There are many potential pathways for spill  notification in the corridor. Many spills go unreported because responsible parties may  not understand or comply with reporting requirements. EPA Region 5 does not remove all duplicate  spill reports from their database, or update its data after investigating  spills. In contrast, Coast Guard officials in District 9 document their  investigations and use the information to update their spill data, but they  do not update spill volume estimates because of automated system  limitations. Other events, including CSOs and industrial permit violations,  are reported more frequently in the corridor. The  NRC received 991 reports of spills in the corridor from 1994 to 2004, but  these may include multiple reports of the same spills. These data might be subject to  the same limitations as the spill data because industrial permit violations  and CSOs are self-reported and facilities may not report all of these events. Spill Notification Occurs between and among Many Different Parties and Agreements Outlining U.S.–Canadian Notification Processes Are Not Explicit about Time and Magnitude

Spill notification may involve the following: (1) spill occurrence and  reporting by a responsible party or observer to a designated reporting  center or a response agency; (2) spill notification from response agencies  to one another; and (3) spill notification by response agencies to drinking  water facilities and other stakeholders. Spill notification between the  United States and Canada is outlined in two agreements. The coast  guards of each country and officials from the Michigan State Police and  Ontario SAC have agreed to notify one another of spills; however, these  two agreements are not explicit about which spills warrant notification or  how quickly notification should occur. Drinking water facility  operators on the U.S. side of the corridor had differing perspectives on  current notification processes, but the majority expressed concern that  their facilities could be contaminated by spills due to untimely  notification. Finally, efforts have been made to develop informal  notification processes between individual industries or trade associations  and drinking water facilities. We selected six spill cases to illustrate the  various ways that spill notification can occur. EPA’s Spill Prevention and Enforcement Efforts Are Limited and the Coast Guard Addresses Spill Prevention as Part of Other Compliance Efforts

EPA’s spill prevention program addresses only oil spills, and EPA is  uncertain as to which facilities are governed by its spill prevention  requirements. EPA Region 5 conducted varying numbers of spill  prevention-related inspections per year in the corridor for the time frame  we reviewed, and their inspections uncovered significant spill prevention  deficiencies. It also regulates the transfer of oil  and hazardous substances. EPA and the Coast Guard Issued a Total of 16 Penalties during the Period Reviewed

EPA and the Coast Guard issued 16 penalties in response to spills,  noncompliance with spill prevention programs, or for failure to report  spills during the period we reviewed. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

We were asked to examine (1) how many oil and hazardous substance  spills of more than 50 gallons (or of an unknown volume) were reported in  the St. Clair–Detroit River corridor from 1994 to 2004, and how accurately  reported spills reflect the extent of actual spills; (2) what processes are  used to notify parties of spills, and whether they contain explicit  requirements for reporting times and spill magnitude; and (3) the extent of  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Coast Guard’s spill  prevention efforts and enforcement activities in the St. Clair–Detroit River  corridor from 1994 through 2004. These data are likely subject  to the same limitations as the spill data, in that industrial permit violations  and CSOs are self-reported and facilities may be reluctant to report these  events; however, spills may be particularly subject to underreporting  because they are not part of a structured program as are CSOs and  industrial permit violations.
Why GAO Did This Study

Spills of oil and hazardous substances in the St. Clair-Detroit River corridor have degraded this border area between the United States and Canada and are a potential threat to local drinking water supplies. Within the United States such spills are reported to the National Response Center (NRC), and in Canada to the Ontario Spills Action Centre. This report discusses (1) how many oil and hazardous substance spills greater than 50 gallons (or of an unknown volume) were reported in the corridor from 1994 to 2004, and how accurately reported spills reflect the extent of actual spills; (2) what processes are used to notify parties of spills, and if they contain explicit requirements for reporting times and spill magnitude; and (3) the extent of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Coast Guard's spill prevention efforts and enforcement activities in the corridor from 1994 to 2004.

What GAO Found

The NRC received 991 spill reports and the Ontario Spills Action Centre received 157 reports of spills in the corridor from 1994 through 2004, but these reports do not accurately portray the actual number or volume of spills. Many spills go unreported by responsible parties because they do not understand or fail to comply with reporting requirements. Further, multiple reports for the same spill are often recorded by NRC and provided to EPA and the Coast Guard for investigation. EPA does not remove all duplicate spill reports or update its data after investigating spills. Coast Guard officials update their spill data after investigations but they are unable to update spill volume estimates due to automated system limitations. GAO also found that, according to agency data sets, other events--combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and industrial permit violations--occurred more frequently than spills in the corridor. While data on industrial permit violations and CSOs might be subject to the same limitations as the spill data because the data are self reported and facilities may not report all of these events, spills may be particularly subject to underreporting because they are not part of a structured program as CSOs and industrial permit violations are. There are multiple parties involved in spill notification in the corridor and agreements outlining U.S.-Canadian notification processes are not explicit about reporting times or the magnitude of spills that warrant notification. The coast guards of each country have agreed to notify one another of spills primarily when a joint response may be needed. Another agreement between Michigan and Ontario officials calls for notifying each other of spills that may have a joint impact. We reviewed six selected spill incidents that illustrate the various ways that notification can occur. The drinking water facility operators we contacted on the U.S. side of the corridor had differing perspectives on current notification processes, and the majority expressed concern that their facilities could be contaminated by spills if they are not notified in a timely manner. Finally, efforts have been made to develop informal notification processes between individual industries or trade associations and drinking water facilities. EPA's spill prevention program is limited and the Coast Guard addresses spill prevention as part of other compliance efforts. EPA's prevention program addresses only oil spills. Further, EPA is uncertain of which specific facilities are subject to regulation under its spill prevention program, and conducts varying numbers of inspections per year. EPA inspections uncovered significant spill prevention deficiencies, whereas the Coast Guard's inspections revealed minor issues. The agencies issued a total of 16 penalties for spills and program noncompliance during the period we reviewed.