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 Garduño 

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 09-P-0092 

February 10, 2009 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

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.gov/oig/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 nonfilers. 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 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation 

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 

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, 

1 
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] 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 

Region 

Number of RMP Facilities

 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. 

2 
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 

EPA Regions 

Agencies 

16% 

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 

3 
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. 

4 
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 refiled 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 deregister 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 

5 
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. 

6 
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 

State 

Facilities 

with Large 

Amounts of 

Chemicals 

On-Site 

Data 

Source 

Results of Discussions with 

Regional Offices 

Facilities 

Requiring 

Additional 

Follow-up 

Colorado 2 TRI Region 8 provided information 

indicating these facilities are likely 

NOT required to submit RMPs. 

0 

North 

Carolina 

10 TRI Region 4 and North Carolina provided 

information indicating these facilities 

are likely NOT required to submit 

RMPs. 

0 

Pennsylvania 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. 

11 

Texas 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. 

14 

Oklahoma 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. 

23 

Total 62 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 

2

 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. 

7 
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. 

8 
09-P-0092 

Table 2.2: Number of Facilities Past 5-Year Anniversary Date in 2005 and 2008 

Region 

No. of Facilities Past 

5-Year Anniversary Date 

as of September 2005 

No. of Facilities Past 

5-Year Anniversary Date 

as of March 2008 

No. of Facilities Past 

5-Year Anniversary 

Date as of March 2008 

that were on Original 

September 2005 Report 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

51 

49 

10 

178 

471 

428 

156 

52 

105 

16 

6 

9 

3 

82 

208 

204 

51 

34 

66 

0 

3 

4 

0 

55 

179 

143 

21 

22 

25 

0 

Total 1,516 664 452 

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. 

9 
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 subject 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; 

6

 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 FacilitiesNot 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 

OEM High-Risk 

Facilities (Tier 1 

+ Tier 2 facilities) 

Facilities 

Impacting 

≥100,000 in a 

Worst-Case 

Release Scenario 

Facilities with the 

Highest 5% of 

Hazard Indices in 

Their Respective 

Region 

Facilities on 

All Three Lists 

No. 

Inspected/ 

Audited 

No. 

Inspected/ 

Audited 

No. 

Inspected/ 

Audited 

No. 

Inspected/ 

Audited 

No. % No. % No. % No. %

 1 

2 

3 

 4 [a] 

5 

 6 [b] 

7 

8 

9 

10 

6 

18 

23 

31 

88 

185 

48 

20 

56 

18 

3 

17 

22 

25 

45 

28 

12 

13 

23 

9 

50 

94 

96 

81 

51 

15 

25 

65 

41 

50 

8 

21 

36 

31 

77 

155 

16 

10 

73 

12 

5 

21 

33 

27 

62 

31 

8 

6 

24 

6 

63 

100 

92 

87 

81 

20 

50 

60 

33 

50 

10 

15 

35 

23 

127 

116 

129 

45 

59 

24 

6 

11 

28 

19 

36 

9 

20 

15 

20 

12 

60 

73 

80 

83 

28 

8 

16 

33 

34 

50 

3 

6 

11 

7 

29 

33 

8 

2 

20 

4 

2 

6 

11 

6 

23 

0 

6 

2 

11 

3 

67

100

100

86

79

0

75

100

55

75 

EPA 

Subtotal 

493 197 40 439 223 51 583 176 30 123 70 57 

Delegated 

States/ 

Locals 

105 90 86 111 95 86 115 96 83 34 29 85 

Total [c] 598 287 48 550 318 58 698 272 39 157 99 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 facilitiesper-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 

Number of 

FTEs [b] 

Number of 

Facilities 

Ratio of Facilities 

per FTE 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1.3 

1.5 

3.5 

1.0 

5.0 

2.5 

3.8 

1.0 

3.0 

1.75 

182 

285 

698 

441 

2,526 

2,304 

2,563 

890 

1,170 

470 

140 

190 

199 

441 

505 

922 

674 

890 

390 

269 

EPA Total 24.35 11,529 473 

Delegated 

States/Locals 

30.19 2,143 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 Safety 

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 riskbased 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 performancebased 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 neverinspected 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 lowerrisk 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 

Number of NeverInspected Facilities Number with 

Accident(s) 

Percent with 

Accident(s) 

OEM High-Risk 

Facilities 

311 91 29 

Non-OEM High-Risk 

Facilities 

8,795 406 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 industryspecific 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, 

“[r]egions 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 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

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. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response 

12/2009 

2-2 

2-3 

13 

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. 

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. 

O 

O 

Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response 

Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation 

9/2009 

4/27/2009 

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. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response 

12/2009 

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. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response 

3-3 25 Develop and implement a risk-based inspection 

strategy that incorporates regional input on highrisk facilities to prioritize facilities for inspection 

based on risk and other priority measures. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

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. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

27 
Rec. 

No. 

3-5 

Page 

No.

25 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Subject Status1 

Track which high-risk facilities have been inspected 

by the regions and/or delegated States/local 

agencies and develop procedures to provide 

expeditious inspection coverage of those high-risk 

facilities not inspected by the regions or State/local 

agencies. 

O 

Action Official 

Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

09-P-0092 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

1 O = 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 log2 (maximum quantity of 

inventory on-site/threshold), or, alternatively, as the number of chemicals times log2 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 (underreporting 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 facilityto-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 
09-P-0092 

Rick Beusse, Director for Program Evaluation, Air Issues, OIG 

OIG Juan Santiago, OAQPS Title V Group Leader 

Action Plan 

Number Recommendation Planned Corrective Action Planned 

Completion 

2.3 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. 

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. 

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 not 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 

Number of Active 

Facilities in 11/29/07 

Universe 

Number of Facilities with 

At Least One On-site 

Inspection/Audit 

Percent of Facilities 

Inspected/Audited 

1 182 101 55 

2 285 132 46 

3 698 256 37 

4 [a] 441 388 88 

5 2,526 681 27 

6 2,304 518 22 

7 2,563 257 10 

8 890 445 50 

9 1,170 140 12 

10 470 136 29 

EPA Subtotal [b] 11,529 3,054 26 

Delegated States/ 

Locals Subtotal 

2,143 1,512 71 

Total [c] 13,672 4,566 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 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008[a] Totals 

1 0 14 16 18 33 23 26 28 8 166

 2 83 87 63 86 29 48 39 40 13 488 

3 13 38 40 38 53 63 49 55 15 364

 4 0 38 86 122 76 80 74 96 15 587

 5 0 0 3 44 264 377 41 63 3 795

 6 1 2 7 74 90 155 96 158 33 616 

7 72 49 57 27 29 33 84 101 32 484

 8 16 67 134 79 66 116 65 73 33 649

 9 [b] 34 16 6 34 62 29 71 56 20 328

 10 20 22 25 23 43 37 54 43 1 268 

Totals 239 333 437 545 745 961 599 713 173 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 

Number of Active 

Facilities in 11/29/07 

Universe with Accidents 

Number 

Inspected/Audited 

as of 12/31/2007 

Percent 

Inspected/Audited 

as of 12/31/2007 

1 8 4 50 

2 18 15 83 

3 60 43 72 

4 [a] 35 32 91 

5 165 55 33 

6 210 43 20 

7 127 47 37 

8 37 28 76 

9 82 18 22 

10 24 10 42 

EPA Subtotal 766 295 39 

Delegated States/ 

Locals Subtotal 

178 152 85 

Total [b] 944 447 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