Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

Chemical Import Data May 

Help EPA Identify Facilities 

That Need to File or Update

Risk Management Plans

Report No. 14-N-0239 April 28, 2014

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
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 Suggestions for Audits or Evaluations

To report fraud, waste or abuse, contact us 

through one of the following methods:

To make suggestions for audits or evaluations, 

contact us through one of the following methods:

email:

phone:

fax:

online:

write:

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

1-888-546-8740

1-202-566-2599

http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mailcode 2431T

Washington, DC 20460

email:

phone:

fax:

online:

write:

OIG_WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov

1-202-566-2391

1-202-566-2599

http://www.epa.gov/oig/contact.html#Full_Info

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mailcode 2431T

Washington, DC 20460
 

 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.gov/oig/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:

 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.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

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.
14-N-0239

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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