RMP Facilities in the United States as of December 2009

RMP Facilities in the United States as of December 2009

MEMORANDUM
December 11, 2009
To:
Honorable Edward Markey
Attention: Michal Freedhoff
From:
Dana A. Shea, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, x7-6844
Subject:
RMP Facilities in the United States as of December 2009

This memorandum responds to your request regarding facilities submitting risk management plans
(RMPs) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). You requested an analysis of RMP facilities
within the United States by potentially affected population. You also requested an analysis of facilities
that were required by regulation to resubmit their information to the EPA but had not done so.
Under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r), the EPA established a program requiring facilities possessing
greater than certain threshold quantities of 140 chemicals to provide risk management plans to the EPA.1
As part of this reporting requirement, facilities are required to determine the worst-case scenario release
from a single chemical process, using EPA criteria and guidelines.2 Facilities are also required to estimate
the population potentially at risk from this worst-case scenario release by calculating the population that
resides within a circle surrounding the facility. The distance the worst-case scenario release might travel
determines the radius of the circle.3
The population potentially affected under an EPA worst-case scenario release is calculated in a circle
around the facility. In the event of an actual catastrophic chemical release, meteorological effects would
determine the direction of the release and therefore those potentially affected. Furthermore, how such a
release would affect those exposed would vary depending on many factors, such as the demographics of
the population and the surrounding geography and weather. In addition, worst-case scenarios do not take
into account emergency response measures that facility operators or others might take to mitigate harm.
Therefore, it is unlikely that this entire population would be affected by any single chemical release, even
if it is a result of a worst-case accident.
Facilities may register and deregister from the RMP program as their chemical processes and the amounts
of chemicals they store and use change. If a facility no longer possesses a regulated chemical above the

1 The list of 140 chemicals, including 77 toxic and 63 flammable chemicals, and their threshold quantities is found at 40 CFR
68.130.
2 The criteria and guidelines for determining the worst-case scenario release are found at 40 CFR 68.25. Some facilities have
submitted information on multiple worst-case scenario releases.
3 This requirement is found at 40 CFR 68.30. The criteria for determining the distance a worst-case scenario release might travel
are found at 40 CFR 68.22.
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov

Congressional Research Service
2

threshold quantity, it is required to inform the EPA and deregister from the program.4 Facilities are
required to review and update their RMP plans filed with the EPA at least once every five years.5 For the
purposes of this memorandum, facilities that have not reviewed and updated their RMP plan within five
years of their submission will be termed facilities with overdue updates. The deadline for submissions
under the RMP program was June 21, 1999.6 The EPA maintains this information in the RMP*National
Database.
In 1999, Congress passed the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act
(CSISSFRRA).7 This act removes from RMP program coverage any flammable fuel used as fuel or held
for sale as fuel by a retail facility. In implementing this act, the EPA allowed facilities that had previously
filed under the RMP program the options of withdrawing from the program, which would delete the
information from the EPA database, or taking no further action, which would leave the information in the
EPA database as a voluntary submission.8 Facilities exempted under CSISSFRRA that voluntarily
submitted information are not required to update these submissions.
The data available in the RMP*National Database is not sufficient to determine the full scope of actual
compliance or noncompliance with the RMP program. Facilities that were required to, but did not, submit
an RMP plan to the EPA would not be present in the RMP*National Database, but would be out of
compliance with the RMP program. As a result of the EPA’s implementation of CSISSFRRA, some
entries in the EPA database that have not been updated within the five year requirement are likely to be
facilities falling under CSISSFRRA that opted to take no action. These facilities are not identified as such
in the RMP*National Database.9 Thus, the number of facilities identified in this memorandum as having
overdue updates is likely not equal to the total number of facilities not complying with the RMP program.
At your request, CRS has searched the December 2009 update of the EPA RMP*National Database (with
off-site consequence analysis (OCA) data) for facilities that have registered under the RMP program.
Facilities that have deregistered from the RMP program were excluded. You requested that the facilities
be classified by state according to the population potentially affected by a worst-case release, according to
the EPA worst-case scenario criteria, using thresholds of 1,000 people, 10,000 people, 100,000 people,
and 1,000,000 people. Additionally, you requested that facilities with overdue RMP updates be identified
for each population category. Facilities with an RMP filing due to be updated by December 1, 2009, that
had not been updated were considered overdue for the purposes of this analysis. These facilities include
CSISSFRRA-exempted facilities as well as facilities that are covered by the regulation. All of the
information in this memorandum is drawn from the EPA RMP*National Database (with off-site
consequence analysis (OCA) data). This information is presented in Table 1.
Since facilities may register and deregister from the RMP program as chemical processes and amounts of
chemicals stored and used change, the number of facilities listed in Table 1 should be considered as
illustrative of the current industry profile, rather than absolute.

4 This requirement is found at 40 CFR 68.190. Facilities must deregister from the program within six months.
5 This requirement is found at 40 CFR 68.36. Facilities not excluded by the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels
Regulatory Relief Act (P.L. 106-40) that do not review and update the RMP plan are not in compliance with the RMP regulation.
They may be subject to enforcement actions by the EPA under the Clean Air Act, Section 113.
6 61 Federal Register 31,668 (June 20, 1996).
7 P.L. 106-40.
8 See 65 Federal Register March 13, 2000, p. 13,247.
9 Personal communication with EPA staff, September 25, 2007.

Congressional Research Service
3

Table 1. Compliant, Update Overdue, and Total RMP Facilities in Each State, by Potentially
Affected Population in EPA Defined “Worst Case” Scenarios (Parameters Designated by
Requester)

0 - 999
1,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 99,999
100,000 - 999,999
1,000,000+
St
Co
O
Up
T
Co
O
Up
T
Co
O
Up
T
Co
O
Up
T
Co
O
Up
T
a
o
o
o
o
o
t
v
v
v
v
v
e
m
e
d
ta
m
e
d
ta
m
e
d
ta
m
e
d
ta
m
e
d
ta

p
r
a
l
p
r
a
l
p
r
a
l
p
r
a
l
p
r
a
l
l
d
t

d
t

d
t

d
t

d
t

ia
u
e
li
u
e
li
u
e
li
u
e
li
u
e
n

e
an

e
an

e
an

e
an

e
t

t
t
t
t
AK
17
1
18
13
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AL
78
6
84
88
3
91
36
0
36
9
0
9
0
0
0
AR
34
6
40
68
5
73
52
3
55
2
0
2
0
0
0
AS
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
AZ
24
2
26
42
7
49
32
6
38
0
0
0
2
0
2
CA
288
34
322
285
25
310
248
29
277
49
4
53
9
1
10
CO
106
11
117
53
3
56
24
2
26
0
0
0
2
0
2
CT
9
0
9
11
2
13
10
1
11
1
0
1
0
0
0
DC
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
DE
10
0
10
12
0
12
3
0
3
2
0
2
1
0
1
FL
71
4
75
109
11
120
89
5
94
19
2
21
4
1
5
GA
113
7
120
117
10
127
39
4
43
6
0
6
1
0
1
GU
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HI
5
0
5
8
1
9
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
IA
428
10
438
397
13
410
48
7
55
3
0
3
0
0
0
ID
25
2
27
23
1
24
16
2
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
IL
527
49
576
302
19
321
73
4
77
17
0
17
11
1
12
IN
181
26
207
160
13
173
71
9
80
11
0
11
3
0
3
KS
442
6
448
189
4
193
35
0
35
5
0
5
0
0
0
KY
75
4
79
72
11
83
38
2
40
13
0
13
0
0
0
LA
111
21
132
88
10
98
62
3
65
39
4
43
2
0
2
MA
14
5
19
23
3
26
21
3
24
1
0
1
0
0
0
MD
33
0
33
26
1
27
36
0
36
1
0
1
1
0
1
ME
8
2
10
8
3
11
5
0
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
MI
67
12
79
65
21
86
42
4
46
8
2
10
3
1
4
MN
153
50
203
182
36
218
47
7
54
6
0
6
1
1
2
MO
185
21
206
136
6
142
39
1
40
5
0
5
1
0
1
MS
44
4
48
60
9
69
22
7
29
1
1
2
0
0
0
MT
34
3
37
15
1
16
7
0
7
1
0
1
0
0
0
NC
101
13
114
88
14
102
38
5
43
4
0
4
0
0
0

Congressional Research Service
4

0 - 999
1,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 99,999
100,000 - 999,999
1,000,000+
St
Co
O
Up
T
Co
O
Up
T
Co
O
Up
T
Co
O
Up
T
Co
O
Up
T
a
o
o
o
o
o
t
v
v
v
v
v
e
m
e
d
ta
m
e
d
ta
m
e
d
ta
m
e
d
ta
m
e
d
ta

p
r
a
l
p
r
a
l
p
r
a
l
p
r
a
l
p
r
a
l
l
d
t

d
t

d
t

d
t

d
t

ia
u
e
li
u
e
li
u
e
li
u
e
li
u
e
n

e
an

e
an

e
an

e
an

e
t

t
t
t
t
ND
173
69
242
57
15
72
13
1
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
NE
286
3
289
173
2
175
40
0
40
2
0
2
0
0
0
NH
6
0
6
4
0
4
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
NJ
37
0
37
18
0
18
10
0
10
6
0
6
5
0
5
NM
49
3
52
7
1
8
6
0
6
2
0
2
0
0
0
NV
22
6
28
6
1
7
5
0
5
1
0
1
2
0
2
NY
44
2
46
65
2
67
36
0
36
18
0
18
1
0
1
OH
124
20
144
168
17
185
71
14
85
11
3
14
5
0
5
OK
173
25
198
68
16
84
36
1
37
8
0
8
0
0
0
OR
44
3
47
42
1
43
25
1
26
4
0
4
0
0
0
PA
116
1
117
145
4
149
79
0
79
9
0
9
2
0
2
PR
6
0
6
39
1
40
46
0
46
1
0
1
0
0
0
RI
1
0
1
5
0
5
6
0
6
3
0
3
0
0
0
SC
63
2
65
91
2
93
18
0
18
7
0
7
0
0
0
SD
46
6
52
27
4
31
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
TN
57
7
64
72
7
79
38
5
43
16
1
17
1
0
1
TX
474
91
565
333
57
390
291
22
313
69
5
74
31
1
32
UT
40
6
46
22
1
23
9
3
12
4
0
4
3
0
3
VA
56
1
57
63
0
63
23
1
24
7
0
7
0
0
0
VI
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
VT
2
0
2
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WA
118
6
124
88
4
92
29
2
31
10
0
10
0
0
0
WI
88
21
109
91
25
116
47
5
52
3
0
3
0
0
0
WV
28
0
28
26
1
27
15
0
15
7
0
7
0
0
0
WY
55
1
56
6
1
7
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
5295
572
5867
4259
395
4654
1991
159
2150
393
22
415
91
6
97
Source: CRS analysis of the EPA RMP*National Database (with off-site consequence analysis (OCA) data), updated
December 1, 2009.
Notes: Facilities due to update their RMP filing by December 1, 2009, that had not done so are categorized as “update
overdue.” Some of those facilities may be exempted from regulation by CSISSFRRA. In cases where facilities report
multiple worst-case scenario releases, the worst-case scenario potentially affecting the most people has been considered.
The column labeled State also includes American Samoa (AS), Guam (GU), Puerto Rico (PR), and the District of Columbia
(DC).

Congressional Research Service
5

You also requested that facilities with overdue RMP updates be classified by EPA region according to the
population criteria described above. The EPA has ten regional offices, each of which is responsible for
several states and, in some cases, territories.10 This information is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. RMP Facilities with Overdue Updates in Each EPA Region, by Potentially Affected
Population in EPA Defined “Worst Case” Scenarios (Parameters Designated by Requester)
EPA Region
0 - 999
1,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 99,999
100,000 - 999,999
1,000,000+
Total
1
7
9
4
0
0
20
2
2
3
0
0
0
5
3
2
6
1
0
0
9
4
47
67
28
4
1
147
5
178
131
43
5
3
360
6
146
89
29
9
1
274
7
40
25
8
0
0
73
8
96
25
6
0
0
127
9
42
34
35
4
1
116
10
12
6
5
0
0
23
Total
572
395
159
22
6
1,154
Source: CRS analysis of the EPA RMP*National Database (with off-site consequence analysis (OCA) data), updated
December 1, 2009.
Notes: Facilities due to update their RMP filing by December 1, 2009, that had not done so were considered as “update
overdue.” Some of those facilities may be exempted from regulation by CSISSFRRA. In cases where facilities report
multiple worst-case scenario releases, the worst-case scenario potentially affecting the most people has been considered.
Facilities might not review and update their filed RMP plans for several reasons: the facility is out of
regulatory compliance; the facility is no longer in business; the facility has reduced the amount of
reportable chemical to below threshold levels, but neglected to inform the EPA; or the facility falls under
CSISSFRRA and is no longer covered by the RMP requirement. Any user of this data should use caution
when drawing further conclusions from this analysis.
If you have any further questions regarding this topic or questions regarding the information in this
memorandum, please contact me at 7-6844.

10 For a description of the various EPA regions, including the states located in each region, see online at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/locate2.htm.