U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Improvements Needed in 

EPA Training and Oversight 

for Risk Management Program 

Inspections 

Report No. 13-P-0178 March 21, 2013 

Scan this mobile code 

to learn more about 

the EPA OIG. 
 

Report Contributors: Rick Beusse

 Bao Chuong

 James Hatfield 

 Rebecca Matichuk 

Abbreviations 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act 

FY Fiscal Year 

OARM Office of Administration and Resources Management 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OEM Office of Emergency Management 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OSHA U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

RMP Risk Management Plan 

RMProgram Risk Management Program 

SEE Senior Environmental Employment 

Cover photos:	 Heat exchanger used to heat anhydrous ammonia before it flows to a reactor to 

produce a fertilizer product at a risk management program facility. The 

highlighted area shows visible corrosion. (EPA photo) 

Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods: 

email: 

phone: 

fax: 

online: 

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov 

1-888-546-8740 

202-566-2599 

http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm 

write: EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailcode 2431T 

Washington, DC 20460 
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	 13-P-0178 

March 21, 2013 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance
 

Why We Did This Review 

We conducted this review to 

determine whether the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has adequate 

management controls for 

ensuring the effectiveness of its 

Clean Air Act Section 112(r) 

risk management program 

(RMProgram) inspections. 

Congress enacted the 

RMProgram to reduce the risk 

of airborne chemical releases 

that could harm the public and 

lessen the impact of releases 

that do occur. Regulated 

substances include 77 toxic 

chemicals that could cause 

death or serious health effects 

from short-term exposures and 

63 flammable substances. 

Properly performed by trained, 

knowledgeable inspectors, 

inspections help ensure that 

facilities comply with 

RMProgram requirements. 

EPA is responsible for 

assessing compliance at over 

86 percent of RMProgram 

facilities nationwide. 

This report addresses the 

following EPA Goals or 

Cross-Cutting Strategies: 

 Enforcing environmental laws. 

 Cleaning up communities and 

advancing sustainable 

development. 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional and 

Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391. 

The full report is at: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/ 

20130321-13-P-0178.pdf 

Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight 

for Risk Management Program Inspections 

What We Found 

EPA’s management controls for ensuring inspector training and inspection 

quality provide limited assurance of the effectiveness of its RMProgram 

inspections. Proper training helps inspectors conduct quality inspections. 

However, 15 of the 45 RMProgram inspectors nationwide received inspector 

credentials without documentation indicating that they met minimum training 

requirements. Further, six of the 12 supervisors did not meet minimum training 

requirements. EPA’s management controls did not detect or prevent the cases 

of missed or undocumented training. Weaknesses in controls included 

limitations in training tracking systems and a lack of procedures to ensure that 

supervisors met their training requirements. Also, contracts and cooperative 

agreements for inspection services did not include training requirements. 

EPA can strengthen its RMProgram inspection guidance and oversight to 

increase assurance that inspectors conduct effective inspections. EPA 

guidance did not establish minimum guidelines for the scope of inspections. 

Further, EPA did not have a process to monitor the quality of inspections. 

Generally, inspection reports did not explain the extent to which the inspectors 

reviewed specific elements of a covered process to determine compliance. 

Also, our observations of two inspections indicated that procedures to verify the 

facilities’ RMProgram activities were limited. 

An effective inspection program that includes properly trained personnel, 

guidance, and oversight helps ensure compliance with program regulations, 

thus decreasing the risk of airborne releases of chemicals that could harm the 

public.

 Recommendations and Agency Corrective Actions 

We recommend that EPA strengthen its management controls to ensure that 

inspectors and supervisors meet minimum training requirements. Also, EPA 

should strengthen guidance to include minimum inspection scope for 

RMProgram facilities. Further, EPA should develop minimum inspection 

reporting requirements and a monitoring program to assess the quality of 

inspections. EPA generally concurred with our draft report’s recommendations, 

and has already initiated corrective actions in some cases. We consider five 

recommendations open and one recommendation closed. The Agency’s 

response met the intent of the remaining recommendations, but the 

recommendations remained unresolved pending receipt of a formal corrective 

action plan with milestone dates and responsible party/office. 

 Noteworthy Achievements 

EPA has made efforts to enhance the quality of RMProgram inspections. 

For example, EPA provided advanced training courses for inspectors in 2010, 

2011, and March 2012. According to EPA, it also provided the training in 

August, October, and November 2012. EPA also conducted an internal 

assessment of the quality of inspection reports across all 10 regions in 2011. 
 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

March 21, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight for 

Risk Management Program Inspections 

 Report No. 13-P-0178 

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr. 

TO:	 Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Craig E. Hooks, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Administration and Resources Management 

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the 

opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final 

determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with 

established audit resolution procedures. 

Action Required 

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this 

report within 60 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed-upon 

actions, including milestone dates. Your response will be posted on the OIG’s public website, 

along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided 

as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do 

not want to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the 

data for redaction or removal. Please email your response to Carolyn Copper, Assistant Inspector 
General for Program Evaluation, at copper.carolyn@epa.gov. We have no objections to the 

further release of this report to the public. We will post this report to our website at 

http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper 

at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Rick Beusse, Director for Air and Research 

Evaluations, at (919) 541-5747 or beusse.rick@epa.gov. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight 13-P-0178 

for Risk Management Program Inspections 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1

 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 1 

 Background ...................................................................................................... 1 

 Noteworthy Achievements ................................................................................ 5 

Scope and Methodology ................................................................................... 6 

2 EPA Needs Better Controls to Ensure That 

Minimum Inspector Training Requirements Are Met ............................................ 9

 RMProgram Training Requirements ................................................................. 9 

 Inspectors Issued Credentials Without Documentation That 

Minimum Training Requirements Were Met ............................................... 10 

 Program Refresher Requirements Need to Be Clarified ................................... 11 

Half of Supervisors Missed Minimum Training Requirements .......................... 11 

Management Controls Did Not Ensure Completion of Required Training ......... 11 

Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 14 

Recommendations ............................................................................................ 14 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ........................................................... 15 

3 Limited Documentation and Oversight Prevented 

Assurance That Inspections Were Effective.......................................................... 16

 EPA’s RMProgram Inspection Process ............................................................ 16 

Inspection Reports Lacked Details Demonstrating Effective Inspections ......... 17 

 Oversight of Inspections Could Be Strengthened ............................................. 19 

Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 21 

 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 21 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ........................................................... 21 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits .................................... 23
 

Appendices 

A Description of RMProgram Elements..................................................................... 24
 

B OECA Response to Draft Report ............................................................................ 25 

C OARM Response to Draft Report............................................................................ 27 

D OSWER Response to Draft Report ......................................................................... 29
 

E Distribution .............................................................................................................. 31
 
 

Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for assessing 

compliance for over 86 percent of the 12,774 Clean Air Act Section 112(r) risk 

management program facilities nationwide. Our objective was to determine 

whether the EPA has adequate management controls for ensuring the 

effectiveness of its program inspections. Specifically, we sought to determine 

whether: 

 Adequate systems were in place to ensure inspectors and first-line 

supervisors are properly trained. 

 Adequate guidelines and oversight were in place to ensure that quality 

inspections are conducted. 

Background 

In 1984, an accidental airborne release of a hazardous chemical caused thousands 

of deaths and injuries in Bhopal, India. In response to this accident, Congress 

amended Section 112(r) of the CAA in 1990. The amendment enacted a program 

to prevent airborne releases of certain hazardous chemicals and to mitigate the 

consequences of such releases to the surrounding community. The EPA issued a 

rule implementing the RMProgram in 1996. 

Facilities that contain more than the threshold quantity of any of 140 substances in 

a process are covered under the RMProgram. This includes 77 toxic chemicals that 

can cause serious health effects or death from short-term exposures, and 

63 flammable gases and highly volatile flammable liquids. Covered sources are 

required to conduct a hazard assessment (including analyses of worst-case 

scenarios and 5-year accident history), implement accident prevention and 

emergency response programs, and submit a risk management plan to the EPA. The 

RMP describes and documents the facility’s hazard assessment. The RMP must 

include the results of an offsite consequence analysis for a worst-case chemical 

accident at the facility. Facilities were required to submit their first RMP by 

June 21, 1999, and must update their RMP at least every 5 years. Facilities must 

also update their RMPs when onsite regulated substances or processes change. 

Depending upon the characteristics of a covered process and the results of the 

worst-case analysis and 5-year accident history, a process may be subject to one 

of three sets of program requirements (program levels). The program level 

determines the extent of the prevention program required for the facility. Table 1 

explains the requirements for each program level. 

13-P-0178 1 
 

 

 

 

Table 1: RMProgram levels 

Level Description Requirements 

Program 1 Processes that would not affect the 

public in the event of a worst-case 

release and with no accidents with 

specific offsite consequences within 

the past 5 years. 

Limited hazard assessment 

requirements and minimal 

prevention and emergency 

response requirements. 

Program 2 Processes not eligible for Program 1 

or subject to Program 3. 

Streamlined prevention program 

requirements, as well as 

additional hazard assessment, 

management, and emergency 

response requirements. 

Program 3 Processes not eligible for Program 1 

and either subject to the U.S. 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s Process Safety 

Management standard under federal 

or state OSHA programs, or 

classified in one of 10 specified 

North American Industrial 

Classification System codes. 

Imposes OSHA’s Process 

Safety Management standard as 

the prevention program, as well 

as additional hazard 

assessment, management, and 

emergency response 

requirements. 

Source: General Guidance on Risk Management Programs for Chemical Accident Prevention 

(Code of Federal Regulations, in 40 CFR Part 68), EPA 555-B-04-001, March 2009. 

A facility’s failure to follow program requirements could lead to accidental 

releases of harmful chemicals and/or inadequate responses to protect the public 

when such accidents occur. Between October 2008 and March 2012, 

323 facilities reported 460 accidents to EPA. These accidents caused over 

$264 million in onsite and offsite damages. Further, the accidents resulted in 

14 worker fatalities, over 330 worker injuries, and over 64,000 people being 

sheltered in place. 

EPA Implements the Risk Management Program in Most States 

EPA’s Office of Emergency Management, within EPA’s Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response, manages the RMProgram. EPA regions directly 

implement the RMProgram in most states. As of May 2012, only eight states and 

five local agencies had accepted full or partial delegation from EPA. EPA regions 

are responsible for assessing compliance at 11,057 facilities (or 86.6 percent) of 

the 12,774 active RMProgram facilities. Figure 1 shows the number of facilities 

that each region oversees. 

13-P-0178 2 
 

 

Figure 1: Number of RMProgram facilities overseen, by EPA region 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of RMP Facilities

Region

Source: Prepared by the OIG based on data obtained from 

RMP National Database.
 

EPA’s National Program Manager’s Guidance specifies the number of inspections 

that EPA headquarters expects the regions to perform. Between fiscal years 2010 

and 2012, the regions were to perform inspections at 5 percent of the total number 

of regulated facilities in the regions. Further, this guidance requires regions to 

conduct a percentage of inspections at high-risk facilities. In FY 2010, regions 

were to conduct 10 percent of the inspections at high-risk facilities, and 25 

percent at high-risk facilities in FYs 2011 and 2012. A high-risk facility is one 

that meets one or more of the following characteristics established by OEM: 

 Facilities whose reported RMP worst-case scenario population exceeds 

100,000 people. 

 Any RMProgram facility with a hazard index1 greater than or equal to 25. 

 Facilities that have had one or more significant accidental releases within 

the previous 5 years. 

EPA Policy for Inspector Training 

EPA Order 3500.12 establishes Agencywide training and development 

requirements for employees leading compliance inspections. These requirements 

are to ensure that inspectors have working knowledge of regulatory requirements, 

inspection methodology, and health and safety measures. Training requirements 

apply to all persons who lead compliance inspections under any EPA statute. This 

includes EPA personnel, contractors, and Senior Environmental Employment 

Program enrollees. The training program consists of three parts: 

1

 Hazard index is defined roughly as a measure of the hazard of the chemicals onsite and the size of covered processes 

at the facility. More specifically, it is “the sum over all chemicals of log2 (maximum quantity of inventory 

onsite/threshold), or, alternatively, as the number of chemicals times log2 of the geometric mean of the maximum-tothreshold quantity ratio.” 

2

 EPA, Training and Development for Individuals Who Lead Compliance Inspections/Field Investigations, 

December 23, 2002. Specifically cited as EPA Order 3500.1 A1. 

13-P-0178 3 
 

 

	 Occupational health and safety curriculum. Inspectors must take a 

minimum of 24 hours of health and safety training before conducting an 

inspection. 

	 Basic inspector curriculum. Inspectors must take basic inspector 

training. This training provides a comprehensive overview of knowledge 

and skills needed for compliance inspections under any EPA statute. 

	 Program-specific curriculum. Inspectors must take training in legal, 

programmatic, and technical subjects for their specific program. 

Once trained, inspectors are issued EPA credentials authorizing them to perform 

inspections on EPA’s behalf. These credentials are issued or re-issued on a periodic 

basis. The credentials process is outlined in EPA Order 3510.3 The order states that 

credentials are issued to qualified individuals who have met the minimum inspector 

training requirements outlined in EPA Order 3500.1. EPA regions request 

credentials from EPA’s Office of Administration and Resources Management, 

which issues credentials to the regions for distribution to the inspectors. To ensure 

that inspectors’ first-line supervisors are knowledgeable about the program, EPA 

Order 3500.1 requires the supervisors to meet the following minimum training 

requirements within 1 year of becoming a supervisor: 

 Health and safety requirements (knowledge and understanding).
 

 Basic inspector curriculum.
 

 Environmental Statutes Review offered by EPA’s National Enforcement 

Training Institute. 

 Documented self study of the program they are responsible for and 

developing a working knowledge. 

Working knowledge is defined as the minimum knowledge needed to evaluate the 

completeness and quality of inspection reports and to sign off on the reports. 

Developing a working knowledge includes accompanying a lead inspector on an 

inspection. 

EPA Guidance on Conducting RMProgram Inspections 

EPA’s guidance4 for conducting RMProgram inspections outlines several basic 

steps for conducting an inspection: 

	 Selecting facilities for inspection. EPA regional offices are required to 

prioritize inspections at high-risk facilities and should inspect high-risk 

RMProgram facilities more frequently than other RMProgram facilities. 

	 Offsite activities. These activities include collecting background 

information on the facility, planning the inspection, preparing the 

inspection staff, and planning the logistics of the inspection. 

3

 EPA, EPA Federal Credentials for Inspections and Enforcement of Federal Environmental Statutes, EPA Order
 

3510, October 9, 2008. This Order was updated in October 2012. 

4

 EPA, Guidance for Conducting Risk Management Program Inspections under Clean Air Act Section 112(r), 

EPA-550-K-11-001, January 2011. 

13-P-0178 4 
 

 

	 Onsite activities. These activities include conducting the opening meeting, 

collecting and analyzing information, and conducting the closing conference. 

	 Concluding activities. These activities include an inspection team 

meeting to ensure inspection details were recorded accurately and writing 

the inspection report. 

	 Post-inspection actions. These actions include providing compliance 

assistance or pursuing enforcement action if necessary. 

The guidance includes an inspection checklist to use during the inspection. The 

checklist assists the inspectors in determining whether regulatory requirements 

were met and helps to ensure that inspections meet a basic level of data quality. 

The guidance also includes an inspection report template. The January 2011 

guidance is similar to the program guidance issued in 1999.5 The primary 

difference between the two guidance documents is that the 2011 guidance 

includes provisions for ensuring facility employee participation in the inspection. 

The 2011 guidance also recommends that the inspection include interviews of 

facility employees. 

Noteworthy Achievements 

To provide inspectors with the necessary technical knowledge to inspect program 

facilities, EPA provided specialized courses in 2010, 2011, and March 2012. 

According to EPA, it also provided the training in August, October, and 

November 2012. Below is a list of the courses: 

	 Risk Management Program Refinery Inspector Training, conducted in 

September 2010, April 2011, and October 2012. 

	 Understanding Codes & Standards and Mechanical Integrity for Risk 

Management Program Inspectors, conducted in October 2011 and 

March 2012. 

	 Ammonia Refrigeration Systems, Technology, and Safety Workshop for 

Risk Management Program Inspectors, conducted in November 2011, 

August 2012, and November 2012. 

The Agency also took steps to increase the effectiveness of its inspection 

resources by implementing a process for identifying and inspecting a greater 

percentage of high-risk facilities. Further, EPA’s OEM assessed the quality of 

inspection reports from all 10 regions in June 2011. OEM presented the results of 

its analysis to the regions. As a result of this analysis, OEM is considering 

whether guidance changes are needed to address the issues identified. 

5

 EPA, Guidance for Auditing Risk Management Plans/Programs under Clean Air Act Section 112(r), 

EPA 550-B99-008, August 1999. 

13-P-0178 5 
 

Scope and Methodology 

To assess whether inspectors and first-line supervisors met minimum training 

requirements, we obtained the training records of all RMProgram inspectors and 

first-line supervisors from all 10 EPA regions. At the time of review there were 

45 inspectors and 12 supervisors nationwide. We compared the training records 

with the training requirements outlined in EPA policies and guidance. These 

policies and guidance included EPA Order 3500.1, the EPA Credential and 

Inspector Training Policy Compendium, and EPA Order 1440.2 on Safety and 

Health Training Requirements for Agency Employees. We interviewed inspectors 

and first-line supervisors to determine why certain training requirements were not 

met. We reviewed the procedures and controls for ensuring that inspector training 

qualifications were met. 

To assess whether adequate guidelines and oversight were in place to ensure that 

quality inspections were conducted, we obtained and reviewed applicable 

RMProgram policies, procedures, guidance, and performance measures. We 

interviewed staff and managers from EPA’s OEM, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, and all 10 regions. 

We reviewed inspection reports for RMProgram inspections conducted at 

29 facilities deemed “high-risk” by OEM. These facilities included, but were not 

limited to, oil refineries, chemical plants, and electric utilities. These 29 facilities 

had reported a total of 120 covered processes on their latest risk management 

plans. The 29 inspections were conducted between July 2006 and August 2011 

and included at least one report from each EPA region. During that time period, 

EPA conducted 3,117 inspections nationwide. We examined 11 of the 29 

inspections in more detail to determine the scope of the inspection activities. 

These 11 inspections were selected because the facilities’ worst-case scenario 

could impact populations greater than 10,000. We also interviewed inspectors and 

reviewed inspection documentation to determine the scope of these inspections. 

We observed EPA inspections at two facilities. One of these facilities was a 

fertilizer manufacturing and retail facility, and its RMP included two covered 

processes involving anhydrous ammonia and aqueous ammonia. The other facility 

was a gas processing plant that had one RMProgram-covered process involving 

flammable mixtures and propane. Both facilities had a prior accidental release and 

high-hazard index. 

We conducted our work from June 2011 to November 2012. We limited our review 

to EPA-managed inspection programs and did not review state or local agency 

programs. We conducted this evaluation in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our evaluation objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. 

13-P-0178 6 
 

 

 

We assessed training based on compliance with the minimum guidelines 

established by EPA policy. We did not independently test inspector knowledge. We 

did not evaluate the quality of specific training courses required for inspectors. We 

did not assess whether specific inspectors or supervisors are capable of performing 

their job duties or the extent to which they are capable of performing those duties. 

We relied upon a judgmental sample of inspections in assessing controls over 

inspection quality. Thus, we cannot project our sample results to the universe of 

RMProgram inspections. We did not independently assess the effectiveness of 

inspections through our own verification of facility conditions or program 

implementation. Therefore, we did not make any conclusions as to the effectiveness 

of any specific inspection activity we reviewed. However, we reviewed reports from 

all 10 EPA regions and believe our sample size was sufficient to draw conclusions 

about the adequacy of management controls over the inspection process. 

Prior Reports 

In March 2012, we issued an early warning report6 regarding EPA’s use of 

contractors to conduct RMProgram inspections. This practice was prohibited in 

certain states by two separate appellate court rulings in the early 1980s (the U.S. 

Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Tenth Circuits). The use of contractors to 

conduct CAA inspections on EPA’s behalf was one of two issues presented to the 

U.S. Supreme Court in a 1983 case. Because the Supreme Court did not address 

the question of statutory authority, its decision left unresolved the pre-existing 

split in the federal circuit courts on the question of EPA’s statutory authority to 

use contractors for CAA inspections. Accordingly, EPA issued a policy on 

February 22, 1984, stating that contractors should not, absent express permission 

from headquarters, be designated as representatives of EPA to conduct CAA 

inspections in states located in the Sixth and Tenth Circuits. EPA agreed with our 

recommendations and promptly initiated corrective actions. 

An EPA OIG February 2009 report7

 noted that EPA needed to improve the 

implementation of the RMProgram. EPA had inspected less than half the 

identified high-risk facilities since the 1999 inception of the program. Also, EPA 

had not established procedures for identifying facilities that had not submitted 

RMPs, and had not resolved the status of facilities that needed to re-file RMPs. 

We recommended that EPA implement controls to identify covered facilities that 

have not filed RMPs, and that EPA target higher-priority facilities for inspection 

and track progress in completing these inspections. EPA agreed with our 

recommendations and completed the agreed-upon corrective actions. 

6 EPA OIG, Use of Contractors to Conduct Clean Air Act Risk Management Program Inspections in Certain States 

Goes Against Court Decisions, Report No. 12-P-0376, March 28, 2012. 7

 EPA OIG, EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases,
 

Report No. 09-P-0092, February 10, 2009. 

13-P-0178 7 
 

 

 

EPA OIG issued a report in March 20098 on EPA Region 8’s management of the 

RMProgram. We recommended that the regional administrator develop (1) a 

strategy for implementing the program that defines program goals, performance 

measures, and organizational responsibilities; and (2) an oversight process to 

evaluate the region’s success in implementing the strategy. Region 8 agreed with 

our recommendations and completed the agreed-upon corrective actions. 

8

 EPA OIG, EPA Region 8 Needs to Better Manage the Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases, 

Report No. 09-P-0130, March 30, 2009. 

13-P-0178 8 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 2

EPA Needs Better Controls to Ensure That 

Minimum Inspector Training Requirements Are Met 

Of the 45 RMProgram inspectors nationwide, EPA had issued inspection 

credentials to 15 inspectors who lacked documentation showing that they met the 

minimum training requirements in EPA Order 3500.1. Further, six of the 12 firstline supervisors did not meet minimum training requirements in EPA Order 

3500.1. EPA’s management controls did not prevent or detect instances of missed 

or undocumented training. For example, EPA’s tracking systems for training did 

not include all training requirements and regions did not audit compliance with 

EPA Order 3500.1. Sufficiently trained inspectors and supervisors provide for an 

effective inspection program that better ensures compliance with regulations and 

therefore decreases the risk of airborne releases of chemicals that could harm the 

public. 

RMProgram Training Requirements 

EPA Order 3500.1 requires all compliance inspectors to complete annual 

refresher training in the three major training areas discussed in chapter 1. The 

EPA Credential and Inspector Training Policy Compendium outlines the specific 

curriculum for each inspection program. Specific requirements for RMProgram 

inspectors include: 

 Clean Air Act Confidential Business Information, Information Security 

Manual. 

 Risk Management Plan Basics and Techniques.9 

 Self-study/review of statutes/regulations and guidance/reference materials. 

 Review of a minimum of two completed inspection reports. 

 On-the-job training (conduct a minimum of three program inspections or 

audits with a senior inspector before leading an inspection). 

 Program-specific refresher training as identified by an inspector’s 

supervisor. 

Inspectors must maintain their training records and provide a copy to their first-line 

supervisors. Training records include training certificates and certifications of selfstudies and on-the-job training. According to a December 2009 OECA guidance 

document, all required training taken since the FY 2010 credentials reissuance cycle 

should be recorded in Train Trax, its successor system, or an appropriate alternative 

system. In April 2011, the Emergency Management Portal - Field Readiness Module 

replaced two databases, one of which was Train Trax. 

9

 Since June 2008, OEM has offered the 3.5-day Risk Management Program Inspector Training, which combined 

and updated the separate Risk Management Plan Basics and Risk Management Plan Techniques courses. 

13-P-0178 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During FY 2010, EPA had 45 RMProgram inspectors who were still RMProgram 

inspectors at the time of our inquiry. This included 26 EPA inspectors, 15 SEE 

inspectors, and four contractor inspectors. All 26 EPA inspectors were issued 

inspection credentials by OARM, and 11 of the 15 SEEs were issued regional 

inspection credentials. The remaining SEE inspectors and the four contractor 

inspectors were issued letters of authorization by their respective EPA regions to 

conduct inspections for EPA. 

Inspectors Issued Credentials Without Documentation That Minimum 

Training Requirements Were Met 

Fifteen of the 37 RMProgram credentialed inspectors nationwide were issued 

inspection credentials in 2010 without documentation showing that they met the 

minimum training requirements. Another three contractor inspectors had not taken 

all required training. Table 2 summarizes the missed and undocumented training. 

Table 2: Missing or undocumented inspector training requirements 

Employee 

type 

Missed or undocumented training Credentials 

issued without 

proper 

documentation 

Selfstudy 

Confidential 

business 

information 

Health 

and 

safety 

On-thejob 

training Other 

EPA x Y 

EPA x x Y 

EPA x x

3 Y 

EPA x x Y 

EPA x x Y 

EPA x Y 

EPA x x Y 

EPA x x Y 

EPA x x Y 

EPA x x Y 

EPA x Y 

EPA x Y 

EPA x Y 

SEE x Y1 

SEE x x Y1 

Contractor x x x x x NA2 

Contractor x x NA2 

Contractor x x NA2 

1

 SEE employees are issued regional credentials or letters of authorization. 2

 Contractors are issued regional letters of authorization. 

3

 Inspector did not take annual health and safety refresher in 2010 after he was issued credentials. 

Source: OIG-developed table based on analysis of training data. 

We contacted all 15 of the EPA and SEE inspectors and they indicated the 

following: 

	 Two inspectors confirmed they did not complete the training. 

	 Two inspectors said they could not get on-the-job training because they 

were pioneers in implementing the program, but they did not obtain an 

exemption from the requirement. 

13-P-0178 10 
 

 Four inspectors said they had completed the required training but had not 

documented it, and the undocumented training involved self-studies. 

 Four inspectors self-certified that they completed the required self-studies 

and/or on-the-job training about a year after their credentials were issued. 

	 Three inspectors provided a list of at least three inspections each of them 

had participated in as part of the on-the-job training requirement, 

something they did not do during the re-credentialing process in FY 2010. 

We also contacted one of the three contractors with missing or undocumented 

training; this contractor confirmed that he did not complete the required training. 

Program Refresher Requirements Need to Be Clarified 

Ten inspectors may not have met requirements for basic and program-specific 

refresher training, depending upon the interpretation of EPA Order 3500.1. These 

10 inspectors did not take basic or program-specific refresher training on an 

annual basis. Three regions interpreted EPA’s guidance to only require this 

training on an as-needed basis, while the other seven interpreted EPA’s guidance 

to require this training annually. A staffer in one region noted that guidance used 

phrases that he interpreted as meaning training was at the supervisor’s discretion. 

These phrases included “any necessary refresher” and “additional training 

necessary.” However, the guidance also used language that could be interpreted to 

require the training annually, such as “all compliance inspectors/field 

investigators, full-time or part-time, must complete annual refresher training. . . .” 

Half of Supervisors Missed Minimum Training Requirements 

Six of 12 first-line supervisors nationwide did not meet their minimum training 

requirements. These requirements are to be completed within 1 year of becoming 

a supervisor. Three more supervisors had not completed the training but were still 

within the first year of their supervisory position. Missed training included the 

environmental statutes review course and accompanying a lead inspector on an 

inspection. Two of the six supervisors were not aware of these two requirements. 

This training helps provide supervisors with the knowledge needed to evaluate the 

quality and completeness of inspection reports. 

Management Controls Did Not Ensure Completion of Required Training 

The Agency’s management controls over inspector training did not prevent or 

detect instances where inspectors and supervisors missed or did not record 

completion of training requirements. Weaknesses in management controls 

included: 

 Limitations in tracking systems for training. 

 Missing training provisions in contracts and cooperative agreements. 

13-P-0178 11 
 

 

 

 No designated responsibility for issuing credentials to contractor and 

SEE inspectors. 

 Lack of procedures to ensure supervisors meet training requirements. 

 No designated responsibility for auditing regional compliance with EPA 

Order 3500.1. 

Limitations in Tracking Systems for Training 

According to December 2009 OECA guidance, EPA regions should use Train 

Trax, its successor system (Emergency Management Portal - Field Readiness 

Module), or a comparable system to track training. Eight regions used the 

successor system, but we noted that the successor system had limitations that 

could hinder a region’s ability to accurately track inspector training against EPA 

requirements. Not all training requirements were populated in the system. In 

addition, email alerts were not sent to inspectors when impending due dates for 

training were approaching or training was overdue. Further, training certificates 

could not be uploaded into the system. OEM staff acknowledged the new 

system’s limitations and said they were in the process of correcting these 

deficiencies as of January 2013. 

Regions 5 and 6 used their own systems to track training. Region 6’s Superfund 

Division, which inspects smaller non-Title V program facilities, did not use a 

tracking system. We noted that Region 5’s system did not send email alerts to 

inspectors when impending due dates for training are approaching or training is 

overdue. The section chief for the Region 5 RMProgram stated that his division is 

working on establishing a comprehensive training documentation standard 

operating procedure that includes an annual reminder mechanism. 

Requirements Not Included in Contracts and Cooperative Agreements 

EPA Order 3500.1 requires EPA senior officials to ensure that inspector training 

requirements are included in extramural agreements for inspection services. All 

regions had extramural agreements to conduct RMProgram inspections during 

FYs 2009, 2010, and 2011. With the exception of Region 9’s contract, these 

agreements did not require compliance with EPA inspector training requirements. 

Six regions (1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10)10 had agreements for contractors to conduct 

inspections. Only Region 9’s contract included provisions requiring the contractor 

inspectors to meet EPA Order 3500.1 training requirements. Contracting officers 

and program personnel who helped develop contracts were not aware of EPA’s 

policy to include inspector training requirements in contracts. 

10 According to staff in Regions 1 and 10, their regions were not using contractors to lead RMProgram inspections at 

the time we finished our review in June 2012. Additionally, since November 9, 2011, Region 1 inspection support 

has been ordered from a Region 4 contract. 

13-P-0178 12 
 

 

Eight regions (1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) used SEE enrollees to conduct 

inspections, and each region had a cooperative agreement with a grantee. 

However, none of these agreements contained EPA Order 3500.1 training 

requirements. The agreements were supplemented with position descriptions, and 

regional offices generally included some training requirements in the position 

descriptions. However, Region 3 was the only region to require compliance with 

EPA Order 3500.1 training requirements in its SEE position descriptions. 

Responsibility for Issuing Credentials to Contractor and SEE 

Employees Not Addressed 

EPA’s policy is to present a credential to an official of the facility at the 

beginning of the inspection. EPA Order 3510 states that EPA credentials, which 

provide inspection authority, should be issued only to qualified individuals. This 

applies to both EPA and non-EPA employees. However, the order does not 

address the responsibility for issuing credentials to contractor or SEE inspectors. 

We found that no contractors or SEE enrollees were issued official EPA 

credentials as described in EPA Order 3510. SEEs were issued regional 

credentials or letters of authorization, and contractors were issued letters of 

authorization. EPA Order 3510 does not discuss regional credentials. Further, the 

order does not state that letters of authorization can be used in lieu of credentials. 

The order states that these letters are issued for on-the-job training, providing 

specialized expertise in the program area or emergency situations. 

EPA updated EPA Order 3510 in October 2012, establishing responsibilities for 

the issuance of credentials to SEEs and contractors. 

No Procedures for Ensuring First-Line Supervisors Meet Training 

Requirements 

EPA Order 3500.1 does not contain procedures for ensuring that first-line 

supervisors meet their training requirements. Three regions (2, 5, and 8) did not 

have a process for ensuring first-line supervisors meet training requirements. Also, 

in Region 6, two divisions conducted RMProgram inspections but one of those 

divisions did not have a process to ensure its supervisor met training requirements. 

Regions Have Not Audited Compliance With EPA Order 3500.1 

EPA Order 3500.1 requires each region to identify a single point-of-contact with 

responsibility for periodically auditing the region’s compliance with the order. 

However, eight regions had not designated an audit point of contact. Also, although 

Regions 4 and 10 had designated points of contact for auditing compliance with the 

order, no audits had been conducted as of May 2012. Further, the Agency had not 

issued guidance on how to conduct these audits and how frequently. 

13-P-0178 13 
 

 

Conclusions 

EPA’s management controls did not ensure RMProgram inspectors met minimum 

training requirements. If inspectors are not meeting minimum training 

requirements, EPA lacks assurance that its inspectors are conducting quality 

inspections that help to ensure facilities follow program requirements. These 

requirements are designed to prevent accidental releases of harmful chemicals and 

to ensure adequate responses to protect the public when such accidents occur. 

Given the hazards addressed by the RMProgram, inspector training also helps 

inspectors protect themselves from potentially dangerous exposures. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance: 

1. Revise the program-specific curriculum training for CAA 112(r) Risk 

Management Program inspectors to clarify the basic and program-specific 

inspector refresher requirements. 

2. Develop guidance for conducting compliance audits per EPA Order 

3500.1, ensure that each region designates a single point of contact 

responsible for auditing regional compliance with EPA Order 3500.1, and 

require periodic reporting of regional compliance with the order. 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and 

Resources Management: 

3. Strengthen controls over the credentials process to ensure that credentials 

are only issued to inspectors who demonstrate that they have met the 

minimum training requirements of EPA Order 3500.1. 

4. Amend existing cooperative agreements for SEE enrollee inspectors to 

require compliance with EPA Order 3500.1 and ensure that SEE enrollee 

position descriptions for RMProgram inspectors include the specific 

training requirements applicable to the position. 

5. Direct EPA Regions 2, 4, 7, and 10 to amend their contracts for inspection 

support to include provisions requiring contractor inspectors to meet EPA 

Order 3500.1 training requirements. 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response: 

6. Correct limitations in the Emergency Management Portal – Field 

Readiness Module training system, such as populating the system with a 

13-P-0178 14 
 

complete list of training requirements and enabling certificates to be 

uploaded into the system. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

OECA disagreed with our draft report’s recommendation 1 to revise EPA Order 

3500.1 to clarify the basic and program-specific refresher training requirements. 

Instead, OECA proposed an alternative correction action to revise the CAA 1112(r) 

RMProgram specific inspector training requirements to clarify refresher training 

requirements. OCEA plans to complete this action by February 28, 2013. We 

accept OCEA’s alternative action and have revised recommendation 1 of the final 

report to reflect the alternative corrective action. Accordingly, the recommendation 

is open pending completion of the corrective action. 

OECA agreed with the draft report’s recommendation 2. OECA proposed to 

develop a checklist to aid the regions in auditing the credential process. OCEA 

plans to complete this action and request regional points of contacts for this 

process by February 28, 2013. OECA stated that it anticipates the Agency’s larger 

Consistent Field Operations project will address periodic reporting of compliance 

with the credentials process. We confirmed that the Agency’s planned actions 

resulting from the Consistent Field Operations project and implementation of the 

Field Operations Guidelines meet the intent of the periodic reporting clause in our 

draft report recommendation 2. Thus, we consider recommendation 2 to be open 

pending completion of the first two parts of the recommendation. Appendix B 

contains OECA’s response to the draft report. 

OARM concurred with recommendations 3, 4, and 5. OARM stated that OECA’s 

planned corrective actions to address recommendation 2 will provide the necessary 

strengthening of the credentials process. OARM also stated that it will continue to 

validate that supervisors have signed the Credential Request Form. Thus, 

recommendation 3 is closed. OARM plans to complete recommendation 4 by June 

30, 2013. Recommendation 4 is open pending its completion. OARM agreed to 

complete corrective actions for recommendation 5 pending completion of certain 

actions by OCEA. Thus, recommendation 5 is unresolved pending receipt of a 

planned completion date. Appendix C contains OARM’s response to the draft 

report. 

OSWER concurred with recommendation 6 and indicated in its written response 

that the corrective actions were complete. However, in confirming whether the 

actions were completed, OSWER staff said that one of the system enhancements 

was not finished. Thus, the recommendation is unresolved pending receipt of a 

planned completion date for the remaining enhancement. Appendix D contains 

OSWER’s response to the draft report. 

13-P-0178 15 
 

Chapter 3

Limited Documentation and Oversight Prevented 

Assurance That Inspections Were Effective 

RMProgram inspection reports lacked information to demonstrate that effective 

inspections were conducted. In general, reports did not describe the scope of the 

inspection, such as what processes were reviewed. Further, reports did not explain 

the extent to which the inspectors reviewed specific elements of a process. Our 

onsite observations of two inspections indicated that procedures to verify 

implementation of the facility’s RMProgram activities were limited. EPA did not 

have a process for periodically monitoring the quality of inspections. Further, 

EPA inspection guidance did not provide minimum guidelines for the scope of 

inspections. Inspections are a critical Agency tool for ensuring that RMPrograms 

are implemented in accordance with regulations. A facility’s failure to follow 

program requirements could lead to accidental airborne releases of harmful 

chemicals, as well as an inadequate response to protect the public when such 

releases occur. 

EPA’s RMProgram Inspection Process 

All regions used inspection checklists to assist in conducting their RMProgram 

inspections. Appendix A lists the RMProgram elements included in EPA’s 

checklist for a program level 3 process. 

EPA’s RMProgram inspection guidance also provides recommended inspection 

activities. These activities range from document reviews to more detailed analyses 

and site verifications to determine whether a facility is implementing its program 

activities as described in its program documentation. EPA’s 1999 inspection 

guidance did not recommend employee interviews. However, the 2011 inspection 

guidance notes that to provide for an effective inspection and to assist in the 

collection and analysis of information, the inspector(s) may interview employees. 

The guidance explains that having an employee who works at the facility and has 

knowledge of the program participate in the inspection may assist the inspector(s) 

in evaluating compliance. The guidance states that special attention should be paid 

to comparing the facility’s RMP to policies and procedures actually implemented, 

especially for production or equipment changes. 

We reviewed 29 RMProgram inspection reports for compliance with EPA 

guidance. This included at least one report from each region. The inspections 

were conducted between July 2006 and August 2011. All of the reports were for 

inspections of high-risk facilities identified by OEM. 

13-P-0178 16 
 

Inspection Reports Lacked Details Demonstrating Effective Inspections 

We found it difficult to ascertain the scope of inspections based on the inspection 

reports. All regions used an inspection checklist. These checklists ask yes/no/not 

applicable and fill-in-the-blank questions. The inspection report narratives often 

did not explain what work was conducted to address the questions. Also, EPA’s 

inspection reports often did not include the reporting components recommended 

by guidance. The following table provides details on information not included in 

the 29 reports reviewed. 

Table 3: Information missing from inspection reports 

Description 

Number of reports without 

the information (out of 29) 

Facility emergency contact 23 

RMP initial submission date 28 

RMP updated submission date 21 

Reason for selecting facility 24 

Facility process identifications 25 

Inspector signature 12 

Employee interviews 24 

Approver signature 23 

Lead inspector name 22 

40 CFR Part 68 implementer contact information 22 

Source: Information developed by OIG based on analysis of EPA inspection reports. 

Regional staff told us that they did not include some of the facility and RMP 

information because it was available in documentation attached to the reports. 

However, we noted that some inspection reports of multiple process facilities did 

not identify the process IDs of the processes inspected. 

In June 2011, OEM started a review of inspection reports and identified problems 

consistent with what we identified. OEM found that: 

 Some reports contained few supporting facts and documentation. 

 Some reports contained facilities’ offsite consequence analysis data that 

should not be publicly disclosed. 

 Some reports included conclusive statements and recommendations 

outside of EPA’s authority. 

 Some inspections were performed by one inspector in a half day or less 

yet reportedly covered the entire inspection checklist. 

 Many inspection findings were based on the existence or completeness of 

required documentation rather than actual facility status or conditions. 

 Some reports suggested that inspectors were not reviewing the facility 

RMP prior to inspection. 

 Most reports did not describe the level of employee participation in the 

inspection. 

13-P-0178 17 
 

 

 

Of the 29 inspection reports reviewed, we selected 11 for more detailed analysis. 

We asked the inspectors of these 11 inspections for any information not included in 

the reports that provided the basis for their findings. In some cases we were able to 

determine the activities and analyses the inspectors conducted to provide the basis 

for their findings. This may have included reviews of supporting documents, such 

as maintenance records. These activities and analyses by the inspectors generally 

did not include physically verifying the maintenance work. Further, the additional 

documentation did not explain how and which activities or components of a process 

were selected for review. Thus, we could not determine the scope of the 

inspections. 

We also observed two onsite inspections—one at a level 3 facility and another at a 

level 2 facility—that were both included on OEM’s high-risk facility list. 

We noted that these inspections did not include interviews of non-management 

facility employees, and only included limited verification of the facilities’ 

implementation of its program. Regarding these two inspections: 

	 The program level 3 facility inspection was at a gas processing plant. The 

facility had experienced an accidental release in 2008 requiring the 

evacuation of 40 people. The facility had one RMProgram-covered 

process involving flammable mixtures and propane. This process 

contained approximately 100 vessels,11 each of which would be covered 

by certain program elements (for example, mechanical integrity). During 

the approximately 8 hours spent on site, the inspectors were able to obtain 

samples of documentation relating to six of these vessels and were able to 

inspect these vessels. Due to an emergency shutdown of the facility and 

evacuation of employees at the time of the inspection, the inspection team 

was unable to interview any employees. 

	 The program level 2 facility inspection was at a fertilizer manufacturing and 

wholesale facility. The facility had reported two covered processes 

involving anhydrous ammonia and aqueous ammonia. In 2008, the facility 

experienced an accidental release of ammonia. This accident resulted in 

medical treatment for four persons but no hospitalizations. During the 1-day 

inspection, the inspectors reviewed RMProgram records and toured the 

facility. This inspection identified a covered process that had not been 

included in the facility’s RMP. 

Documenting the scope of inspections helps in planning future inspections and 

assists national program management. Information on the scope of an inspection 

can aid an inspector when conducting a later inspection of the same facility. The 

inspector can use this information to select and review program processes and 

activities not reviewed during the prior inspection. The inspector can also use this 

11 Vessel is defined in 40 CFR §68.3 as any reactor, tank, drum, barrel, cylinder, vat, kettle, boiler, pipe, hose, or 

other container. 

13-P-0178 18 
 

 

information to follow up on problem areas and ensure that the facility corrected 

identified problems. Also, information on the scope of inspections could be useful 

for managers in providing national guidance. This information could help identify 

areas that need extra scrutiny or identify effective inspection activities. 

Oversight of Inspections Could Be Strengthened 

Management controls could be strengthened to provide better assurance that 

inspections are rigorous enough to detect program violations in important 

program elements, such as process hazard analysis and mechanical integrity. 

We identified three areas where controls could be strengthened: 

 Post-inspection monitoring. 

 Supervisory oversight. 

 Guidance to address inspection scope and reporting requirements. 

Post-Inspection Monitoring Program 

Neither headquarters nor the regions had implemented regular post-inspection 

monitoring programs to review and assess the quality of inspections and 

inspection reports against established procedures and guidance. OEM initiated a 

first-time assessment of inspection reports to determine inspection compliance 

with RMProgram inspection guidance about 1 week prior to OIG’s announcement 

of our evaluation. OEM reviewed approximately five reports from each region. 

The results of OEM’s review were consistent with the results of our review. 

OEM’s findings demonstrate the benefits of periodic review. 

Supervisor Oversight 

EPA Order 3500.1 states that first-line supervisors can ensure the quality of 

inspections through the use of performance standards, reviewing inspection 

reports, and accompanying inspectors. However, only six regions had a first-line 

supervisor accompany inspectors on an inspection, and this was not a regular 

exercise in any of these regions. In general, the regions told us inspection reports 

were reviewed by peers, supervisors, or enforcement coordinators. Reports in 

eight regions were not signed by a reviewer or approver. 

Additional Guidance on Inspection Scope and Reporting 

EPA guidance states that the scope of the inspections should be determined by the 

region, but does not provide minimum guidelines for the scope of inspections. 

Further, guidance does not specifically require inspection reports to explain the 

methodology inspectors used to select processes and related activities for review 

during an inspection. 

13-P-0178 19 
 

 

 

The size and complexity of facilities covered by the program vary greatly. For 

example, a dairy may only have one process subject to RMProgram requirements, 

while an oil refinery can have over 30 processes subject to those requirements. 

As the elements of the program apply to each covered process, a multi-process 

facility essentially represents several programs. Inspector resources and time 

needed to conduct a quality inspection at these different facilities would therefore 

vary accordingly. At larger facilities in particular, inspectors may have to select a 

sample of processes to review. Within each program element for that process, the 

inspectors would need to sample certain activities for detailed review and 

verification. Information on the inspector’s methodology is critical to determining 

the extent to which a facility’s program was inspected and whether the inspection 

was rigorous enough to detect and prevent potential violations. 

We analyzed the time spent onsite for the 29 inspections. Based on information 

provided in the inspection reports, we calculated the number of inspector hours 

spent onsite at the facility.12 The average time spent at the facility by an inspector 

was 12 hours; the average number of inspector hours (inspectors multiplied by 

hours at the facility) was 29 hours. 

Larger and more complex facilities are generally included on EPA’s list of highrisk facilities and need more time to inspect. National program guidance for 

FYs 2010 through 2012 required regions to inspect at least 5 percent of all their 

RMProgram facilities with a nationwide target of 578 for FY 2012. In addition, 

program guidance increased the number of inspections at high-risk facilities. The 

expected number of inspections at high-risk facilities was 10 percent of all 

inspections for FY 2010 and increased to 25 percent for FYs 2011 and 2012. 

Assuming that current inspection resources are being effectively used, it is 

unlikely that regions can spend more time inspecting high-risk facilities and 

continue to meet an overall program goal to inspect 5 percent of all facilities each 

year. EPA plans to reduce the overall inspection target for FY 2013 to 500, with 

30 percent at high-risk facilities. According to OEM management, if requested 

budget increases are not approved, they plan to reduce the target to 460 while 

maintaining the 30-percent target for high-risk facilities. An increase in funding 

would represent a change in recent years’ trends. Combined Emergency Planning 

and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) and RMProgram funding has 

declined since FY 2009. Table 4 shows the regions’ combined RMProgram and 

EPCRA budgets for FYs 2009–2011.13 

12 Many reports did not include starting and ending times. To be conservative in our estimates, we counted these 

inspections as lasting 8 hours. However, our observations and other documentation indicate that some 1-day
 

inspections do not include 8 hours at the facility. 

13 EPA’s budget combines funding for the EPCRA and RMPrograms.
 

13-P-0178 20 
 

 

Table 4: EPA regions’ combined RMProgram and EPCRA budgets 

Fiscal 

year 

Budget 

(in $000s) 

Budget change from 

previous year 

Percent budget 

change from 

previous year 

2009 $6,492 N/A N/A 

2010 $6,284 (208) (3.2) 

2011 $6,095 (189) (3.0) 

Source: OIG analysis of budget figures obtained from OEM. 

Conclusions 

EPA should strengthen its program guidance and oversight to ensure that it 

conducts effective inspections at program facilities. We found that inspection 

reports lacked information on the scope of the inspection. An effective inspection 

program is a critical EPA tool for ensuring compliance with program regulations 

and decreasing the risk of airborne releases of harmful chemicals that could 

impact the public. It is important that EPA conduct effective inspections at 

facilities covered under the RMProgram because of the potential consequences of 

noncompliance with the program requirements. A facility’s failure to follow 

program requirements could lead to accidental releases of harmful chemicals 

and/or inadequate responses to protect the public when such accidents occur. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response coordinate with the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance to: 

7. Revise inspection guidance to recommend minimum inspection scope for 

the various types of facilities covered under the program and provide more 

detailed examples of minimum reporting. 

8. Develop and implement an inspection monitoring and oversight program to 

better manage and assess the quality of program inspections, reports, 

supervisory oversight, and compliance with inspection guidance. 

9. Analyze national program measures to assess whether the number of 

required inspections should be modified to allow more time for inspecting 

larger and more complex high-risk facilities. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

OSWER generally agreed with this chapter’s findings and recommendations. 

OSWER noted that the corrective actions to implement our draft report’s 

recommendations 7, 8, and 9 require coordinated effort between OSWER and 

OECA. Thus, we have revised the recommendation in our final report to 

13-P-0178 21 
 

 

acknowledge OECA’s role. OSWER’s response suggested that we combine 

recommendations 7 and 8 and offered revisions to recommendation 9 to fully 

address the findings in our report. We agreed with these suggestions and 

combined our draft report recommendations 7 and 8 into final report 

recommendation 7. We also revised draft recommendation 9, which is now 

recommendation 8 in the final report. Draft report recommendation 10 is now 

recommendation 9 in the final report. OSWER provided estimated completion 

dates for actions that meet the intent of our final report recommendations 7 and 8. 

Thus recommendations 7 and 8 are open pending completion of the planned 

actions. Recommendation 9 is unresolved pending receipt of a planned 

completion date for the corrective action. 

13-P-0178 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

RECOMMENDATIONS POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Planned 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed-To 

Amount 

1 14 Revise the program-specific curriculum training for CAA 

112(r) Risk Management Program inspectors to clarify the 

basic and program-specific inspector refresher requirements. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

2/28/13 

2 14 Develop guidance for conducting compliance audits per 

EPA Order 3500.1, ensure that each region designates a 

single point of contact responsible for auditing regional 

compliance with EPA Order 3500.1, and require periodic 

reporting of regional compliance with the order. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

2/28/13 

3 14 Strengthen controls over the credentials process to ensure 

that credentials are only issued to inspectors who 

demonstrate that they have met the minimum training 

requirements of EPA Order 3500.1. 

C Assistant Administrator for 

Administration and 

Resources Management 

1/11/13 

4 14 Amend existing cooperative agreements for SEE enrollee 

inspectors to require compliance with EPA Order 3500.1 

and ensure that SEE enrollee position descriptions for 

RMProgram inspectors include the specific training 

requirements applicable to the position. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Administration and 

Resources Management 

6/30/13 

5 14 Direct EPA Regions 2, 4, 7, and 10 to amend their 

contracts for inspection support to include provisions 

requiring contractor inspectors to meet EPA Order 3500.1 

training requirements. 

U Assistant Administrator for 

Administration and 

Resources Management 

6 14 Correct limitations in the Emergency Management Portal – 

Field Readiness Module training system, such as 

populating the system with a complete list of training 

requirements and enabling certificates to be uploaded into 

the system. 

U Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

7 21 Coordinate with the Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to revise 

inspection guidance to recommend minimum inspection 

scope for the various types of facilities covered under the 

program and provide more detailed examples of minimum 

reporting. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

7/31/14 

8 21 Coordinate with the Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to develop and 

implement an inspection monitoring and oversight program 

to better manage and assess the quality of program 

inspections, reports, supervisory oversight, and compliance 

with inspection guidance. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

9/30/14 

9 21 Coordinate with the Assistant Administrator for U Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to analyze 

national program measures to assess whether the number 

of required inspections should be modified to allow more 

time for inspecting larger and more complex high-risk 

facilities. 

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress 

13-P-0178 23 

1 
 

 

Appendix A 

Description of RMProgram Elements 

RMProgram 

element General description of program element requirements 

Management Management system to oversee implementation of the program elements. 

Hazard 

Assessment 

Assessment to determine the potential hazards presented by the covered process. Include 

worst-case release scenarios, offsite consequences analysis, and 5-year accident history. 

Prevention 

Program: 

Process Safety 

Information 

Includes information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced 

by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information 

pertaining to the equipment in the process. 

Process Hazard 

Analysis 

Identify, evaluate, and control the hazards involved in the process. Update and re-evaluate at 

least every 5 years. 

Operating 

Procedures 

Written procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in 

each covered process consistent with the process safety information 

Training Each employee involved in operating a process, and each employee before being involved in 

operating a newly assigned process, shall be trained in an overview of the process and in the 

operating procedures. 

Mechanical 

Integrity 

Applies to certain process equipment such as storage vessels, piping, and vents. Establish 

and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment. 

Management of 

Change 

Establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, 

technology, equipment, and procedures; and changes to stationary sources that affect a 

covered process. 

Pre-Start Up 

Review 

Required safety review when new stationary sources are built and existing stationary sources 

are modified and the modification is significant enough to require a change in the process 

safety information. 

Compliance 

Audits 

Evaluate facility compliance with the RMProgram at least every 3 years to verify that 

procedures and practices are adequate and are being followed. 

Incident 

Investigation 

Investigate each incident that resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, a catastrophic 

release of a regulated substance. 

Employee 

Participation 

Develop a written plan of action for implementing employee participation requirements. 

Employees and their representatives shall be consulted on the conduct and development of 

process hazards analyses and on the development of the other elements of process safety 

management. Employees provided with access to process hazard analyses and to all other 

information required under the RMProgram. 

Hot Work Permit Must issue permit for hot work conducted on or near a covered process. Permit shall 

document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in 29 CFR 1910.252(a) have 

been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations. 

Contractors Obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner’s or operator’s safety 

performance and programs when hiring a contractor to work on or near a covered process. 

Emergency 

Response 

For facilities where employees will respond to accidental releases. Develop and implement 

an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the 

environment. 

Source: OIG analysis of checklists and 40 CFR Part 68. 

13-P-0178 24 
 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

OECA Response to Draft Report 

December 21, 2012 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Response to Draft Report: Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight 

for Risk Management Program (RMP) Inspections, Project No. OPE-FY11-

0012 

FROM: Cynthia Giles 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

TO: Carolyn Copper 

Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation 

This memorandum is in response to the Draft Report: Improvements Needed in EPA Training 

and Oversight for Risk Management Program (RMP) Inspections, Project No. OPE-FYII-0012 

(Draft Report) issued on November 29, 2012, by the Office of the inspector General (OIG). We 

appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Report and respond to the 

recommendations directed to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). 

With respect to the factual accuracy of the Draft Report, recommendation #2 on page 20 

references "EPA Order 3510." The correct reference should be "EPA Order 3500.1." We have 

confirmed with Rick Beusse, Director, Office of Program Evaluation, OIG that this was a 

typographical error. 

With respect to the two recommendations for which OECA was designated the "Action official", 

we offer the following response and proposed corrective actions: 

Recommendation 1: Revise EPA Order 3500.1 to clarify training requirements for basic 

and program-specific refresher training. 

OECA Response: OECA does not concur with this recommendation. OECA does not 

agree that the language in EPA Order 3500.1 is ambiguous regarding refresher training 

requirements, or that revisions to the Order are necessary. However, OECA agrees that 

clarity on the basic and program-specific refresher training requirements for the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) 112(r) Risk Management Program (RMP) can be provided via revisions 

to the CAA 112(r) RMP program specific inspector training requirements. OECA will 

complete these revisions by February 28, 2013. 

13-P-0178 25 
 

Recommendation 2: Develop guidance for conducting compliance audits per EPA Order 

3500.1, ensure that each region designates a single point of contact responsible for 

auditing regional compliance with EPA Order 3500.1, and require periodic reporting of 

regional compliance with the Order. 

OECA Response: OECA concurs with the recommendation to develop guidance and 

ensure that each region designates a single point of contact. However, instead of guidance 

for conducting audits per EPA Order 3500.1, OECA will commit to developing a 

checklist for the regions to assist them as they audit their inspection credential programs. 

OECA will develop the checklist, and request the single points of contact by February 28, 

2013. With respect to periodic reporting of regional compliance with the Order, OECA 

anticipates that this issue will be addressed as part of the larger Agency Consistent Field 

Operations (CFO) effort that has been charged by the EPA Deputy Administrator to be 

led by the [Consistent Field Operations] CFO workgroup. A specific task of the 

[Consistent Field Operations] CFO workgroup involves ensuring implementation of, and 

ongoing compliance with, Field Operations Group (FOG) guidelines, including 

guidelines for inspector training and qualifications. 

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this response, please contact Gwendolyn 

Spriggs, the OECA Audit Liaison, at 202-564-2439. 

Attachment 

cc: Lisa Lund, OECA/OC 

Susan Shinkman, OECA/OCE 

Mamie Miller, OECA/OC 

Lauren Kabler, OECA/OCE 

Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA/OAP 

Mathy Stanislaus, OSWER 

Johnsie Webster, OSWER 

Craig Hooks, OARM 

Bernie Davis, OARM 

Rick Beusse, OIG 

13-P-0178 26 
 

 

Appendix C 

OARM Response to Draft Report 

January 11, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Response to Draft Report: Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight 

for Risk Management Program Inspections 

FROM: Craig E. Hooks 

Assistant Administrator 

TO: Carolyn Copper, Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation 

Office of Inspector General 

The Office of Administration and Resources Management appreciates the opportunity to review 

and provide comments to the above cited November 29, 2012, report, Project No. OPE-FY11 - 

0012). For clarification purposes, EPA Order 3510, most recently dated 10/31/2012, should be 

cited in the report rather than 3500.1. Responses to recommendations 3, 4 and 5 addressed to 

OARM are provided below: 

Recommendation 3: "Strengthen controls over the credentials process to ensure that credentials 

are only issued to inspectors who demonstrate that they have met the minimum training 

requirements of EPA Order 3500.1." 

Response: OARM agrees with this recommendation although it should be directed to OECA, 

which, in their response to recommendation 2, committed to developing a checklist for use by 

headquarters and regional programs to assist in auditing their inspection credential programs and 

ensuring proper documentation and completion certification of inspector training requirements 

prior to requesting a new or reissued credential. OARM will continue the practice of validating 

that a supervisor has signed the Credential Request Form, which not only verifies that the 

employee has completed the training, but that the credential is necessary for their job 

performance and which credential is being authorized. This is consistent with our responsibilities 

as stated on page 7 of order 3510: "OARM will provide EPA employees a credential only after 

verification by the employee's supervisor that they have completed all required training ...” 

Recommendation 4: "Amend existing cooperative agreements for SEE enrollee inspectors to 

require compliance with EPA Order 3500.1 and ensure that SEE enrollee position descriptions 

for RMProgram inspectors include the specific training requirements applicable to the position.” 

13-P-0178 27 
 

Response: OARM agrees with this recommendation. To ensure compliance with order 3510, by 

June 30, 2013, OARM's Office of Human Resources will amend all existing SEE cooperative 

agreements to require that SEE enrollee position descriptions for inspectors include a 

requirement that all EPA-required training applicable to the position be listed in the position 

description. 

Recommendation 5: "Direct EPA Regions 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 to amend their contracts for 

inspection support to include provisions requiring contractor inspectors to meet EPA Order 

3500.1 training requirements." 

Response: OARM agrees with this recommendation. In order 3510, page 6, section 4g, OECA is 

responsible for establishing requirements for non-EPA written agreements, including contract 

statements of work and contracts. After these requirements are developed, OARM can 

collaborate with the regions to ensure the contracts are modified. 

If you have any questions about these responses, OARM's points of contact are: 

recommendation 3: Diane Dixon, Security Management Division - (202) 564-2154; 

recommendation 4: Yvette Carter, Office of Human Resources- (202) 564-7896; and 

recommendation 5: Lisa Maass, Office of Acquisition Management- (202) 564-2498. 

cc: Cynthia Giles, OECA 

Lawrence Starfield, OECA 

John Bashista, OAM 

Susan Kantrowitz, OHR 

Renee Page, OA 

John Showman, OPRM 

13-P-0178 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 

OSWER Response to Draft Report 

January 16, 2013 

SUBJECT:	 OSWER Response to the OIG Draft Evaluation Report, “Improvements Needed 

in EPA Training and Oversight for Risk Management Program Inspections” 

FROM: Mathy Stanislaus 

 Assistant Administrator 

TO:	 Carolyn Copper 

Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft OIG Evaluation Report, 

“Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight for Risk Management Program 

Inspections”. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has completed its 

review and concurs with the proposed recommendations specific to OSWER. Additionally, we 

have made several specific editorial comments on the factual accuracy and content of the 

recommendations in the draft report, which we have included in the attached copy of the report. 

On the whole, we agree with the findings and recommendations discussed in the report. For the 

past several years we have been working in close coordination with the Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance (OECA) on several of these issues. It is encouraging that the findings 

in the report show we are moving in the right direction and we will continue working to further 

improve the implementation of the Risk Management Program. Below is our response to the 

recommendations. 

In Chapter 2, recommendation 6 states: 

6.	 Correct limitations in the Emergency Management Portal – Field Readiness 

Module training system, such as populating the system with a complete list of 

training requirements and enabling certificates to be uploaded into the system. 

This recommendation was completed in September 2012. 

In Chapter 3, recommendations 7 - 10 state: 

7. Revise inspection guidance to recommend minimum inspection scope for the 

various types of facilities covered under the program. 

8. Expand guidance on reporting to provide more detailed examples of minimum 

reporting. 

13-P-0178 29 
 

 

9. Develop a post-inspection monitoring program to assess the quality of program 

inspections and compliance with inspection guidance. 

10. In coordination with OECA, analyze national program measures to assess whether 

the number of required inspections should be modified to allow more time for 

inspecting larger and more complex high-risk facilities. 

OSWER will continue to work closely with OECA in developing appropriate policies, 

procedures, and guidance to implement these recommendations. For recommendations 7 and 8, 

OSWER and OECA will work with the Regions to develop draft guidance by December 2013, 

which specifies minimum inspection scope and examples for various types of inspections to 

assist Regions in focusing their limited resources on the most significant issues at facilities. 

Based on discussions with and reviews by the Regions, a final guidance will be published in July 

2014. 

For recommendation 9, OSWER and OECA are working with the Regions to identify key 

components of a repository of inspection reports in order to better ensure and assess the quality 

of RMP inspections. This repository system will be developed by the end of FY2014 and piloted 

with the Regions in FY2015. During the pilot, a process will be developed and implemented to 

review and assess the quality of the inspections and reports against established procedures and 

guidance. 

We would also like to point out that our office has been, and will continue to, work closely with 

OECA as we analyze and assess the national RMP program measures as per your 

recommendation 10. Specifically, OSWER and OECA jointly have revised their National 

Program Manager Guidance each year to reduce the overall number of RMP inspections while 

increasing the percentage of high risk inspections in order to ensure the Regions have the 

resources and time to inspect these more complex, higher risk facilities. We are also providing 

more in-depth, technical training to our inspectors related to the types of high risk facilities they 

will be inspecting. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our responses to the recommendations in this 

report. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Kim Jennings at (202) 564-7998. 

Attachment 

13-P-0178 30 
 

 

 

Appendix E 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the Chief Financial Officer) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management 

13-P-0178 31