EPA-350-R-10-002
February 2010
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Annual Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2009
-------
Abbreviations
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
BEI Bennett Environmental, Inc.
CAA Clear Air Act
CWA Clean Water Act
ECO Environmental Careers Organization, Inc.
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FMFIA Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FY Fiscal Year
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
ICIS-NPDES Integrated Compliance Information System National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
IGEMS Inspector General Enterprise Management System
IGOR Inspector General Operations and Reporting System
OAM Office of Acquisition Management
OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PART Program Assessment Rating Tool
PBDEs Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
RMP Risk Management Program
RPL Regional public liaison
WCF Working Capital Fund
This report was produced by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Office of Congressional, Public Affairs and Management
(202) 566-2391
This report is available in hard copy from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (Room 2104, EPA West)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact the OIG Hotline:
OIG Hotline(ajepa.gov
1-888-546-8740
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Foreword and Overview
I am pleased to present the eighth Annual Performance Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Office of Inspector General (OIG). This report presents statistical and narrative
summaries of OIG performance results for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 compared to our FY 2009 Annual
Performance Targets. It also presents cumulative OIG results for FY 2003 through 2009 compared to the
OIG Annual Performance Goals. Below is a partial list of results and activities that are of special interest
in demonstrating progress, improvements, and performance toward the OIG strategic and tactical goals
achieved during FY 2009:
Over 90% of OIG products (without confidential information) are accessible and available
electronically to the public.
Received top security scores for implementing Federal Information Security Management Act
requirements.
Identified over $130 million in EPA potential savings and recoveries, which is 195% return on
investment in the OIG.
Received an unqualified opinion on the quality of audit work in compliance with professional
auditing standards by a rigorous external peer review. Additionally, the OIG reduced costs of its
Financial Statement Audit by 39% ($1.1M)
Obtained delegated examining unit authority to independently classify positions and entered into
an Interagency Agreement with the Office of Personnel Management to provide dedicated
staffing services for expedited/quality staffing.
Obtained delegated unlimited contract warrant authority to independently administer and manage
OIG contracts.
Identified 71 unimplemented OIG recommendations for action to improve Agency programs and
operations.
Made key legislative recommendations to Congress to improve accountability and oversight on
Federal contracts.
Developed revised cost accounting process for individual office direct product rates and overhead
allocation rates.
Prepared semiannual compendiums to the Agency and Congress of unimplemented
recommendations.
Over 270 environmental and business actions for improvement were taken by EPA from OIG
recommendations.
Continued to develop and transfer OIG applications into a common IT infrastructure.
Issued reports on the Agency Major Management Challenges and Internal Control Weaknesses,
for corrective action.
Based upon requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Office of
Management and Budget guidance, the OIG developed a comprehensive operational plan to
provide oversight for EPA's implementation of the Act, accountability of funds, and training of
recipients and other stakeholders in the Act and it oversight process.
Developed a series of Recovery Act performance measures and goals. In collaboration with the
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, OIG reports monthly on Recovery Act
activities, resource use, and plans.
Has initiated and issued a series of audits, evaluations, analyses, and investigations, as well as
providing training to hundreds of Recovery Act stakeholders, on fraud prevention and detection
techniques.
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Has actively participated as a member of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board
and on Agency Recovery Act Subcommittees to provide advisory services for improved controls
and accountability.
This report supplements, in greater statistical and narrative detail, the OIG summary performance results
presented in EPA's FY 2009 Performance Accountability Report available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage. It also includes items required by the Government Performance and
Results Act specific to the OIG, such as financial summaries and management challenges, as well as other
relevant measures of performance activity and accountability.
We rely upon our customers and stakeholders to inform us about the quality of our performance and help
us identify and reduce areas of risk. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any reason, as one of my
personal goals is to build constructive relationships that promote the economic, efficient, and effective
delivery of EPA's mission.
Bill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Table of Contents
About the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General 1
Vision 1
Mission 1
Goals 1
OIG Product and Service Lines for Strategic Areas of Performance 2
Linking Our Work to Outcomes and Impacts 2
Planning Starts with the End in Mind 2
Performance Presented in a Hierarchy of Related Measures 2
Scoreboard of OIG FY 2009 Performance Results Compared to FY 2009 Annual
Performance Goal Targets 3
OIG Strategic Cumulative Performance Results, FYs 2004-2009 4
Summary of FY 2009 Performance Results by Product Line 6
Air/Research and Development 6
Water 7
Superfund/Land 8
Cross Media 9
Public Liaison and Special Reviews 11
Assistance Agreements 12
Contracts 13
Forensic Audits 15
Financial Management 16
Risk Assessment and Program Performance 19
Information Resources Management 20
Investigations 23
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 25
Legal Reviews 25
Briefings 26
OIG Enabling Support Programs 27
Other Activities 28
OIG-Reported Key Agency Management Challenges 30
OIG Management Challenges 31
OIG FY 2009 Profile of Activities and Results 33
OIG FY 2009 Audit, Inspection, and Evaluation Report Resolution 34
OIG Reports with Unimplemented Recommendations by Program Office 37
OIG FY 2009 Budget and Resource Analysis Use and Allocation 39
OIG Financial Statement: Analysis of FY 2009 Fund Use 41
OIG Data Verification and Validation 42
Historic Planned versus Actual Resources and Results - FYs 2005 to 2010 43
OIG Recovery Act Resources, Performance, and Targets (FYs 2009-2012) 44
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Vision
We are catalysts for improving the quality of the environment and government through problem prevention
and identification, and cooperative solutions.
Mission
The OIG adds value by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the delivery of environmental programs and inspires public confidence by
preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency operations and protecting the integrity of EPA
programs.
Goals
1. Contribute to improved
human health and
environmental quality
Influence programmatic
and systemic changes and
actions that contribute to
improved human health
and environmental quality.
Add to and apply
knowledge that contributes
to reducing or eliminating
environmental and
infrastructure security risks
and challenges.
Identify recommendations,
best practices, risks, and
opportunities to leverage
results in EPA programs
and among its partners.
2. Contribute to improved
business practices and
accountability
Influence actions that
improve operational
efficiency and
accountability, resolve
public concerns and
management challenges,
and achieve monetary
savings.
Improve operational
integrity and reduce risk of
loss by detecting and
preventing vulnerabilities
to fraud, abuse, or breach
of security.
Identify recommendations,
best practices, risks,
weaknesses, opportunities
for savings, and operational
improvements.
3. Continuously improve
OIG products and
services
Improve the timeliness,
responsiveness, and value
of our products and
services to our clients and
stakeholders.
Apply technology,
innovation, leadership, and
skills to motivate staff and
produce highly regarded
products.
Align organization plans,
performance, measurement,
processes, and follow-up
for a cost-accountable
results culture.
Maximize use of available
resources.
Develop constructive
relationships to leverage
resources effectively and
foster collaborative
solutions.
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
OIG Product and Service Lines for Strategic Areas of Performance
Performance
Evaluations
Air
Water
Land
Cross Media
Special Reviews
Financial/Information
Technology Audits
Financial Statements
Contracts
Assistance Agreements
Information
Technology
Forensic
Risk Assessment &
Program Performance
Investigations
Financial Fraud
Program Integrity
Employee Integrity
Laboratory Fraud
Computer Crimes
Management &
Public Affairs
Legislation/Policy
Regulation Review
Audit Follow-up
Financial/Performance
Management
Human Capital
Public/Congressional
Affairs/Reporting
Linking Our Work to Outcomes and Impacts
We plan our work with the goals of influencing resolution of the Agency's major management challenges,
reducing risk, improving practices and program operations, and saving taxpayer dollars, leading to positive human
health and environmental impacts and attaining EPA's Strategic Goals.
Planning Starts with the End in Mind
We measure the return on our investment by how efficiently our resources are converted into products, and how
effectively our products drive outcomes.
Logic Model Example
Resources
» Staff
* Contracts
" Technology
Training
" Travel
« Leadership
Intermediate
<
Nr "
Products/
Services
« Audits
» Evaluations
3 Investigations
Special Analysis
Consulting
Legislation/
Regulation
Reviews
N, '
j Outputs
" Recommendations
» Referrals to DOJ
« Best Practices
» Risks Identified
" Management
Challenges
Identified
Outcomes
» Savings/
Recoveries
« Process/Policy
Changes
" Indictments/
Convictions
» Certifications
" Civil Judgments
» Legislative/
Regulatory
Changes
» Administrative
Action
* Environmental
Risks Reduced
* Improved
Efficiency
** Examples of
Environmental
Improvement
Examples of
Health
Improvement
» Operational Risks
Reduced
Performance Presented in a Hierarchy of Related Measures
The logic model diagram above demonstrates how align our organizational factors of performance to achieve our
strategic goals. The performance results in this report represent the ways we measure value added along this
continuum, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in relation to the resources expended. Our annual performance
and progress toward our strategic goals is demonstrated by the Scoreboard of Results compared to the Annual
Performance Goal Targets. Our long-term performance progress is demonstrated by the charts comparing our
results to our goal targets for fiscal year (FY) 2003 through FY 2009.
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Iff]?1
All results reported in FY 2009, from current and prior years' work, are as reported in OIG Performance
Measurement and Results System, Inspector General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS), and Inspector
General Operations and Reporting System (IGOR).
OIG FY 2009 Government Performance and Results Act
Annual Performance Targets Compared to FY 2009 Results
Reported
Supporting Measures
Goal: Contribute to human health and environmental quality through improved business practices, accountability,
and integrity of program operations
Environmental Improvements/Actions/Changes
Improvements in Business/Systems/Efficiency
Risks Reduced or Eliminated
Target: 318; Reported: 272 (86%)
6 Legislative/regulatory changes/decisions
38 EPA policy, directive, practice or process
change/decision
0 Environmental/health improvements
2 Best practices implemented
15 Environmental or business operational/control
risks or challenges eliminated (including
noncompliance)
103 Actions taken or resolved prior to report issuance
(not reported)
43 Certifications/validations/verifications/corrections
65 Implemented recommendations previously
reported as unimplemented
Environmental & Business Recommendations
Challenges, Best Practices, and Risks Identified
Target: 903; Reported: 983 (109%)
26 Critical congressional or public management concerns
addressed
785 Recommendations for Improvement
13 Best practices identified
7 Environmental or business operational/control
risks or challenges identified (including
noncompliance)
81 Referrals for Agency action
71 Unimplemented recommendations identified
Return on Investment: Potential dollar return as
percentage of OIG budget
Target: $65.6 M; Reported: $83.3 M (127%)
(Dollars in Millions)
$ 14.8 Questioned costs net EPA
$ 62.3 Recommended efficiencies, costs saved (EPA)
$ 6.2 Fines, recoveries, settlements
Criminal, Civil, and Administrative Actions
Reducing Risk of Loss/Operational Integrity
Target: 80; Reported: 95 (119%)
14 Allegations disproved
14 Indictments
12 Convictions
55 Administrative actions
Other (no targets established)
Sustained Monetary Recommendations and Savings
Achieved from Current and Prior Periods: $53.5 M
Sustained Recommendations: 365
ARRA Activity Results (not counted above)
Reports Issued: 253
(Dollars in Millions)
$ 4.0 Questioned costs sustained
$ 49.5 Cost efficiencies sustained or realized
365 Sustained business recommendations
63 Outreach awareness briefings
13 Complaints Receives
2 Environmental/business actions taken or risks reduced
8 Recommendations or risks identified
2 Indictments, convictions, civil or administrative actions
66 OIG-produced reports
187 Reports by other audit entities with OIG oversight
'' 3al or
Goal not met
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
This section demonstrates the EPA OIG annual progress in attaining its Strategic Performance Goals for
FY 2003-FY 2009 in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA). OIG
performance can best be considered and evaluated over a period of several years rather than a single year.
A lengthy time lag may occur before the outcome actions can come to fruition and be substantiated.
Performance Progress
The OIG exceeded three of its four Government Performance and Results Act annual performance goal
targets during FY 2009, with the results for two of the outcome targets significantly exceeded. During
FY 2009, many time-lagged actions from current and prior years' recommendations are coming to
fruition. The OIG has also increased its focus on identifying cost efficiencies through performance audits
and program evaluations. Among the results, the OIG identified questioned costs and efficiencies totaling
over $77 million and over $6 million in fines, settlements, and recoveries. Also, EPA sustained over
$53 million in OIG monetary recommendations and savings from current and prior periods. During the
fiscal year, the OIG improved its overall quality and efficiency of its product by reducing the production
cycle time and resources required to perform OIG work, and influencing greater implementation of long
outstanding recommendations through expanded follow-up work. One of the most notable improvements
in efficiency and performance was the 39% reduction in the staff time and cost of conducting the EPA
Annual Financial Statement Audit saving over $1 million. The OIG created two new product lines; one
specializing in Efficiency Audits and another as the Office of Cyber Investigations and Homeland
Security. Also, the OIG received a "clean" or "unmodified" opinion through a rigorous peer review
certifying the quality of its auditing and evaluation work. While the OIG has not met all of its Annual
Performance Goal targets every year due to the time delay between production of outputs and the fruition
of out comes, the variable response nature of OIG results and the frustration of not being able to staff up
to authorized levels in recent years in working within the constraints of the Agency Human Resources
servicing office, the charts on the next page demonstrate that the OIG has exceeded its aggregate
cumulative Government Performance and Results Act targets for FYs 2003-2009.
Challenges
During FY 2009, the OIG identified four issues as OIG-level weaknesses pertaining to Investigative Case
Management, Records Management, Policies and Procedures, and Data Quality Associated with Audit
Follow-up Information. The OIG is continuing to improve its integration of information technology
systems and data quality by applying new control tools and policies. The OIG is working to update its
policies and procedures to provide greater guidance for quality and consistency of operations and is
instituting a consolidated approach to organization-wide records management making greater use of
technology. The OIG continuously tests its controls and operating procedures to identify potential
vulnerabilities and opportunities for improvement in the quality of it products and accountability for
application in the use of its resources. The OIG especially is taking decisive action to ensure its
operational independence in matters of funding, contracting and human resources.
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Annual Performance Goal: Environmental and Business Recommendations and Risks from OIG
Audits, Evaluations, Inspections and Investigations
FY2009
DFY2008
FY2007
FY2006
DFY2005
FY2004
FY2003
Targets
Results
Annual Performance Goal: Environmental and Business Actions Taken and Risks Reduced from OIG
Audit, Evaluation, Inspection and Investigation Recommendations
3000-
FY2009
DFY2008
FY2007
FY2006
DFY2005
FY2004
DFY2003
Targets
Results
Annual Performance Goal: OIG Questioned Costs, Efficiencies, Savings, Fines, Recoveries from OIG
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
$1,500
$1,000
$500-
$0
FY2009
DFY2008
FY2007
FY2006
DFY2005
FY2004
FY2003
Targets Results
Annual Performance Goal: Criminal, Civil, Administrative Actions from OIG Investigations
FY2009
DFY2008
FY2007
FY2006
DFY2005
FY2004
FY2003
Targets
Results
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
AIR/RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Air/Research and Development Results Summary - Reports Issued: 5
Environmental and Business Outcomes
1 Legislative/Regulatory Changes/Decision
2 EPA Policy, Directive, Practice or Process Change/Decision
1 Certifications, Verifications, Validations, or Corrections
Environmental and Business Outputs
17 Recommendations for Improvement
2 Best Practices Identified
Sustained Recommendations
'15 Sustained Environmental/Business Recommendations
Performance Highlights
In the OIG report, £7-^4 Does Not Provide Oversight of Radon Testing Accuracy and Reliability, we found
that EPA does not perform oversight of radon testing device accuracy or reliability. The 1988 Indoor
Radon Abatement Act required that EPA establish proficiency programs for firms offering radon-related
services, including testing and mitigation EPA established and operated proficiency programs until
1998, when it disinvested in these programs. According to Agency representatives, EPA has neither the
authority nor the resources to ensure radon testing devices and testing laboratories are accurate and
reliable. We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation disclose that while
radon testing is recommended, EPA cannot provide assurance that commercially available radon testing
devices or testing laboratories are accurate and reliable. We also recommended that EPA inform
Congress that the limitations of reliable testing for radon may negatively affect achieving Indoor Radon
Abatement Act goals. http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090512-09-P-0151.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Can Improve Its Process for Establishing Peer Review Panels, we found that the
laws, regulations, guidance, and other relevant requirements governing EPA's peer review process are
adequate to produce objective scientific reviews, but certain areas of EPA operating guidance can be
better defined. We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, who
oversees the National Center for Environmental Assessment, improve management controls by better
defining the concept of "impartiality" and maintaining records of all management decisions pertaining to
the selection of peer reviewers, particularly resolution of potential conflicts of interest. The OIG also
recommended that the Assistant Administrator develop guidance to address conflict of interest issues that
arise after panel formulation and amend contracts for external peer review services to require that
panelists re-certify their conflict of interest status prior to the panel convening.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090429-09-P-0147.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Needs an Oversight Program for Protocol Gases, we found that 89 percent
(233 components) met the Acid Rain Program's accuracy criterion and 11 percent (28 components) did
not. Of the 28 components that did not meet the criterion, 17 were within 3.0 percent of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology-determined true concentration; 7 were within 3.0 to 5.0 percent;
and 4 exceeded the true concentration by more than 5.0 percent. We recommended that the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation implement oversight programs to assure the quality of EPA protocol
gases used to calibrate continuous emissions monitoring systems and ambient air monitors. We also
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development update and maintain the
protocol gas procedures to ensure that the protocol meets the objectives of the Acid Rain, ambient air, and
stationary source air programs. http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090916-09-P-0235.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for Airborne
Chemical Releases, we found that EPA can improve its program management and oversight to better
assure that facilities covered by the Clean Air Act's (CAA's) Risk Management Program (RMP) submit
or re-submit an RMP. EPA had not established national procedures to identify covered facilities that had
not submitted RMPs. We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response implement additional management controls to identify facilities with regulated chemicals that
have not filed RMPs. We also recommended that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation develop inspection requirements to target higher-priority facilities for inspection and track its
progress in completing inspections of these facilities.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090210-09-P-0092.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Region 8 Needs to Better Manage the Risk Management Program for Airborne
Chemical Releases, we found that the two Region 8 offices jointly responsible for implementing the CAA
112(r) RMP have not effectively planned or coordinated compliance assurance activities. The OIG also
found that regional operating guidance for the RMP is inconsistent concerning the roles and
responsibilities of each office. We recommended that the Regional Administrator develop (1) a strategy
for implementing the RMP in Region 8 that defines program goals, performance measures, and
organizational responsibilities; and (2) an oversight process to evaluate the Region's success in
implementing the strategy. http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090330-09-P-0130.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions at U.S. Ports, we found that
while EPA has issued air emissions regulations for most port sources, EPA's actions to address air
emissions from large oceangoing vessels in U.S. ports have not yet achieved its goals for protecting
human health. The CAA provides EPA with the authority to regulate emissions from oceangoing vessel
engines when these emissions cause significant harm to human health. We recommended that the
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation (1) assess its authorities and responsibilities under the CAA
to regulate air emissions from foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. ports, and report any shortfalls to Congress;
(2) assess the extent to which Emissions Control Areas should be designated for U.S. coastal areas; and
(3) revise its ports strategy to include a transformation plan.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090323-09-P-0125.pdf
WATER
Water Results Summary - Reports Issued: 2
Environmental and Business Outcomes
1 EPA Policy, Directive, Practice/Process Change Decision
Environmental and Business Outputs
1 Critical Congressional/Public Management Concerns Addressed
11 Recommendations for Improvement
Performance Highlights
In the OIG report, Congressionally Requested Report on Comments Related to Effects of Jurisdictional
Uncertainty on Clean Water Act Implementation, we found that the Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and State wetlands staff spoke about a variety of impacts to their programs caused by the
Rapanos decision (Rapanos v. United States). There were no recommendations.
http://www.eDa.gov/oig/reDorts/2009/20090430-09-N-0149.Ddf
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
In the OIG report, EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards,
EPA's 1998 National Strategy and Plan to promote State adoption of nutrient water quality standards
(which better protect aquatic life and human health) have been ineffective. In the 11 years since EPA
issued its strategy, half the States still had no numeric nutrient standards. States have not been motivated
to create these standards because implementing them is costly and often unpopular with various
constituencies. EPA has not held the States accountable to committed milestones. We recommended that
the Assistant Administrator for Water (1) select significant waters of national value that need numeric
nutrient water quality standards to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), (2) set numeric
nutrient water quality standards for the waters identified in the first recommendation to meet the
requirements of the CWA, (3) establish EPA and State accountability for adopting numeric nutrient
standards for the rest of the Nation's waters, and (4) establish metrics to gauge the actual progress made
by the States.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090826-09-P-0223.pdf
SUPERFUND/LAND
Superfund/Land Results Summary - Reports Issued: 6
Environmental and Business Outputs
8 Recommendations for Improvement
Sustained Recommendations
$58.5 M Sustained Efficiencies
Performance Highlights
In the OIG report, Results of Hotline Complaint Review for California Superfund Site, we found that the
Agency substantiated that Region 9 inappropriately charged oversight costs to the CTS Printex Site
responsible parties for greening activities and other activities. Region 9 charged the responsible parties
for costs associated with staff time spent reviewing a housing developer's use of "green building
practices." Region 9 also charged the site account for its time spent responding to and preparing for our
review. We recommended that the EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator identify and withdraw all past
charges that are inconsistent with the meaning of "oversight costs." The Region should develop and
implement procedures to ensure that staff consistently and appropriately charges oversight costs. We also
recommended that the Region amend the 1991 Record of Discussion, develop a cost recovery strategy,
and review Agency policies and procedures to properly and timely recover the government's costs from
appropriate parties for the Record of Discussion amendment work.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090331-09-P-0131.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Needs to Improve Internal Controls to Increase Cost Recovery, we found that
EPA has a control for monitoring the statute of limitations on cost recovery. EPA reports show that the
Agency has a high rate of success in addressing cost recovery requirements prior to the expiration of the
statute of limitations. However, EPA has limited controls in other key areas that affect its ability to
recover the government's costs from responsible parties, including limited oversight of potentially
responsible party searches, inconsistent documentation of potentially responsible party searches, and data
quality problems in EPA databases that track Superfund clean-up status and cost recovery. We
recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance implement
improved controls to (1) monitor potentially responsible party search completions, (2) document
potentially responsible party searches consistently, (3) ensure data quality in EPA databases, and (4)
review all appropriate Superfund accounts to ensure the government's costs are identified for possible
recovery. The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090427-09-P-0144.pdf
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
In the OIG report, Independent Sampling Generally Confirms EPA's Data at the Jones Sanitation
Superfund Site in New York, we obtained groundwater and surface water samples from the Jones
Sanitation Superfund Site and nearby areas, and conducted a site inspection during April 2008. The
independent sampling results were generally consistent with the sampling data that Region 2 has obtained
historically. In addition, the site inspection showed the site was properly maintained and secured, and is
consistent with information Region 2 has obtained on the Site conditions. We recommended that the EPA
Region 2 Regional Administrator demonstrate and document in an Addendum to the 2006 Five-Year
Review that off-site migration of sodium, nickel, and any other compounds exceeding applicable
standards are controlled at the Site. We also recommended that the Region modify and/or re-initiate some
off-site monitoring if the Region determines it is needed to adequately support determinations of Site
protectiveness. The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090923-09-P-0243.pdf
In the OIG report, Improved Management of Superfund Special Accounts Will Make More Funds
Available for Clean-ups, EPA had not used about $65 million in Superfund special accounts that were
available because it lacked some management controls. Additionally, EPA was holding more than $88
million in special account funds in reserve that could be used to support priority Superfund sites,
including sites where human exposure was not under control. EPA's fragmented and uncoordinated
approaches to account for these funds led to missed opportunities to fund needed Superfund clean-ups.
We recommended that the EPA Deputy Administrator implement management controls to improve the
Agency's use, management, and transparency of special accounts.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090318-09-P-0119.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA's Safety Determination for Delatte Metals Superfund Site Was Unsupported, we
found that EPA's protection determination for the Delatte Metals Superfund Site was not supported by its
data. Despite evidence of potential remedy failure, EPA Region 6 determined in November 2007 that
conditions at Delatte protect human health and the environment in the short term. We recommended that
the EPA Region 6 Regional Administrator ensure that the Delatte clean-up remedy is performing as
intended and is protective to human health and the environment, and amend its 2007 Five-Year Review
determination to state that the protectiveness of the Delatte remedy cannot be determined without further
information and analysis.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20091119-09-P-0029.pdf
In the OIG report, Sampling at Indiana Superfund Site Was Consistent with EPA's Historical Results, the
OIG tested long-term monitoring results at Superfund sites the EPA deleted from the National Priorities
List. Neal's Dump Superfund Site, located near Spencer, Indiana, is one of eight sites that the OIG tested.
Groundwater samples that we independently took in May 2008 from two private drinking water wells on
residential properties adjacent to the Site showed that polychlorinated biphenyls did not exceed safe levels
for drinking water. These results are consistent with EPA's monitoring results.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090304-09-P-0110.pdf
CROSS MEDIA
Cross Media Results Summary - Reports Issued: 4
Environmental and Business Outputs
13 Recommendations for Improvement
Sustained Recommendations
10 Sustained Environmental/Business Recommendations
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Performance Highlights
In the OIG report, Improvements Needed to Validate Reported ENERGY STAR Benefits, we found that the
ENERGY STAR program's reported savings claims were inaccurate and the reported annual savings
unreliable. We identified several deficiencies with the shipment data and the process used in calculating
benefits. Deficiencies included a lack of a quality review of the data collected; reliance on estimates,
forecasting, and unverified third-party reporting; and the potential inclusion of exported items. We
recommended that the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation (1) establish and
perform quality controls to ensure that EPA establish and implement improved quality controls, (2)
develop and consistently apply a data-driven methodology to compute market transformation effects, and
(3) validate the model for calculating the benefits of the ENERGY STAR commercial sector to ensure it
accurately reflects the sector's impacts. http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20081217-09-P-0061.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Needs a Cohesive Plan to Clean Up the Great Lakes Areas of Concern, we found
that since 2004, EPA has completed five Legacy Act-funded contaminated sediment clean-ups and
remediated approximately 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment. However, EPA is challenged
by the overall extent of the contaminated sediment problem in the Great Lakes Areas of Concern. EPA is
the designated lead Agency for the clean-ups; however, we found EPA does not have a regime for
coordinating remediation activities across its program offices as well as with States, localities, and other
stakeholders. We recommended that the Great Lakes National Program Manager: (1) establish an Areas
of Concern management plan that includes written designations of authority and responsibility for each
EPA program office with regard to remediating contaminated sediment; (2) assign a lead EPA office to
each Sediment Remediation Site and determine the volume of contaminated sediment at each site; and (3)
annually measure and publish estimates of Sediment Remediation Site sediment volumes, clean-up costs,
and stakeholder progress, http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090914-09-P-0231 .pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Needs a Comprehensive Research Plan and Policies to Fulfill its Emerging
Climate Change Role, we found that EPA does not have an overall plan to ensure the development of
consistent, compatible climate change strategies across the Agency. We surveyed EPA regions and
offices and found they need more information on a variety of climate change topics. We recommended
that the Deputy Administrator direct Assistant and Regional Administrators on how to plan for climate
change challenges in their media areas/regions until the Agency develops an overall strategy, and
establish guidance for regularly entering their climate change scientific information in the Science
Inventory. We also recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
establish various management controls to ensure EPA fulfills its emerging climate change role and related
information needs. The Agency concurred with our recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090202-09-P-0089.pdf
In the OIG report, Results of Hotline Complaint Review of EPA's Antimicrobial Testing Program, we
found that the allegation against EPA's Antimicrobial Testing Program was unsubstantiated. The
program policies and procedures require Office of Pesticide Programs to notify the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance and manufacturers when a product fails testing. The Office of Pesticide
Programs - Antimicrobial Division is not withholding information on product failures from these
intended users. As of February 2009, 325 of the 671 EPA registered disinfectant products had been tested
under the Antimicrobial Testing Program. The program anticipates completing efficacy testing of all
currently registered disinfectant products by 2011.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090527-09-P-0152.pdf
10
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
PUBLIC LIAISON AND SPECIAL REVIEWS
Public Liaison and Special Reviews Results Summary - Reports Issued: 5
Environmental and Business Outcomes
1 Actions Taken or Resolved Prior to Report Issuance
Environmental and Business Outputs
13 Recommendations for Improvement
2 Environmental/Business Operational Control Risks or Challenges Identified
Sustained Recommendations
4 Sustained Environmental/Business Recommendations
Performance Highlights
In the OIG report, Office of Inspector General Access to Agency Information and Personnel, we found
that EPA did not have consistent overall guidance governing interaction with the OIG. Consequently,
some EPA program and regional offices promulgated internal guidance that impeded OIG access to
Agency information and personnel. These internal guidances included procedures with burdensome
administrative requirements that allowed EPA managers to screen and potentially change information
prior to issuing the information to the OIG. We recommended that the Deputy Administrator issue
guidance to all EPA program and regional offices on interacting with the OIG to ensure unfettered access
to information and personnel; and that all lower level guidance, written or unwritten, be revoked.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090825-09-P-0222.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Has Improved Its Response to Freedom of Information Act Requests but Further
Improvement Is Needed, we found that (1) EPA has reduced its backlog of Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) initial requests and appeals; (2) EPA's procedures did not always ensure that FOIA responses
were timely in all EPA program offices and regions, or that appeals were processed timely; and (3)
optional training provided by the National FOIA Officer was only attended by some EPA employees from
each region. We recommended that EPA issue a policy mandating training for its FOIA officers,
coordinators, and individuals who have FOIA responsibilities. We also recommended that EPA conduct
a review of the regional and program FOIA offices in order to make recommendations for any
improvements. http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090325-09-P-0127.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA's Human Resources Management System Did Not Deliver Anticipated Efficiencies
to the Shared Service Centers, we found that the EPA Shared Service Centers initiative lacked the
necessary management controls to achieve efficiency and effectiveness. We noted that EPA's Office of
Administration and Resources Management lacked necessary cost analysis and Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) approval to upgrade PeoplePlus with an automated workflow feature in support of the
establishment of the EPA Shared Service Centers. We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources Management (1) obtain approval from OMB for the level of migration
intended by EPA, (2) develop a baseline cost estimate to determine and secure necessary funding for
migration to a certified Shared Service Center, (3) establish realistic milestones with OMB for migration
to a certified Shared Service Center, and (4) document the risk of using PeoplePlus until EPA migrates to
a certified Shared Service Center. http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090811-09-P-0206.pdf
In the OIG report, Office of Inspector General Access Survey Results, we found a significant lack of
knowledge about the Agency's policies with regard to interaction with the OIG, and numerous requests
for training in this area by survey respondents. Our analysis showed that 83 percent of respondents were
either not aware, or did not know, of any policy or procedures governing interaction with the OIG.
Further, 18 percent of respondents did not believe that they can provide documentation or written
responses to the OIG without permission from a supervisor. An additional 34 percent of the respondents
11
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
did not know if direct contact with the OIG allowed. No recommendations were made in this report.
http://www.eDa.gov/oig/reDorts/2009/20090113-09-P-0079.Ddf
In the OIG report, Regional Public Liaison Program Needs Greater Focus on Results and Customer
Awareness, we found that the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's (OSWER's) Regional
Public Liaison (RPL) program does not sufficiently focus on or measure specific outputs and outcomes
and is not consistently implemented across offices. RPLs report results in varied formats, and OSWER
does not consolidate program results into a comprehensive report. As a result, RPLs reported annual
results that could not be readily consolidated to show what RPLs had achieved. We recommended that
OSWER use a logic model approach to revise the RPL program to help focus on outputs and outcomes
and ensure stakeholders are aware of the RPL resource. We also recommended that OSWER revise the
2004 RPL guidance to reflect program revisions and build in minimum requirements for stakeholder
awareness activities, including a national RPL Website. The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090624-09-P-0176.pdf
In the OIG report, Contaminated Soil Waste Repository at East Mission Flats, Idaho, we found that EPA
Region 10 and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality provided opportunities for the community
to become involved and notified the public when selecting the East Mission Flats repository site location
and soliciting comments on the proposed plan, location, and designs. We also found that many physical
aspects of flooding have been investigated and considered in the design process. In addition, we also
identified that the geochemical aspects and potential for releasing dissolved contaminants had yet to be
investigated. We recommended that EPA Region 10 finish analyzing the geochemical and physical
conditions that may lead to contaminants dissolving near the repository base, and then confirm the
adequacy of the repository design to prevent dissolved contaminants from being released under these
conditions. The Agency concurred with our recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090608-09-P-0162.pdf
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
Assistance Agreements Results Summary
Environmental and Business Outcomes
9 EPA Policy, Directive, Practice/Process Change Decision
2 Best Practices Implemented
5 Environmental/Business Operational Control Risks or Challenges Eliminated
2 Actions Taken or Resolved Prior to Report Issuance
» 8 Certifications, Verifications, Validations, or Corrections
Environmental and Business Outputs
1 Critical Congressional/Public Management Concerns Addressed
99 Recommendations for Improvement
2 Referrals for Agency Action
Return on Investment: Potential dollar return
$0.75 M Questioned Costs
$0.74 M Recommended Efficiencies, Costs Saved or Avoided
Sustained Recommendations
88 Sustained Environmental/Business Recommendations
$0.82 M Sustained Questioned Costs
Performance Highlights
In the OIG report, EPA Took Adequate Corrective Actions for Alaska Village Safe Water Program, we
found that Region 10 had adequately followed up on each of the findings and recommendations from the
12
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
single audit reports and had implemented corrective actions for the OMB review. The corrective actions
taken by the Region should address the issues identified. We recommended that the EPA Region 10
Regional Administrator track the corrective action for follow-up on the independent review of the Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium by re-entering it and keeping it open in Management Audit Tracking
System until follow-up is complete. The Agency agreed with the recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090121-09-P-0085.pdf
In the OIG report, Review of Grant Finds Procurement, Financial Management, and Lobbying Issues, we
found that in 2001, EPA awarded a grant to ML Wastewater Management to construct a wastewater
treatment plant. The grant was amended four times, with EPA's financial assistance totaling $8,688,000.
The grantee's financial management system was not sufficient to ensure that reported costs complied with
federal regulations. The grantee's claim included unallowable costs involving procurement, interest,
organizational costs, lobbying, indirect costs, and labor and fringe benefit costs. We recommended that
the EPA Region 5 Regional Administrator recover $801,118 of the questioned costs, recover any
unreasonable project costs, and designate the grantee as a high-risk grantee.
In the OIG report, Quality Control Review ofLeland O 'Neal, CPA, Single Audit for Town of Worthington,
West Virginia, for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2004, we found that the single audit report for the Town of
Worthington, West Virginia, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004, was substandard. The audit did not
meet general, field work, and reporting standards as required by the Government Auditing Standards. For
example,
The audit documentation did not contain sufficient evidence that the audit was adequately
planned and compliance testing was not supported by evidential matter.
The audit report did not contain a finding that the recipient's accounting system was inadequate
when it should have, and did not include a corrective action plan from the recipient.
The auditor did not meet Federal continuing education requirements.
We recommended that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator meet with the Town of Worthington
officials to ensure that the Town understands OMB Circular A-133 requirements, and its obligations to
meet these requirements; and designate the Town of Worthington as a high-risk grant recipient, in
accordance with Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31.12, should the recipient receive any new
EPA awards, http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090714-09-2-0195.pdf
CONTRACTS
Contracts Results Summary
Environmental and Business Outcomes
9 EPA Policy, Directive, Practice/Process Change Decision
2 Best Practices Implemented
5 Environmental/Business Operational Control Risks or Challenges Eliminated
2 Actions Taken or Resolved Prior to Report Issuance
8 Certifications, Verifications, Validations, or Corrections
Environmental and Business Outputs
1 Critical Congressional/Public Management Concerns Addressed
99 Recommendations for Improvement
2 Referrals for Agency Action
Return on Investment: Potential dollar return
$0.75 M Questioned Costs
$0.74 M Recommended Efficiencies, Costs Saved or Avoided
88 Sustained Environmental/Business Recommendations
$0.82 M Sustained Questioned Costs
13
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Performance Highlights
In the OIG report, EPA Did Not Properly Account for All Property for Implementing Homeland Security
Presidential Directive-12, we found that EPA generally recorded Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-12 property accurately in EPA's Fixed Assets Subsystem. We also noted the following
discrepancies: (1) four pieces of property valued at $29,538 were missing and not recorded in the Fixed
Assets Subsystem, (2) acquisition costs in the Fixed Assets Subsystem were incorrect for some
equipment, and (3) nonfinancial information for several pieces of property was not accurately recorded.
We recommend that the Director, Office of Administration, Office of Administration and Resources
Management use established procedures to resolve accountability for the missing property, and review
accuracy of Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 property information in the Fixed Assets
Subsystem and update any discrepancies; and modify the Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12
contract to reflect contractor requirements and accountability for using government property in
government facilities. The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090915-09-P-0233.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Plans for Managing Counter Terrorism/Emergency Response Equipment and
Protecting Critical Assets Not Fully Implemented, we found that EPA has progressed in implementing the
counter terrorism/emergency response initiatives, but is behind schedule in implementing the Radiation
Ambient Monitoring System. EPA encountered delays and problems with the administration of the
contract. As a result, the Agency may have less information about the levels of radiation should a
national radiological or national emergency occur. We recommended that EPA monitor the Radiation
Ambient Monitoring System contract and develop a schedule for addressing concerns of the Science
Advisory Board; identify milestones, accountability, and resources for implementing the national counter
terrorism/emergency response equipment tracking system; and accurately track the corrective actions in
response to our 2006 report. http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090127-09-P-0087 glance.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Should Stop Providing Estimates of Total Labor Hours to Contractors, we found
that for 6 of the 22 contracts we reviewed, EPA provided the contractor with the government's estimate
for total labor hours prior to receiving the contractor's proposal. The Federal Acquisition Regulation
provides that the government may use various cost analysis techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable
price, including comparing proposed prices with independent government cost estimates. Since EPA is
providing total labor hours to the contractor prior to receiving the proposal, EPA may be diminishing its
ability to obtain a fair and reasonable price. We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources Management revise EPA's Acquisition Regulation to eliminate the
requirement that EPA include total estimated labor hours in work assignments or identify specific
circumstances in which the requirement should apply. EPA concurred with our recommendations.
http://www.eDa.gov/oig/reDorts/2009/20090909-09-P-0229.Ddf
In the OIG report, Contractor Invoice Internal Controls Need Improvement, we found that EPA should
improve its invoice review procedures to ensure costs are allowable and supported in accordance with the
Federal Acquisition Regulation. We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management require the Office of Acquisition Management (OAM) to modify the Contracts
Management Manual to require use of the checklist for invoice reviews, and have Contracting Officers
verify compliance with the policy during invoice reviews. Further, OAM should take corrective actions
in response to the trends identified in the Financial Monitoring Reviews. EPA agreed with the findings
and provided corrective action plans for addressing all but one of the recommendations in the report.
httD://www.eDa.gov/oig/reDorts/2009/20090923-09-P-0242.Ddf
14
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
FORENSIC AUDITS
Forensics Results Summary - Reports Issued: 1
Environmental and Business Outcomes
1 Certifications, Verifications, Validations, or Corrections
Environmental and Business Outputs
2 Critical Congressional/Public Management Concerns Addressed
251 Recommendations for Improvement
14 Referrals for Agency Action
Return on Investment: Potential dollar return
$14.70 M Questioned Costs
Criminal, Civil, and Administrative Actions Reducing Risks of Operational
Lost/Operational Integrity
2 Administrative Actions
Sustained Recommendations
77 Sustained Environmental/Business Recommendations
$1.02 M Sustained Questioned Costs
$0.06 M Actual Costs Recovered
Performance Highlights
In the DIG report, Costs Claimed under EPA Grants XP96909501 andXP97963701 Awarded to the
Washoe County Department of Water Resources, Nevada, we found that the grantee did not meet
financial management requirements specified by federal policy and regulations. Because of these issues,
EPA will need to recover $291,494 in questioned costs under the two grants. We recommended that the
EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator (1) disallow and recover the remaining uncollected balance of the
$291,494 questioned if the grantee is unable to provide documentation that meets appropriate federal
financial management requirements, and (2) require the grantee to establish procedures to ensure that it
(a) charges labor and benefit costs to the federal grants in accordance with federal policy; (b) conducts
procurement in accordance with federal regulations; (c) properly identifies unallowable costs and
excludes them from billings to the Federal Government; (d) limits cash draws for federal grants to actual
disbursements; and (e) pays contract costs charged to federal grants in accordance with contract terms and
conditions, http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20081020-09-2-0011.pdf
In the DIG report, Costs Claimed under EPA Grant XP98011401 Awarded to the City of Rupert, Idaho,
we found that the grantee did not meet the Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 requirements for
financial management. Because of the above issues, EPA needs to recover $63,256 of the $423,106 in
costs questioned under the grant. We recommended that the EPA Region 10 Regional Administrator
disallow $423,106 and recover $63,256 in costs questioned under Grant XP98011401.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090112-09-2-0078.pdf
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team Contractor: Based on Agency concerns related
to questionable labor staffing and charging practices of one of its Superfund Technical Assessment and
Response Team contractors, we conducted a labor and subcontract cost verification review. We found that:
The contractor improperly billed for labor costs of employees who did not meet the minimum
contract requirements.
No subcontractor met the minimum contract requirements for education and training.
The contractor billed for employees who were not approved at the time the labor costs were
incurred.
The contractor improperly billed for employees who did not complete required Basic Incident
Command System Level 200 training.
15
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Although this review only covered 1 year of the 5-year contract, we found the Agency was billed
$253,089 in ineligible labor and subcontract costs.
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team Joint Venture: We initiated an examination of
costs billed under a joint venture for Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team services in a
region. Our examination focused on the joint venture's compliance with federal laws, rules, and
regulations under the specific contract. During our examination, we identified information of a time-
critical nature that the Agency needed to consider in future contracting decisions concerning the joint
venture. The Agency concurred with our recommendation, and decided not to award the award term
option to the joint venture.
Facilities Maintenance and Support Contract: For a 2005 EPA small-business set-aside contract, we
found that labor charges billed under the contract were in accordance with federal laws, regulations, and
contract terms and conditions. We noted an improvement that should be made to the contractor's labor
charging system to increase the accuracy of allocating labor costs charged to government contracts.
Overtime hours were not separately recorded. Instead, they were combined with regular hours on the
employee timesheet. Implementing additional controls would improve identification of overtime and
reduce the risk of mischarging overtime labor. Based on our report, the Agency agreed to work with the
contractor to resolve the issue.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Response Claim: We
reviewed a reimbursement mixed funding claim for $1,133,543 submitted by the responsible parties for a
Superfund site in North Carolina. We performed this review solely to assist OSWER in evaluating the
claimant's mixed funding claim. Our review noted no exceptions to the claimed amount. We
recommended that EPA accept the claim and reimburse the claimant $1,133,543 of the total eligible costs
of $3,675,562.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Financial Management Results Summary - Reports Issued: 7
Environmental and Business Outcomes
3 Certifications, Verifications, Validations, or Corrections
9 EPA Policy, Directive, Practice or Process Change
3 Implemented Recommendations Previously Reported as Unimplemented
Environmental and Business Outputs
2 Critical Congressional/Public Management Concerns Addressed
54 Recommendations for Improvement
9 Best Practices Identified
8 Unimplemented Recommendations Identified
Return on Investment: Potential dollar return
$30.7 M in Cost Efficiencies
Sustained Recommendations
14 Management Recommendations Sustained
$35 M Sustained Cost Efficiencies
Performance Highlights
In the OIG report, Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2008 and 2007 Consolidated Financial Statements, we rendered
an unqualified, or clean, opinion on EPA's Consolidated Financial Statements for FYs 2008 and 2007.
We found the statements to be fairly presented and free of material misstatement. However, in evaluating
internal controls we noted eight significant deficiencies:
16
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
EPA's oversight of payroll reconciliation needs improvement.
Accrual was not properly calculated for federal unbilled receivables.
EPA needs to reconcile Superfund State Contract funds and credits in the general ledger to
subsidiary accounts.
EPA's review of unliquidated obligations for interagency agreements and Headquarters-funded
grants was incomplete.
The Integrated Financial Management System Vendor Table was susceptible to unauthorized
changes, and EPA did not retain supporting documentation for numerous changes.
EPA did not adequately monitor Superfund Special Account balances.
The lack of a system implementation process contributed to financial applications not complying
with requirements.
EPA did not properly account for capitalized software and related accumulated depreciation.
We also found that EPA needs to continue to reconcile $192 million of unreconciled differences with 46
trading partners for intragovernmental transactions. The Agency generally agreed with the internal
control issues and has begun taking corrective actions. The Agency did not agree with the Anti-
Deficiency Act finding, and indicated it will instead conduct and internal investigation and work with
OMB. http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20081114-09-l-0026.pdf
In the OIG report, Fiscal Year 2008 and 2007 Financial Statements for the Pesticides Reregistration and
Expedited Processing Fund, we rendered an unqualified, or clean, opinion, meaning that they were fairly
presented and free of material misstatement. We noted one significant deficiency in internal controls. The
Office of Pesticide Programs was unable to provide reliable information on reporting accomplishments for
reregistration and amendment actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. EPA
is required to annually report on its pesticide performance measures and goals. The Agency agreed with
our recommendations, http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090623-09-l-0172.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Can Improve Managing of Working Capital Fund Overhead Costs, while we did
not identify any significant cost savings for the Working Capital Fund (WCF), we did identify two areas
requiring management attention:
The WCF staffing process is not fully documented. Office of Technology Operations and
Planning management allocates the number of full-time equivalents to WCF cost centers based on
discussions during annual budget formulation. Documentation supporting staffing allocations was
minimal, and we did not identify any policies documenting the process.
We identified three issues relating to unreasonable allocation of WCF employee time. Two
Office of Technology Operations and Planning employees had travel costs assigned to the WCF
but no related payroll costs. Salary costs for 4 managers were allocated entirely to the WCF,
even though 5 of the 53 employees they supervised did not charge time to the WCF. An Office of
Technology Operations and Planning employee went on a detail outside the WCF but the
employee's time continued to be charged to the WCF.
We recommended that the Office of Technology Operations and Planning Director document the WCF
staffing process and methodology. We also recommended that the Office address the unreasonable
allocations noted. The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090330-09-P-0129.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Should Strengthen Internal Controls over Interagency Agreement Unliquidated
Obligations, we found that EPA has not closed out interagency agreements that have at least $4.2 million
of unneeded funds that should be deobligated. Further, EPA had deobligated an additional $2.3 million
between January 7, 2008, and April 25, 2008, as a result of our audit. These funds could be used for other
environmental projects. We recommended that the Office of Administration and Resources Management:
17
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Deobligate the remaining $4.2 million in interagency agreement unliquidated obligations, and
ensure these interagency agreements and those with $2.3 million already deobligated are closed
out.
Ensure EPA Order 1610 is consistently followed.
Ensure program offices develop performance measures involving interagency agreement
management for Project Officer performance standards.
Ensure the interagency agreement data in the Grants Information and Control System and
Integrated Grants Management System are reconciled.
We also recommended that the Chief Financial Officer reformat the unliquidated obligation report and
require forwarding of the report to Project Officers. The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090126-09-P-0086.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Should Revise its Grant Accrual Methodology to Address Impact of Recovery Act
Funds, we found that EPA's grant accruals for the Fiscal Year 2009 financial statements may not include
adjustments for additional funds received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA). EPA has historically computed grant accruals based on the results of a grantee billing practice
survey. In February 2009, EPA was provided with $7.2 billion under the ARRA for projects and
programs administered by EPA. We recommended that the Chief Financial Officer modify the current
grant accrual methodology to account for the increase in and nature of grant expenditures due to the
ARRA. EPA agreed with our recommendations.
http://www.eDa.gov/oig/reDorts/2009/20090819-09-X-0217 cert.pdf
In the OIG report, Pesticide Registration Fund Earns Unqualified Opinion, we rendered an unqualified,
or clean, opinion on EPA's Pesticide Registration Fund Financial Statements for FYs 2008 and 2007.
The Pesticides Registration Improvement Act authorized EPA to assess and collect pesticide registration
fees to expedite the registration of certain pesticides. The fees collected are deposited into the Pesticide
Registration Fund. In our opinion, the financial statements, including the accompanying notes, present
fairly, in all material respects, the assets, liabilities, net position, net cost, changes in net position, and
budgetary resources of the fund. No instance of noncompliance was found during our audit.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090303-09-l-0107.pdf
In the OIG report, Agency-wide Policy Would Improve Monitoring of Obligations under Superfund
Cooperative Agreements, we found that the regions audited (Regions 3, 5, and 8) have implemented
effective procedures to adequately monitor the status of obligations under Superfund Cooperative
Agreements. Those procedures should be used by all regions annually to identify funds available for
deobligation. Also, the Agency has reduced the total amount of open obligations under Superfund
Cooperative Agreements from December 4, 2006, to December 2, 2008. We also identified $331,802 of
open obligations in Region 3 that needed to be deobligated. During our audit, the Agency deobligated
$330,370 of that amount. The Agency deobligated $1,432 less than the amount originally identified for
one agreement because of a final drawdown; that agreement is now closed. We have identified several
best practices used by Regions 3, 5 and 8, such as (1) requiring that States submit detailed reports on the
status of each Superfund site twice a year, (2) requiring that budget officers solicit information from
project officers and other staff twice a year to identify potential funds for deobligations, and (3)
performing a deobligation exercise twice a year for Superfund Cooperative Agreements. We also
recommended that the Director of Grants and Debarment incorporate these best practices into a uniform
policy for reviewing unliquidated obligations under Superfund Cooperative Agreements in all regions.
The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090922-09-P-0241.pdf
18
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
RISK ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
Risk Assessment and Program Performance Results Summary - Reports Issued: 3
Environmental and Business Outcomes
1 EPA Policy, Directive, Practice/Process Change
1 Action Taken or Resolved Prior to Report Issuance
1 Environmental/Business Operational Control Risk
or Challenge Eliminated
Environmental and Business Outputs
1 Critical Congressional/Public Management
Concern Addressed Change
17 Recommendations for Improvement
Performance Highlights
EPA Staffing Levels and Facility Costs Determined: In response to a request from the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, the OIG prepared several
spreadsheets on the staffing levels, rental/lease fees, and utility and security costs for all of EPA's
facilities and/or locations where EPA incurs costs associated with its employees. For those offices that
house five or fewer employees, we provided the purpose of the facility, as requested. We determined that
EPA had 18,054 employees working at about 140 facilities. The costs to operate those facilities totaled
almost $298.2 million a year, including $235.1 million in rent/lease costs, $41.8 million security costs,
and $21.3 million in utility costs. http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090114-09-P-0080.pdf
Improvement Needed in Measuring and Reporting Pollution Prevention Program Results: The OIG
reviewed the Pollution Prevention Program's data provided in response to the OMB's Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessment generally addressed the PART questions and supported the
moderately effective rating received. We noted several weaknesses:
The Pollution Prevention Program's FY 2006 PART performance measures were not designed to
report on the program's impacts on human health and the environment. Pollution Prevention
Program managers believed that reductions in discharges and emissions of pollutants represent
the best measures that can be supported by data obtainable on a program-wide basis and
acknowledge that additional outcome measures are needed to assess impacts on human health and
the environment associated with hazardous materials reductions.
The Pollution Prevention Program's verification and validation procedures did not ensure the
accuracy of performance data. Pollution Prevention program managers had no assurance that
performance results data obtained from voluntary partnerships with industry and other
organizations were accurate. The Program's FY 2006 performance results were not reported
consistently and contain inaccuracies Strengthening data controls would provide Pollution
Prevention managers with improved program performance data.
While the Pollution Prevention Program has completed several interim PART follow-up actions,
some of its actions to address its program improvement plan have been slow. In addition, the
plan did not address all deficiencies identified in the PART assessment.
We recommended that EPA continue efforts to develop performance indicators that measure impacts on
human health and the environment, require the development of a Pollution Prevention Division Quality
Assurance Project Plan for data collection and reporting, and develop a program improvement plan to
address all deficiencies identified in the PART assessment.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090128-09-P-0088.pdf
19
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
EPA Should Use FMFIA to Improve Programmatic Operations: EPA has not implemented and used
the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) to improve program operations, as intended by
federal and Agency guidance. Although EPA offices rely on annual guidance that the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO) issues:
EPA offices have not developed internal control review strategies that include elements such as
GRPA.
OCFO's guidance and training have not provided staff and managers with adequate awareness of
the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) internal control standards.
OCFO's guidance, until recently, has not required offices to report on compliance with all GAO
standards.
OCFO did not devote needed resources to validate assurance letters.
We recommended that the EPA Administrator support internal controls by announcing the FY 2010
FMFIA process and requiring that senior managers attend training. We also recommended that the Chief
Financial Officer develop comprehensive, tiered FMFIA training for managers and staff, revise the
internal checklist used as part of the strategy for validating Agency-wide FMFIA compliance, codify its
validation strategy, and develop FY 2010 FMFIA guidance that contains OCFO FY 2009 supplemental
guidance. The Agency agreed with our recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090806-09-P-0203.pdf
EPA's Office of Research and Development Could Better Use the Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act to Improve Operations: The OIG found that the Office of Research and Development
management integrity program is inconsistent with the Agency FMFIA guidance. The Office of Research
and Development approaches FMFIA as an administrative reporting activity rather than an opportunity to
evaluate and report on research program performance. As a result, the Office of Research and
Development has not:
Conducted a comprehensive risk assessment.
Included National Program Directors in the FMFIA process.
Developed and implemented a strategy to establish and evaluate the effectiveness of internal
controls over research programs.
Provided FMFIA training to managers and staff.
Included relevant risk and program performance information in assurance letters.
We recommended that the Office of Research and Development (1) conduct a risk assessment using GAO
standards and develop a comprehensive risk-based program review strategy, (2) develop comprehensive,
tiered FMFIA training for managers and staff, and (3) revise its management integrity program to include
programmatic operations. The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090915-09-P-0232.pdf
INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Information Resources Management Results Summary - Reports Issued: 6
Environmental and Business Results
11 Recommendations for Management Improvement
17 Agency Management Actions Taken
1 Management Challenges or Risks Identified
» 2 New FMFIA Challenges Identified
Performance Highlights
The OIG contracted with a firm to conduct network vulnerability testing at various EPA locations to
identify any local area network risk vulnerabilities and present the results to the appropriate EPA officials
20
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
so that the Agency could promptly remediate the vulnerability or document the planned actions to do so.
Vulnerability testing at various locations, done per the Federal Information Security Management Act,
disclosed the following at specific EPA locations:
EPA Headquarters, Washington, DC: EPA could only identify 118 of the 391 Internet Protocol
addresses identified by audit as containing vulnerabilities. This prevented EPA from taking
immediate actions to address the identified vulnerabilities. Also, field work disclosed weaknesses
in the quality of information EPA uses to track the ownership of Internet Protocol addresses.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090223-09-P-0097 glance.pdf
Research Triangle Park Campus, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: We originally
issued this report to the National Computer Center at Research Triangle Park outlining several
weaknesses that remained unconnected since issuing the draft vulnerability assessment report.
The National Computer Center provided an updated status to address the weaknesses under their
control and, upon further discussion, we learned that several weaknesses must be corrected by
other organizations within the Research Triangle Park Campus.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20081209-09-P-0055 glance.pdf
Las Vegas Finance Center, Las Vegas, Nevada: Internet Protocol addresses with medium-risk
vulnerabilities were identified. Although Center personnel took actions to remediate the findings,
supporting documentation is needed.
http://www.eDa.gov/oig/reDorts/2009/20081209-09-P-0054 glance.pdf
Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada: Internet
Protocol addresses with medium-risk vulnerabilities were identified. The Laboratory took
appropriate actions to resolve the network vulnerabilities under their control.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20081209-09-P-0053 glance.pdf
Region 9, San Francisco, California: Internet Protocol addresses with high- and medium-risk
vulnerabilities were identified. Although Region 9 took actions to remediate most of the
documented findings, several vulnerabilities were identified. Although Region 9 took actions to
remediate most of the documented findings, several vulnerabilities (both high and medium)
remained unresolved.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20081209-09-P-0052 glance.pdf
In the OIG report, Project Delays Prevent EPA from Implementing an Agency-wide Information Security
Vulnerability Management Program, we found that EPA implemented 56 percent (15 of 27) of the
information security audit recommendations we reviewed. EPA's lack of progress on four key audit
recommendations we made in 2004 and 2005 inhibits EPA from providing an Agency-wide process for
security monitoring of its computer network. We recommended that the Director of Technology
Operations and Planning, within the Office of Environmental Information:
Create Plans of Action and Milestones for each unimplemented audit recommendation listed in
Appendix B.
Update EPA's Management Audit Tracking System to show the status of each unimplemented
audit recommendation listed in Appendix B of the OIG Semiannual Reports.
Provide EPA program and regional offices with an alternative solution for vulnerability
management, including establishing a centralized oversight process to ensure that EPA program
and regional offices (a) regularly test their computer networks for vulnerabilities, and (b)
maintain files documenting the mitigation of detected vulnerabilities.
Establish a workgroup of program and regional EPA information technology staff to solicit input
on training needs and facilitate rolling out the Agency-wide vulnerability management program.
Issue an updated memorandum discussing guidance and requirements.
The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090921-09-P-0240.pdf
21
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
In the OIG report, Results of Technical Network Vulnerability Assessment: EPA's Potomac Yard
Buildings, we contracted with Williams, Adley & Company, LLP and found that vulnerability testing of
EPA's Potomac Yard buildings network conducted during April 2009 indicated several high-risk
vulnerabilities. If not resolved, these vulnerabilities could expose EPA's assets to unauthorized access
and potential harm to the Agency's network. We recommended that the Director of Technology
Operations and Planning and the Senior Information Officials:
Implement actions to resolve all high-risk vulnerability findings.
Update EPA's Automated Security Self Evaluation and Remediation Tracking system.
Perform a technical vulnerability assessment within 30 days to demonstrate and document that
corrective actions have resolved the vulnerabilities.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090630-09-P-0188 glance.pdf
In the OIG report, Lack of Project Plan Resulted in Transition and Contractor Performance Problems for
the Institutional Controls Tracking System, we found that the lack of compliance with established project
management procedures resulted in transitional problems in 2005 that delayed Institutional Controls
Tracking System development and negatively affected contractor performance. Although we could not
substantiate the mismanagement claims alleged in the hotline compliant, the absence of key decision
documents and significant turnover of key Institutional Controls Tracking System personnel could have
contributed to the complainant's perception that Institutional Controls Tracking System project decisions
were made in a haphazard manner. We recommended that the Director, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
Document procedures for overseeing development activities for the Superfund Document
Management System project as prescribed by EPA System Life Cycle Management guidance.
Conduct and document a review of Superfund Document Management System documentation to
ensure the document is current. If needed, direct the contractor to update the documentation.
Create a Plan of Actions and Milestones in EPA's Automated Security Self Evaluation and
Remediation Tracking system for the two recommendations.
The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090325-09-P-0128.pdf
In the OIG report, EPA Should Delay Deploying Its New Acquisition System until Testing Is Completed,
we found that OAM did not comply with EPA's System Life Cycle Management policy and procedure
while developing the new EPA Acquisition System. OAM did not fully develop the system's
requirements documents during the requirements phase, and requirements were incomplete. Test scripts
were not developed to prove that the system fulfilled all requirements and ensure that the system would
function as required. Although the EPA Acquisition System Project Manager developed a Draft Master
Test Plan that contained testing procedures, OAM management never approved, implemented, and
enforced this plan. We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources
Management:
Identify and document all system requirements, including functional, technical, security, and
EPA-specific requirements, in the EPA Acquisition System Requirements.
Update, review, and implement formal testing policies and procedures.
Delay implementing the EPA Acquisition System until OAM has successfully tested all system
requirements.
Update the EPA Acquisition System Project Schedule to communicate the current status of and
future plans for EPA Acquisition System project activities.
Develop and implement oversight procedures to ensure that further EPA Acquisition System
development activities and future projects adhere to all requirements.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090720-09-P-0197.pdf
22
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
In the OIG report, ECHO Data Quality Audit Phase I Results: The Integrated Compliance Information
System Needs Security Controls to Protect Significant 'Non-Compliance Data, OIG contracted with a firm
and found that end users of the Permit Compliance System and Integrated Compliance Information
System National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) can override the Significant
Non-Compliance data field without additional access controls. This occurs because EPA has not
implemented database security features to restrict access to this field. Further, the ICIS-NPDES database
edit checks do not prevent access to the Significant Non-Compliance field. As a result, users can change
original data without authorization, which could directly affect ICIS-NPDES data made available to the
public via the Enforcement and Compliance History Online System. We recommended that the Director
of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, should implement database security
features to limit the end users' ability to change the Significant Non-Compliance code in ICIS-NPDES.
The Agency agreed with these recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090831-09-P-0226.pdf
INVESTIGATIONS
61 Investigations Closed
47 Investigations Opened
Investigative Results Summary
Environmental and Business Results
$6.2 M Fines, Settlements, Restitutions
$0.3M Cost Efficiencies
12 Convictions of Persons or Firms
14 Indictments/Informations of Persons or Firms
55 Administrative Actions
4 Referrals for Agency Actions
Performance Highlights
As a result of an OIG investigation, on December 15, 2008, in U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Bennett Environmental, Inc. (BEI), a Canadian company, was sentenced to 5 years probation and
ordered to pay a $1,000,000 fine and $1,662,000 in restitution to EPA. The restitution order applies
jointly to BEI and several co-conspirators. This sentencing is a result of BEI's guilty pleas in a bid-
rigging scheme in connection with awarding subcontracts at the Federal Creosote Superfund site in
Manville, New Jersey. In addition, to the criminal sentence, BEI entered into a compliance agreement
with EPA. As part of this agreement, BEI will establish a corporate responsibility program, which
includes establishing ethical standards and a business code of conduct, as well as training its employees in
these areas. This case is being conducted with the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation
Division.
Moshe Rubaskin of Brooklyn, New York, was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on November 4, 2008, to 16 months in prison to be followed by 3 years of supervised
release, and was ordered to pay $450,000 in restitution and a $7,500 fine. Rubaskin previously pled
guilty to storing hazardous waste at a textile factory in Allentown, Pennsylvania. In addition, his son,
Sholom Rubaskin, also pled guilty to making a materially false claim to EPA. On March 24, 2009, his
son was sentenced to 4 months in prison to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, and was ordered
to perform 250 hours of community service and pay a $5,000 fine. In addition, the son will be held
jointly liable, along with his father, for the $450,000 in restitution. This case is being conducted with the
EPA Criminal Investigation Division.
23
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
As a result of an OIG investigation, on April 15, 2009, Brent Anderson, of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was
convicted and sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee for filing a false
material statement in documents required to be maintained by the CAA. Anderson was sentenced to 12
months' probation, and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service and pay a $100 assessment.
Anderson, the Operations Manager for Heraeus Metal Processing, Inc., falsified baghouse pressure logs
and scrubber logs that were required to be maintained at the Heraeus facility in Wartburg, Tennessee,
pursuant to permits issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation under
delegations from EPA. After the falsification became known, Heraeus fully cooperated with the federal
investigation. In January 2009, Heraeus was convicted and sentenced to 18 months' probation and
ordered to pay a $350,000 fine. Based upon the conviction, a CAA Listing was published whereby
Anderson is prohibited from receiving any government contract, loan, or benefit at the violating facility
until the conditions that gave rise to the CAA violation have been corrected. This case is being conducted
with the East Tennessee Environmental Crimes Task Force, which includes EPA Criminal Investigation
Division and OIG, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and the Tennessee
Valley Authority OIG.
As a result of an OIG investigation, on April 24, 2009, Robert Newell, the former governor of the
Passamaquoddy Tribe Indian Township Reservation, and James Parisi, the former finance director under
Newell, were found guilty after a 2-week jury trial in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.
Newell was convicted of conspiring to defraud the United States, intentionally misapplying tribal
government funds, intentionally misapplying funds of a federal health care benefit program, making false
statements to U.S. agencies, and submitting false claims to the government. The charges relate to the use
of restricted funds awarded to the Tribe while Newell was the governor from 2002 to 2006. Parisi was
convicted of conspiracy, intentionally misapplying tribal funds and health care benefit program funds, and
submitting false claims. The investigation established that from 2003 to 2006, Newell and Parisi
conspired to defraud the government by misapplying approximately $1.7 million in restricted federal
funds that had been awarded to the Tribe for the benefit of its tribal programs. This investigation was
conducted with the Offices of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of
Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development; the U.S. Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration; and the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
Justin Vassas was sentenced on November 13, 2008, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana to 6 months of home detention and 5 years probation, and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine. The
sentence relates to Vassas's guilty plea to falsely impersonating an employee of the Federal Government.
After Hurricane Katrina, Vassas sought to obtain monies from an individual by falsely representing that
EPA would reimburse him for costs associated with the clean-up of debris from his property.
Specifically, Vassas attempted to have the individual pay for a trash dumpster that was not needed.
Vassas further attempted to execute his scheme by using information obtained from EPA's Website to
create an employee identification number for a fictitious EPA employee.
As a result of an OIG investigation, on December 3, 2008, Stephanie Jackson, of Arlington, Texas, was
sentenced in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to 3 years probation and ordered to pay
$23,712 in restitution to EPA. Jackson was previously charged in June 2008. Jackson was employed
with The Environmental Careers Organization, Inc. (ECO). ECO placed Jackson in an internship position
with EPA in March 2006; however, EPA contacted ECO within 2 weeks and requested that Jackson be
replaced with another intern. After she left her internship at EPA, Jackson submitted forged timesheets to
ECO, which subsequently continued to pay Jackson a salary for approximately 1 year after her internship
had been terminated. Her salary was paid from funds provided to ECO through an EPA grant.
24
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
In March 2006, the OIG opened a preliminary investigation of EPA asbestos clean-up efforts at the
Superfund site in Libby, Montana, based on allegations that EPA failed to fully address scientific
standards for clean-up and possible contractor misconduct. The investigation determined that no criminal
activity occurred but that further evaluation of potential risks to the public should be considered. Over the
past several years, hundreds of cases of asbestos-related disease have been documented in the Libby area
stemming from asbestos-contaminated vermiculite mined in the area. On April 21, 2009, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed a lawsuit against the OIG seeking the release of the
April 2006 memorandum. The OIG released this memorandum based on new FOIA guidelines issued by
the President and the Attorney General. This information was released in Report No. 09-P-0146, Public
Release of "Rumple Report" on Preliminary Investigation of EPA Clean-up ofAmphibole Asbestos in
Libby Montana, issued April 28, 2009.
U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD
Performance Highlights
In the OIG report, Risk Management Program for Airborne Chemical Releases Can Be Improved, we
found that EPA can improve management and oversight to better assure that facilities covered by the
CAA's RMP submit a Risk Management Plan and comply with Program requirements. We
recommended that EPA implement additional management controls to identify facilities with regulated
chemicals that have not filed Risk Management Plans. We also recommended that EPA develop a risk-
based inspection strategy to target higher-priority facilities for inspection and track progress in
completing inspections. The Agency concurred with all of our recommendations.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/20090210-09-P-0092.pdf
LEGAL REVIEWS
Performance Highlights
No Violations Found in Removal of Comments from Peer Review Report: In response to a request
from the EPA Deputy Administrator, we conducted a review of whether EPA violated existing federal
law, regulations, guidance, or other relevant requirements when it removed the peer review panel chair's
comments from a peer review report on polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). After the completion
of the external peer review of PBDE, EPA received allegations of a lack of impartiality and objectivity by
the chair, Dr. Deborah Rice. EPA examined the allegations, removed Dr. Rice's comments from the
PBDE peer review report, and published an explanatory message in the report and on the associated
Website. Although we did not make a recommendation, we suggested that EPA consider establishing a
process for reviewing allegations of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality raised after a peer review
panel has convened. (Report No. 09-P-0084, No Violations Found Regarding Removal of Comments from
an External Peer Review, January 16, 2009)
Actions to Deny California Emissions Waiver Did Not Deviate from Protocol: In response to a
congressional request from the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the U.S.
Senate's Appropriations Committee, we reviewed whether then EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's
actions to deny California's request for a waiver to implement a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from automobiles satisfied the procedural statutory requirements. On December 19, 2007, the
Administrator sent a letter to California's Governor informing him that EPA "will be denying"
California's waiver request. The explanation for the Administrator's decision was set out in a lengthy
Federal Register decision on March 6, 2008. We found that the Administrator conducted a notice and
hearing phase and based his decision to deny the waiver on one of the three criteria set out in Section
25
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
209(b) of the CAA, which satisfied the procedural statutory requirements. (Report No. 09-P-0056, EPA's
California Waiver Decision on Greenhouse Gas Automobile Emissions Met Statutory Procedural
Requirements, December 9, 2008)
Release of "Talking Points" to Former Administrator Not Found to Be a Violation: In response to a
request from a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, we reviewed the preparation
and subsequent release in October 2007 of talking points related to the California waiver petition to
former EPA Administrator William Reilly and determined that the preparation and release did not
constitute a violation of law, regulation, or policy. We found that Anti-Lobbying Act provisions are not
applicable to these events, and the activities did not violate the ethics regulations governing use of
government equipment, resources, and position. We found that no "inside" or confidential information
had been disclosed, and the preparing of the information was consistent with EPA's unwritten practice of
sharing information with stakeholders. (Report No. 09-P-0043, Response to Congressional Inquiry
Concerning EPA's Preparation and Provision of Information Regarding California Waiver Decision,
November 26, 2008)
BRIEFINGS
Performance Highlights
Acting Inspector General Briefs Key House Appropriators on Challenges Facing EPA: On March 4,
2009, Acting Inspector General Bill Roderick briefed the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, on financial and program
management issues facing the EPA based on prior OIG work. Mr. Roderick identified three financial
management issues warranting attention:
Unliquidated grant obligations, which are funds awarded to recipients that have not been spent.
Superfund special accounts.
Special Appropriation Act Project grants.
Testimony on the Clean Water Act after 37 Years: On October 15, 2009, Wade Najjum, Assistant
Inspector General for Program Evaluation, testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee during a hearing on the challenges facing EPA that bear on its ability to effectively manage,
oversee, and enforce environmental laws, including the CWA. Over the years, the OIG has issued
numerous reports that pertain to aspects of the CWA ranging from EPA's oversight of major facilities in
long-term significant noncompliance, efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, and
delays in establishing water quality standards for nutrients. On the 37th anniversary of the CWA, we
believe that a recommitment to the protection of the nation's waters can be achieved by an EPA that is
strategically aligned to uniformly enforce environmental statutes and provide consistent oversight of its
Regions and State delegations. This will require a comprehensive review of EPA's current organization
and a commitment to implement best practices.
Testimony on the EPA Recovery Act Funding and Oversight Activities: On April 29, 2009, Melissa
Heist, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on the challenges EPA faces in implementing the ARRA and the OIG's plans to oversee EPA
Recovery Act activities. The ARRA provided EPA with $7.2 billion, roughly equal to its FY 2009
appropriation, for six existing EPA programs. The purpose of the ARRA as it applies to EPA is to
preserve and create jobs, promote economic recovery, and invest in environmental protection and other
infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. The OIG found that the EPA must manage
ARRA funds to achieve these purposes while commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as
possible, consistent with prudent management.
26
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
OIG ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Performance Highlights
OIG FY 2010 Annual Plan Designed to Address Agency Risks: The OIG executed a planning process
based upon the Enterprise Risk Management Integrated Framework Model developed by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. This resulted in the development of an FY
2010 strategy and work plan that addresses EPA's most significant environmental and management risks,
priorities, and challenges. The Plan is available at http ://www. epa. gov/oig/planning.htm. The planning
process included developing and updating a comprehensive compendium of risks, challenges, and
opportunities for each Agency management and media area, as well as regional cross-goal and
management issues. The plan lists assignments in progress from FY 2009 for completion in FY 2010,
along with required assignments and those selected to start during the first half of FY 2010, by product
line. This plan, which also provides a summary update on the OIG Strategic Plan, is designed to adjust for
new priorities and conditions while pursuing a program of work that leverages the greatest return on
investment in terms of Agency improvements, performance, and risk reduction.
Legislation and Regulations Reviewed: The OIG analyzed 79 proposed changes to legislation,
regulations, policy, and procedures that could affect EPA and provided comments on 30 of those
reviewed. Items on which the OIG made significant recommendations include the H.R. 1, American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Proposed Resource Management Directive Chapter 2540-16,
Financial Emergency Management Policy Standard and Procedure, Council of Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency Exposure Draft for the Guide for Conducting External Peer Reviews of the Audit
Operations of Offices of Inspector (the Guide), Proposed Revision to the Resource Management Directive
Chapter 2550D-12, Superfund Cost Documentation and Cost Recovery, Interim Agency Guidance
Regarding Communications with Federally Registered Lobbyists about Recovery Act Funds, Proposed
Revision to EPA Order 3110.5A, and Clearance Procedures for Employees Separating or Transferring
from EPA.
OIG Audit Follow-up Strategy Demonstrating Results: The OIG has been implementing a strong
follow-up strategy for increasing both the OIG's and Agency's attention to the process for resolving
(reaching agreement on actions to be taken) and completing agreed-to actions on OIG recommendations.
Follow-up, which is a shared responsibility between the Agency and the OIG, is a process by which the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer monitors and reports on Agency implementation of audit
recommendations, and OIG auditors determine the adequacy, effectiveness, and timeliness of actions
taken by management on all reported audit findings.
To comply with Inspector General Act reporting requirements and help EPA managers gain greater
awareness of outstanding commitments for action, we are now issuing semiannually a "Compendium of
Unimplemented Recommendations." The Compendium is produced as an appendix to each Semiannual
Report to Congress and as well as a stand-alone report issued to Agency management. The identification of
unimplemented recommendations through the Compendium has appeared to result in a significant increase in
corrective actions being taken by the Agency. Additionally, at the OIG's behest, the Agency Annual Integrity
Review Policy and Process now requires an examination of all outstanding audit recommendations. The OIG
is also examining its own process for closing out recommendations leading to successful resolution, and has
enhanced its management information system to provide accountability for each recommendation within the
OIG and through its connection to the Agency's follow-up tacking system.
OIG Quality Assurance Program: The OIG operates a rigorous Quality Assurance Program to provide
objective, timely, and comprehensive reviews to ensure that OIG work complies with pertinent laws,
professional standards, regulations, and policies and procedures, and is carried out efficiently and
27
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
effectively. OIG offices, activities, processes, and products are subject to review. Our OIG Quality
Assurance Program team conducts independent referencing reviews of all draft/final audit and evaluation
reports and ensures conformance with the standards of the Comptroller General and Council of Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency. Our Quality Assurance Program involves:
Report quality assurance.
Quality assurance reviews of audit, evaluation, and investigative activities.
Annual self-assessments of each OIG office.
Administrative program reviews.
Independent internal quality review of OIG performance by an outside firm.
External peer reviews conducted by other OIGs.
Use of a quality assurance checklist.
OIG Internal Control Assessment Identifies Challenges, Areas for Improvement: In accordance with
FMFIA, Agency guidance, and the five GAO internal control standards, OIG has assessed the
effectiveness of its internal controls and operations during this reporting period. In addition, the OIG
assessed the progress to improve weaknesses identified in last year's review. This included a survey of all
OIG employees. As a result, internal controls within the OIG are adequate to reasonably ensure the
protection of programs, operations, functions, and resources against fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement, and the OIG is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulation.
We identified an internal management weakness related to staffing. The OIG has been directed by
Congress to increase staffing. However, for the past 2 years the OIG has been frustrated at the lengthy
process associated with depending upon EPA's Human Capital services. Also, the OIG legacy
investigative case management system has been identified as a weakness, and the OIG is exploring
several case management systems used by agencies within the Inspector General community that perform
a similar investigative function or mission.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
OIG Issues 2008 Annual Performance Report and Statistical Abstract: The OIG issued its Annual
Performance Report for FY 2008, its seventh such annual report. This report has been enhanced with a
statistical abstract. The report presents narrative and statistical summaries of OIG performance, and
demonstrates the OIG's value added and return on investment to the public. The report includes historical
financial and performance data tables that demonstrate time series trends and relationships. This Annual
Performance Report, designed to provide full accountability for the operations of the OIG, supplements
the OIG summary statistics in EPA's FY 2008 Performance Accountability Report. It includes a bulleted
account of OIG performance highlights and operational improvement, financial summaries, management
challenges, summaries of OIG operations and productivity, narrative highlights of how OIG work is
improving EPA operations, and the costs and timeliness of all issued products. The report is available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/AnnualPerformanceReport2008.pdf.
OIG Continues Integrating Technology for Greater Efficiency and Transparency: The OIG
expanded the development and application of its integrated management information system (Inspector
General Enterprise Management System, or IGEMS) by creating a new module for the OIG Performance
Measurement and Results System. This system captures, aggregates, sorts, and reports on the outputs and
monetary and cumulative results of OIG work through a variety of measures. The Performance
Measurement and Results System combines the costs of each assignment by type, timeliness, associated
team members, and quality score for a balanced scorecard and return-on-investment approach to activity
and performance accountability. This system, in conjunction with IGEMS, provides a means to track
actions on individual recommendations to enhance follow-up and accrue continuing outcome results and
benefits attributable to OIG recommendations. The Performance Measurement and Results System
28
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
provides real-time performance progress reporting against annual Government Performance and Results
Act targets, and will be used to fulfill the OIG reporting requirements of the Recovery Act.
EPA Needs to Strengthen Its Guidance for Reporting on Internal Control Assessments: In a January
30, 2009, memorandum to the Acting Chief Financial Officer, we pointed out that EPA's FY 2009
guidance for implementing FMFIA, while citing all five elements only required program offices to report
on the Control Environment. Reporting on all elements would enhance the effectiveness of the internal
control assessment process and provide added support for the program offices' annual assurance letters.
We suggested that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer revise its FY 2009 FMFIA guidance to
require program offices to report on all five aspects of the internal control standards. In response to our
memorandum, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer indicated it plans to revise the template for FY
2010. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer also agreed to strengthen the 2009 personal statements of
assurance required of all Assistant and Regional Administrators in their assurance letters to the
Administrator to specifically require that they assessed effectiveness of internal controls based on the
Government Accountability Office's five standards.
Costs of Financial Statement Audits Reduced 39 Percent: A "Most Efficient Organization"
independent validation report issued by a contractor on September 11, 2009, found that the EPA OIG's
cost to conduct the FY 2008 financial statement audits in FY 2009 was 39 percent lower than the baseline
figure used under the OMB Circular A-76 process. The study was conducted by a contractor selected by
EPA. The OIG had won a sourcing competition under OMB Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial
Activities, to conduct annual audits of EPA's Consolidated Financial Statements, the Pesticide
Registration Fund, and the Pesticides Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund for the 5-year period
beginning March 1, 2008. The actual cost of the three audits was approximately $1.2 million less than the
amount the OIG incurred conducting these audits for FY 2006 - the baseline year. In addition to the cost
findings, the independent review found that technical and cost performance was being adequately
monitored, and that technical performance was of above-average acceptable quality. The review was not
an audit, and there is no formal corrective action process connected to the review.
OIG Reviews EPA's FY 2008 Draft Performance and Accountability Report: Our review of EPA's
FY 2008 draft Performance and Accountability Report found the report to, overall, be complete in its
fulfillment of Government Performance and Results Act requirements. Congress directed OIGs to
annually review and report on their agencies' general compliance with the Government Performance and
Results Act. We fulfilled this direction by reviewing and reporting to the Agency on its draft annual
Performance Accountability Report. We generally did not verify the accuracy of the data. EPA's draft had
a number of improvements based on our suggestions in prior years, and continues the positive trend of
being more specific. However, the report had areas that still needed to be structurally strengthened. For
example:
Better balance and perspective needed.
Greater emphasis on collaboration and relative contribution needed.
EPA results narrow (not recognizing the confluence of integrated program activity).
In response to our review comments, EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer made a number
of improvements in the final version of the Agency's Performance and Accountability Report.
29
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the OIG to report on the Agency's most serious management
and performance challenges, known as the Key Management Challenges. Management Challenges represent
vulnerabilities in program operations and their susceptibility to fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement. This
fiscal year, the OIG identified three new challenges. The Agency took sufficient action on three previous
challenges and they were removed from the list. The table below includes issues the OIG identified as Key
Management Challenges facing EPA and the relationship of the issues to the Agency's Strategic Plan and the
President's Management Agenda.
EPA s Top Major Management Challenges PY py FY Strateqic
Reported by the Office of Inspector General 2007 2008 2009 Goal
Management of Stimulus Funds: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) will
provide EPA with $7.2 billion through FY 201 1 . The Agency will face significant challenges in meeting
ARRA requirements while carrying out its ongoing programs. Monitoring recipients' activities while
commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as possible will present further challenges. The
ARRA grants EPA awards require additional monitoring and oversight. EPA will need to rely heavily on
State agencies, as the primary funding recipients, to properly monitor sub-recipients' use of funds.
Superfund work will generally be awarded with contracts, and with the emphasis on starting work
quickly, EPA needs to make sure contractors are ready and able to accept the additional work.
EPA's Organization and Infrastructure: EPA has about 140 offices and laboratories. Due to
diminishing resources, the autonomous nature of regional and local offices and the growing pressure to
expand its role globally, EPA will be challenged to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of its current
structure.
Performance Measurement: EPA must focus on the logic and design of its measures for success and
efficiency, along with data standards and consistent definitions, to ensure that adequate information is
obtained and used to evaluate and manage EPA programs, operations, processes, and results.
Threat and Risk Assessments: EPA does not comprehensively assess threats to human health and the
environment across the environmental media for which EPA is responsible (air, water, etc.) to ensure
actions are planned, coordinated, and budgeted most efficiently and effectively. This fragmentary
approach continues because environmental laws often focus on single media or threats.
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure: Drinking water and wastewater treatment systems are
reaching the end of their life cycle, and huge investments will be needed to replace, repair, and
construct facilities.
Meeting Homeland Security Requirements: EPA needs to implement a strategy to effectively
coordinate and address threats, including developing a scenario to identify resource needs, internal and
external coordination points, and responsible and accountable entities.
Oversight of Delegations to States: Many States and tribes are responsible for implementing EPA's
programs, enforcing laws and regulations, and reporting on program performance, with EPA retaining
oversight responsibility. Inconsistent capacity and interpretation among State and tribal entities limit
accountability and compliance.
Chesapeake Bay Program: After more than 20 years of effort by federal, State, and local governments,
Bay waters remain degraded; required nutrient and sediment reductions will not be met by the 2010
target. EPA needs to institute management controls ensuring that actions to manage land development,
agricultural runoff, nutrient reduction technology, and air emissions are implemented, and that consistent
sources of funding are identified by EPA partners.
Voluntary Programs: EPA must ensure that voluntary approaches and innovative or alternative
practices are managed using standards, consistent processes, and verifiable data. This is needed to ensure
that programs are efficiently and effectively providing intended and claimed environmental benefits.
Safe Reuse of Contaminated Sites: In the last decade, EPA has placed increasing emphasis on reusing
contaminated or once-contaminated properties. However, EPA's managing of long-term oversight and
monitoring for the safe use of these sites increasingly lagged as EPA continues to heavily promote
reusing these sites without the investment needed to ensure safety.
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-
Goal
Goal 2
Goal 4
Cross-Goal
Goal 4
Goal 5
Goal 2
Goal 4
Cross-Goal
GoalS
Goal 4
30
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
In FY 2009, for the 10th straight year, the OIG reported no material weaknesses under the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act. Further, the OIG continues to make progress in addressing reported
OIG-level weaknesses. Several of the weaknesses identified in FY 2008 were not fully resolved in FY
2009 because of their complexity.
OIG - Level Weakness
Information Technology
Product Timeliness and Quality
Office Security - Controls Over Equipment
Communication Equipment/Accuracy of WCF Charges
Freedom of Information Act Requests
Staffing
Organizational Structure
Records Management
Follow-up on Corrective Actions - Data Quality
Policies and Procedures
Investigative Case Management
The OIG took the following steps during FY 2009 to assess and improve management controls:
Continued to develop and transfer OIG applications into a common IT infrastructure, IGEMS,
with the goal of achieving a fully-integrated system with single sign-on capabilities;
Achieved 98% rating for processing system patches to address emerging security vulnerabilities;
Implemented formal Data Dissemination Procedures to control and protect release of sensitive
Personally Identifiable Information;
Issued a Malicious Code Security Policy to implement controls to minimize the risk that
malicious code may compromise the availability, integrity and/or confidentiality of OIG
information on user computers, mobile devices, and network resources;
Revised the OIG policy for protecting PII to incorporate new restrictions for transporting and
storing sensitive PII;
Received top security scores for implementing Federal Information Security Management Act
requirements: 100% with respect to the maturity of our security program, and 99% and 96% for
compliance with Windows and NetWare security requirements, respectively;
Coordinated and implemented OIG responsibilities for planning, measuring, evaluating, and
reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act, FMFIA, and the Inspector General
Act as well as requirements of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency;
Coordinated all budgeting, controllership, and financial management for the OIG including
development of the Annual Performance Targets and Budget Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget, Congressional Justification, Operating Plan, Working Capital Fund
service agreements, accounting codes, and monthly Status of Resources reports;
Reviewed and commented on regulatory and policy issues and Agency directives;
Produced the OIG FY 2008 Annual Performance Report;
Conducted an OIG FMFIA internal control review and reporting process;
31
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Entered into an Interagency Agreement with OPM to improve the OIG hiring process;
Prepared periodic vacancy and FTE reports to show status by office, of staffing levels and
projections, including ARRA, linked to the budget;
Prepared quarterly Congressional reports on OIG staffing and vacancy levels;
Coordinated planning process by theme leading to the development of an Annual Work Plan with
an updated revision of the strategic plan goals;
Developed revised cost accounting process for individual office direct product rates and overhead
allocation rates - fully transparent;
Prepared semiannual compendiums of unimplemented recommendations;
Performed organization-wide assessment of results and accomplishments;
Participated in Agency, RAT Board and OIG level performance and activity measurement
process for public reporting;
Worked with the Agency on Recovery Act matters to provide for adequate controls and minimize
fraud, waste, and abuse;
Initiated Recovery Act audit assignments to provide independent assessments of selected
Recovery Act matters;
Established an Efficiency Audits Product Line to better support mission accomplishment;
Attended specialized training courses and seminars offered by organizations such as the
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners;
Attended numerous job fairs to improve recruitment efforts;
Identified a weakness in the Agency's approval process for GovTrip and initiated an evaluation of
those controls.
32
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Audit/ Evaluation Activity and Agency Action Investigative Activity
Reports Issued
Reviews performed by OIG
Reviews performed by Independ. Public Accountants
Reviews by another Federal Agency
Single Audit Reviews
TOTAL Reports
Monetary Results (in millions)
Questioned EPA costs - OIG performed
Questioned EPA costs from DCAA/OIG coordinated
* Cost efficiencies - OIG performed
Cost efficiencies from DCAA/OIG coordinated
Questioned EPA Costs sustained (from current and
prior periods)
Cost efficiencies sustained (from current and prior
periods)
Reports resolved (from current and prior periods)
Agency recoveries (from current and prior periods)
Audit Resolution (Dollars in Millions) Questioned
Recommendations as Costs
With no management decision start
FY 2009 (50)
Issued in FY 2009 (46)
Total inventory -net (96)
Agreed to/sustained by management
or value of nonawards (not including
prior to issuance) (45)
* Not agreed/sustained to by
management (21)
With no management decision,
end FY 2009 (41)
Percent of total costs agreed to by mgmt.
Total audits with no final actions as of
9/30/09 which are over 365 days past
acceptance of a management decision:
79 reports
o Program 35
o Assist Agreemt 25
o Contract 0
o Single Audits 19
o Financial Statement 0
Reports with costs for which no
management decision was made
within 6 months of issuance at 9/30/09:
28 reports. All reports- 55.
Reports resolved: 178
$21.9
$14.8
$36.6
$4.0
$2.8
*$29.6
11%
$16.4
66
12
37
138
253
$1.5
$13.3
$62.3
$0.0
$3.9
$49.5
178
$17.4
Investigations opened
Investigations closed
Pending investigations as of
9/30/09
Indictments persons/firms
Convictions persons/firms
Administrative actions: EPA
employees/firms
Civil judgments
Fines and recoveries (in millions)
Cost Savings
Prison time in months
Suspended time in months
Probation in months
Community service in hours
61
47
104
14
12
55
0
$6.1
$0.3
162
6
626
340
Efficiencies Other
$60.6
$62.3
$122.9
$48.3
$55.8
*$25.0
20%
$1.5
Hotline inquiries received
Hotline inquiries closed
Hotline inquiries pending 9/30/09
Public inquiries addressed
without opening complaint
Referrals to other offices
Legislative/regulatory/policy
items reviewed
Legislative/regulatory/policy items
upon which comments and
suggestions were made
568
561
7
32
529
79
30
"Any difference in number of reports and dollar amounts are from adjustments and corrections made in our tracking system between
semiannual reporting periods.
33
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
In FY 2009, EPA was responsible for addressing OIG recommendations and tracking follow-up activities for
387 audits. The Agency achieved final action (completing all corrective actions associated with the audit) on
153 audits, which included program evaluation/program performance, assistance agreement, and single
audits.
Category
A. Audits with management decisions but without final
action at the beginning of the period
B. Audits for which management decisions were made
during the period
(i) Management decisions with disallowed costs (34) and
with better use funds (7)
(ii) Management decisions with no disallowed costs (90)
and with no better use funds (38)
C. Total audits pending final action during the period (A+B)
D. Final action taken during the period:
(i) Recoveries
a) Offsets
b) Collection
c) Value of Property
d) Other
( ii) Write-Offs
( iii) Reinstated Through Grantee Appeal
(iv) Value of recommendations completed
(v) Value of recommendations management decided
should/could not be completed
E. Audits without final action at end of period (C-D)
Disallowed Costs
(Financial Audits)
Number
63
124
187
122
65
Value
$63,447,950
$3,790,009
$67,237,959
$1,776,103
$148,187
$589,969
$0
$1,037,947
$0
$0
$65,461,856
Number
10
45
55
31
24
Funds Put to
Better Use
(Performance
Audits)
Value
$114,389,201
$39,512,127
$153,901,328
$50,151,122
$50,097,923
$53,199
$103,750,206
Final corrective action not taken. Of the 387 audits that EPA tracked, a total of 204 auditswhich
include program evaluation/program performance, assistance agreement, contracts, and single
auditswere without final action and not yet fully resolved at the end of FY 2009. (The 30 audits
with management decisions under administrative appeal by the grantee are not included in the 204
total; see discussion below.)
Final corrective action not taken beyond one year. Of the 204 audits, EPA officials had not
completed final action on 51 audits within one year after the management decision (the point at which
OIG and the Action Official reach agreement on the corrective action plan). Because the issues to be
addressed may be complex, Agency managers often require more than one year after management
decisions are reached with OIG to complete the agreed-on corrective actions. These audits are listed
below by categoryaudits of program performance and single auditsand identified by title and
responsible office. Additional details are available on EPA's Web site at
www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2009par.
Audits of program performance. Final action for program performance audits occurs when all corrective
actions have been implemented, which may require more than one year when corrections are complex and
lengthy. Some audits include recommendations requiring action by more than one office. EPA is tracking
35 audits in this category:
34
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Office of Administrator
2008-P00055 Emergency Response Business Plan
Office of Air
2005-P00010
2007-P00028
2006-P00025
Evaluation of CAA Title V Operating Permit Quality
Effectiveness of Energy Star
Mercury Hot Spots Analysis Under CAMR
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
2008-POO116 Superfund Expenditures at NPL TRA Sites
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
2001-P00013
2005-P00024
2007-P00026
2007-P00027
2008-P00141
State Enforcement EffectivenessNational Audit
Priority Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Universe
Status of Superfund Alternative Sites With No Signed Agreement
Benchmarking Other Organizations Statistically Valid Compliance
EPA Needs to Track Compliance w/SF Clean-up Requirements
Office of Environmental Information
2005-P00011 Remote Access Servers and Configurations Management
2007-P00007 Managing Contractor Systems and Reporting Incidents
2007-P00008 EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe Software
2007-P00030 EPA's Implementation of Electronic Data Collection
2007-P00035 EPA's Protection of PII and Privacy Program Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
2006-P00009
2003-P00012
2006-P00013
2006-P00016
2006-P00038
2006-P00007
2007-200003
2007-P00005
2007-P00002
2008-P00055
Office of Water
2002-P00012
2004-P00030
2006-P00016
2006-P00007
2007-P00036
2008-P00083 AATribal Grants Results
Impact of Data Gaps on EPA's Implementation of FQPA
EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse
SF Mandate: Program Efficiencies
EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sediments
Hurricane Katrina
More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products
Superfund Cooperative Agreement Obligations
Review of RCRA Interim Status Permits
Asbestos Cleanup in Libby Montana
Emergency Response Business Plan
Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows
EPA's Pretreatment Program
EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sediments
More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products
Planning for Future TMDL Reviews
Region 2
2007-P00039
2007-P00016
Region 3
2007-P00031
2008-P00049
OIG Congressional Request-Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund
Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site
Chesapeake Bay Land Use
Chesapeake Bay Point Sources
35
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Single audits. Final action for single audits occurs when non-monetary compliance actions are completed.
Achieving final action may require more than a year if the findings are complex or the grantee does not have
the resources to take corrective action. Single audits are conducted of nonprofit organizations, universities,
and state and local governments. EPA is tracking completion of corrective action on 11 single audits for the
period beginning October 1, 2008.
Region 9
2006-300185 Guam Waterworks Authority FY 2004
Region 10
2002-300009 Iliama Village Council
2002-300042 Iliama Village Council
2003-300047 Stevens Village Council
2003-300117 Stevens Village Council
2003-300145 Circle Village Council
2004-300011 Northway Village Council
2005-300084 Hoonah Indian AssociationFY 2002
2006-300085 Stevens Village Council FY 2003
2006-300167 State of AlaskaFY 2003
2006-300168 State of AlaskaFY 2004
Audits of assistance agreements. Reaching final action for assistance agreement audits may require more than
one year, as the grantee may appeal, refuse to repay, or be debarred.
Office of Grants and Debarment
2004-400014 Consumer Federation of America FoundationCosts Claimed
Region 3
2001-100101 Center for Chesapeake Communities (CCC) Assist. Agreements
Region 5
2008-200039 Village of Laurelville, Ohio
Re-opened audits. During a recent review, OIG identified two audits for which Final Action was taken
although all corrective actions had not been completed. As a result, these audits have been reactivated:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
08-1-0032 Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements
Office of Environmental Information
2004-P-00013 EPA's Administration of Network Firewalls Needs Improvement
Audits awaiting decision on appeal. EPA regulations allow grantees to appeal management decisions on
financial assistance audits that seek monetary reimbursement from the recipient. In the case of an appeal,
EPA must not take action to collect the account receivable until the Agency issues a decision on the appeal.
At the end of FY 2009, 30 audits were in administrative appeal.
36
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Office of Air and Radiation
2007-P-00028 ENERGY STAR Program Can Strengthen Controls Protecting the Integrity of the
Label
2005-P-00010 Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and Oversight of Title V Permits If
Program Goals Are to Be Fully Realized
Office of Administration and Resources Management
09-P-0055 Results of Technical Network Vulnerability Assessment: EPA's Research Triangle Park
Campus
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
09-1-0026 Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2008 and 2007 Consolidated Financial Statements
08-P-0116 EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money
08-1-0032 Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
08-P-0116 EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money
2007-P-00027 Overcoming Obstacles to Measuring Compliance: Practices in Selected Federal Agencies
Office of Environmental Information
09-P-0129 EPA Can Improve Managing of Working Capital Fund Overhead Costs
09-P-0097 Results of Technical Network Vulnerability Assessment: EPA Headquarters
09-P-0055 Results of Technical Network Vulnerability Assessment: EPA's Research Triangle Park
Campus
2007-P-00008 EPA Could Improve Controls Over Mainframe System Software
2007-P-00007 EPA Could Improve Processes for Managing Contractor Systems and Reporting Incidents
2005-P-00011 Security Configuration and Monitoring of EPA's Remote Access Methods Need
Improvement
2004-P-00013 EPA's Administration of Network Firewalls Needs Improvement
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
2006-P-00009 Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children's Health through the Food Quality
Protection Act
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
08-P-0265 EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reduce Unliquidated Obligations in Brownfields Pilot
Grants
2006-P-00038 Existing Contracts Enabled EPA to Quickly Respond to Hurricane Katrina: Future
Improvement Opportunities Exist
2006-P-00013 EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources
Office of Water
08-P-0266 EPA Assisting Tribal Water Systems but Needs to Improve Oversight
2006-P-00016 EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments
2006-P-00007 More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products
2004-P-00030 EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program
37
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Region 3
08-P-0235
08-P-0199
08-P-0049
Region 4
09-P-0119
Region 6
09-P-0029
EPA Decisions to Delete Superfund Sites Should Undergo Quality Assurance Review
EPA Needs to Better Report Chesapeake Bay Challenges - A Summary Report
Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Improved Management of Superfund Special Accounts Will Make More Funds
Available for Clean-ups
EPA's Safety Determination for Delatte Metals Superfund Site Was Unsupported
38
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
OIG Budget Boost Initiates Staffing Increases - But Progress in Staffing
is Slow
The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 provided the EPA OIG with a FY 2009 budget funding level of
$54,766,000. Additionally, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided the OIG with
$20,000,000 through FY 2013.
In accordance with a congressional directive to increase its staffing level to that of prior years, and at the
same time recruit staff to fulfill the oversight requirements of ARRA, the OIG is continuing a hiring initiative
consistent with available funds. Difficulties with the hiring process while relying on Agency services has
hindered the OIG's efforts to increase its staffing level as quickly as anticipated. However, the OIG was able
to hire 35 new employees during FY 2009, and an additional 41 staffing actions were in various stages of the
recruitment and selection process at the end of the fiscal year.
The lag in the hiring process created a two year gap between funding and staffing levels. FY 2008 funds
planned for the unfulfilled staffing level were carried over into 2009, and subsequently unused staffing funds
from FY 2009 were then carried forward into FY 2010. The OIG will use these carryover funds, in addition
to new FY 2010 funding, to support increased staffing levels as much as possible.
The OIG compensated for the gap in its ability to obtain specialized skills by using the statutory authority of
the IG Act, as amended, to take several decisive actions ensuring both its independence and more efficient
personnel staffing services. During FY 2009 the OIG entered an Interagency Agreement to use the services
of the Office of Personnel Management to expedite staff recruitment and processing actions, obtained
delegated examining authority from the Office of Personnel Management to make direct hiring decisions, and
is seeking the services of a private contractor as its primary source for human resources functions.
Additionally, to ensure OIG independence and expedite the availability of contractual services consistent with
the Inspector General Act, as amended, the OIG has established an independent contracting operation with
unlimited contracting authority.
Below is chart of the OIG budget and staffing history, FY 2000 through FY2010.
Historical Budget and Manpower Summary
Fiscal Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Enacted Budget
(after rescissions
where applicable)
$43,379,700
$45,493,700
$45,886,000
$48,425,200
$50,422,800
$50,542,400
$50,241,000
$50459,000
$52,585,000
$54,800,000
$54,800,000
On-Board Staff
(as of October 1)
340
351
354
348
363
365
350
326
290
304
316
Expenditures
(including carryover)
$39,364,100
$41,050,807
$45,238,608
$46,023,048
$52,212,862
$61,733,781
$49,583,584
$48,658,217
$52,231,690
$52,272,812
TBD
39
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Resource Usage by Appropriation
FY 2008 Appropriation - Final Utilization Rate
Account
$ Appropriation Available $ Appropriation Used % $ Appropriation Used
Management
Superfund
TOTAL
$41,035,000
11,485,979
$52,520,979
$41,016,824
11,455,812
$52,472,636
FY 2009 Appropriation Usage
Account $ Appropriation Available $ Appropriation Used
100.0%
99.7%
99.9%
% $ Appropriation Used
Management
Superfund
TOTAL
$44,721,000
9,975,000
$54,696,000
$35,508,800
8,900,253
$44,409,053
79.4%
89.2%
81.2%
FY 2009 FTE Usage
Account
Management
Superfund
TOTAL
FY 09 FTE Available
270.0
61.8
331.8
FY 09 FTE Used
232.6
60.1
292.7
% FTE Budget Used
86.1%
97.2%
88.2%
*FY 2008 funds were available through FY 2009 **Unused FY 2009 funds are available through FY 2010
FY 2009 Funds Used (FY 08 Carryover and
FY 09 Appropriation) By Object Class: $52.272.811
Internal Contracts
$1,306,014
Work Contracts
$1,373,398
Training
$588,819
Travel
$2,180,968
FY 2009 FTEs Used By Component: Total 292.7
Investigations
46.4
Immediate IG
5.4
WCF
$4,691,836
Awards, $584,940
Salaries
$39,932,133
Program Evaluation
86.4
Congressional
Public Affairs &
Mgmt
22.9
Mission Systems
41.3
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Analysis of FY 2009 Fund Use and Carryover Balances
MANAGEMENT
PC&B
Travel
Expenses
Contracts
WCF
Grants
Total Mgmt
FY08
Carryover
Avail in 09
$4,562,842
956,331
170,836
173,881
390,000
760
FY08
Carryover
Used in 09
$4,557,393
953,994
169,663
171,792
383,632
FY08
Lapsed
Funds
$5,449
2,337
1,173
2,089
6,368
760
FY 2009
Approp.
$35,369,000
1,899,000
1,327,000
2,603,000
3,438,000
85,000
FY 2009
Funds
Used in 09
$27,586,115
787,317
1,098,193
2,514,175
3,438,000
85,000
FY 2009
Carryover
Avail in 10
$7,782,885
1,111,683
228,807
88,825
0
0
Total Cost
of FY 09
Operations
$32,143,508
1,741,311
1,267,856
2,685,967
3,821,632
85,000
Total Cost
as % of
09 Approp
91%
92%
96%
103%
111%
100%
$6,254,650 $6,236,474 $18,176 $44,721,000 $35,508,800
$9,212,200 $41,745,274
93%
SUPERFUND
PC&B
Travel
Expenses
Contracts
WCF
Grants
Total SF
FY08
Carryover
Avail in 09
$1,162,764
289,655
47,437
47,326
110,000
269
FY08
Carryover
Used in 09
$1,140,485
287,674
45,893
45,028
108,204
FY08
Lapsed
Funds
$22,279
1,981
1,544
2,298
1,796
269
FY 2009
Approp.
$7,921,000
422,000
272,000
582,000
762,000
16,000
FY 09 Funds
Used in 09
$7,233,080
151,983
200,954
537,236
762,000
15,000
FY 2009
Carryover
$687,920
270,017
71,046
44,764
0
1,000
Total Cost
of FY 09
Operations
$8,373,565
439,657
246,847
582,264
870,204
15,000
$1,657,451 $1,627,284 $30,167
$9,975,000
$8,900,253
$1,074,747 $10,527,537
Total Cost
as % of
09 Approp
106%
104%
91%
100%
114%
94%
106%
Total Mgmt & SF
$7,912,101° $7,863,758 $48,343 $54,696,000 $44,409,053 $10,286,947 $52,272,811
96%
41
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
Performance Database: The OIG Performance Measurement and Results System captures and
aggregates information on an array of measures in a logic model format, linking immediate outputs with
long-term intermediate outcomes and results. OIG performance measures are designed to demonstrate
value added by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and preventing and detecting fraud,
waste, and abuse as described by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (as amended). Because intermediate
and long-term results may not be realized for several years, only verifiable results are reported in the year
completed.
Data Source: Designated OIG staff enters data into the systems. Data are from OIG performance
evaluations, audits, research, court records, EPA documents, data systems, and reports that track
environmental and management actions or improvements made and risks reduced or avoided. OIG also
collects independent data from EPA's partners and stakeholders.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: OIG performance results are a chain of linked events, starting
with OIG outputs leading to subsequent actions taken by EPA or its stakeholders/partners reported as
intermediate outcomes to improve operational efficiency and environmental program delivery. The
resulting improvements in operational efficiency, risks reduced/eliminated, and conditions of
environmental and human health are reported as outcomes. The OIG can only control its outputs, and has
no authority, beyond its influence, to implement its recommendations that lead to environmental and
management outcomes.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures: All performance data submitted to the database
require at least one verifiable source assuring data accuracy and reliability. Data quality assurance and
control are performed as an extension of OIG products and services, subject to rigorous compliance with
the Government Auditing Standards of the Comptroller General Government Auditing Standards (2003
Revision), Government Accountability Office, GAO-07-731G, July 2007; available on the Internet at
http ://www. gap. gov/govaud/vbkO 1 .htm, and regularly reviewed by an independent OIG Quality
Assessment Review Team, and external independent peer reviews. Each Assistant Inspector General
certifies the completeness and accuracy of his or her respective performance data. Additionally, the EPA
OIG earned a "clean" or unmodified opinion in FY 2007 through a rigorous peer review performed the
previous year.
Data Limitations: All OIG staff is responsible for data accuracy in their products and services.
However, a possibility of incomplete, miscoded, or missing data in the system could exist due to human
error or time lags. Data supporting achievement of results are often from indirect or external sources,
with their own methods or standards for data verification/validation.
Error Estimate: The error rate for outputs is estimated at +1-2%, while the error rate for outcomes is
presumably greater because of the longer period needed for realizing results and difficulty in verifying a
nexus between our work and subsequent impacts beyond our control. Errors tend to be those of omission.
42
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009*
FY2010*
OIG Appropriation:
Enacted
Used
FTE:
Authorized
Used
$50,542,400
$61,733,781
368.0
358.0
$50,241,000
$49,583,584
361.8
337.1
$50,509,000
$48,752,387
361.8
308.1
$52,585,000
$51,628,082
331.8
287.8
$54,800,000
$52,272,811
331
292.7
$54,800,000
TBD
361.8
TBD
Annual Performance
Measures Supporting Indicators Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Targets Actual Targets
Environmental and Business
Actions Taken for Improved
Performance from OIG Work
(outcomes)
Environmental and Business
Recommendations or Risks
Identified for Corrective
Action by OIG Work
(outputs)
Potential Monetary Return
on Investment in the OIG, as
a Percentage of the OIG
Budget
(in millions)
Criminal, Civil,
Administrative and Fraud
Prevention Actions Taken
from OIG Work
Activity
o Policy, process, practice or control
changes implemented
o Environmental or operational risks
reduced or eliminated
o Critical congressional or public
concerns resolved
o Certifications, verification, or
analysis for decision or assurance
o Recommendations or best
practices identified for
implementation
o Risks or new management
challenges identified for action
o Critical congressional/public
actions addressed or referred for
action
o Recommended questioned costs
o Recommended cost efficiencies
and savings
o Fines, penalties, settlements,
restitutions
o Criminal convictions
o Indictments/Informations
o Civil judgments
o Administrative actions (staff
actions and suspension or
debarments)
o Audit/Evaluation Reports
OIG Issued
288
895
150%
$75.8
80
794
1231
285%
$144
125
65
303
925
150%
$73.5
80
407
1024
1600%
$809.6
121
65
318
925
150%
75.7
80
464
949
189%
$95.2
103
71
334
971
150%
$78.5
80
463
624
186%
$97.3
84
57
318
903
120%
$65.7
(without
DCAA
work)
80
272
983
120%
$83.3
(without
DCAA
work)
95
66
318
903
120%
$65.7
75
All targets are set, consistent with relative changes in funding. Outputs change in nearly direct proportion, while outcomes are further adjusted for growth because a lag
generally occurs between all previous outputs (recommendations) before they come to fruition as outcomes (action on recommendations).
Does not include Funds, FTE or performance results associated with the Recovery Act.
43
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Performance Report Fiscal Year 2009
ARRA is an unprecedented effort to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and address
long-neglected challenges emerging in the 21st century. The Recovery Act includes $7.22 billion for
programs administered by EPA to protect and promote both green jobs and a healthier environment.
The Recovery Act of provides the EPA OIG with $20 million through September 30, 2012 for oversight
and review. The OIG will assess whether EPA uses its $7.2 billion of Recovery Act funds in accordance
with its requirements and meets the accountability objectives as defined by OMB. The OIG will utilize
the funds to determine whether:
funds are awarded and distributed in a prompt, fair, and reasonable manner;
recipients and uses of funds are transparent to the public, and the public benefits of these funds
are reported clearly, accurately, and in a timely manner;
funds are used for authorized purposes and instances of fraud, waste, error, and abuse are mitigated;
projects funded under the Recovery Act avoid unnecessary delays and cost overruns;
program goals are achieved, including specific program outcomes and improved results on
broader economic indicators.
For more information on the Office of the Inspector General and its implementation of Recovery Act
activities, visit http://www.epa.gov/oig/recovery.htm.
OIG Recovery Act Resource Use as of September 30, 2009:
Total Obligations-$1,522,881
Total FTE - 9.4
Proqram Accomplishments as of September 30, 2009
FY09 Cum. Long-
Results term
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Performance Measures 7 months Target1
Number of environmental and business actions taken, improvements made or risks
reduced in response to or influenced by OIG recommendations
Number of OIG recommendations or risks identified for action, correction or
improvement
Number of convictions, indictments, civil and administrative actions as well as
allegations disproved from OIG investigations
Number of awareness briefings, outreach briefings, and training sessions held^
Individuals trained
Number of Recovery Act complaints received"*
Completed final published work products
Investigations completed
Complaints received
Number of whistleblower reprisal allegations4
2
8
63
2247
13
7
2
13
0
222
402
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
All targets are set, consistent with relative changes in funding and staffing levels. Output
targets change in nearly direct proportion to funding and staffing, while outcome targets are
adjusted recognizing a time lag required for output products (recommendations) to be to
acted upon as intermediate outcomes, and have then to be recognized as having intended
impact outcomes.
The long-term targets set for OIG extend until 2014. The work of OIG will continue after all the Recovery Act funds are spent.
2
No targets are set for this measure because the briefings and training sessions are voluntary and cannot be projected.
No targets are set for this measure because complaints received cannot be projected.
No targets are set for this measure because whistleblower reprisal allegations cannot be projected.
44
------- |