$
<
73
\
V PRO^4-0
o
LU
0
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
08-P-0055
January 9, 2008
Why We Did This Review
We evaluated the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Emergency
Response Business Plan (the Plan)
to determine: (1) how the Agency
estimated resource needs for
national emergencies; (2) how the
resource estimates considered the
use of State and local government
agency resources in national
emergencies; and (3) how EPA
used existing data on chlorine
volumes to guide plans for
responding to a chemical attack.
Background
EPA developed the Plan in 2006
as the framework for emergency
response to national-level
incidents while maintaining an
effective day-to-day emergency
response and removal program.
The Plan identifies EPA's
resource needs to respond to three
distinct national emergency
situations (scenarios). These
scenarios involve various
combinations of radiological,
biological, and chemical attacks.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report, click on
the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2008/
20080109-08-P-0055.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
EPA Should Continue to Improve Its
National Emergency Response Planning
What We Found
We found that EPA's Emergency Response Business Plan did not disclose the
basis for EPA's resource estimates. Additionally, EPA management stated
they did not consider State and local resources in their resource estimates
because they believed they would be working with the affected State and local
governments in a unified command structure. EPA considered past experience
in estimating the activities they would be asked to perform. Also, EPA did not
use existing data on chlorine storage volumes because it was attempting to
develop a national scenario applicable to any chemical.
The Plan does not satisfy EPA's need for a framework to respond to incidents
of national significance. While EPA has a proven track record of responding
effectively to serious environmental situations, those situations are limited in
scope and severity when compared to suggested incidents of national
significance. EPA's initial effort is too limited and unstructured to prepare the
Agency for an effective response. Assumptions are undocumented, resource
requirements unsupported, and internal and external coordination of response
planning minimal. As a result, the Plan may focus EPA's preparation for
emergency response on the wrong resource allocations, leaving the Agency
unprepared. EPA intends to address some of these issues as the Plan is
revised; the plan is evolving as EPA continues to make progress and
improvements.
What We Recommend
We recommend 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 should update key milestones and expand coordination with other EPA
offices and relevant Federal agencies in revising the Plan. EPA concurred
with our recommendations.

-------