Introduction
From August 1996 through October 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) worked together on an innovative pilot project designed to identify the root causes of noncompliance with regulatory requirements in the chemical industry. With the voluntary participation of more than two dozen chemical facilities involved in 47 enforcement actions, the project team focused on a "lessons learned" approach, hoping to find out what could be learned from these non compliance events, both by industry and by the regulators. The results of this study are presented in "EPA/CMA Root Cause Analysis Pilot Project: An Industry Survey" (EPA-305-R-99-001 May 1999) published by the US EPA earlier this year.
This article, adapted from the executive summary of the report, highlights the findings of this report, which is recommended reading for environmental managers and regulators alike.
Purpose of the Root Cause Analysis Project
To obtain information from certain CMA member facilities, the project team developed a survey focused on the following four questions:
- What are the root causes of noncompliance?
- How do facilities respond to noncompliance events and what are the lessons learned?
- How have Responsible Care® and other management systems affected the overall environmental performance of facilities?
- What changes on the part of the facility or the EPA will improve compliance and the efficiency of the compliance process?
The survey was sent to 50 chemical facilities that had been involved in 79 past enforcement actions. Of those facilities, 27 involved in 47 enforcement actions voluntarily completed and returned the survey.
This article summarizes the survey responses to questions regarding the root and contributing causes of noncompliance and makes recommendations, for industry and government, to improve compliance with environmental regulations. The report should be of value to the regulated community, state and federal regulators, and other persons interested in the challenge of promoting regulatory compliance. A thorough examination of the causes of noncompliance is a valuable tool that can help improve compliance and minimize the occurrence of noncompliance. Any root cause analysis should focus on an exhaustive and diligent identification of all causes and the implementation of corrective measures that may yield long-term solutions. Because of the limitations of the data on which the full report is based (addressed in more detail on page 5 of the full report) the results of this survey are representative only of large CMA member facilities in the project's study population. Beyond this study population, the project findings should be considered largely as a guide to further root cause research, for example for small chemical facilities.
Types of Noncompliance
The four types of noncompliance events identified most frequently by survey respondents, in order, were:
- Report Submissions and Reporting: Failure to submit required reports or the submittal of incomplete or inaccurate reports to the regulating agency
- Exceedance: Failure to meet discharge limit(s), as defined in the facility's permit or by regulation
- Operations and Maintenance: Noncompliance of an operations and maintenance nature
- Record Keeping: Failure to maintain operating records or files in accordance with regulations
Root (Primary) Causes
Multiple causes were identified for 94 percent of the noncompliance events identified. The six categories of root causes and the specific causes within each category identified most frequently, in order, are:
- Regulations and Permits - facility unaware of applicability of a regulation
- Human Error - individual responsibility or professional judgment
- Procedures - operating procedure not followed
- Equipment Problems - design or installation
- External Circumstances - contracted services, such as haulers or handlers
- Communications Difficulties - between facility and regulatory agencies
Contributing (Secondary) Causes
The four categories of contributing causes and the specific causes within each category identified most frequently, in order, are:
- Management - environmental aspects of facility process and operations not identified
- Procedures - reporting or notification procedures unclear
- Regulations and Permits - contradictory interpretation of state or federal regulations
- Compliance Monitoring - audit program insufficient and routine site and equipment checks not conducted
Responsible Care ® and Other Environmental Management Systems
Survey responses indicate that there is a strong relationship between the implementation of Responsible Care® or other EMSs and compliance. However, even a complete, well documented EMS does not, by itself, ensure 100 percent compliance with environmental requirements. Survey responses also indicate that facilities are modifying or clarifying their EMSs to minimize the incidence of noncompliance events:
- The majority of responses identified environmental audit programs; corporate policies, goals, targets, and guidelines; and Responsible Care® as management methods that have a strong influence on environmental performance.
- Among the respondents, 78 percent had modified their EMSs in response to a noncompliance event.
- Among the respondents, 41 percent stated that Responsible Care® or another EMS would have contributed to prevention of the noncompliance event.
- The project team considers 71 percent of the actions taken in response to a noncompliance event relevant to an EMS.
Respondents' Perspectives on Improving Compliance
Respondents' perspectives on traditional and innovative approaches to improving compliance include:
- Respondents identified increased employee involvement, improvement of the facility's management system, more clearly defined commitment on the part of management, and improved understanding of regulations as the most effective actions that industry could undertake to improve compliance.
- Respondents identified tools developed by the facility, facility employees and corporate staff, and trade associations as the most useful sources of compliance assistance, indicating the industry's primary historical reliance on in-house support.
- Respondents recommended that government work with industry to provide more technical assistance, including guidance, documents, self-audit check lists, logic or applicability flowcharts, and workshops-ideally for each new rule.
- Respondents recommended a range of policy and regulatory changes, including the development of "plain language" rules, pilot testing of new rules, consolidation of overlapping regulatory requirements, and reduction of record keeping and reporting requirements.
- Respondents suggested that self-audits, third-party audits, EMS audits, or other forms of self-monitoring, potentially coupled with penalty relief, be used as alternatives to traditional compliance inspections.
- Respondents suggested that EPA reduce the frequency of compliance inspections for facilities that have good compliance records.
Recommendations
Industry should consider the following actions to improve compliance:
- Ensure that all EMS elements are in place and all employees understand that the elements are part of the facility's EMS.
- Implement a program that promotes high levels of awareness of and commitment to the EMS among employees at all levels.
- Increase awareness among management and employees of the central role that a comprehensive EMS can play in achieving and maintaining compliance.
- Focus efforts on identifying more opportunities for rigorous implementation and evaluation of EMSs.
- Establish accurate, standard operating procedures that all affected employees can understand.
- Train employees to ensure that new and modified operating procedures are implemented properly.
EPA should consider the following actions to promote compliance with regulations:
- Articulate new regulations more clearly.
- Work with state environmental agencies to ensure that regulations are interpreted consistently.
- Continue compliance assistance (e.g., ChemAlliance) and outreach activities.
- Consider the development of compliance assistance tools, such as plain-English guides for every new rule.
- Provide more incentives for industry to disclose violations.
Individually, and working together, EPA and various industry sectors should pursue additional root cause analyses of noncompliance to better understand the findings and recommendations discussed in the full report. Such analyses might focus on:
- Understanding why and in what situations violations occur at facilities with EMSs.
- Looking more carefully at the "human error" category of causes used in the full report.
- Involving, at the design stage of the analysis, a statistician and social psychologist.
- Studying noncompliance at small (less than 100 employees) companies.
- Holding more discussions between EPA and industry to better understand their relationships, and the cause and effect between particular violations and appropriate corrective actions.
Links From the Article:
To Download a Full Copy of the Report visit the web-site:
http://es.epa.gov/ocea/ccsmd/rootcause/rootcauseanalysis2.pdf
or
CMA's link to Root Cause Report
http://www.cmahq.com/cmawebsite.nsf/pages/compliance
CMA's Responsible Care Program Page, including fact sheets
and contact names
http://www.cmahq.com/cmawebsite.nsf/pages/responsiblecare
SOCMA's Responsible Care Program Page, information on an
interactive Responsible Care CD-ROM
http://www.socma.com/respcare/index.html
