The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in need of significant improvements in the implementation of the agency's Risk Management Program, according to a new report from the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG report highlights the need for greater accountability for the Clean Air Act program. However, EPA has refused to provide program data online, reducing the public's ability to ensure the safety of vulnerable communities.

The Risk Management Program requires various facilities around the country to file a Risk Management Plan (RMP). It was created by an amendment to the Clean Air Act in 1996, and it is designed "to reduce the likelihood of airborne chemical releases that could harm the public, and mitigate the consequences of releases that do occur."

The OIG identified two major concerns with the program. First, the agency has no procedures for identifying which facilities have not submitted or re-submitted their RMPs. Second, EPA's inspection process is not strong enough to provide assurance that facilities are complying with program requirements.

An analysis of facilities in Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Oklahoma with large quantities of regulated chemicals stored on-site found that 48 out of 62 high-risk facilities that may be subject to the Risk Management Program had not filed RMPs. Moreover, about five percent of covered facilities had not updated their RMPs, as is required every five years. The OIG found that EPA had no national procedures or timelines to identify non-filers. Unless addressed, this failure of the program will likely result in some facilities never filing RMPs or taking needed actions to prevent or mitigate accidents.

The OIG also found that more than half of the high-risk facilities have never been inspected. The report notes that 162 high-risk facilities, each impacting more than 100,000 people in the event of a worst-case chemical accident, have never been inspected by EPA officials. This oversight was attributed to the structure of the program. Most states rejected delegation of the program (only nine states administer the program inside their respective jurisdictions), so EPA must ensure compliance for the overwhelming majority of facilities nationwide. Due to limited resources, a low number of EPA inspectors, and other logistical difficulties, it has been impossible for EPA to inspect every site. OIG proposes EPA adopt a risk-based approach to inspections so that high-risk facilities receive priority. EPA is now working on solutions to follow through on these recommendations and anticipates completion by the end of 2009.

Under the Risk Management Program, facilities that contain more than 140 regulated toxic and flammable substances are required to submit a 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 are also required to implement prevention and emergency response programs, as well as an in-house mechanism to ensure implementation. Additional requirements are placed on facilities depending on the magnitude of their worst-case assessments.

The OIG report does not identify specific facilities that have failed to submit RMPs. A management failure of the program not addressed in the OIG report is the EPA's lack of online disclosure of the plans. The agency removed the plans from its website shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Despite rulemaking changes reportedly designed to re-establish online access, the plans remain offline. EPA's public access is limited to in-person visits to regional reading rooms. Each individual is limited to viewing ten RMPs a month and may take handwritten notes, but is otherwise prohibited from copying the documents or removing them from the reading room. The only remaining online access for RMP information is the Right-to-Know Network at rtknet.org, a collection of environmental databases operated by OMB Watch. OMB Watch secured access to RMP information as a result of legal action two years ago under the Freedom of Information Act and provides access to all sections of the RMPs except for the Off-Site Consequence Analysis portion, also known as the Worst Case Scenario, which is prohibited from being distributed electronically.

Failure to disclose this information diminishes accountability both of facilities and of the agency overseeing the program. Public disclosure of government information creates pressure on agencies to properly carry out their responsibilities in implementing programs such as the Risk Management Program. When the disclosure is stopped or strongly curtailed, the government also eliminates a significant driver for strong program management. Broader public disclosure of RMPs might have brought some of the problems discovered in the OIG report to light sooner. Withholding emergency response plans also defeats the purpose of the entire program – to better protect the public from possible chemical emergencies. Emergency plans are useless if not disseminated to the public before an emergency.