EPA-350-R-06-005
October 2006
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Semiannual Report to Congress
"T'.'-'..
April 1, 2006 - September 30, 2006
-------
EPA Inspector General
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires the Inspector General to (1)
conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the
Agency; (2) provide leadership and coordination, and make recommendations designed to
(a) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and (b) prevent and detect fraud and
abuse in Agency programs and operations; and (3) fully inform the Administrator and the
Congress about problems and deficiencies identified by the Office of Inspector General
relating to Agency programs and operations.
We are catalysts for improving the quality of the environment and Government through
problem prevention and identification, and cooperative solutions.
Mission
Add value by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within EPA and the
delivery of environmental programs. Inspire public confidence by preventing and
detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency operations and protecting the integrity of
EPA programs.
To find out more about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Inspector General and its activities, visit our Website at
http://www.epa.gov/oig
Cover photos: Clockwise from top left: Trailers contracted for by EPA in Louisiana; EPA headquarters building in
Washington, DC; analyzing a water sample; residential yards and agricultural fields in McFarland.
California; and a predatory fish for which mercury contamination is a concern (EPA and OIG
photos).
Printed on 100% recycled paper (minimum 50% postconsumer)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
October 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress
TO: Stephen L.Johnson
Administrator
I am pleased to provide you with the Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to
Congress for the 6-month period ending September 30,2006. Many of the reviews that we conducted
during the semiannual period provided recommendations to help the Agency achieve its mission of
protecting human health and the environment. This report summarizes the areas we reviewed, progress
the Agency has made, and our recommendations to help the Agency improve.
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires that you forward this report within
30 days of receipt to the appropriate congressional committees. When you transmit the report to
Congress, the Act allows you to enclose separately whatever additional comments you deem necessary,
and specifies certain information that should be included (5 USC App. 3, Section 5(b)).
I will be happy to discuss, or provide additional information on, any of the items in this report.
Acting Inspector General
-------
Message to Congress
During this semiannual period, we continued to work with the Agency in its efforts to
help the Gulf Coast region recover from Hurricane Katrina. We made EPA aware of
overcharges on contracts the Agency used to respond to the hurricane, and the Agency
is taking action to have the contractors repay those amounts. Also as a result of our
Hurricane Katrina findings, EPA met with representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to discuss how they can better coordinate their efforts during similar events
in the future. We found that EPA has been appropriately handling hazardous material
releases and debris management in the areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina, but
substantial work remains for the Agency.
EPA has made progress implementing initiatives in its Critical Infrastructure and Key
Resources Protection Plan, designed to ensure the resources needed to protect the public
in the event of a terrorist attack or other disaster will be available. However, EPA needs
to assign formal authority and more accountability to ensure the initiatives are
accomplished in a timely manner. We also found that the Agency needs to improve
managing Counter Terrorism/Emergency Response equipment so that it can efficiently
determine what equipment is available and where it is located.
In response to two of our reports regarding the Superfund, EPA began the process to
redistribute or reallocate $80 million in Superfund payments and obligations. In an audit,
we reported that EPA did not make timely redistributions of Superfund cooperative
agreement, interagency agreement, and small purchase payments from a general site
identifier to specific Superfund sites or a more appropriate general identifier. Based on
our audit results, EPA agreed to redistribute $39 million in Superfund payments to more
specific codes, better enabling the recovery of this funding from responsible parties for
use on other projects. In response to evaluation report number 2006-P-00013, EPA Can
Better Manage Superfund Resources, issued during the previous semiannual period,
EPA reported to us that they reallocated $41 million from special accounts and
unliquidated obligations to Superfund cleanup at other sites.
EPA needs to increase monitoring for airborne mercury to ensure that the Agency's
proposed Clean Air Mercury Rule will not result in localized areas with unacceptably high
levels of mercury. Also, we provided the Agency with listings of numerous vulnerabilities
in the public drinking water sample analysis process, as well as numerous promising
practices for dealing with them. Further, EPA needs to better incorporate environmental
justice in its planning to better ensure that adverse environmental problems do not
disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations.
We questioned millions of dollars in grant funds awarded by EPA. We questioned over
$66 million that EPA awarded to the State of Alaska over a 2-year period for the Alaska
Village Safe Water program. We also questioned $1.9 million provided to the Association
of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and $782,693 provided to
the State of Oregon related to work on the McCormick and Baxter Superfund site in
Portland. We recommended that EPA disallow the costs if the grantees do not provide
adequate support.
-------
This semiannual report includes details on these and other issues, including a number of
investigations that resulted in payments to the Federal government and criminal, civil, or
administrative actions. We will continue to work with the Agency and Congress, serving
as a catalyst for improving the environment.
- Bill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General
-------
Table of Contents
A Catalyst for Results 1
Significant OIG Activity 2
Hurricane Katrina Response Oversight 2
Air 5
Water 8
Land 10
Cross-Media 11
Grants 13
Contracts 19
Financial Management 21
Information Technology 23
Public Liaison 25
Investigations 29
Congressional Requests 34
Testimony 36
EPA's Key Management Challenges 37
Other Activities 39
Statistical Data 43
Profile of Activities and Results 43
Audit Report Resolution 44
Summary of Investigative Results 47
Scoreboard of Results 48
Appendices 49
Appendix 1 -Reports Issued 49
Appendix 2 - Reports Issued Without Management Decisions
(Available Upon Request)
-------
A Catalyst for Results
During this reporting period, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to
take various actions as a result of Office of Inspector General (OIG) work, such as
agreeing to over $128 million in questioned costs and recommendations that funds be put
to better use. The following actions related to the OIG's two external goals.
To Contribute to Improved Human Health and
Environmental Quality...
EPA met with representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to discuss how
each responded to Hurricane Katrina and ways they can better coordinate their efforts
during similar future events.
EPA agreed to better incorporate environmental justice in its planning, and to develop
guidance for environmental justice reviews to better ensure adverse environmental
problems do not disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations.
EPA agreed to set milestones to better implement its plans to obtain and safeguard the
resources it needs to protect the public in the event of a terrorist attack or a disaster.
EPA plans to increase its monitoring efforts to evaluate the impact of the Clean Air
Mercury Rule on mercury levels in waterbodies and fish tissue.
EPA agreed to make greater efforts to identify and minimize fraud in the drinking water
laboratory community; such fraud could result in increased exposure to contaminants.
EPA, as it works to fulfill the provisions of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, will pay special
attention to ensuring that, during inspections, it identifies underground storage tanks
near drinking water sources to ensure drinking water is not contaminated.
To Improve EPA's Management, Accountability, and
Program Operations...
EPA is taking action to have contractors repay $183,875 in overcharges for contracts
used to respond to Hurricane Katrina.
EPA agreed to redistribute $39 million in Superfund site costs to more appropriate site
identifiers, better enabling the recovery of this funding from responsible parties for use
on other projects.
EPA will look into disallowing over $2 million in unsupported labor costs spent by the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for fiscal years ended June 30,
2003 and 2004, as well as the remaining grant balances of over $64 million.
EPA requested that America's Clean Water Foundation repay an estimated $5.6 million
paid to a contractor.
EPA will look into recovering close to $ 1.9 million from the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators unless the Association is able to
reconstruct its accounting records to meet minimum financial standards.
EPA agreed to better control $ 110 million in Government furnished property that
contractors are using.
We provide details on these and other issues throughout this semiannual report. Results
for the year are available in the Agency's annual performance report.
1
-------
Significant OIG Activity
Hurricane Katrina Response Oversight
EPA Appropriately Handled Hazardous Material Releases and
Debris Management After Hurricane Katrina
EPA established quality and timely approaches for rapidly identifying, prioritizing,
and assessing the impact of hazardous material releases following Hurricane
Katrina, as well as handling hurricane-generated hazardous debris and waste.
Hurricane Katrina created an estimated 86 million cubic yards of debris, caused more
than 7 million gallons of oil to spill, and produced floodwaters that deposited hazardous
substances in sediments. The hurricane passed over 18 Superfund National Priorities List
sites and more than 400 industrial facilities that store or manage hazardous materials.
EPA was the Federal agency with lead
responsibility for addressing hurricane-
generated hazardous debris and waste.
EPA coordinated with State, local, and other
Federal government agencies to assess
potential environmental and human impacts
from the hurricane and provided quality and
timely information for determining risks and
impacts. EPA provided information on
chemicals present in sediment samples, and
assessed results of damage or releases at all
Superfund National Priorities List sites, more
than 400 industrial facilities, and approximately
850 underground storage tanks.
Segregation of household waste at an EPA collection site
(EPA OIG photo). EPA distinguished between hazardous and
nonhazardous debris, provided the public with
information on how to properly dispose of household hazardous waste, collected over
2.5 million hazardous waste containers, and worked with States to address challenges in
Katrina recovery and cleanup efforts.
We did not make any recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00023, EPA Provided Quality and Timely Information on
Hurricane Katrina Hazardous Material Releases and Debris Management,
May 2, 2006 - Report Cost: $447,800)'
1 Report costs are estimates calculated by multiplying a project's staff days by the applicable "full" cost billing rates,
including overhead, in effect at that time. Report costs listed in this Semiannual Report to Congress include followup
work and other updates, and may be higher than the costs provided in individual reports on the dates they were issued.
-------
Existing Contracts Allowed Quick Response;
Improvement Opportunities Exist
EPA's existing contracts awarded for responding to natural disasters worked as
intended and allowed EPA to quickly respond to Hurricane Katrina.
Nonetheless, opportunities for improvement exist.
EPA's Katrina response efforts involved sending numerous
personnel to the area and purchasing equipment and services
to support them. EPA's ability to operate under catastrophic
conditions was commendable. Almost immediately after the
hurricane struck, EPA personnel were in affected areas,
assessing damage and action plans to protect the public. Existing
contracts limited cost risk because EPA did not have to quickly
award a large number of noncompetitive sole source contracts.
Trailers contracted for by EPA to temporarily
house employees in Metairie, Louisiana (EPA
OIG photo).
EPA still needed to award about $9 million in noncompetitive
contracts during its Katrina response efforts, and we noted areas
where EPA can improve for future disasters. EPA must ensure
that contracts are flexible, provide sufficient details on what is being obtained, avoid
unnecessarily long periods of performance, adequately support price reasonableness
determinations, and ensure procurements are used to address the disaster.
EPA needed to improve reviewing contractor invoices to help prevent paying duplicate,
unallowable, and/or unreasonable costs. Contractors overcharged EPA $ 18,298 in duplicate
payments and $54,734 by using inappropriate indirect cost and labor rates, and EPA initiated
action during the course of our audit to have contactors repay those amounts. We also
noted $ 110,843 in inappropriate boat rental costs, and EPA has initiated action to recoup the
excess payments. We noted EPA property purchased for hurricane relief was not initially
safeguarded and recorded properly. We made various recommendations to EPA, and the
Agency agreed to take sufficient corrective actions on all recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00038, Existing Contracts Enabled EPA to Quickly Respond to
Hurricane Katrina; Future Improvement Opportunities Exist, September 27, 2006 -
Report Cost: $462,870)
Lessons Learned Regarding EPA's Response to
Hurricane Katrina
EPA took extraordinary and generally successful actions in its response to
Hurricane Katrina, although we identified lessons learned regarding
coordination, using tankers to provide drinking water, and querying and
verifying the quality of some data.
EPA, as well as Mississippi and Louisiana, generally took successful actions to assess and
restore public drinking water supplies after Hurricane Katrina. EPA also provided timely
and high quality information to address wastewater, hazardous material, and debris
concerns. EPA officials said planning and good working relationships were key factors in
responding successfully to Hurricane Katrina.
-------
Debris field resulting from a storm surge (EPAOIG photo).
EPA actions generally improved upon the lessons
learned from EPA's response to the collapse of
the World Trade Center towers following the 2001
attacks. In some respects this can be attributed to
the fact that EPA and States have experience in
responding to hurricanes and have addressed
lessons learned from prior hurricanes. In our
opinion, the importance placed on the lessons
learned from the collapse of the World Trade
Center towers by the EPA Administrator also
helped EPA respond successfully to Hurricane
Katrina.
While efforts were generally successful, we identified three lessons learned:
Coordination within EPA, with State and local officials, and with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers could have been better. In some instances, coordination problems
resulted in duplicate work.
Initially, some hotels in Louisiana used potentially hazardous tanker trucks to transport
drinking water to New Orleans. Louisiana, with assistance from EPA, quickly
corrected this situation after it came to their attention. No adverse health effects were
identified as a result of using the tanker trucks.
Louisiana officials reported problems querying and verifying the quality of data in
EPA's database used to collect floodwater results.
EPA has initiated actions to address the issues noted in our report for responding to future
disasters.
(Report No. 2006-P-00033, Lessons Learned: EPA's Response to Hurricane Katrina,
September 14, 2006 - Report Cost: $64,808)
EPAOIG Agents Participate in Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task
Force Efforts
Since September 2005, the EPA OIG has deployed six Special Agents on several missions to
the affected Gulf States to participate in Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force efforts; to meet
with EPA officials, government contractors, Federal prosecutors, and local and State law
enforcement officials; and to conduct investigative steps in addressing allegations of fraud. To
date, investigative efforts by the EPA OIG have addressed several allegations of labor and
equipment cost mischarging and impersonating EPA officials to further a scheme or artifice to
defraud. While some allegations have been disproven or are currently pending prosecution,
others have successfully resulted in administrative suspensions (pending debarment), cease and
desistletters forwrongful activity, and recommendations forfmancial adjustments.
OIG Special Agents participate at the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force Joint
Command Center and have access to Task Force databases, intelligence, and staff for
operational support during investigations conducted in the affected Gulf States. The EPA
OIG continues to aggressively pursue tips and leads concerning allegations of fraud, and is
actively supported by the Task Force.
-------
Helping to make air safe and healthy to breathe.
EPA Needs to Monitor Impact of Clean Air Mercury Rule on
Hots pots
EPA needs to do additional monitoring to ensure that its proposed Clean Air
Mercury Rule will not result in "utility-attributable" hotspots - waterbodies
where fish contain unsafe levels of mercury caused by utility emissions.
About 40 percent of U.S. manmade airborne mercury is emitted from coal-fired electric
utilities. Although airborne mercury is generally not considered to be a serious health
concern, once mercury enters waterbodies, it can contaminate fish and present a human
health risk when people eat the fish. In December 2003, EPA proposed a cap-and-trade
program for reducing mercury emissions from
utilities. The program would set a national cap on
emissions and establish emission "allowances" for
utilities. Utilities that reduced their emissions
below their allowance could earn credits that
could be sold to other utilities that were unable to
reduce their emissions. Several State agencies
and environmental groups expressed concern that
this program could result in localized hotspots.
A fisherman holding a walleye, a predatory fish for which
mercury contamination is a concern (EPA photo).
In support of the Rule, EPA conducted a detailed
analysis of mercury emissions and deposits, and
concluded that "utility-attributable" hotspots would
not occur because of the trading program.
However, while EPA brought significant scientific,
technical, and modeling expertise to bear in researching the potential for "utility-
attributable" hotspots, we found uncertainties with several key variables in the analysis.
Specifically, we noted:
Gaps in available data and science for mercury emissions estimates,
Limitations with the model used for predicting mercury deposition,
Uncertainty over how mercury reacts in the atmosphere, and
Uncertainty over how mercury changes to a more toxic form in waterbodies.
Based on our interpretation of the Rule and the "utility-attributable" wording, EPA could
not require additional utility emission reductions if utilities contributed significantlybut
not solelyto a mercury hotspot. The Rule and "utility-attributable" wording could limit
EPA's ability to mitigate human health hazards.
We recommended that EPA develop and implement a mercury monitoring plan to
assess the impact of the Clean Air Mercury Rule, if adopted, on mercury deposition
and fish tissue, and evaluate and refine mercury estimation tools and models. If the
Rule is adopted, EPA should clarify the role of the "utility-attributable" hotspot
definition in making future changes to the standards. EPA adopted the Rule after we
-------
issued our final report. The Agency agreed that it needs additional monitoring, and
said the Rule does not establish the "utility-attributable" hotspot definition as a
prerequisite for future changes.
(Report No. 2006-P-00025, Monitoring Needed to Assess Impact of EPA's Clean Air
Mercury Rule on Potential Hotspots, May 15, 2006 - Report Cost: $265,268)
EPA Is Reducing Nonroad Mobile Source Emissions, But
Can Do More
EPA has issued nonroad mobile source emission control regulations that, when
fully implemented, should result in significant emission reductions, but
challenges remain and EPA needs to do more.
Nonroad sources of emissions include farm and lawn equipment, marine vessels, and
aircraft (see table). Emissions from nonroad mobile sources can present significant health
and environmental hazards due to releasing toxic and other air pollutants.
Until the mid-1990s, emissions from nonroad mobile sources were largely uncontrolled, but
since then various regulations have been issued. Most recently, the 2004 Nonroad Diesel
Engines Rule uses a systems approach involving a combination of engine modifications,
reduced sulfur content in diesel fuel, and exhaust controls. However, many of the
approximately five million nonroad diesel engines in the United States still do not need to
follow EPA emissions standards, and EPA has been relying on voluntary efforts and
incentive programs. Although a mandatory retrofit program may achieve increased health
Category
Land-Based Diesel
Engines
Nonroad Engine Categories
Application
Backhoes, tractors, material-handling equipment, airport service vehicles, generators, and
pumps
Land-Based
Spark-Ignition
Engines
Small Spark-Ignition Engines: Lawnmowers, string trimmers, leaf blowers, and chain
saws fueled with gasoline
Large Spark-Ignition Engines: Forklifts, generators, compressors, and welders fueled
with liquefied petroleum gas, gasoline, or natural gas
Recreational Vehicles: Off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles
fueled with gasoline
Marine Engines
and Vessels
Marine Spark-Ignition Engines: Outboard engines, personal water craft, and gasoline-
fueled stern drive and inboard engines
Marine Diesel Engines: Recreational yachts, fishing boats, tug and towboats, dredgers,
and coastal and ocean-going vessels
Locomotives
Diesel-powered engines used in freight and passenger rail, line-haul, local, and switch-yard
service
Aircraft
All types of aircraft (ground support equipment not included)
Source: EPA, Mobile Source Emissions: Past, Present, and Future.
-------
protection sooner, such a requirement from the Federal level can only come through a
change in the Clean Air Act.
EPA faces significant challenges in addressing nonroad emissions, particularly among
small gasoline engine, marine, and aircraft categories. The role that other government
entities and international communities play in regulating emissions from these sources
hinders EPA's progress in achieving reductions. EPA also needs to address technical
challenges, including the availability of low sulfur fuel, the diversity of nonroad engines,
and the wide range of applications.
Our report provided information on EPA's efforts to address nonroad emissions and made
no recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00039, Progress Report on EPA's Nonroad Mobile Source
Emissions Reduction Strategies, September 27, 2006 - Report Cost: $460,208)
For details on additional air issues, please refer to:
Page 23: "Clean Air Markets Division Business System Lacked Key Security Tools"
Page 29: "Business Owner Sentenced for Using Improper Practices to Remove Asbestos"
Page 30: "Motorcycle Importer Sentenced for Smuggling"
-------
Water
Ensuring that drinking water is safe and sources are protected.
Promising Techniques Noted for Improving Drinking Water Lab
Integrity *
We identified numerous vulnerabilities in the process used to analyze public
drinking water samples, several of which are not addressed by EPA's required
oversight processes. We provided the Agency with listings of these
vulnerabilities as well as numerous promising practices for dealing with them.
Between Fiscal Years 2000 and 2003, the OIG
Office of Investigations noted an increase in
laboratory fraud. The Safe Drinking Water Act
provides that a laboratory must obtain approval by
EPA or a State before analyzing public drinking
water samples for compliance with health-based
standards. EPA certification and a national
accreditation program provide oversight of the labs.
If laboratories do not properly analyze drinking water
samples, they will increase the risk of public
exposure to harmful contaminants.
Microbiological analysis of a water sample (EPA photo). States that have implemented new techniques to
detect laboratory integrity problems have found
additional deficiencies, inappropriate procedures, and even cases of fraud. Their
findings and those of our investigators show how laboratory integrity can be, and has
been, compromised.
We developed promising practices by consulting an expert panel and various EPA and
State personnel. Promising practices include:
Encouraging ethical conduct agreements in EPA-certified labs,
Developing a training program on fraud,
Improving guidance on fraud awareness,
Performing enhanced onsite and followup audits,
Conducting data accuracy reviews,
Using data validation and verification techniques,
Reviewing raw electronic data,
Considering a procurement policy to offset economic pressures, and
Establishing a fraud hotline.
We recommended that EPA assess drinking water laboratory integrity and incorporate
promising practices to better identify inappropriate procedures and fraud into the
laboratory oversight process. Specific recommendations included reforms to laboratory
oversight processes, policy, guidance, and training, as well as improving awareness of
vulnerabilities and collecting data to resolve uncertainty. EPA generally agreed with our
recommendations.
-------
(Report No. 2006-P-00036, Promising Techniques Identified to Improve Drinking
Water Laboratory Integrity and Reduce Public Health Risks, September 21, 2006 -
Report Cost: $766,755)
Small Drinking Water Systems Continue to Face Challenges
Small drinking water systems continue to face challenges regarding financial/
management matters and regulatory/compliance issues in providing water that
is safe to drink.
Of the approximately 54,000 community water systems in the United States, about
85 percent serve communities of 25 to 3,330 people each, and overall serve about 10
percent of the Nation's population.
Benefits and Barriers to Consolidation
Economies of scale
Increased financial opportunities
Eliminating duplicative services
Increased reliability
Increased flexibility
Enhanced health protection
Skill improvements
Service efficiency
Loss of community independence
Differing management goals
Conflicting regulations
Cost and benefit inequities
Workforce reduction/layoffs
Equipment reduction
Public confidence
Debt
Source: EPA OIG analysis
to obtain financing, as well as compile data on best
Various organizations have
attempted initiatives to assist
small drinking water systems in
overcoming their challenges; we
noted State and third-party
initiatives that could be used as
best practices by others.
Consolidation, also known as
regionalization, is an approach
EPA can consider (see the pros
and cons of consolidation in the
table). We recommended that
EPA work with States to identify
successful approaches to working
with small drinking water systems
practices to share with those systems.
(Report No. 2006-P-00026, Much Effort Needed to Help Small Drinking Water
Systems Overcome Challenges, May 30, 2006 - Report Cost: $200,430)
For details on additional water issues, please refer to:
Page 14: "EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake Bay"
Page 15: "Ongoing Audit Leads to EPA Action to Recover Millions in Grant Funds"
Page 16: "Grants to Association Totaling Nearly $1.9 Million Questioned"
Page 31: "Grantees Sentenced"
Page 32: "Laboratory Technician Sentenced"
Page 34: "Use of National Rural Water Association Grants Reviewed"
-------
Land
Improving waste management and cleanup - includes Superfund.
Underground Storage Tank Programs Changing Due to New Act
EPA and State underground storage tank programs are devoting significant
resources to implement the changes needed to fulfill provisions of the 2005
Energy Policy Act.
The Act created new Federal requirements for underground storage tank programs.
EPA's oversight of State programs involves approving or developing performance
agreements with States, distributing Federal funds, and compiling program performance
data States have submitted. More than 650,000 underground storage tanks exist
nationwide. The most common underground storage tanks are those at gasoline stations.
Cleanup actions have occurred at approximately 420,000 of 450,000 tanks with confirmed
releases.
The Act became law while we were reviewing EPA's oversight of State underground
storage tank programs. This changed the requirements and some procedures for the
programs. Therefore, we discontinued our review, but informed EPA of key issues it
should keep in mind when implementing provisions of the new Act:
EPA should identify tanks near drinking water sources during inspections.
States and EPA should use information collected on how close tanks are to drinking
water sources to prioritize actions.
EPA should implement oversight mechanisms to ensure the quality of data States
submitted.
We recommended that EPA take these issues into account, and EPA generally agreed.
(Report No. 2006-M-00014, OIG Findings on EPA Oversight of the Underground
Storage Tank Program, September 18, 2006 - Report Cost: $295,595)
For details on additional land issues, please refer to:
Page 2: "EPAAppropriately Handled Hazardous Material Releases and Debris Management After
Hurricane Katrina"
Page 16: "Outlays of $782,693 by Oregon Questioned"
Page 21: "EPA Can Improve Redistributing Superfund Payments from General Site Identifiers"
Page 25: "Contamination Problems Reviewed in California Agricultural Community"
Page 29: "Three Sentenced in Kickback Scheme"
10
-------
Cross-Media
Issues involving overlapping areas - includes homeland security.
EPA Needs to Conduct Environmental Justice Reviews
Although required to do so by Executive Order, EPA has not sufficiently
directed its offices to conduct environmental justice reviews.
Environmental justice reviews seek to identify and address disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, was signed in 1994. In August 2001, and again
in November 2005, the EPA Administrator issued a memorandum reaffirming the
Agency's commitment to environmental justice. However, neither of these two memos
specifically directed program and regional offices to assess whether any of their
programs, policies, or activities had disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Without these
environmental justice reviews, EPA cannot determine its impact relative to the goals of the
Executive Order.
We recommended that EPA have its program and regional offices identify which
programs, policies, and activities need environmental justice reviews to ensure minority
and low-income populations are not disproportionately impacted by adverse health or
environmental conditions, and establish plans to conduct the reviews. We also
recommended that EPA designate an office to compile the results of such reviews and
make recommendations to senior leadership as needed. The Agency agreed with our
recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00034, EPA Needs to Conduct Environmental Justice Reviews of
its Programs, Policies, and Activities, September 18, 2006 - Report Cost: $158,214)
EPA Should Better Measure Outcomes of Food Quality
Protection Act Efforts
Although EPA has made progress in implementing requirements of the Food
Quality Protection Act, it needs to focus more on environmental and human
health outcomes achieved rather than actions taken.
EPA's Proposed Overall Strategic Measures
for Reducing Pesticide Risk
Reduce the number of acute poisoning incidents from pesticides
in and around the home
Reduce level of currently registered pesticides in the general
population
Reduce pesticide residues in 20 foods most commonly eaten by
children
Source: EPA Office of Pesticide Programs internal workgroup
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
changed the way EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs regulates pesticides,
including the introduction of aggregate
exposure and cumulative risk
assessments. The Act also required the
Office of Pesticide Programs to take into
account children's unique patterns of
exposure and vulnerability regarding
pesticides.
11
-------
EPA has primarily measured its success by adhering to its reregistration schedule rather
than by actual reductions in risk to children's health. While the Agency lacks outcome
measures to assess the specific impact of actions taken, it has recently taken steps to
develop better measures, such as identifying some key overall strategic measures for
reducing risk (see table). Nonetheless, significant challenges remain.
By integrating existing data into a suite of performance measures, EPA can better track
the effectiveness of regulatory decisions and program performance; we recommended
that EPA implement a suite of such output and outcome measures. Also, EPA can more
efficiently measure the impact of the Act on children's health through examining pesticide
exposure data and changes in usage patterns, substitutions, and import trends; we
recommended such action. EPA generally agreed with our recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00028, Measuring the Impact of the Food Quality Protection
Act: Challenges and Opportunities, August 1, 2006 - Report Cost: $234,614)
For details on a homeland security issue, please refer to:
Page 19: "EPA Needs to Better Implement Plan to Protect Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources
from Attack"
12
-------
Grants
Improving EPA's use of assistance agreements.
EPA Needs to Improve Managing Earmark Grants
EPA has not managed earmark grants in accordance with Agency policy and
regulations.
An earmark is a portion of an appropriation designated by Congress to be spent on a
particular project. Past Inspector General audits of grants identified problems with either
EPA oversight or grantee management of earmark grants. We reviewed 17 prior audits
and investigations to determine whether EPA should take additional actions to improve
overall management of earmark grants.
List of Dollars Questioned
Report / Investigation
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (2003)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (2004)
Investigation
MBI International
Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
National Association of Minority Contractors (2001)
Investigation
University of Nevada, Reno
Total Costs
Questioned Costs
$33,887,200
32,976,401
2,100,000
1,301,365
1,153,472
681,413
636,069
230,000
21,260
$72,987,180
Although EPA has taken
actions to improve grants
management, we noted several
areas of concern. In particular.
some employees and recipients
held inappropriate perceptions
that because earmark grants
have already been approved by
Congress, the Agency has
limited control overthem. Also,
Agency policies do not provide
specific options for EPA staff
to follow to address concerns
with earmark projects, such as
problematic workplans.
Source: Prior EPA OIG reports and investigative documentation
EPA policies require that
earmark grants be managed the same as any other assistance agreement. However, for
earmark grants, past audits and investigations found:
Incomplete grant work plans,
Improper accounting and financial procedures,
Noncompliance with grant terms and conditions,
Noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations, and
Conflicts of interest.
EPA's insufficient management of some earmark grants over the past 10 years led us to
question nearly $73 million in Federal grant funding (see table), and EPA was unable to
identify the environmental outcomes achieved from millions of additional Federal dollars. We
recommended that EPA issue a memorandum emphasizing Agency policies on earmarks
and improve pertinent training courses. EPA concurred with our recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00037, EPA Needs to Emphasize Management of Earmark
Grants, September 26, 2006 - Report Cost: $116,135)
13
-------
Over $66.8 Million in Grant Funding to Alaska Questioned
Two Single Audit Act audits questioned over $1.1 million each in labor costs for
the State of Alaska because State employees did not account for their
activities in accordance with Federal requirements. We also questioned the
$64.6 million balance of the EPA grants.
Alaska identified Federal expenditures for EPA grants under the Alaska Village Safe
Waterprogram of $33,887,200 forthe year ended June 30, 2003 (2003), and $32,976,401
for the year ended June 30, 2004 (2004). While the single auditor questioned $1,166,051
(2003) and $1,115,721 (2004) in labor costs forthose years, we questioned the balance of
the EPA grant amounts of $32,721,149 (2003) and $31,860,680 (2004) because the State:
Claimed disbursements that were advances and not actual costs,
Did not correctly report assets and expenditures,
Did not follow procurement procedures, and
Did not adequately monitor its subrecipients.
We made several recommendations, including disallowing $1,166,051 (2003) and
$ 1,115,721 (2004) in labor costs, disallowing the remaining $32,721,149 (2003) and
$31,860,680 (2004) of costs until the State provides actual cost data, and requiring the
State to perform sufficient oversight of its subrecipient.
(Report No. 2006-3-00167, Single Audit Report for the State of Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation for the Year Ended June 30, 2003, July 26, 2006 -
OIG cost for this report: $60,882; and Report No. 2006-3-00168, Single Audit
Report for the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for the
Year Ended June 30, 2004, July 26, 2006 - OIG cost for this report: $62,440)
EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake Bay
EPA awarded assistance agreements (grants) that helped meet the goals of the
Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.
The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries have been
on EPA's impaired waters list since 1998. The
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement established goals
and commitments to restore and protect the Bay.
Chesapeake Bay partners and the media have
expressed concerns about the slow progress of
Bay cleanup, and EPA stated it will not be able to
meet the Agreement's 2010 cleanup goals. We
conducted a review to determine whether EPA
was targeting grant funding to meet goals.
In fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, Congress
appropriated $23 million each year for EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program. These grants funded
activities designed primarily to reduce the nutrients
A pipeline distributing storm water in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, funded under an EPA grant (EPA OIG photo).
14
-------
and sediment entering the Bay and its tributaries, monitor ongoing efforts to restore Bay
water quality, and model (estimate) the results of Bay implementation strategies.
We found that efforts funded by grants contributed to EPA's overall Bay restoration program.
EPA funded State restoration programs and technical project grants. EPA estimated that as of
March 2006, the program partners had achieved 37 percent of the nitrogen reduction goal,
53 percent of the phosphorus reduction goal, and 47 percent of the sediment reduction goal.
The report did not contain recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00032, EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake Bay,
September 6, 2006 - Report Cost: $187,667)
Ongoing Audit Leads to EPA Action to Recover Millions in
Grant Funds
During an audit of the America's Clean Water Foundation, we identified
concerns about the recipient's cash management and procurement practices.
Based on two memoranda we issued to the Agency about our concerns, EPA
returned a subsequent grant application and took action to recover funds.
EPA awarded three assistance agreements to the America's Clean Water Foundation to
perform environmental risk assessments at agricultural facilities and to assist States, tribes, and
territories in complying with the Clean Water Act. The grants were awarded to the Foundation
based on a congressional earmark. The Foundation had drawn down funds in excess of costs
incurred under the grants, had not paid a contractor for costs recorded in the accounting
system, and had not complied with Federal regulations in procuring contracts under the
grant. We notified EPA of these concerns in a memorandum on December 15, 2005.
To assist the Agency in addressing the Foundation's contract procurement issues, we
issued a second memorandum on June 15, 2006, regarding the costs the contractor
incurred. Our review of the contractor's records found that the Foundation did not have
fair and reasonable prices from the contractor. The contract included fixed rates for on-
farm assessments that were significantly higher than the actual costs of the assessments.
The contractor also billed the Foundation for licensing fees of $500,000 for 2004 and 2005,
but actually incurred no costs.
In response to our memoranda, the Agency took several actions. First, EPA returned the
Foundation's application for a subsequent grant for almost $5 million. Second, EPA sent a
letter requesting the Foundation repay an estimated $5.6 million that it had paid to the
contractor and claimed under the Federal grant. While EPA has taken action to address
some of our concerns with the Foundation, we expect to issue a final report with
additional recommendations in December 2006.
(Memorandum No. 2006-M-00003, America's Clean Water Foundation - Recorded
Costs for EPA Grants X82835301, X783142301, and X82672301, December 15,
2005; and Memorandum No. 2006-M-00011, Environmental Management Solutions
- Recorded and Billed Costs under EPA Grants X82835301 and X83142301, June
15, 2006 - Report Cost: Ongoing)
15
-------
Grants to Association Totaling Nearly $1.9 Million Questioned
We questioned $1,883,590 in grants that EPA paid to the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators because the Association
did not comply with financial and project management standards and Federal
procurement standards.
EPA awarded seven assistance agreements to the Association to assist States, tribes, and
territories in complying with the Clean Water Act. However, we found that the
Association:
Could not provide support for any of its general journal entries,
Included duplicate recorded costs in its accounting system,
Could not always trace grant draws to accounting records,
Could not always support labor costs charged to EPA grants,
Could not support recorded indirect costs,
Did not record all program income,
Did not have adequate written procedures for determining funds needed,
Drew EPA grant funds in excess of funds needed, and
Did not complete required single audits.
We made various recommendations, including that EPA recover the $1,883,590 paid
unless the Association is able to reconstruct its accounting records to meet minimum
financial standards. The Association stated that it has already made many improvements
and will continue to work to implement and address any remaining concerns.
(Report No. 2006-4-00122, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators Incurred Costs for Seven EPA Assistance Agreements,
July 31, 2006 - Report Cost: $90,657)
Outlays of $782,693 by Oregon Questioned
We questioned $782,693 in unallowable and unsupported outlays for a
cooperative agreement awarded to Oregon.
EPA awarded a cooperative agreement to the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality on July 22, 1997. The award, as amended, provides $9,372,588 to the State for
remedial design and actions at the McCormick and Baxter Superfund site in Portland,
Oregon.
We questioned $782,693 of unallowable and unsupported outlays consisting of contract
outlays of $505,122 due to not complying with Federal procurement requirements;
prepaid expenses of $33,553 reported under a contract with a Federal agency; and
other contract outlays of $244,018 for issues previously raised by the contractor's
cognizant auditor, work performed outside the scope of the contract, and costs not
supported by invoice details.
We recommended that EPA disallow the $782,693 unallowable and unsupported contract
outlays.
16
-------
(Report No. 2006-4-00147, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Reported
Outlays under Cooperative Agreement V99060102, September 21, 2006 - Report
Cost: $213,777)
Deficiencies in Single Audit of Natural Resources Defense
Council Noted
In our quality control review of a Single Audit Act audit of the Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., we found that the single auditor -
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP - did not adequately test and document the
auditee's compliance or properly report on the auditee's lack of compliance
with indirect cost proposal requirements.
We conducted this quality control review because our September 2005 audit of the
Natural Resources Defense Council identified significant questioned costs due to
inadequate support for costs claimed. In addition to noting the compliance issues, our
review of the single audit for the year ended June 30,2003, also identified technical
deficiencies involving differentiating between major and nonmajor programs and the single
auditor documenting its basis for materiality for compliance testing.
We recommended that for future single audits, PricewaterhouseCoopers ensure it
appropriately tests procurements and sufficiently documents analyses. The single auditor
generally agreed.
(Report No. 2006-S-00002, Quality Control Review of PricewaterhouseCoopers,
LLP, Single Audit of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., for Year Ended June
30, 2003 - OIG cost for this report: $82,634)
$1.4 Million in Grants to Cortina Indian Rancheria Questioned
Based on Single Audit Act reviews of EPA grants awarded to the Cortina Indian
Rancheria of the Wintun Indians of California (located in Williams, California),
for the 4 years ended December 31, 2004, we questioned all $1,431,319 in
expenditures related to those grants.
Cortina Indian Rancheria received grant awards under various EPA programs,
including general assistance grants for the Tribe to plan, develop, and establish
environmental programs, and air grants to conduct air quality assessments. For each
of the 3 years ending with the grantee's fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, the
independent auditor issued a disclaimer of opinion on the financial statements and an
adverse opinion on the report on major program compliance. In the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004, the independent auditor issued a qualified opinion on the financial
statements and a qualified opinion on the report on major program compliance.
Although the independent auditor did not question costs, we have questioned all EPA
expenditures because of the magnitude and type of findings identified in the single
audit reports. While the independent auditor did note that some findings would have
resulted in questioned costs, due to systemic deficiencies, the single auditor could not
quantify the questioned costs. Given the nature of the findings, we recommended that
Region 9 consider placing appropriate restrictions/grant conditions upon the grantee
17
-------
by considering this grantee to be "high risk," in accordance with Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 31.12.
(Report No. 2006-3-00169, Cortina Indian Rancheria, California, FY 2001, August
2, 2006; Report No. 2006-3-00170, Cortina Indian Rancheria, California, FY 2002,
August 2, 2006; Report No. 2006-3-00171, Cortina Indian Rancheria, California,
FY 2003, August 2, 2006; and Report No. 2006-3-00172, Cortina Indian
Rancheria, California, FY 2004, August 2, 2006 - OIG cost for these reports:
$2,604)
For details on an additional grants issue, please refer to:
Page 34: "Use of National Rural Water Association Grants Reviewed"
18
-------
Contracts
Improving EPA's use of contracts.
EPA Needs to Better Implement Plan to Protect Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources from Attack
While EPA made progress in implementing the initiatives in the Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources Protection Plan, EPA must assign formal
authority and more accountability to ensure it accomplishes the initiatives in a
timely manner, so that the resources needed to protect the public are available
in the event of a terrorist attack or other disaster.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 7 requires Federal agencies to identify, prioritize,
and protect critical infrastructure and key resources from terrorist attacks; in 2004, EPA issued
its plan on how it intends to do so. The plan involves protecting equipment and implementing
enhancements to the Agency's response capability. In some cases, EPA did not obtain assets
or sufficiently protect assets. EPA missed, or did not establish, milestones for initiatives;
some managers responsible for implementing initiatives were not aware of the plan.
Our review also looked at progress EPA made
in addressing our 2004 recommendations on
managing Counter Terrorism/Emergency
Response equipment. The Agency still needs to
improve management so that it can efficiently
determine what equipment is available and
where it is located.
We recommended that EPA establish overall
accountability for Critical Infrastructure and
Key Resources Protection Plan management as
well as program office accountability for
implementing initiatives in the plan. We also
recommended that EPA require better controls
over equipment. EPA generally agreed with our
recommendations and indicated corrective
actions were planned and underway.
A Mobile Environmental Radiation Laboratory that EPA
considers to be a Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources
asset (EPA OIG photo).
(Report No. 2006-P-00022, EPA Needs to Better Implement Plan for Protecting
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Used to Respond to Terrorist Attacks and
Disasters, April 26, 2006 - Report Cost: $300,217)
EPA Can Improve Oversight of Government Furnished Property
EPA needs to improve its management and administrative controls over
property that contractors use.
As of September 30,2005, EPA's contractor-supplied records identified $110 million in
EPA-provided property for 153 contracts. EPA can either perform the administrative
19
-------
functions over this property itself or have the Defense Contract Management Agency
perform the functions.
EPA did not have accurate and reliable records to indicate:
Which contractors had received EPA-provided property.
The dollar value of the property provided, or
Whether contractors had performed the required annual inventories.
Also, EPA needs to improve administering its interagency agreements with the Defense
Contract Management Agency. Neither EPA nor the other agency were administering
some contracts. Further, EPA had paid the Defense Contract Management Agency about
$10,000 to administer property for some contracts that did not have any such property.
EPA agreed with our recommendations to strengthen its policies and procedures, as well
as its administering the interagency agreement with the Defense Contract Management
Agency, and initiated corrective actions while our audit was progressing.
(Report No. 2006-P-00035, EPA Needs to Strengthen Oversight of Government
Furnished Property, September 19, 2006 - Report Cost: $116,760)
For details on an additional contract issue, please refer to:
Page 3: "Existing Contracts Allowed Quick Response; Improvement Opportunities Exist"
20
-------
Financial Management
Improving the Agency's financial management.
Payments Undistributed to Sites - Status as of January 2006
Cooperative Agreements
Interagency Agreements
Small Purchases
Total
$31,532,427
6,165,253
1,798,890
$39,496,570
Source: EPA financial records
EPA Can Improve Redistributing Superfund Payments from
General Site Identifiers
EPA did not timely redistribute Superfund cooperative agreement, interagency
agreement, and small purchase payments from a general site identifier to
specific Superfund sites.
When EPA cannot readily identify costs incurred for certain response activities to a
specific site, EPA assigns a general site identifier, and subsequently will redistribute the
costs to a more appropriate general identifier when such costs are paid.
However, the finance offices that we reviewed did not timely record costs to specific site
identifiers, as required. As of January 2006, the finance offices recorded $39 million in a
general account. Those payments remained undistributed for periods ranging from
2 months to 10 years. As a result, the
$39 million may not be considered in
settlement negotiations and oversight
billings, and thus may not be able to be
recovered from responsible parties.
Subsequent to our bringing the issue
to EPA's attention, EPA provided
unaudited data reports that indicated
the undistributed costs were reduced
to $13 million as of May 12, 2006. Besides recommending that EPA redistribute the
remaining amount, we recommended that EPA develop written procedures, provide
training, and change cooperative agreement conditions to require recipients to provide
detail for distributing costs within 24 hours of receiving funds. EPA agreed with our
recommendations and began corrective actions.
(Report No. 2006-P-00027, EPA Could Improve Its Redistribution of Superfund
Payments to Specific Sites, July 31, 2006 - Report Cost: $323,396)
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Earns
Unqualified Opinion on Financial Statements
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) earned an
unqualified opinion on its fiscal 2005 and 2004 financial statements from an
independent accounting firm.
CSB is an independent Federal agency created by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
CSB's mission is to investigate industrial chemical accidents, make investigative findings
known to the public, and issue safety recommendations to prevent future accidents. In
fiscal 2004, Congress designated the EPA OIG to serve as CSB's Inspector General,
which includes the responsibility for an annual audit of CSB's financial statements.
21
-------
The independent accounting firm found the financial statements to be presented fairly, in
all material respects, and in conformity with applicable standards. It noted no material
weaknesses involving the internal controls over financial reporting, nor did it note any
instances of noncompliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations. However,
the independent auditors did note that CSB needs to strengthen its Information Technology
security controls as required by the Federal Information Security Management Act and
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130. CSB has planned or initiated actions
to resolve this issue.
(Report No. 2006-1-00080, Audit of U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements, September 28, 2006 - Report
Cost: $97,079)
22
-------
T0 C h n OIO g y HelPinS the Agency maintain its systems and data.
Clean Air Markets Division Business System Lacked Key
Security Tools
EPA's Clean Air Markets Division Business System lacked key security
management tools that it could use to proactively identify potential security
weaknesses.
The Federal Information Security Management Act requires agencies to develop
policies and procedures dealing with the Agency's information assets. The Clean Air
Markets Division Business System is the data system that EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation uses to support the market-based emissions trading program. While the
Office of Air and Radiation had substantially complied with many of the controls tested.
we found that the Clean Air Markets Division Business System was operating without
an up-to-date risk assessment or effective practices to ensure that all production
services were monitored for known security vulnerabilities. The Office of Air and
Radiation agreed with the findings and has moved forward aggressively to implement
the recommendations.
(Report No. 2006-P-00024, Information Security Series: Security Practices Clean
Air Markets Division Business System - Report Cost: $96,461)
EPA Protection of Sensitive Information Assessed
EPA can improve its protection of sensitive personal information by identifying
all personally identifiable information and ensuring Agency policy includes
specific requirements.
In response to an informal request from the Office of Management and Budget, the
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency/Executive Council on Integrity and
Efficiency asked the Inspectors General to assess their respective agency's compliance
with Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-06-16, regarding protection of
sensitive agency information. To assess EPA's compliance with the Office of
Management and Budget memorandum, which included relevant National Institute of
Standards and Technology requirements and additional actions, we completed a template
developed for that purpose by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency/
Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency Federal Audit Executive Council
Information Technology Committee.
EPA has taken steps to protect its sensitive personal information. EPA created a
Personally Identifiable Information Workgroup, which produced a three-phase action
plan. On August 23, 2006, the Chief Information Officer issued an interim policy for
protecting personally identifiable information, which addresses specific safeguards for
protecting personally identifiable information that is accessed remotely or physically
removed. Also, EPA updated the Standard Configuration Document for Blackberry
devices to safeguard information.
23
-------
However, the Agency still needs to identify all personally identifiable information, and
establish a baseline of all Agency systems that contain it. The Agency has not yet
identified all instances where personally identifiable information is being transported and/or
stored offsite, when backup media that contain personally identifiable information are
being stored at remote sites, and whether transportation and storage methods use
encryption.
In addition, the Chief Information Officer's interim policy does not include specific
requirements for: 1) training and accountability measures; 2) using a Virtual Private
Network for all remote access of personally identifiable information, and 3) encrypting
backup media that are transported and/or stored offsite.
We forwarded this report to the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency for
consolidation with other Federal agency OIG reports, and subsequent submission to the
Director, Office of Management and Budget.
(Report No. 2006-S-00006, Assessing EPA's Efforts to Protect Sensitive Information,
September 19, 2006 - Report Cost: $22,716)
EPA Can Improve Incident Reporting Practices
Although EPA has made progress improving its information security program,
the Agency can improve its incident reporting practices.
While EPA has established Agency-wide policies and procedures for reporting information
security incidents, EPA needs to take further steps to:
Implement its incident handling program to ensure all violations are consistently
reported,
Develop and train personnel on local incident reporting procedures,
Implement its centralized virus/spyware/malware reporting system, and
Make security trend information available to personnel with significant security
responsibilities.
Shortcomings in these areas have contributed to the incomplete implementation of EPA's
incident reporting program and security incidents going unreported.
In accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act, we reported our
findings to the Agency for submission to the Office of Management and Budget.
(Report No. 2006-S-00008, Fiscal Year 2006 Federal Information Security
Management Act Report: Status of EPA's Computer Security Program, September 25,
2006 - Report Cost: $73,392)
24
-------
Public Liaison
Addressing specific concerns of the public.
Contamination Problems Reviewed in California Agricultural
Community
In response to a request, we reviewed contamination concerns regarding the
agricultural community of McFarland, California, and noted areas where EPA
can improve.
During the 1980s, residents of McFarland noticed health problems that they attributed to
water, air, and soil contamination. A study by State and county officials noted unusually
high rates of cancer, but it could make no causal
association between health data and the contaminants.
We looked at EPA efforts in the area as a result of
issues raised by concerned citizens and an
environmental group.
EPA developed preliminary remediation goals for
McFarland using a lifetime residential exposure of
30 years based on Agency Superfund guidance, but we
believe a 70-year lifetime exposure assumption better
reflects the intent of the National Contingency Plan
and would better protect the public. EPA appears to
have conducted air and soil sampling activities
appropriately, although it should consider analyzing the
synergistic effects of multiple contaminants. While
EPA exceeded requirements in its efforts to keep the McFarland community
informed, it can take additional actions that will further strengthen its community
relations efforts.
We recommended that EPA identify available sources of information on the toxicology of
contaminant mixtures that may be found in drinking water, and continue to support
research characterizing the joint toxic action of contaminants in drinking water. We also
made several suggestions, such as providing an explanation for not using the 70-year
lifetime exposure assumption. EPA disagreed with some of our conclusions, such as using
the 70-year lifetime exposure assumption.
(Report No. 2006-P-00041, Review of Environmental Concerns at McFarland,
California, September 28, 2006 - Report Cost: $302,694)
EPA Properly Addressing Ritualistic Use of Mercury
We concluded that EPA has been taking the appropriate level of action in
dealing with using mercury in rituals.
A complainant alleged that EPA did not adequately address problems related to the
ritualistic use of mercury. Some people use mercury as part of folk remedies and religious
Residential yards in McFarland beside agricultural
fields with spray-applied pesticides (EPA OIG photo).
25
-------
practices. These uses may pose health risks because mercury vapors can cause health
problems, such as damage to the nervous system.
EPA staff and the complainant agree that the ritualistic
use of mercury poses a health risk, but differ on how
to address the risks. The complainant wants EPA to
regulate using mercury and take action in what the
complainant believes are the many homes
contaminated by the ritualistic use of mercury.
However, EPA believes it does not need to establish
regulations, and starting the process to establish such
regulations would drive the practice underground.
EPA has addressed the issue by providing community
education and outreach, and purchasing 63 portable
mercury analyzers for measuring mercury levels. We
agree with EPA's assessment about regulating the
ritualistic use of mercury, and believe the actions taken
by EPA are consistent with current legal requirements.
eckla^
Containing i-iquid
MERCUR
A necklace containing liquid mercury in the pendant
(EPA photo).
The complainant also alleged that EPA had falsified a study on measuring mercury vapor
levels or had deliberately designed the study to fail. According to the complainant, if EPA
had performed the experiments differently, the results may have been more realistic.
However, we found no evidence that EPA had inadequately designed the study or falsified
the results.
(Report No. 2006-P-00031, EPA Is Properly Addressing the Risk of Using Mercury
in Rituals, August 31, 2006 - Report Cost: $67,161)
No Wrongdoing in Security System Purchase
During our review of a complaint submitted to the OIG, we found that EPA
spent $712,629 to purchase an IRIS Scan Security System that, due to a
subsequent Federal policy change, EPA no longer needed.
In July 2003, EPA Region 6 ordered the IRIS Scan Security System, which reads the iris
patterns in the colored part of a person's eyes, for use in its Dallas, Texas, office.
Region 6 personnel said EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management
directed them to purchase the system, as part of that Office's effort to research security
systems for EPA-wide use.
However, in August 2004, the Department of Homeland Security issued Presidential
Directive 12, implemented in February 2005, indicating that all U.S. Government agencies
were to use a "Smartcard" security system. This directive rendered obsolete the IRIS
system in Region 6. Region 6 terminated the contract after it had already paid for
$712,629 in equipment and services. The remaining $339,371 that EPA had obligated for
the project reverted back to the U.S. Treasury and was no longer available for EPA use.
Although we noted the lost funding, we found no instances of wrongdoing. Because the
funding loss was not reversible, we did not issue a formal report. However, we
26
-------
recommended that the Agency attempt to sell the purchased equipment or surplus the
equipment for another Federal agency to use.
EPA Met Requirements at Georgia Superfund Site
The OIG reviewed complaints forwarded by a congressional member regarding
EPA's actions at a Georgia Superfund site, and found that EPA met Superfund
removal action requirements.
We examined the appropriateness of EPA's removal actions at the Prestige Chemical site
in Senoia, Georgia, and EPA's claims for reimbursement of costs and expenses. We also
responded to concerns the county administrator and sheriff raised regarding EPA's actions
and the site's threat to public safety. We found that EPA met Superfund removal action
requirements at the site, and cleanup costs were determined in a settlement between the
site owner and EPA. Also, the on-scene coordinator's decision to pursue the removal as
"time-critical" rather than "classic emergency" accorded with the National Contingency
Plan and therefore did not jeopardize public safety.
While EPA acted appropriately, we made recommendations that we believe will
improve how EPA handles similar situations. EPA should better differentiate and
more clearly communicate the implications for each type of removal action.
Communities will then have better expectations and feel less of the confusion and
frustration that existed at the Prestige site. EPA should also consider maintaining a
more complete action log at all sites, including phone calls and other communications.
That step would document how EPA addressed public safety concerns. EPA agreed
with our recommendations.
Additional Complaints Reviewed
We looked at whether the Potomac Yard buildings being constructed in Arlington,
Virginia, for occupancy by EPA, violated "green" building policies, particularly regarding
daylight. We found that despite not incorporating some features advocated in the EPA
Facilities Manual, the buildings should comply with requirements. Although an early
calculation for daylight and view credits had not been completed correctly, a more
recent and properly completed spreadsheet showed the view credit can be achieved,
although there is not enough daylight to claim the daylight credit. The design of the
windows, the window coverings, and access restrictions should mitigate the security
threats posed with having windows occupy 66 percent of the buildings' walls, and no
further action was needed.
We researched a complaint that the State of Florida did not aggressively enforce its
National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants program through compliance
and enforcement inspections. We found no evidence to support the allegations.
Hotline Activity
The following table provides EPA OIG Hotline activity regarding complaints of fraud,
waste, and abuse in EPA programs and operations that occurred during the past
semiannual and annual periods:
27
-------
Inquiries and Complaints Received During Period
Issues Handled by EPAOIG
Inquiries Addressed Without Opening a Complaint
Complaints Opened
Complaints Closed
Complaints Open - Beginning of Period
Complaints Open - End of Period
Issues Referred to Others
EPA Program Offices
EPA Criminal Investigation Division
Other Federal Agencies
State/Local Agencies
Semiannual Period
(April 1,2006-
September 30, 2006)
356
95
93
2
14
24*
12
261
76
14
29
142
Annual Period
(October 1,2005 -
September 30, 2006)
564
187
170
17
30
25*
12
377
113
35
43
186
Corrected from previous semiannual report.
28
-------
Investigations
Investigating laboratory fraud, financial fraud,
and computer crimes.
Financial Fraud
Business Owner Sentenced for Using Improper Practices to
Remove Asbestos
On July 6, 2006, Wallace Heidelmark was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to 24 months in prison, followed by 36 months of
supervised release, and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine, a special assessment of $300, and
restitution in the amount of $41,541.17 for mail fraud and improperly removing asbestos.
Indoor Air Quality, Inc., the Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, company owned and operated by
Heidelmark, was sentenced to 2 years probation and was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine,
a special assessment of $1,200, and restitution in the amount of $41,541.17. Heidelmark
and the company are jointly and severally liable for the amount of the restitution.
Heidelmark and Indoor Air Quality, Inc., removed asbestos from homes and commercial
buildings in the Philadelphia area. The indictment, issued in August 2005, charged the
defendants with mail fraud, false statements, and failure to comply with Federal
requirements for removing and handling asbestos.
The defendants operated a scheme to defraud homeowners by promising to use proper
techniques in removing asbestos from their residences. The defendants routinely failed to
use the promised techniques; instead, they removed asbestos without adequate water and
failed to keep the removed asbestos adequately wet. The defendants also regularly
falsified air testing at the conclusion of asbestos removal jobs by sending blank, unused air
sample canisters to a testing lab instead of an air sample from the residence where the
removal job occurred. The defendants would then tell the homeowners that the building's
air had passed the post-removal air test.
The investigation was conducted jointly with the EPA Criminal Investigation
Division, with cooperation from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
(Case Cost: $316,705)
Three Sentenced in Kickback Scheme
On July 19,2006, Ronald Check, Jr., James Vagra, and Gary Sanders were sentenced in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on a conspiracy charge. Check, Jr., the
President of Grace Industries, Inc. (Grace), was sentenced to 60 months of probation, the first
6 months to be served under house arrest, and was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and a special
assessment of $200. Vagra, a former Project Manager for Grace, was sentenced to 6 months
in prison followed by 3 years supervised release, and was ordered to pay a $32,382 fine and a
$200 special assessment. Sanders, a former site foreman for Grace, was sentenced to 60
months of probation and was ordered to pay a $32,382 fine and a $200 special assessment.
In 1996, Tetra Tech Nus, Inc. (Tetra Tech), was awarded a contract by the EPA to serve
as the prime contractor in the cleanup of the Berkley Products Superfund site in Denver,
29
-------
Pennsylvania. In 2000, Tetra Tech awarded a subcontract to Grace to construct a landfill
cap at the Berkley Products site. James Risner, the Project Manager for Tetra Tech, was
responsible for overseeing the work performed by Grace. Risner solicited kickbacks in
the amount of approximately $129,531 from Check, Jr., in exchange for certifying that the
work performed by Grace was completed in a satisfactory manner. Risner, in turn, kicked
back approximately half of all money he received to Vagra. Vagra, in turn, provided half
of that money to Sanders. Vagra and Sanders each received $32,382 of the kickback
money. Risner provided Grace with phony invoices in the amount of the kickbacks to
disguise the illegal payments.
On February 16, 2006, Risner, Check, Jr., and Sanders each pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to violate the anti-kickback statute and one count of conspiracy to defraud the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Vagra pled guilty to the same charges on March 1, 2006.
In addition to the sentences imposed above, Grace paid $113,711 to the IRS, which
represented amounts due because Grace had previously deducted the kickback payments as
business expenses. Vagra paid $12,177 to the IRS because he failed to report the income he
had received from the kickback payments. Sanders also paid $21,527 to the IRS for having
underreported his income. Risner is scheduled to be sentenced in November 2006.
(Case Cost: $64,268)
Former Grantee Employee Sentenced for Embezzlement
On July 6, 2006, Susan Close was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon to 21 months in prison, followed by 36 months of probation, and was ordered to
pay $268,863 in restitution and a $100 special assessment. Close was the former office
manager of the Tillamook County Soil and Water Conservation District, Tillamook,
Oregon, a recipient of EPA grant funds.
As the office manager for the District from 2000 until her resignation in June 2005, Close
was solely responsible for managing the finances of the organization, including making
purchases and paying bills. While employed, she devised a scheme to embezzle money
from the organization to pay for personal expenses. Close made unauthorized charges to
a credit card belonging to the organization for personal items including clothing, vacations,
gifts, jewelry, and furniture. Close then paid the credit card bill with the organization's funds,
some of which were derived from EPA grants. On January 23, 2006, Close was suspended
from participating in Federal procurement and nonprocurement activities. In February 2006,
Close pled guilty to one count of theft from a program receiving Federal funds.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and the Tillamook County Sheriff's Office. (Case Cost: $112,297)
Motorcycle Importer Sentenced for Smuggling
On August 17, 2006, Andrew Wright was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, to 27 months in prison, followed by 36 months
probation, and was ordered to pay $20,675 in restitution and a $900 special assessment.
The sentence stems from charges that Wright imported and sold grey market motorcycles
into the United States under false pretenses. The grey market motorcycles did not meet
30
-------
the Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or EPA
Emission Standards.
In March 2006, Wright was found guilty during a 3-day trial of smuggling grey market
motorcycles into the United States, making false statements to the Government by falsely
reporting the motorcycles would not be used on the road, mail fraud for mailing certification
labels that fraudulently represented the motorcycles as meeting Department of
Transportation and EPA standards, and wire fraud for receiving payment by wire for two
motorcycles he fraudulently represented to his customers could be used on the public roads.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the Department of Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Transportation Office
of Inspector General. We also received assistance from the Department of
Homeland Security Customs and Border Patrol, the Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the EPA Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. (Case Cost: $175,768)
Grantees Sentenced
On September 6,2006, Russell John Mullins, Pasquale Benenati, Jr., James Dale Cole, Jr., and
the firm R.J. Mullins and Associates were sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on various charges including mail fraud and theft from programs
receiving Federal funds. Mullins, a professional land surveyor and owner of R. J. Mullins and
Associates, was sentenced to 9 months of home detention, 24 months of probation, and 500
hours of community service. In addition, he was ordered to pay a fine of $40,000 and a $200
special assessment. R.J. Mullins and Associates was sentenced to 36 months probation and
was ordered to pay a $150,000 fine and an $800 special assessment. Benenati, the owner of
an aerial surveying company, was sentenced to 12 months of probation and was ordered to pay
a $5,000 fine and a $100 special assessment. Cole, Jr., an employee of Mullins between 1983
and 1993, and subsequently the owner of J.D. Cole and Associates, was sentenced to 24
months of probation and 500 hours of community service, and was ordered to pay a $10,000
fine and a $100 special assessment.
From 1993 through 2002, Mullins was employed by the Mohave Water Agency (MWA), a
public entity located in Apple Valley, California, responsible for a number of public works
projects including the EPA-financed Mojave River Pipeline. As an employee of MWA, he
was precluded from obtaining MWA contracts. Mullins devised a scheme to secretly
obtain surveying contracts with the MWA despite his employment with that government
agency. Mullins used his position at the MWA to assist Cole, Jr., and J.D. Cole and
Associates in obtaining surveying jobs with the MWA, first by recommending to his
supervisors that work be granted and later personally granting work to J.D. Cole and
Associates. In exchange for the work, Cole, Jr., paid an amount of the money earned to
R.J. Mullins and Associates. Mullins also entered into an agreement with Benenati
whereby his company, Aero Tech, would be awarded contracts by MWA. R.J. Mullins
and Associates and J.D. Cole and Associates secretly performed the ground control
survey work. Aero Tech concealed the other companies' participation on the contracts.
Mullins concealed the income he received on MWA projects from the MWA and the EPA
by filing false Statements of Economic Interest with the County Clerk in spite of his duty
31
-------
as a government employee to provide full disclosure. R.J. Mullins and Associates
received over $1,100,000 in gross receipts from MWA.
This case was worked jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the San
Bernardino Sheriff's Office. (Case Cost: $34,693)
Laboratory
Laboratory Technician Sentenced
On April 7, 2006, Thomas R. Austin was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the District
of Alaska to 36 months of probation and was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and a $100
special assessment. This follows Austin's January 25, 2006, guilty plea to making a false
statement under the Clean Water Act.
Between April 2001 and August 2003, Austin was a laboratory technician with Alyeska
Pipeline Service Company, Valdez, Alaska. Austin admitted that in March 2002, he
falsified laboratory data provided to the EPA under Alyeska's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit. Specifically, on March 24,2002, while performing
water sample analysis, Austin performed an undocumented manual modification of criteria
on a laboratory sample. Austin submitted a hard copy report indicating that the sample
had passed the established criteria when, in fact, it had not. As a result, the data from the
sample analysis were unreliable and of unknown quality.
Based on the March 2002 result falsifications, Austin was terminated from employment
with Alyeska in July 2003. At that time, Alyeska hired an outside environmental
consulting firm to verify the results of an internal investigation of Austin's actions which
Alyeska initiated in February 2003. The consulting firm corroborated Alyeska's findings
that Austin had actually falsified and changed 102 data samples. These findings were
further corroborated by EPA's investigation. On May 31, 2006, Austin was debarred
under the Clean Water Act.
(Case Cost: $58,840)
University of Connecticut Pays $558,233 as a Result of a
Compliance Agreement
On June 27, 2006, the University of Connecticut (UConn) paid $558,233 to reimburse
various government customers for laboratory analyses that were deemed unreliable.
UConn made these payments as a result of a January 19, 2006, compliance agreement
between UConn and EPA.
EPA and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection awarded
numerous grants for laboratory analyses to the Environmental Research Institute,
UConn's specialized service facility. The investigation determined that the Institute
routinely performed improper manual integrations and data manipulations of the
laboratory data. As a result of the investigation, it was determined that from January
2000 through May 2002, the laboratory data and results provided to the various
government agencies were false.
32
-------
A related article on this case appeared in the April 2006 Semiannual Report to
Congress. (Case Cost: $321,679)
Special Operations
Co-conspirator Sentenced
On July 18, 2006, Michael E. Sullivan was sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, to 6 months of home detention and 12 months
of probation. Sullivan was ordered to pay a $31,300 fine and a $100 special assessment.
This sentencing follows Sullivan's March 15, 2006, guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy.
In the spring of 2002, Sullivan's co-conspirator, Lawrence M. Fradkin, a former EPA
official, recommended that a contractor whose contract he oversaw enter into a
subcontract with a university to develop a database that identified EPA scientists and their
areas of expertise for use by the private sector. Fradkin recommended that the university
hire Sullivan to develop the database. Fradkin conspired with Sullivan to defraud the
Government of $60,000, of which Sullivan took $30,000. Fradkin had developed the
database on EPA time and sent it to Sullivan, who submitted it to the university. Fradkin
was previously convicted and sentenced for conspiracy, making a false statement, and
accepting an unlawful gratuity.
A related article on this case appeared in the April 2005 Semiannual Report to
Congress. (Case Cost: $249,485)
Certification Procedure Change
As a result of an EPA OIG investigation, the EPA has implemented a new procedure that
requires all EPA attorneys to sign an annual certification attesting that they are active
members of a State bar association, as required by their job description. This procedure
will protect the Agency's interests by safeguarding against Agency attorneys performing
their job duties without the requisite professional license.
(Case Cost: $25,500)
For details on an additional investigations issue, please referto:
Page 4: "EPA OIG Agents Participate in Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force Efforts"
33
-------
RGCjUGStS Providing Congress with specific Information.
Use of National Rural Water Association Grants Reviewed
In response to a congressional request, we examined grants EPA awarded to
the National Rural Water Association. We also looked at how the Association
measures environmental benefits of grants.
The Association is a nonprofit organization representing 49 States. Since October 2000, it
has received over $70 million from EPA to provide training and technical assistance to
rural water systems. Our review sought to answer several questions, and we found the
following regarding each question:
What environmental benefits result from the EPA grants to the Association?
For EPA grants awarded after January 1, 2005, the Association included outputs for
work done but did not link the outputs to environmental outcomes and measures.
Consequently, we could not measure environmental benefits. The grants do not require
measuring outcomes.
What improvements can the Association make in administering the program?
The number of organizations eligible to perform work for the Association can be
expanded to include nonmember organizations. Also, rather than distributing funds
equally to all States, the Association should take into account States' needs and sizes.
The work plans for the various subgrants result in a "one-size-fits-aH" approach where
the Association treats each State association identically, regardless of its geographic
size, number of water systems, or operators.
Are other options available for awarding some rural water assistance funds?
Congress could avoid earmarking funds for the Association, and could require EPA to
award grants competitively based on State needs.
We recommended that EPA develop a way to link future Association grant awards to
environmental outcomes and measures, and review work plans to ensure individual States
will meet their needs and maximize environmental results achieved with EPA grant funds.
The Agency agreed with the recommendations and will start implementing them in the fall
of2006.
(Report No. 2006-S-00003, Congressional Request Regarding EPA Grants to the
National Rural Water Association, May 30, 2006 - Report Cost: $187,689; and
Report No. 2006-S-00005, EPA Grants to the National Rural Water Association,
September 12, 2006 - Report Cost: $16,047)
Studies Addressing EPA Organizational Structure Reviewed
Thirteen studies, articles, publications, and reports we reviewed identified
organizational structure issues regarding EPA's cross-media management and
regional offices. The studies also discussed how changes to the organizational
structure would improve the quality of environmental information and the
reliability of science for decision making.
34
-------
We conducted this review based on the interest of the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works. The information we collected was strictly the viewpoint of the studies'
authors and not those of the OIG.
EPA was established in 1970 to merge key anti-pollution programs. While it was initially
intended to be organized around functions such as research, monitoring, and enforcement,
instead it was organized along media lines such as air, land, and water. Consequently,
some scholars and practitioners have called for reform of the Agency's media program
structure and environmental statutes.
The authors' findings focused on the following:
Cross-Media Management. EPA's current organizational structure, based on
disparate environmental laws, does not consider that problems with various media are
interrelated.
Regional Offices. EPA's 10 regional offices do not adequately consider the
geographic connectivity of environmental issues that cross regional boundaries.
Reliable Information. EPA does not always have reliable data to support its
positions on the environment or to measure effectively its programs' successes at
improving the environment.
Reliable Science. EPA does not always utilize reliable science to support its rules
and regulations. Consequently, the authors believe that EPA may pass regulations that
may not fully address environmental problems.
We included the last two findings because some authors maintained that organizational
changes were necessary to improve in these areas.
(Report No. 2006-P-00029, Studies Addressing EPA's Organizational Structure,
August 16, 2006 - Report Cost: $415,825)
Documents from OIG World Trade Center Report Provided
EPA received a request from 19 members of the New York congressional
delegation asking that it comply with the recommendations in the OIG's 2003
World Trade Center report and provide all referenced documents in the report.
The request specifically cited OIG recommendations calling for EPA to:
Take action to ensure that public pronouncements regarding health risks and
environmental quality are adequately supported with available data and analysis,
Implement a testing program to ensure that the indoor cleanup effectively reduced
health risks from all pollutants of concern, and
Consider expanding the cleanup program to workplaces.
At EPA's request, the OIG assisted in the response by collecting and providing to each
requestor over 60 electronic files consolidated from over 100 workpapers from the OIG report.
The OIG report, EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges,
Successes, and Areas for Improvement, Report No. 2003-P-00012, was issued August 21,
2003. EPA responded separately on its actions in response to the World Trade Center disaster.
35
-------
Testimony
Providing testimony before congressional committees.
Acting Inspector General Testifies that EPA Has Improved Grants
Management But Can Do More
On May 18,2006, Acting Inspector General Bill Roderick testified before the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment on
how the OIG has helped EPA identify and correct deficiencies in managing its grants
programs. Mr. Roderick testified on the results of an OIG review, conducted at the
request of Committee Chairman Don Young, on whether EPA held its supervisors and
their project officers accountable for grants management.
"This work showed that while EPA has made progress to establish accountability, more
needed to be done to measure supervisor and staff performance of their grants
management responsibilities," Mr. Roderick said. The OIG made recommendations to
help EPA fully establish a system of accountability for grants management, which EPA
agreed to implement.
In Fiscal Year 2005, EPA awarded approximately $4 billion - over half of its budget - in
grants to State, local, and tribal governments; universities; and nonprofit organizations.
Also, Mr. Roderick testified that the OIG has looked at other grants management issues
the past few years beyond accountability. The OIG has evaluated EPA's progress in
opening more discretionary grants to competition and promoting competition. "Without
competition, EPA could not be assured that it was funding the best products based on
merit or accomplishing its mission with a reasonable return on taxpayer's investment,"
said Mr. Roderick.
The OIG has also reviewed the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Alaska Village
Safe Water Program to determine whether EPA adequately measures the environmental
results of these programs to ensure that they are positively affecting human health and the
environment. "EPA has made some progress in this area, yet we continue to see this as a
management challenge."
Mr. Roderick testified that EPA has made progress overall in improving grants
management; EPA's leadership has a clear commitment to address many of the problems
and weaknesses identified by the OIG, the Government Accountability Office, and
Congress. However, he stated that more can and should be done to improve grant
accountability, increase grant competition, and measure environmental results. "Given the
billions of dollars EPA awards every year, we will continue to monitor EPA's progress to
ensure that it builds on the improvements made in managing its grants," concluded Mr.
Roderick.
36
-------
EPA's Key Management Challenges
In an April 2006 memorandum to the Administrator, the OIG identified the 2006 key management
challenges for EPA. The following table lists these management challenges; identifies challenges that had
been listed in prior years; and provides links among these challenges, EPA's strategic goals, and the
President's Management Agenda.
EPA's Top Management Challenges
Reported by the Office of Inspector General
Managing for Results: Focusing on the logic of design,
measures of success (outputs and outcomes), and measures
of efficiency, so that EPA programs and processes can beset
up to evaluate results and make necessary changes.
Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security:
Implementing a strategy to effectively coordinate and address
threats.
Data Standards and Data Quality: Improving the quality of
data used to make decisions and monitor progress, and data
accessibility to EPA's partners.
EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish
Its Mission: Improving the management ofthe billions of
dollars of grants awarded by EPA.
Emissions Factors for Sources of Air Pollution: Needing
reliable emission factors and data for targeting the right control
strategies, ensuring permitting is done properly, and measuring
the effectiveness of programs in reducing air pollution.
Human Capital Management: Implementing a strategy that
will result in a competent, well-trained, and motivated workforce.
Voluntary, Alternative, and Innovative Practices and
Programs: Applying voluntary approaches and innovative or
alternative practices to provide flexible, collaborative, market-
driven solutions for measurable results.
Efficiently Managing Water and Wastewater Resources
and Infrastructure: Requiring huge investments to replace,
repair, and construct systems that are wearing out, such as
drinking water, treatment and supply, and wastewater
treatment and disposal systems.
Information Technology Systems Development and
Implementation: Overseeing information technology
projects to ensure they meet planned budgets and schedules.
Data Gaps: Deciding what environmental and other
indicators will be measured, providing data standards and
common definitions to ensure that sufficient, consistent, and
usable data are collected.
FY
2004
*
s
**
s
s
FY
2005
*
s
**
s
s
FY
2006
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Link to EPA
Strategic Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
GoaM
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Goal 2
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Link to President's
Management Agenda
Integrating
Performance and
Budget
Homeland
Security
E-Government
Financial
Performance
Human Capital
E-Government
E-Government
* The Working Relationships with the States and Linking Mission to Management challenges in FY 2004 and 2005 were
consolidated into Managing for Results in FY 2006.
** The Information Resources Management and Data Quality challenges in FY 2004 and 2005 were consolidated into Data
Standards and Data Quality in FY2006.
37
-------
We removed three of last year's challenges from this year's list because of the progress EPA has made
regarding these challenges and the growing significance of other challenges. Specifically:
Superfund Evaluation and Policy Identification: We removed this challenge because EPA is
taking, or has completed, steps to address most of the key issues highlighted. This involved EPA's
developing an action plan to respond to the majority of the 108 recommendations in its internal review,
and agreeing to implement OIG recommendations to better manage Superfund resources.
Challenges in Addressing Air Toxics Program Goals: Although this challenge remains an
important issue, EPA has expanded its efforts to address air toxics by increasing funding from
$89.9 million in 1999 to $108.2 million in 2006. EPAhas also completed its Clean Air Act requirement
to issue technology-based standards for categories of major stationary sources.
Information Security: We removed this challenge because EPA has demonstrated steady progress in
this area, primarily through strengthened policies and procedures of the Office of Environmental
Information. We noted that EPA scored an "A+" on the 2005 Congressional Federal Information
Security Management Act Report Card.
These challenges remain important and we will continue to monitor EPA's efforts to ensure that the
Agency continues to make progress.
38
-------
Other Activities
Sharing Opportunities to Improve Grant Accountability
During the semiannual period, Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General for
Audit, spoke at two conferences where she highlighted the EPA OIG's work
with the U.S. Comptroller General's Domestic Working Group to strengthen
accountability for the Federal Government's $450 billion annual investment in
grants.
The Domestic Working Group, made up of Federal Inspectors General, the Government
Accountability Office, and State and local auditors, collaborated to produce a Guide to
Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability. The Guide provides examples of
steps organizations have taken to help strengthen accountability over grant funds.
At the Intergovernmental Audit Forum's Biennial Forum, held in May 2006, and the Institute
of Internal Auditors'Annual Government Auditing Conference, in September 2006, Ms.
Heist discussed ways auditors at all levels of government can use the Guide to ensure grant
programs are properly designed, monitored, and evaluated to achieve results. She shared
examples of promising practices in the areas of establishing internal control systems,
developing performance measures, assessing grantee capability, monitoring performance,
and evaluating results. She talked about ways the Guide has been used to improve grant
accountability at the Department of the Interior, the Department of Education, and EPA.
OIG Researches and Reaches Out to Formulate Planning
Priorities
During this 6-month period, the OIG executed an ambitious customer driven
planning process to develop a Fiscal Year 2007 work plan that addresses EPA's
most significant environmental and management risks, priorities, and
challenges. Fifty percent of the OIG's new planned assignments resulted from
stakeholder input.
The planning process included developing separate comprehensive compendiums of risks,
challenges, and opportunities each for Agency-wide management, media-specific areas,
as well as regional cross-goal and management issues. Data were collected, categorized,
and summarized from research of EPA's stakeholders and staff, external literature,
previous OIG work, and EPA's strategic planning. We used the compendiums of risks and
challenges to populate a database from which the highest priorities were recorded by
category and scored by frequency of identification by EPA leadership.
As part of the planning process, we met with each EPA Assistant and Regional Administrator
to obtain their input. Prior to the meetings, we provided the Assistant and Regional
Administrators with the compendiums to help facilitate discussion and their identification of the
highest priority issues. At the meetings, we asked them what they believe are the most
significant priorities and risks across the Agency and in their specific areas of responsibility that
the OIG could address. We also sought feedback about OIG strengths and areas for
39
-------
OIGFY 2007 Annual Plan
Summary Analysis of
Planned Assignments
Required
assignments (see chart)
ited "'"
25%
Self Initiated 25%
Requested
improvement. As a result of these outreach meetings, 50 percent of the
OIG's new planned assignments for Fiscal Year 2007 are in direct
response to requests and significant priority areas identified, while about 25
percent each are for required/mandatory audits and OIG self-initiated
We developed summary lists, by category, of the significant risks,
challenges, and opportunities most frequently mentioned by the
Assistant and Regional Administrators, as well as similar lists of
significant risks, challenges, and priorities identified by EPA leadership
for each Media/Goal.
The Compendium of Risks, Challenges, and Opportunities; the consolidated list of priority
risks, challenges, and opportunities; and feedback on OIG strengths and areas for
improvement identified by the EPA leadership are available on the OIG Website:
www.epa.gov/oig/planning.htm.
Legislation, Regulations, and Policies Reviewed
Section 4(a) of the Inspector General Act requires the Inspector General to review
existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to the program and operation of
EPA and to make recommendations concerning their impact. The primary basis for our
comments are the audit, evaluation, investigation, and legislative experiences of the OIG
as well as our participation on the Presidents Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
During the reporting period, we reviewed 21 proposed changes to legislation, regulations,
policy, and procedures that could affect government-wide operations, including those of
EPA, and provided comments on 8 of those reviewed. We also reviewed drafts of Office
of Management and Budget Circulars, program operations manuals, directives, and
reorganizations. Details on several items follow.
Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards Draft Revisions: The EPA
OIG provided several significant comments and suggestions to the U.S. Government
Accountability Office in response to Exposure Draft Revisions to the Generally Accepted
Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS), including:
Consistency of Requirements: The Standards need to make a clearer distinction in
using the words "must" and "should." We believe that the concept of "Standards"
represents a minimum unconditional requirement and should not be equivocated. We
believe that the "should" statements need to either be changed to "must" or be
removed or relegated to commentary as "desirable."
Quality Assurance: We suggested that the Standards explicitly state that either
internal quality assurance reviews (even if limited) and external peer reviews be
performed in compliance with GAGAS, or that discussion be provided on where the
GAGAS standards do not apply.
Planning: These standards describe the necessity and requirements for audit planning
at an assignment level, but do not address the broader concept of audit assignment
40
-------
selection when there should be some rigorous criteria about the application of limited
audit resources. We believe that what an audit organization chooses to audit, and how
it makes its selections, are as important to the overall effectiveness of the audit effort
as individual assignment planning.
Balance: We believe that interpreting objectivity to explicitly include balance will
promote a greater acceptance of the audit as a tool for better future performance.
Also, auditors should explicitly recognize sound or exemplary conditions and
opportunities for improving future performance, as well as weaknesses for corrective
action, as the basis for recommendations and savings.
Recognition of Stakeholders Interest: The Standards should require acknowledging
stakeholder interest and outcomes when considering audit objectives or planning as
part of the discussion of risk.
Audit Followup: We suggested that the Standards include language requiring audit
organizations to report on the status of open recommendations at least annually to the
heads of audited organizations. We further suggested that these Standards require that
auditors verify, with evidence, that any actions reported by the audited entity to resolve
recommendations do satisfy the nature of the recommendations.
Office of Management and Budget Audit Bulletin 01-02 Revision: The
proposed revision would limit what internal control deficiencies get reported to
management or referred to in a Management Letter, potentially resulting in the
readers of the audit report not being aware of the additional internal control concerns.
Therefore, we recommended that "other deficiencies in internal control" that are not
required to be included in the audit report but that the auditor considers necessary to
communicate should be separately communicated to management in writing. If a
letter containing other deficiencies in internal control is issued, the auditor shall refer
to that letter in the auditor's report on internal control (see Chapter 5 of Government
Auditing Standards). Readers of the audit report should be aware of the existence of
such a letter.
Draft EPA Order - EPA Federal Credentials for Inspections and Enforcement of
Federal Environmental Statutes: We suggested that the Agency not issue any
credentials to State/tribal inspectors until one of two things happens: (1) the State/tribe
documents that an appropriate background check was done, or (2) EPA issues final
regulations requiring appropriate background checks for State/tribal inspectors. We
believe the interim approach that relies on what background checks the State and tribal
governments have performed, as a condition for State/tribal employment, is insufficient.
If a State/tribe does not conduct background checks as a condition of employment,
there may be State/tribal inspectors conducting work without any background check.
The draft order says that there will be no requirement for checks until a new regulation
is issued. This may leave the Agency open to potential vulnerabilities until EPA issues a
new regulation. We also suggested that the Agency add a requirement to conduct a
periodic inventory of issued and unissued credentials to maintain proper control over
sensitive/accountable property and include a requirement that the credential bearer must
sign a statement that they have read the order and agree to comply with each of the
provisions of the order.
41
-------
Draft EPA Order - Food at the EPA Conferences, Workshops or Observances:
We questioned how the Agency can effectively enforce the rules over the distinctions that
govern who is eligible to receive EPA-supplied food at a variety of different EPA events.
Typically, the kind of events for which food may be provided would include a variety of
people, only some of whom would be eligible to consume the food provided. We
recommended that this policy focus on the basic intent and substantive applicability instead
of selectively determining who is eligible to receive EPA-supplied food at an event,
because it is not reasonably enforceable.
42
-------
Statistical Data
Profile of Activities and Results
Audit Operations
Office of Inspector General Reviews
April 1, 2006 to
September 30, 2006 Fiscal
(dollars in millions) 2006
Questioned Costs *
Total $4.20 $4.24
Federal $4.00 $4.03
Recommended Efficiencies *
Federal $683.1** $686.7
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
Federal $33.5 $35.9
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
Federal $90.5 $94.1
Reports Issued - Office of Inspector
General Reviews 32 65
Reports Resolved
(Agreement by Agency officials to
take satisfactory corrective actions) *** 121
269
Investigative Operations
April 1 , 2006 to
September 30, 2006
(dollars in millions)
Fines and Recoveries (including civil) ***** $1.4
Cases Opened During Period 50
Cases Closed During Period ****** 96
Indictments/Informations of Persons or Firms 1 0
Convictions of Persons or Firms 1 0
Civil Judgments/Settlements/Filings 2
Fiscal
2006
$30.8
123
175
17
25
8
Audit Operations
Other Reviews
(Reviews Performed by Another Federal Agency
or Single Audit Act Auditors)
April 1,2006 to
September 30, 2006
(dollars in millions)
Fiscal
2006
Questioned Costs *
Total $139.2 $203.2
Federal $71.5 $82.9
Recommended Efficiencies *
Federal $2.00 $2.12
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
Federal $0.35 $3.05
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
Federal $0.00 $0.06
Reports Issued - Other Reviews
EPA Reviews Performed by
Another Federal Agency 126 257
Single Audit Act Reviews 111 206
Total 237 463
Agency Recoveries
Recoveries from Audit Resolutions
of Current and Prior Periods
(cash collections or offsets to
future payments) **** $4.72 $4.73
* Questioned Costs and Recommended Efficiencies are
subject to change pending further review in the audit
resolution process. Total Questioned Costs include
contracts of other Federal agencies.
** Includes $639 million not reported from the prior
reporting period.
*** Reports Resolved are subject to change pending further
review.
**** Information on Recoveries from Audit Resolutions is
provided by EPA's Financial Management Division and is
unaudited.
**** Total includes actions resulting from joint investigations.
**** Includes one case closed in a prior period.
43
-------
Audit Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution
Process for Semiannual Period Ending September 30,2006
Report Category
A. Forwhich no management
decision was made by
April 1,2006*
B. Which were issued during
the reporting period
C. Which were issued during
the reporting period that
required no resolution
Subtotals (A + B - C)
D. Forwhich a management
decision was made during
the reporting period
E Forwhich no management
decision was made by
September 30, 2006
F Reports for which no
management decision was
made within 6 months
of issuance
No. of
Reports
161
269
163
267
121
146
75
Report Issuance
($ in thousands)
Questioned
Costs
$91 ,280
75,528
0
166,808
49,424
117,384
43,335
Recommended
Efficiencies
$647,461
46,200
0
693,661
688,115
5,546
3,610
Report Resolution Costs
Sustained
($ in thousands)
To Be
Recovered
$32,431
1,441
0
33,872
33,872
0
0
As
Efficiencies
$46,324
44,144
0
90,468
90,468
0
0
* Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended
efficiencies between this report and our previous semiannual report results from corrections
made to data in our audit tracking system.
Status of Management Decisions on Inspector General Reports
This section presents statistical information as required by the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, on the status of EPA management decisions on reports issued by the
OIG involving monetary recommendations. As presented, information contained in Tables
1 and 2 cannot be used to assess results of reviews performed or controlled by this office.
Many of the reports were prepared by other Federal auditors or independent public
accountants. EPA OIG staff do not manage or control such assignments. Auditees
frequently provide additional documentation to support the allowability of such costs
subsequent to report issuance.
44
-------
Table 1 - Inspector General-Issued Reports with Questioned Costs for Semiannual Period
Ending September 30, 2006 (dollar value in thousands)
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was made
by April 1,2006**
B. New reports issued during period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made
during the reporting period
(i) Dollar value of disallowed costs
(ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed
D. For which no management decision was made
by September 30, 2006
Reports for which no management decision was made
within 6 months of issuance
Number of
Reports
81
34
115
42
29
13
73
46
Questioned
Costs *
$91 ,280
75,528
166,808
49,424
33,872
15,552
117,384
43,335
Unsupported
Costs
$43,225
71 ,654
114,879
17,764
4,289
13,475
97,115
25,481
* Questioned costs include the unsupported costs.
** Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs between this report and
our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking
system.
Table 2 - Inspector General-Issued Reports with Recommendations that Funds Be Put to
Better Use for Semiannual Period Ending September 30, 2006 (dollar value in thousands)
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was made by April 1, 2006*
B. Which were issued during the reporting period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made during the
reporting period
(i) Dollar value of recommendations from reports that were
agreed to by management
(ii) Dollar value of recommendations from reports that were not
agreed to by management
(iii) Dollar value of non-awards or unsuccessful bidders
D. For which no management decision was made by September 30, 2006
Reports for which no management decision was made
within 6 months of issuance
Number of
Reports
8
4
12
6
6
1
6
5
Dollar
Value
$647,461
46,200
693,661
688,115
90,468
597,647
5,546
3,610
Any difference in number of reports and amounts of funds put to better use between this report
and our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking
system.
45
-------
Audits with No Final Action as of September 30, 2006, Which Are Over 365 Days Past the
Date of the Accepted Management Decision (Including Audits in Appeal)
Audits
Program
Assistance Agreements
ContractAudits
Single Audits
Financial Statement Audits
Total
Total
24
25
0
16
0
65
Percentage
37.0%
38.4%
0.0%
24.6%
0.0%
100.0%
46
-------
Summary of Investigative Results
Summary of Investigative Activity During Period
Cases open as of April 1 , 2006
Cases opened during period
Cases closed during period *
Cases pending as of September 30, 2006
212
50
96
166
Investigations Pending by Type as of September 30, 2006
Contract
Assistance Agreement
Employee Integrity
Program Integrity
Computer Crime
Laboratory Fraud
Other
Total
Superfund
14
0
2
1
0
8
1
26
Management
11
33
28
27
6
29
6
140
Total
25
33
30
28
6
37
7
166
Results of Prosecutive Actions
Criminal Indictments /Informations /Complaints
Convictions
Civil Judgments / Settlements / Filings
Fines and Recoveries (includes Civil) ***
Prison Time
Prison Time Suspended
Probation
Community Service
EPA OIG Only
0
0
2
$543,719
60 months
60 months
108 months
0 hours
Joint**
10
10
0
$862,557
78 months
0 months
384 months
1,000 hours
Total
10
10
2
$1,406,276
138 months
60 months
492 months
1,000 hours
Administrative Actions
Suspensions
Debarments
Voluntary Exclusions
Other Administrative Actions
Total
EPA OIG Only
2
5
5
11
23
Joint**
0
3
2
1
6
Total
2
8
7
12
29
Includes one case closed in a prior period.
With another Federal agency.
Includes an adjustment for a prior period.
47
-------
Scoreboard of Results
Scoreboard of Cumulative Results Compared to Fiscal Year 2006 Annual
Performance Goal Targets
All results reported in Fiscal Year 2006, from current and prior years' work, as reported in the OIG
Performance Measurement and Results System and the Inspector General Operations Reporting system.
All data not verified.
Strategic Goals; With OIG Government Performance
and Results Act Annual Performance Targets
Compared to Fiscal Year 2006 Results Reported
Supporting Measures
Goal: Contribute to Human Health and Environmental Quality Through Improved Business Practices,
Accountability, and Integrity of Program Operations1
Environmental Improvements/Actions/Changes
Improvements in Business/Systems/Efficiency
Risks Reduced or Eliminated
Target: 303
Reported: 407 (134%)
1 Legislative/regulatory change/decision
1 Example of environmental improvement
3 Best practices implemented
73 Policy, process, practice, control changes
(including actions taken/closed before report)
312 Certifications/validations/verifications/corrections
17 Environmental risks reduced/eliminated
Environmental and Business Recommendations
Challenges, Best Practices, and Risks Identified
Target: 925
Reported: 1,024 (111%)
915 Recommendations (for Agency action)
48 Critical congressional/public management concerns
addressed
34 Best practice identified (to be transferred)
13 Referrals for Agency action
8 NewFMFIA/A-123/Managementchallenges/risks
identified
6 Environmental risks identified
Return on Investment: Potential dollar return
as percentage of OIG budget ($49 million)
Target: $73.5 million
Reported: $809.6 million Federal2 (1,100%)
(dollars in millions)
$ 87.0 Questioned costs (Federal)3
$ 691.8 Recommended efficiencies,2 costs saved (Federal)
$ 30.8 Fines, recoveries, settlements
(includes actions taken priorto report issuance)
Criminal, Civil, and Administrative Actions
Reducing Risk of Loss/Operational Integrity
Target: 80
Reported: 121 (151%)
25 Criminal convictions
17 Indictments/informations/complaints
8 Civil judgments/settlements/filings
56 Administrative actions
15 Allegations disproved
Sustained Monetary Recommendations and
Savings Achieved from Current and Prior Periods
Target: no goal established
Reported: $157.2 million
(dollars in millions)
$ 63.1 Questioned costs sustained (Total)
$ 94.1 Cost efficiencies sustained or realized
f = At or over 100 percent annual target (^) = At or over 80 percent annual target (_)= Below 65 percent annual target
This Scoreboard, which represents OIG external performance reporting requirements under the Government Performance and
Results Act, consolidates similar measures that were previously presented separately as Goal 1 (environmental) and Goal 2
(business practices). The Office of Management and Budget, seeking to reduce the number of "vital-few" measures
Government-wide, has specifically endorsed this change.
Includes $2.7 million from previous year Superfund review not before captured, $39 million from a Superfund financial audit
of undistributed costs, and $639 million from a program evaluation of Superfund Special Accounts/Unliquidated Obligations.
Includes nearly $67 million from audits of grants to State of Alaska and its grantees.
48
-------
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Reports Issued
The Inspector General Act requires a listing, subdivided according to subject matter, of each report issued
by the OIG during the reporting period. For each report, where applicable, the Inspector General Act also
requires a listing of the dollar value of questioned costs and the dollar value of recommendations that funds
be put to better use.
Report Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
PERFORMANCE REPORTS
2006-P-00022
2006-P-00023
2006-P-00024
2006-P-00025
2006-P-00026
2006-P-00027
2006-P-00028
2006-P-00029
2006-P-00031
2006-P-00032
2006-P-00033
2006-P-00034
2006-P-00035
2006-P-00036
2006-P-00037
2006-P-00038
2006-P-00039
2006-P-00041
EPA Needs to Better I mplement Cl PP
Katrina-Land
I N FOSEC Series: Security Practices OAR
Mercury Hot Spots Analysis under CAMR
Small Drinking Water Systems
Undistributed Superfund Costs
Measuring the Impact and Progress of FQPA
EPA's Organizational Structure Study
Ritualistic Uses of Mercury
AA-Purpose and Use of Chesapeake Bay Grants
Katrina - Lessons Learned
EJ Survey
Management of Government Furnished Equipment
Evaluation of Drinking Water Laboratory Procedures
AA - Earmarks Consolidated
Hurricane Katrina
Nonroad Emission Reduction Strategies
Review of Environmental Concerns at McFarland California
TOTAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS = 1 8
25-Apr-06
2-May-06
4-May-06
11-May-06
30-May-06
26-Jul-06
1-Aug-06
8-Aug-06
29-Aug-06
31-Aug-06
14-Sep-06
18-Sep-06
19-Sep-06
21-Sep-06
22-Sep-06
26-Sep-06
27-Sep-06
28-Sep-06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT REPORTS
2006-4-00122
2006-4-00147
ASIWPCA Incurred Costs for Seven Grants
Oregon DEQ Reported Outlays under Agreement V99060102
TOTAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT REPORTS = 2
31-Jul-06
21-Sep-06
$0
$782,693
$782,693
SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS
2006-3-00097
2006-3-00098
2006-3-00099
2006-3-00100
2006-3-00101
2006-3-00102
2006-3-00104
2006-3-00108
2006-3-00109
2006-3-00110
2006-3-00111
2006-3-00112
2006-3-00113
2006-3-00114
2006-3-00115
2006-3-00116
2006-3-00117
2006-3-00118
2006-3-00119
2006-3-00120
2006-3-00121
2006-3-00122
2006-3-00123
2006-3-00124
2006-3-00125
2006-3-00126
2006-3-00127
Joplin, City of FY 2004
Burlington, City of FY 2004
Aberdeen, City of FY 2004
Monmouth, City of- FY 2004
Little Falls, City of- FY 2004
Lawrenceville, City of- FY 2004
Arkansas for Medical Sciences, University of FY 2004
Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust - FY 2004
Hood River, City of -FY 2004
California Air Pollution Control Officers Assoc FY 2004
National Tribal Environ mental Council, Inc. FY2003
AWWA Research Foundation, FY2004
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District - FY 2004
Tampa Bay Water (A Regional Water Supply Author! ty)-FY2004
Kansas City, City of FY 2004
Nucla, Town of, FY 2004
West Virginia, State of FY 2004
Falls Church, City of FY 2004
Sparks, City of FY 2004
Stowe, Town of -FY 2003
Stowe, Town of -FY 2004
Warren, Town of -FY 2003
Warren, Town of -FY 2004
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, CA
McAdoo Borough Sewer Authority, FY2003
McAdoo Borough Sewer Authority
Lincoln, Town of-FY 2003
10-Apr-06
10-Apr-06
11-Apr-06
18-Apr-06
24-Apr-06
21-Apr-06
24-Apr-06
26-Apr-06
26-Apr-06
9-May-06
15-May-06
15-May-06
15-May-06
15-May-06
16-May-06
18-May-06
18-May-06
18-May-06
22-May-06
25-May-06
25-May-06
1-Jun-06
5-Jun-06
1-Jun-06
1-Jun-06
1-Jun-06
1-Jun-06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$302,963
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$1,883,590
0
$1,883,590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$403,820
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$39,000,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$183,875
0
0
$39,183,875
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
-------
Report Number
2006-3-00128
2006-3-00129
2006-3-00130
2006-3-00131
2006-3-00132
2006-3-00133
2006-3-00134
2006-3-00135
2006-3-00136
2006-3-00137
2006-3-00138
2006-3-00139
2006-3-00140
2006-3-00141
2006-3-00142
2006-3-00143
2006-3-00144
2006-3-00145
2006-3-00146
2006-3-00147
2006-3-00148
2006-3-00149
2006-3-00150
2006-3-00151
2006-3-00152
2006-3-00153
2006-3-00154
2006-3-00155
2006-3-00156
2006-3-00157
2006-3-00158
2006-3-00159
2006-3-00160
2006-3-00161
2006-3-00162
2006-3-00163
2006-3-00164
2006-3-00165
2006-3-00166
2006-3-00167
2006-3-00168
2006-3-00169
2006-3-00170
2006-3-00171
2006-3-00172
2006-3-00173
2006-3-00174
2006-3-00175
2006-3-00176
2006-3-00177
2006-3-00178
2006-3-00179
2006-3-00180
2006-3-00181
2006-3-00182
2006-3-00183
2006-3-00184
2006-3-00185
2006-3-00186
2006-3-00187
2006-3-00188
2006-3-00189
2006-3-00190
2006-3-00191
2006-3-00192
2006-3-00193
2006-3-00194
2006-3-00195
2006-3-00196
2006-3-00197
2006-3-00198
2006-3-00199
2006-3-00200
Title
Lincoln, Town of-FY 2004
Cross City, Town of
Hopkinsville Water Environment Authority
Chippewa Cree Tribe
Lilly Borough Sewer Authority, FY2003
Dale, Town of-FY 2004
Lilly Borough Sewer Authority, FY2004
Flowood, City of-FY 2004
Owens Valley Indian Water Commission
Enlarged Hepaibah Public Service District
Westlake, City of, Louisiana
Picuris Pueblo, New Mexico
Lake Washington Sanitary District
Sycamore, City of
Mabel, City of FY 2003
Mountain Lake, City of
Lonsdale, City of
Mabel, City of FY 2004
Macomb, City of
Mountain Lake, City of FY 2004
Lovilia, City of, Capital Projects Fund
Walford, City of
Woodward, City of
Saint Augusta, City of
Davison, City of
Le Center, City of
Annadale.Cityof
Battle Lake, City of
Battle Lake, City of
Aledo, City of
Aledo, City of
Kearney, City of
Kearney, City of
West Concord, City of
Sequatchie County
Sequatchie County
Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of, EQB - FY 2004
Puerto Rico Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund - FY 2003
Puerto Rico Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund - FY 2004
Alaska, State of-FY 2003 Single Audit Report
Alaska, State of-FY 2004 Single Audit Report
Cortina Indian RancheriaofCAFY2001
Cortina Indian Rancheria FY2002
Cortina Indian Rancheria FY2003
Cortina Indian Rancheria FY2004
Greater Harrison County Public Service District - FY 2004
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation-FY 2003
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation-FY 2004
Spirit Lake, City of-FY 2004
Lemars, City of-FY 2004
New York, State of-FY 2004
New Mexico Finance Authority - FY 2004
Shoshone & Arapaho Joint Prog, of the Wind River Reservation
Lincoln County Rural Water System, Inc., FY2003
Lincoln County Rural Water System, Inc., FY2004
North Lake Recreational Sewer & Water District FY 2004
Association of Bay Area Governments FY 2004
Guam Waterworks Authority FY 2004
Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri, FY 2004
Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas, FY 2004
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma FY 2004
Pueblo of Zia, NM, FY2004
Rosebud Sioux Tribe, FY 2004
Fort Yukon, Native Village of FY2004
Athabascan Tribal Government, Councilof FY2004
West Virginia, State of - FY2005
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies - FY 2004
New Mexico Environment Department - FY 2004
Natural Resources Defense Council - FY 2004
Iowa, State of-FY 2005
Banks Township Municipal Authority-FY 2003
Howard University, FY2005
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community FY2004
Final Report
Issued
1-Jun-06
1-Jun-06
5-Jun-06
5-Jun-06
5-Jun-06
5-Jun-06
6-Jun-06
6-Jun-06
8-Jun-06
8-Jun-06
19-Jun-06
19-Jun-06
20-Jun-06
20-Jun-06
20-Jun-06
22-Jun-06
22-Jun-06
22-Jun-06
22-Jun-06
22-Jun-06
22-Jun-06
22-Jun-06
22-Jun-06
26-Jun-06
5-Jul-06
5-Jul-06
5-Jul-06
6-Jul-06
6-Jul-06
6-Jul-06
6-Jul-06
6-Jul-06
6-Jul-06
10-Jul-06
10-Jul-06
10-Jul-06
20-Jul-06
20-Jul-06
20-Jul-06
26-Jul-06
26-Jul-06
2-Aug-06
2-Aug-06
2-Aug-06
2-Aug-06
3-Aug-06
3-Aug-06
3-Aug-06
7-Aug-06
7-Aug-06
9-Aug-06
10-Aug-06
14-Aug-06
15-Aug-06
15-Aug-06
15-Aug-06
15-Aug-06
15-Aug-06
16-Aug-06
16-Aug-06
16-Aug-06
21-Aug-06
21-Aug-06
7-Sep-06
7-Sep-06
25-Aug-06
25-Aug-06
25-Aug-06
25-Aug-06
5-Sep-06
5-Sep-06
7-Sep-06
13-Sep-06
Questioned Costs
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonabb
Costs Costs Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$8,905
0
0
0
0
0
$2,373
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$33,887,200
$32,976,401
$409,276
$244,507
$408,370
$369,166
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$115,000
0
0
0
0
$145,259
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
-------
Final Report
Report Number Title Issued
2006-3-00201 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION FY 2004 13-Sep-06
2006-3-00202 San Juan Pueblo, FY 2004 18-Sep-06
2006-3-00203 Indian Township Tribal Government, FY2002 18-Sep-06
2006-3-00204 Indian Township Tribal Government, FY2003 18-Sep-06
2006-3-00205 Indian Township Tribal Government, FY2004 19-Sep-06
2006-3-00206 Big Valley Rancheria Band of Porno Indians FY 2003 19-Sep-06
2006-3-00207 American Society of Civil Engineers and Affiliates - FY 2004 26-Sep-06
2006-3-00208 South Carolina, State of-FY 2005 26-Sep-06
2006-3-00209 Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community - FY 2002 28-Sep-06
2006-3-00210 Pauite-Shoshone Indiansofthe Bishop Community FY2003 28-Sep-06
2006-3-00211 Pauite-Shoshone Indiansofthe Bishop Community FY2004 28-Sep-06
TOTALSINGLEAUDIT REPORTS = 111
DIG ISSUED CONTRACTS REPORTS
2006-2-00017 E&E Data Input CAS 402 noncomp-Cost Impact 26-Apr-06
2006-4-00093 Mixed Funding Claim - Bofors-Nobel Superfund Site 4-Apr-06
2006-4-00097 Army Creek Mixed Funding Claim No. 2 27-Apr-06
2006-4-00102 Armour Road Superfund Site Mixed Funding Claim 9-May-06
2006-4-00131 E&E Accounting System 21-Aug-06
2006-4-00139 White House Mixed Funding Claim Number 2 7-Sep-06
TOTAL DIG ISSUED CONTRACTS REPORTS = 6
DCAA CONTRACT REPORTS
2006-1-00042 MACTEC Engineering&Consultingfpurchased by MACTEC)I/C 2003 6-Apr-06
2006-1-00043 Black SVeatch Special Projects Corp.-FY2001 Incurred Cost 20-Apr-06
2006-1-00045 TetraTechEC, Inc.-FY 10/1/2004 Incurred Cost 12-May-06
2006-1-00046 Portage Environmental, Inc. - FYE12/31/2003 Incurred Cost 8-May-06
2006-1-00047 Integrated Laboratory Systems - FY 2003 Incurred Cost 16-May-06
2006-1-00048 MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.-FY 2003 Incurred Cost 23-May-06
2006-1-00049 TetraTech,lnc.-CFYE9/28/2003lncurredCost 26-May-06
2006-1-00050 Neptune & Company-FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 21-Jun-06
2006-1-00051 SoBran Inc.-FYE 9/30/2004-Incurred Cost 21-Jun-06
2006-1 -00052 Welso Federal Services LLC - FYE 9/30/2004 Incurred Cost 21 -Jun-06
2006-1-00053 Project Resources, Inc. - FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost 7-Aug-06
2006-1-00054 KBMGroup, Inc.-FY 12/31/2004Incurred Cost 12-Jul-06
2006-1-00055 KBM Group, Inc.-FY2003 Incurred Cost 13-Jul-06
2006-1-00056 Computer Sciences Corp-Applied Tech Div. -CFY3/31/20031/C 20-Jul-06
2006-1-00057 Black & Veatch Spec. Proj. Corp.-FY2002 Incurred Cost 27-Jul-06
2006-1-00058 Midwest Research Institute FYE 6/30/2004 Incurred Cost 31-Jul-06
2006-1-00059 Geologies Corporation - FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Costs 4-Aug-06
2006-1-00060 Arrowhead Services lnc.-FY2001 Incurred Cost 8-Aug-06
2006-1-00061 Industrial Economics, Inc. - FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost 16-Aug-06
2006-1-00062 International Resources Group, LTD - FY 12/31/20021/C 16-Aug-06
2006-1-00063 COM Federal Programs Corp- FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost 17-Aug-06
2006-1-00064 DCT, Incorporated - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 22-Aug-06
2006-1-00065 Industrial Economics, Inc - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 22-Aug-06
2006-1-00066 Guardian Environmental Services, Inc. - FY 10/31/20041/C 1-Sep-06
2006-1-00067 WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. - FY 12/31/20041/C 1-Sep-06
2006-1-00068 Environmental Health & Eng - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 8-Sep-06
2006-1-00069 Systems Research & Applications - FY 6/30/2004 Incurred Cost 13-Sep-06
2006-1-00070 CH2M Hill, Inc.-FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 12-Sep-06
2006-1-00073 Eastern Research Group - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 20-Sep-06
2006-1-00074 Cadmus Group, Inc. - FYE 4/30/2004 Incurred Cost 21-Sep-06
2006-1-00075 FEV ENGINETECHNOLOGY- FY 12/31/2004 INCURRED COST 21-Sep-06
2006-1-00076 Northbridge Environ Mgt Consul - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 21-Sep-06
2006-1-00077 Environmental Restoration, LLC- FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 26-Sep-06
2006-1-00078 Earth Tech Remediation Services-FY 9/30/20041/C 27-Sep-06
2006-1-00079 EC/R Incorporated FYE12/31/2003 Incurred Cost 28-Sep-06
2006-2-00016 Infopro, Inc. - FY 2001 Incurred Cost 25-Apr-06
2006-2-00018 Battelle Memorial Institute - BCD - MAAR 6 Special-EPC05030 8-May-06
2006-2-00020 SciComm, Inc.-FY2003 Incurred Cost 10-May-06
2006-2-00021 TetraTechNUSInc.-FY2002RAC68-W6-0045 14-Jun-06
2006-2-00022 Onyx Special Services-Review of G&A Rate 14-Jun-06
2006-2-00023 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. - FY2002 RAG 68-S6-3003 15-Jun-06
2006-2-00024 Tetra Tech EM lnc.-FY2002 RAG Close-out 68-W6-0037 27-Jun-06
2006-2-00025 Tetra Tech EMI -FYE 9/30/03 RAG Annual Close-out 68-W6-0037 11-Jul-06
2006-2-00026 Weston Solution, Inc. - FY 2002 RAG 68-W7-0026 13-Jul-06
2006-2-00027 Tetra Tech NUS, lnc.-FY2001 RAG 68-S6-3003 20-Jul-06
2006-2-00028 Gruzen Samton -GAGS - 68-WO-1049 30-Aug-06
2006-2-00029 CDMFederal Program Corp.-FY2002 Annual RAC68-W9-8210 16-Aug-06
2006-2-00030 Tetra Tech NUS-FYE 9/30/2003 RAG Annual Closeout68-W6-0045 17-Aug-06
2006-2-00031 Nobis Engineering, Inc. - Preaward - PR-HQ-05-10957 22-Aug-06
2006-2-00032 Perrin Quarles Associates - FYE 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost 22-Aug-06
Questioned Costs
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable
Costs Costs Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
$314,241
$1,109,439
0
$123,552
$140,038
0
0
$1,373,029
0
$76,022
$2,138
0
$2,637
$260
$18,413
0
0
0
$2,943
0
0
$187,481
$8,118
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$7,367
$860,309
0
0
$39,400
0
0
$15,696
0
$18,685
0
0
$44,119
0
$22,599
0
0
0
$94,884
$2,635
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$791,941
0
0
0
$69,750,940
0
0
0
$20,000
0
0
$20,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$2,056,502
0000
51
-------
Report Number
2006-2-00034
2006-4-00089
2006-4-00090
2006-4-00091
2006-4-00092
2006-4-00094
2006-4-00095
2006-4-00096
2006-4-00098
2006-4-00099
2006-4-00100
2006-4-00101
2006-4-00103
2006-4-00104
2006-4-00105
2006-4-00106
2006-4-00107
2006-4-00108
2006-4-00109
2006-4-00110
2006-4-00111
2006-4-00112
2006-4-00113
2006-4-00114
2006-4-00115
2006-4-00116
2006-4-00117
2006-4-00118
2006-4-00119
2006-4-00120
2006-4-00121
2006-4-00123
2006-4-00124
2006-4-00125
2006-4-00126
2006-4-00127
2006-4-00128
2006-4-00129
2006-4-00130
2006-4-00132
2006-4-00133
2006-4-00134
2006-4-00135
2006-4-00136
2006-4-00137
2006-4-00138
2006-4-00140
2006-4-00141
2006-4-00142
2006-4-00143
2006-4-00144
2006-4-00145
2006-4-00146
2006-4-00148
2006-4-00149
2006-4-00150
2006-4-00151
2006-4-00152
2006-4-00153
2006-4-00154
2006-4-00155
2006-4-00156
2006-4-00157
2006-4-00158
2006-4-00159
2006-4-00160
2006-4-00161
2006-4-00162
2006-4-00163
2006-4-00164
2006-4-00165
2006-4-00166
2006-4-00167
Title
TetraTech NUS, Inc. - FY2003 RAC68-S6-3003
Syracuse Research Corporation - FY 2006 Billing System
National Academy of Sciences- CAS FY 2006 CAS 418
TetraTech, A&E Division - FY2006 CAS 408
IBM Federal, Inc. - FY 12/31/2006 IBM OPS Audit
Computer Sciences Corporation - FY 2006 Floor Check
Battelle Memorial Inst - BCO-Voucher Review #1 00004, 1 1 122105
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. - FY 2006 Floor Check
Systems Research & Applications - FY 2006 Labor Cost Charg
Syracuse Research Corporation - FY2006 CAS 414
Black & Veatch SPC- FY 2005 MAAR 6 (Floor Check)
Systems Research & Applications - FY 2006 CAS 415
Environmental Quality Management, Inc. - Paid Voucher Review
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. - FY 2006 CAS 409
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. - FY 2006 CAS 408
IBM Federal, Inc. - FY 2006 CAS 404
Systems Research & Applications, Corp. - Purchasing System
Alpine Geophysics - Accounting System Review
Eastern Research Group - CAS 403 Compliance
EG&G - FY 2006 General Controls
TetraTech NUS - FY2006 CAS 408
Pegasus Technical Services - FY 2006 Acctg System Followup
Eastern Research Group - CAS 418 Compliance
Battelle - ICAPS - FY2006 Purchasing System
Battelle - ICAPS - FY2006 EDP System
Eastern Research Group - FY 2006 Financial Capability
Matrix Environmental & Geotechnical Svs - FY 2006 Floorcheck
Midwest Research Instiute - FY2005 Financial Capability
Weston Solutions, Inc. - CFY 2005 - Budget System
National Academy of Sciences - FY2006 Info Tech System
CH2M Hill, Inc. (INC) - FY2006 CAS 404
CH2M Hill, Inc. (INC) - FY2006 CAS 409
CH2M Hill Inc (LTD) -CAS 408
Pegasus Technical Services - FY 2006 Voucher Review Followup
National Academy of Sciences - FY 2006 Paid Vouchers
TetraTech EC Inc. -CAS 404
TetraTech EC Inc. -CAS 409
COM Federal Program Corp - FY 2006 MAAR 6 - Floor Check
Nobis Engineering, Inc. - Financial Cap Risk Assessment
Sysracuse Research Corporation - FY2006 Financial Capabil
Cadmus Group, Inc. - FY2006 CAS 404
Cadmus Group - FY 2006 CAS 409
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. -Accounting Sys
National Academy of Sciences - FY 2006 Control Env/Acct. Sys
HCD International -Accounting System Review
Tetra Tech EC Inc. - Other Internal Control-ODC
IBM Federal, Inc. - FY 2006 CAS 409
Systems Research & Applications - FY 2006 Accounting System
Systems Research & Applications- FY 2006 Billing System
TetraTech EC Inc. -Budget System
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. - CAS 407
Weston Solutions, Inc. - CAS 404
Tetra Tech EC Inc. -CAS 403
Weston Solutions, Inc. - CAS 409
EG&G -FY 2006 CAS 404
Weston Solutions, Inc. - FY Accounting System
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller - FY 2006 MAAR Floor Check
CH2M Hill, Inc. (INC) FY2006 Labor System/Floorcheck
Syracuse Research Corporation - FY 2006 Acctg for Labor
SAIC - Company 9 - EDP General Controls
Battelle- BCD -FY 2006 CAS 409
CH2M Hill, Inc. (INC) - FY 2006 Direct Voucher Review
FEV Engine Technology - FY 2006 Mod Finan Cap. Risk Assess.
FEV Engine Technology - FY2006 MAARS 13
Stratus Consulting, Inc. - FY2005 MAAR 6
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. -MAARS 13
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc - FY 2005 CAS 404
Systems Research & Applications - FY 2006 CAS 41 6
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller - FY 2006 Accounting System Review
Battelle - OCEO - FY 2006 CAS 403
National Academy of Sciences - FY 2006 Indirect/ODC System
CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd. (LTD)-FY2006 Detail Financial Cap
Syracuse Research Corporation - FY 2006 MAAR 1 3
Final Report
Issued
28-Sep-06
3-Apr-06
3-Apr-06
3-Apr-06
3-Apr-06
18-Apr-06
24-Apr-06
24-Apr-06
27-Apr-06
2-May-06
8-May-06
8-May-06
12-May-06
22-May-06
22-May-06
1-Jun-06
5-Jun-06
6-Jun-06
7-Jun-06
21-Jun-06
23-Jun-06
23-Jun-06
27-Jun-06
28-Jun-06
29-Jun-06
11-Jul-06
12-Jul-06
13-Jul-06
18-Jul-06
20-Jul-06
27-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
1-Aug-06
7-Aug-06
8-Aug-06
8-Aug-06
14-Aug-06
15-Aug-06
17-Aug-06
25-Aug-06
25-Aug-06
25-Aug-06
31-Aug-06
31-Aug-06
1-Sep-06
1-Sep-06
12-Sep-06
15-Sep-06
15-Sep-06
15-Sep-06
19-Sep-06
19-Sep-06
19-Sep-06
19-Sep-06
20-Sep-06
21-Sep-06
21-Sep-06
25-Sep-06
25-Sep-06
25-Sep-06
25-Sep-06
25-Sep-06
26-Sep-06
26-Sep-06
26-Sep-06
26-Sep-06
26-Sep-06
27-Sep-06
27-Sep-06
27-Sep-06
27-Sep-06
28-Sep-06
28-Sep-06
Questioned Costs
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonabb
Costs Costs Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
-------
Questioned Costs
Report Number
2006-4-00168
2006-4-00169
2006-4-00170
Title
Battelle - BCO - FY 2006 CAS 404
National Academy of Sciences - FY 2006 Labor System
TetraTech EM, Inc.-CAS404
TOTAL DCAA CONTRACT REPORTS = 126
FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS
2006-1-00080 2005 CSB Financial Statement Audit
TOTAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS = 1
SPECIAL REVIEW REPORTS
2006-S-00002 QCR of NRD C FY 2003 Single Audit-PriceWaterhouseCoopers
2006-S-00003 Congressional Request - Grants to National Rural Water Assoc
2006-S-00004 Delta Institute FY 2003 Single Audit QCR
2006-S-00005 AA - National Rural Water Assoc - Congressional
2006-S-00006 Assessing EPA's Efforts to Protect Sensitive Information *
2006-S-00007 AA - America's Clean Water Foundation-Grant Costs
TOTALSPECIAL REVIEW REPORTS = 6
TOTAL REPORTS ISSUED = 270
* Not included in Agency resolution process.
Final Report
Issued
28-Sep-06
29-Sep-06
29-Sep-06
29-Sep-06
25-May-06
30-May-06
16-Aug-06
5-Sep-06
19-Sep-06
19-Sep-06
Ineligible Unsupported
Costs Costs
0
0
0
$1,403,706
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$3,873,669
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$71,654,530
Recommended
Efficiencies
Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
0
$2,056,502
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
$4,960,000
$4,960,000
$46,200,377
53
-------
OIG Mailing Addresses and Telephone Numbers
Headquarters
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-0847
Atlanta
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Audit: (404) 562-9830
Investigations: (404) 562-9857
Boston
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
One Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Audit: (617) 918-1470
Investigations: (617) 918-1468
Chicago
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
77 West Jackson Boulevard
13th Floor (IA-13J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Audit: (312) 353-2486
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
Cincinnati
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268-7001
Audit: (513) 487-2360
Investigations: (513)487-2364
Dallas
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (6OIG)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Audit: (214) 665-6621
Investigations: (214)665-2790
OIG Public Liaison Hotline
Address
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,NW(2491T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax
202-566-2549
Email
OIG_Hotline@epa. gov
Offices
Denver
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Audit: (303) 312-6872
Investigations: (303) 312-6868
Kansas City
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
90IN. 5thStreet
Kansas City, KS 66101
Audit: (913) 551-7878
Investigations: (913) 551-7875
Los Angeles
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
P.O. Box 826
La Miranda, CA 90627-0826
Investigations: (714) 521-2189
New York
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
290 Broadway, Room 1520
New York, NY 10007
Audit: (212) 637-3080
Investigations: (212)637-3041
Philadelphia
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1650 Arch Street, 3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Audit: (215) 814-5800
Investigations: (215) 814-5820
Research Triangle Park
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Mail Drop N283-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit: (919) 541-2204
Investigations: (919)541-1027
San Francisco
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne St. (IGA-1)
7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Audit: (415) 947-4521
Investigations: (415)947-4500
Seattle
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 6th Avenue, 19th Floor
Suite 1920, M/S OIG-195
Seattle, WA 98101
Audit: (206) 553-4033
Investigations: (206)553-1273
Winchester
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
200 S. Jefferson Street, Room 314
P.O. Box 497
Winchester, TN 37398
Investigations: (423)240-7735
-------
------- |