EPA-350-R-06-004
April 2006
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Semiannual Report to Congress
m
! NI
SFwKBBfl
October 1, 2005 - March 31, 2006
-------
EPA Inspector General
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires the Inspector General to (1)
conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the
Agency; (2) provide leadership and coordination, and make recommendations designed to
(a) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and (b) prevent and detect fraud and
abuse in Agency programs and operations; and (3) fully inform the Administrator and the
Congress about problems and deficiencies identified by the Office of Inspector General
relating to Agency programs and operations.
We are catalysts for improving the quality of the environment and Government through
problem prevention and identification, and cooperative solutions.
Mission
Add value by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within EPA and the
delivery of environmental programs. Inspire public confidence by preventing and
detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency operations and protecting the integrity of
EPA programs.
To find out more about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Inspector General and its activities, visit our Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/oig
Cover photos: Clockwise from top left: Regional image of Hurricane Katrina; tank drums collected by EPA in
Louisiana; a devastated residential neighborhood in Waveland, Mississippi; a hazardous waste
staging facility in Mississippi; disposal of cleaned refrigerators at a landfill; and household
hazardous waste collected by EPA in Mississippi. (EPA OIG photos except the regional image of
Hurrican Katrina, courtesy National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
Printed with vegetable oil-based inks on 100% recycled paper (minimum 50% postconsumer)
-------
J0
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
March 28, 2006
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress
TO: Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator
I am pleased to provide you with the Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to
Congress for the 6-month period ending March 31,2006. Many of the reviews that we conducted
during the semiannual period provided recommendations to help the Agency achieve its mission of
protecting human health and the environment. This report summarizes the areas we reviewed, progress
the Agency has made, and our recommendations to help the Agency improve.
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires that you forward this report within
30 days of receipt to the appropriate congressional committees. When you transmit the report to
Congress, the Act allows you to enclose separately whatever additional comments you deem necessary,
and specifies certain information that should be included (5 USC App. 3, Section 5(b)).
I will be happy to discuss, or provide additional information on, any of the items in this report.
iill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General
-------
Message to Congress
During this semiannual period, we said farewell to Inspector General Nikki Tinsley, who retired on
March 3 after nearly 35 years of Federal service and more than 8 years as the Inspector General
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ms. Tinsley leaves an impressive legacy
of dedication to helping EPA find the most efficient and effective methods to protect human
health and the environment. It is an honor for me to serve as the Acting Inspector General
for EPA, and continue that dedication to provide cost-effective recommendations and results.
One of the first things on my agenda is to enhance performance measurement throughout the Office
of Inspector General (OIG). We are enhancing our efforts to measure the quality of our audits
and evaluations, and are developing similar measures for our investigations. These measures will
improve our ability to manage for cost and performance, and report our results in accordance
with the Government Performance and Results Act. OIG Assistant Inspectors General are
preparing quarterly "dashboards" to report on the cost, schedule, and results of our work.
Part of our work this semiannual reporting period focused on EPA's efforts to help the Gulf Coast
Region recover from the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina. We found the actions
undertaken by EPA staff to be commendable. The Agency actively worked to ensure that the
States of Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as operators of drinking water systems, provided
decisionmakers and the public with timely and accurate information on the safety and proper
treatment of drinking water. Further, EPA provided quality and timely information on potential
dangers posed by wastewater. Our auditors recommended ways EPA could improve its
hurricane response procurement activities, and the Agency implemented some of our suggestions.
During her last year as Inspector General, Ms. Tinsley led the U.S. Comptroller General's
Domestic Working Group to develop a guide for improving grant accountability at all levels of
Government. The group of Federal, State, and local auditors from more than a dozen
organizations collected and shared success stories. More than 50 examples of promising
practices were provided in the report. David Walker, Comptroller General of the United
States, as well as many others, praised the Domestic Working Group's results.
Our work during this semiannual period resulted in significant recommendations to help
improve human health and the environment. We made recommendations to help EPA
improve the quality of its emissions factors to enhance environmental decisionmaking. We
identified a number of opportunities for EPA to better protect children's health under the
Food Quality Protection Act. We examined EPA's Superfund resources in response to a
congressional request, and noted challenges the Agency must overcome to better utilize those
resources. We recommended that EPA use a new testing method to help identify and
measure the degraded products of toxaphene, a banned pesticide. We issued a number of
reports to help improve the security of EPA information systems.
This semiannual report includes details on these and other issues, including a "Scoreboard" of
our own performance. We look forward to continuing to work with the Agency and
Congress, serving as a catalyst for improving the environment.
BilTATRoderick
Acting Inspector General
-------
Table of Contents
Highlights 1
Profile of Activities and Results 2
Hurricane Katrina Response Oversight 3
Inspector General Retires 7
Domestic Working Group 8
Other Significant OIG Activity 9
Air (helping to make air safe and healthy to breathe) 9
Land (improving waste management and cleanup-includes Superfund) 10
Cross-Media (issues involving overlapping areas - includes homeland security) 12
Grants (improving EPA's use of assistance agreements) 14
Contracts (improving EPA's use of contracts) 15
Financial Management (improving the Agency's financial management) 16
Information Technology (helping the Agency maintain its systems and data) 17
Public Liaison (addressing specific concerns of the public) 20
Investigations (investigating laboratory fraud, financial fraud, and computer crimes) 22
Other Activities 26
Significant EPA Actions as a Result of OIG Activity 29
Statistical Data 30
Audit Report Resolution 30
Summary of Investigative Results 33
Scoreboard of Results 34
Appendices 35
Appendix 1 - Reports Issued 35
Appendix 2 - Reports Issued Without Management Decisions (Available Upon Request)
-------
Highlights
Hurricane Katrina
Response Monitored
The Office of Inspector General
(OIG) has worked closely with
EPA staff to detect and address
vulnerabilities before they lead to
fraud, waste, or abuse (page 3).
EPA Can Improve Steps to
Protect Children
EPA can improve steps of the
Food Quality Protection Act to
improve public confidence and
data quality (page 12).
EPA Can Further Limit
Level-of-Effort Contracts
EPA can reduce its financial risk
and increase the possibility to
reduce costs and increase
competition by using other types
of contracts (page 15).
EPA Can Improve
Emissions Factors
EPA can improve emissions
factors, which can in turn
improve environmental
decisionmaking (page 9).
Inspector General
Retires
With the retirement of Nikki
Tinsley, Bill Roderick is serving
as the Acting Inspector General
(page 7).
Lab Technician Sentenced
for False Statement
A lab technician in Tennessee
was sentenced for submitting a
false statement in a report
(page 24).
$2.5 Million in Grant
Expenditures Questioned
The OIG questioned $2.5 million
in expenditures for EPA grants
awarded to the Oglala Sioux
Tribe of South Dakota (page 14).
Firms Repay Millions to
Settle Allegations
Four multinational firms settled
law suits alleging false claims
for travel submitted to
numerous Federal agencies,
including EPA (page 22).
Guide to Improving Grant
Accountability Issued
The Inspector General led the
Domestic Working Group in
developing a guide with
promising practices for better
grants management (page 8).
Toxaphene Degradation
Products Need New Test
Current EPA methods do not
test for the degraded products of
toxaphene - a banned pesticide
(page 20).
EPA Can Better Manage
Superfund Resources
Several obstacles prevent EPA
from efficiently and effectively
managing Superfund program
resources (page 10).
EPA Can Improve
Information Security
The OIG found major
applications that could be
improved to comply with Federal
and EPA requirements (page 17).
-------
Profile of Activities and Results
Audit Operations
Office of Inspector General Reviews
October 1, 2005 to
March 31, 2006
(dollars in millions)
Questioned Costs *
Total
Federal
Recommended Efficiencies *
Federal
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
Federal
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
Federal
Reports Issued - Office of Inspector
General Reviews
Reports Resolved
(Agreement by Agency officials to
take satisfactory corrective actions) **
$0.04
$0.03
$3.60
$2.40
$3.60
33
148
Audit Operations
Other Reviews
(Reviews Performed by Another Federal Agency
or Single Audit Act Auditors)
October 1, 2005 to
March 31,2006
(dollars in millions)
Questioned Costs *
Total
Federal
Recommended Efficiencies *
Federal
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
Federal
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
Federal
Reports Issued - Other
EPA Reviews Performed by
Another Federal Agency
Single Audit Act Reviews
Total
Agency Recoveries
Recoveries from Audit Resolutions
of Current and Prior Periods
(cash collections or offsets to
future payments) ***
$64.00
$11.40
$0.12
$2.70
$0.06
131
95
226
$0.008
Investigative Operations
October 1, 2005 to
March 31,2006
(dollars in millions)
Fines and Recoveries
EPA DIG Investigations $0.0
Investigations with another Federal Agency $29.4
Cases Opened During Period 73
Cases Closed During Period **** 79
Indictments/Criminal Informations 7
Convictions 15
Civil Judgments/Settlements/Filings 6
Administrative Actions Against
EPA Employees/Firms 27
Questioned Costs and Recommended Efficiencies are
subject to change pending further review in the audit
resolution process.
Reports Resolved are subject to change pending further
Information on Recoveries from Audit Resolutions is
provided by EPA's Office of Financial Management and
is unaudited.
Includes one case closed in a prior period.
-------
Hurricane Katrina Response Oversight
Office of Inspector General Oversees EPA Katrina Activities
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has enacted an oversight plan that
emphasizes detecting and addressing vulnerabilities in EPA's Hurricane Katrina
activities before they lead to fraud, waste, and abuse.
Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005, causing severe damage in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama. The storm devastated the lives of residents along the Gulf
Coast and wreaked havoc on the environment on an unprecedented scale. In response,
Congress quickly enacted emergency supplemental appropriations, providing over
$63 billion for Katrina relief with more to follow.
The final cost for the response and rebuilding
effort in the affected areas has been estimated
at $200 billion or more. With billions of dollars
designated for the rebuilding effort, Congress
turned to the Inspector General community to
provide oversight of these Federal funds to
ensure that fraud, waste, and abuse are
detected and deterred.
A month after the storm, then EPA Inspector
General Nikki L. Tinsley testified before the
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations, detailing the
OIG's plan to oversee EPA Katrina funds.
OIG staff traveled to impacted areas in New
Orleans and Mississippi within 10 weeks after
the hurricane hit. With an emphasis on
detecting and addressing vulnerabilities before
Then Inspector General Nikki L. Tinsley and Region 4 Administrator
James Palmer inspecting damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in
Hancock County, Mississippi (EPA OIG photo).
they might lead to fraud, waste, and abuse, we have been working closely with EPA
staff in Washington and in the regions. Under our oversight plan, we have been looking
at EPA's contract and procurement activities to determine whether reasonable prices
were paid, purchased equipment was safeguarded, and expenditures were properly
controlled. We have also been looking at EPA's response efforts related to drinking
water, wastewater, and debris and hazardous material disposal to determine whether
EPA provided quality and timely information to affected States and the public, and how
that information was used. This Semiannual Report includes details on the three
reports we have issued to date.
As a result of the EPA OIG's continuing review of EPA's procurement activities in
response to Hurricane Katrina, Agency personnel implemented some changes suggested
by OIG auditors to improve Agency efforts. After we made EPA Regions 4 and 6 aware
that new equipment purchased in support of the hurricane response was hard to locate
and susceptible to theft, the regions began identifying, tagging, and recording the new
equipment. After noting several instances of contractors billing incorrect labor rates, using
-------
incorrect indirect rates, and double billing, EPA Region 4 provided more contracting
personnel to review contracting invoices. Because of our concerns regarding contracts
for command post space and accommodations, EPA issued a request for information and
a request for quotations, and should see cost savings through competition.
Since September 2005, the OIG's Office of Investigations has deployed Special Agents on
several missions to the affected Gulf States to meet with EPA officials, government
contractors, Federal prosecutors, and local and State law enforcement officials. Special
Agents are participating at the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force Joint Command
Center, where they have access to Task Force databases, intelligence, and staff for
operational support during investigations conducted in the affected Gulf States. In
addition, they are engaged in periodic meetings with Task Force members to discuss
investigative operations and have conducted a variety of investigative steps to address
allegations of fraud against the EPA and EPA-funded programs. As a result of these
investigative efforts, a Cease and Desist Order was issued to a disaster services
contractor for improperly using an EPA employee's name on a self-made "Mobilization
Permit." Using the EPA employee's name without permission or authority created the
appearance of a Government endorsement of, or affiliation with, the business.
The OIG has been an active participant in the Inspector General community's efforts to
inform Congress and the public about the Katrina oversight work being done throughout
the Federal Government. Through the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency's
Homeland Security Roundtable, headed by the Department of Homeland Security OIG
we have been participating in regular meetings on our Katrina work as well as
contributing to biweekly, monthly, and quarterly reports to Congress on our activities. OIG
staff have given several briefings on the status of our work to congressional and EPA
staff, including EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. Recently, OIG staff returned to
New Orleans to brief the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Government
Management, Finance, and Accountability.
As EPA's role in the response and rebuilding effort in the Gulf Coast region evolves in the
months ahead, the OIG will continue to monitor and oversee EPA's activities to help ensure
that funds are guarded against fraud, waste, and abuse without impeding those efforts.
Mississippi Took Appropriate Actions Regarding Drinking Water
Following Hurricane Katrina
The Mississippi Department of Health and drinking water system operators
provided the public with timely and accurate information about the safety and
proper treatment of drinking water supplies following Hurricane Katrina.
On August 31, 2005, less than 48 hours after Hurricane Katrina made landfall,
Mississippi's Department of Health issued a blanket "boil water notice" for all public
water systems in the State's six most impacted counties. This resulted in 585 of the
State's 1,368 public water systems being placed under a boil water notice because of
potentially contaminated drinking water.
Mississippi's process for determining the safety of drinking water appeared adequate to
support the determinations made. EPA Region 4 provided both technical and logistical
-------
support to the State in making these determinations, including providing a mobile
laboratory to perform sample analysis. Disease monitoring after the hurricane indicated
drinking water supplies were not a source of
bacteriological contamination.
With assistance from EPA and others, the State had
assessed the operating status of all but 10 of its 1,368 public
water systems by September 15, 2005. While significant
progress has been made, considerable work remains to
restore the State's drinking water infrastructure to pre-
Katrinaconditions. Mississippi officials estimate
replacement and repairs will cost approximately $235 million.
We did not identify any conditions requiring corrective
actions or make any recommendations.
Damaged pump station located nearthe Gulf Coast
in Biloxi, Mississippi (EPAOIG photo).
(Report No. 2006-P-00011, EPA's and Mississippi's Efforts to Assess and Restore Public
Drinking Water Supplies after Hurricane Katrina, February 14, 2006 - Combined
costs for the Mississippi and Louisiana (below) Drinking Water reports: $325,7971)
Louisiana Took Sufficient Actions Regarding Drinking Water
Following Hurricane Katrina
The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals and drinking water system
operators provided the public with timely and accurate information about the
safety and proper treatment of drinking water following Hurricane Katrina.
Louisiana's process for determining the safety of drinking
water appeared adequate to support the determinations
made. EPA Region 6 provided critical assistance to
Louisiana, including assessing water systems, collecting and
analyzing drinking water samples, and providing information
to the public about drinking water quality. According to EPA
staff, 59,260 drinking water flyers were distributed in
parishes affected by the hurricane, and various publications
related to drinking water protection were published.
Hurricane Katrina floodwaters covered this
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, pumping station. The
water tower was not damaged (EPAOIG photo).
Disease monitoring after Hurricane Katrina indicated that
drinking water supplies were not a source of
bacteriological infection. EPA, the State, and local water
system operators did not identify or hear of any
occurrences of waterborne illnesses or diseases from drinking contaminated water in
the 2 months following Hurricane Katrina.
With assistance from EPA and others, Louisiana assessed the operational capacity of 600
impacted public water systems by September 20, 2005, and all systems by the end of
1 Report costs are estimates calculated by multiplying a project's staff days by the applicable
daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time.
-------
October 2005. While considerable progress has been made, substantial work remains to
restore the drinking water infrastructure to pre-Katrina conditions. The most recent
public water system recovery estimates for Louisiana for Hurricane Katrina are about
$380 million, $360 million of which applies to just three systems.
We did not identify any conditions requiring corrective actions or make any recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00014, EPA's and Louisiana's Efforts to Assess and Restore
Public Drinking Water Systems after Hurricane Katrina, March 7, 2006 - See the
report summary above for cost information)
EPA Provided Quality and Timely Wastewater Information
EPA provided quality and timely information regarding wastewater to States,
wastewater treatment facilities, and the general public.
Hurricane Katrina caused damage to approximately 208 wastewater treatment facilities
and collection systems. The damage created a potentially critical health concern due to
the possibility that people living in these communities would be exposed to raw sewage.
Due to the risk of serious illness associated with exposure to raw sewage, decisionmakers
needed information to be able to evaluate the potential risk of exposure and take steps to
protect their citizens. We assessed EPA's efforts to provide wastewater information to
decisionmakers and the public.
Damaged wastewater treatment facility in
St. Bernard Parish in Louisiana (EPAOIG photo).
Affected States used the information that
EPA provided to help determine how best to
protect rescue workers and the general
public. EPA directly communicated
information to the public on potential health
concerns regarding exposure to wastewater
in several ways, such as through Web sites
and radio announcements.
We did not identify any conditions requiring
corrective actions or make any
recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00018, EPA Provided Quality and Timely Information Regarding
Wastewater after Hurricane Katrina, March 28, 2006 - Report Cost: $182,517)
-------
Inspector General Retires
Inspector General Nikki L. Tinsley Retires; Acting Inspector
General Named
On March 3, 2006, Nikki L. Tinsley resigned from her position as Inspector General of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and retired from Federal service after nearly
35 years. She had been the Inspector General since October 1997.
Bill A. Roderick, the Deputy Inspector General, is serving as the Acting Inspector General.
In her resignation letter to President Bush, Ms. Tinsley highlighted
some of her proudest accomplishments as Inspector General,
including the role the OIG played in helping EPA become one of
the first Federal agencies to achieve green in financial
management on the President's Management Agenda Scorecard.
She noted that during her tenure, the OIG began evaluating the
results of EPA's programs "beyond traditional audit work." She
also cited her leadership role in producing a guide on improving
grant accountability, and her role as Chair of the President's
Council on Integrity and Efficiency's Human Resources
Committee, where she helped create a leadership program to
develop career employees to become future leaders.
Ms. Tinsley was widely praised by congressional leaders and
others. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Chairman of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee, congratulated her
on three decades of public service. Senator James Jeffords
(I-VT), Ranking Member of the same committee, said Ms.
Tinsley had "proven herself to be an independent voice at a
time when it was most needed," and noted she fulfilled her oversight role "in a most
professional manner."
Mr. Roderick will serve as the Acting Inspector General until a replacement is
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Roderick began his
Government career in 1974 with the U.S. Army Audit Agency, and also worked for the
Department of Defense Inspector General. Mr. Roderick joined the Naval Audit
Service in 1988, and in 1996 was promoted into the Senior Executive Service. He had
served as the Naval Audit Service's Assistant Auditor General for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs Audits before becoming the EPA's Deputy Inspector General in 2005.
Mr. Roderick is a Certified Public Accountant, a Certified Information Systems Auditor,
and a Certified Fraud Examiner.
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson
providing a certificate to Nikki Tinsley at her
retirement ceremony (EPA OIG photo).
-------
Domestic Working Group
Guide to Improving Grant Accountability Draws Praise
A guide showing specific promising practices for improving grant accountability,
spearheaded by the EPA Inspector General on behalf of the U.S. Comptroller
General's Domestic Working Group, has drawn praise from a number of people.
"Thank you so much for sending me the Guide for Improving Grant Accountability.
It is an excellent document. I plan on sending the Guide to all city and school district
department heads that administer grant programs," wrote Albert Scaperotto, Deputy
Controller for the City of Philadelphia. Various Federal officials, including David M.
Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, also praised the Guide.
Guide to Opportunities fo(
Improving Grant Accountability
Former EPA Inspector General Nikki L. Tinsley led a group of
Federal, State, and local auditors in developing the Guide, designed to
provide executives at all levels of government with specific ideas to
manage grants better. More than a dozen organizations worked
together to collect and share success stories.
Grants are an important tool used by government agencies to achieve
goals in such areas as healthcare, transportation, and education. The
2006 Federal budget includes approximately $450 billion for over 700
grant programs. "Given the significant amount of dollars the Federal
Government spends in grants each year and plans to spend on
Hurricane Katrina response and rebuilding efforts, taxpayers should
be assured that these funds are properly used and their desired results
achieved. The Guide will help government executives at the Federal,
State, and local levels better manage grants," Ms. Tinsley said.
The intergovernmental team working on the proj ect found that opportunities for improvement exist
throughout the grant process. The Guide noted the following areas of potential improvement:
Internal Control Systems - preparing policies and procedures before issuing grants
Performance Measures - linking activities with program goals
Pre-Award Process - assessing applicant capabilities and competition
Managing Performance - monitoring financial status and performance of grants
Assessing and Using Results - noting successes and areas for improvement
The Guide is intended not only to identify areas for improvement, but also to provide
specific examples of how various organizations have already implemented, or are
implementing, new practices successfully. More than 50 examples are provided.
Government executives at the Federal, State, and local levels should be able to look at
these approaches and apply them to their own organizations.
(Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability, issued October 2005 by
the Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project - Report Cost: $401,336)
8
-------
Other Significant OIG Activity
Helping to make air safe and healthy to breathe
EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development
and Management
EPA has made progress in developing air emissions factors since our last review,
but a large number of factors continue to be rated low.
Emissions factors are broad estimates of air emissions from a source, such as a factory.
and are used nationally for about 80 percent of the emissions reporting used to make
environmental decisions. Recently, States and industry have been developing the factors
and submitting them to EPA.
The number of EPA-rated factors rose from 8,838 during our last review in 1996 to 17,110
in 2004, an increase of 94 percent. However, the percentage of emissions factors rated
below average or poor increased from 56 percent in 1996 to 62 percent in 2004.
Emissions factors, intended for use in developing emissions inventories, have been
inappropriately used for key environmental decisions beyond their intended purpose. For
three industry sectors EPA examined - petroleum refineries, wood products, and ethanol
production - inappropriate use of emissions factors contributed
to more than one million tons of pollutants not being controlled.
As EPA and the States work to identify and regulate sources
emitting excess levels of air pollution, the demand for
emissions factors is increasing, especially emissions factors for
sources of fine particulate matter. If EPA can improve the
quality of its factors it should be able to improve environmental
decisionmaking for reducing air pollution.
Key Uses of Emissions Factors
Classify facilities to help determine control
equipment needed
Establish and enforce permit limits
Calculate annual fees for facilities
Issue Maximum Achievable Control
Technology Standards
Measure environmental progress
We recommended that EPA develop emissions factors
guidance; establish a rating system to address factor
uncertainty; establish a workgroup to develop a comprehensive
strategic plan; and work with industry, State and local agencies, and others in developing
factors. Agency officials indicated our recommendations generally align with their current
improvement efforts.
(Report No. 2006-P-00017, EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and
Management, March 22, 2006 - Report Cost: $403,919)
-------
Land
Improving waste management and cleanup - includes Superfund.
EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources
In response to a congressional request, we examined EPA's Superfund resources
and found that EPA needs to overcome challenges in accounting for those resources.
Created in 1980, the Superfund program has cleaned up over 1,500 of the Nation's
highest priority hazardous waste sites. But funding for the program has decreased over
the years; in Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, all Superfund appropriations came from
general tax revenue rather than the Superfund Trust Fund. Two recent OIG studies
have reported shortages in funding, and have identified needed improvements in how
the program is managed.
We found several obstacles that have prevented EPA from efficiently and effectively
managing the Superfund program for performance and adequately accounting for
Superfund resources. EPA has been unable to manage the program effectively because
of the way it accounts for program resources, manages by functions, supplements the
program with other funds, relies on an outdated workload model, and maintains
unliquidated Superfund obligations and funds in special accounts.
We recommended changes to help EPA overcome these obstacles and better manage its
Superfund resources, actions that enable the Agency to direct additional funds to
Superfund cleanup, and an action Congress could take to help improve the Superfund
program. The Agency is developing a plan to implement our recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00013, EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources,
February 28, 2006 - Report Cost: $860,768)
Industrial Wipes Rulemaking Met Requirements
EPA met all legal and internal requirements when it developed a 2003 industrial
wipes proposed rule, but the Agency could have taken additional actions to avoid
the perception of impropriety.
Industrial wipes are used to wipe down machinery, floors, and other surfaces, and come in
both disposable (paper) and reusable (cloth) forms. In November 2003, EPA proposed a
rule to conditionally exclude disposable industrial wipes contaminated with hazardous
solvents from the definition of hazardous waste. The rule also proposed excluding
reusable wipes contaminated with hazardous solvents and sent for laundering from the
definition of solid waste. Congress asked us to look at the possibility of undue outside
influence on EPA's decisionmaking.
We found that EPA met all legal and internal requirements, including the Administrative
Procedure Act, but we noted the Administrative Procedure Act has no provisions addressing
contact with outside parties. Not only did EPA officials and staff have extensive contact
with representatives of the industrial laundry industry, but also with the disposable wipes
10
-------
industry and others. Seeking input from stakeholders is a standard EPA practice; no one
indicated they were excluded from the rulemaking process. While the industrial laundry
industry exerted considerable influence on the decision to exclude reusable wipes from solid
waste regulations, we found no evidence that the decision was directly influenced by external
political events or pressure, including campaign contributions.
Certain EPA actions, related to sharing a small portion of the preamble language and not
documenting all contacts in the docket, contributed to public perceptions of impropriety.
We recommended that EPA draft guidance designed to avoid favoritism or even the
appearance of favoritism, and to define docketing procedures. EPA generally agreed with
our recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00001, Rulemaking on Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes,
October 4, 2005 - Report Cost: $287,601)
EPA Can Better Manage Efforts to Clean Up Contaminated
Sediments
EPA needs to better manage cleaning up contaminated sediments to cut down on
the adverse effects on human health and the environment.
Contaminated sediments are the soils and other materials that accumulate at the bottom of
water bodies and contain toxic or hazardous materials. As of 2004, over 3,200 fish
consumption advisories were in place in the United States covering 24 percent of the Nation's
river miles and 35 percent of its lake acres.
EPA has made progress with its Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy, but more
improvement is needed. Program offices generally did not use National Sediment
Inventory data for decisionmaking, even
though the inventory is the most
comprehensive data source available. Also,
EPA's various program offices did not fully
coordinate their activities, develop adequate
sediment quality criteria to ensure
comparability, effectively coordinate and
communicate with other Federal agencies, or
develop sufficient performance measures.
We recommended that EPA assign responsibility
for overseeing and evaluating its Contaminated
Sediment Management Strategy to a committee
or office, develop better performance
measures, evaluate the need to develop
sediment criteria, continue to improve research
coordination, and develop and implement apian to provide a comprehensive national assessment
of contaminated sediments. The Agency generally agreed with our recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00016, EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing
Contaminated Sediments, March 15, 2006 - Report Cost: $684,610)
Areas of Probable Concern and Fish Advisories
11
-------
Cross-Media
Issues involving overlapping areas - includes homeland security.
EPA Can Improve Steps to Protect Children Under the Food
Quality Protection Act
EPA has taken many steps to ensure adequate protection of children under the
Food Quality Protection Act, but can take additional measures to improve public
confidence and data quality.
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 changed the way EPA regulates pesticides and
placed greater emphasis on protecting infants and children. The Act imposed many new
regulations on EPA, including the need to review and reregister older pesticides, take into
account children's unique patterns of exposure and vulnerability, and measure progress.
For one report, we looked at whether EPA allowed for
sufficient public participation in the pesticide decision-making
process. Despite numerous improvements to the process,
internal and external stakeholders expressed continued
reservations. Although EPA solicited public comments at
various times, it did not always do so formally; we
recommended that EPA allow at least one formal public
comment period prior to issuing final and interim reregistration
decisions. Also, EPA lacks a methodology to identify and
assess major subgroups of consumers, such as farm children,
and needs such a methodology. Further, EPA needs to
respond more promptly and directly to requests and petitions
from external stakeholders. EPA generally agreed with our
recommendations.
For a second report, we evaluated how EPA collected data on
risk. EPA made substantial changes to how it collects data on
risk, but significant challenges remain. EPA should develop a
standard evaluation procedure, evaluate certain testing methods,
and take steps to reduce uncertainties. Further, EPA can
improve its procedures to assess risk, including updating databases and expanding
partnerships with other Federal organizations. EPA can also take steps to enhance
accountability, act on science policy papers, try alternative testing strategies, and develop a
long-term strategic plan. Again, the Agency generally concurred with our recommendations.
A third report, addressing the measures and indicators for measuring progress in
implementing the Food Quality Protection Act, is in progress.
(Report No. 2006-P-00003, Changes Needed to Improve Public Confidence in
EPA's Implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act, October 19, 2005 -
Report Cost: $379,174; and Report No. 2006-P-00009, Opportunities to Improve
Data Quality and Children 's Health through the Food Quality Protection Act,
January 10, 2006 - Report Cost: $413,801)
The Food Quality Protection Act emphasizes
the need to protect children from pesticides
(EPAOIG photo).
12
-------
EPA Performance Measures Do Not Effectively Track Compliance
Outcomes
The current publicly-reported performance measures that the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) uses lack compliance rates and other reliable
outcome data.
Performance measures allow EPA to track its progress against its goals to ensure
compliance with environmental laws and regulations. EPA must publicly report its
progress in the clearest way so that stakeholders can determine whether OECA's
strategies, policies, and programs are effective.
OECA's 2005 publicly-reported Government Performance and Results Act performance
measures do not effectively characterize changes in compliance or other outcomes
because OECA lacks reliable outcome data. Instead, OECA reports proxies for
compliance to the public, not knowing if compliance is actually going up or down. Thus,
OECA does not have all the data it needs to make management and program decisions.
Some measures do not clearly link to OECA's strategic goals, and OECA frequently
changed its performance measures from year to year.
We recommended that OECA develop a pilot project to verify outcomes, improve
aligning goals and measures in EPA documents to improve clarity and usefulness, and
continue to improve enforcement and compliance measures. EPA agreed with all of
our recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00006, EPA Performance Measures Do Not Effectively Track
Compliance Outcomes, December 15, 2005 - Report Cost: $422,060)
13
-------
Grants
Improving EPA's use of assistance agreements.
Three State Revolving Water Funds Receive Unqualified Opinions
We rendered unqualified opinions on the financial statements for three separate
State Revolving Fund water programs - two for Nevada and one for Oregon.
We rendered unqualified opinions for Nevada's Drinking Water and Clean Water State
Revolving Fund programs for the year ended June 30, 2004. We also rendered an
unqualified opinion for Oregon's Clean Water State Revolving Fund program for the year
ended June 30, 2005. For all three programs, we found that the financial statements
presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the program. Further, for
all three programs, we found that the States complied, in all material respects, with
applicable program requirements. We found no matters involving internal control over
financial reporting and operations that we considered to be material weaknesses.
(Report No. 2006-1-00018, State of Nevada Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Program Financial Statements for Year Ended June 30, 2004, dated November 29,
2005; Report No. 2006-1-00024, State of Nevada Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Program Financial Statements for Year Ended June 30, 2004, dated January 23,
2006; and Report No. 2006-1-00021, State of Oregon Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Program Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2005, dated
January 12, 2006 - Combined costs for the three reports: $366,535)
$2.5 Million in Oglala Sioux Tribe Grant Expenditures Questioned
Based on Single Audit Act reviews of EPA grants awarded to the Oglala Sioux Tribe
of South Dakota, for the 4-year period ended December 31, 2003, we questioned all
$2.5 million in expenditures related to those grants due to numerous deficiencies.
For each of the 4 years, the independent auditor issued a disclaimer of opinion on the
financial statements and a qualified opinion on the report on major program compliance.
For various major Federal programs during this 4-year period, the certified public
accountant questioned atotal of $44.7 million in costs due to accounting and control
deficiencies. These deficiencies included lack of support for labor charges and equipment
purchases, and failure to submit required reports timely.
Because of the magnitude and type of findings reported by the single auditor, we questioned all
$2.5 million of the EPA expenditures reported by the grantee. We recommended that Region 8
determine that this grantee be considered "high risk," and institute grant restrictions accordingly.
(Report No. 2006-3-00034, Oglala Sioux Tribe, South Dakota, FY 2000, December
2, 2005; Report No. 2006-3-00035, Oglala Sioux Tribe, South Dakota, FY 2001,
December 2, 2005; Report No. 2006-3-00036, Oglala Sioux Tribe, South Dakota,
FY 2002, December 2, 2005; and Report No. 2006-3-00037, Oglala Sioux Tribe,
South Dakota, FY 2003, December 15, 2005 - Report costs for individual Single
Audits are not available.)
14
-------
Contracts
Improving EPA's use of contracts.
Two Key EPA Offices Can Improve Efforts to Limit Level-of-Effort
Contracts
The EPA Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Water need to do more to limit
using level-of-effort contracts.
Level-of-effort contracts are cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts that generally are not
performance-based. Rather, they require the contractor to provide required hours over a
specified time, with no interim or final product or deliverable specifically required. By
using other contract types, including those where compensation is based on results rather
than effort, EPA can reduce its financial risk and increase the possibilities to reduce costs
and increase competition.
In reviewing 169 contracts issed by the two offices in 2004, we determined that
$288 million of the $383 million in cumulative obligations for those contracts, or 75 percent,
were for level-of-effort contracts. Upon closer examination of 14 cost-plus-fixed-fee
contracts, we found that 28 percent of the work assignments could have been contracted
out as other than level-of-effort procurements.
We recommended that the Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Water better define
contract requirements to better use other contract types and increase efforts to identify
opportunities for performance-based acquisitions. The Agency generally agreed and has
initiated steps to reduce reliance on level-of-effort contracts.
(Report No. 2006-P-00015, EPA Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Water Can
Further Limit Use of Level-of-Effort Contracts, March 14, 2006 - Report Cost: $528,328)
Office of Underground Storage Tanks Improved Contract
Administration but More Action Needed
In a followup review on a 2004 audit, we found that EPA's Office of Underground
Storage Tanks sufficiently acted on eight of nine corrective actions on contract
administration, but problems in properly charging to appropriations remained.
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks took various actions to improve contract
administration, such as stopping the obligation of funds to contracts without identifying
corresponding work, and we commend the Office. However, we did note two concerns.
First, the amount of Leaking Underground Storage Tank funds obligated to a contract but not
expended had grown from $ 134,000 to $3 95,000. Second, when correcting $ 140,000 in work
paid with inappropriate funds, the Office erroneously used future year funds. The Office of
Underground Storage Tanks agreed to monitor the status of funds obligated to contracts on
a monthly basis and issued a contract modification to charge the correct appropriation.
(Report No. 2006-P-00012, Office of Underground Storage Tanks Has Improved Contract
Administration, But Further Action Needed, February 28, 2006 - Report Cost: $83,675)
15
-------
Financial Management
Improving the Agency's financial management.
EPA Earns Unqualified Opinion on Financial Statements
EPA earned an unqualified opinion on its fiscal 2005 financial statements.
However, in evaluating EPA's internal controls, we noted nine reportable
conditions.
Our unqualified, or clean, opinion means that we found EPA's financial statements to be
fairly presented and free of material misstatements. The reportable conditions noted do
not represent weaknesses that would cause a material misstatement of financial
statement amounts; rather, they represent significant deficiencies in designing or
operating internal controls. The nine reportable conditions are:
EPA inappropriately made approximately $74,000 in payments to separated
(transferred, retired, or resigned) employees under the new PeoplePlus payroll system.
Employees received salary payments in excess of the biweekly maximum limitations.
Errors led to overstating State Superfund Contract unearned revenue by $31 million
and unbilled oversight by $ 14 million.
Certain regional offices did not properly adjust their accounts receivable and allowance
for doubtful accounts after transferring those accounts to the finance center.
Although EPA has made advances in performing quality assurance reviews, the
reviews were still limited in scope and not adequately documented.
EPA overstated the year-end distribution of amounts recorded in a budget-clearing
account.
EPA made $89 million in adjustments to entries in the Integrated Financial
Management System without proper and adequate documentation.
EPA did not correct, in a timely manner, PeoplePlus data that the Integrated Financial
Management System rejected during the transfer process.
Contingency plans did not fully comply with guidelines for several Office of the Chief
Financial Officer applications at the Research Triangle Park campus in North Carolina.
We also found that EPA did not fully comply with accounting standards requiring it to
provide full costs per output to management in a timely fashion, and continued to
experience difficulties in reconciling intragovernmental transactions due to some Federal
entities not providing needed information. However, these instances of noncompliance
with laws and regulations did not result in material misstatements to the audited financial
statements.
The Agency agreed with the issues raised and stated it has begun to evaluate the best
methods to address each issue.
(Report No. 2006-1-00015, Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Consolidated
Financial Statements, November 14, 2005 - Report Cost: $3,859,374)
16
-------
TGChnOlOCiy Helping the Agency maintain its systems and data.
In November 2005, the Office of Audit reorganized to more effectively serve customer
needs. The Office combined its Data Mining and Analysis Staff with the Business
Systems Audit Staff, and established a separate product line focused on Information
Technology (IT) audits. This realignment allows for greater emphasis on business system
audits and data analysis efforts while carrying out important IT audit efforts.
The Business Systems product line retains the responsibility for auditing the Agency's
strategic planning, performance measurement, and human capital investments. In light of
increasingly tight Agency budgets, these areas are of vital importance in accomplishing
EPA's mission and reporting on the Agency's results to Congress and other stakeholders.
Agency reporting requirements include the Government Performance and Results Act,
Program Assessment Rating Tool, and President's Management Agenda. The results of
these reporting requirements are used to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of
Agency programs. The Data Mining and Analysis Staff continues to support audit,
evaluation, and investigative assignments by obtaining and analyzing large amounts of data
from automated systems. The staff assisted auditors reviewing contractor charges for
Hurricane Katrina cleanup work by using data analysis tools to convert financial data into
a user-friendly format.
Our IT audit staff continues its important evaluations of the Agency's acquiring,
implementing, operating, and maintaining critical Agency networks and information
systems. EPA is increasingly dependent on IT systems to accomplish its mission, and
requested $600 million for system development and maintenance for Fiscal Years 2006
and 2007.
EPA's Compliance with the Federal Information Security
Management Act
Although EPA program offices had complied with many of the security controls
reviewed, EPA could improve processes to comply with Federal and EPA
information security requirements.
The Federal Information Security Management Act requires the OIGto perform an
annual independent evaluation of EPA's information security program practices.
For Fiscal Year 2005, we found major applications that lacked (1) complete certification
and accreditation documents, (2) key security tasks completed in a timely manner,
(3) contingency plans or plan testing, and (4) a process to monitor production servers for
known security vulnerabilities. Therefore, EPA's Chief Information Officer was not
receiving timely and accurate information to plan, implement, evaluate, and report on its
information technology security program. We recommended that EPA develop and
implement various processes and strategies to verify and validate compliance with
requirements, and ensure that program offices establish needed Plans of Actions and
Milestones. The Agency concurred with our recommendations.
17
-------
We also completed the Fiscal Year 2005 Federal Information Security Management Act
Reporting Template, as prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, we
looked at separate information systems and prepared individual reports with recommendations
for each responsible program office. We issued reports on the following systems:
Integrated Contract Management System
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
Safe Drinking Water Information System
Integrated Compliance Information System
For those systems where we identified problems, the responsible Agency offices generally
took immediate steps to remediate the identified weaknesses and initiated plans to develop
and test needed contingency plans, improve monitoring production servers, re-evaluate
security oversight, update key security documents, complete risk assessments, and
perform other necessary reviews.
We are awaiting the Agency's response to our draft report on a fifth system, the Clean
Air Markets Division Business System.
(Report No. 2006-P-00002, EPA Could Improve Its Information Security by
Strengthening Verification and Validation Processes, October 17, 2005;
Report No. 2006-S-00001, Federal Information Security Management Act: Fiscal
Year 2005 Status of EPA's Computer Security Program [Reporting Template],
October 3, 2005; Report No. 2006-P-00010, Information Security Series: Security
Practices - Integrated Contract Management System, January 31, 2006;
Report No. 2006-P-00019, Information Security Series: Security Practices -
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System, March 28, 2006; Report No. 2006-P-00020, Information Security Series:
Security Practices - Integrated Compliance Information System, March 29, 2006;
and Report No. 2006-P-00021, Information Security Series: Security Practices -
Safe Drinking Water Information System, March 30, 2006 - Combined costs for the
six reports: $325,797)
EPA Could Improve Physical Access and Service Continuity/
Contingency Controls
Physical access and service continuity/contingency controls for financial systems,
while in place in many cases, need improving to reduce risk at EPA's Research
Triangle Park campus.
We contracted with a public accounting firm to audit physical access controls and service
continuity/contingency planning controls for select financial systems at EPA's Research
Triangle Park campus in North Carolina. The contractor found that physical access
controls needed improvement in areas such as visitor access to facilities, use of contractor
access badges, and general physical access to the National Computer Center and other
locations. Continuity/contingency controls needed to be improved in areas such as
completing a Business Impact Analysis, application contingency plans, authorization to
move backup data between key facilities, and environmental controls.
18
-------
While EPA had compensating controls in place, the contractor believed that controls
could be further improved to reduce risks. The contractor recommended that EPA
improve physical access controls, processes, and procedures; provide additional training;
revisit service continuity strategies; and improve environmental controls. While EPA
management believed that some controls were already in place, management agreed
with a majority of the findings and recommendations, and indicated it is taking steps to
improve security.
(Report No. 2006-P-00005, EPA Could Improve Physical Access and Service
Continuity/Contingency Controls for Financial and Mixed-Financial Systems Located
at its Research Triangle Park Campus, December 14, 2005 - Report Cost: $223,395)
19
-------
Public Liaison
Addressing specific concerns of the public.
More Information Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products
The current methods EPA uses to identify and measure toxaphene are not
designed to identify toxaphene degradation products, but other methods are
available.
The Glynn Environmental Coalition, a nonprofit community organization, brought to the
Ombudsman's attention concerns about toxaphene at a Superfund site in Georgia.
Toxaphene, an agricultural pesticide heavily used in the United
States in the 1960s and 1970s, was totally banned by 1990
because of its effect on humans and the environment.
Toxaphene in the environment changes, or degrades, into
products different from the original material in chemical
composition and how they appear to testing instruments.
EPA's current methods to test for toxaphene do not test for the
degradation products. However, a new testing method used by
others specifically tests for toxaphene degradation products.
An airplane applying pesticides to afield (EPA
OIG photo).
The OIG recommended that EPA validate, approve, and use
the new method, as well as arrange for specific research
needed to determine the risk that toxaphene degradation products may pose to people. In
general, EPA officials concurred with the recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00007, More Information Is Needed On Toxaphene
Degradation Products, December 16, 2005 - Report Cost: $177,9342)
Corrective Action Taken in Response to a Complaint Regarding a
Cooperative Agreement
We found a number of problems with a cooperative agreement with the University
of Nevada, Reno.
A complainant expressed concern regarding activities of a cooperative agreement
with the University of Nevada, Reno. EPA's Office of Research and Development
had awarded a $400,000 cooperative agreement to the university. The agreement
created a biological baseline for the Humboldt watershed and devised protocols for
the State of Nevada that could effectively assess the biological conditions of perennial
streams and rivers.
We found that the recipient had not submitted a complete report on the project; recipient
personnel worked on other Federal grant projects while paid from EPA funds; the
2 The report cost of $177,934 represents 50 percent of the total cost for two reports issued on
toxaphene degradation products.
20
-------
recipient did not allocate expenses to the appropriate Federal grant or cooperative
agreement; and the project officer did not require the recipient to complete plans, progress
reports, and status reports. We made recommendations to address these findings. The
Office of Research and Development concurred with the findings, prepared a corrective
action report, and initiated immediate corrective actions to address the recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00008, Review of Complaint on the University of Nevada,
Reno, Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Cooperative
Agreement CR 826293-01, December 28, 2005 - Report Cost: $166,923)
Hotline Activity
The following table provides EPA OIG Hotline activity regarding complaints of fraud,
waste, and abuse in EPA programs and operations that occurred during the past
semiannual period:
Inquiries and Complaints Received During Period
Issues Handled by EPA OIG
Inquiries Addressed Without Opening a Complaint
Complaints Opened
Complaints Closed
Complaints Open - Beginning of Period
Complaints Open - End of Period
Issues Referred to Others
EPA Program Offices
EPA Criminal Investigation Division
Other Federal Agencies
State/Local Agencies
Semiannual Period
(October 1,2005 -
March 31, 2006)
310
90
72
18
16
26
28
220
69
11
61
79
21
-------
Investigations
Investigating laboratory fraud, financial fraud,
and computer crimes.
Financial Fraud
Four Multinational Firms Repay Millions to Settle Allegations
of Overbilling
In December 2005, while making no admission of wrongdoing or liability, Bearingpoint, Inc.;
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.; Ernst & Young, LLP; and KPMG, LLP, each settled lawsuits
concerning alleged false claims for travel reimbursement submitted to numerous Federal
agencies, including EPA. Bearingpoint has agreed to pay $15.0 million to settle the matter,
Booz Allen $3.37 million, Ernst & Young $4.47 million, and KPMG $2.77 million.
In relation to work performed for the Government, all four firms received rebates on
travel expenses from airlines, credit card companies, hotels, rental car agencies, and travel
service providers. The companies did not consistently disclose the existence of these
travel rebates to the United States and did not reduce travel reimbursement claims by the
amounts of the rebates. The lawsuits alleged that Bearingpoint, Booz Allen, Ernst &
Young, and KPMG each knowingly presented claims for payment to the United States for
amounts greater than the travel expenses actually incurred, violating contractual provisions
and the applicable provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
The settlement resolved suits filed by Neal A. Roberts in January 2001 under the qui tarn,
or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act qui tarn
statute allows persons who file successful actions alleging fraud against the Government
to receive a share of any resulting recovery. Mr. Roberts will receive an amount to be
determined in the near future.
This investigation was conducted by the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice; the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District on California; the U.S.
Army Criminal Investigation Command (Major Procurement Fraud Unit); the
Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Defense Contract Audit Agency; and the
Offices of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Energy, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, General
Services Administration, U.S. Postal Service, Agency for International Development,
U.S. Department of Treasury, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Case
Cost: $64,143)
Contractor Enters into$1 Million Settlement Agreement
On December 23,2005, while making no admission of wrongdoing or liability, Washington
Group International, Inc. (WGI), formerly known as Morrison Knudson Corporation,
entered into a $1 million settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil
Division, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
In its case, the Government alleged that between 1996 and 2003, WGI submitted false
representations and certifications in progress reports submitted to the Government. WGI
22
-------
also improperly billed costs during its performance of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
contract funded by EPA to perform cleanup activities at the Tar Creek Superfund Site.
Northern Ottowa County, Oklahoma. These false representations and claims resulted in
the Government paying more for the cleanup contract than was necessary. Specifically, it
was alleged that WGI required truck drivers and others to falsely record, on truck tickets
and other reports, more cubic yardage, truck loads, and/or full loads than were actually
hauled; directed or caused truck drivers to give the false appearance that the trucks were
being fully and efficiently utilized for their intended purpose; paid full salary to workers
who had been injured on the job and therefore should have been paid worker's
compensation benefits rather than wages; and billed the Government for time and
expenses associated with transporting injured workers to medical care.
The settlement resolved a suit filed under the qui tarn, or whistleblower, provisions of the
False Claims Act, initially filed in January 2000 by several former employees and
subcontractors. The False Claims Act qui tarn statute allows persons who file successful
actions alleging fraud against the Government to receive a share of any resulting
recovery. The former employees will receive approximately $294,000.
WGI also entered into a compliance agreement with the EPA Suspension and Debarment
Division. According to the agreement, WGI must continue to maintain its internal audit
program, program efficiency and cost accountability system, code of business conduct,
and ethics and compliance training program.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command. (Case Cost: $358,404)
University of Connecticut Agrees to Pay $2.5 Million to Settle
False Claims Allegations
On January 6, 2006, the University of Connecticut (UConn) agreed to pay $2.5 million
in damages and penalties to settle civil allegations that the university submitted false
claims on approximately 500 Federal grants awarded to UConn from July 1997 through
October 2004.
The Federal Government awarded the grants for work to be performed by two of
UConn's specialized service facilities: the Environmental Research Institute and Booth
Research Center. The grant awards were made by numerous Federal agencies including
the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and EPA.
The Government specifically alleged that UConn submitted grant applications containing
incorrect or overstated information about anticipated expenses for the Environmental
Research Institute and Booth Research Center. The Government further alleged that
UConn charged certain expenses that were not properly chargeable and submitted
invoices to the Government for three types of improper grant expenses. First, the
Government alleged that UConn did not utilize a proper basis for setting and regularly
updating its billing rate structure, as required by Federal law. UConn's failure to revise
and appropriately set its billing rate structure resulted in it submitting numerous false
claims to the United States for payment. Second, the Government alleged that UConn
23
-------
failed to follow Federal law for calculating how extra compensation should be paid to
UConn faculty members for additional work on grant-supported research activity at the
Environmental Research Institute and Booth Research Center, and that improper excess
charges were therefore charged to the grants. Finally, the Government alleged that
certain of the grants required cost sharing or matching by UConn and that the university
failed to provide the requisite cost sharing or matching.
UConn has also entered into a compliance agreement with the Federal Government that
requires the university to make significant changes in its grant administration program.
The changes include implementing written policies regarding complying with Federal grant
laws and regulations, implementing additional training programs for grant administrators,
and submitting an annual report to the Government detailing UConn's compliance efforts.
By July 1, 2006, UConn must certify that it has in place an adequate compliance program
for preventing fraud and false billings to Federal grants.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigation Command. (Case Cost: $259,416)
Laboratory Fraud
Lab Technician Sentenced for Submitting a False Statement
On October 24, 2005, lab technician William Joseph Rutherford was sentenced in U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, to 2 years probation and 150 hours of
community service, and ordered to pay a $250 fine and a $100 special assessment. This
sentencing follows Rutherford's guilty plea to making a material false statement on
documents filed and maintained under the Clean Water Act.
As part of its administration of the Clean Water Act, EPA periodically monitors and
ensures the quality of data reported by wastewater facilities and the independent
laboratories that analyze wastewater samples on behalf of the facilities. These quality
assurance studies are known as Discharge Monitoring Report - Quality Assurance
studies. The Discharge Monitoring Report - Quality Assurance studies entail a process
by which samples of water with concentrations of various pollutants known to EPA are
provided to facilities for analysis. The facility and/or its usual independent laboratory
performs the analyses and forwards the results to EPA. EPA compares the reported
results of the analyses to its known results to determine whether the facility and/or its
independent laboratory is properly performing the analyses.
In July 2002, the Garyville-Jackson Utilities Commission was notified that it was being
required to participate in EPA's Discharge Monitoring Report - Quality Assurance study
and was told to have its usual laboratory analyze the EPA provided samples. The
Caryville-Jackson Utilities Commission routinely contracted with Standard Laboratories,
Jacksboro, Tennessee, to perform certain analyses of its wastewater samples. Rutherford
is employed as a laboratory technician by Standard Laboratories.
Rutherford received the EPA samples, but instead of performing the tests at Standard
Laboratories, he contacted another laboratory to obtain their Discharge Monitoring Report
24
-------
- Quality Assurance study results. Rutherford then falsely reported to the Caryville-
Jackson Utilities Commission that the testing had been performed by Standard
Laboratories when he knew that the results came from another laboratory. The Caryville-
Jackson Utilities Commission subsequently submitted the Discharge Monitoring Report -
Quality Assurance report that contained a material false statement, i.e., that the results of
the sample analyses were obtained from Standard Laboratories when they were in fact
obtained from another laboratory.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the EPA Criminal Investigation Division
and the Office of Inspector General, Tennessee Valley Authority. (Case Cost: $36,694)
Computer Crimes
Two Employees Suspended for Using a Government Computer
to Access Pornography
In two separate instances, EPA employees received suspensions for using Government
computers to access pornographic Web sites.
On October 31, 2005, a Region 5 employee was suspended for 5 days for inappropriate
use of EPA's computer network. An OIG investigation developed evidence that the
employee violated EPA Order 2100.3A1, Policy on Limited Personal Use of Government
Office Equipment, between January and September 2004, by attempting to access
numerous pornographic Web sites and downloading sexually explicit pictures during the
work day.
On January 4, 2006, another Region 5 employee was suspended without pay for 30 days
as a result of another OIG investigation. This investigation focused on the employee's
repeatedly misusing his Government computer to access adult Internet sites and
downloading sexually explicit pictures, despite numerous reminders that using Government
equipment to access sexually explicit materials is prohibited.
Such misuse of Agency equipment negatively impacts productivity and potentially exposes
the EPA network and its users to risks from suspect Web sites. The OIG will continue to
work with EPA Information Security personnel to ensure the integrity of EPA's systems.
(Combined cost of these two cases: $55,467)
25
-------
Other Activities
OIG Conference Emphasizes Helping EPA Improve
Helping EPA achieve its environmental goals in an efficient and economical
manner was one of the key messages stressed during the EPA OIG's National
Training Conference, held in December 2005 in Orlando, Florida.
"Job number one is improving the environment. . . . No matter what you're working on, it's
really important that you understand how your piece fits regarding the environment," then
EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley noted during her
welcoming remarks at the OIG's fourth biannual conference.
Ms. Tinsley stressed that while the OIG has strategic,
multiyear, and annual plans, priorities change and "we have to
adapt to customer needs." She cited the OIG's oversight
efforts as EPA helps the Gulf Coast area recover from
Hurricane Katrina as an example of how the OIG adapts.
The concept of the National Training Conference was to
provide the members of the EPA OIG with an opportunity to
come together from around the Nation, in the spirit of "One
OIG," for a common learning experience. The conference
featured a combination of external speakers from EPA,
industry, academia, other Federal agencies, and Congress, as
well as EPA OIG staff.
EPA's Michael Brady presenting "Environmental
Futurism: The New Frontier" atthe National Training
Conference (EPAOIG photo).
The conference offered 42 topic sessions with 65 speakers, providing OIG staff will the
opportunity to earn 19 to 22 Continuing Professional Education credits. Plenary and
specialized sessions were planned around the following conference themes:
Environmental Innovation: Exploring Risks, Costs, and Green Opportunities
The Power of Data: Leveraging Accountability, Credibility, and Change
Exercising Our Authority to Promote Integrity
Taking Care of Business: Ourselves and Our Organization
At one session, "Oversight of EPA: Perspectives from
Capitol Hill," two congressional staffers on a panel
disagreed on various issues regarding EPA progress, but
both noted the importance of the EPA OIG in ensuring that
EPA effectively performs its mission. "We really rely on the
IGs (Inspectors General) ... to give us the information . . .
we need to give recommendations to Congress. The work
you do is very important," noted Joseph Graziano,
professional majority staff member, Oversight and
Investigations, House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. Richard Frandsen, senior minority counsel,
House Energy and Commerce Committee, also praised the
Nikki Tinsley with Richard Frandsen (left) and
Joseph Graziano (EPAOIG photo).
26
-------
work of the EPA OIG. The speakers cited EPA OIG work on grants and Superfund dollar
shortfalls as being particularly useful.
Other topics included the Sarbanes Oxley Act/A-123, attestation standards, performance
measuring, detecting and preventing fraud, innovation at EPA, data/risk analysis, and
environmental challenges.
Inspector General Addresses Key Issues During Presentations
Prior to her March 2006 retirement, former Inspector General Nikki Tinsley had
presented several talks during the semiannual period to highlight the EPA OIG's
efforts to strengthen Government accountability in grants management, employee
performance training, and natural disaster response.
At the Conference on Accountability in Public Management, held in October 2005, Ms.
Tinsley presented "Auditors Working to Improve Grant Accountability." She highlighted the
work of the Domestic Working Group, made up of Federal Inspectors General, Government
Accountability Office, State, and local auditors. One of the group's achievements of which
Ms. Tinsley was particularly proud was a collaboration that she led to produce a Guide to
Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability. The Guide will help ensure that the
nearly $450 billion the Federal Government spends annually on grants produces real benefits
for the public. Ms. Tinsley also discussed this Domestic Working Group project at a January
2006 talk before the Chicago Chapter of the Association of Government Accountants.
In November 2005, the Inspector General discussed "The IG Journey to Improved
Performance," at the Commonwealth Center for High-Performance Organizations'
Performance Improvement Conference, in Charlottesville, Virginia. Ms. Tinsley outlined
how her office has been developing leaders and managers, including initiatives such as a
new course being offered to all OIG staff on Project Management and access to an
e-learning pilot, available 24/7.
At the Mid-Atlantic Intergovernmental Audit Forum in December 2005, the Inspector General
covered "Disaster-Related Activities of the EPA Office of Inspector General" following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. She explained not only the ongoing response to the hurricanes but
also observations on lessons still being learned from EPA's response to the World Trade Center
collapse. Focal areas included evaluations of drinking water, wastewater, and debris and waste.
OIG Implements Cost Accounting Model
To differentiate and determine the costs of specific OIG work products associated with
disaster relief, the EPA OIG successfully developed and applied a cost accounting
methodology to all OIG mission products and services. The OIG had been considering
approaches to apply cost accounting in conjunction with its performance measurement
process. However, it had not yet implemented a model to recognize the differences in the
cost structure of its variety of activities, products, and services.
We separated costs into the traditional categories of direct, indirect, and overhead (general
and administrative); grouped the costs by office products; and developed a model to comply
with Generally Accepted Cost Accounting Principles and Standards. Our model included
27
-------
developing an overhead cost rate that could be consistently applied to incremental cost
factors for specific products and services, resulting in fully-loaded billable staff day costs.
We validated our methodology by equating the cost of total billable hours to the total
budget expended.
In a separate analysis we identified and classified activities and related outputs. After
additional experience with product cost accounting, we will apply our methodology to
component activities and outputs for full activity-based costing.
Legislation and Regulations Reviewed
Section 4 (a) of the Inspector General Act requires the Inspector General to review
existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to the program and operation of
EPA and to make recommendations concerning their impact. Our comments are
primarily based on the audit, evaluation, investigation, and legislative experiences of the
Office of Inspector General, as well as our participation on the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency.
During the reporting period, we reviewed 13 proposed changes to legislation, regulations,
policy, and procedures that could affect EPA. We also reviewed drafts of Office of
Management and Budget Circulars, program operations manuals, directives, and
reorganizations. Details on several items follow.
Proposed Office of Human Resources (OHR) Reorganization: We suggested that
OHR develop a set of measurable objectives to ensure that the promised benefits of the
reorganization are realized. OHR should document a baseline of current performance to
measure against the anticipated new results. We also suggested that OHR develop an
implementation plan to ensure that the reorganization effort has a reasonable opportunity
for success. Finally, we suggested that OHR develop a partnership with OHR employees
to engage their staff to be an active partner in the reorganization process. The support
and commitment of OHR managers is instrumental in ensuring OHR staff will support and
actively assist with the reorganization effort. Senior OHR managers should communicate
with all OHR staff to ensure a common understanding of how OHR will benefit from the
successful implementation of the reorganization.
Proposed Interim EPA Personal Property Policy and Procedures Manual: We
commented that the term "personal property" was defined ambiguously and
inconsistently. The document used two different definitions, and it appeared that these
two different definitions pointed back to one another. We also suggested adding a
paragraph on theft, and that suspected theft should be reported to the OIG for possible
criminal investigation.
Proposed Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Reorganization:
We suggested that OAQPS obtain a baseline analysis of underrepresented positions and
grade-levels, pre-reorganization, for inclusion as part of the final reorganization proposal
package for subsequent comparison with post-reorganization efforts. Such baseline diversity
information will help OAQPS show how well the reorganization increased opportunities for
the advancement of minorities and women. We also suggested that OAQPS work with
the EPA Office of Civil Rights, which gathers and maintains this type of information.
28
-------
Significant EPA Actions as a Result of OIG Activity
EPA and States Report Expected Environmental Benefits for
$7.2 Billion Worth of Clean Water State Revolving Fund Projects
In response to an OIG recommendation, States and communities began reporting
environmental data to EPA in 2005 regarding expected environmental benefits from Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan projects. All 50 States and Puerto Rico have
agreed to submit data to EPA. To date, 42 States have already done so. As of March 1,
2006, EPA had received data for about 1,250 projects totaling $7.2 billion.
In June 2004, we issued a report (Stronger Leadership Needed to Develop
Environmental Measures for Clean Water State Revolving Fund) stating that although
EPA had been working with some States to develop measures since 1998, the Agency had
not developed a uniform set of measures to assess the environmental impact of this multi-
billion dollar program. EPA was unable to determine the environmental impact of the
program without data, and therefore was also unable to compare the value of the CWSRF
with other water quality programs when deciding how to allocate resources to maximize
results.
In response to our recommendation, EPA and States developed and agreed to use a suite
of measures to assess the potential benefits from loan projects. States and EPA will use
the information reported to communicate the programs' environmental accomplishments to
stakeholders. EPA has already begun using the data to produce reports on CWSRF
environmental accomplishments and highlight the environmental impact of CWSRF loans
in its 2005 Annual Report. EPA also expects that the established measures will serve as a
tool to help States examine, challenge, and improve their own funding decisions. States in
particular are using the information as an outreach tool to promote the CWSRF to
potential borrowers and show the importance of the CWSRF to State legislatures and
Governors' offices.
EPA also estimates that $2.2 billion in costs have been saved. According to EPA, it
estimated that the 834 communities that have reported data would have spent about
$2.2 billion more to conduct the same projects if those communities had gone to a private
bank for a loan instead of using the CWSRF loan program.
29
-------
Statistical Data
Audit Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution
Process for Semiannual Period Ending March 31,2006
Report Category
A. Forwhich no management
decision was made by
October 1 , 2005 *
B. Which were issued during
the reporting period
C. Which were issued during
the reporting period that
required no resolution
Subtotals (A + B - C)
D. Forwhich a management
decision was made during
the reporting period
E Forwhich no management
decision was made by
March 31 , 2006
F Reports for which no
management decision was
made within 6 months
of issuance
No. of
Reports
173
259
124
308
148
160
85
Report Issuance
($ in thousands)
Questioned
Costs
$89,565
11,458
0
101,023
9,642
91,381
81 ,352
Recommended
Efficiencies
$9,492
3,729
0
13,221
4,759
8,462
8,341
Report Resolution Costs
Sustained
($ in thousands)
To Be
Recovered
$4,736
299
0
5,035
5,035
0
0
As
Efficiencies
$57
3,608
0
3,665
3,665
0
0
* Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies
between this report and our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data incur
audit tracking system.
Status of Management Decisions on Inspector General Reports
This section presents statistical information as required by the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, on the status of EPA management decisions on reports issued by the
OIG involving monetary recommendations. As presented, information contained in Tables
1 and 2 cannot be used to assess results of reviews performed or controlled by this office.
Many of the reports were prepared by other Federal auditors or independent public
accountants. EPA OIG staff do not manage or control such assignments. Auditees
frequently provide additional documentation to support the allowability of such costs
subsequent to report issuance.
30
-------
Table 1 - Inspector General-Issued Reports with Questioned Costs for Semiannual Period
Ending March 31, 2006 (dollar value in thousands)
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was made
by October 1 , 2005 **
B. New reports issued during period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made
during the reporting period
(i) Dollar value of disallowed costs
(ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed
D. For which no management decision was made
by March 31 , 2006
Reports for which no management decision was made
within 6 months of issuance
Number of
Reports
85
40
125
42
27
15
83
54
Questioned
Costs *
$89,565
11,458
101,023
9,642
5,036
4,606
91 ,381
81 ,352
Unsupported
Costs
$37,549
8,728
46,277
3,051
1,846
1,205
43,226
35,234
Questioned costs include the unsupported costs.
Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs between this report and our
previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking system.
Table 2 - Inspector General-Issued Reports with Recommendations that Funds Be Put to Better
Use for Semiannual Period Ending March 31, 2006 (dollar value in thousands)
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was made by October 1 , 2005*
B. Which were issued during the reporting period
Subtotals (A +B)
C. For which a management decision was made during the
reporting period
(i) Dollarvalue of recommendations from reportsthatwere
agreed to by management
(ii) Dollarvalue of recommendations from reportsthatwere not
agreed to by management
(iii) Dollarvalue of non-awards or unsuccessful bidders
D. For which no management decision was made by March 31 , 2006
Reports for which no management decision was made
within 6 months of issuance
Number of
Reports
8
3
11
4
3
1
0
7
6
Dollar
Value
$9,492
3,729
13,221
4,759
3,665
1,094
0
8,462
8,341
Any difference in number of reports and amounts of funds put to better use between this report and
our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking system.
31
-------
Audits with No Final Action as of March 31, 2006, Which Are Over 365 Days Past the Date of the
Accepted Management Decision
Audits
Program
Assistance Agreements
Contra ctAudits
Single Audits
Financial Statement Audits
Total
Total
25
2
0
8
0
35
Percentage
71%
6%
0%
23%
0%
100%
32
-------
Summary of Investigative Results
Summary of Investigative Activity During Period
Cases open as of September 30, 2005
Cases opened during period
Cases closed during period *
Cases pending as of March 31 , 2006
218
73
79
212
Investigations Pending by Type as of March 31, 2006
Contract
Assistance Agreement
Employee Integrity
Program Integrity
Computer Crime
Laboratory Fraud
Other
Total
Superfund
16
1
3
3
0
10
1
34
Management
11
42
22
42
11
45
5
178
Total
27
43
25
45
11
55
6
212
Results of Prosecutive Actions
Criminal Indictments /Informations
Convictions
Civil Judgments / Settlements / Filings
Fines and Recoveries (includes Civil)
Probation
Community Service
EPAOIGOnly
2
0
0
0
0
Joint**
5
13
6
$29,439,542
78 months
175 hours
Total
7
15
6
$29,439,542
78 months
175 hours
Administrative Actions
Suspensions
Debarments
Voluntary Exclusions
Compliance Agreements
Other Administrative Actions
Total
EPAOIGOnly
1
0
2
1
10
14
Joint**
1
9
0
0
3
13
Total
2
9
2
1
13
27
Includes one case closed in a prior period.
With another Federal agency.
33
-------
Scoreboard of Results
Scoreboard of Results at Mid-Year (March 31, 2006) Compared to Fiscal 2006
Annual Performance Goal Targets
All results reported in Fiscal Year 2006, from current and prior year's work, as reported in the OIG
Performance Measurement and Results System and the Inspector General Operations Reporting system.
Quarterly data not verified. Incremental goal is 50 percent.
Strategic Goals; With Government Performance and
Results Act Annual Performance Targets Compared
to Fiscal 2006 Results Reported
Supporting Measures
Goal 1. Contribute to Improved Human Health and Environmental Quality
Environmental Improvements/Actions/Changes Q
Target: 50
Reported: 23 (46%)
Environmental Risks Reduced or Eliminated A
Target: 28
Reported: 21 (75%)
Environmental Recommendations, Best Practices, A
Risks Identified
Target: 1 05
Reported: 33 (31%)
0 Legislative changes/decisions
0 Regulatory changes/decisions
22 EPA policy, process, practice changes
1 Example of environmental improvement
0 Best environmental practices implemented
9 Environmental risks reduced/eliminated
5 Certifications/validations/verifications
7 Critical congressional/public issues addressed
29 Environmental recommendations
1 Environmental best practice identified
3 Environmental risks identified
Goal 2. Improve EPA's Management, Accountability, and Program Operations
Return on Investment: Potential dollar return as A
percentage of OIG budget ($49 million)
Target: $73.5 million
Reported: $97.2 million (132%)
Criminal, Civil, and Administrative Actions Reducing A
Risk of Loss/Operational Integrity
Target: 80
Reported: 56 (69%)
Improvements in Business/Systems/Efficiency Q
Target: 225
Reported: 185 (82%)
Recommendations, Best Practices, Challenges A
Identified
Target: 820
Reported: 449 (55%)
(dollars in millions)
$ 64.1 Questioned costs
$ 3.7 Recommended efficiencies, costs saved
$ 29.4 Fines, recoveries, settlements
15 Criminal convictions
7 Indictments/informations/complaints
6 Civil judgments/settlements/filings
28 Administrative actions 1
22 Policy process, practice, control changes
1 Corrective action on FMFIA/Mgt. challenges
3 Best practices implemented
1 48 Certifications/validations/verifications
3 Allegations disproved
6 Critical congressional or public management
concerns addressed
2 Management actions taken -not reported
442 Recommendations
1 Best practice identified
1 FMFIA/managementchallenge identified
5 Referrals for Agency action
Includes one from audits
I = At or over 50 percent annual target (_) = At or over 40 percent annual target
I = Below 40 percent annual target
34
-------
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Reports Issued
The Inspector General Act requires a listing, subdivided according to subject matter, of each report issued
by the OIG during the reporting period. For each report, where applicable, the Inspector General Act also
requires a listing of the dollar value of questioned costs and the dollar value of recommendations that funds
be put to better use.
Report Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
PERFORMANCE REPORTS
2006-P-00001
2006-P-00002
2006-P-00003
2006-P-00004
2006-P-00005
2006-P-00006
2006-P-00007
2006-P-00008
2006-P-00009
2006-P-00010
2006-P-00011
2006-P-00012
2006-P-00013
2006-P-00014
2006-P-00015
2006-P-00016
2006-P-00017
2006-P-00018
2006-P-00019
2006-P-00020
2006-P-00021
Industrial Wipes Congressional Request
EPA Could Improve Information Security
Impact of FPQAon EPA's Pesticide Registration Program
E&E Needs To Improve Information Technology General Controls
IS Service Continuity & Physical Access Controls at NCC
Performance Measurement and Reportingfor Enforcement and Co
More Information Is Needed On Toxaphene Degradation Products
University of Nevada Reno REMAP Grants
I mpact of Data Gaps on EPA's I mplementation of FQPA
Information Security Series: Security Practices- 1 CMS
Katrina - Water Mississippi
Contract Administration Followup
SF Mandate: Program Efficiencies
Katrina -Water
EPA OAR and OW Can Further Limit Use of LOE Contracts
EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sedi ments
Emissions Factors Management, Use, and Benefits
Katrina -Wastewater
Information Security Series: Security Practices - CERCLIS
Information Security Series: Security Practices - ICIS
Information Security Series: Security Practices - SDWIS
TOTAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS = 21
04-OCT-05
13-OCT-05
18-OCT-05
21-NOV-05
14-DEC-05
14-DEC-05
15-DEC-05
28-DEC-05
10-JAN-06
31-JAN-06
13-FEB-06
28-FEB-06
07-MAR-06
07-MAR-06
13-MAR-06
14-MAR-06
22-MAR-06
28-MAR-06
28-MAR-06
29-MAR-06
30-MAR-06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT REPORTS
2006-1-00018
2006-1-00021
2006-1-00024
Nevada Drinking Water State Revolving Fund June 30 2004
SRF-Oregon Clean Water 2005
Nevada Clean Water SRF 6/30/04 Financial Statements
TOTAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT REPORTS = 3
29-NOV-05
12-JAN-06
23-JAN-06
0
0
0
$0
SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS
2006-3-00001
2006-3-00002
2006-3-00003
2006-3-00004
2006-3-00005
2006-3-00006
2006-3-00007
2006-3-00008
2006-3-00009
2006-3-00010
2006-3-00011
2006-3-00012
2006-3-00013
2006-3-00014
2006-3-00015
2006-3-00016
2006-3-00017
2006-3-00018
2006-3-00019
2006-3-00020
2006-3-00021
2006-3-00022
2006-3-00023
Sault Ste. Marie tribe of Chippewa Indians FY 2003
Fort Independence Indian Reservation FY2003
Westfield, Town of FY2003
Ely Shoshone Tribe FY 2003
Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, FY2002
Alfred University, FY 2004
Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, FY2003
Mason City, City of FY 2004
Spokane Tribe of Indians - FY 2001
Spokane Tribe of Indians - FY 2002
Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council, FY 2004
Spokane Tribe of Indians - FY 2003
Stevens Village Council - FYs 2000 & 2001
Stevens Village Council - FY2002
Combes, Town of FY 2002
Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council, FY 2003
Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, FY2002
Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, FY2003
White Mountain Apache Tribe, FY 2002
White Mountain Apache Tribe, FY 2004
Senior Service America-MD, FY2004
National Alliance for Hispanic Health, FY 2003
Lower Sioux Indian Community, FY2002
04-OCT-05
04-OCT-05
05-OCT-05
05-OCT-05
12-OCT-05
13-OCT-05
20-OCT-05
20-OCT-05
20-OCT-05
20-OCT-05
25-OCT-05
26-OCT-05
27-OCT-05
27-OCT-05
01-NOV-05
01-NOV-05
01-NOV-05
01-NOV-05
01-NOV-05
01-NOV-05
03-NOV-05
07-NOV-05
07-NOV-05
0
0
$348,714
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$84,729
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$395,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$395,000
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
-------
Report Number
2006-3-00024
2006-3-00025
2006-3-00026
2006-3-00027
2006-3-00028
2006-3-00029
2006-3-00030
2006-3-00031
2006-3-00032
2006-3-00033
2006-3-00034
2006-3-00035
2006-3-00036
2006-3-00037
2006-3-00038
2006-3-00039
2006-3-00040
2006-3-00041
2006-3-00042
2006-3-00043
2006-3-00044
2006-3-00045
2006-3-00046
2006-3-00047
2006-3-00048
2006-3-00049
2006-3-00050
2006-3-00051
2006-3-00052
2006-3-00053
2006-3-00054
2006-3-00055
2006-3-00056
2006-3-00057
2006-3-00058
2006-3-00059
2006-3-00060
2006-3-00061
2006-3-00063
2006-3-00064
2006-3-00065
2006-3-00066
2006-3-00067
2006-3-00068
2006-3-00069
2006-3-00070
2006-3-00071
2006-3-00072
2006-3-00073
2006-3-00074
2006-3-00075
2006-3-00076
2006-3-00077
2006-3-00078
2006-3-00079
2006-3-00080
2006-3-00081
2006-3-00082
2006-3-00083
2006-3-00084
2006-3-00085
2006-3-00086
2006-3-00087
2006-3-00088
2006-3-00089
2006-3-00090
2006-3-00091
2006-3-00092
2006-3-00093
2006-3-00094
2006-3-00095
2006-3-00096
Title
Lower Sioux Indian Community, FY2003
Lynchburg, City of FY 2004
Nat'l Assoc. for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, FY04
Sherwood Valley Band of Porno Indians - FY 2003
Howard University, FY 2004
Smith River Rancheria, FY2002
Trinidad Rancheria, FY 2003
Shoshone & Arapaho Joint Prog, of the Wind River Reservation
Tyrone, Bo rough of FY 2003
Shreveport, City of FY 2004
OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE FY 2000
Oglala Sioux Tribe FY 2001
Oglala Sioux Tribe FY 2002
Oglala Sioux Tribe, FY 2003
Iowa Rural Water Authority, FY2003
Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, FY2004
Hawaii Department of Health, FY2004
Agua Sana Water Users Association
Rhode Island, State of FY 2004
American Water Works Association , FY 2003
Vermont State Colleges FY 2003
Florida, State of FY 2004
Trees Forever, Inc. FY 2002
Trees Forever, Inc. FY 2003
Illinois, State of FY 2004
Vermont, State of FY 2003
New Hampshire, State of FY 2004
United States-Mexico Foundation of Science FY 2003
United States-Mexico Foundation of Science FY 2004
Hoohnah Indian Association, FY2003
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute FY 2004
Samish Indian Nation FY 2003
Aberdeen Area Tribal Chairmen's Health Board FY 2002
Aberdeen Area Tribal Chairmen's Health Board FY 2003
Utah, State of FY 2004
Nebraska, State of FY 2004
YupiitofAndreafski-FY2003
Pennsylvania State University, FY 2004
North Lake Recreational Sewer & Water District - FY 2003
Arkansas, State of FY 2004
Samish Indian Nation FY 2004
Great Lakes Commission FY2004
Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town FY2004
Caribbean Environmental & Development Institute FY 1999
Caribbean Environment & Development Institute FY 2000
North Dakota Rural Water System Association, FY2004
Texas, State of FY 2004
Maryland, State of FY 2004
Louisiana, State of FY 2004
Smithsonian Institution - FY 2002
Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of FY 2004
Rand Corporation , The - FY 2002
Rand Corporation , The - FY 2003
Water Environment Federation - FY 2004
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. - FY2004
Puerto Rico Safe Drinking Water Treatment RLF - FY 2002
Florida Rural Water association, FY 2002
Florida Rural Water Association, FY 2003
Florida Rural Water Association, FY 2004
Clarksburg, City of FY 2004
Stevens Village Council FY 2003
Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians FY 2004
Puerto Rico Safe Drinking Water Treatment RLF - FY 2003
Puerto Rico Safe Drinking Water Treatment RLF - FY 2004
Huntsville, City of- FY 2004
Centra lina Council of Governments - FY 2004
Monroe, City of FY 2004
South Miami, City of FY 2004
Sumner, City of FY 2004
Adair, City of FY 2004
Shepherdstown , Corporation of - FY 2004
Ridgeley, Town of -FY 2004
TOTAL SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS = 95
Final Report
Issued
09-NOV-05
09-NOV-05
09-NOV-05
14-NOV-05
14-NOV-05
15-NOV-05
15-NOV-05
15-NOV-05
17-NOV-05
17-NOV-05
02-DEC-05
02-DEC-05
05-DEC-05
15-DEC-05
15-DEC-05
19-DEC-05
19-DEC-05
21-DEC-05
29-DEC-05
30-DEC-05
05-JAN-06
10-JAN-06
12-JAN-06
12-JAN-06
26-JAN-06
26-JAN-06
26-JAN-06
07-FEB-06
07-FEB-06
06-FEB-06
08-FEB-06
08-FEB-06
08-FEB-06
08-FEB-06
09-FEB-06
13-FEB-06
13-FEB-06
14-FEB-06
16-FEB-06
16-FEB-06
22-FEB-06
22-FEB-06
22-FEB-06
22-FEB-06
22-FEB-06
23-FEB-06
23-FEB-06
27-FEB-06
27-FEB-06
07-MAR-06
07-MAR-06
07-MAR-06
07-MAR-06
13-MAR-06
13-MAR-06
13-MAR-06
13-MAR-06
13-MAR-06
13-MAR-06
13-MAR-06
14-MAR-06
14-MAR-06
16-MAR-06
16-MAR-06
16-MAR-06
16-MAR-06
21-MAR-06
21-MAR-06
23-MAR-06
23-MAR-06
28-MAR-06
29-MAR-06
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$44,090
0
0
0
0
0
$105
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$30,897
0
0
0
0
0
$10,217
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$117,785
$1,012,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$1,564,308
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$35,571
$626,279
$668,417
$635,284
$586,232
0
0
0
0
0
$3,774,275
0
$984
0
0
0
0
$616,500
$249,606
$221,406
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$653,425
$492,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$82,551
0
0
0
0
0
0
$8,727,509
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
36
-------
Report Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
DIG ISSUED CONTRACT REPORTS
2006-2-00008
2006-4-00025
2006-4-00026
2006-4-00027
2006-4-00051
2006-4-00052
2006-4-00056
E&E Agreed Upon Procedures RFP-PR-R7-05-10029
CO - E&E Adequacy of CFY 2004 Incurred Cost Proposal
Illinois Credit Claim for the Ottawa Radiation Site
White House Oil Pits Superfund Site Mixed Funding Claim
E&E Revised ES Disclosure Statement (Effective Aug. 1999)
E&E Revised HR Disclosure Statement (Eff 8/1/1 999)
E&E 2005 Floorcheck
TOTAL DIG ISSUED CONTRACT REPORTS = 7
29-NOV-05
28-OCT-05
31-OCT-05
31-OCT-05
28-DEC-05
28-DEC-05
10-JAN-06
0
0
0
$28,407
0
0
0
$28,407
DCAA CONTRACT REPORTS
2006-1-00001
2006-1-00002
2006-1-00003
2006-1-00004
2006-1-00005
2006-1-00006
2006-1-00007
2006-1-00008
2006-1-00009
2006-1-00010
2006-1-00011
2006-1-00012
2006-1-00013
2006-1-00014
2006-1-00016
2006-1-00017
2006-1-00019
2006-1-00020
2006-1-00022
2006-1-00023
2006-1-00025
2006-1-00026
2006-1-00027
2006-1-00028
2006-1-00030
2006-1-00031
2006-1-00032
2006-1-00033
2006-1-00034
2006-1-00035
2006-1-00036
2006-1-00037
2006-1-00038
2006-1-00039
2006-1-00040
2006-1-00041
2006-2-00001
2006-2-00002
2006-2-00003
2006-2-00004
2006-2-00005
2006-2-00006
2006-2-00007
2006-2-00009
2006-2-00010
2006-2-00011
2006-2-00012
2006-2-00013
2006-2-00014
2006-2-00015
2006-4-00001
2006-4-00002
2006-4-00003
2006-4-00004
2006-4-00005
2006-4-00006
2006-4-00007
2006-4-00008
2006-4-00009
2006-4-00010
SPS Technologies, Inc. FYE 9/30/2002 Incurred Cost
Eastern Research Group FY2003 Incurred Cost
Environmental Quality Management, Inc. FY2003 Incurred Cost
D & R International, LTD. FY2003 Incurred Cost
Battelle Columbus Laboratories - FYE 9/30/2004 Incurred Cost
Tetra Tech EMI - CFYE 9/30/2003 Incurred Cost
ABT Associates Inc.- FY 2001 Incurred Cost
Excalibur Associates, Inc. - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Herrera Environmental Consultants - FY2003 Incurred Cost
Metcalf & Eddy lnc.-FY2000 Incurred Cost
STG, Inc. - FYE 12/31/2001 Incurred Cost
CH2M Hill, Inc. - FY2003 Incurred Cost
Computer Based Systems, Incc/oTitan Sys FY2003 Incurred Cost
TN & Associates - FY2003 Incurred Cost
Weston Solutions Inc. - CACS - 68-W5-0019
Battelle Columbus Laboratories - FYE 9/30/2004 Incurred Cost
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
MACTEC Fed Prog (former Pacific Env Svc) -FY2002 IncurredCost
Planners Collaborative lnc(PCI)-FYE 12/31/2002 Incurred Cost
GeoLogics Corporation - FYE 12/31/2002 Incurred Cost
Bristol Environ & Engineering - FY 3/31/2005 Incurred Cost
Alpha-Gamma Technologies lnc.-FY2001 Incurred Cost
GeoLogics Corporation - FYE 12/31/2002 Incurred Cost
Gannett Fleming Environ Engr, Inc. - FYE 2003 Incurred Cost
National Academy of Sciences FYE 1 2/31/2003 Incurred Cost
Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC)- CFYE 3/31/2002 Incurred Cost
Bevilacqua Knight (formerly Clean Air) - FYE 1 2/31/04 1/C
Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc. - FYE 12/31/02 Incurred Cost
Southwest Research Institute -FY 9/30/2004 Incurred Cost
Aarcher, Inc. - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Washington Group Infl-formerly Morrison Knudsen FY2003 RAG
Trinity Engineering Associates - FY 1 2/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Wilson Environmental Lab- FYE 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Trinity Engineering Associates FY2003 Incurred Cost
Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. - CFYE 9/30/2003 Incurred Cost
Environomics - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
CH2M Hill Inc - FY 2002 RAG Annual Close-Out 68-W6-0036
CH2M Hill Inc - FY 2001 RAG Annual Close-Out
Universe Technologies, lnc.-FY2002 Incurred Cost
Tetra Tech FW, Inc.- FY 2003 RAG 68-W9-821 4
Tetra Tech FW, Inc. - FY2002 RAC-68-W9-8214
Westat Inc. - FYE 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Westat, Inc. - FY2003 Incurred Cost
Pegasus Technical Services - Voucher Review
CH2M Hill, Inc. - FY 2003 RAG - 68-W6-0036
Scientific Consulting Group, Inc - FY 12/31/2004 1/C
Tetra Tech, EMI - Preaward - PR-R5-05-10017
Weston Solution, Inc. - FY2003 RAC-68-W7-0026
ASRC MSJnc. - FY2006 Overhead Rate in RFP PR-R1-05-10021
Matrix Environmental & Geotechnical Services FY2004 1/C
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. - CAS 403
EG&G - CAS 404
SAIC- Company 9 -CAS 408
EG&G - CAS 408
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. - Voucher Dir. Pay
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller - FY 2005 Dire ct Voucher Review
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) - Ac counting System
Tetra Tech - FY 2005 Billing System Audit
Tetra Tech EMI-FY2005 MAAR 13 Purch Existence/Consumption
Stratus Consulting, Inc. - FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
04-OCT-05
05-OCT-05
05-OCT-05
06-OCT-05
06-OCT-05
11-OCT-05
14-OCT-05
19-OCT-05
25-OCT-05
09-NOV-05
09-NOV-05
09-NOV-05
10-NOV-05
10-NOV-05
17-NOV-05
17-NOV-05
01-DEC-05
14-DEC-05
13-JAN-06
13-JAN-06
30-JAN-06
31-JAN-06
01-FEB-06
23-FEB-06
13-MAR-06
15-MAR-06
20-MAR-06
21-MAR-06
22-MAR-06
23-MAR-06
28-MAR-06
30-MAR-06
30-MAR-06
30-MAR-06
30-MAR-06
31-MAR-06
07-OCT-05
11-OCT-05
25-OCT-05
28-OCT-05
28-OCT-05
08-NOV-05
08-NOV-05
11-JAN-06
18-JAN-06
16-FEB-06
01-MAR-06
03-MAR-06
22-MAR-06
28-MAR-06
04-OCT-05
04-OCT-05
04-OCT-05
04-OCT-05
04-OCT-05
04-OCT-05
04-OCT-05
04-OCT-05
04-OCT-05
05-OCT-05
0
0
0
0
0
$80,936
$172,968
0
$1,221
$57,867
0
$175,678
0
0
0
0
$1,038
0
0
0
0
$446
0
$2,553
$1,172
$519,860
0
$580
0
$710
$46,422
0
0
0
0
0
0
$24,660
0
$474
$952
0
0
$38,764
$2,036
0
0
0
0
$9,652
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$3,213,181
0
0
0
0
$3,213,181
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$120,550
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
-------
Report Number
2006-4-00011
2006-4-00012
2006-4-00013
2006-4-00014
2006-4-00015
2006-4-00016
2006-4-00017
2006-4-00018
2006-4-00019
2006-4-00020
2006-4-00021
2006-4-00022
2006-4-00023
2006-4-00024
2006-4-00028
2006-4-00029
2006-4-00030
2006-4-00031
2006-4-00032
2006-4-00033
2006-4-00034
2006-4-00035
2006-4-00036
2006-4-00037
2006-4-00038
2006-4-00039
2006-4-00040
2006-4-00041
2006-4-00042
2006-4-00043
2006-4-00044
2006-4-00045
2006-4-00046
2006-4-00047
2006-4-00048
2006-4-00049
2006-4-00050
2006-4-00053
2006-4-00054
2006-4-00055
2006-4-00057
2006-4-00058
2006-4-00059
2006-4-00060
2006-4-00061
2006-4-00062
2006-4-00063
2006-4-00064
2006-4-00065
2006-4-00066
2006-4-00067
2006-4-00068
2006-4-00069
2006-4-00070
2006-4-00072
2006-4-00073
2006-4-00074
2006-4-00075
2006-4-00076
2006-4-00077
2006-4-00078
2006-4-00079
2006-4-00080
2006-4-00081
2006-4-00082
2006-4-00083
2006-4-00084
2006-4-00085
2006-4-00086
2006-4-00087
2006-4-00088
Title
EG&G ED P- General Controls (ICR)
Systems Research & Applications - Labor C
Eastern Research Group - ESD Disclosure Statement
Eastern Research Group -GFY 2005 Floor Check (MAAR 6)
TetraTech, Inc. - FY2005 Floorcheck
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. -FY2005 Billing Sys
TetraTech, Inc. -FY 2005 Purchasing System Audit
EG&G - Indirect ODC Follow-Up
EG&G - Floorcheck
TetraTech NUS, Inc- FY2005 Floorcheck
Cadmus Group Inc. - CAS 408 Compliance Audit
Eastern Research Group - Corporate Disclosure Statement
Environmental Quality Management-FY 2005 PurchasingSysReview
Battelle - ESS (ICR) - Estimating Systems
Systems Research & Applications Corp - FY 2005 CAS 409
SAIC-Company6-CAS411
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) - MAAR 13
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) - MAAR 6
SAIC - Company 1 , 6 and 9 - Floorchecks
SAIC - Company 1 and 6 - MAAR 13
CH2M Hill Inc (INC) -CAS 418
CH2M Hill Inc (INC)- FY 2004 Labor System/Floorcheck
EERGC c/o GE Energy & Envl -FY 2003 Incurred Cost
CH2M Hill, Inc. (INC) - Labor System Floorcheck
ABT Associates, Inc. - FY2004 Billing System
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller - FY 2005 MAAR 6
SAIC- Company 9 - Financial Condition Risk Assessment
InfoPro Incoporated - FYE 9/30/2004 Incurred Cost
Systems Research & Applications, Corp - FY 2006 CAS 418
Toeroek Associates, Inc. FY2003 Incurred Cost
EG&G - CAS Cost Impact Statement (Price Adjustment)
EG&G - Exam of Paid Vouchers - Direct Billing
SAIC- FY 2004 Compensation System Review
TetraTech EMI - FY2005 MAAR 6 Floorcheck
DPRA, Inc. - FY2006 Financial Capability Assessment
Syracuse Research Corporation - FY2006 CAS 408
Mactec Federal Programs(formerly Pacific Env Serv)-Fin. Audit
Tetra Tech, Inc. A&E Division - FY 2006 CAS 409
Tetra Tech (A&E Division) - CAS 404
SAIC- Company 1 - Budget System & Financial Control
Toeroek Associates, Inc. - FY2005 Floorcheck
PegasusTechnical Services -Accounting System
Gannett Fleming, Inc. - FY 12/31/2005 Floor Check
Toeroek Associates, Inc. - FY 2005 Accounting System Review
Abt Associates, Inc. - FYE 2006 Billing System Follow-Up
Battelle - BCO - FY 2006410
Battelle -BSTI-FY 2006 CAS 403
Tetra Tech NUS -CAS 404
Tetra Tech, Inc. - Disclosure Statement Rev 2, dated 9/30/02
Black & Veatch SPC- FY 2005 D/S Rev No. 5 Effective 1/1/05
Weston Solutions, Inc. - CFY 2005 Floor Checks
Battelle - OCEO - FY 2006 CAS 412
Battelle - BCO - FY 2006 CAS 408
Battelle -BCO -FY 2006 CAS 418
SAIC-Company 9 - Accounting System
DPRA, Inc. - FY 2006 Paid Vouchers Review
SAIC- FY 2004 Billing System Review
SAIC- FY 2004 BudgetSystem Review
Eastern Research Group - ERG Segment-D/S Rev. 3 on 10/27/05
TetraTech NUS - FY2006 CAS 409
National Academy of Sciences - FY 2006 CAS 41 5
Eastern Research Group - ESD Division D/S Rev 3 10/27/05
CH2M Hill Inc (INC)- FY2004 Budgeting System
Eastern Research Group-ERG Corporate Home D/S Rev 3 10/27/05
Battelle-OCEO- BudgetSystem
Environmental Quality Management, Inc. - FY2006 Floorcheck
Systems Research & Applications - FY2006 CAS 410
CH2M Hill Inc (INC) -CAS 420
Tetra Tech, lnc.(A&E Division) - CAS 420
CH2M Hill Inc (I&E)- CAS 403
Black & Veatch Special Proj Corp - Rev. Disclosure Statement
TOTAL DCAA CONTRACT REPORTS = 131
Final Report
Issued
06-OCT-05
06-OCT-05
06-OCT-05
07-OCT-05
14-OCT-05
14-OCT-05
14-OCT-05
14-OCT-05
14-OCT-05
19-OCT-05
19-OCT-05
20-OCT-05
20-OCT-05
25-OCT-05
04-NOV-05
04-NOV-05
04-NOV-05
04-NOV-05
04-NOV-05
04-NOV-05
15-NOV-05
15-NOV-05
17-NOV-05
17-NOV-05
17-NOV-05
17-NOV-05
22-NOV-05
25-NOV-05
25-NOV-05
25-NOV-05
01-DEC-05
01-DEC-05
14-DEC-05
14-DEC-05
20-DEC-05
20-DEC-05
20-DEC-05
28-DEC-05
28-DEC-05
28-DEC-05
11-JAN-06
17-JAN-06
19-JAN-06
24-JAN-06
24-JAN-06
25-JAN-06
25-JAN-06
25-JAN-06
25-JAN-06
25-JAN-06
30-JAN-06
01-FEB-06
02-FEB-06
02-FEB-06
03-FEB-06
08-FEB-06
09-FEB-06
09-FEB-06
28-FEB-06
28-FEB-06
02-MAR-06
02-MAR-06
07-MAR-06
16-MAR-06
16-MAR-06
22-MAR-06
22-MAR-06
23-MAR-06
24-MAR-06
27-MAR-06
28-MAR-06
Questioned Costs
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable
Costs Costs Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$1,137,989
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$120,550
38
-------
Report Number Title
FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS
2006-1-00015 2005 AGENCY F/S - GENERAL (MASTER)
TOTAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS = 1
SPECIAL REVIEW REPORTS
2006-S-00001 2005 Federal Information Security Management Act
TOTAL SPECIAL REVIEW REPORTS = 1
TOTAL REPORTS ISSUED = 259
Final Report
Issued
14-NOV-05
03-OCT-05
Questioned Costs
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable
Costs Costs Costs
0
$0
0
$0
$2,730,704
0
$0
0
$0
$8,727,509
0
$0
0
$0
$0
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
0
$0
0
$0
$3,728,731
39
-------
OIG Mailing Addresses and Telephone Numbers
Headquarters
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-0847
Atlanta
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Audit: (404) 562-9830
Investigations: (404) 562-9857
Boston
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
One Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Audit: (617) 918-1470
Investigations: (617) 918-1468
Chicago
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
77 West Jackson Boulevard
13th Floor (IA-13J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Audit: (312) 353-2486
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
Cincinnati
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268-7001
Audit: (513) 487-2360
Investigations: (513) 487-2364
Dallas
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (6OIG)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-273 3
Audit: (214) 665-6621
Investigations: (214) 665-2790
OIG Public Liaison Hotline
Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (249IT)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax
202-566-2549
E-mail
OIG_Hotline@epa.gov
Offices
Denver
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Audit: (303) 312-6872
Investigations: (303) 312-6868
Kansas City
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Audit: (913) 551-7878
Investigations: (913) 551-7875
Los Angeles
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
P.O. Box 826
La Miranda, CA 90627-0826
Investigations: (714) 521-2189
New York
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
290 Broadway, Room 1520
New York, NY 10007
Audit: (212) 637-3080
Investigations: (212) 637-3041
Philadelphia
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1650 Arch Street, 3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Audit: (215) 814-5800
Investigations: (215) 814-5820
Research Triangle Park
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Mail Drop N283-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit: (919) 541-2204
Investigations: (919) 541-1027
Sacramento
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
80II Street, Room 264
Sacramento, CA 95814
Audit: (916) 498-6530
Investigations: (415) 947-4500 (SF)
San Francisco
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne St. (IGA-1)
7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Audit: (415) 947-4521
Investigations: (415) 947-4500
Seattle
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 6th Avenue, 19th Floor
Suite 1920, M/S OIG-195
Seattle, WA 98101
Audit: (206) 553-4033
Investigations: (206) 553-1273
Winchester
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
200 S. Jefferson Street, Room 314
P.O. Box 497
Winchester, TN 37398
Investigations: (423) 240-7735
-------
Back cover photos: Clockwise from top: A coastal Mississippi residential neighborhood; household hazardous
waste items collected by EPA; residential devastation in Mississippi; and refrigerator freon and
content removal at a Louisiana landfill. (EPA OIG photos)
-------
I
I
M m
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
------- |