UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 23 1997
OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Results of Assessment of Controls Over Emergency
Removal Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
Report No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
FROM:
TO:
Elissa R. Karpf <*
Deputy Assistant Inspector General
for External Audits
Timothy Fields, Jr.
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Attached is our assessment of the controls over disbursements and other activities related
to emergency removal actions at methyl parathion sites. Our assessment Indicates that Agency
controls over several aspects of the removal process could be strengthened with clarification of
existing guidance or with the development of additional national guidance. The attached
discussion focuses on:
• the potential for inadequate resources and procedures for implementing a new
sampling approach,
• inconsistencies in decisions to conduct cleanups at businesses,
• the potential for fraudulent and excessive relocation costs,
• inconsistencies in documentation of personal property records, and
• the potential for increased costs and delays in completion of residential
restorations.
PrtnMd wRD SoyCancta Ink on fapw th*t
COfltWMI •! iMHtt 80% fl§CJWl§d fib^f
-------
Also included are suggestions that we believe will provide greater consistency and
strengthen the Agency's controls in future similar emergency responses. We look forward to
receiving written comments with proposed actions that your office may take in response to our
suggestions within the next 120 days.
We appreciate the collaborative efforts of the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response in providing us information and insight to facilitate our review. During our field visits,
we spoke with many individuals who were very receptive to our observations and who expended
considerable time and effort in protecting the health of hundreds of families affected by the
methyl parathion contamination. We commend the efforts put forth by the individuals who
assisted us. We believe the way the Agency worked with the Office of Inspector General staff in
discussing the problems and identifying solutions demonstrates a snared commitment to improve
Agency operations and protect government funds.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Dave Boyce, Audit Manager in
our Dallas office, at (214) 665-6621.
Attachment
-------
ATTACHMENT
ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY REMOVAL
ACTIONS AT METHYL PARATHION SITES
INTRODUCTION
Based on concerns raised by the Environmental Protection
Agency's (Agency) program officials, we conducted an assessment
of controls over emergency removal actions at methyl parathion
sites. The overall objective of the assessment was to determine the
adequacy and appropriateness of Agency policies and procedures
to perform emergency removal actions. In particular, we focused
on those policies and procedures which addressed sampling,
relocation, decontamination, and restoration.
BACKGROUND
Methyl parathion is a highly toxic pesticide registered for use on
several agricultural crops and is restricted to outdoor use. This
type of pesticide typically affects the capability of the human
central nervous system to regulate itself. Exposure, which may
occur through contact, inhalation, or ingestion, can cause serious
illness and even death. Methyl parathion readily breaks down in
the environment through a combination of natural sunlight, water,
and biological actions, but does not readily degrade indoors.
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
issued Directive 9360.3-12, dated August 12,1993, which
provided guidance on the use of authority under section 104 (a) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, to conduct indoor response
actions such as the methyl parathion emergency. This directive
clarifies that CERCLA section 104 authority should be used only
in instances of a release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance into the environment and only when such release or
threat of release poses a hazard to public health or welfare or the
environment. A finding of imminent and substantial endangerment
•. of a pollutant or contaminant must also exist.
The Agency's initial involvement with methyl parathion
contamination in residences was in Lorain County, Ohio, in
December 1994. Ohio health officials alerted the Agency that
1
Assignment No. E1SFB 7-06-0020-7400 069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
hundreds of residences might have been contaminated with methyl
parathion. The Agency, using various resources, temporarily
relocated 869 residents, and decontaminated and-restored 233
homes. Removal actions at the Lorain County site were completed
in February 1996, at a cost of approximately $18,500,000.
Less than a year later, in November 1996, the State of Mississippi
requested the Agency's assistance in responding to a public health
hazard posed by the illegal application of methyl parathion in
homes and businesses in and around Jackson County, Mississippi.
One month later, the State of Louisiana requested assistance for
response to methyl parathion contamination in the New Orleans
area. Based on the experiences of Lorain County, the Agency
responded and tested the extent of contamination, relocated
residents, and decontaminated and restored residences and some
businesses.
In May 1997, the State of Illinois contacted the Agency requesting
assistance for response to methyl parathion contamination in the
Chicago area. The Agency is in the process of planning its
proposed actions for the Chicago site.
The latest Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
Methyl Parathion Response Status report, dated September 5,
1997, shows costs obligated for removal actions at each state as
follows:
Mississippi
Louisiana
Illinois
$36,050,000
$17,800,000
$ 5,500,000
In January 1997, Regions 4 and 6 contacted the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) Office of Investigations (OI) regarding allegations
of irregularities in some residents' relocation applications in
Mississippi and Louisiana. Through OI's involvement and
discussions with the Agency, we agreed to assist the Agency by
assessing the adequacy of the policies and procedures used by the
regions throughout the various aspects of the removal process.
Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
The removal process, which is generally initiated by calls from
individuals to an established Pesticide Hotline, consists of four
phases:
• sampling,
• resident relocation,
• decontamination, and
• restoration.
A state agency collects wipe samples from high contact/high traffic
areas in a residence or business. Such areas are locations with an
increased probability for repeated and prolonged human contact
with the potentially contaminated surface. A designated laboratory
then analyzes the samples for methyl parathion. Residents were
originally relocated based on health criteria developed and used by
the Agency in Lorain County, Ohio. Rapid relocation of residents
and decontamination of the residence occurred if methyl parathion
'from a wipe sample equaled or exceeded a certain level. The
decontamination and restoration procedures involve the removal of
contaminated food and fabric items; painting of contaminated
surfaces; and removal and installation of replacement carpeting,
baseboards, furnace filters, cabinets, furnishings, and non-
structural building components which remain contaminated.
In May 1997, the Agency changed its criteria for relocating
residents and decontaminating residences. The change resulted
from a determination made by the Methyl Parathion Health
Sciences Steering Committee that scientific relationships between
levels of methyl parathion found in residences and levels found in
urine samples taken from residents were not found to exist in other
geographic locations as existed in Lorain, Ohio. The differences
were attributed to site-specific circumstances, such as spray
technique, house construction, and climate factors. In the absence
of such site-specific correlations, the steering committee
determined that methyl parathion levels in urine should become the
prime determinant for relocating residents to decontaminate
residences.
Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY
Our review focused on the ongoing and proposed removal actions
at three primary sites: (1) the Jackson County, Mississippi site in
Region 4; (2) the New Orleans, Louisiana site in Region 6; and (3)
the Chicago, Illinois site in Region 5. We coordinated our review
with OIG investigators already onsite in Mississippi and Louisiana
to avoid duplication of effort. We met with headquarters program
officials in OERR, and program officials hi Regions 4,5, and 6.
We made visits to the Jackson County and New Orleans sites to
meet with the on-scene coordinators (OSC), emergency response
contractors (ERCS), and representatives from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps). Additionally, we met with the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry staff co-located with
Region 6 and representatives from the Mississippi State
Department of Health (MSDH), the Louisiana Office of Public
Realm, and the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry
(LDAF).
To facilitate our review, we obtained memorandums from the
Agency's Office of General Counsel to verify the Agency's
authority to conduct the removal actions. Also, we obtained a
copy of the EPA National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan ( NCP); the Uniform Relocation Assistance,
Real Property Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted
Programs; and EPA Guidance on Temporary Relocations During
Superjund Removal Actions to assess relocation criteria. We
reviewed files maintained at both the New Orleans and Jackson
County sites to determine the effectiveness of administrative
controls over relocation benefits, reimbursement of personal
property, and health effects of the methyl parathion spraying.
This review, like all special reviews, was a short term study of
Agency activities. It was not designed to be a detailed audit.
Rather it was an information gathering survey that sought to assist
the Agency by providing an assessment of the adequacy of the
policies and procedures being followed for removal actions at
, methyl parathion sites. Thus, it was more limited in scope than an
audit and, as such, did not necessarily encompass all generally
accepted government auditing standards. Alternately, we
conducted this review in accordance with the provisions of OIG
manual chapter 118, Special Assignments.
Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Metbyl Parathion Sites
OBSERVATIONS
AND
CONCLUSIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
OF NEW TESTING
PROCEDURES
Our assessment indicates that the Agency could strengthen
controls over several aspects of the emergency removal process
with the clarification of existing guidance and the development of
additional specific national guidance. The lack of adequate
national guidance has resulted in:
• the potential for inadequate resources and
procedures for implementing a new sampling
approach,
• inconsistencies in decisions to clean up
contaminated businesses,
• the potential for fraudulent and excessive relocation
costs,
• inconsistencies in the documentation of personal
property items, and
• the potential for increased costs and delays in
completion of residential restorations.
We discussed these concerns initially with headquarters program
officials in OERR, and again during recent task force conference
calls. In response, the Agency has issued several new directives
that address some of the areas of concern we have raised.
However, we believe that further improvements would strengthen
Agency controls and further reduce future instances of fraudulent
activities related to methyl parathion cleanups.
On May 16,1997, OSWER issued Directive 9285.7-27 which
provides guidance to the regions for implementing a urine
sampling protocol to test for excessive levels of methyl parathion
in residents' urine. The intent of the directive was to ensure that
the regions applied consistent criteria in deciding what actions to
take in response to methyl parathion exposures.
"• In implementing the urine sampling protocol, the Agency did not
adequately address:
* resources to collect and analyze the samples,
Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
CLEANUP OF
CONTAMINATED
BUSINESSES
• resources for subsequent monitoring, and
• procedures for disclosure and notification of
changes in residential occupancy.
The Agency delegated responsibility for testing methyl parathion
levels in residents' urine to state public health agencies but did not
initially ensure that these agencies had adequate resources to
collect urine samples and perform subsequent monitoring. OSCs
in Regions 4 and 5, and representatives from MSDH and LDAF,
expressed concerns mat the public health services in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Illinois lacked the resources to effectively
administer the increased urine sampling and subsequent
monitoring. They expressed further concerns that die Center for
Disease Control in Atlanta might kick the capacity to timely test
the anticipated number of samples.
Additionally, the new protocol did not address the issue of
disclosure and notification when changes in residential occupancy
occur. This notification and the associated need for subsequent
urine sampling might be critical for new occupants, especially
those with small children. A lack of clear guidance and sufficient
resources for sample collection, analysis, and monitoring has the
potential for reducing the effectiveness of the program as well as
creating increased exposure and adverse health effects.
We recently learned that the Agency, as suggested in this
assessment, has worked with the appropriate state and local
officials to gain the resources needed to meet the demands for
urine sampling and analysis. Additionally, the development of a
long term monitoring and notification policy is still in progress.
Prior to May 1997, the Agency had no policy or guidance for
making decisions to clean up businesses contaminated with methyl
parathion. Consequently, regions developed inconsistent policies
regarding business cleanups. Region 5 did not clean up businesses
at the first site in Lorain County, Ohio. Region 4 initiated
cleanups of 24 businesses, including restaurants, stores, day care
centers, and churches. Region 6 initiated one business cleanup,
then discontinued the practice.
Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
This lack of consistency not only left the Agency vulnerable to
criticism, but also resulted in the use of additional funds and
resources for removal actions at sites that are unlikely to cause
continuous exposure to methyl parathion. The funds and resources
could have otherwise been available for removal actions at higher
priority sites with continuous exposure.
The recently issued OSWER Directive 9285.7-27A, Cleanup of
Methyl Parathion Contaminated Businesses (undated) provides
guidance to the regions in making cleanup decisions regarding
businesses contaminated with methyl parathion. The guidance
provides that decisions should be based on the urine protocol
criteria, especially those with resident population or residential
type exposure; i.e., nursing homes, day care centers, or hospitals.
Consideration should also be given to the businesses' ability to
pay.
RELOCATION The Agency was not consistent hi its application process for
COSTS resident relocation eligibility or subsistence payments made to
relocated residents. These inconsistencies provided the potential
for fraudulent and excessive relocation costs. At both the Jackson
County and New Orleans sites, the Corps, through an inter-agency
agreement with the Agency, was responsible for processing
applications for resident relocation and making subsistence
payments. Corps personnel at each site established their own
application process, as well as the subsistence rates and other types
of expenses (i.e., laundry, taxis).
Application Process
The Corps at each site set its own application requirements. The
Corps at the Jackson County site used a detailed application
process, including resident identification and household size
verification. The Corps in New Orleans initially required no
identification or verification from its applicants.
The Corps at the Jackson County site, with assistance from
Region 4 program officials, developed draft procedures outlining
"• the application process and eligibility requirements, including
verification of residency and household size. To substantiate their
eligibility, applicants could submit various documents to verify
residency and household size, including drivers license, social
7 Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
security number, rental agreements, rent receipts, tax returns, proof
of public assistance, and/or mail.
The Corps in New Orleans initially did not require any documents
to verify residency or household size. Based on a recommendation
made by OIG OI, the Corps subsequently began requesting social
security and drivers license numbers from its applicants. However,
the Corps did not verify household size.
Additionally, 01 suggested other improvements in the application
process that would help the Agency protect itself against abusers
and fraudulent claims. The improvements included:
• a certification and false penalties statement;
• a requirement for applicant
identification/verification for release '
of subsistence payments;
• a medical release form; and
• simpler, separately listed questions on the
questionnaire regarding source and application of
methyl parathion. .
OI recently learned that Region 5 is currently using contract
services to develop its own application process for use by the
Corps at the Chicago site. We understand from OI that the
proposed application package does not require social security or
drivers license numbers from applicants as recommended by OI
and implemented by the Corps in New Orleans. The drafting of an
additional application package by Region 5 appears to be a
duplication of effort and an unnecessary expenditure of resources.
A standard application package for use by all regions could have
prevented the inconsistencies and reduced the potential for
fraudulent or excessive claims.
Subsistence Costs
The Corps also independently determined subsistence payments at
the Jackson County and New Orleans sites. Corps personnel at
each site used different approaches for determining per diem and
8
Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
lodging rates. The rates varied between sites and were not based
on any specific standard.
The process followed in Jackson County evolved from the General
Services Administration (GSA)-approved daily subsistence rates to
a method which based subsistence payments on three options. For
Option 1, the applicant could elect to stay in government-furnished
apartments, and receive a one-time incidental expense allowance
of $200. With Option 2, the applicant made his or her own
arrangements and accepted a fixed amount of money based on the
average daily cost of a one, two, or three bedroom apartment, and a
one-time incidental expense allowance of $200. With Option 3,
the applicant made his or her own arrangements and requested
reimbursement on an actual basis, not to exceed a set amount per
day.
The process in New Orleans also evolved from GSA-approved
daily subsistence rates. However, the method of calculation was
based on the applicant making his or her own arrangements and
accepting a fixed amount of $ 15 per day per household, with no
incidental expense allowance.
Region 5 is currently determining its own method for calculating
subsistence payments.
Overall, insufficient resident verification procedures and variances
in subsistence payments, not only leaves the Agency open to
criticism, but also results in inequitable and potentially fraudulent
payments.
DOCUMENTATION
OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY
We found inconsistencies in the degree of documentation
maintained by the regions to identify personal property items. The
regions used various contractors or the Corps to appraise and
document personal property for removal and replacement
purposes. Each servicing agent developed its own documentation
requirements for personal property records.
Draft OSWER Publication 93603-18, Guidance on Compensation
'for Property Loss in Removal Actions, dated September 1996,
outlines the procedures for compensating for property loss due to
hazardous substance release or the resulting response effort. The
guidance requires the OSC to record the condition of any property
9 Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
that potentially could be damaged during response activities.
Documentation must be in writing, and may be supplemented with
photographs and videotapes. This documentation would be used
as a basis to determine appropriate compensation after the response
was complete.
The quality and sufficiency of personal property documentation
varied at the different sites. Personal property records maintained
at the New Orleans site included a combination of detailed
videotapes and photographs (also available on CD ROM). They
also included specific property descriptions and detailed appraisals
on contaminated reimbursable items. In contrast; files maintained
at the Jackson County site were not as specific. The files included
videotapes and some photographs but included more generic
descriptions and appraisal values for contaminated reimbursable
items.
The lack of specific detail could expose the Agency to fraudulent
claims and additional expenses should residents dispute
reimbursements and/or claim items as missing or damaged. At the
same time, too much documentation could result in unnecessary
expenditures that outweigh the benefit derived.
RESTORATION OF
INDIVIDUAL
RESIDENCES
Residential restoration at the New Orleans site using Region 6's
ERGS contracts proceeded more timely than restoration at the
Jackson County site using Region 4's interagency agreement with
the Corps. For comparative purposes, the latest OERR Methyl
Parathion Response Status report, dated My 25,1997, stated that
of the 430 households requiring relocation in Mississippi, only 75
cleanup/restorations were completed. Louisiana, with cleanups
initiated approximately 1 month after the start of cleanups in
Mississippi, reported 187 households requiring relocation, with
182 cleanup/restorations completed.
The delays encountered in Jackson County were primarily
attributed to the lengthy procurement process followed by the
Corps. Initially, the Corps issued individual purchase orders for
the restoration of each residence. To alleviate the delays and
backlog, the Corps recently issued an indefinite delivery/indefinite
quantity contract which provided for the issuance of work orders to
three contractors to cover the restoration of numerous residences.
10
Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
In the interim, Region 4 also issued work orders under its ERCS
contracts to assist with the restoration work in Jackson County.
Region 5, also proposing to use the Corps for restoration at the
Chicago site, has expressed concerns regarding funding and
capacity available under its ERCS contracts should the Region
need to obtain additional restoration support beyond the Corps.
SUMMARY
The lack of clear and concise national guidance resulted in regions
developing their own procedures. Regional responses could have
proceeded more efficiently and with less risk to the government,
had the Agency developed clear and concise national guidance.
SUGGESTIONS
We suggest that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response:
1. Modify existing guidance and develop new guidance, as
required, to address emergency removal actions at methyl
parathion sites that at a minimum:
a. Clarifies important factors related to its protocol for
testing levels of methyl parathion in residents'
urine, including resources for urine sampling and
monitoring, and disclosure and notification
requirements for resident occupancy changes.
b. Outlines criteria for business cleanups, including
specific eligible expenditures.
c. Outlines applicant eligibility procedures, including
verification of residency and household size, as well
as a standard for computing subsistence payments.
The Agency should consider providing standard
application forms for use by the Corps or other
servicing agents.
d. Defines a standard for sufficient documentation of
personal property items.
11 Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
-------
Assessment of Emergency Removal
Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites
2. Encourage Region 5 to work with the Office of Acquisition
Management to explore other contracting alternatives to
obtain services in a timely manner, if delays are
encountered and additional resources from the ERCS
contracts are required.
i
12
Assignment No. E1SFB7-06-0020-7400069
------- |