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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Furthermore, the six states use this information to periodically inspect all  of their regulated facilities. 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. According to these state officials, this can range from  occasional discussions to no contact at all. Conclusions

Leaking aboveground storage tanks can contaminate soil and waterways  and threaten human health and the environment before the leaks are  identified and stopped. 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. 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. 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. We  then interviewed officials from aboveground oil storage tank inspection  programs in six states—Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New  Mexico, and Virginia. 2. 3. How often does your region re-evaluate these criteria?
Why GAO Did This Study

Oil leaks from aboveground tanks have contaminated soil and water, threatening human health and wildlife. To prevent damage from oil spills, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule in 1973. EPA's 10 regions inspect oil storage facilities to ensure compliance with the rule. EPA estimates that about 571,000 facilities are subject to this rule. Some states also regulate oil storage tanks. GAO determined (1) how EPA regions implement the SPCC program, (2) the data EPA has to implement and evaluate the program, and (3) whether some states' tank programs suggest ways for EPA to improve its program. GAO surveyed all 10 EPA regions and interviewed officials in EPA and six states selected on the basis of experts' recommendations, among other criteria.

What GAO Found

EPA allows regional offices flexibility to implement the SPCC program according to their individual circumstances. These differences account, at least in part, for regional variations in the number of SPCC inspections. According to GAO's survey, during fiscal years 2004 through 2006, EPA regions conducted 3,359 SPCC inspections--less than 1 percent of EPA's estimate of SPCC facilities--ranging from 184 in Region 10 to 745 in Region 6. Furthermore, because of regional differences in the number of inspections and the enforcement mechanisms used, the number of SPCC enforcement actions also varied. While EPA allows regional flexibility, it has begun implementing SPCC policies and procedures to promote consistency in how the SPCC regulations are interpreted and enforced. EPA has information on only a portion of the facilities subject to the SPCC rule, hindering its ability to identify and effectively target facilities for inspection and enforcement, and to evaluate whether the program is achieving its goals. Because facilities subject to the SPCC rule do not have to report to EPA, the agency can only estimate the universe of SPCC-regulated facilities and must try to identify them through such means as oil spill data, state referrals, and Internet searches. Through inspections, EPA determines if the facility is subject to the rule. While inspections of known SPCC facilities are generally risk-based, the risk assessments exclude the large number of estimated SPCC facilities that have not yet been identified and that may pose more serious threats than those currently targeted for inspection. EPA is developing a national database to promote standard data collection across regions and expand the facility information available to regional managers. However, this database is limited to previously inspected facilities and will not enable EPA to identify SPCC facilities beyond those already known. Ultimately, incomplete information on which facilities are subject to the SPCC rule, and where and how often leaks may occur, prevents EPA from effectively targeting inspections to facilities that potentially pose the highest risks. Furthermore, EPA does not have performance measures to examine the program's effectiveness. EPA is developing additional measures, but without more complete data on the SPCC-regulated universe, these measures cannot gauge the program's accomplishments. The tank inspection programs of Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Virginia can provide EPA with insight on potential improvements to the SPCC program. For example, five of the six states use tank registration and reporting systems to collect data on oil storage facilities, giving them information on the universe of facilities subject to state regulations. These states can therefore inspect all their facilities or target those they believe present the highest risks of spills. By taking a similar approach, EPA would have more complete data for setting inspection priorities based on risk. Furthermore, because these states have detailed knowledge of their facilities, EPA could benefit from increased coordination with them, when, for example, it identifies facilities and targets inspections.