EPA-350-R 11-001
February 2011
^
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Annual Superfund
Report to Congress
for Fiscal Year 2010
-------
OIG Scoreboard Summary ofSuperfund Results
Fiscal Year 2010
Office of Inspector General (OIG) Goal: Contribute to human health and environmental quality
through improved business practices, accountability, and integrity of program operations.
Below are Superfund results of OIG work in terms of outputs, actions by EPA, and impacts.
Dollars in thousands
Audits, Program Evaluations, and Special Reviews
1 EPA policy, practice, process change
2 Actions taken or resolved prior to report issuance
12 Certifications, verifications, validations, or corrections
87 Recommendations for improvement/risk identified/awareness briefings
10 Referrals for Agency action from audits and investigations
8 Sustained environmental or business recommendations
$16.6 Questioned costs
$1,726 Cost efficiencies/savings/funds put to better use3
Investigative Operations
$123.3 Fines and restitution
9 Administrative actions taken
2 Convictions of persons or firms
Sources: Performance Measurement and Results System, Inspector General Enterprise Management System,
Inspector General Operations and Reporting System, and other OIG reports.
a Includes savings from investigative operations.
To find out more about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General and its activities, visit our website at:
http://www.epa.gov/oig
Cover photo: Monitoring well MW-7 at the remediated PAB Oil and Chemical Services, Inc.,
Superfund Site, Abbeville, Louisiana, March 2008. (EPA OIG photo)
Printed on 100% recycled paper (minimum 50% postconsumer)
-------
This report covers fiscal year 2010 Superfund activity of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General
(OIG). The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
requires the OIG to annually audit the Superfund program and report the
results to Congress.
In July 2009, EPA decided to obligate approximately $211 million in
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds to Superfund
contractors. We found that EPA had not completed in a timely manner
83 percent of the required performance evaluations for contractors
awarded Recovery Act funds. As a result, the Agency risked providing
funds to contractors with a history of cost control and performance issues.
EPA did not sufficiently document information in its Superfund
independent government cost estimates for 30 of 42 cases reviewed. EPA
limits its ability to negotiate a fair and reasonable price for Superfund
contracts when it does not have a well-supported independent government
cost estimate. Additionally, in 9 of the 42 cases, EPA did not update the
estimates when significant changes occurred. In 8 of the 42 cases, EPA
program staff accepted the contractor's estimate without evaluating why it
differed from the independent government cost estimate.
A U.S. Representative requested that we investigate the events
surrounding a response to an April 25, 2009, telephone report of a leaking
well in Skyland, North Carolina. We found that the National Response
Center did not provide EPA with calls or voicemail messages from the
telephone report. When the Agency was informed of the leak, EPA's
on-scene coordinator contacted the constituent and arranged for
permanent repairs to the well, which were completed on April 28, 2009.
For Five-Year Reviews signed since 2006 for EPA Superfund sites,
84 percent of the review recommendations were overdue as of April 28,
2009. Superfund Five-Year Reviews represent a required process for
examining the cleanup remedies at Superfund sites to determine whether
remedies adequately protect human health and the environment.
The OIG is testing long-term monitoring results at Superfund sites that
EPA has deleted from the National Priorities List. During fiscal year
2010, we conducted four such reviews. We found that Pennsylvania did
not collect ground water samples for a site in Bruin, Pennsylvania, from
2001 to 2007. We found that more sampling and EPA oversight are
needed at a site near Dover, Delaware. Our independent ground water
sampling results for sites in Abbeville, Louisiana, and near Janesville,
Wisconsin, were generally consistent with EPA's historical results.
Our criminal investigative work resulted in 2 additional sentencings, as
well as additional fines and restitution, in connection with a bid rigging
case at the Federal Creosote Superfund site in Manville, New Jersey. To
date, eight individuals and three companies have pled guilty as part of this
investigation, and fines and restitution totaling more than $2.7 million
have been ordered.
-------
We recognize the importance of Superfund activities to the health of our
nation and the quality of our environment. We will continue to address
Superfund program management and funding to help Congress and EPA
protect against potential adverse impacts resulting from Superfund sites.
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Inspector General
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
Table of Contents
Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund 1
EPA Earns Unqualified Opinion on Financial Statements 1
EPA Should Improve Evaluation of Contractor Performance 2
EPA Can Better Prepare and Use Independent Government Cost Estimates 2
EPA Should Continue Reducing Federal Advances and Special Accounts 3
Improvement Needed in Recording and Reporting Fines, Penalties 3
Remedial Action Decisionmaking 4
EPA Should Improve Oversight of Federal Superfund Site Reviews 4
EPA Provides Limited Assurance on Contamination at North Carolina Site 4
EPA Not Sufficiently Notified by Response Center About Leaking Well 5
Lack of Final EPA Guidance on Vapor Intrusion Impedes Efforts 6
Long-Term Monitoring Results Tested at Four Sites 6
Response Claims 9
Reimbursement Claims for Cleanup at Superfund Sites Reviewed 9
Performance Reviews 10
Research and Development Performance Measures Need Improvement 10
Region 6 Should Improve Oversight Practices 10
Investigative Activity 12
Sentencings Continue in Bid Rigging Case at New Jersey Site 12
OIG Superfund Financial Statements 13
Listing of Fiscal Year 2010 Superfund Reports 14
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund
The Government Management and Reform Act requires federal agencies to prepare annual audited
financial statements. The act was passed to help improve agencies' financial management practices,
systems, and controls so that timely, reliable information is available to manage federal programs.
One of the major entities included in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) financial
statements is the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund. Our audit of EPA financial statements also
meets our Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
requirement to annually audit the Superfund Trust Fund. EPA presented the financial statements for fiscal
year 2010 in a consolidated format and did not include a separate presentation on the Superfund Trust
Fund.
The summary below of our fiscal year 2010 financial statement audit highlights areas that pertain to
the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund. The financial statement audit details are followed by
summaries of several other reviews we conducted that note ways EPA can improve its management of
Superfund resources.
EPA Earns Unqualified Opinion on Financial Statements
We rendered an unqualified opinion on EPA's Consolidated Financial Statements for
fiscal years 2010 and 2009, meaning that they were fairly presented and free of material
misstatement. However, we noted four significant deficiencies, including one specifically
involving Superfund.
Although the Cincinnati Finance Center worked with the regions in fiscal year 2010 to
improve the accuracy of the Superfund state contract unearned revenue accrual, further
improvements are needed. The Cincinnati Finance Center and the regions did not
thoroughly review the Superfund state contract spreadsheets and detect data errors that
we found during our test work. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires that the
integrated agency accounting and financial management system include complete and
reliable information. By not performing a thorough review, EPA misstated the unearned
revenue accrual in the fiscal year 2010 financial statements.
Regarding the other three significant deficiencies, EPA needs to assess collectability of
federal receivables and record allowances for doubtful accounts as needed, improve its
controls for headquarters personal property, and properly close the Fund Balance with
Treasury when cancelling treasury symbols. Further, we noted one noncompliance issue
involving EPA's need to continue efforts to reconcile intragovernmental transactions.
In a memorandum from the Chief Financial Officer received on November 9, 2010, the
Agency generally concurred with the issues raised and indicated it will take corrective
actions. The Agency did not concur with two of our draft report recommendations, and
we modified those recommendations to reflect information provided.
We issued our report (11-1-0015) on November 15, 2010.
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
EPA Should Improve Evaluation of Contractor Performance
Because EPA did not complete contractor performance evaluations in a timely manner
and with complete information, the Agency risked providing funds to contractors with a
history of cost control and performance issues.
In July 2009, EPA decided to obligate approximately $211 million in Recovery Act funds
to Superfund contractors. Contracting officers are required to complete and document
performance evaluations for these contractors within 95 business days after each
12 months of contract performance.
EPA had not completed in a timely manner 83 percent of the required performance
evaluations for contractors awarded Recovery Act funds. On average, EPA completed the
evaluations 109 business days late, generally because there was no system to monitor
evaluation timeliness. Further, contracting officers did not consider all available sources
of information when preparing the performance evaluations. EPA awarded $109 million
in Recovery Act funds to contractors with cost control and performance issues. In one
instance, the contractor's past performance evaluation information was not available to
EPA when it awarded a new Recovery Act contract totaling $5.4 million.
We recommended that EPA develop a system to monitor and verify the timeliness of
performance evaluations, revise quality assurance plan requirements, maintain reports in an
electronic system that contracting officers can access, and require contracting officers to
consider annual performance evaluation results. EPA agreed with our recommendations.
We issued our report (10-R-0113) on April 26, 2010.
EPA Can Better Prepare and Use Independent Government Cost
Estimates
EPA limits its ability to negotiate a fair and reasonable price for Superfund contracts
when it does not have a well-supported independent government cost estimate. An
independent government cost estimate is a detailed estimate of what a reasonable person
should pay to obtain the best value for a product or service. Such estimates are compared
to the contractor's proposal to help determine price reasonableness.
EPA did not sufficiently document information in its Superfund independent government
cost estimates for 30 of the 42 cases reviewed. Additionally, in 9 of the 42 cases, EPA did
not update the estimates when significant changes occurred. In 8 of the 42 cases, EPA
program staff accepted the contractor's estimate without evaluating why it differed from
the independent government cost estimate. In some cases, EPA did not prepare the
required estimate for actions with a potential value in excess of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation threshold for simplified acquisitions of $100,000.
We recommended that EPA place greater emphasis on independent government cost
estimates through training and tools. EPA should prepare independent government cost
estimates for all contract actions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold
and discontinue the practice of relying only on the contractors' estimates. EPA agreed
with all our recommendations and provided a corrective action plan.
We issued our report (10-P-0065) on February 16, 2010.
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
EPA Should Continue Reducing Federal Advances and Special
Accounts
We found three Superfund federal special accounts that included incorrectly recorded
receipts and/or expenditures totaling about $2.5 million.
Federal advance interagency agreements and Superfund federal special accounts occur
between EPA and its federal trading partners. EPA issued Superfund Special Account
Guidance on July 16, 2002. However, that guidance does not address spending federal
versus nonfederal special account funds. Without clear guidance, programs expended
nonfederal funds before federal funds, resulting in amounts advanced by other federal
agencies remaining outstanding after the project was completed and some special account
receipts and/or expenditures remaining misclassified.
During our audit, EPA corrected $2.0 million of the $2.5 million in incorrectly recorded
federal special accounts. We recommended that EPA record the remaining $579,126 in
special account funds in the correct fund, and verify that special account receipts and
expenditures are recorded in the proper fund code. The Agency concurred with our
findings and recommendations.
We issued our report (10-P-0093) on March 31, 2010.
Improvement Needed in Recording and Reporting Fines, Penalties
EPA did not consistently record fines and penalty billings in a timely manner and did not
report penalty information with complete accuracy and transparency. Assessing penalties
as part of an enforcement action deters noncompliance. EPA's Cincinnati Finance Center
records and tracks the billing and collection of fines and penalties.
Regional and program office personnel did not forward copies of source documents to the
Cincinnati Finance Center in a timely manner, thus delaying the recording of accounts
receivable. EPA did not record a receivable as required for two disputed stipulated penalties
totaling $2,839,500. EPA generally took appropriate action to collect fines and penalties.
However, EPA did not monitor the collections on a $298,851 Superfund receivable as
required. Although EPA tracked the assessment, billing, and collection of fines and
penalties, it used the assessments, and not the collections, as a measure of the enforcement
program's impact. The Agency's data system contained 7 errors totaling $139,242 in the
penalty assessment amounts out of 156 billings reviewed related to 117 assessments.
We recommended that EPA ensure the timely recording of fines and penalty billings,
monitor delinquent debt, ensure greater data system accuracy, develop a policy for recording
stipulated penalties, and disclose fines and penalties collected as well as assessments when
reporting enforcement action results. EPA agreed with all our recommendations.
We issued our report (10-P-0077) on March 9, 2010.
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
Remedial Action Decisionmaking
We performed in-depth reviews of the reliability of site-specific analytical data for sound site remediation
decisions. Through these and other actions, we are working to ensure that EPA decisions on site
remediation are based on data of known quality. During 2010, we found ways in which EPA could
improve remedial action decisionmaking.
EPA Should Improve Oversight of Federal Superfund Site Reviews
EPA does not have effective management controls to monitor the completion of
Five-Year Review recommendations at federal government Superfund sites. Prior studies
identified weaknesses in EPA's Superfund Five-Year Reviewa required process that
examines the cleanup remedies at Superfund sites to determine whether remedies
adequately protect human health and the environment. For Five-Year Reviews signed
since 2006, 84 percent of review recommendations were overdue as of April 28, 2009.
EPA regional staff do not consistently follow Superfund review process guidance and
policies for updating the status of review issues and recommendations in the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System. In addition, discrepancies in the presentation of issues and recommendations
exist between the reviews and the information system, some data in the information
system are logically inconsistent, and recommendations from prior reviews are not
always closed out. Finally, federal facilities are responsible for their own reviews, and
EPA's management of the concurrence process has resulted in some reviews being
conducted more than 5 years apart and some issues not being addressed.
We recommended that EPA implement improved management controls to monitor and
ensure timely submission of federal facility reviews, improve the management of the
concurrence process, clarify and describe enforcement options, and improve data quality.
EPA agreed with all recommendations and proposed actions to address them.
We issued our report (10-P-0133) on June 2, 2010.
EPA Provides Limited Assurance on Contamination at North Carolina
Site
The water and air quality sampling EPA conducted at the Mills Gap hazardous waste site
near Asheville, North Carolina, has provided limited assurance of the extent of water and
air contamination and risk at the site. The site has been in North Carolina's hazardous
waste cleanup program since 1993. EPA Region 4 has carried out emergency response
actions at the site since 1999. These actions included providing an alternative drinking
water source for residents with unsafe levels of the chemical trichloroethylene, or TCE,
in their drinking water.
In the records the OIG reviewed, Region 4 adhered to accepted standards and practices in
conducting its drinking water sampling in 2008-2009 and air sampling in 2007-2008.
However, the limited scope of Region 4's past sampling activities and oversight kept the
region from detecting ground water contamination in drinking water wells, and an
ineffective response action has not addressed the potential air quality risk that remains.
Also, Region 4's letters to affected residents on sampling results contained jargon and
technical language and did not clearly communicate safety issues. Further, Region 4's
4
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
community involvement plan did not reflect all site activities and did not include a
communication strategy, and Region 4 staff have not always documented conversations
with residents or site visits.
We recommended that Region 4 develop a plan for site transition to the state, clarify
resident communications, update the community involvement plan, and improve
recordkeeping. Region 4 generally agreed with five of our six recommendations and
developed an acceptable corrective action plan for one recommendation that required
further review in response to site events. The acting Regional Administrator said the
region "will do everything within our authority to ensure the safety of the residents in the
Mills Gap area." In September 2010, Region 4 announced its plans to propose that the
site be placed on the National Priorities List.
We issued our report (10-P-0130) on May 17, 2010.
EPA Not Sufficiently Notified by Response Center About Leaking Well
A U.S. Representative requested that we investigate the events surrounding a response to
an April 25, 2009, telephone report of a leaking well in Skyland, North Carolina. The
National Response Center, operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, is the sole national point of contact for reporting such discharges.
During nonbusiness hours, the EPA emergency hotline is programmed to forward all
incoming calls to the National Response Center.
We found that the National Response Center did not provide EPA with calls or voicemail
messages from a North Carolina constituent regarding a leaking well. When the Agency
was informed of the leak, EPA's on-scene coordinator contacted the constituent and
arranged for permanent repairs to the well, which were completed April 28, 2009.
We found that the National Response Center received voicemails about the leaking well
from two other callers on April 25, 2009, but did not provide any response to the
voicemails. The center's operations officer told us the center did not listen to the
voicemails until September 2009. When the voicemails were discovered, center staff took
no actions to inform EPA of the calls. Prior to April 25, 2009, we determined that
12 voicemails were left with the National Response Center dating back to 2006. The
National Response Center operations officer informed us the center did not listen to the
voicemails until September 2009. We made this information available to an EPA official
and that official said there would be followup with the center. We found inconsistencies
in the statements of the National Response Center and its telephone contractors regarding
who was aware of voicemail problems and when.
We presented our findings to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of
Inspector General, so that it may determine corrective actions taken and still needed.
We issued our report (10-P-0027) on November 10, 2009.
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
Lack of Final EPA Guidance on Vapor Intrusion Impedes Efforts
EPA's efforts to protect human health at sites where vapor intrusion risks may occur have
been impeded by the lack of final Agency guidance. Vapor intrusion is the migration of
volatile chemicals from the subsurface into overlying buildings. EPA has acknowledged
that current and former contaminated sites could have extensive vapor intrusion issues
and pose a significant risk to the public.
EPA issued draft guidance in 2002. EPA's draft guidance has limited purpose and scope,
contains outdated toxicity values, does not address mitigating vapor intrusion risks or
monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation efforts, does not clearly recommend a
multiple-line s-of-evidence approach in evaluating and making decisions about vapor
intrusion risks, and is not recommended for assessing vapor intrusion risks associated
with underground storage tanks.
EPA has not finalized its 2002 draft guidance because 2007 guidance from the Interstate
Technology Regulatory Council addressed many of the issues that EPA's finalized
guidance would have addressed. In addition, the Agency said that issuing final guidance
is problematic because the associated science and technology is evolving and lengthy
administrative review requirements were a barrier to timely guidance. Some of these
administrative requirements have been rescinded. The Agency is developing a roadmap
of technical documents to update its draft guidance.
We recommended that EPA issue final guidance to establish current Agency policy on
the evaluation and mitigation of vapor intrusion risks, and finalize toxicity values for
trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene. The guidance should incorporate information on
how it applies to Superfund Five-Year Reviews. The Agency agreed and provided
milestones.
We issued our report (10-P-0042) on December 14, 2009.
Long-Term Monitoring Results Tested at Four Sites
The OIG is testing long-term monitoring results at Superfund sites that EPA has deleted
from the National Priorities List. During fiscal year 2010, we issued reports on four such
reviews. They are summarized below.
Bruin Lagoon Superfund Site, Bruin, Pennsylvania
We found that Pennsylvania did not collect ground water samples from the Bruin
Lagoon Superfund site in Bruin, Pennsylvania, for 6 years, from 2001 to 2007.
EPA Region 3 decided not to require the state to conduct the sampling.
The Bruin Lagoon site was added to the Superfund National Priorities List in
1983 and was deleted in 1997. EPA Region 3 managers told the OIG that they
made a deliberate, but undocumented, decision to not use oversight authority to
require the state to conduct ground water sampling at the site. In June 2007,
Pennsylvania resumed ground water sampling at the site. The region's 2009
Five-Year Review indicated that the site was protective of human health and the
environment. However, gaps in long-term monitoring may result in a failure to
detect conditions that show a cleanup remedy is not protecting human health and
the environment. We also noted that transcription errors in data were found in the
region's 2004 Five-Year Review that were carried over into the most recent 2009
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
Five-Year Review, due to a lack of quality assurance procedures to check
summary data generated from laboratory reports.
We recommended that EPA Region 3 improve its oversight, acknowledge and
correct data errors in Five-Year Reviews, and ensure accuracy of data used in site
protectiveness decisionmaking. Region 3 agreed with the recommendations and
proposed acceptable corrective actions.
We issued our report (10-P-0217) on September 8, 2010.
PAB Oil and Chemical Services, Inc., Superfund Site,
Abbeville, Louisiana
Our independent ground water sampling results from the PAB Oil and Chemical
Services, Inc., Superfund site in Abbeville, Louisiana, were consistent with
Region 6's valid historical results. Region 6 accepted two types of invalid ground
water data at the site and included those invalid data in its analyses.
EPA placed the PAB Oil site on the Superfund National Priorities List in 1989
and deleted it in 2000. For two wells, data were collected on stagnant water at the
bottom of the wells, below screen openings where the water enters the wells.
Consequently, data on both water quality and water levels were collected
contrary to accepted procedures and were invalid. Region 6 said it was aware of
the declined water level condition, but noted it had data from other wells that
were sufficient to determine the direction of ground water flow and that the
remedy was protective of human health and the environment. We agree that the
invalid data did not have adverse implications for the region's protection decision
because ground water flows past these two wells before flowing under the area
where contaminated soils and wastes were capped. However, should ground
water conditions change, the invalid data could impede the region's ability to
determine whether the site's cleanup remedy is still protective and whether the
network of ground water monitoring wells remains effective.
We recommended that EPA Region 6 improve its oversight by amending the
site's Five-Year Review to identify invalid data and modifying the long-term
monitoring plan. Region 6 committed to completing actions that would meet the
intent of both recommendations.
We issued our report (10-P-0229) on September 21, 2010.
Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site Near Dover, Delaware
Our inspection of the Wildcat Landfill Superfund site near Dover, Delaware,
found that more sampling and EPA oversight are needed to ensure the site
remains safe for humans and the environment. The Wildcat Landfill site was
contaminated by disposal of paint sludge and municipal, industrial, and latex
waste. In 2005, the site was sold to Kent County, Delaware, which plans to reuse
the site for public recreation purposes.
Wildcat Landfill was added to the Superfund National Priorities List in 1983 and
deleted from the list in 2003. Our independent sampling results were generally
consistent with Region 3's historical results. However, surface waters at the site
have a sheen that resembles petroleum. The cleanup remedy does not address
7
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
petroleum contamination. Region 3 had not tested for petroleum but agreed to do
so in September 2009. In December 2009, the region reported that it had detected
petroleum at levels below public health standards and it will continue to monitor
the site's petroleum levels.
The site has not been cleaned up to standards that allow for unrestricted public
access. However, Kent County plans to create a green way and construct a bike
path on the landfill. Also, a local small business owner who purchased an acre of
the site has inquired about building a storage facility. The region is aware of the
county's plans and agreed to formally document discussions with the site owner
and review reuse plans.
We recommended that EPA Region 3 modify its sampling and analysis approach
to ensure proper testing, address contamination that exceeds standards, and
improve oversight of site reuse plans. Region 3 agreed with our
recommendations and has initiated or completed some actions.
We issued our report (10-P-0055) on January 26, 2010.
Wheeler Pit Superfund Site Near Janesville, Wisconsin
With minimal exceptions, our independent sampling results at the Wheeler Pit
Superfund site near Janesville, Wisconsin, were consistent with the sampling
results that EPA Region 5 has obtained historically.
The Wheeler Pit site was added to the National Priorities List in 1984 and was
deleted in 2004. In May 2008, the OIG obtained site ground water samples and a
sample from a nearby residential well and conducted a site inspection. Among
135 contaminants, OIG results for 8 were different from the region's results for
some wells, but none of the differences had adverse implications for site
protectiveness. The site was properly maintained and secured. We found excess
levels of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP, in one residential well, but it was
unclear whether the excess levels had implications for site protectiveness. The
OIG notified the resident in coordination with Region 5.
We recommended that EPA Region 5 conduct additional sampling on the
residential well. Region 5 concurred with our findings and recommendation and
proposed an acceptable corrective action.
We issued our report (10-P-0218) on September 8, 2010.
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
Response Claims
CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, authorizes EPA
to pay any claim for response costs as a result of carrying out the National Contingency Plan. Potentially
responsible parties, who often make these claims, are required to enter into a preauthorized decision
document with EPA to cover work for which some costs will be reimbursed. The document specifies the
work to be performed, the portion of the cost EPA will reimburse, and the procedures through which the
potentially responsible parties can make claims for reimbursement. While we do not audit response claims,
we review claims by following the instructions in EPA's claims guidance for the claims adjuster. During
fiscal year 2010, we completed several such reviews, as discussed below.
Reimbursement Claims for Cleanup at Superfund Sites Reviewed
We reviewed several reimbursement funding claims during the reporting period. We
performed these reviews solely to assist the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response in evaluating the claimants' mixed funding claims. We found the following:
We reviewed a reimbursement mixed funding claim for $3,280,027 submitted by
the responsible parties for a Superfund site in Duval County, Florida. Our review
noted no exceptions to the claimed amount. We recommended that EPA accept
the claim and reimburse the claimant $3,280,027 of the total eligible costs of
$7,273,989.
We reviewed a reimbursement mixed funding claim for $916,787 submitted by
the responsible parties for a Superfund site in New Castle, Delaware. Our review
noted that the total claimed amount exceeded the maximum amount the claimant
could seek for reimbursement by $10,191. We recommended that EPA accept the
claim and reimburse the claimant for $906,596 of the total eligible costs of
$2,291,967.
We reviewed a reimbursement mixed funding claim for $831,256 submitted by
the responsible parties for a Superfund site in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Our
review noted no exceptions to the claimed amount. We recommended that EPA
accept the claim and reimburse the claimant $831,256 of the total eligible costs
of $4,156,280.
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
Performance Reviews
In addition to the reviews required by CERCLA and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,
we conduct other reviews related to Superfund issues. Following is a summary of several such reviews
completed during fiscal year 2010.
Research and Development Performance Measures Need Improvement
The Land Research Program provides the science and technology to help its clients
preserve the nation's land, restore contaminated properties, and protect public health
from exposure to environmental contaminants. Because no single measure can adequately
capture all elements of research performance, the program has employed a variety of
methods to assess performance, including the Office of Management and Budget's
Program Assessment Rating Tool measures, client feedback, and peer review by the
Board of Scientific Counselors.
We found that improvements were needed in all three areas to better enable the Office of
Research and Development to assess the Land Research Program's effectiveness. For
example, the program did not have measures that assessed progress toward the short-term
outcomes in its multiyear plan. Additionally, citation analysis Program Assessment
Rating Tool measures for the program were not meaningful to program managers and
were not linked to program goals and objectives. Moreover, as implemented, EPA's
survey of program clients was not reliable because EPA did not identify the universe of
clients, conduct a representative sample, or obtain a sufficient number of responses.
Further, the program lacked some key measures and data that would aid the Board of
Scientific Counselors in conducting its peer reviews of the program. Collectively, the
Land Research Program's performance measures have not provided it with the data to
assess progress toward goals, identify areas for improvement, or track the short-term
outcomes of its research.
We recommended that EPA develop measures linked to the short-term outcomes in the
Land Research Program's multiyear plan, augment the program's citation analysis with
more meaningful measures, develop a reliable client survey or an alternative, provide
appropriate performance measurement data to the Board of Scientific Counselors prior to
full program reviews, and revise its long-term goal rating guidance to that board. EPA
generally agreed with our recommendations and is taking action to implement most of
them. For some recommendations, EPA is awaiting additional guidance from the Office
of Management and Budget.
We issued our report (10-P-0176) on August 4, 2010.
Region 6 Should Improve Oversight Practices
Region 6's documentation of its oversight was not sufficient to determine whether
allegations that the New Mexico Environment Department mismanaged the Sandia
National Laboratory's Mixed Waste Landfill monitoring wells had merit or whether New
Mexico's well monitoring actions were technically sound. Allegations of mismanagement
came from a Hotline complaint from Citizen Action New Mexico. The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act requires EPA Region 6 to provide oversight to delegated
10
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
programs. EPA's Public Involvement Policy encourages EPA staff and managers to
ensure that decisionmaking processes are open and accessible.
Region 6 staff took inappropriate steps to keep the details of the landfill's monitoring
wells assessment from the public. The region decided not to provide documentation or
sometimes not to document their concerns about the landfill's monitoring wells. The
region provided a letter to the citizens' group that did not note the specific details of the
assessment. The region's actions are a violation of EPA policies on public involvement
and records management.
We recommended that the Region 6 Administrator comply with EPA's national security,
public involvement, and records management policies. We also recommended that the
Regional Administrator evaluate the extent to which the region has not recorded
oversight information, or misclassified information, to determine the action necessary to
remedy the situation. Region 6 disagreed with the report's conclusion and
recommendations, stating that information was not withheld from the public, and
requested that resolution be elevated in accordance with EPA's audit management
process.
In July 2009, the Deputy Administrator asked the Inspector General to consider whether
an Office of General Counsel opinion he provided would influence the OIG's conclusions
that Region 6 improperly classified information and withheld documents under the
Freedom of Information Act. After reviewing the legal opinion and conducting additional
legal research, OIG modified its conclusion and found there was no violation of EPA
policies or guidance for marking national security information. Moreover, the OIG also
accepted that the document in question was not withheld by the Agency under the
Freedom of Information Act on the basis of improper classification. The report findings
and recommendations that remain in dispute are in the report resolution process.
We issued our report (10-P-0100) on April 14, 2010.
11
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
Investigative Activity
The OIG Office of Investigations continued to focus its investigative resources on allegations of fraud,
waste, and abuse in high-risk and high-dollar EPA programs and administrative areas, including the
Superfund program. High priority was also given to environmental programs for which the action under
investigation had the potential to seriously undermine the integrity of the Agency and/or the public trust
in the Agency's ability to carry out its mission to protect public health and safeguard the environment.
Investigative efforts covered all stages of the Superfund program, including efforts to detect and
investigate fraud in EPA-contracted laboratories, focusing on erroneous environmental testing data and
results that could undermine the bases for EPA decisionmaking, regulatory compliance, and enforcement
actions. Many of these laboratories conduct analyses and produce data that is used to make decisions
concerning Superfund sites. We also continued major efforts in uncovering fraudulent activities in the
award, performance, and payment of funds under contracts, grants, and other assistance agreements. EPA
programs, including Superfund, are dependent on contractors and assistance agreement recipients to
perform a significant portion of the work related to EPA's mission. An instance of Superfund
investigative activities with results in fiscal year 2010 is described below. During fiscal year 2010, our
Superfund investigative efforts resulted in:
2 convictions and subsequent sentencings
9 administrative actions
$625,891 in cost avoidance
$123,350 in fines and restitution
Sentencings Continue in Bid Rigging Case at New Jersey Site
On October 28, 2009, Frederick Landgraber, of Bridgewater, New Jersey, was sentenced
in U.S. District Court of New Jersey to 5 months in prison to be followed by 5 months of
home detention. He was also ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and $35,000 in restitution to
EPA. Landgraber is president and co-owner of a Martinsville, New Jersey, landscaping
company.
Landgraber previously pled guilty to conspiring to defraud EPA at the Federal Creosote
Superfund Site, located in Manville, New Jersey. As part of the conspiracy, Landgraber
provided more than $30,000 in kickbacks to an employee of a prime contractor in
exchange for the employee steering landscaping subcontracts to Landgraber's company.
Landgraber and his co-conspirator subverted the competitive bidding process by
submitting intentionally high cover bids on behalf of fictitious companies. Landgraber's
company received approximately $1.5 million in subcontracts at Federal Creosote. On
February 23, 2010, James E. Haas, Jr., a former representative of a New Jersey
subcontractor, was sentenced to serve 33 months in jail to be followed by 3 years of
probation. He was also ordered to pay a $30,000 fine and $53,050 in restitution to EPA.
Haas previously pled guilty to charges of fraud and conspiracy to provide kickbacks. Haas
admitted to paying kickbacks to former employees of a prime contractor in exchange for
the award of a subcontract to the company he represented. He also admitted to inflating bid
prices for the subcontracts to include the amount of kickbacks paid to his co-conspirators.
To date, eight individuals and three companies have pled guilty as part of this
investigation. Fines and restitution totaling more than $2.7 million have been ordered.
This case is being conducted with the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation
Division. (Case Cost: $199,793)
12
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
OIG Superfund Financial Statements
Analysis of OIG's Fiscal Year 2010 Funds Available and Usage
Superfund
budget
object
class
PC&B
Travel
Expenses
Contracts
WCF
Grants
FY 2009
carryover
available in
FY2010
$462,244
387,706
61,356
288,400
0
0
FY 2009
carryover
used in
FY2010
$451,106
377,617
60,591
287,000
0
0
FY
2009
lapsed
funds
$11,138
10,089
765
1,400
0
0
FY2010
appro-
priation
$7,677,000
417,000
187,900
1,141,400
532,000
19.700
FY2010
funds
used
$7,085,709
91,958
108,936
360,574
532,000
0
FY2010
carryover
to FY 2011
$591,291
325,042
78,964
780,826
19.700
Total Cost
of FY 2010
operations
$7,536,815
469,575
169,527
647,574
532,000
0
%of FY2010
appropriation
98%
113
90
57
100
0
Total SF $1,199,706 $1,176,314 $23,392 $9,975,000 $8,179,177 $1,795,823 $9,355,491
Source: EPA Integrated Financial Management System.
94%
FY 2010 OIG Superfund FTE Usage
FY 2010 Available 63.8
FY 201 OFTEs Used 52.3
%ofFTEsUsed 82.0
FTE
FY
PC&B
SF
WCF
Full-time equivalent
Fiscal year
Personal compensation and benefits
Superfund
Working Capital Fund
13
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General Annual Superfund Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
Listing of Fiscal Year 2010 Superfund Reports
Report No.
Description
Date
10-N-0019
10-P-0027
10-P-0042
10-P-0055
10-P-0065
10-4-0070
10-P-0077
10-P-0093
10-P-0100
10-R-0113
10-P-0130
10-P-0133
10-4-0173
10-P-0176
10-4-0202
10-P-0217
10-P-0218
10-P-0229
Rulemaking Process for Coal Combustion Waste Disposal
EPA Not Sufficiently Notified by Response Center About Leaking Well
Lack of Final Guidance on Vapor Intrusion Impedes Efforts
Changes in Conditions at Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site in Delaware
EPA Can Better Prepare and Use Independent Government Cost Estimates
Army Creek Landfill CERCLA Claim No 3, New Castle DE
Improvement Needed in Recording and Reporting Fines, Penalties
EPA Should Continue Reducing Federal Advances and Special Accounts
Region 6 Should Improve Oversight Practices
EPA Should Improve Evaluation of Contractor Performance
Contamination and Risk at a North Carolina Hazardous Waste Site
EPA Should Improve Its Oversight of Federal Agency Superfund Reviews
Missouri Electric Final Mixed Funding Claim, Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Research and Development Performance Measures Need Improvement
CERCLA Claim White House Oil Pits Superfund Site 3, Duval County, Florida
Long-Term Monitoring at Bruin Lagoon Superfund Site in Pennsylvania
Ground Water Sampling at Wheeler Pit Superfund Site in Wisconsin
Long-Term Monitoring at PAB Oil Superfund Site in Louisiana
02-NOV-09
10-NOV-09
14-DEC-09
26-JAN-10
16-FEB-10
24-FEB-10
09-MAR-10
31-MAR-10
14-APR-10
26-APR-10
17-MAY-10
02-JUN-10
26-JUL-10
04-AUG-10
30-AUG-10
08-SEP-10
08-SEP-10
21-SEP-10
11-1-0015*
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2010 and 2009 Consolidated Financial Statements
15-NOV-10
* Report issued in fiscal year 2011.
14
-------
Report fraud, waste or abuse
e-mail: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov
write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Mailcode 8431P (Room N-4330)
Washington DC 20460
fax: 703-347-8330 phone: 1-888-546-8740
www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm
It's your money
It's your environment
-------
------- |