#• Q \
1^7 I
"U PR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
EPA Could Improve
Contingency Planning for
Oil and Hazardous
Substance Response
Report No. 13-P-0152
February 15, 2013
Scan this code to
learn more about
the EPA OIG.

-------
Report Contributors:
Patrick Gilbride
Erin Barnes-Weaver
Mary Anne Strasser
Stephanie Wake
Abbreviations
ACP
Area Contingency Plan
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CWA
Clean Water Act
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NRT
National Response Team
OEM
Office of Emergency Management
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OPA
Oil Pollution Act
OSC
On-Scene Coordinator
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
RCP
Regional Contingency Plan
RRT
Regional Response Team
USCG
U.S. Coast Guard
Cover photo: August 1, 2010, photo of EPA's research vessel MudPuppy II on Michigan's
Morrow Lake as part of EPA's response to the Enbridge oil spill. (EPA photo)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
e-mail: OIG Hotline@epa.gov	write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
fax:	202-566-2599	Mailcode 2431T
online:
http://www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.htm
Washington, DC 20460

-------
^EDSX
* JL \
\pB0/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
13-P-0152
February 15, 2013
Why We Did This Review
The National Oil and
Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) establishes federal roles
for oil spill response and
requires area and regional
planning by the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and other
stakeholders. A prior audit on
the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico noted
that some contingency plans
were out of date. We initiated
this review to determine
whether the contingency
planning structure for
responding to oil spills and
hazardous substance releases
is effective, and whether plans
are updated to reflect lessons
learned from recent major
events and new developments
or industry trends.
This report addresses the
following EPA Goal or
Cross-Cutting Strategy
• Cleaning up communities
and advancing sustainable
development
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2013/
20130215-13-P-0152.pdf
EPA Could Improve Contingency Planning for
Oil and Hazardous Substance Response
What We Found
EPA regions have expanded contingency planning by creating additional
plans and materials, but regions cannot maintain this large volume of
information with their limited resources. Regions have created subarea
contingency plans, geographic response plans and strategies, and various
web-based tools. This structure exceeds the three levels of plans
established in the Oil Pollution Act, which revised the NCP to expand the
response system. The NCP requires national planning in the form of an
NCP, regional planning by each Regional Response Team in the form of
Regional Contingency Plans, and area planning by Area Committees in the
form of Area Contingency Plans. Regions developed additional plan
materials because regional On-Scene Coordinators find them necessary to
respond to incidents. Some written plans miss some NCP requirements,
contain duplicative information, and are out-of-date. Technological
methods—instead of revising written plans—would enable EPA to maintain
current information needed to efficiently respond to spills.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (1) issue guidance to regions on working with their
Regional Response Teams and Area Committees to use the most efficient
method available to address NCP requirements, (2) require regions to keep
critical planning information up-to-date and avoid unnecessary duplication,
(3) work through the office's National Response Team capacity to develop a
process to regularly incorporate lessons learned from national exercises into
contingency plan reviews and updates, and (4) assess the resources
necessary to develop and maintain contingency plans and use the results to
develop a workforce plan to distribute contingency planning resources. The
Agency agreed with our recommendations and plans to address them by the
end of fiscal year 2013.
Noteworthy Achievements
EPA regions apply an inclusive approach toward contingency planning by
working closely with other federal agencies, states, tribes, and industry
representatives. Regions also use technological methods—such as
Geographic Information Systems maps, web-based lists, and electronic
tools—to address some NCP requirements.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
February 15, 2013
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Could Improve Contingency Planning for
Oil and Hazardous Substance Response
Report No. 13-P-0152
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
This is our report on the subject review conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the
problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report
represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with
established audit resolution procedures.
Action Required
Your response to the draft report included proposed corrective actions and completion dates. As
such, we are closing this report upon issuance. We have no objections to the further release of
this report to the public. We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Melissa Heist,
Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at (202) 566-0899 or heist.melissa@epa.gov; or
Patrick Gilbride, Director for Risk and Program Performance, at (303) 312-6969 or
gilbride.patrick@epa.gov.

-------
EPA Could Improve Contingency Planning for
Oil and Hazardous Substance Response
13-P-0152
Table of C
Chapters
1	Introduction		1
Purpose		1
Background		1
Noteworthy Achievements		4
Scope and Methodology		5
2	Contingency Planning Could Be More Effective		6
EPA Regions Expanded Contingency Planning to Include
Additional Plans and Technological Tools		6
EPA Regions Cannot Regularly Update and Maintain All Plans
Given Limited Resources		8
EPA Could Use Technology to Streamline Contingency Planning		11
Conclusion		12
Recommendations		12
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation		13
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		14
Appendices
A	NCP Requirements for RCPs and ACPs		15
B	Details on Scope and Methodology		16
C	Agency Response to the Draft Report		18
D	Distribution		23

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
On August 25, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Inspector General (OIG) issued the report Revisions Needed to National
Contingency Plan Based on Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Report No. 1 l-P-0534).
Our report noted that some contingency plans were out of date at the time of the
April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and did not reflect
deepwater drilling trends, lessons learned, and past major oil spills. Additionally,
the volume of contingency plans made it difficult to determine how plans related
to one another and whether they contained duplicative information.
We initiated this review on EPA's contingency planning for emergency response
to determine whether the contingency planning structure for responding to oil
spills and hazardous substance releases is effective, and whether plans are updated
to reflect lessons learned from recent major events and new
developments/industry trends, including deepwater drilling.
Background
Oil Spill Contingency Planning Response Authorities
There are a number of laws requiring contingency planning for oil and hazardous
substance spills. The Clean Water Act (CWA) established the basic structure for
regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. CWA
Section 311 provides EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) with the authority
to establish a program for preventing, preparing for, and responding to spills that
occur in navigable waters of the United States.
The CWA (formerly called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) also
established requirements for the preparation and publication of the National
Contingency Plan (National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, or NCP). The NCP serves as the federal government's blueprint for
responding to oil spills and hazardous substance releases. The NCP outlines the
National Response System, which is the mechanism of coordinating response
actions by all levels of government. The system is composed of the National
Response Team (NRT), Regional Response Teams (RRTs), On-Scene Coordinators
(OSCs), Area Committees, state and local governments, and certain vessels and
facilities. The NCP describes 5 required elements to be included in an RCP and
10 elements in an ACP. (See appendix A for requirements of RCPs and ACPs.)
13-P-0152
1

-------
Releases of oil and hazardous materials are regulated separately under the Oil
Pollution Act (OPA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
•	CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, provided the government with
authority to compel persons to clean up releases of hazardous substances
for which they are responsible. CERCLA enabled the revision of the NCP
to establish procedures and standards for responding to releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
•	The OPA improved the nation's ability to prevent and respond to oil spills
by establishing provisions that expanded the federal government's ability,
and provided monetary and other resources necessary, to respond to oil
spills. The OPA provided new requirements for contingency planning both
by government and industry. More specifically, it required the
establishment of Area Committees comprised of federal, state, and local
governments that made up a spill preparedness and planning body. The
OPA also required the NCP to be revised to expand the response system
into a three-tiered approach providing additional response requirements
for the federal government, as well as additional planning requirements for
Area Committees and owners and operators of vessels or certain facilities,
such as onshore or offshore buildings, equipment, or pipelines.
Contingency Planning Requirements
The NCP requires contingency planning at the national, regional, and area levels.
There are no specific requirements for updating contingency plans after major
events. However, the NCP requires that RRTs "meet at least semiannually to
review response actions carried out during the preceding period, consider changes
in RCPs, and recommend changes in ACPs." Additionally, the CWA requires
Area Committees to periodically update ACPs.
The NCP also outlines facility and vessel response plans that are required by the
CWA. Tank facilities, offshore facilities, and onshore facilities that could cause
substantial harm to the environment with a discharge into navigable waters must
prepare and submit a plan for responding to a worst case discharge or substantial
threat of such a discharge. Additionally, the NCP addresses the requirement by
local governments to prepare local emergency response plans.
The following figure describes the relationship between the plans.
13-P-0152
2

-------
Figure 1: Relationship of Plans within the NCP
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
(NCP)
International
Joint Plans
Federal Response
Plan (FRP)
Regional
Contingency
Plans (RCPs)
Federal Agency
Internal Plans
Facility Response
Plans (FRPs)
Area Contingency
Plans (ACPs)
State/Local
Plans
Vessel Response
Plans (VRPs)
Plans of the National Response System (NRS)
— — — - Points of coordination with the NRS
	 Plans integrated with the ACP
Source: Figure 4 in Section 300.205 of the NCP.
As demonstrated in figure 1, there are various levels of plans with many
stakeholders involved at each level, resulting in a complex, interconnected
system. The complexity of the contingency planning system necessitates close
and continued coordination across agencies and among all levels of government.
Additionally, active and effective participation by states is integral to the effective
working of this complex National Response System.
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) provides
policy, guidance, and direction for the Agency's emergency response and waste
programs. Within OSWER, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) works
with other federal partners to prevent accidents as well as to maintain response
capabilities. OEM's National Planning and Preparedness Division is responsible
for ensuring national EPA readiness to respond to incidents involving hazardous
chemicals, oil, and biological/radiological contamination resulting from terrorist
attacks or accidents. Each of EPA's 10 regional offices has staff responsible for
13-P-0152
3

-------
oil pollution prevention and emergency response, including OSCs responsible for
directing responses to incidents. The NCP requires that an EPA representative
chairs the NRT and co-chairs all RRTs in each of the 10 regional offices and
Alaska, Oceana, and the Caribbean. Each EPA region we reviewed took a
different approach to regional contingency planning depending on the unique
needs of the region. In a 1992 Federal Register Notice, EPA's Administrator
designated the 13 individual RRTs as the initial Area Committees. As a result,
EPA regions have combined their RCPs and ACPs into one planning document.
Noteworthy Achievements
Many EPA regions have taken steps toward providing planning resources to
responders using various technological methods. For example:
•	Region 5 has developed an Inland Sensitivity Atlas for the entire region
available on CD-ROMs using Geographic Information Systems
technology. These maps identify information such as sensitive species,
natural resources areas, shoreline sensitivity, and boat access ramps. Maps
incorporate Geographic Information Systems data from local governments
and a Region 5 contingency planner said that they cover about 40 square
feet of area at a time. Region 5 response staff stated that these maps are
one of the first resources they use when responding to an incident.
•	Region 6 has developed two web-based tools—E-Plan and Response
Manager—to collect and provide information needed for contingency
planning and response to all agencies.
•	The Region 10 RRT developed a website that lists all the equipment
available within the northwest region. It is updated on an ongoing basis by
equipment owners.
Regional emergency management staff and managers in all regions in our review
understand that contingency planning is an inclusive process involving many
stakeholders. A number of planners and OSCs expressed the importance of
outreach during the planning process to provide an effective response to an
incident. While all regions do this to an extent, we noted that Region 10 does an
exceptional job in incorporating states, locals, and one tribe into its planning
process. For example, federal, state, local, and tribal government representatives
attend Northwest Area Committee meetings held three times per year.
OEM has also taken steps to address the complexity of the contingency planning
structure. OEM is currently in the process of finalizing an "ACP Handbook" as a
guide and reference for the development of ACPs.
13-P-0152
4

-------
Scope and Methodology
We performed our review from November 2011 to September 2012 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require
that we plan and perform our review to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions based on our
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
We reviewed laws, regulations, and Agency guidance on contingency planning.
We focused our review on EPA Regions 5, 6, 8, and 10 (including Alaska) given
their variation in environmental issues, types of emergencies, and corresponding
responses. We interviewed EPA staff in headquarters and response staff and
planners in each of these regions to understand their approach to contingency
planning. We also reviewed a sample of 16 of 38 Subarea Contingency Plans and
3 of 27 Geographic Response Plans in our regions of review. Finally, we
reviewed and analyzed various electronic or web-based tools in two of the
regions.
Appendix B includes additional details on our scope and methodology.
13-P-0152
5

-------
Chapter 2
Contingency Planning Could Be More Effective
EPA regions have expanded contingency planning by creating additional plans
and materials, but regions cannot maintain this large volume of information with
their limited funding and personnel. Regions have created subarea contingency
plans, geographic response plans and strategies, and various web-based tools.
This structure exceeds the three levels of plans established by the OP A, which
revised the NCP to expand the response system. The NCP requires national
planning in the form of an NCP, regional planning by each RRT in the form of
RCPs, and area planning by Area Committees in the form of ACPs. Regions
developed additional plan materials because regional OSCs find them necessary
to respond to incidents. Some written plans miss some NCP requirements, contain
duplicative information, and are out-of-date. Technological methods—instead of
revising written plans—would enable EPA to maintain current information
needed to efficiently respond to spills.
EPA Regions Expanded Contingency Planning to Include Additional
Plans and Technological Tools
The NCP provides the organizational structure and procedures to prepare for and
respond to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances. The NCP
identifies three levels of contingency planning under the National Response
System: the NCP, RCPs, and ACPs.
•	The NRT is responsible for national planning and coordination and
recommends revisions to the NCP to improve effectiveness.
•	RRTs are responsible for regional planning and coordination and must
develop an RCP for their region to ensure that during an actual incident
the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, local, and other responders
are clearly defined.
•	The federal, state, and local agency members of an Area Committee are
responsible for developing an ACP and working with governments and
other stakeholders to enhance the contingency planning process.
EPA's contingency planning structure has exceeded the three levels of plans
established by the OPA and outlined by the NCP. Regions 5, 6, 8, 10, and Alaska
have each taken a different approach to planning. All have one plan that generally
serves as a guidance document, typically the RCP-ACP for the region. One
regional response manager described the RCP-ACP as "overarching guidance,"
and another described it as seen at "the 70,000 foot level." Four out of the five
regions in our review also have lower-level operational plans in the form of
13-P-0152
6

-------
subarea contingency plans or geographic response plans. These operational plans
contain more tactical information in addition to the required RCP and ACP
elements and are generally the plans used to respond to an incident. Additionally,
all regions in our review have some type of electronic system or database that
includes information on contacts, equipment, facilities, and/or sensitive areas that
are useful during a response. Table 1 below lists the various plans maintained by
each region in our review and shows how each has taken a different approach to
planning:
Table 1: Levels and Numbers of Contingency Plans

Region 5
Region 6
Region 8
Region 10
Alaska
Regional
Federal
Region 5
RCP
Regional
Integrated
Contingency
Plan -
Interim
Region 8
RCP
Northwest
Area
Contingency
Plan
Alaska
Unified Plan
Area

One Gulf
Plan and 5
USCG ACPs



Subarea
19 Subarea
Contingency
Plans

9 Subarea
Contingency
Plans

10 Subarea
Contingency
Plans
Geographic



27
Geographic
Response
Plans

Web-based
Inland
Sensitivity
Atlas
(geographic
maps for
entire
region)
Response
Manager
and E-Plan
Electronic
Contact List
Web Based
Equipment
List and
Jurisdictional
Boundary
Tool
Geographic
Response
Strategies
Source: EPA OIG summary of contingency plans.
Table 1 demonstrates that all regions have an overarching regional plan to meet
NCP requirements for an RCP-ACP. Region 10 and Alaska RRTs incorporate
additional requirements into their regional plans. The Northwest Area
Contingency Plan contains the Region 10 RCP, 2 USCG ACPs, EPA's Inland
ACP, and state plans for Washington and Oregon in one plan for the northwest
area. The Alaska Unified Plan combines the RCP and ACP, and includes
additional requirements for Alaska's State Master Plan.1 At the area planning
level, the Region 6 RRT maintains the One Gulf Plan, which is an overarching
document that contains USCG ACPs and geographic plans for the Gulf region.
Regions 5, 8, 10, and Alaska have a number of subarea plans or geographic
1 The State of Alaska passed legislation in 1980 requiring the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
to develop, annually review, and revise, as necessary, the State Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plans
(State Master Plan and Regional Plans).
13-P-0152
7

-------
response plans that contain more detailed information than regional plans. Finally,
all regions have developed web-based planning tools that they use for response.
Regions have expanded their contingency planning structure beyond the three
requirements under the NCP because they find the additional materials necessary
and useful for a response. Regional response personnel said that developing these
materials is often more valuable than a written plan.
•	Region 5 developed geographic mapping in the form of an Inland
Sensitivity Atlas covering the entire region. A number of Region 5 OSCs
stated that mapping is the most important resource for response.
•	Region 6 maintains a contact list because responders believe contact
information is one of the most important functions to retain for responding
to an incident.
•	Region 8 developed an OSC phone book for every federal, state, and local
representative. A Region 8 OSC stated that contact information on whom
to contact during a response is more useful than an actual plan.
•	Region 10 has 27 geographic response plans that include tactical
information intended to assist responders in the first 24 hours of a spill
response. A Region 10 OSC stated that if a spill is located in an area with
a geographic response plan it is the first resource they review.
•	Alaska has 10 subarea contingency plans that include geographic
resources and strategies that provide a platform for incident response.
EPA Regions Cannot Regularly Update and Maintain All Plans
Given Limited Resources
Regions have difficulty updating and maintaining the various levels of plans.
Operational information, such as equipment lists or contact numbers, can change
frequently while policy and guidance in the overarching RCPs-ACPs rarely
change. Updating contingency plans, especially RCPs and ACPs, is a time-
consuming and costly process. Revisions to RCPs-ACPs take time because an
agency must vet changes through the remaining RRT federal agencies and states
for review and most RRTs only meet semiannually. It took one region more than
a year to update its RCP-ACP. Additionally, one regional OSC estimated that the
cost to maintain and exercise plans for their region was a half-million dollars or
greater.
Furthermore, regions have limited planning resources—both funding and
personnel—to maintain this volume of plans and other tools. Each of EPA's
10 regions has OSCs who have primary planning roles in guiding Area
Committees in the development of ACPs. EPA evaluated the distribution of OSCs
13-P-0152
8

-------
in 2001 following the Agency's response to terrorist attacks, and the distribution
may not address the planning requirements OSCs have for oil and hazardous
substance spills. Regional response and planning staff in all regions we reviewed
stated that they do not have enough resources to maintain plans, and that they
spread resources to a variety of competing preparedness activities. Moreover, an
OEM Director said that EPA never properly funded planning and there are
continual budget cuts to the oil program. In its response to our draft report,
OSWER provided additional clarification and noted that "funding for area
contingency planning is not sufficient to meet its broad based goals and
coordination needs." OEM recently established a workgroup to review regional
OSC allocations.
The various levels of plans have resulted in a large volume of information that
regions cannot regularly update and maintain. As a result, RCPs-ACPs miss some
required NCP elements, and some contingency plans are duplicative and out of
date.
Missing Requirements in RCPs-ACPs
Appendix A lists required elements for RCPs and ACPs, and we noted the
following in the five RCPs-ACPs we reviewed:
•	Three were missing a list of equipment, dispersants, or other mitigating
substances and devices, as well as personnel available.
•	Three did not address areas of economic or environmental importance for
the area covered by the RCP-ACP.
•	Two did not include detailed worst case discharge information in the
public version of the plan for security reasons.
•	Two did not discuss procedures for use of volunteers.
While required information may be missing in an RCP-ACP, we found that
regions may include it in a different planning mechanism. For example, while
three of the five RCPs-ACPs we reviewed did not include detailed information on
economic and environmental importance as a part of their geographical location,
this information was available in a subarea contingency plan, geographic response
plan, or other planning tool. Region 5 includes the environmentally and
economically sensitive areas in their Inland Sensitivity Atlas that contains maps
using Geographic Information System technology.
13-P-0152
9

-------
Duplicative Information in Plans
In developing the additional plans and planning materials, regions have duplicated
some information. For example:
•	Both Region 5 and Region 8 have large sections on relationships to other
contingency plans and oil spill response, respectively, repeated in multiple
sub-area plans.
•	Region 6's RCP includes the same information as the NCP, such as
responsibilities of the NRT, RRTs, OSCs, and Incident and Unified
Commands.
•	Much of the information in Alaska's Unified Plan is repetitive from the
NCP, such as the listed requirements for ACPs and information on the
Unified Command.
•	The Region 8 sub-area plans contain contact information but the region
also maintains an electronic contact list.
While this provides for some consistency throughout the plans, it may not be
necessary to include the same information multiple times; it adds repetitive text to
already lengthy planning documents. RCPs-ACPs we reviewed averaged more
than 575 pages.
Some Plans Are Out-of-Date
With limited resources for updating plans, regions have not updated some plans
for many years. Several subarea contingency plans in Regions 5 and 8, as well as
Alaska, are outdated, with some not being updated since the late 1990s.
In addition, we could not determine whether regions updated plans based on
lessons learned. One method to evaluate lessons learned is through Spills of
National Significance2 exercises held approximately every 3 years. Table 2
summarizes recommendations raised during three Spills of National Significance
exercises preceding the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill,3 the nation's first actual
Spill of National Significance.
2	Spills of National Significance are designated as such due to their severity, size, location, actual or potential impact
on the public health and welfare or the environment, or the complexity of the necessary response effort.
3	In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon unit exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico. The event lasted 87 days and
spilled an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil, making it the largest marine oil spill in U. S. history.
13-P-0152
10

-------
Table 2: Recommendations from Spills of National Significance Exercises
Spills of National
Significance Exercise
Contingency Plan Recommendations
1998 - Prince William
Sound and
Western Gulf of Alaska
ACPs should incorporate local issues and inform the
regional plan holders and responders of the response
structure and procedures that will be used.
2004 - California
The current ACP guidance does not include five elements
related to Endangered Species Act: wildlife, historical
properties, resource identification, fish habitat, and waste
management plans.
2007 - Great Lakes
and Upper Mississippi/
New Madrid Fault
Review current status of ACPs and RCPs to ensure they
are being regularly updated. Many participants and
evaluators observed that response plans were not
immediately available or used in decisions-making.
Informational gaps in response plans were exposed, with
latest updates to such plans often not fully disseminated.
Source: Lessons learned and after action reports from USCG and EPA.
Similar issues and recommendations raised from the past three Spills of National
Significance exercises came to fruition during the Deepwater Horizon spill. For
example, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling recommended that EPA and USCG bolster state and local
involvement in oil spill contingency planning and create a mechanism for local
involvement in spill planning and response. This recommendation is similar to the
recommendation that arose in the 1998 exercise, yet we could not determine
whether this recommendation was implemented in plans prior to the 2010
Deepwater Horizon spill. In its response to our draft report, OSWER noted that
the 1998 exercise in Alaska represented a totally different scenario (ice) than the
Deepwater Horizon spill (warm weather/water). While we agree with OSWER
that some of the recommendations from the Alaska exercise would not translate to
the Deepwater Horizon spill, the recommendation we noted in Table 2 on
contingency planning was generic in nature and should be considered nationally.
If applied, knowledge gained from major spills and these exercises can improve
preparedness.
EPA Could Use Technology to Streamline Contingency Planning
Most of the regions we reviewed already have or are in the process of moving
toward maintaining plan requirements and other response information using
technological methods, as Region 5 has done with its geographical mapping.
Other examples include:
• Region 6 developed two response tools—E-Plan and Response Manager—
to collect and provide information needed for contingency planning and
response. These searchable databases collate information from multiple
sources. E-Plan focuses on chemicals and Response Manager focuses on
facilities and response data.
13-P-0152
11

-------
• The Region 10 RRT developed a website that lists all equipment available
within the northwest region. It is updated on an ongoing basis and
maintained by all equipment owners.
Regions can use these technological methods to keep information more current
rather than in lengthy, written plans. Additionally, regions can update lower-level,
tactical information as needed without having to vet changes through the 15 RRT
federal agencies for approval, as necessary for making changes to an RCP-ACP.
All regions stated that using technology or web-based planning could help
streamline the contingency planning process. Furthermore, several regional
contingency planning personnel said that the process of planning is often more
important than the plan itself. Planning is inclusive of many players—federal,
state, and local—and regional OSCs and planners expressed the importance of
outreach to build relationships with these groups. Using technological methods to
streamline contingency planning would allow regions to focus on aspects of
planning and preparedness that are most important to them.
Conclusion
EPA expanded contingency plans beyond the three levels of plans established by
the OPA and outlined by the NCP because regional response staff said additional
plans are necessary and useful for responding to incidents. However, this has
resulted in a large volume of information that regions cannot regularly update and
maintain with their limited resources. EPA could more efficiently address some
NCP requirements by using technological tools rather than by updating or
revising written plans. The NCP—most recently revised in 1994—does not
incorporate improved technological methods for data collection and information
delivery. The concept of a written plan could become obsolete when better
technological methods, such as web databases, serve as more efficient methods
for information delivery. Regions have already taken steps to use technological
methods and acknowledged that they could make contingency planning more
efficient. EPA could make it easier for regions to maintain current, complete, and
accurate information by investing in technology and using the most effective
information retention and delivery method as a single source to address the NCP
requirements.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
1. Issue guidance to regions on working with their RRTs and Area
Committees to use the most efficient method available to collect, maintain,
and deliver RCP/ACP-required elements outlined in the NCP, which may
mean using technological tools in lieu of written plans.
13-P-0152
12

-------
2.	Require regions to keep critical planning information up to date using the
most effective method available and avoid unnecessary duplication.
3.	Have the Director of OEM work through the office's NRT capacity to
develop a process to regularly incorporate lessons learned from national
exercises into contingency plan reviews and updates.
4.	Assess the resources, including OSCs, necessary to develop and maintain
contingency plans. Use the results of this analysis to develop a workforce
plan to distribute contingency planning resources.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
OSWER generally agreed with our report recommendations and indicated that the
recommendations parallel efforts OSWER is undertaking. OSWER's response
noted two key obstacles that must be overcome before successful implementation
of planned corrective actions can be achieved: limited involvement by other
agencies and stakeholders, and limited resources. OSWER's response noted that, as
the designated lead for inland areas, EPA must ensure compatibility with USCG-
led plans for coastal zones. While OSWER's response stated that "EPA strives to
ensure high quality contingency plans," the Agency "is limited in its authority to
require other agencies to update their critical planning information.
We made minor revisions to our final report text, as appropriate, based on
OSWER's responses, including revising our third recommendation after additional
correspondence with OSWER. Appendix C contains the Agency's full responses to
our draft report and planned actions by OSWER to address our recommendations.
We believe that OSWER's planned actions address the intent of our
recommendations. Our recommendations remain open pending the completion of
planned corrective actions.
13-P-0152
13

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
12	Issue guidance to regions on working with their
RRTs and Area Committees to use the most
efficient method available to collect, maintain, and
deliver RCP/ACP-required elements outlined in the
NCP, which may mean using technological tools in
lieu of written plans.
13	Require regions to keep critical planning
information up to date using the most effective
method available and avoid unnecessary
duplication.
-|3 Have the Director of OEM work through the office's
NRT capacity to develop a process to regularly
incorporate lessons learned from national
exercises into contingency plan reviews and
updates.
13 Assess the resources, including OSCs, necessary
to develop and maintain contingency plans. Use
the results of this analysis to develop a workforce
plan to distribute contingency planning resources.
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
Assistant Administrator 09/30/13
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator 09/30/13
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator 05/31/13
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator 09/30/13
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress
13-P-0152	14

-------
Appendix A
NCP Requirements for RCPs and ACPs
Table 3: RCP and ACP Requirements
RCPs shall:
1.
Include all useful facilities and resources in the region, from government, commercial, academic,
and other sources.
2.
Follow the format of the NCP.
3.
Be coordinated with state emergency response plans, ACPs, and Title III local emergency
response plans.
4.
Include lines of demarcation between the inland and coastal zones, as mutually agreed upon by
USCG and EPA.
5.
Specify detailed criteria for activation of RRTs.
ACPs shall:
1.
Be adequate to remove a worst case discharge and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of
such a discharge from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility operating in or near the area.
2.
Provide for a well-coordinated response that is integrated and compatible with all appropriate
response plans of state, local, and non-federal entities, and especially with Title III local
emergency response plans.
3.
Include a description of the area covered by the plan, including the areas of special economic or
environmental importance that might be damaged by a discharge.
4.
Include a detailed description of the responsibilities of an owner or operator and of federal, state,
and local agencies in removing a discharge, and in mitigating or preventing a substantial threat of
a discharge.
5.
Include a list of equipment, dispersants, or other mitigating substances and devices, and
personnel available.
6.
Include a description of procedures to be followed for obtaining an expedited decision regarding
the use of dispersants.
7.
Include a detailed description of how the plan is integrated into other ACPs and tank vessel,
offshore facility, and onshore facility response plans.
8.
Establish procedures to allow for well organized, worthwhile, and safe use of volunteers.
9.
Include a Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments Plan in an annex (this annex has
13 requirements).
10.
Incorporate technical and scientific information and strategies where effective standard
techniques are unavailable.
Source: EPA OIG review of NCP.
13-P-0152
15

-------
Appendix B
Details on Scope and Methodology
We conducted our review to determine whether the contingency planning structure for responding to oil
spills and hazardous substance releases is effective. By "structure" we considered the various levels of
plans and other planning materials in each region, how they fit together, and how regions utilize them
during responses to incidents.
We chose a sample of EPA regions to focus our review: Regions 5, 6, 8, and 10 (including Alaska).
All of these regions have varying types of environments and potential types of emergencies and
corresponding responses. We chose Region 5 due to the Enbridge pipeline spill in July 2010 near
Marshall, Michigan. The release, estimated at 819,000 gallons, entered Talmadge Creek and flowed into
the Kalamazoo River, a Lake Michigan tributary. We included Region 6 because of the region's history
of oil spills and our familiarity with Region 6 plans based on our audit of dispersant use in the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. We chose Region 8 due to the media and political attention of the
TransCanada Keystone pipeline. Region 8 is a contrast to other regions as it is a totally inland zone
where EPA has response authority for the entire region. We included Region 10 because it has extensive
oil production in deepwater in both the Pacific and Arctic Oceans as well as onshore.
To address our objective, we reviewed laws and regulations on contingency planning, including:
•	CWA
•	CERLCA
•	Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
•	Executive Order 12777, Implementation of Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of October 18, 1972, as amended, and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
•	Executive Order 13580, Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy
Development and Permitting in Alaska
•	Executive Order 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes
•	NCP
•	OPA
•	Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Rule
To understand EPA's approach to contingency planning and how different plans are used in a response,
we conducted interviews with:
•	Staff in EPA headquarters, including the OEM Director, OEM Deputy Director, OEM National
Planning and Preparedness Director, and the Executive Director of the NRT
•	RRT co-chairs, planners, and OSCs in Regions 5, 6, 8, 10 and Alaska
To gain perspectives of those outside the Agency, we interviewed contingency planning staff in:
•	USCG
•	U.S. Department of the Interior
•	U.S. Department of Transportation
•	States of Alaska, Texas, Utah, and Washington
13-P-0152
16

-------
Regions 5, 6, 8, 10, and Alaska all have several levels of contingency plans and other response
resources. We reviewed regional RCPs and ACPs to determine whether they met the requirements under
the NCP. We also reviewed a sample of other contingency plans to determine how regions use various
plans in a response and how they relate to each other. Table 4 shows the various levels of plans in each
region, and red font denotes those we reviewed.
Table 4: Levels and Numbers of Contingency Plans in Regions Reviewed

Region 5
Region 6
Region 8
Region 10
Alaska
ACPs and
RCP-ACP
RCP-ACP
RCP-ACP
Northwest ACP
Alaska Unified
RCPs4

One Gulf Plan

(RCP-ACP)
Plan (RCP-ACP)
Sub-ACPs
19(7)

9(7)

10 (2)
Geographic
Response Plans



27 (3)

Electronic or
Web-Based
Tools
Geographic
Mapping for
the Region
Response
Manager and
E-Plan
Electronic
Contact
List
Equipment List
9 Geographic
Response
Strategies
Source: EPA-OIG summary of contingency plans and response resources.
Prior Audit Coverage
In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon unit operated by BP exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico. The
event lasted 87 days and spilled an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil, making it the largest marine oil
spill in U.S. history. The OIG reviewed EPA's role in the use of dispersants during the spill and issued the
report Revisions Needed to National Contingency Plan Based on Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Report
No. 1 l-P-0534) on August 25, 2011. We found that contingency plans were out of date at the time of the
spill and were not updated to reflect deepwater drilling trends, lessons learned, and past major oil spills.
We recommended that OEM work through its NRT capacity to establish a policy for periodic reviews and
updates to contingency plans after considering lessons learned from major national and international oil
spills and/or based on area trends in oil drilling. OSWER agreed with this recommendation. OSWER is
working with the NRT on a framework for plan reviews and updates in light of lessons learned from the
Deepwater Horizon spill, and anticipates completing the framework by March 31, 2013.
Additionally, our office issued the report EPA Should Continue to Improve Its National Emergency
Response Planning (Report No. 08-P-0055) on January 9, 2008. This report evaluated EPA's Response
Business Plan and found that it did not satisfy EPA's need for a framework to respond to incidents of
national significance. The report recommended that EPA revise the plan to incorporate the methodology
and assumptions used to develop all personnel and resource estimates, the rational for the selection of
the incidents of national significance, lessons learned from past incidents, logistics of resource
deployment, and risk communications. EPA concurred with the recommendations.
4 All regions in our review have combined their RCPs and ACPs due to a 1992 Federal Register notice that combined RRTs
and Area Committees.
13-P-0152
17

-------
Appendix C
Agency Response to the Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
December 10, 2012
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to OIG's draft report: "EPA Could Improve Contingency Planning for Oil and
Hazardous Substance Emergency Response." Assignment No. OA-FY12-0084
FROM: Mathy Stanislaus /s/
Assistant Administrator
TO:	Melissa M. Heist
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject audit report.
Following is a summary of the agency's overall views, along with its views on each of the report
recommendations. The agency agrees with the report recommendations which generally parallel efforts
we have been addressing. Accordingly, we have provided high-level intended corrective actions and
estimated completion dates. For your consideration, we have included a Technical Comments
Attachment to supplement this response.
AGENCY'S OVERALL VIEWS
In response to the OIG's Draft Report, "EPA Could Improve Contingency Planning for Oil and
Hazardous Substance Emergency Response," EPA generally agrees with the recommendations in this
report. Area contingency planning is a coordinated effort among twenty or more federal, state, local and
tribal agencies; even prior to the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), EPA worked on
area planning, as contingency planning pre-dates OPA 90. EPA works very closely with the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), the designated lead agency for planning and response in coastal zones and certain major
inland water bodies.5 EPA is the designated lead agency for inland areas.6 EPA-lead inland plans
covering areas adjacent to the coastal zone must ensure compatibility with USCG-lead plans for those
5	April 24, 1992 Federal Register Notice (57 FR 15198): Designation of Areas and Area Committees Under the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
6	Through Executive Order 12777 (56 FR 54757; October 22, 1991), the President delegated to EPA the
responsibility for designating the areas and appointing the committees for the "inland zone". Under the CWA,
ACPs are developed by Area Committees under the direction of the FOSC for their area.
13-P-0152	18
Assistant Inspector General for Audit

-------
zones. In this leadership role, EPA strives to ensure high quality contingency plans for each Area
Contingency Plan (ACP), to meet the requirements of OPA 90 and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (or, "National Contingency Plan" (NCP)). However, with so
many other agencies also active participants and contributors to the planning process, EPA is limited in
its authority to require other agencies to update their critical planning information.
Thus, although we generally agree with the recommendations in this report, and they parallel our efforts,
two key obstacles, (i.e., limited involvement by other agencies and stakeholders and resources) must be
overcome for their successful implementation. New incident response techniques, policy changes,
technological innovations and the work to incorporate lessons learned into area plans makes this a
continuously improving process and completion very difficult. Thus, EPA is dependent on future years'
resources to sustain and expand its current area planning commitments.
In addition, there are three areas of the report that need clarification. The first, on page 4 of the report, in
the background discussion of EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the drafters state
that, "[e]ach EPA region we reviewed has taken a different approach to regional contingency planning."
It is important to emphasize that regions need to take a tailored approach to regional contingency
planning in order to meet the unique needs of their region. Because area plans are focused on specific
geographic domains, with many physical and jurisdictional variables, there can be no "one size fits all"
plan format. EPA's OSWER/OEM does ensure national consistency to the extent possible.
Secondly, on page 9 of the report under the heading, "EPA Regions Cannot Regularly Update and
Maintain All Plans Given Limited Resources," the report attributes to "an OEM Director," that, "EPA
never properly funded planning and there are continual budget cuts to the oil program." This statement
is generalized to "planning" where it is more specific to "area contingency planning." Therefore, a more
accurate characterization would be that, "funding for area contingency planning is not sufficient to meet
its broad based goals and coordination needs"
Finally, on page 11 of the report, under the heading, "Some Plans are Out-of-Date," we would like to
address the statement that it could not be determined that recommendations that arose in the 1998
exercise (Prince William Sound and Western Gulf of Alaska) were implemented in plans prior to the
2010 Deepwater Horizon (DWH) spill and that "[i]f applied, knowledge gained from major spills and
these exercises can improve preparedness." EPA continuously incorporates local issues and informs its
regional plan holders and responders of the response structure and procedures that result from lessons
learned from Spills of National Significance (SONS) exercises and real world spills in order to improve
preparedness; however, lessons learned in the 1998 exercise in AK represent a totally different scenario
(ice) than the real world DWH (warm weather/water) spill. Thus the majority of lessons learned from
the 1998 AK exercise would not translate to the DWH spill. Furthermore, to maximize existing regional
resources and to comply with the mandated area contingency planning requirements, regional area
planners are not mostly composed of OSCs. Although, the On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) are the
personnel mandated by OPA 90 and the NCP to work on ACPs & Area Committees (ACs), other
personnel participate as well.
13-P-0152
19

-------
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated Completion by
Quarter and FY
1
Issue guidance to regions on
working with their RRTs and
Area Committees (ACs) to use
the most efficient method
available to collect, maintain,
and deliver RCP/ACP required
elements outlined in the NCP,
which may mean using
technological tools in lieu of
written plans.
OEM will clarify in the
revisions already
underway for the ACP
Handbook and provide
the updated ACP
Handbook (guidance) to
regions.
4th Quarter of FY 2013
2
Require regions to keep critical
planning information up to date
using the most effective method
available and avoid unnecessary
duplication.
2.1 OEM will inform
regional offices to avoid
unnecessary duplication
through the ACP
Handbook (guidance).
4th Quarter FY 2013
2.2 OSWER/OEM will
issue guidance and work
with the Regions on its
timely implementation.
4th Quarter FY 2016, and
continuing
3
Have the Director of OEM work
through the office's NRT
capacity to incorporate lessons
learned from national exercises
in the forthcoming NRT policy
on periodic contingency plan
reviews and updates.
The NRT will continue to
incorporate lessons
learned from exercises
and real world events into
its purview.
On-going
4
Assess the resources, including
OSCs, necessary to develop and
maintain contingency plans. Use
the results of this analysis to
develop a workforce plan to
distribute contingency planning
resources.
Building on the existing
workgroup process,
continue evaluation of
OSC resources based on
needs and responsibilities
of the regions to develop
the plan to redistribute
regional OSC allocations.
Recommendation from
workgroup by end of 4th
quarter FY2013.
Disagreements
OEM has noted above our concerns with some of the language and provided qualifiers to address the
fact that EPA is limited in its authority to require other agencies to update their critical planning
information.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your final findings paper. Should you have any questions
regarding this memo, please contact Dana Tulis, Deputy Director, Office of Emergency Management at
202-564-8600.
Attachment
13-P-0152
20

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
February 8, 2013
cwicnuerooT ncoruwac
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Follow-up Response to OIG draft report: "EPA Could Improve Contingency
Planning for Oil an	lergency Response: Assignment No.
We concur with the revised recommendation number 3 as stated below and provide our response
to the recommendation.
OIG Revised Recommendation
Have the Director of OEM work through the office's NRT capacity to develop a process to
regularly incorporate lessons learned from national exercises into contingency plan reviews and
updates.
OSWER Response
The NRT and RRTs have existing procedures to encourage and ensure that lessons learned from
responses and exercises are incorporated into contingency plan improvements. The NCP requires
the RRTs to "...review response actions carried out during the preceding period, consider
changes to the RCPs, and recommend changes to the ACPs." This process has carried over to
experiences gained through large-scale exercises. In addition to the regular RRT meetings, the
annual NRT/RRT Co-Chairs meeting has a standing agenda item to discuss the prior year
responses and exercises, lessons learned, and how those lessons will improve contingency plans.
The next such national meeting is scheduled for April 2013, and this will be on the agenda. The
NRT will also ensure that this agenda item is on the agenda for all annual NRT/RRT Co-Chairs
meeting: the next such meeting will likely be planned for Spring 2014.
Further, as one example/demonstration of a specific NRT guidance document that resulted from
a lesson learned (in this case from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response). OEM will finalize
the National Response Team's Atypical Dispersant Guidance. This document has been drafted
and it is currently under review by the NRT member agencies. The planned date of completion
of this guidance is 5/31/13.
TO:
FROM:
OA-FY12-0084
Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant Administ
Melissa M. Heist

Assistant Inspector General for Audit
13-P-0152
21

-------
It uhi have any questions. please contact Johnsie Webster, OSVvi.R Audit Coordinator, at (2021
566-1912.
13-P-0152

-------
Appendix D
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Regional Administrator, Region 5
Regional Administrator, Region 6
Regional Administrator, Region 8
Regional Administrator, Region 10
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 5
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 6
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 8
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 10
13-P-0152
23

-------