaired by the EPA, the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Labor.
14-N-0239
4

-------
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Emergency Management, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
14-N-0239
5

-------