£P/4x
_
&EPA Report of Audit
REPORT ON UNANNOUNCED ON-SITE AUDIT OF REGION II
REMOVAL ACTIVITIES AT THE DELANCY STREET TRAILER,
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
AUDIT REPORT N0- E5eH6-02-0167-70807
Nh FEBRUARY 27, 1987
U.S. Environmental Protect loo
T.IVT-^rv, Room 2404 FM-211-1
•01 M Street, S.W.
Washington. DO 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ACTION REQUIRED
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. IMPROVED SECURITY NEEDED
2. IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN MONITORING
CONTRACTOR COSTS
APPENDIX 1 - REGIONAL RESPONSE TO DRAFT AUDIT REPORT
APPENDIX 2 - DISTRIBUTION
Page
1
2
3
3
5
5
11
16
-------
i
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
EASTERN DIVISION
150 Causeway Street
Room 715
Bo.ton. Ma.sachusaM 021 1 4
(617)223-0940
NEW YORK OFFICE:
90 Church Street
Suite 802
New Yort( NY ,0007
0>t2» 264-5730
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
FEB27 1987
SUBJECT: Report on Unannounced On-Site Audit of Region II
Removal Activities at the Delancy Street frailer,
Newark, New Jersey
Audit Report .Ntu E5eH6-C2-0167-70807
FROM:
TO:
Divisional Inspector General for Audit
Eastern Division
Christopher J. Daggett
Regional Administrator, Region II
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
We have performed an unannounced on-site audit of Region II removal actions
at the Delancy Street Trailer site, Newark, New Jersey. The removal action
was initiated April 11, 1986. The objectives of the review were to determine
the:
" adequacy of the On-Scene Coordinator's (OSC) compliance with prescribed
directives and guidance governing removal actions;
* adequacy of the OSC's controls in monitoring the cleanup work and on-s1te
spending; and
* adequacy of the technical assistance provided by the Technical Assistance
Team (TAT) contractor.
We performed the review in accordance with the Standards for Audit of Govern-
mental Organizations, Programs, Activities, and Functions issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States, and included tests of accounting
records and other auditing procedures we considered necessary. We evaluated
action memoranda, delivery orders, pollution reports (POLREPS), daily work
orders, contractor cost reports (EPA Form 1900-55), site entry/exit logs,
-------
OSC logs, Incident obligation logs, and contractor invoices to insure confor-
mance with prescribed directives and guidance. In addition, we conducted
interviews with the OSC, and personnel from the Response and Prevention
Branch (RPB), the TAT contractor and the Procurement and Contract Management
Division to confirm the accuracy of our findings. ;..
The review was conducted at the Delancey Street Trailer, Newark, New Jersey,
and RPB offices in Edison, New Jersey. Audit fieldwork was performed from
July 10, 1986 through September 16, 1986. The unannounced site visit was made
on July 10, 1986.
Directives and guidance used for the review were:
* National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP);
0 Superfund Removal Procedures Revision Number Two, dated August 20, 1984;
Removal Cost Management Manual, dated January 1985; and
* ERCS contract.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Our review of the internal and management controls exercised by Region II in
initiating and monitoring the removal activities at the Delancey Street Trailer
Site disclosed that the OSC generally complied with the directives and guidance
governing removal actions. Vie also found that technical assistance provided
by the TAT contractor was adequate. However, we found several areas that
need improvement:
1. IMPROVED SECURITY NEEDED
Adequate security was not being provided at the site. We found at the
time of our unannounced visit that paid security guards were not present.
A subsequent visit found the security guard unaware of his duties. Similar
problems had been noted by the OSC and TAT personnel. As a result, EPA
was being billed for security services that were either not provided or
inadequate. We recommend that future delivery orders require contractors
to closely monitor security serv'ices to assure that agreed upon security
measures are provided. We also recommend that an overall analysis of
security problems be conducted to determine if any firms have demonstrated
a pattern of inadequate performances.
2. IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN MONITORING CONTRACTOR COSTS
The OSC needs to improve the documentation maintained to monitor contractor
costs. We found that entry/exit logs did not reconcile with times claimed
for contractor personnel. The OSC stated that site related tasks were
performed away from the site and therefore were not reflected on the
-------
entry/exit logs. As a result, the OSC could not accurately verify the
ERCS contractor's costs as presented on Daily Contractor Cost Reports
(1900-55s). We recommend that the OSC maintain more detailed information
1n the OSC log. We also recommend that, in the future, the payment of ERCS
contractor travel time from the firm's office to the site be reevaluated.
An exit conference was held with Regional officials on October 31, 1986.
Based on the discussion and presentation of additional documentation, the
finding on POLREPS was deleted from the final report. A written response to
the draft report was submitted on January 16, 1987. We have evaluated the
Region's comments and revised the report where appropriate. Where differences
still exist, we have summarized the Region's comments and our response in the
ensuing paragraphs.
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Directive 2750, the action official is required to
provide this office a written response to the audit report within 90 days of
the audit report date.
BACKGROUND
The site is an abandoned truck trailer located off Delancy Street on a dirt
roadway by Wilson Avenue and Ball Street in Newark, New Jersey. On March 27,
1986 RPB had received a telephone call giving notice of an illegal abandonment
of hazardous substances. The trailer was found on April 6, 1986 by the New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement.
The trailer, which contained approximately 60 55-gallon drums and hundreds of
small bottles of chemicals, is located in a heavily industrialized area of
Newark. It is bounded on the west side of the roadway by an unnamed creek, a
tributary of the Hackensack River, and on the east side of the roadway by a
junkyard. The roadway is occasionally used by trucks and other vehicles for
access to the main paved streets located off Delancy Street and people walk
through the area.
Containers found in the drums were labeled ammonium hydroxide, aluminum
chlorohydroxide, glycerin and formaldehyde. Formaldehyde and ammonium hydro-
xide are listed as EPA hazardous substances, and formaldehyde is also a
carcinogen. Some of the drums appeared to be full and potentially contained
solid or sludge-like hazardous wastes. Other drums contained unknown liquids.
An action memorandum was approved by Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division (ERRD) on March 9, 1986. OH Materials, the Zone 1 ERCS contractor,
initiated work at the site on April 24, 1986. A total of $138,000 was
authorized for preliminary assessment and removal of which $115,970 was for
mitigation contracting.
- 3 -
-------
On August 1, 1986 an Administrative Order of Consent was issued to Daniel
Rubenfield and Tri-Corp. Industries, Inc. to take immediate corrective
actions.
Definitions of key terms used in this report are as follows:
ERCS; Emergency Response Cleanup Services contract(s). ERCS contract(s) were
developed to assist/support EPA emergency cleanup operations at oil and
hazardous substances releases. The ERCS contracting network consists of two
groups of contractors, which include four ERCS zone contracts and 20-30
separate ERCS regional contracts. Region II utilizes the services of the
ERCS Zone 1 contractor, OH Materials Company, Findlay, Ohio.
POLREPS: pollution reports prepared through the life of the removal project
which provide operational data concerning the project and a current accounting
of the status of funds.
Daily Work Order; a directive prepared by the OSC defining the next day's
activity and the required personnel, equipment, and materials to be provided
by the ERCS contractor.
Contractor Cost Report (EPA Form 1900-55): a form prepared by the ERCS
contractor at the end of each day to identify all personnel, equipment and
materials used to complete assigned tasks.
TAT; Technical Assistance Team. EPA contractor used to provide support
services to the OSC. TAT services on the Oelancy Street Trailer removal
action were provided by Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Incident Obligation Log: a log kept during a removal action to provide the
OSC with an accurate record of daily costs that are counted toward the total
project ceiling. The log also tracks the limits for individual cost categories,
Exit/Entry Log^ a log maintained by the OSC or his authorized representative
to verify personnel, vehicles, equipment, supplies, and subcontractors brought
on site. Also serves as a basis for comparison to the contractor's daily
cost reports (EPA Form 1900-55).
- 4 -
-------
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. IMPROVED SECURITY NEEDED
Adequate security was not being provided at the site. We found at the
time of our unannounced visit that paid security guards were not present.
A subsequent visit found the security guard unaware of his duties. Similar
problems had been noted by the OSC and TAT personnel. As a result, EPA
was being billed for security services that were either not provided or
inadequate.
Delivery Order Number 6893-02-052, dated April 10, 1986, called for OH
Materials to provide for 24-hour security at the trailer. The revised
delivery order, dated April 25, 1986 stated "O.H. Materials shall arrange
for site security of the trailer and its contents as required by the OSC.
O.H. Materials shall make recommendations to the OSC for appropriate
site security measures, as appropriate."
During our July 10, 1986 unannounced site visit, we found that from our
entry at 9:00 A.M. to our departure at 11:00 A.M., no security guard was
present. We made a subsequent visit to the site on July 17, 1986 at
1:35 P.M. and found that though a guard was present, (1) it was his first
day on the job and he unaware of what he was guarding, (2) he was unaware
what his duties were, and (3) he was positioned very far away from the
trailer.
The OSC stated that inadequate security services had been a problem since
the initiation of the removal activity. Initially, OH Materials had
contracted with Wells Fargo Guard Services. These services were provided
from April 11, 1986 until their termination on May 6, 1986 at request of
the OSC. Burns International Security Co. (Burns) was then hired to
assume security responsibilities.
Security services did not improve with the hiring of Burns. Besides the
incidents described during our on-site visits, TAT personnel also noted
problems. In a July 2, 1986 memorandum to the OSC, the TAT representative
stated that no security guards were observed at the site on nine different
occasions during the period June' 10, 1986 to July 1, 1986. The OSC also
advised us that no security guards were found on July 11, 1986 and July
22, 1986.
OH Materials billed EPA on June 27, 1986 and August 26, 1986 for security
services. OH Materials claimed costs for complete 24-hour periods. On
June 17, 1986 the OSC requested from OH Materials "detailed documentation
of hours on-scene for the guard service from Wells Fargo Security." On
July 18, 1986, the OSC wrote to OH Materials about the TAT and 016 obser-
vations of lack of security and the need for similar detailed documenta-
tion from Burns. Documentation in the form of time sheets was provided,
but their format made verification of actual hours worked difficult. On
- 5 -
-------
September 9, 1986, the OSC recommended to the Contracts Section, Office of
Financial Management, that $3,943 of $4,244 for security services be
withheld. On September 15, 1986, the OSC also disputed additional charges
of $804 for security services. We concur with these actions taken by the
OSC.
Regional Response
The Region stated that it had already taken the action recommended in the
draft report not to pay for security services. It also stated that the
OSC noted that security was lacking at least one month before the DIG
visited the site. During that time, the OSC directed OH Materials on at
least three occasions to provide better site security, which proved to be
unsuccessful. The Region suggested that the first recommendation be
deleted because the Region had initiated such action prior to the OIG's
review. The Region agreed with our next recommendation requiring closer
monitoring of security services by contractors.
Finally, the Region agreed with the need to analyze problems and determine
if there is a pattern of inadequate performance. However, the Region felt
that rejecting a firm may not be the most effective way of dealing with
poor performance in all cases, because the firm could claim that it had
improved operations since the last performance. The Region stated, "Where
a pattern of inadequate performance is noted, EPA will provide an opportuni-
ty to the contractor or subcontractor to improve Its practices and to
demonstrate such improvement through performance. If improvement occurs,
then it would be inappropriate for the OSC not to give consent for utiliza-
tion of such firms on other projects. However, 1f such an opportunity
does not prove to be successful, then we agree that OSCs should not give
future consent for utilization of such firms and EPA should look into
other security options where feasible."
PIG Response
We agree that the Region has acted responsibly in dealing with the in-
adequate security services provided at the site. Our writeup has reflected
these actions. Since the Region has already taken action on our first
recommendation, we have deleted i-t from the final report.
We are also pleased that the Region agrees in principle with our other
recommendations. We believe that tighter control by the contractor will
be an effective approach to improving security services. We also believe
that the Region should not utilize firms that have a history of substandard
performance.
Recommendations
We recommend that you:
- 6 -
-------
1. Direct that future delivery orders require contractors to more closely
monitor security services to assure that agreed upon security measures
are provided.
2. Direct the Response and Prevention Branch to analyze security problems
that have occurred during removal actions to determine If there are any
firms for which a pattern of inadequate performance has been noted. If
it is determined that such a firm is noted, then OSCs should be directed
not to give consent for utilization of such firms, in accordance with
Article XXXIV, "Subcontract Consent", of the ERCS contract.
2. IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN MONITORING CONTRACTOR COSTS
The OSC needs to improve the documentation maintained to monitor contractor
costs. We found that entry/exit logs did not reconcile with times claimed
for contractor personnel. The OSC stated that site related tasks were
performed away from the site and therefore were not reflected on the
entry/exit logs. As a result, the OSC could not accurately verify the
ERCS contractor's costs as presented on Daily Contractor Cost Reports
(1900-55s).
EPA's Removal Cost Management Manual (Manual), published in January 1985,
details the comprehensive cost management procedures to be used during
emergency response actions. Section 3.3 of the Manual states that the OSC
should verify that the hours of work charged for personnel, equipment, and
any other services, as listed on the daily Contractor Cost Reports, are
correct. Subsection 3.3.1 states "The OSC or other designated on-s1te
personnel can verify personnel charges by routinely recording what personnel
are on-site, the duties that they perform, and the length of time that
they remain on site."
Personnel costs are the largest cost experienced at the site. Subsection
5.1.2 of the Manual states that "the names of all personnel and equipment
entering and exiting the removal site and the date and time of entry and
exit must be recorded. This information is instrumental in verifying ERCS
personnel and equipment charges."
Our review found that information maintained by the OSC was not complete
or detailed enough to adequately verify ERCS contractor daily cost claims.
The entry/exit logs only indicated time specifically spent on the site.
There was no other document prepared that detailed those ERCS contractor
employees who performed tasks away from the site and the time those tasks
were performed. Since overtime claims were regularly submitted for all
contract employees, complete and accurate documentation maintained by the
OSC was a necessity to assure that EPA was properly billed.
Daily Contractor Cost Reports claimed 70 more hours that the entry/exit
logs showed for the five days that work was performed on the site. The
difference in hours fell into four categories:
- 7 -
_
-------
* Time claimed on 4/24/86 (first day of
onsite work) prior to entry at site.
0 Time claimed on 4/28/86 (first day of
new week) prior to entry at site.
* Time claimed 4/24 - 4/29/86 after
completion of work at site.
" Time claimed on 4/30/86 (last day of
onsite work) after exiting from site.
16 hours
11.5 hours
32.5 hours
10 hours
70 hours
The hours charged prior to entry on the site on April 24, 1986 and April
28, 1986 and the time charged after exiting the site on April 30, 1986
represent travel time from OH Materials1 field office to the site. Article
XII 8 of the ERCS contract states: "Routine daily commuting time to and
from the work site will not be an allowable charge under the contract."
Also, the revised delivery order issued on April 25, 1986 stated: "Contractor
is requested to be on-site Thursday, April 24, 1986 at 8:00 A.M., E.S.T.
with the aforementioned personnel and equipment." The OSC stated that he
had spoken to the Contracting Officer and was advised that these hours
could be claimed if they were reasonable and consistent with Federal travel
regulations. The OSC also noted that a total of five of the 16 hours not
reconciled on April 24, 1986 occurred because the TAT team, which prepared
the entry/exit logs, arrived that day 45 minutes late.
The 32.5 hours charged in excess of those recorded on entry/exit logs were
claimed for all OH Materials employees performing work at the site.
Differences between the times stated on the 1900-55's and the entry/exit
logs amounted to as much as four hours a day. The OSC stated that OH
Materials personnel were engaged in necessary activities away from the
site, such as assisting, labelling and transporting materials at the
Regional facility in Edison. He also stated that he would not approve on
the 1900-55s any activity charges that were not allowable or reasonable.
The time listed on the entry/exit logs only indicated the hours spent at
the trailer. All other activities, though monitored by the OSC, were not
recorded in sufficient detail ir other documents (i.e., OSC log, chain of
custody forms) to indicate hours worked off site by specific personnel.
We believe that tighter controls were needed to assure the accuracy of
contractor cost claims.
Regional Response
The Region believed that the OSC's documentation was adequate to monitor
contractor costs performed away from the site and consistent with the
contract and the OSC's role. The Region stated that the 1900-55 forms
- 8 -
-------
were the OSC's documentation of hours worked, whereas exit/entry logs were
not. Further, in accordance with the EPA Removal Cost Management Manual,
the EPA Form 1900-55 was the only form currently required to be completed
under the CERCLA removal program. The Region acknowledged that there may
be discrepancies between the EPA Form 1900-55 and the entry/exit log as
they were used for different purposes. However, the entry/exit log was
optional and the OSC was not required to reconcile it to the EPA Form 1900-
55.
The Region also stated that it was not the OSC's role to "accurately verify
the ERCS Contractor Cost Reports (1900-55)." The Region indicated that
the OSC was required to be accurate, but was only required to certify that
services/equipment charged were received. The OSC signed for travel time
costs as reasonable, and therefore, had no need to "re-evaluate" the travel
costs.
The Region further pointed out that the OSC utilized a variety of different
forms of documentation and that these documents indicated that additional
hours were required to be worked by numerous contractor personnel after
leaving the site. Therefore, the maintenance of more detailed information
in OSC logs would not address the concerns raised in the draft report.
Finally, the Region believed that the issue of allowable employee travel
time should not be addressed to the Region. In this case, the trailer was
not a "fixed" removal site. Daily remobilization was determined to be
more cost-effective and safer than on-site location of ERCS personnel.
The Region stated that EPA Contracts Administration personnel had advised
the OSC that the determination of what was normal commuting time was to be
decided on a case-by-case basis by OSCs and should be consistent with
Federal and EPA travel regulations. The OSC for the Delancy Street Trailer
Removal Action believed that the contractor's charges for time were
generally consistent with these regulations.
PIG Response
We believe that the documentation maintained at this site was not adequate
to assure the accuracy of the contractor's cost claims. The Region stated
in its response that the documentation maintained by the OSC indicated
that "additional hours were required to be worked by numerous contractor
personnel after leaving the site." We are not questioning that work was
required or even performed. What we are highlighting is that none of the
documentation maintained for this site identified the individuals who
performed the additional work nor the specific hours attendant to those
tasks.
As we have already stated in the narrative portion of this finding, the
EPA Removal Cost Management Manual Section 3.3 states that the OSC should
confirm "that the hours of work charged for personnel, equipment, and any
other services are correct". More detailed information was needed to
accomplish this verification.
- 9 -
-------
Finally, we agree that in this instance the Region followed Headquarters
guidance on the allowability of contractor employees travel time. We have
modified our recommendation to suggest prospective review for approval of
such costs during other removal actions.
Recommendations
We recommend that you:
1. Direct the OSC to maintain more detailed information in the OSC log.
2. Reevaluate in future actions the necessity of paying the ERCS contractor
for employee travel time from the firm's office to the site.
- 10 -
-------
APPENDIX 1
Page 1 of 5
Region II Garments to PIG Draft Report
Unannounced On-Site Audit of Region II
Removal Activities at the Delancy Street Trailer
I. "Improved Security Needed"
Results of Audit
A. Draft Report page 6, recommendation No. 1; "Recommend to the Contracts Section
...that no payment for security services be made to O.H. Materials for those
periods (a) when such services were found... to be lacking and (b) when adequate
detailed documentation is not provided to verify actual hours worked."
Region II Comments
The Region has already taken the action recommended by the auditor. The OSC
noted that security was lacking at least one month before the OIG investigated
the site. During that time, the OSC directed O.H. Materials on at least three
occasions to provide better site security, which proved to be unsuccessful. As
a result, the OSC disputed almost $4,000 in site security costs.
Region II Recommendations
This recommendation should be deleted because the Region already initiated
such action prior to the OIG's review. The OIG's report, however, should note
the action taken by the Region to address the need for improved security.
Results of Audit
B. Draft report page 6, recommendation No. 2: "Direct that future delivery orders
require contractors to more closely monitor security services to assure that
agreed upon security measures are provided."
Region II Comments
f
We concur and have already implemented this recommendation.
*
Results of Audit
C. Draft report page 6, recommendation No. 3; "Direct the Response and Prevention
Branch to analyze security problems that have occurred during removal actions to
determine if there are any firms for which a pattern of inadequate performance
has been noted. If it is determined that such a firm is noted, then OSCs should
be directed not to give consent for utilization of such firms, in accordance
with Article XXXIV, 'Subcontract Consent*, of the ERGS contract."
- 11 -
-------
APPENDIX 1
Page 2 of 5
- 2 -
Region II Comments
We agree with the need to analyze security problems and determine if there is
a pattern of inadequate performance. However, rejecting a firm may not be
the most effective way of dealing with poor performance in all cases. The firm
can claim that it has improved operations since the last performance. Where
such a pattern of poor performance has been noted, the Region has taken appro-
priate action to correct these deficiencies. For example, EPA has requested
that O. H. Materials hire local off-duty police to patrol the site in lieu of
hiring firms that performed poorly in the past. This option is being utilized
more frequently and has been found to be more successful than hiring a security
subcontractor in some cases.
Where a pattern of inadequate performance is noted, EPA will first provide an
opportunity to the contractor or subcontractor to improve its practices and to
demonstrate such improvement through performance. If improvement occurs, then
it would be inappropriate for the OSC not to give consent for utilization of
such firms on other projects. However, if such an opportunity does not prove
to be successful, then we agree that OSCs should not give future consent for
utilization of such firms and EPA should look into other security options where
feasible.
Region II Recommendation
The report should describe the action taken by the Region to correct and improve
security by having off-duty police hired in some cases to patrol sites in lieu of
a security firm. In addition, the recommendation should be deleted. The Region
has taken and will continue to take timely and appropriate action to correct
inadequate contractor performance.
II. "Improvements Needed In Monitoring Contractor Costs."
Results of Audit
A.-Draft report page 6, paragraph 4; "The OSC needs to improve the documentation
maintained to monitor contractor costs. We found that entry/exit logs did not
reconcile with times claimed for contractor personnel. The OSC stated that site
related tasks were performed away from the site and therefore were not reflected
on the entry/exit logs. As a result, the OSC could not accurately verify the
ERGS contractor's costs as presented on Daily Contractor Cost Reports (1900-55s).*
Region II Comments
We believe that the OSC's documentation was adequate to monitor contractor
costs performed away from the site and consistent with the contract and the
OSC's role. The 1900-55 forms are the OSC's documentation of hours worked,
whereas exit/entry logs are not. In accordance with the EPA Removal Cost
Management Manual, the EPA Form 1900-55, which is the daily cost accounting
sheet, is the only form currently required to be completed under the CERCLA
removal program. There may be discrepancies between the EPA Form 1900-55
and the entry/exit log as they are used for different purposes. However, the
entry/exit log is optional and the OSC is not required to reconcile it to the
EPA Form 1900-55. Site exit/entry logs are not timesheets for contractor
personnel, nor is there a requirement to submit timesheets for the OSC's
review.
-------
APPENDIX 1
Page 3 of 5
_ 3 _
It is not the OSC's role, to "accurately verify the ERCS contractor Cost
Reports (1900-55s)." The OSC is required to be accurate, but is only
required to certify that services/equipment charged were received. The
OSC signed for travel time costs as reasonable, and therefore, has no need
to "re-evaluate" the costs.
Besides the OSC log, OSCs utilize for documentation purposes Daily Work Orders,
Chain of Custody forms, TAT and OSC log notes, other EPA log notes (Environmental
Service Division) and site exit/entry logs. Together, such documents indicate
that in the instance the I.G. is referring to, additional hours were required to
be worked by numerous contractor personnel after leaving the site. Therefore,
the maintenance of more detailed information in OSC logs, as reccmnended in the
draft report, would not address the concern raised by the I.G. about work that
the contractor performed off site.
Results of Audit
B. Draft report page 8, reccmmendationst "We recommend that you:"
1. Direct the OSC to maintain more detailed information in the OSC log.
2. Disallow payments for ERCS contractor employee travel time from the firm's
office to the site.
3. Tighten language in future Delivery Orders to exclude payment for such
travel time.
Region II Garments
1. As discussed under Note IIA above, we do not agree with the necessity for
this recommendation. The recommendation should be deleted.
2.. The issue of allowable employee travel time should not be addressed to the
Region. In this case, the trailer was not a "fixed" removal site.- Daily
immobilization was determined to be more cost-effective and safer than
on-site location of ERCS personnel. EPA Contracts Administration personnel
advised the OSC that the determination of what is normal commuting time
is decided on a case-by-case basis by OSCs and should be consistent with
Federal and EPA travel regulations. The OSC for the Delancy Street Trailer
Removal Action believed that the contractor's charges for time were gener-
ally consistent with these regulations. Therefore, this recommendation
should be deleted.
3. We do not agree with this recommendation. The auditor has not demonstrated
the necessity for the exclusion of such travel time. Furthermore, neither
the Regional Administrator nor the OSC can change a provision to the contract
through a delivery order.
- 13 -
-------
APPENDIX 1
Page 4 of 5
- 4 -
III. "POLREPS Were Not Submitted on a Timely Basis"
Results of Audit
Draft report page 8, paragraph 4; " The OSC did not submit weekly POLREPS. Accord-
ing to the Chief, Incident Response and Prevention Section, personnel who required
knowledge of the removal action (Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Solid
Waste Branch and Office of Regional Counsel) were informed verbally on a daily
basis and also in the weekly Branch status report and therefore the weekly POLREP
report was not critical. As a result, required reports were not submitted in
accordance with Agency guidelines."
The auditor recommends that OSCs adhere to prescribed procedures for submitting
POLREPS.
Region II Comments
The Superfund Removal Procedures Manual states that routine progress reports
should be submitted to the Emergency Response Division a minimum of once every
week for sites, and daily where practicable for classic spills. However, the
"minimum of once every week" POLREP frequency within the manual is guidance which
may be implemented on a-case-by-case basis.
POLREPS were prepared and issued for this site as follows:
Date Prepared by OSC; Date Released from Branch;
- POLREP II 4/17/86 4/18/86
- POLREP 12 4/24/86 5/2/86
- POLREP 13 5/12/86 5/13/86
- POLREP 14 6/18/86 7/24/86
The five day sampling efforts at the site were reflected in POLREPS 12 and 13.
We believe this to be adequate documentation in accordance with Agency guidance
for the submission of POLREPS. As stated, the OSC also prepared weekly status
reports which covered on-going site activities, and kept necessary Regional and
'Headquarters personnel informed of site activities through telephone ccmnunica-
tion. No special occurrences or changes in site activities warranted additional
reporting by the OSC. We believe, that the frequency of reports was appropriate
given the activities at the site and the other reporting and communication conducted.
Region II Recommendation
We recomnend that this issue be deleted from the report.
IV. Clarifications to Draft Report
0 Regarding the definition of key terms - Page 4, "ERGS," the ERGS contracts
were not "developed to assist/support the U.S. Coast Guard's cleanup operation
of oil" as stated (although provisions exist for this).
0 Regarding the "Incident Obligation Log," page 4, as stated in our cements
on the Industrial Latex draft audit, this is a record of "estimated costs"
rather than an "accurate record of daily costs."
- 14 -
.
-------
APPENDIX 1
Page 5 of 5
- 5 -
The revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
(NCP), deletes the terminology "immediate removal actions" and has been using
the term "removals" since February 18, 1986. The audit report uses the old
terminology (i.e. page 2, paragraph 4 - Surrmary of Findings).
:
- 15 -
-------
APPENDIX 2
DISTRIBUTION
Recipient Copies
Inspector General (A-109) 1
Deputy Inspector General 1
Divisional Inspector General for Audit,
Internal Audit Division 'v - 1
Director, Audit Operations Staff •- •• "• 3
(Audit Control File (2))
(GAO (1)}
Regional Administrator 2
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division 1
Audit Followup Coordinator 1
Comptroller (PM-225) 1
Agency Followup Official (PM-208)
Attn: Resource Systems Staff 1
- 16 -
------- |