Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks
More Complete Facility Data Could Improve Implementation of EPA's Spill Prevention Program Gao ID: GAO-08-482 April 30, 2008Oil leaks from aboveground tanks have contaminated soil and water, threatening human health and wildlife. To prevent damage from oil spills, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule in 1973. EPA's 10 regions inspect oil storage facilities to ensure compliance with the rule. EPA estimates that about 571,000 facilities are subject to this rule. Some states also regulate oil storage tanks. GAO determined (1) how EPA regions implement the SPCC program, (2) the data EPA has to implement and evaluate the program, and (3) whether some states' tank programs suggest ways for EPA to improve its program. GAO surveyed all 10 EPA regions and interviewed officials in EPA and six states selected on the basis of experts' recommendations, among other criteria.
EPA allows regional offices flexibility to implement the SPCC program according to their individual circumstances. These differences account, at least in part, for regional variations in the number of SPCC inspections. According to GAO's survey, during fiscal years 2004 through 2006, EPA regions conducted 3,359 SPCC inspections--less than 1 percent of EPA's estimate of SPCC facilities--ranging from 184 in Region 10 to 745 in Region 6. Furthermore, because of regional differences in the number of inspections and the enforcement mechanisms used, the number of SPCC enforcement actions also varied. While EPA allows regional flexibility, it has begun implementing SPCC policies and procedures to promote consistency in how the SPCC regulations are interpreted and enforced. EPA has information on only a portion of the facilities subject to the SPCC rule, hindering its ability to identify and effectively target facilities for inspection and enforcement, and to evaluate whether the program is achieving its goals. Because facilities subject to the SPCC rule do not have to report to EPA, the agency can only estimate the universe of SPCC-regulated facilities and must try to identify them through such means as oil spill data, state referrals, and Internet searches. Through inspections, EPA determines if the facility is subject to the rule. While inspections of known SPCC facilities are generally risk-based, the risk assessments exclude the large number of estimated SPCC facilities that have not yet been identified and that may pose more serious threats than those currently targeted for inspection. EPA is developing a national database to promote standard data collection across regions and expand the facility information available to regional managers. However, this database is limited to previously inspected facilities and will not enable EPA to identify SPCC facilities beyond those already known. Ultimately, incomplete information on which facilities are subject to the SPCC rule, and where and how often leaks may occur, prevents EPA from effectively targeting inspections to facilities that potentially pose the highest risks. Furthermore, EPA does not have performance measures to examine the program's effectiveness. EPA is developing additional measures, but without more complete data on the SPCC-regulated universe, these measures cannot gauge the program's accomplishments. The tank inspection programs of Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Virginia can provide EPA with insight on potential improvements to the SPCC program. For example, five of the six states use tank registration and reporting systems to collect data on oil storage facilities, giving them information on the universe of facilities subject to state regulations. These states can therefore inspect all their facilities or target those they believe present the highest risks of spills. By taking a similar approach, EPA would have more complete data for setting inspection priorities based on risk. Furthermore, because these states have detailed knowledge of their facilities, EPA could benefit from increased coordination with them, when, for example, it identifies facilities and targets inspections.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-482, Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: More Complete Facility Data Could Improve Implementation of EPA's Spill Prevention Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-482
entitled 'Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: More Complete Facility Data
Could Improve Implementation of EPA's Spill Prevention Program' which
was released on May 30, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2008:
Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks:
More Complete Facility Data Could Improve Implementation of EPA's Spill
Prevention Program:
Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks:
GAO-08-482:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-482, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Oil leaks from aboveground tanks have contaminated soil and water,
threatening human health and wildlife. To prevent damage from oil
spills, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule in 1973. EPA‘s 10
regions inspect oil storage facilities to ensure compliance with the
rule. EPA estimates that about 571,000 facilities are subject to this
rule. Some states also regulate oil storage tanks.
GAO determined (1) how EPA regions implement the SPCC program, (2) the
data EPA has to implement and evaluate the program, and (3) whether
some states‘ tank programs suggest ways for EPA to improve its program.
GAO surveyed all 10 EPA regions and interviewed officials in EPA and
six states selected on the basis of experts‘ recommendations, among
other criteria.
What GAO Found:
EPA allows regional offices flexibility to implement the SPCC program
according to their individual circumstances. These differences account,
at least in part, for regional variations in the number of SPCC
inspections. According to GAO‘s survey, during fiscal years 2004
through 2006, EPA regions conducted 3,359 SPCC inspections”less than 1
percent of EPA‘s estimate of SPCC facilities”ranging from 184 in Region
10 to 745 in Region 6. Furthermore, because of regional differences in
the number of inspections and the enforcement mechanisms used, the
number of SPCC enforcement actions also varied. While EPA allows
regional flexibility, it has begun implementing SPCC policies and
procedures to promote consistency in how the SPCC regulations are
interpreted and enforced.
EPA has information on only a portion of the facilities subject to the
SPCC rule, hindering its ability to identify and effectively target
facilities for inspection and enforcement, and to evaluate whether the
program is achieving its goals. Because facilities subject to the SPCC
rule do not have to report to EPA, the agency can only estimate the
universe of SPCC-regulated facilities and must try to identify them
through such means as oil spill data, state referrals, and Internet
searches. Through inspections, EPA determines if the facility is
subject to the rule. While inspections of known SPCC facilities are
generally risk-based, the risk assessments exclude the large number of
estimated SPCC facilities that have not yet been identified and that
may pose more serious threats than those currently targeted for
inspection. EPA is developing a national database to promote standard
data collection across regions and expand the facility information
available to regional managers. However, this database is limited to
previously inspected facilities and will not enable EPA to identify
SPCC facilities beyond those already known. Ultimately, incomplete
information on which facilities are subject to the SPCC rule, and where
and how often leaks may occur, prevents EPA from effectively targeting
inspections to facilities that potentially pose the highest risks.
Furthermore, EPA does not have performance measures to examine the
program‘s effectiveness. EPA is developing additional measures, but
without more complete data on the SPCC-regulated universe, these
measures cannot gauge the program‘s accomplishments.
The tank inspection programs of Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Jersey, New Mexico, and Virginia can provide EPA with insight on
potential improvements to the SPCC program. For example, five of the
six states use tank registration and reporting systems to collect data
on oil storage facilities, giving them information on the universe of
facilities subject to state regulations. These states can therefore
inspect all their facilities or target those they believe present the
highest risks of spills. By taking a similar approach, EPA would have
more complete data for setting inspection priorities based on risk.
Furthermore, because these states have detailed knowledge of their
facilities, EPA could benefit from increased coordination with them,
when, for example, it identifies facilities and targets inspections.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that EPA (1) analyze options for obtaining data on SPCC-
regulated facilities, including a tank registration program; (2)
develop guidance for EPA regions on how to better coordinate with
states on SPCC issues; and (3) finish developing performance measures
and obtain data to evaluate SPCC program effectiveness. In commenting
on a draft of this report, EPA generally agreed with GAO‘s
recommendations and provided a number of technical comments that have
been incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-482]. For more information,
contact John B Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter1:
Results in Brief:
Background:
EPA Allows Regional Offices Flexibility in Implementing the SPCC
Program while Taking Steps to Promote Consistency when Needed:
EPA Has Limited Information for Implementing and Evaluating the SPCC
Program:
States Report That Registration Requirements Lead to More Effective
Tank Program Management and That Better EPA-State Coordination Efforts
Would Be Beneficial:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary of EPA Regional Survey Results:
Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 Operational Budgets for Oil Spill
Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Infrastructure, by Region:
Table 2: Staffing and SPCC-Related Activities, Fiscal Year 2006:
Table 3: Summary of States' Aboveground Storage Tank Program
Requirements and Activities:
Figures:
Figure 1: EPA Regions:
Figure 2: Number of SPCC Facilities Inspected, Fiscal Years 2004
through 2006:
Figure 3: Percentage of Facilities Inspected in Fiscal Year 2006 That
Were Not in Compliance with SPCC Regulations:
Figure 4: Training Level of Inspectors Who Inspected at Least One
Facility, Fiscal Year 2006:
Abbreviations:
ASTSWMO: Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
ESA: Expedited Settlement Agreement:
FRP: Facility Response Plan:
GIS: geographic information system:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System:
NRC: National Response Center:
OECA: Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:
OEM: Office of Emergency Management:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OSCARS: On-Scene Coordinators Area Response System:
SPCC: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 30, 2008:
The Honorable Barbara Boxer:
Chairman:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Arlen Specter:
United States Senate:
Industrial and other facilities store billions of gallons of oil--from
petroleum products to vegetable-based cooking oils--in aboveground
storage tanks at various locations throughout the United States. These
tanks have sometimes leaked oil that may migrate into soil, nearby
waterways, and groundwater, potentially threatening human health,
wildlife, and the environment. To prevent certain oil spills, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority of the Clean
Water Act, issued the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
(SPCC) rule in 1973. The SPCC rule, as amended, requires each owner or
operator of a regulated facility to prepare and implement a plan that
describes how the facility is designed, operated, and maintained to
prevent oil discharges into or upon U.S. navigable waters and adjoining
shorelines. The plan must also include measures to control, contain,
clean up, and mitigate the effects of these discharges.
EPA estimated that in 2005, about 571,000 facilities in a variety of
industry sectors, such as oil and gas production, petroleum bulk
storage, farming, electric utilities, and manufacturing, are regulated
under the SPCC rule. Facilities are subject to the rule if they (1) are
non-transportation-related, (2) have a total oil storage capacity of
greater than 1,320 gallons in aboveground oil storage containers or a
total oil storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons in completely
buried storage tanks, and (3) could reasonably be expected, due to
their location, to discharge harmful quantities of oil into or upon
U.S. navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.[Footnote 1] According to
EPA, while some underground storage tanks are regulated under the SPCC
rule, the majority of the regulated facilities consist of aboveground
tanks.[Footnote 2]
In 1974, EPA initiated the SPCC program to administer the rule. EPA
directly administers the SPCC program, in contrast to some other EPA
programs, which the agency authorizes the states to implement. The
Clean Water Act does not provide EPA with the authority to authorize
states to implement the program in its place. To ensure that facility
owners and operators are meeting SPCC requirements, EPA regional
personnel inspect regulated facilities to determine their compliance
with regulations. EPA's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) support the regions by
developing and amending SPCC regulations and compliance assistance
materials, providing general guidance on how to conduct inspections and
enforcement actions, facilitating communication and coordination among
regions, and conducting research on the incidence of oil spills,
cleanups, and environmental harm. OEM and OECA provide general guidance
to regional offices on how to implement the SPCC program, and regional
offices decide which facilities to inspect and when and how to proceed
with administrative or civil judicial enforcement actions consistent
with national guidance.
In 1989, we reported that certain areas of the SPCC program lacked
either the necessary data or procedures to ensure consistent and
effective program implementation and recommended ways to strengthen the
program.[Footnote 3] Among other actions, we recommended that EPA (1)
develop an inventory of aboveground oil storage facilities because it
had little information on facilities that might be regulated by the
SPCC rule and (2) provide uniform instructions to its regions for
conducting and documenting inspections at SPCC facilities. In 1995, we
reported that EPA had taken steps to address these recommendations but
had not fully implemented them.[Footnote 4]
While EPA is solely responsible for ensuring that facilities comply
with SPCC regulations, a number of states have established their own
parallel regulations and programs whose goal--preventing leaks from
aboveground oil storage tanks--is similar to that of the SPCC program.
These programs may differ from EPA's program in type and extent of
regulations and in their implementation. For example, while EPA's
program regulates those facilities that could discharge quantities of
oil into or upon U.S. navigable waters and adjoining shorelines, some
states regulate facilities that have the potential to spill oil into
groundwater and surface waters. In addition, some states do not have
separate, formal spill prevention programs, but may inspect aboveground
storage tanks as part of other regulations, such as state fire
prevention codes. Because states differ in their approaches to
regulating aboveground storage tanks, in some states, both EPA and the
state may inspect some facilities, while in other states, EPA may be
the sole regulatory agency inspecting oil storage facilities.
To hold federal agencies systematically accountable for achieving
results from their programs, such as EPA's SPCC Program, the Congress
passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. The
act requires EPA and other federal agencies to develop strategic plans
covering at least 5 years and submit them to the Congress and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In addition,
GPRA requires agencies to prepare annual performance plans that
establish goals for the upcoming fiscal year that are aligned with the
agencies' long-term strategic goals that are described in their
strategic plans. These annual performance plans must include results-
oriented annual goals that are linked to program activities and
indicators that the agency will use to measure performance against
these goals.
In this context, you asked us to review EPA's SPCC program.
Specifically, we (1) determined how EPA regions implement the SPCC
program, especially inspection and enforcement activities, (2)
identified the data EPA has available to implement and evaluate the
SPCC program, and (3) examined the extent to which tank programs in
selected states offer examples of ways that EPA might improve its
implementation of the SPCC program.
To review EPA regions' practices in implementing the SPCC program, we
surveyed all 10 EPA regions to determine, among other things, how they
identify facilities to inspect, the number of inspections each region
has conducted in recent years, how many SPCC inspectors have received
training, and the number of those inspected facilities that complied
with SPCC regulations and, for those that did not comply, the number of
enforcement actions taken. We also discussed the regions' responses to
our survey in detail with regional officials. To determine what SPCC
data EPA officials have available, we spoke with EPA officials to
identify the agency's data sources for enforcing SPCC regulations,
determine how the agency uses the data, and determine the data's
overall limitations. Finally, we interviewed officials from aboveground
oil storage tank programs in six states--Florida, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Jersey, New Mexico, and Virginia--to understand the nature of their
programs and how they are implemented, to identify practices that might
be applied to EPA's program, and to learn about any coordination
between these states' programs and EPA's SPCC program. We selected
these six states because they (1) had aboveground storage tank
programs, (2) were recommended by trade associations and other
officials as states that had well-run storage tank programs, and (3)
represented a cross section of geographical areas and EPA regions.
Appendix I provides a more detailed explanation of our scope and
methodology. We conducted this performance audit between August 2007
and April 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
EPA allows its regional offices flexibility in how they implement the
SPCC program to fit their needs and address their unique challenges.
EPA regional offices often have different numbers and types of
regulated facilities and staffing arrangements, and face different
geographic challenges in implementing the SPCC program. As a result,
the regions have varied in their use of staff for inspections, the
number of facilities inspected, and penalty assessments, although their
budget allocations for SPCC activities have been similar in recent
years. For example, Region 2--responsible for New Jersey, New York, and
Puerto Rico--uses only dedicated EPA SPCC program staff to inspect
facilities subject to the SPCC rule. In contrast, Region 6--responsible
for Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas--which is
considered to have a large portion of the nation's oil business, uses
several contractors as well as regional staff to help inspect
facilities in that region subject to the SPCC rule. Partly because of
these regional differences, the number of facilities inspected and the
level of enforcement actions taken have varied across regional offices
in recent years. According to our survey, EPA regions inspected a total
of 3,359 SPCC facilities from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year
2006, representing less than 1 percent of EPA's estimated total number
of SPCC facilities nationwide. The number of facilities inspected
during that 3-year period ranged from a low of 184 inspected in Region
10--responsible for Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington state--to a
high of 745 inspected in Region 6. Similarly, the percentage of
inspected facilities against which regions took enforcement actions
varied. Furthermore, in enforcing the SPCC rule, regions are allowed to
determine if, and when, they will use expedited settlement agreements,
an enforcement action designed, according to EPA, to gain facility
compliance more quickly than traditional approaches. While still
allowing flexibility, EPA has begun implementing nationwide policies
and procedures to promote more consistency in how the SPCC regulations
are interpreted and enforced. For example, in 2005, EPA issued guidance
to assist regional inspectors in understanding the SPCC rules and their
roles when inspecting facilities. According to officials we
interviewed, the regions are using this guidance to ensure that
inspectors conduct complete inspections.
EPA has information on only a portion of the facilities potentially
subject to the SPCC rule. This limited knowledge hinders the agency's
ability to effectively identify regulated facilities, establish
inspection priorities, and evaluate whether the program is achieving
its goals. Because EPA's regulations do not require facilities to
report to the agency that they are subject to the SPCC rule, EPA does
not know the universe of SPCC-regulated facilities and must identify
them by other means. EPA identifies potential SPCC facilities through
sources such as available oil spill data, state referrals, Internet
searches, and the Yellow Pages. Then, through an inspection, EPA
confirms whether a facility is covered by the rule. While inspections
of known SPCC facilities are generally risk-based, the risk assessments
exclude the large number of estimated SPCC facilities that have not yet
been identified, some of which may pose more serious threats than those
targeted for inspection. EPA is creating a national database to improve
its management of the SPCC program by promoting standard data
collection across regions and expanding the amount of facility
information available to regional managers. However, this database is
limited to facilities that have already been inspected and will not
enable program managers to better identify additional SPCC facilities.
Ultimately, incomplete information on which facilities are subject to
the SPCC rule, and where and how often leaks may occur, prevents the
agency from effectively targeting inspections to those facilities that
potentially pose the highest risks. Furthermore, EPA does not have
performance measures that can be used to examine the SPCC program's
effectiveness in preventing oil spills. EPA is developing such
measures, but without more complete data on the SPCC-regulated
universe, these measures cannot gauge the program's accomplishments.
State officials we contacted told us that requiring tank owners to
register their facilities and report data allows states to more
effectively manage their tank programs, and that better coordination
with EPA would benefit both the SPCC and state programs. Specifically,
because they require tank owners to register and to report data, five
of the six states we contacted have information on the full universe of
facilities subject to state regulations. With comprehensive data, these
states can either inspect all of their facilities or target those
facilities that they believe present the highest risk of oil spills.
Officials in the sixth state, Missouri, told us that they obtain
information on tanks through voluntary compliance and their
relationships with affiliated industries. Furthermore, state officials
told us that because they have detailed knowledge of the regulated
facilities in their jurisdictions, EPA could benefit from increased
coordination with their offices, such as when identifying and targeting
facilities for inspection. Currently, the extent and nature of such
coordination between EPA and the six states vary. Officials in five of
the six states told us that they have occasional discussions or no
contact with their EPA regions, but that they are open to more
coordination with EPA on identifying and targeting facilities for
inspections and conducting outreach activities. The remaining state,
Virginia, has a formal agreement with EPA Region 3 to coordinate its
regulatory programs' activities, such as aboveground oil storage tank
inspections.
To more effectively manage the SPCC program, we are recommending that
EPA (1) analyze the costs and benefits of the options for obtaining
data on the universe of SPCC-regulated facilities, including, among
others, a tank registration program similar to that of some states; (2)
in conjunction with states that have oil spill prevention programs,
develop uniform guidance for EPA regional offices on how to better
communicate and coordinate with those states on SPCC-related issues;
and (3) complete the development of performance measures and obtain the
data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the SPCC program.
In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA generally agreed with our
recommendations. According to EPA, the report provided a good,
comprehensive picture of a portion of the oil spill program implemented
by EPA's Office of Emergency Management. With regard to our
recommendation that EPA finish developing performance measures and
obtain the data needed to evaluate SPCC program effectiveness, the
agency noted--as we acknowledge in the report--that EPA has already
initiated work to develop such measures and that the feedback the
report provides will help to further shape the agency's actions in this
regard. Beyond agreeing with our other two recommendations, EPA did not
comment on them.
Background:
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of oil and hazardous
substances into or upon U.S. navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
and directs the President to issue regulations establishing procedures,
methods, and equipment requirements to prevent such discharges. The
President subsequently delegated this responsibility to EPA. In 1973,
to meet this responsibility as it relates to oil discharges, EPA issued
the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation--also referred to as the SPCC
rule--which outlined the actions oil storage facilities that store
greater than certain quantities of oil must take to prevent, prepare
for, and respond to oil spills before they reach U.S. navigable waters
or adjoining shorelines. In 1974, the SPCC rule took effect and EPA
initiated the SPCC program. Under this program, regulated facilities
must implement procedures and methods and have certain equipment to
prevent oil discharges from reaching U.S. navigable waters and
adjoining shorelines. SPCC requires facilities to prepare oil spill
prevention plans that spell out (1) design, operation, and maintenance
procedures to prevent spills from occurring and (2) countermeasures to
control, contain, clean up, and mitigate the effects of an oil spill.
In 1994, in response to directives in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990--
which amended the Clean Water Act--EPA established specific
requirements for a subclass of SPCC facilities, including that these
facilities develop and implement Facility Response Plans (FRP).
According to EPA, there are about 4,100 FRP facilities nationwide--less
than 1 percent of the estimated SPCC-regulated facilities. FRP
facilities are those that, because of their location, could reasonably
be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging
oil into or on U.S. navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the
exclusive economic zone.[Footnote 5] Under EPA regulations, facilities
are considered FRP facilities if they have (1) 42,000 gallons or more
of oil storage capacity and transfer oil over water or (2) 1 million
gallons or more of oil storage capacity and meet other specific
criteria, such as risking injury to sensitive environments or the
shutting down of public drinking water intake. Owing to the higher risk
they pose, FRP facilities are subject to more stringent rules and
regulations than other SPCC facilities, primarily focusing on response
preparedness. For example, FRP facilities must submit for EPA's review
and possible approval, plans that identify the individual having full
authority to implement removal actions at the facility and the
resources available to remove a discharge, and describe the training,
testing, and response actions of persons at the facility, among other
things. Even though FRP facilities are subject to more stringent
requirements than other SPCC facilities, they are required to have SPCC
plans and are also inspected through the SPCC program.
In response to some major oil spills, our 1989 report, and similar
findings by an EPA taskforce, the agency proposed revisions to the SPCC
rule in 1991, 1993, and 1997 and finalized these amendments in
2002.[Footnote 6] These amendments made over 30 changes that EPA
considers major to the SPCC rule, such as including new subparts
outlining the requirements for various classes of oil; revising the
applicability of the regulation; amending the requirements for
completing SPCC plans; and strengthening tank integrity testing
requirements, among other changes. The final rule also contained a
number of provisions designed to decrease regulatory burden while
preserving environmental protection. Since then, EPA:
* in 2006, made several major changes to the SPCC rule to further
reduce regulatory burden, including an amendment that allows certain
smaller facilities, identified as "qualified facilities," storing up to
10,000 gallons of oil, to prepare self-certified SPCC plans and:
* in October 2007, proposed further changes to streamline the SPCC
requirements to, among other things, reduce regulatory burden on
industries such as farms and oil production facilities. The agency
plans to make these changes final in late 2008.
Although EPA amended the SPCC rule in 2002 and 2006, the new
requirements have not taken effect because EPA extended the date by
which facilities were to come into compliance with these revised
requirements in 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007. That is, owners and
operators of facilities operating on or before August 16, 2002, must
continue to maintain their SPCC plans based on current SPCC
requirements and then must amend them to ensure compliance with the
amended requirements by July 1, 2009. Facilities beginning operations
after August 16, 2002, have until July 1, 2009, to prepare and
implement a plan. EPA made this latest extension to, among other
things, give owners and operators of facilities the time to fully
understand the 2002 and 2006 amendments and the further revisions that
are planned for implementation in 2008, and to make changes to their
facilities and plans. We reported on the reasonableness of the economic
analyses EPA performed in support of the 2002 and 2006 amendments to
the SPCC rule in July 2007.[Footnote 7] We found that the economic
analysis of the 2002 amendments had several limitations that reduced
its usefulness for assessing the amendments' benefits and costs. We
also found that although EPA's economic analysis of the 2006 amendments
addressed several of the 2002 limitations, it also had some limitations
that reduced its usefulness for assessing the amendments' benefits and
costs.
EPA delegates implementation of the program to its 10 regional offices,
which carry out inspection programs to ensure that the facilities are
in compliance with the SPCC regulations. Figure 1 shows the locations
of EPA's 10 regions.
Figure 1: EPA Regions:
This figure is a map of the United States showing EPA regions.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Copyright Corel Corp. All rights reserved (map); GAO.
[End of figure]
When EPA inspects a facility, it typically sends one or more inspectors
from the region to the facility. These visits generally begin with a
list of questions about the facility, such as confirming that the
facility meets the criteria for the SPCC rule and asking whether it has
an SPCC plan. The inspectors will then review the plan to see if it
contains information required under the SPCC rule, including facility
diagrams, training of employees, security measures, containment
structures, and records of facility inspection and tests. The
inspectors then tour the facility and examine how the plan is being
implemented by, for example, inspecting equipment and taking notes and
photographs. After the inspection, a compliance determination that
completes the inspection process for that facility is made unless
observed noncompliance warrants another fact-finding inspection.
Before informing facility owners or operators of any violations found,
inspectors may discuss their observations with supervisors and
enforcement and compliance staff to determine what actions to take.
This process generally takes several weeks, but can take up to several
months, depending on the severity of the violations. Determining
whether a penalty is appropriate or determining appropriate penalties
for violations depends, among other things, on the seriousness of the
violation, the economic benefit to the facility owner or operator
resulting from the violation, the degree of the facility owner's or
operator's culpability in the violation, and any history of violations
at the facility. When a violation is found, EPA may send a "notice of
deficiency," "letter of violation," or similar notice to the owner or
operator.[Footnote 8] The owner or operator could also receive an
Expedited Settlement Agreement (ESA) offer to settle the violations by
paying a penalty between $500 and $2,500 and promptly correcting any
violations found.[Footnote 9] Finally, EPA could seek the issuance of
an administrative penalty order against the owner or operator, or
submit a judicial referral for penalties to the Department of
Justice.[Footnote 10] Typically, the investigation is considered closed
when, in cases where there is a deficiency but not a penalty,
corrective actions are taken, or when a penalty is issued, when the
penalty payment is received and corrective action is performed.
EPA headquarters annually determines how funds for implementing the Oil
Program are allocated to regional offices. The budget allocation for
the Oil Program combines funds for oil spill prevention (SPCC),
preparedness (FRP and area contingency planning), and response
infrastructure. As shown in table 1, the total operational budget
allocated for EPA Oil Program activities in fiscal year 2006 was $12
million and, in fiscal year 2007, $12.3 million. In fiscal year 2006,
EPA allocated between 5 and 10 percent of the total operational budget
for Oil Program activities to each EPA regional office. In fiscal year
2007, EPA's allocation for Oil Program activities to each EPA regional
office ranged between 5 and 9 percent. EPA regional offices determine
how they will use the allocated funds to implement the SPCC program in
their regions, including how they will manage inspection and
enforcement activities.
Table 1: Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 Operational Budgets for Oil Spill
Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Infrastructure, by Region:
Dollars in thousands.
Headquarters;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: $2,883.7;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 24;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: $2,958.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 24.
Region 1;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: 865.2;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 7;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: 889.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 7.
Region 2;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: 899.4;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 7;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: 896.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 7.
Region 3;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: 896.9;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 7;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: 933.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 8.
Region 4;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: 1,261.6;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 10;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: 1,146.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 9.
Region 5;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: 912.5;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 8;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: 1,161.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 9.
Region 6;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: 1,141.9;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 9;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: 1,098.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 9.
Region 7;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: 592.3;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 5;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: 679.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 5.
Region 8;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: 786.0;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 7;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: 779.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 6.
Region 9;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: 896.1;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 7;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: 868.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 7.
Region 10;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: 930.4;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 8;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: 941.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 8.
Total;
Fiscal year 2006: Operating budget: $12,066.2;
Fiscal year 2006: Percentage of total 2006 program budget: 100;
Fiscal year 2007: Operating budget: $12,348.00;
Fiscal year 2007: Percentage of total 2007 program budget: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
According to EPA headquarters and regional officials, most funds for
oil spill response come out of another fund--the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund--which is managed by the U.S. Coast Guard. Although EPA
receives some funding from the emergency response portion of the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund for response activities, there are no funds
provided for additional staff to conduct inspection activities. The
staff that perform other oil spill activities, including SPCC
inspections, also conduct response activities. Thus, when there is a
high level of response activity, there may be an impact on prevention
and preparedness activities, including the number of SPCC inspections.
In our 1989 report, we made several recommendations to EPA's
Administrator to strengthen SPCC regulations and the program. Among
other things, to strengthen SPCC regulations, we recommended that EPA
require that (1) aboveground storage tanks be built and tested in
accordance with industry or other specified standards, (2) facilities
develop response plans for spilled oil beyond the facilities'
boundaries, and (3) storm water drainage systems be designed and
operated to prevent oil from passing through them. EPA included
provisions in the 1991 SPCC proposed amendments to implement the
recommendations regarding tank integrity testing and storm water
drainage systems and finalized these amendments in the 2002 rule. In
1994, EPA partially addressed our recommendation regarding submitting
response plans when it began requiring FRP facilities to submit plans
as required by the Oil Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. This act
required the President to issue regulations for response plans for oil
or hazardous substances for facilities that, because of their location,
could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the
environment by discharging into or on U.S. navigable waters and
adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone. EPA, however, did
not require response plans from other SPCC facilities.
Furthermore, our 1989 report recommended that EPA take the following
four actions to improve its implementation and evaluation of the SPCC
program:
* better define the training needs for the agency's SPCC inspectors
because each of EPA's regions had established a training program for
SPCC inspectors using different program styles, curricula, and manuals;
* develop instructions for performing and documenting inspections
because EPA had not required the regions to follow uniform inspection
or documentation procedures, allowing regions in many cases to let
inspectors rely on their experience and knowledge;
* establish a national policy for fining violators because, in the
absence of a policy, regions had adopted inconsistent polices and
rarely assessed fines; and:
* develop a system of inspection priorities, based on a national
inventory of tanks, because, without knowing the location and number of
facilities or tanks, EPA could not assess the relative risk of spills
to the environment or target for inspections the facilities most in
need of attention.
In 1993, the Congress passed GPRA, requiring all federal agencies to
(1) develop and submit strategic plans covering at least 5 years to the
Congress and the Director of OMB, (2) set annual performance goals
consistent with the goals and objectives in the strategic plans, and
(3) annually compare actual program results with established
performance goals and report this information to the Congress. Under
the act, agencies are to prepare annual performance plans that
articulate goals for the upcoming fiscal year that are aligned with
their long-term strategic goals described in the strategic plans. These
annual performance plans must include results-oriented annual goals
linked to program activities and indicators that the agency will use to
measure performance against the results-oriented goals. Performance
measures are the yardsticks used to assess an agency's success in
meeting its performance goals.
EPA Allows Regional Offices Flexibility in Implementing the SPCC
Program while Taking Steps to Promote Consistency when Needed:
Over the last several years, EPA has allowed each regional office to
implement the SPCC program in a manner that best fits its unique
circumstances while also establishing national SPCC policies and
procedures to promote consistent enforcement of SPCC regulations. EPA
allows flexibility because the EPA regional offices often have
different numbers and types of regulated facilities and staffing
arrangements, and face different geographic challenges in implementing
the SPCC program. Partly because of these regional differences, the
number of facilities inspected and the level of enforcement taken have
varied across regional offices in recent years. To promote consistency
in how SPCC regulations are interpreted and enforced, while allowing
for this variation, EPA has also developed a training curriculum for
inspectors and guidance on how to conduct SPCC inspections and penalize
violators.
EPA Allows Regional Offices Flexibility in Implementing the SPCC
Program:
While EPA has budgeted similar amounts for each region's SPCC
activities in recent years, its regional offices may use varying
staffing arrangements to conduct inspections. According to our survey,
Regions 1 and 2 use only EPA regional employees for SPCC inspections,
while other regions, such as Region 6, employ several contractors and
EPA personnel to perform these inspections. In many regions, EPA on-
scene coordinators, whose primary function is emergency response, also
conduct SPCC inspections. In addition, some EPA regions employ their
regional and contract staff full time on SPCC inspections, while other
regions--such as Region 6--in addition to the personnel dedicated to
SPCC inspections, have several employees who split their time between
SPCC inspections and inspections for other EPA environmental
regulations or programs. Furthermore, inspectors may differ in how they
allocate their time. For example, according to Region 5 officials,
their inspectors divide their time between enforcement activities and
inspection activities, while Region 6 and 8 officials told us that they
have separate offices and staff members to perform these activities.
Table 2 shows the regions' SPCC staffing and amount of time spent on
SPCC-related activities in fiscal year 2006, such as planning for
inspections, conducting outreach to facilities, visiting facilities,
and documenting inspection results.
Table 2: Staffing and SPCC-Related Activities, Fiscal Year 2006:
Region: 1;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
11;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 0;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 6;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 5;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 9;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 2;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 0.
Region: 2;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
16;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 0;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 16;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 14;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 2;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 0.
Region: 3;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
5;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 1;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 6;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 2;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 1;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 3.
Region: 4;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
24;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 1;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 21;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 4;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 24;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 1;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 0.
Region: 5;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
2;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 2;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 4;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 1;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 3.
Region: 6;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
3;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 7;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 2;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 8;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 3;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 7.
Region: 7;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
6;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 1;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 3;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 4;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 5;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 2;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 0.
Region: 8;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
1;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 3;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 3;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 1;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 1;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 1;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 2.
Region: 9;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
2;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 0;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 2;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 0;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 2.
Region: 10;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
5;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 5;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 9;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 1;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 5;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 3;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 1;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 1.
Region: Total;
Total number of EPA regional employees who conducted SPCC inspections:
75;
Number of contractors or grantees who conducted SPCC inspections: 20;
Number of individuals who conducted only SPCC inspections: 72;
Number of individuals who conducted SPCC and other EPA inspections: 23;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Less than 25 percent: 63;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 25 percent to 50 percent: 9;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: 50 percent to 75 percent: 5;
Percentage of time spent and number of individuals who engaged in SPCC-
related activities: Greater than 75 percent: 18.
Source: GAO survey of EPA regions.
[End of table]
EPA officials told us that some regional variation in staffing and time
spent on SPCC-related activities is inevitable and necessary owing to
different management structures, geographic size, and number and type
of regulated facilities. For example, some regions, such as Region 8--
which is responsible for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming--must take into consideration significant travel
costs, while Region 1--which is responsible for Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont--has much lower
travel costs. In addition, EPA Region 6, which is considered to have a
large portion of the nation's oil business, uses several contractors or
grantees as well as EPA inspectors to conduct inspections. Finally,
Region 10 has unique travel challenges associated with remote
facilities in Alaska and, in particular, North Slope operations.
According to EPA officials, partly as a result of the differences in
how the regions staff the SPCC program, and the travel issue associated
with the geographical differences in the regions, the number of
facilities each EPA region has inspected in recent years has varied.
Also, the number of SPCC inspections may be affected when it is
necessary for EPA regional staff's time to be dedicated to unique
response operations (such as Hurricane Katrina).
Our survey shows that EPA's regional offices inspected a total of 3,359
facilities for compliance with the SPCC rule from fiscal year 2004
through fiscal year 2006, or less than 1 percent of EPA's estimate of
the number of SPCC-regulated facilities in the United States. However,
the number of facilities inspected in each EPA region varied in these
years--from 184 in Region 10 to 745 in Region 6. (See fig. 2.)
Figure 2: Number of SPCC Facilities Inspected, Fiscal Years 2004
through 2006:
This figure is a vertical bar graph showing the number of SPCC
facilities inspected, fiscal years 2004 through 2006. The X axis
represents the EPA regions, and the Y axis represents the number of
SPCC facilities.
EPA regions: 1;
Number of SPCC facilities: 276.
EPA regions: 2;
Number of SPCC facilities: 332.
EPA regions: 3;
Number of SPCC facilities: 360.
EPA regions: 4;
Number of SPCC facilities: 326.
EPA regions: 5;
Number of SPCC facilities: 334.
EPA regions: 6;
Number of SPCC facilities: 745.
EPA regions: 7;
Number of SPCC facilities: 239.
EPA regions: 8;
Number of SPCC facilities: 316.
EPA regions: 9;
Number of SPCC facilities: 247.
EPA regions: 10;
Number of SPCC facilities: 184.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of figure]
The percentage of facilities complying or not complying with SPCC
regulations at the time of inspection also has varied across regional
offices. For example, as shown in figure 3, in fiscal year 2006, the
rate of facility noncompliance--measured as the percentage of inspected
facilities found to be not fully complying with the requirements--
ranged from a low of 26 percent in Region 3 to a high of 98 percent in
Region 8, according to our survey. The average rate of facility
noncompliance of inspected facilities across regional offices was about
59 percent.[Footnote 11]
Figure 3: Percentage of Facilities Inspected in Fiscal Year 2006 That
Were Not in Compliance with SPCC Regulations:
This figure is a vertical bar graph showing the percentage of
facilities inspected in fiscal year 2006 that were not in compliance
with SPCC regulations. The X axis represents the EPA regions, and the Y
axis represents the percent.
EPA regions: 1;
Percent: 54%.
EPA regions: 2;
Percent: 52%.
EPA regions: 3;
Percent: 26%.
EPA regions: 4;
Percent: 69%.
EPA regions: 5;
Percent: 73%.
EPA regions: 6;
Percent: 30%.
EPA regions: 7;
Percent: 78%.
EPA regions: 8;
Percent: 98%.
EPA regions: 9;
Percent: 54%.
EPA regions: 10;
Percent: 76%.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of figure]
We also found regional differences in the extent of enforcement actions
taken against inspected facilities--as measured by the percentage of
noncompliant facilities that were subject to enforcement action in
fiscal year 2006--from a low of zero for Regions 7 and 10 to a high of
84 percent in Region 6. According to EPA officials, these regional
differences are due to various reasons, including how each EPA region
has historically defined "compliance" and the types of enforcement
actions each region uses. For example, some regions may use ESAs as an
enforcement action more than others. ESAs allow EPA officials to
negotiate compliance with facility owners without using traditional
enforcement mechanisms. According to EPA, ESAs also use fewer EPA
resources and promote quick settlements with violators. They can take
between 30 and 60 days to complete, while traditional enforcement
mechanisms can take years to settle, depending on the violation, the
type of facility, and the extent of any court- ordered corrective
actions. The shorter time frame allows those regions that use ESAs to
conduct enforcement actions against a relatively large proportion of
noncompliant facilities. Currently, all regions except Region 5 use
ESAs to varying degrees, and that is a factor in the large variation in
enforcement activities across regions. Region 5, which covers most of
the Great Lakes states, does not use ESAs at all, because, according to
Region 5 officials, they focus on taking enforcement actions against
the more serious noncompliant cases that would result in larger Class
II administrative penalties, rather than the less serious cases where
they could use ESAs.
EPA's use of ESAs in recent years has outpaced the agency's use of the
more resource intensive traditional enforcement mechanisms. According
to our survey, EPA regional offices concluded a total of 111 ESAs in
fiscal year 2006, compared with 21 settlements using traditional
enforcement mechanisms. EPA Regions 1, 3, 6, and 9 each issued ESAs in
more than 25 percent of the cases in which inspectors found facilities
were noncompliant. Together, these four regional offices concluded 97
of the 111 ESAs issued by all regional offices in fiscal year 2006,
with Region 6 alone issuing 60 ESAs. In addition, according to
officials in Region 6, they believe that their use of ESAs has resulted
in increased compliance through word of mouth by regulated facilities
about the mechanism. EPA headquarters officials stated that given that
the SPCC requirements are performance-based, they continue to learn
from and share information with the regions about alternative
approaches to achieve facility compliance.
EPA Has Developed SPCC Policies and Procedures to Promote Consistent
Enforcement of SPCC Regulations:
While regional offices have flexibility in implementing the SPCC
program to address factors unique to each region, EPA has taken steps
over the last several years to promote consistency in how the regions
interpret and enforce the SPCC regulations. As we reported in 1989,
procedures for training SPCC inspectors, conducting inspections, and
enforcing compliance varied across EPA regional offices.
For example, in 1989 we found the following:
* Each EPA regional office had developed its own training program for
SPCC inspectors using different styles, curricula, and manuals. As a
result, SPCC inspectors were conducting inspections after meeting
different training requirements, and had different levels of knowledge
and skills.
* EPA had not required its regions to follow uniform procedures for
conducting and documenting inspections, and had not developed written
procedures on how to conduct inspections. EPA regional officials told
us at the time that they relied on the experience and knowledge of
individual inspectors rather than on written procedures.
* EPA did not have a uniform policy in place to determine the type of
enforcement action, including penalties when enforcing SPCC
regulations, and rarely used enforcement mechanisms. Some EPA regional
officials had stated that the inspection itself, and the threat of
possible penalties, was sufficient to bring the facilities into
compliance. While we agreed that frequent inspections would promote
compliance, we stated that greater compliance would most likely be
achieved if penalties were assessed.
As a result of these findings, we recommended that EPA define and
implement minimum training needs for inspectors, develop instructions
for performing and documenting inspections, and establish a national
policy for penalizing violators of SPCC regulations.
In response to these recommendations, EPA developed a new training
protocol. It now requires inspectors to be trained both in the basic
principles of inspections and in the conduct of SPCC inspections. EPA
now requires 40 hours of specific SPCC/FRP classroom time that provide
inspectors with information on the history and scope of the SPCC and
FRP rules, relevant vocabulary, inspection requirements, tank integrity
testing procedures, SPCC and FRP plan review, and enforcement issues
and procedures. EPA requires all media inspection programs to train
their inspectors in basic inspector training, health and safety
training, and program-specific inspector training.[Footnote 12] The
SPCC/FRP training program is standard across EPA, and is offered to new
inspectors approximately every 6 months. EPA also offered 8-to 12-hour
"short courses" that it designed to temporarily fulfill training
requirements while it developed the 40-hour program training following
the 2002 rule requirements. While these short courses are condensed
versions of the 40-hour SPCC/FRP course, they were not intended to be
long-term substitutes for the more extensive training sessions. In
addition to classroom training, EPA requires on-the-job training, in
which new inspectors shadow more experienced inspectors during site
visits, training for inspection supervisors, and annual refresher
courses. The on-the-job and refresher training is offered in the
regions and nationally at certain training events.
According to our survey, 73 percent of individuals who inspected at
least one SPCC facility in 2006 met the full requirements for classroom
training--that is, they had received basic inspector training in
combination with the mandatory 40-hour SPCC/FRP-specific program.
Figure 4 shows, for fiscal year 2006, the training level of inspectors
who inspected at least one facility.
Figure 4: Training Level of Inspectors Who Inspected at Least One
Facility, Fiscal Year 2006:
This figure is a pie graph showing training level of inspectors who
inspected at least one facility, fiscal year 2006.
Both basic and health and safety training and 40-hour program: 73%;
Both basic and health safety training and 8- to 12-hour program: 18%;
Only basic and health and safety training: 5%;
Only 8- to 12-hour program: 4%;
Only 40-hour program: 0%;
No training: 0%.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In 2005, EPA issued national guidance to facilitate consistent
understanding among regional inspectors on how to apply provisions of
the SPCC rule. This guidance has been incorporated into the EPA
national inspector training that EPA regional inspectors receive, and
it is also available to owners and operators of facilities that may be
subject to SPCC requirements. Inspectors use the inspection and plan
review checklists included in the guidance as they inspect a facility
to ensure that they conduct complete inspections. In visits to three
SPCC facilities in three EPA regions, we found that inspectors were
using the checklist. In addition, regional officials told us that the
guidance provided them with information on how to enforce the SPCC
regulations and also helped them in answering facility owners'
questions on compliance. OEM has also developed and presented
specialized inspector training courses that address topics related to
corrosion, integrity testing, and production sector operations.
EPA further addressed our 1989 recommendations by issuing a national
penalty policy for SPCC enforcement in 1998. Among other things, this
EPA policy describes the penalties that EPA can collect through
administrative and enforcement actions for SPCC violations and includes
a minimum settlement penalty calculation, which generally describes
what EPA would accept as a settlement.[Footnote 13] The policy also
lays out a process that EPA enforcement officials can use to determine
the level of seriousness of different SPCC violations and their
associated penalties. EPA officials told us that EPA regions
consistently use this tool--adjusted for inflation--when determining
penalties.
EPA Has Limited Information for Implementing and Evaluating the SPCC
Program:
EPA's ability to implement the SPCC program is limited by three
factors. First, facilities subject to the SPCC rule are not required to
identify themselves to EPA, and therefore EPA cannot effectively
identify and target facilities for inspection and enforcement. Second,
the national database EPA is creating to improve SPCC program
management is limited to facilities that have already been inspected;
consequently, the database will not enable program managers to better
identify additional SPCC facilities. Finally, EPA cannot determine the
extent to which the SPCC program is succeeding in its goal of
preventing oil spills to U.S. navigable waters and adjoining shorelines
because of the limited data and because EPA does not have performance
measures to examine program effectiveness.
EPA Has Limited Data for Identifying Facilities Subject to the SPCC
Program and Effectively Targeting Inspections:
Although EPA estimated in 2005 that more than 500,000 facilities
nationwide could be subject to the SPCC rule, the actual number is
unknown. According to EPA officials, none of the EPA regional offices
have complete data for their jurisdictions on the number of potential
SPCC-regulated facilities or tanks; their location, size, age, quality
of construction; or method of operation.
To address these data gaps, we recommended in 1989 that EPA develop a
national inventory of all facilities under the program's jurisdiction.
We stated that a national inventory could gather the information
necessary to assess the relative risks of spills and allow EPA to
develop a system of inspection priorities, which would require national
guidance on how to select facilities for inspection. While EPA did not
directly act upon our recommendation, in 1991 it proposed a rule to
require any facility subject to the SPCC rule to make itself known to
the agency on a onetime basis, and subsequently sought OMB's approval
to collect data from all facilities that might be covered by the SPCC
rule. However, as we noted in our 1995 report, OMB stated that EPA had
not adequately justified the proposed reporting requirements and did
not approve the request.
EPA conducted a survey in 1995 to estimate the number and size of oil
production and storage facilities in most industries regulated by the
SPCC rule. Since then, EPA has updated its estimates of the number of
facilities in the SPCC universe, but it still does not know the exact
universe of facilities and their locations. In the preamble to the 2002
amendments to the SPCC rule, EPA explained that it had decided not to
pursue the proposed notification requirement because it was still
considering whether to establish a paper or an electronic notification
system. EPA officials recently stated that the agency has still not
fully considered a notification requirement. According to EPA
officials, the agency also has not developed national guidance on how
to target facilities for inspection, although it has crafted a
framework in preparation for this guidance. EPA officials stated that
the agency plans to develop this guidance, but it has not yet
established a schedule for completing it. However, this guidance will
not be based on an assessment of the relative risks of spills across
all facilities because EPA does not have such information.
Because EPA has incomplete information about which and how many
facilities are subject to the SPCC rule, the regional offices attempt
to identify SPCC facilities through a variety of indirect means and
limited information sources. For example, according to our survey, 9
out of 10 EPA regional offices reported that they use oil spill data
from the National Response Center (NRC) to identify regulated
facilities and target them for inspection.[Footnote 14] NRC data track
the incidence of oil spills as they are reported to NRC, but these data
do not always associate spills with the specific facilities where they
originated or include detailed information about those facilities. In
addition, if any information is later collected on the actual source or
facility responsible for an oil spill, NRC does not update its
database. Consequently, NRC data generally can alert SPCC program
officials to the possibility that SPCC facilities may be in the area of
a reported spill rather than positively identifying any facilities as
being subject to the rule.
Nine out of 10 regional offices also reported using referrals from
state agencies or other institutions to identify SPCC facilities and
target inspections. For example, officials in EPA Region 3--which
covers Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and West Virginia--stated that, for the last 2 years, the
region has requested all the states in its region to provide a list of
facilities that the states would like inspected, and then incorporated
these facilities into its inspection planning for the fiscal year. The
region then submits the list of facilities to be inspected to the
states for comment.
According to an EPA official, the agency's reliance on incomplete spill
data and state referrals does not allow it to target facilities for
inspection on the basis of their relative spill risks. EPA officials
told us that, to a certain extent, the fact that they know about a
facility at all--because of past spills and state referrals--can be an
indication that the facility poses a relatively high risk. However, EPA
does not have sufficient information to determine with any certainty
how the risks posed by these facilities compare with those of other as
yet unknown and not inspected SPCC-regulated facilities.
EPA regions have also used other strategies to both identify SPCC
facilities and target them for inspection. For example, Region 6 has
developed its own geographic information system (GIS)--the On-Scene
Coordinators Area Response System (OSCARS)--to identify facilities that
may pose a high risk of spills into or upon navigable waters and
adjoining shorelines. OSCARS provides regional inspectors with a
graphics-based tool that integrates basic geographic information with
separate location-based data sets, such as the location of lakes,
waterways, and roads with industrial infrastructure, such as regulated
facilities and pipelines. The output from this tool can be used by
officials to help identify and pinpoint the location of facilities and
prioritize their inspections based on potential risk and other
criteria. EPA officials told us that OSCARS may have some outdated
information because it is costly to update, but they considered this an
acceptable limitation. According to Region 6 officials, OSCARS has
allowed them to more effectively target problem sites and identify
egregious regulation violators. They consider OSCARS of particular
importance in Region 6, in which 116 counties contain a large
proportion of the nation's petroleum facilities and exhibit high-risk
characteristics such as the potential to cause significant and
substantial harm to the environment or public health if a large release
into or upon navigable water occurs. In addition, according to Region 6
officials, all EPA regions have the capability to develop GIS systems
for SPCC-and FRP-regulated facilities to respond promptly to an oil
spill.
Some other EPA regions use certain other criteria to conduct as many
inspections as possible given resource constraints, as the following
examples show:
* According to Region 5 and 8 officials, inspectors will visit a chosen
location and inspect as many facilities as they can in that area within
a week.
* Region 3 officials stated that although the region inspects
facilities in all the states within their region, each fiscal year they
perform more inspections in Delaware and Maryland than in Virginia
because of the travel funding limitations.
* Several EPA regional officials stated that they try to identify and
target additional facilities to inspect by, among other things, talking
to the local population, consulting the Internet and local Yellow
Pages, or through "drive-by sightings."
None of the data sources that regional offices consult when trying to
identify and target facilities necessarily indicate that a facility is
subject to SPCC regulations. Regional officials stated that SPCC
inspectors sometimes identify and visit a facility, only to discover
that the facility is either not subject to the SPCC rule or, if it is a
facility established after 2002, will not be subject to the regulations
until July 2009. EPA officials said that visits to non-SPCC facilities
waste limited inspector time and program resources. In contrast, if
SPCC inspectors find that the facility is subject to SPCC regulations,
they can conduct a full inspection.
Recognizing the constraints on their ability to identify and
effectively target facilities for inspections, the regions also conduct
outreach activities to encourage compliance. To inform owners of
facilities that may be subject to SPCC regulations of their
obligations, EPA regions we spoke with devote substantial time to
outreach activities. For example, Region 5 officials told us that an
estimated 75 percent of their time spent on SPCC activities is devoted
to outreach and compliance assistance. These activities include, among
other things, attending seminars and educating facility owners through
regular mail, e-mails, and calls about SPCC regulations. EPA officials
hope that educating facility owners will lead to more overall
compliance, giving facility owners a chance to comply with SPCC
regulations on their own initiative rather than waiting until they
might be inspected and found out of compliance.
EPA's New Database to Facilitate SPCC Program Implementation Has
Limitations:
EPA is launching a pilot SPCC/FRP national database that it hopes will
be more useful to regional managers in implementing the SPCC program
than existing data sources. The pilot database is essentially an
expansion of the database that EPA has maintained on about 4,100 FRP
facilities. EPA officials hope that a central database will make it
easier to gather more consistent facility information across regions
and provide for more efficient use of the regions' time and resources.
The expanded database will include information from the following
sources:
* The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). Since 2005, EPA
has required regional SPCC inspectors to record their inspections in
ICIS, a central database designed to track the number of inspection and
enforcement cases across several EPA programs. However, EPA officials
told us that ICIS is not particularly useful to program managers in
implementing the SPCC program. For example, ICIS records the initial
investigation and enforcement outcomes of investigation cases, but it
does not allow the user to track a facility's progress in coming into
compliance after violations have been found. As a result, the regions'
use of ICIS is largely limited to checking facilities' inspection
histories when considering them for inspection, to determine if the
facility has been inspected previously and if it has a history of
violations.
* Regional databases. Most regional offices also maintain their own
program databases, in addition to ICIS, to track open SPCC cases and
the number of inspections. However, EPA officials told us that without
a way to know when an SPCC facility opens, closes, or makes changes,
facility information kept in these regional databases can quickly
become out of date after a case is closed.
The pilot SPCC/FRP national database is intended to provide regional
personnel with a nationally consistent platform to track facility
status and inspection information. The database fields include the
facility's name, relevant program identification numbers, status, and
location, including its distance from navigable waters and whether it
is subject to either SPCC or FRP regulations. The database can sort
information by these fields to generate more descriptive reports than
is possible with existing data sources. As of October 2007, EPA had
entered information on about 5,000 previously inspected SPCC facilities
going back to 1987. The pilot national database will also allow program
managers to track open SPCC cases as they progress.
According to an EPA official, in December, 2007 the pilot SPCC/FRP
national database was made available to regional managers for their
review and comment. EPA noted that this data consolidation effort is
ongoing and EPA officials have a tentative time frame of the end of
2008 to implement the database nationally to the regions. Regardless of
timing, however, EPA officials acknowledge that this database will not
help the agency to further identify all SPCC-regulated facilities.
However, EPA intends to further evaluate how the database, and other
program activities, can more effectively target facilities for
inspection.
EPA Has Neither Data Nor Performance Measures to Adequately Measure the
SPCC Program's Success:
EPA's limited data make it difficult for the agency to determine the
extent to which the SPCC program is achieving its goals. While EPA can
determine whether a facility is complying with SPCC requirements by
inspecting it, the agency inspects only a small portion of the total
universe of SPCC facilities--less than 1 percent of the estimated more
than half a million facilities per year. Consequently, the agency is
limited in evaluating the success of the SPCC program. Without data on
the full regulated community, EPA is unable to assess the program's
effectiveness in preventing oil spills from the vast majority of the
facilities subject to the SPCC rule.
Even if EPA had the necessary data, it does not have the appropriate
performance measures in place to examine the extent to which the
program is meeting its goals. Currently, to evaluate the SPCC and FRP
programs, EPA uses two performance measures that focus on the level of
facility compliance: "the percent of inspected SPCC facilities in
compliance with the regulations at the time of inspection" and "the
percent of inspected FRP facilities in compliance with FRP regulations
at the time of inspection." These measures were developed for SPCC as
part of a 2005 OMB program review.[Footnote 15] According to EPA
officials, both EPA and OMB recognized at the time that these measures
on facility compliance do not fully capture the effectiveness of the
overall program in preventing oil spills from regulated facilities into
or upon U.S. navigable waters and adjoining shorelines, and that
improved measures should be developed.
EPA officials expressed concern about the appropriateness of using
performance measures that are focused on facility compliance levels.
First, according to these officials, regional program managers try to
identify and target facilities that present a large spill risk in an
effort to ensure spill prevention and therefore should not expect to
see high rates of facility compliance upon inspection because of the
nature of these facilities.[Footnote 16] Second, they told us that
program managers are held accountable for achieving the goals set in
these "percent compliance" measures in their performance reviews.
Consequently, these officials are concerned that the goal of compliance
at the time of inspection might steer regional offices away from
inspecting the facilities that they believe pose the highest risk of
noncompliance in order to improve their compliance rates.
As a result of concern over the current program measures, EPA initiated
a joint OEM/regional workgroup to develop revised measures for the SPCC
and FRP programs. OEM has committed to OMB to begin implementation of
the new program measures in fiscal year 2009.
States Report That Registration Requirements Lead to More Effective
Tank Program Management and That Better EPA-State Coordination Efforts
Would Be Beneficial:
The six state tank programs we reviewed suggest a number of potential
options for improving the implementation of the SPCC program. Like the
SPCC program, the state programs we reviewed generally have the goal of
preventing and controlling oil spills. However, unlike the SPCC
program, the state programs all collect information on the status and
location of all tanks subject to their state regulations, according to
state officials. Furthermore, the six states use this information to
periodically inspect all of their regulated facilities. The states'
collection of tank data could benefit the SPCC program, according to
state officials, noting that better coordination with the states could
help identify and target SPCC facilities for inspection and inform
owners of SPCC-regulated facilities about storage tank requirements.
Six States Obtain Data That Enable Them to Inspect the Full Universe of
Their Regulated Tanks:
The six states we contacted--Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
New Mexico, and Virginia--have oil tank requirements and inspection
processes that differ in some respects from each others' and from
EPA's. Specifically, the type of regulated tanks or facilities may
differ from those subject to the SPCC rule. Table 3 summarizes the
number and types of tanks subject to regulation in the six states and
key actions required by these regulations.
Table 3: Summary of States' Aboveground Storage Tank Program
Requirements and Activities:
Regulations: Facility or tank capacity;
Missouri: All tanks utilized for the sale of products, regardless of
size, with petroleum or certain hazardous substances;
most tanks between 1,000 and 30,000 gallons;
Florida: Tanks with 550 gallons or more of oil or certain hazardous
substances;
Minnesota: Regulates tanks with 500 gallons or more of oil and other
hazardous substances;
permits required for facilities with 1 million gallons or more total
capacity;
New Jersey: Facilities with 200,000 gallons or more of petroleum or
20,000 gallons or more of hazardous substances;
New Mexico: Tanks or combinations of tanks with 1,320 gallons or more
of petroleum. Tanks with 55,000 gallons or more of petroleum are not
currently regulated by the state;
Virginia: Tanks with greater than 660 gallons of oil or facilities with
greater than 1,320 gallons of oil have to be registered. Facilities
with an individual tank or aggregate capacity of tanks of 25,000
gallons or more of oil have additional requirements;
tanks with over 1 million gallons of oil have more requirements.
Regulations: Number of regulated facilities;
Missouri: 5,500;
Florida: 20,354;
Minnesota: 3,500;
New Jersey: 320;
New Mexico: 1,700;
Virginia: 780.
Regulations: Regulations focused on protecting ground and surface
water;
Missouri: Yes;
Florida: Yes;
Minnesota: Yes;
New Jersey: Yes;
New Mexico: Yes;
Virginia: Yes.
Registration: Regulated facilities must register;
Missouri: No;
Florida: Yes;
Minnesota: Yes[A];
New Jersey: Yes;
New Mexico: Yes;
Virginia: Yes.
Registration: Registration fee;
Missouri: No;
Florida: Yes;
Minnesota: No;
New Jersey: No;
New Mexico: Yes;
Virginia: Yes.
Registration: Regulated facilities must report facility changes;
Missouri: No;
Florida: Yes;
Minnesota: Yes;
New Jersey: Yes;
New Mexico: Yes;
Virginia: Yes.
Registration: Facilities must report leaks;
Missouri: Yes;
Florida: Yes;
Minnesota: Yes;
New Jersey: Yes;
New Mexico: Yes;
Virginia: Yes.
Program activity: Number of Inspections;
Missouri: By mandate, about 11,000 per year;
Florida: 26,687 underground and aboveground storage facilities in
fiscal year 2006;
Minnesota: 250-300 annually;
New Jersey: About 240 annually;
New Mexico: 1,200 per year;
Virginia: About 200.
Program activity: Number of enforcement actions;
Missouri: Unknown;
Florida: 4,067 in fiscal year 2006;
Minnesota: A few enforcement actions annually;
New Jersey: About 80 to 100 in total annually;
around 20 with penalties per year;
New Mexico: 50 annually;
Virginia: 15.
Program activity: Above and underground storage tank programs are
jointly managed;
Missouri: No;
Florida: Yes;
Minnesota: Yes;
New Jersey: No;
New Mexico: Yes;
Virginia: No.
Program activity: Maintains database on the full regulated universe;
Missouri: Yes;
Florida: Yes;
Minnesota: Yes[A];
New Jersey: Yes;
New Mexico: Yes;
Virginia: Yes.
Program activity: Time frame to inspect full regulated universe;
Missouri: Every 6 months;
Florida: Risk-based at 80 percent of facilities each year;
Minnesota: Every 8-10 years;
New Jersey: Annually;
New Mexico: About once every 2 years;
Virginia: Every 5-10 years.
Source: GAO analysis of state data.
[A] Does not include nonpetroleum oils:
[End of table]
While the six states have different requirements, they all collect data
on their entire regulated universe rather than on only a limited
portion of the total facilities, as EPA does. Except for Missouri, the
states acquire this information by requiring tank owners to register
their tanks and provide basic information on their facilities at the
time they begin operations. The five states with a registration process
require facility owners to notify the state of any changes to their
facilities, including any changes in ownership, construction of new
tanks, or alterations to existing tanks. Furthermore, officials from
all five of these states said that inspectors check to ensure that they
have current and accurate information on each facility at the time, or
after, they conduct the inspection. Missouri does not use a
registration system to identify facilities for inspection, but state
officials told us that they obtain data on facilities by maintaining a
strong relationship with tank installers and petroleum suppliers, and
some of the facility owners voluntarily provide information to the
state. According to a state official, Missouri does not need a
registration system because the tank inspection program's strong
presence in the field allows it to inspect all of the state's 5,500
regulated facilities every 6 months.
The type of information collected through the registration process
varies by state but can include the facility's ownership, location,
storage capacity, age, number of tanks, and the tanks' construction, as
well as the facility's history, such as any past inspections,
violations, enforcement actions, or reported discharges. According to
state officials, the information they obtain enables them to implement
and manage their storage tank programs effectively. In addition to
requiring facilities to submit basic tank and facility information, New
Jersey requires tank owners to develop and submit their plans for leak
prevention and emergency response to the state for review prior to
becoming operational.
All of the states that we contacted compile facility information into
central databases that they can use to inspect a facility for the first
time or to follow up on a prior inspection. In addition, all of these
states use their databases to inspect their entire universe of
regulated facilities, although the frequency of these inspections
varies by state, as table 3 shows. Officials from Minnesota and New
Jersey also stated that databases that capture the full regulated
universe play an important role in the success of their inspection
programs and that implementation would be difficult without these data.
However, because of different reporting requirements, states may not
have information on the full universe of SPCC-regulated facilities that
EPA needs.
State Officials Reported That a Closer State-EPA Working Relationship
Could Benefit the SPCC Program:
The extent to which EPA regions coordinate with the states in
identifying, targeting, and inspecting aboveground storage tank
facilities, and ensuring compliance, depends on the individual region.
Some regions we contacted told us they proactively contact the states
as well as other federal and local agencies for information, while
other regions told us they have varied or limited contact with the
state tank programs in their region.
For example:
* Region 8 officials told us that they have two staff members who focus
on building relationships with local fire departments and other first
responders to identify potential SPCC facilities and target them for
inspection. They often work with first responders when a spill occurs,
and may conduct an SPCC inspection after the immediate remediation
efforts are completed.
* A Region 1 official credited that region's success in identifying and
targeting SPCC-regulated facilities for inspection largely to the
region's close work with state institutions and the U.S. Coast Guard.
* Region 3 has a formal agreement--known as the Performance Partnership
Agreement--with Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia to coordinate
their regulatory program activities, including the aboveground storage
tank programs. According to officials from both the EPA regional office
and Virginia, EPA routinely asks the state for a list of aboveground
oil storage tank facilities that may be of concern relating to the SPCC
and FRP regulations. In addition, EPA notifies Virginia state officials
before conducting inspections, issuing administrative orders, and
initiating litigation against facilities in that state. Finally, EPA
Region 3 and Virginia officials try to coordinate inspections of
facilities of interest to both the SPCC and the state's programs and in
some cases conduct joint inspections, although these are limited
because of the differences in the SPCC and state regulations.
* Region 5 officials told us that they often contact states in the
region and have asked officials in these states for lists of facilities
they recommend for inspections, invited those states with tank or oil
programs to accompany them on inspections, and copy them on
correspondence with facilities. Region 5 officials stated that they
work more closely with states in the region that do not have programs
similar to SPCC.
* Region 6 officials told us that they are in touch with the various
state agencies in their region but relationships will vary and are
dependent on the leadership and personnel of these agencies.
* Region 7 officials stated that they do not regularly communicate with
the states in their region.
From the state perspective, officials in Florida, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Jersey, and New Mexico reported varying degrees of communication
with their respective EPA regional officials on coordinating
activities, such as identifying and targeting facilities for inspection
and conducting inspections. According to these state officials, this
can range from occasional discussions to no contact at all. For
example, New Jersey officials stated that they are in contact with
their counterparts in EPA Region 2 and share information on their
regulated universes and are invited by the region to participate in
certain inspections. However, although Region 5 officials stated that
they often contact all the states in their regions, including inviting
those with tank programs to accompany them on inspections, Minnesota
officials stated that they have little or no communication with EPA
Region 5 aboveground storage tank officials. They stated that they do
not receive advance notification of when EPA Region 5 plans to conduct
SPCC inspections in their state and often learn about an EPA inspection
only after it takes place, when the region copies the state on any
compliance correspondence with the facility. In addition, a Florida
official stated that the EPA region does not contact the state program
about its SPCC program activities in the state, such as when it
conducts inspections or training. Officials in several states said that
further contact between their offices and EPA regions' SPCC programs
could improve EPA's identification and targeting of SPCC-regulated
facilities because the states have more detailed data on their
regulated community and have established relationships with the
facility owners in their states. For example, a Missouri official said
that further coordination between the SPCC program in Region 7 and
Missouri's inspection program could be useful to the SPCC program
because the state maintains close ties with facility owners to be
better aware of the regulated community.
Although EPA regions conduct outreach activities to educate facility
owners on their responsibilities under the SPCC regulations, officials
in several of the states we contacted told us that these efforts needed
improvement. Several of these officials stated that they find facility
owners are confused about the relationship between SPCC regulations and
state regulations. For example, Missouri officials told us that
facility owners want to comply with both state and SPCC regulations but
they often do not because the difference between the two types of
regulations is often confusing. Given this confusion, according to
state officials, coordinating federal and state outreach activities--
such as educating facility owners about SPCC and state regulations
through seminars or conferences--is important to provide the regulated
community with more complete and comprehensive information. State
officials told us that increased coordination by EPA regions with the
states on outreach activities, such as educating facility owners on the
SPCC program and state regulations, could benefit both the SPCC and
state tank programs by making these efforts more comprehensive. For
example, a Minnesota official told us that the state recently learned
that EPA had held training sessions with facility owners in Minnesota
after they had occurred and that the state would like EPA to contact
them prior to any planned training for the regulated community so that
information on state aboveground storage tank rules could be
distributed at the same time. EPA Region 5 officials stated that the
region has conducted workshops that included state oil pollution
programs, such as Minnesota's, as well as other local and federal
partners. Recently, however, training sessions in Minnesota were
limited to those requested by trade groups.
State officials also noted that outreach efforts in their state
programs have contributed to better compliance. According to state
officials, working closely with facility owners maximizes compliance
and minimizes the need for legal actions. For example, a Missouri
official told us that the state program has between 10 and 50 active
enforcement cases ongoing on any given day. However, he said the state
has imposed penalties only five or six times over the last 20 years
because working with facility owners helps to eliminate the need for
formal penalties. Similarly, Florida tries to work collaboratively with
facility owners to gain compliance. Florida's program is relatively
decentralized; the state contracts with the counties to conduct
inspections. A Florida state official told us that county-level
inspectors are well equipped to identify violators and use their
relationships to gain compliance because they live in the same
communities they are inspecting.
Conclusions:
Leaking aboveground storage tanks can contaminate soil and waterways
and threaten human health and the environment before the leaks are
identified and stopped. However, EPA has identified and inspected only
a small portion of the more than 500,000 facilities it estimates are
subject to the SPCC rule, and when it inspects these facilities, it
often finds them out of compliance. EPA's current method of identifying
facilities subject to the SPCC rule--through referrals, the Yellow
Pages, and Internet searches--does not allow the agency to use its
limited resources effectively to identify facilities most at risk of
leaking oil. Without more comprehensive data on the universe of
facilities that are subject to the SPCC rule, EPA cannot employ a risk-
based approach to target its SPCC inspections to those facilities that
pose the greatest risks of oil spills into or upon U.S. navigable
waters and adjoining shorelines. Similarly, incomplete information on
the universe of SPCC facilities prevents EPA from determining whether
and to what extent the SPCC program is achieving its goals. But even
with the needed data, EPA will be unable to measure the program's
success unless and until it develops reliable performance goals. While
EPA may have forgone developing such measures because the data for them
were unavailable, effective program management requires that the two
aspects--data and measures--be developed in tandem.
EPA may have a number of options for filling this data gap. One such
approach would be to initiate a facility registration program, similar
to that of some states we contacted. While the details might vary, this
approach would, in its basic form, require that facilities that meet
the criteria of the SPCC rule report that fact to EPA, along with other
basic facility and tank information. While this mechanism would likely
involve some costs to both EPA and the individual facilities, it would
also increase the agency's knowledge of the SPCC universe and allow it
to better target its inspection resources on the basis of the relative
risks posed by the facilities, which may outweigh the increased costs.
There may also be other options available to EPA to expand its
knowledge of the SPCC universe at a lower cost and that may be worth
the agency exploring.
Greater coordination with states may also help EPA to fill its SPCC
data gap. As noted, primarily through their registration processes,
some states have what they consider to be very comprehensive data on
the oil storage facilities that they regulate, including some that may
be SPCC facilities. Either with or without a registration process or
some other information-gathering mechanism, greater coordination with
states that have inspection programs comparable to EPA's SPCC program
could help to expand EPA's knowledge base on SPCC facilities and
provide a more informed basis for targeting limited inspection
resources. However, given the variation that we found in regional
office-state interactions, without uniform guidance for EPA regional
offices on how to better communicate and coordinate with states on SPCC-
related issues, EPA may not be able to take full advantage of this
opportunity to gain information that may be critical for achieving the
SPCC program's goals.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better identify and target SPCC facilities for inspection, we
recommend that the Administrator of EPA direct the Office of Emergency
Management to take the following two actions:
* analyze the costs and benefits of the options available to EPA for
obtaining key data about the universe of SPCC-regulated facilities,
including, among others, a tank registration program similar to those
employed by some states, which would require tank owners to report to
EPA, on a regular basis, facility information such as the number of
facilities and tanks, their size, age, location, quality of
construction, and methods of operation and:
* in conjunction with states that have oil spill prevention programs,
develop uniform guidance for EPA regional offices on how to better
communicate and coordinate with those states on SPCC-related issues.
In addition, to assess the effectiveness of the SPCC program, we
recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct the Office of Emergency
Management to complete, in a timely manner, the development of
performance measures and obtain the data needed to determine the extent
to which the program is achieving its goals of preventing and
controlling oil spills.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
GAO provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and
comment. The agency stated that it generally agreed with the
recommendations in the report and that the report provided a good,
comprehensive picture of a portion of the oil spill program implemented
by EPA's Office of Emergency Management. With regard to our
recommendation that EPA finish developing performance measures and
obtain the data needed to evaluate SPCC program effectiveness, the
agency noted--as we acknowledge in the report--that EPA has already
initiated work to develop such measures and that the feedback the
report provides will help to further shape the agency's actions in this
regard. Beyond agreeing with our other two recommendations, EPA did not
comment on them.
EPA also provided technical comments on the draft report, which we have
incorporated as appropriate. The full text of EPA's comments is
included as appendix III.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the
Administrator, EPA, and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology:
To determine how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regions
implement the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)
program, we spoke with EPA headquarters on the overall management of
the program, including the organizational structure, formulation and
implementation of the SPCC rule and amendments, training of staff on
the rule, funds allocated to the program, enforcement policy, and
headquarters' interaction and coordination with the EPA regions that
implement the program. To determine what data EPA officials have
available to implement the SPCC program, we spoke with EPA region
officials to determine the agency's data sources for identifying
facilities and targeting them for inspection, and for enforcing SPCC
regulations; how the agency uses the data; and the data's overall
limitations. To obtain this information, we visited EPA Regions 3, 5,
and 6 because they conducted the most inspections of all the EPA
regions over a 3-year period and to achieve geographical diversity. We
visited an SPCC facility in each of these regions with EPA officials to
observe how SPCC inspectors conduct their work.
To obtain information on both how the program is implemented and what
data sources the agency uses, we conducted a survey of SPCC program
officials in all 10 EPA regions. In this survey, we sought to
determine, among other things, how the regions identify and target
facilities to inspect, the number of inspections each region has
conducted in recent years, how much training an SPCC inspector
receives, and the number of those inspected facilities that complied
with SPCC regulations and, for those that did not comply, the number
and type of enforcement actions taken. On November 30, 2006, we e-
mailed the survey with a cover letter to officials in the 10 regions
that were primarily responsible for day-to-day management and
implementation of SPCC requirements. We also issued an addendum to each
region on December 5, 2006, when it was brought to our attention that
two questions in the survey regarding the training of inspection staff
posed some confusion. Completed surveys were received by December 18,
2006. To supplement the survey and to elaborate on survey responses, in
addition to the three regions we visited, we followed up by telephone
with four regions--1, 2, 7, and 8. The calls helped us obtain more
specific examples of how EPA regions identify and target SPCC
facilities for inspection. A copy of our survey used in this review is
in appendix II. It includes the aggregate responses to the survey and
summaries of open-ended questions from all 10 EPA regions, when
appropriate. The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, respondents may have difficulty in interpreting a particular
question or may lack information necessary to provide a valid and
reliable response. In order to minimize these errors, we conducted a
pretest of the draft survey with two EPA regions--4 and 8--over the
telephone. We made changes to the content and format of the survey
after this review based on the feedback we received.
To understand the nature of states' aboveground oil storage tank
programs and how they are implemented, to identify potential options
that might be applied to EPA's program, and to learn about any
coordination between these states' programs and EPA's SPCC program, we
first reviewed the Aboveground Storage Tank Guide, Vols. I and II, by
the Thompson Publishing Group, which includes a comprehensive section
on individual state aboveground storage tank regulations. We found that
although many states regulate aboveground storage tanks in a piecemeal
fashion through various state statutes, including adopted versions of
uniform fire codes, such as the Uniform Fire Safety Standards, the
International Fire Code, and the National Fire Protection Association's
code, some states have developed comprehensive regulatory programs.
After our analysis of this information, we spoke with the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) and
other state officials who recommended we speak to several states that
they considered to have well-run aboveground storage tank programs. We
then selected our states based on these recommendations, as well as
geographical considerations such as whether the states were in diverse
areas of the United States. We also limited our selection to one state
each for a particular EPA region. We then interviewed officials from
aboveground oil storage tank inspection programs in six states--
Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Virginia.
We conducted this performance audit between August 2007 and April 2008
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.[Footnote 17] Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary of EPA Regional Survey Results:
The following information includes the aggregate responses and, when
appropriate, summaries of answers to open-ended questions from our
survey of 10 EPA regional offices on how the SPCC program is
implemented and the data sources the agency uses. We also followed up
with officials from several regional offices to clarify some of their
survey responses.
Section 1-Facilities Inspected:
1. Did your region document the number of facilities that were
inspected for compliance with Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures (SPCC) regulations in the following federal fiscal
years?
FY 2004;
Yes: 9;
No: 1.
FY 2005;
Yes: 10;
No: 0.
FY 2006;
Yes: 10;
No: 0.
[End of table]
2. Can your region separately account for facilities inspected for
compliance with SPCC and with FRP?
Yes: 10;
No: 0 ‡ SKIP to question 11.
[End of table]
3. How many facilities in your region were inspected for compliance
with SPCC regulations in each of the following federal fiscal years?
Please count each facility once in a given year, regardless of the
number of times it was inspected in that year.
FY 2004;
Number of Facilities: 1,067.
FY 2005;
Number of Facilities: 1,167.
FY 2006;
Number of Facilities: 1,125.
[End of table]
4. Of the total number of facilities inspected in each of the following
federal fiscal years how many if any were in full compliance with all
SPCC requirements at the time of inspection?
FY 2004;
Number of Facilities: 200.
FY 2005;
Number of Facilities: 389.
FY 2006;
Number of Facilities: 446.
[End of table]
5. Of the total number of facilities inspected in each of the following
federal fiscal years, how many were not in full compliance with all
SPCC requirements at the time of inspection?
FY 2004;
Number of Facilities: 503.
FY 2005;
Number of Facilities: 650.
FY 2006;
Number of Facilities: 664.
[End of table]
6. Of the total number of facilities that were not in full compliance
at the time of inspection, how many were issued an Expedited Settlement
Agreement (ESA)? For this question, please consider an ESA to be a
mechanism used by EPA to address a facility's compliance shortcomings
with reduced fines.
FY 2004;
Number of Facilities: 123.
FY 2005;
Number of Facilities: 140.
FY 2006;
Number of Facilities: 111.
[End of table]
7. Of the total number of facilities that were not in full compliance
at the time of inspection, against how many did EPA apply traditional
enforcement mechanisms (that is, taking legal action)?
FY 2004;
Number of Facilities: 32.
FY 2005;
Number of Facilities: 28.
FY 2006;
Number of Facilities: 21.
[End of table]
8. Of the total number of facilities that were not in full compliance
at the time of inspection in FY 2006, for how many facilities has EPA
not determined the final enforcement action it will take?
FY 2006;
Number of Facilities: 255[A].
[A] Number of facilities for which EPA had not determined final
enforcement action as of December 2006.
[End of table]
Data Accuracy:
Government auditing standards require that GAO assess the accuracy of
data we use in our reports. Your responses to the following questions
will be used to help us correctly interpret the information you have
provided in questions 3-8.
9. Are there circumstances in which an inspected facility would be
counted more than once in your responses to questions 3-8?
Yes: 1 ‡ Please explain these circumstances in the space below;
No: 9 (3 elaborations).
[End of table]
We received one "yes" response to this question, from Region 7. Region
7 said that an inspection could be counted twice if it was entered into
its data system with different facility ID numbers. We do not know how
common it estimates this mistake to be or if there is any systematic
reason that this mistake would be made.
We received three "no" response clarifications to this question, from
Regions 1, 2, and 4. Region 2 stated that the term "inspections" for
this survey is being interpreted as a Field Inspection, not SPCC Plan
Reviews conducted without a Field Inspection and that this
interpretation will reduce the amount of double counts for a facility.
Region 4 stated that it conducted 168 inspections in fiscal year 2006
and that it counted 166 inspections total per the GAO survey
instructions provided in Question 3, since two facilities were
inspected twice in the same year. Region 1 stated "With exception, as
Questions 4 and 5 are subsets of Question 3, and Questions 6 thru 8 are
subsets of Question 5."
10. Are there circumstances in which an inspected facility would not be
counted at all in your responses to questions 3-8?
Yes: 4 ‡ Please explain these circumstances in the space below;
No: 6.
[End of table]
We received four "yes" response elaborations from this question, from
Regions 1, 3, 7, and 10. We received no elaborations from "no"
responses.
EPA Region 1 clarified that legal actions were included in Question 8,
rather than Question 7, per a follow-up conversation with Region 1
officials. These actions may be administrative orders or Clean Water
Act Section 308 Information Requests. EPA Region 3 officials stated
that in fiscal year 2006, they discontinued counting inspections that
were conducted in conjunction with the Underground Injection Control
program. This reduces their number of reported inspections. EPA Region
7 responded that an inspection would not be counted if it failed to
enter it into the data system. Region 7 also stated that some
inspections had not been counted because the inspector has not been
able to complete the inspection reports due to extended family friendly
leave. Region 10 clarified that facilities that were determined not to
be subject to SPCC regulations were counted as an inspection, but were
not counted in any other section of the report. In some cases,
facilities that were found not to be subject may explain the difference
between the number of inspections and those found to be in compliance
or noncompliance.
Section 2-Number of Individuals Inspecting Facilities:
We would like information on the individuals available to conduct
inspections of facilities for compliance with SPCC. We would like to
know who is trained to conduct inspections and the types of inspections
these individuals have performed in fiscal year 2006. We understand
that that not all inspectors may have completed the 40-hour SPCC/FRP
specific training.
11. For federal fiscal year 2006, did your region document the number
of individuals who inspected at least one facility for compliance with
SPCC regulations?
Yes: 10;
No: 0 ‡ SKIP to question 20.
[End of table]
12. How many individuals inspected at least one facility for compliance
with SPCC regulations in your region in FY 2006?
FY 2006;
Number of individuals: 95.
[End of table]
13. Of the individuals who inspected at least one facility for
compliance with SPCC regulations in FY 2006, how many completed each of
the following types of SPCC training?
Completed only Basic Inspector/Health and Safety training;
Number of individuals: 5.
Completed only 40-hour program specific SPCC/FRP training;
Number of individuals: 0.
Completed both Basic Inspector/Health and Safety and 40-hour program
specific training;
Number of individuals: 69.
Completed only 8-hour or 12-hour program specific SPCC/FRP
training—————————;
Number of individuals: 4.
Completed both Basic Inspector/Health and Safety training and 8-hour or
12-hour program specific SPCC/FRP training———————————————;
Number of individuals: 17.
Completed none of the Basic Inspector/Health and Safety training nor
any program specific SPCC/FRP training (40-, 12-or 8-hour training
sessions);
Number of individuals: 0.
Total (from question 12);
Number of individuals: 95.
[End of table]
14. Of individuals who did not inspect at least one facility for
compliance with SPCC regulations in FY 2006, how many completed each of
the following types of SPCC training?
Completed only Basic Inspector/Health and Safety training;
Number of individuals: 5.
Completed only 40-hour program specific SPCC/FRP training;
Number of individuals: 0.
Completed both Basic Inspector/Health and Safety and 40-hour program
specific training;
Number of individuals: 19.
Completed only 8-hour or12-hour program specific SPCC/FRP
training—————————;
Number of individuals: 2.
Completed both Basic Inspector/Health and Safety training and 8-hour or
12-hour program specific SPCC/FRP training———————————————;
Number of individuals: 25.
Completed none of the Basic Inspector/Health and Safety training nor
any program specific SPCC/FRP training (40-, 12-or 8-hour training
sessions);
Number of individuals: 3.
Total;
Number of individuals: 54.
[End of table]
15. Of the total number of individuals who inspected at least one
facility in FY 2006, how many are employees of each of the following
organizations? The total should equal the number of individuals entered
for question 12.
EPA Regional employees;
Number of individuals: 75.
Contractor/Grantee employees;
Number of individuals: 20.
Other (Please specify: _________________);
Number of individuals: 0.
Total (from question 12);
Number of individuals: 95.
[End of table]
16. Of the total number of individuals who inspected at least one
facility in FY 2006, how many conduct inspections for only SPCC/FRP
regulations and how many conduct inspections for both SPCC/FRP and
other environmental regulations? The total should equal the number of
individuals entered for question 12.
Conduct inspections for only SPCC/FRP regulations;
Number of individuals: 72.
Conduct inspections for both SPCC/FRP and other environmental
regulations;
Number of individuals: 23.
Total (from question 12);
Number of individuals: 95.
[End of table]
17. Of the total number of individuals who inspected at least one
facility in FY 2006, how many spent the following fractions of their
time on activities related to SPCC? The total should equal the number
of individuals entered for question 12. In calculating your responses,
please consider all SPCC-related activities, including planning for
inspections, conducting outreach to facilities, visiting facilities,
and documenting inspection results.
Less than 25% of their time;
Number of individuals: 63.
Between 25% and 50% of their time;
Number of individuals: 9.
Between 50% and 75% of their time;
Number of individuals: 5.
More than 75% of their time;
Number of individuals: 18.
Total (from question 12);
Number of individuals: 95.
[End of table]
Data Accuracy:
Government auditing standards require that GAO assess the accuracy of
data we use in our reports. Your responses to the following questions
will be used to help us correctly interpret the information you have
provided in questions 12-17.
18. Are there circumstances in which an inspector might be double-
counted in your responses to questions 12-17?
Yes: 0 ‡ Please explain these circumstances in the space below;
No: 10.
[End of table]
19. Are there circumstances in which an inspector might be mistakenly
excluded from your responses to questions 12-17?
Yes: 2 ‡ Please explain these circumstances in the space below;
No: 8.
[End of table]
We received "yes" responses and elaborations to this question from
Region 3 and Region 7. Region 3 responded that "multimedia" inspectors
who reside in the Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental
Justice are not counted in the numbers presented here. They receive no
compensation, nor are their inspections recorded by EPA headquarters.
Region 7 responded that it did not include a contractor that conducted
two multimedia inspections, which included SPCC, in answering Questions
13 and 14. Inspectors not involved in the SPCC program were not
included in the response to Question 14.
Section 3-Selecting Facilities for Inspection:
20. Does your region use written criteria to select facilities for
inspection?
Yes: 6 ‡ Please send us a copy of these criteria;
No: 4 ‡ SKIP to question 25.
[End of table]
21. In what year did your region develop these criteria?
Region 1;
Not Applicable.
Region 2;
2000.
Region 3;
2005.
Region 4;
2005.
Region 5;
Not Applicable.
Region 6;
1995.
Region 7;
Not Applicable.
Region 8;
2005.
Region 9;
2004.
Region 10;
Not Applicable.
[End of table]
22. How often does your region re-evaluate these criteria?
Of the six regions that reported having written inspection criteria,
four said that they evaluate their criteria at least annually (Regions
3, 4, 8, and 9). Region 6 stated that its criteria are evaluated
regularly, as conditions warrant. Region 2 stated that evaluation of
which facilities to target is an ongoing process, done informally among
the three staff members involved.
23. What process did your region use to develop these criteria?
Regions briefly described processes that involve consulting a number of
sources: staff, states, SPCC coordinators, etc., to set the priorities
for targeting facilities. Region 4 said that formal mechanisms for
targeting SPCC facilities have only been in place in recent years, but
informally, the mechanisms have been in places for longer. Region 6
described the criteria used in its geographic information system (GIS)
selection system.
24. What data do these criteria require in order to be used to select
facilities for inspection?
The regions described a variety of data sources: National Response
Center (NRC) spill reports, other spill data, previous SPCC inspection
checklists, enforcement priorities, GIS mapping data, facility history,
etc. Region 2 said that state data can be of some use, but they do not
correspond exactly to SPCC data.
25. Does your region have a list of facilities that it planned to
inspect in FY 2006?
Yes: 8 ‡ Please submit a copy of this list;
No: 2 ‡ SKIP to question 30.
[End of table]
26. How many facilities were on your region's originally planned list
in federal fiscal year 2006?
Number of facilities: 718-818:
27. How many of these facilities did your region actually inspect
during federal fiscal year 2006?
Number of facilities: 607:
28. What are the stages of the planning process that your region uses
to select facilities for inspection?
Eight of 10 regions gave written responses to this question. Responses
reflect a variety of priorities in targeting facilities, but some
common priorities are present: need of the state and spill histories is
mentioned by a few regions.
29. What sources of data or information does your region use at each of
these stages?
Eight of 10 regions gave written responses to this question. Regions
mention a variety of data sources: state data, Internet sites, and
spill data. The responses generally do not tie specific data with
specific stages in the facility targeting process.
30. In your region's decisions about which facilities to inspect for
compliance with SPCC regulations, how important are each of the
following criteria? Please check one response in each row.
Region already responding to a spill at the facility;
Very little Importance: 0;
Little Importance: 0;
Moderate Importance: 0;
Great Importance: 1;
Very Great Importance: 9;
No basis to judge: 0.
Facility has history of spills;
Very little Importance: 0;
Little Importance: 0;
Moderate Importance: 0;
Great Importance: 1;
Very Great Importance: 9;
No basis to judge: 0.
Facility has large oil storage capacity;
Very little Importance: 0;
Little Importance: 1;
Moderate Importance: 2;
Great Importance: 6;
Very Great Importance: 1;
0.
Facility is particularly close to a water body;
Very little Importance: 0;
Little Importance: 0;
Moderate Importance: 1;
Great Importance: 4;
Very Great Importance: 5;
0.
Facility is particularly close to other sensitive environment;
Very little Importance: 0;
Little Importance: 1;
Moderate Importance: 1;
Great Importance: 4;
Very Great Importance: 4;
0.
Regional focus on particular geographic area;
Very little Importance: 0;
Little Importance: 0;
Moderate Importance: 3;
Great Importance: 4;
Very Great Importance: 3;
0.
Regional focus on particular industry or facility type;
Very little Importance: 1;
Little Importance: 2;
Moderate Importance: 3;
Great Importance: 3;
Very Great Importance: 1;
0.
Region received referrals from federal, tribal, state, or local
officials;
Very little Importance: 0;
Little Importance: 0;
Moderate Importance: 0;
Great Importance: 2;
Very Great Importance: 8;
0.
Region received tips or complaints from the public;
Very little Importance: 0;
Little Importance: 0;
Moderate Importance: 0;
Great Importance: 2;
Very Great Importance: 8;
No basis to judge: 0.
Region received news reports suggesting non-compliance at a facility;
Very little Importance: 0;
Little Importance: 1;
Moderate Importance: 2;
Great Importance: 4;
Very Great Importance: 3;
No basis to judge: 0.
Other (Please specify: ___________________);
Very little Importance: 0;
Little Importance: 1;
Moderate Importance: 2;
Great Importance: 4;
Very Great Importance: 3;
No basis to judge: 0.
[End of table]
Section 4-Number of Facilities Regulated:
31. Does your region have a database of the total number of facilities
that are subject to compliance with SPCC regulations in your region?
Yes: 0;
No: 10 ‡ SKIP to question 34.
[End of table]
32. What is the source of these data?
Three regions gave written responses to this question. Regions 3, 4,
and 6 responded, saying that they do not have data on the universe of
SPCC-regulated facilities.
33. How accurately do these data capture the total number of facilities
subject to SPCC regulations in your region?
Regions 3 and 6 gave responses to these questions. Both regions
clarified that their databases do not fully capture the universe of
regulated facilities. Region 6 said that it has found the general
accuracy of its database to be less than 50 percent.
Section 5 - Number of Oil Spills:
34. In federal fiscal year 2006, did your region use oil spill data
from the U.S. Coast Guard's National Response Center to manage the SPCC
program in your region?
Yes: 9;
No: 1 ‡ SKIP to question 36.
[End of table]
35. How accurately do the NRC data capture the total number of
facilities subject to SPCC regulations in your region?
Nine out of 10 regions responded to this question. Regions listed the
flaws of NRC data. NRC only includes spill incidence, rather than the
SPCC universe, and it is not always possible to trace the spill to its
source.
36. In federal fiscal year 2006, did your region use oil spill data
from state databases to manage the SPCC program in your region?
Yes: 2 ‡ Which states? (See Below);
No: 10 ‡ SKIP to question 38.
[End of table]
37. How accurately do these state data capture the total number of
facilities subject to SPCC regulations in your region?
Region 9: California. Region 9 says that California data are "Better
than NRC, but still very little." Region 6: Texas and Oklahoma. Region
6 says that state databases "have not been designed for determining
SPCC inventories. However, they may include locational attributes which
help identify potential SPCC facilities."
38. In federal fiscal year 2006, did your region use oil spill data
from other sources to manage the SPCC program in your region?
Yes: 3 ‡ What sources?;
No: 7 ‡ SKIP to question 40.
[End of table]
39. How accurately does this data from other sources capture the total
number of facilities subject to SPCC regulations in your region?
Regions 1, 2, and 10 were the only regions that used other data and
responded to this question. These regions said that their other data
sources were from states, and that these data sources do not capture
the regulated facilities. They only track complaints or spills and not
the regulated universe.
40. Can any of the spill data used in your region be broken out for
particular industrial category in any particular year?
Yes: 3 ‡ Which data?;
No: 7 ‡ SKIP to question 42.
[End of table]
41. Can any of the spill data used in your region be broken out for
particular years?
Yes: 6 ‡ Which data?;
No: 4.
[End of table]
Section 6-Coordination with State Oil Programs:
We are interested in identifying the extent EPA regions cooperate with
states on oil spill prevention-related activities and regulations. We
plan to meet with officials in at least two states in order to describe
how these states and EPA cooperate in evaluating and implementing SPCC
requirements.
42. What is the contact information for oil spill prevention-related
activities and regulations in each of the states in your region?
Contact information provided by the regions is not included.
State name;
Agency name;
Program name;
Contact name;
Phone number;
E-mail address.
43. Please describe the relevant oil spill prevention-related
activities and regulations in each of the states in your region.
The answers to this open-ended question are not included.
State Name;
Description of oil spill prevention-related activities and regulations.
[See PDF for image]
44. Do the states in your region have a system to register facilities
that are subject to oil spill regulations?
A total of 16 states were reported by EPA regions as having a system to
register facilities subject to oil spill regulations.
State Name;
Yes;
No;
No basis to judge.
[End of table]
Section 7-Regional Organization:
45. In what month and year did the last reorganization that effected
SPCC functions in your region take place?
Month:_________________:
Year: _________________:
The answers to this question are not included.
Section 8-Final Comments:
46. Please provide any additional comments you'd like us to consider in
our review.
The answers to this question are not included.
47. Please attach copies of each of the following when submitting your
response to us:
1. List of facilities that the region inspected in fiscal year 2006,
including the following information on each facility:
* Whether or not the facility was in full compliance with SPCC
regulations at the time of inspection;
* Whether EPA issued the facility an ESA;
* Whether or not EPA has taken legal action against the facility; and:
* The amount of fines, if any, levied against this facility:
2. Written criteria used to select facilities for SPCC inspections (see
question 20):
3. List of facilities that region planned to inspect in fiscal year
2006 (see question 25):
4. Documentation to support answers in Section 5 regarding oil spill
databases, such as spreadsheets or descriptions of databases in which
these data may be housed:
5. An annotated organizational chart of your region explaining where
all SPCC-related staff are located, including (but not limited to)
inspectors, enforcement, data, and legal staff:
The information received from the regions that GAO requested is not
included.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
[hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov]:
April 16, 2008:
Office Of Solid Waste And Emergency Response:
Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director:
Natural Resources & Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Room 2075:
Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report entitled,
"Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: More Complete Facility Data Could
Improve Implementation of EPA's Spill Prevention Program (GAO-08-482)."
We appreciate the collegial working relationship and dialog with GAO as
this report was developed.
Overall, we generally agree with the recommendations in the report to:
(1) analyze the costs and benefits of the options for obtaining data on
Spill Prevention, Countermeasure and Control (SPCC) regulated
facilities, including, among others, a tank registration program.
although we would also need to analyze whether we have the authority to
implement a container registration program; (2) develop guidance for
EPA regions on how to better coordinate with the states on SPCC issues;
and (3) finish developing performance measures and obtain data to
evaluate SPCC program effectiveness. As noted in this draft report, EPA
has already initiated work in developing performance measures and the
additional feedback provided will help us further shape our actions.
This report also provides a good, comprehensive picture of a portion of
the oil spill program implemented by EPA's Office of Emergency
Management (OEM). OEM strives to work effectively with its headquarters
and regional office partners within the agency and with external
stakeholders to protect public health and the environment from oil
spills through prevention, preparedness, and response programs. EPA's
Regional Offices work to cultivate relationships with state and local
entities to carry out these programs. We appreciate GAO's efforts to
accurately describe and document this challenging effort on behalf of
headquarters and field personnel.
EPA requests that the report be modified to address several technical
corrections and edits (see enclosure). We have also provided your staff
with edits that address typographical errors. We offer additional
description of the resource allocations between the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund (OSLTF) and EPA for a more accurate characterization. Our
regional offices also offer some additional details to better describe
the relationship between the Regions and the States.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work with your team on this
review and your consideration of technical corrections. If you have any
other comments or questions about these corrections, please contact
Deborah Dietrich, Director of the Office of Emergency Management at 202-
564-8600.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Susan Parker Bodine:
Assistant Administrator:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841, stephensonj@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Vincent P. Price, Assistant
Director; Kevin Bray; Mark Braza; Greg Carroll; Bernice H. Dawson; Mary
Robison; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to this
report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For purposes of the SPCC rule, non-transportation-related
facilities include, among others, such facilities as fixed or mobile
onshore and offshore oil drilling and production facilities; oil
refining and storage facilities; industrial, commercial, agricultural,
and public facilities that use and store oil; waste treatment
facilities; loading racks, transfer hoses, loading arms, and other
equipment used to transfer oil in bulk to or from highway vehicles or
railroad cars; and highway vehicles, railroad cars, and pipelines used
to transport oil within confines of a non-transportation-related
facility. 40 C.F.R. pt. 112, app. A.
[2] While EPA refers to oil storage "containers" in the SPCC rule, with
"tanks" as a subset of those containers, in this report we refer to
those storage units described in the SPCC rule by the more commonly
used term "tanks."
[3] GAO, Inland Oil Spills: Stronger Regulation and Enforcement Needed
to Avoid Future Incidents, GAO/RCED-89-65 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 22,
1989).
[4] GAO, Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: Status of EPA's Efforts to
Improve Regulation and Inspections, GAO/RCED-95-180 (Washington, D.C.:
July 18, 1995).
[5] The 1982 Convention on the Laws of the Seas granted coastal
countries, such as the United States, exclusive economic zones that
extend to a distance of 200 nautical miles out from a country's coast
line. They provide a country with special rights over the exploration
and use of marine sources within the zone.
[6] For example, 1 million gallons spilled into the Monongahela River
from the collapse of an aboveground storage tank at the Ashland Oil Co.
facility near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1988.
[7] GAO, Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: Observations on EPA's Economic
Analyses of Amendments to the Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Rule, GAO-07-763 (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2007).
[8] These letters or notices are essentially warnings to the recipients
informing them that the facility is in violation of the Clean Water Act
and indicating the possibility of escalated enforcement action if the
violation is not corrected in a timely manner.
[9] According to EPA officials, ESAs are generally appropriate for
minor, easily correctable violations and provide for a lower penalty
settlement than called for by the civil penalty policy under Section
311 of the Clean Water Act.
[10] Administrative penalties can be either Class I or Class II
penalties. Class I administrative penalties may not exceed $11,000 per
violation or $32,500 in total. Class II administrative penalties may
not exceed $11,000 per day of violation or $157,500 in total. For
penalties above $157,500, the case is referred to the Department of
Justice to obtain civil penalties in a federal district court. EPA
officials stated that in administrative enforcement actions, EPA can
seek only monetary penalties, not actual compliance.
[11] This is an approximate percentage of noncompliance. Some totals of
facilities reported as being in compliance or noncompliance may not
equal the total number of inspected facilities in that year. This may
be due to inspections that were ongoing at the end of the fiscal year,
where compliance had not yet been determined. The average rate is based
on the number of facilities that regions reported being in
noncompliance, divided by the total number of facilities reported as
inspected in that year.
[12] Under a 2003 agency order, this requirement is to be fulfilled
before EPA inspectors can lead an inspection, but it does not preclude
an inspector from participating in an inspection as part of a team.
[13] Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, EPA, Civil Penalty
Policy for Section 311(b)(3) and Section 311 (j) of the Clean Water
Act, August 1998.
[14] NRC is the federal government's national communications center and
the national point of contact for spill reporting. NRC also distributes
reported spill information to agencies--including EPA and the U.S.
Coast Guard--tasked with responding to spills. It is staffed 24 hours a
day by Coast Guard officers and marine science technicians.
[15] OMB conducted a program assessment of EPA's oil spill control
program in 2005, including an assessment of strategic planning and
program design, management, and performance measures. It rated each
area and suggested improvements to the program.
[16] EPA officials told us that defining "compliance" has also raised
some questions on how to measures the "percent of SPCC and FRP facility
compliance." When the measures were established, there were questions
across regional offices about how "compliance" should be defined and
measured. SPCC management subsequently clarified the measure as full--
rather than partial--compliance with the SPCC and FRP regulations at
the time of initial inspection. According to EPA officials, the
regional offices should now be using this common definition of
compliance when reporting their results. However, concerns about the
appropriateness of these output measures in assessing the SPCC program
remain.
[17] Aspects of our review, including the survey of EPA regional
offices, were conducted during our previous review of the amendments to
the SPCC rule from June 2006 to July 2007.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
