Chemical Safety Board: Recent Organizational Changes and Status of
Operations (Statement/Record, 03/02/2000, GAO/T-RCED-00-101).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board, determining the status of the Board's:
(1) organization; (2) operations; and (3) efforts to update and develop
plans, policies, and procedure for accomplishing the Board's mission.

GAO noted that: (1) the Board is operating under a significantly
different organizational structure than was in effect during most of its
first 2 years of operation; (2) this new structure requires a majority
vote of the Board members for substantive management decisions and
delegates some specific responsibilities, such as personnel matters, to
individual Board members; (3) in contrast, during the first 2 years of
operation, the Chairman had individually made substantive management
decisions; (4) the current structure represents an interim solution to
address two governance issues: (a) the lack of an appointed chairperson
since January 2000; and (b) disagreements concerning the roles of the
chairperson and Board members; (5) in addition, the Board has
implemented an organizational realignment that dedicates an increased
proportion of the Board's staffing resources to its investigations and
safety programs, rather than supporting activities; (6) however, only 7
of the 17 investigative and safety positions are filled because of,
among other things, difficulties in recruiting qualified staff; (7) in
terms of operations, the Board has made minimal progress in addressing
the backlog of incomplete investigations that existed as of April 1999,
when GAO last reported on the Board; (8) specifically, since then, only
one of nine outstanding investigations has been completed, and no new
investigations were initiated; (9) the Board has made progress in
developing needed plans, policies, and procedures, such as those for
awarding and managing contracts and selecting incidents to investigate;
and (10) however, the agency's strategic plan, required by the
Government Performance and Results Act, will not be completed until
September 2000.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-00-101
     TITLE:  Chemical Safety Board: Recent Organizational Changes and
	     Status of Operations
      DATE:  03/02/2000
   SUBJECT:  Strategic planning
	     Agency missions
	     Safety regulation
	     Safety standards
	     Hazardous substances
	     Federal agency reorganization
	     Industrial accidents
	     Accident prevention
	     Human resources utilization
	     Investigations by federal agencies

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development,
and Independent Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives

To Be Released
at 11:00 a.m. EST
Thursday
March 2, 2000

CHEMICAL SAFETY BOARD

Recent Organizational Changes and Status of Operations

Statement for the Record by
David G. Wood, Associate Director,
Environmental Protection Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-00-101

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We appreciate this opportunity to provide a statement for the record for use
in the Subcommittee's hearing on the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (the Board), an independent
agency. Currently in its third year of operation, the Board's mission is to
enhance the health and safety of the public, workers, and the environment by
determining the causes of accidental chemical releases and using these
findings to promote preventive actions by the private and public sectors.
The authorizing statute provides for five Board members, including a
chairperson, all appointed by the President. The staff includes
investigators, attorneys, and program analysts. The Board is required to
submit its budget request to the Congress and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) concurrently. For fiscal year 2001, the Board has requested $9
million, an increase of $1 million over the prior year's funding. However,
in the President's Budget, OMB requests $8 million for the Board.

Our statement is based on our work for Senators Bond and Lautenberg. As
agreed with their staff, this work is focused on determining the status of
the Board's (1) organization, (2) operations, and (3) efforts to update and
develop plans, policies, and procedures for accomplishing the Board's
mission. Our statement today reflects our preliminary findings. We expect to
complete our work and issue a final report in June 2000.

In summary, to date we have found the following:

The Board is currently operating under a significantly different
organizational structure than was in effect during most of its first 2 years
of operation. This new structure requires a majority vote of the Board
members for substantive management decisions and delegates some specific
responsibilities, such as personnel matters, to individual Board members. In
contrast, during the first 2 years of operation, the Chairman had
individually made substantive management decisions. The current structure
represents an interim solution to address two governance issues: the lack of
an appointed chairperson since January 2000 and disagreements concerning the
roles of the chairperson and Board members. In addition, the Board has
implemented an organizational realignment that dedicates an increased
proportion of the Board's staffing resources to its investigations and
safety programs, rather than supporting activities. However, only 7 of the
17 investigative and safety positions are currently filled because of, among
other things, difficulties in recruiting qualified staff.

In terms of operations, the Board has made minimal progress in addressing
the backlog of incomplete investigations that existed as of April 1999, when
we last reported on the Board. Specifically, since then, only one of nine
outstanding investigations has been completed, and no new investigations
were initiated. The Board has made progress in developing needed plans,
policies, and procedures, such as those for awarding and managing contracts
and selecting incidents to investigate. However, the agency's strategic
plan, required by the Government Performance and Results Act, will not be
completed until September 2000.

Background

Chemical incidents--the accidental release of toxic and hazardous
chemicals--occur frequently and often have serious consequences. However,
according to Board officials, reliable national statistics on the number of
accidents, injuries, and deaths do not exist. The Board is an independent
agency created under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The act directed
the Board to (1) investigate and report on the circumstances and the
probable causes of chemical incidents resulting in a fatality, serious
injury, or substantial property damages; (2) recommend measures to reduce
the likelihood or the consequences of such accidents and to propose
corrective measures; and (3) establish regulations for reporting accidental
releases.

The Board has no enforcement authority and a very limited regulatory role.
According to a relevant legislative committee report, the Board is modeled
after the National Transportation Safety Board, which retained the lead role
in investigating transportation-related chemical incidents.

The Board is to consist of five members, including a chairperson, appointed
by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The chairperson is the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of the Board. As of February 2000, the Board has
four members but does not have an appointed chairperson.

To accomplish its primary mission, the Board has conducted both full-scale
investigations of chemical accidents as well as limited investigations,
called reviews. In our April 1999 statement for the record before the
Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations, we identified a
backlog of incomplete investigations. Furthermore, we determined that
significant portions of the Board's actual and planned resources were
dedicated to activities, such as external relations, that did not directly
support the conduct of its investigations.

Status of the Board's Organization

Recently, the Board changed its management responsibilities and functional
alignment to address, among other things, conflicts that had arisen over the
roles and responsibilities of the Board members. Specifically, in December
1999 and January 2000, the Board developed interim solutions to important
organizational issues regarding the roles and the management
responsibilities of the Board members. In addition, changes in functional
alignment made in 1999 and early 2000 increased the proportion of staffing
resources to be allocated to the Board's primary mission of conducting
investigations and reduced staffing allocated for other activities, such as
external relations and information technology.

Conflicts Arose Over the Roles and

the Responsibilities of Board Members

In 1999, the Chairman and the other members of the Board disagreed over
their respective roles and responsibilities for managing the agency. In
essence, the Chairman asserted that he had sole control over many
significant agency decisions, while the other Board members believed that
making these decisions was the collective responsibility of the Board.
Consequently, the Board members did not necessarily support the actions
taken by the Chairman. For example, they were concerned about the initial
fiscal year 2001 budget request the Chairman had sent to the appropriations
committees in October 1999 that would have doubled the Board's funding to
$16 million. In addition, according to a Board directive, the Chairman and
the Chief Operating Officer did not comply with requests from the other
Board members for contracting documents that they wanted to review in order
to identify the goods and services that had been provided under the
contracts.

The Board members asked the agency's General Counsel to provide a legal
opinion on the roles and the responsibilities of Board members. In an August
1999 memorandum, the agency's Office of General Counsel concluded that, for
a number of important agency functions, there should be at least some amount
of shared responsibility between the Chairman and the other Board members.
For example, the memorandum concluded that while the Chairman and his staff
were responsible for preparing the agency's budget request, it must be
approved by the full Board before being transmitted to the Congress and OMB.
Similarly, the memorandum stated that while the use and the distribution of
the agency's funds for contracting purposes falls within the scope of the
Chairman's administrative functions, the exercise of this authority is
subject to the oversight of the other Board members.

In October 1999, the Board members accepted the General Counsel's opinion,
but the Chairman requested further legal clarification before implementing
the opinion. The Chairman interpreted the Board's authorizing statute as
giving him authority, as CEO, over a number of agency functions, including
all budget and contracting issues, subject to review only by the President
and the Congress. In November 1999, the Board members requested an opinion
from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel on the legal
accuracy of the General Counsel's memorandum and agreed to be bound by the
opinion. In addition, on December 1, 1999, the Chairman also requested that
the Office of Legal Counsel review the Board's authorizing statute to
determine the precise roles and responsibilities of the chairperson and the
Board, and he agreed to be bound by the Office's conclusion. On the same
day, the Chairman and the Board members developed an agreement specifying
the interim measures to be taken until the Department of Justice provided
its legal opinion. This agreement expanded the roles and the
responsibilities of the Board members.

The Board's disagreement about its governance became a matter of public
record, reported in newspapers and periodicals. In January 2000, the
Chairman submitted his resignation as Chairman and CEO, effective January
12, 2000, but retained his position as a Board member. The President has not
appointed a new chairperson, and the Board is currently operating without a
chairperson and CEO.

On January 14, 2000, the Board members established and implemented interim
operating procedures that delineate their roles and responsibilities
whenever the position of chairperson is vacant. The procedures delegate
specific responsibilities, such as personnel matters and allocating
resources, to individual Board members. In addition, the procedures identify
the specific responsibilities, including developing budgets and awarding
contracts exceeding $10,000, that require a majority vote of the Board
members for approval.

Current Functional Alignment Emphasizes

Investigations, but Many Positions Are Vacant

During fiscal year 1999 and the early part of fiscal year 2000, the Board
made organizational changes to better carry out its mission. Among other
things, the Board increased the proportion of staffing resources to be
allocated to its investigative function. However, because of difficulties in
recruiting qualified staff, many vacancies exist in the Office of
Investigations and Safety Programs. The Board also shifted several key
personnel. The former Chief Operating Officer has been assigned to an
interim position of special assistant to a Board member, and the General
Counsel is assuming the position of Chief Operating Officer in addition to
his legal responsibilities. Also, on February 2, 2000, the Board named a
staff member to the position of Director of the Office of Investigations and
Safety Programs.

Increased Resources Allocated for Investigations and Safety

Currently, the Board has 26 staff, including the 4 Board members and a
special assistant to the Board. The Board expects to grow to a staff of 40
by the end of fiscal year 2000, with almost all of the growth in the areas
of investigations and safety. Table 1 identifies the Board's offices and
staffing allocations, both current and planned.

Table 1: The Board's Current and Projected Staffing Levels, by Functional
Office, as of February 15, 2000

                                      Projected
                           Current    staffing by
 Office                               the end of
                           staffing   fiscal year
                                      2000
 Board Members and staff   5          7a
 Chief Operating Officer   1b         2
 Investigations and Safety
 Programs                  7          17
 General Counsel           3b         3
 External Relations        2          2
 Information Technology
 Services                  4          4
 Administration            4          5
 Total                     26         40

aCurrently, the Board has four members and one special assistant. Projected
staffing includes the fifth Board member as provided by the Board's
authorizing statute.

bThe head of the Office of General Counsel also serves as the Chief
Operating Officer. This individual is included only in the staffing
allocated to the Office of General Counsel.

The projected staffing differs markedly from the staffing associated with
the Board's budget request for fiscal year 2000. Specifically, in February
1999, the Board expected to grow to a staff level of 60 by the end of fiscal
year 2000, compared with current plans to grow to 40 staff. In addition,
last year a greater proportion of staff was planned for organizational units
that did not directly support the Board's investigative mission. For
example, last year, 33 percent of the Board's projected staffing resources
at the end of fiscal year 2000 was allocated to investigations and safety
programs, compared with the current projections of 43 percent. Currently,
the Board plans to allocate two staff to the Office of External Relations
compared with the planned allocation of nine staff a year ago.

Vacancies Exist in the Investigations Area

As shown in Table 1, 10 of the 17 positions planned for the Office of
Investigations and Safety Programs are vacant. Six of them are for
investigators, and the other vacancies are for two program analysts, one
library/researcher, and one administrative assistant. Board officials told
us that the vacancies exist because of recruitment difficulties and the loss
of two investigators. According to the Board, potential recruits with the
requisite chemical safety skills--primarily from the oil and chemical
process industries--are highly paid and typically located in areas far from
Washington, D.C. Board officials said that it has been difficult to get
prospective staff to relocate. In addition, the Board has found that it
takes 6 months or longer to recruit and hire staff. This time frame for
hiring staff is longer than the Board anticipated. Moreover, according to
Board officials, two investigators resigned, including the Director of
Investigations.

The newly constituted Board has stated its intent to focus on personnel
management issues in fiscal year 2000. The Board will concentrate on
retaining and retraining current staff and on hiring and training qualified
professional staff. In its fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Board
acknowledged that it may not be able to achieve its fiscal year 2000 hiring
goals. The Board has also acknowledged that the governance problems and the
management difficulties stemming from them contributed to staff turnover. In
addition, the Board believes that more initiatives than the agency could
effectively handle were undertaken hastily in its first year of operation in
an effort to quickly demonstrate that the Board was meeting its
congressional mandate.

Status of the Board's Operations

The Board has not made progress in addressing its investigations backlog
this past year and has not initiated a new investigation since March 1999.
In addition, the more limited review program was terminated because of
problems encountered in performing these reviews. The Board plans to
initiate two investigations in fiscal year 2000 and four or five
investigations each year beginning in fiscal year 2001.

Progress Has Been Slow in Initiating

and Completing Investigations

The Board investigates accidental chemical releases resulting in a fatality,
serious injury, or substantial property damage. These investigations often
involve extensive site visits, evidence collection, and analytical work. The
Board started five full-scale investigations in 1998 and six in 1999,
although none have been initiated since March 1999. Of the 11
investigations, 3 from 1998 have been completed. One report has been
completed since March 1999.

Draft reports are in process for two investigations that were started in
April 1998 and March 1999. The Board expects these two reports to be issued
by the end of fiscal year 2000. The Board is in the process of reviewing the
other six outstanding investigations to determine whether reports should be
developed or other alternatives used, such as issuing summary reports or
concluding the investigations without reports. In addition to the personnel
issues discussed above, the Board believes one of the causes of the
investigations backlog was an over reliance on contractors to investigate
accidents. According to the Board, this over reliance on contractors
resulted in some poor investigations and reports because of insufficient
Board staff or inadequate procedures to monitor the contractors' personnel
to ensure their activities met the Board's investigative needs.

In terms of future investigations, the Board plans to initiate two
investigations during fiscal year 2000 and four or five investigations each
year beginning in fiscal year 2001.

Review Program Has Been Terminated

The more limited review program was developed to provide information to
prevent future incidents by using an approach that was less resource
intensive than full investigations. The protocol for these reviews provided
for a limited, office-based review of investigative reports prepared by the
organizations that responded to the incident. The Board initiated a total of
23 reviews in 1998 and 1999. However, Board officials told us that they
effectively terminated this program in July 1999 when they decided to add
the factual data about these reviews to an existing incidents database
maintained by the Board and that the program was officially terminated in
September 1999. This decision was made because of problems encountered in
performing these reviews, including the longer-than-anticipated time spent
in collecting the information and drafting the reports as well as the
possibility of duplicating work done by other government agencies.

The Board's Plans, Policies, and Procedures

In our April 1999 statement for the Senate appropriations subcommittee, we
identified two concerns about the Board's actions. One concern related to
the backlog of investigations and the fact that the Board had not updated
its initial business plan to reflect the backlog and examine how to address
this problem, for example, by reallocating existing and planned resources.
The second concern stemmed from the problems with contracting that developed
shortly after the Board began operations. We indicated the need for formal
procedures for its staff to follow in awarding and managing contracts. The
House conference committee report accompanying the Board's fiscal year 2000
appropriations act directed the Board to spend the preponderance of its
resources, including contract resources, on investigations and safety
instead of on external affairs or information technology. This report also
directed the Board to complete, by December 31, 1999, an updated business
plan, formal policies and procedures for awarding and managing contracts,
and formal procedures for selecting and performing investigations. The Board
has made progress in complying with these directives. Specifically,

   * On December 27, 1999, the Board issued formal written procedures for
     awarding and managing contracts.
   * On December 27, 1999, the Board issued interim procedures for selecting
     incidents to investigate and an interim investigative protocol for
     conducting accident investigations.
   * The Board requested an extension of time in developing an update to its
     business plan because of the former Chairman's announced resignation
     from that position and the related governance issues. This update will
     be accomplished by the development of strategic and performance plans
     required by the Government Performance and Results Act. On February 7,
     2000, the Board provided a performance plan for fiscal year 2001 along
     with its budget request for fiscal year 2001. The Board plans to
     develop a strategic plan by September 2000.

Observations

The governance issues that arose in 1999 limited the Board's ability to
effectively address the problems that we identified almost a year ago--the
backlog of investigations and the lack of key plans, policies, and
procedures to guide this new agency. The Board's initial steps since the
management realignments in December 1999 and January 2000 appear to be
appropriately targeted to addressing these issues. However, while the Board
plans to provide more resources to its investigations and safety programs,
it is not clear how the backlog will be addressed or when the agency will be
in a position to realistically initiate any new investigations, given the
agency's difficulties in hiring and retaining investigators.

Scope and Methodology

To review the status of the Board's efforts to carry out its mission, we
reviewed documents supplied by the Board related to its organization,
planning, budgeting, and programs; personnel data; and contract files. We
also interviewed Board employees, including Board members, attorneys, and
investigators. We discussed the contents of this statement with Board
members, the Chief Operating Officer, and other Board staff, who generally
agreed with the facts presented. Based on our discussions, we made some
minor revisions to reflect the clarifications the Board requested. We
conducted our work from January through February 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

(160517)
  
*** End of document. ***