EPA-350-R-05-003
December 2005
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Semiannual Report
to Congress
April 1, 2005 - September 30, 2005
-------
EPA Inspector General
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires the Inspector General to (1)
conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the
Agency; (2) provide leadership and coordination, and make recommendations designed to
(a) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and (b) prevent and detect fraud and
abuse in Agency programs and operations; and (3) fully inform the Administrator and the
Congress about problems and deficiencies identified by the Office of Inspector General
relating to Agency programs and operations.
We are catalysts for improving the quality of the environment and Government through
problem prevention and identification, and cooperative solutions.
Mission
Add value by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within EPA and the
delivery of environmental programs. Inspire public confidence by preventing and
detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency operations and protecting the integrity of
EPA programs.
To find out more about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Inspector General and its activities, visit our Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/oig
Cover photos: Clockwise from top left: A Superfund site in Portland, Oregon (courtesy of Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality); a water tower in Burleigh County, North Dakota
(EPA OIG photo); the Hercules 009 Landfill (courtesy of Hercules Incorporated).
Printed with vegetable oil-based inks on 100% recycled paper (minimum 50% postconsumer)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\
V V f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
•*•
INSPECTOR GENERAL
December 14, 2005
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 30,2005. 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.
Nikki L. Tinsley (J
-------
Message to Congress
In Fiscal Year 2005, the Federal Government gave grants totaling $450 billion, 17 percent of
the Federal budget, to State and local governments, tribes, universities, and nongovernmental
organizations. Grants account for nearly 50 percent of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) expenditures annually. For years, Federal, State, and local government
auditors have reported on problems in grantee accounting and performance. On behalf of
the U.S. Comptroller General's Domestic Working Group, our office led a group of
Federal, State, and local auditors in developing a guide to improve grant accountability.
The guide provides government managers proven practices to help ensure that grant
expenditures produce the products and services envisioned when they were awarded.
It may also be a useful and timely tool for those involved in the post-Hurricane Katrina
rebuilding efforts since many of the rebuilding efforts will be largely funded with grants.
Another of our more important activities over this semiannual reporting period focused on
improving water quality. We found that EPA and States have progressed in eliminating the
backlog of water discharge permits, but EPA needs to do more to address resource constraints,
increasing workloads, and other issues. If EPA is truly committed to the watershed approach
for achieving clean water, it needs to improve program integration and planning efforts.
Our Superfund work included a joint project with the Department of the Interior Inspector
General in which we identified EPA practices to identify, track, and prioritize potential
hazardous waste sites that the Department of the Interior could use to improve its
processes on Indian lands.
I am pleased to report that EPA took some important actions in response to our work.
Residents of Throop, Pennsylvania, where the Marjol Battery site is located, had expressed
concerns over the potential for mine fires at the site. EPA and the State agreed to drill
additional boreholes to evaluate the potential for mine fires. Also, EPA issued a
memorandum that provides guidance for peer reviews of innovative projects, an important
step in ensuring that such projects sufficiently protect human health and the environment.
In the final month of this reporting period, EPA was in the midst of a major undertaking:
addressing the numerous health and environmental issues related to the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. On September 28,2005, several of my inspector general colleagues and
I testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committe's Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations on plans to help detect and guard against fraud, waste, and abuse during
the Katrina response and rebuilding efforts. The EPA Office of Inspector General will
focus on three areas: (1) safe drinking water, (2) oil spills and hazardous materials, and
(3) procurement procedures. Our next semiannual report will highlight some of these efforts.
This semiannual report includes details on these issues and others, including a
"Scoreboard" of our own performance. We look forward to the challenges ahead as EPA
and the Nation continue the effort to rebuild the Gulf States region and to safeguard our
environment for us and for the generations that follow.
L»~4_L«Ai_,,_ u \J-tv\,4-V-«-t^
Nikki L. Tinsley {/
Inspector General
-------
Table of Contents
Highlights 1
Profile of Activities and Results 2
Significant OIG Activity 3
Water (ensuring that drinking water is safe and sources are protected) 3
Land (improving waste management and cleanup - includes Superfund) 6
Cross-Media (issues involving overlapping areas - includes homeland security) 9
Grants (improving EPA's use of assistance agreements) 11
Contracts (improving EPA's use of contracts) 16
Financial Management (improving the Agency's financial management) 17
Business Systems (improving the Agency's business processes and systems) 18
Public Liaison (addressing specific concerns of the public) 20
Investigations (investigating laboratory fraud, financial fraud, and computer crimes) 22
Congressional Requests (providing Congress with specific information) 27
Testimony (providing testimony before congressional committees) 29
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 30
Other Activities 31
Significant EPA Actions as a Result of OIG Activity 35
Statistical Data 37
Audit Report Resolution 37
Summary of Investigative Results 40
Scoreboard of Results 41
Appendices 42
Appendix 1 - Reports Issued 42
Appendix 2 - Reports Issued Without Management Decisions (Available Upon Request)
-------
Highlights
EPA Can Better Manage
Brownfields Resources
Policy and organizational
impediments are challenging
EPA's ability to effectively
manage Brownfields
administrative resources
(page 6).
Natural Resources Defense
Council Costs Questioned
We questioned over $1.4 million
in outlays because the recipient
did not have sufficient
documentation to support
allocating these costs to the EPA
agreements (page 12).
Hercules 009 Landfill
Needs Appropriate Testing
EPA uses an inadequate testing
method to monitor the presence
of toxaphene in groundwater at
a Superfund site near
Brunswick, Georgia (page 20).
Grants Management
Accountability Insufficient
EPA managers did not
sufficiently hold supervisors and
project officers accountable for
managing grants (page 27).
EPA Can Further Reduce
Discharge Permit Backlog
EPA needs to address
challenges to eliminate a backlog
of expired permits for 1,120
major facilities and nearly 16,000
minor facilities (page 3).
EPA Has Limited Knowledge
of Regulated Universe
EPA's limited knowledge of the
universe of regulated entities
impedes its ability to
demonstrate changes in
compliance (page 9).
Guidelines Not Followed
for Alaska Villages Grant
Region 10 did not follow EPA
guidelines before awarding the
Village Safe Water Program
grant to Alaska (page 11).
Inspector General Testifies
on Katrina Review Plans
EPA testified before a House
Subcommittee on the Office of
Inspector General's (OIG's)
current and planned work to
monitor EPA's post-Hurricane
Katrina efforts (page 29).
Contractor Employee
Sentenced to Prison
A contractor employee who pled
guilty to mail fraud and making
false statements was sentenced to
21 months in prison and ordered to
pay restitution (page 25).
Information Technology
Needs Improved Oversight
EPA did not sufficiently
oversee information technology
projects to ensure they met
planned budgets and schedules
(page 18).
Operator Sentenced for
False Water Reports
The Chief Operator of a
Tennessee public water system
was sentenced for false Monthly
Operation Reports (page 22).
EPA OIG Helps Another
Agency Identify Sites
As part of a joint effort, the EPA
OIG provided the Department of
the Interior with promising
practices for identifying
hazardous waste sites (page 7).
-------
Profile of Activities and Results
Audit Operations
Office of Inspector General Reviews
April 1,2005 to
September 30, 2005 Fiscal
(dollars in millions) 2005
Questioned Costs *
• Total
• Federal
Recommended Efficiencies *
• Federal
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
• Federal
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
• Federal
Reports Issued - Office of Inspector
General Reviews
Reports Resolved
(Agreement by Agency officials to
take satisfactory corrective actions) **
$4.5 $8.8
$3.9 $8.1
$4.7 $6.7
$2.1 $2.9
$2.0 $2.0
35 65
155 263
Audit Operations
Other Reviews
(Reviews Performed by Another Federal Agency
or Single Audit Act Auditors)
April 1 , 2005 to
September 30, 2005 Fiscal
(dollars in millions) 2005
Questioned Costs *
• Total $55.0 $70.8
• Federal $33.7 $39.1
Recommended Efficiencies *
• Federal $1.2 $2.3
Costs Disallowed to be Recovered
• Federal $0.7 $1.6
Costs Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
• Federal $0.8 $0.8
Reports Issued - Other
• EPA Reviews Performed by
Another Federal Agency 153 305
• Single Audit Act Reviews 112 245
• Total 265 550
Agency Recoveries
Recoveries from Audit Resolutions
of Current and Prior Periods
(cash collections or offsets to
future payments) *** $0.9 $1.3
Investigative
Operations
April 1 , 2005 to
September 30, 2005 Fiscal
(dollars in millions) 2005
Fines and Recoveries (including civil) **** $43.7 $50.9
Cases Opened During Period
Cases Closed During Period
Indictments/Criminal
Informations/Complaints
Convictions
58 157
62 141
13 23
8 15
Civil Judgments/Settlements/Filings 2 4
Administrative Actions Against
EPA Employees/Firms
33 83
Questioned Costs and Recommended Efficiencies are
subject to change pending further review in the audit
resolution process.
Reports Resolved subject to change pending further
review.
Information on Recoveries from Audit Resolutions is
provided by EPA Financial Management Division and is
unaudited.
Total includes actions resulting from joint investigations.
-------
Significant OIG Activity
Water
Ensuring that drinking water is safe and sources are protected.
Increased Integration of Clean Water Act Programs Would Assist
EPA to Manage the Backlog of Water Discharge Permits
EPA and States have had varying success in eliminating the backlog of National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits requiring renewal; more
needs to be done.
Congress established the NPDES permit program to regulate discharges to water bodies
to improve water quality. Permits need to be renewed at least once every 5 years. As of
June 2003, EPA reported a backlog of expired permits for 1,120 major facilities and nearly
16,000 minor facilities.
Five Key Challenges to
Reducing Backlog
Resource constraints
Increasing workload
Complex permitting issues
External sources of permitting delays
Oversight limitations
To reduce the backlog, EPA needs to address challenges involving
resource constraints, increasing workload, complex permitting
issues, external sources of permitting delays, and oversight
limitations.
The NPDES program is only one of many EPA programs to
improve surface water quality, and only a small portion of
waters currently identified as being "impaired" are associated
with backlogged permits. EPA needs to integrate its efforts to
eliminate the NPDES backlog with its other programs to
improve water quality. EPA is now managing the NPDES permit program through
the Permitting for Environmental Results strategy that increases focus on
environmental outcomes.
EPA's reporting on the NPDES backlog under the Government Performance and Results
Act did not provide an accurate view of the program status or an adequate measure of
environmental results because it did not properly compare progress against baselines or
sufficiently focus on outcomes. EPA has recognized these weaknesses and has begun
taking corrective actions.
We made various recommendations to EPA to build on steps already initiated to reduce
the NPDES backlog. These recommendations include creating a system for assessing
effectiveness and efficiency of its various efforts.
(Report No. 2005-P-00018, Efforts to Manage Backlog of Water Discharge Permits
Need to Be Accompanied by Greater Program Integration, June 13, 2005)
-------
Sustained Commitment Needed to Advance
Watershed Approach
If EPA is committed to a watershed approach for achieving clean water, it needs to
improve program integration, act on stakeholder concerns, and better address
strategic planning and performance measurement.
A watershed refers to an area where water drains to a
common outlet and includes not only the waterbodies but
also the land that drains into those waterbodies. EPA's
watershed approach is a strategy for achieving clean
water that involves addressing water quality problems in
the entire watershed. The premise is that many water
quality problems are best solved at the overall watershed
level rather than at just the individual waterbody or
discharger level. The watershed approach is a holistic
A view of the upper watershed of the North Fork method that considers cumulative impacts from a variety
Lucie River, Florida (photo courtesy of South Florida of programs. EPA adopted a watershed approach to help
Water Management District Web site). focus existing, traditional water pollution control programs
in a more comprehensive manner.
Although EPA has made progress in each of the four critical elements of the watershed
approach that we reviewed, EPA needs to further improve in each element. Specifically,
EPA needs to further address
• Integrating watershed activities into its core water programs,
• Addressing stakeholders' concerns to increase their participation,
• Refining and improving key aspects of its strategic planning process, and
• Improving the watershed performance measurement system.
We made specific recommendations to better enable EPA to address the challenges and
obstacles noted in implementing the watershed approach. The Agency generally agreed
with our recommendations.
(Report No. 2005-P-00025, Sustained Commitment Needed to Further Advance
Watershed Approach, September 21, 2005)
EPA Making Progress in Protecting Drinking Water;
Challenges Remain
EPA and States are making progress in helping water systems reach Congress' goal
of protecting drinking water from source to consumer, but performance
measurement and consumer information challenges remain.
To help States and water systems better protect drinking water from contamination from
source to consumer, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 made provisions
for assessing water sources, certifying system operators, improving capabilities, providing
funding, and informing the public.
-------
A water tower in the South Central
Regional Water District, Burleigh
County, North Dakota (EPAOIG photo).
EPA worked to provide guidance and other assistance
to States, and provided States with more flexibility in
accordance with the Act. More than 86 percent of
source waters have been assessed, operators have
been trained and certified, assistance to improve
capabilities has been provided, low-interest loans are
being offered, and consumers are receiving more
information on drinking water quality.
The States reported that the Consumer Confidence
Reports - the primary consumer communication
vehicle - are difficult for consumers to use. Data
from EPA's 2002 and 2003 Safe Drinking Water
Hotline Annual Reports and from an EPA analysis of a
2003 Gallup survey also indicate that the Consumer
Confidence Reports can be improved.
EPA's measures generally relate to outputs (specific
tasks performed), and do not adequately measure
actual results and progress toward long-term goals. EPA requires only limited State
reporting, which also impacts measuring long-term outcomes, whether programs produced
intended results, and whether public health is protected.
We recommended that EPA identify methods to improve Consumer Confidence Reports
and continue to develop performance measures.
(Report No. 2005-P-00021, Progress Report on Drinking Water Protection Efforts,
August 22, 2005)
For details on additional water issues, please refer to:
Page 11: "Region 10 Did Not Follow Guidelines Before Awarding Alaska Grant"
Page 12: "Natural Resources Defense Council Costs Questioned"
Page 14: "Oregon Drinking Water Fund Receives Qualified Opinion"
Page 14: "Utah Receives Unqualified Opinion on Water Quality Fund, but Compliance Issues Noted"
Page 22: "Drinking Water Plant Operator Sentenced for Falsifying Reports"
-------
Land
Improving waste management and cleanup - includes Superfund.
Brownfields Administrative Resources Can Be Better Managed
EPA's ability to effectively manage Brownfields administrative resources is
challenged by policy and organizational impediments.
Congress has authorized up to $250 million a year through 2006
for the Brownfields program, which is designed to foster
expanding, redeveloping, or reusing properties that may be
complicated by the presence of hazardous wastes or other
contaminants. We conducted this review in response to a
congressional request to evaluate Brownfields administrative and
program costs.
The authority for managing Brownfields resources is dispersed
across numerous headquarters and regional offices. As a result,
EPA offices responsible for expending Brownfields resources are
not aligned in their efforts to define and track program costs, and
EPA offices cannot account for or efficiently utilize staff
resources. Also, EPA expends significant financial and personnel
resources on Brownfields outreach at conferences and meetings
without evaluating or prioritizing these efforts.
We recommended that EPA offices align themselves more
closely to better manage Brownfields resources, define
Brownfields administrative and programmatic payroll costs and
better track them, provide sufficient documentation to account for
all administrative resources, and revise the regional staffing
model to support current workload. Further, the Agency should
determine how many Brownfields staff members should become project officers, hold the
EPA-sponsored Brownfields conference every other year rather than annually, and
develop a process to prioritize attendance at other conferences and meetings.
(Report No. 2005-P-00017, EPA Can Better Manage Brownfields Administrative
Resources, June 7, 2005)
EPA Needs Better Data on the Ability of Facilities to Pay for
Hazardous Waste Cleanups
EPA does not have adequate data on financial assurance at hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste facilities are required to
provide assurance that they have sufficient funds to cover closure and post-closure costs.
EPA has authorized most States to implement the requirements. However, unlike many
In Springfield, Missouri, a Brownfields
assessment pilot grant helped leverage the
resources needed to redevelop the former
Jordan Valley Corridor into the Jordan Valley
Park (photos courtesy of EPA).
-------
A Class I Landfill in post-closure (photo courtesy of
California Department of Toxic Substances Control).
other types of permit information, EPA has not reported
basic financial assurance information into its national
database. This hampers efforts to ensure that effective
plans are in place to provide sufficient funds for closure
and post-closure costs.
State and EPA officials need to improve sharing
financial assurance information. EPA also needs to
update guidance, particularly for insurance, and
uniformly oversee State programs. Although States
and EPA regions have expressed concerns about
financial assurance, we noted few examples in which
failures occurred.
EPA is taking positive steps to address various issues, such as improving information
systems and State training programs. EPA has asked its Environmental Financial Advisory
Board to study and make recommendations on various financial assurance issues.
Financial Assurance Closure and Post-Closure Mechanisms
Financial test
Corporate guarantee
Trust fund
Letter of credit
Surety bond
Insurance
Combinations
A test that evaluates the assets and liabilities of a company to determine
whether it will have resources available to cover closure/post-closure costs.
The guarantee of closure/post-closure costs by an affiliated corporation, such
as a parent company.
Money set aside in a trust specifically for closure/post-closure expenditures.
Credit issued by a financial institution that guarantees payment of obligations.
Guarantees issued by a surety company that specify obligations will be met.
An insurance policy for the value of closure/post-closure costs.
Trust funds, letters of credit, surety bonds, and insurance can be combined.
We recommended that EPA work with State and regional financial assurance staff to
implement financial assurance data elements after ensuring that these elements would
satisfy defined information needs, continue to improve communications and training, and
clarify goals and milestones. EPA generally agreed with our recommendations.
(Report No. 2005-P-00026, Continued EPA Leadership Will Support State Needs for
Information and Guidance on RCRA Financial Assurance, September 26, 2005)
EPA OIG Helps Department of the Interior to Better Identify and
Prioritize Hazardous Sites
To help the Department of the Interior better identify and inventory hazardous
waste sites, we compiled a list of relevant promising practices, based on EPA's
experience, which the Department could use to improve its processes.
The Department of the Interior, a Federal land manager responsible for hazardous waste
sites on its lands, has been criticized in recent audits for weaknesses related to
-------
Promising Practices Identified
Site Discovery
Consult existing site inventories and work
with States and others to identify sites.
Develop and apply user-friendly checklists
and templates to generate consistency.
Consult upcoming EPAguidanceon
preliminary assessments and site
inspections.
Site Assessment and Prioritization
Develop and apply automated tools to quickly
assess sites and provide uniformity.
Develop a risk-based prioritization method
that ranks health risks.
Develop a tracking mechanism for sites not
requiring cleanup now but may need it later.
Cost Estimating
Create a Web-based "cost estimating
toolbox" as a one-stop resource.
Frequently reevaluate and adjust cost
estimates throughout cleanups.
environmental liability controls. Because EPA has over 20
years' experience identifying and inventorying hazardous
waste sites, we worked with the Interior Department's
Inspector General in a joint effort to identify potential areas
for improvement.
We found that
• To improve site discovery, the Department could work
better with States to obtain new site information, develop
better screening procedures, and consult EPA guidance
on assessments.
• To better assess and prioritize sites, the Department
could develop necessary automated tools, a prioritization
method that ranks health risks, and a tracking mechanism
for sites not initially requiring cleanup action to become
aware of any changing conditions.
• To better estimate site costs, the Department could create a
Web-based "cost estimating toolbox" as a one-stop resource
to document cost assumptions, and should frequently
reevaluate and adjust cost estimates throughout cleanups.
(Report No. 2005-P-00020, EPA Practices for Identifying and Inventorying
Hazardous Sites Could Assist Similar Department of the Interior Efforts,
August 22, 2005)
For details on additional land issues, including Superfund, please refer to:
Page 12: "California Department of Toxic Substances Control Needs to Improve Its Procurement Process"
Page 13: "Oregon Expenses of $2 Million for Superfund Agreement Questioned"
Page 20: "Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site Needs Appropriate Testing and Timely Reporting"
Page 20: "Alaska Inappropriately Applied Match Costs to an EPA Grant"
Page 35: "EPA and Pennsylvania Agree to Act on Ombudsman's Recommendations for Throop Site"
-------
Cross-Media
Issues involving overlapping areas - includes homeland security.
EPA Has Limited Knowledge of Universe of Regulated Entities
EPA has limited knowledge of the diverse regulated universe for which it maintains
responsibility, impeding its ability to demonstrate changes in regulatory
compliance.
To enforce its regulations, a regulatory agency must know its entire regulated universe.
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) compiled a regulated
universe table to provide consistent numbers when presenting compliance information to
Congress, the public, and other stakeholders. In the universe
table issued September 2001, OECA reported an inventory of
41.1 million regulated entities.
Six Environmental Statutes
Covered by Review
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
RodenticideAct
Toxic Substances Control Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
OECA has not updated its universe table since generating it in
2001, even though some universe figures for reviewed
programs have changed substantially. Various data quality
issues impact OECA's ability to adequately identify the size of
its regulated universe and associated compliance information.
OECA concentrates most of its regulatory activities on large
entities and knows little about the identities or cumulative
impact of small entities.
OECA's limited knowledge of its universe prevents it from determining overall compliance
levels in five of the six regulatory program areas we reviewed. OECA does not release
all currently available compliance-related data because some of these data are not
statistically valid. This hinders OECA's ability to generate valid programmatic compliance
information and effectively determine program success, and also hinders providing
complete information to the public.
We recommended that OECA biennially update publicly released universe figures to
accurately determine compliance levels of regulatory programs. We also recommended
that OECA better describe its enforcement and compliance role, obtain up-to-date and
reliable reporting from States, request EPA program offices analyze and report on the
cumulative impact of violations from small entities, share more compliance data and
analyses with the public, and develop and publish information that demonstrates changes
in compliance. EPA agreed with some of our recommendations, but not the ones related
to biennially updating universe figures, developing an objective to obtain better reporting
from States, or developing programmatic compliance information.
(Report No. 2005-P-00024, Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated
Entities Impedes EPA's Ability to Demonstrate Changes in Regulatory Compliance,
September 19, 2005)
-------
EPA Demonstrates Grant Practices Mirroring Nongovernmental
Organizations
EPA used techniques to demonstrate results from grants that were similar to actions
taken by nongovernmental organizations; we suggested additional techniques to
enhance Agency policies.
EPA has historically faced challenges demonstrating the impacts on human health and the
environment of the approximately $4 billion in grants it awards each year. We sought to
determine how EPA grant practices compare with techniques used by leading
nongovernmental organizations.
While EPA used techniques to manage grants that are similar to those used by
nongovernmental organizations, we identified additional nongovernmental organization
techniques that EPA could consider to augment its policies. Specifically, we suggested
that EPA
• Track Pre-Award and Results policies implementation,
• Use sample logic models that lead to accomplishing goals,
• Consider providing an online resource for grantees that provides training and other
resources,
• Include past performance as a ranking criterion when competing grants, and
• Conduct a retrospective evaluation of a sample of EPA grants.
EPA generally agreed with our suggestions.
(Report No. 2005-P-00016, EPA's Efforts to Demonstrate Grant Results Mirror
Nongovernmental Organizations' Practices, June 2, 2005)
10
-------
Grants
Improving EPA's use of assistance agreements.
Region 10 Did Not Follow Guidelines Before Awardin
Alaska Grant
Region 10 did not follow EPA guidelines before awarding the Village Safe Water
Program grant to Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation.
In 2003, we reported that Region 10 did not effectively oversee millions of dollars of
Alaska Safe Water Program grants. We recommended that Region 10 follow EPA
guidelines that require Regions to review the adequacy of environmental objectives, the
clarity of grant scope, and the likelihood that the grantee will
achieve objectives prior to issuing a grant.
Guidelines Not Met
Grant application did not include
objectives
Cost review was not timely or adequate
Unauthorized cash management terms
were in grant
Authorized period for administrative costs
was unclear in grant
Prior to awarding the August 2004 grant, Region 10 did not
ensure that specific environmental objectives and the scope of
the work were clear, or assess whether a reasonable chance
existed that overall environmental objectives could be
achieved. Further, the Region did not complete the cost
review of individual projects until 3 months after awarding the
grant, and after the award the Region identified six ineligible
projects valued at almost $4.8 million.
We recommended that Region 10(1) suspend work under the grant until the State
prepares an adequate application and (2) establish controls to ensure that Region 10 fulfills
all EPA requirements before awarding grants. The Region responded that it believed it
had already taken the action needed to fulfill all pre-award steps, and that it was
unnecessary to suspend the grant because the grant application includes environmental
outcomes. We did not agree with Region 10 because the application includes some
project outputs but not environmental outcomes. Further, the application and the grant
award included funding for ineligible projects.
(Report No. 2005-P-00015, Region 10's Grant for Alaska Village Safe Water
Program Did Not Meet EPA Guidelines, June 16, 2005)
Association Expenses of $204,059 Questioned
We recommended that EPA recover $204,059 from the Wrangell (Alaska)
Cooperative Association, due primarily to unsupported labor and fringe
benefit costs.
EPA awarded two grants (in 1999 and 2002), totaling $465,000, to the Wrangell
Cooperative Association under the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act
to help the recipient establish an environmental program.
Because the recipient did not maintain a labor distribution system with the required
documentation, we questioned labor and fringe benefit costs of $140,275 and $59,823,
11
-------
respectively. We also questioned unallowable travel and other expenses of $5,893. After
deducting a $1,932 offset, the questioned Federal share totaled $204,059. Further, the
recipient did not submit timely and accurate performance reports or draw down EPA
grant funds based on immediate cash needs as required by Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations 31.40.
In addition to recommending the recovery of the $204,059, we recommended that if EPA
awards any additional grants to the recipient, the Agency should ensure that the recipient
establishes an adequate labor distribution system, submits adequate performance reports,
and only draws down grant funds for immediate cash needs.
(Report No. 2005-4-00056, Wrangell Cooperative Association Reported Outlays
Under Grants GA980448-01 and GA970335-01, April 19, 2005)
Natural Resources Defense Council Costs Questioned
We questioned over $1.4 million because the recipient did not have sufficient
documentation to allocate these costs to the EPA cooperative agreements.
EPA awarded three cooperative agreements to the Natural Resources Defense Council
totaling $3,260,467, for storm water education and to encourage developing and
purchasing energy-efficient products, primarily in the California market. Project periods
ranged from 1996 to 2005.
We questioned $1,419,548 of reported expenses because the Natural Resources Defense
Council did not have records to show how it spent the money, as required by Federal
regulations. The recipient did not prepare or submit its indirect cost rate proposals or
fringe benefit costs to EPA as required by Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-122. Also, the recipient obtained sole-source consulting services without justification or
performing the required cost or pricing review.
We recommended that EPA (1) obtain sufficient documentation to support the expenses
of $1,419,548 in accordance with EPA regulations, or disallow the costs from Federal
grant participation; and (2) negotiate fringe benefit and indirect cost rates according to
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122.
(Report No. 2005-4-00120, Natural Resources Defense Council Reported Outlays
Under EPA Cooperative Agreements CX82546101, CS82675101, and XA83033101,
September 21, 2005)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control Needs to
Improve Its Procurement Process
Our review of reported costs under a cooperative agreement with the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control found that the State fairly presented costs,
with the exception of contract costs.
EPA awarded over $1.3 million to the State under cooperative agreement V99925204 for
Superfund site assessments and Brownfields activities from July 2002 to June 2004.
12
-------
The State performed the activities in the agreement's work plan and complied with
deliverable requirements. However, the State's procurement process needs to improve to
ensure that the State negotiates and administers contracts in accordance with Federal
regulations. The State did not perform cost or price analyses, negotiate profit as a
separate line item, ensure that contractors monitored subcontractors, or include all the
required clauses in contracts.
We recommended that EPA disallow contract costs of $215,946, but the State disagreed
with that recommendation. The State agreed with other OIG recommendations for EPA
to revoke the State's procurement self-certification until adequate policies and procedures
are in place, review and approve State solicitations and contracts under EPA cooperative
agreements, and determine the adequacy of State actions to update policies and
procedures. EPA has not commented on this report.
(Report No. 2005-4-00099, California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Reported Outlays under Cooperative Agreement V99925204, September 8, 2005)
Oregon Expenses of $2 Million for Superfund Agreement
Questioned
We questioned over $2 million of erroneous and unallowable expenses that the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality claimed under an EPA cooperative
agreement.
Photos of McCormick and Baxter Site in 1990
(above) and 2005 (below) (photos courtesy of
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality).
EPA awarded over $25.9 million to Oregon under cooperative
agreement V99060103 for remedial redesign, remedial action,
and long-term response action at the McCormick and Baxter
Superfund site in Portland, Oregon. Significant concentrations
of wood-treating chemicals had been found in soil and
groundwater at the site of the former wood-treating facility,
and in river sediments adjacent to the site.
We questioned $1,523,481 claimed for future expenses
because they represent the unexpended value of contracts
entered into by Oregon, not actual expenses. Oregon
incorrectly included these future costs in the Financial Status
Reports although the State was not paid for these future costs.
We questioned $532,821 in contract costs because Oregon did
not comply with certain Federal procurement requirements, as
well as $12,922 in labor and indirect outlays because of
deficiencies in allocating leave and compensatory time.
We recommended that EPA disallow the questioned costs,
revoke the State's self-certification of its procurement systems,
and require Oregon to make various other improvements.
(Report No. 2005-4-00129, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Reported
Outlays under Cooperative Agreement V99060103, September 29, 2005)
13
-------
Oregon Drinking Water Fund Receives Qualified Opinion
We issued a qualified opinion on the financial statements of the State of Oregon's
Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004.
We performed an audit to determine whether the financial statements for the Oregon fund
were fairly presented in all material respects, and whether there were internal control or
compliance issues.
We issued a qualified opinion because Oregon was unable to document and support the
assets, liabilities, net assets, and revenues and expenditures of the Set-Aside Funds in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Oregon's accounting system
did not track revenues and expenditures on a fiscal year basis for grant-type programs,
and we were not able to apply other auditing procedures to clearly establish the opening
balances and current year activity. This finding also represented a material weakness in
internal control and noncompliance.
We recommended that EPA require Oregon to develop a trial balance for the set-asides
that is reconcilable to the general ledger, and the State agreed with the recommendation.
(Report No. 2005-1-00157; State of Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan
Fund: Financial Statements with Independent Auditor's Report, June 30, 2004;
published September 12, 2005)
Utah Receives Unqualified Opinion on Water Quality Fund, but
Compliance Issues Noted
We rendered an unqualified opinion on the financial statements of Utah's Water
Quality State Revolving Fund for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, but noted
compliance and internal control issues.
We performed an audit to determine whether the financial statements for the Utah fund
were fairly presented in all material respects, and whether there were internal control or
compliance issues.
We qualified our opinion on compliance with applicable laws and regulations because Utah
entered into loans with 30-year repayment terms when the Clean Water Act requires
repayment within 20 years. Utah also violated the Clean Water Act by placing non-State
Revolving Fund funds into the State Revolving Fund, did not fully meet its Single Audit Act
responsibilities, and erroneously disbursed $479,961 for a State loan program. The State
corrected the erroneous disbursement before the end of the audited fiscal year.
We made various recommendations to EPA designed to have Utah's Department of
Environmental Quality correct the conditions noted. We recommended that EPA require
Utah to take the necessary steps to ensure proper review and approval of transactions to
ensure that it uses funds only when intended and for authorized purposes. We also
recommended that EPA have Utah modify loan terms as appropriate, require the
appropriate transfer of hardship assessment funds, and properly carry out Single Audit
responsibilities.
14
-------
(Report No. 2005-1-00144, Utah Department of Environmental Quality Water
Quality State Revolving Fund Fiscal Year 2004 Financial Statements, August 8,
2005)
Puerto Rico Grants Totaling $21.2 Million Questioned
We questioned all $21.2 million in expenditures related to EPA grants awarded to
the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) during the 5-year period that
ended June 30, 2003, based on the results of Single Audit Act reviews.
Under the Single Audit Act, an independent auditor reviewed each of EQB's 5 fiscal
years, beginning July 1, 1998, to audit financial statements and schedules of expenditures
for Federal awards. We reviewed the independent auditor's audit reports and issued
memoranda on May 5, 2005, regarding the reviews for each of the 5 years.
The independent auditor issued a disclaimer of opinion on the financial statements and an
adverse opinion on the report on major program compliance for each of the 5 years. The
independent auditor questioned a total of $5.4 million in costs for the 5-year period.
Because EQB's records were inadequate, we questioned the remaining $15.8 million in
expenditures associated with the program, bringing total questioned costs to $21.2 million.
In May 2001, EPA Region 2 had designated EQB as "high risk," and instituted grant
restrictions accordingly. EQB is implementing two corrective action plans, covering fiscal
years 1996 to 2004, to address numerous financial and programmatic problems that have
been identified. Region 2 is working closely with EQB to help it correct problems with its
accounting systems.
(Report No. 2005-3-00156, Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, FY 1999,
May 5, 2005; Report No. 2005-3-00157, Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board,
FY 2000, May 5, 2005; Report No. 2005-3-00158, Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board, FY 2001, May 5, 2005; Report No. 2005-3-00159, Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board, FY 2002, May 5, 2005; and Report No. 2005-3-00168,
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, FY 2003, May 5, 2005)
For details on additional grant issues, please refer to:
Page 24: "Grantee Sentenced to Prison for Embezzling Federal Funds"
Page 27: "EPA Can Improve Accountability for Grants Management"
Page 27: "OIG Provides Requested Data on 15 Grants"
Page 31: "Guide to Improving Grant Accountability Generating Substantial Interest"
15
-------
Contracts
Improving EPA's use of contracts.
OIG Audit Monitoring Aids Oversight of EPA Contractors
We requested the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to perform audits of EPA
contracts that resulted in over $1.2 million of sustained recommended efficiencies and
questioned costs. The OIG DCAA Monitoring Team identified an additional
$2.1 million of recommended questioned costs and efficiencies included in DCAA audits.
Efficiencies resulted from resolving a claim and identifying excess costs in the proposals
contractors submitted when bidding on EPA contracts. DCAA questioned costs because
the contractors' certified claims included incurred costs that were unreasonable.
unallowable, or not allocable to contracts.
For details on additional contract issues, please refer to:
Page 23: "Contract Terms Changed as a Result of an OIG Investigation"
Page 24: "Contractor Enters into $41.9 Million Settlement"
Page 25: "Contractor Employee Sentenced to Prison"
16
-------
Financial Management
Improving the Agency's financial management.
Pesticide Funds Statements Earn Unqualified Opinions
We rendered an unqualified opinion on the Fiscal 2004 financial statements for two
funds used for managing pesticides fees.
The Pesticides Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund (known as the FIFRA fund)
is used to deposit fees collected to expedite pesticide reregistration. The Pesticide
Registration Fund (known as the PRIA fund) was created in March 2004 to expedite new
registrations of certain pesticides in exchange for registration fees.
In addition to providing a clean opinion for both funds, we did not identify any material
internal control weaknesses. However, we noted two reportable conditions in the funds:
(1) we could not assess the adequacy of the automated controls due to a lack of
accounting system documentation, and (2) EPA needs to improve financial statement
preparation and quality controls over the FIFRA and PRIA financial statements. We
did not provide opinions on overall compliance with laws, regulations, or internal
controls, because that was not the objective of our audits. We did note that the Agency
was in compliance with the decision time review period requirements under PRIA.
We recommended that EPA ensure that it properly reviews products related to the
financial statements prior to release or submittal for audit, and that EPA establish
milestone due dates for the 2005 financial statement audits for both funds. The Agency
agreed with our findings and recommendations. The Agency has plans to update its
legacy financial management system and will address accounting system documentation
issues as part of the replacement anticipated by Fiscal Year 2008. However, in the
interim, the Agency maintains that current documentation levels are sufficient for
operations.
(Report No. 2005-1-00081, Fiscal 2004 and 2003 Financial Statements for the
Pesticides Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund, May 4, 2005; and
Report No. 2005-1-00082, Fiscal 2004 Financial Statements for the Pesticide
Registration Fund, May 4, 2005)
17
-------
DUSinGSS SyStGITIS Improving the Agency's business processes and syste
EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Information Technology
Projects
EPA's Office of Environmental Information did not sufficiently oversee information
technology projects to ensure they met planned budgets and schedules.
To help ensure that EPA manages its information systems in a cost-effective manner, EPA
life cycle guidance requires management involvement at key decision points and adequate
documentation of those decisions. We noted various problems in developing two new
systems that may have been avoided or lessened by greater Office of Environmental
Information involvement:
• PeoplePlus cost at least $3.7 million more than originally budgeted and took 1 year
longer than planned to deploy.
• Modifications to developing the Clean Air Markets Division Business System have
already increased costs about $2.8 million and extended the target completion date
by 2 years.
Following implementation of the Clinger-Cohen Act, EPA did not revise its own
procedures to have the Chief Information Officer evaluate information technology
program performance as required. Also, EPA guidance did not ensure the development of
project documentation necessary to allow sufficient oversight of the process.
We recommended that the Office of Environmental Information revise its policy to
include review responsibilities for the Chief Information Officer, as well as
documentation procedures. Agency officials acknowledged that they could strengthen
their overseeing information technology projects, and stated they would initiate
corrective action.
(Report No. 2005-P-00023, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Its Information
Technology Projects, September 14, 2005)
PeoplePlus Security Controls Need Improvement
EPA's recently implemented PeoplePlus system - which integrates human
resources, benefits, payroll, and time and labor - needs several security control
improvements.
We identified three significant issues in the system's security administration that need
improvement:
• EPA has not followed prescribed procedures for managing user access
privileges, monitoring changes in employee responsibilities, and processing
system access requests.
18
-------
• EPA did not verify or conduct the required National Agency Check with Inquiries and
Credit background screenings for 45 percent of contractor personnel with PeoplePlus
access.
• EPA implemented PeoplePlus without adequately implementing security controls for
two key processes. Specifically, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer had not
properly secured default user IDs and did not adequately separate incompatible duties
performed by the Security Administrator.
We recommended that the Directors of EPA's Office of Financial Services and Office of
Human Resources take 13 actions to improve PeoplePlus security. These actions
included reinforcing requirements, providing training to improve awareness of security
duties, evaluating the access needs of contractor personnel, establishing a milestone date
to complete contractor background screening, and evaluating default user IDs and
Security Administrator responsibilities. EPA concurred with our recommendations and
provided an action plan.
(Report No. 2005-P-00019, PeoplePlus Security Controls Need Improvement,
July 28, 2005)
19
-------
Public Liaison
Addressing specific concerns of the public.
Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site Needs Appropriate Testing
and Timely Reporting
The testing method that EPA uses to monitor the presence of toxaphene in
groundwater at the Hercules 009 Landfill site near Brunswick, Georgia, is
inadequate.
A community organization brought several concerns to the attention of the Ombudsman about
the Hercules 009 site. Between 1975 and 1980, Hercules Incorporated operated the Hercules
009 Landfill to dispose of waste material from producing toxaphene,
an agricultural pesticide. The site became part of EPA's Superfund
program in 1984; EPA completed cleanup of the site in 1999, but
some contaminants remained. As a result, EPA needs to review
the landfill every 5 years; EPA's current report is over 1 year late.
We determined that the method EPA uses to monitor for
toxaphene only tests for the chemical that has not degraded.
Toxaphene degrades over time, changing into other products
(breakdown products). Because these products may pose a risk
to human health, they should be monitored using a method that
Aerial view of the Hercules 009 Landfill (photo also monitors the breakdown products.
courtesy of Hercules Incorporated).
We recommended that EPA Region 4 use an analytical method
that monitors both toxaphene and its breakdown products in the groundwater at the
Hercules 009 Landfill, take appropriate action if it finds breakdown products, and issue the
report on the 5-year review. The Agency generally agreed with our recommendations.
(Report No. 2005-P-00022, Appropriate Testing and Timely Reporting Are Needed at
the Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site, Brunswick, Georgia, September 26, 2005)
Alaska Inappropriately Applied Match Costs to an EPA Grant
Alaska's proposed use of past expenditures on a separate
project as "matching" funds for a grant involving cleanup at
the River Terrace Recreational Vehicle Park (RTRVP),
Soldotna, Alaska, is unallowable.
A complainant expressed concerns regarding the use of Federal
grant money by the State of Alaska for a cleanup effort at
RTRVP. Concerns involved the validity of Alaska's matching
funds, as well as whether Alaska appropriately selected
contractors, made appropriate charges for legal costs, and could
extend the grant expiration date. The $3 million EPA grant
involved cleaning up contamination at a former dry cleaning
facility now serving as a fish processing facility.
The site of the former dry cleaners at the River
Terrace Recreational Vehicle Park, Soldotna,
Alaska. The building currently houses a fish
processing facility (EPA OIG photo).
20
-------
•-."' • jlj '-" "r,
ii ;.:™T - • '
I U
- ,/r. ~t~. :•,
Site Location ]
. '
('"!> |
1
We concluded that the costs proposed by Alaska for a nearby
Alaska Department of Transportation project should not have
been considered matching funds for the RTRVP grant. Alaska
had spent the money on a different project, not actually at the
RTRVP site. EPA Region 10 had returned the match
submission to Alaska due to a technical issue, and Alaska has
not yet resubmitted the request.
We found that Alaska followed acceptable contracting
practices that sufficiently allowed for competition. The legal
costs incurred by Alaska were allowable because they were
incidental to administering the grant. Alaska can extend the
grant funding beyond the current expiration date of June 30,
2006, because the grant is not required to be considered
expired until the funds are expended.
EPA Region 10 did not agree with our recommendation that
EPA disallow Alaska's match, but we maintain our position.
(Report No. 2005-P-00029, Review of State of Alaska's Actions for the River
Terrace Recreational Vehicle Park, Soldotna, Alaska, September 28, 2005)
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:
Inquiries and Complaints Received During Period
Issues Handled by EPA OIG
Complaints Open - Beginning of Period
Inquiries Addressed
Complaints Opened
Complaints Closed
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 1,2005-
September 30, 2005)
285
12*
64
19
5
26
63
8
76
85
Annual Period
(October 1,2004 -
September 30, 2005)
474
17
138
27
18
26
105
17
94
120
Corrected from previous semiannual report, which reflected 15 open at the end of the reporting period.
21
-------
Investigations
Investigating laboratory fraud, financial fraud,
and computer crimes.
Laboratory Fraud
Drinking Water Plant Operator Sentenced for Falsifying Reports
On May 23, 2005, the Chief Operator of the Hawkins County First Utility District, Church
Hill, Tennessee, was sentenced in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, to 3
years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $100 special assessment. The
Chief Operator was also ordered to surrender his Class IV Water Treatment license to
the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. This sentencing followed
the individual's guilty plea to one count of submitting a false statement.
The Hawkins County First Utility District is a public water system that provides water to
approximately 18,000 people. The District is required to submit comprehensive Monthly
Operation Reports to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, an agency
authorized by EPA to monitor and enforce compliance with the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The Monthly Operation Reports are required to contain the results of
monthly monitoring of raw and finished drinking water for various water quality parameters,
such as turbidity and residual chlorine, to ensure the water is safe from contaminants.
The Chief Operator was responsible for preparing and submitting the Monthly Operation
Reports to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. The
investigation determined that the reports were identical from month to month, reporting the
same amount of water usage, on the same day of each month, for several years. If
completed accurately, the reports would have reflected variations in the usage amounts.
This investigation was conducted by the East Tennessee Environmental Crimes Task
Force, of which the EPA OIG is a member.
California Environmental Services Corporation to Donate
$1.1 Million to Settle Allegations
On June 27, 2005, a California environmental services corporation entered into a deferred
prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Eastern District of California,
to settle allegations that the company falsified environmental analysis data.
OIG Assists in Laboratory Fraud Training Program
The Laboratory Fraud Directorate participated in planning a Government Inspector Training
Workshop titled "Techniques for Using In-Depth Data Review & Assessment in Determining Data
Quality & Integrity." This was a 2-day interactive conference and workshop that presented
information and instruction on laboratory data review tools and techniques. The workshop was
designed to help assessors improve skills through using data review techniques and electronic
tools using real examples and hands-on use of data systems software. The State of Arizona,
the State of Kansas, and Analytical Excellence, Inc., hosted this training conference on
September 27 and 28, 2005, in Phoenix, Arizona, at the Arizona Department of Health Services.
22
-------
In accordance with the terms of the agreement, prosecution and any civil actions will be
deferred for a period of 48 months, provided the company abides by the conditions of the
agreement. The conditions include implementing a rigorous quality control process and
donating $1.1 million to the Environmental Project and the Environmental Circuit Prosecutor
Project for environmental enforcement, education, and training in the State of California.
After the company successfully completes the deferred prosecution program set out in the
agreement, the Government will close its case and not file any criminal charges or civil actions.
Contract Terms Changed as a Result of an OIG Investigation
On April 5, 2005, EPA received approval from the Office of Management and Budget to
add a requirement to its contracts for contractors to check the Excluded Parties Listing
System (EPLS) as part of its screening process for employee candidates on certain types
of EPA contracts.
The EPLS contains the names of parties who have been excluded from Federal
procurement and nonprocurement programs, including Federal contracts and certain
subcontracts, and from certain types of Federal financial and nonfmancial assistance and
benefits. Contractors involved in Emergency Response, Superfund, Information Systems,
Facility Services, and Research Support that have security concerns, as determined by the
Contracting Officer, are prohibited from using personnel who are included on the EPLS to
work on these contracts.
As a result of our investigation, a subcontractor employee was indicted for mail fraud and
making false statements in connection with falsifying an environmental laboratory sample
analysis. The employee was suspended and her name was added to the EPLS. While
under indictment, the employee left the employment of the subcontractor and was hired by
an EPA prime contractor to manage its laboratory program for environmental analysis.
Although the employee had been suspended, she was still able to work on other
Government contracts because there was no requirement to check the EPLS for
employee candidates. Prior to the change in contract terms, the EPLS was only required
to be checked for the name of excluded contractors prior to contract award.
The EPA OIG, the EPA Criminal Investigation Division, and the EPA Suspension and
Debarment Division pursued this recommended change.
Computer Crimes
Former EPA Contractor Employee Sentenced for
Computer Crime
On June 23, 2005, a former EPA contractor employee was sentenced in U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia to 4 months in prison, 3 years of probation including 4
months of home detention, $5,000 in restitution to EPA, and a $100 special assessment.
This sentencing follows a February 2004 jury trial during which the employee was found
guilty of one count of using a computer to cause damage.
As an EPA contractor's computer systems administrator, the employee had access to and
knowledge of EPA computer security and operations. The contractor terminated the
23
-------
employee in September 1999. The investigation determined that during the next 2 days.
the employee, as an unauthorized user, gained access to the EPA network and deleted
files, changed user passwords, and turned the computer system off.
While EPA assessed the damage and conducted repairs, EPA employees could not access
their computer systems and could not do their work.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Financial Fraud
Contractor Enters into $41.9 Million Settlement
On July 11, 2005, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP (PWC) agreed to pay $41.9 million to
settle allegations that it made false claims to numerous Federal agencies, including EPA, in
connection with claims it made to those agencies for travel reimbursement. PWC
received rebates on its travel expenses from travel and credit card companies, airlines,
hotels, rental car agencies, and travel service providers.
The Government alleged that PWC did not consistently disclose the existence of these
travel rebates to the United States and did not reduce its travel reimbursement claims by
the amounts of the rebates. The Government's complaint alleged that PWC knowingly
presented claims for payment to the United States for amounts greater than the travel
expenses actually incurred and in violation of contractual provisions and the applicable
provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
The settlement resolved a suit filed under the qui tarn provisions of the False Claims Act in
January 2001. The False Claims Act qui tarn statute allows persons who file successful
actions alleging fraud against the Government to receive a share of any resulting
recovery.
This investigation was conducted jointly by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation
Division Command (Major Procurement Fraud Unit); the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service; the Defense Contract Audit Agency; and the Offices of the Inspector General
for the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the Department of Transportation, the General Services Administration, the United
States Postal Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States
Agency for International Development, and the Department of the Treasury.
Grantee Sentenced to Prison for Embezzling Federal Funds
On June 24, 2005, a project manager from Fairbanks, Alaska, was sentenced in U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska to 9 months in prison, 3 years probation, a
$104,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment. This sentencing followed the project
manager's guilty plea to one count of embezzlement of Federal funds.
EPA had awarded two grants to Minority Education and Entrepreneurship Training, Inc.,
and one grant to Fairbanks Family Alternative, with the same project manager on all three
grants. The purpose of the grants was to train and certify people in asbestos and lead
24
-------
paint removal. The investigation determined that the project manager embezzled some of
the funds for personal use, including operating his wife's construction company.
In addition to the criminal sentence imposed on the project manager, the grantees and the
project manager's family have been suspended from participating in Government
procurement and nonprocurement activities.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Contractor Employee Sentenced to Prison
On September 15, 2005, a contractor employee from Whitehall, Pennsylvania, was
sentenced in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to 21 months in prison
and ordered to pay more than $ 112,000 in restitution. This sentencing follows the
employee's May 31, 2005, guilty plea to one count of mail fraud and two counts of making
false statements.
The employee was employed at Boyko Petroleum Services, Inc., where he was
responsible for environmental sampling and completing Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Closure Reports. The employee engaged in a scheme to prepare and mail fraudulent
environmental test reports in connection with the UST Closure Reports. The scheme
involved falsifying chain of custody forms and analytical laboratory reports and forging
signatures in order to complete the documents necessary for the closure reports for the
employee's customers.
The UST Closure Reports identify leaks of petroleum or other contaminants from the
underground storage tank that could contaminate the ground, groundwater, or wells. Any
contamination would require certain cleanup procedures to be implemented to minimize or
prevent the contamination. The employee falsified environmental reports to make it
appear that no contamination existed. Thus, the employee's customers could complete the
UST Closure Reports and avoid any expenses that they might incur if contamination had
been detected. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has been the
designated authority by EPA to accept UST Closure Reports.
This investigation was conducted jointly with the EPA Criminal Investigation Division.
Erratum
The article entitled "Two University Employees Sentenced for Theft," which appears on
page 28 of the Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2003 - March 31, 2004, should
have read as follows:
Two University Employees Enter Pretrial Diversion Program
On December 16, 2003, in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, Shili Liu,
Laboratory Director, and Robert Carley, Director, Environmental Research Institute
(ERI), University of Connecticut, were placed into Connecticut's Accelerated
Rehabilitation pretrial diversion program for a period of 12 months. The Court placed the
following conditions on Liu and Carley in granting an application for the Accelerated
25
-------
Rehabilitation Program: return $62,772 to the University of Connecticut and perform 100
hours of community service in any State at the rate of 10 hours per month to start within
1 month and be completed within 10 months. This action followed larceny charges
previously filed by the State of Connecticut. Upon the successful completion of the
program, the charges will be dismissed and the record expunged. Liu and Carley had
received rent monies from visiting scholars at ERI, even though the scholars' housing was
provided and paid for by the University of Connecticut under Federal grant monies
awarded to ERI by the EPA.
This case was worked with the assistance of the University of Connecticut Police
Department.
26
-------
RGOUGStS Providing Congress with specific information.
EPA Can Improve Accountability for Grants Management
EPA managers did not sufficiently hold supervisors and project officers accountable
for managing grants.
The Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure asked us to
evaluate whether EPA held supervisors and project officers accountable for grants
management responsibilities.
We found that EPA did not hold individuals accountable because no process exists to
measure most grants management activity. EPA had made progress in some areas of
accountability, such as establishing and communicating grants management
requirements. However, managers and supervisors generally did not discuss grants
management responsibilities during year-end performance evaluations. In some cases
where weaknesses were identified, managers did not communicate these weaknesses
to staff.
We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources
Management work with Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators to
• Establish a process to measure project officer, supervisor, and manager performance
against grant management requirements;
• Ensure managers and supervisors review and discuss grants management during
performance evaluations; and
• Ensure that the weaknesses identified in a management review or self-assessment are
communicated to the appropriate project officer and supervisor.
EPA agreed with the recommendations and provided an outline of its action plan. EPA
still needs to provide more details on how it will implement the recommendations and
milestone dates for completing those actions.
(Report No. 2005-P-00027, EPA Managers Did Not Hold Supervisors and Project
Officers Accountable for Grants Management, September 27, 2005)
OIG Provides Requested Data on 15 Grants
The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure provided a sample of
15 grants EPA awarded to nonprofit organizations and asked us to report on the
purpose, justification, and progress for each grant.
EPA awarded over $4.3 billion (about 51 percent of its annual budget) in 2004 to entities
via assistance agreements. Grants are a type of assistance agreement. EPA awarded
about 20 percent of its grants to nonprofit entities, accounting for about 8 percent
($337 million) of the total grant funds awarded.
27
-------
The sample of grants we were asked to review ranged from $6,622 to $5,301,750;
13 of the 15 grants were awarded competitively. The purposes of the grants included
improving protection of regional watersheds and wetlands, educating and training
local youth to clean up polluted sites in their community, and improving human health
and the environment in a region of China. Project periods for these grants ranged
from 1 to 7 years.
Our report contains requested factual information on the 15 grants and has no audit
findings or recommendations.
(Report No. 2005-S-00007, Congressionally Requested Review of Selected Grants,
September 7, 2005)
28
-------
Testimony
Providing testimony before congressional committees.
Inspector General Testifies on Oversight of EPA's Post-Hurricane
Katrina Efforts
On September 28,2005, Inspector General Nikki Tinsley testified before the House
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Energy and Commerce Committee
about the OIG's current and planned work to detect and guard against fraud, waste, and
abuse during post-Hurricane Katrina response and rebuilding efforts. As part of the
OIG's initial efforts, staff will be devoted to Katrina oversight activities and the OIG will
coordinate with and assist the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency and other
groups to ensure adequate, cost-effective audit coverage.
Inspector General Tinsley told the Subcommittee that the OIG would be monitoring EPA
operations; internal controls; contracts, grants, and expanded micro-purchase authority;
and EPA's disaster management activities in response to Katrina. These are areas the
OIG has determined need aggressive oversight immediately so that EPA can take steps to
address vulnerabilities before they lead to fraud, waste, or abuse.
The OIG also plans to complete reviews of whether EPA provided accurate and timely
data to the public along with Federal, State, and local decision makers. These reviews will
address the safety of drinking water and the health and environmental risks of Superfund
sites, hazardous material spills, sediment contamination, and other hurricane debris.
Further, the OIG plans to issue a guide on promising practices developed by Federal,
State, and local agencies to improve grant accountability through the Domestic Working
Group chaired by the U.S. Comptroller General.
As EPA assists in the response and rebuilding efforts in the months ahead, the OIG will
work to ensure that EPA guards funds against fraud, waste, and abuse without impeding
those efforts.
29
-------
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) was created by the
Clean Air Act Amendments. The Board's mission is to investigate accidental
chemical releases at facilities, to report to the public on the root causes, and to
recommend measures to prevent future occurrences.
In fiscal 2004, Congress designated the EPA Office of Inspector General to serve as
the Inspector General for the CSB. As a result, the EPA Office of Inspector General
has the responsibility to audit, evaluate, inspect, and investigate CSB's programs,
and to review proposed laws and regulations to determine their potential impact on
CSB's programs and operations. This includes an annual evaluation of CSB's
information security program and practices.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Information
Security Deficiencies Noted
An evaluation noted that, while CSB took some significant actions, security program
weaknesses remained. A contractor conducted this evaluation on behalf of the EPA
Office of Inspector General.
CSB rilled two critical vacancies: the Chief Information Officer and the Information Technology
Manager. These appointments placed much-needed attention on CSB's information security
program. However, the 7- and 5-month delays in the respective appointments hampered CSB's
ability to initiate actions to address significant deficiencies noted during the Fiscal Year 2004
Federal Information Security Management Act evaluation. Since these appointments, CSB
hired a contractor to help correct the deficiencies; however, CSB needs to do more work.
CSB had not certified and accredited any of its information systems, nor categorized its
systems in accordance with Federal standards, although CSB approved the systems for
interim operation.
Further, CSB had not addressed long-standing weaknesses in implementing security
controls, such as completing risk assessments, implementing file and e-mail encryption,
and establishing a software patch management system. This year's evaluation identified
that CSB needs to test its contingency plans, document security configuration standards,
complete e-authentication risk assessments, improve testing of security controls, and
perform oversight for its contractor-operated system.
CSB had not approved its new security incident handling procedures, although some
components of the procedures are in use.
In response to our findings, CSB outlined a plan to mitigate all of the deficiencies by March 2006.
(Report No. 2005-2-00030, Evaluation of U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board's Compliance with the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA) for Fiscal Year 2005, September 28, 2005)
30
-------
Other Activities
Guide to Improving Grant Accountability Generating Substantial
Interest
On behalf of the U.S. Comptroller General's Domestic Working Group, EPA Inspector
General Nikki Tinsley led a group of Federal, State, and local auditors in developing a
guide to improve accountability for grant funds and results. Tinsley, and representatives of
her office, have recently spoken at numerous events regarding the project, which has
generated substantial interest in the government auditing and grants communities.
Grants are an important tool used by government agencies to achieve goals. Grants
support many programs that the public relies upon, such as healthcare, transportation, and
education. The 2006 Federal budget includes approximately $450 billion for over 700
grant programs.
The intergovernmental team working on the grants accountability project found that
opportunities for improvement exist throughout the grant process. Prior to awarding
grants, agencies need to develop internal control systems and performance measures to
facilitate grant management. Agencies also need an efficient pre-award process, a
process for managing performance once grants are awarded, and the ability to assess
grant results and use those results when awarding future grants.
The guide is intended not to simply identify areas of improvement, but to provide specific
examples of how various organizations have already implemented, or are implementing, new
practices successfully. Government executives at the Federal, State, and local levels should
be able to look at these approaches and apply some of them to their own organizations.
Tinsley and her staff have made presentations at a National Grants Managers Association
meeting, Intergovernmental Audit Forums, and Association of Government Accountants
national and regional meetings. In addition to Tinsley, presentations were made by
Melissa Heist, the EPA Assistant Inspector General for Audit; and Janet Kasper, the EPA
OIG manager leading the project.
The final document, Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability, was
issued in October 2005.
Legislation and Regulations Reviewed
Section 4 (a) of the Inspector General Act requires the Inspector General to review
existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to the program and operation of
EPA and to make recommendations concerning their impact. The primary basis for our
comments are the audit, evaluation, investigation, and legislative experiences of the OIG
as well as our participation on the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
During the reporting period, we reviewed 15 proposed changes to legislation, regulations,
policy, and procedures that could affect EPA. We also reviewed drafts of Office of
31
-------
Management and Budget Circulars, program operations manuals, directives, and
reorganizations. Details on several items follow.
H.R. 1043, Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2005: This bill would amend the Solid
Waste Disposal Act to reestablish the Office of the Ombudsman within EPA and specify
the Ombudsman's duties and authorities. We provided comments to cosponsors Reps.
Bilirakis and DeGette that the powers and authorities given to the EPA Ombudsman could
substantially interfere with OIG operations.
Draft, Inspector General On-Line Reporting Act: This draft bill would require OIGs to
promptly post on the Internet each audit and semiannual report. Reports containing any
sensitive financial information would be redacted before posting. We commented that
posting all reports, including Single Audit and financial contract reports, could be
burdensome on OIGs given the number of reports issued every year. We also noted that
other types of information beyond sensitive financial information may need to be redacted,
such as Privacy Act or enforcement data.
Draft, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12: We commented to the
Office of Management and Budget that the implementation guidance should direct Federal
Departments and Agencies to employ sensitivity/risk assessment criteria to assess the
risks associated with the roles performed and the levels of access provided to employees
and contractors. We suggested that the guidance should also direct Federal Departments
and Agencies to perform specific minimum levels of background checks on employees
and contractors based on the specific level of risk determined through the application of
the aforementioned sensitivity/risk criteria.
Proposed Office of Acquisition Flash Notice, Purchase Card Guidance in Response
to Hurricane Katrina: We commented that the Office of Acquisition Flash Notice needs
to define "rescue and relief operations" relative to the work EPA is authorized to perform
in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We also suggested that the Office of Acquisition
Flash Notice identify when the followup reviews are to be performed and by whom.
Proposed Revision to EPA Delegation 1-47, Assistance Agreements for Research,
Development, Studies, Surveys, Demonstration, Investigations, Public Education
Programs, Training, and Fellowships: We commented that, in general, we could not
support delegating authority to award any type of financial assistance (grants, cooperative
agreements, loans, or loan guarantees) to anyone who is or could be associated in any
manner with the recommendation or selection of an assistance recipient. Consequently,
we could not support redelegating award authority from the Regional Administrators to
Office Directors, or their equivalent, because it might violate the fundamental internal
control - separation of duties. In some EPA regions, Office Directors are in the chain of
command for evaluation and selecting assistance recipients. Our concern would be the
same for all Regional Administrator delegations to award money.
OIG Implements Electronic Planning Database and Other
Improvements
We have taken various actions to improve our efficiency and improve our ability to serve
the Agency and the public.
32
-------
We designed and implemented an electronic assignment planning and analysis database to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of allocating resources and selecting
assignments for the greatest potential return on investment. This electronic database is
designed to score potential assignments using standard criteria of risk and value added.
That information is compared to the estimated staff cost, to provide a basis for analysis
and a projected cost-benefit ratio. This process features a listing of alternatives and
trade-offs, to allow for informed leadership decision making. This represents a best
practice for linking planning to budgeting and performance.
Also, we performed our first comprehensive analysis of our Purchase Card Program.
This review examined records and processes across the OIG nationwide and, in addition
to conducting reviews, the reviewers also coached card holders and approvers on best
practices. The OIG found no material weaknesses or improper usage, and the majority of
the recommendations have been substantially implemented.
Further, OIG Headquarters centralized its process for ordering and inventorying its office
supplies. This process change is a best management practice resulting in a savings of
time and space, and prevents ordering of excess supplies.
Inspector General Addresses Key Issues during Presentations
Inspector General Nikki Tinsley continued her outreach efforts during the past
semiannual period, making presentations not only on EPA OIG's work to strengthen
Government effectiveness and efficiency, but also on efforts of the inspector general
community as a whole.
At the Mid-Atlantic Intergovernmental Audit Forum, held in June 2005, Tinsley presented
"Government Works Better When We Work Together: Sharing Thoughts on Federal, State
and Local Collaboration." She discussed various instances where the OIG worked in
concert with other organizations, including her leadership role with the U.S. Comptroller
General's Domestic Working Group, Grants Accountability Project. Auditors from 19
different Federal, State, and local government audit organizations together developed a
guide to improve accountability for grant funds and results. Grants are an important tool
for government agencies to achieve their goals. The Fiscal Year 2006 Federal budget
alone includes approximately $450 billion for over 700 grant programs.
At the Government Performance Summit held in April 2005, Tinsley's presentation,
"Collecting and Managing Performance Data," stressed the EPA OIG's efforts to
measure results in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act.
Tinsley described the performance measurement system that will document our own
efforts as well as help EPA better accomplish its mission of protecting human health and
the environment. She emphasized the OIG's results-oriented culture and how good
planning is essential to achieving results.
In June 2005, Tinsley spoke at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy on "The
Role of the Inspector General: An Insider's Perspective." She explained how inspectors
general, as agents of positive change, contribute to good government. She noted that
inspectors general identify and report on existing problems and also foster effective
program management to prevent future problems.
33
-------
At the Association of Government Accountants' 54th Annual Professional Development
Conference and Exposition in July 2005, Tinsley participated with several other inspectors
general on a panel to discuss their overall mission. In the presentation, "OIG Watchdogs:
Preparing Tomorrow's OIG Accountability Professionals," the panel noted the great
strides the inspector general community has made since its establishment in 1978. For
instance, in Fiscal Year 2004, the Federal inspectors general made recommendations
leading to $ 14 billion in funds put to better use.
Careers in Environmental Communication Addressed
On May 10, 2005, Gary Sternberg, an editor for the EPA OIG, moderated and spoke as
part of a panel entitled "Careers in Environmental Technical Communication," at the
Society for Technical Communication's 52nd Annual Conference, in Seattle,
Washington. Approximately 1,800 people attended the conference, the world's largest
gathering of technical communicators. Sternberg spoke about his work with the OIG
and also discussed career opportunities throughout EPA related to Web site
development and management.
34
-------
Significant EPA Actions as a Result of OIG Activity
EPA Issues Peer Review Guidance for Innovation Projects as a
Result of OIG Recommendation
In response to an OIG recommendation, EPA's Director, National Center for
Environmental Innovation, issued a memorandum that provides peer review
guidance for EPA innovation projects. This guidance will better ensure that such
projects are based on sound science.
In December 2003, we issued a report (Significant Modifications Needed to Ensure
Success of Fort Worth Asbestos Demolition Method) addressing a new approach to
asbestos demolition. EPA undertook the project under "Project XL," a national initiative
that encourages testing alternative ways to achieve environmental results as long as they
are superior to those achieved under current regulations. Among other things, we found
that the proposed demolition method for the project had not been independently peer
reviewed, and recommended that EPA establish peer review procedures for future
innovation projects.
In response to our recommendation, on May 31, 2005, the Director, National Center for
Environmental Innovation, within EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation,
issued a memorandum to EPA's Innovation Action Council that provided general peer
re view guidance.
"When innovation projects involve the use of scientific or technical information that may
be used in a significant national policy decision, it is essential to subject those proposals to
peer review...," the memorandum notes.
"Adherence to this policy will ensure that the technical merits of proposed projects are
adequately assessed, that relevant expertise from within the Agency is engaged as a
project is developed, and that projects involving scientific information and with significant
national policy implications receive the appropriate level of peer review and are based
upon sound science," the memorandum further notes.
The memorandum requiring peer review is an important step in ensuring that innovation
projects protect human health and the environment.
EPA and Pennsylvania Agree to Act on Ombudsman's
Recommendations for Throop Site
EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection have agreed to
take the corrective actions at the Marjol Battery site in the Borough of Throop that
the EPA OIG's Ombudsman recommended.
EPA and the State announced at a public meeting in August 2005 that they would drill nine
additional holes at the northeastern Pennsylvania site to evaluate the potential for mine
fires, which had been a concern for the borough and nearby residents. The Ombudsman
35
-------
determined that the risk of mine fires would be low as a result of EPA's plan to use
permanent cement caps and other measures to contain contaminants. Nonetheless, the
Ombudsman, in a May 18, 2004, report (Report No. 2004-P-00017, Ombudsman
Review of the Marjol Battery Site, Throop, Pennsylvania), recommended additional
testing to help allay residents' concerns.
Approximately 5,500 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site, where coal had been
mined prior to the site becoming a battery processing facility. Lead and other pollutants
were identified in surface soil at the site.
36
-------
Statistical Data
Audit Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution
Process for Semiannual Period Ending September 30,2005
Report Category
A. Forwhich no management
decision was made by
April 1,2005*
B. Which were issued during
the reporting period
C. Which were issued during
the reporting period that
required no resolution
Subtotals (A + B-C)
D. Forwhich a management
decision was made during
the reporting period
E Forwhich no management
decision was made by
September 30, 2005
F Reports for which no
management decision was
made within 6 months
of issuance
No. of
Reports
172
300
144
328
155
173
72
Report Issuance
($ in thousands)
Questioned
Costs
$58,405
37,629
0
96,034
6,475
89,559
53,851
Recommended
Efficiencies
$7,557
5,911
0
13,468
3,976
9,492
3,581
Report Resolution Costs
Sustained
($ in thousands)
To Be
Recovered
$2,639
207
0
2,846
2,846
0
0
As
Efficiencies
$2,849
0
0
2,849
2,849
0
0
* Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies
between this report and our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data incur
audit tracking system.
Status of Management Decisions on Inspector General Reports
This section presents statistical information as required by the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, on the status of EPA management decisions on reports issued by the
OIG involving monetary recommendations. As presented, information contained in Tables
1 and 2 cannot be used to assess results of reviews performed or controlled by this office.
Many of the reports were prepared by other Federal auditors or independent public
accountants. EPA OIG staff do not manage or control such assignments. Auditees
frequently provide additional documentation to support the allowability of such costs
subsequent to report issuance.
37
-------
Table 1 - Inspector General-Issued Reports with Questioned Costs for Semiannual Period
Ending September 30, 2005 (dollar value in thousands)
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was made
by April 1,2005**
B. New reports issued during period
Subtotal (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, 2005
Reports for which no management decision was made
within 6 months of issuance
Number of
Reports
75
55
130
45
21
24
85
44
Questioned
Costs *
$58,405
37,629
96,034
6,475
2,846
3,629
89,559
53,851
Unsupported
Costs
$11,856
27,869
39,725
2,176
2,026
150
37,549
9,732
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, 2005 (dollar value in thousands)
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was made by April 1, 2005*
B. Which were issued during the reporting period
Subtotal (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, 2005
Reports for which no management decision was made
within 6 months of issuance
Number of
Reports
10
3
13
5
2
0
3
8
5
Dollar
Value
$7,557
5,911
13,468
3,976
2,994
0
982
9,492
3,581
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.
38
-------
Audits with No Final Action as of September 30, 2005, Which Are Over 365 Days Past the Date of
the Accepted Management Decision
Audits
Program
Assistance Agreements
Contra ctAudits
Single Audits
Financial StatementAudits
Total
Total
22
27
0
14
0
63
Percentage
35%
43%
0%
22%
0%
100%
39
-------
Summary of Investigative Results
Summary of Investigative Activity During Period
Cases open as of March 31 , 2005
Cases opened during period
Cases closed during period
Cases pending as of September 30, 2005
222
58
62*
218
' Includes one case that should have been closed in a prior period.
Investigations Pending by Type as of September 30, 2005
Contract
Assistance Agreement
Employee Integrity
Program Integrity
Computer Crime
Laboratory Fraud
Other
Total
Superfund
13
1
3
2
0
12
1
32
Management
21
43
19
36
13
46
8
186
Total
34
44
22
38
13
58
9
218
Results of Prosecutive Actions
Criminal Complaints
Criminal Indictments /Informations
Convictions
Civil Judgments / Settlements / Filings
Fines and Recoveries (includes Civil)
Prison Time
Probation
Community Service
4
9
8
2
$43,714,731
38 months
269 months
140 hours
Administrative Actions
Suspensions
Debarments
Voluntary Exclusions
Compliance Agreements
Other Administrative Actions
Total
Cost Savings
6
2
2
6
17
33
$77,000
40
-------
Scoreboard of Results
Scoreboard of Results Compared to Fiscal 2005 Annual Performance Goal Targets
All results reported in Fiscal 2005, from current and prior year's work, in OIG Performance Measurement
and Results System. (Except where noted, information verified and subject to OIG Data Quality Policy.)
Strategic Goals; With Government Performance and
Results Act Annual Performance Targets Compared
to Fiscal 2005 Results Reported
Supporting Measures
Goal 1. Contribute to Improved Human Health and Environmental Quality
Environmental Improvements/Actions/Changes Q
• Target: 45
• Reported: 35 (78%)
Environmental Risks Reduced or Eliminated Q
• Target: 23
• Reported: 35 (152%)
Environmental Recommendations, Best Practices, (")
Risks Identified
• Target: 95
• Reported: 112 (118%)
0 Legislative changes/decisions
5 Regulatory changes/decisions
27 EPA policy, process, practice changes
1 Examples of environmental improvement
2 Best environmental practices implemented
1 5 Environmental risks reduced/eliminated
1 Certifications/validations/verifications
19 Critical congressional/public issues addressed
60 Environmental recommendations
34 Environmental best practice identified
18 Environmental risks identified
Goal 2. Improve EPA's Management, Accountability, and Program Operations
Return on Investment: Potential dollar return as (~)
percentage of OIG budget ($50.5 million)
• Target: $75.8 million (150%)
• Reported: $143.8 million (285%)
Criminal, Civil, and Administrative Actions Reducing r")
Risk of Loss/Operational Integrity
• Target: 80
• Reported: 125 (156%)
Improvements in Business/Systems/Efficiency Q
• Target: 220 3
• Reported: 724 (329%)
Recommendations, Best Practices, Challenges (~)
Identified
• Target: 800 3
• Reported: 1119 (140%)
(dollars in millions)
$ 79.5 Questioned costs 1
$ 1 3.4 Recommended efficiencies, costs saved 2
$ 50.9 Fines, recoveries, settlements
15 Criminal convictions
23 Indictments/informations/complaints
4 Civil judgments/settlements/filings
83 Administrative actions
47 Policy process, practice, control changes
306 Corrective actions on FMFIA/mgt. challenge
24 Best practices implemented
325 Certifications/validations/verifications
9 Allegations disproved
13 Critical congressional or public management
concerns addressed
1059 Recommendations
35 Best practices identified
8 FMFIA/managementchallenges identified
17 Referrals for OIG or Agency action
Goal 3. Continuously Improve OIG Products and Services (Internally Reported - Not Audited)
Partners in collaborative products/services 358
Requests to testify at hearings/presentations 40
Management innovations implemented 1 6
Assignments performed by request/mandate 93%
FTE usage rate 94%
• Savings from mgt. improvements $60,000
• Products electronically accessible 90%
• PC IE projects/activities led 5
• Legs/regs/policies reviewed /timely 40/100%
• Expiring funds used 99.9%
1 Includes $0.9 million of costs resolved prior to report issuance, not in resolution process
2 Includes $0.1 million of savings from investigations, not in resolution process
3 Targets increased since the last Semiannual Report to Congress to reflect Single Audit results
41
-------
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 Unreasonabb (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
PERFORMANCE REPORTS
2005-P-00015
2005-P-00016
2005-P-00017
2005-P-00018
2005-P-00019
2005-P-00021
2005-P-00022
2005-P-00023
2005-P-00024
2005-P-00025
2005-P-00026
2005-P-00027
2005-P-00029
Region 1 0's Award Process Used on Grant No. 97084701
Grants Effectiveness Evaluation
Brownfields Request: Resource Needs
NPDES Permit Backlog
PeoplePlus Security Controls Need Improvement
SDWA Tools
Ombudsman Review of the Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site
Information Technology (IT) Project Management
Priority Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Universe
Challenges/Opportunities to Implement the Watershed Approach
RCRA Financial Responsibility Requirements
Staff Not Held Accountable for Grants Management
Alaska XP Grant
TOTAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS = 13
16-JUN-05
02-JUN-05
07-JUN-05
13-JUN-05
28-JUL-05
22-AUG-05
13-SEP-05
14-SEP-05
19-SEP-05
21-SEP-05
26-SEP-05
27-SEP-05
28-SEP-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT REPORTS
2005-1-00144
2005-1-00157
2005-4-00056
2005-4-00099
2005-4-00120
2005-4-00129
SRF-Utah Clean Water Revolving Fund June 2004
Oregon Drinking Water State Revolving Fund June 30 2004
Wrangell Cooperative Association - Hot Line Complaint
California Cost Outlays Under V99925204
AA NRDC Costs Claimed EPA Grants XA830331 -01 & X826751 -01
AA - Oregon SF Cooperative Agreement V990601 03
TOTAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT REPORTS = 6
02-AUG-05
12-SEP-05
19-APR-05
08-SEP-05
21-SEP-05
29-SEP-05
0
0
204,059
0
0
1,783,017
$1,987,076
SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS
2005-3-00136
2005-3-00137
2005-3-00138
2005-3-00139
2005-3-00140
2005-3-00141
2005-3-00142
2005-3-00143
2005-3-00144
2005-3-00145
2005-3-00146
2005-3-00147
2005-3-00148
2005-3-00149
2005-3-00150
2005-3-00151
2005-3-00152
2005-3-00153
2005-3-00154
2005-3-00155
2005-3-00156
2005-3-00157
2005-3-00158
2005-3-00159
2005-3-00160
2005-3-00161
City of Oskaloosa-FY 2004
Government of Guam - FY 2003
Pueblo of Nambe-FY 2000
Pueblo of Nambe-FY 2001
Pueblo of Nambe-FY 2002
Thomas Jefferson University, PA- FY 2003
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Porno Indians - FY 2003
St. Johns River Water Management District - FY 2003
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe - FY2003
City of Kansas City - FY 2003
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute - FY 2003
Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma - FY2003
American Registry of Pathology - FY 2002
Municipality of Artesian - FY 1999
Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy FY2001
Jackson County Commission - FY 2002
The Delta Institutes and Affiliates - FY 2003
Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture - FY 1999
Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture - FY 2000
Research Foundation of State University of New York - FY 2003
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board - FY 1999
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board - FY2000
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board - FY2001
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board - FY2002
Concurrent Technologies Corp. - FY2003
Fairfax County Water Authority - FY 2002
04-APR-05
04-APR-05
04-APR-05
04-APR-05
04-APR-05
07-APR-05
05-APR-05
05-APR-05
05-APR-05
05-APR-05
05-APR-05
05-APR-05
06-APR-05
06-APR-05
14-APR-05
14-APR-05
21-JUN-05
19-APR-05
19-APR-05
19-APR-05
05-MAY-05
05-MAY-05
05-MAY-05
05-MAY-05
02-MAY-05
22-AUG-05
0
1,216,243
75,138
95,242
132,618
0
0
0
0
125,486
0
0
0
344,949
0
0
0
510,639
0
0
529,797
1,809,012
1,571,814
10,064
0
13,839
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
215,946
1,419,548
286,207
$1,921,701
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
523,606
0
5,503,986
2,430,216
3,059,822
2,977,704
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$4,759,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$4,759,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
-------
Report Number
2005-3-00162
2005-3-00163
2005-3-00164
2005-3-00165
2005-3-00166
2005-3-00167
2005-3-00168
2005-3-00169
2005-3-00170
2005-3-00171
2005-3-00172
2005-3-00173
2005-3-00174
2005-3-00175
2005-3-00176
2005-3-00177
2005-3-00178
2005-3-00179
2005-3-00180
2005-3-00181
2005-3-00182
2005-3-00183
2005-3-00184
2005-3-00185
2005-3-00186
2005-3-00187
2005-3-00188
2005-3-00189
2005-3-00190
2005-3-00191
2005-3-00192
2005-3-00193
2005-3-00194
2005-3-00195
2005-3-00196
2005-3-00197
2005-3-00198
2005-3-00199
2005-3-00200
2005-3-00201
2005-3-00202
2005-3-00203
2005-3-00204
2005-3-00205
2005-3-00206
2005-3-00207
2005-3-00208
2005-3-00209
2005-3-00210
2005-3-00211
2005-3-00212
2005-3-00213
2005-3-00214
2005-3-00215
2005-3-00216
2005-3-00217
2005-3-00218
2005-3-00219
2005-3-00220
2005-3-00221
2005-3-00222
2005-3-00223
2005-3-00224
2005-3-00225
2005-3-00226
2005-3-00227
2005-3-00228
2005-3-00229
2005-3-00230
2005-3-00231
2005-3-00232
2005-3-00233
2005-3-00234
Title
City of Dallas -FY 2002
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District - FY 2003
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District - FY 2002
Pennsylvania Rural Water Association - FY 2002
Pennsylvania Rural Water Association - FY 2003
Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town - FY 2003
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board - FY2003
Howard University -FY 2003
Bo rough ofYoungsville- FY 2002
City of Cannon Falls -FY 2002
Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Porno Indians - FY 2002
Jicarilla Apache Nation - FY2002
Jicarilla Apache Nation - FY2003
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes - FY 2002
Joint Programs of the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes - FY 2002
Denver Regional Council of Governments - FY 2002
Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Authority - FY 2003
Rosebud Sioux Tribe - FY 2003
County of Bra dford-FY 2003
Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas - FY 2000
County of Lebanon -FY 2003
Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribal Council - FY 2003
Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribal Council - FY 2002
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians - FY 2001
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes - FY 2001
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes - FY 2002
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes - FY 2003
Government of the United States Virgin Islands
Government of the United States Virgin Islands
South Fork Band Council, NV - FY2003
City of Albuquerque -FY 2003
American Samoa Government - FY 2002
Scotts Valley Band of Porno Indians - FY2003
Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone - FY 2002
State of Arkansas Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund
United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians of OK - FY 2003
City of Gary, IN- FY 2003
Puerto Rico Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund - FY 2002
County of Bra dford-FY 2002
Walker River Paiute Tribe - FY 2003
American Samoa Power Authority -FY 2002
American Samoa Power Authority -FY 2003
Onondaga County Soil and Water Conservation District - FY 2003
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma - FY 2000
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma - FY 2001
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma - FY 2002
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma - FY 2003
Cahto Indians of the Laytonville Reservation - FY 2002
Cahto Indians of the Laytonville Reservation - FY 2003
Yavapai Apache Nation - FY2002
Yavapai Apache Nation VFY2003
Quileute Tribe
YupiitofAndreafski
Pilot Point Traditional Council
Tanacross Village Council
American Indian Science and Engineering Society
Chalkyitsik Village Council
Yankton Sioux Tribe -FY 2003
Greenville Rancheria - FY2002
Greenville Rancheria - FY2003
Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians - FY 2003
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe - FY 2002
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe - FY 2003
Assoc of State/Interstate Water Pollution Control- FY 2003
Assoc of State/Interstate Water Pollution Control- FY 2002
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe - FY2002
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians - FY 2002
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians - FY 2003
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians - FY 2004
Mi lie Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians - FY 2002
Mi lie Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians - FY 2003
Native Village of Mekoryuk
Native Village of Mekoryuk - FY 2003
Final Report
Issued
03-MAY-05
03-MAY-05
03-MAY-05
03-MAY-05
03-MAY-05
05-MAY-05
05-MAY-05
05-MAY-05
12-MAY-05
12-MAY-05
12-MAY-05
18-MAY-05
18-MAY-05
18-MAY-05
19-MAY-05
19-MAY-05
19-MAY-05
24-MAY-05
01-JUN-05
01-JUN-05
01-JUN-05
07-JUN-05
07-JUN-05
07-JUN-05
09-JUN-05
09-JUN-05
09-JUN-05
22-JUN-05
22-JUN-05
20-JUN-05
20-JUN-05
20-JUN-05
21-JUN-05
21-JUN-05
21-JUN-05
23-JUN-05
23-JUN-05
27-JUN-05
06-JUL-05
07-JUL-05
26-JUL-05
26-JUL-05
04-AUG-05
09-AUG-05
09-AUG-05
11-AUG-05
11-AUG-05
24-AUG-05
24-AUG-05
24-AUG-05
24-AUG-05
26-AUG-05
26-AUG-05
26-AUG-05
30-AUG-05
30-AUG-05
30-AUG-05
07-SEP-05
07-SEP-05
07-SEP-05
08-SEP-05
08-SEP-05
08-SEP-05
12-SEP-05
12-SEP-05
12-SEP-05
21-SEP-05
21-SEP-05
21-SEP-05
15-SEP-05
15-SEP-05
19-SEP-05
19-SEP-05
Questioned Costs
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable
Costs Costs Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
125,126
0
0
7,198
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,004
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37,677
47,727
0
0
0
0
19,520
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,313,010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
118,264
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,243
0
184,646
0
44,001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,545
0
13,733
19,289
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,276
0
0
0
0
5,871,955
1,803,545
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
43
-------
Report Number
2005-3-00235
2005-3-00236
2005-3-00237
2005-3-00238
2005-3-00239
2005-3-00240
2005-3-00241
2005-3-00242
2005-3-00243
2005-3-00244
2005-3-00245
2005-3-00246
2005-3-00247
Title
Akiak Native Community
Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium, Inc. - FY2003
Confederated Tribes of the Colvi lie Reservation
YupiitofAndreafski
Chalkyitsik Village Council
Atmautluak Traditional Council
Seminole Tribe of Florida - FY 2002
Atmautluak Traditional Council - FY 2002
Atmautluak Traditional Council - FY 2003
Seminole Tribe of Florida - FY 2003
State of North Carolina - FY 2004
Southern Ute Indian Tribe - FY 2002
Civil Engineering Research Foundation - FY2003
TOTALSINGLEAUDIT REPORTS = 112
Final Report
Issued
20-SEP-05
21-SEP-05
21-SEP-05
21-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
26-SEP-05
27-SEP-05
27-SEP-05
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonabb (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
11,920
0
0
20,220
0
0
0
0
0
$6,707,233
DIG ISSUED CONTRACT REPORTS
2005-1-00112
2005-1-00141
2005-1-00172
2005-4-00058
2005-4-00059
2005-4-00060
2005-4-00063
2005-4-00065
2005-4-00071
2005-4-00080
2005-4-00092
2005-4-00113
ICF Consulting FY 2005 Labor Floorcheck and Followup
ICF Consulting Group - CY2001 Incurred Cost
ICF Consulting Cost Impact Review
Picillo Farm CERCLA Claim #2
Hunterstown Road PRP Group CERCLA Claim #3
E&E Revised HR & ES Disclosure Statements (9/30/2004)
E&E FY2001 Incurred Cost Adequacy Review
ICF Consulting Financial Capability Review
Waste Management- Eli zabethtown Response Claim Number2
E&E - PC General Dollar Magnitude
Batavia Landfill CERCLA Claim
E&E Adequacy of CFY 2003 Incurred Cost Proposal
TOTAL DIG ISSUED CONTRACT REPORTS = 12
07-JUN-05
26-JUL-05
29-SEP-05
21-APR-05
22-APR-05
29-APR-05
18-MAY-05
26-MAY-05
07-JUN-05
07-JUL-05
22-AUG-05
14-SEP-05
0
0
0
0
12,419
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$12,419
DCAA CONTRACT REPORTS
2005-1-00090
2005-1-00091
2005-1-00092
2005-1-00093
2005-1-00094
2005-1-00095
2005-1-00096
2005-1-00097
2005-1-00098
2005-1-00099
2005-1-00100
2005-1-00101
2005-1-00102
2005-1-00103
2005-1-00104
2005-1-00105
2005-1-00106
2005-1-00107
2005-1-00108
2005-1-00109
2005-1-00110
2005-1-00111
2005-1-00113
2005-1-00114
2005-1-00115
2005-1-00116
2005-1-00117
2005-1-00118
2005-1-00119
2005-1-00120
2005-1-00121
2005-1-00122
2005-1-00123
2005-1-00124
2005-1-00125
2005-1-00126
2005-1-00127
2005-1-00128
2005-1-00129
2005-1-00130
Earth Technology Remediation Service - FY2002 Incurred Cost
MACTEC Engineering (formerly ESE) - I/C 2002
Science Applications Intl Corp - CACS 68-W4-0030 7/94-1 2/98
Washington Group Intl-formerly Morrison Knudsen - FY2003 RAC
Foster Wheeler Envtl. Corp. (c/o Tetra Tech FW) I/C FYE 9/30/03
Toeroek Associates Inc. - FY2002 Incurred Cost
National Academy of Sciences - FYE 1 2/31/2002 Incurred Cost
COM Federal Prog. Corp. - FY 2002 Annual RAC Closeout 68-W5-0022
COM Federal Programs Corporation - FY 1 999 ARCS 68-W9-0024
Tetra Tech Foster Wheeler (TTFW- FY2004 EDP-General Controls)
Excalibur Associates, Inc. - FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
Zedek Corp. - FY2002 Incurred Cost
EG&G Automotive Research - FYE 12/31/2001 Incurred Cost
Techlaw Inc. - FY2005 Floorcheck
Marasco Newton Group Ltd.- FYE 12/29/2002 Incurred Cost
EG&G - CAS, Init & Rev Disc Smt ADEQ/COM PL Ats
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. - Preaward Proposal
Sys Research & Applications c/o SRA Intl - FYE 6/30/2003 I/C
Griffin Services Inc. - FY2000(transition) FY2001 Incurred Cost
Cambridge Environmental, Inc. - Preaward Proposal
Environmental Health & Engineering - FY2001 Incurred Cost
Environmental Management Support - FYE 12/31/03 Incurred Cost
Weston Solutions Inc. FY 2003 Incurred Cost
Tetra Tech Inc./B&VSPC Joint Venture - FY2000 RAC68-S7-3002
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. - FYE 12/31/2002 1C
Tetra Tech/B&VSPC-FY99RAC68-S7-3002-Wait for SupplemtRept
Eastern Research Group (ERG) - FY 2004 Billing System Review
Matrix Environmental & Geotech Srvcs - FY 2003 Incurred Cost
Guardian Envtl Svcs (c/o GC Mgt Svcs) CFYE 10/31/03 Incur. Cost
Tetra Tech Inc. - FY 2002 Incurred Cost
Project Resources, Inc. - FY2002 Incurred Cost
COM Federal Programs Corp.-FY 1999 ARCS 68-W9-0056
Westat Inc. - FY2002 Incurred Cost
Advanced Resources International - FY2001 Incurred Cost
EG&G Automotive Research - FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
Northbridge Environmental Mgmt Consultant - FY 2002 Incurred Co
Great Lakes Environmental Center Incurred Cost FY 2003
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. - FYE 12/31/02 Incurred Cost
Bechtel Group, Inc. - FY99 Incurred Cost
Environmental Health & Engineering FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
01-APR-05
01-APR-05
01-APR-05
04-APR-05
08-APR-05
08-APR-05
11-APR-05
13-APR-05
15-APR-05
20-APR-05
22-APR-05
27-APR-05
29-APR-05
03-MAY-05
17-MAY-05
24-MAY-05
25-MAY-05
25-MAY-05
01-JUN-05
03-JUN-05
06-JUN-05
06-JUN-05
07-JUN-05
14-JUN-05
17-JUN-05
27-JUN-05
28-JUN-05
29-JUN-05
29-JUN-05
29-JUN-05
30-JUN-05
05-JUL-05
06-JUL-05
06-JUL-05
06-JUL-05
07-JUL-05
07-JUL-05
08-JUL-05
08-JUL-05
14-JUL-05
0
0
0
0
0
10,984
3,260
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52,333
0
0
26,451
517,824
0
0
0
0
22,412
428
5,192
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44,003
0
0
29,396
0
0
0
0
33,667
8,487
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$25,946,995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
-------
Report Number
2005-1-00131
2005-1-00132
2005-1-00133
2005-1-00134
2005-1-00135
2005-1-00136
2005-1-00137
2005-1-00139
2005-1-00140
2005-1-00142
2005-1-00143
2005-1-00145
2005-1-00146
2005-1-00147
2005-1-00148
2005-1-00149
2005-1-00150
2005-1-00151
2005-1-00152
2005-1-00153
2005-1-00154
2005-1-00155
2005-1-00156
2005-1-00158
2005-1-00159
2005-1-00160
2005-1-00161
2005-1-00162
2005-1-00163
2005-1-00164
2005-1-00165
2005-1-00166
2005-1-00167
2005-1-00168
2005-1-00169
2005-1-00170
2005-1-00171
2005-2-00027
2005-2-00028
2005-2-00029
2005-4-00055
2005-4-00057
2005-4-00061
2005-4-00062
2005-4-00064
2005-4-00066
2005-4-00067
2005-4-00068
2005-4-00069
2005-4-00070
2005-4-00072
2005-4-00073
2005-4-00074
2005-4-00075
2005-4-00076
2005-4-00077
2005-4-00078
2005-4-00079
2005-4-00081
2005-4-00082
2005-4-00083
2005-4-00084
2005-4-00085
2005-4-00086
2005-4-00087
2005-4-00088
2005-4-00089
2005-4-00090
2005-4-00091
2005-4-00093
2005-4-00094
2005-4-00095
2005-4-00096
Title
COM Federal Program Corp. - FY2001 RACCIoseout68-W9-8210
CD M Federal Program Corp. - FY 2002 RAG Closeout 68-S7-3003
COM Federal Program Corp. - FY2001 RAC68-S7-3003
Versar, Inc. - FYE 6/30/2003 Incurred Cost
Syracuse Research Corporation - FYE 9/30/2004 Incurred Cost
COM Federal Programs Corp. - FY 1997 & 199
Lockheed Martin Services, Inc - FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
Syracuse Research Corp. - FY2003 OMB A-133/lncurred Cost
Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. - FY 2002 Incurred Cost
TetraTech EM lnc.-FY2000 RAG Close-out 68-W6-0037
MACTEC Engineering (formerly ESE) - I/C 2002
CH2M Hill, Inc. - FY 2003 Incurred Cost
TetraTech NUS, Inc. - FYE 9/30/2001 Incurred Cost
E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. - Preaward PR-HQ-04-11611
Computer Sciences Corp - FYs 10/85 thru 11/90 CACS 68-01-7176
TetraTech NUS, Inc. - FY2001 RAC#68-W6-0045
Tetra Tech N US, Inc. - FY 2000 RAG - 68- W6-0045
WRS Infrastructure & Environment - FYE 12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
TetraTech NUS, Inc. - FY2001 RAC#68-W6-0045
Portage Environmental, Inc. - FYE 12/31/2002 Incurred Cost
Stratus Consulting, Inc. - FY2002 Incurred Cost
Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd.- Preaward PR-HQ-04-11611
Metcalf & Eddy (c/o AECOM) - CFYE 9/30/20
Black & Veatch - 68-W8-009 1 RAG
Northbridge Environmental Mgt - FYE12/31/2003 Incurred Cost
IIT Research Institute - FYE 9/30/2003 Incurred Cost
Bristol Environmental & Eng - FYE 3/31/2003 Incurred Cost
Bristol Environmental & Eng - FYE 3/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Cadmus Group, Inc.- FY2003 Incurred Cost
InfoPro, Inc. - CFYE 9/30/2003 Incurred Cost
Kemron Environmental Svcs- FYs 3/25/02-5/31/2003 Incur. Cost
SRI International - FY 12/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Metcalf & Eddy Inc - RAG FY 2003 Annual Close-Out 68-W6-0042
DPRA, Inc. - FYE 3/31/2004 Incurred Cost
Environmental Restoration, LLC- FYE 12/28/2003 Incurred Cost
Neptune & Company - FY 2003 Incurred Cost
Advanced Technologies Systems, Inc. - FY 2003 Incurred Cost
Sierra Research, Inc. - Pre-award Proposal PR-C1-04-11009
TechLaw, Inc. - CFYE 9/30/2003 Incurred Cost
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. - FY2003 QATS Seg
Eastern Research Group - GFY 2005 CAS 40
Zedek Corporation - FY2005 Floorcheck
Matrix Environmental & Geotechnical Svces - Floorcheck
Lockheed Martin Svcs, Inc. - FY2004 Indirect/ODCas of 5/2004
EG&G - Purchasing System Follow-Up
FEV Engine Technology - FY 2005 Provisional Billing Rates
FEV Engine Technology - 2005 Billing Rate Structure Change
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. - Financial Capability
Cambridge Environmental, Inc. - Pre-Award Accounting Survey
Sierra Research Inc. - Pre-Award Accounting Survey
ABT Associates, Inc. - FY2004 Budgeting System Review
Midwest Research Institute - MAAR 13
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller-D/Statement No.1 1/01/05 - Compliance
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller-D/Statement No.1 1/01/05 -Adequacy
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC)- CAS 418
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC)- CAS 410
TetraTech, Inc. - FY2005 MAAR 6 Labor Floorcheck
E2, Inc. -Accounting System Review PR-HQ-04-11304
Alpha-Gamma Technologies Inc. - FY 2005 Floorcheck
Environmental Quality Management, Inc. - FY2005 Floorcheck
Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd - FY 2005 Financial Capability
E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc - FY 2005 Financial Capability
Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd - FY 2005 Preaward Acctng Sys
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc.- Preaward Accounting Survey
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. - Labor Floorcheck
E2 Consulting Engineers, Inc - FY 2005 Preaward Acctg System
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc - FY 2005 CAS 408
Midwest Research Institute - MAAR 6
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) - CAS 420
Eastern Research Group - Revised CAS Disclosure Statement
DCT, Inc. - FY 2004 & 2005 Finan Cap. Mod. Risk Assess
Eastern Research Group GFY 2005 Financial Capability
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. - FY2005 CAS 417
Final Report
Issued
15-JUL-05
15-JUL-05
15-JUL-05
15-JUL-05
18-JUL-05
19-JUL-05
19-JUL-05
26-JUL-05
26-JUL-05
28-JUL-05
29-JUL-05
02-AUG-05
05-AUG-05
05-AUG-05
08-AUG-05
10-AUG-05
11-AUG-05
24-AUG-05
29-AUG-05
31-AUG-05
01-SEP-05
08-SEP-05
09-SEP-05
09-SEP-05
16-SEP-05
19-SEP-05
20-SEP-05
20-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
23-SEP-05
26-SEP-05
26-SEP-05
02-JUN-05
28-JUN-05
12-AUG-05
08-APR-05
20-APR-05
05-MAY-05
12-MAY-05
25-MAY-05
31-MAY-05
31-MAY-05
02-JUN-05
03-JUN-05
06-JUN-05
09-JUN-05
14-JUN-05
27-JUN-05
27-JUN-05
27-JUN-05
27-JUN-05
27-JUN-05
28-JUN-05
07-JUL-05
15-JUL-05
26-JUL-05
26-JUL-05
26-JUL-05
28-JUL-05
01-AUG-05
01-AUG-05
03-AUG-05
05-AUG-05
12-AUG-05
22-AUG-05
24-AUG-05
26-AUG-05
29-AUG-05
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,448
0
21,640
0
0
105,840
0
0
0
0
50,055
0
108,714
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18,161
0
0
34,723
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56,773
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,094,466
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
-------
Report Number
2005-4-00097
2005-4-00098
2005-4-00100
2005-4-00101
2005-4-00102
2005-4-00103
2005-4-00104
2005-4-00105
2005-4-00106
2005-4-00107
2005-4-00108
2005-4-00109
2005-4-00110
2005-4-00111
2005-4-00112
2005-4-00114
2005-4-00115
2005-4-00116
2005-4-00117
2005-4-00118
2005-4-00119
2005-4-00121
2005-4-00122
2005-4-00123
2005-4-00124
2005-4-00125
2005-4-00126
2005-4-00127
2005-4-00128
2005-4-00130
2005-4-00131
2005-4-00132
2005-4-00133
2005-4-00134
2005-4-00135
2005-4-00136
2005-4-00137
2005-4-00138
2005-4-00139
2005-4-00140
Title
Environmental Restoration, LLC-FY2005 MAAR Material Consump
Eastern Research Group - FY 2005 Accounting System Review
Battelle-BCO-CAS417
Battelle - CPHRE - CAS 41 0 Compliance
Battelle-BCO-CAS411
Battelle - OCEO - CAS 412 Compliance
Battelle -CAS 41 5
Battelle - OCEO - CAS 416 Compliance
Battelle -BCD -CAS 414
Battelle - BCO - MAAR 6 Floorcheck
Battelle -BCO- MAAR 13
Battelle - BCO - Exam of Paid Vouchers
Project Resources, Inc. - FY2005 MAAR Floorcheck
TetraTech Inc. - FY2005 Labor Accounting System
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. FY 2005 MAAR
DPRA, Inc. - CFY 2004 Floor Checks
SAIC-Company1-CAS414
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. - FY2005 CAS 411
SAIC - Company 9 - D/S Revisions
SAIC - Company 6 - D/S Revisions
Environmental Restoration, LLC - FY 2005 Floorcheck
Eastern Research Group -GFY2005 CAS 420 Compliance
EG&G-CAS410
TetraTech - FY2005 Subcontract Management
Tetra Tech EC Inc. -FY 2005 Exam of Pd Vouchers for Direct
Shaw Environ & Infrastructure, Inc - FY2005 Indir & ODC &ICAPS
SAIC - FY 2004 Company 1 - CAS 41 0 Alloc of Business Unit G&A
SAIC - FY 2004 CPSR (Contractor Purchasing Sys Review)
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc - FY2005 Floorcheck
Tetra Tech EMI (TTEMI) - CAS 415 Deferred Compensation
SAIC - FY 2004 Labor System Review
SAIC -FY 2004 Indirect & ODC
SAI C - FY 2004 MAAR 6 - Labor Floor Checks
SAIC- FY 2004 Company 1-CAS 420 IR&D/B&P
SAIC- FY 2004 Company 9-CAS D/S Review
SAIC- FY 2004 Company 9— CAS D/S Review
SAIC- FY 2004 Company 9-CAS D/S Review
SAIC- FY 2004 Company 9— CAS D/S Review
TetraTech EMI-Accounting System
SAIC- FY 2004 Company 1, 6 &9- CAS 41 8
Final Report
Issued
31-AUG-05
01-SEP-05
09-SEP-05
09-SEP-05
09-SEP-05
09-SEP-05
09-SEP-05
09-SEP-05
09-SEP-05
12-SEP-05
12-SEP-05
12-SEP-05
12-SEP-05
13-SEP-05
13-SEP-05
14-SEP-05
19-SEP-05
19-SEP-05
19-SEP-05
19-SEP-05
19-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
22-SEP-05
23-SEP-05
23-SEP-05
26-SEP-05
26-SEP-05
26-SEP-05
27-SEP-05
27-SEP-05
27-SEP-05
27-SEP-05
27-SEP-05
28-SEP-05
30-SEP-05
TOTAL DCCA CONTRACT REPORTS = 153
FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS
2005-1-00081 FY 2004 FIFRA Fund & Pesticide Registration Fund
2005-1-00082 FY2004 Pesticide Registration Fund
TOTAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS = 2
SPECIAL REVIEW REPORTS
2005-S-00006 AA - OCR of Geothermal FY 2003 SA - McGladrey & Pullen
2005-S-00007 Congressionally Requested Review of Selected Grants
TOTAL SPECIAL REVIEW REPORTS = 2
TOTAL REPORTS ISSUED = 300
04-MAY-05
04-MAY-05
28-JUN-05
06-SEP-05
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonabb (Funds Be Put
Costs Costs Costs 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
$1,053,864
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
$9,760,592
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
$27,868,696
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$1,151,239
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
$5,910,739
46
-------
OIG Mailing Addresses and Telephone Numbers
Headquarters
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-0847
Atlanta
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Audit: (404) 562-9830
Investigations: (404) 562-9857
Boston
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
One Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Audit: (617) 918-1470
Investigations: (617) 918-1468
Chicago
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
77 West Jackson Boulevard
13th Floor (IA-13J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Audit: (312) 353-2486
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
Cincinnati
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268-7001
Audit: (513) 487-2360
Investigations: (513) 487-2364
Dallas
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (6OIG)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-273 3
Audit: (214) 665-6621
Investigations: (214) 665-2790
OIG Public Liaison Hotline
Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (249IT)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax
202-566-2549
E-mail
OIG_Hotline@epa. gov
Offices
Denver
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Audit: (303) 312-6872
Investigations: (303) 312-6868
Kansas City
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
90 IN. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Audit: (913) 551-7878
Investigations: (913) 551-7875
Los Angeles
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
P.O. Box 826
La Miranda, CA 90627-0826
Investigations: (714) 521-2189
New York
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
290 Broadway, Room 1520
New York, NY 10007
Audit: (212) 637-3080
Investigations: (212) 637-3041
Philadelphia
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1650 Arch Street, 3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Audit: (215) 814-5800
Investigations: (215) 814-5820
Research Triangle Park
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Mail Drop N283-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit: (919) 541-2204
Investigations: (919) 541-1027
Sacramento
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
80II Street, Room 264
Sacramento, CA 95814
Audit: (916) 498-6530
Investigations: (415) 947-4500 (SF)
San Francisco
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne St. (IGA-1)
7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Audit: (415) 947-4521
Investigations: (415) 947-4500
Seattle
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 6th Avenue, 19th Floor
Suite 1920, M/S OIG-195
Seattle, WA 98101
Audit: (206) 553-4033
Investigations: (206) 553-1273
Winchester
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
200 S. Jefferson Street, Room 314
PO Box 497
Winchester, TN 37398
Investigations: (423) 240-7735
------- |