Environmental, Safety, and Health Issues at EPA Laboratories

Executive Summary

#5100484

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to (1) assess the effectiveness of the environmental, safety, and health (ESH) program at selected EPA laboratories; and (2) assess the effectiveness of ESH audits conducted by the Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Division (SHEMD) of the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), especially as they relate to identifying and correcting program deficiencies.

BACKGROUND

In July 1993, an EPA laboratory paid a $2,500 fine to a state as a penalty for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Since 1991, at least one other EPA laboratory has been issued Notices of Violation (NOVs) of RCRA regulations, but corrective actions were taken and no sanctions applied. Not adhering to its own environmental regulations could be costly to EPA both financially and, more importantly, in the way the Agency is perceived by the community which it regulates.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The ESH Program At EPA Laboratories Is Inadequate

In order to assess the effectiveness of the ESH program at the facilities we visited, we developed a matrix which identified and allowed us to categorize performance of critical ESH program elements as model, adequate, or inadequate. All facilities were rated inadequate in at least two (of ten) program elements, and the Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL) at Gulf Breeze was rated inadequate in nine of ten elements. SHEMD managers were in general agreement with both the matrix and the individual facility ratings. We believe that an inadequate rating in even one element leaves that facility vulnerable. Therefore, EPA's ESH program, while improving, is still inadequate overall.

The ESH program at the New England Regional Laboratory has improved since the last SHEMD audit. Management has demonstrated its support of the program by assigning an additional person to the program part-time and by actively participating in weekly ESH inspections. On the other hand, because of recent personnel changes at the Region VII Laboratory and at Research Triangle Park, there has been a loss of experience and technical excellence that will, at least temporarily, negatively affect the ESH program at both locations. Region III's Central Regional Laboratory in Annapolis has begun taking some actions to improve the ESH program, but overall the program appears to be maintaining "the status quo." Finally, there was one major fire and one minor fire at ERL Gulf Breeze in 1994, and we found a RCRA violation during our visit to the facility. Although management has taken some actions to improve its ESH program, the facility remains at risk.

EPA Laboratory ESH Program Is An Agency Weakness

The Office of Research and Development (ORD) has identified its ESH program as a material weakness in its internal Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act reports since 1992. In 1994 the ESH program was proposed as an Agency-level weakness, but top EPA executives believed that ORD should continue to address the weakness internally.

Although only ORD has declared its ESH program a material weakness, we found that inadequacies are not confined only to ORD laboratories. We did not observe any major differences in the implementation of the ESH program at EPA laboratories, regardless of whether the laboratory belonged to ORD or a Region. Furthermore, SHEMD's audits are performed in the same manner at Regional and program office laboratories, and the types and number of findings are similar.

SHEMD management regard the ESH audit process as a tool for local facilities to use for their protection, therefore they have not used the audit process to address EPA's vulnerability. While ORD has assessed the overall vulnerability of its laboratories, the Agency as a whole has not. ORD is taking actions to correct their weaknesses, but those actions have no effect at non-ORD laboratories (Regional, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)), which account for over half of all EPA laboratories. We believe that the ESH program at laboratories is an Agency-wide, not just ORD-wide, weakness.

OARM Needs To Improve The ESH Audit Process

ESH audits are accomplished by a SHEMD technical expert serving as team leader and a contractor team of two to five experts. The audit team performs a thorough review of facility compliance with ESH regulations and Agency policy, as well as professional practices. At the conclusion of the site visit, the audit team discusses major findings with facility management. SHEMD provides a draft report to the auditee for comment prior to releasing the final report. Corrective actions delineated in the final report are tracked in an SHEMD automated data base.

EPA laboratory managers were united in their criticism of the current ESH audit process. Among the concerns were the use of contractors to perform the audits; treating professional practice findings and recommendations in the same manner as regulatory findings and recommendations; a less than timely release of draft and final reports; and inadequate consideration of laboratory responses to issues addressed in the draft reports. We found that many of these concerns were legitimate.

SHEMD has already begun some actions to address these concerns, such as providing written preliminary summaries of audit findings on site at the end of each audit. This preliminary summary allows the laboratory to begin corrective actions immediately on problems identified.

OARM Needs To Improve Visibility Of Audit Process To Management

ESH audit reports are provided to management one level above the audited facility. SHEMD also provides an annual senior management summary for the Office of Administration and Resources Management and interested program offices. However, they do not elevate uncorrected deficiencies, potentially dangerous situations, or other serious concerns to the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, or appropriate Assistant or Regional Administrators. Therefore, top management may not be aware of the potential impact of at-risk facilities on the Agency as a whole.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Deputy Administrator declare EPA's ESH program at a minimum an Agency-level weakness during the 1995 Integrity Act process. Given EPA's position in the regulated community, a model environmental program should be used as a management tool to assist in improving the ESH program at Agency laboratories. Immediate actions need to be taken to reduce ESH risks at ERL Gulf Breeze, FL. ESH resources allocated to the Regions should be assigned to the laboratories. We are also recommending that SHEMD be involved in determining ESH position requirements and approving ESH selections. Coordination can be improved at facilities where program offices are co-located so that EPA is assured that the ESH program covers all facility operations and addresses facility weaknesses. The ESH audit process needs to be improved by involving program and Regional ESH personnel in audits, improving the timeliness of audit reports and associated responses, incorporating the facility's response to the draft report into the final report, and improving corrective action tracking. Finally, reports identifying significant risk need to be elevated to top EPA managers.

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION

Generally, the Agency agreed with the report and that improvements in the ESH program can be accomplished. We have incorporated applicable comments from the Agency's response to the draft report and recommendations in the body of the final report. The Agency response in its entirety can be found in Appendix I.

Created November 20, 1996

To request a hard copy, please contact EPA, Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit at 202-260-7784

Top of page

Environmental, Safety, and Health Issues at EPA Laboratories

Executive Summary

Local Navigation