-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
. NORTHERN DIVISION
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
July 30, 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Report Number E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
Region 5 Fiscal Year 1992 Superfund Accomplishments
FROM: Anthony C.
Divisional Inspector General for Audits
Northern Division-^
TO: Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
Region 5
This report contains findings that describe problems the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) has identified, recommendations
for correcting the problems, and corrective actions the Region
has agreed to take regarding Fiscal Year 1992 Superfund
Accomplishments. This report represents the opinion of the OIG.
Final determinations on matters in the report will be made by EPA
managers in accordance with established EPA audit resolution
procedures. Accordingly, the findings described in this report
do not necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Action Recfuired
In responding to the findings in our draft report, your
office agreed to take certain corrective actions; however, no
milestone dates were included. This report contains additional
recommendations which your response did not fully address. In
accordance with EPA Order 2750, you, as the action official, are
required to provide this office a written response to this report
within 90 days. For corrective actions planned, reference to
specific milestone dates will assist this office in deciding
whether to close this report.
We have no objections to the further release of this report
to the public. Should you or your staff have any questions
regarding this report, please contact Charles Allberry, Audit
Manager, Northern Audit Division, at (312) 353-4222.
j S. E"v!;o^ar^! Protection Agere? .
•^-'rr L ' •b:7vi'V (PL-iC-"'
jYvrf '.sJc-S'-.n Bo'1'.v..'otf, 12th Roof,
- •.;«••:> t-i 'i C 'o'iA -c.'-v.J
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
[This page was intentionally left blank.]
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE
We performed this audit as part of the Office of Inspector
General's (OIG) mandatory audits of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Annual Report to Congress
and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act Report. Specifically,
the objectives of our audit were to: (1) determine whether
the accomplishments claimed within the Superfund program for
fiscal year 1992 were reasonable and accurate and (2) assess
internal controls over insuring the accuracy of recorded
Superfund accomplishments.
BACKGROUND
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
requires EPA to submit to Congress an annual Superfund
progress report. This report, due January 1st of each year,
describes EPA's progress in implementing the Superfund
program during the prior fiscal year. The OIG is required to
examine the report for reasonableness and accuracy and submit
to Congress, as part of the Agency's report, a summary of our
review.
The CFO Act requires each Federal agency to prepare
consolidated financial statements or financial statements
covering its trust funds, revolving funds, and commercial
activities. As part of this report, EPA is required to
provide information on certain Superfund performance
measures. These performance measures are the same as, or
similar to, the accomplishments that EPA reports in its
Superfund Annual Report to Congress. The OIG is required to
audit the information reported under the CFO Act. The OIG
must also assess the risk that a material misstatement in the
items reported (including performance measures) would not be
prevented or detected by the Agency's internal controls.
One of the primary sources of information for the Superfund
Annual Report to Congress and the CFO Act Report is EPA's
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS). This database is the
required source of Superfund planning and accomplishment
information. Region 5 uses WasteLAN, a local area network,
to enter and collect Superfund data and accomplishments. The
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Region periodically transfers the data from WasteLAN into
CERCLIS.
RESULTS-IN-BRIEF
Our audit of Region 5's accomplishments showed that the
accomplishments claimed in CERCLIS were not always reasonable
and accurate. Our assessment of the Region's internal
controls over input of data into CERCLIS showed that there
was a moderate risk that the items could be materially
misstated.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Many Accomplishments Were Incorrectly Claimed
Region 5 incorrectly claimed 29 percent (45/156) of the
accomplishments we reviewed. These included 42 which did not
meet the Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)
definition as presented in the Superfund Program Management
Manual. We determined that these accomplishments did not
meet SCAP definitions because (1) there was no evidence an
accomplishment occurred, (2) there was insufficient
documentation to support that all the definitional
requirements were met or when they were met, (3) ongoing
activities were incorrectly counted as separate
accomplishments, or (4) accomplishments were unnecessarily
performed. We also questioned 3 accomplishments which were
claimed in fiscal year 1992, but should have been claimed in
another fiscal year.
In addition, Region 5 recorded incorrect accomplishment dates
in CERCLIS for 8 of the 156 fiscal year 1992 accomplishments
that we reviewed. Although the dates were incorrectly
recorded, the correct dates fell within the same fiscal year.
We are reporting these errors because they demonstrate
inconsistent interpretations of SCAP definitions.
SCAP Definitions Contribute to Reporting Problems
The SCAP definitions themselves have been a cause of some
CERCLIS reporting problems in Region 5. Some definitions do
not specify how an accomplishment is to be supported; others
are not specific or leave room for differing interpretations;
others may not accurately reflect site progress. As a
ii
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
result, Region 5 may not consistently claim Superfund
accomplishments. In addition, differences of interpretation
in definitions made it difficult or impractical for the DIG
to validate some accomplishments.
Internal Controls Allow for Moderate Risk of Misstatement
We assessed Region 5's internal controls related to claiming
Superfund accomplishment dates and found that there is a
moderate risk that accomplishments could be materially
misstated. Region 5 does have controls in place aimed at
detecting data entry errors. These controls, however, do not
address whether an accomplishment's definitional requirements
have been met or whether accomplishments are claimed based on
a consistent interpretation of the SCAP definition. Most of
the incorrectly claimed accomplishments that we found were
caused by such errors.
AGENCY ACTIONS AND COMMENTS
Region 5 provided a written response to our draft report on
July 23, 1993. The Region agreed that it had incorrectly
claimed 10 accomplishments which we questioned. The Region
has taken or agreed to take corrective actions on all of
these items.
The Region accepted our reasons for questioning the remaining
35 accomplishments, but continues to believe that it was
correct in claiming each of these accomplishments.
The Region also disagrees that inconsistent application of
SCAP definitions is a significant problem. Instead, it
believes the main reason for errors was unclear, inadequate,
or inflexible SCAP definitions.
In response to recommendations made in our draft report, the
Region stated that it would
1. Correct CERCLIS dates for all actual errors
immediately.
2. Recreate approval documents, if necessary, for
accomplishments questioned because of insufficient
supporting documentation.
iii
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
3. Strengthen existing internal controls by clarifying
responsibilities for (a) data entry by the Remedial
Project Manager (RPM), and (b) review and audit of
CERCLIS data by Section Chiefs.
4. Ensure that On-Scene Coordinators, RPMs, and their
Section Chiefs are represented in work groups tasked to
improve SCAP definitions.
5. Continue to communicate with Headquarters regarding
unclear guidance.
6. Notify States to provide the Region with written
justification for re-opening "no further action" sites.
7. Include CERCLIS data entry as an event cycle in the
Region's internal control documentation to ensure its
inclusion in the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity
Act process.
We disagree with the Region's intention to recreate missing
documentation to support CERCLIS dates claimed. Creating
documents after-the-fact, without a supportable basis, does
not strengthen the validity of questioned accomplishments.
We have included a summary of Region 5 comments in
appropriate sections throughout the report. Appendix I
contains a copy of Region 5's response to our draft report
(excluding Attachment B).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The corrective actions proposed by the Region, when
implemented, will partially address our findings. In
addition to these proposed corrective actions, we recommend
that the Regional Administrator, Region 5, direct the Office
of Superfund to:
1. Develop and follow standard procedures for documenting
and verifying that SCAP definitional requirements are
completed and that accomplishments are consistently
claimed.
2. Ensure proper review and approval of Preliminary
Assessment and Site Inspection reports and document
Regional approvals.
iv
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
3. Work with EPA Headquarters to revise and clarify SCAP
definitions, when necessary, to insure consistent
recording of Superfund accomplishments in CERCLIS. If
appropriate, develop local guidance aimed at insuring
consistency in the recording of Region 5 Superfund
accomplishments.
4. Refrain from recreating unsupported documentation in an
effort to validate accomplishments previously claimed.
5. Establish milestone dates for completion of all
corrective actions.
v
Report Ko. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
[This page was intentionally left blank.]
VI
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE 1
BACKGROUND 1
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 2
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE 3
2 MANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS WERE INCORRECTLY CLAIMED . . 5
ACCOMPLISHMENTS CLAIMED WHICH
DID NOT MEET THE SCAP DEFINITION 6
ACCOMPLISHMENTS CLAIMED IN FISCAL YEAR 1992,
BUT OCCURRING IN OTHER FISCAL YEARS 18
INCONSISTENT APPLICATION
OF SCAP DEFINITIONS 20
SCAP DEFINITIONS CONTRIBUTE
TO REPORTING PROBLEMS 21
INTERNAL CONTROLS PROVIDE A
MODERATE RISK OF MISSTATEMENT 23
RECOMMENDATIONS 27
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT A PA COMPLETIONS AT NON-FEDERAL
FACILITIES WITH NO DOCUMENTED
REVIEW AND APPROVAL 29
Vll
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX I REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT . 31
APPENDIX II ABBREVIATIONS 45
APPENDIX III DISTRIBUTION 47
Vlll
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUFERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
We performed this audit as part of the Office of Inspector
General's (OIG) mandatory audits of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Annual Report to Congress
and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act Report. Specifically,
the objectives of our audit were to: (1) determine whether
the accomplishments claimed within the Superfund program for
fiscal year 1992 were reasonable and accurate and (2) assess
the internal controls over insuring the accuracy of recorded
Superfund accomplishments.
BACKGROUND
The Superfund program was established by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980. The program was revised and expanded in 1986 by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Under
Superfund, EPA is responsible for managing the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites that threaten human health and the
environment.
SARA requires EPA to submit to Congress an annual Superfund
progress report. This report, due January 1st of each year,
describes EPA's progress in implementing the Superfund
program during the prior fiscal year. The OIG is required to
examine the report for reasonableness and accuracy and submit
to Congress, as part of the Agency's report, a summary of our
review.
The CFO Act, enacted in 1990, requires each Federal agency to
prepare (1) consolidated financial statements or financial
statements covering its trust funds, revolving funds, and
commercial activities and (2) a performance report. As part
of the performance report, EPA is required to provide
information on certain Superfund performance measures. These
performance measures are the same as, or similar to,
accomplishments EPA reports in its Superfund Annual Report.
The OIG is required to audit the information reported under
the CFO Act. The OIG must also assess the risk that a
material misstatement in the items reported (including
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
performance measures) would not be prevented or detected by
the Agency's internal controls.
One of the primary sources of information for the Superfund
Annual Report to Congress and the CFO Act Report is EPA's
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS). This database is the
required source of Superfund planning and accomplishment
information. Region 5 uses WasteLAN, a local area network,
to enter and collect Superfund data and accomplishments. The
Region periodically transfers the data from WasteLAN into
CERCLIS.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
We reviewed a sample of 20 percent (156/761) of Region 5
fiscal year 1992 accomplishments (155 were randomly selected;
1 was judgmentally selected). For each sampled item, we
compared the source documentation provided by Region 5 to the
appropriate Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
(SCAP) definition of each accomplishment. These definitions
are listed in the Fiscal Year 1992 Superfund Program
Management Manual.
The universe included the following types of accomplishments:
Removal actions started
Removal actions completed
Preliminary assessments completed
Site inspections completed
Remedial investigation/feasibility studies started
Records of decision
Remedial designs started
Remedial actions started
Remedial action operable unit completions
Remedial action final completions
Remedial design/remedial action settlements
We also reviewed Region 5's internal controls related to
entry of data into CERCLIS through the WasteLAN system. We
did not review internal controls within the CERCLIS or
WasteLAN systems.
2
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
The OIG previously conducted and reported the results of a
similar review of Region 5 Superfund accomplishments claimed
for fiscal year 1990. That review concluded that 89 percent
(119/134) of the accomplishments reviewed were adequately
supported. The OIG questioned the remaining 11 percent
(15/134) of the accomplishments reviewed because: (1) SCAP
definitions were not met, (2) accomplishments were not
achieved during fiscal year 1990, and (3) data entry errors
were made.
3
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
[This page was intentionally left blank.]
4
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 8UPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
CHAPTER 2
MANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS WERE INCORRECTLY CLAIMED
Region 5 claimed 761 Superfund accomplishments during FY
1992, as listed below. We selected 156 of these for our
review. We concluded that 71 percent (111/156) of the
accomplishments sampled were appropriately claimed and
supported. We questioned the remaining 29 percent (45/156)
because: (1) 42 did not meet the appropriate SCAP definition
and (2) 3 were not accomplished during fiscal year 1992.
Accomplishment Type
PA Completion! - Non-Federal Facilities
SI Completions - Non-Federal Facilities
SI Completions - Federal Facilities
RI/FS Starts - Non-Federal Facilities
RI/FS Starts - Federal Facilities
RI/FS Starts - Non-NPL Sites
RODs - Non-Federal Facilities
RODs - Federal Facilities
RD Starts - Non-Federal Facilities
RD Storts - Federal Facilities
RA Starts - Non-Federal Facilities
RA Starts - Federal Facilities
RA OU Completions - Non-Federal Facilities1
RA OU Completions - Federal Facilities'
Final RA Completions1
RD/RA Settlements
Removal Action Starts NPL Sites
Removal Action Starts Non-NPL Sites
Removal Completions
Total
Universe
271
217
12
10
3
1
26
3
39
3
21
1
17
1
13
8
5
52
58
761
Sample
30
26
4
6
2
1
9
1
8
2
11
1
6
1
5
8
5
15
15
156
Validated
8
18
0
5
2
0
9
1
8
2
9
I
3
1
5
6
5
15
13
111
Questioned
Definition1 Fiscal Year2
22
8
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
42
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
Section
A
B
C
1
D
E
F,J
G.K
H
' These items were questioned because they did not meet the SCAP definition.
* These items were questioned because they were claimed in the wrong fiscal year.
1 Although mclurtcd in (be Superfund Annual Report to Congress in prior yean, RA completions will not be reported in the FY 1992
However, since RA cnmpklions are suH a major accomplishment category in CERCLIS. we have included them in our report.
report.
Report No. E18FD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In addition to the 45 accomplishments that we questioned, we
found 8 instances in which Region 5 recorded the wrong
accomplishment date in CERCLIS. We accepted these items as
valid because we confirmed that the correct accomplishment
date was still within fiscal year 1992. We are reporting
these instances because they demonstrate inconsistency within
the Region in the interpretation of the SCAP definitions.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS CLAIMED WHICH
DID NOT MEET THE SCAP DEFINITION
In our sample, 42 cases, in 8 different accomplishment
categories, did not meet the SCAP definitions as presented in
the 1992 Superfund Program Management Manual. Specifically,
we questioned accomplishments because (1) there was no
evidence an accomplishment occurred, (2) there was
insufficient documentation to support that all the
definitional requirements were met or when they were met, (3)
ongoing activities were incorrectly counted as separate
accomplishments, or (4) accomplishments were unnecessarily
performed. The following sections identify each of these
cases, the reason(s) we questioned them, and a summary of
Region 5's response.
(A) Preliminary Assessment Completions at Non-Federal
Facilities
The Region claimed 271 Preliminary Assessment (PA)
completions in fiscal year 1992. The SCAP definition for PA
completions, including those done under the Environmental
Priorities Initiative (EPI), states that an accomplishment
may be claimed when the PA report is reviewed and approved by
the Region. We sampled 30 of these for our review. We
questioned 22 of the 30 accomplishments because they did not
fully meet the SCAP definition. Eighteen of these 22 PAs
were done through the EPI program by Region 5's Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Office of RCRA).
Specifically, although PA reports were completed for all 22
locations (see Exhibit A), the Region could not provide
evidence that the reports were reviewed and approved. As a
result, we could not verify that these accomplishments were
completed on the dates claimed in CERCLIS or that they
occurred in fiscal year 1992.
6
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SDPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In its response to our draft report, the Region stated that
the Office of RCRA performs the review and approval of EPI
PAs. However, there is no form or initialling of individual
reports to document approval. The Region 5 Site Assessment
Section (SAS), therefore, claimed these accomplishments using
dates provided by the Office of RCRA, an Office of RCRA
contractor, and/or the PA report. SAS officials acknowledged
that, as a result, the PA accomplishments may have been
inconsistently claimed. The Region plans to change CERCLIS
for the 18 EPI PAs questioned by consistently using the dates
in an Office of RCRA tracking report. The SAS also
acknowledged the need to establish a standard approval
procedure for use in the future.
Regarding the other four PAs we questioned, Region 5 stated
that it would continue to search its files for documentation
of approval. If none is found, the Region intends to
"recreate" the approval documents based on existing files and
documents. We disagree with the Region's intention to
recreate missing approval documents. Creating documents
after-the-fact, without a supportable basis, does not
strengthen the validity of questioned accomplishments. The
Region should focus its attention on ensuring that
documentation exists to support future accomplishments
claimed.
(B) Site Inspection Completions at Non-Federal Facilities
Region 5 claimed 217 Site Inspection (SI) completions at non-
Federal facilities for fiscal year 1992. The SCAP definition
states that an SI is complete when an SI report has been
received from the EPA contractor or the State and reviewed
and approved by the Region. We sampled 26 of these for our
review. We questioned eight accomplishments because they did
not meet the SCAP definition. Specifically, for three of the
accomplishments claimed, the Region had no evidence that the
SI report had been reviewed and approved. For another
accomplishment the Region had no evidence that an SI was
completed. In addition, the Region completed one SI
unnecessarily and claimed three other accomplishments based
upon inadequate SI reports.
The Region claimed SI completions for A.E. Staley
Manufacturing (1) and Dead Creek Segments C-F (2) on
September 30, 1992. Although we obtained copies of SI
reports from Region 5, we found no evidence that the SI
7
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
reports for these two sites had been reviewed and approved by
EPA. The Region also claimed an SI completion for Weil Kropp
Oil (3) on September 30, 1992. Although the Region provided
a copy of the SI report and an approval form, it did not
contain an approval date. We questioned these three
accomplishments because we could not verify that they
occurred on the dates claimed in CERCLIS or that they
occurred in fiscal year 1992.
The Region, in its response to the draft report, acknowledged
that it could not locate approval documents for these
accomplishments. The Region stated that if supporting
documentation could not be located, it would "recreate"
approval documents based on existing files and documents. We
disagree with the Region's intention to recreate missing
approval documents. Creating documents after-the-fact,
without a supportable basis, does not strengthen the validity
of questioned accomplishments. The Region should focus its
attention on ensuring that documentation exists to support
future accomplishments claimed.
Region 5 claimed an SI completion for Bastian Plating
Company, Inc. (4) on November 26, 1991. However, the Region
could not provide an SI report or documentation of review and
approval. In addition, the PA report for Bastian Plating
recommended "no further action." Therefore, an SI was
unnecessary.
In its response to our draft report, the Region stated that
this SI was done by EPA Headquarters as part of a pilot
study. As a result, Headquarters has the relevant documents.
EPA Headquarters informed the Region of the completion, and
the Region entered it into CERCLIS. Although the Region
stated that it had requested documentation from EPA
Headquarters to support this accomplishment, it could not
explain why an SI was done after the PA recommended "no
further action".
Region 5 claimed an SI completion for Argo Tech TPSf Inc. (5)
on September 16, 1992. A PA was done in 1990 by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency for the Region 5 Site
Assessment Section. The PA report designated the site "no
further action" because the facility was already regulated
under RCRA. However, the Region designated the site as a
"low" priority for an SI in CERCLIS. According to the
Region, the SI was initiated based on this "low" rating. We
questioned this accomplishment because the correct PA
8
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
designation was "no further action". Therefore, the Region
should not have conducted an SI.
In its response to our draft report, the Region agreed that
the file documentation did not support the "low" priority
rating in CERCLIS.
In addition, while the SI at this site was being conducted
for the Site Assessment Section, a second PA was being done
by the Office of RCRA. According to the Site Assessment
Section, it was unaware that the Office of RCRA was
performing another PA. The Office of RCRA PA was also
designated "no further action." This demonstrates a lack of
coordination between the Site Assessment Section and the
Office of RCRA resulting in duplicated efforts.
The Region acknowledged in its response to our draft report
that improved communications between the Office of RCRA and
the Site Assessment Section would prevent these types of
duplicate efforts. Region 5 agreed that in the future the
Site Assessment Section would request from the Office of RCRA
a listing of all sites requiring a PA and SI for a given
year.
The Region claimed SI completions for Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork
(6), Lancaster Tire Fire (7), and Elkhorn Metal Finishers (8)
as follows:
Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork
Lancaster Tire Fire Site
Elkhorn Metal Finishers
September 30, 1992
September 28, 1992
December 26, 1991
Region 5 claimed accomplishments for these sites although the
SI reports did not meet the Region's minimum standards.
According to Region 5 guidance, SI packages receiving less
than 80 points (maximum score = 100) or missing certain
elements should be rejected. The SI report for Kolbe & Kolbe
Millwork received a score of 70. It contained no
justification for the site disposition decision, an
incomplete site description, and no scoresheets evaluating
migration pathways. The report for Lancaster Tire Fire Site
received a 78. The SI form and well logs were missing from
this report. The Elkhorn Metal Finishers SI report received
a 75. It contained no site background information. Based on
its own guidance, the Region should not have approved these
9
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
SI reports. Thus, these site inspections did not meet the
SCAP definition on the dates claimed.
In its response to our draft report, Region 5 stated that the
guidance on review and approval was developed within the
Region as a means to improve and standardize documents from
states and contractors. The Region stated that the
questioned reports were complete and sufficient for claiming
SI completions because the missing information was not
decisional. The Region acknowledged that its internal
approval form and scoring system needed to be reviewed to
ensure they correctly reflect the importance of each section.
We continue to conclude that these three SI reports should
not have been approved. We disagree with the Region's
position that the reports contained all necessary decisional
information. Information on migration pathways (Kolbe), well
logs (Lancaster), and site background (Elkhorn) are all areas
specifically identified for evaluation in the regional
guidance. In fact, the areas of migration pathways and site
background are each worth 25 percent of the total score. We,
therefore, conclude that an inadequacy in these areas
significantly weakens the overall report.
We found additional problems in our review of the
accomplishments claimed for Kolbe & Kolbe and Elkhorn Metal
Finishers:
The Region received the SI reports for Kolbe & Kolbe and
four other sites (not included in our sample) from the
State of Wisconsin on September 30, 1992. SI
accomplishments were claimed on that same date for all
five sites. It is unlikely the Region was able to
perform a thorough review of these reports before
claiming the accomplishments. Region 5 explained that
States often submit the bulk of the SI reports during
September because most of the sampling fieldwork must be
done during the summer months. Region 5 does a quick
review of the reports in order to claim these
accomplishments and meet its commitments for the fiscal
year. The reports are later given a more thorough
review at which tine they are scored. It is not
appropriate for Region 5 to accept reports and claim
accomplishments before the reports are thoroughly
reviewed and scored.
10
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Region approved the draft SI report for Elkhorn
Metal Finishers on December 26, 1991. The Site
Assessment Manager stated that the final report was not
received until the end of March 1993. The Region is
permitted to approve a draft SI report provided only
minor editorial changes are needed. In such cases, EPA
staff will either make the changes or have the
contractor or State submit corrected pages. In this
instance, it took over a year to receive a final report.
This long delay, in addition to the low score the draft
received when originally reviewed, leads us to conclude
that more than minor editorial changes were needed.
Therefore, claiming a completion before a final report
was submitted was not appropriate.
The Region did not address these additional problem areas in
its response to our draft report.
(C) SI Completions at Federal Facilities
Region 5 claimed 12 SI completions at Federal facilities in
fiscal year 1992. As discussed in the previous section, the
SCAP definition states that an SI is complete when the Region
has reviewed and approved the SI report. We sampled four of
these for our review. We questioned all four accomplishments
because they did not meet the SCAP definition. Two sites did
not have SI reports, and none of the sites had documented
reviews and approvals.
Region 5 claimed SI completions for Wurtsmith Air Force Base
(1), Chanute Air Force Base (2) , Glenview Naval Air Station
(3), and KI Sawyer Air Force Base (4) as follows:
Wurtsmith Air Force Base
Chanute Air Force Base
Glenview Naval Air Station
KI Sawyer Air Force Base
January
April
June
March
20,
20,
1,
2,
1992
1992
1992
1992
Collection of information for Federal facility Sis is the
responsibility of the Federal agencies. EPA's role is to
review the submitted information and place necessary sites on
the National Priorities List (NPL). Federal agencies often
submit information in unfamiliar formats or in multiple
11
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
volumes, and SI reports may not mirror the standard SI
format. EPA must sort through the information to determine
if SI equivalent information is contained.
For Glenview Naval Air Station and KI Sawyer Air Force Base,
the Region provided reports, but could not provide evidence
that the reports had been reviewed or approved. In fact, the
SI report for KI Sawyer Air Force Base was not completed
until after Region 5 claimed the SI accomplishment. In the
absence of documentation of review and approval, we could not
verify that the accomplishments occurred on the dates claimed
in CERCLIS.
For Wurtsmith Air Force Base and Chanute Air Force Base, the
Region could not provide reports or documentation of Regional
review and approval. Region 5 hired a contractor to review
the documents submitted by other Federal agencies and
determine when information equivalent to an SI report was
available. The Region provided us a copy of the Statement of
Work for this contract. It also provided a letter from the
contractor listing the dates which represented when the
contractor assigned the facilities for technical review or
for Hazard Ranking System package preparation. A note on the
letter from the Site Assessment Manager instructed that these
dates be entered into CERCLIS for SI approval. However, the
Region could not provide the SI equivalent document or
documents used to claim the accomplishment. We questioned
these accomplishments because the Region could not provide
evidence that they occurred or when they occurred.
The Region's response to the draft report recognizes that the
letter from the contractor does not provide adequate
documentation for each SI. The Region stated that it would
continue to search its files for documentation of approval in
these cases. If none is found, the Region intends to
"recreate" the approval documents based on existing files and
documents. We disagree with the Region's intention to
recreate missing approval documents. Creating documents
after-the-fact, without a supportable basis, does not
strengthen the validity of questioned accomplishments. The
Region should focus its attention on ensuring that
documentation exists to support future accomplishments
claimed.
In addition to the four accomplishments in our sample, the
Region claimed eight other SI completions in fiscal year 1992
based on the same letter from the EPA contractor. Since we
12
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
were unable to verify that the Region reviewed and approved
the four Sis in our sample, it is likely there is no evidence
that the other eight Federal facility Sis were reviewed and
approved.
(D) RI/FS Starts at Non-NPL Sites
Region 5 claimed one Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) Start at a non-NPL site in fiscal year 1992. The
SCAP definition states that an RI/FS start can be claimed on
the date the Administrative Order on Consent is completed.
We questioned this accomplishment because it had actually
occurred in a previous fiscal year and was correctly claimed
at that time.
Region 5 claimed an RI/FS start for Union Carbide (1) on
August 3, 1992. The Administrative Order for this site was
completed on June 6, 1991, and the Region recorded an
accomplishment on that date. However, according to the
Remedial Response Section Chief, sometime during fiscal year
1992 the RI/FS start date was changed in CERCLIS to August 3,
1992. As a result, Region 5 claimed two RI/FS starts; one in
fiscal year 1991 and another in fiscal year 1992. Region 5
met the SCAP definition for an RI/FS start in fiscal year
1991. We questioned this because no accomplishment occurred
in fiscal year 1992.
The Region stated that the accomplishment date was
incorrectly changed due to an administrative error. It has
corrected the date in CERCLIS to reflect the original fiscal
year 1991 accomplishment.
(E) RA Starts at Non-Federal Facilities
In fiscal year 1992, the Region claimed a total of 21
Remedial Action (RA) starts at non-Federal facilities. We
sampled 11 of these for our review. We questioned two
instances because the accomplishments claimed actually
represented a change from State to Federal oversight of
ongoing cleanups by a potentially responsible party (PRP).
Changes in oversight (i.e., takeovers) do not constitute new
accomplishments.
The Washington County Landfill (1 & 2) consists of two
operable units. Operable Unit 1 was a containment remedy
13
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
consisting of a ground water gradient control system, an air
stripping system, and monitoring wells. Operable Unit 2
provided an alternate water supply to ten affected
residences.
The PRPs began cleanup of the site under a State of Minnesota
order. This order expired before cleanup work was completed.
On January 16, 1992, Region 5 issued a Unilateral
Administrative Order (UAO) to the PRPs to continue the work
they had been performing under the State order. No new
actions were required under EPA's order.
The Region claimed two RA starts (one for Operable Unit 1 and
one for Operable Unit 2) on the date EPA issued the UAO.
Since the order was for continuation of work already in
progress, and no additional work began at that time, Region 5
should not have claimed these accomplishments. The Region
was correct in entering the information into WasteLAN, in
order to show the change in oversight. However, the Region
should have coded the starts as "takeovers", so that they
would not be counted as separate accomplishments.
In its response to the draft report, Region 5 agreed that the
takeover was not properly coded and agreed to correct the
information in CERCLIS. In addition to these two
accomplishments, Region 5 incorrectly claimed three other
accomplishments for this site. These are discussed in the
following section.
(F) RA Operable Unit Completions at Non-Federal Facilities
In fiscal year 1992, Region 5 claimed 17 RA Operable Unit
completions at non-Federal facilities. The SCAP definition
states that a completion should be 'claimed when the Region
approves the RA report. We sampled six of these for our
review. We questioned two accomplishments. In the first
instance the accomplishment claimed actually represented a
change from State to Federal oversight of ongoing PRP
cleanups. Changes in oversight (i.e., takeovers) do not
constitute new accomplishments. In the second instance, the
accomplishment did not meet the SCAP definition.
The Washington County Landfill consists of two operable
units. Operable Unit 1 was a containment remedy consisting
of a ground water gradient control system, an air stripping
14
Report Mo. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
system, and monitoring wells. Operable Unit 2 provided an
alternate water supply to ten affected residences.
The PRPs began cleanup of the site under a State of Minnesota
order. This order expired before cleanup work was completed.
On January 16, 1992, Region 5 issued a UAO to the PRPs to
continue the work they had been performing under the State
order. No new actions were required under EPA's order.
Region 5 claimed a State-enforcement lead RA Operable Unit
completion for Washington County Landfill Operable Unit 1 (1)
on the date EPA issued the UAO. Although not in our sample,
Region 5 also claimed a State-enforcement lead RA Operable
Unit completion for Operable Unit 2 at this same time.
However, the remedial action was not complete for either
Operable Unit 1 or Operable Unit 2 at this time. The same
PRPs were continuing the same work (operating the containment
remedy). The Region was correct in entering the information
into WasteLAN, in order to show the change in oversight.
However, the Region should have coded the completions as
"takeovers", so that they would not be counted as
accomplishments.
In its response to the draft report, Region 5 agreed that the
takeovers were not properly coded and agreed to correct the
information in CERCLIS.
Region 5 claimed a Federal-enforcement lead RA Operable Unit
completion for Washington County Landfill Operable Unit 2 (2)
on September 30, 1992, the date the Acting Director of Waste
Management Division signed the Preliminary Close Out Report.
The responsible parties submitted an RA report to EPA on
September 25, 1992 covering Operable Unit 2, but the Region
did not approve the report. We questioned this because no
accomplishment occurred on the date"claimed.
The Region, in its response to the draft, agreed that the
accomplishment should not have been claimed on September 30,
1992. The Region agreed to approve the RA Report consistent
with present guidance.
(G) RD/RA Settlements
In fiscal year 1992, Region 5 claimed eight Remedial
Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) settlements. The SCAP
definition states that an RD/RA settlement can be claimed for
15
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
a UAO (in which the responsible parties are in compliance) on
the date the responsible parties provide notice of their
intent to comply with the order. We sampled all eight of
these for our review. We questioned one because an
accomplishment did not occur.
EPA issued a UAO for Thermo-Chem (1) for RD/RA on May 6,
1992. Region 5 claimed an RD/RA settlement on that date.
The responsible parties did submit a "Notice of Intent to
Comply" on June 10, 1992, but Region 5 found it unacceptable.
On September 25, 1992, Region 5 signed an Interagency
Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
begin the remedial design as a Fund-lead. Thus, EPA and the
PRPs never actually reached a settlement, and an
accomplishment did not occur.
Region 5 agreed in its response to the draft that an RD/RA
Settlement was not reached and removed this accomplishment
from CERCLIS.
(H) Removal Completions
The Region claimed a total of 58 Removal Completions in
fiscal year 1992. The SCAP definition states that a fund-
lead removal completion can be claimed when all items in the
Action Memorandum are complete. We sampled 15 of these for
our review. We questioned two of these accomplishments. In
the first instance, the accomplishment claimed actually
represented a change from a fund-lead to a PRP-lead removal.
Changes in lead (i.e., takeovers) do not constitute new
accomplishments. In the second instance, we found no
evidence that an accomplishment occurred.
The Region claimed a fund-lead removal completion for
Reliable Equipment (1) on August 3, 1992. This was the date
the PRP began removal work at the site. Region 5 issued an
Action Memorandum in fiscal year 1992 to begin a fund-lead
removal at this site. An EPA contractor was mobilized to the
site, but no removal work actually began. Instead, Region 5
reached an agreement with the PRP, who began the removal. At
that point, the Region claimed a fund-lead removal
completion. The Region was correct in entering the
information into WasteLAN, in order to show the takeover by
the PRPs. However, the Region should have coded the fund-
lead completion as a "takeover" so that it was not counted as
an accomplishment.
16
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 8UPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In addition to the fund-lead removal completion
accomplishment in our sample, Region 5 incorrectly claimed
another fiscal year 1992 accomplishment for this site that
was not in our sample. The Region counted a PRP-lead removal
start on August 3, 1992. This was the date the PRP took over
work on the site. In this case, as in the case above, the
Region was correct in entering the information into WasteLAN,
but it should have coded the entry as a takeover, so it was
not counted as an accomplishment.
The Region, in its response to the draft report, agreed that
the takeover was not correctly coded and stated that it has
corrected the information in CERCLIS. As a result, these two
instances will no longer be shown as separate
accomplishments.
On May 31, 1992, Region 5 claimed a removal completion for
Oconomatroc Electroplating Company (2). According to the
Region, two separate activities were completed: a removal and
a Remedial Action using Removal Authorities, or "removial".
From our review of the file documentation, we could not
distinguish between the two separate actions. We also could
find no documentation to support the claim that a removal
action was completed on May 31, 1992. Therefore, we
questioned this accomplishment.
In its response, the Region stated that the SCAP definition
does not require specific documentation, but the
determination of removal completion is left to the On-Scene
Coordinator. However, our review of the Pollution Reports
did not show that any work had been completed or that the On-
Scene Coordinator had determined work was complete. Rather,
the Pollution Report indicates that no work was conducted on
May 31, 1992, and removal work continued after that date.
Further, while the Region maintained that no documentation is
required by the definition, it is common practice for
Pollution Reports to document site activities, including the
date work is completed. Thus, if a removal was completed on
May 31, 1992, we would expect that completion to be reflected
in the Pollution Reports.
17
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
ACCOMPLISHMENTS CLAIMED IN FISCAL YEAR 1992.
BUT OCCURRING IN OTHER FISCAL YEARS
Three of the accomplishments in our sample were not achieved
in fiscal year 1992. These consisted of an RI/FS start, an
RA Operable Unit completion, and an RD/RA settlement.
(I) RI/FS Starts at Non-Federal Facilities
In fiscal year 1992, the Region claimed a total of 10 RI/FS
starts at non-Federal facilities. The SCAP definition states
that a Fund financed RI/FS start should be claimed when the
Contracting Officer signs a contract modification for the
RI/FS. We sampled six of these for our review. We
questioned one accomplishment because it was actually
accomplished in fiscal year 1990.
Region 5 claimed a subsequent RI/FS start1 for
Ott/Story/Cordova Operable Unit 3 (l) on March 13, 1992. The
Region claimed this accomplishment when it tasked the EPA lab
at Corvailis to test some soil samples. However, this
testing was a small part of a feasibility study the Region
was conducting for Operable Unit 3. The Contracting Officer
signed the contract modification for the Operable Unit 3
Feasibility Study on September 19, 1990. Region 5 should
have claimed this RI/FS subsequent start on that date. Thus,
this accomplishment was claimed in the wrong fiscal year.
In its response to the draft report, the Region agreed that
it used the incorrect date in claiming this accomplishment.
The Region stated that it has changed the date in CERCLIS to
reflect the date the Contracting Officer signed the contract
modification.
(J) RA Operable Unit Completion at Non-Federal Facility
In fiscal year 1992, Region 5 claimed 17 RA Operable Unit
Completions at non-Federal facilities. The SCAP definition
states that an Operable Unit Completion should be claimed
when the Region approves the RA report submitted by the party
performing the remedial action (contractor, state,
A subsequent RI/FS is any RI/FS that begins after the
first one at a site.
18
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
responsible parties, etc.)- We sampled six of these for our
review. We questioned one accomplishment because it was not
completed until fiscal year 1993.
Region 5 claimed an RA Operable Unit Completion for Johns
Manville (1) on December 31, 1991, the date that the Regional
Administrator signed the Site Close Out Report. The RA
report for this site was submitted on December 9, 1992. The
EPA Remedial Project Manager sent a letter approving the
report on February 9, 1993. Therefore, the Region did not
meet the SCAP definition for an RA Operable Unit Completion
until fiscal year 1993. As a result, Region 5 should not
have claimed this accomplishment in fiscal year 1992.
Region 5, in its response to the draft report, agreed that
the accomplishment should not have been claimed in fiscal
year 1992. In a subsequent discussion, Region 5 officials
stated that they will correct this accomplishment in CERCLIS.
(K) RD/RA Settlements
In fiscal year 1992, Region 5 claimed eight RD/RA
Settlements. The SCAP definition states that a UAO (in which
the responsible parties are in compliance) can be claimed as
an RD/RA Settlement on the date the responsible parties
provide EPA notice of their intent to comply with the order.
We sampled all eight for our review. We questioned one
accomplishment because it was not completed until fiscal year
1993.
The Region claimed an RD/RA settlement for Berlin & Farro (1)
on September 30, 1992. In this case, Region 5 issued a UAO
for the PRPs to conduct the RD/RA on September 24, 1992. The
responsible parties provided notice of intent to comply on
November 23, 1992. Therefore, the Region did not meet the
SCAP definition for an RD/RA settlement until fiscal year
1993. As a result, Region 5 should not have claimed this
accomplishment in fiscal year 1992.
In its response to the draft report, the Region agreed that
November 23, 1992, is the correct accomplishment date. The
Region stated that it has changed CERCLIS to claim the
accomplishment in the correct fiscal year.
19
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
INCONSISTENT APPLICATION
OF SCAP DEFINITIONS
We found eight accomplishments for which Region 5 did not
record the correct date in CERCLIS according to the SCAP
definition. However, we accepted these as valid
accomplishments because we were able to confirm that the
correct accomplishment date was still within fiscal year
1992.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Site Name
Latimer Road Landfill
Chem-Central
Main Street Well Field
Organic Chemical Inc
Verona Well Field
OK Marketing
Waukegan Paint & Lacquer
Fultz Landfill
Accomplishment Type
SI Completion
RD/RA Settlement
RD/RA Settlement
RD/RA Settlement
RD/RA Settlement
Removal Action Start
Removal Action Start
Remedial Design Start
Date
Claimed
06/10/92
03/31/92
02/21/92
01/03/92
03/04/92
04/24/92
03/26/92
06/24/92
Correct
Date
08/25/92
04/07/92
03/30/92
02/11/92
06/08/92
07/08/92
03/31/92
09/11/92
For the SI Completion, the Region did not use the date the SI
report was reviewed and approved, as required by the SCAP
definition. The Region could not explain why the June 10th
date was used.
For the four RD/RA Settlements, Region 5 did not use the date
that the PRPs provided EPA with their "notice of intent to
comply". For the two Removal Action starts, Region 5 did not
use the date that on-site activity actually began, as
required by the SCAP definitions.
For the Remedial Design (RD) Start,' Region 5 did not use the
date the contracting officer signed a contract modification
for remedial design. Instead, the Region used the date the
contracting officer signed a modification for pre-desian
services.
We are reporting these instances because they demonstrate
inconsistency within the Region in the interpretation of the
SCAP definitions. Region 5 did use the correct date,
according to the SCAP definition, on other SI Completions,
RD/RA Settlements, Removal Starts, and RD Starts in our
sample. Although these examples did not impact the accuracy
of total claimed accomplishments for fiscal year 1992, the
20
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION S FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
use of incorrect dates for accomplishments occurring near the
end or beginning of a fiscal year could distort future
accomplishment reports.
The Region did not address this section in its response to
our draft report.
SCAP DEFINITIONS CONTRIBUTE
TO REPORTING PROBLEMS
The SCAP definitions themselves have been a cause of CERCLIS
reporting problems in Region 5. Some definitions do not
specify how an accomplishment is to be supported; others are
not specific or leave room for differing interpretations;
others may not accurately reflect site progress. As a
result, Region 5 may not consistently claim Superfund
accomplishments. In addition, differences of interpretation
in definitions made it difficult or impractical for the DIG
to validate some accomplishments.
Definitions for EPA-lead RI/FS Starts, PRP-lead Removal
Action Completions, and PRP-lead RA Starts are examples of
definition-related problems which we encountered during our
review.
EPA-lead RI/FS Start
The definition for an EPA-lead RI/FS start states the
accomplishment should be claimed when the Region begins
preparation of the workplans. However, this event does not
produce a document which would support the date claimed.
For example, Region 5 claimed an RI/FS start for Scrap
Processing Company on May 11, 1992. This was the date it
obligated funds for an IAG with the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). The Region used this date because the SCAP
definition did not specify a document to use as support.
We accepted this case as a valid fiscal year 1992
accomplishment. Since the IAG was funded in May 1992, it is
reasonable to conclude that preparation of the workplan began
in fiscal year 1992. Although the date the Region used is
not correct (the preparation of the workplan obviously began
prior to the obligation of funds for the IAG), we could not
determine the exact date work began. As a result, we did not
recommend changing the date in CERCLIS.
21
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Removal Action Completion (PRP-lead)
The definition for a PRP-lead removal completion states that
this accomplishment occurs when the Region has certified that
the PRPs or their contractors have completed a removal action
and fully met the terms of the Administrative Order (AO). in
one case in our sample, United Scrap Lead, the Region claimed
the completion based on the date the actual removal
activities were completed. However, one of the requirements
of the AO, submittal of a final report, had not been met.
The PRP submitted a report, but the Region rejected it as
inadequate. The Region still has not received an acceptable
final report.
The Region interprets the SCAP definition to mean that the
removal is complete when all of the substantive requirements
of the AO (the actual removal activities) have been
fulfilled. We agree that the wording of the definition is
not clear as to whether completion includes all actions,
including administrative requirements (such as final reports)
or whether it includes only the removal activity. Claiming
the completion when the removal work is completed would more
accurately reflect actual site progress.
PRP-lead RA starts
The SCAP definition for RA starts states that, if work is
performed by the PRP under the same Consent Decree or
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) as the RD, credit is
given on the date EPA approves the PRP's RD package (i.e., RD
Completion). The SCAP definition for an RD Completion is the
date that EPA concurs in or approves and accepts the final
plans and specifications. For Anderson Development Company,
Liquid Disposal, and Rose Township, the Region used the date
it gave conditional approval of the PRP's design as the RA
start date.
We considered questioning these accomplishments because the
Region's approval was not final on the date that the
accomplishment was claimed and the Region had not received
the final plans and specifications. However, we decided to
accept these accomplishments because in each case the
Region's conditional approval instructed the PRPs to proceed
with the remedial action. Thus, the RD packages were, in
fact, approved. The date used by the region to claim these
accomplishments did accurately reflect the site activity.
However, the Region had not given final approval. This
22
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SDPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
definition is not clear as to what "approval" means. It also
does not specify what constitutes "final plans". If the PRP
has been given the approval to begin the RA, then it seems
reasonable to count an RA start.
The lack of a more specific SCAP definition for these three
accomplishment categories caused Region 5 and OIG staff to
develop their own interpretations for claiming these
accomplishments in CERCLIS. Resolving differences in these
interpretations made finalizing our audit results difficult.
In addition, SCAP definitions which lack adequate detail
create a potential for inconsistent interpretation both
within Region 5 and among EPA's many regions. In turn,
inconsistent interpretation of SCAP definitions may lead to
inaccurate CERCLIS data.
INTERNAL CONTROLS PROVIDE A
MODERATE RISK OF MISSTATEMENT
We assessed Region 5's internal controls over the input of
data into WasteLAN. We concluded that, overall, there is a
moderate risk that accomplishments could be materially
misstated. As with any decentralized system, the Region's
system of data input has a high inherent risk due to the
large number of individuals entering data. The larger the
number of individuals involved in a process, the greater the
risk of differing interpretations and the greater the
difficulty in establishing accountability. Region 5 does
have some compensating controls in place which help to offset
this risk. Most of these controls are geared toward
preventing and detecting data entry errors. However, the
controls do not ensure Regional consistency in applying the
SCAP definitions.
In the Remedial Response Branch, the Remedial Project
Managers or the Section Chiefs input data about their sites.
As these are the individuals most familiar with what has
occurred on a site, there is a low risk that data entry error
will occur. The Section Chiefs conduct monthly reviews of
CERCLIS printouts, so there is a good chance that if data a
Section Chief considered inaccurate were entered, it would be
found and corrected.
In the Emergency Response Branch, two individuals are
responsible for entering data into WasteLAN. The On-Scene
Coordinators themselves do not review the WasteLAN data to
23
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SDPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
ensure its accuracy. However, the Section Chief and Branch
Chief review quarterly printouts for accuracy.
The Program Management and Information Section has four staff
members devoted to ensuring the input quality of SCAP/STARS
data and related planning and reporting. The section has
several audit tools, including SMaRTech, which it uses to
find missing codes and data that could impact the
accomplishments reported.
While these controls would likely detect data entry errors,
they may not detect errors due to inconsistent interpretation
of the SCAP definitions or situations that do not clearly fit
into the SCAP definitions. The controls in place rely on the
program staff's and supervisor's knowledge and understanding
of the definitions. The Region does not have an independent
verification or review of supporting documentation for the
accomplishments entered into WasteLAN. Thus, the controls in
place may not detect errors which result from differing
interpretations of the definitions.
Our review of the Region's internal control documentation
showed that Region 5 did not identify CERCLIS data input as
an event cycle for fiscal year 1992. EPA's Internal Control
Guidance defines event cycles as related processes or actions
taken to carry out a recurring responsibility, create
necessary documentation, and gather and report related data.
As CERCLIS is EPA's primary Superfund database, the Region
should fully document the internal controls over input into
CERCLIS by including it as an event cycle. This will ensure
that these internal controls are looked at during risk
assessments conducted as part of the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) process.
As we have shown, Region 5 staff do not always consistently
interpret the SCAP definitions. Accomplishments were
claimed: (1) that did not meet the definition, (2) in the
wrong fiscal year, and (3) using the incorrect date. Thus,
the risk of misstatement is likely to come from inconsistent
applications of the definitions or from definitions which do
not cover all situations. The internal controls in place do
not cover those situations. Thus, overall there is a
moderate risk that the accomplishments for Region 5 could be
materially misstated.
24
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
CONCLUSION
Many of the Region 5 fiscal year 1992 Superfund
accomplishments were incorrectly claimed or were not
adequately supported. This included 42 which did not meet
the SCAP definition and 3 which were claimed in the wrong
fiscal year. Accomplishments did not meet the SCAP
definition because (1) there was no evidence an
accomplishment occurred, (2) there was insufficient
documentation to support that all the definitional
requirements were met or when they were met, (3) ongoing
activities were incorrectly counted as separate
accomplishments, or (4) accomplishments were unnecessarily
performed. In addition, we found some cases in which the
Region used the wrong accomplishment date according to the
SCAP definition. We accepted those cases when we could
determine that the correct accomplishment date had still
occurred within fiscal year 1992.
We also found that some of the SCAP definitions need
clarification. In these cases, we accepted those
accomplishments which we reasonably believe occurred in
fiscal year 1992. However, we believe that EPA should revise
and clarify these SCAP definitions.
REGION 5 RESPONSE
The Region agreed that it had incorrectly claimed 10 of the
45 accomplishments which we questioned. The Region has taken
or agreed to take corrective actions on all of these items.
The Region accepted our reasons for questioning the remaining
35 accomplishments, but continues to believe that it was
correct in claiming each of these accomplishments.
The Region also disagrees that inconsistent application of
SCAP definitions is a significant problem. Instead, it
believes the main reason for errors was unclear, inadequate,
or inflexible SCAP definitions.
In response to recommendations made in our draft report, the
Region stated that it would
1. Correct CERCLIS dates for all actual errors
immediately.
25
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SDPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
2. Recreate approval documents, if necessary, for
accomplishments questioned because of insufficient
supporting documentation.
3. Strengthen existing internal controls by clarifying
responsibilities for (a) data entry by the RPM, and (b)
review and audit of CERCLIS data by Section Chiefs.
4. Ensure that On-Scene Coordinators, Remedial Project
Managers, and their Section Chiefs are represented in
work groups tasked to improve SCAP definitions.
5. Will continue to communicate with Headquarters
regarding unclear guidance.
6. Notify States to provide the Region with written
justification for re-opening "no further action" sites.
7. Include CERCLIS data entry as an event cycle in the
Region's internal control documentation to ensure its
inclusion in the FMFIA process.
OIG EVALUATION
We agree with the Region that some SCAP definitions are
unclear and require clarification. However, we disagree that
this reason accounts for most of the accomplishments we
questioned. The majority of items we questioned in this
report (31 of 45) were questioned because there was no
documentation to support that all the requirements of the
SCAP definition were met, or that they were met on the dates
claimed. In most instances, the Region maintained that all
of the activities needed to claim the accomplishment were
completed; they were just not documented.
We questioned a large number of items because we could not
find evidence of Regional review and approval and nothing
supporting the dates claimed. While the definitions do not
specify that review and approval must be documented, it is
common practice throughout the Agency to document its actions
and decisions, including approvals given. Thus, we would
expect to see some type of documentation supporting the
review and approval, even though the definitions may not
specifically require it.
26
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
We agree with most of the planned actions presented by the
Region. However, we disagree with the Region's intention to
recreate missing documentation to support CERCLIS dates
claimed. Creating documents after-the-fact, without a
supportable basis, does not strengthen the validity of
questioned accomplishments.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The corrective actions proposed by the Region, when
implemented, will partially address our findings. In
addition to these proposed corrective actions, we recommend
that the Regional Administrator, Region 5, direct the Office
of Superfund to:
1. Develop and follow standard procedures for documenting
and verifying that SCAP definitional requirements are
completed and accomplishments are consistently claimed.
2. Ensure proper review and approval of PA and SI reports
and document Regional approvals.
3. Work with EPA Headquarters to revise and clarify SCAP
definitions, when necessary, to insure consistent
recording of Superfund accomplishments in CERCLIS. If
appropriate, develop local guidance aimed at insuring
consistency in the recording of Region 5 Superfund
accomplishments.
4. Refrain from recreating unsupported documentation in an
effort to validate accomplishments previously claimed.
5. Establish milestone dates for completion of all
corrective actions.
27
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
[This page was intentionally left blank.]
28
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 PY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 1
PA Completions at Non-Federal Facilities
With No Documented Review and Approval
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Site Name
American Railroad Tie Co.
Anderson Development Co.
Beatreme Foods/Kerry Co.
Betz Laboratories
Bridgestone/ Firestone
Dead Creek Segments
Delta Regional Landfill
General American Transportation
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Gerber Products Co.
GMC Assembly Division-Norwood
Goodyear Tire
J.I. Case Company
LDR Products Division
Morgan Matroc
PPG Industries
Robinson Foundry
Rogers Brothers
Standard Products Division
Swift Adhesives
Van Waters & Rogers
Weiss Pre-Staining Co.
Date
Claimed
12/11/91
10/04/91
08/14/92
02/07/92
05/15/92
04/15/92
10/02/91
03/06/92
03/27/92
08/24/92
01/13/92
10/04/91
12/09/91
01/17/92
02/21/92
06/05/92
12/17/91
02/18/92
01/10/92
06/12/92
07/27/92
11/26/91
29
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
[This page was intentionally left blank.]
30
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 1 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
Date:
23
Subject: OIG DrafV.Audit Repblrt of Region 5 Fiscal Year
1992 Superftind Accomplishments - WHO Response
/~~/LS\**-+1 fc^<^P,i-->-~— e. -^
rro»:/^ Valdai V. Adamkus / >
/ Regional Administrator
/ Region 5
To: Anthony C. Carrol lo
Divisional Inspector General for Audits
Northern Division
Attached please find the comments of staff in the Office of
Superfund. Haste Management Division, Region 5, on the Draft
Audit Report prepared by your office and transmitted to me on
June 9, 1993. The comments address both the findings as well
as the recommendations contained in this report. If you have any
questions, please address these to Richard Walker, Regional
Comptroller.
Attachments
31
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SDPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 2 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
VAST! mMAanUNT DIVISION'S RESPONSE
OZO'S DRAFT AUDIT REPORT OH FY'»2 SUPEROTND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
INTRODUCTION
We have reviewed the findings and recommendations of the OIG's
June 4, 1993, "Draft Audit Report on Region 5 Fiscal Year 1992
Superfund Accomplishments." Based on these and previous
findings, the Region is still considering improvements in the
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) definitions,
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) reporting processes and
methods. In our comments on the DIG recommendations, we will
discuss the methods that are preferred by the Region to ensure
accurate reporting of accomplishments. He will also continue to
pursue ideas on how the SCAP definitions and data can be improved
and more accurately applied.
During the meeting held on July 8, 1993, each questioned
accomplishment was addressed and the overall recommendations and
conclusions were discussed. Agreement was reached that the OIG's
final recommendations would require the OSF to establish standard
procedures for documenting and verifying accomplishments, and for
improving internal controls. However, the OIG's final
recommendation will not specify the precise methods to be used by
the OSF; instead, it will allow the OSF flexibility to make
decisions specific to each category of Superfund accomplishments.
It was also generally agreed that if: 1) original documents
could be located for the accomplishments, 2) the reported
accomplishment dates remained the same, and 3) there were no
other secondary questions, the accomplishments would not be
questioned in the final report. The other, specific agreements
that were reached during this meeting will be addressed
throughout this response.
The Region disagrees with the reasons for errors as stated in the
QIC's principal findings. -Page ii of the OIG draft audit report
cites the following reasons for errors: 1) inconsistent
application of SCAP definitions, 2) misunderstandings or
confusion about the definitions themselves or 3) SCAP definitions
that did not allow for exceptions or unique situations. The OIG
states that "Most of the incorrectly claimed accomplishments that
they found were caused by such errors." These reasons were
addressed throughout the July 8, 1993, meeting. It was agreed
during the meeting that most of the reasons for errors were
unclear, inadequate or inflexible SCAP definitions; in large part
because they do not require documentation.
The Region wants to make it clear that we disagree with many of
the findings contained in the draft report. The chart provided
within the QIC document questions a total of 55 accomplishments,
an overall error rate of 35%. We have expanded on that chart
(see Attachment A) to document that there should be 45
accomplishments questioned, for an overall error rate of 29*.
32
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 3 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-2-
Aeeomnlishments Claimed which did not meet the aCXP Definition
Oeaera.1 g?mm«nt - PA/SIs
The Region S Sit* Assessment Section (SAS) recognizes that the
DIG did not find the documents it determined were necessary to
verify the claimed accomplishments. However, SAS contends that
the accomplishments were claimed in accordance with the SCAP
definition.
The SCAP definition for accomplishments states that the review
and approval must be conducted, but it does not require this
process to be formally documented. The Region has documented
approvals, but has not been able to locate these approval
documents. As a result, the OIG findings identified the lack of
a consistent approval sign-off procedure within SAS. SAS
recognizes the need to develop a standardized document certifying
approval, which would provide a consistent system by which to
review and verify accomplishments. The Region will continue to
research its file to obtain the lost approval documents; or if
after continued search they cannot be found the Region will
recreate the lost approval documents based on existing program
site files and supporting documents.
On December 8, 1992, an OERR Directive 9345.0-07, entitled
•Standard Document for Remedial Site Assessment Decisions" was
issued, and it contains a finalizing form as an attachment.
Region 5 SAS is making' a completed standard 9100-3 form by the
reviewer a requirement with each "Final" document. This will
record the basis for site assessment decisions and document the
Region's review and approval of each report.
The DIG reported that 22 PA completion accomplishments were still
being questioned, since verification of the SCAP definition and
appropriateness of the date claimed could not be substantiated.
Eighteen of the PA completions were conducted under the
Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI), and the others were
normal PAS.
The PA/VSIs conducted under the EPI need an explanation to
understand the review and approval process. This is a new
initiative in Region 5 and has required interaction between the
two Offices. Both the SAS and RCRA are working to improve
communications a* the work proceeds. The PA, the PA report, and
its subsequent review and approval are performed by RCRA staff.
The PA accomplishment dates claimed by the SAS were provided by
RCRA, RCRA's contractor, and/or the PA/VSI report. These dates
were not always the same, and it may be that PA/vsis accomplish-
ments were inconsistently claimed. The SAS met with RCRA
personnel, and identified the review and approval process.
33
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 4 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-3-
Th« process is as follows: when the draft PA/vsi is submitted
for review, a log »h««t is attached indicating the date logged
in, to who* it is assigned, due date for review, and signature of
person tracking the report. The reviewer pencils comments on the
draft report and returns it to the tracking person who nails it
to the contractor for revisions. The report is resubmitted as
final, and this review is conducted by the tracking person who
insures that all comments were incorporated into the final
report.
If the report passes this inspection, this person enters the
report as final into the computer tracking program. There is no
form or initialing of individual reports to document approval.
The SAS requested a print-out of this tracking report and will
use the dates in the report to claim accomplishments for the 18
PA/VSIs and will make the appropriate corrections to CERCLIS. As
a result of the QIC questions, the SAS recognizes that the
current approval system utilized by RCRA may not be compatible
with the approval procedure to be established. Measures will be
taken to reconcile the process.
yfrrae of the 32 accomplishments tba* fc»d ffther inadequacies;
As agreed to at the July 8, 1993, meeting, the other inadequacies
cited on Weiss Pre-Staining, Dead Creek Segments C-F, and
Robinson Foundry have been explained to the QIC's satisfaction
and will not be included in the final audit report.
tmi aite Inspection C,ffmjiftlen» at Ben-Federal Faeili^ea
A. E. Staley Manufacturing, Neil Kropp oil, and Dead Creek
Segments C-F were reviewed and approved by the Region prior to
entry into CERCLIS. However, the Region has not been able to
locate these documents, so they are apparently lost. The Region
will continue to research its file to obtain the lost approval
documents; or if after continued search they cannot be found the
Region will recreate the lost approval documents based on
existing program site files and supporting documents.
The approval form for Neil Kropp Oil does not have a date by the
reviewer's signature and has a date of October 14, 1992, at the
top of the paper. The October 14, 1992, date is not the SI
approval date, but is the date that staff approved a change for
priority designation requested by the State. The Region upholds
its position that the SI was approved on September 30, 1992, even
though that date im not on the approval form. The Region is
currently researching its files and is confident that the program
site files and supporting documents will substantiate the
September 30, 1992, date.
34
Report NO. E1SPD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 5 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-4-
Bastiaa Flatiag Companyi
This report was completed as part of the PA/SI study conducted by
Headquarters (See Attachment B). The study experimented with the
reporting format that was to be used after the approval of. the
revised Hazard Ranking System. Headquarters was the lead on the
study, and therefore has the relevant documents. The Region was
informed of the Bastian Plating Company PA completion, and
entered it into CERCLIS. The Region requested documentation from
Headquarters for this accomplishment, but has not received
documentation to date.
Chicago Drum:
Per the July 8, 1993, meeting between the Region and DIG, this
site will not be included in the final audit report.
Biekory Mobile Borne Fark, Grant Township 3M Dump
sad Timken Company:
Per the July 8, 1993, meeting between the Region and QIC, the
above-mentioned sites will not be included in the final audit
report.
Argo Tech TK* Inc.:
The Region tasked a site inspection for this site believing the
PA to be designated a low priority, which is in CERCLIS. How-
ever, file documentation does not support the CERCLIS designa-
tion. Meanwhile, the RCRA program was proceeding with the
PA/VSI, unbeknownst to the SAS. The PA/vsi resulted in the PA2
listing on February 7, 1992. It took several months before RCRA
submitted the report to Site Assessment for data entry. The
review of the CERCLIS entry shows that this particular facility's
PA/VSI was not notated in CERCLIS until August 1992, several
months prior to completion of the "SEA" memo for the site inspec-
tion. The request for a site inspection was tasked quite a few
months prior to the initiation of the actual inspection.
Improvement* in communication between the RCRA program and the
SAS would prevent these types of duplicative efforts. The SAS
will request a detailed listing of all sites requiring a PA/VSI
for a given year.
Xolbe i Xolbe Millwork, Lancaster Tire Fire Bite,
Blkhora Metal Finishersi
The OI6 indicated that the scores on the site inspection reports
were below the acceptable score and, therefore, should not have
been reported as accomplishments until the revised reports were
submitted. The approval forms were developed in the Region and
were a means for improving and standardizing documents from the
35
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 6 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-5-
states and the contractor*. It is the Region's opinion that the
reports in question were complete and sufficient for documenting
SI completions. The information missing in the reports, such as
site background, well logs, transmittal memos, etc. were not
decisional information on the score and recommendations for these
sites. The States and contractors are required to make the
corrections, but it is a low priority. The Region was able to
evaluate the reports and determine a CERCLIS designation, and
therefore are counted as accomplishments. The Region will review
its internal approval form and scoring determinations to more
correctly reflect the importance of each section.
The attached chart shows that the OIG questioned twelve of the SI
Completions at Non-Federal Facilities, and the Region questions
eight primarily due to our inability to locate the applicable
approval forms.
Although the Region has not been able to locate these approval
documents, we believe the CERCLIS dates are correct and should
remain the same. The Region will continue to research its file
to obtain the lost approval documents; or if after continued
search they cannot be found the Region will recreate the lost
approval documents based on existing program site files and
supporting documents.
In the absence of official SCAP definitions for SI completions at
Federal facilities, and in needing to document site work at
Federal facilities, the SCAP definition for Non-Federal Facility
SI completions and other policies were used to document this SI.
The OIC commented that the Region did not meet the SCAP defini-
tion for acceptance of documentation for SI completions, i.e.
review and approval. The Federal Facilities Site Assessment
programs were recently initiated and thus do not necessarily
submit SI reports that mirror the EPA preferred outline. Please
refer to the March 9, 1993, memo (See Attachment B) from Henry
Longest, previously supplied along with the procedures used here
in Region 5 and other Regions. The Region recognizes that the
letter from the contractor with the completion dates with the
concurrence of approval by EPA does not provide adequate
documentation for each site inspection. The Region will continue
to research its file to obtain the lost approval documents; or if
after continued search they cannot be found the Region will
recreate the lost approval documents based on existing program
•ite files and supporting documents.
36
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 8UPERFUKP ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 7 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-6-
fDl KI/TB Starts at Mon-yederal Facilities
•crap Processing:
Per the July 8, 1993, meeting between the Region and DIG, this
site will not be included in the final audit report.
H) KI/FB at MOB-EPL files
Union Carbide Corporation Site B Landfill:
The OIG found that the Region claimed two accomplishments — one
on June 6, 1991, and the other on August 3, 1992. The FY'92 SCAP
definition for an RI/FS start is the Administrative Order on
Consent (AOC) completion date. The dates in CERCLIS have been
changed to reflect the one AOC completion date of June 6, 1991,
and to correct the Region's administrative oversight. Although
corrective action was taken by the Region to remedy this finding,
it was agreed during the July 8, 1993, meeting that it will still
be addressed in the final audit report.
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 8 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-7-
1O) » Ooerahle Putt completions at »oa->eder>l yaeilities
The OIG questions three RA operable unit (OU) completions because
they did not »eet the SCAP definition.
Washington County Landfill!
The OIG claims, per the SCAP definition, that a RA OU completion
should be claimed when the Region approves the RA report, and the
Region did not approve the RA report the responsible parties
submitted on September 25, 1992.
The Region agrees with the OIG that the September 30, 1992,
accomplishment date should not be claimed, as it represents the
date the preliminary close-out report was signed. The Remedial
Action report submitted September 25, 1992, will be approved
consistent with present guidance. Proper coding of the first
subsequent start and first subsequent completion flags for both
RA OU completions will cause them not show up as accomplishments.
Although corrective action will be taken to remedy these
findings, it was agreed that it will still be addressed in the
final audit report.
Hutting Truck Company:
Per the July 8, 1993, meeting between the Region and OIG this
will not be included in the final audit report.
f
Thermo-Chemi
The OIG questions the RD/RA settlement accomplishment of Hay 6,
1992. The Region agrees with the OIG's finding that EPA and the
PRPs never actually reached a settlement and, therefore, the
accomplishment should not have been claimed. CERCLIS has been
corrected to show an accomplishment for the issuance of the UAO
only. Although corrective action has been taken to remedy this
finding, it was agreed that it will still be addressed in the
final audit report.
(Tl muaml cosmlations
Reliable Bquipment:
The OIG questions the fund-lead removal completion of August 3,
1992, and coding the takeover by the PRPs. The Region agrees
with the OIG findings. This information has been corrected in
CERCLIS so that the fund-lead removal will not show as an
38
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SDPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 9 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-8-
accomplishment on August 3, 1992, as a result of PRP takeover.
Although corrective action has been taken to remedy this finding,
it was agreed that it will still be addressed in the final audit
report.
United formp Lead company:
Per the July 8, 1993, meeting between the Region and OIG, this
site will not be included in the final audit report, but win be
referenced as a general consistency issue.
OeoBomovoc Electroplating Company:
The OIG claims that, according to the Region, two separate activ-
ities were completed: a removal and a Remedial Action using
Removal Authorities, or "removial," and could not distinguish
between the two separate actions. He believe it is obvious these
things did happen based on the documentation we provided. We
will leave both the Removal and RA in CERCLIS. The OIG also
questioned the May 31, 1992, removal completion because they
could not find documentation to support the claim. The SCAP
definition does not require specific documentation, and the
definition states a removal is complete when the conditions
specified in the Action Memorandum have been met even if the OSC
determines that additional response work may be necessary. The
FY'92 SCAP definition required no documentation, but depends
entirely upon an OSC determination. However, recognizing the
need to improve on our definitions and processes, the Region will
recreate the lost documentation based on existing program site
files and supporting documents. Per the July 8, 1993, meeting,
it was agreed that this finding will still be addressed in the
final audit report.
•.!/>•" s/ st Bon-Federal Facilities
Ott/itory/Oordova - Operable unit 3
The OIG questions the subsequent RI/FS start accomplishment date
of March 13, 1992. The SCAP definition states that a fund-
financed RI/FS start should be claimed when the Contracting
Officer signs a contract modification for the RI/FS. The Region
agrees with the OIG findings, and has changed the date in CERCLIS
to-reflect the date of September 19, 1990, on which the
Contracting Officer signed the contract modification. Although
corrective action has been taken by the Region to remedy this
finding, it was agreed during the July 8, 1993, meeting that it
will still be addressed in the final audit report.
39
Report MO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 10 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-9-
(Kl EX operable unit Completion at Mon-rederal Facility
John* Mans vi lie i
The OIG questions the accomplishment claimed on December 31,
1991. The SCAP definition states that a RA OU completion should
be claimed when the Region approves the RA Report. The Region
agrees with the QIC's finding that an accomplishment should not
have been claimed in FY'92. Based on supporting documentation
the contractor completed all specified work by August 21, 1991,
which should have resulted in a RA Report being prepared, but the
report wasn't received until December 9, 1992. The Region
submitted a letter dated February 9, 1993, approving the RA
Report. Per the July 8, 1993, meeting it was agreed that this
finding will still be addressed in the final audit report.
stttit»tBti
Berlin c Farro:
The OIG questions the RD/RA settlement accomplishment of
September 30, 1992. The Region agrees with the QIC's finding
that the RD/RA Settlement should not be claimed in FY'92. The
PRPs actually provided a Notice of Intent to Comply on
November 23, 1992. CERCLIS has been corrected to show an
accomplishment tor the RD/RA settlement in FY'93. Although
corrective action has been taken by the Region to remedy this
finding, it was agreed during the July 8, 1993, meeting that it
will still be addressed in the final audit report.
•im conclusions — Kesmanee to Findings
As mentioned in the previous position papers and during the
July 8, 1993 meeting, some of these site, situations point out
occasional problems with the SCAP definitions, because they are
occasionally inappropriate as a measure of site progress and do
not easily accommodate anomalies or exceptions to the defini-
tions. In general. Region S remains aware that SCAP definitions
are difficult to develop, given that no two site situations are
exactly alike. Region 5 management is committed to working with
HQ to improve SCAP definitions to accommodate the unique situa-
tions at individual sites, and to provide a more meaningful
method of measuring accomplishments. A more direct role by the
program management staff, in conjunction with more input from
RPMs, OSCs, and other technical staff when developing definitions
will also produce greater accuracy and relevancy in Region 5
data.
He think it is important to reiterate that the errors cited in
the audit were not the result of lapses in data security, but
were the result of occasional misinterpretation of SCAP
definitions and/or anomalies and unique situations at cites not
40
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 11 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-10-
adequately covered in the SCAP definitions. The Region still
find* and agrees that decentralizing the responsibility for data
ownership from the Program Management and Information Section to
the RPMs and other technical program staff has eliminated the
occurrence of data entry errors. Region 5 management will
continue to seek improvements, taking the initiative to identify
data quality concerns by more direct methods than independent
audits.
WMD conclusions - Response tip fT7?nffendation»
Item tl - Ne will correct the CERCLIS dates for all the actual
errors immediately. All questioned accomplishments
will be addressed within 30 days of receipt of the
final audit report from the OIG, and/or within 30 days
of receipt of decisions by U.S. EPA Headquarters.
We agree that a portion of the data identified by the
OIG is questionable, but as explained above, about 10
of the 55 questionable accomplishments should now be
removed from the final 016 findings and position paper.
The inaccuracies in the remaining accomplishments
identified by the OIG as questionable resulted in part
from misinterpretation of the SCAP definitions.
However, the Region believes as discussed during the
July 8, 1993, meeting that the primary reasons for the
inaccuracies are unclear, inadequate or inflexible SCAP
definitions.
Item /2 - Ne disagree with the OIG's recommendation to
( #3 create a standard form. Creating a standard form to
document accomplishments will not provide for
improvements. Such a process will merely generate
unneeded paperwork and expenditure of staff time. Our
concern is that the answers on the form could become
•canned* and provide no assurance that the correct
document is being referenced according to SCAP
definitions. The percentage of questioned accomplish-
ments that the Region counted does not substantiate a
need for this level of additional documentation,
particularly not for all accomplishments and all
Superfund programs. Per the July 8, 1993, meeting the
OIG would allow the Region the flexibility to make
decisions specific to each category of Superfund
accomplishments.
Ne also believe the solution lies in providing the best
automated tools possible. The Program Management and
Information Section has four staff members devoted to
ensuring the quality of SCAP/STARS data and related
planning and reporting. In addition to assisting RPMs
when entering data into HasteLAN, they have audit tools
41
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 12 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-11-
available. SmarTech is a software program developed to
allow staff to run queries of WasteLAN data. In FY'92,
it was used extensively to find missing codes and data
that sight effect accomplishment reporting. The audit
capabilities of SmarTech continue to be developed in
order to find anomalies in the data.
There are also a number of WasteLAN features that could
be used to ensure good quality data. The Remedial
Pipeline Project Management (RP2M) system, an alterna-
tive system for data entry into WasteLAN, contains
definitions and a site-locking feature. We also have a
proposal from Argonne National Laboratory Energy System
Division to provide studies of the WasteLAN system for
Region V. They could be tasked to investigate and
recommend solutions to problematic data quality
concerns.
We would like to reiterate from our previous response
that Region 5 thinks improving the existing internal
controls, clarifying established responsibilities for
data by the RPMs and reviews and audits by their
Section Chiefs, are the most reliable way to ensure the
accuracy of data.
He agree that the solution principally lies in
strengthening the existing Region 5 internal controls.
Our principle internal controls for SCAP data entry are
and should continue to be: responsibility for data
entry by the RPM; technical reviews of data entry and
•pot-checking or auditing of documents by the Section
Chiefs (first-line supervisors); and continued second
and third level reviews by the Office of Superfund
(OSF) managers and program management staff.
He also still firmly believe the solution lies in
increased training and education and better automated
tools for the Region 5 personnel that enter and review
the accomplishment data.
Item t4 - As stated in a previous response, the OSF management
will ensure the OSCs, RPMs and their Section Chiefs are
represented in workgroups tasked- to improve the SCAP
definitions. Since the RPMs and their Section Chiefs,
are the ones who have the best understanding of how
sites progress end the difficulties of getting actual
•ite situations to "fit" the SCAP definitions, their
participation with HQ and OSF program management staff
in the development of definitions would prove
beneficial.
42
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 13 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
-12-
Item IS - The Region does and will continue to communicate with
Headquarters frequently regarding unclear guidance, and
are provided documents on changes or interpretation to
the definitions.
Item t6 - Disposition forms that ensure proper review and
document Regional approval are already in place.
Item #7 - States have been notified to give the Region written
justification with reasons to re-open "no further
action" sites.
Item 18 - The Region agrees to comply with this recommendation.
In conclusion, we feel we have fully responded to the findings
and recommendations presented in this draft audit report. We
have also presented various responses for improving the quality
of data in CERCLIS.
If you should have any questions please contact Oebra Potter,
Chief, Program Management and Information Section who can be
reached at 353-6318. In her absence, contact Earlene Rhodes-
Gunnel 1 at 353-1247.
43
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 PY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX I
Page 14 of 14
REGION 5 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT
Ai I ACIIMLN 1
ST mOCMM ACCOMPLISHMENT TTFC
PRE-REMEDIAL
PA Completions - Non-Federal Facilities
SI Completions - Non-Federal Facilities
SI Completions - Federal Facilities
| SUBTOTAL
REMEDIAL
RI/FS Starts - Non-Federal Facilities
RI/FS Starts - Federal Facilities
RI/FS Starts - Non-NPL Sites
RODs - Non- Federal Facilities
RODs - Federal Facilities
RD Starts - Non-Federal Facilities
RD Starts - Federal Facilities
RA Starts - Non-Federal Facilities
RA Starts - Federal Facilities
RA OU Completions - Non-Federal Facilities
RA OU Completions - Federal Facilities
Final RA Completions
RD/RA Settlements
I
SUBTOTAL
REMOVALS
Removal Action Starts - NPL Sites
Removal Action Starts - Non-NPL Sites
Removal Completions
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL!
7C1
1SS
ss
35%
45
29%
44
Report NO. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX II
Page 1 of 2
ABBREVIATIONS
AO Administrative Order
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
CFO Chief Financial Officer
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPI Environmental Priorities Initiative
FMFIA Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
IAG Interagency Agreement
NPL National Priorities List
OIG Office of Inspector General
PA Preliminary Assessment
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SAS Site Assessment Section
SCAP Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
SI Site Inspection
45
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUFERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX II
Page 2 of 2
ABBREVIATIONS
UAO Unilateral Administrative Order
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
46
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
APPENDIX III
Page 1 of 1
DISTRIBUTION
Inspector General (A-109)
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS-
100)
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OS-200)
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations (H-1501)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and
Legislative Affairs (A-103)
Associate Administrator for Communication, Education,
and Public Affairs (A-100)
Agency Followup Official (PM-208)
Attention: Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Administration and Resources Management
Agency Followup Coordinator (H-3304)
Attention: Director, Resource Management Division
Headquarters Library (PM-211A)
Regional Administrator, Region 5 (R-19J)
Region 5 Audit Followup Coordinator (MFA-10J)
Attention: Chief, Financial Accounting Section
Region 5 Public Affairs (P-19J)
Region 5 Intergovermental Relations Officer (R-19J)
Region 5 Library (PL-12J)
47
Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
-------
REGION 5 FY 92 SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
[This page was t blank.]
48
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. E1SFD3-05-0154-3100287
to^ion 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West jaci^on Bou^-vard l?th
Chicago, IL 60G04-3590
------- |