This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-799 
entitled 'Chemical Safety: Emergency Response Community Views on the 
Adequacy of Federally Required Chemical Information' which was released 
on July 31, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

July 2002: 

Chemical Safety: 

Emergency Response Community Views on the Adequacy of Federally Required
Chemical Information: 

GAO-02-799: 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Emergency Response Community Has Varied Views on the Adequacy of 
Federally Required Chemical Information and the Manner in Which It Is 
Delivered: 

EPA’s Sense of Compliance with the Risk Management Plan Requirements 
Varies: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Sample Chemical Inventory Form: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Abbreviations: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 31, 2002: 

The Honorable James Jeffords: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Robert C. Smith: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Environment and Public Works: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable W.J. “Billy” Tauzin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John D. Dingell: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

In light of recent terrorist activity within our nation’s borders, the 
United States has become increasingly aware of the need to be prepared 
to respond to emergencies, including those involving hazardous 
chemicals. To help protect communities from incidents involving 
hazardous chemicals, local emergency responders need information such 
as the types of chemicals used or stored at facilities in their 
communities. Two federal laws require chemical facilities to provide 
such information: the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Act of 1986 [Footnote 1] (EPCRA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990. [Footnote 2] EPCRA, among other things, requires facilities to 
annually complete and submit chemical inventory forms to their state 
and local emergency response officials to help them prepare for and 
respond to chemical incidents. The Clean Air Act’s risk management plan 
provisions, which focus on accident prevention and preparedness 
planning, require facilities that handle specified quantities of 
certain substances to develop and register risk management plans with 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at least every 5 years. The 
Clean Air Act also requires that these plans be submitted to state and 
local agencies responsible for preparing for or responding to accidental
chemical releases. EPA oversees the implementation of both acts, but has
delegated some authority for implementation of the Clean Air Act’s risk
management provisions to some state and local governments. 

In 1999, largely because of concerns that terrorists could easily access
chemical facilities’ information on the Internet, the Congress passed 
the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory 
Relief Act [Footnote 3] primarily to limit the public availability of 
sensitive information under the Clean Air Act. This act also mandated 
that we report, within 3 years, on the adequacy of chemical information 
required to be submitted to local emergency response personnel to help 
them respond to chemical incidents, the adequacy of the delivery of 
that information, and the level of compliance with the requirement to 
submit the information. As agreed with your offices, this report 
addresses that mandate by (1) providing views of the emergency response 
community on the adequacy of the information in federally required 
chemical inventory forms and risk management plans and the manner in 
which that information is delivered and (2) describing EPA’s actions to 
ensure compliance with the risk management plan provisions— 
specifically, whether facilities are registering risk management plans, 
the plans contain accurate information, and local responders are 
obtaining them—and EPA’s sense of the extent of compliance. 

To obtain the views of members of the emergency response community on
the adequacy of chemical information and its delivery, we interviewed 51
local emergency responders (emergency planners and fire fighters) from
10 out of almost 8,000 communities that have at least one chemical 
facility that registered a risk management plan. While this work is not
generalizable to all communities, it provides useful examples of the 
views of local communities. To obtain a national perspective, we 
interviewed representatives from 11 national organizations, including 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We chose these organizations 
because they represent responders, the chemical industry, or government 
officials who are concerned about emergency response or because 
officials from EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention 
Office identified them as being knowledgeable of the issues. To 
describe EPA’s actions to ensure compliance and EPA’s sense of 
compliance with risk management plan provisions, we interviewed 
officials from EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention 
Office and all 10 EPA regional offices, which are responsible for 
overseeing compliance. We performed our work between August 2001 and 
July 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Appendix I provides further details about our scope and 
methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

The local emergency responders and representatives from national
organizations we contacted have varied views on the adequacy of (1) 
information in chemical inventory forms and risk management plans and 
(2) the manner in which that information is delivered. Local responders 
in most of the communities we contacted believe this information 
generally meets their needs, but a few said that it was not adequate to 
help them respond to chemical incidents; representatives of the 
national organizations were divided in their opinions on the adequacy
of the information as well. Both local responders and national 
organization representatives made suggestions that they believe would 
improve the usefulness of the information. For example, some suggested 
that: 

* for both the chemical inventory forms and the risk management plans, 
the specified quantities of hazardous chemicals that trigger reporting
requirements should be lowered and the lists of chemicals should be
expanded and; 

* the chemical inventory forms should require facilities to report on
specific quantities of specified chemicals that they maintain rather 
than broad ranges of quantities. 

Most members of the emergency response community believe that the
manner of delivery of federally required information is generally 
adequate but that it could be improved. Although the Emergency Planning 
and Community Right-to-Know Act and the Clean Air Act do not specify a
particular manner for delivering the information, most local responders
we contacted receive the chemical information in hard copy. Some local
responders said they prefer hard copy, and others said they would prefer
to receive the information electronically. The national organizations 
that addressed the adequacy of delivery commented that electronic 
delivery would be more useful to responders. 

EPA officials cited several agency efforts to ensure compliance with
provisions of the Clean Air Act’s risk management program. However,
their sense of the extent of compliance varies across the three specific
provisions that we reviewed; that is, the extent to which (1) 
facilities have registered risk management plans, (2) the plans contain 
accurate information, and (3) local responders are receiving the plans. 
More specifically: 

* EPA officials said they have made significant efforts to identify
facilities required to register plans—for example, by reviewing federal
chemical databases for facilities that may need to register and 
notifying facilities of their potential responsibilities. As of August 
30, 2001, about 15,000 facilities had registered plans. While agency 
officials have not determined the exact number of facilities required 
to register, they believe, on the basis of the outreach efforts and 
other steps taken by EPA regions, that most facilities have complied 
with the registration requirement. 

* Because EPA has reviewed only a small portion of the risk management 
plans—about 15 percent as of September 30, 2001—and because these 
reviews ranged from simply reading the plans to carrying out detailed 
on-site inspections, the agency does not have a comprehensive picture 
of the accuracy of information in the plans. Recognizing the need to 
review more plans, but faced with resource constraints, EPA is 
considering allowing facilities to hire EPA-certified auditors to 
perform on-site inspections. 

* While EPA has made some efforts to ensure local responders have
access to plans, the agency does not know the extent to which this is
occurring. Local responders from most of the communities we contacted 
said that they generally had obtained copies of the plans, but some 
national organizations raised concerns that not all local responders 
had obtained them. 

Background: 

Under EPCRA, facilities that maintain specified quantities of certain
hazardous chemicals are required to annually submit chemical inventory
forms to state and local emergency response officials to help them 
prepare for and respond to chemical incidents. The information to be 
provided includes (1) an estimated range of the maximum amount of 
specified hazardous chemicals present at the facility at any time 
during the preceding calendar year, (2) an estimated range of the 
average amount of these chemicals present daily, and (3) the location 
in the facility of the specified chemicals. Inventory forms are 
required for approximately 500,000 materials. See appendix II for an 
example of a chemical inventory form. 

Additionally, EPCRA requires the formation of local emergency planning
committees whose members include, at a minimum, local police, fire, 
civil defense, public health, environmental, and transportation 
officials, as well as representatives of facilities subject to the 
emergency planning requirements, community groups, and the media. There 
are approximately 3,500 local emergency planning committees across the 
nation. Under the act, the committees are required to develop and 
periodically review emergency response plans for their communities 
that, among other things, identify chemical facilities and outline 
procedures for response personnel to follow in the event of a chemical 
incident. The chemical facilities are required to supply emergency 
response information to the local emergency planning committee for 
incorporation into the emergency response plans. While this report does 
not specifically address them, EPCRA also has other provisions designed 
to provide local responders with information about chemical hazards. 
For example, facilities must notify local responders if there is a 
release of a specified quantity of certain hazardous substances, and 
facilities must submit to EPA a toxic chemical release inventory 
covering releases that occurred during the preceding calendar year. 

Under the Clean Air Act, chemical facilities maintaining more than a
specified amount of a regulated substance must register risk management
plans with EPA headquarters at least every 5 years. [Footnote 4] 
Regulated substances include 77 toxic substances, such as ammonia and 
chlorine, and 63 flammable substances, such as butane and hydrogen. A 
risk management plan includes documentation that the facility has (1) 
completed a hazard assessment that incorporates a 5-year accident 
history, by substance by site, and an evaluation of potential 
consequences to surrounding communities of chemical releases that 
includes the worst-case scenario; (2) developed a prevention program 
that includes facility safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, 
and employee training measures; and (3) developed a response program 
that outlines emergency health care procedures, employee training 
measures, and procedures for informing the public and local agencies 
responsible for responding to chemical releases. The act requires that 
risk management plans be submitted to local agencies or entities 
responsible for preparing for or responding to chemical releases. EPA’s 
implementing regulations for risk management plans [Footnote 5] require 
chemical facilities to coordinate emergency response plans created 
under their emergency response programs with community emergency 
response plans. 

Emergency Response Community Has Varied Views on the Adequacy of 
Federally Required Chemical Information and the Manner in Which It Is
Delivered: 

The members of the emergency response community we contacted have
varied views on the adequacy of the information reported in chemical
inventory forms and risk management plans and on the manner in which
that information is delivered. Most members of the community believe 
that information provided in chemical inventory forms and risk 
management plans is adequate to meet the needs of local responders, but 
some do not share this view. In addition, many members made suggestions 
to improve the usefulness of the information. Finally, some members of 
the community question the usefulness of the manner in which the 
federally required information is delivered. 

Most Members of the Emergency Response Community We Contacted Believe 
the Federally Required Information Is Adequate: 

Local responders in most of the communities we contacted believe that
the information in the chemical inventory forms and the risk management
plans is generally adequate to help them prepare for and respond to
chemical incidents. Responders from eight of the communities find the
information in the inventory forms to be adequate and said they use it 
in different ways, such as to identify specific chemicals at facilities,
determine the location of stored chemicals, and analyze the potential
effects of a chemical release on the surrounding community. Responders
from seven communities find the information in risk management plans
adequate. Some responders said they use the information in the plans to
develop community emergency response plans, one reported using it to
develop a “quick action” plan to share with other responders, and others
said they use it to conduct planning activities at facilities. 

Representatives from five national organizations told us they believe 
the federally required information is generally adequate to help local
responders prepare for chemical incidents. Representatives from the
American Chemistry Council, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the National 
Association of State Fire Marshals said that the information in the 
chemical inventory form is useful and critical in preparing for 
chemical incidents. They said that the chemical inventory form helps 
responders by identifying the extent of facilities’ emergency response 
capabilities. Regarding risk management plans, representatives from the 
American Chemistry Council and the National Volunteer Fire Council 
stated that the plans are useful in identifying small facilities that 
store and use dangerous chemicals, such as chlorine, that were not 
previously required to report federal information, and in identifying 
the resources responders would need to respond to chemical incidents. 

Local responders from a few communities question the adequacy of the
information. Local responders from three communities said they have
particular concerns about the accuracy and currency of the chemical
information they receive. For example, responders from two communities
said that they do not know if the information in the risk management 
plans they receive is accurate and that there is no way to be sure. (As 
discussed in a subsequent section of this report, because EPA has 
performed limited verification of risk management plans, the agency 
does not have a complete picture of the accuracy of most of the plans.) 
Responders from the third community commented that the information in 
chemical inventory forms is outdated and that they have found errors in 
these forms. In addition, local responders from five communities 
commented that they receive such a large amount of information that it 
is difficult to manage. Responders from two of these communities stated 
that the risk management plan is too large to be taken to the scene of 
an incident and that responders have difficulty locating important 
information in the plan. As a result, most local responders said they 
prefer to use the chemical inventory form when responding to a chemical 
incident. An EPA official stated that the risk management plan was 
intended to serve many purposes, including providing a community with 
information to assist in development of an emergency response plan and 
providing responders with hazard information that might not be 
available from other sources. However, the agency did not design the 
risk management plan specifically to be used at the scene of an 
incident. 

Regarding the national organizations, four representatives said that the
information is not adequate to assist local responders for various 
reasons. One reason cited was that the information is not current and 
accurate. For example, the International Fire Marshals Association has 
concerns about the accuracy of facilities’ analyses of community 
impacts contained in the risk management plans. Another reason is the 
large amount of information responders receive. For example, a 
representative from the National Emergency Management Association said 
that the risk management plan contains too much information, which 
makes it difficult for responders to know what information is 
necessary. 

In light of the events of September 11, 2001, we asked members of the
emergency response community about the adequacy of chemical information 
to assist them in responding to chemical incidents involving 
terrorists. The community has diverse opinions about this issue as well.
Local responders from six communities believe the chemical information
they receive would be adequate to assist them in the event of a chemical
incident caused by terrorists. For example, some said that the chemical
information that responders need is the same whether an incident is
caused accidentally or by a terrorist act. Responders from two 
communities said they would consider the information adequate if it had
been reviewed and found accurate. Finally, responders from two 
communities said they did not have adequate chemical information to
respond to a terrorist incident but did not provide suggestions to 
improve the information. 

We also asked national organizations for their opinions on the adequacy 
of chemical information to help responders in the event of a terrorist
incident, and three provided comments. The representative for the
Chlorine Institute said that the information is sufficient. A 
representative from one organization, the National Association of 
Emergency Medical Technicians, said that the outcomes of accidental and 
terrorist-related chemical releases would be similar but that the 
latter may pose additional threats to the responders. A representative 
from the third organization, the National Emergency Management 
Association, stated that communication between federal law enforcement 
agencies and local emergency responders is more important in the event 
of a terrorist incident than the adequacy of federally required 
chemical information. 

Most Members of the Emergency Response Community We Contacted Want More 
Specific Information on More Chemicals: 

Although most of the members of the emergency response community that
we contacted said the federally required information was adequate, these
members generally want more specific information on more chemicals.
Their suggestions included (1) lowering or eliminating the thresholds of
hazardous chemicals that trigger the requirement for facilities to 
report them and expanding the list of chemicals to be reported; (2) 
changing the focus of the risk management plan from worst-case scenario 
to probable-case scenario; and (3) requiring chemical facilities to 
report exact quantities of chemicals, rather than ranges, on the 
chemical inventory form. Members of the emergency response community 
also had suggestions, not relating specifically to the federally 
required chemical information they received, that they believe would 
improve their ability to respond to chemical incidents. 

Lower or Eliminate Thresholds for Reporting and Expand List of 
Chemicals to Be Reported: 

Many members of the emergency response community made suggestions that 
they believe would improve the quality of the information reported. 
Local responders from six communities believe that the thresholds for
chemical inventory forms and risk management plans are set too high and
suggested that EPA revisit this issue for the most dangerous chemicals. 

* A responder from one community stated that all chemicals on the lists 
of hazardous substances are dangerous and that chemical facilities 
should report them if they have them in any quantity. 

* Local responders from another community believe that the threshold 
for petroleum products should be lowered because these products account 
for the majority of hazardous incidents in their community. 

* Local responders from three communities suggested expanding the list 
of chemicals required to be reported in chemical inventory forms and 
risk management plans. For example, responders from one community would 
like to see mining chemicals regulated. 

Representatives from several national organizations shared the following
concerns: 

* Representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters
commented that the thresholds for reporting hazardous chemicals are set 
too high. 

* Representatives from the National Volunteer Fire Council suggested 
that the thresholds should be reviewed on a regular basis. [Footnote 6] 

* Representatives from the American Chemistry Council, the 
International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Fire 
Marshals Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council believe 
that propane should be included in risk management plans because it 
poses a greater hazard than other chemicals already included. [Footnote 
7] 

Focus Risk Management Plans on Probable-Case Scenarios: 

Some local responders and representatives of three national 
organizations expressed concern that EPA and others place too much 
emphasis on and devote too many resources to developing the worst-case 
scenario section of the risk management plan. 

* Local responders from four communities believe that many chemical
facilities are spending most of their efforts analyzing worst-case
scenario data when it is highly unlikely that such a scenario will 
occur. 

* A representative from the International Association of Fire Chiefs 
said that although the worst-case scenario information may be useful, 
the probable-case scenario is more useful and that fire fighters are
interested in the most likely scenario. 

* Representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters
stated that responders should not disregard the likely scenario because
of focusing on the worst-case scenario. 

Report Exact Quantities of Chemicals: 

Chemical facilities’ inventory forms must document the estimated ranges
of maximum and average daily amounts of specified chemicals that they
handle. For example, one range on the form is from 100 pounds to 999
pounds; another is from 10,000 pounds to 99,999 pounds. Local responders
from three communities stated that these ranges are not useful because
they lack specificity. Representatives from the International 
Association of Fire Fighters and the International Fire Marshals 
Association commented that local responders want chemical information 
to be reported in exact quantities and not broad ranges. 

Provide Other Information or Resources to Help Responders: 

Members of the emergency response community also noted other types of
information and resources they believe would assist local responders
when responding to chemical incidents in their communities. 

* Local responders from seven communities expressed the following two
concerns. They would like to have more information on the chemicals
being transported through their communities by road or rail, [Footnote 
8] and they would like to have additional funding for training and 
equipment so that they can be better prepared to respond to a chemical 
incident when it occurs. Officials from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency commented that they provide training for local responders to
help them respond to chemical incidents. However, they noted that
resources are limited and only a small percentage of local responders
nationwide have attended their training. 

* Representatives from the International Association of Fire Fighters, 
the International Fire Marshals Association, the National Association of
State Fire Marshals, and the National Volunteer Fire Council
emphasized that local responders should work with chemical facilities
to obtain information through site visits of facilities and by 
conducting drills. 

* Representatives from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the
International Fire Marshals Association, the National Emergency 
Management Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council also
agreed with the local responders’ need for information on 
transportation of hazardous chemicals. 

Some Members of the Emergency Response Community Question the Manner in 
Which the Federally Required Information Is Delivered: 

Although most of the local responders we contacted said that the way in
which they receive chemical information—in hard copy—is adequate, some 
responders and representatives of national organizations question the 
adequacy of this manner of delivery. EPCRA and the Clean Air Act do not 
specify the form in which responders are to receive chemical inventory 
forms and risk management plans. 

Local responders from eight communities said hard copy delivery of 
chemical inventory forms is adequate. Local responders from the eight 
communities that obtained risk management plans also believe hard copy
delivery is adequate. Two communities noted that chemical inventory 
forms are easy to mark and distribute and easy to use in an emergency
situation. Moreover, responders from three communities emphasized the
importance of hard copy forms for local planners and responders who may
not have access to computer terminals or necessary software. 

While many responders find the delivery of federally required 
information adequate, local responders from four communities would 
prefer to receive chemical inventory forms electronically, and 
responders from two communities would prefer to receive risk management 
plans electronically. Although local responders from seven communities 
manage their chemical information entirely in hard copy, responders 
from three communities manage it electronically by entering it into a 
computer database. In addition, four communities are designing or 
implementing programs to allow for electronic registering, management, 
and transmission of chemical information to responders. Local responders
expressed interest in variations of electronic reporting. 

* A responder from one community hopes to receive chemical information 
from facilities by E-mail. 

* A responder from another community would like the information to be
posted on a Web site from which responders could access it when needed. 
This responder believes that electronic access might allow facilities 
to more easily update data, thus allowing his response team to obtain 
current data more quickly. 

* A responder from another community wants forms to be transmitted
electronically to the response scene. 

* Responders from two communities noted the need to secure information 
transmitted or posted on the Internet. 

Finally, responders from two of the same communities that preferred an
electronic or combination format for storing and sharing information
noted they would likely continue to use hard copy for reviewing
information. 

Representatives of all eight national organizations that commented 
prefer electronic delivery, and representatives from several are 
concerned that local responders are not receiving chemical information 
electronically. 

* A representative from the National Emergency Management Association 
believes that electronic data facilitates the movement of chemical 
information. 

* Representatives from the National Volunteer Fire Council believe that 
forms need to be electronic to be useful. They consider hard copy 
reports extremely difficult for responders to manage given space
limitations in the response vehicle and at the scene of an incident. 

* A representative from the International Fire Marshals Association
commented that he would prefer electronic reporting because data
could be updated frequently to assist local responders. 

* A representative from the International Association of Fire Fighters
believes that chemical information should be managed electronically in
a secure environment. 

EPA’s Sense of Compliance with the Risk Management Plan Requirements
Varies: 

EPA officials told us that the agency has undertaken several efforts to
ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act’s risk management program.
Based on those efforts, EPA’s sense of the extent of compliance varied
across the three risk management program requirements that we reviewed. 
For example, while the agency has had difficulty in identifying the 
universe of facilities required to file risk management plans, on the
basis of outreach activities it has undertaken, the agency believes
compliance with the registration requirement to be high. In contrast, 
EPA’s actions to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the
registered risk management plans have been limited and, accordingly, the
agency cannot be certain of the accuracy of most plans. Finally, EPA 
does not monitor the extent to which local responders have risk 
management plans, and therefore does not have a sense of the extent of 
compliance with this requirement. 

EPA Believes Most Facilities Have Registered Risk Management Plans: 

EPA officials told us that as the risk management program was first 
being implemented, they took significant steps to identify and notify 
facilities across the country that were potentially subject to the 
registration requirement. For example, EPA held outreach meetings and 
workshops to educate chemical facility representatives about program 
requirements and conducted mass mailings to facilities citing the types 
of facilities that should register risk management plans. The work to 
determine the universe of facilities required to register varied by 
region, but according to regional officials, it generally included the 
following efforts. 

* Comparing lists of facilities that had registered risk management 
plans with existing federal chemical information databases, most 
commonly those containing information about facilities that had 
registered under EPCRA. 

* Consulting telephone directories, library sources, and trade journals
and speaking to groups representing small businesses. 

* Contacting facilities that might need to register to determine if they
were required to do so. 

According to the officials, these contacts identified few facilities 
that still needed to register risk management plans. Those that were 
identified usually submitted plans as a result of the contact or 
reduced their chemical inventories below the threshold to avoid having 
to register. An official in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance said that EPA had about 100 enforcement actions in process or 
completed as of September 30, 2001, most of which related to facilities 
failing to register risk management plans. 

Despite its efforts, EPA is uncertain of the number of facilities that 
are required to register. Before the June 21, 1999, deadline for 
registering risk management plans, EPA had estimated that about 64,000 
facilities would need to register. Subsequently, the Chemical Safety 
Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act exempted 
most facilities that handled propane from the requirement to register 
plans. With this exemption, EPA refined its estimate to 33,000 
facilities. About 15,000 facilities registered by the deadline. 
According to an EPA official, two factors, other than noncompliance, 
likely contributed to the difference between EPA’s estimate and the 
actual number of registrants. First, EPA may have overestimated the 
number of facilities subject to the regulation. Second, some facilities 
took actions to avoid being regulated under the program, such as 
reducing chemical inventory below the thresholds that trigger the 
reporting requirement, replacing a regulated chemical with one not 
covered by the requirement, or eliminating a particular regulated
chemical. 

An EPA headquarters official from the office responsible for chemical
preparedness noted that registering a risk management plan in and of 
itself does not necessarily indicate that a facility has undertaken all 
necessary actions. According to the official, the “paper plan” 
submitted to EPA captures certain details, but it is the underlying 
program elements, properly implemented, that protect the public from 
accidental chemical releases. He stated that there may be facilities 
that have registered plans with EPA but still have deficiencies in 
their underlying program. 

EPA Has Not Determined the Accuracy of Most Risk Management Plans: 

Although EPA had reviewed to varying degrees about 15 percent of the
risk management plans registered as of the end of fiscal year 2001, the
agency does not have a complete picture of the accuracy of most risk
management plans. All risk management plans registered with EPA were
electronically verified to check for completeness; if all data fields 
had entries, the plan was considered complete. After that check, EPA 
reviewed some of the plans for accuracy or internal consistency. As of 
September 30, 2001, EPA had reviewed about 2,200 of the approximately 
15,000 registered plans for accuracy. [Footnote 9] These reviews 
consisted of about 1,500 desk audits of the plans and about 700 on-site 
inspections. According to an EPA official, the agency’s ability to 
perform more comprehensive reviews has been constrained by resources. 

Most regions performed some desk audits, which ranged from reviewing a
few elements of the plans to reviewing the entire plan. Most EPA 
regional officials who performed desk audits said they used guidance 
issued by headquarters as a basis for their audits or as a supplement 
to their own procedures. Program auditors in most regions verified that 
data, such as reported chemical quantities and calculations, were 
accurate and also that facilities were coordinating with local 
responders. However, EPA regional officials approached verifying 
coordination with local responders in different ways. For example, some 
regional officials considered coordination to exist when a facility 
held public meetings to discuss its risk management plan with the 
community; others said that coordination had occurred only if the 
facility and the community participated in emergency exercises. These 
varying interpretations can lead to inconsistent compliance monitoring. 
While EPA has issued guidance to facilities on what constitutes 
coordination, it has not provided such guidance to the regions. 

Officials from all EPA regional offices told us that they had performed
some on-site inspections of facilities that have registered risk 
management plans; however, the number performed in each region varied 
from 2 to 145. For example, officials from one region responsible for 
1,217 risk management plans conducted 30 inspections and found one 
facility in violation because of a poor quality analysis of the impact 
on the surrounding community. Officials from another region, where 1,006
facilities registered risk management plans, conducted 105 inspections,
finding varying levels of compliance; some facilities needed to update 
their training, others were not performing scheduled maintenance on
equipment, and still others were not implementing the safety procedures
listed in their risk management plans. These regional officials told us 
that all facilities, except one, took action to comply, and EPA filed an
enforcement action against the remaining facility. 

To supplement its resources for carrying out compliance activities, EPA 
is considering using private sector EPA-certified auditors to assess the
accuracy of risk management plan information. According to an EPA
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office official, EPA
recently studied the viability of this approach. This official said 
that the results of the study were promising but that the details of 
the proposal are not yet complete. Such a proposal would require 
certified auditors to perform reviews at facilities that had 
volunteered for this program. The facilities would incur the inspection 
cost, but they would receive regulatory incentives if they maintained 
certain safety records. Agency officials have not yet agreed on what 
the incentives would be. According to an EPA official, the agency’s use 
of similar methods to meet other inspection requirements has improved 
safety at the facilities and limited the amount of EPA resources spent. 

EPA has encouraged states, counties, and cities to apply for the 
authority to monitor compliance with the risk management program. EPA 
officials told us that they had originally envisioned that more states 
and localities would accept responsibility for implementing the 
program, which they said would have given the agency a better sense of 
compliance with registration and the accuracy of information reported. 
However, only 16 locations received delegated authority as of February 
28, 2002. [Footnote 10] 

EPA Does Not Know the Extent to Which Local Responders Are Obtaining 
Risk Management Plans: 

While EPA has addressed facilities’ compliance with the registration and
accuracy of risk management plans, the agency does not monitor the
extent to which local responders have obtained plans. The Clean Air Act
requires that risk management plans be submitted to local agencies or
entities with responsibility for planning for or responding to 
accidental chemical releases, but the act does not specify how this is 
to be accomplished. 

EPA issued guidance [Footnote 11] in November 1999 that specified that 
local responders could obtain risk management plans—with the exception 
of certain sensitive data, such as specific information about the 
potential risks to a community—by visiting the agency Web site or by 
requesting the plans in their entirety from EPA. However, after the 
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, EPA removed the plans from its 
Web site. According to EPA officials, local responders are still able 
to request and obtain the plans from EPA, and the agency is currently 
deliberating whether to return the plans to the Web site. They also 
noted that both the general public and local responders have access to 
risk management plans through reading rooms managed by EPA and the 
Department of Justice and located in 55 major cities across the country 
and in U.S. territories and commonwealths. [Footnote 12] 

While EPA makes the plans available to local responders, it has taken no
specific steps to ensure that local responders actually obtain them. EPA
leaves the responsibility for obtaining plans to local responders. 

* Responders from 8 of the 10 communities we contacted said that they 
have obtained the plans, or executive summaries of the plans, for 
almost all of the facilities in their communities directly from the
facilities. [Footnote 13] 

* According to a national survey contracted by EPA and conducted by The 
George Washington University in 1999, 73 percent of local responders 
that replied to the survey reported that they intended to obtain risk 
management plans directly from facilities in their communities. 
[Footnote 14] 

* Local responders in two of the communities we contacted said they had 
not obtained the plans but knew where to get them if needed. Responders 
from one of these communities said that their state did not participate 
in the risk management program because it wanted to avoid legal 
liability if the plan’s sensitive data were to fall into the wrong 
hands. 

* A study conducted by the National Institute for Chemical Studies found
that local responders from most of the 32 communities they contacted 
did not obtain or maintain copies of the plans, [Footnote 15] but an 
institute representative clarified that these local responders knew how 
to obtain plans if needed. 

Representatives from national organizations expressed the following 
concerns about whether and how responders are obtaining plans. 

* The representatives from the International Association of Fire 
Fighters and the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians 
doubt that all local responders actually obtain the plans. 

* The representative from the International Fire Marshals Association, 
who is also an emergency responder, noted that he has plans only 
because he has sought them from facilities. 

* The representative from the International Fire Marshals Association 
and the National Association of State Fire Marshals expressed concern
that the local responders have to do so much work to obtain the plans. 

* Representatives from the International Fire Marshals Association, the
National Association of State Fire Marshals, the International 
Association of Fire Fighters, and the National Volunteer Fire Council 
commented that facility visits by local responders are critical to their
obtaining complete chemical information. They also said that local
responders do not receive all the plans because either the facilities 
are not sending them or the plans are becoming caught up in the local
bureaucracy and not reaching the local responders. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. The
Director of EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office provided technical clarifications that we incorporated where
appropriate. The Director also orally commented that the report fairly 
and accurately presented information about federally required chemical
information and EPA’s actions to ensure compliance with the Clean Air
Act’s risk management provisions. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, appropriate congressional committees,
and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to 
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call 
me at (202) 512-6111. Major contributors to this report are listed in 
appendix III. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

David G. Wood: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To provide the views of members of the emergency response community on 
the adequacy of (1) the information in federally required chemical 
inventory forms and risk management plans and (2) the manner in which
that information is delivered, we interviewed 51 local emergency 
responders (emergency planners and fire fighters) from 10 out of almost
8,000 communities that have at least one chemical facility that 
registered a risk management plan. We chose the sample of communities 
to include a variety of concentrations of chemical facilities required 
to submit risk management plans in different parts of the country. We 
obtained a copy of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 
RMP*Review, which is a database of risk management plans submitted to 
EPA, as of August 30, 2001; sorted the plans by city; and grouped the 
cities according to the numbers of chemical facilities that had 
registered plans in each. The groups were cities with 1 facility; 2 to 
5 facilities; 6 to 10 facilities; 11 to 29 facilities; and 30 to 75 
facilities. We chose two cities from each group using a random number 
table. When the two cities we chose for a group were in the same or an 
adjoining state, we discarded one and chose another to ensure 
geographic dispersion. 

This process resulted in the selection of the following 10 cities: 
Phoenix, Arizona; El Dorado, Arkansas; Shasta Lake, California; 
Orlando, Florida; Brownstown, Indiana; Holloman Air Force Base in 
Alamogordo, New Mexico; Buffalo, New York; Morrisville, Pennsylvania; 
Houston, Texas; and Wendover City, Utah. We contacted the local 
emergency planning committees that covered these cities, as well as 
local responders that the planning committees recommended. 

To obtain a national perspective, we interviewed representatives from
seven national emergency response organizations, two chemical industry
organizations, a federal agency with an interest in chemical emergency
response, and one other organization. We chose most of these 
organizations because they represent responders, the chemical industry,
or government officials who are concerned about emergency response. We
chose others on the basis of recommendations from officials from EPA’s
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office. The national
organizations whose representatives provided opinions included the
International Association of Fire Chiefs; the International Association 
of Fire Fighters; the International Fire Marshals Association; the 
National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians; the National 
Association of State Fire Marshals; the National Emergency Management 
Association; the National Volunteer Fire Council; the American 
Chemistry Council; The Chlorine Institute, Inc.; the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency; and the National Governors Association. 
Representatives from another five organizations—the International 
Association of Emergency Managers, the International Institute of 
Ammonia Refrigeration, the National Association of Chemical 
Distributors, the National Association of SARA Title III Program 
Officials, and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 
Association—either did not have a national perspective on these issues 
or did not respond to our inquiries. 

To describe EPA’s efforts to ensure compliance with risk management 
plan provisions and its sense of compliance, we contacted officials from
EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, which is
responsible for the overall implementation of the risk management plan
program. We also contacted all 10 EPA regional offices, which are 
responsible for overseeing compliance, to obtain information on the
reviews these offices had performed at chemical facilities. We also met
with EPA officials from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance to obtain enforcement action information and the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response to obtain the agency’s RMP*Review
database. We did not contact officials from the state and local
governments to whom EPA had delegated authority for management of the
risk management program. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Sample Chemical Inventory Form: 

Tier Two Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory: 

Specific Information By Chemical: 

Facility Identification: 
Name: 
Street: 
City: 
County: 
State: 
Zip: 
SIC Code: 
Dun & Brad Number: 

Owner/Operator Name: 
Name: 
Phone: 
Mail address: 

Emergency Contact: 
Name: 
Title: 
Phone: 
24 hour phone: 

For Official Use Only: 
ID#: 
Date Received: 

Important: REad all instructions before completing form. 

Reporting period: From January 1 to December 31, 19___: 

Check if information below is identical to the information submitted 
last year: 

Chemical description: 
CAS: 
Chemical Name: 
Trade secret: 
Check all that apply: 
* Pure: 
* Mix: 
* Solid: 
* Liquid: 
* Gas: 
* EHS: 
EHS Name: 

Physical and Health Hazards (check all that apply): 
Fire: 
Sudden release of pressure: 
Reactivity: 
Immediate (acute): 
Delayed (chronic): 

Inventory: 
Maximum daily amount (code): 
Average daily amount (code): 
Number of days on-site (days): 

Container type: 
Pressure: 
Temperature: 

Storage Codes and Locations: 
Storage Locations: 
Optional? 

Certification (read and sign after completing all sections): I certify 
under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar 
with the information submitted in pages one through ___, and that based 
on my inquiry of those individuals responsible for obtaining the 
information, I believe that the submitted information is true, 
accurate, and complete. 
Name and title of owner/operator or owner/operator's authorized 
representative: 
Signature: 
Date signed: 

Optional attachments: 
I have attached a site plan: 
I have attached a list of site coordinate abbreviations: 
I have attached a description of dikes and other safeguard measures. 

[End of form} 

Note: Chemical inventory forms are classified as either Tier I or Tier 
II forms. A Tier I form is the standard form that a facility is 
required to submit, but a facility may choose, or may be requested, to 
submit a Tier II form that supplies more specific information. Most of 
the local responders that we spoke with said that they received Tier II 
forms. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Linda Libician, (214) 777-5709. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the name above, Jeanne Barger, Marwin Brown, Nancy
Crothers, Paige Gilbreath, Luann Moy, Pauline Treviso, and Amy Webbink
made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] P.L. 99-499, Title III, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986). 

[2] P.L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, sec. 112(r) (1990) (codified at 42 
U.S.C. 7412(r)). 

[3] P.L. 106-40, 113 Stat. 207 (1999). 

[4] A facility must update its risk management plan when the quantity 
of a chemical exceeds the specified threshold level or the facility 
changes its operations in a manner that affects the threat to the 
surrounding community. 

[5] 40 C.F.R. 68.1, et seq. 

[6] An EPA official noted that EPA has reviewed the lists and 
thresholds, as the Clean Air Act requires be done at least every 5 
years, and has made changes. For example, the agency changed the 
threshold for hydrochloric acid and deleted certain explosives. EPA 
intends to continue to review the lists periodically. 

[7] The Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory 
Relief Act prohibited EPA from listing a flammable substance used as a 
fuel or held for sale as a fuel at a retail facility solely because of 
its explosive or flammable properties, unless a fire or explosion 
caused by the substance would result in acute adverse health effects to 
humans. As a result, EPA created a regulatory exclusion for propane 
when used as a fuel or held for sale at a retail facility; however, 
propane remains on the list when used for other purposes. For more 
information, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Chemical Safety: 
Status of Changes to the National Fire Protection Association Code for 
Propane, GAO-01-709 (Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2001). 

[8] An EPA official noted that the transportation of chemicals is 
within the purview of the Department of Transportation, not EPA. We 
have other work currently ongoing that will address the safety of the 
transportation of chemicals. 

[9] This figure does not include reviews by state and local governments 
to which EPA has delegated authority for management of the risk 
management provisions. Not all of the four EPA regions that have 
delegated authority to state and local governments had this information 
readily available. 

[10] EPA Region 2 delegated authority to the state of New Jersey, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territory of the Virgin Islands; 
EPA Region 3 delegated authority to the state of Delaware and the 
county of Allegheny, Pennsylvania; EPA Region 4 delegated authority to 
the states of Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 
and South Carolina, as well as to the counties of Buncombe and 
Forsythe, North Carolina, the county of Jefferson, Kentucky, and the 
city of Asheville, North Carolina; and Region 5 delegated authority to 
the state of Ohio. 

[11] Environmental Protection Agency. Chemical Emergency Preparedness 
and Prevention Office. RMPs Are on the Way! How LEPCs and Other Local 
Agencies Can Include Information from Risk Management Plans in Their 
Ongoing Work. November 1999. 

[12] A bill (S. 2579) was introduced on June 5, 2002, that would limit 
the risk management plan information available to members of the public 
so that the identity or location of any facility would not be disclosed 
and could not be deduced. 

[13] While our questions addressed risk management plans, we also note 
that local responders from five of the communities said that they doubt 
that they receive all required chemical inventory forms. However, the 
American Chemistry Council, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and 
the National Emergency Management Association said that, with a few 
exceptions, they believe most facilities are compliant with submitting 
the chemical inventory forms. 

[14] Mark Starik et al., “1999 Nationwide LEPC Survey,” a report 
prepared at the request of EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and 
Prevention Office by the Center for Environmental Policy and 
Sustainability Management at The George Washington University, May 
2000. 

[15] National Institute for Chemical Studies, “Local Emergency Planning 
Committees and Risk Management Plans: Encouraging Hazard Reduction,” a 
report prepared at the request of EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness 
and Prevention Office, June 2001. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: