U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Index of Reporting Requirements
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended
Requirement Subject
Section 4(a)(2) Review of legislation and regulations
Section 5(a)(1) Significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies
Section 5(a)(2) Significant recommendations for corrective action
Section 5(a)(3) Reports with corrective action not completed
Section 5(a)(4) Matters referred to prosecutive authorities
Section 5(a)(5) Information or assistance refused
Section 5(a)(6) List of reports issued
Section 5(a)(7) Summaries of significant reports
Section 5(a)(8) Audit, inspection, and evaluation reports—questioned costs
Section 5(a)(9) Audit, inspection, and evaluation reports—funds to be put to better use
Section 5(a)(10) Prior audit, inspection, and evaluation reports unresolved
Section 5(a)(11) Significant revised management decisions
Section 5(a)(12) Significant management decisions with which OIG disagreed
Section 5(a)(14) Peer reviews conducted
Pages
27
2-26, 28-29
4-5, 7-22, 28-29
47
23-26, 30, 34
None
35-38
4-5, 7-22, 28-29
30-32, 35-38
30-32, 35-38
31-32, 39-46
None
None
48
Abbreviations
CSB
DCAA
EPA
FY
IRIS
OIG
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Defense Contract Audit Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year
Integrated Risk Information System
Office of Inspector General
Cover photos:
From left: Drums at a Superfund emergency removal site; a natural gas production
facility next to a playground and housing development; and heavy equipment removing
contaminated soil at another site. (EPA photos)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
email: OIG Hotline@epa.gov
phone: 1-888-546-8740
fax: 202-566-2599
online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm
write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mailcode2431T
Washington, DC 20460
Printed on 100% recycled paper (minimum 50% postconsumer)
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Message to Congress
During the semiannual period, we issued numerous reports that we
believe will help the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency operate in
a more efficient and effective manner. This is particularly pertinent
considering the current pressure on the agency to reduce spending
while still effectively carrying out its mission of protecting human
health and the environment. We constantly strive to be transparent in
our evaluations of agency efforts by making the reports on our results
available to the public. Some key findings for improving agency
business practices are as follows:
• The EPA is not recovering all costs of administering its lead-
based paint program, which could amount to $16.4 million
over a 5-year period. Arthur A- Elkins Jr
• By compiling better data on leased office space in relation to its needs, the EPA could
better determine under-utilized property and save millions of dollars through the release
of such property.
• The EPA continues to rely on high risk cost-reimbursement contracts for the Superfund
remedial program rather than less risky fixed-price contracts.
• Due to the lack of policies and procedures for estimating savings or cost avoidances, the
EPA was unable to report accurately the results of efficiency initiatives, and may have
missed opportunities to achieve savings and cost avoidances.
• The EPA did not comply with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act
because its fiscal year 2012 Agency Financial Report did not include all required
elements of a corrective action plan, which could result in delays in implementing
necessary corrective actions.
• The city of Goshen, Indiana, did not comply with Buy American requirements of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act during the construction of a combined sewer
overflow detention facility, making the project ineligible to receive $5 million.
Some key findings we noted for improving agency programs to protect human health and the
environment and responding to public inquiries on EPA activities were as follows:
• The EPA does not measure the environmental impact and benefits of the Superfund
removal program, which can diminish the perceived value of the program and be an
obstacle to a management focus on how removals contribute to protecting human health
and the environment.
• The EPA needs to improve its air emissions data for the oil and natural gas production
sector to gain a better understanding of emissions and potential risks.
• Although the EPA screened residential properties for soil contamination during removal
activities at a Kansas location, the agency could not provide us with complete
documentation for all properties to confirm actions taken.
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
• The EPA's initiative to promote healthier school environments lacks necessary controls
to ensure that the EPA provides consistent implementation across the United States.
• EPA lacks assurance that its inspectors are conducting quality inspections designed to
prevent accidental releases of harmful chemicals and to ensure adequate responses to
protect the public when such accidents occur.
• We provided Congress with requested information on monetary results from EPA
enforcement cases, as well as on the agency's use of its Integrated Risk Information
System database as a source of information on cancer risks.
Investigations conducted by the EPA Office of Inspector General have resulted in the federal
government collecting substantial fines and penalties, as well as other actions against those who
adversely affect public health and the environment. In particular:
• BP Exploration and Production Inc. was sentenced to pay $4 billion in fines and
penalties—the largest criminal resolution in U.S. history—for its role in the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The EPA Office of Inspector
General participated on the Deepwater Horizon Task Force that led to the company's
guilty plea. Also because of the task force's efforts, a second company—Transocean
Deepwater Inc.—was sentenced to pay $400 million in fines and penalties.
• Five companies and four individuals in Texas were issued cease and desist letters for
allegedly claiming to be EPA employees while attempting to sell water filtration systems.
• Three Florida men were convicted and sentenced to probation and ordered to pay
restitution for a telemarketing scam in which they claimed a relationship between their
product and the EPA that did not exist.
• A former Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands official was sentenced to an
18-month jail term for accepting a bribe related to a cleanup contract.
On March 14, 2013,1 testified before the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee
on Oversight regarding the EPA's management challenges. The hearing was one in a series of
hearings to review challenges facing the nation's science agencies as the committee prepares to
review the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget request.
We will continue to ensure that the EPA and the Office of Inspector General remain responsible
stewards of taxpayer dollars, striving to add value and transparency and assisting the agency in
accomplishing its mission of safeguarding the health of the American people and protecting the
environment. I want to express my appreciation to the agency and Congress for their support of
the work of the Office of Inspector General.
Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
Inspector General
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Table of Contents
About EPA and Its Office of Inspector General 1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1
EPA Office of Inspector General 1
Significant OIG Activity 2
Oil and Gas Investigations and Reviews 2
Congressional Testimony and Requested Reviews 6
Human Health and the Environment 9
Agency Business Practices and Accountability 14
Investigations 23
Other Activities 27
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 28
Statistical Data so
Profile of Activities and Results 30
Audit, Inspection and Evaluation Report Resolution 31
Hotline Activity 33
Summary of Investigative Results 34
Appendices 35
Appendix 1—Reports Issued 35
Appendix 2—Reports Issued Without Management Decisions 39
Appendix 3—Reports With Corrective Action Not Completed 47
Appendix 4—Peer Reviews Conducted 48
Appendix 5—OIG Mailing Addresses and Telephone Numbers 49
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
About EPA and Its
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and
the environment. As America's steward for the environment since 1970, the EPA has
endeavored to ensure that the public has air that is safe to breathe, water that is clean and
safe to drink, food that is free from dangerous pesticide residues, and communities that
are protected from toxic chemicals.
EPA Office of Inspector General
The Office of Inspector General, established by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, is an independent office of the EPA that detects and prevents
fraud, waste and abuse to help the agency protect human health and the environment
more efficiently and cost effectively. OIG staff are located at headquarters in
Washington, B.C.; at the EPA's 10 regional offices; and at other EPA locations,
including Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and Cincinnati, Ohio. The EPA
inspector general also serves as the inspector general for the U.S. Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board.
Our vision, mission, and goals are as follows:
Be the best in public service and oversight for a better environment tomorrow.
Mission
Promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and prevent and detect fraud,
waste, and abuse through independent oversight of the programs and
operations of the EPA and CSB.
1. Contribute to improved human health, safety, and environment.
2. Contribute to improved EPA and CSB business practices and accountability.
3. Be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.
4. Be the best in government service.
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Significant OIG Activity
Oil and Gas Investigations and Reviews
Substantial penalties have been levied against two firms involved in the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the EPA OIG participated on the Deepwater
Horizon Task Force that led to the guilty pleas by both companies. Further, because of
that 2010 incident, the EPA OIG performed a review to assess EPA contingency planning
for responding to subsequent oil spills and hazardous substance releases. We also
reviewed whether the EPA has the data needed to make key decisions regarding air
emissions from the oil and natural gas production sector.
BP Exploration and Production Inc. Sentenced to Pay Record
$4 Billion for Crimes Surrounding Deepwater Horizon Incident
On January 29, 2013, BP Exploration and Production Inc. pleaded guilty in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, to 14 criminal counts of illegal
conduct involving the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, and was sentenced to
pay $4 billion in criminal fines and penalties—the largest criminal resolution in
U.S. history. The spill caused 11 deaths and extensive environmental damage.
BP pleaded guilty to 11 counts of felony manslaughter, one count of felony obstruction of
Congress, and one count each for violation of the Clean Water Act and Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. In its plea, BP admitted that on April 20, 2010, the two highest-ranking BP
supervisors onboard the Deepwater Horizon negligently
caused the deaths of 11 men and the resulting oil spill. The
company also admitted that the two supervisors observed
clear indications that the Macondo well (the source of the
spill) was not secure and that oil and gas were flowing into
the well but the supervisors chose not to take appropriate
steps to prevent the well blowout. BP also admitted that as a
result of the supervisors' conduct, control of the Macondo
well was lost, which resulted in the catastrophe.
The 2010 Deepwater Horizon platform fire.
(EPA photo)
BP also admitted that it obstructed an inquiry by Congress
into the amount of oil being discharged into the Gulf of
Mexico while the spill was ongoing. Further, BP admitted
that a senior executive withheld documents, provided false and misleading information in
response to the U.S. House of Representatives' request for information, manipulated
internal estimates to understate the amount of oil flowing from the well, and withheld data
that contradicted BP's public estimate of 5,000 barrels of oil per day being discharged.
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Of the $4 billion criminal recovery, approximately $2.4 billion will be dedicated to
acquiring, restoring, preserving and conserving the marine and coastal environments,
ecosystems, and bird and wildlife habitat in the Gulf of Mexico and bordering states
harmed by the spill. A portion of the criminal recovery is also
to be directed to significant barrier island restoration or river
diversion off the coast of Louisiana. An additional
$350 million will be used to fund improved oil spill
prevention and response efforts in the gulf through research,
development, education and training.
BP was also sentenced to 5 years probation and is required to
retain a process safety and risk management monitor and an
An overhead view of the Deepwater independent auditor who will oversee BP's process safety,
Horizon oil spill. (EPA photo) . , , , .... . . ..
risk management and drilling equipment maintenance with
respect to deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. BP is also required to retain an ethics
monitor to improve its code of conduct to ensure BP's future candor with the U.S.
government. BP, more than 20 of its affiliates, and several corporate employees have
been suspended from government contracting.
This investigation was conducted by the Deepwater Horizon Task Force, which includes
investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of the Interior OIG,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Law Enforcement,
U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, EPA Criminal Investigation Division, and EPA OIG.
Transocean Deepwater Inc. Sentenced to Pay $400 Million
On February 14, 2013, Transocean Deepwater Inc. pleaded guilty in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, to a violation of the Clean Water Act
for its illegal conduct leading to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, and was
sentenced to pay $400 million in criminal fines and penalties. This is the second
largest environmental crime recovery in U.S. history, after the $4 billion imposed
on BP.
In its plea, Transocean admitted that members of its crew onboard the Deepwater
Horizon, acting at the direction of BP's well site leaders, were negligent in failing to
investigate fully clear indications that the Macondo well was not secure and that oil and
gas were flowing into the well. Transocean was the owner and operator of the Deepwater
Horizon drilling rig that was under lease to BP for the Macondo well.
Under the order entered by the court pursuant to the plea agreement, $150 million of the
$400 million criminal recovery is dedicated to acquiring, restoring, preserving and
conserving—in consultation with appropriate state and other resource managers—the
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
marine and coastal environments, ecosystems, and bird and wildlife habitat in the Gulf of
Mexico and bordering states harmed by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This portion of
the criminal recovery will also be directed to significant barrier island restoration or river
diversion off the coast of Louisiana to further benefit and improve coastal wetlands
affected by the spill. An additional $150 million will be used to fund improved oil spill
prevention and response efforts in the gulf through research, development, education and
training. Transocean was also sentenced to 5 years of probation.
This investigation was also conducted by the Deepwater Horizon Task Force.
Contingency Planning for Oil and Hazardous Substance Response
Can Be Improved
EPA regions have expanded contingency planning for responding to oil spills and
hazardous substance releases by creating additional plans and materials, but
regions cannot maintain this large volume of information with their limited resources.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, known as the
National Contingency Plan, establishes federal roles for oil spill responses and requires
area and regional planning by the EPA and other stakeholders. A prior OIG audit on the
2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico noted that some contingency plans
were out of date. We initiated this review to determine whether the contingency planning
structure for responding to oil spills and hazardous substance releases is effective, and
whether plans were updated to reflect lessons learned from recent major events.
Regions have created subarea contingency plans, geographic response plans and strategies,
and various Web-based tools, but the regions are not always able to maintain the large
volume of necessary information due to limited resources. The structure for the EPA
regions exceeds the three levels of plans established in the Oil Pollution Act, which revised
the National Contingency Plan to expand the response system. Some written plans miss
certain National Contingency Plan requirements, contain duplicative information, and are
out of date. Technological methods—instead of revising written plans—would enable the
EPA to maintain current information needed to respond efficiently to spills.
We recommended that the EPA issue guidance to regions on how to use the most
efficient method available to address National Contingency Plan requirements, require
regions to keep critical planning information up to date and avoid unnecessary
duplication, and develop a process to regularly incorporate lessons learned from national
exercises. The agency agreed with our recommendations and plans to address them by the
end of fiscal year 2013.
(Report No. 13-P-0152, EPA Could Improve Contingency Planning for Oil and
Hazardous Substance Response, February 15, 2013)
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
EPA Needs to Improve Air Emissions Data for Oil and Natural Gas
Production Sector
High levels of growth in the oil and natural gas production sector, coupled with
harmful pollutants emitted, underscore the need for the EPA to gain a better
understanding of emissions and potential risks. However, the EPA has limited
directly measured air emissions data for air toxics and criteria pollutants
generated by several important oil and natural gas production sector processes
and sources.
A natural gas production facility
next to a playground and housing
development. (EPA photo)
The oil and natural gas production sector emits large amounts of
harmful pollutants that impact air quality. To ensure that air
quality is acceptable, the EPA needs to have sufficient data to
conduct risk assessments and make permitting, enforcement and
other decisions.
The EPA has limited directly measured air emissions data for air
toxics and criteria pollutants for several important oil and gas
production processes and sources, including well completions and
evaporative ponds. Also, the EPA does not have a comprehensive
strategy for improving air emissions data for the oil and gas
production sector; the agency did not anticipate the tremendous
growth of the sector, and previously only allocated limited
resources to the issue. The EPA also uses air emissions data to develop emission factors,
but limitations in the EPA's air emissions data for a number of oil and gas production
processes and pollutants have contributed to emission factors of questionable quality.
About half of the EPA's oil and gas production Web Factor and Information Retrieval
System emission factors are rated below average or are unrated because they are based on
insufficient or low-quality data. Further, emissions data for oil and gas production in
EPA's National Emission Inventory are incomplete. Nonpoint sources are significant
sources of emissions in the oil and gas production industry, but only nine states submitted
emissions data to EPA for nonpoint sources for the 2008 inventory. Consequently, the
inventory likely underestimates actual criteria pollutant emissions for the industry.
We recommended that the EPA develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for
improving air emissions data for the oil and gas production sector, prioritize which oil
and gas production emission factors need to be improved, develop additional emission
factors, and ensure the National Emissions Inventory data for oil and gas production are
complete. These recommendations are unresolved pending the agency's final response.
(Report No. 13-P-0161, EPA Needs to Improve Air Emissions Data for the Oil and
Natural Gas Production Sector, February 20, 2013)
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Congressional Testimony and Requested Reviews
Mr. Elkins testifying.
(Photo courtesy House
Subcommittee on Science,
Space, and Technology)
During the semiannual reporting period, the inspector general testified before a
U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee about the EPA's management challenges.
The OIG also issued two reports in response to congressional requests.
Inspector General Testifies Before House Subcommittee on
Oversight
On March 14, 2013, Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr. testified about the
EPA's FY 2012 management challenges before the House Science, Space, and
Technology Subcommittee on Oversight. This hearing was the second in a series
of hearings to review challenges facing the nation's science agencies, as the
committee prepares to review the administration's FY 2014 budget request.
The OIG's July 2012 document, EPA 's Fiscal Year 2012 Management
Challenges, served as the basis of the inspector general's testimony. The report
had been provided to both the Administrator and Congress as mandated by the
Reports Consolidation Act of 2000. To prepare this report, the OIG defined the
management challenges as program or management functions, within or across
the agency, that have greater vulnerability to waste, fraud, abuse and
mismanagement, and where a failure to perform well could seriously affect the
ability of the EPA to achieve its mission or goals.
The inspector general noted each of the key management challenges faced by the
EPA in FY 2012: oversight of delegations to states, safe reuse of contaminated
sites, limited capability to respond to cyber-security attacks, the EPA's
framework for assessing and managing chemical risks, and workforce planning.
In his oral statement, the inspector general focused on the findings of several
OIG reports related to the challenges involving the oversight of delegations to states and
cyber-security attacks. For example, the inspector general noted that despite the EPA's
efforts to improve state enforcement performance, state enforcement programs frequently
do not meet national goals and states do not always take appropriate enforcement actions.
The inspector general added that the OIG found limited assurance that data in the
Automated System Security Evaluation and Remediation Tracking tool are reliable for
decision-making.
The inspector general closed by stating that the agency must remain focused on these
challenges, especially in light of the difficult budgetary climate currently facing all
federal agencies.
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Monetary Results From EPA Enforcement Cases Vary
EPA enforcement data showed that the amount of monetary results EPA regions
achieve from concluded enforcement cases varies from year to year and from
region to region.
The EPA is responsible for enforcing many environmental laws, and annually reports
environmental and monetary enforcement results to Congress and the public. We
conducted this review in response to a congressional request for information about EPA
enforcement results overall and, specifically, for Region 7 in FY 2010.
Total monetary enforcement results, FYs 2006-2011
I Cases > SIB
lAIIOlherCases
S-
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement data for FYs 2006-2011.
While the number of enforcement
cases concluded for FYs 2006
through 2011 remained relatively
constant, the overall monetary
results varied. The variations were
linked to when and where in the
nation a few large cases were
concluded. These few large cases
can result in unusually large
monetary results in any given year.
National Enforcement Initiatives
set by the EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance drove the majority of
these large cases.
In FY 2010, Region 7 concluded two enforcement cases with large monetary results.
Both cases were pursued under the EPA's National Enforcement Initiative. The two cases
accounted for 24 percent of all of the EPA's monetary enforcement results for FY 2010
and 98 percent of Region 7's monetary results for FY 2010. Large cases took several
years to close and relied on coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice, companies,
and the courts, which meant that the EPA did not have full control over the year in which
a case was settled.
The OIG made no recommendations in this report.
(Report No. 13-P-0168, Response to Congressional Request on EPA Enforcement,
February 28, 2013)
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
IRIS Database Is Primary Source of Cancer Values for Surveyed
EPA Personnel
Based on results from an OIG survey, 85 percent of EPA personnel surveyed
reported using the Integrated Risk Information System database as their primary
source for cancer values. Further, 81 percent reported using the IRIS database
as their primary source for noncancer values.
IRIS is an EPA Web-based program that evaluates risk information on human health
effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants. IRIS consists of
chemical assessments and quantitative toxicity values that have been developed by the
EPA and undergone peer review. IRIS contains information for more than 550 chemical
substances, including cancer and noncancer human health effects. The OIG received a
congressional request to determine whether EPA offices incorporate exposure dose
concentrations and values from the IRIS database into their regulatory decision-making.
Based on our results, 85 percent of the EPA survey respondents reported that they have
used IRIS as their primary source for cancer values, and 81 percent have used IRIS as
their primary source for noncancer values. More than half of the respondents who
reported using IRIS as the primary source for cancer and noncancer values (51 and
52 percent, respectively) indicated they did so because it was required for the activity
they were conducting. About one-third (34 percent) of the survey respondents reported
that they have used an alternate source for toxicity values when an IRIS value was
available, primarily because the alternate source was more up to date. We found no EPA
policy that mandates the use of any toxicity database, including IRIS.
The OIG made no recommendations in this work product.
(Report No. 13-P-0127, Congressionally Requested Information on EPA Utilization of
Integrated Risk Information System, January 31, 2013)
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Human Health and the Environment
The EPA Needs to Better Measure Impacts of Superfund
Removal Program
The EPA does not measure the environmental impact and benefits of the
Superfund removal program, which can diminish the perceived value of the
program and be an obstacle to a management focus on how removals contribute
to protecting human health and the environment.
Superfund removals are used to respond to emergencies or accidental releases of
hazardous substances, and to mitigate damage to the public or the environment from
hazardous substance releases. The EPA has established an annual Superfund removal
goal of 170 EPA-lead and 170 potentially responsible party-lead removals each fiscal
year through 2015.
The goals of the Superfund removal program are measured
by determining the number of removals completed rather
than how removals protect human health and the
environment. This measurement limitation can diminish the
perceived value of the program and be an obstacle to a
management focus on how removals contribute to protection
of human health and the environment. Information on
removal program impacts will allow the EPA to better
inform the public about the benefits of the program and
provide a strong foundation for budget requests. We also
noted that the EPA does not adequately monitor the
completion of required actions in the Superfund database.
We recommended that the EPA identify environmental results and benefits of the
removal program, communicate those results along with existing program results, and
implement system controls to ensure required data are entered and completed in the
Superfund database. EPA agreed with the recommendations and provided acceptable
corrective actions.
The River Road Drum Site, a 2010 Superfund
emergency removal in Morgantown, West
Virginia. (EPA photo)
(Report No. 13-P-0176, Results and Benefits Information Is Needed to Support Impacts of
EPA 's Superfiind Removal Program, March 11, 2013)
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Questions Remain Regarding Soil Contamination Removal at
Kansas Site
EPA Region 7 screened residential properties for soil contamination during its
2001-2002 removal activities near the former National Zinc Company smelter in
Cherryvale, Kansas, but could not provide the OIG with complete documentation
for all properties to confirm actions were taken.
The OIG received a hotline complaint alleging that residential properties near the former
National Zinc Company smelter were not addressed during previous cleanup activities. In
2001, a state evaluation determined that soils at residential properties adjacent to the site
were contaminated with heavy metals, including lead,
which the EPA classifies as a probable human
carcinogen.
Heavy equipment removing contaminated
residential soil in Cherryvale, Kansas. (EPA photo)
We found over 35 residential properties with lead
contamination that, according to samples taken during
the 2001-2002 removal action, exceeded the action
level. However, it was unclear which of these properties
were excavated because some EPA records were
missing or incomplete. Although the EPA provided us
with documentation at various times during our review,
there are still inconsistencies and gaps. For example, in contrast to positions stated early
in our review, Region 7 now says some properties with contamination at or above the
action level were not excavated. Without complete documentation, neither the EPA nor
the OIG can confirm that all lead contamination presenting an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health was fully identified and addressed. As a result, we cannot
confirm or dismiss the allegations raised in the complaint.
We made various recommendations, including that Region 7 review all site records and
documents to determine whether there is an imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health at the National Zinc Company site. Region 7 disagreed, stating it believes it
has addressed all imminent and substantial endangerment to residential properties at the
site. The issue needs to be resolved.
(Report No. 13-P-0207, Review of Hotline Complaint Regarding Residential Soil
Contamination in Cherryvale, Kansas, March 28, 2013)
10
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
School Environmental Health Efforts Need Improvement
The EPA has established children's health as a priority. However, the agency's
Clean Green and Healthy Schools initiative to promote healthier school
environments lacks the necessary management controls to ensure that the EPA
provides consistent implementation of the program across the United States.
More than 60 million students and teachers attend over 130,000 public and private
schools in the United States. Poor environmental conditions in schools, such as asbestos
contamination and drinking water violations, can pose increased risks to children's
health. In FY 2011, the agency launched the Clean Green and Healthy Schools initiative
to support states and communities promoting healthier school environments.
The EPA recently developed some measures for the
initiative, but those measures are not specific enough
to demonstrate program outcomes. In addition,
regional staff may not be able to collect the data
needed to determine how the initiative is improving
environmental health in schools. As the EPA works
to improve initiative management, the agency needs
to take into account the impact that funding
reductions for the initiative and other EPA school
environmental health programs may have. Further,
the EPA did not meet all requirements of the Healthy
High-Performance Schools subtitle of the Energy
Independence and Security Act. The agency was
nearly 3 years late issuing school environmental health guidelines for states, which
delayed assistance to the states. The EPA also did not report annually, resulting in
Congress being uninformed about delays.
The EPA should improve management controls for the initiative, to include better
planning, measures and data-collection procedures. The agency should also comply fully
with the Energy Independence and Security Act. Finally, the EPA should regularly
review its school environmental health programs to determine whether the agency
provides sufficient regulatory and voluntary program services to address the risks to
children's health in schools. The agency agreed to all of our recommendations.
(Report No. 13-P-0201, The EPA Needs to Improve Management of Its School
Environmental Health Efforts, March 27, 2013)
Green
& Healthy
Schools
An image from the EPA's Healthy School
Environments website. (EPA photo)
11
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
The EPA Is Unable to Evaluate Efficiency of Its Rulemaking Process
Due to limitations in the EPA's rulemaking documentation and guidance, the
agency is unable to evaluate the efficiency of its rulemaking process or identify
potential delays in its rulemaking activities.
Rule development is one of the EPA's principal tasks. The EPA develops rules to carry
out the environmental and public health protection laws passed by Congress. Efficient
EPA rulemaking may accelerate the progress of protecting human health and the
environment. We conducted this review, at the request of the agency, to evaluate the
timeliness, efficiency and effectiveness of EPA rulemaking.
The development and implementation of management controls to ensure that the
rulemaking process is progressing efficiently and that resources are accurately accounted
for will enhance the EPA's ability to ensure efficiency during the development process
and accelerate the progress of protecting human health and the environment. We
recommended that the EPA Office of Policy establish guidance and maintain database
documentation, and the office agreed with those recommendations. We also
recommended that the EPA Office of Policy develop a method to track resources, but the
office nonconcured, citing a lack of expertise, and that recommendation is unresolved.
(Report No. 13-P-0167, Efficiency of EPA 's Rule Development Process Can Be Better
Measured Through Improved Management and Information, February 28, 2013)
Controls for Clean Air Act Risk Management Program Inspections
Can Be Improved
The EPA's management controls for ensuring inspector
training and inspection quality for its Clean Air Act risk
management program provide limited assurance about
the effectiveness of the program's inspections.
A program with properly trained personnel, guidance
and oversight helps to ensure compliance with program
regulations, thus decreasing the risk of airborne
releases of chemicals that could harm the public.
Congress enacted the Clean Air Act risk management
program to reduce the risk of airborne chemical releases
that could harm the public and lessen the impact of releases
that do occur. Regulated substances include 77 toxic
chemicals that could cause death or serious health effects
from short-term exposures, as well as 63 flammable substances. Inspections help ensure
that facilities comply with program requirements.
Heat exchanger used to heat anhydrous
ammonia before it flows to a reactor to
produce a fertilizer product at a risk
management program facility. The highlighted
area shows visible corrosion. (EPA photo)
12
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
We found that 15 of the 45 risk management program inspectors nationwide received
inspector credentials without documentation indicating that they met minimum training
requirements. Further, six of the 12 supervisors did not meet minimum training
requirements. Weaknesses in controls included limitations in training tracking systems
and a lack of procedures to ensure that supervisors met their training requirements. In
addition, contracts and cooperative agreements for inspection services did not include
training requirements.
We recommended that the EPA strengthen its management controls to ensure that
inspectors and supervisors meet minimum training requirements, and strengthen guidance
related to minimum inspection scope. Further, the EPA should develop minimum
inspection reporting requirements and a monitoring program to assess the quality of
inspections. The EPA generally concurred with our recommendations and has started
taking corrective actions.
(Report No. 13-P-0178, Improvements Needed in EPA Training and Oversight for Risk
Management Program Inspections, March 21, 2013)
13
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Agency Business Practices and Accountability
The EPA Is Not Recovering All Costs of the Lead-Based Paint Fees
Program
The EPA is not recovering all costs of administering its lead-based paint fees
program, which could amount to $16.4 million for FYs 2010 through 2014
combined.
The Toxic Substances Control Act authorizes the EPA to establish fees to recover the
costs of administering and enforcing the standards and requirements applicable to lead-
based paint training programs and contractors.
The EPA is not recovering all of its costs of administering the lead-based paint fees
program. The agency's revised rough cost estimates showed unrecovered costs of
$16.4 million for FYs 2010 through 2014 combined (using EPA's initial cost estimate,
projected unrecovered costs were $42 million). EPA is not recovering these costs because
firm participation in the program is lower than projected, a biennial cost review to
determine actual costs was not conducted, and the fees structure does not take into
account all indirect costs needed to recover the full cost of the lead-based paint fees
program.
Revised estimated unrecovered costs for the 5-year cycle ($ in millions)
Fee collections
Program costs
Total
FY
2010
$22.0
13.1
$8.9
FY
2011
$8.7
14.3
$(5.6)
FY
2012
$4.1
10.9
$(6.8)
FY
2013
$4.7
11.2
$(6.5)
FY
2014
$4.9
11.2
$(6.3)
Total
$44.3
60.6
$(16.4)
Source: OIG analysis of EPA data. (The numbers in the table may not add up due to rounding.)
We recommended that the EPA update the March 2009 fees rule to reflect the amount of
fees necessary to recover program costs, and apply indirect cost rates to all applicable
direct costs to obtain the full cost of the program. EPA agreed with all of our
recommendations.
(Report No. 13-P-0163, EPA Is Not Recovering All Its Costs of the Lead-Based Paint
Fees Program, February 20, 2013)
14
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Improvements Needed in the EPA's Smartcard Program
When upgrading its physical access control systems throughout the agency to
the new smartcard system, the EPA upgraded some less critical facilities prior to
its most important facilities (including EPA headquarters), contrary to its plans.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 and subsequent requirements state that
inconsistent approaches to physical access are inefficient and costly, and increase risk to
the federal government.
The EPA stated it was more efficient to upgrade facilities
based on geographic location rather than importance, but
provided no quantitative data to support that position. In
addition, the EPA indicated it did not want to make mistakes
upgrading headquarters buildings so it upgraded others first.
As a result, some lower-valued facilities required a higher
level of authentication for access than EPA headquarters
facilities. In addition, the processes used to gain access to
EPA facilities were inconsistent.
Further, the EPA did not document assurance of cost
reasonableness for some of the physical access control
system contracts. The EPA had spent over $12.8 million
upgrading physical access control systems and could not
assure that $3.8 million of that amount (30 percent) was spent
in the most efficient and effective manner. The EPA planned
to award an additional $10.6 million to upgrade its systems.
We recommended that the EPA re-prioritize the remaining
facility upgrades by security level, from highest to lowest,
and develop national policies and procedures that foster
consistent inter-operable physical access. We also
recommended that the EPA establish an entity for overseeing
EPA's smartcard program, conduct cost analysis of smartcard
upgrades, and enforce guidelines for independent government cost estimates. Either the
EPA agreed with our recommendations or proposed alternative corrective actions that we
believe address our findings.
(Report No. 13-P-0200, Improvements Needed in EPA 's Smartcard Program to Ensure
Consistent Physical Access Procedures and Cost Reasonableness, March 27, 2013)
Smartcard readers in use by the EPA varied.
The readers pictured above are, clockwise
from top left, at the Boston, Dallas, Chicago,
and Denver regional offices. (EPA photos)
15
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
The EPA Region 5
Ralph H. Metcalfe
Federal Building,
Chicago, Illinois.
(EPA photo)
The EPA Needs Better Data on Leased Office Space
The EPA lacks accurate, current and complete information on the number of
personnel and usable square feet for its General Services Administration-
owned/leased offices. If properly managed, the EPA could save millions of
dollars annually through property release.
The June 2010 Presidential memorandum, Disposing of Unneeded Federal Real
Estate, requires federal agencies to eliminate excess properties and lease
arrangements that are not cost effective.
The General Services Administration leases facilities for EPA use. At 13 of 16
facilities reviewed, we estimated that the EPA had 433,336 square feet of under-
utilized space as of February 2012. If all under-utilized space was marketable,
the EPA could save up to $21.6 million annually by releasing under-utilized
space. Additionally, the EPA does not have a policy for determining when it may
house contractors onsite. Housing contractors on-site can cost the EPA up to
$9.9 million annually.
We recommended that the EPA relocate staff where warranted, develop and
enforce a policy that requires contracting staff ensure that on-site contractors
have been approved by the responsible office, and require that personnel
information be consistently tracked and updated in EPA systems. The agency concurred
with all recommendations.
(Report No. 13-P-0162, EPA Can Further Reduce Space in Under-Utilized Facilities,
February 20, 2013)
The EPA Needs to Improve How it Identifies and Realizes
Cost Savings
Due to a lack of policies and procedures for estimating savings or cost
avoidances, the EPA was unable to accurately report the results of its efficiency
initiatives or influence internal and external management decisions. As a result,
the EPA may have missed opportunities to leverage and expand its cost-cutting
efforts to achieve savings and cost avoidances.
Since 2009, the President and the Office of Management and Budget have issued various
memorandums and directives requesting agencies to identify ways to avoid costs and
achieve efficiencies and savings. In August 2009, the EPA's Office of Administration
and Resources Management issued an electronic memorandum asking program offices
and regions to identify efficiency projects. The program offices and regions targeted
72 projects for potential savings and cost avoidances.
16
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Regions 4 and 7 were the focus of this audit to evaluate the EPA's efforts to identify and
realize savings and costs avoidances, and we found that those regions did not apply
reliable methods for estimating savings and cost avoidances. No policies or procedures
existed for Regions 4 and 7 to follow. While the Office of Administration and Resources
Management took the initiative to involve program offices and regions in identifying an
estimated $21 million of potential savings and cost avoidances, it did not effectively
follow up to ensure the EPA achieved desired results. Sufficient follow-up did not occur
because the EPA viewed the projects as merely ideas for possible cost savings.
We recommended that the EPA develop a policy and procedures for identifying and
estimating cost savings, efficiencies and avoidances, and determine whether any of the
72 targeted projects resulted in significant efficiencies. We also recommended that
Regions 4 and 7 recalculate identified cost avoidances. EPA did not concur with our
recommendations and they remain unresolved.
(Report No. 13-P-0028, Improvements Needed in Estimating and Leveraging Cost
Savings Across EPA, October 22, 2012)
Project Not Eligible to Receive $5 Million of Recovery Act Funds
The city of Goshen, Indiana, did not comply with Buy American requirements of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 during the construction of
a new combined sewer overflow detention facility. We found the project ineligible
to receive $5 million of Recovery Act funds.
In response to an OIG hotline complaint, we conducted a December
2011 site visit at the Goshen site. The city had received a $36.1
million loan from the state of Indiana, which included $5 million in
Recovery Act funds.
We found that the equipment identified in the hotline complaint was
produced in the United States and complied with the Buy American
requirements set forth in Section 1605 of the Recovery Act.
Flushing gates at the Goshen However, the city could not demonstrate that a positive displacement
Combined Sewer Overflow Detention blower used in the project was manufactured in the United States.
Facility. (EPA OIG photo) ' J
Since Goshen could not demonstrate that all equipment used in the
project complied with the Buy American requirements, we determined that the project
was not eligible for the $5 million received under the Recovery Act.
We recommended that the EPA use procedures set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations to ensure compliance with Buy American requirements. The EPA could
either reduce the amount of the award, or take enforcement or termination action. The
city did not concur with our recommendation. Region 5 has not commented on the
17
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
report's finding and recommendation, and has until May 8, 2013 to provide its proposed
management decision on the report.
(Report No. 13-R-0092; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Site Visit of Combined
Sewer Overflow Detention Facility, City ofGoshen, Indiana; January 8, 2013)
Audit of Idaho Cooperative Agreement Notes Issues Related to
Contractor Documentation
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality generally complied with federal
and state procurement policies and procedures in relation to cooperative
agreement 2S-96099601, but an audit noted deficiencies related to
documentation by contractors.
The EPA awarded to Idaho a cooperative agreement, totaling $16.8 million, to remediate
lead-contaminated properties at the Bunker Hill Superfund site, Kellogg, Idaho. The
Recovery Act funded the agreement. The EPA OIG hired an independent public
accounting firm to audit the agreement.
The audit found that the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality did not require its
contractors to include Certification of Independent Price Determination language in bid
proposals. In addition, the department did not require its contractors to have accident and
catastrophic loss insurance coverage. Further, the department did not require its
contractors to retain records for 10 years after submitting final federal financial status
reports. The Code of Federal Regulations requires all these actions.
The accounting firm made various recommendations for the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality to correct the deficiencies noted, and the EPA agreed that Idaho
needs to address the recommendations.
(Report No. 13-R-0206, Audit of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-Funded
Cooperative Agreement 2S-96099601 Awarded to the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, March 28, 2013)
The EPA Earns Unqualified Opinion on Financial Statements
We rendered an unqualified opinion on the EPA's Consolidated Financial
Statements for FYs 2012 and 2011, meaning that the statements were fairly
presented and free of material misstatements. However, several material
weaknesses were noted.
In October 2011, the EPA replaced the Integrated Financial Management System with a
new system, Compass Financials, and we determined that Compass reporting and system
18
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
limitations represented a material weakness. In addition, we noted the following
significant deficiencies, some of which involved Compass and contributed to the material
weakness:
• Posting models in Compass materially misstated general ledger activity and
balances.
• Compass reporting limitations impaired accounting operations and internal
controls.
• The EPA did not reverse approximately $108 million in expense accruals.
• Compass system limitations impaired internal controls of financial operations.
• Accounts receivable internal controls contained numerous deficiencies.
• The EPA did not timely clear Fund Balance with Treasury Statement of
Differences transactions.
• Compass did not have sufficient controls over personal property entries.
• Compass and the property system could not be reconciled.
• EPA did not monitor the testing of networked information technology assets to
identify commonly known vulnerabilities.
• EPA lacked reliable information on security controls for financial systems.
We also noted a noncompliance issue in that the EPA has limited assurance that its
Compass service provider's controls are designed and operating as intended.
The agency disagreed with most of our findings but accepted many of our
recommendations. In particular, the agency stated it identified and then fixed or
remediated most of the limitations of its new Compass system and, thus, there were no
material issues during the preparation of the financial statements. The agency
characterized the errors we found as normal problems during collection and verification
activities. However, we disagree that was the case. The errors we found occurred
primarily because of posting model deficiencies in the new system and the failure of
internal controls to detect and correct the errors.
(Report No. 13-1-0054, Audit of EPA 's Fiscal 2012 and 2011 Consolidated Financial
Statements, November 15, 2012)
The EPA Should Increase Fixed-Price Contracting for
Remedial Actions
The EPA continues to rely on high risk cost-reimbursement contracts and time-
and-materials task orders in the Superfund remedial program rather than less
risky fixed-price contracts.
In the cleanup of Superfund sites, the EPA uses a variety of instruments (such as
contracts and cooperative agreements) to obtain Superfund remedial services. One such
19
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
instrument is the remedial action contract. The agency had expenditures of almost
$570 million under remedial action contracts for FYs 2007 through 2011.
Despite urgings from the President, Congress, the Office of Management and Budget,
and others to federal agencies, the EPA generally has not reduced high risk contracting
activities in the Superfund remedial program. The Office of Management and Budget
defines high risk contracting activities as noncompetitive, cost-reimbursement, time and
materials, and labor hour contracts, as opposed to such contracts as firm-fixed-price
contracts. Resistance to change, regional program office pressure, lack of leadership, and
lack of trained qualified staff have contributed to reliance on high risk contracts.
Reducing the reliance on these contracts can result in numerous benefits, including cost
savings, increased competition and achievement of socio-economic goals.
We made various recommendations, including that the EPA require approval for written
acquisition plans for cost reimbursement remedial action contracts, and that the EPA
develop performance measures and goals for each region for the use of fixed-price
contracts and task orders. The EPA agreed in principle to the objectives of our report but
disagreed with the majority of our recommendations, and those recommendations need to
be resolved.
(Report No. 13-P-0208, EPA Should Increase Fixed-Price Contracting for Remedial
Actions, March 28, 2013)
Corrective Action Plan Needed for the EPA to Fully Comply With the
Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act
The EPA did not comply with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act
because the FY 2012 Agency Financial Report did not include all required elements
of a corrective action plan, which could result in delays in the implementation of
necessary corrective actions. In addition, the agency misstated improper payments.
Under the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act, agencies are required to
report on improper payments, and inspectors general are required to determine whether
the agency complies with the act.
In its corrective actions plan, the EPA did not include, among other things, planned and
actual completion dates for corrective actions and improper payment reduction targets.
The EPA also misstated improper payments for state revolving funds, grants, and
contracts and commodities payment streams in the FY 2012 Agency Financial Report.
For state revolving fund programs, the EPA significantly misstated improper payments.
For grants programs, $39,694 was not reported as improper payments. In addition, the
EPA did not include discounts not taken for contracts and commodities.
20
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
We recommended that the EPA submit a plan to Congress describing actions the agency
will take to become compliant with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery
Act, develop needed guidance, identify improper payments using appropriate reports and
worksheets, and determine why errors occurred and take corrective actions. The agency
concurred with all of our recommendations and provided intended corrective actions and
estimated completion dates.
(Report No. 13-P-0175, Corrective Action Plan Needed in Order to Fully Comply With
the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act, March 11, 2013)
The EPA Made Significant Progress in Reducing Unliquidated
Obligations
The EPA has made significant progress in its efforts to reduce unliquidated
obligations, although our review in Region 5 noted some additional funds that
could be deobligated.
An unliquidated obligation is as an obligation or liability that has not been expended or
liquidated. In FY 2011, the EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer released new
policies and procedures and launched a new database to improve and simplify the
unliquidated obligations review process.
At the beginning of FY 2011, the EPA's system for reviewing unliquidated obligations
indicated that Region 5 had over $1.7 billion in grant, contract and interagency agreement
unliquidated obligations. During FY 2011, Region 5 liquidated over $1 billion in
unliquidated obligations, leaving about $645 million in unliquidated obligations
remaining at the end of FY 2011. Our review found an additional $402,445 that, in our
opinion, could have been deobligated during FY 2011. Region 5 deobligated the funds in
FY 2012. Several factors affected Region 5's ability to liquidate funds, including
obtaining the documentation necessary to close out funding agreements.
We recommended that EPA Region 5 take action to deobligate the funds noted by our
audit. We also recommended that the agency's Office of the Chief Financial Officer and
Office of Administration and Resources Management address issues related to funding
agreements where the obligation is inactive or open with no activity for more than
180 days. Region 5 took action to deobligate the funds cited and the agency agreed with
the other recommendations.
(Report No. 13-P-0145, New Procedures Aided EPA Region 5 in Reducing
Unliquidated Obligations, February 13, 2013)
21
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
The EPA Undertook Corrective Actions for Tribal Grant Program
The EPA performed a number of corrective actions to address the findings and
recommendations from a 2008 OIG report involving General Assistance Program
grants to federally recognized tribes and tribal consortia.
The Indian Environmental Assistance Program Act of 1992 gives the EPA authority to
award grants to tribal governments in order to build capacity and administer environmental
programs. The act authorized the EPA to provide General Assistance Program grants to
federally recognized tribes and tribal consortia. We reviewed actions undertaken by the
EPA to address recommendations outlined in our 2008 report, Framework for Developing
Tribal Capacity Needed in Indian General Assistance Program.
The EPA responded to our 2008 report by taking a number of actions, such as developing
an online database, drafting a guidebook, and revising guidance. The EPA also engaged
in tribal consultation for the guidebook and guidance, and said the agency would finalize
revisions to both documents by May 2013. In addition to making sure that work plans
include intermediate- and long-term outcomes and goals, the agency also said it has made
incremental shifts in the way General Assistance Program funds are distributed.
Although the EPA certified all actions as completed, corrective actions are still in
progress and we could not test their effectiveness. We recommended that by May 2013,
the EPA complete implementation of corrective actions initiated in response to the 2008
report. The agency accepted this recommendation.
(Report No. 13-P-0057; Status of Corrective Actions in Response to 2008 Report,
"Framework for Developing Tribal Capacity Needed in Indian General Assistance
Program "; November 27, 2012)
The EPA's Computer Security Program Should Be Improved
Our annual review of the EPA's implementation of the Federal Information
Security Management Act for FY 2012, submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget, disclosed that security management for several agency programs
should be improved.
The audit work performed during the review disclosed that the agency needs to make
significant improvements in the following programs: continuous monitoring management,
configuration management and risk management. In addition, audit work noted significant
weaknesses with several aspects of the EPA's information security program.
(Report No. 13-P-0032, Fiscal Year 2012 Federal Information Security Management Act
Report Status of EPA 's Computer Security Program, October 26, 2012)
22
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Investigations
Florida Telemarketers Convicted and Sentenced
In February 2013, three Florida men were convicted and sentenced to probation
and ordered to pay restitution and fines for a telemarketing scam in which they
claimed a relationship between their septic system products and the EPA that did
not exist.
On February 14, 2013, Marc Rona and Gary Kranz, owners of FBK Products, LLC,
Palm Beach County, Florida, were sentenced in U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Florida, West Palm Beach Division, on one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire
fraud. The corporation was also sentenced on the same charge. Further, on February 21,
2013, Steven Kranz, another owner, was sentenced on one count of misprision of a felony
(a "misprision" is the concealment of a felony and failure to report it). The owners and
the company were sentenced to probation and ordered to jointly pay $9,500 in restitution.
The company was also fined $10,000 and Steven Kranz was fined an additional $5,000.
The investigation of FBK Products and its employees began after numerous complaints
were received that FBK had engaged in a telemarketing scam by claiming a fraudulent
relationship between EPA and their product, Septic Remedy. During sales calls, the FBK
telemarketers falsely associated their product with EPA and/or governmental actions. The
telemarketers' lies were part of the company's high-pressure sales tactics used to mislead
some senior citizens into buying up to 70 years worth of the product, soluble packets
flushed down toilets to maintain septic systems. Six telemarketers and three supervisors
have already been sentenced for their parts in the scam.
Texas Vendors Told to Cease and Desist
Five companies and four individuals in the Houston, Texas, area were issued
cease and desist letters for allegedly claiming to be EPA employees while
attempting to sell water filtration systems.
The Harris County (Texas) Attorney's Office issued cease and desist letters to the
companies and individuals for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, for
making false and deceptive claims that may have misled customers into believing that the
companies' actions were on behalf of or condoned by the EPA. The investigation
determined that the individuals were not EPA employees. The investigation began in
May 2012, when a private citizen in the Houston area contacted EPA to report that two
men, claiming to be from the EPA, wanted to test the water taps inside her home. The
men did not present any identification to prove they were EPA employees.
23
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Former Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Official
Sentenced
The former special assistant to the secretary of the Department of Public
Lands for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was sentenced
to an 18-month jail term, followed by 2 years of supervised release, for
accepting a bribe related to a cleanup contract.
On November 19, 2012, Franz Benjamin Reksid was sentenced in U.S. District Court,
District of Northern Mariana Islands. In September 2011, Reksid had been found guilty
at trial of one count of bribery.
From 2007 to 2009, Reksid was responsible for managing Department of Public Lands
contracts with funding provided from EPA Brownfield grants. In February 2009, Reksid
recommended that a contract, previously awarded in 2007 to John Scott, President,
All Hazards Management Professionals, LLC, Yona, Guam, be amended to include an
additional $200,000 for the cleanup and disposal of unexploded ordnance at the Marpi
Village Homestead Site. The original contract for $297,152 required Scott to assess the
commonwealth's government-owned lands on Saipan for unexploded ordnance located
on the Marpi Village Homestead Site. While recommending the above mentioned
contract amendment to the Department of Public Lands secretary, Reksid sought and
received from Scott a $3,000 "loan."
The investigation determined that Reksid only sought approval from the secretary and
other Department of Public Land officials to amend the contract to extend the amount of
time, but not for the additional $200,000. Former department officials testified at
Reksid's trial that he concealed from them his intentions to add $200,000 to Scott's
existing contract and never sought their approval for such a change order. Reksid
ultimately routed the amended version of Scott's contract to the finance department using
the signature page of the original 2007 contract, in order to receive the additional funding
made available by the EPA to the Department of Public Lands.
South Carolina Man Sentenced for Fraud Regarding
Underground Storage Tank
A South Carolina man was sentenced to probation and to pay restitution for
preparing falsified reports related to groundwater cleanup after an underground
storage tank had been removed.
On February 19, 2013, Kenneth Alan Lauber, Greenville, South Carolina, was sentenced
in U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, for mail fraud. Lauber was sentenced to
5 years probation, including 8 months home confinement, and $45,000 in restitution.
24
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Lauber was the owner of Advantage Environmental Consulting Services, an
environmental consulting business. He was contracted to conduct a cleanup of
groundwater after an underground fuel storage tank had been removed. The process
required a period where the site is left alone and monitored to ensure that no petroleum
remains. Instead, Lauber continued to visit the site and secretly pump groundwater out,
misleading state officials regarding the level of residual petroleum. The fraud charges
stemmed from falsified reports he submitted to the South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control. Lauber had received $45,000 in compensation for his work,
which he will have to pay back.
Colorado Man Pleads Guilty to Disorderly Conduct for Threats
On February 7, 2013, a Pueblo, Colorado, man pled guilty to one count of disorderly
conduct, a class 1 misdemeanor, in the 10 Judicial District, Pueblo County, Colorado,
for his involvement in inflammatory communications with EPA Region 8 employees.
In 2011, an EPA Region 8 employee received a threatening phone call from the man.
In 2012, the man sent a threatening letter to another Region 8 employee. The man, who
owns property that is part of a Region 8 residential soil removal project, has been barred
from the Region 8 office.
Employee Suspended for Using EPA Resources to Support
Personal Businesses
An EPA employee was suspended from his position for 30 days without pay for using
EPA resources to support personal businesses. An OIG investigation established that the
employee used EPA office equipment during the workday to further two private business
ventures—a security guard service that held government contracts and a real estate
company. The employee also failed to disclose the interest he and his wife held regarding
the security guard service on his Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form
450). In addition to being suspended from his position, the employee was debarred from
doing business with the government for 4 years, while his wife and the two companies
were debarred for 3 years.
Employee Suspended for Defrauding Transit Subsidy Program
An agency employee was suspended for 5 days, with corresponding loss of pay, for
defrauding the transit subsidy program. The employee claimed a dollar amount on his
transit subsidy forms that exceeded the dollar amount of transit reimbursement he was
entitled to receive, as he worked at an offsite location multiple times during the month.
The investigation determined the employee defrauded the U.S. government an aggregate
of $598. The employee was also removed from the flexiplace program.
25
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Employee Resigns After Unauthorized Use of Computer
An EPA employee signed an agreement to resign as an information technology specialist
with the EPA for using an EPA laptop computer at his residence for unauthorized
business. The employee, a Lotus Notes administrator, took the laptop home to check for
agency emails and other authorized business. However, the investigation determined that
the laptop was used for a family business, typing reports for a college course, and storing
family photos. Prior to resigning, the employee had been placed on administrative leave
and barred from entering the EPA building.
26
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Other Activities
EPA OIG Provides Suspension and Debarment Training to
31 Federal OIGs
The EPA OIG provided training on three separate occasions to more than 140 auditors,
evaluators, and attorneys from 31 federal OIGs on the auditor's role in suspension and
debarment cases. The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency and
the Federal Audit Executive Council sponsored the training.
The EPA OIG was selected to prepare training due to its success in having suspension
and debarment cases based solely on the results of audits, as well as its relationship with
the EPA Suspension and Debarment office. The purpose of the training was to raise the
profile of suspension and debarment within the inspector general community by offering
practical suggestions and techniques for increasing the frequency with which OIGs
recommend suspension and debarment remedies. The course demonstrated how audit,
inspection and evaluation work can produce and support suspension and debarment
actions.
The courses were held October 24, 2012; November 1, 2012; and January 30, 2013.
Feedback on the courses was positive and, as a result, the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency has asked the EPA OIG to participate in two
additional courses during FY 2013.
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 the
EPA and to make recommendations concerning their impact. We also review drafts of
Office of Management and Budget circulars, memoranda, executive orders, program
operations manual, directives and reorganizations. The primary basis for our comments
are the audit, evaluation, investigation and legislative experiences of the OIG, as well as
our participation on the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
During the reporting period, we reviewed six proposed changes to legislation,
regulations, policy, procedures or other documents that could affect the EPA or the
inspector general, and provided comments on one.
27
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board was created by the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990. CSB's mission is to investigate accidental
chemical releases at facilities, report to the public on
the root causes, and recommend measures to prevent
future occurrences.
In FY 2004, Congress designated the EPA inspector general to serve as the inspector
general for CSB. As a result, the EPA OIG 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. Details on our work
involving CSB are available at http://www.csb.gov/service.default.aspx.
CSB Needs a Follow-Up Process for OIG Recommendations
CSB did not have a follow-up process to allow for prompt implementation of
agreed-to OIG audit recommendations.
CSB had unimplemented audit recommendations from an OIG FY 2011 audit report for
over a year past the agreed-to dates for implementation. Also, CSB's tracking system did
not assist in the prompt resolution and implementation of audit recommendations. By not
having a follow-up process, controls over promoting efficiency and effectiveness within
CSB's operations were weakened.
We recommended that CSB develop and implement a follow-up system as required by
Office of Management and Budget guidance. CSB disagreed with our recommendation.
(Report No. 13-P-0128, Audit Follow-Up Process Needed for the U.S. Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board, February 1, 2013)
CSB Complied With Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act
CSB was fully compliant with the reporting requirements of the Improper Payments
Elimination and Recovery Act, which requires all agencies to review all programs
and activities that may be susceptible to significant improper payments.
Under the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act, agencies are required to
report on improper payments, and inspectors general are required to determine whether
the agency complies with the act. As required, CSB published its FY 2012 Performance
28
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
and Accountability Report on its website. We determined that CSB programs do not meet
the minimum risk assessment threshold that would require the CSB to perform a risk
assessment.
In evaluating the accuracy and completeness of CSB's reporting, we determined that
CSB should improve its review of the Bureau of the Public Debt's testing results of
CSB's improper payments. The bureau provides reimbursable administrative and
information technology services and helps agencies reduce the number of improper
payments issued. We recommended that CSB receive and review the results of the
bureau's testing on at least a semiannual basis, and CSB concurred.
(Report No. 13-P-0177, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Complies
With Reporting Requirements of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act,
March 12, 2013)
29
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Statistical Data
Profile of Activities and Results
Audit and evaluation operations
Office of Inspector General reviews
October 1, 2012 -
March 31, 2013
($ in millions)
Questioned costs *
Recommended efficiencies *
Costs disallowed to be recovered
Costs disallowed as cost efficiency
Reports issued by DIG
Reports resolved
(Agreement by Agency officials
to take satisfactory corrective actions) **
$5.0
$45.3
$0.0
$17.3
28
120
Audit and evaluation operations
Reviews performed by Single Audit Act auditors
Questioned costs *
Recommended efficiencies *
Costs disallowed to be recovered
Costs disallowed as cost efficiency
Single Audit Act reviews
Agency recoveries
Recoveries from audit resolutions
of current and prior periods
(cash collections or offsets to
future payments) ***
October 1, 2012-
March 31, 2013
($ in millions)
$9.9
$0.0
$0.7
$0.0
180
$2.7
Investigative Operations
Total Fines and Recoveries ****
Cost Savings
Cases Opened During Period
Cases Closed During Period
Indictments/Informations of
Persons or Firms
Convictions of Persons or Firms
Civil Judgments/Settlements/Filings
October 1, 2012-
March 31, 2013
($ in millions)
$4,442
$95
55
99
13
9
$0
Questioned costs and recommended efficiencies are
subject to change pending further review in the audit
resolution process.
Reports resolved are subject to change pending
further review.
Information on recoveries from audit resolutions is
provided by EPA's Office of Financial Management
and is unaudited.
Fines and recoveries resulting from joint
investigations, including $4,442,276,265 resulting
from the Deepwater Horizon Task Force
investigation of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico.
30
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Audit, Inspection and Evaluation Report Resolution
Status report on perpetual inventory of reports in resolution process
for semiannual period ending March 31, 2013
Report category
A. For which no management
decision was made by
October 1,201 2*
B. Which were issued during the
reporting period
C. Which were issued during the
reporting period that required
no resolution
Subtotals (A + B - C)
D. For which a management
decision was made during the
reporting period
E. For which no management
decision was made by
March 31, 201 3
F. Reports for which no
management decision was
made within 6 months of
issuance
No. of
reports
256
208
120
244
204
40
92
Report issuance
($ in thousands)
Questioned
costs
$41,958
14,944
0
56,902
12,451
45,460
33,212
Recommended
efficiencies
$372,121
45,397
0
417,518
0
420,626
378,357
Report resolution costs
sustained
($ in thousands)
To be
recovered
$804
713
0
1,517
713
0
0
As
efficiencies
$0
17,300
0
17,300
0
0
0
Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies between this
report and our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking system.
Status of management decisions on OIG reports
This section presents additional statistical information that is required by the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, on the status of EPA management decisions on reports issued by the OIG involving
monetary recommendations. Tables 1 and 2 cannot be used to assess results of reviews performed or
controlled by the OIG. Many of the reports were prepared by other federal auditors or independent public
accountants. EPA OIG staff do not manage or control such assignments. Auditees frequently provide
additional documentation to support the allowability of such costs subsequent to report issuance.
31
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Table 1: Inspector general-issued reports with questioned costs for semiannual period ending
March 31, 2013 ($ in thousands)
Report category
A. For which no management decision was made by
October 1,201 2**
B. New reports issued during period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made during the
reporting period:
(i) Dollar value of disallowed costs
(ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed
D. For which no management decision was made by
March 3 1,20 13
Reports for which no management decision was made
within 6 months of issuance
No. of
reports
26
16
42
10
6
4
29
13
Questioned
costs *
$41,958
14,944
56,902
124,51
478
11,973
45,460
33,212
Unsupported
costs
$29,836
12,869
42,705
11,972
11,972
0
31,661
21,035
Questioned costs include unsupported costs.
Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs between this report and our previous
semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit, inspection and evaluation tracking system.
Table 2: Inspector general-issued reports with recommendations that funds be put to better use
for semiannual period ending March 31, 2013 ($ in thousands)
Report Category
A. For which no management decision was made by October 1, 2012 *
B. Which were issued during the reporting period
Subtotals (A + B)
C. For which a management decision was made during the reporting period:
(i) Dollar value of recommendations from reports that were
agreed to by management
(ii) Dollar value of recommendations from reports that were
not agreed to by management
(iii) Dollar value of nonawards or unsuccessful bidders
D. For which no management decision was made by March 31 , 201 3
Reports for which no management decision was made
within 6 months of issuance
No. of
reports
2
6
8
0
0
0
0
0
7
Dollar
value
$372,121
45,397
417,518
0
0
0
0
420,626
378,357
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, inspection and evaluation tracking system.
Audits, inspections and evaluations with no final action as of March 31, 2013, over 365 days past
the date of the accepted management decision (including audits, inspections and evaluations in appeal)
Audits, inspections and evaluations
Program
Assistance agreements
Contract audits
Single audits
Financial statement audits
Total
Total
51
12
0
18
3
84
Percentage
61
14
0
21
4
100
32
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Hotline Activity
The following table shows EPA OIG hotline activity regarding complaints of fraud, waste and abuse in
EPA programs and operations during the semiannual reporting period ending March 31, 2013.
Semiannual period
(October 1,2012-
March 31, 2013)
Issues open at the beginning of the period
Inquiries received during the period
Inquiries closed during the period
Inquiries pending at the end of the period
112
132
134
110
Issues referred to others
OIG offices
EPA program offices
Other federal agencies
State/local agencies/other
81
34
12
5
33
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Summary of Investigative Results
Summary of investigative activity during reporting period
Cases open as of October 1, 2012
Cases opened during period
Cases closed during period
Cases pending as of March 31 , 201 3
260
55
99
216
Investigations pending by type as of March 31, 2013
Contract fraud
Assistance
agreement fraud
Employee integrity
Program integrity
Computer crimes
Threat
Retaliation
Other
Total
Superfund
7
0
6
2
0
1
0
3
19
Management
13
16
31
11
4
3
0
5
83
Split
funded
9
7
31
8
15
1
0
4
75
Recovery
Act
14
14
1
6
0
0
0
4
39
CSB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
43
37
69
27
19
5
0
16
216
Results of prosecutive actions
Criminal indictments/informations/complaints
Convictions
Civil judgments/settlements/filings
Deportations
Fines and recoveries (including civil)
Prison time
Prison time suspended
Home detention
Probation
Community service
EPA OIG only
6
6
2
0
$70,700
18 months
0 months
8 months
132 months
0 hours
Joint*
7
3
0
0
$4,442,205,565
151 months
0 months
0 months
156 months
0 hours
Total
13
9
2
0
$4,442,276,265
169 months
0 months
8 months
288 months
0 hours
'' With another federal agency.
Administrative actions
Suspensions
Debarments
Other administrative actions
Total
Administrative recoveries
Cost avoidance
EPA OIG only
3
11
35
49
$277,860
$0
Joint*
43
17
8
68
$226,633
$95,218
Total
46
28
43
117
$504,493
$95,218
* With another federal agency.
34
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Appendices
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 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.
Questioned Costs
Report No.
Report Title
Date
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported Unreasonable
Costs Costs
Federal
Recommended
Efficiencies
PERFORMANCE REPORTS
13-P-0028
13-P-0032
13-P-0057
13-P-0127
13-P-0128
13-P-0145
13-P-0152
13-P-0161
13-P-0162
13-P-0163
13-P-0167
13-P-0168
13-P-0175
13-P-0176
13-P-0177
13-P-0178
13-P-0200
13-P-0201
13-P-0207
13-P-0208
Estimating and Leveraging Cost Savings
2012 EPA Federal Information Security Management Act Review
Corrective Actions for 2008 Indian General Assistance Program Report
Congressional Request on EPA Integrated Risk Information System
Audit Follow-Up Process for CSB
New Procedures Aided Region 5 in Reducing Unliquidated Obligations
Contingency Planning for Oil and Hazardous Substance Response
Air Emissions Data for the Oil and Natural Gas Production Sector
Reducing Space in Under-Utilized Facilities
Cost Recovery for Lead-Based Paint Fees Program
Measuring EPA's Rule Development Process
Response to Congressional Request on EPA Enforcement
EPA Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act Compliance
Measuring Results and Benefits of EPA's Superfund Removal Program
CSB Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act Compliance
EPA Training and Oversight for Risk Management Program Inspections
Physical Access and Cost Reasonableness for EPA's Smartcard Program
EPA Management of School Environmental Health Efforts
Hotline Complaint on Residential Soil Contamination, Cherryvale, Kansas
Fixed Price Contracting for Remedial Actions
TOTAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS = 20
Oct. 22, 2012
Oct. 26, 201 2
Nov. 27, 2012
Jan. 31, 2013
Feb. 01,2013
Feb. 13, 2013
Feb. 15, 2013
Feb. 20, 2013
Feb. 20, 2013
Feb. 20, 2013
Feb. 28,2013
Feb. 28, 2013
Mar. 11,2013
Mar. 11,2013
Mar. 12, 2013
Mar. 21, 201 3
Mar. 27, 201 3
Mar. 27, 2013
Mar. 28, 2013
Mar. 28, 2013
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42,000,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$42,000,000
SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS
13-3-0001
13-3-0002
13-3-0003
13-3-0004
13-3-0005
13-3-0006
13-3-0007
13-3-0008
13-3-0009
13-3-0010
13-3-0011
13-3-0012
13-3-0013
13-3-0014
13-3-0015
13-3-0016
13-3-0017
13-3-0018
13-3-0019
13-3-0020
13-3-0021
13-3-0022
13-3-0023
13-3-0024
13-3-0025
13-3-0026
13-3-0027
13-3-0029
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, Commonwealth of- FY2011
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center - FY 201 1
Granite Reeder Water and Sewer District, Idaho - FY 201 1
Nome Joint Utility System, Alaska - FY 2010
Oak Lodge Sanitary District, Oregon - FY 201 1
Maniilaq Association, Alaska - FY 201 1
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Massachusetts - FY 201 1
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, California - FY 201 1
Sarpy County Nebraska Sanitary and Improvement District No. 101
Upper Explorerland Regional Planning Commission, Iowa - FY 201 1
Pittsburgh Commission, Pennsylvania, Port of -FY 2011
Port Authority of the City of St. Paul, Minnesota - FY 201 1
Montana, State of -FY 2011
American Samoa Power Authority, American Samoa - FY 2011
Cleburne County Water District, Alabama - FY 201 1
United South and Eastern Tribes Inc., Tennessee - FY 201 1
Columbus, Nebraska, City of - FY 201 1
Marion, Iowa, City of- FY 2011
Comm. Dev./lmprovement Corp ./Subsidiary, South Carolina - FY 2010
Genesee County Land Bank Authority, Michigan - FY 201 1
Osceola County, Michigan - FY 201 1
St. James, Minnesota, City of - FY 201 1
Atoka, Tennessee, Town of- FY 2011
Aztec, New Mexico, City of- FY 2010
Crystal City, Texas, City of - FY 201 1
Arlington, Texas, City of- FY 201 1
Fort Worth, Texas, City of- FY 201 1
Washington, Georgia, City of- FY 2011
Oct. 04, 201 2
Oct. 09,2012
Oct. 09, 2012
Oct. 09, 2012
Oct. 09, 201 2
Oct. 10,2012
Oct. 10,2012
Oct. 10,2012
Oct. 10,2012
Oct. 11,2012
Oct. 11,2012
Oct. 11,2012
Oct. 11,2012
Oct. 11,2012
Oct. 11,2012
Oct. 11,2012
Oct. 11,2012
Oct. 11,2012
Oct. 11,2012
Oct. 12,2012
Oct. 12,2012
Oct. 12, 2012
Oct. 12,2012
Oct. 15,2012
Oct. 15,2012
Oct. 15,2012
Oct. 15,2012
Oct. 23, 201 2
$1,950,951
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,744
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$3,113,289
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
418,072
0
6,968
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Questioned Costs
Report No.
13-3-0030
13-3-0031
13-3-0033
13-3-0034
13-3-0036
13-3-0037
13-3-0038
13-3-0039
13-3-0040
13-3-0041
13-3-0042
13-3-0043
13-3-0044
13-3-0045
13-3-0046
13-3-0047
13-3-0048
13-3-0049
13-3-0050
13-3-0051
13-3-0052
13-3-0053
13-3-0055
13-3-0056
13-3-0058
13-3-0059
13-3-0060
13-3-0061
13-3-0062
13-3-0063
13-3-0064
13-3-0065
13-3-0066
13-3-0067
13-3-0068
13-3-0069
13-3-0070
13-3-0071
13-3-0072
13-3-0073
13-3-0074
13-3-0075
13-3-0076
13-3-0077
13-3-0078
13-3-0079
13-3-0080
13-3-0081
13-3-0082
13-3-0083
13-3-0084
13-3-0085
13-3-0086
13-3-0087
13-3-0088
13-3-0089
13-3-0090
13-3-0091
13-3-0093
13-3-0094
13-3-0095
13-3-0096
13-3-0097
13-3-0098
13-3-0099
13-3-0100
Report Title
Pascagoula, Mississippi, City of -FY 2011
Centreville, Mississippi, Town of- FY2011
Redevelopment Authority, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania - FY 201 1
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Louisiana - FY 201 1
West Wendover, Nevada, City of - FY 201 1
Douglas County, Nevada - FY 201 1
Arcola, Illinois, City of- FY 2012
Morrison, Illinois, City of- FY 2012
Sparks, Nevada, City of- FY 2011
Groom Creek Water Users Association, Arizona - FY 2010
Onondaga Environmental Institute Inc., New York- FY2011
Pit River Tribe, California -FY 2011
South Tahoe Public Utility District, California - FY 201 1
Newcastle Sanitary District, California - FY 201 1
Broken Bow, Nebraska, City of - FY 201 1
Rock Island Economic Growth Corporation, Illinois - FY 201 1
Cedar Lake, Indiana, City of - FY 201 1
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Nevada - FY 201 1
Dewitt, New York, Town of - FY 2010
Lacrosse, Kansas, City of - FY 201 1
Moberly, Missouri, City of- FY 2010
Gonzales, Louisiana, Parish of Ascension - FY 2011
Nye County, Nevada -FY 2010
Annapolis, Maryland, City of - FY 201 1
Johnstown, Pennsylvania, City of - FY 201 1
Steelton Borough Authority, Pennsylvania - FY 201 1
Orange County, California, Municipal Water District - FY 201 1
San Diego, California, City of- FY 2010
El Cerrito, California, City of- FY 2011
Cahuilla Band of Indians, California - FY 201 0
Environmental Council of the States Inc. and Affiliates, DC - FY 201 1
Milford, Delaware, City of - FY 201 1
Grand Portage Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota - FY 201 1
Lac Courte Oreilles Band, Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Wl - FY 201 1
Yurok Tribe, Klamath, California - FY 201 1
Minto, North Dakota, City of - FY 201 1
Stetsonville, Wisconsin, Village of - FY 201 1
Nekoosa, Wisconsin, City of - FY 201 1
Pine Lake, Georgia, City of - FY 201 1
Marinette, Wisconsin, City of - FY 201 1
Darlington, Indiana, Town of- FY2011
Jefferson County, Ohio - FY 201 1
Trenton, New Jersey, City of - FY 201 1
Puerto Rico, University of - FY 201 1
Yankton , South Dakota, City of - FY 201 1
Friends of the Cheat, West Virginia - FY 201 1
Native Village of Tununak, Alaska - FY 2009
Central Shoshone County Water District, Idaho - FY 201 1
Fort Bend County Fresh Water Supply Dist. No. 1 , Houston, TX - FY 201 1
Madison, Wisconsin, Town of- FY 2011
Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico - FY 201 1
Billings, Montana, City of - FY 201 1
Faulkton, South Dakota, City of- FY 2010
Chippewa Cree Tribe, Montana- FY 201 1
Bigfork County Water and Sewer District, Bigfork, Montana - FY 201 1
Lake Metigoshe Recreation Service District, ND - FYs 2009 & 2010
United Water System Inc., Louisiana- FY2012
Chicago Park District, Chicago, Illinois - FY 201 1
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, South Dakota - FY 2010
National Tribal Environmental Council, New Mexico - FY 2007
Tifton, Georgia, City of - FY 2011
South Creek Township, Pennsylvania - FY 2010
Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Montana - FY 201 1
Duncan, Oklahoma, City of- FY 2010
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, California - FY 201 1
Anson Water District, Maine - FY 201 1
Federal
Ineligible Unsupported Unreasonable Recommended
Date Costs Costs Costs Efficiencies
Oct. 23, 2012
Oct. 23, 2012
Oct. 29, 2012
Oct. 30, 2012
Nov. 01,2012
Nov. 01,2012
Nov. 05, 2012
Nov. 05,2012
Nov. 05, 2012
Nov. 06, 2012
Nov. 06, 2012
Nov. 06, 201 2
Nov. 06, 2012
Nov. 06, 2012
Nov. 07, 2012
Nov. 08, 2012
Nov. 08, 2012
Nov. 08, 201 2
Nov. 09, 2012
Nov. 09, 2012
Nov. 09, 2012
Nov. 09, 2012
Nov. 27, 201 2
Nov. 27, 2012
Nov. 27, 2012
Nov. 27, 2012
Nov. 27, 2012
Nov. 27, 2012
Nov. 28, 2012
Nov. 28,2012
Nov. 29, 2012
Nov. 29, 2012
Nov. 29, 2012
Nov. 29, 2012
Dec. 03, 2012
Dec. 06, 2012
Dec. 06, 2012
Dec. 06, 201 2
Dec. 10,2012
Dec. 10, 2012
Dec. 10, 2012
Dec. 10, 2012
Dec. 13, 2012
Dec. 13,2012
Dec. 18,2012
Dec. 19,2012
Dec. 19,2012
Dec. 19, 2012
Dec. 19, 2012
Dec. 21,2012
Dec. 21, 201 2
Dec. 27, 2012
Dec. 27, 2012
Dec. 28, 2012
Dec. 28, 2012
Dec. 28, 2012
Jan. 03, 2013
Jan. 03, 201 3
Jan. 08, 2013
Jan. 09, 2013
Jan. 10,2013
Jan. 10,2013
Jan. 14, 2013
Jan. 14, 2013
Jan. 14, 2013
Jan. 15,2013
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
254,352
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
355,292
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Questioned Costs
Report No.
13-3-0101
13-3-0102
13-3-0103
13-3-0104
13-3-0105
13-3-0106
13-3-0107
13-3-0108
13-3-0109
13-3-0110
13-3-0111
13-3-0112
13-3-0113
13-3-0114
13-3-0115
13-3-0117
13-3-0118
13-3-0119
13-3-0120
13-3-0121
13-3-0122
13-3-0123
13-3-0124
13-3-0126
13-3-0129
13-3-0130
13-3-0131
13-3-0132
13-3-0133
13-3-0134
13-3-0135
13-3-0136
13-3-0137
13-3-0138
13-3-0139
13-3-0140
13-3-0141
13-3-0142
13-3-0143
13-3-0144
13-3-0146
13-3-0147
13-3-0148
13-3-0149
13-3-0150
13-3-0151
13-3-0155
13-3-0156
13-3-0157
13-3-0158
13-3-0159
13-3-0160
13-3-0164
13-3-0165
13-3-0166
13-3-0169
13-3-0170
13-3-0171
13-3-0172
13-3-0173
13-3-0174
13-3-0179
13-3-0180
13-3-0181
13-3-0182
13-3-0183
Report Title
Chilkat Indian Village, Alaska FY 201 1
Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California, California - FY 201 1
Northwest Regional Planning Commission, Wisconsin - FY 2011
Alliance to Save Energy and Affiliate, DC - FY 201 1
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin - FY 201 1
Hudson , New York, City of - FY 201 1
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, New Mexico - FY 201 1
Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Colorado - FY 2011
Leonardo Academy Inc. , Wisconsin - FY 201 1
Prairie du Chien, City of, Wisconsin - FY 201 1
Greenville Sanitary District #1 Greenville, Wisconsin - FY 201 1
Rockford, Illinois, City of- FY 2011
Snow Hill, Maryland, Town of- FY2012
Aberdeen, Maryland, City of- FY 2012
Glades Utility Authority, Florida - FY 2010
Slatington Borough Authority, Pennsylvania - FY 2012
Ottawa County, Ohio- FY 2011
United States Virgin Islands - FY 2010
Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, New Hampshire
Cascade Sierra Solutions - FY 201 1
Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center, Washington
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, California - FY 201 1
Pala Band of Mission Indians, California - FY 201 1
Smith River Rancheria, California - FY 2011
Waynesville, Missouri, City of -FY 2012
Belmond, Iowa, City of- FY 2012
Alexandria, Louisiana, City of - FY 201 2
Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California - FY 2011
Hopi Tribe, Arizona - FY 2009
Valley City, North Dakota, City of - FY 201 1
Rapid City, South Dakota, City of - FY 201 1
Owner-Op. Independent Drivers Assoc. Foundation Inc., MO- FY2011
Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians, California - FY 201 1
Lawton, Oklahoma, City of- FY 201 1
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Minnesota - FY 201 1
Keokuk Municipal Water Works, Iowa - FY 201 1
Flushing, Ohio, Village of- FY 2011
Pittston, Pennsylvania, City of- FY 2011
Winchester, Virginia, City of- FY 2012
Okemah , Oklahoma, City of - FY 201 2
Bishop Paiute Tribe, California - FY 201 1
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Nevada - FY 2012
Douglas County, Nevada - FY 2012
Fort Bidwell Indian Community Council, California - FY 201 1
Show Low, Arizona, City of- FY 2012
Illinois, University of, Illinois - FY 201
Era/in, New York, Town of- FY 2010
Virginia, Minnesota, City of - FY 201 1
Warren, Minnesota, City of - FY 201 1
Three River, Michigan, City of - FY 2012
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Nevada - FY 2010
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Nevada - FY 201 1
Nogales, Arizona, City of - FY 201 1
Pribilof Islands Aleut Community of St. George Island, Alaska - FY 2006
Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission, Maine - FY 2012
Tyler, Minnesota, City of- FY 2011
Rushford, Minnesota, City of- FY 2011
Olivia, Minnesota, City of- FY 2011
New London, Minnesota, City of- FY 201 1
Blooming Prairie, Minnesota, City of - FY 201 1
Miami, Arizona, Town of - FY 2010
Lewistown, Montana, City of - FY 201 1
Michigan Infrastructure & Transportation Association, Michigan - FY 201 1
Monroe, Michigan, City of - FY 2012
Northland College, Wisconsin - FY 2012
Palau National Government, Republic of - FY 2010
Date
Jan. 16,2013
Jan. 16,2013
Jan. 16,2013
Jan. 16,2013
Jan. 16,2013
Jan. 16,2013
Jan. 16,2013
Jan. 16, 2013
Jan. 16,2013
Jan. 16,2013
Jan. 17,2013
Jan. 17,2013
Jan. 18, 2013
Jan. 18, 2013
Jan. 18, 2013
Jan. 23, 2013
Jan. 24, 2013
Jan. 25, 2013
Jan. 29, 2013
Jan. 29, 2013
Jan. 29, 201 3
Jan. 29, 2013
Jan. 29, 2013
Jan. 31, 2013
Feb. 01,2013
Feb. 01, 2013
Feb. 01, 2013
Feb. 01, 2013
Feb. 01, 2013
Feb. 01,2013
Feb. 01,2013
Feb. 05, 2013
Feb. 05, 2013
Feb. 11,2013
Feb. 11,2013
Feb. 11,2013
Feb. 11,2013
Feb. 12, 2013
Feb. 12,2013
Feb. 12,2013
Feb. 13,2013
Feb. 13,2013
Feb. 13, 2013
Feb. 13, 2013
Feb. 13, 2013
Feb. 14,2013
Feb. 15,2013
Feb. 15,2013
Feb. 19, 2013
Feb. 19,2013
Feb. 19,2013
Feb. 19,2013
Feb. 25, 2013
Feb. 25, 2013
Feb. 25, 2013
Feb. 28, 2013
Feb. 28, 2013
Feb. 28, 2013
Feb. 28, 2013
Feb. 28, 2013
Mar. 06, 2013
Mar. 21,2013
Mar. 21,2013
Mar. 21,2013
Mar. 21, 201 3
Mar. 21, 2013
Ineligible
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32,093
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89,839
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Federal
Unsupported Unreasonable Recommended
Costs Costs Efficiencies
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,961,692
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,716
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,296
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155,437
27,133
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
200,000
0
353,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Questioned Costs
Report No.
13-3-0184
13-3-0185
13-3-0186
13-3-0187
13-3-0188
13-3-0189
13-3-0190
13-3-0191
13-3-0192
13-3-0193
13-3-0194
13-3-0195
13-3-0196
13-3-0197
13-3-0198
13-3-0199
13-3-0202
13-3-0203
13-3-0204
13-3-0205
Report Title
King County, Washington - FY 201 1
Oahu Resource Conservation and Develop. Council, Hawaii - FY 2011
Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Nevada - FY 201 1
Washington Terrace, Utah, City of- FY 2012
Atlantic States Rural Water and Wastewater Assoc., Maine - FY 201 1
Algood, Tennessee, City of - FY 201 1
Milton, Indiana, Town of - FY 201 1
Kauai, Hawaii, County of- FY 201 2
Great Lakes Observing System-Regional Assoc., Michigan - FY 2012
Roxboro, North Carolina, City of- FY 2010
Helen, Georgia, City of- FY 2012
Troy, Vermont, Town of - FY 201 0
Minersville Sewer Authority, Pennsylvania - FY 201 1
North East, Maryland, Town of - FY 2010
Hammond, Indiana, City of - FY 201 1
Taylor County, Wisconsin - FY 201 1
Independence, Oregon, City of -FY 201 2
Litchfield, Illinois, City of- FY 2012
Selma, North Carolina, Town of- FY 2012
Nunakauyak Traditional Council, Alaska - FY 201 1
TOTAL SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS = 180
Date
Mar. 22, 2013
Mar. 22, 2013
Mar. 22, 2013
Mar. 25, 201 3
Mar. 25, 201 3
Mar. 25, 201 3
Mar. 25, 2013
Mar. 26, 2013
Mar. 26, 201 3
Mar. 26, 201 3
Mar. 26, 201 3
Mar. 27, 2013
Mar. 27, 2013
Mar. 27, 2013
Mar. 27, 2013
Mar. 27, 2013
Mar. 27, 201 3
Mar. 27, 201 3
Mar. 27, 201 3
Mar. 28, 201 3
Ineligible
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$2,075,627
Federal
Unsupported Unreasonable Recommended
Costs Costs Efficiencies
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$7,869,247
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS
13-1-0054
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2012 and 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements
TOTAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT REPORTS = 1
Nov. 15,2012
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$900,000
$900,000
ATTESTATION REPORTS
13-4-0116
13-4-0125
13-4-0153
13-4-0154
Solicitation No. SOL-HQ-1 2-00006 Proposal by Toeroek Associates, Inc.
Solicitation No. SOL-HQ-1 2-00005 Proposal, AEMG
Office of Acquisition Management Request - Seagull Environmental
Office of Acquisition Management Request - SES Inc
TOTAL ATTESTATION REPORTS = 4
Jan. 23, 201 3
Jan. 30, 2013
Feb. 15, 2013
Feb. 15,2013
$0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
0
$0
$0
0
0
0
$0
$2,319,731
114,154
44,393
19,201
$2,497,479
NON-AUDIT REPORTS
13-N-0035 Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as 9/30/12
TOTAL NON-AUDIT REPORTS = 1
Oct. 31, 2012
$0
$0
$0
$0
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 REPORTS
13-R-0092 Combined Sewer Overflow Detention Facility, City of Goshen, Indiana Jan. 08, 2013
13-R-0206 Cooperative Agreement for Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Mar. 28, 2013
TOTAL AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 REPORTS = 2
0
$0
$5,000,000
0
$5,000,000
0
$0
0
$0
TOTAL REPORTS ISSUED = 208
$2,075,627 $12,869,247
$45,397,479
38
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Appendix 2—Reports Issued Without Management Decisions
For Reporting Period Ended March 31, 2013
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires a summary of each audit report issued before the
commencement of the reporting period for which no management decision had been made by the end of the
reporting period, an explanation of the reasons such management decision had not been made, and a statement
concerning the desired timetable for achieving a management decision on each such report. Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-50 requires resolution within 6 months of a final report being issued. In this section, we report
on audits with no management decision or resolution within 6 months of final report issuance. In the summaries
below, we note the agency's explanation of the reasons a management decision has not been made, the agency's
desired timetable for achieving a management decision, and the OIG follow-up status as of March 31, 2013.
Off ice of Administration and Resources Management
Report No. 10-P-0112, Results of Hotline Complaint Review of EPA Region 9 Hiring under the Federal Career
Intern Program, April 26, 2010
Summary: The hotline allegations against EPA Region 9 were unsubstantiated. We identified that the region
engaged in a prohibited personnel practice. Neither the Office of Personnel Management nor the EPA prohibits the
use of a job fair and registration code as recruiting and hiring methods. However, Region 9 engaged in a prohibited
personnel practice by giving four Federal Career Intern Program job fair participants improper advantages not
provided to others attending the job fair.
Agency Explanation: While the Pathways Program Bulletin has been finalized, there is currently no corrective action
plan ready for submission to the OIG for approval. A corrective action plan will be ready for submission to the OIG for
approval on June 30, 2013.
OIG Follow-Up Status: Incomplete response.
Report No. 10-P-0177, EPA's Revised Hiring Process Needs Additional Improvements, August 9, 2010
Summary: This report reviewed the EPA's appointment process managed by its Office of Administration and
Resources Management to determine how the new process for filling vacancies can be more efficient and effective.
The OIG found that the EPA had not implemented critical technology upgrades or obtained other resources
necessary for the service center concept to succeed. Also, service centers did not consistently provide program
managers with the best candidates, and data quality and recruitment action processes need improvement. OIG
recommendations included making changes to EPA Order 1110.8A5, EPA Reorganization Policy.
Agency Explanation: A new reorganization proposal has been loaded onto the Intranet as of December 5, 2012.
The link to the site is: http://intranet.epa.qov/ohr/proqrams/reorq.start.htm.
OIG Follow-Up Status: Proposed response received in review process.
Report No. 11-P-0722, EPA Should Prepare and Distribute Security Classification Guides, September 29, 2011
Summary: This report evaluated the scope and nature of the EPA's classified national security information
infrastructure and its ability to provide information to those who need it. The OIG found that the EPA has not
established any official classification guides even though EPA Administrators have taken original classification
actions. The EPA's National Security Information Handbook requires that a classification guide be developed for each
system, plan, program or project that involves classified information. The OIG recommended that the Administrator
ensure the preparation, review and approval of appropriate security classification guides that conform to the
requirements of Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information, and EPA's national security
information handbook. We also recommended that the Administrator ensure the distribution of classification guides to
users of the EPA's originally classified information and to program offices that work in related subject areas. The
Office of Administration and Resources Management, which responded on behalf of the agency, did not agree with
the report's conclusions and the recommendations are unresolved.
39
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Agency Explanation: This audit is designated by the OIG as "resolution on hold - beyond agency control." Therefore,
an expected resolution date cannot be determined at this time.
OIG Follow-Up Status: Resolution on hold - beyond agency control.
Office of Air and Radiation
Report No. 09-P-0151, EPA Does Not Provide Oversight of Radon Testing Accuracy and Reliability,
May 12, 2009
Summary: The EPA does not perform oversight of radon testing device accuracy or reliability. The 1988 Indoor
Radon Abatement Act required that the EPA establish proficiency programs for firms offering radon-related services,
including testing and mitigation. The EPA established and operated proficiency programs until 1998, when it
disinvested in these programs. The EPA asserts that it shares oversight responsibility with states and industry,
including the two national proficiency programs operating under private auspices. However, without oversight, the
EPA cannot assure that radon testing devices provide accurate data on indoor radon risks or that radon testing
laboratories accurately analyze and report radon results. We recommended that the EPA disclose that while radon
testing is recommended, the EPA cannot provide assurance that commercially available radon testing devices or
testing laboratories are accurate and reliable. The EPA generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that it
will review and revise both its Web-based and printed public materials, as appropriate. However, the agency did not
provide information on how it intends to characterize the accuracy and reliability of radon testing in its public
documents, and more information is needed.
Agency Explanation: The OIG issued a memo after the close of the reporting period accepting the Office of Air and
Radiation's revised corrective action plan.
OIG Follow-Up Status: Incomplete response.
Office of Grants and Debarment
Report No. 12-3-0007, Cascade Sierra Solutions, Oregon - FY 2010, October 11, 2011
Summary: This review found that internal controls over project/customer file documentation are deficient. It was
difficult for the recipient to timely substantiate evidence of compliance for installation of verified technologies for EPA
and U.S. Department of Energy grants. The review also found that personnel had limited knowledge of generally
accepted accounting principles, specifically as they relate to accounting for financial receivables, loan fees and
allowance for losses. Due to the internal control findings reported by the single auditor and the inability of the
recipient's accounting system to ensure that federal costs are allowable under its grants, we questioned $2,767,077
in reported EPA federal expenditures.
Agency Explanation: The Office of Grants and Debarment continues to concentrate and work with Cascade Sierra
Solutions to obtain and evaluate information in response to OIG report 12-R-0749 for the Smartway 2 cooperative
agreement. Once completed, the Office of Grants and Debarment will work with Cascade Sierra Solutions to address
and resolve the findings identified by the OIG from their review of Cascade Sierra Solutions' FY 2010 A-133 single
audit. The Office of Grants and Debarment hopes to issue its management decision for the single audit by
September 30, 2013. The U.S. Department of Energy is the cognizant agency for Cascade Sierra Solutions.
OIG Follow-Up Status: Report reactivated - waiting for response.
Report No. 12-3-0591, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences and Subsidiaries -FY2011, July 20, 2012
Summary: This review found that certain contracts used by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences did not
add a clause within subcontracts with pass-through entities to verify that contractors are not suspended or debarred.
Agency Explanation: The Office of Grants and Debarment plans to issue a management decision to the National
Center for Manufacturing Sciences confirming its acceptance of the corrective action in the near future. The Office of
Grants and Debarment hopes to issue its management decision for this single audit review by June 30, 2013.
OIG Follow-Up Status: None provided.
40
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Report No. 12-3-0674, Galeton Area School District, Pennsylvania - FY 2011, August 16, 2012
Summary: This review found that the Galeton Area School District did not have documentation to substantiate certain
controls for purchasing goods and services. In addition, the district did not have adequate segregation of duties over
record keeping and financial reporting functions.
Agency Explanation: The Office of Grants and Debarment plans to issue a management decision to the Galeton Area
School District confirming its acceptance of the corrective action in the near future. The Office of Grants and
Debarment hopes to issue its management decision for this single audit review by June 30, 2013.
OIG Follow-up Status: None provided.
Report No. 12-4-0224, Examination of Costs Claimed Under Cooperative Agreement X7-83325501 Awarded to
Kathleen S. Hill, January 23, 2012
Summary: We found that the recipient did not have a financial management system that met federal standards.
The recipient did not have adequate controls to ensure that costs claimed were in accordance with Code of Federal
Regulations requirements. The recipient's cash draws did not comply with 40 Part 30 requirements or the terms and
conditions of the cooperative agreement. As a result, we questioned $80,721 of the $726,587 claimed under the
cooperative agreement.
Agency Explanation: The Office of Grants and Debarment continues to work on developing and issuing the agency's
management decision to address the OIG findings listed in the audit report on X7-83325501 awarded to Kathleen S.
Hill. The Office of Grants and Debarment hopes to issue its management decision for this audit by June 30, 2013.
O/G Follow-Up Status: No response.
Report No. 12-R-0749, Examination of Costs Claimed Under EPA Cooperative Agreement 2A-83440701
Awarded Under the Recovery Act to Cascade Sierra Solutions, Eugene, Oregon, September 4, 2012
Summary: This review found that Cascade Sierra Solutions' financial management system did not support that funds
drawn are reasonable and allocable in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. In particular, Cascade Sierra
Solutions' financial management system pertaining to cash draws, revolving fund accounting, project costs and
progress reporting did not meet the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations, and procurements did not meet
competition cost and price analysis requirements. Reporting of the number of jobs created or retained with Recovery
Act funds did not comply with the Office of Management and Budget guidance. As a result, we were unable to provide
an opinion on the financial resources, related liabilities, revenue, expenses and residual balances. Therefore, we
have questioned the $9 million drawn as unallowable costs.
Agency Explanation: The Office of Grants and Debarment has been working extensively with Cascade Sierra
Solutions to substantiate costs incurred under the cooperative agreement and address/resolve the OIG
recommendations in the report. The Office of Air and Radiation has granted Cascade Sierra Solutions an extension to
March 31, 2013, to complete all work associated with the cooperative agreement, including retrofit of vehicles
addressed in OIG recommendation 7. The Office of Grants and Debarment has placed Cascade Sierra Solutions on
reimbursement and imposed special conditions per OIG recommendation 4. The Office of Grants and Debarment
hopes to issue its management decision for this audit by June 30, 2013.
OIG Follow-Up Status: None provided.
Financial Analysis and Rate Negotiation Service Center
Report No. 06-4-00165, National Academy of Sciences—FY 2006 Indirect/Other Direct Costs System,
September 27, 2006
Summary: In the Defense Contract Audit Agency's opinion, the contractor's service centers cost system and related
internal control policies and procedures were inadequate in part. DCAA's examination noted certain significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of the Indirect/Other Direct Costs system process.
Agency Explanation: Resolution on hold. Resolution of audit results is not the EPA's responsibility but the responsibility
of the Department of Defense. Therefore, an expected resolution date cannot be determined at this time.
O/G Follow-Up Status: Resolution on hold pending receipt of additional information.
41
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Report No. 07-1-00061, Lockheed Martin Services Group—FY 12/31/2004 I/C, April 10, 2007
Summary: DCAA questioned $34,708,911 in claimed direct costs and proposed indirect costs. Further, DCAA did not
audit $338,864,655 in claimed direct and indirect costs for assist audits not yet received or for received assist audit
reports, the impact of which on the contractor's cost objectives has not yet been calculated. Additionally, DCAA
upwardly adjusted $48,224,805 in claimed base costs. The EPA's share of the questioned costs totals $694,178.
DCAA did not provide any Cumulative Allowable Cost Work Sheet or Schedule of Allowable Costs by Cost Element
by Contract because the most current year with negotiated indirect rates is calendar year 1998. DCAA will issue a
supplemental audit report upon completion of its analysis of the assist audit results, and as the outstanding fiscal
years' indirect rates are negotiated, the requested Cumulative Allowable Cost Work Sheet and Schedule of Allowable
Costs by Cost Element by Contract will be provided.
Agency Explanation: Resolution on hold. Resolution of audit results is not the EPA's responsibility but the responsibility
of the Department of Defense. Therefore, an expected resolution date cannot be determined at this time.
O/G Follow-Up Status: Resolution on hold pending receipt of additional information.
Report No. 07-1-00080, Lockheed Martin Services, Inc.—FY 2005 Incurred Cost, August 6, 2007
Summary: DCAA questioned $595,792,539 in claimed direct costs and $10,982,460 in proposed indirect costs and
rates. None of the questioned direct costs are chargeable to any of the EPA contracts. A number of the EPA contracts
have indirect ceiling rates that are lower than the contractor's proposed indirect rates, and are not impacted by the
questioned indirect expenses and rates. However, there are EPA contracts/subcontracts that do not have indirect
ceiling rates and are impacted by the questioned indirect rates. EPA's share of questioned indirect costs totals
$133,069.
Agency Explanation: Resolution on hold. Resolution of audit results is not the EPA's responsibility but the responsibility
of the Department of Defense. Therefore, an expected resolution date cannot be determined at this time.
O/G Follow-Up Status: Resolution on hold pending receipt of additional information.
Report No. 08-1-0130, Morrison Knudsen Corporation—FY 1999 Incurred Costs, April 15, 2008
Summary: DCAA questioned $3,705,233 in claimed direct costs and $3,472,023 in proposed indirect costs and rates,
a total of $7,177,256 in questioned costs. The EPA's share of questioned costs is $57,369.
Agency Explanation: Resolution on hold. Resolution of audit results is not the EPA's responsibility but the responsibility
of the Department of Defense. Therefore, an expected resolution date cannot be determined at this time.
O/G Follow-Up Status: Resolution on hold pending receipt of additional information.
Report No. 08-1-0131, Washington Group International, Inc.—FY 2001 Incurred Costs, April 15, 2008
Summary: DCAA questioned $2,208,686 of claimed direct costs and $13,757,945 of proposed indirect costs and
rates, a total of $15,966,631. The EPA's share of the questioned costs is $44,648.
Agency Explanation: Resolution on hold. Resolution of audit results is not the EPA's responsibility but the responsibility
of the Department of Defense. Therefore, an expected resolution date cannot be determined at this time.
O/G Follow-Up Status: Resolution on hold pending receipt of additional information.
Report No. 09-1-0034, Lockheed Martin Services Group—FY 2006 Incurred Cost, November 24, 2008
Summary: DCAA questioned $23,672,344 in claimed direct and proposed indirect costs and rates. Of this, $381,582
is claimed direct costs and $23,290,762 is proposed indirect costs and rates. DCAA also did not audit $159,778,286
in claimed subsidiary and subcontracts costs. The EPA's share of the questioned costs is 3 percent, or $11,448 in
claimed direct costs and $698,722 in proposed indirect costs, a total of $710,170.
Agency Explanation: Resolution on hold. Resolution of audit results is not the EPA's responsibility but the responsibility
of the Department of Defense. Therefore, an expected resolution date cannot be determined at this time.
O/G Follow-Up Status: Resolution on hold pending receipt of additional information.
42
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Region 2—Regional Administrator
Report No. 12-3-0198, Onondaga Environmental Institute New York - FY 2009, January 2012
Summary: This review found that the organization lacks sufficient internal controls over the financial records and the
preparation of the financial statements to prevent or detect errors in the financial data, including those which may be
material in relation to the financial statements. Assets and liabilities, along with related revenue and expense
accounts, were materially misstated and, in some instances, adequate supporting documentation was not available.
The review also found that the organization lacks adequate professional expertise and technical skill to maintain
complete and accurate financial records, along with adequate supporting documentation.
Agency Explanation: The grantee's corrective action plan is not fully satisfactory to Region 2. We continue to have
dialogue with the grantee, and expect to issue a management decision by June 30, 2013.
O/G Follow-Up Status: No response.
Report No. 12-3-0721, Canastona, New York, Village of- FY 2011, July 20, 2012
Summary: This review found that the Canastona Village did not have internal controls in place for the preparation of
financial statements. The village incorrectly reported contract wages under Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
66.458.3. The village received grant funds under 66.202 for $485,000 on April 25, 2011, but the funds were not
expended until June and July of 2011. In addition, the single auditor noted deferred revenue of $67,068 in the Capital
Project Fund related to unspent EPA state and tribal grant funds.
Agency Explanation: Region 2 is currently pursuing documentation from the grantee to document costs from this
grant; a number of federal and state agencies funded this project. Region 2 anticipates issuing a management
decision by June 30, 2013.
O/G Follow-Up Status: None provided.
Report No. 12-3-0734, Onondaga Environmental Institute New York - FY 2010, August 23, 2012
Summary: This review found that the organization lacked sufficient internal controls over the financial records and the
preparation of the financial statements to prevent or detect errors in the financial data. The institute lacked individuals
with adequate professional expertise and technical skill to maintain complete and accurate financial records. In
addition, supporting documentation was lacking in certain circumstances. The review also found that the institute did
not have controls, policies or procedures to minimize time elapsed between the transfer and disbursement. As a
result, advanced funds were used for general management. Similar findings were noted in the prior year audit report.
Agency Explanation: The grantee's corrective action plan is not fully satisfactory to Region 2. The region continues to
have dialogue with the grantee, and expects to issue a management decision by June 30, 2013.
O/G Follow-Up Status: Incomplete response.
Report No. 12-3-0748, Delaware, State of- FY 2011, August 31, 2012
Summary: The Delaware Department of Health and Social Services had findings for two subrecipients that were
repeated from the FY 2010 audit report. For one of 65 department employees tested, time was split between the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and another federal program, but an appropriate time and effort report was not
obtained. The single auditors questioned $1,280. A similar finding was noted in the prior year audit report. In addition,
the Delaware Clean Water grant was improperly posted for $6.3 million when it should have been zero. Due to the
significance of this error, an adjustment was made to the financial statements. A similar finding was noted in the prior
year audit report.
Agency Explanation: Due to backlog, this audit was not completed. The agency expects it to be closed out by
June 30, 2013.
O/G Follow-Up Status: None provided
43
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Report No. 12-3-0780, Hampton Roads Clean Cities Corporation, Virginia- FY2011, September 10, 2012
Summary: This review found that, due to a limited number of staff, the accounting functions are assigned to staff
based on their availability. Additionally, these individuals have limited knowledge of accounting. The corporation's
financial statements were prepared by outside auditors and then reviewed by management. The single auditors
proposed significant adjustments to accounts.
Agency Explanation: Due to backlog this audit was not completed. The agency expects it to be closed out by
June 30, 2013.
O/G Follow-Up Status: None provided.
Report No. 12-4-0720, Examination of Costs Claimed Under EPA Cooperative Agreements CB-97324705
Awarded to Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., August 22, 2012
Summary: This review found that the recipient achieved the intended result of producing the Bay Journal, but did not
comply with the Code of Federal Regulations regarding procurement and financial management requirements. The
recipient did not prepare and document a cost or price analysis, nor evaluate the performance of its Bay Journal
contractor. In addition, accounting records do not support its federal financial records. We questioned project costs
totaling $1,357,035. The recipient's written policies and procedures do not include necessary guidance to ensure
compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations. When recipients do not complete required cost or price analysis,
there is no assurance that costs are fair and reasonable. Due to noncompliance issues and procurement policy and
procedure weaknesses, the recipient may not have the capability to manage current and future grant awards.
Agency Explanation: The proposed management decision letter was sent to the OIG on March 27, 2013.
O/G Follow-Up Status: Proposed decision under review.
Report No. 12-3-0791, Sharpsville, Pennsylvania, Borough of- FY 2011, September 12, 2012
Summary: This review found that the borough lacked the resources necessary to prepare its own financial statements
and footnotes for external reporting purposes.
Agency Explanation: Due to backlog this audit was not completed. The agency expects it to be closed out by
June 30, 2013.
O/G Follow-Up Status: None provided.
Report No. 12-3-0494, Redevelopment Authority, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania - FY 2010
Summary: This review found that the authority did not have adequate segregation of duties over cash receipts and
disbursements. The authority requested the single auditor's assistance in preparing the financial statements.
Agency Explanation: The management determination letter is currently being signed and will be mailed to grantee by
Aprils, 2013.
O/G Follow-Up Status: None provided.
Region 4—Regional Administrator
Report No. 12-4-0499, Costs Claimed by the North Carolina Rural Economic Center, Inc., Under EPA Grant
No. X96418405, May 23, 2012
Summary: This review found that the grantee did not comply with the Code of Federal Regulations regarding financial
management. The grantee did not properly allocate direct costs between state and federal funding sources.
Therefore, EPA should recover $1,192,500 in costs questioned under the grant. The grantee failed to properly
allocate the questioned costs primarily because EPA provided incorrect guidance and inadequately monitored the
grant. The region must recognize the $178,556 budget revision it directed is not allocable to the EPA grant because it
shifted subcontract costs allocable to state funding sources to the EPA grant. Additionally, the grantee was unfamiliar
with federal grant regulations. We recommend that the regional administrator, Region 4, disallow all costs paid under
the grant and recover $1,192,500. Region 4 and the grantee disagreed with our draft findings and recommendation.
44
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
We evaluated the information contained in their responses to our draft report, but did not modify our findings or
recommendation. The recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
Agency Explanation: On March 12, 2013, Region 4 responded to the OIG with a second proposed management
decision. Region 4 augmented its response on March 27, 2013, and is awaiting response
OIG Follow-Up Status: Response received and under review.
Region 5—Regional Administrator
Report No. 11-R-0700, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Site Visit of Wastewater Treatment Plant—
Phase II Improvement Projects, City of Ottawa, Illinois, September 23, 2011
Summary: The city could not provide sufficient documentation to support that some manufactured goods used on the
project met the Buy American requirements of Section 1605 of the Recovery Act. The documentation did not
demonstrate clearly that items were either manufactured or substantially transformed in the United States. As a
result, the state's use of over $3.8 million of Recovery Act funds on the project is prohibited by Section 1605 of the
Recovery Act, unless a regulatory option is exercised. We recommended that the regional administrator employ the
procedures set out in the Code of Federal Regulations to resolve the noncompliance on the Ottawa project.
Agency Explanation: The OIG does not agree with the agency's final determination -this audit is in dispute.
OIG Follow-Up Status: Resolution under negotiation in headquarters.
Report No. 12-R-0377, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Site Visit of Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Village of Itasca, Illinois, March 30, 2012
Summary: This review found that the village of Itasca did not comply with the Buy American requirements of the
Recovery Act. Steel pipes and fittings used in the project were manufactured in foreign countries. We also identified
other manufactured goods that did not comply with Buy American requirements. As a result, the project is not eligible
for the $10 million of Recovery Act funds authorized by the state unless the EPA exercises a regulatory option.
Agency Explanation: The OIG does not agree with the agency's final determination -this audit is in dispute.
OIG Follow-Up Status: Proposed response received in review process.
Report No. 12-R-0789, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Site Visit of Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements Project, City of Nappanee, Indiana, September 12, 2012
Summary: We noted in our draft report seven out of 32 instances where the city could not demonstrate compliance
with Buy American requirements as set out in Section 1605 of the Recovery Act. In response, the city provided
documentation and agreed to take corrective actions to replace two items with products that meet the Buy American
requirements. We agree that six of the seven items now comply with the requirements. For the one remaining item,
the city could not demonstrate that the item was manufactured in the United States, as required by the Recovery Act.
As a result, the project is not eligible for the $1,769,000 of Recovery Act funds authorized by the state unless the EPA
exercises a regulatory option.
Agency Explanation: The OIG does not agree with the agency's final determination -this audit is in dispute.
OIG Follow-Up Status: Headquarters appeal to Audit Resolution Board.
Region 8—Regional Administrator
Report No. 2007-4-00078, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, September 24, 2007
Summary: The tribe did not comply with the financial and program management standards under 40 Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 31 and 35, and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87. We questioned $3,101,827 of the
$3,736,560 in outlays reported. The tribe's internal controls were not sufficient to ensure that outlays reported
complied with federal cost principles, regulations and grant conditions. In some instances, the tribe also was not able
to demonstrate that it had completed all work under the agreements and had achieved the intended results.
45
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Agency Explanation: A revised analysis has been completed at the request of the Office of Grants and Debarment
and the region is preparing a final determination letter for approval. Projected completion date is June 30, 2013.
O/G Follow-Up Status: Proposed response received in review process.
Region 9—Regional Administrator
Report No. 10-P-0112, Results of Hotline Complaint Review of EPA Region 9 Hiring under the Federal Career
Intern Program, April 26, 2010
Summary: The hotline allegations against EPA Region 9 were unsubstantiated. We identified that the region
engaged in a prohibited personnel practice. Neither the Office of Personnel Management nor EPA prohibits the use
of a job fair and registration code as recruiting and hiring methods. However, Region 9 engaged in a prohibited
personnel practice by giving four Federal Career Intern Program job fair participants improper advantages not
provided to others attending the job fair.
Agency Explanation: The OIG had referred the subject audit to the Office of Special Counsel for resolution. The
status of the three recommendations listed in the final report is still undecided. Recommendation 1 is directed to
Region 9 and is pending for the Office of Special Counsel's decision. As of March 15, 2013, Region 9 had not
received any decision from the Office of Special Counsel.
O/G Follow-Up Status: Resolution on hold - beyond agency control.
Total reports issued before reporting period for which
no management decision had been made as of March 31, 2013 = 29
46
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Appendix 3—Reports With Corrective Action Not Completed
In compliance with reporting requirements of Section 5(a)(3) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, "Identification of Reports Containing Significant Recommendations Described in Previous
Semiannual Reports on Which Corrective Action Has Not Been Completed," and to help EPA and CSB
managers gain greater awareness of outstanding commitments for action, we developed a Compendium
of Unimplemented Recommendations. This separate document provides the information required in
appendix 3 to this Semiannual Report to Congress. This compendium (available upon request or at
http://www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2013/20130430-13-N-0227.pdf) is produced semiannually for agency
leadership and Congress based on agency reports on the status of actions taken on OIG
recommendations and OIG selective verification of reported status.
47
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Appendix 4—Peer Reviews Conducted
The EPA OIG completed an external peer review of the system of quality controls for the OIG audit
organization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and issued a report on November 13, 2012. The
review, covering the period of April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2012, was conducted in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards and Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
guidelines. The EPA OIG's system review report recognized that the U.S. Department of Agriculture OIG
audit organization's system of quality control was "suitably designed and complied with" to provide
"reasonable assurance of performing and reporting in conformity with applicable professional standards
in all material respects." The U.S. Department of Agriculture OIG audit organization received a peer
review rating of pass. The accompanying letter of comment identified areas for improvement and
included three recommendations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture OIG has completed corrective
actions to address two of the three recommendations, and has made progress in implementing corrective
actions for the remaining recommendation.
Also during the semiannual reporting period, the EPA OIG conducted a quality assessment review of the
investigative operations of the U.S. Veterans Administration. We reviewed the system of internal
safeguards and management procedures in effect for the period October 1, 2011, through September 30,
2012. The review was conducted in conformity with the Quality Standards for Investigations and the
Quality Assessment Review Guidelines established by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity
and Efficiency, and the Attorney General's Guidelines for Office of Inspectors General with Statutory
Law Enforcement Authority, as applicable. The final report is pending.
The most recent peer review report on the EPA OIG itself was issued on May 9, 2012, by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services OIG. That review, covering the 3-year period ending
September 30, 2011, found that the EPA OIG system of quality control was suitably designed and
complied with applicable Government Auditing Standards. That report had given the EPA OIG a peer
review rating of pass with no deficiencies cited.
48
-------
Semiannual Report to Congress
October 1, 2012—March 31, 2013
Appendix 5—OIG Mailing Addresses and Telephone Numbers
Headquarters
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW(2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-0847
Atlanta
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Audit/Evaluation: (404) 562-9830
Investigations: (404) 562-9857
Boston
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OIG15-1)
Boston, MA 02109-3912
Audit/Evaluation: (617) 918-1470
Investigations: (703) 347-8740
Chicago
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
77 West Jackson Boulevard
13th Floor (IA-13J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Audit/Evaluation: (312) 353-2486
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
Cincinnati
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268-7001
Audit/Evaluation: (513) 487-2360
Investigations: (513) 487-2364
Dallas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (6OIG)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Audit/Evaluation: (214) 665-6621
Investigations: (214) 665-2790
Offices
Denver
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1595 Wynkoop Street, 4th Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Audit/Evaluation: (303) 312-6969
Investigations: (303) 312-6868
Kansas City
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS66219
Audit/Evaluation: (913) 551-7878
Investigations: (312) 353-2507
New York
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
290 Broadway, Room 1520
New York, NY 10007
Audit/Evaluation: (212) 637-3049
Investigations: (212) 637-3041
Philadelphia
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1650 Arch Street, 3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Audit/Evaluation: (215) 814-5800
Investigations: (215) 814-2367
Research Triangle Park
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Mail Drop N283-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit/Evaluation: (919) 541-2204
Investigations: (919) 541-1027
San Francisco
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne Street (IGA-1)
7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Audit/Evaluation: (415) 947-4521
Investigations: (415) 947-8711
Seattle
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
12006th Avenue, 19th Floor
Suite 1920, M/SOIG-195
Seattle, WA 98101
Audit/Evaluation: (206) 553-6906
Investigations: (206) 553-1273
Washington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Potomac Yard
2733 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
Investigations: (703) 347-8740
Winchester
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
200 S. Jefferson Street, Room 314
P.O. Box 497
Winchester, TN 37398
Investigations: (423) 240-7735
49
-------
Report fraud, waste or abuse
e-mail: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov
write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Mailcode2431T
Washington DC 20460
fax: 202-566-2599 • phone: 1-888-546-8740
www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm
It's your money
It's your environment
-------
------- |