U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Special Report 

Congressionally Requested Inquiry 

into EPA’s Response to a Report of a 

Leaking Well in North Carolina and the 

National Response Center Hotline 

 Project No. 10-P-0027 

 November 10, 2009 
 

Report Contributors:	 Christine El-Zoghbi 

 Tim Roach 

 Larry Dare 

 Eric Lewis 

Abbreviations 

COOP Continuity of Operations 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

NRC National Response Center 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OSC On-Scene Coordinator 

TCE Trichloroethylene 

TISCOM Telephone and Information Systems Command 

. 
 

 

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 10-P-0027 

November 10, 2009 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

Representative Heath Shuler 

requested that we investigate the 

events surrounding a response to 

an April 25, 2009, telephone 

report of a leaking well in 

Skyland, North Carolina. 

We conducted this review to 

determine whether the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) receipt and 

disposition of that telephone call 

followed applicable policies and 

procedures. 

Background 

The National Response Center 

(NRC), operated by the U.S. 

Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security, is the sole 

national point of contact for 

reporting all oil, chemical, 

radiological, and biological 

discharges into the environment. 

During non-business hours, the 

EPA emergency hotline is 

programmed to forward all 

incoming calls to the NRC phone 

system, which is staffed at all 

times. 

For further information, 

contact our Office of 

Congressional, Public Affairs and 

Management at (202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, 

click on the following link: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2010/ 

20091110-10-P-0027.pdf 

Congressionally Requested Inquiry into EPA’s 

Response to a Report of a Leaking Well in North 

Carolina and the National Response Center Hotline 

What We Found 

We found that EPA staff did not receive any calls or voicemail messages on 

April 25, 2009, from the Skyland, North Carolina, constituent about a leaking 

well. However, when the Agency was informed of the leak by a local news 

reporter, EPA’s On-Scene Coordinator contacted the constituent and the 

constituent’s neighbors. The On-Scene Coordinator then arranged for 

permanent repairs to the well, which were completed April 28, 2009. 

We found that NRC did receive voicemails about the leaking well. On 

April 25, 2009, two other callers reported separate environmental emergencies 

by voicemail. The NRC Operations Officer informed us NRC did not listen to 

the voicemails until September 2009. We confirmed that NRC did not provide 

any response to these voicemails. Once the voicemails were discovered, NRC 

staff took no actions to inform EPA that callers had been channeled into a 

voicemail system. 

Prior to April 25, 2009, we determined that 12 voicemails were left with NRC. 

The earliest of these voicemails was dated October 12, 2006. We have found 

inconsistencies in the statements of NRC and NRC telephone contractors 

regarding who within NRC may have been aware of the voicemail problem and 

when. 

We will present our findings to the Department of Homeland Security Office of 

Inspector General so it may determine the degree to which the telephone 

contractors have repaired the NRC phone system and to fully investigate the 

inconsistencies in information provided by NRC staff and telephone 

contractors. 
 

 

 

Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

November 10, 2009 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Congressionally Requested Inquiry into EPA’s Response to a Report of a 

Leaking Well in North Carolina and the National Response Center Hotline 

Report No. 10-P-0027 

FROM:	 Wade T. Najjum 

TO:	 Mathy Stanislaus 

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

This is our report on the subject evaluation 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 resolution procedures. 

The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the 

applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time – is $120,684. 

Action Required 

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this 

report within 90 calendar days. You should include a report of your follow-up actions with the 

U.S. Coast Guard/National Response Center as per the Office of Emergency Management, 

Program Operations & Coordination Division Director’s e-mail of October 20, 2009. We have 

no objections to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Eric Lewis at (202) 566-2664 or 

lewis.eric@epa.gov. 
Congressionally Requested Inquiry into EPA’s Response 10-P-0027 

to a Report of a Leaking Well in North Carolina and the 

National Response Center Hotline 

Table of Contents 

Purpose of Review...................................................................................................... 1 

Background ................................................................................................................. 1 

Scope and Methodology............................................................................................. 1 

Results of Review ....................................................................................................... 2 

EPA Responds Promptly......................................................................................... 2
 

Another Skyland Area Resident Made Calls to the Region and NRC..................... 2 

Status of the Region 4 Emergency Line on April 25, 2009 ..................................... 2 

Status of NRC on April 25, 2009 ............................................................................. 3 

Voicemails Left with NRC on April 25, 2009 ........................................................... 3 

Voicemails Left with NRC prior to April 25, 2009 .................................................... 4 

Conclusions................................................................................................................. 4 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits.............................. 6 

Appendices 

A Voicemails Left with NRC on April 25, 2009 .................................................... 7 

B Voicemails Left with NRC Prior to April 25, 2009 ............................................ 9 

C Distribution ......................................................................................................... 10
 
 

10-P-0027 

Purpose of Review 

Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina requested that we investigate the events 

surrounding the response to an April 25, 2009, telephone report of a leaking well in Skyland, 

North Carolina. We conducted this review to determine whether the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) receipt and disposition of that telephone call followed applicable 

policies and procedures. 

Background 

On Saturday, April 25, 2009, a constituent (Constituent 1) of Representative Shuler living in 

Skyland became aware that a well in her yard was leaking. The day prior to the leak, an EPA 

contractor had collected samples from this well. While the well is not used as a drinking water 

source, the leaking water is contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE), which is a degreaser that 

is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. According to Representative Shuler’s letter 

to the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) dated April 28, 2009, as well as subsequent 

information provided by Representative Shuler’s office, a constituent reported making several 

attempts on that Saturday to call the EPA emergency hotline but received no response. 

There are two 24-hour emergency numbers listed on the EPA’s Region 4 Website: 

• An EPA regional spill reporting number. 

• The telephone number for the National Response Center (NRC), operated by the 

U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security. 

EPA staff members monitor the regional number during normal business hours and phones are 

programmed to forward calls to NRC after hours and on weekends. Therefore, any call made to 

Region 4 on Saturday, April 25, should have been transferred to NRC. The Coast Guard staffs 

NRC at all times. NRC is the sole national point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, 

radiological, and biological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and 

its territories. NRC disseminates telephone and electronic (fax, e-mail) reports of oil discharges 

and chemical releases to appropriate federal On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs). 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted field work from June 2009 to November 2009 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that based on our objectives, 

we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions. We reviewed documentation surrounding the 

reviewed event, including telephone records and transcripts of telephone calls. We interviewed 

Skyland-area residents, as well as staff and managers from EPA and NRC. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. 

1
 
 

 

 

10-P-0027 

Results of Review 

EPA Responds Promptly 

Region 4’s OSC reported becoming aware of the leaking well that Saturday, April 25, 2009, in 

either the afternoon or early evening, when a local newspaper reporter left him a voicemail 

message seeking comment on the leaking well. After the OSC learned of the leaking well, he 

attempted to contact Constituent 1 as well as her neighbors, but was unable to do so. He stated 

he left a voice message for Constituent 1, which she confirmed receiving. The OSC reported he 

then contacted the EPA regional phone duty officer to determine whether there was an NRC 

report of the leaking well. The phone duty officer informed the OSC there was no such report. 

We reviewed NRC phone records and emergency reports. These records did not show any phone 

calls from Skyland. 

The OSC reported to us that he immediately contacted the EPA contractor who would be 

responsible for repairing the leaking well. The leaking well was temporarily repaired by the 

local fire department on April 25. EPA’s contractor arrived at the residence of Constituent 1 on 

the evening of April 26. The OSC made the necessary arrangements and the contractor finished 

the repair, which an EPA hydrogeologist inspected and approved on April 28. We believe 

EPA’s actions were appropriate and responsive. 

Another Skyland Area Resident Made Calls to the Region and NRC 

Representative Shuler’s staff informed us that both Constituent 1 and a second constituent 

(Constituent 2) had made calls to the hotlines. Stories in the local press made the same reports. 

Initially, Constituent 1 told us she had made the calls. During our interview, we requested that 

Constituent 1 provide us with the numbers she called so that we could confirm that the calls had 

been made. Constituent 1 then said she did not report the leak to either the Region 4 or NRC 

hotlines. She believed that Constituent 2 and perhaps another person placed the calls, and she 

provided us with the names. 

When we contacted Constituent 2, he stated that he did not make any calls, but identified another 

Skyland resident who he claimed had made the calls (Constituent 3). We contacted 

Constituent 3, who said he called both the Region 4 and the NRC hotline from a friend’s phone. 

His friend agreed to provide her phone records but could not do so because her phone company 

would not provide them without a subpoena. We confirmed this requirement with the phone 

company and issued a subpoena for the phone records. On August 20, 2009, the phone company 

provided us the records. Those records confirmed that calls to Region 4 and the NRC hotline 

were made on April 25, 2009, between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m. Constituent 3 said he reached a 

voicemail system at each number. He also said that he had left voicemail messages as requested 

but had not been contacted. 

Status of the Region 4 Emergency Line on April 25, 2009 

EPA Region 4 personnel said the region’s emergency line was programmed on April 25, 2009, to 

forward all incoming calls to the NRC hotline. This is standard procedure for the Region 4 

2
 
 

 

 

 

10-P-0027 

hotline during evenings and weekends. NRC handles EPA regional hotline after-hours calls 

according to an interagency agreement. 

We obtained records from the EPA phone system, which confirmed at least one call had been 

placed to the Region 4 hotline on April 25. Records show this call was forwarded to the NRC 

hotline. 

Status of NRC on April 25, 2009 

On July 24, 2009, we interviewed the NRC Chief and the Senior Watchstander. Watchstander is 

a term used by the Coast Guard to refer to personnel on duty in NRC responding to incoming 

phone calls. The NRC Senior Watchstander was on duty on April 25, 2009, and he said the 

hotline was staffed and operating. The Senior Watchstander also said that NRC was conducting 

a continuity of operations (COOP) exercise on April 25, 2009, which involved using an alternate 

telephone operations center and phone system for a portion of the day. The Senior Watchstander 

said that the exercise ran from 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. The NRC Chief and Senior 

Watchstander stated it was not possible for callers to leave a voicemail on the NRC emergency 

line during the April 25 COOP exercise because the system had no voicemail option. 

The NRC Chief and Senior Watchstander provided the OIG with phone records that listed all 

incoming and outgoing calls to and from NRC on April 25, 2009. These records do not show 

any incoming call from Skyland, North Carolina. The NRC Chief and Senior Watchstander said 

these records would not include the numbers of callers who hung up before speaking to hotline 

personnel. 

On September 17, 2009, we met with NRC staff and the telephone contractors who perform 

technical work on the phone system. We sought to determine how the NRC telephone system 

did not record the call forwarded from the EPA hotline and Constituent 3’s call directly to the 

NRC hotline. The telephone contractors told us the NRC telephone system sent some callers 

directly into voicemail for a portion of April 25, 2009. They stated that before April 25 they did 

not know of this voicemail system on the NRC emergency hotline. 

Contrary to what we were told by the Coast Guard personnel we interviewed, the contractor 

personnel said the Senior Watchstander informed them that calls were being forwarded to 

voicemail at approximately 2:00 p.m. on April 25. We checked NRC phone records and 

observed numerous phone calls showing NRC staff calling the hotline that day, apparently 

testing the system. The telephone contractors said they worked to fix the problem while NRC 

personnel continued to respond to phone calls from their COOP site. 

Voicemails Left with NRC on April 25, 2009 

In September 2009, NRC telephone contractors provided us with information (including 

transcripts) from the voicemails left with NRC on April 25, 2009. The telephone contractors 

reported that the NRC Chief would not permit them to release audio copies of the voicemails 

directly to the OIG. Later, the NRC Chief provided a CD containing the voicemail messages 

from April 25, including calls from Constituent 3. These voicemails state Constituent 3’s name, 

3
 
 

 

 

10-P-0027 

contact information, nature of the issue, and a request for a return phone call. The telephone 

records associated with these calls indicate Constituent 3 first called the NRC hotline directly. 

The second call was made to EPA Region 4 (after duty hours) and it was forwarded to the NRC 

hotline. A transcription of the calls is in Appendix A. 

Two other incidents, reported in three voicemails, may have also warranted NRC action to 

contact EPA or other federal, State, or local agencies. The first call reported an oil sheen in a 

Houston, Texas, ship channel. Another call reported “several thousand tons” of chromium VI at 

a dumpsite in Missouri. Chromium VI (hexavalent chromium) is ranked eighteenth on the 

priority list of substances on the 2007 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act List of Hazardous Substances. NRC staff stated they had not contacted any of 

the callers. 

The Coast Guard Telephone and Information Systems Command (TISCOM) also left four 

voicemails on the system that day. TISCOM provides telecommunications, electronics, and 

information systems support to the Coast Guard. None of these voicemails included substantive 

information. We believe these calls represent TISCOM staff checking on system functions 

during the COOP exercise. 

Voicemails Left with NRC prior to April 25, 2009 

During our field work, NRC telephone contractors provided us with additional voicemail 

records. These records show that 12 voicemails were left with NRC between October 2006 and 

April 24, 2009. Information on the date, time, and duration of these voicemails is in Appendix B. 

NRC staff reported they had not listened to these voicemails. The NRC Operations Officer 

informed us the NRC did not listen to the voicemails until September 2009. We have made this 

information available to an EPA official and that official said there would be follow-up with 

NRC. 

Conclusions 

Our review indicated that EPA staff provided a timely and effective response to the leaking well 

in Skyland, North Carolina. However, we believe there are weaknesses with the NRC 

emergency hotline system used as an EPA Region 4 hotline backup. During non-business hours, 

EPA depends on the U.S. Coast Guard to properly operate the NRC hotline. The NRC telephone 

problems that occurred on April 25, 2009, resulted in missed calls for EPA’s help or assistance 

with possible environmental dangers. When NRC staff discovered that emergency calls were 

going into a voicemail system, they took no action to retrieve any of those calls. Although NRC 

staff reportedly informed contractors that calls were going to voicemail on April 25, 2009, NRC 

staff informed the EPA OIG that it was not possible to leave a message on the emergency hotline 

when the system is operational. Once the voicemails were discovered, NRC staff took no actions 

to contact the callers or inform EPA that calls had been missed. 

Addressing the issues in Representative Shuler’s letter took more time than necessary because 

some of his constituents and the NRC Chief and Senior Watchstander did not initially provide 

complete or accurate accounts of the incidents. Constituent 1 did not call either the EPA 

4
 
10-P-0027 

Region 4 or the NRC hotlines after initially reporting she had done so. As previously noted, 

NRC personnel initially said there is no ability to leave a voicemail when the system is 

operational. We had to subpoena records, verify calls, and interview NRC contract support 

personnel to determine what had actually happened. 

We believe that NRC did not effectively fulfill its mission when emergency calls were 

mishandled and unanswered. We also believe the unanswered calls were knowingly left 

uncorrected. In our opinion, these conditions represent a material internal control weakness in 

the process and an unsatisfactory control environment. We will present our findings to the 

Department of Homeland Security OIG so it may determine the degree to which the contractors 

have repaired the NRC phone system and to fully investigate the inconsistencies in information 

provided by NRC staff. 

5
 
 

 

10-P-0027 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Planned 

Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed To 

No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount 

No recommendations to EPA 

O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

6
 

1 
 

 

 

10-P-0027 

Appendix A 

Voicemails Left with NRC on April 25, 2009 

Time From Duration Transcription 

2:04 pm U.S.G/9703313 

xxx1 

1 second None 

2:11 pm U.S. 

G/9703313xxx 

148 seconds [This voicemail sounds as if the caller does not know he is 

being recorded. The main caller speaks to a voice in the 

background which he identifies as one of the NRC 

employees. They discuss other telephone numbers 

associated with NRC, such as the Federal Railroad 

Administration Hotline. The main speaker notes twice 

that, “Somebody did something wrong up there.”] 

2:17 pm U.S. 

G/9703313xxxx 

6 seconds None 

2:18 pm [Constituent 3’s 

friend’s phone 

owner]/[number] 

35 seconds Yeah this is [Constituent 3 gives his name] calling at 

Saturday afternoon at about 2:18. Wanted to report a spill 

that's happening. TCE running out all over the ground in 

Asheville, North Carolina. Please feel free to give me a 

ring. I thought, it says, 24-hour spill reporting hotline, but 

nobody answers on your end. Pretty amazing. Anyway, 

my number is: [Constituent 3 gives his phone number] 

and the name is [Constituent 3 gives his name]. Thank 

you. Bye bye. 

2:19 pm Line 

49/914045682 

868412 

Note: 9 1 

(404) 568-2868 

is the EPA 

Region 4 Spill 

Reporting 

Number 

48 seconds Yeah, this is [Constituent 3 gives his name] calling, 

[Constituent 3 spells his last name], it's twenty minutes 

after two Saturday afternoon. I wanted to tell you about a 

spill. Three months ago this well had 1,100 parts per 

billion of TCE. It's an artesian well, it's improperly sealed, 

it's coming up all over the ground and every three months 

this well has been doubling in the amount of TCE so there 

we go and there are small kids playing next door. Please 

feel free to give me a ring. My number: [Constituent 3 

gives his number]. Have a nice afternoon. Bye bye. 

2:23 pm Cell Phone TX/ 

[number] 

55 seconds This is [Texas Caller gives his name] with [Texas Caller 

gives his company’s name]. I was calling the National 

Response Center at 1-800-424-8802. I need to report a 

sheen in the water of the Houston ship channel and we 

are not the response - [Texas Caller gives his company 

name] is not the responsible party and we don't know who 

is. But we wanted to make a notification so that there 

would be an awareness. My cell phone number is [Texas 

Caller gives part of his phone number] excuse me. 

[Texas Caller gives part of his phone number] oh I forgot 

it. I will call back this number and leave a message with 

the correct number. 

2:23 pm U.S. 

G/9703313xxx 

2 seconds None 

1

 Note: (703) 313-xxxx is the number for U.S. Coast Guard’s TISCOM 

7 
 

 

10-P-0027 

Time From Duration Transcription 

2:24 pm Cell Phone TX/ 

[number] 

33 seconds This is [Texas Caller gives his name] with [Texas Caller 

gives his company’s name], [Texas Caller gives his 

number], calling to report a sheen of water, oil, in the 

Houston ship channel to the national response center. 

I called 1-800-424-8802 and I've gotten this recording. 

Normally I would expect to reach the National Response 

Center. Thank you. 

2:41 pm [name 2]/ 

[number] 

[information 

not provided] 

This is [Missouri Caller gives his name, spells last name], 

and I'm the EMD for Harrison County. I need to speak to 

someone about getting some soil testing done as soon as 

possible. I found a dumpsite here in Harrison County that 

has several thousand tons [emphasis heard in original] of 

Chromium VI in a concentrated area and I'd like to start 

some kind of process of getting this tested. My cell 

number is [Missouri Caller gives his phone number] and 

I'd like some help as soon as possible. Thank you. 

2:42 pm Anonymous/ 

17230 

4 seconds None 

Source: NRC phone records. 

8
 
 

 

10-P-0027 

Appendix B 

Voicemails Left with NRC Prior to April 25, 2009 

Date Time Duration 

10/12/2006 3:48am 11 seconds 

10/12/2006 3:58am 11 seconds 

1/19/2007 9:06am 56 seconds 

1/20/2007 1:28pm 47 seconds 

1/20/2007 10:23pm 77 seconds 

1/22/2007 7:15pm 3 seconds 

1/23/2007 12:37pm 14 seconds 

1/24/2007 5:37am 18 seconds 

1/24/2007 11:57pm 175 seconds 

1/25/2007 12:14pm 2 seconds 

1/25/2007 4:27pm 4 seconds 

6/27/2008 6:57pm 295 seconds 

Source: NRC phone records. 

9
 
 

10-P-0027 

Appendix C 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4 

Agency Follow-up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Acting Inspector General 

10