UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDtTS
WESTER* DIVISION
2-, 1 Main Struct, Suite 220
San Prancl6co, CA 94105
* If f 74-7084
September 22, 1989
SUBJECT;
FROM;
TO:
Special Review of Region 9 OSC Activities
Kiddlef ield-Ellis-Whisman Study Area
Mountain View, California
Report No. ElsHG9-09-0111-9400042
Truman R. _
Divisional Inspector General for Audits
Western Division
Daniel McGovern
Regional Administrator
EPA Region 9
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
We conducted a special review of the controls exercised by
the EPA Region 9 On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) over the Superfund
immediate removal action at the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW)
Study Area, Mountain View, California. The overall purpose of
this review was directed at assessing whether the EPA OSC was
exercising adequate controls over the removal action.
Specifically, our review was limited to evaluating the:
- Adequacy of the OSC's controls in monitoring the cleanup
work and on-site spending; and
- Appropriateness of the technical assistance provided by
the Technical Assistance Team (TAT) contractor.
The review was conducted in accordance with the Office of
the Inspector General Annual Audit Workplan (Unannounced Visit to
Immediate Removal Sites) and consisted of on site observations of
the removal action and a review of the records being maintained
by the OSC and support personnel. The review was conducted
between March 22, 1989 and September 12, 1989. Other than the
observations discussed in the Results of Review section of this
report, nothing further came to our attention that warrants
examination by this office.
CO
ac
HDWQUARTERSUBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCT
WASHINGTON. D.C 20460
-------
Audit Report No. ElsHG9-Q9-0111-9400042
RESULTS OF .SPECIAL REVIEW
In general, the review disclosed that the OSC conducted the
on-site activities in a reasonable manner and generally in
compliance with existing Agency guidance for Superfund Removal
Operations. The TAT contractor used on the site was active in
providing: (i) technical assistance to the CSC; (ii) site cost
tracking; and (iii) site safety monitoring. The auditor's
observations pertaining to the OSC's activities are detailed in
the following paragraphs for the Region's consideration.
ERCS Costs. The costs incurred by the Emergency Response Cleanup
Services (ERCS) contractor assigned to perform the cleanup
generally appeared to be reasonable and allowable under the terms
of the ERCS Zone 4 contract. The ERCS contractor utilized the
services of a subcontractor for a significant portion of the
work. While reviewing the OSC's activities, we noted that the
OSC did not review the subcontractor invoices when approving the
ERCS invoices. This was significant because of the high
percentage of subcontract costs associated with this particular
removal action. Well drilling subcontract charges totalled
$90,627, or approximately 70 percent of the total ERCS vouchered
costs of $129,170.
The Removel Cost Management Manual (Section 3.3.4) srst.es
that, "The OSC or other designated on-site personnel must verify
all ERCS subcontractor charges claimed on the EPA Form 1900-55 by
carefully checking subcontractor invoices." The OSC stated that
this is not usually done because the Region does not receive
copies of "non-team" subcontracts. Thus he does not have the
information needed to check subcontractor rates. Possession of a
copy of the subcontract, in our opinion, would be of benefit to
the OSC for several reasons, including facilitating the
verification of task rates or costs. We are therefore
recommending that the Region coordinate with the ERCS contractor
and obtain copies of major subcontracts on future removal
actions.
On-Site Controls and Organization. Because of the non-complex
nature of the removal action involving a small number of
contractor and TAT personnel, the OSC did not produce a formal
written removal action organization structure. While a formal
organizational plan was not available, our site observations
disclosed that the OSC appeared to maintain adequate control over
site activities. The two TAT representatives were responsible
for monitoring ERCS removal activities, conducting sampling,
maintaining site costs control records and providing technical
assistance to the OSC. Assigned duties were generally being
accomplished.
-------
Audit Reoort Nc. ElsHG9-09-Oill-9400042
Site Records. The OSC, or his on-site support personnel, were
maintaining the logs recommended by the Removal Cost Management
Manual. The logs being maintained for this removal action
included an Incident Obligation Log, an CSC Log (which included
chronology of events/decisions, presence of personnel/equipment,
work planned and, on occasion, site conditions), Form 190Q-55s,
and occasional POLREPs. The OSC stated that, on this job, he did
not formally document daily work orders authorizing work on this
project because the major components of the removal activities
were covered under the subcontract. He stated that other than
the original delivery order, he issued only one work order,
whereas on most projects he would issue daily work orders. He
also stated that the TAT also maintained a log of activities to
supplement the OSC's logs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Regional Administrator:
1. Assure that all Regional OSCs review major subcontract
costs for consistency with the OSC's site documentation when
certifying ERCS payment vouchers. For this purpose, the OSCs
should obtain a copy of major ERCS subcontracts so as to
facilitate the review and control of subcontractor tasks invoiced
to EPA.
REGIONAL COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION
An exit conference was held with the Region 9 Emergency
Response Section Chief on September 21, 1989. The Section Chief
generally agreed with the audit observations and commented that
he would remind the OSCs of the Removal Cost Management Manual
requirement for reviewing subcontract costs. Since the Section
Chief agreed with our observations, no additional auditor
comments are necessary. Compliance with the audit recommendation
should be appropriately documented.
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Directive 2750, the Action Official
is required to provide this office with a written response to the
audit recommendation included in this report within 90 days of
the date of the report.
Please refer to the audit report number on related
correspondence. If you have any questions regarding this audit,
please call Mr. Paul Jalbert at FTS 454-7084.
-------
Audit Report No. ElsHG9-09-Cill-9400042
SITS SACKGROUND
The MEW Study Area is located in Mountain View, California.
Soil and groundwater contamination by volatile organic compounds
were first identified in the MEW area in 1981. The source of the
contamination (primarily trichloroethylene—TCE), was thought to
emanate from the various industrial facilities in the area which
utilized this common degreasing agent. The MEW Study Area
includes facilities owned or operated by approximately twenty
companies, including three separately listed or nominated
Superfund sites: Fairchild Semiconductor, Intel Corporation and
Raytheon Company.
The groundwater level in the MEW Study Area had recently
lowered due to continued drought conditions and increasing
municipal consumption. A drop in the groundwater level is a
cause for concern that the contaminated water from the MEW Study
Area could be drawn into the municipal drinking water supply.
The possible conduit for the contaminated water flow would be
abandoned agricultural wells in the Study Area. The Silva Well
and the Parks and Recreation Well were both identified as wells
that could serve as conduits between the contaminated shallow
aquifer and the deeper relatively clean aquifers. Properly
abandoning these wells is expected to reduce the potential for
the migration of contamination to occur.
On January 18, 1989 EPA met with representatives from the
three identified Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs). The PRPs
agreed with EPA that action was necessary but refused to assume
responsibility for undertaking action until the MEW area source
investigation study is completed. Region 9's Emergency Response
Section believed that an extended delay in the proposed action
could result in the migration of TCE to the area's clean deep
water aauifer and ultimately to Mountain View's drinking water
Well #18.
On February 9, 1989, a Request for Removal Action was
initiated justifying the action, "Because conditions at the site
meet the NCP Section 300.65 (b) (2) (ii) criteria for a removal
(Actual or potential contamination of drinking water supplies or
sensitive ecosystems)." The final proposed remedy for this area
includes the identification and abandonment of conduit wells.
The wells must be abandoned in accordance with procedures
established by the California Department of Water Resources and
the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Abandonment procedures
included cleaning the well, perforating the casing, pressure
grouting the entire well, and completing the top of the well to
match the original conditions. The generation of hazardous waste
at this site was not anticipated. Non-hazardous production water
-------
Audit Report No. ElsHG9-09-0111-9400042
would be discharged to the local sanitary sewer; clean sludge
would be disposed of at a local landfill. The immediate removal
action on the site was started on April 5, 1989 with most of the
well work done by May 6, 1989. All site removal action
activities were completed by June 29, 1989.
The removal action's project cost ceiling was originally
approved at $188, 433. The project cost ceiling was subsequently
increased by $57,567 on May 1, 1989 due to necessity of using
more sophisticated methods of abandoning the wells. Clean-up
services were performed by Riedel Environmental Services, Inc.,
under the ERGS Zone IV contract. Riedel employed the services of
Kaggiora Brothers, a well drilling company, to perform the
majority of the well closure activities. The TAT contractor
assisting the OSC in overseeing the removal activities was
Ecology and Environment, Inc.
-------
;1) Audit Report Title
(2) Audit Report
"(4) AIC F. .
(6) Signatory Official
(7) Staff Days Used:
Less Trainee Time:
0 ? C Ac r,''i r,<*<;
f'a
(3)
Issue Date
(5) Supervisor ft
b/6-A us 6
If
GRID Computer Credit:
Total Staff Days:
(8) Cost of Audit X V..;~
/
IOTEPNAL
/ / National
/7 Pilot
/T Follow-on
Single Location
/ / Other (identify)
(9) Type of Audit:
[J EXTERNAL
[7 Request by SPA staff
/ / Hotline complaint
/ / Request by U.S. Attorney
/__/ Congressional request
fj Initiated by OIG
/__/ Interim audit
/__/ Followup work
7~7 Other (identify)
(10) Other Audit Results:
Referrals to DIGI
/_/ Referrals for additional external ajdits
/~7 Suggestions for annual audit plan (internal)
7 7 Deficiencies in SPA performance/programs also reported to orooram
officials (for external audits only)
7~7 Recommendations to program staff for administrative actions and/or
legal actions against program participants
£7 Other (identify)
Reasons for Delay (Be as specific as possible as to reasons and period of time.)
.Assigned
Started
Draft Report
Final Report
Slaosed Time
------- |