Office of Inspector General
| A \
V^o^c AUDIT REPORT
REPORT ON REGION 8 FISCAL 1992
SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AUDIT REPORT NUMBER E1SFL3-08-3100319
August 16, 1993
-------
Inspector General Division
Conducting the Audit:
Region Covered:
Program Offices Involved:
Central Audit Division
Kansas City, Kansas
Region 8
Denver, Colorado
Hazardous Waste Management
Division
-------
1{Q
0^1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
RESULTS-IN-BRIEF 4
ACTION REQUIRED 5
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION 7
OTHER MATTERS 8
APPENDIX 1 ANALYSIS OF SUPERFUND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
CLAIMED BY REGION 8 9
APPENDIX 2 REGION 8 COMMENTS TO DRAFT REPORT 22
APPENDIX 3 ABBREVIATIONS . 30
APPENDIX 4 DISTRIBUTION 31
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL DIVISION
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101
(913) 551-7878
FAX: (913) 551-7837
August 16, 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Report on Region 8 Fiscal 1992 Superfund
Accomp1ishments
Audit Report No. E1SFL3-08-0041-3100319
FROM: Nikki L. Tinsley L.. "&*-+-SLa.
Divisional Inspector General
Central Audit Division
TO:
Jack W. McGraw
Acting Regional Administrator
EPA Region 8
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
We performed this audit to assist the Office of Inspector General
(OIG): (1) Headquarters Audit Division with its mandatory audits
of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Annual
Report to Congress (SARC), and (2) Financial Audit Division with
its mandatory audit of EPA's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act
Report. Our objectives were to: (1) determine whether the
fiscal 1992 Superfund accomplishments were reasonable and
accurate, and (2) assess the internal control structure aimed at
ensuring the accuracy of recorded Superfund accomplishments.
This report presents a summary of our findings and identifies the
categories of accomplishments we questioned. The reason we
questioned each accomplishment is described in Appendix 1.
This audit report contains findings that describe problems OIG
has identified and corrective actions OIG recommends. This audit
report represents the opinion of OIG, and the findings contained
in this audit report do not necessarily represent the final EPA
position. Final determinations on matters in this audit report
will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established EPA
audit resolution procedures. In this particular audit, OIG did
not measure the audited offices' performance against the
standards established by the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
The findings contained in this audit report aye not binding in
any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department of
Justice under section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental
w UJ - -
Response, compensation, and Liability Act to recover costs
incurred not inconsistent with the NCP.
RECYCLE®
coKUMt Kcvcuft *mm
-------
scope and Methodology
We reviewed 151 Superfund accomplishments randomly selected from
a universe of 226 accomplishments claimed by Region a in fiscal
1992. Of the 226 accomplishments claimed, EPA planned to claim
212 in its fiscal 1992 SARC. Included in the 212 were 62
accomplishments that were reported as performance measures under
the CFO Act. We reviewed a sample of 43 of the 62 CFO Act
accomplishments in the following categories:
Removal Action (RV) starts at National Priority List
(NPL) sites;
RV starts at non-NPL sites;
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS)
starts at non-Federal sites;
RI/FS starts at Federal Facilities;
Records of Decision (ROD) at non-Federal Facilities;
RODs at Federal Facilities; and
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RA) settlements.
One hundred-fifty of the 226 accomplishments claimed were not
reported under the CFO Act but were included in other categories
EPA reports to Congress. We reviewed 94 of these 150
accomplishments in the following categories:
RA starts non-Federal Facilities;
— RA starts Federal Facilities;
Preliminary Assessment (PA) completions non-Federal
Facilities;
— PA completions Federal Facilities;
Site Inspection (SI) completions non-Federal
Facilities;
SI completions Federal Facilities;
RD starts non-Federal Facilities;
— RD starts Federal Facilities; and
RV completions.
2
-------
We reviewed 14 of the 226 accomplishments claimed in categories
that were not included under the CFO Act or in EPA's fiscal 1992
SARC. These accomplishments were in the following categories:
RA Operable Unit (OU) completions at non-Federal
Facilities;
RA completions at Federal Facilities; and
— Final RA completions.
We also reviewed Region 8's internal controls over input of data
into Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) through the WasteLAN
system. We did not review the internal controls within the
CERCLIS or WasteLAN systems nor did we review internal controls
for each Superfund organizational unit that reports CERCLIS
accomplishments.
We performed our audit ifi accordance with Government Auditing
Standards (1988 Revision) issued by the Comptroller General of
the United States. No other significant issues came to our
attention that warranted expanding the scope of our review.
The sample of Region 8 accomplishments which we reviewed was
selected by Headquarters Audit Division. We compared the source
documentation provided by Region 8 to the appropriate Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan due January l of each year,
describes EPA's progress in implementing the Superfund program
during the prior fiscal year. OIG is required to examine the
report for reasonableness and accuracy and submit to Congress, as
part of EPA's report, a summary of its review.
The CFO Act requires each Federal agency to prepare consolidated
financial statements or financial statements covering its trust
funds revolving funds, and commercial activities. As part of
this report, EPA is required to report Superfund performance
measures. These performance measures are, ift some instances, the
same as accomplishments EPA reports in its SARC.
3
-------
The primary purpose for including program performance measures in
the annual financial statements is to inform the public the
Congress, Government officials outside EPA, and other iAterested
parties about what and how the programs ar4 doing OIG iS
required to audit the information reported under the cfo Art-
Also, OIG must assess the risk that a material misstat^S*
the items reported (including performance measures) would Sot be
prevented or detected by EPA's internal controls.
one of the primary sources of information for the SARC and the
CFO Act Report is CERCLIS. This is an EPA database vhich is ?he
source of Superfund planning and accomplishment data Region a
uses WasteLAN, a local area network, to enter and collect
Superfund data and accomplishments. Data are periodicaiiv
transferred from WasteLAN into CERCLIS.
Prior Audit Coverage
OIG has previously reviewed accomplishments reported in epa'c
"SC51 -987 ac<*»P"sta»ents, we
questioned accomplishments in Region 8 because: ril aeeomn-
lishraents ware not achieved in the fiscal year claimed, and C2J
documentation was insufficient. ^ '
RESULTS-IN-BRIEF
Most accomplishments that we reviewed were nroMi-iv
However , we. questions 17 percent of R4ionP"s"cco"p!!^ts
for 1 of 3 reasonss (l) they did not meet the SCAP definition
(2) they were not accomplished during fiscal 19^2 or m '
documentation was insufficient. We are not questioning whether
studies or clean-up work was performed. We do question whether
some work was adequately documented and properlv countprt tS
Region 8 does not report accurate data, EPA will not rlnn*-i-
accurate information to Congress. p
The Region had effective controls over CERCLIS data entrv but-
not have controls which assumed it accurately identifM«S
accomplishments. In our review of the internal control!*
CERCLIS data entry, w* found that because controls £eM a®n*r» 11 v
strong, there was a low to medium risk that data was entered
inaccurately or erroneously deleted from the sv*+-J« „ f ^
that there was a moderate risk that SCAP definitions could°bS
misinterpreted and th,at "accomplishments" would no?
definitions, we identified one area where intl-^ ! S?AP
CERCLIS data entry needed to be strengthened to provide g^ater61
assurance that CERCLIS was accurate. The o0«
-------
ACTION REQUIRED
We have designated you as the Action Official for this audit
report. In accordance with EPA Directive 2750, you are required
to provide this office a written response to the audit report
within 90 days of the audit report date. For corrective actions
planned, but not completed by the response date, reference to
specific milestone dates will assist this office in deciding
whether to close this report.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We questioned 25, or about 17 percent of the accomplishments we
reviewed. We questioned accomplishments for 3 reasons: (1) 4
accomplishments or about 3 percent did not meet the SCAP
definition, (2) 7 accomplishments or about 5 percent were not
accomplished during fiscal 1992, and (3) 14 accomplishments or
about 9 percent could not be verified because documentation was
insufficient. As a result, Region 8's accomplishments for fiscal
1992 were overstated by about 17 percent. This inaccuracy would
cause accomplishments reported to Congress to be overstated
because most of the accomplishments we questioned (13 of the 17
percent) are in categories included in EPA's report. The other
four percent are in the remedial action completion category .which
EPA will not include in its fiscal 1992 SARC.
We also identified one area where internal controls over CERCLIS
data entty could be strengthened. We found that internal
controls to ensure consistent application of SCAP definitions
could be improved. The Region did not identify CERCLIS data
entry as an event cycle in its Federal Manager's Financial
Integrity Act (FMFIA) process. Also, the Region's controls did
not ensure consistency in applying SCAP definitions.
SCAP Definition Not Met
Region 8 claimed four accomplishments that did not meet the SCAP
definition. The Region inappropriately claimed two Removal
completions, one Removal start, and one RA start. For each
accomplishment that we questioned, we compared the source
documentation provided by the Region to the appropriate SCAP
definition of each accomplishment. In each of these instances,
the Region misinterpreted the SCAP definition.
Accomplishments Not Completed in fiscal—J.992
Region 8 claimed seven accomplishments that were accomplished
during other fiscal years. The Region inaccurately claimed
fiscal 1992 accomplishments for two RI/FS starts, two RA
5
-------
completions, and three SI completions. The accomplishments met
SCAP definitions except the Region used a different date than the
SCAP definition required.
Insufficient Documentation
Region 8 claimed 14 accomplishments that it could not support.
Accomplishments in the following categories were not adequately
supported: two RA starts, three RA completions, five SI
completions, one RA completion, two Removal completions, and one
Removal start. For each of these accomplishments, we checked
with the Superfund Records Center, an appropriate program
official [Regional Project Manager, On—scene Coordinator (OSC),
etc.], and the CERCLIS coordinator for documentation described by
the SCAP definitions. None of these officials could locate the
necessary documents. In all of these instances, the Region had
not created the documentation required by the SCAP definition.
Region 8's Internal Controls Needed to Be Imnrnvo^
We found that internal controls over CERCLIS data entry were
generally strong and that there was a low to moderate risk that
data was inaccurately entered into or deleted from the system.
We identified one area where internal controls over CERCLIS data
entry could be strengthened to provide greater assurance that
CERCLIS is accurate. We concluded that there was a moderate risk
that SCAP definitions were misinterpreted and that
"accomplishments" did not meet SCAP definitions. We will discuss
weaknesses and controls necessary to ensure that accomplishments
are adequately supported in a separate, soon to be issued audit
report on Region 8(s administration of FMFIA.
Region 8 had controls in place to prevent and detect data entry
errors, but it did not include controls in its event cycle
documentation. EPA's Internal Control Guidance defines event
cycles as related processes or actions taken to carry out a
recurring responsibility, create necessary documentation and
gather and report related data. As CERCLIS is EPA's primary
Superfund database, the Region should fully document the internal
controls over input into CERCLIS by including it as an event
cycle with related control objectives and control techniques
This will ensure that these internal controls are evaluated '
during risk assessments conducted as part of the FMFIA process
The Region indicated that it recently formed a work group to
improve internal controls over the entry of CERCLIS data and
standardize the SCAP accomplishment reporting process.
We recommend that you initiate actions to:
— correct questioned Superfund accomplishments and
inaccurate CERCLIS data identified in this report,
6
-------
include CERCLIS data entry as an event cycle in the
Region's FMFIA control documentation, and
develop management controls that ensure all future
accomplishments claimed and entered into CERCLIS meet
the SCAP definition, are recorded in the correct fiscal
year, and are properly documented.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG F.VAT.TT&rT'TnKr
Region 8 responded to our draft report on July 26, 1993. The
full text of Region 8's comments, excluding attachments, is
included as Appendix 2 of this report.
The Region agreed with our finding concerning the adequacy of its
internal controls over the consistent application of EPA's
definitions of Superfund accomplishments, and stated that the
Region has initiated corrective actions. However, the Region
disagreed with our characterization of the severity, of the risk.
Based on the Region's corrective actions, and after consultation
with OIG Headquarters officials, we changed the report and
downgraded our risk assessment from high to moderate.
The Region disagreed with 16 of the individual Superfund
accomplishments we questioned in the draft report. The Region
also agreed "in part" with three questioned accomplishments. We
addressed the Region's comments regarding specific sites and
accomplishments in the body of the report. Based on the Region's
comments and our analysis of additional information provided by
the Region, we also accepted six individual Superfund
accomplishments we had questioned in the draft report.
The Region stated that it believed we continued to misinterpret
the definitions of Superfund accomplishments^. We believe we
correctly interpreted the definitions and the facts concerning
each accomplishment. We reviewed and discussed definitions with
OIG Headquarters officials, and with Region 8 and EPA
Headquarters officials to clarify our understanding of the
definitions. While our analysis required some interpretation, we
based our conclusions only on the facts and documentation '
provided by Region 8.
Region 8 commented that we "failed to search the entire files for
documentation" but in the same paragraph stated that "the
Superfund staff had to spend several hours interpreting
definitions and distinguishing file documents", in an effort to
be fair and accurate and ensure that we obtained a complete
understanding of each accomplishment we questioned, we did ask
for Regional representatives1 clarification and help in locating
documents and interpreting definitions. We wanted to ensure we
7
-------
had all the relevant facts and were not assuming anything.
Auditors frequently seek clarification from and the advice of EPA
officials.
The Region was also concerned that we "ignored" the fact that it
received approval from EPA Headquarters for its interpretation of
the definitions. Where the Region provided evidence of
Headquarters* approval to deviate from the definition of an
accomplishment, we accepted the accomplishment. For example, the
Region used a Clean Water Act Section 308 letter in lieu of a
Superfund enforcement document to claim an accomplishment for the
Annie Creek site. We initially questioned this accomplishment
but accepted it based on the Region's documented inquiries to
Headquarters for approval.
OTHER MATTERS
During aur review of the Region's claimed Superfund
accomplishments, we found that PAs related to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act program were incorrectly classified
as Superfundr accomplishments, our analysis of a sample of 30
reported accomplishments in the PA Completions category disclosed
that five were Resource Conservation Recovery Act program related
activities. The Superfund Program Management Manual classifies
Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI}/PAs differently than
Superfund PAs. The five misclaSsified PA Completions sites were
Rock Wool Industries, Torrington Hide, Browning Manufacturing,
IRECO-Fairfield Tooele, and IRECO-Site B.
we are not reporting the misclassified PA Completions as an audit
finding because we concluded that the Region entered the EPI/PAs
into CERCLIS in accordance with the national program guidance.
We are reporting this matter so that it can be Addressed as part
of 010*8 national review.
We have no objection to the release of this report to any member
of the public upon request. This report contains no confidential
business or proprietary information that cannot be released to
the public.
Please refer to the audit report number on all related
correspondence. Should you or your staff have any questions,
pl^as® contact hi© &t (913) - 55l~7824, or Hsrtf Audit Manager
in our Denveir office, at 294-7520.
8
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 1 OF 13
ANALYSIS OF SUPERFUND ACCOMPT.T5HMENTS CLAXMKD BY REGTQW fi
We reviewed 151 Superfund accomplishments claimed by Region 8 in
fiscal 1992 and verified that 126, or about 83 percent were
appropriately supported. However, as shown in the following
table, we questioned 25, or 17 percent, of the accomplishments in
our sample.
Accomplishment Type
Universe
Sample
Vali-
dated
Quest-
ioned
RV Starts - NPL sites
7
7
6
1
RV Starts - non-NPL
18
10
9
1
RI/FS Starts - non Fed
9
6
5
1
RI/FS Starts - Fed
13
9
8
1
RODs - non Fed
6
4
4
0
RODS - Fed
6
4
4
0
RA OU Complete - non Fed
7
7
4
3
RA OU Complete - Fed
5
5
2
3
Final RA Completions
2
2
2
0
RD/RA Settlements
3
3
3
0
RA Starts - non Fed
7
4
4
0
RA Starts - Fed
12
6
3
3
PA Complete - non Fed
56
23
23
0
PA Complete - Fed
11
7
7
0
SI Complete - non Fed
27
27
19
8
SI Complete - Fed
2
2
2
0
RD Starts - non Fed
8
4
4
0
RD Starts - Fed
11
6
6
0
RV Completions
16
15
11
4
Total
226
151
126
25
9
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 2 OF 13
We questioned accomplishments for 3 reasons: (1) 4 did not
meet the SCAP definition; (2) 7 were not accomplished during
fiscal 1992; and (3) documentation was insufficient to verify 14
accomplishments r
ACCOMPLISHMENTS CLAIMED THAT DTD
NOT MEET THE SCAP DEFINITION
Four accomplishments in our sample did not meet the SCAP
definitions in the 1992 Superfund Program Management Manual. The
following cjjajfc llst? the site name, accomplishment type, and
dSfiniJion accomplishment that did not meeFthe ScAP
Site Name Accomplishraent Tvp> Claimed
Bingham creek Channel Removal Completion RVl Q,
Bingham Creek Channel Removal Completion RV2 19 1*0 7
Colo. School of Mines Removal Start RV2
Rocky Flats RA Start OU2 RA3 09-I1I92
Our analysis of the accomplishments claimed for each of these
sites is provided below. Ui. unese
Clawed 12^15 (EPA TD^UTD9ftnQ5932A^ prj rf
Region 8 claimed two removal completion accomplishments far-
Bingham creek Channel in fiscal 1S92 but ahould not hav,, ^,
any. We concluded that RV2 was a Potential 1v b«22L ?u? claimed
(PEP) takeover of BV1. CERCLIS shoull ha"
of the removal as a fund-financed removal, and the sinrta
rrPR^inre/^"" OOT™< Sh0UW «tered S^CLIS
According to the Superfund Removal Procedures manual,
...temporary off-sitg storage of hazardous substances
at a storage, treatment, and disposal(TSD>
other than the facility of ultimate disposal fs a V
continuation of the removal action, not a
The manual also states,
...responsible party action may begin at any phase of *
removal response. Responsible parties may either
to perform all required work on a site Drior a9re®
initiation of fund-financed removal activities m- fav.
over a response action bv RP1 A « flCJtafca
remaining work (emphasis added). ("sxtprm ail
10
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 3 OF 13
RVl, a fund-financed action, excavated contaminated soil from
residential properties on the site, backfilled the area with
clean soil, and placed the contaminated soil at a staging area.
RV2, a PRP lead action, transported the contaminated soil from
the staging area to a repository.
The Region disagreed that this was a PRP takeover and believed
that it should receive credit for a completion of RV1 because the
activities of each action (i.e., RVl and RV2) were different.
Although the Region provided documentation verifying the
completion of RVl, we concluded that the PRP took over the fund-
financed removal activity when it picked up the contaminated soil
from the temporary storage arefu As a result, RVl and RV2 should
have been counted as only a single removal and no accomplishment
should have been claimed for the completion of RVl.
Also, the single removal at Bingham Creek Shannel was not
completed during fiscal 1992. According to a February 12, 1993,
letter from the OSC to the PRP, final inspection of the cap for
the repository had not been conducted as required by the
Administrative Order (AO). In order for a PRP Removal completion
to count as an acGOByplishment, -all of the actions in the AO must
be complete. The accomplishment for a removal completion should
be claimed when all requirements of the AO have been satisfied.
The Region agreed that the removal which it identified as RV2 was
not complete in fiscal 1992.
Colorado Snhoal of Mines Research Institute /EPA ID#codooo823401)
RV2 Claimed 05-12-92
The activities ponducted at this site constituted one removal
action rather than two separate removals as claimed by the
Region. While we agree with the Region that the SCAP definition
does not require a separate Action Memorandum for each removal
action, the stated purpose of the Region's only Action Memorandum
for this site was "to document approval of the 'classic
emergency' Removal Action and to request approval to continue
response actions as a Time Critical Removal Action...." We also
agree that the removal was not complete until 'fthe conditions
specified in the Action Memorandum have been met" as required by
the SCAP definition. Because the single removal action was not
complete, we acoepted one removal start for this site, but
juestioned one removal completion and one removal start.
legion 8 divide^ one removal action into two separate removal
ictions at Colorado School of Mines Research Institute (CSMRI).
)n January 25, 1992, EPA tasked the Technical Assistance Team
[TAT) to respond to what we agree was the initial "emergency"
svent—a spill from the tailings pond caused by a broken water
11
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 4 OF 13
main on the CSMRI site. The Region designated this action as RV1
and recorded a removal start date of January 31, 1992, in
CERCLIS. Technical Direction Document No, T08-9201-27 signed
January 27, 1992, directed TAT to sample the water and sediment
from the pond, document the results, and provide
engineering service to the OSC. TAT1s final report was submitted
to the Region on March 5, 1992.
However, the Region had previously tasked the TAT to provide
sampling at this site and was made aware of the extent of the
contamination. A May 2, 1991 memorandum from the TAT to the OSC
provided the results of a site investigation that it conducted at
the site. At that time, TAT concluded that the results of the
site investigati6n at the tailings pond indicated elevated levels
of metal and radioactive materials. About a year later, on May
19, 1992, the contractor began work to remove the contamination.
The Region designated this action as RV2 and recorded a removal
start date of May 12, 1992, in CERCLIS.
The Region signed an Action Memorandum on April 23, 1992. The
purpose of the Action Memorandum was to obtain approval and
document the "classic emergency," RV1, and Mto request approval
to continue response actions as a Time Critical Removal Action
RV2. This was the only Action Memorandum signed for the removal
action, claimed as two removals.
The SCAP definition of accomplishment for a removal start states
that a fund-financed removal counts whan: (1) the Action
Memorandum is approved by the OSC, Regional Administrator, or
Assistant Administrator office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response; (2) a Delivery Order has been issued by SPA under the
Emergency Response Cleanup Services contract; (3) an obligation
for the removal has been recorded in CERCLIS; and (4) on-site
removal work has begun. The date that on-site work began is the
start date for the removal action, since on-site removal work
began at the site on January 25, 1992, that date should be
recorded in CERCLIS as the removal start date.
Region 8 stated that two removal accomplishment® should be
claimed for the removal activities conducted at the site. The
Region stated, "The activities for the initial Removal action are
clearly different in scope from the subsequent Removal and cannot
be considered a continuation of the same work."
We disagree with the Region and believe that the activities
conducted at this site constituted one removal.- The Action
Memorandum provided no evidence that two separate removals were
planned or were to be claimed-. In fact, the memo includes
substantial evidence for our position. The site description
notes the existence of a tailings pond, numerous process areas
12
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 5 OF 13
and laboratories xn several buildings on the site, and drains in
each process area or building that dumped hazardous wastes into
the tailings pond. The memo indicated that nothing in reaa£d to
the description of the site changed since at least 1984, Indthe
Region provided no evidence to indicate otherwise.
The Action Memorandum also specified several potential threats to
health, welfare, and the environment, none of which changed
between the start dates for the first and second removal actions
claimed by the Region. Collapse of the tailings dam, discharges
into the public water supply, contaminated airborne dust, and
migration of hazardous materials were all imminent and
substantial threats in January 1992 when the first steps of this
removal were initiated.
The memo clearly indicated that this site required several
orderly and phased cleanup steps: (l) repair of the tailings
dam, (2) removal of the residual contamination in the buildings
and drainage systems, and (3) removal of the tailings in the
pond. The memo also indicated that these steps are all
essential. For example, the memo stated, "Removal of the
tailings pond without addressing the contamination continuing to
wash into the pond from the facility sources would also allow
contaminated materials to migrate into public drinking water
supplies."
Finally, the Action Memorandum indicated that the final step,
excavation of the tailings pond, might have been completed '
immediately after the first two steps but for a practical
consideration. The memo stated that this step would take place
"during the early Fall of 1992 when the flow rates and alluvium
ground water of Clear Creek is at a seasonal low."
The fact that some removal steps (like the repair of the water
main and the temporary buttressing and reinforcing of the
tailings dam) were more time critical than the later steps taken
is irrelevant to the number of accomplishments the Region should
have claimed.
Rocky Flats f EPA ID#C07890010526) RA3 0U2 RA Starfe
Claimed 09-11-92
The SCAP definition for a RA Start at a Federal Facility states
that the start date is the date when substantial, continuous,
physical on-site remedial actions begin. According to a Region 8
Federal Facilities Team Leader, work in the lab began on
September 11, 1992, but field work was not scheduled to begin
13
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 6 OF 13
until fiscal 1993. An accomplishment should be claimed when
continuous, physical, on-site remedial action begins. In its
response to our draft report, the Region did not dispute the
facts but indicated it would raise the issue with the
Headquarters Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS CLAIMED IN FISCAL 1992
RTTT OCCURRED IN OTHER FISCAL YEARS
Seven accomplishments in our sample were erroneously claimed in
fiscal 1992. We accepted the accomplishments but they were
claimed in the wrong fiscal year. The following chart lists the
site name, accomplishment type, date claimed, and actual date for
each accomplishment.
Site Name
California Gulch
Hill AFB
Sharon Steel
California Gulch
Stone Container
Mother Lode
Richardson Flat
Date
Accomplishment Claimed
RI/FS Subsequent Start 10-04-91
RI/FS Start 12-30-91
RA Completion OU2 10-15-91
RA Completion OU1 09-30-92
SI Completion 10-21-91
SI Completion 11-19-91
SI Completion 09-03-92
Actual
Pate
08-29-91
04-10-91
10-15-91
02-08-93
09-26-91
11-26-90
1988
Our analysis of the accomplishments claimed for each of these
sites is provided below. "
citilTjg/4/gf fg?A RTffft «^rt
The SCAP definition for a PRP-financed RI/FS subsequent start
states that the start counts when an AO is signed by the last
appropriate official. The final signature on the AO for
California Gulch was dated August 29, 1991, meaning that the
accomplishment should have been claimed in fiscal 1991.
The Region claimed that an amendment to the AO created a new on
St"t- I* "viewed the amendment to
the AO and compared the changes to the August 1991 workdan
While we do not necessarily question the Region's action creatine
a new OU, we found no evidence in the AO or other documentation
the Region provided that indicated the necessity fo? a sSbseiSent
RI/FS. We also found no evidence that the monitorlna „eVi
changes to the workplan described in the AO warranted the
14
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 7 OF 13
initiation of a subsequent RI/FS. In fact, the AO made only-
three relatively minor changes to the August 1991 workplan.
Hill AFB f EPA ID#UT0571724350) RI/FS Subsequent Start
Claimed 12-30-91
We questioned this accomplishment because the Federal Facility
Agreement (FFA) was signed April 10, 199-1, and RI work at this OU
had begun before the FFA was signed. According to the SCAP
definition, the start date should coincide with the signing of
the FFA because the OU was addressed in the work plan submitted
as part of the FFA. CERCLIS should have reflected April 10,
1991, as the accomplishment date.
Region 8 recorded an RI/FS subsequent start date of December 30,
1991, in CERCLIS for OU4 and claimed the accomplishment baaed on
a letter of the same date in which the Region commented on work
previously conducted in 1988 at 0U4. Region 8 claimed that the
signing of the FFA changed the definition of 0U4 and, thus,
required a subsequent RI/FS. Documentation provided to support
claiming the accomplishment stated that the work described had
already been completed.
We concluded that if the work "has already been conducted," as
the Region stated in its letter, requiring additional work to
complete the RI should not have been considered another RI but a
continuation of the RI begun in 1988. The addendum to the OU4
workplan stated that the "additional data" were necessary to
"complete the remedial investigation for OU4." The addendum also
stated that RI work for OU4 began in July 1988.
Tn#UTD980951388V' OU2
Claimed ^n-15-91
We did not accept this accomplishment for fiscal 1992 because the
Reaion did not meet the explicit criteria in the SCAP definition
until fiscal 1993. The Agency's definition states that the RA
comoletion date is the date "the Regional Administrator signs the
ODerabla Unit RA Report." Although the Region acknowledged that
"formal written approval of the [RA C«.pletlon] report was not
nrenared until FY93," the Region disagreed with, this finding.
The Region indicated that it^htmld have
fiscal 1992 anyway because "this accomplishment did occur in-
fyq? « While the technical report was completed in fiscal 1992,
it wis not approved and accepted as .fins* until f iscal 1993.
15
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 8 OF 13
California Gulch fEPA id*cqd98071793M ra?. nm
Claimed 09-30-92 ~~—
^?1^n^rST-.Ciaim^d an ComPletion accomplishment at California
Gulch oui based on a preliminary" close-out report. The SCAP
definition requires a signed close-out report that states- fi\
construction is complete, (2) a site inspection has been *
conducted, and (3) the remedy is operational and functional. On
March 16, 1993, a Region 8 representative told us that the final
report had not been completed and that the final inspection did
not take place until November 1992, still in fiscal 1993. Later
on April 16, 199-3, the Region provided a construction completion'
report dated February 8, 1993, documenting the completion of a
final inspection at California Gulch. According to Region 8
officials, they received approval from Headquarters to count
"phases'' of an OU as OU completions but did not receive
Headquarters approval in writing. Further, they said that thev
would not necessarily need "final inspections" and a "final"
close-out report to count a phase as complete. We concluded that
the California Gulch RA Completion was not a fiscal 1992
accomplishment because the SCAP definition does not allow phases
to count as OU completions. *
Stone Container f EPA ID#UTDi524944t)?) ex-
claimed 10»21-91=
Region 8 claimed an SI accomplishment for stone Container on
22°2Eb2the decision sheet
was signed September 26, 1991. The Region agreed that the
accomplishment should have been claimed in fiscal 1991.
* *UVW T'TP fEPA pt
The Region claimed an SI accomplishment for Mother Lode Gold &
accofflDlishmant^atates^ "#1" "» 3CAP of '
accomplishment states,
An SI is complete when 1) a Screening Site Inspection
Report has been received from Field Investigation
Team/Alternative Remedial Contracting Strateov
(FIT/ARCS} or the State; 2) the report has been
reviewed and approved by the appropriate Reaionai
official;; and 3) CERCLIS contains the SI comoletion
date and the decision on further activities
The SI was performed August 14, 1984, and the si decision sheet
recommending no further remedial action was signed November
1990. The accomplishment was a fiscal 1991 acconmHeSJ wt'
Region did not provide an expianation of „hv ?? claiS ?hia
accomplishment in fiscal 1992. Y calmed this
16
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 9 OF 13
Richardson Flat Tailings (EPA iD#UTr>qFS095?a4n) st
Claimed 09-03-92
As a result of an SI completed in July 1985, Richardson Flat
Tailings was proposed for the NPL June 24, 1988. Even though an
accomplishment for the SI was not claimed in 1985 when it was
performed, the Analytical Results Report from that SI could not
be used to claim an accomplishment in fiscal 1992. The SCAP
definition states that the SI completion date entered in CERCLIS
should be the date the SI was approved and a decision regarding
further remedial action was made. We disagree with the Region's
claim that there was no proof that a decision was made on this
site. The decision to propose the site for listing on the NPL
was based on the results of the Analytical Results Report and
accordingly a "decision was made."
ACCOMPLISHMENTS CLAIMED WITH
INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION
We questioned 14 accomplishments in our sample because
documentation could not be found or was insufficient. For each
of the following, we requested documentation from the Superfund
Records Center, an appropriate program official (Remedial Project
Manager, OSC, Section Chief, etc.), and the CERCLIS coordinator
None were able to locate the necessary documents. The following
chart lists the site name, accomplishment type, and date claimed
for each accomplishment that was not supported by adequate
documentation.
Date
Site Name
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Williams Pipe Line
Mccord Heat Transfer
Silver Creek Tailings
Green River, NWP
Lincoln Service, Co.
Denver Radium
Colo. School of Mines
Montana Pole
Micronutrient
Accomplishment
RA Subsequent Start OU20 10-01-91
RA Subsequent Start 0U21 11-15-91
RA Subsequent Completion 0U19 10-25-91
RA Subsequent Completion OU23 12-15-91
RA Subsequent Completion OU24 10-04-91
SI Completion 07-15-92
SI Completion 08-12-92
SI Completion 09-03-92
SI Completion 08-13-92
SI Completion 09-16-92
RA Subsequent Completion OUG 05-15-92
Removal Completion RV1 01-31-92
Removal Start RV5 07-3J.-92
Removal Completion RV2 04-15-92
Our analysis of the accomplishments claimed for each of these
sites is provided below.
17
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 10 OF 13
Rocky Mountain Arsenal fEPA id#C05210020769^ nn?n & 0U2i
Claimed iQ-oi-91 & 11-15-91 ' v
The Region claimed accomplishments for RA starts at Rockv
Mountain Arsenal for OUs 20 and 21. The SCAP definition states
that the RA start date is the date of which substantial
continuous, physical, on-site remedial actions begin. The Region
could not provide documentation to support remedial actions at
the site. We could^not verify the date that on-site remedial
actions began. In its comments, the Region agreed with this
finding.
Rockv Mountain Arsenal f bpa id#co5210020759^ omo 23 & 24
Claimed 10-25-91 12-15-92 & 4 1 & 24
The Region claimed three RA Completion accomplishments at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal. The SCAP definition states that the
accomplishment date is the date that the Region (Branch Chief or
above> accepts the RA report from the construction manager,
documenting that all construction activities for that OU are
complete, and the remedy is operational and functional. The
definition also states that in lieu of a report from the
construction manager, the Region must prepare a report to
¦!£ "port
lltliS\itT£2 finding.PreParSd* In itS the Region
Williams Pipe Line (EPA ID#sddooo694596> st
Claimed 07-15-92
The Region did not provide an SI report to support this
accomplishment. The SCAP definition requires tllat an
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 11 OF 13
characterizing the magnitude and severity of the hazard posed by
the site.. Since the PA2 did not involve current sampling nor
was its purpose to characterize the magnitude and severity of the
hazard posed by the site, it was not an SI equivalent.
McCord Heat Transfer (EPA ID#SDD020i935fii ^ <;t
Claimed 08-12-92
The Region did not provide an SI report to support this
accomplishment. The SCAP definition requires that an SI report
be prepared. The Region responded that this site was initiated
as a PA2, the functional equivalent of an SI event. The SCAP
definition of an SI states, "An SI should provide adequate data
to determine the site's Hazardous Ranking System score." Since
the PA2 did not provide adequate data to determine the site's
score, it was not an SI equivalent.
Silver creek Tailings (EPA ID#UTD9809514041 st
Claimed 09-03-92
The Region did not provide adequate documentation to support this
accomplishment. As a result of a PA completed in December 1984,
Silver Creek Tailing was proposed for the NPL in September 1985.
The results of that PA should not have been used to claim a
fiscal 1992 SI accomplishment. The Region agreed that there was
no SI or Analytical Results Report in the file to support the
decision documented in CERCLIS for -fiscal 1992. In order for the
site to be proposed to the NPL, a decision had to have been made
in 1985 regarding the severity of hazardous materials at the site
and whether or not EPA should have continued with remedial
response—the purpose of an SI. We concluded that this
accomplishment should not have been claimed in fiscal 1992. We
did not determine whether the documented work performed prior to
September 1985 was sufficient to claim an SI accomplishment in a
prior fiscal year.
Green River. NWP (EPA ID#WYD000776583) SI
Claimed 08-13-92
The Region based this accomplishment on a letter report from the
contractor and felt that the report contained all five
requirements for an SI according to 40 CFR Part 300.420. The
SCAP definition requires preparation of an SI,report and a
documented decision regarding further remedial actions to claim
an accomplishment. The Region agreed that there was no SI to
support this accomplishment.
19
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 12 OF 13
Lincoln Service. Co. CEPa IDlwvng80959i2&\ gT
Claimed 09-16-92
The Region did not provide adequate documentation to support this
accomplishment. The Region agreed that there was no si or
Analytical Results Report in the file to support the decision
documented xn CERCLIS for fiscal 1992 and that the fiscal 1992
decision was based on PRP reports of sampling and remediation
dated 1986 and 1987 respectively. According to the Executive
summary of the Remediation Report, the Analytical Results Report
concluded that hazardous concentration of PCBs were present in
some locations and that there was oil in others. From July
through August of 1986, a remediation plan to remove the
contamination from the site was developed, negotiated, and
subsequently approved by EPA.
The SCAP definition requires that an SI report be prepared.
According to the SCAP definition, the accomplishment counts when
1) a Screening Site Inspection Report has been received frost
FIT/ARCS or the State; 2) the report has been reviewed and
approved by the appropriate Regional official; and 3) CERCLIS
contains the SI completion date and the decision on further
activities. Since the SI report was received by the Region in
July 1986, and the decision to remediate the site was made in
August 19.86, the SI should have been claimed in fiscal 1986
Even though the Region did not document the SI in CERCLIS when it
was accomplished, it should not claim the accomplishment as a
fiscal 1992 accomplishment.
The Region did not provide an RA completion report to
substantiate its position that this accomplishment was for a
phase of the project. In its response to our draft report the
Region stated that the "signed, approved, close-out report'' was
provided to OIG. However, the RPM for the Denver Radium site
told us that there was no close-out report and the 0U had not
been completed. The Region later agreed that documentation
provided was insufficient.
The Region claimed a Removal completion accomplishment for csmrt
rvi. As previously explained in this report, this removal was
not completed as a fund financed action and should not have hean
claimed as an accomplishment. Deen
20
-------
APPENDIX 1
PAGE 13 OF 13
Montana Pole (EPA ID#MTD00623 063 5^ RV5
Claimed 07-31-92
Montana Pole, RV5, was listed in EPA's SCAP printout of
accomplishments that EPA intends to claim in its fiscal 1992
SARC. Region 8 stated that RV5 does not exist and is not listed
in CERCLIS. We verified that the accomplishment was removed from
CERCLIS. This was not a fiscal 1992 accomplishment. In its
comments, the Region agreed with this finding.
Micronutrient International. Inc. (EPA #IDUTD0007107721 RV2
Claimed 04-15-92
Region 8 claimed a Removal completion accomplishment for RV2 at
the Micronutrient International site on April 15, 1992. The SCAP
definition states that "PRP completions will count when the
actions specified in the Administrative Order are complete."
However, the monitoring plan required by the AO had not been
developed. The accomplishment should be claimed when all of the
actions required by the AO have been completed, including the
monitoring plan. In its comments, the Region agreed with this
finding.
21
-------
APPENDIX 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION of 8
REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
s? ^ V V I VIII «#¦•••>»¦¦ »#*»¦ • M WW V
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
Ref: 8PM-GAC
JUL 2 6 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Draft Report E1SFL3-08-0041-XXXXX (June 18. 1993)
Superfund Accomplishments Claimed by Region 8 in FY92
ack W. McGra
Acting Regiof^l "Adm ^ator
TO:
Nikki L. Tinsley
Divisional Inspector General
Central Audit Division
Region VIII Superfund has completed their evaluation of the
draft audit report issued by the DIG/CAD, on the Audit of
Superfund Annual Report to Congress in Region VIII. We continue
to believe that the Office of Inspector General has
misinterpreted EPA Superfund accomplishment definitions
ignored the fact that Region VIII received approval from EPA
Headquarters for its interpretation of the guidance. Although we
appreciate the auditors incorporating our concerns in the
position papers, it's disheartening that OIG continues to
question several of Region VIII response actions that were, in
fact, accomplished. Attached to this memo are Region Vlll's
comments to the draft report.
Supporting documents for statements made throughout this
report are also attached. If you have any questions, please
contact Jack M. Mohl at (303) 293-1671.
Attachments
cc: Robert Duprey
Tom Speicher
Superfund Branch Chiefs
Jeff Hart
Jack Mohl
22
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
APPENDIX 2
Page 2 of 8
Response to "DRAFT" report on Superfund Accomplishments Claimed
by Region VIII in fiscal Year 1992
Specific: "RESULTS-IN-BRIEF", Page 4. The audit report states
that although we have implemented effective controls
over the CERCLIS data entry process, Region VIII is
still high risk for misinterpretation of SCAP
definitions.
We disagree wit£ the severity of risk, in those cases where
accomplishments did not meet the SCAP definition verbatim, the
Region received specific guidance or direction from Headquarters.
In addition, anytime there was a heed for clarification Region
VIII would ask for a response in writing. Region VIII, has taken
special steps to assure that the most current and correct
definitions are always provided to the staff and that everyone
makes a conscientious effort to understand the definitions even
as they change each fiscal year.
As noted in a previous response, the auditors review did not take
into account those accomplishments that were approved and
accepted by Headquarters as satisfying the accomplishment
definition.
Specific: "FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS", Internal controls to
ensure SCAP definitions are applied consistently could
be improved. Page 4.
We agree and have taken appropriate action^ A CERCLIS workgroup
has been assembled. Procedures to improve and standardize the
SCAP accomplishment reporting process and the CERCLIS data entry
and quality assurance have been initiated.
Specific: "ACCOMPLISHMENTS CLAIMED THAT DID NOT MEET THE SCAP
DEFINITION"
A. Five EPI PA's were named. They are Rock Wool
Industries, Torrington Hide, Browning Manufacturing,
IRECO-Fairfield Tooele, and IRECO-Site B.
We disagree with the findings: Region VIII correctly coded these
accomplishments into CERCLIS. Region VIII did not double 90unt
these accomplishments. See attached April 30, 1993 memo from
Henry Longest.
B. Bingham Creek Channel (RV1 Completion & RV2 Start)
We agree in Part. RV1 was Fund Lead. Activities at this site
included the removal of contaminated soils surrounding 52
1
23
-------
APPENDIX 2
Page 3 of 8
Response to "DRAFT" report on Superfund Accomplishments Claimed
by Region VIII in fiscal Year 1992
residences which were located in a flood plain along the Bingham
Creek Channel. A chain-link fence was also installed on a 22-
acre vacant lot within the site area. Appropriate documentation
verifying the completion date for RVl was submitted to the
auditors on 4/14/93.
RV2 was Responsible Party (RP) Lead. This Removal action
involved the construction of a repository and haulage and
placement of contaminated soils into the newly constructed
repository. The RP completed the construction and haulage
activities on October 9, 1991. However, due to inclement
weather, the RP was unable to complete capping requirements, as
specified in the Administrative Order, until the following
construction season. Because the capping was required as part of
the Removal action described in the Action Memorandum, this
completion should not have been claimed until November 1992, when
the capping requirements were met. The error in the completion
date claimed for this Removal has been noted and CERCLIS wil be
corrected to delete they PY92 accomplishment. According to the
SCAP definition, the purpose of a Removal Action is to,
"...prevent or mitigate a threat to public health, welfare, or
the environment posed by the release or potential release of a
CERCLiA hazardous substance, or an imminent or substantial risk
posed by a pollutant or contaminant11 (see Attachment A) . RVl
clearly addressed the imminent threat to the public. RV2 should
not be considered as a RP takeover, since the activities for RVl
and rv2 are significantly different.
C. Sharon Steel (RV3 Start)
We disagree. Following RVl, additional site assessment
activities by EPA revealed new site conditions which warranted
RV2. This action was Fund Lead and entailed the removal of
chemicals from the smelter buildings on site. EPA also
determined reapplication of the dust suppressant was necessary
because deterioration since the first application had allowed the
contaminants to resurface tdust suppressant material deteriorates
fairly rapidly and annual applications are not unusual for sites
exposed to western weather conditions).
While awaiting Remedial Action, site conditions worsened,
initiating RV3. The contaminated buildings, were deteriorating
as a result of vandalism and structural fires due to lack of
security at the site, thus spreading contamination. The Removal
activities included demolition of the buildings on the site and
disposal of the demolition debris.
2
24
-------
APPENDIX 2
Page 4 of 8
Response to "DRAFT" report on Superfund Accomplishments Claimed
by Region VIII in fiscal Year 1992
The definition of a Removal completion as defined in the FY92
SCAP Manual is "...when the conditions specified in the Action
Memorandum have been met, even if the OSC determines additional
response work may be necessary" (see Attachment A). All
conditions specified in the Action Memorandum were met. Again,
the intent of the Removal Program is to address immediate threats
to the public and/or environment. Although EPA had prior
knowledge of the contamination of the mill buildings, the
deterioration of the buildings, which would have threatened the
welfare of the surrounding environment, was not evident at the
time RV2 was conducted.
D. Colorado School of Mines Research Institute -- CSMRI
(rvi Completion & RV2 Start Date)
We disagree with this finding. RVl was a Classic Emergency
Response to the CSMRI site to prevent a catastrophic release of
tailings into Clear Creek. The broken water main flooded the
tailings pond, causing it to overflow into Clear Creek. The
activities under RVl included shutting off the water flowing
through the water main, fortification of the tailings iclam, and,
fortification of the berms adjacent to Clear Creek. ;¦ These
actions prevented dam breakage which would have resulted in a
catastrophic release.
Following the Emergency Response, the OSC tasked TAT to take
water soil, and sludge samples to determine levels of heavy
metals radioactive materials. Since a residential area and
an intake structure used for process water at the COORS Plant
were located 1/2 mile and one mile downstream respectively, and
because a recreation facility was located across the street from
the site there was great concern that the residual contamination
posed an'imminent threat to the surrounding community. Should
the dam overflow in the future, the residual contamination would
wash into Clear Creek, threatening the potable water supply for
180 000 people (downstream water users). Therefore, this,
contamination needed to-be dealt with in a time-critical
manner (RV2).
fin Action Memo, dated 4/23/92, which described events for RVl was
submitted to aidit officials on 4/19/93. mis Action Memo also
Justified the need for RV2. The SCAP definition for Removal
start does not specify that a Aetion^Mmo "»tbe
Generated for each Removal. In this case, one Action Memo was
used to document the approval or the Classic^Knergency Response,
a! WP11 as to request approval of a time-critical Removal action
fpv?? The FY92 SCAP definition for a Removal start specifies
that a Delivery Order must be issued by EPA under the Emergency
25
-------
APPENDIX 2
Page 5 of 8
Response to "DRAFT" report on Superfund Accomplishments Claimed
by Region VIII in fiscal Year 1992
Response Cleanup Services (ERCS) contract or that a contract must
be signed for a U.S. Coast Guard on-site Removal. The latter
contract vehicle is also known as an Interagency Agreement (LAG).
EPA entered into an IAG with the U.S. Coast Guard for the
response to the Classic Emergency. This IAG, verifying response
to the Classic Emergency (RV1) January 25, 1992, was provided to
audit officials on 4/19/93.
The activities for the initial Removal action are clearly
different in scope from the subsequent Removal and cannot be
considered a continuation of the same work. Again, the
definition of a Removal completion as defined in the FY92 SCAP
Manual is "...when the conditions specified in the Action
Memorandum have been met, even if the OSC determines additional
response work may be necessary" (see Attachment A) . In the above
case, all conditions specified in the Action Memoranda were met.
E. Rocky Plats (0U2, RA3 Start)
We agree'in part. Per the second position paper, the Office of
Inspector General held discussions directly with the Region VIII,
Federal Facilities Branch. The definition issue has been raised
to our Headquarters Office of Federal Facility Enforcement.
Specific: "ACCOMPLISHMENTS CLAIMED IN FISCAL 1992 BUT OCCURRED IN
OTHER FISCAL YEARS*
A. California Gulch (RI/FS Sub. Start)
We agree with the audit officials that the original 0U4 RI/FS
subsequent start was initiated with the issuance of an
administrative order in fiscal year 1991, however, the Region did
issue an amendment to that order in FY92 which added additional
groundwater monitoring requirements and established a new
operable unit. The creation of a new operable unit was necessary
because of the enormous size of the site. Therefore, we disagree
with the audit report. An amended order was issued in FY92,
creating a new operable unit, thus a subsequent RI/FS start.
B. Sharon Steel (RA Completion 0U2)
We disagree with the audit finding. On the Sharon Steel site,
the audit report did not dispute that the technical report
demonstrates completion of the remedial action. Instead the
report disputes the formal documentation EPA provided which shows
in writing that the technical report is accepted as final. We
feel that this accomplishment did occur in FY92, though, we
4
26
-------
APPENDIX 2
Page 6 of 8
»£££ v?i^D?f?:.crS0?L?nJ?rrfuad
acknowledge that formal written approval of the report was not
prepared until FY93. p " was noc
C. California Gulch (RA Completion 0U1/RA2)
We disagree with the audit finding. In this case the Region
negotiated "phased" completions with Headquarters in the
traditional method and in advance of the fiscal, year. Region
Vlii received approval to proceed in this manner. The audit
officials acknowledged and accepted the "phased" completions
however, they do not believe that the Preliminary Close-out '
Report" signed 9/30/92, documents the accomplishments The
preliminary report incorporated the requisite information and
inspections, and it was signed by the Regional Administrator on
9/30/92.
D. Richardson Flat Tailings SI Completion
We disagree with this finding. This old SI report was not
claimed as an accomplishment in 1988. It was reviewed =>"4
approved on 9/3/92. We have no evidence it was ever reviewed and
approved in 1988.
E. Hill AFB (RI/FS Start)
We disagree with this finding. Issues surrounding Hill AFB
changed. In the first issue paper, the audit suggested the RI/FS
subsequent start for 0U4 had been claimed twice and that the
original 1987 date should be used as opposed to the post-FFA date
(FY92/1) . Our response that other sites had been added in,,
negotiating the FFA and no acceptable feasibility study work
been done apparently sufficed to modify the work plans at the
signing of the FFA. OIG believes that the FFA signature date
4/10/91, is the appropriate date to claim.
Specific: "ACCOMPLISHMENTS CLAIMED WITH INSUFFICIENT
DOCUMENTATION"
A. Silver Creek Tailings SI Completion
We disagree with this finding. The old SI report was not
previously credited as an accomplishment. It was reviewed and
approved on 9/3/92. There is no evidence that the report was
ever reviewed and approved in a prior year.
5
27
-------
APPENDIX 2
Page 7 of 8
Response to -DRAFT- report on Superfund Accomplishments Claimed
by Region VIII in fiscal Year 1992
B. Lincoln Service Co. SI Completion
We disagree with this finding. This site was an experimental
site with the PRP performing the SI and the EPA contractor
performing oversight. There are volumes to the SI report in the
file plus an EPA PIT report documenting oversight.
C. Williams Pipeline and McCord Heat Transfers
SI completions
We disagree with these findings. These two activities were
been^donf bv SS'?-StmiI£v,tUrned °Ut that significant sampling had
been done by the time these reports were written. The analytical
data was included in the reports. They are thus the functional
equivalent of a SI event. The Site Assessment Manager reviewed
and approved them as SI reports, it was not feasible to request
new Sis be performed when we already had the data we needed to
make the decisions. Reports were completed and they were
reviewed and approved during PY92.
D. Denver Radium (RA Completion 0U6/RA1)
We agree with the audit finding. The documentation was
insufficient, however, this accomplishment was achieved because
the work was done as reported. The work was completed for this
phase of the remedial action and it was documenS in a repSrt
prepared by the contractor. The Region neglected follow the
Frep^r-ng a close"out report approving the
contractor's report. This was an oversight and will be comoleteri
as soon as possible to complete the record. nipieted
E. Montana Pole (RV5 Start)
?9».the position statsd io cra£t
F. Micronutrient International (RV2 Completion Date)
We agree with this finding. The Administrative Order for the
Micronutrient International site requires that a Work Plan Ho
developed which includes, among other things, a monitorina clan
Attached is a letter, dated May ls, 1991, Irim the oS^tS the EP
which verifies approval of the Work Plan (see Attachment b>
This Work Plan describes a 30-year monitoring plaTwnsistent
with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart G/ as remfL
by the Administrative Order. ' as requlred
6
28
-------
APPENDIX 2
Page 8 of 8
Response to "DRAFT" report on Superfund Accomplishments Claimed
by Region VIII In Fiscal Year 1992
G. Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RA Starts OUs 20 & 21 and
Completions at OUs 19, 20 & 23)
We agree with this finding. After receipt of the second position
paper, supplementary information was forwarded to the audi ci no
° as requested. No additional information or documents
are available or have been requested at this time documents
General: "STATEMENT REGARDING OVERALL AUDIT"
All Superfund staff involved in this audit expressed concern over
the fact that the Office of Inspector General auditors, did not
have a clear understanding of the SCAP/CERCLIS process and the
respective guidance. We felt that misinterpretation of
definitions by the auditors played a large part in disapproving
the Region VIII accomplishments reported in FY92. In the various
position papers the language of the applicable documents should
have been quoted, followed by the auditors interpretations, in
short, all efforts should be made to base the decisions on facts
and not assumptions.
It appeared that the auditors failed to search the entire site
files for documentation of accomplishments, but rather looked
only for initial documents. When they determined what documents
they were looking for, but were unable to quickly identify them
in a site file, the Superfund staff had to spend several hours
interpreting definitions and distinguishing file documents for
them.
On a positive note, we believe the audit officials listened and
appropriately acted to our comments and responses regarding the
initial position papers.
7
29
-------
APPENDIX 3
PAGE 1 OF 1
ABBREVIATIONS
AO Administrative Order
CERCLIS comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CSMRI Colorado School of Mines Research Institute
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPI Environmental Priority Initiative
FFA Federal Facility Agreement
FMFIA Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act
NCP National Contingency Plan
NPL National Priority List
oig Office of Inspector General
OSC On-scene Coordinator
OU Operable Unit
PA Preliminary Assessment
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
ra Remedial Action
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies
ROD Records of Decision
RV Removal Action
SARC Superfund Annual Report to Congress
SCAP superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
SI Site Inspection
TAT Technical Assistance Team
30
-------
APPENDIX 4
PAGE 1 OF 1
DISTRIBUTION
Office of Inspector General
Inspector General (A-109)
DIGA, Financial Audit Division
DIGA, Headquarters Audit Division
Headcruarters Office
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Mgmt.
(PM-208)
Director, Resources Management Division (H-3304)
Headquarters Audit Followup Coordinator (as appropriate)
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and State/Local
Relations (H-1501)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Legislative Affairs
{A-103)
Region 8
Acting Regional Administrator
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Audit Followup Coordinator
Regional Library
31
------- |