•. eeet
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
. SEP 26 1991
.
1» THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
(priority requirements that arise. Substitutions will occur as
^ Deeded.
-s* ** '
o o HEADQUAMRS LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
-------
Since the Congress has not yet passed the Agency's budget
for fiscal 1992, the staffing and contract levels used in this
Audit Plan are based on the fiscal 1991 levels. We will revise
the plan to correspond to the resource levels approved in the
fiscal 1992 budget.
Should your staff have any questions concerning our audit
initiatives, please have then contact Kenneth A. Konz, Assistant
Inspector General for Audit, on 260-1106.
Jbhnc. Marti
Attachment
-------
Addresses •• '-
William K. Reilly
Administrator
F. Henry Habicht II
Deputy Administrator
Thomas P. Dunne, Acting
Associate Administrator
for Regional Operations and
State/Local Relations
Timothy Atkesbn
Assistant Administrator
for International Activities
Christian Holmes, Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources Management
Linda J. Fisher
Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances
William 6. Rosenberg
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
Erich W. Bretthauer
Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development
LaJuana Wilcher
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Edward Reich, Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement
Richard Horgenstem, Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
_
-------
-------
Patrick H. Quinn
Associate Administrator for
Congressional and Legislative Affairs
Lewis S.W. cranpton
Associate Administrator for
Communications and Legislative Affairs
Ray Ludwiszewski, Acting
General Counsel
John J. Sandy
Agency Follow-up Official
Peter B. Nobert
Agency Follow-up Coordinator
Julie Belaga
Regional Administrator, Region 1
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator, Region 2
Edwin B. Erickson
Regional Administrator, Region 3
Greer C. Tidwell
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Valdus V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator, Region 5
Robert E. Layton, Jr.
Regional Administrator, Region 6
Morris Kay
Regional Administrator, Region 7
James Scherer
Regional Administrator, Region 8
Daniel W. McGovern
Regional Administrator, Region 9
Dana A. Rasmussen
Regional Administrator, Region 10
.
-------
-------
FISCAL 1992 AUDIT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS .
Page
Executive Summary i
Introduction 1-1
Types of Audits 1-2
Fiscal 1992 Audit Plan 1-4
Utilization of Audit Resources 1-6
Audit Priorities 1-8
Contents of Plan 1-8
Exhibits and Schedules
Exhibit A—Total Direct Resources in Staff Days 2-1
Schedule 1—In-House Resources Available
in Staff Days 2-2
Schedule 2—Estimated Grant and Contract Resources
Available in Staff Days 2-3
Exhibit B—Allocation of Direct Resources to Assignments
in Staff Days 3-1
Schedule 1—Allocation of Direct Resources to
Salary and Expense Financial Audits
in Staff Days 3-2
Schedule 2—Allocation of Direct Resources to
Salary and Expense Performance Audits
in Staff Days 3-3
Schedule 3—Allocation of Direct Resources to
Superfund Financial Audits
in Staff Days ; 3-4
Schedule 4—Allocation of Direct Resources to
Superfund Performance Audits
in Staff Days 3-5
Schedule 4—Allocation of Direct Resources to
LUST Performance Audits
in Staff Days 3-6
-------
-------
Tabs
Salary and Expense Listing of Financial
Audits TAB
Salary and Expense Listing of Performance Audits TAB
Superfund Listing of Financial Audits TAB
Superfund Listing of Performance Audits TAB
LUST Listing of Performance Audits TAB
.
-------
-------
FISCAL 1992 AUDIT PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During fiscal 1992, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) will
continue to focus its efforts to help Agency management
accomplish its mission. The Office of Inspector General works to
significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Agency
programs and operations while reducing its vulnerability to loss.
The Office is committed to help Agency management identify how
the Agency can improve the utilization of its resources and
authority for the greater environmental protection. By providing
independent and balanced audit coverage, our work will help the
Agency more efficiently and effectively meet its environmental
and regulatory responsibilities.
This Audit Plan provides an aggressive and a solid balance of
necessary audit coverage to meet our key responsibilities under
the Inspector General Act of 1978 and the Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988. The plan addresses our statutorily mandated
audits as well as our self-initiated audits covering a wide range
of Agency programs, organizations, functions, and activities.
The Audit Plan was formulated to address the Agency's high
priority needs. The Audit Plan also reflects the Office of
Inspector General and Agency management concerns with the early
prevention of fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. These
concerns are reflected throughout the planning process beginning
when audits are selected for inclusion. The plan culminates a
combined effort to identify potential auditable areas. These
suggestions were then scrutinized and ranked, considering both
the Agency's initiatives and mission, and the OIG's
responsibilities and available resources. Our efforts are far
reaching in providing the necessary audit coverage that will
ultimately contribute to improvements in the Agency's most
critical programs, organizations, functions and activities.
The Audit Plan incorporates our new audit approach initiated in
fiscal 1991 to provide a more comprehensive audit coverage of
several key Agency program areas. We will continue to address
several broad-range issues or "themes11 over the next several
years. This approach provides a more focused and extensive
coverage of a program area than the scope of an individual audit,
thus allowing a better picture of an Agency program, function or
activity. We plan to continue this approach in our encompassing
reviews of financial management, contract management, contract
laboratories, regional-state oversight of Agency grant programs,
pesticides, and Superfund areas with completion expected beyond
fiscal 1992.
-------
We will focus a portion of the Audit Plan's resources on several
of the Agency's strategic initiatives where we can make a
significant contribution to the Agency's long-term effectiveness.
The financial and management integrity initiative involves our
role in moving the Agency's procurement and contract/grant
management to a new level of quality and.efficiency as we begin
to establish an enhanced presence at the Agency's procurement and
finance centers. This initiative also includes our work as
required by the Chief Financial Officers' Act. We are
implementing a strategy to perform audits of the Agency's
financial statements and work with the Agency to implement the
Act's other key provisions. Our work in the scientific integrity
initiative involves our role to improve the integrity of data the
Agency uses in it decision-making processes affecting
environmental approaches.
We plan to provide 253.1 years of direct audit resources to
ensure effective and sustained coverage of the Agency's programs,
organization, functions and activities. Our direct audit
resources are available from in-house staff, 178 staff years, and
through contracts with certified public accounting firms, state
audit organizations, and others, 75.1 staff years. Our direct
audit resources will be used to perform both performance audits
and financial audits.
The OIG's Office of Audit will devote 52 percent of the direct
in-house resources to performance audits. Performance audits are
made of selected EPA programs and operations to evaluate the
economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which these activities
are being performed and determine whether the anticipated
objectives are being achieved. Our performance audits are
intended to reduce the extent of fraud, waste, and abuse in the
use of Federal funds and to improve the management of Federal
programs so that limited resources are used more effectively and
efficiently. Many of the planned performance audits reflect our
concern with the early prevention of fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement. Through improvements in internal controls and
fraud prevention measures, these reviews are far reaching in
contributing to the overall effectiveness of EPA's programs.
Our performance audits will encompass a wide range of EPA
programs and activities. Examples of planned performance audits
include reviews of: the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
inventory system, labeling of pesticides, and Integrated
Financial Management System data integrity.
We will also conduct financial audits which determine the
validity of claims submitted for payment by recipients of EPA
assistance or benefits and the degree to which recipients are
complying with legal and administrative conditions. Our
financial audit program focuses on recipients of EPA grants and
contracts. In fiscal 1992, we will continue to be actively
ii
-------
involved with Superfund contractors especially where we have . .
assumed a Federal cognizance role, the mega-grantee recipients
under the construction grants program, and the State Revolving
Loan Program. We have expanded our role in the contract audit
area to improve audit coverage of the Agency's major contractors
including a better coordinated effort with our Office of
Investigations and other federal audit organizations.
Independent public accountants under contract with our office
will be responsible for auditing most of the construction
grantees' and contractors' claims for reimbursement. Audit
services from other Federal agencies also supplement our direct
audit resources. These agencies audit EPA funds involved as part
of their ongoing audit workload of grant or contract recipients
and proportionately bill us for the audit services.
Our plan encompasses our statutory mandated audits including our
annual responsibilities under Superfund as required by Superfund
Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and the Chief
Financial Officers' Act. SARA requires audits of all payments,
obligations, reimbursements, or other uses of the Hazardous
Substance Trust Fund in the prior fiscal year; audits of claims;
examination of a sample of agreements with states carrying out
response actions; examination of remedial investigations and
feasibility studies prepared for remedial actions; submission to
Congress of an annual report on the above activities; and our
review of the Agency's annual progress report to the Congress for
reasonableness and accuracy. The Chief Financial Officers' Act
requires our office to annually audit the Agency's financial
statement. Other mandated work includes reviews of the Agency's
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) report to the
President, prohibition against lobbying, and controls over
advisory and assistance services.
We also plan to initiate other reviews in the Superfund area to
help the Agency better manage its program, organization,
functions and activities. Examples of planned Superfund
performance audits include reviews of: project officer oversight
on Superfund contracts, contract laboratories' chain of custody
for samples, and potential responsible party searches.
In addition, we will continue our efforts to following up on the
findings and recommendations included in prior audit reports. We
will determine whether the corrective actions agreed to were
taken and whether improvements in the effectiveness or efficiency
of the program or function reviewed were realized. Also, when
conducting our reviews, we will examine the results of the
Agency's FMFIA review of internal control systems for the
particular program, operation or activity.
This plan will be affected by changing circumstances. The plan
is flexible enough to permit changes throughout the year to
accommodate higher priority requirements that may arise. For
iii
-------
example/ we periodically receive priority requests from Agency
management, the Congress, or the Office of Management and Budget
to study and report back to them on a special problem area or
concern. Therefore, we must continually reevaluate and modify
the audit plan.
/•
The schedules that follow show the sources of our resources, and
how they will be allocated. We have also included a writeup of
each type of financial audit and each performance audit which is
either underway or will be started in fiscal 1992.
iv
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452), as
amended, created Offices of Inspector General to consolidate
audit and investigative resources in independent organizations,
headed by Inspectors General. EPA established its Office of
Inspector General (OIG) in January 1980.
The OIG's role is to review EPA financial transactions, program
operations, and administrative activities; investigate
allegations or evidence of possible criminal and civil
violations; and promote economic, efficient, and effective Agency
operations. The OIG is also responsible for reviewing proposed
legislation and regulations. In short, OIG focuses on audits,
investigations, and other activities and provides a leadership
role to eliminate fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement from
Federal programs and operations both within the Agency and in
non-Federal entities that receive assistance. In carrying out
these activities, the Inspector General reports periodically to
the Congress, works closely with the other Federal agencies, and
keeps the Administrator and Agency management informed about the
our activities.
The OIG's Assistant Inspector General for Audit manages the
Office of Audit which:
1. Plans, conducts, supervises, and coordinates audits of
Agency programs;
2. Develops a work plan of audits to be conducted;
3. Develops a long range work plan for performance audits
for all the Agency programs;
4. Assists in the reviews of existing and proposed
legislation and regulations and provides the Inspector
General with comments on the impact such legislation
and regulations may have on the economy and efficiency
of the Agency's programs and operations;
5. Informs the Agency of indications of fraud, abuses, and
serious deficiencies disclosed through audits of Agency
programs;
6. Recommends policies for and provides liaison with other
Federal, state, local, and private audit organizations;
1-1
-------
7. Assures that audits are performed in accordance with.
standards established by the Comptroller General of the
United States; <
8. Assures that an adequate system exists for the followup
of audit recommendations and for reporting results to
the Inspector General and Agency management; and
9. Refers allegations and indications of fraud, illegal
acts and irregularities to the OIG's Office of
Investigations.
TYPES OF AUDITS
The Office of Audit's responsibilities are discharged through two
broad categories of audits:
1. Performance Audits
Performance audits include economy and efficiency and program
audits:
a. Economy and efficiency audits include determining (1)
whether the entity is acquiring, protecting, and using
its resources (such as personnel, property, and space)
economically and efficiently, (2) the cause of
inefficiencies or uneconomical practices, and (3)
whether the entity has complied with laws and
regulations concerning matters of economy and
efficiency.
b. Program audits include determining (1) the extent to
which the desired results or benefits established by the
legislature or other authorizing body are being
achieved, (2) the effectiveness of organizations,
programs, activities, or functions, and (3) whether the
entity has complied with laws and regulations applicable
to the program.
Performance audits are made of selected Agency programs and
activities to evaluate their effectiveness and to determine
whether the anticipated objectives are being achieved. When
performance audits with similar findings are performed by
more than one division, we frequently combine the results
and issue a consolidated report to Headquarters.
1-2
-------
2. Financial Audits
Financial audits include financial statements and financial
related audits:
a. Financial statement audits determine (1) whether the
entity has complied with laws and regulations for those
transactions and events that may have a material effect
on the financial statements; and (2) whether the
financial statements of an audited entity present fairly
the financial position, results of operations, and cash
flows or changes in financial position in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles.
b. Financial related audits include determining (1) whether
financial reports and related items such as elements,
accounts, or funds are fairly presented; (2) whether
financial information is presented in accordance with
established or stated criteria; and (3) whether the
entity has adhered to specific financial compliance
requirements.
Financial audits are independent reviews of records of
organizations or entities receiving financial assistance or
benefits from the Agency, such as grant recipients, Super-
fund and construction grant contractors, and subcontractors.
Audits may also be conducted within the Agency's program
offices. Financial audits include our work conducted under
the Chief Financial Officers' Act requiring audits of the
Agency's financial statements. The OI6 conducts financial
audits or arranges for audits by independent public
accountants, or state and Federal audit agencies.
The financial audits are a means of ascertaining the degree
of compliance with statutes, regulations, and terms and
conditions of the agreements under which the Federal funds
are made available. Determinations are also made regarding
the propriety of expenditures.
There are five basic types of financial audits which we
perform:
Preaward Audits and Systems Reviews,
Interim Audits,
Final Audits,
Indirect Costs Audits, and
Compliance Audits.
1-3
-------
FISCAL 1992 AUDIT PLAN
This Audit Plan provides an aggressive and a solid balance of
necessary audit coverage to meet our key responsibilities under
the Inspector General Act of 1978 and the Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988. The plan addresses bur statutorily mandated
audits as well as our self-initiated audits covering a wide range
of Agency programs, organizations, functions, and activities.
This plan, developed in accordance with the requirements of OMB
Circular A-73 Revised, provides audit coverage of the Agency's
internal and external activities. OMB Circular A-73 requires
each agency to establish procedures requiring periodic review of
individual programs and operations to determine the coverage,
frequency and priority of audits required. This Audit Plan was
formulated to address the Agency's high priority needs.
The Audit Plan also reflects the OIG and Agency management
concerns with the early prevention of fraud, waste, abuse and
mismanagement. The OIG general policy is to target its audit
efforts and staff resources into areas where the Agency's
vulnerability to fraud, waste and mismanagement is most material.
This policy is reflected throughout the audit planning process.
The criteria for implementing this policy includes the priority
factors stated in OMB Circular A-73 Revised, and the Inspector
General Act of 1978 mandate to prevent and detect fraud and
program abuse.
These priority factors are grouped into the following categories
to facilitate the rating process.
1. Materiality
a. Dollar magnitude; and
b. Extent of Federal participation in terms of resources or
regulatory authority, or significance on the overall
Agency program.
2. Vulnerability
a. Susceptibility to occurrence of fraud, embezzlement,
program abuse, or other types of irregularities;
b. Prior audit experience;
c. Adequacy of the financial management systems and
controls;
1-4
-------
d. Results .of other evaluations, e.g., inspections, program
reviews, etc.;
e. Timeliness, reliability, and scope of audits performed by
others, such as state and local government auditors and
Independent Public Accountants;
f. Newness, changed conditions, or sensitivity of the
organization, program, activity, or function; and
g. Adequacy of internal .control systems as indicated by
vulnerability assessments and internal control reviews
required by OMB Circular A-123, "Internal Control
Systems."
3. Additional Consideration. Special Concerns
a. Legislative requirements;
b. Emphasis by the President or Administrator;
c. Management needs to be met, as developed in consultation
with the responsible program officials; and
d. Availability of audit resources.
Audits planned to be performed during fiscal 1992 reflect these
factors. The Audit Plan incorporates suggestions received from
Agency management and OIG staffs nationwide. The plan culminates
a combined effort to identify potential auditable areas. These
suggestions were then scrutinized and ranked considering both the
Agency's initiatives and mission, and the OIG's responsibilities
and available resources. The OIG is committed to help Agency
management identify how the Agency can improve the utilization of
its resources and authority for the greatest environmental
protection. Our efforts are far reaching in providing the
necessary audit coverage that will ultimately contribute to
improvements in the Agency's most critical programs,
organizations, functions and activities.
The Audit Plan incorporates our new audit approach initiated in
fiscal 1991 to provide a more comprehensive audit coverage of
several key Agency program areas. We will continue to address
several broad-range issues or "themes" over the next several
years. This approach provides a more focused and extensive
coverage of a program area than the scope of an individual audit,
thus allowing a better picture of a Agency program, function or
activity. We plan to continue this approach in our encompassing
reviews of financial management, contract management, contract
laboratories, regional-state oversight of Agency grant programs,
1-5
-------
pesticides, and Superfund areas with completion expected beyond
fiscal 1992.
In addition to new audits planned, we will devote direct staff
resources to follow up on findings and recommendations included
in prior audit reports. We will determine whether corrective
actions agreed to were taken and whether the improvements in the
effectiveness and efficiency of the program or function examined
were realized. Also, reflecting a renewed emphasis on the
importance of good internal controls, we will consider the
results of Agency efforts under the Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act for the particular program or activity being
audited in determining the scope of the audit effort. About 52
percent of the Office of Audit's direct staff resources are
dedicated to performance audits of the Agency's programs,
organizations, functions and activities.
Our detailed performance audit schedule will be updated prior to
the start of each quarter. At that time, we will.also complete
detailed writeups for the performance audits that are to start
during that quarter. We believe that updating quarterly, about
15 days in advance of the start of the quarter, allows us to
better respond to changing priorities resulting from audit
trends, Agency and Congressional inquiries and other requests.
The plan contains carryover audit assignments from fiscal 1991
and includes all audits scheduled to begin during fiscal 1992.
UTILIZATION OF AUDIT RESOURCES
For fiscal 1992, the Office of Audit will have 243 staff years of
effort from in-house resources. Independent public accounting
firms, state audit organizations, and technical support, will
provide an additional 85.6 years of effort under contract with
the Office of Audit. A portion of the resources available are
funded by the Superfund and Leaking Underground Storage Tank
appropriations and must be used for audits of these programs.
Sixty-five of the 243 staff years available from in-house
resources are for secretarial support, management functions,
technical assistance and guidance, developing and completing
policy, planning, and participating on Agencywide Task Forces.
1-6
-------
In-House Contract Total
Direct Resources Staff Years Staff Years Staff Years
Resources Available
for Audit Assignments 178.0 75.1 253.1
Indirect Resources
Secretarial, Management,
and General Support 65.0 10.5 75.5
TOTAL 243.0 85.6 328.6
The allocation of the resources available is as follows:
In-House Contract Total
Activity Staff Years Staff Years Staff Years
Performance
Superfund 31.1 — 31.1
LUST 1.6 — 1.6
Other EPA Programs 59.0 — 59.0
Subtotal 91.7 — 91.7
Agency Assistance
Superfund 1.5 — 1.5
Other EPA Programs 6.0 — 6.0
Subtotal . 7.5 — 7.5
Financial
Superfund 25.1 45.5 70.6
LUST 1.4 — 1.4
Other EPA Programs 52.3 29.6 81.9
Subtotal 78.8 75.1 153.9
Total Resources
Available for
Allocation 178.0 75.1 253.1
Exhibit A and accompanying schedules provide a summary of the
resources available by audit division and Headquarters staff
function.
Audit services from other Federal agencies also supplement our
direct audit resources. We also receive audit services from
other Federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human
Services and the Defense Contract Audit Agency. As part of their
audits of grant or contact recipients receiving funds from
\
1-7
-------
various sources,:these agencies will audit the EPA funds involved
and bill us our proportional share for performing the audit.
Therefore, we have not included the other Federal agencies' time
in our resource estimates.
AUDIT PRIORITIES
With the limited audit resources available, the Office of Audit
can only accomplish a portion of the workload requirements. In
developing the Fiscal 1992 Audit Plan, we considered the criteria
contained in OMB Circular A-73, including:
1. Statutory and regulatory requirements;
2. Newness, changed conditions, or sensitivity of the
organization, program, activity, or function.
3. Current and potential dollar magnitude;
4. Management needs to be met, including key management
decision dates, as developed in consultation with the
responsible program officials and senior management; and
5. Availability of audit resources.
When establishing the sequence in which audits will be performed,
we consider the assignment's priority and resource availability
to assure that assignments are conducted in an .efficient and
effective manner. Exhibit B and accompanying schedules provide
the allocation of direct resources by activity and audit
division.
CONTENTS OF PLAN
Exhibit A: Includes information on the resources the Office of
Audit has available for its use, both in-house and
through contract.
Exhibit B: Includes information on our financial audit function,
our Agency assistance activities and our performance
audits by appropriation.
TABS Writeups are included for each type of financial
audit and each performance audit which is either
underway or planned to be started in fiscal 1992.
1-8
-------
EXHIBIT A
FY 1992 AUDIT PLAN
TOTAL DIRECT RESOURCES
(Staffdays)
IN-HOUSE CONTRACT/ TOTAL
GRANT
Audit Divisions
Eastern 5200 2770 7970
Mid-Atlantic 4400 3500 7900
Southern 4600 1200 5800
Northern 5000 2830 7830
Central , 2600 820 3420
Western 4800 4230 9030
Internal. 5200 4170 9370
Total Audit Divisions 31800 19520 51320
Headquarters
Immediate Office - AIGA 400 0 400
Planning & Res. Hgm't 0 0 0
Audit Operations 2200 0 2200
Technical Assistance 5000 0 5000
Total Headquarters 7600 0 7600
TOTAL DIRECT RESOURCES 39400 19520 58920
2-1
September 1991
-------
EXHIBIT A, SCHEDULE 1
FY 1992 AUDIT PLAN
IN-HOUSE RESOURCES AVAILABLE
(FULL TINE EQUIVALENTS)*
AUTHORIZED
LEVELS
LESS CLERICALS
AND NON-DIRECTS
DIRECT
RESOURCES
DIRECT
DAYS
Audit Divisions
Eastern
Mid-Atlantic
Southern
Northern
Central
Western
Internal
29
24
26
28
14
27
28
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
26
22
23
25
13
24
26
5200
4400
4600
5000
2600
4800
5200
Total Audit Divisions
176
17
159
31800
Headquarters
Immediate Office - AIGA 8
Planning & Res. Mgm't 13
•Audit Operations 13
Technical Assistance 33
Total Headquarters 67
6
13
2
8
29
2
0
11
25
38
400
0
2200
5000
7600
TOTAL IN-HOUSE RESOURCES
243
46
197
39400
* Quarterly updates to the Annual Plan will be prepared on the basis
of actual staff-on-board rather than the authorized levels shown.
For that reason the four quarterly updates Mill not equal the levels
shown in this schedule. The offree is allowed to hire above their FTE
level; staff-on-board, at tines. Mill exceed the authorized FTE level.
2-2
September 1991
-------
EXHIBIT A, SCHEDULE 2
FY 1992 AUDIT PLAN
ESTIMATED GRANT AND CONTRACT RESOURCES AVAILABLE
SALARY AND EXPENSE
Audit Divisions
Eastern
Mid-Atlantic
Southern
Northern
Central
Western
Internal
Total Audit Divisions
ESTIMATED
AMOUNT
$566,900
477,100
273,700
448,700
187,200
816,900
2,770,500
STAFFDAYS
(Rounded)
1570
1330
760
1250
520
2270
7700
SUPERFUND
ESTIMATED
AMOUNT
$432,300
779,800
158,700
567,300
108,600
707,300
1,500,000
4,254,000
TOTAL
STAFFDAYS
STAFFDAYS
(Rounded)
1200
2170
440
1580
300
1960
4170
11820
2770
3500
1200
2830
820
4230
4170
19520
Headquarters*
Imnediate Office • AIGA
Planning & Res. Mgm't
Audit Operations
Technical Assistance
Total Headquarters
TOTAL GRANT AND
CONTRACT RESOURCES
244,700
216,700
461,400
$3,231,900
680
600
1280
8980
113,900
100,000
301,700
320
280
840
1000
280
1440
515,600
$4,769,600
sssss
1440
2720
13260
22240
* Headquarter's contract resources are considered indirect for uorkp I arming purposes.
** The Office has an additional $3,427,800 reserved for payments
to other Federal audit agencies under interageney agreements:
$2,571,100 of this amount is for Superfund assignments, <
$856,700 is for Salary and Expense assignments.
2-3
Sept enter 1991
-------
-------
FY 1992 AUDIT PLAN (243 Level)
ALLOCATION OF DIRECT RESOURCES TO ASSIGNMENTS
(STAFF DAYS)
EXHIBIT B
Type of Audit
AUDIT DIVISIONS
EAD HAD SAD NAD CAD WAD IAD
HO UNITS
AO TA SP REV TOTAL
In- House Resources
Salary and Expense
Financial 1
Other Direct 2
Performance 3
1790 1280 1500 1440 770 1830 525 370 970 0 10475
150 150 200 150 50 150 350 0 0 0 1200
1220 500 1350 1280 610 980 2800 625 2030 400 11795
Total Salary and Expense
Superfund
Financial 4
Other Direct 2
Performance 5
Total Superfund
LUST 6
Financial
Performance
Total LUST
Supervision
Total In- House Resources
Contract Resources
Salary and Expense
Superfund
Total Contract Resources
3160
700
20
900
1620
20
0
20
400
5200
1570
1200
2770
1930
900
50
1100
2050
20
0
20
400
4400
1330
2170
3500
3050
250
50
750
1050
100
0
100
400
4600
760
440
1200
2870
810
50
600
1460
20
250
270
400
5000
1250
1580
2830
1430
400
50
300
750
20
0
20
400
2600
520
300
820
2960
700
20
700
1420
20
0
20
400
4800
2270
1960
4230
3675
625
60
365
1050
75
0
75
400
5200
4170
4170
995
330
0
400
730
0
75
75
400
2200
0
3000
300
0
1100
1400
0
0
0
600
5000
-•
0
400 23470
5015
300
6215
11530
275
325
600
3800
400 39400
7700
11820
19520
Total Direct Resources
7970 7900 5800 7830 3420 9030 9370 2200 5000 400 58920
(a) Special Review is part of the Immediate Office.
1 For details, see Exhibit B, Schedule 1
2 This time is for assisting investigators and agency liasion.
3 For details, see Exhibit B. Schedule 2
4 For details, see Exhibit B, Schedule 3
5 For details, see Exhibit B, Schedule 4
6 For details, see Exhibit B, Schedule 5
3-1
SEPTEMBER 1991
-------
FY 1992 AUDIT PLAN (243 Level) .
ALLOCATION OF DIRECT RESOURCES
TO SALARY AND EXPENSE FINANCIAL AUDITS
(STAFF DAYS)
EXHIBIT B, SCHEDULE 1
AUDIT DIVISIONS
EAD HAD SAD NAD CAD UAD
IAD
NQ UNITS
AO TA
TOTAL Ref
In-House Resources
Construction Grant and
State Revolving Fund Audits
Contracts
Audit Resolution & Follouup
Single Audit (A-128 & A-133)
Implementation of CFO Act
Total In-House Resources
1290
100
200
200
630
250
200
200
1000
100
200
200
790
250
200
200
520
100
50
100
1080
350
200
200
200
100
70
525
970
1790 1280 1500 1440 770 1830 525 370 970
Contract Resources
Total Direct Resources
1570 1330 760 1250 520 2270
3360 2610 2260 2690 1290 4100 525 370 970
SSE FIN 1.2 & 3
6480 & Note 1
1250 S&E FIN 4 & Note 2
1120 SSE FIN 5
1100 S&E FIN 6
525 S&E FIN 7
10475
7700
18175
Note 1
This category includes time allocated to monitoring contractors, and performing Early
Warning System Reviews.
Note 2
In 1992, each division will be responsible for tracking and controlling requests
made to DCAA offices in their geographic area. It also includes time
for monitoring contactors doing contract audits.
3-2
SEPTEMBER 1991
-------
EXHIBIT B, SCHEDULE 2
FT 1992 AUDIT PLAN (243 Level)
ALLOCATION OF DIRECT RESOURCES .
' TO SALARY AND EXPENSE PERFORMANCE AUDITS
(STAFF DAYS)
AUDIT DIVISIONS HQ UNITS
BAD HAD SAD BAD CAD WAD IAD AO TA SP REV TOTAL
Total In-House Resources 1220 500 1350 1280 610 980 2800 625 2030 400 11795
NOTE: In cases where divisions follouup on prior audits as part
of the IG's Special Follouup Initiative, time will be
taken from this category.
3-3 SEPTEMBER 1991
-------
EXHIBIT B, SCHEDULE 3
FY 1992 AUDIT PLAN (243 Level)
ALLOCATION OF DIRECT RESOURCES
TO SUPERFUND FINANCIAL AUDITS
(STAFF DAYS)
AUDIT DIVISIONS HO UNITS
EAD NAD SAD NAD CAD WAD IAD AO TA TOTAL
In-House Resources
Contract, 1AG, Other Audits 660 860 210 770 370 660 550 330 300 4710 Note 1
Audit FoUowup 40 40 40 40 30 40 75 — — 305
Total In-House Resources 700 900 250 810 400 700 625 330 300 5015
Contract Resources 1200 2170 440 1580 300 1960 4170 -• -- 11820
Total Direct Resources 1900 3070 690 2390 700 2660 4795 330 300 16835
Note 1
Includes time for monitoring DIG contractors hired to audit various grants and contracts.
3-4 SEPTEMBER 1991
-------
FY 1992 AUDIT PLAN (243 Level)
ALLOCATION OF DIRECT RESOURCES
TO SUPERFUND PERFORMANCE AUDITS
(STAFF DAYS)
AUDIT DIVISIONS
EAD MAD SAD NAD CAD WAD IAD
EXHIBIT B, SCHEDULE 4
HO UNITS
AO TA
Total In-House Resources
TOTAL
900 1100 750 600 300 700 365 400 1100 6215
NOTE: In cases uhere divisions follouup on prior Superfund audits
as part of the IC's Special Followup Initiative, time uiU
be taken from this category.
3-5
SEPTEMBER 1991
-------
EXHIBIT B, SCHEDULE 5
FY 1992 AUDIT PLAN (243 Level)
ALLOCATION OF DIRECT RESOURCES
TO LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK AUDITS
(STAFF DAYS)
AUDIT DIVISIONS HQ UNITS
EAD MAD SAD NAD CAD WAD IAD AO TA TOTAL
In-House Resources
Financial 20 20 100 20 20 20 75 0 0 275 Note 1
Performance 000 2SO 0 0 0 75 0 325
Total LUST 20 20 100 270 20 20 75 75 0 600
Note 1 IAD's LUST Time is for the CFO function.
3-6 SEPTEMBER 1991
-------
S&E FINANCIAL AUDITS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Early Warning System Reviews ............
State Revolving Fund Program
Construction Grants Audits ,
Contract Audits
Audit Followup
OMB Circular A-128 and A-133 Audits
implementation of the Chief
Financial Officer's Act
S&E FINANCIAL 1
S&E FINANCIAL 2
S&E FINANCIAL 3
S&E FINANCIAL 4
S&E FINANCIAL 5
S&E FINANCIAL 6
S&E FINANCIAL 7
-------
-------
EARLY WARNING SYSTEM REVIEWS
4
Early Warning System Reviews are conducted to identify
significant issues or problems that need immediate attention.
These reviews range from financial and internal control problems
to environmental issues. The purpose is to enable EPA management
to expeditiously correct potentially serious problems before they
get worse. These reviews can catch problems as they are
developing (e.g. by reviewing the early stages of a remedial
action at a Superfund site). They can also signal that problems
are about to surface (e.g. by reporting on a construction grant
project that is experiencing excessive delays or unexpected
modifications).
Our recent efforts have focused on joint audit/engineering
approaches to reviewing and reporting on "problem" grants and
contracts projects. Our experience has shown that a need exists
to identify potential problem projects early in their life and to
recommend that EPA management take appropriate corrective action.
This approach is an effort to avert the expenditures before large
sums are wasted and/or the grantee or contractor files for
bankruptcy. All field divisions will perform Early Warning
reviews in fiscal 1992.
S&E FINANCIAL 1
-------
-------
STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF1 PROGRAM
v
In addition to construction grants,for wastewater treatment
projects, which EPA made through the end of fiscal 1990, the
Water Quality Act of 1987 authorizes EPA to make capitalization
grants from fiscal 1988 through 1994, inclusive, for states to
establish SRFs. Since it appears states will be able to make SRF
loans as soon as a capitalization agreement is entered into with
EPA, EPA should ensure that satisfactory management of SRF exists
and that such loans are proper.
From the SRFs, states can provide loans and other types of
financial assistance to local communities and intermunicipal and
interstate agencies facilities for the implementation of the
nonpoint source of pollution management programs and for the
development and implementation of a conservation and management
plan under the National Estuary Program. However, SRFs cannot be
used to provide grants. SRFs are intended to fund the above
programs in perpetuity with EPA's last capitalization grant
scheduled for the end of fiscal 1994.
These audits will evaluate state, regional, and loan recipient
fiscal controls to see if they are adequate from a statutory,
regulatory, and accounting perspective.
The audit could be carried out as follows:
— Perform initial survey of SRF fiscal controls in place for
5 to 8 state programs and of 2 to 3 loan recipients per
state, if available;
— Perform future followup audit to reevaluate controls.
Each field divisional office has been given at least 100 staff
days to perform the audit of the use of the SRF program funds.
S&E FINANCIAL 2
-------
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS AUDITS
Although the Agency's direct funding of grants to wastewater
treatment works construction ended in fiscal 1990, the OIG will
continue to audit a portion of the completed projects to ensure
that the Federal funds involved were expended in accordance with
the grant conditions.
The Office of Audit directs its resources to those projects where
it will achieve the greatest pay back for the investment in the
audits. Historically, our ratio of questioned cost to the cost
of the audit have remained high.
S&E FINANCIAL 3
-------
-------
CONTRACT AUDITS
We have dedicated ourselves to a program, that will provide strong
oversight to the Agency's contract funds. Audits of the Agency's
contractors can provide contracting officials with information
necessary to effectively award a contract, substantiate the
claims submitted for payment, determine compliance with legal and
administrative conditions, and identify potential indicators of
fraud, illegal acts or irregularities.
We have expanded our role in the contract area to improve
coverage of the Agency's major contractors. To deal with major
contractors on a comprehensive basis, we have assigned
responsibility for overseeing and coordinating audits for each of
the Agency's top 25 contractors to a single OIG field division.
We have formally assumed audit cognizance for 12 contractors, and
as resources and expertise permit, we plan to assume cognizance
for additional firms. We will increase our control over contract
audit requests made by the Agency to other federal audit
organizations and inform the cognizant auditor of any audit or
investigative work concerning the contractors for which they are
responsible. We have also established a better coordinated
effort with our Office of Investigations. Contact audits
encompass work needed for all programs including Superfund and
LUST.
S&E FINANCIAL 4
-------
-------
AUDIT FOLLOWUP
The audit followup time is used in.working with Agency officials
to resolve open audit recommendations, preparing cases for the
Audit Resolution Board, and assisting Agency officials in
reviewing grantee information provided to support a
redetermination.
S&E FINANCIAL 5
-------
-------
OMB CIRCULARS A-j.28 AND A-133 AUDITS
OMB Circular A-128 "Audits of State and Local Governments"
(single audits) and OMB Circular A-133 "Audits of Institutions of
Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Institutions" establishes
audit requirements for state and local governments, and institu-
tions of higher education and other nonprofit institutions.
These circulars require these recipients of Federal assistance to
conduct independent, organization-wide financial and compliance
audits and including a review of internal controls. Single
audits are to cover the entire operations of a state or local
government recipient, or at the option of that recipient, may
cover an agency, department, or establishment that received,
expended, or administered Federal financial assistance.
Federal agencies will continue to have cognizant and oversight
responsibilities. Federal agencies have been assigned cognizant
responsibilities for the major state and local governments and
oversight responsibilities for governmental units to which they
provide the most funds to oversee the implementation of the
Single Audit Act. Similarly, Federal agencies will be assigned
cognizant responsibilities for the larger nonprofit institutions
and oversight responsibilities for smaller nonprofit institutions
which are not assigned a cognizant agency but provide them with
the most funds.
S&E FINANCIAL 6
-------
-------
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS* ACT
As required by the Chief Financial Officers Act (Public Law 101-
576), the OIG will perform audits of the financial statements for
EPA's trust and revolving funds. During fiscal 1992, the Office
of Audit will begin audits of the Superfund, LUST and asbestos
trust funds, and two pesticide revolving funds. The scope of
these.audits will include tests of controls and compliance with
both financial and programmatic provisions.
In addition to performing the audits, the Office of Audit will
also be working with the Agency to implement other key provisions
of the Act. The projects we will jointly work on include develo-
pment of: (1) cost accounting information to support program
managers, OMB, Congress and others; (2) meaningful performance
indicators that can be used to measure the cost and effectiveness
of programs; and (3) qualifications and performance standards, as
well as training requirements for senior financial management
personnel. All of our planned activities will assist the Agency
in improving its financial management systems and internal
controls.
S&E FINANCIAL 7
-------
-------
S & E PERFORMANCE AUDITS
Financial Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process .
Contract Payment System
Senior Financial Management Officer
Qualifications1
New Starts
IFMS Data Input
Evaluation of Regions Implementation
and Oversight of the EPA Automated
Clearing House payment System1
FIN MGMT 1-1
FIN MGMT 2-1
Reconciling Cash
FIN MGMT 3
FIN MGMT 4
FIN MGMT 5
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Cpde.EIN
CONTRACT PAYMENT SYSTEM
Background .
The Contract Payment System (CPS) was installed at Research
Triangle Park in March 1987. This system controls contract
payments and provides a comprehensive financial data base for the
Agency's active contracts. It also has a full range of
management information capabilities. For example, it provides
detail and summary of contract award and invoice data. The
system also has an on-line inquiry capability, warehouses
invoices to meet the Prompt Payment Act, generates invoice
approval forms, allows for electronic approval for disbursement
of funds, and pays contract invoices.
Reasons for Selection
A previous survey of CPS focused on the manual controls over the
accuracy and validity of disbursements. Even though no
significant indicators of control weaknesses were found, the
automated controls of the system should be audited due to the
high dollar value of transactions it processes. During fiscal
1989 invoices totaling approximately $855 million were processed.
Also, Research Triangle Park personnel are testing a procedure
whereby project officers would approve invoices electronically.
The controls over this process should be examined since the
process could be vulnerable to fraud and abuse.
Expected Benefits
Our audit may result in recommendations to management on ways to
improve the controls and efficiency of the CPS.
Audit Objectives
The objectives of this audit are to determine when:
— adequate automated controls exist in the system to
minimize the risk of errors, omissions, fraud and abuse;
and
— controls are adequate to prevent duplicate payments.
Scope
We will review automated controls of CPS such as edit checks,
audit trails of data and program changes, read and write access
authority, and other appropriate areas of concern. We will also
FIN MGMT 1-1
-------
, PATS Code.E1N
develop and use computer assisted techniques to detect possible
duplicate payments.
Location and Resources
The audit work will be done mostly at the Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Some work will also be performed at EPA
Headquarters, Washington, DC. The audit will require
approximately 400 days. The audit team will consist of an audit
manager and 2 EDP Auditors.
FIN MGMT 1-2
-------
PATS Code E1A
SENIOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER QUALIFICATIONS
Background
Each year greater demands are being placed on the Agency's
financial managers due to legal, regulatory and technological
developments. The "Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990"
emphasizes the need to bring more effective general and financial
management practices to the Federal Government and "assure the
issuance of reliable financial information and . . . deter fraud,
waste, and abuse of Government resources." The Act requires OMB
to provide advice to agencies regarding the qualifications that
financial management personnel should have.
Reasons for Selection
The Agency has experienced various continuing problems in
financial management over the years. For example, receivables
have not been recorded accurately or collected in a timely
fashion. Another example of a recurring financial management
problem is that unliquidated grant balances that are no longer
needed have not been deobligated promptly.
A 1990 "Report on Continuing Professional Education" by the Joint
Financial Management Project Committee stressed the need for
specialized financial management training. The committee
reported that the Federal government does not have an effective
continuing professional education program. It is possible that ~
many of the Agency's regional financial management officers do
not have an accounting series rating. This could indicate they
do not have the formal educational background needed to fulfill
their financial management responsibilities in an optimal manner.
This audit should be performed to determine if the lack of
qualifications of key financial management personnel is a
contributing factor to the persistent financial management
problems that have been identified during various reviews over
the years.
Expected Benefits
This audit should identify offices where additional training or
special attention may be needed to assure that accounting and
financial matters are handled correctly and efficiently. As a
result of this attention, financial reporting systems should be
improved and financial information should be more adequately
presented.
FIN MGMT 2-1
-------
PATS Code.ElA
Objectives
The objective of this audit is to determine whether the Agency's
senior financial managers have the qualifications necessary for
them to be able to perform their duties adequately.
Scope
The review will focus on regional Financial Management Officers,
Senior Budget Officers, and Senior Financial Management Officials
in Headquarters.
Location and Resources
The fieldwork will be conducted primarily at EPA Headquarters.
However, since the review will include an examination of regional
financial management officers1 personnel records, which are kept
in regional personnel offices, brief, trips may be necessary to
each region reviewed.
FIN MGMT 2-2
-------
PATS Code.ElB
IFMS DATA INPUT
The Integrated Financial Management. System (IFMS) became
operational in March 1989. The Agency plans to implement
additional IFMS modules over the next several years. Entering
data in IFMS is more resource intensive than under the prior
system. More data is entered; more individuals are entering
data; and more and lengthier records are generated. In addition,
the layout of the entry screens requires more keystrokes. The
audit will examine whether: data is accurately entered into
IFMS; there are sufficient controls in place to ensure that
errors are quickly identified and corrected; and the data entry
process can be streamlined.
FIN MGMT 3
-------
-------
PATS Code.ElB
EVALUATION OF REGIONS IMPLEMENTATION
AND OVERSIGHT OF THE EPA AUTOMATED
CLEARING HOUSE PAYMENT SYSTEM
The EPA Automated Clearing House (ACH) Payment System is an
electronic funds transfer process EPA initiated to respond to the
U.S. Department of Treasury's elimination of the Treasury
Financial Communication System Letter of Credit. Under the
provisions in the Federal Acquisition Regulation guidelines,
procedures were established and recipients can begin requesting
funds based on their immediate disbursement requirements. This
is a new payment system with procedures not yet well established
and which has not been subject to audit. The audit will
determine whether: the regions and recipient organizations have
developed and effectively implemented policies, procedures and
controls for payments; the regions established effective controls
and procedures for timely and proper enrollment of recipients;
the regions have performed adequate oversight to assure
recipients compliance with EPA-ACH Payment System requirements;
and timely action has been taken to revoke recipients' letter of
credit after successful enrollment in the EPA-ACH* Payment System.
FIN MGMT 4
-------
-------
PATS Code E1B
RECONCILING CASH
The U.S. Treasury generally serves as the Agency's banker
and tracks the amount of "cash" available. Financial management
officers must reconcile Agency records on cash with those of the
Treasury. Based on the Agency's financial statements for fiscal
1987, the 6AO concluded there were weaknesses in the
reconciliation process. The implementation of the IFMS in March
1989 significantly changed disbursement procedures. The audit
will center on the reconciliation process and will review
disbursement, deposit and budgeting procedures. The audit will
determine if adequate policies, procedures, and controls are in
place to ensure that previously identified weaknesses have been
corrected.
FIN MGMT 5
-------
-------
Contract Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process
EPA Management of CSC Contract Activities CTR MGMT l-l
New Starts
Competition in Contracting CTR MGMT 2
QA Blue Team and Contract Operations
Review and Assessment Staff (CORAS)
Reviews and Followups1 CTR MGMT 3
ORD Contract Management1 CTR MGMT 4
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
: , PATS Code.BIN
EPA MANAGEMENT OF CSC CONTRACT ACTIVITIES
Background
Since the early 1970's, EPA has contracted with Computer
Science Corporation (CSC) on a nationwide basis to provide ADP
support, systems operations, and/or software maintenance at EPA
Headquarters, regional, laboratory, and ADP facilities. CSC
contracts have been "level of effort" type contracts based upon a
prescribed number of labor hours each year for specific labor
categories with fixed hourly rates for each labor category in the
contract. The cited CSC contracts were awarded as base year
contracts with four option years. However, the contract is
funded upon availability of annual appropriations. The contract
effective for fiscal 1990 was originally awarded October 1, 1985,
for fiscal 1986 with four option years. The last option year
was fiscal 1990. The maximum value of this contract was
established in 1985 at $175 million; however, the total payouts
over the five years were much higher due to an almost 100 percent
increase in CSC personnel under this contract. EPA awarded a new
contract to CSC in September 1990, effective through
September 30, 1995. The value of this contract for the five
years, based on the base year labor hours, is $347 million. The
number of CSC staff used by EPA offices has grown from 630 as of
March 31, 1987 to 1,014 as of January 31, 1991.
Reasons for Selection
A 1987 special review of EPA contract management of CSC
activities in one EPA region disclosed several potentially
significant deficiencies and apparent illegalities in EPA's
administration of past CSC contracts. These concerns included:
— Administration of the contract and contract employees
as a personal services contract which is prohibited by
the Service Contract Act of 1965 and 48 CFR Part 37;
— Unproductive or idle time of employees was charged to
EPA;
— Unqualified staff were supplied by contractor;
— Quality of work was not considered adequate by EPA
personnel administering the CSC delivery orders;
— Services provided by CSC were outside the scope of the
contract and related delivery orders (DOs);
CTR MGMT 1-1
-------
PATS Code BIN
— Determination of DO requirements was based on available
CSC staff rather than on workload requirements or
services needed; and
— Contractor oversight was inadequate to assure the
accuracy and legitimacy of the labor charges and adequacy
of the contractor performance.
A followup pilot audit in this same region, initiated in December
1990, has disclosed that the conditions found in the 1987 special
review continue to exist.
Expected Benefits
This audit has the potential for identifying personal service
contract activities and recommending cancellation or reduction of
CSC contract activities with Agency budget request for FTEs to
perform many current CSC operations. Also, EPA's management and
control over CSC contract activities could be enhanced or
improved. In addition, audit methodologies will be developed
that could benefit future audits of EPA management of other
support service contractors.
Audit Objectives
The objectives of this audit will be to (1) determine whether CSC
contracts are being administered or operated as "personal
services" contracts as defined by 48 CFR Part 37 and which are
prohibited by the Services Contract Act of 1965, (2) evaluate
EPA's controls (contractor oversight) over CSC contract
activities that ensure contractor compliance with contract/DO
terms and ensure quality of contractor performance, (3) assess
the quality of CSC staff provided in relation to contract
requirements, (4) identify any "idle time", basic training, or
unallowed travel costs/time being charged directly to the
contract for CSC services, and (5) evaluate the basis and
preparation of delivery orders by DOPOs and the
verification/processing of invoices/"billings" submitted by CSC
under individual delivery orders.
Scope
The scope of this audit will be primarily limited to CSC
activities EPA-wide for both fiscals 1990 and 1991 under its
contract with EPA. Audit/survey work will be conducted at EPA
Headquarters, CSC Headquarters, Research Triangle Park (RTF), and
selected EPA regions/laboratories.
CTR MGMT 1-2
-------
PATS Code. BIN
Location and Resources
This audit will be a consolidated audit conducted by at least
three OIG divisions. The majority of audit resources will be
required for the reviews at EPA Headquarters and RTP because of
the tremendous volume of CSC activities at these locations.
CTR MGMT 1-3
-------
-------
PATS Code E1B
COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING
EPA has chosen to use a form of the cost reimbursement
contract to conduct much of its Superfund and RCRA contracting
which obligates the contractor to put forth its best effort
rather than placing emphasis on the resulting report. Under the
cost reimbursement contracts EPA uses, contractors do have a
disincentive to control costs as they can earn more profit by
expanding the hours to complete work assignments. The monitoring
of contract cost and performance increases the administrative
burden on EPA and the contractors. The audit will determine
whether work assignments can be described in sufficient detail
suitable for fixed price contracting, whether negotiated
contracts are properly justified in accordance with Federal
Acquisition Regulations, and whether administrative controls are
properly in place to control cost and efficiency and ensure
desired performance.
CTR MGMT 2
-------
-------
. PATS Code E1B
OA BLUE TEAM AND CONTRACT OPERATIONS REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
STAFF (CORAS1 REVIEWS AND FOLLOWUPS
EPA Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMD)
established a Quality Assurance (QA) staff to provide internal
programmatic reviews of contracting and program functions. The
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response established CORAS to do
similar program reviews under Superfund. OIG and 6AO efforts
have identified deficiencies in the Agency's procurement and
contract management operations. An effective PCMD QA process
could eliminate and prevent the reoccurrence of these problems
before the OIG or GAO identifies problems after the fact. The
audit will be performed in RTP, Washington, DC, and Cincinnati
and other locations as needed. The: audit will determine if the
QA Blue Team's reviews effectively identify and correct
deficiencies, whether QA Blue Team follows up timely on
significant findings requiring corrective actions, if contract
program administration at RTP and Cincinnati had common problems
that should be corrected, and if the CORAS program duplicates QA
Blue Team review.
CTR MGMT 3
-------
-------
PATS Code ElJ
ORD CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
The fiscal year 1990 budget for the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) was $429 million, $229 million of which was for
research through contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and
interagency agreements. In the ORD scientific setting,
contractors provide both high-technology support and scientific
expertise. Strong contracting controls are needed but may be
lost among the high-priority scientific endeavors. As a result,
contracting fraud, waste, and abuse may be prevalent in ORD
contracting, with specific weaknesses in the areas of work
acceptance, work ordering, qualifications and commitment,
funding, and conflicts of interest. The audit will examine
whether contract managers have adequate justification for work
acceptance and invoice approval, whether work orders are properly
prepared and executed, whether contract managers are properly
qualified and committed, whether actual research is properly
funded, and whether potential conflicts of interest exist between
lab employees and contract personnel.
CTR MGMT 4
-------
-------
ADP
TABLE OF CONTENTS '
Work in Process
Strengthening Controls Over Operating
System EPA's IBM 3090 Computer System ADP 1-1
EPA's Implementation of
Computer System Integrity Requirements ADP 2-1
Internal Controls Over and Costs
Associated with Application Software
Maintenance President's Council of
Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) Project ADP 3-1
New Starts
Enforcement Docket System (Docket) Data
Integrity/Applications Control Review ADP 4
Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)
Data Integrity/Application Control Review ADP 5
Integrated Administrative System (IAS) and
the Personnel/Payroll System Development
Life Cycle Review ADP 6
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code.BIN
STRENGTHENING CONTROLS OVER OPERATING
SYSTEM EPA'S IBM 3090 COMPUTER SYSTEM
Background
EPA, like other Federal Agencies, is highly dependent on
information systems to carry out its mission critical functions.
Every major area of regulatory and oversight responsibility as
well as administrative support functions can be largely judged by
how reliable their information base is and how reliable the
resources that process and control that information are. An
important part of any computer processing function is the host
computer's operating system. This is especially true of large
mainframe computers, such as EPA's IBM 3090 system located at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Mainframe operating
systems are highly sophisticated and complex software systems
that control the computer's operating environment.
In September 1986, the President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency (PCIE) initiated the Computer Systems Integrity
Project. This project was a multi-task effort focusing on
controls, security, and other integrity issues related to the
entire data processing system's life cycle. In the original
audit, major findings at all ten Departments occurred for Task 2A
of the PCIE project, which covered the area of operating system
controls. As a result of those findings, OMB issued a memorandum
that the recommendation in that PCIE Audit Report should be
implemented by all Federal Agencies. This audit will follow up
on those recommendations.
Task 2A of the PCIE effort focused on two key software controls
subareas: l) operating system software controls; and 2) access
(security) software controls. In addition, disk and tape storage
management were analyzed as a byproduct of using the computer
assisted audit techniques employed to assess system software
controls. Disk storage management was covered in the EPA OIG's
recent IBM 3090 efficiency audit. Security issues were recently
addressed in the OIG's audit of the Resource Access Control
Facility (RACF) security software as installed on the IBM 3090 at
RTP. Selected aspects from these two audits as well as the third
audit on operating system controls will be combined for the EPA
portion of the PCIE report.
Reasons for Selection
Loss or abuse of the operating system software would be a major
ADP 1-1
-------
. PATS Code.BIN
<
operational problem for the Agency and could cost the Agency
substantially in dollars, prestige, and trust to carry out its
environmental mission.
Expected Benefits
The audit will reveal whether EPA managers have installed and are
enforcing adequate internal controls over the mainframe operating
system. Implementation of audit recommendations could protect
against disastrous loss of valuable resources, improve management
of system software, and maintain the integrity of Agency's
information systems.
Audit Objectives
The primary objective of the audit will be to determine whether
the operating system features, which control the ability to
perform sensitive tasks, such as bypassing system security, are
properly administered and controlled. In addition, disk and tape
usage will be analyzed to determine whether these resources are
effectively and efficiently managed.
Scope
The audit will follow the steps outlined in the audit guide for
the PCIE Task 2A on computer systems integrity. The guide
includes steps that could be used to follow up on disk management
and access control issues raised in bur previous audits of the
IBM mainframe computer operations. Other areas to be reviewed
include controls of authorized libraries of programs and
utilities, system software modifications and data stored on tape
media. A summary of the audit report to be issued to EPA
management covering the areas reviewed, including findings and
recommendations, will be issued for the PCIE.
Location and Resources
This audit will be done mostly at EPA Headquarters, but will
require field work to be done at EPA's National Computer Center
located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The audit
will require approximately 200 days to complete in fiscal 1992.
The audit team will consist of one audit manager, one EDP auditor
and a part time contract systems programmer.
ADP 1-2
-------
PATS Code BIN
EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF
COMPUTER SYSTEMS INTEGRITY REQUIREMENTS
Background
In September 1986, the President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency (PCIE) initiated the Computer Systems Integrity
Project. The first phase of the project assessed the integrity
of Federal computer systems and developed recommendations for
Government-wide improvements in standards, documentation, and
operations affecting computer systems integrity. Eight Federal
agencies including EPA were involved in this project. Currently,
the PCIE is initiating a follow-up project to determine the
implementation status of the Government-wide recommendations.
The DIG at EPA will be participating in this follow-up project.
Reasons for selection
The integrity of information generated from computer systems is
of critical importance to EPA in meeting its mission. In
addition, Government-wide interest in improving computer systems
integrity has grown significantly. For example, the U.S.
Congress recently announced plans to have OMB and others initiate
computer security (a major component of computer systems
integrity) reviews of all Federal agencies within the next two
years. These plans include reducing funding of agencies that do
not comply with Federal computer security requirements.
Expected Benefits
The results of this audit should strengthen the integrity
controls in EPA's computer systems and strengthen the EPA
Security Program. Audit recommendations should also ensure the
Agency's compliance with the Federal computer security
requirements and reduce the potential for fraud, waste, and
abuse. Further, audit recommendations should help reduce the
risk of the Agency losing funds from Congress through inadequate
security controls and practices.which might be identified during
the forthcoming OHB computer security reviews.
Audit Objectives
The objective of the audit will be to evaluate EPA's
implementation of Federal computer systems security and control
requirements—as required by OMB Circulars A-123, A-127, and
A-130—for EPA's computer systems.
ADP 2-1
-------
PATS Code. BIN
Scope ....
The audit is an EPA-wide review which will focus on the Office of
Information Resources Management's and the National Computer
Center's implementation of internal controls and security over
sensitive information systems. The audit will also focus on the
information system activities of Procurement and Contracts
Management Division, Region 3, Region 4, and Headquarters
end-user organizations. A summary of the audit report issued to
EPA management will also be issued to the PCIE.
Location and Resources
This audit will be done principally at EPA Headquarters, but will
require field work to be done at two EPA Regions and the National
Computer Center at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The
audit will require approximately 150 staff days to complete in
fiscal 1992. The audit team will consist of an Audit Manager and
three EDP auditors.
ADP 2-2
-------
PATS CODE ,E1N
INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER. AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
APPLICATION SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY fPCIEl PROJECT
Background
The PCIE Computer Systems Integrity Project (CSIP) is engaged in
a multi-task review of controls, security, and other integrity
issues related to the data processing systems life cycle. Audits
have been completed or are underway for the following four PCIE
CSIP tasks: (1) survey of agency implementation of computer
systems integrity requirements; (2) evaluation of the integrity
of operating system and environmental security software; (3)
assessment of data integrity of a common administrative
application; and (4) followup review of actions taken to correct
problems identified in the first two tasks. The application
software maintenance review will be the fifth task of the overall
PCIE project.
Reasons for Selection
Software maintenance accounts for approximately 60-70 percent of
the application software resources expended within the Federal
Government with additional resources expended to maintain
operating system software. A rapidly growing inventory of
application software systems increases the demand for improved
productivity in maintaining software. Efficient software
maintenance does not mean, however, that internal controls over
software change authorization, coding, testing, and computer
program library updates can be neglected. Orderly software
maintenance is essential where there are constantly changing
system specifications and potential employee turnover.
Management should utilize, where appropriate, commercially
available utility programs which generate, analyze, and/or
optimize program code, as well as other measures to reduce
maintenance costs.
Expected Benefits
A review of application software maintenance controls will
determine that the link between the operating system controls and
applications is not compromised by deficiencies in application
software maintenance. Since most agencies experience significant
backlogs of program change requests, and computer programmers
prefer new system development over maintenance of existing
systems, we expect that poor controls over computer program
ADP 3-1
-------
: . PATS CODE.E1N
changes could lead to inadequate program testing and ^^
documentation, missed target completion dates, user
dissatisfaction, and employee turnover. In addition, the audit
report may provide information on how Federal agencies are using
commercial software tools to enhance productivity.
Audit Objectives
The objectives of this audit are to evaluate (1) Agency software
maintenance policies and standards, (2) organizational controls
over program change authorization, coding, testing, and library
updates, and (3) adequacy of program change documentation. The
audit will also look at software maintenance costs to determine
the extent to which the Agency is taking advantage of
commercially available application software and computer-assisted
software engineering techniques in order to control these costs.
Scope
This audit will be part of a Government-wide audit involving
several other Federal agencies. A separate report will be issued
to each agency and the individual reports will be consolidated
into one report addressing Government-wide problems and
recommendations.
Within EPA this audit will cover application maintenance
activities of selected application systems from fiscal 1989
through the period of the audit. The primary organizations to be
visited will be the Office of Information Resources Management,
the National Data Processing Division, and other selected
offices. The methodology will be fully developed during the
survey phase of the audit.
Location and Resources •
This audit will be conducted at EPA Headquarters, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, and other selected offices to be
determined during the survey phase of the audit. The audit will
require 500 staff days for an ADP Project Manager and three ADP
auditors.
ADP 3-2
-------
•••:•• PATS Code BIN
ENFORCEMENT DOCKETSYSTEM (DOCKET)
DATA INTEGRITY/APPLICATIONS CONTROL REVIEW
DOCKET is the national, automated system for tracking civil
litigation from case development through conclusion and for the
issuance of administrative actions (e.g., administrative orders)
under all environmental statutes. EPA program managers use the
system to (1) review the progress of cases, (2) determine the
length of time the enforcement process takes after a case has
been referred to EPA Headquarters, (3) forecast when future
actions on cases will likely occur, and (4) review the case loads
and level of activity of enforcement personnel. The Office of
Enforcement relies on DOCKET to make a variety of program
management, budgetary, and enforcement decisions, and to provide
information about enforcement cases to the Administrator,
Congress, and the public. This audit will (1) test the accuracy,
completeness, consistency, and timeliness of the information in
DOCKET, (2) assess user satisfaction with the integrity of the
system's data, and (3) evaluate the system's control.
ADP 4
-------
-------
PATS Code.BIN
INTEGRATED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM fIFMS)
DATA INTEGRITY/APPLICATIONS CONTROL REVIEW
EPA has obligated $8.2 million to implement IFMS and
estimates that an additional $11.5 million will be needed to
complete the system in 1993. The goal for IFMS is to provide
timely and accurate information to aid program offices in
effectively managing and controlling programs and resources. The
audit will examine the weaknesses affecting the integrity
controls in IFMS. Implementation of these controls will allow
EPA managers to rely upon the data maintained by IFMS, thereby
removing the self-imposed requirement of maintaining redundant
systems.
ADP 5
-------
-------
PATS Code E1N
AND
INTEGRATED ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM flASl
THE PERSONNEL/PAYROLL SYSTEM
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE REVIEW
In 1989, the Administrative Systems Division, Office of
Information Resources Management, began a formal planning process
to organize and focus their investments and support of the EPA
administrative community. The Personnel/Payroll System is the
most significant system of the 74 administrative systems
identified as a part of IAS. in order for the Personnel/Payroll
system to be effectively integrated into IAS, it is imperative
that any changes to the Personnel/Payroll system incorporate IAS
standards and architecture. The audit will examine whether (1)
an adequate IAS planning process exists; (2) the planned changes
to the Personnel/Payroll System are incorporated into the IAS
planning documents; (3) the changes will alleviate the internal
control weaknesses previously identified by the OIG.
ADP 6
-------
-------
Air
Table of Contents
Work in Process
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program
AIR 1-1
New Starts
EPA's Bubble Policy
AIR 2
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code E1K
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION PROGRAM
Background
EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program was developed in
July 1989, to reduce production and consumption of chemicals
known to destroy the stratospheric ozone layer. This layer is
the earth's main shield against ultraviolet radiation from the
sun. A decrease in stratospheric ozone will cause increased
rates of skin cancer, cataracts and potentially, suppression of
the immune system. Further, damage to the ozone layer presents a
serious threat to our food crops and all forms of life on land
and in the seas.
EPA's program was established in response to the "Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer" (the
Protocol), became effective in January 1989. This Protocol is an
international agreement, presently signed by 68 nations. It
requires signatory nations to reduce production and consumption
of ozone depleting chemicals. The United States signed the
Protocol in 1987. EPA is responsible for regulating certain
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and brominated compounds (halons),
"controlled substances," which deplete the ozone.
EPA required firms involved in production, import and export of
CFCs and halons in 1986 to submit data on volumes produced,
imported and exported during that year. This information was to
be used as baseline allowances, whereby firms involved with these
controlled substances could not exceed their allowances. EPA
promulgated the allowances in regulations published on August 1,
1988, and the baseline allowances took effect on July 1, 1989.
In addition to the allowance system, the regulations specified
record-keeping and reporting requirements that enable the Agency
to monitor compliance with the Montreal Protocol.
The Protocol specified chemical substances to be controlled,
their ozone depletion potentials, and a 50 percent reduction in
production and consumption of CFCs over ten years. Also, it
established a freeze oh production and consumption of halons
beginning in 1992.
Reasons for Selection
We believe that the following four areas could produce a
significant audit report.
AIR 1-1
-------
PATS Code .E1K
During the first year (control period), July 1, 1989 to
June 30, 1990, EPA identified eight violators that did
hot report CFC imports. This could be an indication
that smaller firms are not aware of the new
requirements or are simply ignoring them. Minimum
potential penalties for importer violations have ranged
from $30,150 to $422,000. Producer violations have
thus far been attributed only to record keeping errors.
No violations by exporters have been uncovered. An
early review of EPA's "Compliance Monitoring Strategy"
could be extremely beneficial to the enforcement of
this new program.
A Region 3 inspector stated that inspections of importers
and producers are of little value, in that they would not
detect illegal activity. These basic inspections by EPA
Regional offices consist of nothing more than verification
of the numbers on quarterly reports submitted by firms
dealing with controlled substances. Companies could be
importing or producing controlled substances while
reporting them as uncontrolled substances (e.g. some CFCs
are not considered controlled substances). There are no
procedures established for independent testing of imported
or produced substances. Some of these companies have
subsidiaries or divisions overseas and could easily
circumvent established compliance procedures. Further,
EPA is currently considering dropping importer inspections
in lieu of voluntary compliance by firms in submitting
proper documentation to the U.S. Customs Service and EPA.
According to a Region 3 official, a company, headquartered
in Region 3, attempted to import large quantities of CFCs
from Canada days before the EPA requirements became
effective. This company is the largest importer/producer
of CFCs in the United States. The CFCs were eventually
imported but the exact timing of the shipment is not
known. These imports were not reported to EPA in the
company's quarterly report. The Region 3 official
believes this was highly unethical if not illegal. He
stated that if the shipment was made after the effective
date of the EPA requirements this action would have been a
violation.
EPA does not perform inspections of approximately 35
exporters of controlled substances. Exporters submit
reports of quantities exported and may request additional
allowances in amounts equal to their exports. EPA's draft
enforcement guidance states that it is easier to monitor
AIR 1-2
-------
. PATS Code E1K
import compliance because imports are recorded by U.S.
Customs Service and importers. However, this guidance
also states that, "Exporters will not be routinely
inspected by the Agency". This policy could lead to
erroneous reporting of exports by firms wanting to produce
or import controlled substances in violation of their
allotted amounts. More importantly, violations such as
these have the potential to cause the United States to
violate the Montreal Protocol by exceeding nationwide
allocation commitments.
Expected Benefit
This audit will determine if EPA has met the commitments made by
the United States in the Montreal Protocol. The first control
period under this program was completed on June 30, 1990 and an
early review would benefit succeeding periods. He believe that a
review of this program is warranted and would produce a
significant audit report.
AudliL_Qb. j ectives
The audit will determine whether:
— EPA identified all producers, importers and exporters of
controlled substances;
— Companies are reporting, and EPA is adequately tracking,
accurate levels of controlled substances;
— EPA's enforcement strategy is effective in obtaining
overall compliance with specific limitations, restrictions
and reporting requirements in the Agency's "Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone" regulations; and
— EPA established appropriate baseline levels and allowances
for the production and import of controlled substances.
Scope
According to the "Final Compliance Strategy", 43 percent of the
nation's producers (including the largest U.S. producer) were
headquartered in Region 3 during the first control period. In
addition, 29 percent of the importers were also located in this
Region. The survey will be limited to EPA Headquarters and
Region 3 and include examinations of records maintained by U.S.
Customs Service and private companies.
AIR 1-3
-------
PATS Code E1K
Location and Resources
The review is being performed by the Mid-Atlantic Audit Division.
The need for technical assistance is not anticipated at this
time. However, we may need investigative support to assist us in
contacting the U.S. Customs Service.
AIR 1-4
-------
.-; •• PATS Code E1K
EPA'S BUBBLE POLICY
EPA's Bubble Policy allows factories, refineries, and other
sources of air pollution to treat all their stacks and vents as
if they were enclosed by a giant bubble. As long as the area for
the bubble meets overall air quality standards, plant managers
have discretion over which individual stacks to control. Bubbles
allow companies to reduce costs since plant managers can
determine, within applicable guidelines, which emissions to
control. The audit will determine whether the Agency has
effective procedures for reviewing proposed bubbles and for
measuring actual benefits achieved by specific bubbles.
AIR 2
-------
-------
Enforcement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
New Starts
EPA's Enforcement of Clean Water
Act Requirements in the Pulp and
Paper Industry
Followup Review to the Capping
Report on the Assessment of
Penalties
ENFORCEMENT 1
ENFORCEMENT 2
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code.EIG
EPA'S ENFORCEMENT OF CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS
IN THE PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
The Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 304 requires the state to
identify those bodies of water that fail to meet Federal and
state water quality standards. An evaluation of the EPA's
enforcement of the CWA relative to the pulp and paper industry is
warranted. From April 1988 to June 1989 the pulp and paper
industry and EPA conducted a combined study of the industry's
discharges. Of the 98 mills reviewed, only 10 mills met current
state and federal discharge standards for water quality while
most of the 88 mills used a process which resulted in dioxin
releases. The audit will determine whether EPA has properly
exercised its oversight authority under the CWA over discharges
by the pulp and paper industry. In addition, the audit will
determine whether health concerns of the communities downstream
of pulp and paper plants receive sufficient emphasis in water
quality determinations.
ENFORCEMENT 1
-------
-------
PATS Cpde.EIG
FOLLOWUP REVIEW TO THE CAPPING REPORT ON
THE ASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES
EPA's enforcement goal is to achieve compliance with
environmental laws, regulations, and program requirements. One
essential element of an enforcement program is the effective use
of civil and administrative penalties which punishes violators
and deters future violations. Deterrence of noncompliance is
achieved through (1) the perceived likelihood of detecting a
violation; (2) the speed of the enforcement response, and (3) the
likelihood and severity of the penalty. Penalties are the
critical element in creating deterrence. They can also
contribute to greater equity among the regulated community by
recovering the economic benefit a violator gains from
noncompliance over those who do comply. A 1989 OIG report found
that appropriate penalties were either not calculated and
assessed, or were inadequately calculated. The audit will
identify whether the Agency has improved its controls over the
negotiation and assessment of penalties.
ENFORCEMENT 2
-------
-------
Water
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process
Project Certification After
One Year WATER 1-1
Administration of the Region 9 State
Revolving Fund Program WATER 2-1
New Starts
EPA's Monitoring of the National
Estuary Program (NEP) Grants WATER 3
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code E1H
PROJECT CERTIFICATION AFTER ONE YEAR
Background
*
One year after a new wastewater treatment plant begins operation,
the grantee is required to certify to EPA and the state that the
plant meets its performance standards, such as the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Project performance standards are established at the time of
grant award, and are included in the grant agreement. If the
grantee is unable to certify that the project is meeting its
NPDES permit, the grantee must submit a corrective action report.
It should include a schedule for undertaking corrective action,
and a scheduled date by which the grantee will be able to certify
that the plant is meeting its performance standards.
When the grantee certifies that the plant is meeting its NPDES
permit requirements and all grant conditions have been satisfied,
the EPA project officer requests that the OIG perform a final
audit. At that time, he then certifies to the OIG that the plant
meets its NPDES permit. Based on the project officer
certification and the final payment package which is reviewed by
the Corps of Engineers (COE) or the state, the OIG makes a
decision whether to audit the project or to close it without an
audit.
Reason for Selection
During a recent audit of the Estuary Program we found instances
where the grantee and EPA project officers certified that the
treatment plant was meeting its NPDES limits. Based on this
certification and the review of the final payment package, the
project had been closed without audit. However, a review
disclosed this plant was, in fact, not meeting its NPDES permit
limits. Both the state and EPA files contained evidence of the
non-compliance and documentation of problems associated with the
project. Because the certification process is vital to the
Office of the Inspector General audit process, it is essential
that we verify its accuracy.
Expected Benefits
We will determine the reliability of the certification program.
WATER 1-1
-------
PATS Code.ElH
Audit Objectives
The primary objective of this audit will be to determine if the
OIG can depend on the certification program to make audit
decisions.
Scope
The audit will focus on certifications provided to us during the
past two fiscal years.
Location and Resources
The Mid-Atlantic Audit Division is performing this audit in
Region 3. Technical assistance will be required. We estimate
the audit will take 400 staff days.
WATER 1-2
-------
PATS CODE ,E1H
ADMINISTRATION OF REGION 9 STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM
Background
The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides for Federal grants to
municipalities, intermunicipal agencies, states, and interstate
agencies for planning, designing, and constructing wastewater
treatment facilities. The CWA, as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, established a capitalization grant program. The
purpose of this grant program is to assist each state with the
implementation of permanent institutions which will provide
continuing sources of financing needed to maintain water quality.
Title VI of the CWA, as amended, authorized EPA to make
capitalization grants ($8.4 billion) from fiscal years 1989
through 1994 to states for deposit in State Water Pollution
Control Revolving Funds (SRFs) and EPA issued its initial SRF
guidance in January 1988. Such grants must be deposited in the
SRF, together with a 20 percent state contribution (state match)
and used as a permanent source for financing water pollution
control facilities. The state must establish the revolving loan
program during the fiscal year in which the funds are allotted
and during the following fiscal year in order to participate in
that fiscal appropriation. States, in order to facilitate the
transition from the construction grant to the capitalization
grant program, may elect to convert to a loan program by shifting
Title II funds (grants) into a Title VI (capitalization grant)
program. The capitalization grants are to be paid to the states
over eight quarters after the award of the grant, or 12 quarters
after the funds were allotted to the state, whichever is earlier.
Each state must use the capitalization grants for the specific
purposes designated in the Clean Water Act and may draw funds
from the Letter of Credit for the proportionate Federal share of
eligible costs incurred. However, EPA can annul the grant
agreement and recover all Federal funds as specified in 40 CFR
31.43.
The SRF may be used for the following .purposes:
— To make loans to state and local governmental entities at
or below market rates at terms not to exceed 20 years;
— To purchase or refinance existing debt obligations of such
entities incurring debt for wastewater treatment
WATER 2-1
-------
. . PATS CODE.E1H
facilities after March 7, 1985;
— To guarantee or purchase insurance for local debt
obligations; . .
— To act as a source of revenue or security for the payment
of principal and interest on revenue or general obligation
bonds issued by the state if the proceeds are deposited in
the SRF;
— To provide loan guarantees for similar revolving funds
established by municipalities;
— To earn interest on fund accounts; and
— To pay for the reasonable costs of administering the fund.
In the existing grant program, EPA is responsible for awarding
construction grants and the states are responsible for day-to-day
management of the projects. In the capitalization grant program,
the States have the responsibility for SRF operations and
providing assistance for construction of publicly-owned
wastewater treatment facilities, implementation of nonpoint
source management programs, and development and implementation of
estuary protection plans. EPA's role will be limited to
dispensing funds, conducting program-wide oversight activities,
and providing technical assistance.
As of March 1991 EPA Regional Offices have awarded capitalization
grants to all states including Puerto Rico. For example, Region
2 awarded $655 million in capitalization grants. The State of
New York received two grants totaling $438.3 million and New
Jersey received three grants of $204.8 million. In addition,
Puerto Rico received $12.3 million for qualified municipal loan
programs. Under this program, New York and New Jersey, which
match the Federal grant with 20 percent, leverage the money to
make low interest loans to local governments. New York state,
which has the largest revolving loan fund in the nation, expects
to get $836 million from the Federal government through 1994.
Reason for Selection
The new Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program provides
guidance on how EPA will fulfill its overview responsibilities
under Section 606(e) of Title VI of the Water Quality Act. It
requires EPA to conduct an annual review of each state's Intended
Use Plan and Annual Report, and other such materials considered
necessary. However, it does not prescribe detailed review
WATER 2-2
-------
.- :.- PATS CODE E1H
activities to be undertaken by EPA Headquarters and the Regional
Offices to effectively manage the SRF program. The SRF program
involves grants to states which must assume responsibility for
administering the revolving fund and the.technical aspects of the
programs. Initiation of an OIG audit in the earliest stages of
this new and large dollar program should help preclude or reduce
the potential for SRF waste and mismanagement. This will help
ensure the long-term fiscal viability of the SRF.
Expected Benefits
Timely review of the EPA capitalization grant agreements with the
states and the SRF will ensure that the agreements and SRF comply
with the Water Quality Act of 1987, implementing EPA rules and
regulations, and state requirements. The audit should identify
program weaknesses and enable EPA to strengthen financial
management and internal control systems at an early stage before
possible weaknesses become too institutionalized.
Audit Objectives
The objectives of an audit of the SRF will be to determine
whether:
— Capitalization grant agreements negotiated between EPA
Regional Offices and the.states comply with EPA and state
requirements, and Title VI of the CWA.
— Internal controls are adequate to provide assurance that
usage of Federal capitalization grant funds will be
allowable under the terms and conditions of the
capitalization grant program.
— The states have established adequate administrative and
financial controls over the use and replenishment of SRF
funds (receipts and loans), and noncompliance/ default
with loan repayment terms.
Scope
A survey should be performed involving selected regions and
states where capitalization grants have been awarded. The review
should cover the controls exercised by EPA Regional offices to
assure that states conform with EPA and state laws, regulations,
and guidance governing the management of grants for SRF programs.
The review should also determine whether the EPA guidance will
allow the states to effectively and efficiently run this program.
WATER 2-3
-------
PATS COD1.E1H
Location and Resources . • •
The Western Audit Division will complete this review in fiscal
1992.
WATER 2-4
-------
. - PATS Code, E1H
EPA'S MONITORING OF THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM (NEP)GRANTS
The purpose of the National Estuary Program is to identify
nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by
pollution, development, or overuse. Management conferences are
convened for each estuary to assess trends, assess data and
identify the causes of environmental problems. The conferences
are charged with developing a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP), which recommends priority corrective
actions and compliance schedules. EPA is authorized to make
grants to State, interstate, and regional water pollution control
agencies and entities, state coastal zone management agencies,
interstate agencies, public or nonprofit private agencies,
institutions, organizations, and individuals, to pay for
assisting research, surveys, studies, modeling and other
technical work necessary for development of the CCMP. The audit
will determine if EPA is effectively and efficiently using its
staff and resources to monitor the progress and funds of the
National Estuary Program grants.
WATER 3
-------
-------
RCRA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Workin Process
Regional Administration of State RCRA
Grants for Hazardous Waste
Management Programs1 RCRA 1-1
New Starts
RCRA Corrective Action Program
Implementation in Authorized States1 RCRA 2
RCRA Inspections RCRA 3
Followup of Management of Contracts
Supporting the office of Solid Waste — RCRA 4
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY fRCRAl GRANTS FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Background
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), was passed as
Public Law 94-580, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
on October 21, 1976. Subsequent amendments in 1980 and 1984
increased EPA's enforcement authorities. The purpose of RCRA was
to regulate the management of hazardous wastes through the
establishment of cradle-to-grave tracking. Regulation of these
materials was intended to prevent future hazardous waste problems
and reduce threats to public and the environment. Two of the
primary objectives in the RCRA program are to monitor and
evaluate hazardous waste generators, transporters, and facilities
for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements; and to
take administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions
against violators when appropriate.
RCRA Section 3011 grants are awarded to states to perform
workplan activities in three major areas: (l) program
development and management; (2) permitting; and (3) compliance
monitoring and enforcement. Within these three areas there are
various individual task assignments, most of which require
specific measurable outputs. For example, the number of RCRA
site inspections to be performed are to be included in the
workplan. Similarly, the number of permits to be issued, and the
number of RCRA site closures expected during the year are also to
be identified.
By the end of fiscal 1987, EPA had awarded RCRA grants for
Hazardous Waste Management Programs to 44 states in 10 regions.
The total Federal funds obligated for these grants in fiscal 1987
was $63 million. In fiscal 1988, $65 million was authorized for
RCRA Section 3011 grants, and $66 million was requested for
fiscal 1989. These amounts make the RCRA grants the third
largest state grant program funded by EPA, behind only the water
and air pollution control grant awards.
Reasons for Selection
Although a large amount of grant funds have been awarded under
Section 3011, audits have not been performed to ensure that EPA
has effectively managed the RCRA program. The audit would
consider such program concerns as the adequacy of state
RCRA 1-1
-------
PATS Code E1D
inspections; the appropriateness and timeliness of enforcement
actions; the effectiveness of follow-up on letters of
noncompliance; and the overall ability of the states to meet the
commitments included in their annual grant workplans. Prior
audits of the water and air program grants have indicated
substantial problems with the regional administration of
the grants, and in the grantees' performance in the program
areas. Similar conditions are likely to exist in the RCRA
grants. This is particularly true since the hazardous waste area
is sensitive and highly visible, and is an important issue within
the government and public sectors.
Expected Benefits
The audit will help assure that the over $60 million of RCRA
grants provided annually to the states are properly administered.
It will also result in an assessment of the regions' ability to
manage the program grants, and help assure the consistent and
equitable enforcement of the environmental laws. An audit of the
RCRA grants will help enable the Agency to assure that the
potential health risks to our country's population is being
minimized through the management of hazardous waste sites.
Audit Objectives
The purpose of the review will be to determine whether the
Region's administrative controls are adequate to ensure state
accomplishment of program objectives and compliance with existing
program policies and procedures. Our specific audit objectives
are to determine whether:
— Timely and appropriate enforcement actions are taken in
all instances in which significant noncompliance with
program requirements are disclosed.
— The Region is performing sufficient oversight of state
enforcement activities to ensure compliance with the
National enforcement policies, goals and objectives.
— State proposed and assessed penalties for RCRA
noncompliance are consistent with the National EPA
penalty policies.
Scope
The audit would focus on the efficiency of regional management
and oversight of the RCRA grants during fiscal years 1989, 1990,
and 1991. This audit will be a follow on to the audit conducted
in Region 8; at its completion a report will be issued to the
Regional Administrator. We contemplate issuing a consolidated
report covering both the Region 8 and this review.
RCRA 1-2
-------
PATS Code.BID
Location and Resources
The Western Audit Division will complete.this review in fiscal
1992.
RCRA 1-3
-------
-------
; ; PATS Code -BID
„••
*
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
IN AUTHORIZED STATES
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Public
Law 94-580, was passed on October 21, 1976, as an amendment to
the Hazardous Solid Waste Disposal Act (HSWA). The main purpose
of RCRA and its 1984 HSWA amendment is to regulate the management
of hazardous wastes through the establishment of cradle-to-grave
tracking. The administration of RCRA is a joint effort of EPA
and the states. One of the more important provisions of HSWA was
the new permit requirement for corrective action for continuing
releases from regulated facilities. The audit will focus on
whether the regions effectively implemented the HSWA corrective
actions program and provided sufficient regional oversight to
ensure satisfactory performance by the delegated states. Also,
we will evaluate whether the authorized states have effectively
implemented their programs in.accordance with EPA guidance.
RCRA 2
-------
-------
. PATS Code E1D
RCRA INSPECTIONS
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates
the management of hazardous waste and improves waste disposal
practices. The goals set by RCRA are to protect human health and
the environment, to reduce waste and conserve energy and natural
resources, and to reduce or eliminate the generation of hazardous
wastes as expeditiously as possible. OIG and GAO reviews of the
program have disclosed weaknesses in Agency guidance and
operating policies and programs. The audit will determine if the
inspections are timely and adequately performed in accordance
with Agency guidance.
RCRA 3
-------
-------
PATS Code E1D
FOLLOWUP OF MANAGEMENT OF CONTRACTS
SUPPORTING THE OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides
•the legislative mandate under which the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) develops regulations and implements the national program to
regulate hazardous waste. OSW uses a number of contracts to help
implement this mandate. Contracting officers have overall
responsibility for obtaining satisfactory contractor performance.
A OIG prior audit report identified weaknesses in the Agency's
contract administration which resulted in contractors performing
unauthorized and unfunded work, and in Agency personnel engaging
in potential conflicts of interest, such as selecting and
directing the work of subcontractors. This audit will follow up
on the prior audit's recommendations. It will determine (1)
whether the Agency implemented adequate procedures and controls
for administering OSW contracts; and (2) whether the corrective
actions that were taken been effective in solving the problems
identified.
RCRA 4
-------
-------
R&D
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process
Installation Audit of Selected
EPA Laboratory R&D 1-1
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code E1J
INSTALLATION AUDITS OF
SELECTED EPA LABORATORIES
Background
The mission of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORp) is
to administer, in a comprehensive and balanced manner, specific
federal legislation developed to control and abate adverse
impacts of pollution on the human environment. To fulfill its
mission, ORD provides a variety of products and services to
support Agency decision making, such as research, problem
diagnosis, technical support documents, risk assessment, and
quality assurance management. Much of ORD's work is carried out
at its 52 laboratories located in all parts of the United States.
These laboratories are located away from regional offices, and
are generally detached from close oversight.
Reasons for Selection
By making visits to the laboratories, we would establish a more
regular OIG presence in ORD. Areas of vulnerability at the
laboratories may have never been adequately identified and
addressed by ORD management. Because, for the most part, we are
dealing with scientists, they may not be sophisticated in the
areas of internal controls and preventing fraud, waste, and
abuse. Recent audit work at one ORD lab identified significant
problems with the management of contracts. The Agency's FY 1990
annual assurance letter to the President also identified the
management of contract resources by the ORD as a material
weakness. Further, prior OIG work at some laboratories has shown
the other problems, such as improper storage and disposal of
hazardous waste, and the neglect of EPA work while the
laboratories performed work for other organizations on
interagency agreements.
Expected Benefits
We expect to provide ORD management at Headquarters with an
independent assessment of the internal controls at the various
laboratories. If ORD management at Headquarters has specific
concerns about individual laboratories, we would be able to
provide a service by addressing these concerns. We would also
potentially be able to develop more comprehensive leads for
future audits.
R&D 1-1
-------
PATS Code .E1J
Audit Objectives
Our overall objective will be to determine whether the internal
controls at each laboratory are sufficient and operating to
ensure that organizational objectives are met. Specific
objectives should be tailored to each laboratory's mission,
responsibilities, and high risk/vulnerable areas, but could
include such things as determining whether:
— Contract resources are adequately managed;
— Hazardous waste on-site is stored, handled, and disposed
of properly to protect human health and the environment;
~ Money received from interagency agreements is properly
controlled; and
— Performance of Interagency Agreements does not adversely
impact ORO's mission in support of other EPA programs.
scope
The scope would include all relevant activities at the individual
laboratories during the last two fiscal years. All laboratories
would eventually be included within the scope of the review, but
only selected ones would be reviewed initially during fiscal
1992.
Location and Resources
The Northern Audit Division is performing .this audit in Region 5.
Other locations may be selected later in fiscal 1992.
R&D 1-2
-------
OPTS
'TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process
Special Reviews of Pesticides1 OPTS 1-1
Labeling of Pesticides1 OPTS 2-1
EPA Oversight of FIFRA Data for Labs
Under the Good Laboratory Practice
Program OPTS 3-1
Followup on EPA's Activities
Regulating PCB Transformer Fires OPTS 4-1
New Starts
Followup Review of the Emergency
and Banned Pesticide Program OPTS 5
Pesticide Registration OPTS 6
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code E1E
SPECIAL REVIEWS OF PESTICIDES
Background
If EPA at any time develops or receives new data or evidence
raising a concern about a significant health or environmental
risk of a pesticide, it may conduct a detailed risk/benefit
analysis, called a special review. A special review is designed
to.quickly and comprehensively weigh the benefits and risks7in
light of new information to determine if regulatory action is
needed to protect human health and the environment. Regulatory
actions may include cancelling all or some uses, imposing use
restrictions, or requiring labeling changes.
EPA created the special review process to facilitate the
identification of pesticide uses which may not satisfy the
statutory requirements for registration and to provide an
informal procedure to gather and evaluate information about the
risks and benefits of these uses. Among the statutory
requirements for registration is the provision that a pesticide
must perform its intended function without causing "unreasonable.
adverse effects on the environment," although just what
constitutes "unreasonable" has been the subject of much debate.
A pesticide must meet or exceed one or more risk criteria, called
"risk triggers," before it is put into special review. These
risk triggers.include oncogenicity (tumor formation),
mutagenicity (inheritable genetic effects), long-term toxic
effects, immediate hazards to humans and, animals, and hazards to
endangered species and other wildlife. Special review is not
intended to be an overall review of a pesticide, like
registration or reregistration, but is limited to the specific
risk concerns indicated by the risk triggers involved. While a
pesticide is in special review, EPA will not approve any new
major food uses of the substance that are likely to increase
exposure to the pesticide; however, it may approve the use if the
expected exposure is low. After a special review is completed,
EPA amends the pesticide registration to reflect any needed
regulatory changes.
Reasons for Selection
Although the special review process was seen as a limited scope
review of specific issues, it has historically taken a long time
(often 2-6 years or longer) to complete the reviews. This is a
matter of concern when it is considered that new evidence of
OPTS 1-1
-------
PATS Code.E1E
human risk usually trigger the review in the first place.
Although EPA has used the process to remove some dangerous
pesticides from the marketplace, and modified the uses of others,
the process has not met EPA's goal .of fast action.
Expected Benefits
This audit will provide the Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances with a report that will help
evaluate EPA's efforts to protect the public and the environment
from excessively toxic pesticides, or from hazardous pesticide .
uses. The report will provide important information to help
answer the pesticide theme question.
Audit Objectives
The objectives of this review will be to determine whether EPA
is:
— Initiating special reviews when evidence of significant
health or environmental risks are identified;
— Completing special reviews in a timely manner; and
— Implementing the results of the special review.
Scope
This review will deal with all aspects of the special review
process, including the Special Review and Reregistration
Division's dealings with the other Office of Pesticide Program's
Divisions, the pesticide industry, and concerned members of the
public and special environmental interest groups.
Location•and Resources
The review is being performed at EPA Headquarters, where the
special review function is accomplished. The review may require
technical assistance, due to the technical and scientific nature
of the subject area. Approximately 75-100 staff days will be
needed for a survey. Resources needed to perform the audit phase
will be identified during the survey.
OPTS 1-2
-------
PATS Code E1E
LABELING OF PESTICIDES
Background
EPA is responsible for registering new pesticides to be sure
that, when used according to label directions, they will not pose
unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. EPA
requires precautionary statements on all pesticide labels. These
statements inform the-user of the proper precautions to take to
protect themselves, others, animals, and the environment from the
harmful effects of pesticide exposure. The label also provides
directions on the proper use, storage, and disposal of the
product.
The 1972 FIFRA amendments provided EPA new authority over the use
of pesticides, enforcement of which is based primarily on the
pesticide label. The 1972 amendments made it a violation of the
law to use a product in a manner inconsistent with the label.
Before this, EPA evaluated labels on a case-by-case basis. The
inherent variability of this approach introduced inconsistency
among labels of similar products. This created some confusion
and hampered uniform compliance and enforcement measures..
Reasons for Selection
EPA review and control of the content and format of the label is
critical to an effective and enforceable pesticide program.• In
1980, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) started a program
designed to upgrade pesticide labels (Label Improvement Program).
The program was to provide needed uniformity in compliance and
enforcement activities. OPP contemplated that the program would
be a continuing effort to enable EPA to respond rapidly to label
needs. However, a 1990 OIG survey of the pesticide program,
found that EPA seldom used the label improvement program.
EPA proposed revised labeling regulations in 1984, but has not
completed them. EPA believed revised regulations were needed to
provide pesticide producers a comprehensive description of
pesticide labeling requirements and to improve the quality of
pesticide labeling for users. Because the regulations have not
been completed, OPP continues to use regulations which were
identified in 1980 as needing improvement.
OPTS 2-1
-------
. PATS Code E1E
•'
f__f . ,. _ _
— Providing recommendations for labeling where there are no
labeling requirements;
— Increasing the requirements for format and placement of
the label, and relationship of various elements; and
— Establishing requirements for the content of pesticide
labels, the scientific criteria on which specific
requirements are based, and the specific wording to be
used when necessary.
During inspections, the states are to verify that pesticides are
properly labeled. However, OPP reviews have found that the state
inspectors do not have the current labels for all pesticides.
Therefore, during inspections the states are unable to verify the
accuracy of the pesticide label.
Expected Benefits
We expect to provide EPA management with a report on whether
current pesticide labeling practices are providing clear
information on proper usage and hazards of pesticides. The
review will also ensure that EPA and the states are taking
uniform compliance and enforcement measures for pesticide labels.
Audit Objectives
A survey will further define the scope and objectives of an audit
of EPA's labeling of pesticides. The survey will specifically
determine:
— The effect that not completing the revisions to the label
regulations has had on the review, approval, and
enforcement of labels;
— Whether label requirements are enforced during pesticide
inspections; and
— Whether the label provides the consumer with clear
instructions on proper usage, storage, and disposal of the
pesticide product.
OPTS 2-2
-------
PATS Code,E1E
Scope
The review will include the activities of the Office of Pesticide
Programs, regions, and states invpesticide label review,
approval, and enforcement.
Location and Resources
The Northern Audit Division will continue the survey during
fiscal 1992. Most of the field work will be performed in
Washington, DC, where the pesticide program is primarily located.
For the survey, we may also select one region and state to visit
since the regions and states are responsible for ensuring
pesticides are correctly labeled.
OPTS 2-3
-------
-------
PATS Code ,E1E
EPA OVERSIGHT OF FIFRA DATA FOR LABS
UNDER THE GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE PROGRAM
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Compliance
Monitoring (OCM) established the Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)
Program to ensure that good decisions were made on the safety and
efficacy of pesticides and other chemicals tested by independent
laboratories. Health effect's test data and other types of data
required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) form the basis of EPA's regulatory
decisions on pesticides and toxic chemicals. Important decisions
on the safety of pesticides and other chemicals must be based on
adequate and reliable data.
In 1984, EPA established standards to review the labs that
conduct these tests. The GLP Program involves the actual
inspection of laboratories and the auditing of studies to promote
compliance with the GLP standards. Laboratory inspections are
performed to ensure that the testing facilities are adequate and
meet all requirements. The inspections also provide the
opportunity to discuss and review the program with key technical
personnel and observe techniques in the laboratory.
Reason for Selection
Government and industry are increasingly concerned with the
quality of labs and studies upon which health assessments are
based. In fact, EPA recently initiated an investigation into an
alleged data fraud by a facility in Texas. The private
laboratory is accused of falsifying the test results of
residual chemicals to be used in pesticide products.
The investigation raised concerns regarding the reliability of
data submitted by independent labs to support product
registration. In March 1991, the Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances requested that the OIG audit this
area and make recommendations to improve the overall process.
EPA needs to ensure that the GLP Program is operating
effectively; otherwise, the Agency may not meet the goal of
safely regulating chemicals in order to protect public health and
the environment.
Expected Benefits
An audit of this program will help the Agency determine if the
OPTS 3-1
-------
:. ... PATS Code.ElE
program's goals are being met. The review would provide OPTS
with a significant report regarding the GLP Program. The review
would include recommendations to strengthen the Agency's overall
inspection of independent laboratories.
Auditing this program would determine if EPA is: (1) using
adequate procedures for ensuring the validity of the data
submitted under the GLP and (2) ensuring that the objectives of
this program are being carried out effectively in promoting
consistency from independent laboratories.
Audit Ob-iectives
The objective of the audit will be to determine how effectively
the Agency is meeting its responsibility for ensuring the
reliability of data submitted in support of product
registrations. In particular, we will determine if the program
produces results that lead to safeguarding public health and
protecting the environment.
Scope
The audit will cover activities initiated since the beginning of
the program. The audit work will include all phases of the GLP
Program.
Location and Resources
The survey is being conducted at EPA Headquarters and selected
laboratories and regional offices. The survey phase will require
approximately 125 staff days. Technical assistance will be
required from the Technical Assistance Staff.
OPTS 3-2
-------
PATS Code E1E
FOLLOWUP ON EPA'S ACTIVITIES
REGULATING PCS TRANSFORMER FIRES
Background
t
Our prior report, entitled Review of the EPA Rule Regulating
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Transformer Fires was issued on
March 17, 1988. PCBs are a family of highly, toxic compounds which
people absorb through food, skin contact, and inhalation.
Beginning in the 1930s, PCBs were primarily used for insulation
purposes in electrical equipment. Research has shown that
exposure to PCBs can harm reproductive and developmental processes
and cause skin lesions, brain damage, tumors, and gastric
disorders.
Until the early 1980s, it was believed the major risk of exposure
to PCBs was due to leaks, spills, and improper disposal practices.
However, major PCB transformer fires that subsequently occurred at
a number of locations alerted EPA to potential problems. In fact,
monitoring of some transformer fires revealed the presence of
dioxins and furans which were found to be significantly more toxic
than PCBs. Based on these concerns, the Agency issued a Rule in
1985 that required the (1) registration of PCB transformers with
fire departments and commercial buildings owners by December l,
1985; and (2) removal of certain transformers or the installation
of "enhanced electrical protection" for other transformers used in
or near commercial buildings by October 1, 1990.
We reported in 1988 that small and volunteer fire companies which
can be called to respond to PCB fires were generally unaware of
the Rule issued by the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
(OPTS). These fire companies were unaware of this rule
approximately two years after the registration requirement was to
have been complied with. As a result, fire employees, building
personnel, and others have been exposed to PCBs unnecessarily. In
addition, a recent article written on the subject substantiates
the notion that PCB transformer awareness is still not widespread,
that owners.are still in violation, and that the effects from a
fire can last over a decade. The article concludes that over
77,000 transformers in the United States still contain PCBs, and
that this highly toxic substance poses great dangers to health and
the environment.
Reasonsfor Selection
The report on PCB Transformer Fires has received a substantial
amount of interest since its issuance. Because of this and the
OPTS 4-1
-------
. PATS Codes E1E
great potential for risk still remaining from the fires, a
follow-up review should be performed. Even though the time frame
of October 1, 1990, has passed in replacing PCB transformers, we
believe that many transformers have not been replaced as
required. The audit would determine if corrective actions were
indeed taken.
Expected Benefits ^
The original audit assessed the effectiveness of Headquarters and
Regions 3 and 6 efforts to implement portions of the Rule. The
follow-up review would help to verify that the necessary actions
had been taken and are sufficient to resolve the issues discussed
in the report.
Audit Objectives
The objective of this audit would be to verify that the
recommendations of the original report on PCB Transformer Fires
has been adequately implemented.
Scope
The audit will focus on Headquarters and Regions 3 and 6's
implementation of the corrective actions recommended by the OI6.
Location and Resources
Field work will be performed at Headquarters and at Regions 3 and
6. No technical assistance will be required.
OPTS 4-2
-------
PATS Code E1E
.FOLLOWUP REVIEW OF THE EMERGENCY
AND BANNED PESTICIDE PROGRAM
EPA has the authority under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to regulate the sale and
use of pesticides in the United states. EPA is authorized to
register pesticide products, specify the terms and conditions of
their use before they are marketed, and remove unreasonably
hazardous pesticides from the marketplace. EPA is required to
establish procedures and guidelines for pesticide storage and
disposal, and accept for storage any pesticide which is suspended
and canceled. The 1988 FIFRA amendments made the manufacturers
responsible for disposing of banned pesticides. While much
disposal work has been accomplished by EPA, the 1990 review found
that EPA has not reconciled records on banned pesticides. The
review will determine whether corrective actions were implemented
in accordance with the Agency's action plan and milestone dates
and whether EPA was effective in correcting the deficiencies
noted in the audit report.
OPTS 5
-------
-------
.- PATS Code E1E
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
Federal regulation of pesticides is governed by the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under FIFRA, a pesticide
product must generally be registered by EPA before it may be
marketed and EPA will register a pesticide if it determines that
its benefits outweigh its risks. Chemicals registered before
1977 were often marketed many years without the benefit of the
full range of modern scientific testing. New chemicals are fully
tested using current methodology and techniques which has
resulted in many new chemicals being safer than their older
alternatives. The review will result in recommendations to
improve EPA's processing of pesticide registrations and will
ensure EPA is registering products which will not pose
unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. The
review will determine whether EPA is performing the registration
review process in accordance with applicable laws and regulations
and whether adequate internal controls are in place that will
ensure timely review of pesticide registrations.
OPTS 6
-------
-------
Other
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process
Controls Over Advisory and Assistance
Services and the Adequacy of Data Provided
to the Federal Procurement Data system OTHER l-l
Implementation of the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act OTHER 2-1
New Restriction on Lobbying OTHER 3-1
New Starts
Effectiveness of Region 10's Administration
of State, Grant Program1 OTHER 4
EPA Supported Programs Managed by the
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control1 OTHER 5
Region 7 Internal Controls OTHER 6
Confidential Disclosure Statements OTHER 7
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code E1B
CONTROLS OVER ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES
AND THEADEQUACY OF DATA PROVIDED TO THE
FEDERAL PROCUREMENT DATA SYSTEM
Background
OMB defines advisory and assistance services as services acquired
from non-governmental sources by contract or by personnel
appointment to (1) support or improve agency policy development,
decision-making, management, and administration, or, (2) support
or improve the operation of management systems. Two
organizations within EPA share the responsibility for
administering and reporting on the Agency's advisory and
assistance services activities.
The Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMD) is
responsible for ensuring, that the procurement and administration
of advisory and assistance services are carried out in an
efficient and effective manner. PCMD also manages the Contract
Information System, the primary source of data for EPA's
quarterly reporting to the Federal Procurement Data Center's
(FPDC) automated information system. FPDC has accumulated
Government-wide procurement statistics since fiscal 1979 and can
provide a wide variety of information about Federal buying,
including types of procurement, methods of contracting, statutory
requirements and other facts.
Office of the Comptroller (OC) has reporting responsibilities.
Annually, along with EPA's budget justification, the OC forwards
to Congress specific budget information on advisory and
assistance services including (1) the amounts being requested;
(2) the appropriations from which the amounts are to be paid;
and (3) a description of the needs for advisory and assistance
services.
Reasons for Selection
Public Laws 97-258 and 96-304 require that the Inspector General
submit to Congress an annual evaluation of (1) the Agency's
progress in,establishing effective management controls over the
procurement and use of advisory and assistance services; and (2)
the accuracy of the data provided to the FPDC. The evaluation
accompanies the budget justification for advisory and assistance
services. Both GAO and the Congress have expressed interest in
EPA's use of these contracts.
OTHER 1-1
-------
PATS Code.ElB
Expected Benefits
We will follow up on corrective actions taken as a result of last
year's review. We will also review new initiatives underway in
fiscal 1991 and identify and recommend corrective action(s) for
any major control weakness. The audit could also be a valuable
source of information for other audits in the procurement area.
Audit Objectives
The objectives of this audit are to determine:
— EPA's progress in instituting effective controls over the
procurement and use of advisory and assistance services;
and
— EPA's progress in instituting the necessary controls to
assure the accuracy of data input to the FPDS.
Scope
The review will cover fiscal 1991 activities.
Location and Resources
Audit work will be performed at EPA Headquarters PCHD.
OTHER 1-2
-------
PATS Code E1R
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL MANAGERS'
FINANCIAL INTEGRITY ACT
Background
The Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA)
requires all Federal agencies to establish, in accordance with
standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United
States, controls that reasonably ensure obligations and costs
are in compliance with applicable laws; assets are safeguarded
against fraud, waste, and mismanagement; and revenues and
expenditures are properly recorded and accounted for.
Each Agency head must report to the President and the Congress
annually on whether its internal control systems comply with the
Act's objectives and, to the extent systems do not comply,
identify material weaknesses together with plans for corrective
actions. The annual report must also include a statement about
whether the Agency's accounting system conforms to the
Comptroller General's accounting requirements.
Reasons for Selection
Resource Management Directive 2560 assigns responsibilities to
the Inspector General in several areas of FMFIA activity. One
responsibility is that the IG provide an annual statement on
whether the Agency's implementation of FMFIA was performed in a
reasonable and prudent manner.
Expected Benefits
Good internal controls are the key to preventing fraud, waste,
and abuse. This review will provide an important assessment of
the Agency's evaluation of these controls. It will also result
in recommended actions to improve the effectiveness of the
Agency's internal control program.
Audit Obi ectives
The objectives of this audit are to determine: (1) whether the
Agency implemented FMFIA in a reasonable and prudent manner; and
(2) whether the Agency is effectively identifying and reporting
material internal control weaknesses.
OTHER 2-1
-------
PATS Code E1R
Scope ....
Our review of the implementation of FMFIA will consist of (1)
reviewing activities designed to ensure that primary
organizations comply with Agency procedures; and (2) summarizing
the results of FMFIA work performed during internal surveys,
audits and reviews.
Location and Resources
The Internal Audit Division will complete the 1990 FMFIA review
in the early part of fiscal 1992. The fiscal 1991 review will
get underway in the third or fourth quarter.
OTHER 2-2
-------
PATS Code .E1X
NEW RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING
Background
The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation
Act, Public Law 101-121, that went into effect on December 23,
1989, prohibits recipients of Federal grants, cooperative
agreements, contracts, and loans from using Federal funds to pay
persons to influence or attempt to influence (lobby) executive or
legislative decision making in connection with the awarding of
grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and loans.
Reasons for Selection
This is a mandated audit required by Public Law 101-121. The
Inspector General is required to submit to Congress each year an
evaluation of the Agency's compliance with, and the effectiveness
of, the requirements imposed by the law.
Expected Benefits
This review will determine how well EPA is complying with the
requirements of the law governing lobbying.
Audit Objectives
We plan to review grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and
loans to see if EPA is receiving the appropriate anti-lobbying
certification and disclosure forms.
Scope
The audit will include a review of a sample of contracts, grants,
cooperative agreements, and loans awarded on or after
December 23, 1989 that exceeded $100,000.
Location and Resources
Mid-Atlantic Audit Division is performing the audit. The review
will be performed at Headquarters, Region 3, and one other
Regional office. We estimate the audit will take 250'days.
OTHER 3-1
-------
-------
PATS Code E1F
EFFECTIVENESS OF REGION 10'S ADMINISTRATION
OF STATE GRANT PROGRAMS
Region 10 is responsible for the administration of program
grants awarded to states within the region under the various EPA
media grant programs. Our Special Review of EPA Region 10
Employee Allegations on the Region's Handling of Air and Water
Issues disclosed indications of deficiencies in their oversight
of state activities in the water and air programs; final
construction grant audits and Early Warning reviews have
indicated similar deficiencies under the wastewater construction
grants program. The audit will assess whether the Region
adequately managed the state's performance under the construction
grant delegation agreement and the various program grants and
whether the Region's oversight of state compliance monitoring and
enforcement functions for the various media programs is
effective.
OTHER 4
-------
-------
; PATS Code E1F
,'•'
EPA SUPPORTED PROGRAMS MANAGED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (DHEC) receives large sums of EPA funding each year to
either manage or implement various environmental programs. Based
on various program deficiencies determined through audits, and
Region 4's inability to persuade DHEC to take sufficient
corrective actions, DHEC has been informed that it is considered
a high-risk auditee with EPA-funded programs highly vulnerable to
fraud, waste and abuse requiring a frequent audit presence. The
audit will determine, by evaluation of DHEC's books, records,
reports, and other documents, for fiscal years 1989 and 1990,
that actual cost incurred and benefits gained were in conjunction
with the requirements of the grants or cooperative agreements.
The audit will also determine if cost claimed/recorded under the
various grant programs was reasonable, allowable and allocable to
the sponsored program.
OTHER 5
-------
-------
PATS Code E1R
REGION 7 INTERNAL CONTROLS
Congress passed the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity
Act in 1982 to improve internal control .systems; prevent and
detect fraud, abuse, waste and mismanagement; and increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of operations and programs. Each
Agency is required to evaluate their internal controls and report
annually to the President and to Congress. The Agency
Administrator's Assurance Statement on internal controls for 1990
identified several weaknesses which the Region 7 Administrator
did not identify and report in his 1990 and 1989 statements. The
audit will examine whether the Region 7 Administrator effectively
implemented the internal control program in accordance with OMB
guidelines; whether transactions and other key events were
documented and scheduled for internal control reviews; whether
reviews included adequate tests of transactions and other key
events and whether the results were properly documented; whether
managers' performance standards included internal control
responsibilities; whether managers received proper training in
their duties; and whether managers promptly evaluated and took
action on findings and recommendations reported by audits.
OTHER 6
-------
-------
PATS Code E1R
CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
At least annually, certain employees are required to submit
a report of their financial interest in business enterprises.
The audit will evaluate whether the financial disclosure
statements are being submitted by appropriate employees and
whether EPA procedures in collecting, verifying, utilizing, and
safeguarding the reports are adequate.
OTHER 7
-------
-------
SUPERFUND FINANCIAL AUDITS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Superfund - Audits of Other Federal
Agencies .......
Response Claims Against, the Superfund
State Cooperative Agreements
for Response Actions ...... .
Audit of the Superfund Trust
Fund for Fiscal 1991
SF FINANCIAL 1-1
SF FINANCIAL 2-1
SF FINANCIAL 3-1
SF FINANCIAL 4-1
-------
-------
PATS Code E5B
SUPERFUND - AUDITS OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
Background
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, directly gives
certain authorities to Federal agencies other than EPA.
Executive Order 12580 of January 23, 1987, delegates various
authorities under CERCLA to other agencies. Section 9 of the
order requires EPA to transfer to other agencies amounts from the
Superfund Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of CERCLA.
EPA transfers amounts to other Federal agencies through
interagency agreements (lAGs). Some agencies with significant
on-going authorities receive transfer allocations for these
activities which are generally not site specific. Many agencies
receive funds on a reimbursable basis for episodic activities and
services performed to assist EPA in fulfilling its delegated
authorities. These funds are usually specific.
Other Federal agencies are also required by CERCLA section 120 to
conduct Superfund responses at their own facilities with their
own appropriated funds. The agencies must consult with EPA about
these responses and enter into lAGs to obtain EPA approval of
remedial actions.
Each Inspector General of a Federal agency carrying out an
authority of CERCLA is required by CERCLA section lll(k) to
conduct an annual audit of the agency's "payments, obligations,
reimbursements, or other use of the Fund in the prior fiscal
year..." and report the results to Congress.
Reasons for Selection
In past years, a number of Superfund IAG audit reports received
from other Federal agencies disclosed that the agencies had not
adequately managed their Superfund expenditures. Moreover, the
annual audits are mandated by Congress.
ExpectedBenefits
All charges assessed to Superfund lAGs will be used as part of
the Agency's cost recovery cases. As such, it is important that
all costs be reasonable and fully supported. By requesting these
audits, and with the receipt of the reports, EPA will have the
needed assurance and support that the IAG costs incurred are
SF FINANCIAL 1-1
-------
PATS Code E5B
recoverable. With this evidence, the Agency can proceed to
include the IAG expenditures in a cost recovery action.
Audit Ob-Sectives
The audit objectives of this assignment are to determine whether:
— Other Federal agencies have adequate internal controls to
ensure the reliability of accounting and management
records to specifically identify costs to the agreement
and specific sites; and
— The funds obligated and disbursed are reasonable and
necessary for performance under the terms and conditions
of the lAGs in order that the Agency may recover the costs
from responsible parties.
Scope
During fiscal 1992, we will be requesting audits of lAGs from a
number of cognizant audit organizations (other Federal Offices of
Inspectors General and other Federal audit offices). We will
request the cognizant audit office to: (1) follow-up on previous
audit reports to ensure the recommendations to improve internal
controls (management and accounting) were implemented; and (2)
audit funds obligated and disbursed including indirect costs. In
addition, the auditors will check on the availability of required
reports on minority contractors' participation in Superfund
contracts. Also, on an as-needed basis, the auditors will verify
the obligations and disbursements records for specific transfer
allocation lAGs in order to permit timely close out of the
agreements so that additional resources can be made available for
Superfund programs.
SF FINANCIAL 1-2
-------
PATS Code E5B
RESPONSE CLAIMS AGAINST THE SUPERFUND
Background
An important part of the Superfund program is to encourage
voluntary cleanup by private industries and individuals when they
are responsible for releases. Section III of the CERCLA, as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA), authorizes persons (other that the U.S. Government,
state and local governments, or Indian Tribes) to seek
reimbursement for response costs incurred in carrying out the
National Contingency Plan (NCP).
Section 300.25(d) of the NCP states in part that such claims "may
only be reimbursed if such person notifies the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency or his/her designee prior to
taking such action and receives prior approval to take such
action." If a response claim has not been preauthorized in
advance, EPA returns them without any determination of their
merits.
Reasons for Selection
An annual audit is mandated by Section lll(k) of SARA.
Expected Benefits
The audit report should contain recommendations which if
implemented would eliminate weaknesses cited in the report.
Audit Objectives
The objective of this audit are to ensure that:
— Claims are being appropriately and expeditiously
considered; and
— Updates of the status of claims in the preauthorization
process are made.
Scope
We will review the claims submitted to determine if:
— The claims were processed in an expeditious manner (within
60 days after receipt of claim);
SF FINANCIAL 2-1
-------
.. ..: . PATS Code. E5B
The claimant has complied with the terms and conditions of
the preauthorization decision document; and
The costs claimed were allowable and in accordance with
Federal"cost principles, 48 CFR Subpart 31.1 and 31.2.
SF FINANCIAL 2-2
-------
PATS Code E5B
STATE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR RESPONSE ACTIONS
Background
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) authorizes EPA to enter into
cooperative agreements for response activities. The activities
covered by these agreements include preliminary assessments, site
inspection, remedial investigations, feasibility studies,
remedial designs, remedial actions, maintenance of completed
remedies and management assistance of state involvement in
Federally managed projects. Cooperative agreements may be for a
single site or may be for multiple sites within a state. Multi-
site cooperative agreements may continue indefinitely, as new
sites and new activities may be added to them. Single site
cooperative agreements may also be lengthy in duration, as
remedial response from planning to maintenance of completed
remedy frequently takes five years or longer.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
mandates the IG to examine "a sample of agreements with states
(in accordance with the provisions of the Single Audit Act)
carrying out response actions under this title. The results of
this examination are to be included in the IG's annual report to
Congress mandated by SARA.
Reasons for Selection
We have conducted a number of audits of cooperative agreements.
Most of these audits have disclosed significant problems with
state administration of Superfund projects. The most common
areas of deficiency include procurement system inadequacies,
inability of the accounting system to properly allocate costs,
and delays in accomplishing funded tasks.
These audits are statutorily mandated. There has been a high
degree of Congressional and EPA management interest in these
audits.
Expected Benefits
The expected benefits from these audits include more competitive
procurement, cost savings on contracts, more accurate accounting
and reduced delays in completing projects. The reduced delays
will result in reduced risks to citizens from exposure to
hazardous substances.
SF FINANCIAL 3-1
-------
. PATS Code E5B
Audit Obi ectives
The objectives of these audits are to determine if:
— Cost claimed under the cooperative agreement are
reasonable, allowable and allocable to the sponsored
project;
— Adequate controls are exercised by the state through its
financial management, accounting, procurement, contract
administration and property management systems; and
— The objectives of the cooperative agreement are achieved
on schedule.
Scope
We will audit selected cooperative agreements which have had
significant outlays but have not been audited within the past two
years. Where more than one such cooperative agreement with a
single state agency is identified, generally all appropriate
agreements with that agency will be audited together. The audits
will be conducted in accordance with audit guide BAG-3
SF FINANCIAL 3-2
-------
PATS Code E5B
AUDIT OF THE SUPERFUND TRUST
FUND FOR FISCAL 1991
Background
The Superfund program was established by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act'of 1980
(CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, enacted on December 11, 1980. The
Superfund program was created to protect public health and the
environment from the release, or threat of release, of hazardous
substances from abandoned hazardous waste sites and other sources
where response was not required by other Federal laws. A Trust
Fund was established by CERCLA to provide funding for responses
ranging from control of emergency situations to provisions for
permanent remedies at uncontrolled sites. CERCLA authorized a
$1.6 billion program financed by a five-year environmental tax on
industry and some general revenues. CERCLA requires that
response, or payment for response, be sought from those
responsible for the problem, including property owners,
generators, and transporters.
CERCLA was revised and expanded by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), Public Law 99-499, enacted on
October 17, 1986. SARA re-instituted the environmental tax and
expanded the taxing mechanisms available for a five-year period.
It authorized an $8.5 billion program for fiscal 1987-1991.
Reason for Selection
Section lll(g) of SARA requires the Inspector General or his
representative to conduct an annual audit of all payments,
obligations, reimbursements, or other uses of the Trust Fund in
the prior fiscal year to assure that the Trust Fund is being
properly administered.
Expected Benefits
This audit will result in an opinion on the fairness of the
Superfund obligations and disbursements reported by the Agency
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1991. The audit may also
result in recommendations to management on ways to improve the
management of the Trust Fund.
SF FINANCIAL 4-1
-------
PATS Code E5B
Audit: Objectives
The objectives of this annual audit are.to determine:
— Compliance with applicable laws and regulations;
— Adequacy of internal controls to ensure reliability of
accounting and management records; and
— Adequacy and fairness of financial reports on EPA's
portion of the Trust Fund for Fiscal 1991.
Scope
The scope of this financial and compliance audit will include an
evaluation of internal accounting controls, as well as an audit
of costs obligated and disbursed under the Superfund
appropriation for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1991.
SF FINANCIAL 4-2
-------
SUPERFUND PERFORMANCE AUDITS
Contract Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process
Alternative Remedial Contract Strategy
EPA1s'Use of Contractors
EPA's Negotiation, Award, and Contract
Management of ERCS Contracts
SF CTR MGMT 1-1
SF CTR MGMT 2-1
SF CTR MGMT 3-1
New Starts
Project Officer Oversight of Performance and
Award Fees on Superfund Contracts
EPA Oversight and Control Over
Subcontracts
SF CTR MGMT 4
SF CTR MGMT 5
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code E1S
ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL CONTRACTS STRATEGY
Background
In 1988 EPA awarded a series of Alternative Remedial Contracts
Strategy (ARCS) contracts in order to streamline the Superfund
remedial management process. Prior to ARCS, the Agency's
approach had been to hire various contractors to perform
different phases of remedial response activities at Superfund
National Priority List sites. Upon completion of one phase of a
project, the contractor would "pass along" a work product to the
contractor performing the next phase. By contrast the ARCS
"project management" concept gave wide-ranging responsibility for
each site to a single contractor who would:
Perform the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Studies (RI/FS);
— Provide technical support for public hearings and the
record of decision selection;
Conduct the design engineering phase;
— Serve as the Agency's construction manager during the
actual cleanup of the site; and
— Oversee cleanup work performed by potentially responsible
parties.
The Agency asserted that the ARCS project management concept
would not only lessen the time to clean up sites, but do so with
increased efficiency and accountability. EPA estimated that ARCS
could reduce RI/FS completion times to as little as a year while
providing the regions with a capability to choose contractors on
a more site-specific and competitive basis. A key component of
ARCS was its incentive plan. Contractors who supplied superior
work products would not only win award fees, but also become
eligible for a larger share of subsequent work assignments.
Reason for Selection
The first ARCS contracts obtained the services of remedial
contractors for Region 3. Regional contracting and project
officers currently administer five contracts of 10 years
duration, which have a combined potential value of $640,000,000.
SF CTR MGMT 1-1
-------
PATS Code E1S
A large portion of the initial expenditures went to cover
"mobilization" charges. As of September 1990 Region 3 had
obligated almost $82 million and was in receipt of the first
round of contractor work products.
Expected Benefits
It would be advantageous to correct any deficient contract
administration practices early in the program. This could be
best accomplished by reviewing the first round of contractor work
products and recommending any needed changes to benefit
succeeding rounds.
Audit Objectives
During this audit we will determine whether:
The goals for ARCS have been met;
Contractor work products are acceptable in light of their
cost; and
— Program management costs are reasonable.
Scope
The audit was initiated for the Region 3 ARCS contractors in
fiscal 1991. During fiscal 1992, the audit for Region 3 will be
completed and a similar audit will then be performed in two other
EPA Regions. A consolidated report will be issued after the
three reviews are completed.
Location and Resources
The Mid-Atlantic Audit Division is performing the audit in
Region 3. The Northern and Eastern Audit Divisions will conduct
similar audits.
SF CTR MGMT 1-2
-------
PATS Code .E1S
EPA'S USE OF CONTRACTORS
Background
EPA manages approximately 770 contracts with a potential value of
about $12.8 billion. Contractors provide EPA with a wide range
of services such as: enforcement support, technical support,
administrative support, analytical support, clean-up services,
transportation, data processing support, etc. Contracts are
managed at Washington Headquarters, Research Triangle Park,
Cincinnati and at the ten Regional Offices. Contractors perform
services and provide deliverables to EPA from both on-site and
off-site locations.
Reasons for Selection
Historically, EPA has used contractors to perform many agency
activities. Current OI6 reviews of the Computer Science
Corporation (CSC) contract and the Environmental Research
Laboratory, Duluth, MN disclosed contract activities that may be
prohibited by the Service Contract Act of 1965, EPA regulations,
and EPA Orders. Uses of a questionable nature include
contractors performing services of a personal services nature.
We believe that contractor use is highly vulnerable and could
expose millions of contract dollars to misuse.
Expected Benefits
We expect to find that EPA has weak controls over how contractors
are used, and that contract misuse and abuse occur frequently.
By identifying control weaknesses, contract misuse or abuse, we
can make recommendations to management to correct these
weaknesses and to ensure that contracts are used for intended
purposes.
Audit Obiectives
The audit objectives are to determine if EPA is using contractors
within the scope of their contracts and for acceptable purposes.
Scope
There are several possible approaches to conducting an audit of
EPA's use 'Of contractors'. One approach would be to take a random
sample of all active contracts and review them for use. Using
this approach, the scope would be very broad and require dealing
SF CTR MGMT 2-1
-------
PATS Code.ElS
with different groups who had responsibility for certain program
or support type contracts.
A second approach we could use would narrow the scope by looking
at contracts managed by a particular Contract Management Branch.
This would allow us to be more specific since we would be
reviewing contracts of a specific nature (i.e. RCRA/enforcement,
remedial, administrative, etc.).
Location and Resources
The Southern Audit Division will continue to work on this audit
during fiscal 1992.
SF CTR MGMT 2-2
-------
PATS Code E1S
EPA'S NEGOTIATION. AWARD AND CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT OF ERGS CONTRACTS
Background
Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund) authorized
EPA to act whenever there was a release or threat of release of
hazardous substances which might present an imminent and
substantial danger to public health or welfare. Between November
1983 and January 1984, PCMD awarded four ERCS contracts to
provide for emergency cleanup services. Each contract had
responsibility for clean up services in one of four geographic
zones in the country. These services included labor, equipment,
other materials, and site security. The ERCS contracts, awarded
for one-year periods with two separate one-year extension
options, were a combination of contract types, including fixed
rates and cost reimbursable types.
EPA authorized cleanup services through individual delivery
orders (DOs) on a case-by-case basis. Once a cleanup need became
known, EPA placed a DO against the appropriate ERCS contract.
The DO required specific quantities of labor and equipment at
fixed rates listed in the ERCS contract. The ERCS cost
reimbursable features included systematic services such as
financial, administrative, and clerical functions necessary to
support and track specific cleanup activities.
EPA's use of ERCS contracts had expanded beyond the first four
geographic zones. The later ERCS contracts awarded included the
four zone contracts, regional contracts and dedicated site-
specific contracts. In the latest ERCS contract awards, EPA
divided the prior zone four area into two mini-zone contracts.
The Office Of Inspector General issued an audit report in
September 1986 that addressed EPA's negotiation, award and
administration of the four generation one ERCS zone contracts.
On April 13, 1987, EPA submitted a corrective action plan to
respond to the OI6 audit report. The EPA response indicated that
the Agency planned to increase competition on ERCS contracts,
improve pricing techniques for the negotiation process,
strengthen the ERCS contract administration, increase personnel
resources and improve the business management of the ERCS
program.
Reasons for Selection
EPA's oversight of the Superfund contractors has been the subject
SF CTR MGMT 3-1
-------
;: . PATS Code E1S
of reports released by Congressional Subcommittees, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) and the Office Of Inspector General
(DIG). Abuses in the negotiation and charges of fixed rate
equipment items had been identified in the 1986 OIG report. This
audit is needed to evaluate EPA's implementation and
effectiveness of some of the Agency's corrective actions that
specifically related -to contractor owned equipment. The audit
will concentrate on the negotiation of fixed equipment rates,
ERB's management of contract requirements, and ERB's
effectiveness in definitizing ERGS delivery orders.
Expected Benefits
A review of EPA's corrective action plans to improve the ERCS
negotiation, award and contract management for fixed rate
equipment items will identify if the Agency's improvements worked
in obtaining reasonable rates, requiring contractor cost support
for fixed rate items and controlling excessive charges for
equipment. The ultimate benefit is the cost savings and
conservation of Trust Fund dollars.
Audit Objectives
The objectives of the audit are to determine:
— if PCMD's planned corrective actions provided; (1) a sound
and reasonable basis for negotiating fixed equipment
rates, (2) effective cost controls to limit reimbursement
to contractors for company owned equipment to purchase
price, and (3) the necessary management controls to be
sure of contractor compliance with the requirements of the
contracts; and
— if PCMD was effectively definitizing completed delivery
orders issued under ERCS contracts.
Scope
The review will cover EPA-ERCS contract activities from fiscal
year 1987 to the present for both zone contracts and regional
ERCS contracts. The review will begin in 1987 because the second
generation of ERCS contracts began in fiscal 1987. The review
will include an evaluation of the EPA corrective actions planned
to improve negotiation and award of fixed rate equipment items.
Further, the review will include the effectiveness of EPA's
contract requirements and resulting contract management of
contractor fixed rate equipment charges. Finally, the review
will evaluate the Agency's progress in definitizing ERCS deliver
orders.
SF CTR MGMT 3-2
-------
PATS Code .E1S
Locationand Resources
The Southern Audit Division will work on this audit during fiscal
1992.
SF CTR MGMT 3-3
-------
-------
*
: , PATS Code. E1S
PROJECT OFFICER OVERSIGHT OF PERFORMANCE AND
AWARD FEES ON SUPERFUND CONTRACTS
EPA project officers are expected to oversee contractor
progress and compliance with the contract's technical, financial
and administrative requirements. They report at least quarterly
to the appropriate contracting officers before payment is
authorized. The Agency also has review teams visit and review
contract administration at Procurement and Contracts Management
Division headquarters and in the field. This audit will
determine if project officers are providing adequate oversight of
Superfund contractors. For example, the audit will examine
whether project officers (1) established specific criteria to
evaluate contractor performance against contract requirements;
(2) prepared required justifications for contractors acquiring
government property; (3) completed contractor performance
evaluations before approving interim and final acceptance of
services rendered; and (4) sufficiently documented the their
contract reviews, conclusions and recommendations to the
contracting officers.
SF CTR MGMT 4
-------
-------
PATS Code .E1S
EPA OVERSIGHT AND CONTROL OVER SUBCONTRACTS
The Federal Acquisition Regulations Part 44 (FAR 44)
requires that contracting officers must consent to the use of
certain types of subcontracts. This formal consent protects the
Government's interest when subcontract work is complex, the
dollar value is substantial, or the Government's interest is not
adequately protected by competition or the type of contract.
Evidence from a prior audit of Superfund removals suggests that
the Government's interest was compromised. Subcontracting
efforts in the Superfund program may be particularly open to
fraud, waste, and abuse. Proper application of FAR 44 is
essential to protecting the Government's interest in
subcontracted work because the Government has no direct legal
relationship with subcontractors and because it is risky to rely
wholly on the prime contractor's assurance that subcontracted
work will satisfy Government requirements. This audit will
examine whether the Agency (l) reviews the need for
subcontracting by prime contractors and permits subcontracts only
when necessary, and (2) appropriately controls the use and cost
of subcontracts through application of FAR 44.
SF CTR MGMT 5
-------
-------
Enforcement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process
EPA Cost Recovery Negotiations1
Adequacy of Potential Responsible
Party Searches in Region 71
SF ENFORCEMENT 1-1
SF ENFORCEMENT 2-1
New Starts
Use of Trust Fund vs. Responsible
Party Support of Superfund Site1
SF ENFORCEMENT 3
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code E1S
EPA COST RECOVERY NEGOTIATIONS
Background
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 authorizes EPA to recover from
responsible parties all costs of response activities incurred in
cleaning up hazardous waste sites. To successfully pursue cost
recovery, EPA should be able to prove (1) a release or threat of
release of a hazardous substance, (2)- the liability of the
responsible parties, and (3) the expenditures. When EPA presents
proof of expenditures for cost recovery, records must show that
the work was authorized, completed, billed, and paid.
Cost recovery activities at sites in the remedial process are a
function of past expenditures for removals, Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) or Remedial Design (RD),
the outcome of Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA)
negotiations, and timing concerns related to possible statute of
limitations dates. When EPA incurs cleanups costs at a remedial
site, there are five contexts in which it may recover its costs.
— First, if the Agency funds a removal or the RI/FS and the
potential responsible parties (PRPs) agree to perform the
RD/RA, the Agency may recover the removal costs and RI/FS
from the PRPs as a part of the RD/RA settlement.
— Second, if the Agency funds a removal or the RI/FS and one
group of PRPs agrees to perform the RD/RA but there is
another group of viable PRPs that does not settle for the
RD/RA, the Agency may sue the non-settlor separately for
its RI/FS costs.
— Third, if the Agency funds the RD/RA because there was no
settlement, it may seek to recover costs of the entire
response in a cost recovery action, which should be
developed at the commencement of remedial construction.
— Fourth, where the time between completion of a removal,
RI/FS or RD and the initiation of on-site construction is
likely to exceed three years, EPA will file for cost
recovery regarding the removal, RI/FS or RD costs and
later, amend the suit to add the costs, of the RA.
— Finally, where there are multiple remedial operable units,
EPA will pursue a cost recovery action at the first
operable unit to recover its costs and to obtain a
SF ENFORCEMENT 1-1
-------
PATS Code El S'
declaratory judgment on liability for its costs at the
subsequent operable units. EPA then will bring subsequent
actions for its costs at the subsequent operable units.
The program operates on the assumption that there may be
different statute of limitations dates for different
operable unit activities.
The project manager, in conjunction with the Office of Regional
Counsel and the civil investigator, is responsible for five major
pre-1itigation activities involved in remedial cost recovery that
can be performed concurrently and usually occur near the time
that the Record of Division (ROD) is signed. These activities
are:
— Ensure the PRP-liability information meets evidentiary
standards;
— Complete and certify the Administrative Record;
— Document the removal, remedial, and oversight activities
undertaken and costs of these responses;
~ Send demand letters either as part of special notice
letters or separately; and
— Negotiate with the PRPs about their liability and the
extent of EPA's costs.
If this process is successful and the PRPs agree to reimburse the
Agency for its cost, the settlement usually will result in a
Consent Decree.
Once the Agency's costs have been documented and PRPs are
reasonably well identified, EPA sends demand letters to the PRPs.
The letters notify the PRPs of their liability for the Agency's
cleanup costs and demand payment of the full costs of cleanup.
In limited situations, PRPs will respond to the demand letters by
reimbursing the Agency immediately for its cost. However, in
most situations, PRPs will seek to negotiate with the Agency over
the extent of their liability or costs incurred. If negotiation
result in a settlement, EPA and the PRPs may enter into an
Administrative order on Consent that requires the PRPs to
reimburse the Agency for its costs. If total response costs at
the site exceed $500,000 (excluding interest), the Department of
Justice (DOJ) must concur on the terms of the settlement.
If PRPs refuse to reimburse EPA for these costs, the Region will
decide whether to refer the case to DOJ to recover the money.
When deciding whether to initiate judicial action, the Region
SF ENFORCEMENT 1-2
-------
PATS Code .E1S
reviews the case's priority and all available evidence and
evaluates the likely success of cost recovery efforts for that
particular site. If the Region decides to initiate the suit, the
case will be referred to DOJ. . .
EPA'S strategy sets forth priorities for cost recovery and the
steps that each response action must go through toward
settlement, litigation, or site close-out. Once a response
activity has been identified as a candidate for judicial action,
Regional management prioritizes the case to ensure that resources
are efficiently used to meet the cost recovery program
objectives, which are: maximize return of revenue to the Trust
Fund; initiate enforcement activity with strategic time frames,
but no later than the date defined by the statute of limitation;
encourage PRP settlement; and use administrative authority and
dispute resolution procedures.
The Agency developed national case selecting criteria for sites
with financially viable PRPs based on the monies expended at the
site and the cost recovery potential. Based on these criteria,
the priorities for initiating cases are:
— National Priority List (NPL) and non-NPL sites where EPA
has completed a removal action (including expanded removal
actions, RI/FSs, and initial remedial measures), the
response costs are $200,000 or greater, and the statute of
limitations deadline is approaching;
— Cases where Fund-financed remedial design and action have
been initiated. A remedial case referral to DOJ should be
scheduled for every site in this category;
— Sites where there has been a partial settlement providing
the Agency with less than full relief and there are viable
non-settlers;
-- NPL or non-NPL site where EPA has completed a removal
action and costs of response are $200,000 or greater; and
— Sites where total response costs are less than $200,000.
Reason for Selection
In December 1989, GAO reported that, as of June 1989, $1.9
billion of Superfund Trust Fund monies was ready for cost
recovery. Of the $1.9 billion, 8.3 percent ($157 million) had
been recovered. An additional 21.7 percent ($413 million) had
been referred to the Department of Justice, cost recovery action
had not been initiated on the remaining 70 percent ($1.3
SF ENFORCEMENT 1-3
-------
PATS Code .E1S
billion). EPA reported 496 cost recovery settlements, as of
August 1990, totalling $317.1 million. As removal work, remedial
design, or construction is completed on more sites, the number of
cost recovery actions is also expected to increase.
In addition, discussions with Superfund personnel in several 1PA
Regions during the course of various Superfund audits disclosed
that the Agency had negotiated cost recovery settlements,
sometimes arbitrarily for amounts less than the PRPs1 proven
liability. This tendency has been reported by the OIG in other
program areas.
Expected Benefits
An audit should be able to:
— Identify reasons why the Agency has not recovered
additional cost for PRPs; and
— Provide recommendations to improve the Agency's
negotiation process.
Audit Objectives
The purpose of the audit is to determine:
—- Why Agency negotiations have not been more successful in
terms of dollars collected; and
— Whether the Agency adequately documented reasons for
settling on final cost recovery amounts.
Scope
The audit will focus on Agency negotiations with PRPs for fiscals
1989 through 1991. The audit will be conducted in one region,
with the possibility of expansion to other regions.
Location and Resources
The Eastern Audit Division will continue to perform this audit
during fiscal 1992. Other divisions involvement will be
determined at a later date.
SF ENFORCEMENT 1-4
-------
PATS Code.ElS
ADEQUACY OF POTENTIALRESPONSIBLE
PARTY SEARCHES IN REGION 7
Background
The identification of potential responsible parties (PRPs) is an
integral component in the resolution of a hazardous substance
release. From the notification of a release through the remedial
action, identification of and communication with the PRPs, are
essential in determining the strategy for a cleanup. EPA under
Section 107(a) of CERCLA regards owners, operators, generators
and transporters as PRPs. Early identification supports the EPA
policy to secure cleanup by PRPs in lieu of Superfund use, where
such cleanup can be accomplished in a timely and effective
manner. In instances where Superfund is used to finance a
cleanup, the PRPs must be identified for cost recovery actions.
PRP searches are an essential early step in the enforcement
process. Current EPA policy and Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) encourage beginning a PRP
search early in the Superfund cleanup process. The initiation of
a PRP search should be concurrent with the initiation of the
National Priorities List (NPL) listing process. Completion
should take place at the time of the NPL proposed listing and
well before any projected obligation for a Remedial
Investigation/ Feasibility study (RI/FS).
EPA has one civil investigator located in Headquarters with a
responsibility for effective implementation of an overall
national investigation strategy for conducting PRP searches. In
addition, there is one civil investigator located in each Region
to ensure Regional consistency and quality among PRP searches,
develop a Regional plan for conducting PRP searches, and aid the
Headquarters investigator in implementing the national strategy.
EPA Regional project managers do some of the actual PRP search
activities, while the rest are performed by EPA contracted firms.
The primary efforts of a PRP search are directed at identifying
all PRPs at a site. This investigation may require a
considerable expenditure of resources, and, while in most cases
it should be substantially completed several months before the
RI/FS starts, it may extend over the entire remedial process.
While a PRP search may involve up to 28 tasks, the basic tasks
are: i) A review and compilation of Agency and State records,
(ii) a title search; (iii) interviews with government officials;
(iv) a history of operations at the site; (v) identification of
owner/operators, generators and transporters; (vi) any
SF ENFORCEMENT 2-1
-------
PATS code .E1S
quantitative waste information developed for each identified PRP
and a preliminary volumetric ranking; (vii) financial status of
identified parties; (viii) PRP status and history; (ix) PRP name
and address update; (x) issuance of information request letters;
and (xi) a comprehensive report documenting findings.
Reason for Selection
Concerns about aspects of PRP searches have been voiced by
various groups. The General Accounting Office in an October 1988
report found that about half of the searches were not performed
within the timeframes set by EPA guidance. A May 1989 Senate
Subcommittee in a Superfund, Ocean and water Protection report
found that EPA was failing to identify PRPs in an efficient and
timely fashion. More recently, an OI6 survey of the Superfund
enforcement process disclosed similar weaknesses. This topic
falls under the BAD Superfund theme area.
The Agency's 90-Day Study and subsequent Implementation Plan did
not specifically address the PRP search issue, though reference
was made for the need to followup on the Senate Subcommittee
report recommendations. The Agency recently placed increased
emphasis on obtaining settlements with PRPs to conduct Superfund
cleanups and this should require improved techniques to identify
those PRPs.
Expected Benefits
The audit will apprise Agency management of the effectiveness
of the Agency's efforts in this critical area of the Superfund
process and provide recommendations to improve the timeliness and
adequacy of PRP searches.
Audit Objectives
The objectives of the audit are to determine if:
— PRP searches are being timely and adequately conducted;
~ EPA is providing sufficient resources in Region 7
to conduct PRP searches; and
— EPA is effectively identifying all potential PRPs.
Scope
The audit will review PRP search activities in Region 7 for 1990
and 1991 years. This audit is similiar to the audit Eastern
Audit Division conducted in Region 1.
SF ENFORCEMENT 2-2
-------
PATS Code E1S
Resources and Location
The Central Audit Division will continue, this audit in fiscal
1992.
SF ENFORCEMENT 2-3
-------
-------
. :: • PATS Code. E1S
USE OF TRUST FUND VS. RESPONSIBLE PARTY
SUPPORT OF SUPERFUND SITE
The laws initiating and reauthorizing the Superfund program
give EPA the authority and necessary tools to respond directly
with Superfund resources or to compel potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) to respond to releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. PRPs are
parties identified as having owned or operated hazardous
substance sites, or who have transported or arranged for disposal
or treatment of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
at such sites. While responsible party financial actions have
increased over the years, the majority of actions are still paid
for by the trust fund. If EPA uses Superfund resources to clean
up a site, it is unlikely that the entire amount will be
reimbursed by PRPs. If PRPs instead took action directly,
Superfund money would be conserved. The audit will determine if
EPA is adequately using PRP resources in remedial clean-up
activities.
SF ENFORCEMENT 3
-------
-------
Financial Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
New Starts
Cost Recovery —Superfund
"ZZ" Accounts SF FIN MGMT 1
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code.ElS
COST RECOVERY — SUPERFUND "Z2" ACCOUNTS
Cost recovery is an important objective of the Superfund
program. Successful efforts depend on the ability to improve the
integrity of the case settlement process to ensure the case
closing information is immediately transferred to the regional
finance offices. Effective internal controls are needed to
ensure that cost recoveries are collected and reinvested in the
Trust Fund in a timely manner. The audit will determine if
adequate controls exist to assure that accounts are being
appropriately used and if the costs recorded in the accounts are
being recouped as part of cost recovery action.
SF FIN MGMT 1
-------
-------
Remedial
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process
Superfund - Management of the
Stringfellow Clean-up
SF REMEDIAL 1-1
New Starts
Remedial Management in EPA
Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study Activities
SF REMEDIAL 2
SF REMEDIAL 3
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code.ElS
SUPERFUND - MANAGEMENT OF THE STRINGFELLOW CLEAN-UP
Background
The Stringfellow hazardous waste site is located in Riverside
County near the Town of Glen Avon, California. Because of an
accumulation of toxic substances at the 17-acre site, there was a
threat of contamination to the drinking water of the 40,000
residents in the basin immediately below the site. To help study
this threat, EPA awarded a $2,772,000 cooperative agreement to
the State of California in July 1983. Subsequent amendments have
increased the amount to $31,537,000 and extended the project
period through December 1991.
The California Department of Health Services-Toxic Substances and
Control Division (TSCD) functions as the lead agency for this
project. As such, TSCD had been responsible for management of
the project, including selecting and awarding all contracts
required for immediate site mitigation measures and for the
remedial investigation/feasibility study phase of the project.
The EPA-OIG reviewed TSCD's administration of its cooperative
agreement with EPA for the period ending October 31, 1984. The
August 1985 audit report disclosed that TSCD had (1) failed to
follow many of the procurement requirements contained in 40 CFR
Part 33, thereby invalidating its procurement system
certification to EPA; (2) circumvented EPA and state regulations
by not utilizing competitive bidding or negotiating fair and
reasonable prices in awarding contracts under the Stringfellow,
McColl, and Purity cooperative agreements; (3) not initiated
accounting procedures which fully complied with the requirements
of 40 CFR 30.800; and (4) not implemented adequate procedures to
assure compliance with all cooperative agreements special
conditions.
As a result of the audit, TSCD informed EPA that they no longer
wanted to be the lead agency at the Stringfellow site. At this
point, the three major activities at the site were the remedial
investigation/feasibility study, construction of the pretreatment
plant, and hauling of extracted liquid waste to the disposal
site. EPA agreed to accept responsibility for operating the
pretreatment plant upon completion of construction and for liquid
hauling in May 1985. However, California's Governor subsequently
objected to EPA taking over total control of the site. As a
result, TSCD and EPA have reached a mutual agreement on how the
SF REMEDIAL 1-1
-------
PATS Code -E1S
project should be managed. TSCD is organizing a team of 10
technical and administrative personnel to manage the project.
The pretreatment plant is operational and is currently operating
at about 30 percent of its design capacity.
Reasons for Select_ign
The Stringfellow Acid Pits site has a long, highly visible and
controversial history. The site is on the National Priorities
List as California's highest priority site. Our prior audit
disclosed a pattern of disregard for Federal regulations and
procedures by TSCD. In addition, the potential for additional
litigation against EPA at this site is very high. In this
respect, the local community is well organized and has hired its
own technical consultants to observe the project. Because of the
confusion as to the TSCD and EPA roles at the Stringfellow site,
there have been periods of either low or non-productivity at the
hazardous waste site since our prior audit. Current monitoring
has detected contamination in monitoring wells installed as far
as 1.5 miles from the site. Further, there is a concern over
EPA's decision to allow the TSCD to fund the remaining remedial
investigation/feasibility study with state funds. We believe
that this could lead to the same disregard of the Federal
requirements as noted in our prior audit. Other points to
consider in a subsequent audit include the following:
— The agreement has now been increased to a total of
$31,537,000.
— The pretreatment plant cost $4.1 million to construct.
Both the cost and time required to complete the project
exceeded the budgeted amounts. Additionally, the
contracts were closed out without EPA approval of
construction contract change orders.
— The pretreatment plant was to be operated by outside
consultants at a cost of $6.9 million in fiscal 1985 and
1986. The basis for entering into the contracts and the
reasonableness of the operating costs should be explored.
In addition, the adequacy of the contract price
negotiations, and the contract terms should be reviewed.
Since the plant is currently operating at 30 percent of
its design capacity, an evaluation of the reasons for this
low operating level should be made.
Expected Benefits
We expect to determine why the overall management of the project
has not improved since our prior audit. In addition, the
SF REMEDIAL 1-2
-------
PATS Cpde.ElS
potential for cost recovery or cost avoidance exists under the
Stringfellow project.
Audit Objectives
The audit objectives will be to determine:
— What actions can be taken to avoid confusion between EPA
and TSCD in the future and the effect of delays on the
project;
— Whether the structure and organization of site management
is consistent with the requirements established in the
cooperative agreement;
— Whether the role of each organization is adequately
defined so that there are no voids in site management and
responsibility;
— If the administration of the pretreatment contract and the
operation of the pretreatment facility is effective and in
accordance with EPA requirements; and
— Why the overall management of the project has not
substantially improved since our prior audit.
Scope
The scope of the audit will be to review the overall
effectiveness of the management of the Stringfellow cooperative
agreement by EPA Region 9 and by TSCD.
Location and Resources
The Wetern Audit Division will continue to work on this
assignment during fiscal 1992.
SF REMEDIAL 1-3
-------
-------
PATS Code. E1S
REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT IN EPA
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act, as amended, provides the authority and resources
to clean hazardous waste sites which pose a threat to the public
or the environment. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan outlines procedures for investigating site
contamination and evaluating/selecting appropriate remedies to
eliminate threats posed by these sites. During recent audits, a
number of deficiencies were identified. The Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 mandates a number of actions to
be taken by the Agency. This will be a follow-on audit to the
recent remedial and post-SARA remedial action starts audit
efforts and will focus on the effectiveness of the regional
management of Federal and PRP-lead National Priorities List
sites. The audit will identify weaknesses in the way EPA
conducts its overall remedial management program and recommend
useful improvements in the efficiency of the Fund-lead cleanups
EPA-wide.
SF REMEDIAL 2
-------
-------
. , f PATS Code .E1S
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
AND FEASIBILITY STUDY fRI/FS) ACTIVITIES
The Superfund legislation requires the EPA Inspector General
to annually conduct an examination of remedial investigations
(RIs) and feasibility studies (FSs) prepared for remedial actions.
During fiscal 1992, OIG field divisions will initiate audits of
EPA management of the RI/FS program by various regions and the
Engineering and Science Unit will review in detail selected RI/FS
projects in support of these divisional audits. These efforts may
identify problems in remedial project manager administration and
oversight of the RI/FS process. During this review, divisional
audit staff will determine whether the regions are monitoring and
controlling contractor costs and review of deliverables by other
EPA offices and Federal and state agencies; initiating corrective
actions for delays in the RI/FS process; and reviewing contractor
workplans. In a complementary effort, the Engineering and Science
Unit will continue to review the quality of recently completed
RI/FS projects.
SF REMEDIAL 3
-------
-------
Other
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process
The Sample Management Office1
Superfund - QA/QC of the Contract
Lab Program
Followup on CERCLIS Reporting
New Starts
Regional Use of Analytical Data1
Superfund Contract Laboratory Program
Chain of Custody for Samples1
Superfund—Review of the Agency
Report to Congress
SF OTHER 1-1
SF OTHER 2-1
SF OTHER 3-1
SF OTHER 4
SF OTHER 5
SF OTHER 6
1 Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code.ElS
THE SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
Background
The Sample Management Office (SMO) is a contractor operated
office which provides essential management and administrative
functions for the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). These
functions include: sample scheduling and tracking; contract
compliance screening of Routine Analytical Services;
subcontracting for Special Analytical Services; laboratory
invoice processing; maintenance of CLP records and management
reporting; procurement development and Statement of Work
production; CLP meetings and conference coordination; and
management, technical, and administrative support to the CLP
National Program Office.
Reasons for Selection
The OIG has initiated several efforts concerning the Contract
Laboratory Program. These include several investigations of CLP
labs and audits by the Internal and Western Audit Divisions.
These efforts have identified problems within the CLP; however,
no OIG efforts to date have concentrated on the essential CLP
operations conducted by the SMO. During the aforementioned
audits and investigations, regional personnel have voiced
concerns about the SMO and its operations. For instance,
questions have been raised about SMO's subcontracting for Special
Analytical Services. These subcontracts totaled approximately
$7,000,000 in 1989. EPA's contract with Viar and Company to
operate the SMO has a potential value of $143,801,171 and expires
in September 1994.
Expected Benefits
This audit would provide a program assessment of a $143,801,171
contractor operation which provides management over analytical
services which are vital to the Agency's Superfund program.
Audit Objectives
The objective of this audit is to determine if EPA is effectively
and efficiently managing and utilizing the SMO.
Scope
The survey was completed on March 29, 1991 and we found several
areas that warranted further audit work. During fiscal 1992 the
audit will be performed and it will address each of the areas of
SF OTHER 1-1
-------
concern identified during the survey.
Location and Resources
PATS Code E1S -
W
The Mid Atlantic Audit Division is currently performing this
assignment, and expects to issue the report before the ene of
fiscal 1992.
SF OTHER 1-2
-------
PATS Code E1S
SUPERFUND - OA/OC OF THE
CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM
Background
The Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) supports EPA's Superfund
program by providing laboratory analysis of soil, water, and
other substances from Superfund sites. The purpose of these
analyses is to determine what toxic substances are present and in
what concentration. The-overall objective of the CLP is to
provide standard analytical services that are of acceptable
quality and are cost effective for a high volume of samples.
The CLP has grown considerably since its inception in 1980, as
the number of samples from Superfund sites has increased. EPA
has contracted with about 128 private laboratories to analyze
over 120,000 samples in support of the Superfund program. The
CLP provides two types of services: (1) routine analytical
services for organic and dioxin analyses, which are contracted
directly by EPA; and (2) special analytical services which are
subcontracted by the Sample Management Office.
CLP analytical results are reviewed by various EPA organizational
elements. EPA regions review data packages for usability. The
Sample Management Office reviews data packages for compliance
with contract submittal requirements. In addition the Quality
Assurance Division of the Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory/Las Vegas (EMSL/Las Vegas) is responsible for the
independent quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) oversight
of the CLP. The QA/QC oversight is supposed to ensure that
contract laboratories produce acceptable analytical data. To
assist in this process, the EMSL/Las Vegas, under the direction
of the CLP National Program Office, performs three distinct, but
interrelated functions: Performance Evaluation Studies, Data
Audits and On-Site Evaluations.
Reasons for Selection
A prior survey of EMSL/Las Vegas1 QA/QC program disclosed that
the QA/QC program has been effective in identifying contract
laboratories that have not been complying with CLP contract
requirements. As part of our survey we selectively reviewed the
results of 39 data audits on data packages submitted by 10
different laboratories. These data audits disclosed that 7 of
the 10 laboratories were submitting CLP data that did not meet
the minimum acceptable quality levels. In addition, EMSL/Las
Vegas identified problems with laboratory performance during on-
SF OTHER 2-1
-------
. PATS Code.E1S
the minimum acceptable quality levels. In addition, EMSL/Las
Vegas identified problems with laboratory performance during on-
site evaluations and performance evaluation studies. We found no
evidence that either contract sanctions or adequate corrective
actions were taken by EPA to assure that the problem laboratories
were brought back into compliance.
As a result, EPA may be paying for analytical services provided
under the CLP program that are of unacceptable quality and do not
meet contract requirements. Also, the poor quality of the data
could contribute to incorrect Superfund site evaluation
decisions. In addition, EPA attempts to recover Superfund costs
from responsible parties could be adversely affected by the poor
quality of data.
Expected Benefits
The review could strengthen the Agency's CLP QA/QC program by
assuring that (l) the CLP problem contractors are identified, (2)
proper actions are taken by program management to correct
operational problems, and (3) costs are recovered for
unacceptable CLP products. Improvements in program QA/QC
activities should provide assurance to the Regions that the
analytical results submitted by laboratories are of acceptable
quality and meet contract requirements.
Audit Objectives
The overall objective is to determine whether EPA's CLP QA/QC
program effectively ensures that high quality data analyses are
received to support the Superfund program and whether the Agency
pays for unacceptable contractor performance. Specific audit
objectives that could be addressed during the review include
determining:
— Whether controls in place are adequate to evaluate
contract laboratory performance and whether these controls
are effectively being implemented by EMSL/Las Vegas and
the Agency;
— If EMSL/Las Vegas is reporting all deficiencies identified
from on-site evaluations, data audits and perf
ormance evaluation studies;
if appropriate follow-up measures are initiated promptly
against non-performing CLP contractors and if such
measures result in corrective action and contract
sanctions, as appropriate.
SF OTHER 2-2
-------
X
PATS Code.ElS
Scope
The review will focus on EMSL/Las Vegas' management of the QA/QC
program and the follow-up actions taken by CLP program officials
in response to the deficiencies reported. The review will be
performed at EMSL/Las Vegas and the CLP National Program Office.
Some work in regional offices may be required. The review would
cover data package reviews, data tape audits and on-site
laboratory evaluations performed during the last two to three
years and the subsequent actions taken by program officials. The
Internal Audit Division is currently performing a review of
certain aspects of the CLP program. This review will not
duplicate their efforts and will support them in preparation of a
future consolidated report on the CLP program if appropriate.
Location and Resources
The Western Audit Division will conduct the review at EMSL/Las
Vegas and appropriate CLP program offices in Washington, D.C.
The results of the EMSL QA/QC activities will be analyzed and
traced through the CLP program offices to determine what actions
appropriately brought the laboratories back into compliance.
Technical assistance may be needed to evaluate some laboratory
deficiencies and assistance from IAD may be needed during our
Headquarters review phase.
SF OTHER 2-3
-------
-------
PATS Code .E1S
.•"
FOLLOWUP ON CERCLIS REPORTING
Background
Our audit report entitled Report on CERCLIS Reporting was issued
on March 12, 1990. The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) is a
data base system that was developed to aid EPA Headquarters and
regional personnel with Superfund site, program, and project
management. We found that management of CERCLIS report
development and modification was deficient due to the absence of
good controls over documentation, software changes, and testing.
Although employment of strict procedures that would ensure the
existence of these controls had long been an accepted practice
within data processing, within both government and private
industry, CERCLIS management did not ensure that such procedures
were put into effect. As a result, material errors had arisen
within CERCLIS reports and any information that was reported by
the system had to be considered suspect and used cautiously.
Reasons for Selection
In response to the draft version of our report, the Assistant
Administrator (OSWER), stated that all of our recommendations had
been implemented. As a result, in the final version of the
report, we stated that a Special Review would be performed in
approximately one year or two to verify that all recommendations
had been implemented adequately.
Expected Benefits
CERCLIS was designed to serve as the primary basis for strategic
decision-making for the multi-billion dollar Superfund program.
The system cannot serve this purpose if the problems discussed in
our report are not rectified. A Special Review would aid in
assuring that the necessary actions had been taken and that they
were adequate to resolve the problems noted in the report.
Audit Objectives
The review would have the,sole objective of verifying that the
report recommendations on CERCLIS Reporting had been implemented
adequately.
SF OTHER 3-1
-------
. : PATS Code-llS
Scope
The scope of this review would be limited to the recommendations
of our report on CERCLIS Reporting.
Location and Resources
Field work would be limited to EPA Headquarters where all
development and maintenance for CERCLIS is managed. If
documentation of programming and procedures for CERCLIS is
adequate, one auditor, with technical assistance where necessary,
should be able to complete the review and issue a draft report
within three months.
SF OTHER 3-2
-------
PATS Code.IIS
f'
REGIONAL USE OF ANALYTICAL DATA
>
During Superfund cleanups numerous soil and water samples
are taken to determine the location, nature, and concentration of
hazardous substances. These samples are analyzed and results are
submitted to the region. Regional chemists identify problems
concerning any limitations data users should consider in using
data to make decisions about hazardous waste sites. Of the
100,000 samples analyzed in the past 19 months, only 200 were
rejected. An audit is needed because the number of samples
either rejected or with payments reduced were extremely small,
the vast amounts of money spent for studies and cleanups at
Superfund sites, the regions are under pressure to accept lesser
quality samples to achieve mandated cleanup goals, and resampling
is costly and time consuming. The audit will determine if the
regions accepted poor quality data that should be rejected or
recommended for reduced payment and whether excessive data was
collected.
SF OTHER 4
-------
-------
.- :.- ..-,.- PATS Code. Eis
SUPERFUND CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM
CHAIN OF CUSTODY FOR SAMPLES
The Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) supports EPA's
Superfund program by supplying routine chemical analysis for site
investigations. The analytical data is used to base assessments
of risk, institute remedial actions, or initiate enforcement
actions to identify and mitigate threats to public health and the
environment. Because the program has a strong orientation toward
enforcement activities, sample identification and custody
requirements were incorporated into the program from inception.
The audit will include an assessment of the EPA National
Enforcement Investigation Center's controls over the performance
of evidence audits at CLP contract laboratories and whether
timely corrective action is taken. If material weaknesses are
disclosed during the audit, it could improve the Agency's
controls over this enforcement sensitive area and provide
assurance to the regional office users that their samples are
being properly controlled and protected by the CLP laboratories.
SF OTHER 5
-------
-------
.• :: . PATS Code. E1S
SUPERFUND—REVIEW OF THE AGENCY REPORT TO CONGRESS
CERCLA, as amended, requires EPA to submit annual reports on
progress achieved in implementing the Act. The Inspector General
is required to review the report for reasonableness and accuracy
and to report these results to Congress as part of the Agency
report. The audit will analyze the Agency's methodology for
compiling the information and the reliability of the information
systems used.
SF OTHER 6
-------
r\
-------
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK AUDITS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Work in Process
Underground Storage Tank National
Inventory LUST 1-1
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Program in Regions 9 and 10 LUST 2-1
NewStarts
EPA's Oversight of the Underground
Storage Tank Program LUST 3-1
l Theme Area
-------
-------
PATS Code.E1L
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKNATZONAL-INVENTORY
Background
Regulation of the nation's underground storage tanks (UST) is
authorized by the Solid Waste Disposal Act as-amended. The Act
required that states make two separate inventories of USTs—one
for tanks containing petroleum products and another for other
regulated substances. EPA assisted the states in developing
their UST inventories by providing guidance and a handbook for
their use when completing their inventory.
The Act also required that the Governor of each state designate a
state or local agency to develop an accurate UST inventory. UST
owners were required to notify the state of the existence of the
tanks they owned. The owners were also required to notify the
designated agency of the age, size, type, location, and use of
their tanks. Each state had to submit the inventory data to EPA
by September 1987. In addition, each state is required to
maintain their UST inventory by recording information on new tank
installations and removals.
Accurate UST inventory data are an important management tool
which assist EPA in:
— Assessing the progress that the states have made in
replacing, refitting and cleaning up leaking UST sites;
— Measuring the effectiveness of state UST programs;
— Allocating Federal funding to the states; and
— Making general management decisions regarding program
resource requirements, program goals, etc.
Based on the above inventory, EPA estimates that there are about
2 million USTs in the United States, more than 97 percent of
which store petroleum products. Less than 3 percent, about
54,000, of these tanks store chemicals.
Reason for Selection
According to EPA and state program officials, the UST inventory
is incomplete. These officials believe that some state UST
inventories may be understated by as much as 30 to 40 percent.
An accurate UST inventory is essential for making informed
LUST 1-1
-------
PATS Code E1L
management decisions and measuring the progress that states and
EPA are making in cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks
and complying with the Act's requirements.
Problems regarding the accuracy of the UST inventory are also
evident. For example, EPA has changed the definitions that
states use to update the inventory and not all states may be
applying the appropriate definitions to their inventory.
Consequently, inaccuracies in the national UST inventory may
exist. We reviewed a recent national UST inventory report and
found that some of the data was inaccurate and incomplete. For
example, we found that information regarding the age of USTs was
missing for some states. Because of these inaccuracies, it is
difficult to assess program progress and determine the extent of
the leaking UST problem.
Expected Benefits
We expect to provide the Regional Administrator with a report
which will highlight problems with Region 5's UST inventory and
recommend solutions to resolve those problems. The work should
result in a more accurate inventory and allow the Congress, EPA,
and states to make better decisions regarding the UST and LUST
programs.
Audit Objectives
The audit objectives are to:
— Determine the accuracy and completeness of the UST
national inventory;
~ Identify reasons for inventory deficiencies;
— Identify ways to improve state inventory reporting; and
— Determine the adequacy of the inventory for monitoring
the UST and LUST programs.
Scope
We will perform our audit at EPA Headquarters and in Region 5 to
determine their inventory responsibilities and activities. We will
contact selected states in Region 5 and develop case studies on
their inventories. We also plan to assess how the initial inventory
was taken and how the inventory is used and maintained.
LUST 1-2
-------
PATS Code E1L
Location and Resource Reauirements
The Nortern Audit Division will perform .a pilot audit of the EPA
underground storage tank inventory. Field work will be performed at
EPA Headquarters, Region 5, and selected states. We plan to
complete the audit in 275 staff days.
LUST 1-3
-------
-------
PATS Code.ElL
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
PROGRAM IN REGIONS 9 AND 10
Background
In 1984, Congress amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) with the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments. The
revised law required EPA to develop and implement a comprehensive
regulatory program for underground storage tanks.
In 1986, Congress responded to public concerns about the dangers
from leaking underground storage tanks by passing into law the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Section 205
of SARA amended Subtitle I of RCRA to provide Federal funds for
corrective actions on petroleum leaks and spills from underground
storage tanks. This amendment to RCRA established a $500 million
"Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund", paid for by
a tax of 1/10 of cent on each gallon of gasoline. According to
these amendments, priority for corrective actions is to be given
to those underground storage tanks that present the greatest
threat to human health and the environment.
The regulations require tank owners and operators to detect,
report, and correct leaking tanks. Thus, the program financially
impacts tank owners and operators, compels some businesses to
discontinue, and may motivate others to operate in violation of
the law.
The EPA regional offices assist states in developing their
programs and in obtaining program approval. The Regions also
provide oversight to state programs. The Regions are responsible
for implementing the program on Indian Lands because most of
these lands are not under the jurisdiction of the states.
Reasons for Selection
Leaking underground storage tanks are a serious environmental
problem. Several million underground storage tanks in the U.S.
contain petroleum or hazardous chemicals. One estimate puts the
number of leaking tanks at 2 million.
Leaking underground storage tanks can cause fires or explosions
that threaten human safety. In addition, leaking underground
storage tanks can contaminate nearby groundwater, and ultimately,
drinking water.
Because the LUST program is relatively new, an early review of
Regions 9 and 10 programs would assist in identifying any areas
LUST 2-1
-------
. :. PATS Code.E1L
.•
of program weakness. Further, audits in other OIG Divisional
offices have identified major problems with the LUST program.
In Region 9, the State of California has.been allocated the
largest amount of LUST funds in the nation—about $12.5 million.
A regional review of California's LUST program in May 1991 found
that there was a lack of program emphasis, and state oversight of
local agencies. As of August 1991, California had "confirmed11
that 18,000 underground storage tanks were leaking.
Region 9 also has the largest number of Indian reservations and
the largest Native American population in the U.S. However,
there are indications that the program has not been implemented
on Indian lands.
Expected Benefits
A survey of the LUST program in Regions 9 and 10 would identify
problem areas that should be evaluated in future audits.
Audit Objectives
The audit objectives would be to:
— Gain a basic knowledge of the LUST program in Regions 9
and 10;
— Identify specific program functions being performed by
regional staff versus state program personnel; and
— Identify problem areas requiring future detailed program
audits.
Scope
It is our plan to conduct the survey in Regions 9 and 10, and
include the States of California and Washington.
Location and Resources
The Western Audit Division will continue to perform this audit
during fiscal 1992.
LUST 2-2
-------
. . PATS Code E1L
EPA'S OVERSIGHT OF THE
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM
Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended required
EPA to develop and implement a regulatory program for underground
storage tanks (USTs). The law required the Agency to develop
regulations for UST technical standards and State program
approval. The regulations affect about 2 million tanks and
750,000 owner/operators. EPA's Office of Underground storage
Tanks (OUST) works with EPA Regional offices and States to define
program goals, priorities, measures of success, and types of work
to be performed by EPA and State agencies. Regional offices work
with States to develop UST programs, allocate grant monies,
evaluate State performance, and identify improvement actions.
Progress in implementing the UST program has been slow. As of
May 1991, EPA had approved only two State programs. In addition,
EPA oversight of the Regions and States was limited. Work in
Region 5 showed that OUST provides little guidance and oversight.
Also existing guidance is unclear. Through the annual operating
guidance, OUST established national priorities, but did not
develop detailed Regional guidance. As a result, Region 5 sets
its own priorities, which are not always consistent with national
priorities. This audit will determine EPA's oversight
responsibilities for Regional and State UST programs, and whether
or not Headquarters has developed appropriate guidance and
ensures consistent implementation by the Regions. The work
should result in ensuring that EPA guidance and regulations are
being developed and consistently implemented on a national basis.
LUST 3
-------
I
------- |