\
i
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
EPA Can Improve Implementation
of the Risk Management Program
for Airborne Chemical Releases
Report No. 09-P-0092
February 10, 2009
-------
Report Contributors:
Rick Beusse
Hilda Canes Gardufio
Bao Chuong
Jim Hatfield
Erica Hauck
Rebecca Matichuk
Abbreviations
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OEM Office of Emergency Management
OIG Office of Inspector General
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
RMP Risk Management Plan
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
Cover photo: Damage from an explosion and fire at a polyvinyl chloride manufacturing facility
in 2004. Vinyl chloride monomer, the primary raw ingredient for polyvinyl
chloride and a regulated substance under the Risk Management Program, fueled
the explosion and fire. The surrounding community was evacuated as a result of
this accident. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board)
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
09-P-0092
February 10, 2009
Why We Did This Review
The purpose of the Risk
Management Program under
Section 112(r) of the Clean Air
Act is to reduce the likelihood
of airborne chemical releases
that could harm the public, and
mitigate the consequences of
releases that do occur. We
conducted this review to assess
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) implementation
and oversight of this program.
Background
Under the Risk Management
Program, stationary sources
that have more than the
threshold quantity of regulated
substances on-site in any one
process must implement a risk
management program. All
covered facilities must submit
a Risk Management Plan
(RMP) to EPA that describes
and documents the facility's
hazard assessment, and its
prevention and response
programs. Facilities must
update and re-submit these
plans at least every 5 years
and when changes occur.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202)566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2009/
20090210-09-P-0092.pdf
EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk
Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases
What We Found
EPA can improve its program management and oversight to better assure that
facilities covered by the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program submit or
re-submit an RMP. EPA had not established national procedures for identifying
covered facilities that had not submitted RMPs. For the 5 States reviewed, we
identified 48 facilities in 3 States that reported large amounts of covered chemicals
stored on-site that had not filed RMPs. These facilities are potential RMP non-
filers. For example, 10 such facilities reported having over 100,000 pounds of
ammonia on-site at one time, which is 10 times greater than the regulatory
threshold. Further, the status of nearly one-third (452 of 1,516) of the facilities
EPA identified in 2005 as being past their due date for re-submitting an RMP had
not been resolved and updated in the RMP National Database as of March 2008.
Also, State permitting agencies did not properly include program requirements as
a condition of facilities' Title V operating permits. When properly administered,
the Title V process can help ensure that covered facilities submit RMPs to EPA
and comply with program requirements.
EPA can also strengthen its inspection process to provide greater assurance that
facilities comply with Risk Management Program requirements. EPA had not
inspected or audited over half (296 of 493) of the high-risk facilities identified by
EPA's Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Since most States have not
accepted delegation of the program, EPA is responsible for ensuring compliance for
over 84 percent of facilities nationwide. Of the 296 uninspected high-risk facilities
managed by EPA, 151 could each impact 100,000 people or more in a worst-case
accident. Accident data suggest uninspected high-risk facilities are more than five
times as likely to have an accident than uninspected lower-risk facilities.
EPA has made efforts to improve the program. OEM funded studies to assess
facility accident rates and used this information to develop and distribute a list of
high-risk facilities to help regions better prioritize inspection efforts.
What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA implement additional management controls to identify
facilities with regulated chemicals that have not filed RMPs. We also recommend
that EPA develop inspection requirements to target higher-priority facilities for
inspection and track its progress in completing inspections of these facilities.
The Agency concurred with all of our recommendations.
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
February 10, 2009
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for
Airborne Chemical Releases
Report No. 09-P-0092
FROM: Wade T. Najjum
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
TO: Barry Breen
Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Catherine McCabe
Acting Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Elizabeth Craig
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe
the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report
represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with
established audit resolution procedures.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $517,983.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed upon
actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this report to
the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 566-0832
or najjum.wade@epa.gov, or Rick Beusse at (919) 541-5747 or beusse.rick@epa.gov.
-------
EPA Can Improve Implementation of the 09-P-0092
Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases
Table of Contents
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Noteworthy Achievements 3
Scope and Methodology 4
2 Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight of
Processes for Identifying Covered Facilities 5
Regulations Require All Covered Facilities to Submit an RMP 5
Existing Data Can be Used to Identify Facilities 6
Status of Facilities Not Re-Filing RMPs Needs to be Resolved 8
Program Requirements Not Properly Addressed during
Title V Permit Process 10
Conclusions 12
Recommendations 12
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 13
3 Many High-Risk Facilities Have Not Been Audited or Inspected 15
Oversight Includes Audits and Inspections 15
Significant Percent of High-Risk Facilities Not Inspected or Audited 17
Factors Limiting EPA's Ability to Inspect/Audit RMP Facilities 19
EPA Does Not Require Inspection of High-Risk Facilities 22
Impact of Accidents at RMP Facilities 24
Conclusions 25
Recommendations 25
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 26
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 27
Appendices
A Details on Scope and Methodology 29
B Regional Activities to Identify Non-Filers 32
C Agency Responses 33
D Overall Inspection/Audit Rates of RMP Facilities 41
- continued -
-------
EPA Can Improve Implementation of the 09-P-0092
Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases
E On-Site Risk Management Program-Related Inspections and
Audits by EPA Region 42
F Inspection/Audit Rates for Facilities Reporting Accidents 43
G Distribution 44
-------
09-P-0092
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of the Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act (CAA) is
to reduce the likelihood of airborne chemical releases that could harm the public,
and mitigate the consequences of releases that do occur. We conducted this
review to assess the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
implementation and oversight of this program. The objectives of our review were
to determine whether:
• Procedures are in place to provide reasonable assurance that all facilities
subject to Risk Management Program regulations have submitted Risk
Management Plans (RMPs), and
• The inspection process provides reasonable assurance that covered
facilities comply with Risk Management Program requirements.
Background
In 1984, an accidental release of a hazardous chemical caused thousands of deaths
and injuries in Bhopal, India. In reaction, Congress passed the 1986 Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to help communities plan
for emergencies involving hazardous substances. However, EPCRA did not
require facilities to assess or reduce risks from chemical accidents. Subsequently,
in 1990, Congress amended Section 112 of the CAA to enact a program to
prevent releases of certain hazardous chemicals and to mitigate the consequences
of such releases to the surrounding community.
EPA issued the Risk Management Program rule in 1996 to meet CAA Section
112(r)(7) requirements. Under the Program, stationary sources that contain more
than the threshold quantity of any of 140 regulated substances (77 toxic and 63
flammable substances) in a process are required to conduct a worst-case release
assessment and prepare and submit an RMP to EPA. The RMP describes and
documents the facility's hazard assessment, and must include the results of an
off-site consequence analysis for a worst-case chemical accident at the facility.
Facilities whose worst-case release assessment shows that the public could be
exposed during such a release, and/or the covered process has had a significant
accidental release of a regulated substance during the 5 years prior to the RMP
submission, are subject to additional requirements. These facilities must also
implement a prevention program, an emergency response program, and an overall
management system to supervise the implementation of all required program
elements. Facilities were required to submit their first RMPs by June 21, 1999,
-------
09-P-0092
and must update them at least every 5 years. Facilities must also update their
RMPs when on-site regulated substances or processes change.
Facilities subject to the Risk Management Program submit their RMPs to the
RMP Reporting Center, which is overseen by EPA's Office of Emergency
Management (OEM) within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER). The RMP Reporting Center maintains all the RMP-related
information submitted by the facilities, and compiles that information in the RMP
National Database, which is updated on a continuous basis. The database
contains all the information in the plans submitted by individual facilities,
including restricted off-site consequence analysis information. The data in the
RMP National Database represent all facilities that have ever submitted an RMP.
Universe of Facilities Regulated by Risk Management Program Rule
As of November 29, 2007, 13,672 facilities had active RMPs on file with EPA.
The number of RMP facilities varies greatly by EPA region. Figure 1.1 shows the
total number of RMP facilities located in each region.
Figure 1.1: Number of RMP Facilities by EPA Region [1]
3,500 7
3,000
I 2,500
'o
£
o. 2,000
O 1,500
I
| 1,000
z
500
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5 R6
Region
R7
R9
R10
Source: OIG-developed figure from data obtained from EPA's RMP National Database.
[1] = Includes RMP facilities in States with delegated programs.
Facilities that have filed RMPs represent over 200 industries, ranging from
refrigerated warehouses to petroleum refineries. Many of these facilities are also
regulated under other safety/hazards programs, such as Section 302 of EPCRA
(82.9 percent) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Process
Safety Management program (52.6 percent). The three most commonly reported
substances subject to the Risk Management Program requirements are anhydrous
ammonia, chlorine, and flammable mixtures.
-------
09-P-0092
Because of differences in the amounts, toxicity levels, and properties of chemicals
held in a process and the location of the facilities, the risk and potential impact of
an accident varies greatly among RMP facilities. Depending on the facility, the
population potentially impacted in a worst-case release scenario ranges from zero
to over 10 million for a single facility, as reported in facility RMPs submitted to
the RMP National Database. More specifically, 550 of the facilities in EPA's
RMP National Database reported that 100,000 people or more could potentially
be impacted during a worst-case release at the facility.
Implementation of Risk Management Program
Although the Risk Management Program is required by the CAA, it is overseen
by EPA's OEM in OSWER. EPA directly implements most of the Program, since
very few State and local agencies have taken delegation of the Program. As of
February 2008, only nine States and five local agencies had accepted full or
partial delegation. Of the 13,672 active RMP facilities, EPA regions were
responsible for overseeing compliance for 11,529 facilities, while delegated State
and local agencies were responsible for 2,143. Figure 1.2 shows a comparison by
percentage.
Figure 1.2: Percentage of RMP Facilities Managed
by EPA Regions versus States and Local Agencies
State/Local
Agencies
16%
EPA Regions
84%
Source: OIG-developed table from data obtained from
EPA's RMP National Database.
Noteworthy Achievements
In 2002, EPA entered into a cooperative agreement with the University of
Pennsylvania's Wharton School to analyze the RMP data submitted between 1999
and 2005. This analysis considered any statistical associations between the
characteristics of the reporting facilities (such as size and location, quantity of
chemicals held in a process, company financial performance, and socioeconomic
characteristics of the host community for the facility) and the frequency and
severity of accidents. The Wharton School also analyzed accident histories and
identified industry sectors with a high number of reported accidents, such as
petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, and refrigerated warehousing and
-------
09-P-0092
storage. Results of this study, completed in 2007, have helped EPA to prioritize
inspections based on risk.
In 2007, OEM developed and distributed a list of high-risk facilities to help
regions better prioritize inspection efforts. In addition, the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and OEM jointly revised their national
guidance for Fiscal Year 2009. The revised guidance includes additional specific
risk-related factors the regions should consider when selecting facilities to
inspect. These factors include the same factors OEM based its high-risk list on, as
well as the accident history of the facility over the past 5 years.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted several analyses using data from the RMP National Database,
inspection and audit records obtained from EPA regions and delegated States and
local agencies, and the Toxics Release Inventory. We focused on activities
conducted from 1999 to December 2007 to ensure compliance with the RMP
provisions of the Risk Management Program Rule under CAA Section 112(r)(7).
We conducted our evaluation from November 2007 to July 2008.
We interviewed staff and managers from EPA's OEM, OECA, Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR), and all 10 EPA regions and 4 States. We also obtained data
from all EPA regions and 9 States and 5 local agencies with delegation of the
Risk Management Program. In addition, we obtained and reviewed applicable
Program policies, procedures, guidance, performance measures, and reporting
requirements from these offices and agencies.
We conducted this evaluation in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our evaluation objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
In addressing the second objective, we limited our assessment to whether full
Risk Management Program on-site inspections or audits (i.e., conducted using the
complete Program audit or inspection checklists) were conducted at facilities that
had active RMPs on file with EPA. We did not assess the effectiveness of
inspections or audits conducted. Given the significant number of facilities that
had not received on-site inspections or audits, we believe sufficient data were
gathered to address our objective.
Additional information on our scope and methodology is in Appendix A.
-------
09-P-0092
Chapter 2
Improvements Needed in Management and Oversight
of Processes for Identifying Covered Facilities
EPA needs to improve its management and oversight of the CAA Risk
Management Program to provide reasonable assurance that covered facilities
submit or re-submit RMPs as required. Specifically:
• Our limited review of existing chemical data for 5 States identified
48 facilities in 3 States that reported large amounts of covered chemicals
stored on-site that had not filed RMPs. These facilities may be subject to
the RMP rule and thus required to file RMPs.
• The status of almost one-third of the facilities identified in 2005 as being
past their anniversary date for RMP re-submission had not been resolved
and updated in the RMP National Database as of March 2008.
• Permitting agencies did not correctly incorporate the Risk Management
Program requirements into the operating permits of large stationary sources
(CAA Title V facilities) in the eight States reviewed.
EPA's Risk Management Program procedures and guidance did not specify what
activities regions or States should conduct to identify potential RMP non-filers and
how often they should conduct those activities. In addition, EPA's procedures and
guidance did not establish timelines to assess the status of facilities that had not re-
filed their RMPs after 5 years. For Title V facilities, most of the States contacted
were unaware of EPA's guidance on how to address the Program during the Title V
permit process. As a result of these conditions, some facilities subject to the
Program may not be preparing RMPs and taking adequate measures to prevent
accidents or mitigate the consequences of such accidents to the public. Further,
without a plan detailing the chemicals located on-site and the risks associated with
those chemicals, first responders may not have the information necessary to safely
and effectively respond to a chemical accident.
Regulations Require All Covered Facilities to Submit an RMP
Risk Management Program regulations (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Part 68) require all covered facilities to submit an RMP that describes the
facility's risk management program and the potential off-site impacts that could
result from a worst-case release. Facilities must update and re-submit these plans
at least every 5 years. If a facility closes, the facility is required to formally de-
register from the Program. In addition, 40 CFR Part 68 requires Title V
permitting agencies to include Risk Management Program requirements as a
condition of the Title V permit for covered facilities. According to 40 CFR Part
68 and clarifying guidance issued by EPA in 1999, permitting agencies are
-------
09-P-0092
required to verify whether a covered facility has submitted an RMP, regardless of
whether the agency has delegation of the Risk Management Program.
Existing Data Can be Used to Identify Facilities
Using existing data available to EPA, we identified 62 facilities with large on-site
quantities of covered chemicals. From this initial list of 62, we identified 48
facilities that may be subject to the Risk Management Program but have not filed
RMPs (i.e., potential non-filers). We conducted a search using the 2006 Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) and found that this search can be an effective way to
identify facilities that may be subject to the Program. We used the Maximum
Amount of Chemical On-site data element1 to search for facilities in four States
(Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas) with on-site quantities of
chlorine, ammonia, or hydrogen fluoride well above the Program thresholds. We
selected these chemicals because they are the toxic chemicals most involved in
accidents at RMP facilities. We then searched the RMP National Database
(current as of November 29, 2007) to determine whether the facilities identified in
our TRI search had filed an RMP. After we identified potential non-filers for
each of the four States, we discussed the results with EPA regional staff to gather
additional information on the facilities.
We identified 39 facilities as potential non-filers because the amounts of
chemicals stored on-site, as reported to TRI, were well above the Risk
Management Program thresholds and the facilities had not submitted an RMP to
EPA. Staffs in the regions that cover these facilities were able to provide
information as to why they believe 14 of the facilities we identified were likely
not RMP non-filers. However, they agreed to conduct additional work to
determine whether the remaining 25 facilities need to submit RMPs.
Three of the remaining 25 facilities were large coal-fired electric utilities in
Pennsylvania. Many utilities across the nation have begun using a technology
called selective catalytic reduction to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. This
technology requires facilities to store a large amount of anhydrous ammonia
on-site. Region 3 staff told us the coal-fired utilities we identified in our TRI
search may be using this type of technology, and thus may be subject to the Risk
Management Program requirements. The three facilities each reported having
over 100,000 pounds of ammonia on-site at one time, which is 10 times greater
than the Risk Management Program regulatory threshold.
We conducted a similar review for potential non-filers by using chemical data
collected under EPCRA. We selectively tested for non-filers in one State,
1 This data element reports the total amount of a given chemical stored on-site at one time. Since the Risk
Management Program threshold amount is based on the amount of a chemical used, stored, manufactured, handled,
or moved on-site in any one process and not the total amount stored at the facility, the Maximum Amount of
Chemical On-site reported in TRI may not necessarily mean the facility is required to submit an RMP. For this
reason, we selected amounts well over the Risk Management Program threshold.
-------
09-P-0092
Oklahoma, because Oklahoma had a readily available electronic database of
EPCRA data.2 We obtained 2008 data3 from Oklahoma and identified 23
facilities that reported amounts of chlorine, ammonia, or hydrogen fluoride on-site
at levels well above the program's thresholds but had not submitted an RMP to
EPA. Eleven of the 23 facilities were in industry sectors typically subject to the
Program, such as ammonia refrigeration and fertilizer facilities.
We provided EPA regional offices with lists of the 62 facilities identified during
our searches and discussed the status of these facilities with regional staff.
Table 2.1 presents the results of our searches using TRI and EPCRA data.
Table 2.1: Results of TRI and EPCRA Searches for Potential Non-Filers
Facilities
with Large Facilities
Amounts of Requiring
Chemicals Data Results of Discussions with Additional
State On-Site Source Regional Offices Follow-up
Colorado
North
Carolina
Pennsylvania
Texas
Oklahoma
Total
2 TRI Region 8 provided information
indicating these facilities are likely
NOT required to submit RMPs.
10 TRI Region 4 and North Carolina provided
information indicating these facilities
are likely NOT required to submit
RMPs.
13 TRI Region 3 told us 11 facilities could be
potential non-filers, and plans to
contact or inspect them to determine
if they need to submit RMPs.
14 TRI Some of the facilities may be
potential non-filers, and Region 6
plans to contact them to determine if
they need to submit RMPs.
23 EPCRA Several of the facilities had submitted
RMPs for facilities in the same city
but at different addresses. Region 6
plans to follow up to clarify this
apparent discrepancy and determine
whether the remaining facilities need
to file RMPs.
62
0
0
11
14
23
48
Source: OIG analysis using TRI data, EPCRA Tier II data, and the RMP National Database.
We discussed activities to identify non-filers with eight regions. The regions we
contacted reported undertaking various activities to identify non-filers, including
reviewing industry data, State-maintained EPCRA data, data from the National
Because facilities report EPCRA data to State and local emergency responders, the data are generally maintained at
the State or local level. Unlike TRI, the data are not maintained by EPA.
3 Under EPCRA, facilities are required to report the amount of certain hazardous chemicals they store on-site to
State and local emergency responders. Chemicals reported under EPCRA in amounts over the Risk Management
Program threshold may not necessarily mean the facility is covered by the Program since the threshold is based on
amounts in individual processes, not the total amount stored at the facility.
-------
09-P-0092
Reporting Center, and conducting on-site non-filer inspections. However, these
activities and their frequency varied by region, and staff from two regions we
contacted were not aware of the ability to search TRI using the Maximum
Amount of Chemical On-site data element.
The universe of facilities subject to the Risk Management Program requirements
is continuously changing, as new facilities open and existing ones close,
de-register, or make process or operational changes. While the regions conduct
various activities to identify non-filers, EPA has not established national
procedures to identify methods and timelines for conducting non-filer searches.
Without procedures and methods in place to identify these facilities on a regular
basis, some covered facilities may fail to submit an RMP and take the actions
required by the Program regulations to prevent, deter, and mitigate accidents.
Status of Facilities Not Re-Filing RMPs Needs to be Resolved
Facilities must update their RMPs at least every 5 years. According to the RMP
National Database (current as of March 28, 2008), 664 facilities had not
re-submitted a plan by their 5-year anniversary date. This equates to about
5 percent of the total universe of RMP facilities. Some of these facilities may be
closed or are no longer subject to the Risk Management Program. However, they
have not de-registered and were still listed as active facilities in the RMP National
Database as of March 28, 2008. Of these 664 facilities, 452 were more than 2
years past their 5-year anniversary.
OEM distributes monthly reports to the regions listing facilities that have not
re-filed their RMPs or de-registered by their 5-year anniversary date. OEM
distributed the first of these reports in September 2005, which was a year after
most facilities should have submitted their first 5-year update. This report
identified 1,516 facilities past their 5-year anniversary date. We compared the
September 2005 report to the facilities past their 5-year anniversary date in March
2008. This comparison showed that the number of past-due facilities in the RMP
National Database decreased between September 2005 and March 2008, from
1,516 facilities to 664 facilities. However, the status of 452 (or 29.8 percent) of
the 1,516 facilities originally identified in September 2005 was still unresolved as
of March 2008. In addition, 13 facilities that met one or more of the high-risk
facility criteria discussed in Chapter 3 were on both the September 2005 and
March 2008 lists, meaning their status had remained unresolved for at least
2.5 years.
Table 2.2 compares, for each region, the number of facilities past their 5-year
anniversary date in September 2005 to the number in March 2008.
-------
09-P-0092
Table 2.2: Number of Facilities Past 5-Year Anniversary Date in 2005 and 2008
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
No. of Facilities Past
5-Year Anniversary Date
as of September 2005
51
49
10
178
471
428
156
52
105
16
1,516
No. of Facilities Past
5-Year Anniversary Date
as of March 2008
6
9
3
82
208
204
51
34
66
0
664
No. of Facilities Past
5-Year Anniversary
Date as of March 2008
that were on Original
September 2005 Report
3
4
0
55
179
143
21
22
25
0
452
Source: OIG analysis using data from the RMP National Database.
As shown in Table 2.2, all of the regions had a lower number of unresolved
facilities in March 2008 than in September 2005, due to activities undertaken by
the regions. For example, Region 6's RMP Enforcement Coordinator told us that
in 2005 and 2006 Region 6 sent 373 formal CAA Section 114 letters to facilities
that had not re-submitted, resulting in Region 6 assessing penalties at 100
facilities. The coordinator also informed us that 91 facilities either were no longer
subject to the Program or could demonstrate they had attempted to update their
RMPs. Further, approximately 130 letters were returned undeliverable due to
facility closures, relocations, or incorrect information in the original RMP.
Region 3 staff told us that they started an initiative in 2004 to identify facilities
that re-filed their RMPs late. This initiative resulted in settlement agreements
with fines at about 60 facilities that failed to re-submit their plans.
Despite these activities, some regions still had a relatively large number of
unresolved facilities in March 2008. Other than the reports it sends to the regions
listing the facilities that are past their anniversary, EPA does not have specific
procedures or timelines in place for following up with facilities that are late in
re-submitting their plans.
Some of the facilities that remain unresolved may be closed facilities that did not
de-register. To address this issue, OEM provided guidance to the regions in 2006
on how to remove closed facilities from the universe of active facilities in the
RMP National Database. To remove a facility from the active universe, the
region must verify that a facility is closed or no longer in operation, and that
covered chemicals are no longer present at levels above the regulatory thresholds.
Verification requires a site visit or other credible, documented evidence.
However, closed facilities still appeared as active in the RMP National Database.
-------
09-P-0092
We found evidence that 7 of 13 high-risk facilities on both the September 2005
and March 2008 lists were no longer in operation but had not been removed from
the active list of facilities in the RMP National Database. Without an accurate
picture of the regulated universe in the RMP National Database, Program staff
may not be able to effectively plan and prioritize compliance assurance activities,
such as inspections.
Since March 2008, Regions 3 and 8 took additional actions to resolve past-due
facilities. Staff from these regions told us they had since resolved the status of the
past-due facilities that we identified as unresolved in the RMP database in March
2008.4 Appendix B provides more information about regional activities to
identify non-filers.
Program Requirements Not Properly Addressed during Title V
Permit Process
CAA Title V permitting agencies did not properly address Risk Management
Program requirements during the Title V permit process. Title V sources are the
largest stationary sources of air pollution. Approximately 16 percent (2,222) of
the RMPs filed with EPA were for Title V facilities. Although Title V facilities
are a small part of the overall universe of RMP facilities, over half of the facilities
on OEM's high-risk list are Title V facilities.
According to 40 CFR Part 68.215(a), Title V operating permits should include a
statement listing the Risk Management Program requirements as a condition when
applicable. However, permits in only three of eight States reviewed specifically
identified the Program's requirements as a condition of the Title V permit when
applicable. The remaining five States used conditional language in their Title V
permits, regardless of whether the facility was subject to the Program's
requirements. An example of the conditional language from one of the State's
permits follows:
When and if the requirements of 40 CFR Part 68 become
applicable, the Permittee shall comply with all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR Part 68.
An OAR manager confirmed that the Title V permit should contain a statement
that definitively establishes these requirements as a condition of the permit when
the requirements are applicable to the facility. The OAR manager also told us
that conditional statements, such as the one above, are not sufficient for
incorporating the Risk Management Program provisions into the Title V permit.
The manager also told us that if a facility is not subject to Program requirements,
4 During interviews with Regions 3, 6, and 8, we provided staff with lists of the past-due facilities we identified in
the RMP National Database in March 2008. Because we did not interview any of the other regions about late
re-filers, we provided the lists to only these three regions; other regions may also have taken additional steps to
resolve past-due facilities since March 2008.
10
-------
09-P-0092
the permit should not contain any statements regarding CAA Section 112(r)
provisions.
Additionally, 40 CFR Part 68.215(e) requires that Title V air permitting agencies
verify that the source owner or operator has registered and submitted an RMP or a
revised plan when required. Specifically, the regulation states:
The air permitting authority or the agency ...shall, at a minimum:
(1) Verify that the source owner or operator has registered and
submitted an RMP or a revised plan when required by this part.
We interviewed staff from four of the eight States to determine how they
addressed the Risk Management Program during the permit application and
issuance process. Based on these interviews, none of the States independently
verified during the permitting process whether a covered facility had registered
and submitted an RMP or revised plan, if required. Specifically:
• Two States required facilities to say in their permit application and annual
compliance certifications if they had submitted an RMP, but did not
independently verify this. The States did not request that the facility submit a
copy of the plan to the State, nor did they check the RMP National Database
to see if the facility had a plan on file. Staff from these States asked us about
obtaining access to the RMP National Database because they thought the
information in the RMPs was restricted and not available to the public.
• Two States did not ask facilities to say in their permit application whether
they were subj ect to the Risk Management Program requirements. Staff from
the two States said they do not ask about the requirements because the States
do not have delegation of the Program. Staff told us they assumed EPA was
responsible for verifying whether covered facilities had submitted plans.
EPA's "Title V Program Responsibilities Concerning the Accidental Release
Prevention Program" guidance, issued in 1999, recognizes that State and local
agencies with permitting authority may not have delegation of the Risk
Management Program. The guidance states that these activities are the
responsibility of the permitting agency, regardless of whether the State has
accepted delegation for the Program. However, staff from three of the four States
we contacted told us they were not aware of EPA's guidance.
In at least one instance, EPA's oversight of the Title V program did not identify
deficiencies pertaining to incorporating Program requirements into the Title V
permit process. We found that one State in Region 9 did not incorporate the Risk
Management Program's requirements into its Title V permits and did not ask
permit applicants whether they were required to submit an RMP. However, the
Region's comprehensive evaluation of this State's Title V program, conducted in
11
-------
09-P-0092
2005, did not report any concerns pertaining to Risk Management Program
requirements.
Title V permits provide a comprehensive accounting of all applicable CAA
operating requirements for a facility, and require that facilities certify compliance
with these requirements annually. Accordingly, the Title V permitting process
provides a management control for identifying facilities subject to the Risk
Management Program requirements, and ensuring that these facilities comply
with these requirements. However, if States do not properly incorporate the Risk
Management Program requirements into the Title V permits where applicable,
this control is not available. In addition, the public is not provided with accurate
information regarding the specific regulations applicable to the facility. This is of
particular importance for the Risk Management Program, since RMP information
is not readily available to the public due to security concerns.
Conclusions
EPA can improve its procedures, guidance, controls, and oversight for ensuring
that facilities have submitted or re-submitted an RMP as required. EPA should
establish procedures for periodic reviews to identify potential non-filers that
include the use of TRI and other useful search methods. In addition, EPA should
establish timelines for resolving the status of facilities and removing closed
facilities from the active list of facilities. Addressing RMP status during the
Title V permitting process can also help ensure that covered facilities file their
RMPs with EPA and comply with the Risk Management Program's requirements.
These actions can help provide an accurate and complete picture of the Program
universe, which regulators need to prioritize and select facilities for inspection.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
2-1 Strengthen controls to identify facilities that did not file RMPs by:
• Revising Headquarters operating guidance to specify how often the
regions should conduct reviews to identify non-filers, and establish
milestones for reviewing and removing inactive facilities from the
RMP National Database.
• Incorporating the TRI search methodology and other effective
methodologies used by EPA regions (e.g., using the EPCRA and TRI
on-site compliance evaluations) into the new Headquarters guidance
for regions to use in identifying potential non-filers.
• Updating the RMP National Database to de-activate closed facilities.
12
-------
09-P-0092
2-2 Ascertain whether the facilities we identified through our TRI and EPCRA
data searches are subject to Risk Management Program requirements and,
if so, take appropriate action to ensure that these facilities comply with
Program requirements.
We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation:
2-3. Instruct Title V permitting authorities on the proper procedures for
identifying and including Risk Management Program requirements in
Title V permits - including guidance on how to verify whether facilities
have submitted RMPs - and monitor implementation of these
requirements.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER and OAR agreed with all of the recommendations in Chapter 2.
OSWER noted that OEM and OECA have been working in coordination for the
past several years on some of the issues we identified. A summary of the
Agency's response to each recommendation and our analysis follows.
• Recommendation 2-1: OSWER stated that it will provide guidance to the
regions by December 2009. The guidance will specify when regions
should conduct reviews for non-filers and what methodologies they should
use for these reviews, as well as a timeline for reviewing and removing
inactive facilities from the RMP National Database. We believe the
Agency's planned action meets the intent of this recommendation. The
recommendation will remain open in our tracking system pending our
receipt and approval of the Agency's final corrective action plan.
• Recommendation 2-2: OSWER commented that several regions are in
the process of reviewing the facilities we identified in our TRI and
EPCRA searches to determine if they are indeed covered by the Risk
Management Program requirements and need to submit an RMP. The
Agency stated that, depending on the outcome of the reviews, it would
take "appropriate action" to ensure that the facilities comply with the
requirements. The Agency anticipates that this review should be
completed by September 2009. We believe the Agency's planned action
should achieve the intent of this recommendation. The recommendation
will remain open in our tracking system pending our receipt and approval
of the Agency's final corrective action plan.
• Recommendation 2-3: OAR stated that it will remind Regional Air
Directors about the 1999 Title V permitting guidance and instruct them to
inform State Title V program managers of its existence as well. OAR also
submitted a corrective action plan with milestones for these actions. We
have accepted the corrective action plan for Recommendation 2-3, and the
13
-------
09-P-0092
recommendation will be "closed" in our tracking system upon issuance of
this report. In accordance with Order 2750, the Agency is responsible for
tracking completion of this corrective action in the Management Audit
Tracking System.
Appendix C contains the full texts of OSWER's and OAR's responses to the draft
report.
14
-------
09-P-0092
Chapter 3
Many High-Risk Facilities Have Not Been
Audited or Inspected
Over half of the high-risk RMP facilities identified by OEM have never received
an on-site inspection or audit. Further, over 65 percent of all active RMP
facilities had not received an on-site inspection or audit since inception of the
Risk Management Program in 1999. Since most States have not accepted
delegation of the Program, EPA is responsible for ensuring compliance for the
majority of facilities nationwide. However, EPA has a limited number of
inspectors to conduct on-site inspections/audits. To encourage more effective use
of limited resources, OEM began distributing lists of high-risk facilities to the
regions in May 2007. The regions are not required to inspect these higher-risk
facilities before lower-risk facilities, but we believe a more rigorous risk-based
approach is warranted. We noted 162 facilities that could each impact 100,000
people or more under a worst-case scenario accident have never been inspected or
audited by EPA or a delegated State or local agency. Accident data suggest that
un-inspected high-risk facilities are more than five times as likely to have an
accident as un-inspected lower risk facilities.
Oversight Includes Audits and Inspections
Title 40 CFR Part 68.220 requires implementing agencies (EPA regions or
delegated State and local agencies) to periodically audit RMPs, and requires
revisions when necessary to ensure compliance with RMP requirements. These
audits are referred to as 68.220 audits. OEM guidance states that full compliance
with Program regulations cannot be determined without on-site or independent
verification of the information submitted in an RMP. Thus, 68.220 audits can
include on-site verification of compliance with the facility's RMP.5
Compliance inspections under CAA Section 114 authority are more
comprehensive than 68.220 audits in that they require an on-site visit and review
of compliance with all aspects of the Program's regulations, not just those related
to the facility's risk management plan. Further, inspections can result in direct
enforcement actions. As the Program has matured, EPA's oversight emphasis has
moved from audits to federally enforceable inspections. Since Fiscal Year 2007,
OECA's National Program Manager Guidance has stated that regions should
conduct inspections and "may include periodic 68.220 audits" as part of their
compliance program. OECA includes only inspections - not audits - in its
performance measure for the Risk Management Program, and encourages regions
5 Although 68.220 audits need not be conducted on-site, we included only 68.220 audits that were conducted on-site
in addressing the objectives of this evaluation.
15
-------
09-P-0092
to devote their resources to inspections rather than audits. However, OEM
includes both RMP inspections and audits in its performance measures.
Although OECA has a general requirement that regions inspect 5 percent of their
total number of regulated facilities each fiscal year (beginning with Fiscal Year
2007), some regions have negotiated to conduct a smaller number of inspections
because of limited resources. To help regions prioritize their inspections, in 2007
OEM identified a list of 402 facilities as Tier 1 facilities and a list of 213 as Tier 2
facilities.6 After eliminating de-registered7 facilities, the numbers of Tiers 1 and 2
facilities decreased to 390 and 208, respectively, as of November 29, 2007. The
majority of these high-risk facilities (493 of 598) are located in areas where the
Program is managed by EPA regions.
Figure 3.1: Percentage of OEM High-Risk Facilities Managed
under EPA Regions and Delegated State/Local Agencies
as of November 29, 2007
State/Local
Agencies
18%
EPA Regions
82%
Source: OIG analysis based on OEM's high-risk list and the RMP National
Database.
In Fiscal Year 2009, OEM and OECA revised their National Program Manager
Guidance to state that regions should consider the following risk-related factors in
deciding which facilities to inspect:
• Facilities whose reported RMP worst-case scenario population exceeds
500,000 people;
• Facilities holding any RMP-regulated substance on site in an amount more
than 10,000 times the RMP threshold quantity for the substance;
Criteria for listing Tiers 1 and 2 facilities include the population impacted in a worst-case release scenario, the
amount of chemical held in a process that is above the regulatory threshold quantity, and the worst-case release
scenario endpoint distance.
7 A de-registered facility has submitted a letter to the RMP Reporting Center stating that it is no longer covered by
the Risk Management Program rule and the reasons why. Reasons for de-registering include replacing regulated
substances in a facility's processes with unregulated substances and decreasing the quantity of regulated substances
in a facility's processes to below threshold levels.
16
-------
09-P-0092
• Facilities whose reported RMP worst-case scenario endpoint distance
equals or exceeds 25 miles;
• Facilities that had one or more significant accidental releases within the
previous 5 years; and
• Other facilities where information possessed by the regional offices
indicates the facility may be high-risk.
The first three factors are the same criteria OEM used to develop its list of Tier 1
facilities.
We obtained on-site inspection and audit data from all 10 EPA regions and all
State and local agencies with delegated programs. We then determined the
percentage of all RMP facilities that had received an on-site inspection or audit
from EPA or a delegated State/local program since the inception of the Program
in 1999. We also determined the extent to which EPA regions or State and local
agencies had inspected high-risk facilities using three separate criteria, as follows:
1. High-risk facilities identified by OEM (Tier 1 plus Tier 2 facilities),
which considers the amount of covered chemicals held in a process,
potential population impact, and the magnitude of area impacted by a
worst-case release scenario.
2. Facilities that could impact 100,000 people or more during a worst-case
release.
3. Facilities with a Wharton School hazard index score in the top 5 percent
of all facilities under the jurisdiction of their implementing agency.8
It is important to note that identifying a facility as inspected/audited does not
necessarily indicate adequate compliance oversight occurred. In many cases,
several years passed since the last inspection/audit, and conditions at the facility
could have changed. For example, 23 percent of facilities inspected/audited by
EPA or State/local agencies were inspected/audited 4 years ago or more. Further,
from 26 to 30 percent of high-risk facilities (depending on risk type) were last
inspected/audited 4 years ago or more.
Significant Percent of High-Risk Facilities Not Inspected or Audited
EPA had inspected/audited about 26 percent of its active facilities in the
November 29, 2007, Risk Management Program universe. In contrast, State/local
delegated programs had inspected/audited over 70 percent of their facilities.
Appendix D shows the percentage of facilities inspected/audited by EPA regions
and delegated State/local agencies.
8 The OIG calculated the hazard indices for RMP facilities using a formula developed by Wharton School
researchers that takes into account the volume of chemical(s) above the regulatory threshold and the number of
regulated chemicals held in a process at the facility.
17
-------
09-P-0092
Inspection rates for high-risk facilities were greater than for all facilities, but a
significant number of these high-risk facilities remained uninspected. The EPA
regions had inspected only 40 percent of the high-risk facilities identified by
OEM since the program's inception in 1999. Region 3 had the highest inspection
rate of OEM's high-risk facilities (96 percent), while Region 6 had the lowest (15
percent). With the exception of Regions 2, 3, and 4, the inspection/audit rates of
high-risk facilities - whether they are among any one of the risk types - were
generally low. All regions had inspection/audit rates of over 60 percent for
facilities that appeared on all three lists except for Region 6 (0 percent) and
Region 9 (55 percent). The overall inspection rates for high-risk facilities were
much greater in delegated State/local programs than the EPA programs. Table 3.1
below shows inspection/audit rates by each risk type.
Table 3.1: Inspection/Audit Rates of High-Risk Facilities by EPA Region and
Delegated State/Local Agencies as of December 31, 2007
EPA
Region or
Delegated
States/
Locals
1
2
3
4 [a]
5
6[b]
7
8
9
10
EPA
Subtotal
Delegated
States/
Locals
Total [c]
OEM High-Risk
Facilities (Tier 1
+ Tier 2 facilities)
No.
6
18
23
31
88
185
48
20
56
18
493
105
598
Inspected/
Audited
No.
3
17
22
25
45
28
12
13
23
9
197
90
287
%
50
94
96
81
51
15
25
65
41
50
40
86
48
Facilities
Impacting
>100,000 in a
Worst-Case
Release Scenario
No.
8
21
36
31
77
155
16
10
73
12
439
111
550
Inspected/
Audited
No.
5
21
33
27
62
31
8
6
24
6
223
95
318
%
63
100
92
87
81
20
50
60
33
50
51
86
58
Facilities with the
Highest 5% of
Hazard Indices in
Their Respective
Region
No.
10
15
35
23
127
116
129
45
59
24
583
115
698
Inspected/
Audited
No.
6
11
28
19
36
9
20
15
20
12
176
96
272
%
60
73
80
83
28
8
16
33
34
50
30
83
39
Facilities on
All Three Lists
No.
3
6
11
7
29
33
8
2
20
4
123
34
157
Inspected/
Audited
No.
2
6
11
6
23
0
6
2
11
3
70
29
99
%
67
100
100
86
79
0
75
100
55
75
57
85
63
Source: OIG analysis based on data obtained from the RMP National Database, all 10 EPA
regions, and State/local agencies with program delegation.
[a] Most facilities in Region 4 are managed under delegated programs. The universe and
inspection rates for these facilities are reflected under the delegated States/locals category.
[b] Since December 31, 2007, Region 6 has inspected an additional 12 facilities on the OEM list of
high-risk facilities as of 8/29/08. This includes five facilities that appeared on all three lists.
[c] Totals do not include inspections/audits performed by the non-delegated State programs in
California, Louisiana, and Nevada because we did not assess the scope of these inspections/audits
and these data are not routinely reported to EPA. Region 9 staff told us that California has
conducted over 4,900 inspections under its State accident prevention program, and Nevada
conducts comprehensive reviews of all facilities under its State program at least once every 5 years.
While Table 3.1 shows three different methods of identifying high-risk facilities,
we did not assess whether one method was better than another. Further, we
recognize that other methods for identifying high-risk and priority facilities may
18
-------
09-P-0092
be useful. Also, in some instances, circumstances may dictate that non-RMP
facility inspections (e.g., CAA Section 112(r) General Duty Clause inspections)
should take precedence over RMP facility inspections. Appendix E presents the
total number of all RMP facility, General Duty Clause, and non-filer-related
on-site inspections or audits reported by each region.
The Risk Management Program regulations and EPA guidance cite a facility's
accident history as a factor for selecting facilities to audit or inspect. Past
accident history can be an indicator of unsafe operating practices and thus these
facilities may present a greater risk to the public. However, since 1999, EPA has
only conducted full RMP inspections or audits at about 39 percent of the facilities
that have reported accidents in their RMPs. Facilities were required to report
covered chemical accidents in their original RMP submittals. Effective April 9,
2004, facilities were required to update the chemical accident section of their
submitted RMP within 6 months of the accident. Appendix F shows
inspection/audit rates for facilities that reported accidents in their RMPs.
Factors Limiting EPA's Ability to Inspect/Audit RMP Facilities
Three factors appeared to limit EPA's ability to conduct on-site audits or
inspections and thus ensure that facilities comply with Risk Management Program
requirements. These factors were: (1) the fact that few State or local agencies
had accepted delegation of the Program, (2) the relatively low number of EPA
inspectors available to conduct oversight, and (3) limited training. Given these
limitations, we believe an inspection approach that targets high-risk facilities and
most effectively uses limited resources is needed.
Few States Have Taken Delegation of the Program
Generally, EPA grants delegation of authority for State and local agencies to
implement and administer CAA programs. However, only 9 States and 5 local
agencies of the total 114 agencies receiving air grant funds from EPA have
accepted delegation of the Risk Management Program.9 The majority of the
States (6 of 9) and local agencies (4 of 5) that have accepted delegation are in
Region 4. One factor for this was Region 4's decision to attach Section 105 air
grant funds to the Risk Management Program. For example, where Region 4
States declined to request delegation of the Program, Region 4 withheld a
percentage of that State's air grant funds.
9 The nine delegated States are Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey,
Ohio, and South Carolina. The five local agencies are Allegheny County (Pennsylvania), Buncombe County (North
Carolina), Forsyth County (North Carolina), Jefferson County (Kentucky), and Mecklenburg County (North
Carolina). Although Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have technically been granted delegation of the Program,
Region 2 has assumed responsibility for implementing the Program in these territories because of the territories'
funding constraints and/or failure to adequately implement the Program.
19
-------
09-P-0092
Two States - New Jersey and Delaware - had programs in place before EPA
issued its Risk Management Program regulations. Both of these States requested
and received delegation of the federal Program from EPA. These two States
operate fee-based programs whereby RMP facilities pay fees to the State to cover
the cost of administering the program. At least three States - California,
Nevada,10 and Louisiana - implement State programs without delegation of the
federal Program from EPA.
We discussed the use of air grants and Title V permit fees to fund the Risk
Management Program with EPA's OAR staff. OAR staff told us that if a State
accepted delegation of the Risk Management Program, its Title V permit fees
should be used to fund Program compliance and enforcement activities for Title V
sources. CAA Section 105 grant funds could be used to fund these activities for
non-Title V sources. However, OAR does not specifically designate a portion of
the Section 105 grant funds for the Risk Management Program. The
Headquarters grant allocation includes the category "Air Toxics Implementation,"
which encompasses the Risk Management Program. The regions have the
discretion to specifically designate a portion of these funds to the Program.
However, only Region 4 has exercised this option.
We also discussed EPA's options for increasing the number of State delegated
programs. OAR staff said the air toxics section of the CAA (Section 112) is less
forceful than other sections in promoting State acceptance of program delegation.
EPA cannot insist that States accept delegation. For example, CAA Section 112
states:
Each State may develop [emphasis added] and submit to the
Administrator for approval a program for the implementation
and enforcement. . .
In contrast, for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, CAA Section 107
states:
Sec. 107. (a) Each State shall have the primary responsibility
[emphasis added] for assuring air quality within the entire
geographic area comprising such State by submitting an
implementation plan for such State which will specify the manner
in which national primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards will be achieved and maintained....
Since few State or local agencies have taken delegation of the program, EPA is
responsible for ensuring compliance with the majority of facilities nationwide.
10 According to Region 9's Enforcement Coordinator for EPCRA and the Risk Management Program, Nevada
requested delegation of the Program but it was not accepted due to problems with the State's regulatory language.
20
-------
09-P-0092
Limited Number of EPA Full-Time Equivalents for Program
EPA regions have a limited number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) available to
inspect RMP facilities. Table 3.2 shows the number of Risk Management
Program enforcement FTEs, as reported by EPA to Congress in October 2007,
and the ratio of facilities-per-FTE. This ratio ranges from a low of 140 facilities-
per-FTE in Region 1 to a high of 922 in Region 6. Collectively, the 10 EPA
regions have a ratio of 473 facilities-per-FTE. This ratio is much greater than the
71 facilities-per-FTE for delegated State and local agency Programs.
Table 3.2: Ratio of Facilities per Enforcement FTE [a]
Region or Delegated
States/Locals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
EPA Total
Delegated
States/Locals
Number of
FTEs [b]
1.3
1.5
3.5
1.0
5.0
2.5
3.8
1.0
3.0
1.75
24.35
30.19
Number of
Facilities
182
285
698
441
2,526
2,304
2,563
890
1,170
470
11,529
2,143
Ratio of Facilities
per FTE
140
190
199
441
505
922
674
890
390
269
473
71
Source: OIG analysis using regional FTE data reported to Congress by EPA, delegated
programs' FTE data obtained from EPA or directly from the delegated program, and data
obtained from the RMP National Database.
[a] FTEs may perform other duties in addition to inspecting RMP facilities, such as providing
training and outreach to facilities and conducting General Duty Clause and non-filer inspections.
[b] FTEs do not include Senior Environmental Employment program employees. In 2007, EPA
reported to Congress that 19 such employees worked as inspectors in the Risk Management
Program. If these inspectors spent 100 percent of their time on the Risk Management Program,
the ratio of facilities-per-FTE for EPA regions as a whole would be 266, which is still higher than
the 71 for delegated State/local agencies.
Further, delegated State and local agencies generally have less geographic area to
cover than their EPA counterparts. In addition, some regions told us that they had
limited travel funds for Risk Management Program inspections.
OSWER supplements regional FTEs by providing each region with $150,000 in
extramural funds. Some regions have used these funds for grants or other
agreements to enlist inspection support from the States in the region. For
example, Region 7 has used its extramural funding to award grants to its States to
assist in conducting limited reviews of Risk Management Program requirements
at agricultural facilities. In 2004 and 2005, Region 5 had an agreement with the
Illinois Department of Agriculture to conduct federally-enforceable inspections of
agricultural facilities. The Illinois inspectors received the same training as EPA
Risk Management Program inspectors, and conducted about 500 inspections
21
-------
09-P-0092
during that period. Staffs in Regions 6 and 7 noted a disparity in funding since
each region receives the same amount of extramural funds regardless of the total
number of facilities in its Region.
Some Inspectors Have Not Received Basic and Advanced Training
In addition to having a limited number of inspectors to conduct on-site inspections
of RMP facilities, not all EPA inspectors have received the required Program
training. EPA Order 3500.1 requires that RMP inspectors have "Risk
Management Plan Techniques" training. However, when we started our
evaluation, EPA regional staff in four regions told us that not all of their
inspectors had this training and EPA had not offered this course in several years.
Further, staff from three regions and two delegated States said inspectors would
benefit from more advanced training, such as industry- or process-specific
training. Funding has been a barrier to obtaining the necessary training.
In lieu of EPA-provided training courses, staff from some regions said they used
alternative methods to train their RMP inspectors. Region 6 managers told us
they had implemented a "train-the-trainer session" in which one inspector was
sent to the training and this inspector later presented the material to other
inspectors. Region 6 staff also noted that the Region has sent RMP inspectors to
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Process Safely
Management11 training and to Process Safety Management/Risk Management
Program training provided by private vendors. Region 7 hired a contractor to
teach the RMP Techniques training course to its staff in the fall of 2005.
Prior to our field work, EPA took steps to address the training issues by updating
the curriculum for the RMP Techniques course. EPA conducted the updated
RMP Techniques training class in June 2008 and October 2008. OEM officials
told us they plan to continue to offer the RMP Techniques course once a year or
more as needed.
EPA Does Not Require Inspection of High-Risk Facilities
In May 2007, OEM and OECA started providing lists of high-risk facilities and
encouraging regions to inspect these facilities. However, EPA does not require or
track inspection of high-risk facilities, and only requires regions to inspect
5 percent of their facilities each fiscal year. Further, OECA and the regional
inspectors do not routinely identify and agree upon which specific facilities to
inspect. In contrast, EPA has implemented more rigorous requirements for other
inspection programs. For example, States submit a list of planned inspections of
facilities subject to air toxics emissions standards to EPA regions for approval.
11 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Process Safety Management standard is very similar to
EPA's Risk Management Program, and many of the EPA's Program's requirements are based on that other agency's
standards.
22
-------
09-P-0092
We contacted four EPA regions with low inspection rates for OEM's high-risk
facilities to discuss their regional strategies for prioritizing inspections and found
the following.
• Region 5's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Section
Chief told us the Region selects facilities for inspection based on off-site
consequence analysis population impacts, and OEM did not object to this
inspection strategy. The Chief said Region 5 has ranked all its facilities
based on population impacts and is working its way through that list.
Inspection data showed that Region 5 has inspected 81 percent of facilities
that could impact 100,000 people or more in a worst-case release scenario
(see Table 3.1).
• Region 6's RMP Enforcement Coordinator told us the Region prioritizes
inspections based on geographic distribution; industry sector; accident
history; and risk factors such as quantity of chemicals stored on-site,
population impacts, and environmental receptors in a worst-case release
scenario. He also said that to maximize inspection resources, staff inspect
nearby facilities that may not necessarily meet the above criteria. This
allows them to inspect multiple facilities during the same inspection trip.
They also limit the extent to which they inspect multiple facilities owned
and operated by a common "parent entity." In addition, managers told us
that beginning in Fiscal Year 2008 the Region implemented a more risk-
based targeting strategy for Title V facilities subject to the Risk
Management Program. Accordingly, Region 6 has inspected an additional
12 facilities on OEMs' high-risk list during Fiscal Year 2008.
• Region 7's RMP Team Leader told us the Region prioritizes facilities to
inspect based on accident history and industry sector. The Team Leader
told us that because the Risk Management Program rule is a performance-
based standard, facilities that have had accidents have the highest
inspection priority. In terms of industry sector, Region 7 staff said they
have focused on inspecting ammonia refrigeration facilities, refineries, and
drinking water facilities for various reasons, including accident history,
proximity to population centers, and security issues.
• Region 9 staff told us the Region bases its initial list of facilities to inspect
on the criteria OEM used to develop its high-risk lists. It then adds other
facilities that are of concern to residents or local agencies, and facilities
that have reported releases to the National Response Center. Region 9
staff also said that to most effectively utilize their resources, they place an
additional focus on facilities in States, such as Arizona, that do not have
their own risk management or accident prevention programs.12
12 Two States in Region 9 - California and Nevada - have accident prevention programs that were established prior
to EPA's Risk Management Program.
23
-------
09-P-0092
We also discussed inspection strategies with Region 10. Region 10 uses a
prioritization methodology that considers a number of criteria, including number
of reported accidental releases, population impacted by a worst-case scenario, and
location in environmentally sensitive areas. Region 10's strategy also includes
inspections to detect non-filers.
The accident rates of never-inspected facilities support an inspection strategy that
targets high-risk facilities. As shown in Table 3.3, about 29 percent of the never-
inspected high-risk facilities identified in OEM's high-risk list have had
accidents. On the other hand, only about 5 percent of the never-inspected lower-
risk facilities (i.e., facilities not on OEM's high-risk list) have had accidents. This
suggests that never-inspected high-risk facilities are more than 5 times as likely to
have an accident as never inspected lower risk facilities. The higher accident rate
for never-inspected high-risk facilities also suggests that OEM's high-priority
criteria are successful in identifying facilities that are more likely to have
accidents. According to data filed by facilities in the RMP National Database,
there were 162 uninspected facilities listed on OEM's high-risk list that could
each impact 100,000 people or more in a worst-case release scenario.
Table 3.3: Accident Rates for Uninspected Facilities
OEM High-Risk
Facilities
Non-OEM High-Risk
Facilities
Number of Never-
Inspected Facilities
311
8,795
Number with
Accident(s)
91
406
Percent with
Accident(s)
29
5
Source: OIG-developed table based on inspection/audit data received and data in the RMP
National Database.
Impact of Accidents at RMP facilities
The cost of accidents at RMP facilities can be significant in terms of human
injuries and deaths as well as financial. For example, 1,490 accidents were
reported to EPA by the current universe of RMP facilities. These accidents
resulted in over 40 worker deaths, nearly 1,500 worker injuries, over 300,000
people being sheltered in place, and over $1 billion in on-site and off-site
damages. These effects, along with the accident rate of never-inspected high-risk
facilities, show the importance of prioritizing inspections based on risk.
We noted that accidents occurred at two RMP facilities in Region 6 after we
began our evaluation, and neither facility was ever inspected/audited by the Risk
Management Program office. One of these facilities was on OEM's list of Tier 1
facilities. These accidents resulted in one worker death, multiple injuries, and
significant on-site monetary damage. In a worst-case scenario, over 35,000
people could have been impacted by each of these accidents.
24
-------
09-P-0092
Conclusions
Although nearly 10 years have passed since the inception of the Risk
Management Program in 1999, EPA regions have only inspected/audited about
40 percent of OEM's high-risk facilities. These inspection/audit rates were much
lower than those of delegated States and local agencies. Given the limited
number of EPA resources to implement the Program, we believe a more rigorous
risk-based inspection approach is warranted. Prioritization of inspections based
on risk is important because of the significant effects of past accidents and the
higher accident rates of never-inspected high-risk facilities. If a covered facility
has not been inspected, EPA does not have reasonable assurance that the facility
has taken measures to operate safely. This can put the public, employees, and
first responders at risk in case of an accident.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
3-1 Provide the Risk Management Program required training courses to ensure
that all Program inspectors are adequately trained, and provide industry-
specific training when warranted.
3-2 Explore strategies for providing additional resources to those regions with
high facility-to-FTE ratios to ensure that high-risk facilities are inspected
expeditiously.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
3-3 Develop and implement a risk-based inspection strategy that incorporates
regional input on high-risk facilities to prioritize facilities for inspection
based on risk and other priority measures.
3-4 Revise the performance expectation for the Risk Management Program to
incorporate the inspection of the high-risk facilities developed in response
to Recommendation 3-3.
3-5 Track which high-risk facilities have been inspected by the regions and/or
delegated State/local agencies and develop procedures to provide
expeditious inspection coverage of those high-risk facilities not inspected
by the regions or State/local agencies.
25
-------
09-P-0092
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER and OECA agreed with all recommendations in Chapter 3, and noted
that they had taken steps in the past few years that support several of our
recommendations. A summary of the Agency's response to each
recommendation and our analysis follows.
• Recommendation 3-1: OSWER stated that it has scheduled another Risk
Management Plan Techniques training course for February 2009 and is
planning an additional course for the fall of 2009. OSWER noted that by
the end of 2009, it will have trained approximately 100 RMP inspectors.
• Recommendation 3-2: OSWER stated that it is "beginning to explore
various options for getting additional resources to Regions with a high
number of high-risk facilities to improve the inspection rate of these
facilities."
• Recommendation 3-3: OECA stated that it is working with OSWER to
develop a more "rigorous" definition of a high-risk facility, which they
expect to incorporate into their National Program Manager Guidance for
Fiscal Year 2010. According to the Agency, with this new definition,
"[rjegions will be better equipped to identify and target high-risk facilities
for inspections."
• Recommendation 3-4: OECA stated that it is working with OSWER to
revise the performance expectation in the Fiscal Year 2010 National
Program Manager Guidance to incorporate the inspection of high-risk
facilities.
• Recommendation 3-5: OECA stated that it is working with OSWER to
develop a mechanism for tracking which high-risk facilities have not been
inspected.
We believe the general actions outlined in OSWER's and OECA's responses
meet the intent of our recommendations. The recommendations will remain open
in our tracking system pending our receipt and approval of the Agency's final
corrective action plan. Appendix C contains the full texts of OSWER's and
OECA's responses to the draft report.
26
-------
09-P-0092
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Claimed Agreed To
Amount Amount
2-1 12 Strengthen controls to identify facilities that did not
file RMPs by:
• Revising Headquarters operating guidance to
specify how often the regions should conduct
reviews to identify non-filers, and establish
milestones for reviewing and removing
inactive facilities from the RMP National
Database.
• Incorporating the TRI search methodology
and other effective methodologies used by
EPA regions (e.g., using the EPCRA and TRI
on-site compliance evaluations) into the new
Headquarters guidance for regions to use in
identifying potential non-filers.
• Updating the RMP National Database to
de-activate closed facilities.
2-2 13 Ascertain whether the facilities we identified
through our TRI and EPCRA data searches are
subject to Risk Management Program
requirements and, if so, take appropriate action to
ensure that these facilities comply with Program
requirements.
2-3 13 Instruct Title V permitting authorities on the proper
procedures for identifying and including Risk
Management Program requirements in Title V
permits - including guidance on how to verify
whether facilities have submitted RMPs - and
monitor implementation of these requirements.
3-1 25 Provide the Risk Management Program required
training courses to ensure that all Program
inspectors are adequately trained, and provide
industry-specific training when warranted.
3-2 25 Explore strategies for providing additional
resources to those regions with high facility-to-FTE
ratios to ensure that high-risk facilities are
inspected expeditiously.
3-3 25 Develop and implement a risk-based inspection
strategy that incorporates regional input on high-
risk facilities to prioritize facilities for inspection
based on risk and other priority measures.
3-4 25 Revise the performance expectation for the Risk
Management Program to incorporate the inspection
of the high-risk facilities developed in response to
Recommendation 3-3.
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
12/2009
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
9/2009
4/27/2009
12/2009
27
-------
09-P-0092
POTENTIAL MONETARY
RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $OOOs)
Planned
Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed To
No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount
3-5 25 Track which high-risk facilities have been inspected 0 Assistant Administrator for
by the regions and/or delegated States/local Enforcement and
agencies and develop procedures to provide Compliance Assurance
expeditious inspection coverage of those high-risk
facilities not inspected by the regions or State/local
agencies.
0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
28
-------
09-P-0092
Appendix A
Details on Scope and Methodology
To determine whether procedures were in place to provide reasonable assurance that all facilities
subject to the Risk Management Program regulations had submitted RMPs (first objective), we:
1. Reviewed the 2006 TRI to identify facilities in four States (Colorado, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, and Texas) that reported having on-site quantities of ammonia, chlorine, or
hydrogen fluoride at levels well above the Risk Management Program thresholds. We used
TRI data from 2006 because that was the most recent year for which TRI data were available.
We then reviewed the RMP National Database (current as of November 29, 2007) to
determine whether these facilities had filed RMPs with EPA. For all four States, we met
with EPA regional staff to discuss whether the facilities may be subject to Program
requirements and should submit an RMP to EPA.
2. Reviewed 2008 EPCRA data provided by Oklahoma to identify facilities that reported having
on-site quantities of ammonia, chlorine, or hydrogen fluoride at levels above the Risk
Management Program thresholds. We then reviewed the RMP National Database (current as
of November 29, 2007) to determine whether these facilities had filed RMPs with EPA. If
they had not, we provided their names and amounts of reported chemicals to EPA regional
staff to determine whether they may be subject to Program requirements and should submit
an RMP to EPA.
3. Reviewed the RMP National Database to identify facilities that had not re-filed an RMP
5 years after the original RMP, as required by 40 CFR Part 68. We compared this list of
facilities to a similar list developed by EPA in September 2005 to determine how many of the
facilities from the 2005 list remained unresolved in the RMP National Database.
4. Reviewed a sample of Title V permits from eight States (Arizona, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New York, and North Carolina), to determine whether the Title V
permitting agencies were identifying the status of Risk Management Program facilities
during the permit application process and correctly incorporating the Program requirements
in the facilities' Title V permits, as required by regulation and EPA guidance. We also
interviewed staff from four of the eight States (Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, and New York) to
determine whether they verified if RMP-covered sources had submitted an RMP, as required
by regulation and EPA guidance.
To determine whether the inspection process provides reasonable assurance that covered
facilities comply with Risk Management Program requirements (second objective), we:
1. Compared the Risk Management Program active universe as of November 29, 2007, with the
inspections/audits completed as of December 31, 2007, to determine the percentage of active
facilities inspected or audited. To complete this analysis, we requested and obtained lists of
inspections/audits completed between the inception of the Program in 1999 and December 31,
29
-------
09-P-0092
2007 from all implementing agencies (i.e., EPA regions and delegated State and local
agencies).
2. Determined whether high-risk facilities were inspected/audited by comparing lists of these
facilities with the inspections/audits completed as of December 31, 2007. We used three lists
of high-risk facilities: (1) OEM's lists of Tiers 1 and 2 facilities; (2) facilities that could
impact 100,000 people or more in a worst-case release scenario, which we developed using
data from the RMP National Database; and (3) facilities with the highest 5 percent of hazard
indices in their respective implementing agency. We developed this list by calculating the
hazard index of each facility using the Wharton School's formula.13
3. Determined whether the November 29, 2007, universe of facilities that had accidents as
reported in their RMPs have ever been inspected/audited by comparing these facilities with
the inspections/audits completed as of December 31, 2007. We obtained the lists of
inspections/audits completed since the inception of the program from all implementing
agencies as described above.
4. Determined the ratio of FTE staff assigned to enforcement of the Risk Management Program
in each implementing agency to the number of facilities for which that agency is responsible.
We used EPA FTE information provided in the October 2007 EPA written response to
questions from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. With regard to
delegated States and local agencies, we requested FTE information directly from the State or
through the appropriate EPA regional contacts. We then compared these ratios among EPA
regions and delegated State and local agency programs.
Prior Reports
The EPA OIG has not conducted any prior audits or evaluations of the CAA 112(r) Risk
Management Program. In July 2002, the Government Accountability Office issued a report on
chemical facilities' reporting requirements under EPCRA and CAA 112(r) for the Risk
Management Program. This report (Emergency Response Community Views on the Adequacy of
Federally Required Chemical Information)., noted that although EPA took steps to try to identify
the full universe of sources subject to the Risk Management Program requirements, the total
number of facilities required to submit RMPs was uncertain. The report also noted that EPA had
only reviewed about 15 percent of the submitted RMPs and did not have a complete picture of
the accuracy of most plans; the number of onsite inspections conducted by the regions varied
from 2 to 145.
We also reviewed the following reports from other federal agencies that touched on the
CAA 112(r) Risk Management Program.
• National Transportation Safety Board Hazardous Materials Accident Report:
Hazardous Materials Release from Railroad Tank Car with Subsequent Fire
13 The Wharton School's hazard index is defined as "the sum over all chemicals of Iog2 (maximum quantity of
inventory on-site/threshold), or, alternatively, as the number of chemicals times Iog2 of the geometric mean of the
maximum-to-threshold quantity ratio."
30
-------
09-P-0092
Riverview, Michigan, July 14, 2001 (Report No. NTSB/HZM-02/01): This report
noted that the number of inspectors EPA has to oversee operations covered by the Risk
Management Program is limited compared to the number of covered facilities.
• U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Investigation Report:
Refinery Explosion and Fire, March 20, 2007 (Report No. 2005-04-I-TX): This report
noted that EPA enforcement of the Risk Management Program requirements has relied
primarily on reviews of submitted RMPs rather than on-site inspections.
Limitations
In addressing the second objective, we limited our assessment to whether on-site inspections or
audits were conducted. We did not assess the effectiveness of inspections or audits conducted.
Given the significant number of facilities that had not received on-site inspections or audits, we
believe sufficient data were gathered to address our objective.
In addition, we did not independently verify the accuracy of data in the RMP National Database
nor perform a detailed assessment of the database's controls. However, we discussed data
controls with OEM staff, reviewed reports of prior Risk Management Program studies conducted
by Wharton School researchers that addressed RMP data accuracy, and interviewed the authors
of these prior reports. Wharton researchers found that key data elements, such as facility
location, the number of employees, quantity of listed chemicals in covered processes, and
accident history (e.g., definition of reportable accident), could be interpreted in different ways.
Although these differing interpretations could impact data accuracy in either direction (under-
reporting or over-reporting), the researchers believed that hazards and adverse events were more
likely to be under-reported than over-reported. Inaccurate reporting of accidents could impact
one of our report's findings. During our review, we used the accident history reported in the
RMP National Database to identify facilities with prior accidents to determine whether facilities
with accidents had ever been inspected. If this field was under-reported, then the number of
facilities with accidents would be larger than the number we identified for our review. Even if
additional facilities had accidents that were not reported in the RMP National Database, we
believe our analysis was sufficient to demonstrate that a significant number of facilities reporting
accidents had not received on-site inspections or audits.
In determining the numbers of on-site inspections and audits conducted, we only included
activities that were on-site Risk Management Program compliance inspections or audits. For
example, we did not include desk audits, General Duty Clause inspections, accident
investigations, compliance assistance visits, or inspections at facilities not regulated under the
Risk Management Program rule. We did not include accident investigations because the
objective of such an investigation does not include evaluating whether a facility has complied
with all elements of the Risk Management Program rule. All of these activities provide varying
degrees of oversight and could improve compliance with the Program. However, as noted in
EPA's National Program Manager Guidance, regions should conduct on-site CAA 112(r) Risk
Management Program inspections, and OEM has provided regions with an audit checklist as
guidance to ensure that the regulatory requirements are met by the facilities. The above actions
do not address all the elements in OEM's audit checklist.
31
-------
09-P-0092
Appendix B
Regional Activities to Identify Non-Filers
We obtained information on activities to identify RMP non-filer from eight regions. Examples
of regional non-filer activities follow.
Region 2: The Region used various data sources, including telephone books, Dun and
Bradstreet Numbers industry data, and EPCRA Tier II data obtained from States.
Region 3: The Region used TRI data searches in the past and plans to start using them again.
The Region has also used EPCRA Tier II data from States and information from
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Region 4: The Region looked for RMP non-filers during EPCRA and TRI on-site
inspections.
Region 6: Regional air inspectors checked facilities' RMP status when conducting CAA
Full Compliance Evaluations. In the early years of the Program (2000-2001), the
Region used North America Industry Classification System codes to target certain
industries likely to be covered.
Region 7: Based on inspection data provided to the OIG, the Region conducted 160 on-site
non-filers inspections during 2000-2007. In addition, the Region has used TRI
searches in the past, and identified only a few non-filers using that method.
Region 8: The Region looked for RMP non-filers during on-site inspections for the EPCRA
and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
programs. The Region has also used data sources such as TRI and Dun and
Bradstreet industry data.
Region 9: Based on inspection information provided to the OIG, the Region conducted 208
on-site inspections to identify non-filers during 2000-2007. The Response,
Planning and Assessment Branch Chief said the Region uses TRI, Tier II, and other
EPA-tracked environmental data to identify potential non-filers for inspection.
Region 10: The Region employed standardized procedures using TRI and other sources of
information to identify potential non-filers, and conducted on-site inspections of
these potential non-filers. The Risk Management Program Leader told us that
very few of the facilities they identified using TRI searches were required to
submit RMPs. Based on inspection data provided to the OIG, the Region
conducted 104 on-site non-filer inspections during 2000-2007, as well as over
1,000 off-site activities to determine if facilities should submit an RMP. The
Region reported identifying 16 non-filers since 2004.
32
-------
09-P-0092
Appendix C
Agency Responses
Response from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
January 15,2009
SUBJECT: OSWER Response to OIG Draft Evaluation Report, "EPA Can Improve
Implementation of the Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical
Releases"
FROM: Susan Parker Bodine /s/
Assistant Administrator
TO: Bill A. Roderick
Deputy Inspector General
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft OIG Evaluation
Report, "EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for Airborne
Chemical Releases". The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has
completed its review and concurs with the proposed recommendations specific to OSWER. We
have outlined below our planned completion dates for the recommendations. Additionally, we
have several specific editorial comments on the factual accuracy of the draft report which we
have included in the attached copy of the report.
On the whole, we agree with the findings and recommendations discussed in the report. For
the past several years, we have been working in close coordination with the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) on several of these issues. It is encouraging
that the findings in the report show we are moving in the right direction, and we will continue
working to further improve the implementation of the Risk Management Program. Below is our
response to the recommendations.
In Chapter 2, recommendations 2.1 and 2.2 state:
o Strengthen controls to identify facilities that did not file Risk Management Plans (RMPs)
by:
- Revising Headquarters operating guidance to specify how often the regions should
conduct reviews to identify non-filers, and establish milestones for reviewing and
removing inactive facilities from the RMP National Database.
Incorporating the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) search methodology and other
effective methodologies used by EPA regions (e.g., using the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) and TRI on-site compliance
33
-------
09-P-0092
evaluations) into the new Headquarters guidance for regions to use in identifying
potential non-filers.
Updating the RMP National Database to de-activate closed facilities.
o Ascertain whether the facilities we identified through our TRI and EPCRA data searches
are subject to Risk Management Program requirements and, if so, take appropriate action
to ensure that these facilities comply with Program requirements.
For recommendation 2.1, OSWER will provide guidance to Regions by December 2009,
which specifies how and when Regions should conduct reviews to identify non-filers as well as
the methodologies to be used for those reviews. This guidance will also include a timeline for
reviewing and removing inactive facilities and de-activating closed facilities from the RMP
National Database.
For recommendation 2.2, several Regions are in the process of reviewing the TRI and
EPCRA facilities identified in the data search and determining if those facilities are covered by
the RMP requirements and need to submit a RMP. Those reviews should be completed in
September 2009. Depending upon the outcome of these reviews, we will take appropriate action
to ensure that these facilities comply with the RMP requirements.
In Chapter 3, recommendation 3.1 and 3.2 state:
o Provide the Risk Management Program required training courses to ensure that all
Program inspectors are adequately trained, and provide industry-specific training when
warranted.
o Explore strategies for providing additional resources to those regions with high facility -
to-FTE ratios to ensure that high-risk facilities are inspected expeditiously.
As stated in the report, in early 2008, we revised the RMP Inspector's Training course and
provided two training sessions in June 2008 and October 2008. Additionally, we have scheduled
the next training session in Region 6 for February 2009 and will be scheduling another session in
the fall of 2009. These training sessions include our Regional inspectors as well as inspectors
from RMP Implementing agencies. By the end of 2009, we will have trained approximately 100
RMP inspectors. In addition, we are beginning to explore various options for getting additional
resources to Regions with a high number of high risk facilities to improve the inspection rate of
these facilities.
We would also like to point out that our office has been and will continue to work closely
with OECA as we continue to further our efforts in implementing the Risk Management
Program. Specifically, as noted in your report, OSWER and OECA jointly revised their National
Program Manager Guidance to provide the regions with specific risk-related factors to be
considered in deciding which facilities to inspect. Currently, OSWER and OECA are working
together to develop a more exact definition of what defines a high-risk facility and we expect to
34
-------
09-P-0092
incorporate the new definition into the National Program Managers Guidance for Fiscal Year
2010.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft report. If you have any
questions or comments, please contact Kim Jennings at (202) 564-7998.
Attachment
35
-------
09-P-0092
Response from the Office of Air and Radiation
January 27, 2009
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report: EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk
Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases
Assignment No. OPE-FY08-0001
FROM: Elizabeth Craig /s/
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
TO: Wade T. Najjum
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
We appreciate the Office of Inspector General (OIG) efforts in completing the draft
report entitled "EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for
Airborne Chemical Releases" (Assignment No. OPE-FY08-0001). The Office of Air Radiation
(OAR) concurs with comment on the OIG's recommendation 2-3.
OAR has issued multiple guidance documents to the Regions and States on how to
implement the requirements of the Accidental Release Prevention Program, specifically, the
requirements of Section 112(r) in the context of the Title V program. The April 20, 1999
memorandum entitled "Title V Program Responsibilities Concerning the Accidental Release
Prevention Program" from Steven J. Hitte to the Region Air Program Managers provides specific
information related to implementation of the Risk Management Program and those aspects
highlighted by recommendation 2-3. Nonetheless, we recognize that because the guidance is
nearly 10 years old, its implementation would benefit from a reminder to the Regional Air
Division Directors of the existence of this guidance as outlined in the attached action plan. A
similar reminder from the Regions to the States would also be beneficial. Therefore, we will
instruct the Regional Air Division Directors to ensure that the State Title V Program Managers
are reminded of the existence of the guidance and that it is being properly implemented. As
indicated in the Action Plan, this information will also be posted on the Region 7 website with
the rest of the Title V Program materials.
If you have additional questions after reviewing this response, please do not hesitate to
request clarification from either Michael Boucher at (919)541-7627 or Juan Santiago at
(919)541-1084. Thank you again for the assistance and effort.
Attachment
cc: Pete Cosier, OAR Audit Follow-up Coordinator
Michael Boucher, OAQPS Audit Follow-up Coordinator
36
-------
Rick Beusse, Director for Program Evaluation, Air Issues, OIG
OIG Juan Santiago, OAQPS Title V Group Leader
09-P-0092
Action Plan
Number
2.3
Recommendation
Instruct Title V permitting
authorities on the proper
procedures for identifying
and including Risk
Management Program
(RMP) requirements in Title
V permits - including
guidance on how to verify
whether facilities have
submitted RMPs - and
monitor implementation of
these requirements.
Planned Corrective Action
Obtain from the Office of
Emergency Management the
procedure for access to the
RMP database for distribution.
Remind the Regional Air
Division Directors of the
existence of this guidance and
post this information on the
appropriate website. Instruct
the Regional Air Division
Directors to inform State Title
V Program Managers of the
guidance and the links for
obtaining it.
Planned
Completion
Within 90 days.
37
-------
09-P-0092
Response from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
January 23, 2009
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Evaluation Report,
"EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for
Airborne: Chemical Releases," Assignment Number OPE-FY08-0001
(December 18,2008)
FROM: Catherine R. McCabe /s/
Acting Assistant Administrator
TO: Wade T. Najjum
Assistant Inspector General
Office of Program Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft evaluation report
titled, "EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for Airborne
Chemical Releases," Assignment Number OPE-FY08-0001. The Report focuses on improving
EPA's implementation of the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program (Report), and includes
recommendations to the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Office of
Air and Radiation (OAR), and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).
In summary, OECA agrees with the Report's recommendations and has taken important
steps in the past several years that support several recommendations. OECA is committed to
further enhancing its targeting efforts and improving the tracking of Risk Management Program
(RMP) inspections. This response is limited to recommendations specifically made to OECA.
• Recommendation 3-3: Develop and implement a risk-based inspection strategy that
incorporates regional input on high-risk facilities to prioritize facilities for inspection based
on risk and other priority measures.
OECA concurs with this recommendation. OECA is working with OSWER and the Regions
to develop an approach for targeting high-risk facilities to make the best use of limited
inspection resources. As part of this effort, we will develop a more rigorous definition of a
high-risk facility. OECA expects to incorporate the new definition into the National Program
Managers Guidance for Fiscal Year 2010. With the new definition, Regions will be better
equipped to identify and target high-risk facilities for inspections.
• Recommendation 3-4: Revise the performance expectation for the RMP to incorporate the
inspection of the high-risk facilities developed in response to Recommendation 3-3.
38
-------
09-P-0092
OECA concurs with this recommendation. OECA and OSWER are working jointly to revise
the performance expectation for inspection in the National Program Managers Guidance for
Fiscal Year 2010.
• Recommendation 3-5: Track which high-risk facilities have been inspected by the regions
and/or delegated State/local agencies and develop procedures to provide expeditious
inspection coverage of those high-risk facilities not inspected by the regions or State/local
agencies.
OECA concurs with this recommendation. OECA is working with OSWER to develop an
appropriate tracking mechanism to assist Regions in identifying high-risk facilities that have
not been inspected. The Agency believes existing coordination procedures with State and
local agencies can be used to leverage limited resource and ensure high-risk facilities are
inspected first.
In addition to responding to the Report's recommendations, we would also like to offer
technical clarifications:
1) The Report describes inspections and audits conducted under section 68.220 of the RMP
regulations. The Report appears to imply that inspections and audits are equally effective in
assuring compliance with the regulations. In fact, the two activities are very different.
Inspections cover the entire scope of the RMP, while audits are confined only to the
requirements of Subpart G of the regulations. In addition, section 68.220 audits cannot result
in enforcement actions, should the audit uncover deficiencies. The section 68.220 audits can
only result in requiring revisions to the risk management program. For these two reasons,
OECA requires Regions to conduct inspections, not audits, in order to meet their
performance commitments. OECA has also strongly encouraged Regions to devote their
limited resources to conducting inspections rather than the more limited audits. Most Regions
have moved in this direction and no longer conduct any audits. We suggest the final report be
more precise in highlighting this distinction.
2) We would also like to request the revision of two sentences:
a) Page 5 (second paragraph) states: "... As a result of these conditions, all facilities subject
to the Program may not be preparing RMPs and taking adequate measures to prevent
accidents or mitigate the consequences of such accidents to the public..." This sentence
implies that no facilities are preparing RMPs when some have. We request the sentence is
revised to read, "As a result of these conditions, not all facilities subject to the Program
may net be preparing RMPs and taking adequate measures to prevent accidents or
mitigate the consequences of such accidents to the public."
b) On page 15 (second paragraph), a sentence states: "However, OECA revised its National
Program Manager Guidance in Fiscal Year 2009 to state regions should consider the
following risk-related factors in deciding which facilities to inspect." OECA recommends
revising the sentence to read, "OECA and OSWER revised the National Program
Manager Guidance. Both offices worked harmonize the guidance and the language for
both is now identical."
39
-------
09-P-0092
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this Report. Should you
have any questions or concerns regarding this response, please contact OECA's Audit Liaison,
Gwendolyn Spriggs on 202-564-2439.
cc: Adam Kushner, OECA/OCE
Margaret Schneider, OECA/OAP
Lauren Kabler, OECA/OCE
Gwendolyn Spriggs. OECA/OAP
40
-------
09-P-0092
Appendix D
Overall Inspection/Audit Rates of RMP Facilities
The following table shows the number of active RMP facilities, as of November 29, 2007, and
the percentage of facilities inspected/audited at least once by EPA regions and delegated State
and local agencies. The table does not include inspections/audits performed by non-delegated
State and local agencies with programs similar to the Risk Management Program (e.g.,
California, Louisiana, and Nevada) because we did not assess whether these inspections/audits
were comprehensive, and EPA does not routinely collect data on these inspections. Further,
implementing offices may have conducted on-site inspections and audits at more facilities than
reflected in these totals, since we only counted inspections of facilities currently shown as active
in the RMP National Database. If a facility was inspected but was de-registered as of
November 29, 2007, that inspection would not be reflected in these totals.
Table D-1: Percentage of Facilities Inspected/Audited by EPA Regions and Delegated State and
Local Agencies
Region or
Delegated
States/Locals
1
2
3
4 [a]
5
6
7
8
9
10
EPA Subtotal [b]
Delegated States/
Locals Subtotal
Total [c]
Number of Active
Facilities in 11/29/07
Universe
182
285
698
441
2,526
2,304
2,563
890
1,170
470
11,529
2,143
13,672
Number of Facilities with
At Least One On-site
Inspection/Audit
101
132
256
388
681
518
257
445
140
136
3,054
1,512
4,566
Percent of Facilities
Inspected/Audited
55
46
37
88
27
22
10
50
12
29
26
71
33
Source: OIG analysis based on data obtained from the RMP National Database, all 10 EPA regions, and
State/local agencies with program delegation.
[a] Most facilities in Region 4 are managed under delegated programs. The universe and inspection rates
for these facilities are reflected under the delegated States/locals category.
[b] Does not include inspections/audits performed by non-delegated State and local agencies with
programs similar to the Risk Management Program (e.g., California, Louisiana, and Nevada) because we
did not assess whether these inspections/audits were comprehensive, and EPA does not routinely collect
data on these inspections.
[c] Regions and delegated States/locals may have conducted more on-site inspections and audits than
reflected in these totals because we only counted inspections of facilities currently shown as active in the
RMP National Database. If a facility was inspected but was de-registered as of November 29, 2007, that
inspection would not be reflected in these totals.
41
-------
09-P-0092
Appendix E
On-Site Risk Management Program-Related
Inspections and Audits by EPA Region
The following table shows the total number of EPA regionally conducted, CAA Section 112(r)-
related, inspections and audits for the period October 1, 1999 (Fiscal Year 2000) through
December 31, 2007 (the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2008). The table includes inspections of
facilities that filed RMPs with EPA as well as inspections of facilities that had not filed RMPs.
The non-RMP facility inspections include inspections to assess facility compliance with the
General Duty Clause of CAA Section 112 (r) and inspections to identify facilities that may be
subject to the Risk Management Program provisions but which had not submitted RMPs.
Table E-1: CAA Section 112(r)-Related On-Site Inspections and Audits, by Fiscal Year
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g[b]
10
Totals
2000
0
83
13
0
0
1
72
16
34
20
239
2001
14
87
38
38
0
2
49
67
16
22
333
2002
16
63
40
86
3
7
57
134
6
25
437
2003
18
86
38
122
44
74
27
79
34
23
545
2004
33
29
53
76
264
90
29
66
62
43
745
2005
23
48
63
80
377
155
33
116
29
37
961
2006
26
39
49
74
41
96
84
65
71
54
599
2007
28
40
55
96
63
158
101
73
56
43
713
2008iaj
8
13
15
15
3
33
32
33
20
1
173
Totals
166
488
364
587
795
616
484
649
328
268
4,745
Source: Data from regions and EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System database.
[a] Fiscal Year 2008 data as of December 31, 2007.
[b] Region 9 reported 36 additional inspections but could not provide us with inspection dates.
42
-------
09-P-0092
Appendix F
Inspection/Audit Rates for
Facilities Reporting Accidents
The following table shows the percentage of active RMP facilities reporting accidents in their
RMPs that were inspected or audited by EPA or State/local agencies. We only determined
whether a facility reporting an accident was ever audited or inspected. We did not assess
whether the inspection or audit occurred before or after an accident. In some cases, the audit or
inspection may have occurred prior to the accident, and thus the inspection or audit was not
conducted in response to the accident. Our analysis does not include accident investigations that
did not include a full Risk Management Program inspection or audit. EPA regions or State and
local agencies may have conducted investigations of accidents at these facilities that are not
reflected in this table.
Table F-1: Inspection/Audit Rate of Facilities that Reported Accidents in their RMPs
EPA Region or
Delegated States/Locals
1
2
3
4 [a]
5
6
7
8
9
10
EPA Subtotal
Delegated States/
Locals Subtotal
Total IDJ
Number of Active
Facilities in 11/29/07
Universe with Accidents
8
18
60
35
165
210
127
37
82
24
766
178
944
Number
Inspected/Audited
as of 12/31/2007
4
15
43
32
55
43
47
28
18
10
295
152
447
Percent
I ns pected/Aud ited
as of 12/31/2007
50
83
72
91
33
20
37
76
22
42
39
85
47
Source: OIG analysis based on data obtained from the RMP National Database, all 10 EPA regions, and
State/local agencies with program delegation.
[a] Most facilities in Region 4 are located in States with delegated programs. The universe and
inspection rates for these facilities are reflected under the delegated States/locals category.
[b] Totals do not include inspections/audits performed by non-delegated State and local agencies with
programs similar to the Risk Management Program (e.g., California, Louisiana, and Nevada) because we
did not assess the scope of these inspections/audits, and EPA does not routinely collect these data.
Region 9 staff told us that California has conducted over 4,900 inspections under its State accident
prevention program, and that Nevada conducts comprehensive reviews of all facilities under its State
program at least once every 5 years.
43
-------
09-P-0092
Appendix G
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Acting Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Acting Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10
Director, Office of Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of General Counsel
Agency Follow-up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-up Coordinator
Acting Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Acting Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Air and Radiation
Audit Follow-up Coordinators, Regions 1-10
Deputy Inspector General
44
------- |