Chemical Safety: Actions Needed to Improve Federal Oversight of Facilities with Ammonium Nitrate
Released: 2014-05-21T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Use and Hazards of Ammonium Nitrate

Ammonium nitrate products are manufactured and sold in various forms, depending upon their use. For example, ammonium nitrate fertilizer may be produced and sold in liquid form or as solid granules. According to The Fertilizer Institute, solid ammonium nitrate fertilizer is used heavily by farmers in Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas primarily on pastureland, hay, fruit, and vegetable crops. In addition to its agricultural benefits, ammonium nitrate can be mixed with fuel oil or other additives and used by the mining and construction industries as an explosive for blasting.

While ammonium nitrate can increase agricultural productivity, use of this chemical poses a safety and health risk because it can intensify a fire and, under certain circumstances, explode. Ammonium nitrate by itself does not burn, but it increases the risk of fire if it comes in contact with combustible materials. Ammonium nitrate that is stored in a confined space and reaches high temperatures can explode. An explosion is more likely to occur if ammonium nitrate is contaminated by certain materials, such as fuel oil, or if it is stored in large stacks.

Because of ammonium nitrate’s potential to facilitate an explosion, facilities storing ammonium nitrate may pose a security threat in part because it can be used to make weapons. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer has been used by domestic and international terrorists to make explosive devices. For example, on April 19, 1995, ammonium nitrate fertilizer— mixed with fuel oil—was used by a domestic terrorist to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The explosion killed 168 people and injured hundreds more.

Ammonium nitrate has been involved in several major chemical accidents over the past century, including explosions in the United States and Europe. In addition to killing at least 14 people and injuring more than 200 others, the explosion in West, Texas severely damaged or destroyed nearly 200 homes; an apartment complex; and three schools that were, at the time, unoccupied (see fig. 1). Prior to that incident, an explosion in 1994 involving ammonium nitrate at a factory in Port Neal, Iowa killed four workers and injured 18 people. In 1947, explosions aboard two ships holding thousands of tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer killed more than 500 people, injured approximately 3,500, and devastated large areas of industrial and residential buildings in Texas City, Texas. In Europe, accidents involving ammonium nitrate have occurred in Germany, Belgium, and France. A 1921 accident in Germany and one in Belgium in 1942 caused hundreds of deaths after explosives were used to break up piles of hundreds of tons of ammonium nitrate, resulting in large scale detonations. In France, a ship carrying more than 3,000 tons of ammonium nitrate exploded in 1947, a few months after the Texas City disaster, after pressurized steam was injected into the storage area in an attempt to put out a fire. In 2001, an explosion at a fertilizer plant in Toulouse, France involving between 22 and132 tons of ammonium nitrate resulted in 30 deaths, thousands of injuries requiring hospitalization, and widespread property damage. Past accidents also indicate that smaller quantities of ammonium nitrate can cause substantial damage. For example, in 2003, an explosion of less than 6 tons of ammonium nitrate in a barn in rural France injured 23 people and caused significant property damage.

Federal Agencies’ Responsibilities for Promoting Chemical Safety and Security

OSHA and EPA play key roles in protecting the public from the effects of chemical accidents, with EPA focusing on the environment and public health and OSHA focusing on worker safety and health. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), OSHA is the federal agency responsible for setting and enforcing regulations to protect workers from hazards in the workplace, including exposure to hazardous chemicals. In addition, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 designated roles for both OSHA and EPA with respect to preventing chemical accidents and preparing for the consequences of chemical accidents. In response to requirements in this act, OSHA issued Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations in 1992 to protect workers engaged in processes that involve certain highly hazardous chemicals, and EPA issued Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations in 1996 to require facilities handling particular chemicals to plan how to prevent and address chemical accidents. The PSM and RMP regulations each apply to processes involving a specified list of chemicals above threshold quantities, and require covered facilities to take certain steps to prevent and prepare for chemical accidents. However, neither OSHA’s PSM regulations nor EPA’s RMP regulations cover ammonium nitrate.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) establishes authorities for emergency planning and preparedness and emergency release notification reporting, among other things. Under section 312 of EPCRA and EPA regulations, facilities with certain hazardous chemicals in amounts at or above threshold levels— including ammonium nitrate in some circumstances—are required to annually submit chemical inventory forms to state and local authorities to help emergency response officials prepare for and respond to chemical incidents.

For purposes of enhancing chemical facility security, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program requires facilities possessing certain chemicals at or above threshold quantities–including some types of ammonium nitrate–to submit reports to DHS with information about the facility and the regulated chemicals present on site. Among other things, DHS collects information on the quantities of certain hazardous chemicals held at facilities, the location of the facilities, and their industry codes. DHS set different threshold quantities for reporting based on the type of ammonium nitrate and the type of security risk presented (see table 1).

Not all facilities with ammonium nitrate, however, are required to file CFATS reports with DHS. First, facilities are only required to report if they are holding amounts equal to or greater than threshold quantities of specific types of ammonium nitrate. Also, DHS does not require certain agricultural producers to report their chemical holdings to DHS. In addition, DHS’s reporting threshold for ammonium nitrate fertilizer only applies to quantities held in transportable containers such as cylinders, bulk bags, bottles (inside or outside of boxes), cargo tanks, and tank cars. Finally, there are several statutory exemptions to CFATS requirements. Specifically, CFATS does not apply to public water systems or treatment works, any facility that is owned or operated by the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy, facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or facilities covered by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 administered by the Coast Guard.

Other federal agencies regulate different aspects of the use of hazardous chemicals. For example, the Department of Transportation regulates the transport of hazardous materials, the Coast Guard inspects containers of hazardous materials at ports and waterways, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the Department of Justice regulates the manufacture, distribution, and storage of explosive materials, including blasting agents and other explosive materials containing ammonium nitrate.

State and Local Government Responsibilities for Promoting Chemical Safety

State and local government agencies are also involved in regulating hazardous chemical facilities under federal laws and their own state or local laws. Federal laws may authorize or assign state and local governments certain roles and responsibilities for overseeing chemical facilities. For example, as permitted by the OSH Act, OSHA has approved state plans that authorize about half the states to operate their own occupational safety and health programs. As a result, private sector workplaces in 21 states and Puerto Rico are regulated and inspected by state occupational safety and health agencies rather than OSHA. Similarly, EPA has delegated its authority to implement and enforce the Risk Management Program to nine states and five counties. As previously mentioned, both state and local governments play a role in implementing EPCRA, which requires covered facilities to report basic information about their hazardous chemical inventories to certain state and local authorities, including estimates of the amounts of chemicals present at facilities.

In addition, state and local governments may establish and enforce their own laws, regulations, or ordinances to protect the public from chemical accidents. For example, state and local governments may adopt and enforce fire codes or zoning laws that specify how far chemical facilities must be located from residential areas.

Executive Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security

The Executive Order issued on August 1, 2013 established a Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group co-chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administrator of EPA, and the Secretary of Labor. The Executive Order includes directives for the working group to: improve operational coordination with state and local partners; enhance federal agency coordination and information sharing; modernize policies, regulations, and standards; and work with stakeholders to identify best practices. The order includes tasks focused specifically on ammonium nitrate. Specifically, it directs the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Labor, and Agriculture to develop a list of potential regulatory and legislative proposals to improve the safe and secure storage, handling, and sale of ammonium nitrate. In addition, the Department of Labor and EPA are directed to review the chemical hazards covered by the RMP and PSM regulations and determine whether they should be expanded to address additional hazards.

OECD’s Guidance on Chemical Safety

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization with 34 member countries, issued guidance in 2003 on the prevention of, preparedness for, and response to chemical accidents. This publication was developed with other international organizations active in the area of chemical accident safety, such as the World Health Organization. The document—OECD Guiding Principles for Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness and Response—includes detailed guidance for industry, public authorities, and the public on how they can help prevent chemical accidents and better respond when accidents occur.

Over 1,300 Facilities in 47 States Reported Having Ammonium Nitrate, but Data Limitations Prevent Obtaining a Complete Count of Facilities

The total number of facilities in the United States with ammonium nitrate is not known because of the different reporting criteria used by different government agencies, reporting exemptions, and other data limitations. While the total number is unknown, over 1,300 facilities reported having ammonium nitrate to DHS. DHS’s data, however, do not include all facilities that work with ammonium nitrate, in part because some facilities, such as farms, currently do not have to report to DHS and, according to DHS officials, other facilities that are required to report may fail to do so.

DHS Data List Over 1,300 Facilities in 47 States with Ammonium Nitrate

As of August 2013, 1,345 facilities located in 47 states reported to DHS under CFATS that they had ammonium nitrate. The facilities that reported to DHS as having reportable quantities of ammonium nitrate were most often engaged in supplying and supporting the agriculture and mining industries. Many of these facilities were concentrated in the South. About half of these facilities were located in six states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas. Table 2 shows the number of facilities that reported to DHS that they had ammonium nitrate and the number of states in which they were located.

State Data and Federal Trade Data Suggest That the Total Number of Facilities with Ammonium Nitrate is Greater Than Those That Report to DHS

Our review of additional state data, including EPRCA data, from Texas and Alabama, which have different reporting criteria than CFATS, indicated that there are more facilities with ammonium nitrate than those that report to DHS. We compared the data they provided to the data on facilities that reported to DHS under CFATS. In these two states, we found that the data from each of the sources provided to us differed and that no single count of such facilities, whether from the state or DHS, represented a comprehensive picture of facilities with ammonium nitrate.

For Texas, we reviewed three sources of data on facilities that have ammonium nitrate: (1) EPCRA data from the Texas Department of State Health Services; (2) a list of facilities that registered with the Office of the Texas State Chemist as having plans to produce, store, or sell ammonium nitrate; and (3) DHS’s CFATS data. We compared data from all three of these sources and found 189 facilities that reported having ammonium nitrate (see fig. 2). Of these 189 facilities, 52 filed CFATS reports with DHS. Data were not readily available to determine whether the remaining facilities were required to file CFATS reports. DHS officials told us the agency has begun an effort to obtain lists of chemical facilities the states have compiled and compare them with its CFATS data to identify facilities that should have filed CFATS reports but did not. This effort is still under way. As shown in figure 2, 17 of the 189 facilities in Texas were listed in all three data sources.

For Alabama, we reviewed data from two sources on facilities that reported having ammonium nitrate: (1) EPCRA data from Alabama’s Department of Environmental Management, and (2) DHS’s CFATS data. From these two sources, we found 91 facilities that reported having ammonium nitrate— 57 that filed EPCRA reports with the state Department of Environmental Management and 71 that filed CFATS reports with DHS. Thirty-seven of the facilities filed reports with both the state and DHS. (See fig. 3.)

Our analysis of federal trade data collected by DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency also suggests that a greater number of facilities have ammonium nitrate than those that reported to DHS under the CFATS program. Using the data from the Customs and Border Protection agency, we identified 205 facilities that imported ammonium nitrate products and 81 facilities that exported ammonium nitrate products in fiscal year 2013. The majority of these facilities reported importing or exporting mixtures of ammonium nitrate and calcium carbonate or mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate. Eight of these facilities filed CFATS reports with DHS. Moreover, we found about 100 facilities that imported or exported a form of ammonium nitrate that may be subject to DHS’s CFATS requirements for reporting quantities over 2,000 pounds but did not file a report. These facilities, however, may not be required to file CFATS reports. For example, they may meet one of the statutory exemptions, or the composition of their ammonium nitrate (or their ammonium nitrate mixture) may not trigger the reporting requirements. Data were not readily available to determine whether they met all of DHS’s reporting requirements for the CFATS program. In addition, according to DHS officials, other data limitations could explain some of the differences between the CFATS data and the federal trade data. For example, facilities may submit reports to the different agencies using different names and addresses. According to DHS, different people in the facility may prepare the different reports; the facility may define the perimeters of each site differently; or the corporate structure or nomenclature may have changed from the time one report was submitted to the next reporting period.

Differences in Reporting Criteria, Including Exemptions, and Facilities’ Failure to File Required Reports Also Prevent Full Identification of Facilities with Ammonium Nitrate

The total number of facilities with ammonium nitrate is also difficult to determine because of the variation in reporting criteria, including exemptions for some facilities from reporting to either their state or to DHS. For example, farmers could be exempt from reporting under both EPCRA and CFATS because EPCRA’s reporting requirements do not apply to substances used in routine agricultural operations and DHS does not currently require certain agricultural producers to report their chemical holdings to DHS. In addition, DHS’s reporting threshold for ammonium nitrate fertilizer only applies to quantities held in transportable containers such as cylinders, bulk bags, bottles (inside or outside of boxes), cargo tanks, and tank cars. Also, EPCRA does not require retailers to report fertilizer held for sale to the ultimate customer. However, an August 2013 chemical advisory on ammonium nitrate issued jointly by EPA, OSHA, and ATF clarified that EPCRA requires fertilizer distributors to report ammonium nitrate that is blended or mixed with other chemicals on site. In addition, some facilities may not report to DHS or their state because they have amounts of ammonium nitrate that are below the applicable reporting thresholds.

Some facilities may not be included in either DHS’s or states’ data because they fail to submit their required reports, but the magnitude of underreporting is not known. DHS officials acknowledged that some facilities fail to file the required forms. The facility in West, Texas had not filed a CFATS report to DHS but, in 2012, this facility filed an EPRCA form with the state, reporting that it had 270 tons of ammonium nitrate. According to DHS officials, the agency does not know with certainty whether the West, Texas facility should have reported its ammonium nitrate to DHS because the agency did not visit the facility after the explosion and it does not know the manner in which the facility held its ammonium nitrate prior to the explosion. Following the explosion at the facility in West, Texas, DHS obtained data from the state of Texas and compared the state data to the facilities that reported to DHS. As a result of this data matching effort, DHS sent out 106 letters to other potentially noncompliant facilities in Texas. According to DHS, many of the Texas facilities that received the letter said they do not actually possess ammonium nitrate or do not meet the criteria to require reporting under CFATS. DHS has used EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) database to try and identify such facilities holding other chemicals, but it cannot use the RMP database to identify all facilities with ammonium nitrate because ammonium nitrate is not covered by EPA’s RMP regulations. In addition, DHS officials told us the agency is in the process of comparing its list of facilities that reported to DHS under the CFATS program to ATF’s list of facilities that have federal explosives licenses and permits to identify potentially noncompliant facilities, but this effort had not been completed at the time of our review.

OSHA Lacks Access to Data on Facilities That Have Ammonium Nitrate

OSHA has limited access to data collected by other agencies to use in identifying facilities with ammonium nitrate. DHS does not currently share its CFATS data with OSHA, although DHS officials told us they were not aware of anything prohibiting DHS from doing so. While EPA shares data from its RMP with OSHA on a quarterly basis, the data do not include information on ammonium nitrate because ammonium nitrate is not covered by EPA’s RMP regulations. As previously discussed, under section 312 of EPCRA, facilities are required to annually report information to state and local authorities on the types and quantities of certain hazardous chemicals present at their facilities, which may include ammonium nitrate. Facilities that possess reportable quantities of ammonium nitrate submit this information electronically or on paper forms, and the state and local entities maintain copies of these forms. However, according to agency officials, the EPCRA data are not shared directly with federal agencies, including OSHA, EPA, or DHS (see fig. 4). EPA officials, however, noted that EPCRA is primarily intended to provide information to state and local officials, not to other federal agencies. Any person may submit written requests to the designated state or local authority for information on individual facilities that may have ammonium nitrate, but lists of all facilities in a state that have submitted these data, including those that reported having ammonium nitrate, are not publicly available. In certain states we contacted, officials indicated that data on individual facilities could be requested from the state, but the requester would have to request data on specific facilities to obtain information on the chemicals they hold. OSHA officials cited the lack of access to data on facilities with ammonium nitrate as a reason they would have difficulty designing an inspection program to target such facilities.

The University of Texas at Dallas has a database (called E-Plan) that contains EPCRA data from over half of the states for the 2012 reporting year, but federal agencies have made limited use of it. University staff originally developed the E-Plan database in 2000 with funding from EPA to facilitate EPCRA reporting and provide first responders rapid access to information on chemical facilities in emergency situations. In many local areas, first responders and emergency services personnel can use the E- Plan data when they prepare for and respond to emergencies such as fires. According to E-Plan administrators, OSHA staff helped develop the database, but currently OSHA does not use E-Plan. EPA staff told us that some EPA regional offices have used the E-Plan database to assess compliance with the agency’s RMP reporting requirements. DHS officials told us the agency does not use E-Plan data to assess compliance with CFATS requirements. DHS officials also explained that, while the database could contain useful information, it is incomplete. Some states do not submit data to E-Plan at all, and other states’ data are incomplete. In addition, participation in E-Plan is voluntary and, even among those states that participate, some states do not choose to allow their E-Plan data to be shared with federal agencies.

Ongoing Efforts to Improve Data Sharing on Chemical Facilities

The Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group established by the August 2013 Executive Order has begun its efforts to develop proposals for improving information sharing, but this work has not been completed. The working group has held listening sessions throughout the country seeking input from interested parties on options for making improvements in chemical safety and security. It also has launched a pilot program in New York and New Jersey aimed at improving access to data on chemical facilities for federal, state, local, and tribal governments. In addition, the working group is evaluating how federal agencies can work with states to enhance the states’ roles as information sharing organizations, including options for sharing RMP, CFATS, and EPCRA data. Finally, it is exploring ways for federal and state agencies to share information and exchange data to, among other things, identify chemical facilities that are not in compliance with safety and security requirements. For example, DHS and EPA are comparing their CFATS and RMP data to determine if the CFATS data include facilities that should also have reported under the RMP. As a result, EPA has begun sending notification letters to facilities requesting information to help determine if the facility is subject to RMP requirements. Because the RMP regulations do not currently cover ammonium nitrate, however, this strategy would not be useful for identifying facilities that have ammonium nitrate. The federal working group is also sharing information to, among other things, identify whether additional facilities have failed to report under CFATS and is exploring whether EPA software offered to states to facilitate EPCRA reporting could also provide a vehicle to enhance access to the reports while meeting security objectives.

OSHA Has Not Focused Its Enforcement Efforts on Ammonium Nitrate and EPA Has Not Regulated It as a Hazardous Material

OSHA has regulations for the storage of ammonium nitrate, but the agency has not focused its enforcement resources on the use of ammonium nitrate by the fertilizer industry, which is a primary user. EPA, on the other hand, has regulations requiring risk management planning by facilities that have certain hazardous chemicals, but these regulations do not apply to ammonium nitrate.

OSHA’s Regulations for Explosives and Blasting Agents List Substantive Requirements for the Storage of Ammonium Nitrate

OSHA’s Explosives and Blasting Agents regulations—issued in 1971— include provisions for the storage of both explosives grade and fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate in quantities of 1,000 pounds or more. OSHA based these regulations on two 1970 consensus standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Few significant changes have been made to these regulations since they were issued, although the National Fire Protection Association periodically reviews and updates its standards. OSHA’s regulations include requirements that could reduce the fire and explosion hazards associated with ammonium nitrate, such as required fire protection measures, limits on stack size, and requirements related to separating ammonium nitrate from combustible and other contaminating materials. However, the regulations do not categorically prohibit employers from storing ammonium nitrate in wooden bins and buildings. In addition, if the facilities were in existence at the time the regulations were issued in 1971, OSHA’s regulations allow the use of storage buildings not in strict conformity with the regulations if such use does not constitute a hazard to life. Some of the provisions of OSHA’s ammonium nitrate storage regulations are described in table 3.

Recently, OSHA, EPA, and ATF jointly issued a chemical advisory that recommends that facilities store ammonium nitrate in non-combustible buildings. Similarly, following the explosion in West, Texas, the National Fire Protection Association is considering changes to its ammonium nitrate storage provisions, which are part of its hazardous materials consensus standard, including restricting the use of wood to store ammonium nitrate.

In addition to storage requirements, OSHA’s Hazard Communication regulations require that employers whose workers are exposed to hazardous chemicals, including ammonium nitrate, inform their workers of the dangers and train them to handle the materials appropriately. Employers are required to use labels, training, and safety data sheets to inform workers of chemical hazards in the workplace. Safety data sheets are written documents with details on the hazards associated with each chemical, measures workers can take to protect themselves, actions workers should take in case of an emergency, and safety precautions for handling and storing the chemical.

OSHA Has Conducted Little Outreach to the Fertilizer Industry to Increase Awareness of Its Ammonium Nitrate Storage Regulations

Until the explosion in West, Texas, OSHA had not reached out to the fertilizer industry to inform its members of OSHA’s requirements for the storage of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. An OSHA official told us the agency has not traditionally informed the fertilizer industry about these regulations. However, another OSHA official said agency officials met with industry representatives after the explosion at the facility in West, Texas and, based on that meeting, concluded that the fertilizer industry is “well aware” of the agency’s storage regulations. OECD’s Guiding Principles for Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness, and Response recommend that public authorities provide clear, easy-to- understand guidance to facilities on how regulatory objectives and requirements can be met.

OSHA recently published information about how the agency’s Explosives and Blasting Agents regulations apply to ammonium nitrate fertilizer. The agency provides employers with training, technical assistance, and information through its website on a variety of safety and health topics. Recently, OSHA updated its website to refer to its storage regulations for ammonium nitrate fertilizer. The August 2013 chemical advisory contains information on OSHA’s ammonium nitrate storage regulations, stating that OSHA’s Explosives and Blasting Agents regulations contain requirements for the storage of all grades of ammonium nitrate, including fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate. In addition, in February 2014, OSHA announced that the agency is working with the fertilizer industry to remind employers of the importance of safely storing and handling ammonium nitrate. OSHA published a letter on its website that provides employers with legal requirements and best practice recommendations for safely storing and handling ammonium nitrate. In the letter, OSHA states that the agency will enforce the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.109(i) for storage of ammonium nitrate, including at facilities in non-explosives industries. According to the announcement, fertilizer industry associations will share the letter with facilities across the country.

Fertilizer industry representatives we interviewed said that, prior to the explosion in West, Texas, they did not know that OSHA’s ammonium nitrate storage regulations applied to the fertilizer industry, and they suggested that OSHA reach out to the fertilizer industry to help prevent another incident. Industry representatives explained that their understanding was based on a proposed rule published by OSHA in the Federal Register on April 13, 2007, which proposed revisions to the Explosives and Blasting Agents regulation. In that notice, OSHA proposed a change to the ammonium nitrate storage requirements “to clarify that OSHA intends the requirements to apply to ammonium nitrate that will be used in the manufacture of explosives.” Although this proposed rule was never finalized, the industry representatives told us they relied on this statement to mean OSHA did not intend the storage requirements to apply to ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

In addition, we reviewed the safety data sheets developed by four U.S. producers of solid ammonium nitrate fertilizer and found that only one company’s sheet listed OSHA’s Explosives and Blasting Agents regulations as applicable to the storage and handling of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. An industry representative who assists agricultural retailers with regulatory compliance said he reviewed the regulatory information sections in his clients’ safety data sheets for ammonium nitrate fertilizer and none of them referred to OSHA’s Explosives and Blasting Agents regulations. A representative from one national fertilizer industry association said it would be helpful if OSHA took additional steps to explain its interpretation of the applicable requirements and reach out to the fertilizer industry so that affected companies are better informed. A representative from another national agricultural industry group suggested that OSHA develop and disseminate a compliance assistance tool or checklist to ensure that facilities are aware of and in compliance with the applicable regulations.

The fertilizer industry is developing a voluntary program called Responsible Ag to promote compliance with federal regulations among fertilizer facilities. Officials from the Fertilizer Institute and the Agricultural Retailers Association told us they plan to consolidate federal regulatory requirements for fertilizer retail facilities into one comprehensive checklist and provide third party audits to retailers based on a checklist they have developed. In addition, officials with the Asmark Institute, a nonprofit resource center for agricultural retailers in the United States, said they developed their own compliance assessment tool for agricultural retailers. The Fertilizer Institute and the Agricultural Retailers Association selected the Asmark Institute to develop a database that will include information on audit reports and scores from the third party audits. This initiative will be modeled after a voluntary audit program in Minnesota for agricultural retailers to help them improve compliance with federal and state regulations. According to OSHA officials, OSHA has not been involved in the development of this industry initiative.

OSHA Has No Program for Targeted Inspections of Facilities with Ammonium Nitrate

Although OSHA has a national enforcement program that targets certain chemical facilities for inspection, this program does not systematically cover facilities with ammonium nitrate. OECD chemical safety guidance suggests public authorities periodically inspect the safety performance of hazardous facilities. OSHA conducts inspections of worksites, as authorized under the OSH Act. As part of its enforcement efforts, OSHA randomly selects facilities for inspection as part of a national emphasis program for chemical facilities it initiated in 2011. However, these inspections are for facilities and chemicals covered under its Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations, which do not include ammonium nitrate. According to OSHA officials, facilities that blend and store ammonium nitrate fertilizer fall outside the scope of this national emphasis program. When we asked whether OSHA might expand its national emphasis program to focus on ammonium nitrate fertilizer facilities, officials said that the agency is not planning on targeting these facilities, in part because OSHA has no means of identifying them.

In addition, OSHA is not likely to target facilities with ammonium nitrate for inspection because of its limited resources, and because these facilities often do not meet OSHA’s current inspection priorities. OSHA conducts inspections with its own personnel and the number of inspections OSHA and the states can perform each year is limited by the size of their inspection workforce. According to OSHA officials, OSHA and the states have about 2,200 inspectors who inspected about 1 percent of the 8 million covered employers in fiscal year 2012. Among OSHA’s highest priorities for inspecting worksites are responding to major accidents and employee complaints. In fiscal year 2012, OSHA reported that 44 percent of the agency’s inspections were unplanned inspections, which include inspections initiated in response to an accident or complaint. OSHA also targets certain industries for planned inspections that have high rates of workplace injury and illness. For example, OSHA reported that 55 percent of OSHA’s planned inspections in fiscal year 2012 were inspections of worksites in the construction industry.

OSHA has rarely issued citations for violations of its ammonium nitrate storage regulations at fertilizer facilities. OSHA officials told us a citation for a violation of the agency’s ammonium nitrate storage regulations was issued as the result of an inspection of a fertilizer facility only once before the explosion in West, Texas. In that case, OSHA inspected a Florida- based fertilizer manufacturer in 1997 in response to a complaint, and cited the company for 30 violations, one of which was a violation of its ammonium nitrate storage requirements. In addition, according to OSHA officials, within the last 5 years, none of the 21 states that operate their own safety and health programs have cited any employers for improper storage or handling of ammonium nitrate.

OSHA Is Prohibited from Inspecting Some Facilities with Ammonium Nitrate That Have 10 or Fewer Employees

Under a provision regularly included in the annual appropriations act, OSHA is prohibited from conducting planned safety inspections of small employers—those with 10 or fewer employees—in certain low hazard industries, as determined by their injury and illness rates. Although the number of facilities exempted from OSHA inspections under this provision is unclear, we found that, of the facilities that reported having ammonium nitrate to DHS as of August 2013, 60 facilities—about 4 percent of the 1,345 facilities that reported to DHS— reported having 10 or fewer employees and had an industry code with a lower than the average workplace injury and illness rate (see table 4). As a result, according to OSHA officials, this provision could have hindered the agency’s enforcement of its ammonium nitrate storage regulations at these facilities.

OSHA’s fiscal year 2015 budget request asks Congress to consider amending OSHA’s appropriation language to allow the agency to perform targeted inspections of small establishments that have the potential for catastrophic incidents, such as those with processes covered by OSHA’s PSM or EPA’s RMP regulations. In the budget request, OSHA states that the current appropriations language limits the agency’s ability to conduct inspections, and neither the number of workers in a company nor low injury and illness rates is predictive of the potential for catastrophic accidents that can damage whole communities.

Other OSHA and EPA Chemical Safety Regulations Do Not Apply to Facilities with Ammonium Nitrate

OSHA’s PSM regulations for chemical safety do not cover ammonium nitrate. In response to a requirement in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, OSHA issued its PSM regulations in 1992 to help prevent accidents involving highly hazardous chemicals, including toxic, flammable, highly reactive, and explosive substances. These regulations apply to processes involving listed chemicals in amounts at or above threshold quantities. Employers subject to the PSM regulations are required to take specified steps, which include evaluating the hazards associated with the process, as well as developing and implementing operating procedures, employee training, emergency action plans, and compliance audits at least every 3 years, among other requirements. Despite the hazards of ammonium nitrate, this chemical is not listed as one of the chemicals subject to these regulations. OSHA officials told us they did not know why ammonium nitrate was not included when the regulation was first issued. According to the August 2013 chemical advisory, although ammonium nitrate is not covered by the PSM regulations, the production or use of ammonium nitrate may involve PSM- listed chemicals, and the manufacture of explosives, which may involve ammonium nitrate, is covered by the regulations. In the late 1990s, OSHA staff drafted a proposal for expanding PSM regulations to cover ammonium nitrate and other reactive chemicals, but it was not reviewed by agency policy officials and was never published in the Federal Register for public comment.

In addition, retail facilities, which may include facilities that store and blend fertilizer for direct sale to end users, are exempt from OSHA’s PSM regulations. In the preamble to the final rule for the PSM regulations, OSHA stated that retailers are not likely to store large quantities of hazardous chemicals, and that a large chemical release would be unlikely. While the facility in West, Texas stored large quantities of anhydrous ammonia, a chemical covered by the PSM regulations, OSHA officials told us that the PSM regulations would not apply to the facility because it was a retail outlet.

In addition, other chemical safety regulations issued by EPA do not apply to facilities with ammonium nitrate. EPA’s RMP regulations, issued in 1996 in response to a provision of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, require covered chemical facilities to develop and implement a risk management program, but ammonium nitrate is not included on the list of chemicals that would trigger the requirements. EPA’s RMP regulations require facilities that handle more than threshold amounts of certain chemicals to implement a risk management program to guard against the release of chemicals into the air and surrounding environment. Covered facilities must develop their own risk management plans, and some facilities must also develop an emergency response program and conduct compliance audits, among other requirements. Covered facilities must also submit their risk management plans to EPA, including data on the regulated substances handled, and prepare a plan for a worst-case chemical release scenario.

Although EPA initially included high explosives in its list of regulated substances, which would include explosives grade ammonium nitrate, these explosives were subsequently removed from the list as a result of a legal settlement. EPA officials also told us that fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate was not considered for its list for RMP because the agency had determined that it did not meet the criteria EPA established to implement the statute. Specifically, EPA officials told us that ammonium nitrate could have been included in the RMP regulations, but ammonium nitrate was not included because it was not considered a toxic or flammable chemical, which were among the criteria EPA used when the agency first developed the regulations. Accordingly, ammonium nitrate is not a covered chemical and EPA inspectors do not review facilities’ risk management plans for this chemical during their RMP inspections. In 2006, EPA conducted an on-site inspection of the West, Texas facility, but the inspection focused on anhydrous ammonia, not ammonium nitrate.

Under the Executive Order, OSHA and EPA Are Seeking Information on Expanding Regulation and Oversight of Ammonium Nitrate, but Have Not Yet Proposed Any Regulatory Changes

In response to the August 2013 Executive Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security, OSHA and EPA, as part of the federal working group, have invited public comment on a wide range of policy options for overseeing the housing and handling of hazardous chemicals in the United States. Because they are still evaluating these options, the agencies have not issued any notices of proposed rulemaking. As directed by the Executive Order, in December 2013, OSHA issued a Request for Information on potential revisions to its PSM and related regulations, including its ammonium nitrate storage regulations. OSHA’s Request for Information also seeks public input on changing the agency’s enforcement policy concerning the retailer exemption in the PSM regulations. In the Request for Information, OSHA states that “The West Fertilizer facility is not currently covered by PSM, however it is a stark example of how potential modernization of the PSM standard may include such facilities and prevent future catastrophe.” In addition, as chair of one of the workgroups established to implement the Executive Order, OSHA solicited public input in January 2014 on federal policy options for improved chemical safety and security, including whether to expand OSHA’s PSM regulations and EPA’s RMP regulations to cover ammonium nitrate, among other options. This solicitation also sought public input on whether federal agencies should examine the use of third party audits to promote safe storage and handling of ammonium nitrate. The solicitation defined third party audits as inspections conducted by independent auditors, retained by a chemical facility, who make process safety and regulatory compliance recommendations. In an ongoing pilot project in selected states implemented in response to the Executive Order, federal agencies report improved coordination of inspections, such as sharing inspection schedules, cross‐training inspectors, and inter‐agency referrals of possible regulatory non‐compliance.

Some Countries Regulate and Oversee Ammonium Nitrate By Imposing Requirements on Facilities, Conducting Inspections, and Supporting Industry Initiatives to Promote Compliance

Other Countries’ Approaches Include Risk Assessments and Restrictions on Where and How Ammonium Nitrate Can Be Stored

According to foreign officials and government documents, Canada and the three EU countries we contacted—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—require facilities with specified quantities of ammonium nitrate, including fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate, to assess its risk and develop plans or policies to control the risks and mitigate the consequences of accidents. Like the United States, these countries are members of the OECD, which has published best practices for managing the risks of chemical accidents. The OECD publication includes guidance on preventing and mitigating the consequences of chemical accidents, preparedness planning, and land use planning, among other things. For example, OECD’s guidance recommends that regulatory authorities ensure that facilities with hazardous substances assess the range of possible accidents and require hazardous facilities to submit reports describing the hazards and the steps taken to prevent accidents.

With respect to assessing the risks of ammonium nitrate, according to Canadian officials and Canadian government documents, ammonium nitrate is regulated under the country’s Environmental Emergency Regulations, which include risk management provisions. According to guidance published by Environment Canada, a federal-level regulatory agency, facilities that store 22 tons or more of ammonium nitrate must develop and implement an environmental emergency plan. In developing an emergency plan, facilities are directed to analyze the risks posed during the storage and handling processes for certain chemicals and adopt practices to reduce the risks, taking into consideration the impact a chemical accident would have on the surrounding community.

According to information provided by EU officials, facilities in the 28 member countries of the EU with specific quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer are subject to the Seveso Directive, the EU legislation for facilities that use or store large quantities of certain toxic, explosive, and flammable substances, among other types of chemicals. At a minimum, EU officials told us that EU member countries must comply with the Seveso Directive, although they have the option to adopt more stringent requirements. The legislation was adopted after a chemical accident in Seveso, Italy in 1976 that exposed thousands of people to the toxic chemical known as dioxin. Under the Seveso Directive, last updated in 2012, member countries are to require facilities with large amounts of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to notify the appropriate authority in their respective country, adopt a major accident prevention policy, and in some cases, develop a detailed safety report (see table 5).

Some countries, such as France and the United Kingdom, have other requirements for notifying authorities about the types and quantities of chemicals at facilities, including certain types of ammonium nitrate. In the United Kingdom, officials told us that facilities with 28 tons or more of certain types of ammonium nitrate must notify the Health and Safety Executive or local authority and the fire authorities. French officials said that facilities with more than 276 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer must notify local authorities about their holdings.

The selected countries we reviewed generally reported having more centralized land use policies that specify where facilities with large quantities of ammonium nitrate should be located. For example, EU officials explained that the Seveso Directive requires member countries to develop and implement land use policies. Through controls on the siting of new Seveso facilities and new developments in the vicinity of such facilities, such as transportation routes and residential areas, they told us, member countries’ policies aim to limit the consequences of chemical accidents for human health and the environment. In the United Kingdom, officials told us that facilities intending to store more than 1,102 tons of ammonium nitrate must first receive permission from their local planning authority to do so for relevant ammonium nitrate materials. They explained that these local planning authorities consider the hazards and risks to people in surrounding areas and consult with the Health and Safety Executive prior to granting permission to such facilities.

Three of the countries we reviewed—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—restrict the use of wood for storage purposes in certain instances, according to information and documents provided by relevant officials. EU officials told us that the Seveso Directive does not prescribe how chemicals, including ammonium nitrate, should be stored. EU countries have developed their own technical standards or rely on industry standards for storing and handling ammonium nitrate. For example, according to information provided by French officials, after several accidents involving ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the government in France launched a working group to update existing ammonium nitrate regulations, including storage and handling requirements. They described the most recent regulations in France, issued in 2010, which include updated fire resistance provisions for new and existing facilities banning or restricting the use of materials such as wood and asphalt flooring for storing ammonium nitrate. Specifically, according to documents provided by French officials, the regulations direct facilities not to store ammonium nitrate fertilizer in structures with wood walls or sides. According to an official in Germany, strict storage requirements for using certain types of ammonium nitrate fertilizer have led many farmers to voluntarily use an alternative type of fertilizer, known as calcium ammonium nitrate., For example, she explained that, in Germany, certain kinds of ammonium nitrate must be divided into quantities of 28 tons prior to storage, and quantities are separated by concrete walls. In addition, certain ammonium nitrate and ammonium nitrate-based preparations must be separated from combustible materials, for example by brick or concrete walls. Guidance in the United Kingdom also recommends that buildings for storing ammonium nitrate should be constructed of material that does not burn, such as concrete, bricks, or steel, as does the recent advisory in the United States published by OSHA, EPA, and ATF.

Foreign Oversight Approaches and Industry Initiatives Include Guidance on Safe Practices, Requirements for Routine Inspections, and Voluntary Third Party Audit Programs

Guidance on Safe Practices. In the countries we reviewed, government entities developed materials to help facilities with ammonium nitrate fertilizer comply with safety regulations. For example, in the United Kingdom, the government published guidance on storing and handling ammonium nitrate that illustrates proper storage practices and is written in plain language. The United Kingdom also developed a checklist that facilities can use as a compliance tool to determine whether they are meeting safe storage requirements. In Canada, Environment Canada issued a guidance document in 2011 so that facilities covered by its Environmental Emergency Regulations, including facilities with certain types and amounts of ammonium nitrate, can better understand and comply with regulatory requirements.

The EU compiles information about chemical accidents and disseminates publications that include guidance on how facilities can prevent future incidents. Specifically, the EU has a system for reporting major accidents, including accidents involving ammonium nitrate, and tracks the information in a central database. For example, as of January 2014, this database contained information on several incidents involving ammonium nitrate dating back to 1986. EU researchers use this information to develop semi-annual publications in order to facilitate the exchange of lessons learned from accidents for both industry and government regulators. Each publication focuses on a particular theme such as a specific substance, industry, or practice, and summarizes the causes of related accidents and lessons learned to help prevent future accidents. EU officials told us that the next publication will be issued in the summer of 2014 and will focus on the hazards of ammonium nitrate in part as a result of the explosion that occurred in West, Texas.

Routine Inspections. In the EU, member countries are required to inspect facilities with large quantities of chemicals covered by the Seveso Directive, which includes facilities with ammonium nitrate. According to EU officials and documents, the EU’s Seveso Directive requires covered facilities to be inspected either annually or once every 3 years, depending on the amount of hazardous chemicals a facility has—the greater the amount, the more frequent the inspection. EU officials also explained that member countries are required to report information to the European Commission every 3 years on how they are implementing the Seveso Directive requirements, including the number of facilities that have been inspected in their country. According to a report published by the European Commission in June 2013, member countries reported in December 2011 that they had 10,314 covered facilities. According to the report, of those facilities to be inspected annually, 66 percent were inspected, on average, in 2011, and of those facilities to be inspected once every 3 years, 43 percent were inspected, on average, in 2011.

Voluntary Initiatives and Third Party Audits. In the countries we reviewed, the fertilizer industry has actively promoted voluntary compliance with national safety requirements among facilities with ammonium nitrate fertilizer. For example, Fertilizers Europe, which represents the major fertilizer manufacturers in Europe, published guidance in 2007 for the storage and handling of ammonium nitrate-based fertilizers. This guidance recommends that buildings used to store ammonium nitrate- based fertilizers be constructed of non-readily combustible materials such as brick, concrete, or steel and that wood or other combustible materials be avoided, among other things. Fertilizers Europe has also developed a compliance program that is a key requirement for membership, which consists of independent third party audits. As part of the program, it developed a self assessment tool for fertilizer manufacturers to use to identify gaps and possible improvements.

In the United Kingdom, the government and the fertilizer industry worked together in 2006 to develop a voluntary compliance program for facilities that manufacture and store fertilizers, among other activities, including ammonium nitrate-based fertilizers. According to a United Kingdom official, the government provided some of the initial funding for this initiative, and the voluntary compliance program is now self financed. Although the program was initially focused on fertilizer security, it has evolved over the years to also address fertilizer safety in the United Kingdom. As part of the voluntary compliance program, participating facilities carry out risk assessments. These facilities are audited annually by an independent audit team comprised of specialists to determine whether they comply with industry and government standards, including standards for safely storing and handling ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

Officials we interviewed in the United Kingdom told us that the government encourages and supports this industry initiative and that about 90 percent of facilities with ammonium nitrate in the United Kingdom, including those that have small quantities, are members of the voluntary program. A United Kingdom official said, in his opinion, one would expect facilities participating in this industry initiative to be more likely to be found in compliance by the government when it conducts its own inspections. Furthermore, government officials, industry representatives, and program administrators meet twice a year to discuss how the program is being implemented and monitored.

Conclusions

Large quantities of ammonium nitrate are present in the United States, although the precise number of facilities with ammonium nitrate is not known. While incidents involving ammonium nitrate are rare, this chemical can react in ways that harm significant numbers of people and devastate communities. Facilities may be required, in certain circumstances, to report their chemical holdings to federal, state, and local authorities for security and emergency planning purposes. However, given the various reporting requirements and numerous reporting exemptions, some facilities may be uncertain about what to report to whom. Through the new Executive Order, federal agencies including DHS, EPA, and OSHA have the opportunity to work together on data sharing initiatives to help identify facilities with ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Such data sharing could help federal agencies identify facilities that are not complying with their regulations and enable OSHA to target high risk facilities with ammonium nitrate for inspection. Without improved coordination among the various federal and state agencies that collect data on facilities that store potentially hazardous chemicals, identifying facilities with ammonium nitrate for purposes of increasing awareness of the hazards and improving regulatory compliance will remain a challenge.

Although OSHA has requirements for storing ammonium nitrate fertilizer in its Explosives and Blasting Agents regulations that could reduce the likelihood of an explosion, OSHA has done little to ensure that the fertilizer industry, which is one of the primary users of ammonium nitrate, understands how to comply with its existing regulations. The August 2013 chemical advisory and OSHA’s February 2014 letter to facilities help clarify how OSHA’s Explosives and Blasting Agents regulations apply to fertilizer facilities. However, without additional action by OSHA to promote awareness of how to comply with its regulations, fertilizer facilities may not know whether their practices are in compliance with OSHA’s existing ammonium nitrate storage regulations or if changes need to be made. Moreover, unless OSHA takes steps to leverage additional resources to support its enforcement efforts, whether through enhanced targeting or coordination with other agencies or outside parties, beginning with encouraging voluntary compliance with ammonium nitrate regulations through various industry initiatives, it will not know the extent to which dangerous conditions at some facilities may continue to exist.

While much can be achieved under current regulations, OSHA and EPA’s regulations contain gaps with respect to ammonium nitrate that may allow unsafe facilities to operate and poor planning to persist. OSHA has not significantly changed its ammonium nitrate storage regulations since they were issued in 1971, which means that fertilizer facilities may be adhering to outdated practices. For example, other countries we reviewed have revisited and updated their ammonium nitrate regulations and the National Fire Protection Association is considering making changes to its ammonium nitrate storage standards as a result of the explosion in West, Texas. In addition, as a result of incidents involving ammonium nitrate abroad, countries in the European Union and Canada require facilities to assess the risks of working with ammonium nitrate fertilizer, and the European Union requires member countries to routinely inspect facilities that have very large quantities of it. These approaches offer examples of how the risks of ammonium nitrate can be managed. Although increased regulation may be more burdensome to industry, without some means of ensuring that high risk facilities plan for and manage the risks associated with ammonium nitrate, such facilities may not be prompted to adequately address the risks the chemical creates for workers and neighboring communities.

Recommendations for Executive Action

1. To improve federal oversight of facilities with ammonium nitrate, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor, the Administrator of EPA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, as part of their efforts as members of the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group established by the Executive Order issued in August 2013, develop and implement methods of improving data sharing among federal agencies and with states. 2. We also recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to take the following three actions:

Extend OSHA’s outreach to the fertilizer industry. For example, OSHA could work with the fertilizer industry to develop and disseminate informational materials related to storage of ammonium nitrate.

Take steps to identify high risk facilities working with ammonium nitrate and develop options to target them for inspection.

Consider updating regulations for the storage of ammonium nitrate taking into consideration, as appropriate, other related standards and current practices. 3. To strengthen federal oversight of facilities with ammonium nitrate, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of EPA direct OSHA and EPA, respectively, to consider revising their related regulations to cover ammonium nitrate and jointly develop a plan to require high risk facilities with ammonium nitrate to assess the risks and implement safeguards to prevent accidents involving this chemical.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Labor for review and comment. We received written comments from EPA, DHS, and OSHA, which are reproduced in appendices I, II, and III. EPA, DHS, and OSHA agreed with our recommendation that the agencies improve data sharing and described their current efforts to address this issue as part of their implementation of the Executive Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. The agencies stated that a status report by the Executive Order Working Group, which will be submitted to the President by the end of May, 2014, will include proposals for enhancing data sharing among federal agencies and with states.

OSHA agreed with our recommendation that the agency conduct additional outreach to the fertilizer industry, stating that additional outreach efforts will be identified in the Executive Order status report and that these efforts should help the fertilizer industry understand OSHA’s safety requirements and industry best practices. OSHA also agreed with our recommendation that the agency target high risk facilities for inspection, stating that the agency is evaluating options for targeting high risk fertilizer facilities for inspection.

OSHA and EPA agreed with our recommendation that the agencies consider revising their regulations to cover ammonium nitrate. OSHA is currently reviewing public comments submitted in response to a Request for Information on a proposed revision to the agency’s Process Safety Management and Prevention of Major Chemical Accidents regulations and the a request for public input on issues associated with Section 6 of the Executive Order, which addresses Policy, Regulation, and Standards Modernization. EPA stated that the agency will be publishing a Request for Information seeking public input on its proposed revision to process safety and risk management issues relevant to its Risk Management Program regulations, including coverage of ammonium nitrate. In addition, EPA, DHS, and OSHA provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. We also provided portions of the draft report related to each of the four countries we reviewed to relevant officials from each country, and incorporated their technical comments, as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Betty Ward-Zukerman, Assistant Director; Catherine Roark, Analyst in Charge, Theodore Alexander, Nancy Cosentino, Joel Marus, and Meredith Moore, made significant contributions to all phases of the work. Also contributing to this report were Hiwotte Amare, Jason Bair, James Bennett, Susan Bernstein, Stephen Caldwell, Sarah Cornetto, Charles Johnson, Jr., Kathy Leslie, Ashley McCall, Sheila McCoy, Jean McSween, John Mortin, Vincent Price, Stephen Sanford, Sushil Sharma, Linda Siegel, Maria Stattel, and Kathleen van Gelder.