£
<
-------
Report Contributors:
Rick Beusse
Bao Chuong
James Hatfield
Rebecca Matichuk
Abbreviations
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
FY Fiscal Year
OARM Office of Administration and Resources Management
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OEM Office of Emergency Management
OIG Office of Inspector General
OSHA U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
RMP Risk Management Plan
RMProgram Risk Management Program
SEE Senior Environmental Employment
Cover photos: Heat exchanger used to heat anhydrous ammonia before it flows to a reactor to
produce a fertilizer product at a risk management program facility. The
highlighted area shows visible corrosion. (EPA photo)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
email: OIG Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
fax: 202-566-2599 Mailcode 2431T
online:
http://www.epa.gov/oia/hotline.htm
Washington, DC 20460
-------
tfED ST-/,.
* i-i U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13-P-0178
? ' ¦ "! ^ Hffiro nf Inenortnr fionoral March 21, 2013
<
cuiai riuicuu
\ Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
4 Wv '
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this review to
determine whether the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has adequate
management controls for
ensuring the effectiveness of its
Clean Air Act Section 112(r)
risk management program
(RMProgram) inspections.
Congress enacted the
RMProgram to reduce the risk
of airborne chemical releases
that could harm the public and
lessen the impact of releases
that do occur. Regulated
substances include 77 toxic
chemicals that could cause
death or serious health effects
from short-term exposures and
63 flammable substances.
Properly performed by trained,
knowledgeable inspectors,
inspections help ensure that
facilities comply with
RMProgram requirements.
EPA is responsible for
assessing compliance at over
86 percent of RMProgram
facilities nationwide.
This report addresses the
following EPA Goals or
Cross-Cutting Strategies:
Enforcing environmental laws.
Cleaning up communities and
advancing sustainable
development.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2013/
20130321-13-P-0178.pdf
Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight
for Risk Management Program Inspections
What We Found
EPA's management controls for ensuring inspector training and inspection
quality provide limited assurance of the effectiveness of its RMProgram
inspections. Proper training helps inspectors conduct quality inspections.
However, 15 of the 45 RMProgram inspectors nationwide received inspector
credentials without documentation indicating that they met minimum training
requirements. Further, six of the 12 supervisors did not meet minimum training
requirements. EPA's management controls did not detect or prevent the cases
of missed or undocumented training. Weaknesses in controls included
limitations in training tracking systems and a lack of procedures to ensure that
supervisors met their training requirements. Also, contracts and cooperative
agreements for inspection services did not include training requirements.
EPA can strengthen its RMProgram inspection guidance and oversight to
increase assurance that inspectors conduct effective inspections. EPA
guidance did not establish minimum guidelines for the scope of inspections.
Further, EPA did not have a process to monitor the quality of inspections.
Generally, inspection reports did not explain the extent to which the inspectors
reviewed specific elements of a covered process to determine compliance.
Also, our observations of two inspections indicated that procedures to verify the
facilities' RMProgram activities were limited.
An effective inspection program that includes properly trained personnel,
guidance, and oversight helps ensure compliance with program regulations,
thus decreasing the risk of airborne releases of chemicals that could harm the
public.
Recommendations and Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that EPA strengthen its management controls to ensure that
inspectors and supervisors meet minimum training requirements. Also, EPA
should strengthen guidance to include minimum inspection scope for
RMProgram facilities. Further, EPA should develop minimum inspection
reporting requirements and a monitoring program to assess the quality of
inspections. EPA generally concurred with our draft report's recommendations,
and has already initiated corrective actions in some cases. We consider five
recommendations open and one recommendation closed. The Agency's
response met the intent of the remaining recommendations, but the
recommendations remained unresolved pending receipt of a formal corrective
action plan with milestone dates and responsible party/office.
Noteworthy Achievements
EPA has made efforts to enhance the quality of RMProgram inspections.
For example, EPA provided advanced training courses for inspectors in 2010,
2011, and March 2012. According to EPA, it also provided the training in
August, October, and November 2012. EPA also conducted an internal
assessment of the quality of inspection reports across all 10 regions in 2011.
-------
** A
I 5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| \S\/y ° WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PRCrt*"
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
March 21, 2013
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight for
Risk Management Program Inspections
Report No. 13-P-0178
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
/
o
TO: Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Craig E. Hooks, Assistant Administrator
Office of Administration and Resources Management
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 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.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 60 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed-upon
actions, including milestone dates. Your response will be posted on the OIG's public website,
along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided
as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do
not want to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the
data for redaction or removal. Please email your response to Carolyn Copper, Assistant Inspector
-------
General for Program Evaluation, at copper.carolyn@epa.gov. We have no objections to the
further release of this report to the public. We will post this report to our website at
http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper
at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolvn@epa.gov; or Rick Beusse, Director for Air and Research
Evaluations, at (919) 541-5747 or beusse.rick@epa.gov.
-------
Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight
for Risk Management Program Inspections
13-P-0178
Table of Contents
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Noteworthy Achievements 5
Scope and Methodology 6
2 EPA Needs Better Controls to Ensure That
Minimum Inspector Training Requirements Are Met 9
RMProgram Training Requirements 9
Inspectors Issued Credentials Without Documentation That
Minimum Training Requirements Were Met 10
Program Refresher Requirements Need to Be Clarified 11
Half of Supervisors Missed Minimum Training Requirements 11
Management Controls Did Not Ensure Completion of Required Training 11
Conclusions 14
Recommendations 14
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 15
3 Limited Documentation and Oversight Prevented
Assurance That Inspections Were Effective 16
EPA's RMProgram Inspection Process 16
Inspection Reports Lacked Details Demonstrating Effective Inspections 17
Oversight of Inspections Could Be Strengthened 19
Conclusions 21
Recommendations 21
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 21
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 23
Appendices
A Description of RMProgram Elements 24
B OECA Response to Draft Report 25
C OARM Response to Draft Report 27
D OSWER Response to Draft Report 29
E Distribution 31
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for assessing
compliance for over 86 percent of the 12,774 Clean Air Act Section 112(r) risk
management program facilities nationwide. Our objective was to determine
whether the EPA has adequate management controls for ensuring the
effectiveness of its program inspections. Specifically, we sought to determine
whether:
Adequate systems were in place to ensure inspectors and first-line
supervisors are properly trained.
Adequate guidelines and oversight were in place to ensure that quality
inspections are conducted.
Background
In 1984, an accidental airborne release of a hazardous chemical caused thousands
of deaths and injuries in Bhopal, India. In response to this accident, Congress
amended Section 112(r) of the CAA in 1990. The amendment enacted a program
to prevent airborne releases of certain hazardous chemicals and to mitigate the
consequences of such releases to the surrounding community. The EPA issued a
rule implementing the RMProgram in 1996.
Facilities that contain more than the threshold quantity of any of 140 substances in
a process are covered under the RMProgram. This includes 77 toxic chemicals that
can cause serious health effects or death from short-term exposures, and
63 flammable gases and highly volatile flammable liquids. Covered sources are
required to conduct a hazard assessment (including analyses of worst-case
scenarios and 5-year accident history), implement accident prevention and
emergency response programs, and submit a risk management plan to the EPA. The
RMP describes and documents the facility's hazard assessment. The RMP must
include the results of an offsite consequence analysis for a worst-case chemical
accident at the facility. Facilities were required to submit their first RMP by
June 21, 1999, and must update their RMP at least every 5 years. Facilities must
also update their RMPs when onsite regulated substances or processes change.
Depending upon the characteristics of a covered process and the results of the
worst-case analysis and 5-year accident history, a process may be subject to one
of three sets of program requirements (program levels). The program level
determines the extent of the prevention program required for the facility. Table 1
explains the requirements for each program level.
13-P-0178
1
-------
Table 1: RMProgram levels
Level
Description
Requirements
Program 1
Processes that would not affect the
public in the event of a worst-case
release and with no accidents with
specific offsite consequences within
the past 5 years.
Limited hazard assessment
requirements and minimal
prevention and emergency
response requirements.
Program 2
Processes not eligible for Program 1
or subject to Program 3.
Streamlined prevention program
requirements, as well as
additional hazard assessment,
management, and emergency
response requirements.
Program 3
Processes not eligible for Program 1
and either subject to the U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's Process Safety
Management standard under federal
or state OSHA programs, or
classified in one of 10 specified
North American Industrial
Classification System codes.
Imposes OSHA's Process
Safety Management standard as
the prevention program, as well
as additional hazard
assessment, management, and
emergency response
requirements.
Source: General Guidance on Risk Management Programs for Chemical Accident Prevention
(Code of Federal Regulations, in 40 CFR Part 68), EPA 555-B-04-001, March 2009.
A facility's failure to follow program requirements could lead to accidental
releases of harmful chemicals and/or inadequate responses to protect the public
when such accidents occur. Between October 2008 and March 2012,
323 facilities reported 460 accidents to EPA. These accidents caused over
$264 million in onsite and offsite damages. Further, the accidents resulted in
14 worker fatalities, over 330 worker injuries, and over 64,000 people being
sheltered in place.
EPA Implements the Risk Management Program in Most States
EPA's Office of Emergency Management, within EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, manages the RMProgram. EPA regions directly
implement the RMProgram in most states. As of May 2012, only eight states and
five local agencies had accepted full or partial delegation from EPA. EPA regions
are responsible for assessing compliance at 11,057 facilities (or 86.6 percent) of
the 12,774 active RMProgram facilities. Figure 1 shows the number of facilities
that each region oversees.
13-P-0178
2
-------
Figure 1: Number of RMProgram facilities overseen, by EPA region
3000
V)
-------
Occupational health and safety curriculum. Inspectors must take a
minimum of 24 hours of health and safety training before conducting an
inspection.
Basic inspector curriculum. Inspectors must take basic inspector
training. This training provides a comprehensive overview of knowledge
and skills needed for compliance inspections under any EPA statute.
Program-specific curriculum. Inspectors must take training in legal,
programmatic, and technical subjects for their specific program.
Once trained, inspectors are issued EPA credentials authorizing them to perform
inspections on EPA's behalf. These credentials are issued or re-issued on a periodic
basis. The credentials process is outlined in EPA Order 3510.3 The order states that
credentials are issued to qualified individuals who have met the minimum inspector
training requirements outlined in EPA Order 3500.1. EPA regions request
credentials from EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management,
which issues credentials to the regions for distribution to the inspectors. To ensure
that inspectors' first-line supervisors are knowledgeable about the program, EPA
Order 3500.1 requires the supervisors to meet the following minimum training
requirements within 1 year of becoming a supervisor:
Health and safety requirements (knowledge and understanding).
Basic inspector curriculum.
Environmental Statutes Review offered by EPA's National Enforcement
Training Institute.
Documented self study of the program they are responsible for and
developing a working knowledge.
Working knowledge is defined as the minimum knowledge needed to evaluate the
completeness and quality of inspection reports and to sign off on the reports.
Developing a working knowledge includes accompanying a lead inspector on an
inspection.
EPA Guidance on Conducting RMProgram Inspections
EPA's guidance4 for conducting RMProgram inspections outlines several basic
steps for conducting an inspection:
Selecting facilities for inspection. EPA regional offices are required to
prioritize inspections at high-risk facilities and should inspect high-risk
RMProgram facilities more frequently than other RMProgram facilities.
Offsite activities. These activities include collecting background
information on the facility, planning the inspection, preparing the
inspection staff, and planning the logistics of the inspection.
3 EPA, EPA Federal Credentials for Inspections and Enforcement of Federal Environmental Statutes, EPA Order
3510, October 9, 2008. This Order was updated in October 2012.
4 EPA, Guidance for Conducting Risk Management Program Inspections under Clean Air Act Section 112(r),
EPA-550-K-11-001, January 2011.
13-P-0178
4
-------
Onsite activities. These activities include conducting the opening meeting,
collecting and analyzing information, and conducting the closing conference.
Concluding activities. These activities include an inspection team
meeting to ensure inspection details were recorded accurately and writing
the inspection report.
Post-inspection actions. These actions include providing compliance
assistance or pursuing enforcement action if necessary.
The guidance includes an inspection checklist to use during the inspection. The
checklist assists the inspectors in determining whether regulatory requirements
were met and helps to ensure that inspections meet a basic level of data quality.
The guidance also includes an inspection report template. The January 2011
guidance is similar to the program guidance issued in 1999.5 The primary
difference between the two guidance documents is that the 2011 guidance
includes provisions for ensuring facility employee participation in the inspection.
The 2011 guidance also recommends that the inspection include interviews of
facility employees.
Noteworthy Achievements
To provide inspectors with the necessary technical knowledge to inspect program
facilities, EPA provided specialized courses in 2010, 2011, and March 2012.
According to EPA, it also provided the training in August, October, and
November 2012. Below is a list of the courses:
Risk Management Program Refinery Inspector Training, conducted in
September 2010, April 2011, and October 2012.
Understanding Codes & Standards and Mechanical Integrity for Risk
Management Program Inspectors, conducted in October 2011 and
March 2012.
Ammonia Refrigeration Systems, Technology, and Safety Workshop for
Risk Management Program Inspectors, conducted in November 2011,
August 2012, and November 2012.
The Agency also took steps to increase the effectiveness of its inspection
resources by implementing a process for identifying and inspecting a greater
percentage of high-risk facilities. Further, EPA's OEM assessed the quality of
inspection reports from all 10 regions in June 2011. OEM presented the results of
its analysis to the regions. As a result of this analysis, OEM is considering
whether guidance changes are needed to address the issues identified.
5 EPA, Guidance for Auditing Risk Management Plans/Programs under Clean Air Act Section 112(r),
EPA 550-B99-008, August 1999.
13-P-0178
5
-------
Scope and Methodology
To assess whether inspectors and first-line supervisors met minimum training
requirements, we obtained the training records of all RMProgram inspectors and
first-line supervisors from all 10 EPA regions. At the time of review there were
45 inspectors and 12 supervisors nationwide. We compared the training records
with the training requirements outlined in EPA policies and guidance. These
policies and guidance included EPA Order 3500.1, the EPA Credential and
Inspector Training Policy Compendium, and EPA Order 1440.2 on Safety and
Health Training Requirements for Agency Employees. We interviewed inspectors
and first-line supervisors to determine why certain training requirements were not
met. We reviewed the procedures and controls for ensuring that inspector training
qualifications were met.
To assess whether adequate guidelines and oversight were in place to ensure that
quality inspections were conducted, we obtained and reviewed applicable
RMProgram policies, procedures, guidance, and performance measures. We
interviewed staff and managers from EPA's OEM, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and all 10 regions.
We reviewed inspection reports for RMProgram inspections conducted at
29 facilities deemed "high-risk" by OEM. These facilities included, but were not
limited to, oil refineries, chemical plants, and electric utilities. These 29 facilities
had reported a total of 120 covered processes on their latest risk management
plans. The 29 inspections were conducted between July 2006 and August 2011
and included at least one report from each EPA region. During that time period,
EPA conducted 3,117 inspections nationwide. We examined 11 of the 29
inspections in more detail to determine the scope of the inspection activities.
These 11 inspections were selected because the facilities' worst-case scenario
could impact populations greater than 10,000. We also interviewed inspectors and
reviewed inspection documentation to determine the scope of these inspections.
We observed EPA inspections at two facilities. One of these facilities was a
fertilizer manufacturing and retail facility, and its RMP included two covered
processes involving anhydrous ammonia and aqueous ammonia. The other facility
was a gas processing plant that had one RMProgram-covered process involving
flammable mixtures and propane. Both facilities had a prior accidental release and
high-hazard index.
We conducted our work from June 2011 to November 2012. We limited our review
to EPA-managed inspection programs and did not review state or local agency
programs. 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 the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
13-P-0178
6
-------
We assessed training based on compliance with the minimum guidelines
established by EPA policy. We did not independently test inspector knowledge. We
did not evaluate the quality of specific training courses required for inspectors. We
did not assess whether specific inspectors or supervisors are capable of performing
their job duties or the extent to which they are capable of performing those duties.
We relied upon a judgmental sample of inspections in assessing controls over
inspection quality. Thus, we cannot project our sample results to the universe of
RMProgram inspections. We did not independently assess the effectiveness of
inspections through our own verification of facility conditions or program
implementation. Therefore, we did not make any conclusions as to the effectiveness
of any specific inspection activity we reviewed. However, we reviewed reports from
all 10 EPA regions and believe our sample size was sufficient to draw conclusions
about the adequacy of management controls over the inspection process.
Prior Reports
In March 2012, we issued an early warning report6 regarding EPA's use of
contractors to conduct RMProgram inspections. This practice was prohibited in
certain states by two separate appellate court rulings in the early 1980s (the U.S.
Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Tenth Circuits). The use of contractors to
conduct CAA inspections on EPA's behalf was one of two issues presented to the
U.S. Supreme Court in a 1983 case. Because the Supreme Court did not address
the question of statutory authority, its decision left unresolved the pre-existing
split in the federal circuit courts on the question of EPA's statutory authority to
use contractors for CAA inspections. Accordingly, EPA issued a policy on
February 22, 1984, stating that contractors should not, absent express permission
from headquarters, be designated as representatives of EPA to conduct CAA
inspections in states located in the Sixth and Tenth Circuits. EPA agreed with our
recommendations and promptly initiated corrective actions.
An EPA OIG February 2009 report7 noted that EPA needed to improve the
implementation of the RMProgram. EPA had inspected less than half the
identified high-risk facilities since the 1999 inception of the program. Also, EPA
had not established procedures for identifying facilities that had not submitted
RMPs, and had not resolved the status of facilities that needed to re-file RMPs.
We recommended that EPA implement controls to identify covered facilities that
have not filed RMPs, and that EPA target higher-priority facilities for inspection
and track progress in completing these inspections. EPA agreed with our
recommendations and completed the agreed-upon corrective actions.
6 EPA OIG, Use of Contractors to Conduct Clean Air Act Risk Management Program Inspections in Certain States
Goes Against Court Decisions, Report No. 12-P-0376, March 28, 2012.
7 EPA OIG, EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases,
Report No. 09-P-0092, February 10, 2009.
13-P-0178
7
-------
EPA OIG issued a report in March 20098 on EPA Region 8's management of the
RMProgram. We recommended that the regional administrator develop (1) a
strategy for implementing the program that defines program goals, performance
measures, and organizational responsibilities; and (2) an oversight process to
evaluate the region's success in implementing the strategy. Region 8 agreed with
our recommendations and completed the agreed-upon corrective actions.
8 EPA OIG, EPA Region 8 Needs to Better Manage the Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases,
Report No. 09-P-0130, March 30, 2009.
13-P-0178
8
-------
Chapter 2
EPA Needs Better Controls to Ensure That
Minimum Inspector Training Requirements Are Met
Of the 45 RMProgram inspectors nationwide, EPA had issued inspection
credentials to 15 inspectors who lacked documentation showing that they met the
minimum training requirements in EPA Order 3500.1. Further, six of the 12 first-
line supervisors did not meet minimum training requirements in EPA Order
3500.1. EPA's management controls did not prevent or detect instances of missed
or undocumented training. For example, EPA's tracking systems for training did
not include all training requirements and regions did not audit compliance with
EPA Order 3500.1. Sufficiently trained inspectors and supervisors provide for an
effective inspection program that better ensures compliance with regulations and
therefore decreases the risk of airborne releases of chemicals that could harm the
public.
RMProgram Training Requirements
EPA Order 3500.1 requires all compliance inspectors to complete annual
refresher training in the three major training areas discussed in chapter 1. The
EPA Credential and Inspector Training Policy Compendium outlines the specific
curriculum for each inspection program. Specific requirements for RMProgram
inspectors include:
Clean Air Act Confidential Business Information, Information Security
Manual.
Risk Management Plan Basics and Techniques.9
Self-study/review of statutes/regulations and guidance/reference materials.
Review of a minimum of two completed inspection reports.
On-the-job training (conduct a minimum of three program inspections or
audits with a senior inspector before leading an inspection).
Program-specific refresher training as identified by an inspector's
supervisor.
Inspectors must maintain their training records and provide a copy to their first-line
supervisors. Training records include training certificates and certifications of self-
studies and on-the-job training. According to a December 2009 OECA guidance
document, all required training taken since the FY 2010 credentials reissuance cycle
should be recorded in Train Trax, its successor system, or an appropriate alternative
system. In April 2011, the Emergency Management Portal - Field Readiness Module
replaced two databases, one of which was Train Trax.
9 Since June 2008, OEM has offered the 3.5-day Risk Management Program Inspector Training, which combined
and updated the separate Risk Management Plan Basics and Risk Management Plan Techniques courses.
13-P-0178
9
-------
During FY 2010, EPA had 45 RMProgram inspectors who were still RMProgram
inspectors at the time of our inquiry. This included 26 EPA inspectors, 15 SEE
inspectors, and four contractor inspectors. All 26 EPA inspectors were issued
inspection credentials by OARM, and 11 of the 15 SEEs were issued regional
inspection credentials. The remaining SEE inspectors and the four contractor
inspectors were issued letters of authorization by their respective EPA regions to
conduct inspections for EPA.
Inspectors Issued Credentials Without Documentation That Minimum
Training Requirements Were Met
Fifteen of the 37 RMProgram credentialed inspectors nationwide were issued
inspection credentials in 2010 without documentation showing that they met the
minimum training requirements. Another three contractor inspectors had not taken
all required training. Table 2 summarizes the missed and undocumented training.
Table 2: Missing or undocumented inspector training requirements
Missed or undocumented training
Credentials
Confidential
Health
On-the-
issued without
Employee
type
Self-
study
business
information
and
safety
job
training
Other
proper
documentation
EPA
X
Y
EPA
X
X
Y
EPA
X
xJ
Y
EPA
X
X
Y
EPA
X
X
Y
EPA
X
Y
EPA
X
X
Y
EPA
X
X
Y
EPA
X
X
Y
EPA
X
X
Y
EPA
X
Y
EPA
X
Y
EPA
X
Y
SEE
X
Y1
SEE
X
X
Y1
Contractor
X
X
X
X
X
NA2
Contractor
X
X
NA2
Contractor
X
X
NA2
1 SEE employees are issued regional credentials or letters of authorization.
Contractors are issued regional letters of authorization.
Inspector did not take annual health and safety refresher in 2010 after he was issued credentials.
Source: OIG-developed table based on analysis of training data.
We contacted all 15 of the EPA and SEE inspectors and they indicated the
following:
Two inspectors confirmed they did not complete the training.
Two inspectors said they could not get on-the-job training because they
were pioneers in implementing the program, but they did not obtain an
exemption from the requirement.
13-P-0178
10
-------
Four inspectors said they had completed the required training but had not
documented it, and the undocumented training involved self-studies.
Four inspectors self-certified that they completed the required self-studies
and/or on-the-job training about a year after their credentials were issued.
Three inspectors provided a list of at least three inspections each of them
had participated in as part of the on-the-job training requirement,
something they did not do during the re-credentialing process in FY 2010.
We also contacted one of the three contractors with missing or undocumented
training; this contractor confirmed that he did not complete the required training.
Program Refresher Requirements Need to Be Clarified
Ten inspectors may not have met requirements for basic and program-specific
refresher training, depending upon the interpretation of EPA Order 3500.1. These
10 inspectors did not take basic or program-specific refresher training on an
annual basis. Three regions interpreted EPA's guidance to only require this
training on an as-needed basis, while the other seven interpreted EPA's guidance
to require this training annually. A staffer in one region noted that guidance used
phrases that he interpreted as meaning training was at the supervisor's discretion.
These phrases included "any necessary refresher" and "additional training
necessary." However, the guidance also used language that could be interpreted to
require the training annually, such as "all compliance inspectors/field
investigators, full-time or part-time, must complete annual refresher training. . . ."
Half of Supervisors Missed Minimum Training Requirements
Six of 12 first-line supervisors nationwide did not meet their minimum training
requirements. These requirements are to be completed within 1 year of becoming
a supervisor. Three more supervisors had not completed the training but were still
within the first year of their supervisory position. Missed training included the
environmental statutes review course and accompanying a lead inspector on an
inspection. Two of the six supervisors were not aware of these two requirements.
This training helps provide supervisors with the knowledge needed to evaluate the
quality and completeness of inspection reports.
Management Controls Did Not Ensure Completion of Required Training
The Agency's management controls over inspector training did not prevent or
detect instances where inspectors and supervisors missed or did not record
completion of training requirements. Weaknesses in management controls
included:
Limitations in tracking systems for training.
Missing training provisions in contracts and cooperative agreements.
13-P-0178
11
-------
No designated responsibility for issuing credentials to contractor and
SEE inspectors.
Lack of procedures to ensure supervisors meet training requirements.
No designated responsibility for auditing regional compliance with EPA
Order 3500.1.
Limitations in Tracking Systems for Training
According to December 2009 OECA guidance, EPA regions should use Train
Trax, its successor system (Emergency Management Portal - Field Readiness
Module), or a comparable system to track training. Eight regions used the
successor system, but we noted that the successor system had limitations that
could hinder a region's ability to accurately track inspector training against EPA
requirements. Not all training requirements were populated in the system. In
addition, email alerts were not sent to inspectors when impending due dates for
training were approaching or training was overdue. Further, training certificates
could not be uploaded into the system. OEM staff acknowledged the new
system's limitations and said they were in the process of correcting these
deficiencies as of January 2013.
Regions 5 and 6 used their own systems to track training. Region 6's Superfund
Division, which inspects smaller non-Title V program facilities, did not use a
tracking system. We noted that Region 5's system did not send email alerts to
inspectors when impending due dates for training are approaching or training is
overdue. The section chief for the Region 5 RMProgram stated that his division is
working on establishing a comprehensive training documentation standard
operating procedure that includes an annual reminder mechanism.
Requirements Not Included in Contracts and Cooperative Agreements
EPA Order 3500.1 requires EPA senior officials to ensure that inspector training
requirements are included in extramural agreements for inspection services. All
regions had extramural agreements to conduct RMProgram inspections during
FYs 2009, 2010, and 2011. With the exception of Region 9's contract, these
agreements did not require compliance with EPA inspector training requirements.
Six regions (1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10)10 had agreements for contractors to conduct
inspections. Only Region 9's contract included provisions requiring the contractor
inspectors to meet EPA Order 3500.1 training requirements. Contracting officers
and program personnel who helped develop contracts were not aware of EPA's
policy to include inspector training requirements in contracts.
10 According to staff in Regions 1 and 10, their regions were not using contractors to lead RMProgram inspections at
the time we finished our review in June 2012. Additionally, since November 9, 2011, Region 1 inspection support
has been ordered from a Region 4 contract.
13-P-0178
12
-------
Eight regions (1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) used SEE enrollees to conduct
inspections, and each region had a cooperative agreement with a grantee.
However, none of these agreements contained EPA Order 3500.1 training
requirements. The agreements were supplemented with position descriptions, and
regional offices generally included some training requirements in the position
descriptions. However, Region 3 was the only region to require compliance with
EPA Order 3500.1 training requirements in its SEE position descriptions.
Responsibility for Issuing Credentials to Contractor and SEE
Employees Not Addressed
EPA's policy is to present a credential to an official of the facility at the
beginning of the inspection. EPA Order 3510 states that EPA credentials, which
provide inspection authority, should be issued only to qualified individuals. This
applies to both EPA and non-EPA employees. However, the order does not
address the responsibility for issuing credentials to contractor or SEE inspectors.
We found that no contractors or SEE enrollees were issued official EPA
credentials as described in EPA Order 3510. SEEs were issued regional
credentials or letters of authorization, and contractors were issued letters of
authorization. EPA Order 3510 does not discuss regional credentials. Further, the
order does not state that letters of authorization can be used in lieu of credentials.
The order states that these letters are issued for on-the-job training, providing
specialized expertise in the program area or emergency situations.
EPA updated EPA Order 3510 in October 2012, establishing responsibilities for
the issuance of credentials to SEEs and contractors.
No Procedures for Ensuring First-Line Supervisors Meet Training
Requirements
EPA Order 3500.1 does not contain procedures for ensuring that first-line
supervisors meet their training requirements. Three regions (2, 5, and 8) did not
have a process for ensuring first-line supervisors meet training requirements. Also,
in Region 6, two divisions conducted RMProgram inspections but one of those
divisions did not have a process to ensure its supervisor met training requirements.
Regions Have Not Audited Compliance With EPA Order 3500.1
EPA Order 3500.1 requires each region to identify a single point-of-contact with
responsibility for periodically auditing the region's compliance with the order.
However, eight regions had not designated an audit point of contact. Also, although
Regions 4 and 10 had designated points of contact for auditing compliance with the
order, no audits had been conducted as of May 2012. Further, the Agency had not
issued guidance on how to conduct these audits and how frequently.
13-P-0178
13
-------
Conclusions
EPA's management controls did not ensure RMProgram inspectors met minimum
training requirements. If inspectors are not meeting minimum training
requirements, EPA lacks assurance that its inspectors are conducting quality
inspections that help to ensure facilities follow program requirements. These
requirements are designed to prevent accidental releases of harmful chemicals and
to ensure adequate responses to protect the public when such accidents occur.
Given the hazards addressed by the RMProgram, inspector training also helps
inspectors protect themselves from potentially dangerous exposures.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
1. Revise the program-specific curriculum training for CAA 112(r) Risk
Management Program inspectors to clarify the basic and program-specific
inspector refresher requirements.
2. Develop guidance for conducting compliance audits per EPA Order
3500.1, ensure that each region designates a single point of contact
responsible for auditing regional compliance with EPA Order 3500.1, and
require periodic reporting of regional compliance with the order.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management:
3. Strengthen controls over the credentials process to ensure that credentials
are only issued to inspectors who demonstrate that they have met the
minimum training requirements of EPA Order 3500.1.
4. Amend existing cooperative agreements for SEE enrollee inspectors to
require compliance with EPA Order 3500.1 and ensure that SEE enrollee
position descriptions for RMProgram inspectors include the specific
training requirements applicable to the position.
5. Direct EPA Regions 2, 4, 7, and 10 to amend their contracts for inspection
support to include provisions requiring contractor inspectors to meet EPA
Order 3500.1 training requirements.
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
6. Correct limitations in the Emergency Management Portal - Field
Readiness Module training system, such as populating the system with a
13-P-0178
14
-------
complete list of training requirements and enabling certificates to be
uploaded into the system.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
OECA disagreed with our draft report's recommendation 1 to revise EPA Order
3500.1 to clarify the basic and program-specific refresher training requirements.
Instead, OECA proposed an alternative correction action to revise the CAA 1112(r)
RMProgram specific inspector training requirements to clarify refresher training
requirements. OCEA plans to complete this action by February 28, 2013. We
accept OCEA's alternative action and have revised recommendation 1 of the final
report to reflect the alternative corrective action. Accordingly, the recommendation
is open pending completion of the corrective action.
OECA agreed with the draft report's recommendation 2. OECA proposed to
develop a checklist to aid the regions in auditing the credential process. OCEA
plans to complete this action and request regional points of contacts for this
process by February 28, 2013. OECA stated that it anticipates the Agency's larger
Consistent Field Operations project will address periodic reporting of compliance
with the credentials process. We confirmed that the Agency's planned actions
resulting from the Consistent Field Operations project and implementation of the
Field Operations Guidelines meet the intent of the periodic reporting clause in our
draft report recommendation 2. Thus, we consider recommendation 2 to be open
pending completion of the first two parts of the recommendation. Appendix B
contains OECA's response to the draft report.
OARM concurred with recommendations 3, 4, and 5. OARM stated that OECA's
planned corrective actions to address recommendation 2 will provide the necessary
strengthening of the credentials process. OARM also stated that it will continue to
validate that supervisors have signed the Credential Request Form. Thus,
recommendation 3 is closed. OARM plans to complete recommendation 4 by June
30, 2013. Recommendation 4 is open pending its completion. OARM agreed to
complete corrective actions for recommendation 5 pending completion of certain
actions by OCEA. Thus, recommendation 5 is unresolved pending receipt of a
planned completion date. Appendix C contains OARM's response to the draft
report.
OSWER concurred with recommendation 6 and indicated in its written response
that the corrective actions were complete. However, in confirming whether the
actions were completed, OSWER staff said that one of the system enhancements
was not finished. Thus, the recommendation is unresolved pending receipt of a
planned completion date for the remaining enhancement. Appendix D contains
OSWER's response to the draft report.
13-P-0178
15
-------
Chapter 3
Limited Documentation and Oversight Prevented
Assurance That Inspections Were Effective
RMProgram inspection reports lacked information to demonstrate that effective
inspections were conducted. In general, reports did not describe the scope of the
inspection, such as what processes were reviewed. Further, reports did not explain
the extent to which the inspectors reviewed specific elements of a process. Our
onsite observations of two inspections indicated that procedures to verify
implementation of the facility's RMProgram activities were limited. EPA did not
have a process for periodically monitoring the quality of inspections. Further,
EPA inspection guidance did not provide minimum guidelines for the scope of
inspections. Inspections are a critical Agency tool for ensuring that RMPrograms
are implemented in accordance with regulations. A facility's failure to follow
program requirements could lead to accidental airborne releases of harmful
chemicals, as well as an inadequate response to protect the public when such
releases occur.
EPA's RMProgram Inspection Process
All regions used inspection checklists to assist in conducting their RMProgram
inspections. Appendix A lists the RMProgram elements included in EPA's
checklist for a program level 3 process.
EPA's RMProgram inspection guidance also provides recommended inspection
activities. These activities range from document reviews to more detailed analyses
and site verifications to determine whether a facility is implementing its program
activities as described in its program documentation. EPA's 1999 inspection
guidance did not recommend employee interviews. However, the 2011 inspection
guidance notes that to provide for an effective inspection and to assist in the
collection and analysis of information, the inspector(s) may interview employees.
The guidance explains that having an employee who works at the facility and has
knowledge of the program participate in the inspection may assist the inspector(s)
in evaluating compliance. The guidance states that special attention should be paid
to comparing the facility's RMP to policies and procedures actually implemented,
especially for production or equipment changes.
We reviewed 29 RMProgram inspection reports for compliance with EPA
guidance. This included at least one report from each region. The inspections
were conducted between July 2006 and August 2011. All of the reports were for
inspections of high-risk facilities identified by OEM.
13-P-0178
16
-------
Inspection Reports Lacked Details Demonstrating Effective Inspections
We found it difficult to ascertain the scope of inspections based on the inspection
reports. All regions used an inspection checklist. These checklists ask yes/no/not
applicable and fill-in-the-blank questions. The inspection report narratives often
did not explain what work was conducted to address the questions. Also, EPA's
inspection reports often did not include the reporting components recommended
by guidance. The following table provides details on information not included in
the 29 reports reviewed.
Table 3: Information missing from inspection reports
Description
Number of reports without
the information (out of 29)
Facility emergency contact
23
RMP initial submission date
28
RMP updated submission date
21
Reason for selecting facility
24
Facility process identifications
25
Inspector signature
12
Employee interviews
24
Approver signature
23
Lead inspector name
22
40 CFR Part 68 implementer contact information
22
Source: Information developed by OIG based on analysis of EPA inspection reports.
Regional staff told us that they did not include some of the facility and RMP
information because it was available in documentation attached to the reports.
However, we noted that some inspection reports of multiple process facilities did
not identify the process IDs of the processes inspected.
In June 2011, OEM started a review of inspection reports and identified problems
consistent with what we identified. OEM found that:
Some reports contained few supporting facts and documentation.
Some reports contained facilities' offsite consequence analysis data that
should not be publicly disclosed.
Some reports included conclusive statements and recommendations
outside of EPA's authority.
Some inspections were performed by one inspector in a half day or less
yet reportedly covered the entire inspection checklist.
Many inspection findings were based on the existence or completeness of
required documentation rather than actual facility status or conditions.
Some reports suggested that inspectors were not reviewing the facility
RMP prior to inspection.
Most reports did not describe the level of employee participation in the
inspection.
13-P-0178
17
-------
Of the 29 inspection reports reviewed, we selected 11 for more detailed analysis.
We asked the inspectors of these 11 inspections for any information not included in
the reports that provided the basis for their findings. In some cases we were able to
determine the activities and analyses the inspectors conducted to provide the basis
for their findings. This may have included reviews of supporting documents, such
as maintenance records. These activities and analyses by the inspectors generally
did not include physically verifying the maintenance work. Further, the additional
documentation did not explain how and which activities or components of a process
were selected for review. Thus, we could not determine the scope of the
inspections.
We also observed two onsite inspectionsone at a level 3 facility and another at a
level 2 facilitythat were both included on OEM's high-risk facility list.
We noted that these inspections did not include interviews of non-management
facility employees, and only included limited verification of the facilities'
implementation of its program. Regarding these two inspections:
The program level 3 facility inspection was at a gas processing plant. The
facility had experienced an accidental release in 2008 requiring the
evacuation of 40 people. The facility had one RMProgram-covered
process involving flammable mixtures and propane. This process
contained approximately 100 vessels,11 each of which would be covered
by certain program elements (for example, mechanical integrity). During
the approximately 8 hours spent on site, the inspectors were able to obtain
samples of documentation relating to six of these vessels and were able to
inspect these vessels. Due to an emergency shutdown of the facility and
evacuation of employees at the time of the inspection, the inspection team
was unable to interview any employees.
The program level 2 facility inspection was at a fertilizer manufacturing and
wholesale facility. The facility had reported two covered processes
involving anhydrous ammonia and aqueous ammonia. In 2008, the facility
experienced an accidental release of ammonia. This accident resulted in
medical treatment for four persons but no hospitalizations. During the 1-day
inspection, the inspectors reviewed RMProgram records and toured the
facility. This inspection identified a covered process that had not been
included in the facility's RMP.
Documenting the scope of inspections helps in planning future inspections and
assists national program management. Information on the scope of an inspection
can aid an inspector when conducting a later inspection of the same facility. The
inspector can use this information to select and review program processes and
activities not reviewed during the prior inspection. The inspector can also use this
11 Vessel is defined in 40 CFR §68.3 as any reactor, tank, drum, barrel, cylinder, vat, kettle, boiler, pipe, hose, or
other container.
13-P-0178
18
-------
information to follow up on problem areas and ensure that the facility corrected
identified problems. Also, information on the scope of inspections could be useful
for managers in providing national guidance. This information could help identify
areas that need extra scrutiny or identify effective inspection activities.
Oversight of Inspections Could Be Strengthened
Management controls could be strengthened to provide better assurance that
inspections are rigorous enough to detect program violations in important
program elements, such as process hazard analysis and mechanical integrity.
We identified three areas where controls could be strengthened:
Post-inspection monitoring.
Supervisory oversight.
Guidance to address inspection scope and reporting requirements.
Post-Inspection Monitoring Program
Neither headquarters nor the regions had implemented regular post-inspection
monitoring programs to review and assess the quality of inspections and
inspection reports against established procedures and guidance. OEM initiated a
first-time assessment of inspection reports to determine inspection compliance
with RMProgram inspection guidance about 1 week prior to OIG's announcement
of our evaluation. OEM reviewed approximately five reports from each region.
The results of OEM's review were consistent with the results of our review.
OEM's findings demonstrate the benefits of periodic review.
Supervisor Oversight
EPA Order 3500.1 states that first-line supervisors can ensure the quality of
inspections through the use of performance standards, reviewing inspection
reports, and accompanying inspectors. However, only six regions had a first-line
supervisor accompany inspectors on an inspection, and this was not a regular
exercise in any of these regions. In general, the regions told us inspection reports
were reviewed by peers, supervisors, or enforcement coordinators. Reports in
eight regions were not signed by a reviewer or approver.
Additional Guidance on Inspection Scope and Reporting
EPA guidance states that the scope of the inspections should be determined by the
region, but does not provide minimum guidelines for the scope of inspections.
Further, guidance does not specifically require inspection reports to explain the
methodology inspectors used to select processes and related activities for review
during an inspection.
13-P-0178
19
-------
The size and complexity of facilities covered by the program vary greatly. For
example, a dairy may only have one process subject to RMProgram requirements,
while an oil refinery can have over 30 processes subject to those requirements.
As the elements of the program apply to each covered process, a multi-process
facility essentially represents several programs. Inspector resources and time
needed to conduct a quality inspection at these different facilities would therefore
vary accordingly. At larger facilities in particular, inspectors may have to select a
sample of processes to review. Within each program element for that process, the
inspectors would need to sample certain activities for detailed review and
verification. Information on the inspector's methodology is critical to determining
the extent to which a facility's program was inspected and whether the inspection
was rigorous enough to detect and prevent potential violations.
We analyzed the time spent onsite for the 29 inspections. Based on information
provided in the inspection reports, we calculated the number of inspector hours
spent onsite at the facility.12 The average time spent at the facility by an inspector
was 12 hours; the average number of inspector hours (inspectors multiplied by
hours at the facility) was 29 hours.
Larger and more complex facilities are generally included on EPA's list of high-
risk facilities and need more time to inspect. National program guidance for
FYs 2010 through 2012 required regions to inspect at least 5 percent of all their
RMProgram facilities with a nationwide target of 578 for FY 2012. In addition,
program guidance increased the number of inspections at high-risk facilities. The
expected number of inspections at high-risk facilities was 10 percent of all
inspections for FY 2010 and increased to 25 percent for FYs 2011 and 2012.
Assuming that current inspection resources are being effectively used, it is
unlikely that regions can spend more time inspecting high-risk facilities and
continue to meet an overall program goal to inspect 5 percent of all facilities each
year. EPA plans to reduce the overall inspection target for FY 2013 to 500, with
30 percent at high-risk facilities. According to OEM management, if requested
budget increases are not approved, they plan to reduce the target to 460 while
maintaining the 30-percent target for high-risk facilities. An increase in funding
would represent a change in recent years' trends. Combined Emergency Planning
and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) and RMProgram funding has
declined since FY 2009. Table 4 shows the regions' combined RMProgram and
EPCRA budgets for FYs 2009-2011.13
12 Many reports did not include starting and ending times. To be conservative in our estimates, we counted these
inspections as lasting 8 hours. However, our observations and other documentation indicate that some 1-day
inspections do not include 8 hours at the facility.
13 EPA's budget combines funding for the EPCRA and RMPrograms.
13-P-0178
20
-------
Table 4: EPA regions' combined RMProgram and EPCRA budgets
Fiscal
year
Budget
(in $000s)
Budget change from
previous year
Percent budget
change from
previous year
2009
$6,492
N/A
N/A
2010
$6,284
(208)
(3.2)
2011
$6,095
(189)
(3.0)
Source: OIG analysis of budget figures obtained from OEM.
Conclusions
EPA should strengthen its program guidance and oversight to ensure that it
conducts effective inspections at program facilities. We found that inspection
reports lacked information on the scope of the inspection. An effective inspection
program is a critical EPA tool for ensuring compliance with program regulations
and decreasing the risk of airborne releases of harmful chemicals that could
impact the public. It is important that EPA conduct effective inspections at
facilities covered under the RMProgram because of the potential consequences of
noncompliance with the program requirements. A facility's failure to follow
program requirements could lead to accidental releases of harmful chemicals
and/or inadequate responses to protect the public when such accidents occur.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response coordinate with the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance to:
7. Revise inspection guidance to recommend minimum inspection scope for
the various types of facilities covered under the program and provide more
detailed examples of minimum reporting.
8. Develop and implement an inspection monitoring and oversight program to
better manage and assess the quality of program inspections, reports,
supervisory oversight, and compliance with inspection guidance.
9. Analyze national program measures to assess whether the number of
required inspections should be modified to allow more time for inspecting
larger and more complex high-risk facilities.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER generally agreed with this chapter's findings and recommendations.
OSWER noted that the corrective actions to implement our draft report's
recommendations 7, 8, and 9 require coordinated effort between OSWER and
OECA. Thus, we have revised the recommendation in our final report to
13-P-0178
21
-------
acknowledge OECA's role. OSWER's response suggested that we combine
recommendations 7 and 8 and offered revisions to recommendation 9 to fully
address the findings in our report. We agreed with these suggestions and
combined our draft report recommendations 7 and 8 into final report
recommendation 7. We also revised draft recommendation 9, which is now
recommendation 8 in the final report. Draft report recommendation 10 is now
recommendation 9 in the final report. OSWER provided estimated completion
dates for actions that meet the intent of our final report recommendations 7 and 8.
Thus recommendations 7 and 8 are open pending completion of the planned
actions. Recommendation 9 is unresolved pending receipt of a planned
completion date for the corrective action.
13-P-0178
22
-------
Rec.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
14 Revise the program-specific curriculum training for CAA
112(r) Risk Management Program inspectors to clarify the
basic and program-specific inspector refresher requirements.
14 Develop guidance for conducting compliance audits per
EPA Order 3500.1 .ensure that each region designates a
single point of contact responsible for auditing regional
compliance with EPA Order 3500.1, and require periodic
reporting of regional compliance with the order.
14 Strengthen controls over the credentials process to ensure
that credentials are only issued to inspectors who
demonstrate that they have met the minimum training
requirements of EPA Order 3500.1.
14 Amend existing cooperative agreements for SEE enrollee
inspectors to require compliance with EPA Order 3500.1
and ensure that SEE enrollee position descriptions for
RMProgram inspectors include the specific training
requirements applicable to the position.
14 Direct EPA Regions 2, 4, 7, and 10 to amend their
contracts for inspection support to include provisions
requiring contractor inspectors to meet EPA Order 3500.1
training requirements.
14 Correct limitations in the Emergency Management Portal -
Field Readiness Module training system, such as
populating the system with a complete list of training
requirements and enabling certificates to be uploaded into
the system.
21 Coordinate with the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to revise
inspection guidance to recommend minimum inspection
scope for the various types of facilities covered under the
program and provide more detailed examples of minimum
reporting.
21 Coordinate with the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to develop and
implement an inspection monitoring and oversight program
to better manage and assess the quality of program
inspections, reports, supervisory oversight, and compliance
with inspection guidance.
21 Coordinate with the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to analyze
national program measures to assess whether the number
of required inspections should be modified to allow more
time for inspecting larger and more complex high-risk
facilities.
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Agreed-To
Amount
Assistant Administrator for 2/28/13
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for 2/28/13
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for 1/11/13
Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for 6/30/13
Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and
Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator for 7/31/14
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator for 9/30/14
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress
13-P-0178 23
-------
Appendix A
Description of RMProgram Elements
RMProgram
element
General description of program element requirements
Management
Management system to oversee implementation of the program elements.
Hazard
Assessment
Assessment to determine the potential hazards presented by the covered process. Include
worst-case release scenarios, offsite consequences analysis, and 5-year accident history.
Prevention
Program:
Process Safety
Information
Includes information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced
by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information
pertaining to the equipment in the process.
Process Hazard
Analysis
Identify, evaluate, and control the hazards involved in the process. Update and re-evaluate at
least every 5 years.
Operating
Procedures
Written procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in
each covered process consistent with the process safety information
Training
Each employee involved in operating a process, and each employee before being involved in
operating a newly assigned process, shall be trained in an overview of the process and in the
operating procedures.
Mechanical
Integrity
Applies to certain process equipment such as storage vessels, piping, and vents. Establish
and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment.
Management of
Change
Establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals,
technology, equipment, and procedures; and changes to stationary sources that affect a
covered process.
Pre-Start Up
Review
Required safety review when new stationary sources are built and existing stationary sources
are modified and the modification is significant enough to require a change in the process
safety information.
Compliance
Audits
Evaluate facility compliance with the RMProgram at least every 3 years to verify that
procedures and practices are adequate and are being followed.
Incident
Investigation
Investigate each incident that resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, a catastrophic
release of a regulated substance.
Employee
Participation
Develop a written plan of action for implementing employee participation requirements.
Employees and their representatives shall be consulted on the conduct and development of
process hazards analyses and on the development of the other elements of process safety
management. Employees provided with access to process hazard analyses and to all other
information required under the RMProgram.
Hot Work Permit
Must issue permit for hot work conducted on or near a covered process. Permit shall
document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252(a) have
been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations.
Contractors
Obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner's or operator's safety
performance and programs when hiring a contractor to work on or near a covered process.
Emergency
Response
For facilities where employees will respond to accidental releases. Develop and implement
an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the
environment.
Source: OIG analysis of checklists and 40 CFR Part 68.
13-P-0178
24
-------
Appendix B
OECA Response to Draft Report
December 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Report: Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight
for Risk Management Program (RMP) Inspections, Project No. OPE-FY11-
0012
FROM: Cynthia Giles
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
TO: Carolyn Copper
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
This memorandum is in response to the Draft Report: Improvements Needed in EPA Training
and Oversight for Risk Management Program (RMP) Inspections, Project No. OPE-FYII-0012
(Draft Report) issued on November 29, 2012, by the Office of the inspector General (OIG). We
appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Report and respond to the
recommendations directed to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).
With respect to the factual accuracy of the Draft Report, recommendation #2 on page 20
references "EPA Order 3510." The correct reference should be "EPA Order 3500.1." We have
confirmed with Rick Beusse, Director, Office of Program Evaluation, OIG that this was a
typographical error.
With respect to the two recommendations for which OECA was designated the "Action official",
we offer the following response and proposed corrective actions:
Recommendation 1: Revise EPA Order 3500.1 to clarify training requirements for basic
and program-specific refresher training.
OECA Response: OECA does not concur with this recommendation. OECA does not
agree that the language in EPA Order 3500.1 is ambiguous regarding refresher training
requirements, or that revisions to the Order are necessary. However, OECA agrees that
clarity on the basic and program-specific refresher training requirements for the Clean
Air Act (CAA) 112(r) Risk Management Program (RMP) can be provided via revisions
to the CAA 112(r) RMP program specific inspector training requirements. OECA will
complete these revisions by February 28, 2013.
13-P-0178
25
-------
Recommendation 2: Develop guidance for conducting compliance audits per EPA Order
3500.1, ensure that each region designates a single point of contact responsible for
auditing regional compliance with EPA Order 3500.1, and require periodic reporting of
regional compliance with the Order.
OECA Response: OECA concurs with the recommendation to develop guidance and
ensure that each region designates a single point of contact. However, instead of guidance
for conducting audits per EPA Order 3500.1, OECA will commit to developing a
checklist for the regions to assist them as they audit their inspection credential programs.
OECA will develop the checklist, and request the single points of contact by February 28,
2013. With respect to periodic reporting of regional compliance with the Order, OECA
anticipates that this issue will be addressed as part of the larger Agency Consistent Field
Operations (CFO) effort that has been charged by the EPA Deputy Administrator to be
led by the [Consistent Field Operations] CFO workgroup. A specific task of the
[Consistent Field Operations] CFO workgroup involves ensuring implementation of, and
ongoing compliance with, Field Operations Group (FOG) guidelines, including
guidelines for inspector training and qualifications.
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this response, please contact Gwendolyn
Spriggs, the OECA Audit Liaison, at 202-564-2439.
Attachment
cc: Lisa Lund, OECA/OC
Susan Shinkman, OECA/OCE
Mamie Miller, OECA/OC
Lauren Kabler, OECA/OCE
Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA/OAP
Mathy Stanislaus, OSWER
Johnsie Webster, OSWER
Craig Hooks, OARM
Bernie Davis, OARM
Rick Beusse, OIG
13-P-0178
26
-------
Appendix C
OARM Response to Draft Report
January 11, 2013
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Report: Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight
for Risk Management Program Inspections
FROM: Craig E. Hooks
Assistant Administrator
TO: Carolyn Copper, Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
The Office of Administration and Resources Management appreciates the opportunity to review
and provide comments to the above cited November 29, 2012, report, Project No. OPE-FY11-
0012). For clarification purposes, EPA Order 3510, most recently dated 10/31/2012, should be
cited in the report rather than 3500.1. Responses to recommendations 3, 4 and 5 addressed to
OARM are provided below:
Recommendation 3: "Strengthen controls over the credentials process to ensure that credentials
are only issued to inspectors who demonstrate that they have met the minimum training
requirements of EPA Order 3500.1."
Response: OARM agrees with this recommendation although it should be directed to OECA,
which, in their response to recommendation 2, committed to developing a checklist for use by
headquarters and regional programs to assist in auditing their inspection credential programs and
ensuring proper documentation and completion certification of inspector training requirements
prior to requesting a new or reissued credential. OARM will continue the practice of validating
that a supervisor has signed the Credential Request Form, which not only verifies that the
employee has completed the training, but that the credential is necessary for their job
performance and which credential is being authorized. This is consistent with our responsibilities
as stated on page 7 of order 3510: "OARM will provide EPA employees a credential only after
verification by the employee's supervisor that they have completed all required training ..."
Recommendation 4: "Amend existing cooperative agreements for SEE enrollee inspectors to
require compliance with EPA Order 3500.1 and ensure that SEE enrollee position descriptions
for RMProgram inspectors include the specific training requirements applicable to the position."
13-P-0178
27
-------
Response: OARM agrees with this recommendation. To ensure compliance with order 3510, by
June 30, 2013, OARM's Office of Human Resources will amend all existing SEE cooperative
agreements to require that SEE enrollee position descriptions for inspectors include a
requirement that all EPA-required training applicable to the position be listed in the position
description.
Recommendation 5: "Direct EPA Regions 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 to amend their contracts for
inspection support to include provisions requiring contractor inspectors to meet EPA Order
3500.1 training requirements."
Response: OARM agrees with this recommendation. In order 3510, page 6, section 4g, OECA is
responsible for establishing requirements for non-EPA written agreements, including contract
statements of work and contracts. After these requirements are developed, OARM can
collaborate with the regions to ensure the contracts are modified.
If you have any questions about these responses, OARM's points of contact are:
recommendation 3: Diane Dixon, Security Management Division - (202) 564-2154;
recommendation 4: Yvette Carter, Office of Human Resources- (202) 564-7896; and
recommendation 5: LisaMaass, Office of Acquisition Management- (202) 564-2498.
cc: Cynthia Giles, OECA
Lawrence Starfield, OECA
John Bashista, OAM
Susan Kantrowitz, OHR
Renee Page, OA
John Showman, OPRM
13-P-0178
28
-------
Appendix D
OSWER Response to Draft Report
January 16, 2013
SUBJECT: OSWER Response to the OIG Draft Evaluation Report, "Improvements Needed
in EPA Training and Oversight for Risk Management Program Inspections"
FROM: Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant Administrator
TO: Carolyn Copper
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft OIG Evaluation Report,
"Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight for Risk Management Program
Inspections". The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has completed its
review and concurs with the proposed recommendations specific to OSWER. Additionally, we
have made several specific editorial comments on the factual accuracy and content of the
recommendations in 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, recommendation 6 states:
6. Correct limitations in the Emergency Management Portal - Field Readiness
Module training system, such as populating the system with a complete list of
training requirements and enabling certificates to be uploaded into the system.
This recommendation was completed in September 2012.
In Chapter 3, recommendations 7-10 state:
7. Revise inspection guidance to recommend minimum inspection scope for the
various types of facilities covered under the program.
8. Expand guidance on reporting to provide more detailed examples of minimum
reporting.
13-P-0178
29
-------
9. Develop a post-inspection monitoring program to assess the quality of program
inspections and compliance with inspection guidance.
10. In coordination with OECA, analyze national program measures to assess whether
the number of required inspections should be modified to allow more time for
inspecting larger and more complex high-risk facilities.
OSWER will continue to work closely with OECA in developing appropriate policies,
procedures, and guidance to implement these recommendations. For recommendations 7 and 8,
OSWER and OECA will work with the Regions to develop draft guidance by December 2013,
which specifies minimum inspection scope and examples for various types of inspections to
assist Regions in focusing their limited resources on the most significant issues at facilities.
Based on discussions with and reviews by the Regions, a final guidance will be published in July
2014.
For recommendation 9, OSWER and OECA are working with the Regions to identify key
components of a repository of inspection reports in order to better ensure and assess the quality
of RMP inspections. This repository system will be developed by the end of FY2014 and piloted
with the Regions in FY2015. During the pilot, a process will be developed and implemented to
review and assess the quality of the inspections and reports against established procedures and
guidance.
We would also like to point out that our office has been, and will continue to, work closely with
OECA as we analyze and assess the national RMP program measures as per your
recommendation 10. Specifically, OSWER and OECA jointly have revised their National
Program Manager Guidance each year to reduce the overall number of RMP inspections while
increasing the percentage of high risk inspections in order to ensure the Regions have the
resources and time to inspect these more complex, higher risk facilities. We are also providing
more in-depth, technical training to our inspectors related to the types of high risk facilities they
will be inspecting.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our responses to the recommendations in this
report. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Kim Jennings at (202) 564-7998.
Attachment
13-P-0178
30
-------
Appendix E
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Agency Follow-Up Official (the Chief Financial Officer)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management
13-P-0178
31
------- |