Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: More Complete Facility Data Could 
Improve Implementation of EPA's Spill Prevention Program	 
(30-APR-08, GAO-08-482).					 
                                                                 
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.  
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-482 					        
    ACCNO:   A81922						        
  TITLE:     Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: More Complete Facility    
Data Could Improve Implementation of EPA's Spill Prevention	 
Program 							 
     DATE:   04/30/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Data collection					 
	     Databases						 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Federal facilities 				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Health hazards					 
	     Inspection 					 
	     Mission critical information			 
	     Oil pollution					 
	     Oil spills 					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Petroleum storage					 
	     Pollution control					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Public health					 
	     Risk assessment					 
	     Risk management					 
	     Soil pollution					 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Tanks (containers) 				 
	     Water pollution					 
	     Water pollution control				 
	     Environmental law					 
	     Emergency management				 
	     Emergency response plans				 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     Program implementation				 
	     EPA Spill Prevention Control and			 
	     Countermeasures Plan				 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-482

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 [email protected]. 

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. EPAï¿½s 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 statesï¿½ 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 expertsï¿½ 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 GAOï¿½s survey, during fiscal years 2004 
through 2006, EPA regions conducted 3,359 SPCC inspectionsï¿½less than 1 
percent of EPAï¿½s estimate of SPCC facilitiesï¿½ranging 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 
programï¿½s effectiveness. EPA is developing additional measures, but 
without more complete data on the SPCC-regulated universe, these 
measures cannot gauge the programï¿½s 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 GAOï¿½s 
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 [email protected]. 

[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 [email protected]. 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 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ 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 
trainingï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½; 
Number of individuals: 4. 

Completed both Basic Inspector/Health and Safety training and 8-hour or 
12-hour program specific SPCC/FRP trainingï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½; 
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 
trainingï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½; 
Number of individuals: 2. 

Completed both Basic Inspector/Health and Safety training and 8-hour or 
12-hour program specific SPCC/FRP trainingï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½; 
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 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ Please send us a copy of these criteria; 
No: 4 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ Please submit a copy of this list; 
No: 2 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ Which states? (See Below); 
No: 10 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ What sources?; 
No: 7 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ Which data?; 
No: 7 ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ 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, [email protected]. 

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: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***