Detailed Information on the
EPA Oil Spill Control Assessment

Develop a second long-term outcome measure and at least one annual outcome measure.

Develop stronger strategic planning procedures to ensure continuous improvement in the program, including regular procedures that will track and document key decisions and work products.

Evaluate the data quality of key data sources used by the program to improve the accuracy and reliability of performance information.

Develop a forum for sharing and implementing best practices among regional offices that will improve the program's overall performance and efficiency.

Measure: Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters by facilities subject to the Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations.

Explanation:FRP facilities are by definition at higher risk of causing environmental damage than other onshore facilities that store oil. A rolling three year average will be calculated annually to estimate spill volumes that reach navigable waters.

Measure: Compliance rate of all facilities subject to Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations.

Explanation:FRP facilities are by definition at higher risk of causing environmental damage than other onshore facilities that store oil. There are approximately 4,150 facilities regulated under the FRP rule.

Measure: Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations.

Explanation:Includes all facilities that are in compliance during the initial inspection or that come into compliance during the measurement period. In the baseline year, 2004, 208 inspections and 54 drills were completed. Generally, different facilities are inspected each year.

Measure: Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to SPCC regulations.

Explanation:Includes all facilities that are in compliance during the initial inspection or that come into compliance during the measurement period. In the baseline year, 2004, 1000 inspections were completed. Generally, different facilities are inspected each year.

Measure: Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters per million program dollars spent annually on prevention and preparedness at Facility Response Plan (FRP) facilities.

Explanation:A rolling three year average is calculated to estimate spill volumes annually for this measure. The targets reflect efficiency gains in the dollars spent to achieve greater reductions over time of oil spilled.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of EPA's Oil Spill Program is to carry out, in part, the national policy that prohibits oil discharge from vessels and facilities. EPA's role is to prevent, prepare for and respond to oil discharges from nontransportation-related onshore facilities to navigable waters of the US and adjoining shorelines. For purposes of this PART assessment, response activities are not included because they are funded by reimbursements from the Coast Guard. Enforcement and research activities are not included because they are evaluated under PART assessments of other programs.

Evidence: The program addresses prevention and preparedness through rules requiring eligible facilities to prepare and implement Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plans and Facility Response Plans (FRPs). The authority for these rules is the Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 USC 1321 as amended by the Oil Pollution Act [OPA] of 1990) which states: "The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that there should be no discharge of oil or hazardous substances into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines...."

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Accidental oil discharges into navigable waters may cause environmental and economic harm. The number and size of oil spills has deceased over time. However, in 2003, over 2 million gallons of oil from over 1000 reported incidents were spilled into navigable waterways.

Evidence: Oil spill reports are tracked in EPA's Facility Oil Spill Database (Abt Associates memo, Nov. 24, 2004) and by the National Response Center operated by the Coast Guard. Annual accomplishments reports produced in 2004 by all ten EPA regional offices and recent Oil Program Update newsletters document current cases of oil spills into sensitive environments.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Oil spill programs are conducted by several federal agencies and the states. The responsibilities of each entity are distinct and clearly defined in law and/or through memoranda of understanding (MOUs). The interagency National Response Team has developed integrated contingency plan guidance to so facilities may develop one plan to satisfy common requirements of Coast Guard, EPA, OSHA and others for emergency response planning.

Evidence: MOUs with Coast Guard, DOT and DOI segregate federal responsibilities (40 CFR 112). Underground storage tanks are regulated under a separate EPA program (40 CFR 280) or by state programs (40 CFR 281). NRT's "one plan" guidance (61 FR 31103) specifies one plan to meet multiple agency requirements.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The statute underlying the Oil Spill Program's regulations (33 USC 1321), is not designed to maximize net benefits. The law authorizing the SPCC rule does not distinguish between facilities more or less likely to cause harm due to an oil spill. EPA has sometimes used flexibility in the law to maximize benefits where possible.

Evidence: The CWA legislative record indicates that oil pollution prevention does not need to be justified by demonstrating the permanence or severity of actual harm posed by oil discharges, but need only identify the potential for harm without consideration of the specific circumstance of a spill.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Program resources are allocated to (1) EPA headquarters, which provides regulatory support and coordinates regional activities and (2) EPA's ten regional offices, which implement the regulations, perform inspections and maintain spill response infrastructure. The beneficiaries are the public that benefits from economic or environmental harm avoided by the prevention of oil spills. The program targets prevention and preparedness resources to higher risk facilities and areas.

Evidence: Regional program plan summaries show the annual distribution of extramural dollars. The summaries show that regions are appropriately targeting most of their resources to the core activities in prevention and preparedness (~75%). Only a small portion of extramural funding (~12%) goes to headquarters and 15% of FTE are located in headquarters.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has one long-term outcome measure focused on the goal of reducing the amount of oil spilled at higher risk facilities (i.e., FRP facilities). The program also has one long-term output measure that tracks the percentage of all FRP facilities that are in compliance with the regulations.

Evidence: The Agency has committed to including these measures in forthcoming GPRA documents, including the FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report. OMB accepts the output measure because it supports the long-term mission of preventing oil spills into sensitive environments, however, the program is expected to develop a second long-term outcome measure by next year. The program has submitted to OMB an acceptable description of the methodology and data used to evaluate each measure. The program also provided a baseline and targets for the both measures.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and has defined baseline for both of its long-term measures. The methodology used by the program to calculate baselines relies on several untested assumptions, however, the program is working to refine it methods and verify its data sources.

Evidence: Regardless, of the final baseline developed for the outcome measure (gallons of oil spilled), the program has committed to reduce annual spillage by 15% in 2007 and by 30% in 2010. Regardless, of the final baseline developed for the output measure (FRP facility compliance rate), the program has committed to increase the compliance rate to 75% by 2007 and to 90% by 2010.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program has two annual output measures that support the long-term goals of reducing damaging oil spills and maintaining compliance at regulated facilities. The measures focus on compliance of regulated facilities (SPCC and FRP) during annual inspections. OMB and the Agency agree that annual outcome measures are currently not feasible due to data collection obstacles and burdens, however, the program is expected to develop at least one annual outcome measure in the future.

Evidence: The Agency has committed to including these measures in forthcoming GPRA documents, including the FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report. The program has submitted to OMB an acceptable description of the methodology and data used to evaluate each measure. The program also provided a baseline and targets for the both measures.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and has defined a baseline for each of its annual measures.

Evidence: Although the target each year is the same (100% of inspected facilities in compliance), annual inspections address a different set of facilities each year. When facilities are not in compliance during the initial inspection, they are given opportunity to come into compliance within a given period. Thus, the 100% compliance target also reflects the effectiveness of the program's outreach and enforcement tools.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Federal partners share the long-term goal of preventing harmful oil spills by working together under a single National Response Plan. They support the efficiency goal through the "one plan" guidance that reduces the burden on industry to meet rules designed to achieve the goals. The program provides a grant to the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) to study practices of State regulators for aboveground storage tanks and to identify regulatory implementation issues.

Evidence: NRT's "one plan" guidance (61 FR 31103) reflects interagency coordination for purposes of efficiency. The objectives outlined in the Cooperative Agreement with ASTSWMO align with program goals.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program uses a third party contractor to assess an independently created database of oil spill information. The analysis provides an indication of the impact of the SPCC rule but it is not sufficiently rigorous to establish a causal relationship. Additionally, the scope of the evaluation does not include other major activities of the program.

Evidence: Analysis of the SPCC rule is reported in Abt Associates memo, 11/24/04; "Preliminary Oil Spill Data Analysis for SPCC Facilities Based on Updated EPA Facility Oil Spill Database."

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: There is some evidence that the program monitors and can define the relationship between changes in policy, legislation, or funding and achievement of annual, but not long-term, goals. Much of the evidence is in the form of uncontrolled documents and is several years old. The Agency budgets for the full cost of the Oil Spill program and presents both direct and indirect costs in it's submission to OMB, but does not present full cost in its Congressional Justification (CJ). The program does not tie funding to performance levels in the CJ or any other Agency budget request document.

Evidence: EPA's CJ for the FY 2006 President's Budget includes an entire section (Oil Spill program comprises a separate appropriations account) devoted to the Oil Spill program, but it presents direct costs only and describes the work products for FY 2006 in only general terms. Budget Automation System (BAS) reports submitted to OMB with the Agency's FY 2006 Budget request provided a program-specific breakout of direct and indirect costs. "Core Oil Spill Program Regional Program Plan Summaries" from FY 2001 report the FTE and extramural funding distribution in all ten Regions for each core element of the program. Program Implementation Writeups (not dated) from selected regions appear to provide resource planning information for core performance elements.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: EPA's newly formed Office of Emergency Management (OEM) was established to integrate components of emergency planning, accident and spill prevention, and emergency response that were previously distributed throughout EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. The Oil Spill program was part of this reorganization. The reorganization improves internal coordination and consolidates some functions for more effective program support. The Evaluation and Communication Division in the new OEM will focus on strategic planning and program performance evaluations, including the Oil Spill program.

Evidence: The program was directly involved with the reorganization that created the new OEM office (approved September 2004), including development of goals and objectives that apply to the Oil Spill program. The program is spearheading development of a national preparedness and prevention program among EPA's Regional offices that will emphasize consistent performance.

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: The regulations developed and implemented by the Oil Spill program are all required by the program's authorizing statute.

Evidence: CWA, 33 USC 1321 calls for the President to issue regulations to prevent discharges of oil (SPCC rule) and to require Facility Response Plans (FRPs) at selected facilities. Additionally, Subpart J (National Contingency Plan) requires development of a schedule of approved products for response. The introduction of 40 CFR 112, the rule which address these requirements, clearly states how the regulations meet the goals of the CWA.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Oil Spill Program regularly collects credible and timely prevention and preparedness information (e.g., compliance rates, inspection and drill numbers) from EPA's Regional program offices on a semi-annual basis. HQ and Regional managers and staff meet at least annually and participate in monthly conference calls to report on the status of the program and make adjustments in activities and budget that support annual performance goals. EPA, the Coast Guard, and other member agencies regularly review their performance and preparedness status at Regional Response Team meetings. However, the program has not verified the data quality of the systems providing spill data that are critical to measure long-term outcomes.

Evidence: Regional oil program annual performance reports and meeting minutes document program adjustments made during the year based on performance information reported by the Regional offices. Regional office spill data are used to target facilities for inspection. RRT meetings produce "lessons learned" that feedback to prevention/preparedness activities. The oil spill data in the National Response Center database, managed by the Coast Guard, does not have sufficient quality control procedures in place for use in EPA performance measures. The program's contractor database is new and is still undergoing peer review.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The federal managers with responsibility for program performance at the national level are held accountable through performance agreements specified in their annual appraisal form. The program has identified the Regional office managers that are responsible for day-to-day operations and achieving key program results. Contractors are used by the program but do not have a major role in the achievement of program goals.

Evidence: Example appraisal form for OEM Director specifies responsibility for monitoring and managing to meet performance goals. A list of Regional program managers was provided as well as a description of the key positions. Regional program manager performance appraisal forms show the linkage of their position to the Agency strategic plan at the subobjective level and identify their responsibility for day-to-day management of program activities.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: After the program's appropriated funds are allocated according to the Agency's Operating Plan, spending against those allocations is tracked by OEM financial staff and reported in the Agency's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). Unobligated balances reported for recent years show that the program has improved its obligation rate and over 90% of funds appropriated through 2004 have been obligated. The program uses an invoice review checklist to ensure that funds are outlayed for their intended purpose.

Evidence: Budget execution reports for 2002-2004 show that unobligated balances remaining each year have declined and in 2004, only 6% of funds remained unobligated. Example invoice checklist shows the program's procedure for confirming that contractor invoices meet contract requirements including correct billing of labor and indirect costs. These reviews are performed by the program's project officer.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has an annual efficiency measure that focuses on the marginal cost to achieve additional reductions in the volume of oil spilled (i.e., gallons spilled per program dollar spent on prevention and preparedness). The targets actually reflect decreasing efficiency, in part because the major gains from regulation were achieved some time ago as the largest facilities came into compliance. It is expected that as the focus turns to the larger universe of smaller spills, the return on investment in prevention and preparedness will decrease. Given these conditions, OMB accepts the targets as ambitious. National managers meetings provide a regular forum for presentation of best practices by Regional managers. The program has provided examples in which best practices that are expected to yield efficiency gains are being evaluated or implemented.

Evidence: The program has submitted to OMB an acceptable description of the methodology and data used to evaluate the measure. The program has established a baseline and targets for this measure. The methodology used by the program to calculate a baseline relies on several untested assumptions, however, the program is working to refine it methods and verify its data sources. Trend analysis of spill data indicate that spill volumes have decreased over time, but the number of spills has increased. Program outreach and inspection must cover more facilities with the same dollars, thus some decrease in efficiency is expected when measured in terms of volume spilled. Minutes of Managers meetings from 2003 and 2005 describe discussions of best practices used by Regional offices. Those with anticipated efficiency gains include the "Expedited Settlement" approach to compliance, use of aerial surveys for compliance assessment and improved consistency in inspection paperwork.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Oil Spill program coordinates prevention activities with other federal agencies through MOUs. The programs preparedness activities are coordinated at the federal level through the National Response System (NRS), which includes a National Response Team that meets monthly. The NRS also includes Regional Response Teams that have State and industry members and meet regularly to share information and lessons learned. For oil spills in particular, the Preparedness for Response Exercise (PREP) program brings together federal agencies and industry to evaluate and exercise the Area Contingency Plans required by the CWA as amended by Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Evidence: Principal MOUs between federal agencies are provided in Appendices A and B of 40 CFR 112. The National Response Plan describes the NRS and responsibilities of all members of the NRT and RRTs. Description of the PREP program is found at: www.uscg.mil/hq/nsfweb/nsfcc/prep/prepprocess.html.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program is in the Office of Emergency Management (OEM). In addition to the Agency's Funds Control Manual, the program uses OEM division-specific financial management guidelines that address payroll accounts, spending authority, packaging and processing agreements, travel and procurement. The program is served by three Funds Control Officers (FCOs) that oversee all accounts in OEM. These FCOs have documented experience and/or training in EPA's budget execution and financial management systems. However, the program has not shown that they have an integrated financial and performance data system that is used for day-to-day management or a system for identifying improper payments. Auditor reports indicate that the program has no material weakness or other financial non-compliance issues. However, OMB and the Agency are currently working to resolve anomalies in the program's reimbursable account.

Evidence: "Guidelines for Allocating and Managing Program Resources" (May 2005) and example SOPs provided by the program provide OEM-specific procedures for managing resources. No material weaknesses were reported under Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) or in the Agency's 2004 Performance and Accountability Report. EPA has reported large unobligated balances in the Oil Spill account that appear to be an artifact of old accounting errors in the reimbursable account. Investigation and resolution of this problem will be completed by early 2006.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has not provided evidence of past management reviews or a system in place to identify and correct management deficiencies. Example challenges include (1) development of an integrated financial and performance data system, (2) demonstration of regular and consistent cost and schedule documentation and (3) implementation of best practices across all regions.

Evidence: The "Superfund/Oil Program Implementation Plan" provided by the program (dated 2001) outlines general activities to address management issues, but provides no information regarding implementation schedules, milestones or commitments to assess progress. The program provided summaries of staff Retreats that showed some discussion of management issues, but these were characterized as "parking lot" issues to be addressed at an unspecified later date.

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: The program sought public comment when developing the 40 CFR part 112 regulation that was finalized in 2002. Comments are addressed in the preamble to the final rule. A stakeholder meeting was also held and input was received on this regulation in 2003. Prior to the publication of the final rule, proposed rules with public comments periods where issued in 1991, 1993, and 1997. The Facility Response Plan regulation (40 CFR part 112.20-21) was published in 1994 and 2000 after public comment periods. The NCP Subpart J regulation was last amended in 1994 and the preamble addresses all public comments that were received.

Evidence: The program maintains a stakeholder list with contact information. The program represents OEM at the SBA Roundtable to communicate and coordinate with trade associations on small business issues related to oil regulations. The Federal Register notice, Notices of Data Availability, and public comments can be found in EPA's EDOCKET index under Docket No. OPA-2004-0007 ("Notice of Data Availability for Certain Facilities") and Docket No. OPA-2004-0008 ("Notice of Data Availability for Oil-Filled and Process Equipment"). The SPCC reference material provided on the Agency's internet site (http://epa.gov/oilspill/spccref.htm) helps facilities better understand SPCC requirements and provides stakeholders meeting information.

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: For the 40 CFR part 112 regulation published in 2002, the program prepared a regulatory impact analysis as the regulation was a "significant regulatory action." Regulatory flexibility analyses were not required as the rule was determined not to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Cost-benefit analyses were also determined not to be required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The regulatory impact analysis complied with OMB guidelines.

Evidence: OMB review of the 40 CFR part 112 Regulatory Impact Analysis was concluded by October 15, 2001.

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: To ensure consistency among federal regulations, the Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP), which was published in 1996, has been adopted for the SPCC and FRP regulations. EPA and other Federal agencies agree to accept and review an ICP, rather than require a facility to prepare multiple plans that follow specific organizational requirements of the various regulations associated with emergency response. The program has periodically issued revised rules designed to reduce burden (cost) to the regulated community while maintaining overall benefits, clarify issues and address inconsistencies.

Evidence: The NRT's "one plan" guidance (61 FR 31103) authorizes the use of the ICP approach. The SPCC rule was revised in proposed rules issued in 1991, 1993, and 1997 and the final rule issued in 2002. The FRP rule was revised in a proposed rule issued in 1994 and a final rule issued in 2000.

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: To evaluate the impact of its regulatory activity, the program assessed compliance burdens and performed cost-benefit analyses for recently promulgated revisions to both the SPCC and FRP rules. The analysis indicates that net benefits are positive indicating that the recent regulatory changes are designed to increase, if not maximize, net benefits. The program is currently performing additional review of these regulations to again increase net benefits by reducing cost burdens to industry.

Evidence: The report "Economic Analysis for the Final Revisions to the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulation (40 CFR 112)" (May 2002) includes estimates of compliance burdens for SPCC and FRP facilities. Cost-benefit analysis of the overall regulatory program is documented in "Analysis of Oil Spill Data and the Benefits and Costs of EPA Oil Program Activities" (April 2003)

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program's long-term measures were developed this year and only baseline results from past years are available for each measure. The accuracy and completeness of results is currently inadequate, however, the agency has a performance plan in place to improve data quality.

Evidence: Results are reported under the Performance Measures Section of the PART.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program achieves its targets for one of the two existing measures. The agency has developed a performance improvement plan to increase the accuracy and completeness of the annual measure results reported by its Regional program offices.

Evidence: Results are reported under the Performance Measures Section of the PART.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program has not provided evidence that its efficiency-promoting practices and initiatives have yielded cost effective innovations or efficiency gains. However, the program has developed a new efficiency measure and reported baseline results. The program has a performance plan in place to improve the accuracy and completeness of data used to determine efficiency measure results.

Evidence: Results are reported under the Performance Measures Section of the PART.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: No evidence was provided that any comparative evaluation has been done for the program.

Evidence: EPA's Oil Spill program could be compared with similar DOI and DOT programs or other waste prevention and preparedness programs within EPA.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Independent analyses have concluded that compliance with the program's SPCC regulations appears to reduce the number and volume of oil spills for certain industry sectors. However, the analyses are not sufficiently rigorous to establish a causal relationship. Additionally, the scope of the evaluation does not include other major activities of the program.

Evidence: Results of independent analyses are presented in Abt Associates memo, 11/24/04; "Preliminary Oil Spill Data Analysis for SPCC Facilities Based on Updated EPA Facility Oil Spill Database."

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: Although the CWA authorizing statute does not emphasize a net benefits approach to regulating oil spills, it does not preclude EPA from taking this approach. While the program has issued performance-based rules, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that implementation of these rules has maximized net benefits. Major changes to key regulations have only recently begun to take effect, so there is insufficient information to assess their impact.

Evidence: The cost-benefit analysis of the overall regulatory program, documented in "Analysis of Oil Spill Data and the Benefits and Costs of EPA Oil Program Activities" (April 2003), is prospective and does not provide an analysis of effects of the regulations with respect to actual costs and benefits.